04 January 2016

Update no.733

Update from the Heartland
No.733
28.12.15 – 3.1.16
To all,

            Well, now, here is a first and an other than auspicious start, I must say.  For the first time 14+ years of writing this Blog, I have essentially nothing to say or even report.  Perhaps I am distracted with writing projects.  Or, maybe there have not been any worthy topics at the end of the holiday season and beginning of the New Year.  I am certain this situation will change as we enter the primary season when party members actually cast their votes for whomever will represent their party in the general election, and of course, the general election itself next fall.

            One rather surprising event played out on live television programming related to the global celebration of New Year’s Eve.  The Address Downtown Hotel fire in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, preceded the phenomenal fireworks and light show centered on the Burj Khalifa – the world’s tallest building.  The Address Downtown is a 5-star, 63-story luxury hotel located a few blocks from the Burj Khalifa.  The public reports indicated the fire began on the 20th floor when a curtain caught fire.  Watching the live coverage on CNN left me with several impressions.  First and foremost, what was so bloody flammable on the exterior of that hotel?  A curtain on the 20th floor does not become a wall of continuous flame rising 20+ stories, and furthermore, that wall of flame was sustained for an inordinate amount of time, i.e., whatever the flammable material was, it was not rapidly consumed, as the material of a curtain would be.  Second, CNN reported that the Dubai fire officials claimed there were no explosions.  During the course of an hour or so of CNN’s live coverage, I witnessed at least three large fireballs at the base of the hotel that certainly looked like explosions.  At first, I thought they might be propane tanks or something similar.  Now, I am not so sure.  Lastly, while there was clearly involvement with the interior on numerous floors, the worst of the fire appeared to be confined to the exterior.  I do not know the specific structural characteristics of the hotel, so it is hard to say what the consequences of the fire are to the structural integrity of the building.  A fire burning that intensely and for that duration must have cause structural damage of some degree.  Yet, the fire did not appear to be as significant as the World Trade Center fire of 2001.  It will be interesting to see the official investigation findings . . . if we ever get to see them.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.732:
“I too have been following SpaceX and enjoying reading the biography on Elon Musk, who is certainly an incredible individual with all his accomplishments.  Talking about space programs, I have a Kindle and subscribe to a service called BookBub that alerts me to books of interest to me, at a super discounted price.  The other day I obtained a book on the entire Apollo program for $1.99.  I am enjoying reading about the history of Mercury and how that advanced to Apollo.
“Thanks for your reminders (cautions) of Josef Goebbels.  Donald Trump is an interesting force, similar to why I am reading about Putin in another Kindle book, which right now I am reading about his interesting rise in the KGB.  I am thinking the Carson camp is going to be crumbling soon, it appears some key staffers including his top advisor resigned in the past few days.  Do not know if Carson forced the hand, or the individuals chose on their own to leave.  Carson is likable, obviously smart, but lacking charisma and chutzpah in a time when the nation as a collective, demands an archetype in presentation, of someone forceful and capable of standing up to the challenges.  While I admire some qualities in Trump, and am like most of us entertained by them, I also do not see him fit for our leader.  I would be more comfortable with a Rand Paul, though many dislike him for what they see as his deviation from ‘the establishment’ or ‘norms’ as maybe we are too comfortable with.  On Carly Fiorina: she is smart, has a good history in business (though some say the HP track record is poor), and more.  But in watching the debates, I have lost interest in her simply because she lacks charisma and presence.  Something about her style bothers me, maybe it seems too pre-programmed by others, so she is not being authentic.  She rarely changes facial expressions, and I've never seen her smile/laugh.  I have too strong of memories from the movies Manchurian Candidate, 1962 and 2004, with the former original version the best.  I always thought Frank Sinatra (not name dropping, but former client when I was in jet charter, a/c mgmt.) did one of the very best jobs as an actor in that movie...it was awesome.  While I was against Condi Rice's position on the Iraq War, I always thought she would have been a much better candidate than many.  She is way-too smart, plays piano without scores in front of her, is a master of Russian studies, and is well networked.  I drove some doctors in the early 2000's and one of them is now chief of neurosurgery in one of our trauma centers.  Condi was his professor at Stanford, and you can imagine his IQ, he said Condi was one of the smartest persons he ever knew, and highly graceful and classy.  I believe her sexual attraction is to other women, so that may have been an issue with her not being ‘run’ as they say.
“Same reason I don't like Joel Osteen the pastor, while myself a Christian.  I belief he and his wife are way too far crafted for my taste.  Something too obvious about pretty boy.  When you are asking for donations/tithing and can afford a Gulfstream 650, I have some moral issues with that.”
My response:
            Re: space program.  We share that in common.  I have always been fascinated and intrigued by space whether real or fictional.  The SpaceX 1st stage booster landing was a really big deal for a host of reasons.
            Re: Republican candidates.  Thank you for your assessment.  I am looking for a moderate, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, political leader who is strong enough to seek and find the means to compromise in getting things done in Congress.  I want the government OUT of our private affairs, period; and, that one requirement disqualifies nearly all of the candidates.  Frankly, I do not see any candidate in any party that fits my desired attributes; so, for me, it will be who gets the closest.  The absolute and complete paucity of any semblance of humility disqualifies the current Republican front-runner in my book; anyone in any job who claims to be always correct, never wrong, and never apologizes for anything because he is never wrong is not worthy of any job of responsibility.  That’s my opinion, and I’m stickin’ to it.
            Re: Osteen.  I’m absolutely with you on that one.  I would not call him a cleric, since he has no divinity degree, ordination, or qualifications for that matter.  I guess we should call him a lay-minister.  Nonetheless, any ‘religious-man’ who wraps himself in the trappings of wealth has failed in his primary purpose and ignores the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.  Clearly, I’ve never been a fan.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap                        :-)

No comments: