Update from the
Heartland
No.736
18.1.16 – 24.1.16
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- An interesting opinion regarding Malaysian Airlines
Flight MH370 [638, 691, 711, 716]:
“Australia’s MH370 search has ignored evidence of someone at
the controls”
by Byron Bailey
[a 26,000 hour B777 captain]
The Australian
Posted: 9.January.2016
Perhaps it is just that Bailey’s opinion is the same as mine
from early on in this investigation, but the physical evidence suggests this
hypothesis in strong measure. The
radar flight track data cannot be explained by any other scenario other than
“controlled flight,” i.e., an intentional act by some knowledgeable pilot on
the flight deck. The physical
search for the wreckage cannot continue in perpetuity, but we can hold to the
hope the searchers get lucky. If
they do, I suspect more evidence will accumulate to validate the predominate
hypothesis.
The
latest SpaceX launch and 1st stage booster-landing attempt occurred
on Sunday, a week ago, with information coming in after my close out for last
week’s Update [735]. The satellite launch was
successful. This time, they tried
to land the 1st stage booster on a barge at sea. They tried the barge landing before. This attempt came much closer to
success, but alas physics is physics and very unmerciful. The booster landed on the barge, on
spot, which is an accomplishment in itself. However, at motor shutdown, it appeared the center of
gravity of the assembly was not within the capacity of the struts to keep the
assembly upright. It was a valiant
attempt that came oh-so-close to success.
I wonder how the barge stabilization is accomplished and how much
un-attenuated ocean swells contributed to the result. We have to admire the incredible ambitiousness of their
efforts to recover reusable hardware and reduce launch costs.
Unfortunately,
I was not able to listen to the Democratic Party candidate debate a week ago, Sunday
night, in time for last week’s Update [735]. Thank goodness for Digital Video
Recorders. I have two broad,
general impressions from the latest Democratic Party episode.
First
and foremost, I am truly appreciative of the Democratic Party candidates – all
three remaining candidates. They
far more closely approached a genuine debate of ideas, beliefs and potential
policy debate than anything the Republicans have offered so far.
Second,
I must confess my deep disappointment that the NBC moderators were so blatantly
biased to the two front-running candidates. I wanted to hear more from Governor Martin O’Malley of
Maryland, but he was virtually ignored by the moderators, and cut out of most
of the responses.
There
are a number of points I agreed with, e.g., campaign finance, corporate
lobbying, but there are far more things that I disagree with in their espoused
positions. For example, let’s take
the minimum wage debate to an extreme.
How do we decide what is reasonable? If US$15/hr. is the minimum wage for the most basic,
unskilled labor performed, why is that the minimum. Why not US$25, US$100, US$1000 or even US$1M per hour? Why not? Doesn’t everyone deserve to be wealthy? What is reasonable? The minimum wage establishs the fair
wage for basic labor. More skilled
labor should be compensated from that level. I am struggling with what that number should be.
The
contrast between the two parties has become rather stark. One party seems focused on the policy
debate and finding solutions (whether we agree with them or not, while the
other party appears angry, self-absorbed and far more interested in attacking
people including their own party members rather than finding solutions to real
problems. I wonder how long this
contrast will be sustained.
On
the plus side, to my knowledge, Hillary Clinton is the first candidate on
either side to publicly state that she was prepared to work with the Congress
she is given to complete the business of this Grand Republic – easily said, not
so easily done. Yet, as secretary
of state, she certainly exercised diplomacy and may well be able to use her
service in Congress and her acquired skills to do the hard work in negotiating
compromise solutions to the nation’s problems. To be frank, I do not see ideological intransigence as an
admirable or worthy trait in a future president.
“That’s
just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
The
Republican front-runner wants to force Apple, Inc. to build all of their
products in the United States . . . the very same place some folks are trying
to raise the minimum wage to US$15/hour.
Such an action, if it was successful, would ultimately harm the
country. This country was built
upon free commerce and has spent treasure and the blood of patriots to defend
freedom of commerce. There must be
an incentive to improve and succeed.
This proposal does not make sense from a business or commerce
perspective.
After
praising Governor Haley’s opposition rebuttal last week [735], I am reminded that no one is perfect.
“Nikki Haley repeats old fairy tales about U.S. history”
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Wichita
Eagle (Miami Herald)
Published: JANUARY 17, 2016; 6:02 PM
Pitts illuminated a statement by Haley the following day: “When
you’ve got immigrants that are coming here legally, we’ve never in the history
of this country passed any laws or done anything based on race or
religion.” Pitts cited a half
dozen laws and court rulings that refute Haley’s statement. Actually, Pitts was being generous and
gentle. The list of contrary
citations could be much longer.
Missing history so blatantly tarnishes the exceptional rebuttal speech
Haley offered – so much for greatness.
News from the economic
front:
-- The People’s Republic of China reported their Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) expanded by 6.9% in 2015, down from the 7.3% gain reported in
2014. They also reported their economy
expanded 6.8% in 4Q2015 from a year earlier, edging down from 6.9% growth in 3Q2015. The 2015 growth is the slowest in a
quarter century, confirming a loss of momentum in the world's second-largest
economy that continues to chill global activity and spook markets worldwide.
Comments and contributions from Update no.735:
“Regarding The State of the Union address, you stated ‘To
me, most notable, he said, [W]e need to reject any politics -- any politics --
that targets people because of race or religion.’ If he truly believes
the words he speaks, why did he allow the targeting of conservative
organizations by the IRS? If he
did not know what was going on, as he so often explains in his defense, why did
he not hold those at the IRS responsible for their blatantly misdirected
actions? In his statement, Obama’s
self-serving hypocrisy comes shining through.”
My response:
Let’s
not get too carried away. Do you
believe the Obama administration is the first to use the IRS to ‘punish’ their
opposition? I am not condoning
what they did. It was wrong in
every possible way. I am equally
disturbed that the perpetrators were not prosecuted. I am also disturbed the perpetrators of the Great Recession
of 2008 were not prosecuted. It is
disappointing, but I have been disappointed by every administration in my lifetime
. . . at least in my political awareness lifetime, since I do not recall the
Truman and Eisenhower administrations.
. . . follow-up comment:
“I am not trying to get too carried away here—where did I go
wrong—and I am not discounting the fact that transgressors and perpetrators of
the past were not prosecuted when they should have been, nor that there have
been disappointments from every administration—and I liked the way you parsed
that: ‘…at least in my political awareness lifetime,… .’ Your political
awareness acumen is much greater than mine, and I respect that, so, I will
respectfully defer to you if you thought I was getting carried away and
venturing outside of the context of your original statement. In which case, if you think I strayed
from the context of his statement by calling him a hypocrite, do you think
Obama gave himself a contextual waiver by way of concluding qualification in
his sentence structure by stating: …that targets people because of race or
religion, after ‘any politics?’ Regardless, and taking it a step further
in our discussion, why do you think Obama did not hold those in power at the
IRS responsible? Had he done so,
would that not have spoken volumes regarding his leadership? As it stands, I think it does speak
volumes regarding his leadership.”
. . . my follow-up response:
First
and foremost, you are entitled to your opinion and have every right to express
your opinion as strongly as you wish . . . as am I. Please do not view my words as any constraint of your right
to speak. I have invited everyone
to speak freely in this forum. I
truly and sincerely believe our collective disagreements and debates are vital
to an enduring democracy. I do NOT
ask you to defer to me on anything.
I want to hear what you think and why.
Re:
“do
you think Obama gave himself a contextual waiver by way of concluding
qualification in his sentence structure by stating: …that targets people
because of race or religion, after “any politics?” Perhaps. I cannot explain why the perpetrators at the IRS were not
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. While I defend everyone’s right to discriminate in their
private lives by any one or combination of the social factors, I will
vehemently condemn such conduct in the public domain. The government and all its personnel as representatives of
the government do NOT have any rights to discriminate by any of the social
factors. Their choices are treat
everyone equally or find another job, period. Politics is one of the social factors, as are race and
religion.
Re:
“why
do you think Obama did not hold those in power at the IRS responsible?” I do not know. It is baffling to me. The evidence seems rather clear to
me. To date, I see that whole IRS
episode as one of Obama’s clear failures as President. He did not represent all the People . .
. only the people who support him, and that is not the making of a great
president in my eyes. Personally,
I think Jimmy Carter’s failures as President were far greater and more serious,
yet I see Carter as a good man with a big heart who tried mightily to do the
correct things. I just urge all of
us to treat President Obama fairly and with respect . . . despite his
failures. He has also accomplished
some very good things, IMHO.
Re:
“Had
he done so, would that not have spoken volumes regarding his leadership?” Yes, absolutely, without question or
doubt. If Richard Nixon had stood
up like a man and a leader in June 1972, and told us he screwed up, provided
inappropriate guidance for and encouragement to nefarious conduct, he might be
remembered for the good he did . . . alas, he failed miserably as is remembered
accordingly.
My
point was, we enact laws in good faith and rarely include sufficient checks
& balances to protect against flawed human beings abusing the law. [FYI: my direct concern for the present
kerfuffle regarding gun sale background checks.] I am convinced, although I cannot produce physical evidence,
that the information collected by the IRS has been abused for political
purposes since the inception of the IRS after passage of the 16th Amendment. Obama’s IRS operatives were more
blatant and clumsy than their predecessors and got caught red-handed. I doubt President Obama knew directly
or ordered the IRS do what they did, just as I do not believe Richard Nixon
ordered “The Plumbers” to break into the DNC Office in the Watergate. President Obama deserves a failed mark
for the IRS debacle; he does not deserve condemnation.
Another contribution:
“Much is at stake on the MH#17 shoot down. Something tells
me we are far from seeing the impact from the tragedy, whether economic
(lawsuits/further sanctions), geopolitical, and informational.
“While I do send materials out from time-to-time from Russia Today
(RT), believe me, I always factor in their bias and/or disinformation.
Similarly, I take into account New York Times and Washington Post being used as
propaganda pieces too.
“No doubt the Iran in the picture right now is significant for
global geopolitics, economics, and we shall see if the longtime proxy wars
between Saudi Arabia and Iran, turn to warmer if not hot wars.
“Governor Nimrata ‘Nikki’ Haley née Randhawa of South Carolina,
did offer an interesting follow-up to Obama's State of the Union address. She
is a rising person in the GOP. The one to also keep an eye on is
Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D) of the second congressional district of
Hawaii. She is vice-chair of the DNC. I've been so far fairly
impressed with her coming from the party I usually ignore (unless I am angry at
them).
“Cap, your statement: "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..." is very
accurate. The two parties just use different means to motivate us to vote
for them, some use much more fear of other type of enemies, but they still
always use fear or doubt to maintain their power.
“I agree with you on Iraq and Syria. I believe that that
entire region would be more stable today had we just left Saddam, Gaddafi
(Libya) and Syria's Assad in place. Sure, dictators, but the so called
Arab Spring seems to have brought much more hardship for the very people seeking
reform.”
My reply:
Re:
MH17. The effects have already
been felt, even though the leading hypothesis has not been proven. Aircraft commanders have long been
trusted individuals, excluded from screening, impairment testing and such, but
no longer. I suspect you are
correct; we have more changes to come.
Re:
news sources. Likewise. Single sources are always risky whether
with national security intelligence or political musings.
Re:
IRI. From a global perspective,
you are correct. From a regional
perspective, they are significant . . . if for no other reason than their
actions are modifying the actions of Saudi Arabia.
Re:
Haley. More on Nikki in this
week’s Update.
Re:
Gabbard. Quite so. I’m watching & listening as well.
Re:
two major political parties. Their
actions certainly suggest more similarity than difference . . . it is only a
matter of what they spend the treasury on for their largesse.
Re:
dictators. My opinion as
well. Only time shall tell the
tale whether this is a good approach from a U.S. national security perspective.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
Your discussion of the minimum wage employs what seems to be your favorite logical fallacy, reductio ad absurdum via the slippery slope. More information on reductio ad absurdum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum. For more on logical fallacies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
As far as the Democrat Party debate, it's important to realize that the Democratic National Chair, US Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D?-FL), is under fire for supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy by various misuses of her position, including the scheduling of debates. Wasserman Schultz has probably eliminated Governor O'Malley, of whom I know little. That maneuvering should matter to Democrats and to progressives more generally. Clinton is the establishment candidate (and she has fared far better than her Republican counterpart, Jeb Bush).
We know that Hillary Clinton's words mean little to nothing. The Establishment Democrats have failed to further their claimed goals ever since the Reagan campaign successfully appealed to the "redneck" vote--racist, xenophobic, easily frightened, and unthinking people. Bill Clinton won elections due to his personality, but governed mostly by appropriating Republican issues and enacting Republican positions. (I personally suffered from welfare "reform", which was simple meanness, not reform.) Obama has come closer as the Republican wall finally begins to crumble, but has failed to stop the endless "war" or to control the spy agencies, Wall Street, or campaign finance. Progressives know these things. Hillary Clinton will get few of our primary votes regardless of what positions she takes now or in the next week or month. She may not get our votes in November either. Clinton has played along with the Establishment for too many years. Also, her personality tends to the brittle. Remember the "vast right wing conspiracy"? I do, and so do the Republicans she would need to work with were she elected. Sanders' history in Congress is long, consistent, and relatively successful. (Please understand that working across the aisle does not mean conceding on all issues, as the Establishment Democrats do. Actual bipartisanship requires two parties to cooperate, and the Republican leaders publicly vowed on Election Night 2008 to block and attack Obama at every chance. They have kept their vow.)
Several factors have gone without notice in the campaign thus far, especially polling methodology. Polls of "likely" voters depend upon voting history and land-line phones. The apparently-leading Republicans (Trump and Cruz) and Bernie Sanders are all appealing directly and repeatedly to voters who don't count as "likely"; the discouraged, the fearful, and younger voters in various mixes. They will turn out to vote if current trends hold. Do you know anyone like that who has a long voting history? Neither do I. I have no land-line today, and I see no reason for one at home. I know few who do. People who still have them may be out of touch. This election may be disastrous, but it will surely disprove expert predictions. It already has: Jeb Bush and several "leaders" are already out of this one.
Calvin,
As always, thank you for taking the time to express your opinion(s) and perspective . . . always appreciated.
Re: reductio ad absurdum. Once again, apparently, I failed again to communicate the question. We have been around this weed patch more than once. So, I do not trigger your condescension, again, why US$15/hr.? Why not US$14.75/hr. or US$15.25? How do we determine what the minimum wage should be? What makes US$15/hr the correct level?
Re: Schulz. Are you saying or suggesting Schulz and/or the DNC are actively or passive-aggressively favoring Hillary? Interesting supposition.
Re: Clinton. Thank you for your perspective. I will add the biggest detractor for me is the eMail server fiasco. Her persistent claim that she never transmitted any information ‘marked’ classified may satisfy some citizens who are not familiar with the government’s information classification system or procedures, but to me, it shouts terrible ignorance or outlandish arrogance – both of which are unacceptable in a president. Of course, the information she transmitted was not ‘marked’ classified; it was original material. Whether marked or not, information created by or sent to the Secretary of State was quite likely highly sensitive and thus classified by default. The audacity of her insistence on a personal server in her home, outside the protections of government’s systems (not that they are perfect, but are a damn sight better than private systems), speaks volumes to me.
Re: polling methodology. Very good points, actually. We only have another week, although polling will continue in perpetuity. Once citizens begin to actually vote, we will get beyond the polls. Things should clarify by the end of February or March. I would rather not see a contested convention for either party, i.e., the party hierarchy taking control from voters. We enter the next phase of silly season next week.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment