Update from the
Heartland
No.743
7.3.16 – 13.3.16
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Into
every life sadness comes from time to time. On Friday, our oldest dog, our miniature Schnauzer Emi Lou,
very rapidly showed signs of serious distress. We took her immediately to our veterinarian to figure out
what was bothering her. X-rays
identified a massive tumor in her liver and lungs. The metastasized tumor was inoperable and all attempts to
make her comfortable failed. She
was nearly 12 years old, lived a loved life, and she is now at peace – no pain. She was a great dog, always at my
feet. She will be sorely
missed. May God rest her in
eternity.
Emi Lou
May she rest in
peace.
Why
does violence repeatedly happen only at rallies for / with the Republican
front-runner? I think we all know
the answer – incitement by the candidate.
He likes to beat on his chest like a Silverback Mountain Gorilla. He likes to play the tough guy. He is not. That speaks volumes on the character of the man and the
incite-ful rhetoric he commonly uses.
And,
the hits just keep coming. Hillary
Clinton observed this week, “The ugly, divisive rhetoric we are hearing
from Donald Trump and the encouragement of violence and aggression is wrong,
and it’s dangerous. If you play
with matches, you’re going to start a fire you can’t control. That’s not
leadership. That’s political arson.”
I think Hillary has summarized the performance of the Republican
front-runner perfectly; his is acting as a political arsonist.
True
to form, the Republican front-runner’s response, “I am not responsible.”
“Oh
my, isn’t he just the personification of leadership,” I said with as much
sarcasm as I could muster up, again.
I’m
with Hillary on this one – Basta!
As
I watch and absorb the conduct of the Republican front-runner, I cannot avoid the
similarities to a time I once believed had been relegated to history books. Some 83 years ago, Germans believed and
proclaimed that citizens with Jewish heritage had nothing to fear. Officials under the National Socialist
regime claimed citizens of Jewish heritage did not have to worry about being
transported to the east or being harmed as long as they did not cross the
line. What they all failed or
refused to say, whether from ignorance or deceit, the line they were referring
to was just being alive. That sort
of obfuscation is classic and far too common to the Republican front-runner.
On
Thursday, 10.March.2016, CNN broadcast the latest Republican Presidential
Debate, from the Bank United Center, University of Miami, in Miami, Florida,
moderated by Jake Tapper.
I
must confess this was a refreshing change. The paucity of insult politics enabled the policy beliefs of
each candidate to finally emerge – agree with some, disagree with others. Yet, the rally violence issue seriously
overshadowed the gains made by the remaining Republican candidates with image
improvement this week. Oh well,
such is life; and so it goes.
The
most notable recordable in this debate episode was the Republican
front-runner’s doubling down on his statement, “Islam hates us.” The moderators gave him plenty of time
to clarify, modify or retract. He
refused . . . because he is never wrong.
Such gross generalizations are dangerous, divisive and
counter-productive.
Representative
Michael Richard ‘Mike’ Pompeo of Kansas, representing the 4th
District, sent out a weekly newsletter that precipitated the following response
from me:
Re: Pompeo newsletter dated 13.March.2016; subject: America
Got It Right – And It Has Mattered.
Mike is being disingenuous at the very least. To imply the deficit is the fault of
President Obama is verging upon deceitful. I think if Mike and his staff do their homework properly,
they will find the deficits ballooned under President George W. Bush (43), when
he chose NOT to mobilize the nation for war and rather 'borrowed' the money for
Afghanistan and Iraq in a lame effort to fight two wars on the cheap, and
further, Bush initiated the extraordinary federal government's bailout of the
financial industry in the opening months of the Great Recession.
I strongly recommend Representative Pompeo put his
inclination for political partisanship aside, and be truthful with his
constituents. Both political
parties contributed to the deficit; both political parties must contribute to
the solution. Pointing a crooked
finger at the President is simply wrong.
Respectfully submitted,
Cap Parlier
News from the economic
front:
-- The European Central Bank (ECB) cut its deposit rate to
minus 0.4% and its main interest rate to zero, and expanded its asset-purchase
program to €80B (US$88B) a month in a bid to boost inflation and reinvigorate a
stuttering eurozone economy. As a
result, the euro fell more than 1% against the dollar following the
announcement.
Comments and contributions from Update no.742:
“Sorry Cap but when I hear narcissist and egomaniacal I
immediately think of Obama who is obviously only interested in his wants and
desires as evidenced by his bringing in the enormous load of immigrants on our
tax dollar among many other acts he has performed without regard for our
country or its people .. Hillary and Bernie would undoubtedly run government
the same .. Obamacare is a costly system, egomaniacal just in name but that's
okay because there will be the Trump Wall .. our country will be secure if
Trump wins .' I can't believe there are people that just don't get that .. the
name calling has got to stop .. I hope the debates are done until trump gets
the nomination because Cruz and Rubio are just children .. and puppets of the
establishment ..”
My reply:
Thx
for yr contribution. Let me
dissect things.
Re:
Obama. We shall respectfully
disagree. I do not see the narcissistic
and egomaniacal characteristics you suggest with respect to President Obama. Quite the contrary, actually! In comparison to the current Republican
front-runner, everyone pales including President Obama.
Re:
immigrants. This Grand Republic
was founded by and continues to grow with immigrants. Please, let us avoid such broad, harmful generalities. I presume you intended to refer to the
current Syrian refugee matter. I
do not know what the USG is doing to vet those refugees. We must trust they are properly vetting
them. I am not keen on harboring
refugees, as I believe refugees should be protected and supported in their
region. Yet, the scale of the
situation in Syrian & Iraq, indeed the Levant, is overwhelming all the
neighboring countries. The
refugees are not immigrants, and we can only hope that what they see and
experience here convinces them to assimilate and become part of the American
dream. That said, to claim
President Obama has no regard for our country or our people defies reason and
all available information. We may
not agree with him on everything, but to say he does not care is just wrong.
Re:
PPACA. President Obama did NOT name
the legislation; others did. In
fact, you can see his discomfort when he does use that colloquial term. Yes, PPACA costs more than before its
passage, as there was nothing before that. Despite its flaws, at least PPACA is attempting to get the
costs into the public forum where they have some chance to be managed. What existed before PPACA were hidden
costs baked into the overhead charges on every health care dollar spent by the
rest of us; we were all paying already whether we chose to admit it. Further, the antiquated insurance laws
diminished inter-state competition and kept those hidden costs even more remote
from scrutiny.
Re:
“our
country will be secure if Trump wins.” Again, we shall respectfully disagree. In fact, I think quite the
contrary. His foolish, juvenile,
macho bravado is going to spill more precious American blood.
Re:
“the
name calling has got to stop.”
Amen! And, as the British
like to say, spot on! The sooner
the current Republican front-runner goes away, the sooner we can return to a
more normal and reasonable silly season without this damnable insult politics
that has so darkened an already cloudy silly season. He is the root source.
Re:
“Cruz
and Rubio are just children .. and puppets of the establishment.” Wow! What can I possibly say to that? Simply put, neither are children. Cruz has demonstrated on the floor of the Senate that he is
about as anti-establishment as they come, far more so than the front-runner who
has only offered bluster and insults so far.
Another contribution:
“Boy, you are fired up! Good.
Re: "the specter of that potential effect, i.e., non party
members ‘voting’ for the other party to affect the outcome desired"---
“Yes, it happened to us conservatives in Mississippi as long-time
Sen. Thad Cochran (King of earmarks) appealed to Democrats to ‘cross over’ and
vote for him against true conservative Chris McDaniel, the result being a tight
contest re-electing the RINO who would have lost to McDaniel if Republican
votes hadn't been diluted.
Re: "Malfunctioning earpiece, my ass! "
“A well placed expletive, indeed, if rare in your normal prose. More powerful than your later use of ‘excrement,’
though.
“But what politician has not exaggerated his or her current
attractions to get further down the pike, only to be someone else in office?
Re: "Best line of the night" attributed to Kasich,
who said ‘I'm not biting,’ was not as entertaining (and isn't this all about
entertainment, not dull news?) as Ben Carson's immortal plea, ‘Will someone
please attack me?’ as he begged for a chance to speak. None of the network moderators did a
good job, IMHO.
“We vote tomorrow here in Mississippi. Rather than opt out in disgust, I'm voting for Cruz, whose
mean streak does not overshadow his consistent conservatism.”
My response:
Yep,
fired up is a good term. It
happens from time to time.
Re:
expletives. I do attempt to avoid
using profanity, but sometimes I just can’t help myself. In my original draft, I had written the
word ‘bullshit,’ but changed it to excrement in edit. I felt it was hypocritical to criticize the Republican
front-runner for his vulgarity, and then stoop to using the same language as
him; so, I changed the word. I
think my original word choice was more effective in conveying my opinion, but
the hypocrisy stopped me.
Re:
politicians & elections.
Nature of the beast, I’m afraid.
Your observation is not a new phenomenon.
Re:
debate moderators. Some of have
done better than others, but I do agree.
Many of the moderators have been disappointing. Yet, frankly, I am the most
disappointed in the audiences in some of the recent Republican events. The Democrat audiences seem to be more
well-mannered, but they still have disappointing moments. I’m at the point now, I would prefer no
audiences, or at least no audience participation.
Re:
primary vote. Good that you have a
primary vote. Vote well.
Re:
Cruz. I have little doubt he is
dedicated to conservative principles.
There are two factors that trouble me greatly about TrusTED Cruz. 1.) His obstinate intransigence and
refusal to find solutions are not helpful; his political position is to impose
his will, his beliefs, his opinions by force of will. 2.) He seeks to impose his moral values, personal choices on
every citizen, to return us to Victorian morality and the dicta of the Comstock
laws. His penchant for projecting
the federal government into private matters is simply unacceptable to me.
A different
contribution:
“I write about your statement that the U.S. has never been a
Christian nation. Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, said
about the Union that it was formed by The Articles of Association in 1774. The Articles were signed by 51 founding
fathers if I counted right. Near
the start of The Articles the fathers described the colonies as ‘free
Protestant colonies.’ I think a
reasonable person would conclude that a union of Protestant, or Christian,
colonies is a Christian union. I
say that the birthday of the United States was March 1, 1781 because that is
the day that the Articles of Confederation went into effect. It seems to
me that in the 7 years between 1774 and 1781 the 13 countries which were
formerly 13 Protestant colonies were still Christian. Again, I think a
reasonable person would conclude that a nation composed of Christian countries,
or free and independent states, as The Declaration of Independence called them,
is a Christian nation.
“You are a reasonable guy, so this goes to show that reasonable
folks disagree.”
My response:
Interesting
discussion topic.
There
is no question or any doubt that religion played a vital part in the lives of
the Founders and indeed the genesis of the various state colonies. As would be expected, enclaves evolved
around religious affinity. In
fact, declared religious faith was required for residency and land ownership in
some of the colonial states.
The
Articles of Continental Association were not constructs of governance but
rather a banning together of the various colonies to deal with the import-export
conflict that began with the Stamp Act of 1765,
and came to a head with the Boston Tea Party and the consequent Coercive Acts of 1774. Yes, the Articles refer directly to “free Protestant
colonies.” The Association was the
first formal collaboration between the Colonies to deal with the mounting
tension with Parliament.
The
Articles of Confederation was the first attempt at joint governance and no
longer references a segment of Christian religious faith. Indeed, the only reference to religion
occurs in Article III – the common defense “against all force offered to” . . .
“on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.”
Most
telling to me is the evolution of association from 20.October.1774 to
21.June.1788, and specifically the consensus agreement on Article VI Clause 3 of the
Constitution that “no religious Test shall ever be required . . . .” Further, in combination with the 1st Amendment,
clearly, the Founders recognized and positioned religious faith as an
individual right and NOT a factor of union governance.
Let
us not confuse faith in God and personal commitment to religious doctrine with
the secular governance of this Grand Republic. Yes, absolutely, many Protestant faiths migrated to the
American Colonies to escape the violent persecution they endured in
Europe. My paternal ancestors were
among those fleeing religious persecution – French Huguenots (1686).
That
said, yes, we shall respectfully disagree. I stand by my statement. In deference, I will add the modifier that Protestant
religious faith played a vital role in the evolution of the United States of
America. I just cannot agree that
religious faith is or should be part of public governance, as the implication
implies favoritism or bias against other religious faiths.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
I meant to talk about this last week, but things happened. In any case, the election craziness continues. I think seeing Mr. Trump and his followers through a political lens will not work. He is currently focused on politics, but his methods employ the psychology of fundamentalist religion, specifically evangelism. I first learned about that from Marjoe Gortner, who had escaped that environment. He appeared on The Tonight Show back in Johnny Carson’s day. Mr. Gortner talked about how that psychology works, based on his experience being raised by that kind of preacher and becoming one himself. He explained exactly what he was about to do, then preached a sermon based not on Jesus but on a chair he had placed on the stage. Even with conscious awareness, he hypnotized me for a minute or two there. I was fascinated and reverent (about a chair!) until he broke the spell himself. That is what Mr. Trump does, only in all seriousness and without talking about how it works. The standard format for those sermons is to overwhelm the listener with the fear of Hell (or Mr Gortner’s chair, or anything), then offer him something amounting to salvation if he will follow instructions. It has worked for a hundred tent preachers, Donald Trump and the Tea Party, and Hitler. However, if used for long-term aims, as in politics, the problems are it doesn’t work on everyone, requires constant reinforcement, and the spell wears off except on a minority. Here we see all of that on display. (Obviously, facts or traditional campaigning have little to do with any of this.)
Other than that, I agree with your point on the notion of a “Christian nation” here, and will add that, whatever they originally stated, Maryland was settled by Catholics, and Georgia by convicts. Some at that time would not accept the Quakers as Christians either. That “Protestant colonies” statement was false even then. Beyond that, religion mattered little to many of the Founders. They lived in the Age of Reason, unlike us. Jefferson studied the Bible, but he revised it thoroughly to suit his own ideas. Benjamin Franklin attended various churches, but according to his autobiography that was for business reasons. He explained his Quaker garb the same way. I could go on, but you get the picture.
Calvin,
Re: bait & switch. The technique in many forms has been a common one for millennia, used in a wide variety of circumstances and environments. Good observations, I must say.
Re: “Protestant colonies.” Colonial charters and other founding or governing documents explicitly, or at least strongly favored, protestant religious sects, as they were intended to “protect” the religious practices of the settlers, and keep their communities “pure” and devoid of the religious-fueled tension and conflict they sought to escape in their homelands. There is little doubt in my mind that the term accurately described the majority, if not all, of the American colonies. That is not to say there were not enclaves of other Christian sect, notable Roman Catholics. French Huguenots settled in Western North Carolina, for example. My point was simply to illuminate the transformation and transition of the Founders and Framers from 1774 to 1788, i.e., religion was an individual right, not a matter of union governance.
Yes, I do get the picture.
Thank you for sharing your opinion and perspective.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment