Update from the
Heartland
No.742
29.2.16 – 6.3.16
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The
year 1816 may have been the year without summer, but the year 2016 appears it
will become the year without winter.
The astronomical winter weather has been good for the Harley and me, but
we need some form of precipitation, and at this stage, we will take it in any
form.
Hillary
Clinton said, “At some point, you can’t just say whatever pops into your head
when you’re President of the United States.” Precisely, correct, again!
The
Republican front-runner claims special treatment because he is not a
politician, which apparently he thinks entitles him to insult anyone and
everyone who disagrees with him, to use profanity in public rhetoric, and to
say whatever outrageous thing he believes will appeal to the lowest common base
instincts of a segment of angry American citizens.
All
politicians aspiring to the high political office of the President of the
United States of America must have strong egos, believe in themselves, have
confidence in themselves and possess multitudinous skills to coax, cajole,
persuade, influence and otherwise lead disparate segments of our society for
the common good. Reagan, Kennedy,
Roosevelt, both Teddy and Franklin, had strong egos. Sir Winston Churchill clearly had a strong ego as well. He was also racist, sexist and overtly
opinionated about most topics of his day.
Yet, they all managed to put aside their egos to lead people, many of
the opposition, for the common good.
Where is that leadership today?
Here
is a thought to ponder: I wonder how many Democrats and Independents have voted
in the Republican primary elections and caucuses in a deliberate effort to
ensure the fellow who is the current front-runner gains the nomination by a
majority of delegates obtained?
Many states allow voters to choose one or the other. In Kansas, this year, we did not have a
primary election. We had party
caucuses as the governor deemed primary elections too costly for the
state. A nuance in the Kansas
process, there were no restrictions upon who caucused where, which meant it was
entirely legal, even if unethical, to caucus for both parties on the same
day. None of the Press, to my
knowledge, have raised the specter of that potential effect, i.e., non party
members ‘voting’ for the other party to affect the outcome desired.
Our
middle son asked what I thought about this explanation of progressive taxation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6HEH23W_bM.
My
reply:
In simplistic form, the video illustrates the consequences
of a theoretical implementation of progressive taxation – not the only
implementation, I must add.
Unfortunately, what is missing from the video explanation is the hidden
element that legislators passed imbedded and camouflaged laws that offer
exemptions that only Harry could take advantage of and Dick had to pay the
whole US$30K bill.
The
episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver broadcast on Sunday, February 28th,
was simply epic and perhaps the best dissection of the dark phenomenon the
Republican front-runner has brought to the current rendition of the quadrennial
presidential silly season. Yet,
despite any feelings or opinions regarding the Republican front-runner, there
can be no dispute that he has used his narcissistic egomania to channel the
fundamental anger and disgust of many citizens with the corruption, fraud,
waste and abuse that has become the federal government.
“John Oliver systematically picks apart the Donald Trump
mystique”
by Meredith Blake – Contact Reporter
Los Angeles Times
Published: February 29, 2016; 1:30 PM
The video clip of the show can be seen at:
So,
it appears the Tea Party activists are on the verge of commandeering the venerable
Republican Party.
Yet,
at the end of the day, I must admit, confess and say that even if the
Republican front-runner becomes the Republican Party nominee and is elected
President of the United States of America, we shall survive; this Grand
Republic shall endure. With every
obscene utterance and grass misstep in international diplomacy, we may convey
sympathy to our allies and simply say, please bear with us for our temporary
disrepair. If this disturbance should
actually happen, it will last hopefully only four years, or at worst, eight
years, and we can move on.
Congratulations
must go to Senior Chief Edward Carl Byers Jr., USN, on being
awarded the Medal of Honor by the President of the United States for
extraordinary valor in combat on the night of 8.December.2012, in
Qarghah’i District of Laghman Province, eastern Afghanistan, during a quickly
planned rescue mission. We are
blessed to have such men in defense of this Grand Republic.
When
the Republican front-runner was challenged on his very slow, hesitation to
condemn the endorsement by David Duke, former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan
(KKK), he offered this really lame justification, “My ear piece
malfunctioned.” He must take us
for fools. My former profession
required consistent clear communications in a very noisy, complex and
often-intense environment. If I
did not understand something, or the words I was hearing were not clear, I
asked for a repeat, or found a better communications path. I did not fire my weapons based on some
static-y, unclear communication.
People’s lives depended upon me knowing precisely where to deliver my
ordnance despite the intensity and confusion of the moment. Malfunctioning earpiece, my ass! This is yet one more of a rapidly
mounting mountain of examples of the Republican front-runner using confusion,
denial, subterfuge and obfuscations to justify his outrageous statements. We are talking about the presidency of
the United States . . . not some real-estate company. There are monumental differences that are intolerant of such
lame obfuscation.
The
Republican front-runner said, “I will get along fine with Paul Ryan. If we don’t, he will pay a big, big
price.” “Wow! Does that ever sound
like reaching out,” I said, with as much sarcasm as I could muster up.
And,
he has a whole bunch of these . . . these . . . very illuminating
statements. When former Republican
nominee Mitt Romney challenged the current Republican front-runner, he said, “[Romney]
was begging for my endorsement. I could have said, ‘Mitt, drop to your knees!’
and he would have dropped to his knees.”
This is the man who wants to represent this Grand Republic in the
highest Executive Branch office.
In
January, during a campaign rally in Sioux Center, Iowa, he proclaimed, “I could
stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose
voters.”
He
also says, “Trust me,” “Believe me,” “I am the best [of anything and
everything],” “I guarantee it,” et cetera
ad infinitum ad nauseum. I
don’t, I won’t, no he isn’t, and I highly doubt it.
The
faux macho bravado has got to stop.
It is unbecoming a human being who is supposed to be a mature adult and
sure as hell unworthy of anyone aspiring to be President of the United States
of America.
Unfortunately,
those who are voting for and supporting the Republican front-runner apparently
could care less about propriety, decorum and proper, respectful, adult
behavior. He is playing to a
specific element of the political spectrum, and it appears his juvenile
behavior and ridiculous antics are red meat to the carnivores of that particular
element. His demonstrations do NOT
reflect well on this Grand Republic.
Hopefully, some day, the Press will no longer feel the need to cover his
stinking bull excrement!
Let
us not forget, this is the Republican Party primary. This is NOT the general election. What matters most will be our votes in November. Whether he eventually becomes the
Republican nominee is irrelevant.
We, the People, will decide who represents us, and this Grand Republic –
he is not a dictator . . . yet . . . and does not decide these things.
Stimulants
for this humble forum come from many sources. This week’s version:
“Donald Trump, defender of the faith”
by Charles Krauthammer - Washington Post
Wichita Eagle
Published: MARCH 4, 2016; 6:32 PM
The words that caught my attention were actually the caption
to the associated photograph – “This
time around, evangelicals are not looking for someone like them. They’re
looking for someone who will protect them.” I continue to seek the answer to one question: protection
from what? Regarding the
Republican front-runner, Krauthammer said, “A more scripturally, spiritually
flawed man than Trump would be hard to find. As several anti-Trump evangelical voices have argued,
Christian witness cannot possibly support a thrice-married man with such an
impressive list of sins.” Spot on,
it seems to me. So, I return to my
question, protection from what?
The best I can arrive at is, protection from not being able to impose
their values, their morals, their beliefs upon every citizen regardless of
religious faith – after all, to them, this is a fundamentalist Christian
nation.
Well,
I reject the notion at its most rudimentary level. This is not, and never has been, a ‘Christian’ nation. It is a country of freedom – freedom of
choice for every citizen regardless of the social factors, the fundamental
right to privacy and the dominion of one’s ‘castle.’ I understand but I reject any attempt to impose moral
(private) values on any other citizen.
I certainly make no attempt to impose my beliefs on those I disagree
with in political or social intercourse.
It would be a refreshing change if others respected me as I respect
them.
On
Wednesday evening, 3.March.2016, Fox News hosted the next Republican presidential
(and I use that term loosely) debate from the Fox Theater in Detroit, Michigan,
hosted by Megyn Kelly.
The
audience was not helpful and acted more like Roman citizens cheering with every
spurt of blood and every death in the gladiatorial games. We had adults waving to their families
and friends in the background behind the moderator’s panel, and worse, children
making faces and entertaining themselves.
These debates are NOT entertainment. This is very serious business. Frankly, I will now advocate that we eliminate the audience,
so we can focus on what these candidates are trying to say . . . in between all
the juvenile insult antics and nonsense.
I could not care less about audience reaction to anything. I want to hear what the candidates have
to say . . . well, at least those few morsels I manage to distill out of the
plethora of juvenile insults and schoolyard antics.
Best
line of the night, when given a leading question intended to attack another
candidate, John Kasich said, “I’m not biting.” Good for you, John.
Human
rights cannot be left to the states.
Our ancestors fought a civil war to defend the human rights of ALL citizens,
not just the chosen.
Also,
I am not interested in their incessant mantra by all the Republican candidates to
“kill” PPACA. I am interested in
improving PPACA, or reforming it, or even replacing PPACA. At least PPACA made an attempt to fix a
very real problem in this Grand Republic.
For a candidate to say, “The first thing I will do as president is kill
[PPACA]” belies any semblance of humanity, compassion, reasonableness or touch
with reality.
The
next Democratic presidential candidate debate occurred on Sunday evening . . .
too late for me to digest and absorb for this week’s Update. Some things will have to wait until
next week.
News from the economic
front:
-- The People's Bank of China (PBC), the central bank of the
People’s Republic of China (PRC) announced it would lower its reserve-requirement
ratio for all banks by 0.5%, effective last Tuesday, to provide banks with sufficient
liquidity and keeping credit growth stable.
-- The Labor Department reported nonfarm payrolls increased
a seasonally adjusted 242,000 in February – a sign of steady economic growth
despite financial-market turmoil and weakness abroad. The unemployment rate held steady at
4.9%.
-- The PRC set its 2016 economic growth target at 6.5% to 7%
over the next five years, as an implicit acknowledgement of the country’s
slowing momentum. By adopting a range
for the first time in two decades, the PRC is giving itself more flexibility in
a system where hitting goals set far in advance, regardless of conditions on
the ground, remains politically important. The economic goal could still be difficult to hit in the
world's second-largest economy.
Comments and contributions from Update no.741:
“It is interesting that you don’t hear much about the mistake made
by the entity that owned the phone and didn’t install recommended software (by
Apple) that would have allowed them to monitor what was going on with the
iPhone, and the mistake made by the FBI in changing the password to the iCloud
before talking to Apple which would have allowed them to upload the relevant
information in the phone and releasing it to the FBI with a simple court order.
“I may have misunderstood what the FBI did, but I believe that
both they and the county made mistakes that would have minimized this whole
affair.
“I wouldn’t trust the FBI to do the right thing with person
freedom when they are handling the ‘The Server Affair’ and National
Security the way they are.
“IMHO, of course.”
My reply:
Re:
USG v. Apple. Good point. Actually, Apple’s motion to vacate
addressed that element precisely.
Your representation is spot on.
The county is the ‘owner’ of the subject iPhone, and they chose (not
clear) or ignored their monitoring ability. Yes, the FBI chose not to consult Apple and chose not to
back-up the subject iPhone, which would have been the easiest way to obtain the
contents. I chose not to get into
that aspect, as it gets more complicated.
You are precisely correct; both the county and FBI made significant
mistakes in this case. I suspect
(perhaps hope) the FBI has learned some very valuable lessons for future
events, but none of this fixes the current problem.
Re:
USG. Numerous contributors to this
humble forum have illuminated the distrust of the FBI and indeed the USG. We must find a solution. Blinding or hobbling the FBI (or the
USG) does not and will not serve the objective of national security. I want the USG to have access to
everything they need to keep us safe, but I am not willing to sacrifice my
fundamental (above the Constitution) and constitutional rights, or trust the
USG to do the right thing.
Whatever the system reforms we need, their must be checks &
balances. We are not there,
yet. Hopefully, the court’s
ruling(s) in the current case will hopefully point to the need for reform.
Another contribution:
“Another good update!
“Regarding Gov. Sandoval's ALLEGED consideration by Obama, you
have to admit (even if you cannot stand him) that this was political genius to
elicit more unreasonable obstructionist reactions from the floundering
Repandercrats!
“Regarding the need for training of police AND public, let's begin
a big push for communities to set up JOINT training sessions for officers and
young boys from the hood (and any others who want to attend).
“Regarding CNN's GOP debate, who ever said it was about news or
information? CNN has a nose for entertainment, not journalism, because it
gets the big bucks from sponsors.
“Regarding birth certificate changes, your objection is, as you
say, spot on. As a retired Chancery Court Judge, I can recall and predict
multiple problems with trying to obliterate history rather than overcome it.”
My response:
Re:
POTUS SCOTUS selection. “Political
genius,” perhaps. Whether
intended, the Sandoval affair does in fact illuminate the “unreasonable
obstructionist reactions” of the Republican ‘leaders.’
Re:
community training. Joint training
is a very good idea for a host of reasons.
Re:
CNN. I think that may be a bit
harsh.
Re:
birth certificate. “Obliterate
history” . . . spot on! Hopefully,
the judge will arrive at the same and proper decision.
Comment to the Blog:
“You wrote an interesting, but frustrating, piece on Churchill's
and FDR's “engagement diaries". Does that translate to appointment
calendars? You gave no information on how you came into contact with those
documents or how someone else might read them. Nor did you give anything about
their content.
“I have yet to imagine a negotiated solution to Apple's conflict
with the U.S. government that does not endanger the privacy and security of all
iPhone/iPad users.
“I would not want to be the upcoming nominee for the U.S. Supreme
Court. That will bring unimaginable stress to the nominee, no matter who is
nominated or which President does the nominating.
“Follow the money if you would predict the future. I still support
Bernie Sanders, but I need to hear him discuss the military budget clearly. My
notion of the ‘real’ source of money for some of the policies he proposes is
there. Were we to cut the U.S. military budget in half, we would still lay out
twice the cost of the second largest force, the Chinese. We would gain almost
$300 billion to use in rebuilding and improving our own nation aside from any
other fiscal changes. I doubt any damage would result from having “only” twice
the military of the second largest national force. We could begin by
eliminating new weapons or projects that the military branch involved has
stated it does not want.
“We have billionaires, and they should pay the appropriate taxes,
but that would not raise the kind of money the U.S. needs. Talking about
billionaires' taxes may get Senator Sanders a few votes. It will not work as
well for Secretary Clinton, whose Wall Street connections color this Democrat
primary season. Taxing corporations that currently dodge U.S. taxes would be a
somewhat better source of revenue, but I doubt most candidates will even
mention that idea. Even if they make promises, all of them but Sanders receive
too much money from corporate interests to carry out such statements. (I left
the Green Party USA as well as the Libertarians out of this discussion. We have
yet to break the barriers to participation in the system.)
“It may surprise you that I agree with Ben Carson on Obama's race.
While any number of ‘black’ people are actually of mixed race, the cultural
issue matters. I have yet to see Obama do anything substantial for black
people. (Filling highly visible Administration jobs is not substantial.) I
doubt he understands ordinary black people's experience. He talks about it, but
so do many others. My opinion is based on my experience. The people very close
to me include several who have one white and one black parent. The environments
of their youth and the people who raise them shape their attitudes, and,
therefore, their actions. Often, they decide not to identify strongly with
either race. (I would think your opinions about parenting would influence your
view on this.)
“I agree that birth certificates ought not to be altered in their
original content, but I could accept an annotated one in some cases, not
limited to transsexual people.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
Churchill “engagement diary.”
First, the name came from the label and reference to the original
document. Second, I did not get
into the how, as I thought it would be boring to most folks. So, since you asked, I have been a
member of The Churchill Centre for quite some time – decades, I do
believe. They send a weekly notice
regarding various related activities regarding Churchill’s life. On Thursday, last week, I received a
notice asking for volunteers to help transcribe his wartime (1939-1945),
handwritten, ‘engagement diaries.”
I will forward the eMail; I think you may be able to volunteer as
well. Please do not make my
mistake; register (it’s free) before starting, so that they can ‘credit’ you
with your submittals. I did 20-30
submittals before I figured it out.
Please let me know whether you do it. The process and what I am learning fascinate me, but it is a
very tedious process.
Re:
Apple negotiated solution. We
never know unless we try.
Re:
SCOTUS nominee. It will take a
very confident person to step into that meat grinder – not a good reflection on
this Grand Republic.
Re:
military budget. As you hint at
the real root cause, Congress wants to spend money – the public treasure. That is where we must start. The real problem is not in the
Pentagon.
Re:
political parties. None of them
match my beliefs and opinions, which is one of myriad reasons I remain an
independent, non-partisan. I also
find agreement, at least at some level and some topics, in virtually every
political party. So, my choice in
November will be who I think will best try to find solutions. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to
agree with my positions on all topics, so it is who comes the closest.
Re:
Obama. You know, if he had done
overt, public, biased things “for black people,” everyone would be criticizing him
for being prejudiced and biased toward American’s with dark skin
pigmentation. I believe he has
done a laudable job trying to walk a very fine line. The President must represent all citizens, including
neo-Nazi, redneck, skinheads, who hate him just for his appearance. I do not accept Carson’s supposition.
Re:
birth certificate. Annotated . . .
perhaps. It is not a public
identification document. It is
only a public statement of a very specific event.
. . . follow-up comment:
“The email came through, and the third link led me to the specific
project at hand. Thanks.
“On the budget: Congress does indeed want to spend money, and by
law it must do so. The relevant questions are whether the specifics of the
spending fit with our national priorities and whether we are getting our
money's worth. (There are similar questions on the income side, but this would
go very long if we opened a comment thread on the entire budget.)”
. . . my follow-up response:
Re:
WSC engagement diary project.
Good. You can try a couple
of submittals to see if you will like it, but don’t forget to register before
you do more than a couple of trial submittals.
Re:
Congress. Yes, quite so. The Constitution is quite specific in
the general sense. The
Constitution is not specific on the income side of the ledger. The question has always been and will
remain the balance between the demands of taxation by Congress and what they
choose to spend the tax revenues on each year.
And,
so it goes.
One last contribution
in the form of a submittal to a local newspaper opinion column:
“As a long-time Conserberal, I have a problem. For doing
what is right, I trust Repandercrats just barely more than Democrats (not
much), but I trust ‘government’ the least of all. Now I wonder if GOP's
late (too late) consolidated efforts to dump Trump are more of the same old
establishment self interest that shames both parties, or if conservative and
patriotic elements in the GOP are finally waking up. If I knew that our
so-called conservative party finally ‘gets it,’ that most Americans regardless
of party loyalty are sick and tired and not going to take it any more, I might
just believe those GOP voices. Hillary's worshippers will not be swayed,
but I might be, along with some folks charmed by Trump. We heard GOP
promises in 2010, 2012, 2014, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and
RINOs like our own Senators reneged and caved in to the minority party, agreeing
to more big government, more spending and annual deficits, more federal debt,
etc., etc. Who are the real conservatives and patriots who can save our
nation? I have a problem identifying them, but I know who is giving the
RINOs nightmares.”
My response:
The
reason Republicans continue to spend money like drunken sailors is simply . . .
they are addicted to the exact same corruption the Democrats are. One of the worst, most unapologetic,
overt practitioners was Representative John Patrick ‘Jack’ Murtha, Jr., of
Pennsylvania. Among his many, many
‘accomplishments’ was getting federal dollars to build a large, state-of-the-art
runway and aircraft terminal in rural Northwest Pennsylvania. I’ve flown in there a few times on
business; great runway and airport terminal . . . devoid of people or
traffic. We were virtually the
only aircraft there. He even made
a small regional airline fly an occasional flight into the airport, but that
stopped when he passed away. There
are thousands of similar pork-barrel projects these guys are addicted to. They
are seen has heroes by their constituents, but it is wrong for the federal
government to be spending money for NO federal purpose, i.e., that has no
benefit to common good and general welfare of this Grand Republic.
On
the flip side of my little tirade about congressional corruption, some amount
of ‘horse trading’ is a necessary part of compromise to get things done. However, what has apparently vanished
from any degree of congressional ethics in their constitutional mandate to “insure
domestic Tranquility . . . promote the general Welfare . . .” is common good. I know Murtha made some lame attempt to
justify his pork project, but no one stood up to him, and so the airport sits
there in all its glory and quietude.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment