Update no.734

Update from the Heartland

No.734

4.1.16 – 10.1.16

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

           Life is good!  Jeanne watched Grandson Wyatt, while youngest Son Taylor and I went to the movie theater – Star Wars – The Force Awakens (Episode VII) – in IMAX 3D.  I will try to avoid the over-used adjective ‘awesome,’ as younger generations have commandeered the word and used it for many other things than its original meaning.  The technical aspects of the movie – music, sound, 3D effects, imagery – did not disappoint.  The storyline and acting continued in the vein of the previous movies.  Either you are a fan, or you are not.  This was the first of the franchise movies produced after George Lucas sold his ownership and rights to Disney; he apparently took no part in the movie’s development.  I really liked what J.J. Abrams did with the story and the state-of-the-art cinematic technology.  Disney must also be commended for their hyping of the movie.  Even if you are not a fan, I would strongly recommend this movie just for the sheer experience of the new technology.

            The follow-up news items:

-- The Guardian (UK) reported that Dutch OVV investigators will assess a new British study that claims to have identified the Russian crew who fired the BUK1 missile and brought down Flight MH17 over Eastern Ukraine [657, 665, 722].  The circumstantial information has always pointed at the Russians.  Once the Dutch investigators proved that it was a BUK1 missile, the perpetrators narrowed substantially.  I look forward to seeing the Dutch assessment.

-- The U.S. Geological Survey detected a 5.1 magnitude earthquake in the northeast of the DPRK (North Korea) near their nuclear test site.  The DPRK claims to have detonated a fusion device [252, 389, 583].  Experts around the world indicate the seismic event was not consistent with a fusion device detonation.  Thus, if it was an attempt at a fusion device, it was most likely a failure.  The followed their explosive test by a submerged missile launch.  The cynical side of me almost wants the chubby dictator to make his move, so we can be done with this nonsense and petulance.

            On Thursday, CNN broadcast their program “Guns in America – Obama Town Hall” held at George Mason University with an attempt for all sides to be represented . . . except the National Rifle Association (NRA), which declined their invitation.  I shall offer my impressions and perspective, since I am writing and editing here.  If other wish to express their opinion, I strongly encourage you to do so.

            The President said, “[A]ll of us can agree that it makes sense to do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of people who would try to do others harm or to do themselves harm, because every year we're losing 30,000 people to gun violence.  Two-thirds of those are actually suicides.  Hundreds of kids under the age of 18 are being shot or shooting themselve, often by accident, many of them under the age of 5.”  We have heard the 30,000 numbers innumerable times.  We have not heard that 2/3 (20,000 of those 30,000) are actually suicides; they are not mass shootings that garner headlines and evoke emotions.

            He then added, “And so if we can combine gun safety with sensible background checks and some other steps, we're not going to eliminate gun violence, but we will lessen it.”  Herein lies the rub.  As noted below, we can probably hack out some reasonable definitions for what the highlighted items mean, but my concern rests upon the safeguards to ensure the spirit, intent and purpose of those laws (restrictions) are not progressively eroded by bureaucrats and unseen administrators.

            My concern as noted above is represented in the President’s response regarding enforcement of existing laws.  The President answered, “In terms of the ATF, it is absolutely true that the ATF budget has been . . . shrunk . . . and part of it is because the politicizing of this issue.  So, many in the Republican Congress feel as if the ATF is not their friend, but their enemy.”  The ATF “have been portrayed as trying to take people's guns away, as opposed to trying to make sure that the laws are enforced. And, one of the most frustrating things that I hear is when people say -- who are opposed to any further laws – why don't you just enforce the laws that are on the books, and those very same members of Congress then cut a ATF budgets to make it impossible to enforce the law.” “[T]he ATF [is] a law enforcement agency working under the FBI that is doing enormous work in going after criminals, and drug cartels, and have a pretty dangerous job, so, it's not as if doing background checks, or auditing gun sales is all that they're doing.”  What point do laws serve when Congress restricts funding for enforcement of those laws?

            Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.) asked, “I would like you to explain with 350 million guns in 65 million places, households, from Key West, to Alaska, 350 million objects in 65 million places, if the Federal government wanted to confiscate those objects, how would they do that?”  I winced when I heard the question, but as I thought about it, the query was a perfect opening to discuss the ridiculousness of the confiscation conspiracy propaganda so often bandied about these days.  Unfortunately, the President chose to ignore the question and missed the opportunity.

            The rapidly mounting brouhaha over President Obama’s potential executive order(s) regarding expanded background checks and plugging the so-called gun show loophole raises an important point . . . from my perspective.  The issue is not whether enhanced background checks are a good thing to do for reducing the likelihood of mentally ill people gaining access to firearms.  The central, if not primary or paramount, issue for me is what is done with the information and by whom?  I want to see the thresholds – what is acceptable, what is not?

            As a historical side note, presidents have used executive orders since the founding of the Republic.  Some of those executive orders have been highly controversial.  For example:

·      Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 interning American citizens of Japanese heritage without due process of law.

·      Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9182 creating the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) that became the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

·      Truman issued Executive Orders 9980 & 9981 ordering the racial integration of the armed services.

·      Nixon issued Executive Order 11472 creating the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

·      Among many other examples.

I see nothing unusual or untoward in Obama’s executive orders.  He is doing what presidents do.

            Everyone from the President on down and outward throws around the term ‘background check’ in such a matter-of-fact manner that leaves me with the impression that they believe it is the Holy Grail.  Like all things, the devil is in the details.  Questions abound:
Who determines the threshold of acceptability? 
Who and how is the judgment of success or failure of any particular check made? 
How are all the associated, relevant databases, lists, files and such managed, linked, interrogated and protected? 
How is the information derived through the linked files controlled and sufficient safeguards in place and enforced to ensure unauthorized or unintended collateral use is prohibited?
Who determines the performance of the background check center? 
Can Congress take away funding for personnel to perform the actual checks to be so narrowed that the time for a simple background check slowly (or rapidly) increases from three days, to a week, a month, a year, or to ten years?  Like so many governmental actions, e.g., veterans medical coverage, and such, Congress controls enforcement by their allocation of funding.

What is included in determining the pass-fail criteria for a background check? 
How is that criteria established? 
Who and how can those criteria be changed?

Who and how is a person’s mental health threshold crossed – commitment to a mental health facility (the few that exist today), suicide attempt, violence arrest or conviction (i.e., domestic violence)?

The question of gun background checks is essential the same as warrantless surveillance – what is a threshold trigger criterion? 
Who has access to the information? 
What controls will be put in place to protect against abuse beyond the intended, approved purpose?

            I do not doubt the President’s sincerity in this issue.  I am not worried about President Obama or his successors.  I am deeply worried about the unnamed, unseen bureaucrats who administer the laws we create.  We cannot just say expand background checks without understanding how these background checks work and how intrusion creep might affect our privacy and our lives in the future.

           The continued yammerings of the Republican Party front-runner candidate about the ‘natural-born’ eligibility of Senator ‘Ted’ Cruz is yet one more example of the front-runner’s not-so-subtle sexism.  Cruz was born in Canada to an American citizen mother and a Cuban father.  If the gender of Cruz’s parents was reversed, I doubt the front-runner’s ‘birther’ persistence would be applied.  Until the remnants of the English common law, Doctrine of Coverture, was expunged from U.S. immigration law (1922), the mother’s citizenship was irrelevant as her status was derived directly from her husband, as the law considered her to be of her husband.  The front-runner is simply trying to create confusion in the minds of those voters who do not understand or have no interest in learning about the law.  His persistent harping on this non-issue is yet one more example of his unsuitability to be president.

            News from the economic front:

-- The Labor Department reported nonfarm payrolls increased a seasonally adjusted 292,000 in December.  The unemployment rate held steady at 5.0% -- it has not been below this level since 2007.  The December employment numbers are the latest sign of a stable U.S. economy in the face of international headwinds.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.733:

“I will comment on one of your statements, not to refute it but to offer for contemplation.  You stated, ‘The arrogance of power is not a successful path to win friends and influence others.’  I will paraphrase and offer that: The arrogance of self-righteousness is not a successful path to win friends and influence others.  Surely we have seen the pitfall of self-righteousness get the better of some individuals to the point of not letting logic and common sense get in the way.

“Regarding the fire at the Address Hotel in Dubai I had the same thoughts as you.  What was so flammable on the exterior?  Even on the interior, what was so flammable that caused such quick burn-through to floors above?  With the type of construction that should have gone into a building of this magnitude, something just doesn’t seem right to me.  Can’t wait to hear/read about what caused such quick and extensive damage.”

My response:

            Re: ‘self-righteousness.’  Amen brother!  Works either way, it seems to me.  I’m not a fan of that trait either.

            Re: Address Downtown Hotel Dubai fire.  There were more than a few things odd about that fire.  Hopefully, we will see if we will get an investigation report.  Time shall tell.

Another contribution:

“Osteen:  I agree with the assessment.  A lot of the tv evangelists need to take a lesson from the humility of Rev. Billy Graham.”

My reply:

            There seems to be more than a few of those wayward tel-evangelists, e.g., the fictional Elmer Gantry, and the very real and hypocritical Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, et al.   Hypocrisy is almost as bad as narcissism, egocentricity and arrogance.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)