Update from the
Heartland
No.735
11.1.16 – 17.1.16
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The Russians are apparently disputing the findings of the
OVV report [722] on the cause of the
Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 shootdown over Eastern Ukraine in July 2014 [657, 665, 722]. The article:
“Final MH17 crash report ‘unsubstantiated, inaccurate,’ new
Russian probe says”
RT News
Published time: 14 Jan, 2016 08:21; Edited time: 14 Jan, 2016
11:14
The OVV report was one of the best, if not the best, assessments
of a shootdown event that I have seen.
The OVV went to extraordinary lengths to produce a careful, methodical,
fact-based analysis of the debris recovered from the crash site. The Russians offer no comparable,
fact-based analysis. In short, the
Russians appear to be intent upon keeping the waters as muddy as they are able
for as long as they are able.
Further, several newspapers reported the British Bellingcat group has
submitted a study to the OVV for their evaluation that claims to have developed
evidence as to who pulled the trigger to launch the Buk1 missile that brought
down MH17. I have not seen the
Bellingcat report and I await the OVV assessment.
-- The United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) reported that the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) has completed all of
the requisite steps to implement the nuclear deal completed last July [709]. The U.S. and IRI exchanged prisoners. While the powers that be claim the two
events were unrelated, I am not convinced, not that it really matters. Then, the day after the prisoner swap,
the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions on 11 IRI-linked entities
associated with the IRI’s ballistic missile program after the IRI conducted a
medium range missile test outside the July agreement. Diplomacy is better than war. Time shall tell the tale, whether this agreement was a noble
achievement or just another Munich (1938).
President
of the United States of America Barack Hussein Obama
delivered the State of the Union information in accordance with
Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution – his last. Once again, he offered us an
exceptional speech of considerable skill.
To me, most notable, he said, “[W]e need to reject any politics -- any
politics -- that targets people because of race or religion. This is not a matter of political
correctness. This is a matter of understanding just what it is that makes us
strong. The world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our
diversity, and our openness, and the way we respect every faith.
“His
Holiness, Pope Francis, told this body from the very spot that I'm standing on
tonight that ‘to imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is
the best way to take their place.’ When politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or our fellow
citizens, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid is called names, that doesn’t
make us safer. That’s not telling
it like it is. It’s just wrong. It diminishes us in the eyes of the
world. It makes it harder to
achieve our goals. It betrays who we are as a country.”
I
say, amen brother. Yet, I believe
we should call a spade a spade.
Islamo-fascist terrorists are just that . . . fascists who seek to
impose their will on others based on their grossly distorted view of a noble
religion.
The
President went on to observe, “Our public life withers when only the most
extreme voices get all the attention. And most of all, democracy breaks down
when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is
rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some special interest.
“Too
many Americans feel that way right now. It’s one of the few regrets of my
presidency -- that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten
worse instead of better. I have no
doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better
bridged the divide, and I guarantee I’ll keep trying to be better so long as I
hold this office.”
Again,
I will say, amen brother. If I was
asked to point to President Obama’s greatest failure, I would answer: his
inability to engage Congress and find compromise, to do the really hard work of
negotiating mutually acceptable (or dissatisfied, depending on perspective)
solutions to the real problems before this Grand Republic. Negotiating solutions with Congress is
a dirty, nasty business that must be done.
Governor
Nimrata ‘Nikki’ Haley née Randhawa of South Carolina delivered the opposition
response to the President’s State of the Union report. To be direct, I was impressed with her
oratory skill, delivery and most of her message . . . very much Obama-esque,
actually. I latched onto one
particular statement. “Today, we
live in a time of threats like few others in recent memory. During anxious times, it can be tempting
to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation.” Amen sister! It
is that siren call that bothers me the most about the angry voices of the
opposition – mob incitement at its most rudimentary level. That anger may play well to those so
inclined to that anger, but such divisiveness does NOT serve this Grand
Republic well. In that sense,
Governor Haley is spot on the money.
Well done, Nikki.
I watched both the under-card and main event Republican
candidate debates. I was left with
several broad impressions. It is
worth noting this episode was the first instance of a candidate rejecting the
invitation to participate – Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky decided to pout over
his being relegated to the under-card debate.
The
near universal mantra among Republican candidates is “Take America back” or
“Make America Great, Again.” I
keep wondering, back from whom or what?
The chant seems like a particularly pessimistic view of this Grand
Republic. The notion that the
United States is in irreparable decline may feed red meat to the far right, but
it not based on reality. I’m truly
sorry to say, the Republican Party has taken on the tone of the ‘Doomsday
Party.’
I
used to think the Republican Party stood staunchly against big government. I am convinced the concept of being
against big government is alien to the two largest American political
parties. Both parties are big
government parties; it is only a question what they spend money on. Republican senators and representatives
in Congress have been just as effective and determined in sucking funds from
the Treasury to pay for their largesse.
Thus, when I hear a Republican claim to be against big government, I
hear HYPOCRISY! This constant “my
spending trumps your spending” does absolutely nothing – NOTHING – but, perpetuate
constant division, abuse, conflict and political polarization. I am in favor of a strong military, but
a military configured for the war we are in and the likely war of tomorrow, not
a war fought 70 years ago.
Another
popular epithet thrown at President Obama, the current administration and by
default the Democratic Party candidates is incompetence or softness on ISIL,
Syria, the IRI, and all the bad guys in the region. There was a lot of wild talk about taking out Assad, and taking
out the government as was done in Iraq.
Such talk is very easy to say, but extraordinarily simplistic in reality. Iraq clearly demonstrated that totally
dismantling the government including the military without a properly sized
security force and governance system in place produces chaos and sectarian
violence. That force must be an
integrated, multinational organization of most likely one million men or
more. It cannot be a Sunni
dominated force any more we should have allowed the Shiite majority to extract
their pound of flesh in the aftermath of deposing Saddam Hussein. We have chaos and a dysfunctional,
failed state as a consequence. I’m
all for removing Assad and trying him for crimes against humanity, but we
cannot do so unless we (or someone) commits to providing security and interim
governance as was done in Europe and Japan after WW2. The saber-rattling without the substance of reality we so
often hear from this group is simply wrong and irresponsible.
I
do understand the frustration of the Republican candidates over the President’s
use of executive orders, but that does NOT make the President a liar or make
those orders unconstitutional. POTUS
has clear authority. Further,
every president since George Washington (except for William Henry Harrison)
have availed themselves of executive orders for a broad spectrum of
extra-congressional executive action.
President [F.D.] Roosevelt used executive orders in arguably the most
sweeping manner of any president in history. Trying to paint President Obama, as a bad man bent upon
destroying this country, is NOT grounded in truth and certainly not a
leadership position intended to unite the country to face the serious issues
confronting our future.
The
specific matter of gun control and the President’s extension of background
checks to unlicensed gun dealers (the so-called gun show loophole) I find the
inflammatory political rhetoric to be disingenuous at best and outright
fallacious at worst. As discussed in
Update no.734, the issue is not the
regulation (executive order) that is the real problem; it is how the
bureaucrats administer & enforce the regulation. They criticized the FBI for not completing the background check
on the SC killer in time, and yet they constrain funding and thus personnel that
prevents them from handling the volume of check requests in a reasonable
time. The erroneous political
drivel does NOT contribute to a reasonable, workable, respectful solution.
Then,
these potential future leaders of this Grand Republic lambast President Obama for
resolving the capture of the U.S. Navy personnel by IRI forces off Farsi Island
in the Persian Gulf. They were
offended by the video of their capture and their apologizing for entering
Iranian waters. This incident was
resolved quickly and successfully by diplomacy, and as such, it represents
exactly the problem we face in our choices this coming November. If we violated Iranian territory, we
should apologize; it was our mistake.
There are many elements of the Navy incident that bother me, but
accusing the President and Secretary of State of incompetence when so little is
known about what and how it happened is seriously divisive, counter-productive,
and verging on being grossly irresponsible.
The
Democratic Party candidates debate was held Sunday night. I was not able to watch the event live,
but I did record it. I did not
have sufficient time to absorb and digest the debate, so my impressions and
opinions will be covered in next week’s Update. The timing was not good for my Update timeline.
The
silly season transitions to Phase 2 in a couple of weeks, when the actual
voting of citizens begins with the Iowa Caucuses. I suspect the field will narrow farther after the first two
or three votes (Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina). Perhaps, as the field narrows, we can
also transition to more responsible and constructive debates. Then again, that notion may be naïve
wishful thinking. We shall see. We still 10 more months of this. Give me strength.
News from the economic
front:
-- Goldman Sachs Group announced they reached a settlement
worth more than US$5B in a U.S. probe into Goldman’s sale of fraudulent
mortgage-based securities on residential properties in the early to mid-2000s
that contributed to the Great Recession of 2008/2009. Goldman will reportedly pay a US$2.385B civil monetary
penalty, a US$875M cash payment, and US$1.8B in consumer relief in the form of
forgiveness for underwater homeowners and distressed borrowers, among other
things. Goldman was one of several
banks targeted in investigations from federal and state officials. Based on the consequences of what
happened, a bunch of someones should have gone to jail for what they did. These civil penalties in the light of
monstrous criminal behavior are not contributory to prevention of future
abuses. Corporations simply absorb
these penalties as the cost of doing business, and current and future corporate
leaders are not dissuaded from such clearly abusive behavior.
Comments and contributions from Update no.734:
“What a fine example of your piercing insight and articulate use
of our language! I have only one suggestion for a better word choice.
“As one of the many devilish details more than likely to be
unaddressed in any so-called gun control legislation, you offered: ‘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?’ IMHO, the last word should have been ‘prevented.’”
My response:
Thank you for your generous words.
Re: ‘prevented’ v. ‘prohibited.’
I’m good with your suggestion. Consider it done and thank you for your
contribution.
Another contribution:
“Your
last blog mentioned the Administration’s efforts with guns. I am not a
big defender of the Second Amendment but do feel strongly about the
sanctity of the Constitution. My rather long-winded dissertation
attached.”
. . . the dissertation noted above:
“The argument over the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has me
concerned. Specifically our
tendency to casually disregard the very clear mandate expressed in that
text. This is not because I’m a
gun nut, but because the Constitution is the closest to a sacred document in my
life and I have taken an oath to defend it. Whether you’re a Communist, a Nazi or anything between, as
an American, the Constitution is your protection. There are defined means to amend this document, which we
should follow, but to blatantly disregard its clear wording will potentially
degrade the protections of other parts of the document.
“The reference to the militia in the Second Amendment is based on the
colonial militia, which included every adult male in the local area. It was BYOG in those days; i.e., bring
your own gun, sword or pitchfork.
Armories were places where there may be some small cannon stored and
some gunpowder. At the time, the
most deadly weapon in the world was arguably the Pennsylvania Long Rifle, used
by many of the founders. It was
certainly a better weapon than the Brown Bess musket used by the British Army,
which represented the legal government of the time. Basically, the heroes of our founding were the terrorists of
1776, taking their private weapons and shooting the legal government. When they later wrote the Constitution,
the Founders obviously felt that it was possible that future governments could
also become despotic and citizens would need, once again, to take up arms to
defend their natural rights. In
simple terms, the founders wanted the citizens to be as well armed as the
government. Note in the Second Amendment
that the term used is ‘arms’ and not ‘fire arms.’ At the time of the founding, this armament could
certainly be the Pennsylvania Long Rifle, the most deadly weapon of the time,
but the constitutional wording did not preclude other arms. I would also note that there are no
words ‘except for crazy people or bad people’ listed in the existing Second Amendment.
“Now, the term ‘arms’ in today’s world would include nuclear
weapons and nerve gas among other lovelies. Am I comfortable to have Bubba running around in his Dodge
Ram pickup truck with nuclear weapon and a tank of nerve gas in the back? Maybe not! And for this reason, we need to review and amend the Second Amendment
of the Constitution.
“The basic question about changing the Second Amendment is whether it is
still reasonable to fear a despotic Federal government? Are we mature enough as a society to
preclude a usurpation of government power using only our normal election
processes and the various separations of power in the federal system? Do we trust our military and police
forces to ‘defend the Constitution’ against despotic usurpation? If so, we can probably assume
that individual citizens do not need to be as well armed as the government and
can make the amendment more specific to our current needs.
“And yes, I have a couple of storage boxes in the attic with
rusty guns; I grew up hunting. But
let’s not kid ourselves, the Second Amendment to the Constitution was not
about hunting, or personal safety, it was specifically there to ensure that the
citizens were as well armed as the government.”
My reply:
Re:
Second
Amendment. With your
permission, I will add your dissertation to this week’s Update. I agree with your premise and
hypothesis . . . to a point. As a
related (albeit distant) side note, I’m writing a section of Book 5 of my To So
Few series of historical novels.
Brian transitions from No.609 Squadron flying the Supermarine Spitfire
Mark IA to No.71 Squadron flying the Brewster Buffalo Mark I – a substantially
inferior aircraft. My point, even
an inferior weapon in the hands of a skilled warrior can be formidable. My point of disagreement is the notion
of “review and amend.” I do not
see sufficient motive to open that door.
The Constitution as currently written and interpreted by the Supreme
Court does NOT preclude ‘reasonable’ regulation. What President Obama has done via his executive order(s)
does not violate the Constitution, but depending on how some bureaucrat
implements those regulation might very well violate the Constitution. I do not see sufficient safeguards or
protections. The Constitution does
prohibit or at least resist regulation that becomes or could become de facto
prohibition. The difficulty the
Court has is respecting the separation of powers, and in this instance, the
potential for an over-zealous Executive exceeding the letter and spirit of the
Constitution is real. To me, an
armed populace is a counter-balance, like a 4th leg of the stool, to an
intrusive government.
A different
contribution:
“Thanks for the good movie review! I want to see Star
Wars-The Force Awakens but as well The Revenant seems
worthy, 13 Hours (though someone in CIA said the movie is trash),
and The Big Short. We lost Alan Rickman, a wonderful actor
this past week. Not too many actors rank-up like he did, or rack-up the
resume like he did.
“On MH17, I too look forward to finding out factually, who brought
it down. The Dutch are worthy in what I suspect will be their continued
pursuits to bring light to the propaganda, and hopefully we'll discover the
truth.
“I share your views on the chubby dictator of NKorea. You
may have seen an earlier post of mine Cap, where I asked why the CIA or other
assets cannot terminate the NKorean psychopath.
“Your opinion/analysis on the CNN presentation Guns in
America seems reasonable, though I disagree with you on Obama's
sincerity. The problem I have with
so much of the news media hype about bad guns, is they so often fail to focus
on the actor, and what psychotropics they are taking or been prescribed, what
is going on with the suspect's life.
It too often is a total
focus on BAD GUNS. This typical
script by news media tells me there are objectives that are much more sinister,
than the event of a mass shooting which is tragic beyond most our imaginations. Any more gun control than we already
have, is just more GOV in our faces, in our lives, monitoring our so-called ‘privacy’
and advancing, whether through incrementalism or rapid leaps, the demonization
of guns and anyone who strongly supports the 2nd
Amendment. I like your term used "intrusion creep."
Very good description of the trend-vector in our Technocratic Age of total
surveillance and so-called security.
“I disagree with the labor front, I think most the job creations
being cited are lower paying ‘minimum wage’ jobs and temporary employment
roles. I think Obama and his gang
members are lying to the Americans and the economy is much softer than we know. I could cite many indices from the
limousine industry, my experiences, and that of others.
“I could not agree with you more on the
televangelists: ‘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.’ Very true Cap!
“On The Address in Dubai, I am surprised such little information
has come out since the day of the fire (New Year's Eve). It's like the event never happened.”
My response:
Re:
movies. I certainly share your
“to-do” list of movies. We’ve not
seen the others, as yet, either.
Re:
Rickman. Oh my, yes indeedie. I have always enjoyed his work, quite
like Gary Oldman. I share your
opinion . . . a monumental actor . . . a great loss. May God rest his immortal soul.
Re:
MH17. I have more in this week’s
Update. The Russians are refuting
the OVV analysis. In contrast, I
see the OVV report as one of the best reports on an event like MH17 I have seen
to date. Indeed, hopefully, we
will discover the truth, but apparently, the Russians are quite, blatantly
intent upon keeping the waters muddy.
Re:
DPRK dictator. There is little
doubt in my mind we could decapitate the DPRK government including the chubby
dictator if we wished. Like so
many situations like this, I suppose we are in a “devil we know” state. Decapitating a government without
ensuring security and governance is not acceptable action, e.g., Iraq. The United States (and our allies)
failed to act responsibly.
Re:
guns. OK, then we shall
respectfully disagree regarding President Obama’s sincerity. We do agree the Press is far too often
seduced by dramatic, emotional, ‘commercial’ motives rather than contributing
to finding solutions. The physical
entity often referred to as a gun is an inanimate object that has no means of
spontaneous action. That said, I
have never thought selective enforcement is a good thing. Background checks for gun sales are a
good thing . . . for EVERYONE, NOT just licensed gun stores. Congress cannot cut funding or
Executive divert funding from personnel necessary to perform timely background
checks. As I have said many times
before, the devil is in the details (e.g., my list of questions in Update no.734).
Re:
labor. If your contention is
correct, every president in history has lied to us . . . perhaps that is what
presidents do. The Labor
Department (i.e., professional staff across administrations) report labor
statistics by long established algorithms. To point to President Obama in such a manner defies history
and reality. There is NO denial
the economy is better now than it was in 2008/2009. So, let’s give him a sliver of credit.
Re:
televangelists. Good, we agree.
Re:
Address Hotel fire. Again, we
agree. We may never get answers,
but I remain interested and curious.
. . . a third party, inserted contribution:
“Intelligence agencies make a point of not trying to assassinate
foreign heads of state, which also have their own highly evolved intelligence
agencies capable of returning the favor – with interest. Especially regarding
societies where Saving Face is more valuable than life itself.
“Killing Kim wouldn’t be a video game caper. In retaliation the
North Koreans would nuke an American city.”
. . . the follow-up
comment from the original contributor:
“If I were Dr. Strangelove, I'd say we tell North Korea we will
ablaze their country in flame and then they will glow for 100 years. But
since we are in the real world, I am gonna have to figure out better ways to
de-conflict the growing pimple--the dictator of NKorea.
“So , do you
believe NKorea has suitcase nukes, as I don't think they have the ballistic
capacity to reach us?”
. . . my response to both:
You
have a valid point. From what I am
aware of, the DPRK barely produced a functional fission device, set aside a
functional fusion device. I doubt
they have the capacity to produced the miniaturization and precision required
for a suitcase fission weapon, but even a non-functional weapon can become a
dirty bomb, if employed properly.
They do not possess the necessary missile technology to produce an ICBM
of sufficient capacity to deliver the weapon they could produce. I think they have tried to demonstrate
their submerged missile launch capability. However, they do not have the history of sub-on-sub warfare
to have a likelihood of circumventing our anti-submarine forces. All that said, we must not
under-estimate the potential violence of the DPRK.
Also,
I do agree with [the
inserted contributor]. Just because
we can does not mean we should. At
least twice that I’m aware of, MI6 and OSS knew precisely where Hitler was
located. The leaders of the day
discussed whether to make an attempt.
They had the means. They
chose not to make an attempted decapitation. Their concern was predominately for protecting their
intelligence source(s), but also for maintaining the ‘predictability’ of past
performance by those in command of German armed forces.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment