Update no.744

Update from the Heartland

No.744

14.3.16 – 20.3.16

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

To all,

            Thank you all for your kind and generous words of condolence for our sudden loss last week.  Into every life a little sadness must come.  Emi Lou was a good and loving dog, who was fiercely loyal.  We miss her.

            Two full tanks of petrol consumed on the Harley since astronomical winter began in the Northern Hemisphere.  At publication, the earth just passed equinox; it is officially springtime, although it is rather chilly at the moment and the house furnace is maintaining the interior temperature.  Life is good.

            We had a semi-family gathering plus friends on Sunday, to celebrate birthdays.  In this instance, Shalee Lynn turned 15 years of age.  We were missing Courtney, and Tyson’s family.  Happy Birthday, Shalee Lynn (well, actually a few days after her proper birth day).

            Apparently, the Republican front-runner is oblivious to or ignorant of diplomacy, or the language of diplomacy.  His latest pronouncement: “I don't think you can say that we don’t get [the nomination] automatically. I think you’d have riots. I think you’d have riots. I'm representing many, many millions of people.” [Wednesday, 16.March.2016]  Now, with his typical and common obfuscation, he will claim he encouraged no such conduct – “C-c-c-can’t we all just get all?”  His mere mention of such behavior without condemnation in tantamount to suggestion – wink, wink – to his ‘base’ to do what must be done.

            Then, he withdraws from the next Republican debate with his claim, “We’ve had too many debates.”  I suspect he is actually afraid to debate TrustTED mano-e-mano.  And, farther beyond that, he publicly stated the rules agreed to at the outset of this party primary season no longer apply to him.  If he gets close and remains the front-runner, then close enough . . . give him the nomination.  The last time I checked, close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and nukes.  He is none of those.  The party has agreed to open primaries in some states, so anyone can vote . . . clearly with the potential to muddy the waters.  It is those citizens who voted for the various candidates who have spoken – regardless of whether they are Republican.  Nonetheless, the rules are the rules.  They apply to the front-runner just like they apply to everyone else.  If he misses by 1 vote, or 100 or 1,000 votes – he misses, period!  The caucuses and primary elections control the first ballot only.  Those are the rules!  He is NOT the king, and he is NOT YET the dictator of the Grand Republic.  He does not get to re-write the rules in the middle of the match.

            One more reason!

           The Republican front-runner’s mounting obsession with Fox News Journalist Megyn Kelly is verging on creepy.  He renewed his sniping and insulting comments again this week.  By quoting back to him his exact . . . exact . . . words, she exposed him for his misogyny and sexism.  He likes being exposed on his terms.  He resents being exposed in truth.

            President Barack Obama nominated Chief Judge Merrick Brian Garland of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to fill the seat on the Supreme Court of the United States of America vacated by the passing of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.  Some Republicans have begun the process of bringing sanity to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s proclamation.  It is quite interesting and indeed hypocritical to tout an interpretation of the Constitution on one hand and literally deny the explicit language of the Constitution in the next sentence.  Amazing!  Even worse, the Republican leaders of the Senate have the audacity to claim they offer the voice of reason.  That is worse than amazing; it is hugely disappointing and discouraging.  I have read several of Judge Garland’s judicial writings.  The samplings I have reviewed are reasonable and well grounded.  Give the man his hearing.  U.S. Senate: do you job in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.743:

“Your brief commentary is no less opinionated than usual, so you are surviving, and that is good.

“I cannot resist reacting to your typical sympathy for the Democratic party and your comparison of it's non-violent debates with the ugly Repandercrat shouting matches and accompanying violence.  Has it ever occurred to you or the press (no, never the press) that the fired up Trump supporters are too easily spurred into wrongful actions not just by their own blind admiration of his frankness and careless rhetoric but primarily by the uninvited Anti-Trump intruders at his rallies, and that it is remarkable that that we do not see the reverse, that is, Trump ruffnecks or even significant numbers of anti-Clinton or anti-Sanders interrupters causing any problem at Democratic debates?  Why not make that comparison, in all fairness?“Yes, Trump has shown his ass and brought out some of the worst in some of frustrated Americans, but I still believe there is method in his madness and your consistent defense of Hillary in comparison is misplaced and even sometimes unfair.

“Well, at least we seem to agree that Cruz may not be all bad.

“Actually, I'm afraid it matters not, because the takers will outnumber the givers on election day and we will get our first woman president, not the best we could have had but maybe not the worst.  Our country's salvation depends upon a strong and wise Congress, something we sadly lack.”

My response:

            The primary purpose of this humble forum is to discuss contemporary issues – a forum of public debate.  Thus, offering our opinions about those issues is an essential part of the process.  The word ‘opinionated’ carries the connotation of blind or false offering.  Regardless, I offer my opinions as a catalyst for public debate.  I make no claim of being correct.  Anyone is welcome to offer their opinions in the same vein.

            Re: “[my] typical sympathy for the Democratic Party.”  I’m afraid, my friend, that you may have taken too narrow of a view of my opinions.  If there was one word that I strive to achieve, it would be balance.  My entire voting life I have publicly proclaimed myself to be a moderate, independent, non-partisan.  I favor neither main political party, and actually favor none of the other available political parties – Libertarian, Reform, Green, Socialist, Communist, Tea, et cetera.  Just like religion, I can find good in all political parties, but not enough to find affinity or association.

            Thank you for your opinion.  Yet, let us not forget, there is NO other candidate using his bully pulpit to publicly encourage his followers to hit a protester in the face, kick their ass, throw the bums out.  He is advocating violence.  All of the candidates have had to deal with unwanted protesters.  The Republican front-runner is the ONLY candidate to use words of violence in dealing with protesters.  His words are red meat to those who find affinity with him.

            Yes, absolutely, “interrupters” are not respectful, and their actions often spark negative reactions.  Police and security personnel, NOT vigilante, violence-prone supporters, should deal with disruptive protesters.

            Re: “[my] consistent defense of Hillary.”  She happened to offer the best perspective of the Republican front-runners actions.  If Ted, or Marco, or Bernie, or John provided the best criticism, I would be citing them.  So, I give Hillary credit, when credit is due.  If the Republicans ever decide to man up, I’ll give them credit as well.

            Re: TrusTED.  He has positive attributes, but it is his intransigence and concomitant air of political and moral superiority that I find contemptible.  I find very little attraction to someone who seeks to dictate to everyone how they are to lead their lives and the constraints they are to abide in their limited pursuit of happiness.  I have fought too hard to get government out of our private affairs to vote for someone who wants to jump on the private choices of any other citizen, set aside the entire nation.

            Every candidate has pluses and minuses, including Hillary and Bernie, and Ted and even Donald.  I considered offering a succinct synopsis on each remaining candidate, but deemed such observations irrelevant.

            Re: “Our country's salvation.”  We are and have been missing both attributes in Congress . . . for quite some time, now.  With the political polarity moving farther to the extremes, it is unlikely we will return any semblance of normality in my remaining lifetime.

A different contribution:

“[H]ere in Ohio, Mr. Trump will not be getting my vote tomorrow.  But I like his hairstyle.”

My reply:

            Vote well tomorrow, my friend.  We shall be anxiously awaiting the results tomorrow night.  The fall line-up may well be decided tomorrow.  We shall see.

PS: The Republican front-runner did not win Ohio.

Another contribution:

“Cap, Cap .. you obviously don't watch the rallies .. Trump does not incite the participants .. I've been to his Mesa rally in November .. and watched almost every one on YouTube since .. these protesters are being incited by others (can guess who) that are encouraging these people to attend Trumps rallies and cause havoc .. Trump has the right to speak to his supporters .. if these others don't like him they should not attend! The protesters should be arrested for disturbing peaceful rallies!”

My response:

            Re: “you obviously don't watch the rallies.”  I do believe you have misjudged my acquisition capabilities.  ‘Nuf said.

            Re: “Trump does not incite the participants.”  You are entitled to interpret his words as you wish, as am I.  I am not so susceptible to his obfuscation and spin.  His words are his words – not yours, not mine, not anyone else’s.

            Re: “these protesters.”  First, protesters entering political rallies and spouting off their particular political drivel is disrespectful and inherently inciteful.  Every political candidate has had to deal with disagreeable, disruptive protesters.  The Republican front-runner is the ONLY candidate for the presidency in my lifetime or in my knowledge of history who has used such inciteful language.  The results are quite evident.  As I said, there is a reason his rallies (more than one) have turned violent – he, and only he, sets the tone for those events.

            Re: “others (can guess who) that are encouraging these people.”  I would like to see your evidence.  A protester carrying a sign is only reflective of that person’s political leaning or affinity.

            Re: “Trump has the right to speak to his supporters.”  Yes, absolutely.  The protesters – the interrupters – at his rallies are wrong in so many ways.  That said, my point is . . . his faux, tough guy, bully, macho bravado is NOT the way to handle the disrupters . . . not in a free society.  As a student of history, I see far too many and growing similarities to another charismatic leader who gained power 83 years ago through an election and became a dictator.  That is the essence of my concern.  I defend the right of the Republican front-runner to speak, to say whatever pops in his head.  Also, I do not agree with the vitriol of the Westboro Baptist Church folks, but at least they conducted their protests properly.

 . . . a follow-up comment:

"The other sides both left and right, are guilty in themselves of inciting violence against Trump .. to the left, Trump is Hitler, a bigot .. to the right, Trump is not conservative or presidential enough .. bottom-line Trump is his own breed and I like that he's not from the same old ineffective mold ... this is what his supporters love about him .. time to hire someone who is not a puppet for their donors .. just relax, give him the chance that was given to B. Hussein Obama.. he will do the job amazingly and most everyone will be happy ! He is not Hitler .. Hitler tried to brainwash the young generation..much like Bernie Sanders does.. people that see Trump as Hitler (or Jim Jones ..lol) are very narrow minded with blinders on .. or just very misinformed .. Trump just opened a North Phoenix office less than 15 mins from me and I will be going by to volunteer services today!!”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

            Each of us is free to choose what we wish to see and to believe.

            History speaks for itself.  The similarities are striking, whether any of us chooses to see them.

            I suspect and believe the Republican front-runner will be more moderate politically and more adaptable than TrusTED.  My principal concerns with the Republican front-runner are his character flaws and the potential for those character flaws to cause enormous disruption, if not outright destruction, in this Grand Republic and quite likely the world.  He has chosen to open Pandora’s Box; even he will not be able to close the box.

            So, I presume you see nothing wrong with his divisive and incendiary rhetoric?  It must be comforting, knowing you are in his favored block of citizens (people).  How would you feel if you had dark skin pigmentation, or were homosexual, or were Muslim?  Have you seen the political video of women regarding his spoken words?  Are they wrong?  Don’t those words cause you concern?

            Here’s a question, since you indirectly accuse me of being misinformed and narrow-minded, could it be that those who support the Republican front-runner are the ones who are being narrow-minded and ill-informed?

            I laud your ability to do volunteer work.  I did that once . . . for Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election . . . before I entered the military.  As a self-proclaimed moderate, independent, non-partisan, I will not be joining you in doing volunteer political work.  I cherish my independence.

            Lastly, please allow me to say, there is not one candidate in any party with whom I agree completely.  There are elements with every candidate that cause me considerable pause.  My vote this coming November will come down to the lesser of the available bad choices.

A different contribution:

“With regard to the continuing attack on the Republican front-runner I will defer my response this week to an article by Todd Starnes who espouses my sentiments with resounding clarity. 

“I think there will be those who are unwilling to acknowledge reality and will speak disparagingly against Todd Starnes, but I believe there is considerable merit in what he has to say.”

The reference article citation:

“The Silent Majority Is Mad as Hell”

by Todd Starnes, Fox Nation

Fox News

Published: March 14, 2016

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/03/14/starnes-silent-majority-mad-hell?intcmp=hpbt1

My response:

            Re: “continuing attack on the Republican front-runner.”  I did not realize my fundamental disagreement with his public rhetoric was an attack.  I have been simply voicing my opinion about what he says, how he acts, and what he induces in others.  Apparently, I have been under a misconception that I possessed the same right to speak and was equal to the Republican front-runner under the law and the Constitution.  Silly me!

            Re: “The person responsible for fomenting political unrest and creating this toxic environment is not Donald Trump -- it's President Obama.”  Wow!  I had no idea Barack Obama was responsible for the paucity of precipitation of the Great Plains this winter, or the unusual earthquakes here on the Great Plains.  Really?  President Obama is responsible for the violence at the rallies for the Republican front-runner?  This seems like the same or similar obfuscation used by the Republican front-runner.

            Re: “Obama is the one who told his followers, ‘If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.’”  I have wasted too much time this morning trying to find a credible attribution for this statement.  No joy!  Perhaps you can help me.

            I shall not speak disparagingly against Todd Starnes.  He is entitled to say what he thinks, as are you and me.  I shall just respectfully disagree.  Freedoms of speech and assembly are too precious.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“Everyone’s attack.  Fortunately no one is showing up and trying to prevent you from speaking/writing.

“Todd Starnes went on to explain, but you omitted that here.

“I don’t know.  I had not heard that before.

“No problem whatsoever.  Through disagreement we achieve the best.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

           LIFO, I stand corrected.  Thank you.  I’m not sure how my search was so flawed; nonetheless, I failed.  The commonly used phrase, most popularly used by Sean Connery’s character in “The Untouchables,” struck me as uncharacteristic of Barack Obama.  Regardless, the phrase reflects a fundamental principle of warfare, first espoused by Sun Tsu (512 BC) – bring overwhelming force to battle.

            Re: attack.  Definition = to set upon someone forcibly, with hostile or violent intent.  It seems like a very strong word to describe political disagreement.

            Re: “Todd Starnes went on to explain, but you omitted that here.”  Well, then, let me cast aside my editorial selectivity.  Starnes’ closing words:

“The folks who pay the bills in this country are fed up. We're tired of being called racists and homophobic and xenophobic.

“The Silent Majority is mad as hell -- and we're not going to take it anymore.”

I chose to omit those words as they seemed to be rationalization for bad conduct rather than explanation of the phenomenon to which we bear witness.  The inverse of his “called out” string is, the so-called “Silent Majority” seeks to impose their will upon all Americans . . . as if to validate their views, their values, their beliefs and their moral choices.  That is not what freedom means.

 . . . round three:

“I would like to caveat my opinions/observations and philosophical inclinations by stating that while there often is merit in what the majority believes or wants, but I also fully realize that the majority does not always know what is best for them.  There are a lot of stupid people out there; read that as stupid voters, as evinced by the people interviewed in Water’s World.  It’s downright scary.  And you must know, I am familiar with Sun Tzu.  A few years back we started listening to his book from The Great Courses, the same source from which I learned much more about Sir Winston than I ever knew—what a life.  His book, The Art of War—in written form—remains on my to read list.” 

 . . . my response to round three:

            Scary indeed!  Perhaps more of an understatement than we recognize.  Yesterday’s results were not encouraging.  He may not get to the magical 1,237 threshold, but he is getting closer than anyone (other than himself, of course) thought he would.  The Republican Convention could become a very interesting event.  Far worse, I am quite concerned about what happens afterward – win or lose.  He has opened Pandora’s Box, and even he will not be able to close it again.

Yet another contribution:

“Spot on  regarding Trump - there is a reason people called him the ‘Manhattan Mussolini’  years before.  And he does remind one of il Duce- just check out old videos from the 30s of Benito Mussolini – some of the expressions are the same..

Actually, if Trump had his supporters wear black shirts- that would make it easier to identify them and keep out the ‘troublemakers’.”

My reply:

           I had not heard that term before.  I certainly understand the reference.  The image that strikes me the most in this vein is the one of Mussolini on the balcony, over an adoring crowd, with his arms folded across his chest, and him looking down his nose, frowning and swaying back and forth in righteous superiority.

            I would not put it past his supporters . . . black shirts, or brown shirts at the very least.  The similarities continue to mount.

Comment to the Blog:

“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, and 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.”

My response to the Blog:

            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 sects, notably 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.

One last contribution:

“As humans it’s quite incredible how close we can become to animals of all sorts which I must add is more that I can say about humans and certain politicians!  We do seem to be taking an overt interest in the shenanigans of your election process probably down to the unpleasant attitude of one of your candidates, a one Donald Trump. Surely the modern American will not put such a self-centred egocentric in any position of power. My God the very thought brings a chill to the bones.

“However I must admit living on this side of the pond, is it really any business of mine to cast aspersions on one of your would be leaders? Well the answer to that is yes with a capital Y. He is utterly unsuitable for the White House and would probably make a mess of running a Bingo Hall. Well Cap, having said that you are now at liberty to rip me up. Go ahead my friend and forgive my impertinence.

“I was interested in the synonym of shenanigans! = Monkeyshines!! Nice one.”

My response:

            Re: “shenanigans of [our] election process.”  They are certainly plentiful in this particular silly season.  Shenanigans are not new in American politics, but in this age of instant media and 24/7 news channels, they are certainly more visible and blatant.

            I refuse to use his name anymore, thus he has been dubbed by me as the “Republican front-runner” alone [at least as long as he remains ahead of other Republican candidates].  I still hold onto a fundamental faith in We, the People – the American citizenry.  Yet, he recognized and chose to open Pandora’s Box, to let slip the dogs of xenophobia, racism, bigotry and the bad-nasties of American society that have always existed in our culture.  We have always had neo-Nazies, skinheads, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, and other fringe groups bent upon division.  That element is rarely given a voice.  Now, the Republican front-runner and his showmanship have enabled full-throated public exposure to that element, and certainly to a segment of American citizens who are devoutly dissatisfied with natural changes underway in our society.  Unfortunately, now that Pandora’s Box has been opened, this bitter side of American culture will NOT go quietly into the night, even if the Republican front-runner is defeated.  And, as I wrote previously, if he is elected, I will humbly apologize to our allies and friends for his conduct.  I am convinced he cannot help himself, given his personality traits.

            Oh my, I do not agree; this is your business.  The United States has enormous impact on the world.  POTUS sets the tone and direction of this Grand Republic.  The American election should be everyone’s business.  And that part said, I agree absolutely; the Republican front-runner is not suited to be POTUS, simply due to his multitudinous personality flaws and extraordinarily poor judgment.  You will find no criticism from me on this score, mate.

 . . . a follow-up  comment:

Subject:  RE: -----SPAM----- Update no.743

From:  "Peter Gipson"

Date:  Fri, March 18, 2016 12:18 pm

To:  cap@parlier.com

Cap, sorry to be so tardy in my reply-don’t seem to have time to draw breath at the moment! However Easter is nigh although the weather is far from Easter like this side of the pond.

Pets, nothing untoward but you have served abroad and animals do complicate matters for the family move. So our one and only pet dog went to a charity where we were assured she would be found a home-but we never knew. Maybe when we’re older!

I don’t really understand your electoral system Cap. Once you have decided on the front runners from both sides what happens next? As you will be aware we elect a party whose leader becomes our Prime Minister….simple business,  one  episode, job done.  No unpleasant vitriol, no ghastly face pulling, very little theatricals. It’s got to be better, I certainly don’t care for what we see in your news reports my friend. However it’s your world not mine. Nuff said.

 . . . my follow-up response:

            Re: pets.  Ahso!  I am relieved that it was simpler and not as sinister as it seemed – just logistics.

        Re: U.S. electoral system.  I am not capable of and shall not attempt to defend the election process in this Grand Republic.  To me, it is what it is, and has been this way throughout my aware lifetime.  A few definition might be helpful.  Silly season = descriptive name for the extend political campaign process, varies in length, occurs in minor version every two years, and in extended, major version every four years of the presidential election cycle.  Primaries = caucuses and elections in each state, as the political parties select delegates to the political convention in late summer.  Convention = the political parties decide upon their nominated candidate.  The actual election process begins circa Labor Day (1st Monday in September) and lasts until the election results are announced.

            Re: “Once you have decided on the front runners from both sides what happens next?”  We still have another three months of primaries in the remaining states, as residents elect their delegates to the respective party conventions.  The Republican Convention will be held in Cleveland, Ohio, on 18/21.July.2016.  The Democratic Convention will be held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on 25/28.July.2016.  Once the conventions are done, we will know who the candidates will be for the election on Tuesday, 8.November.2016.

            Re: “[W]e elect a party whose leader becomes our Prime Minister.”  I am not sure how many Americans are knowledgeable of the American electoral process.  I am certain there are even less who are aware of the British system.  As a self-professed Anglophile, I am aware and knowledgeable – certainly more orderly and less cantankerous.  Yet, we have what we have; it is what it is.  And, so it goes.

   “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

Cheers,

Cap

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)