Update no.740

Update from the Heartland

No.740

15.2.16 – 21.2.16

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

To all,

            Who’da thunk it!  Two days in a row in February, the temperature reached the mid-70’s with a rather light breeze and a clear, sunny sky.  The missus and I took a delightful, country, bike ride to enjoy the Saturday afternoon weather and a delicious dinner at Rib Crib in Derby, Kansas.  Rib Crib is not yet a national franchise, but I expect them to be in a few years.  Everything we ordered was near perfection.  Well worth the effort to visit.

            The follow-up news items:

-- An interesting article regarding the MH370 incident [638, 691, 711, 716]:

“Flight MH370 Update: Rogue Pilot Theory Might Be Considered If Search For Plane Ends With No Concrete Clues”

by Suman Varandani

International Business Times

Published on 02/18/16 AT 12:23 AM

http://www.ibtimes.com/flight-mh370-update-rogue-pilot-theory-might-be-considered-if-search-plane-ends-no-2312308

As the article notes, without more evidence, the root cause will remain unknown and indeterminate.  However, given the publicly available information, the only plausible scenario is a rogue pilot, controlled ditching hypothesis.  What leads me to this position is the paucity of any debris, which to me suggests a well flown, careful ditching to minimize aircraft damage and thus floating debris.  The pilot sought to bury the needle in a very big haystack, and he is approaching success.

            The cyber landscape changed dramatically this week when the United States Government (USG) turned to the All Writs Act (AWA) [675] {actually, §14 [1 Stat. 81] of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (PL 1-I-020; 1 Stat. 73; 24.9.1789) [289]} to force Apple, Inc. to comply with a court issued warrant to open an iPhone recovered from the Farook-Malik, San Bernardino, killer couple [729].  In the USG’s application, they claim their request does not place an undue burden on Apple.  Apple has assisted the FBI’s investigation in every way they deemed within their authority to do.  They provide the phone’s back-up files from the iCloud, as they possessed the security access.  However, the subject phone was backed up the last time on 19.October.2015 – six weeks prior to the Farook-Malik attack.  Understandably, the FBI wants what is on that phone, since the killers’ final coordination communications are likely on the phone.  Apple refused to comply citing an unprecedented threat to the security of the electronic devices of millions of customers world-wide.  Apple CEO Timothy Donald ‘Tim’ Cook issued a public statement to Apple’s customers.

“A Message to Our Customers”

From Tim Cook, CEO Apple, Inc.

Dated: February 16, 2016

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

            As I understand the problem, the root issue is a 10-attempt limit on the four-digit security code that permanently and irreparably locks the phone.  The USG wants Apple to develop and load a software modification to eliminate or circumvent the 10-attempt limit provision.  From that point, the code to cycle through all combinations of four-digit code is comparatively easy and well within the capabilities of the USG – 10,000 possible combinations.  Such software does not exist.  Apple’s contention: once the software backdoor exists, there will be no limit to such requests.  To take their point, NYPD alone has 260 iPhones as evidence in serious crime cases awaiting the USG to be successful.  Further, while Apple acknowledges they have the technical capability to fulfill the USG’s request, to do so would be opening Pandora’s Box – it cannot be closed.

            This illuminates in brilliant light the point I have been making for many years.  We must find a balance between national security and our fundamental right to privacy.  I absolutely support the need of the USG to use all available means to protect the nation and all our citizens.  This is NOT reading and censoring a single letter in 1917 or 1942.  This is a far more pervasive issue.  Our electronic devices are interconnected and in fact linked to the Internet itself.

            I considered the question: how to satisfy both requirements?  The best I could imagine was taking the Apple-FBI cognizant personnel, sequester them (meaning nothing in or out except food, which would be thoroughly inspected, including any food waste – no non-food waste leaves).  They would develop the software to circumvent the 10-attempt cliff.  They would break the subject device to collect the information contained on that particular device.  Once the team is done, everything is destroyed – computers, papers, clothes, tables, furniture, everything – not cleaned or scrubbed . . . destroyed!  The personnel depart naked with no possessions.  While it is one way to ensure the developed code for this particular challenge will not be replicated, we cannot erase the memory of the individuals involved.  They could even breakdown the development program into further separated cells to minimize the number of people who see the whole assembled tool.  Unfortunately, as we saw with the Manhattan Project, if just one person knows the whole assembly, there is no safe way.  Once it is broken, it is broken.

            Then, to add insult to injury in a highly sensitive case, the Republican front-runner says, “Boycott Apple!”  Really?  To force an independent company to compromise all its customers because of one case . . . and, there is no guarantee there is any actionable intelligence or evidence on that iPhone.  The USG is doing what it must do.  The Republican front-runner is acting irresponsibly.  And, I believe Apple, Inc., is doing what it must do on behalf of all of us.  There must be a better way than bludgeoning a company into submission in this instance.

            The primary segment of this year’s silly season has only just begun.  Yet, this week was exciting I must say.  Again, as is my nature, I shall proffer my observations on this week’s events.

            The CNN Republican Presidential Town Hall hosted and moderated by Anderson Cooper occurred in two segments on consecutive evenings.  The first session with Carson, Rubio and Cruz was held at the Old Cigar Warehouse in Greenville, South Carolina.

Carson: Apple should be compelled to produce, but everyone should develop trust in government – a laudable objective devoid of any appreciation for our history.  If he was president in Obama’s position, he would nominate a replacement justice.  My question: why shouldn’t Obama? Carson said, “They should read the Constitution.”  I would offer that admonition to ALL of them.  They ALL should read Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America.  There are no qualifiers.

Rubio: I must say, in my humble opinion, Rubio came off as the smoothest, most polished of all the remaining Republicans, and the most level headed.  His answers tended to be more vacuous, which is probably not a bad thing, as he tries to walk the very fine and waving line between conservative and moderate.

Cruz: Others advocate for conscription of women, he does not; “It makes no sense at all.”  Well, actually, Ted, that is a rather sexist statement.  Either women are equal or they are not.  Women want to be equal.  So treat them equally.  Conscription does not equate to the combat arms branches.  There are many jobs that do not involve combat that may need mobilization manpower in the future.  Women should register for the draft like males do, and be subject to conscription in the event of general mobilization.  Further, they should be assigned to jobs that are best suited for their skills and capabilities, based on uniform, reasonable standards.  He was also asked by a local pastor, “As we see more and more what appears to be opposition to Christian, conservative, moral values, what will you do to help protect those values?”  Cruz answered, “We are seeing an assault on Judeo-Christian values and religious liberty.”  If there is an assault, it is on the imposition of those values on every citizen.  Although the federal government injected itself into the private morality arena thanks to the zealotry of Anthony Comstock in the Victorian era, the Constitution authorized NO such injection of the federal government into private matters.  The government is and should be restricted to the public domain – “general welfare.”  His maligning of Planned Parenthood is a direct attack on low-income women.

            Just a related but diversionary side note: The abortion positions espoused by some of these candidates, the most vociferous being Cruz, are simply wrong.  If Republicans want to ban, eliminate, discourage or deny abortion as a medical procedure, then they must provide a working, viable system for the care, nurturing and teaching of those unwanted children to adulthood.  An improved adoption system would be helpful.  However, what is to be done with children who are unadoptable?  What do we do with children during those critical, formative years they are in limbo during the adoption vetting process?  I am far more concerned about the welfare of a living, breathing child than I am about a clump of dividing cells.  So, I ask, where is their concern for born children?  All this yammering about abortion is nothing more than governmental intrusion into a woman’s body and the most private and personal of decisions without the concomitant consequence of their intended action in dealing properly with the care of unwanted children.  Embracing Victorian morality is a personal choice for each and every citizen, and perhaps a point of negotiation between individuals considering marriage or procreation.  It is NOT a public domain matter, and thus is not and should not be within the authority of any governmental body and certainly not the law.

            The following night (Thursday), the second half of the town hall was carried out at the University of South Carolina School of Law Auditorium in Columbia, South Carolina.

Kasich: A local attorney & Southern Baptist asked, “It is sometimes difficult to differentiate between my moral convictions and the letter of the law, and what I am required to do.  If you were given the opportunity as president to nominate someone for the Supreme Court . . . would you nominate someone who will rule and vote based on their moral convictions, or would you be willing to put someone on the Court, who takes legal reasoning and makes decision even if it does not coincide with their personal beliefs.”  Kasich’s answer: He did not want judges to make law.  We want them to interpret law.  What was not said is, they must interpret law the way he wants them to interpret law.  This issue is always a matter of perspective and emphasis, as there are always conflicts that must be reconciled.

Bush:

“The minute we start closing off people acting on their faith in the public square, we are not being American, in my mind.  This is the first freedom in our country, and now this is under conversation and maybe under attack depending on . . . again we are back to the replacement of Antonin Scalia both in the context of the Second Amendment and religious freedom and should be discussed in the campaign.”  His statement perhaps best illustrates the root question for me.  Bush is precisely correct.  As a matter of public intercourse, religion and an individual’s faith is and must be protected in the public domain.  What he (and others) fail to recognize or acknowledge is and remains, they are NOT standing on the soapbox of Hyde Park Debater’s Corner shouting their religious beliefs to any who will listen.  They are vying for the pinnacle representative of the United States Government, this Grand Republic and We, the People, all of the people, not just fundamentalist Christians.  Jeb Bush’s religious beliefs should NOT be a matter of public policy or conduct, period!  There is a monumental difference between acting as an individual citizen and action as President of the United States of America.  He is not on that stage as an individual, but a potential president.  He should act like it.

Trump (AKA The Orange Man): A businesswoman from Columbia (SC) asked about his  “temperament.”  “I’m having some trouble getting past your self-control.”  He called it a great question, and yet he avoided any semblance of an answer and even an attempt at reassurance. In his answer, he said, “I believe in compromise where I win.”  He clearly does not understand the meaning of the word.

            As a consequence of the South Carolina primary election, Republican voters clearly favored the front-runner, by a substantial margin.  Rubio & Cruz were a distant second & third.  Jeb Bush suspended his campaign.  Now, there are five . . . really just three, but Kasich & Carson have not yet arrived at that conclusion.

            The Tea Party activists have taken control of the primary process.  They are discernibly angry with the conduct of Republican politicians in Washington.

            I’m angry as well.  Anyone who has read my writing, my opinions, in this Update for the last 10 years, has seen my anger.  More than once, I’ve said, throw all of the bums out; get a new crop.  Where I go crosswise with those supporting the Republican front-runner and his best buddy rests upon worthiness and demeanor to be POTUS – their character.  The character flaws are simply too great, too pervasive and too dominant to want them to be the representative of the United States of America on the world stage.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.739:

“Thought you might be interested in my latest tirade.  Gannett prints about 1 out of 10 of my suggestions...”

His submittal:

“The Repandercrats just cannot seem to learn.   GOP elected leaders, and even candidates, are stupidly proving the Democratic Party's false narrative, that the opposition party is only about opposition:  stalling, delaying, criticizing without offering solutions, etc., etc.  To petulantly announce that the Senate GOP majority should and will delay consideration of any Obama nominee to replace the brilliant constitutional purist, Justice Scalia, is wrong on so many levels that Hillary is positively ecstatic, and rightfully so.  Repandercrats have miserably failed to out-pander the Democrats in wooing voters with government programs, and now they again walk right into another self made trap.  A wise Republican would urge a prompt presidential nomination of a qualified person, preferably a fan of the Constitution as written, and quickly schedule the confirmation hearings!  If Obama nominates another flaming constitutional revisionist, vote against her or him.  If he nominates a qualified jurist, vote to confirm.  Don't be stupid!  Do your job!”

My reply:

            I could not agree more.  One more reason . . . I am NOT impressed with these candidates, that party, or the contemporary political environment.  I am angry, but I am not that angry to support a clueless, narcissistic egomaniac.  As you say, do your job!

Comment to the Blog:

“Trump is the Republican nominee unless the Republican Party establishment regains control of the party and/or Republican primary voters come to their senses. Our ‘election fervour’ has often embarrassed me, but I agree that this is the worst I have ever seen it.

“On your comment, though, I disagree with the idea of negotiating in this environment. The Democrats have tried that since Reagan with zero success. The other side never negotiates in anything like good faith. Usually they don't negotiate at all.

“I disagree with both taxation quotes, especially the ‘vote themselves largess from the public treasury’ one. The assumption that voters operate on shortsighted greed is disproved by U.S. electoral history at least since 1980. Enough people have voted against their own financial interest enough times that our country has become a plutocracy. Whatever has motivated voters to do this cannot be any form of near-term greed. Realistically, the problem is people voting against themselves. ‘The power to tax is the power to destroy’ ignores motivation. After all, the notion that taxation is always destructive conflicts with the idea that some form of government is necessary.

“I agree with Bernie Sanders on the issues he addresses. His reasoning supports his directness, and he does better with fact checkers than the others. Bernie has said remarkably little about the infrastructure problems in the U.S.A. that concern me, and he does not address the size and financial waste issues of the military or suggest using that as a source of revenue for the rest of his agenda.

“I consider myself a feminist, and I was not aware of Clinton's use of ‘women's work.’ Thank you for mentioning it. That divisive term makes me uncomfortable no matter who uses it. Those who point at Clinton's weathering of many Republican attacks as a selling point probably should shut up about that. The attacks would surely continue and probably increase were she elected, hindering her work as they do Obama's.

“I do not respect skill with words unless wisdom informs it. Mr. Justice Scalia earned my disrespect by using writing to support positions that at heart were merely his own unstudied notions expressed via the Constitution. I see that in most ‘strict constructionist’ opinions, but he was very skillful at it. The issue of replacing him is only one more political football. I do not understand why the ‘high end’ hunting resort mentioned on TV news made no provision for medical emergencies. Maybe prominent Republican officials should just not go hunting. Remember Cheney shooting his hunting buddy?

“Trump as a diplomat? Unimaginable.

“I see President Obama as a reasonable man trapped in a system that has lost its sanity. Secretary Clinton runs by affiliating with him, hence her failure to dominate despite near-unanimous support from Democratic Party brass and elected officials. The electorate realizes now that politics as usual does not interest the Tea Party. One is either for them or opposed. Change will come with their defeat, not by trying to work with them. Think Teddy Roosevelt, not Nixon-Humphrey.

“I have known others (in person) who claimed to be fiscal conservatives and social liberals. Most of them were interested primarily in their own personal civil liberties. They want to keep the government out of their bedrooms, rituals, or ‘lifestyle,’ but they support government surveillance of other Americans not accused of crimes and budget cuts that harm people of other races or socioeconomic groups. I have listened to several of those, and that's what I hear consistently. Also, everything is a fiscal issue. Social change always costs someone money or power (same thing) somehow.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: Republican front-runner.  It certainly appears that way at present.  I am not yet to that conclusion.  I also share your embarrassment.

            Re: negotiation.  Quite correct.  Any one party to a negotiation can stonewall, which in essence terminates the negotiation.  I also share your perspective.  I am not and never will advocate for caving to intransigence.  We can discuss the genesis of the ‘Ted Cruzs’ of the Republican Party.  The really sad aspect for me . . . there are far too many in the Republican Party who directly equate intransigence with strength – very sad.  Intransigence is NOT strength; it is arrogance and egocentricity run amuck.

            I have to breakdown the next paragraph:

Re: “vote themselves.”  Electoral history, I do agree, actually.  My comment was not an observation of history, it was an opinion that might explain the popularity of Senator Sanders with the young demographic.

Re: “plutocracy.”  I cannot agree.

Re: taxation = destruction.  Chief Justice Marshall’s observation in McCulloch v. Maryland [17 U.S. {4 Wheat.} 316 (1819)] was not reflective of current events but rather a caution or admonition.  The same is true with my use – a caution not an accusation.

            Re: Sanders.  Well, now, I actually agree.  I find myself agreeing with Bernie in principle, although I must confess more than a smidgen of apprehension.  It is at the practical level where disagreement blossoms.

            Re: feminist.  Once more, agreed.

            Re: skill with words.  Good point.  Yet, I am unable to dismiss Scalia’s words as devoid of wisdom.  He was very clear in his reasoning.  I simply disagree with his perspective and emphasis.  I still laud his writing, although I do not agree with his perspective.

            Re: diplomat.  Quite so.

            Re: change with defeat.  And, another, agreed; we are setting a new trend.  See comment on intransigence above.

            Re: Conserberal.  No debate; everything costs.  The issue is not so much taxation; it is more accurately about spending, i.e., what we choose to spend the treasury on.  As always, it is about balance.  Therein lies the public debate.

Another contribution:

“My ‘dealing’ with tripe such as this is only a certain button called delete! And of course in this case to risk sending it back across the waves.

“It’s as well Goebbels never had the internet. Our views often run in parallel lines, I would, I believe, find it somewhat difficult to argue with you.

“It’s becoming somewhat more alarming hearing the news of this dreadful war in Syria today. Why why are the Russians defying common sense and humanity- today bombing hell out of a hospital and killing patients and staff?  We’re told this war has raged for five years with thousands of dead and now many more homeless people trekking their way across Europe to find a home in countries that are increasingly closing borders against them. This includes my own.  There has got to be an answer my friend. It needs to be found and quickly.”

My reply:

            Re: delete.  Quite so.  Good choice.  No risk in sending it to me, my friend.

            Re: Goebbels.  Quite so.  Regrettably, the infamous Nazi propagandist has many disciples in practice today, as we bear witness.

            Re: Syria.  I saw that Chancellor Merkel has publicly proclaimed German support for a no-fly zone over Syria.  My question is, no-fly for whom?  The Syrians have not flow much in the last few years, so I suppose she has thought things through that enforcing the no-fly zone means shooting down Russian aircraft and getting into a head-to-head fight with Russian fighters.  It sounds like a hot war with conventional forces to me.  Personally, I think Putin wants a slugfest to bolster his political position.

Every once in a while, I receive disappointing comments.  Here is one received this week:

“You people are fools.”

My reply:

            If you have something to say and contribute to the public debate, please choose your words to communicate your opinion.

            Throwing insults around is NOT useful for a vigorous public debate in this forum, or the Republican presidential candidate selection process, or in international relations and personal relationships for that matter.

            As always, you are welcome to contribute anytime you wish.  If your boyfriend wants to contribute, he is welcome to subscribe, or use the comment form available to all citizens on the Blog.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“Sorry if there is any offense taken … don't think there is anything [my boyfriend] or I could debate in your private forum as it would be taken negatively and ignored anyway so carry on with your beliefs and so will we … won't show him your blog anymore … and will try to keep politics out of our friendship … just hoping and praying that neither of the Democrat/Socialist runners make it to the Presidency or we will all be in trouble … let's NOT let them take away our constitutional rights or force us into socialized medicine ! Let's instead work with making insurance companies more competitive across state lines … The Constitution has held strong for over 200 years for good reason …”

 . . . my follow-up comment:

            No offense . . . this is a great, big, beautiful world.

            First, the Update from the Heartland is not a private forum.  Since 5.November.2006, the Blog has been on the Internet every Monday morning, and thus it is a very public forum.

            Second, the whole point of public debate is disagreement – respectful disagreement – so that ideas and opinions can be challenged, contrasted and modified, if appropriate.

            Third, the only reason I would not include a contribution is when they are not respectful of others.  Diversity of opinion is not a reason to be disrespectful.  I have no interest in insult politics, e.g., your original reply to Update no.739.

            Fourth, my Blog is public.  You are welcome to share the Blog with whomever and whenever you wish.  Anyone can contribute.  Some send eMails; others use the comment form on the Blog site.

            Fifth, I am not a subscriber to the old adage sex, religion and politics have no place in proper social intercourse.  You (or anyone) are welcome to raise any topic you wish – no limits.

            Re: constitutional rights.  Our rights are always under challenge regardless of what administration is in power.  I can cite a long list of examples going back far beyond my lifetime.  It is one of the many reasons we must all remain informed and vigilant regardless of any political party in power.

            Re: socialized medicine.  Have you ever lived somewhere that has public health care (i.e., socialized medicine)?  We have.  It is not the Satanic manifestation some would like to make us believe.

            Re: medical insurance competition.  Amen.  All for it.  Competition is good for just about everything.

            Re: Constitution.  Indeed!  I am a staunch proponent of the Constitution.  I served 25 years of my life defending the Constitution.  I still defend it in my words.

            I hope this finds you well.  Let me close by saying, if you have something to say or some topic you would like to discuss, I encourage you to contribute your thoughts to the public debate.  My only qualification, be respectful of others.

Another contribution:

“Thanks for your Update.  Good quote in your Update No.739 by Alexis de Tocqueville.

“The young generation of Americans are increasingly feeling disenfranchised from the ‘establishment.’  I believe that is also why older Americans have popularized Donald Trump, because they seem to view him as an outsider, since he is not embedded in the Beltway establishment. Donald Trump is brash and as you suggest on Sanders, how will they get objectives accomplished in a divided Congress.  We could call the younger Bernie supporters Gen-X, Gen-Y, Millennials, or shall I coin the class as The Uber Generation.

“I do believe Hillary has been sexist, or at least her campaign managers.  Can you imagine if Trump was trying to specifically appeal to men?  But then again, in some degree/intensity, most the candidates do try to appeal to our FUD, or Fear, Uncertainty and Doubts.  Trump has managed to resonate well to a group of Americans who are in fear (whether real or imagined).  We all know what FEAR stands for: False Evidence Appearing Real.

“I agree with you on your suggestions of what really won't make America great again (reference Trump).

“Agreed with Saudi Arabia and ‘economic weapons.’  I have mentioned that too in some past opinions.  I paid $2.19/gallon yesterday for 87-octane.  Gas has got low enough I am giving my car occasional 91-octane because it is good for the car.  Actually, my mileage economy does increase with the higher octane, as many might find.  We should enjoy this temporary savings though many geopolitical (thus economic) conditions/trends could jolt crude back up to $100-150/barrel, and thus we will feel pain at the pumps.

“Thanks for your comments on the late Associate Justice Scalia.  Your forecast for the presidential politics is right on.  It is so very polarized and only going to serve to add more tension and division.  Add to that, the pope's comments about Trump, reference Trump's agenda not being Christian-like.  While I really cannot disagree with the pope, I believe he should have avoided the specifics and contender names.  Though the Vatican is really a highly political institution, the pope should steer-clear of such comments.  The pope's comments thus will add fuel to the fire in the dynamism of our presidential race.

“Cap, thanks for your Update again, and the opportunity for all of us to contribute our views.”

My response:

            Thx for yr contribution.

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

Cheers,

Cap                 :-)