Update no.746

Update from the Heartland

No.746

28.3.16 – 3.4.16

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

To all,

            Among this week’s political fare, the CNN Republican Presidential Town Hall occurred on Tuesday evening, at Riverside Theater in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, hosted by Anderson Cooper.  If you will allow me, I offer just a few comments:

TrusTED:

            Audience Q: “As president, how will you ensure that America is not blindly attacked, while also maintaining the privacy of the American people?”

            TrusTED response: “The Obama administration is not very good at distinguishing between bad guys and good guys.  So over and over again, the Obama administration's solution, for example, when it comes to surveillance, was to monitor the phone calls or the e-mails of millions of law-abiding citizens, but because of their political correctness, because they won't focus on and identify radical Islamic terrorists, they don't actually target the bad guys.  It's why it's so important . . . people in the media, sometimes they ask, why does it matter whether Obama will say the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism?’  It matters because if you don't identify the problem, you don't devote - you don't direct law enforcement and national security resources to stopping it.”

            TrusTED’s argument is specious and fallacious, at least in part.  We can argue whether Obama’s war efforts are productive or correct; however, to claim the administration does not know who the bad guys are is just plain wrong.  He also implied that massive electronic surveillance was the brainchild of Barrack Obama.  It was not!  That label clearly belongs to George W. Bush (43).  If anything, Obama could be criticized for not advocating for broader electronic surveillance.  At the bottom line, TrusTED did not answer the question and attempted to deflect the question on a popular but false premise.

GOP front-runner:

            There is just too much to deal with regarding the front-runner.  Instead, I offer a few timely observations.

-- His double-speak on so many topics remains hugely disappointing to me.  He thinks and claims the Press is treating him unfairly.  If he is being treated unfairly, it is the inverse that is true; the Press has been too bloody gentle (if not fearful) on the schoolyard bully.

-- What the heck is a campaign manager doing crowd control rather than leaving that task to the security personnel?  Charges have been filed in Florida against Lewandowski for one incident, and should be in others.  Of course, the candidate defends the conduct of his campaign manager, which yields another reason he is not fit.

-- Anderson Cooper noted and challenged him on the disgusting exchanges on the wives.  Anderson was precisely correct . . . he was using the argument of a five-year-old . . . I didn’t start it, daddy. 

-- The GOP front-runner claims he is against nuclear proliferation, and yet suggests Japan and the Republic of Korea should have nuclear weapons to counter the DPRK and relieve the U.S. of that role.  This guy is dangerous.

Kasich:

            The Governor of Ohio remains the seemingly most mature and balanced of the remaining Republican candidates.

            How much more torture can we tolerate?  An interesting but disturbing question, it seems to me.

            The GOP front-runner publicly stated that if abortion was made illegal, again, women who receive abortions should be punished, and then immediately began backtracking on his statement.  In a 48-hour period, the GOP front-runner espoused virtually every position possible.  I actually did not believe the news reports until I listened to the actual words in the actual interview.  I am not a woman, but this disturbs me, greatly.  Oddly, I think I understand his mistake, i.e., break the law = be punished.  However, he is not man enough to admit his mistake.  His pride, egocentricity and narcissism dictated his reaction.  This episode illuminates so many flaws in him and in this rancorous debate over abortion.

            The Legislature of the State of Mississippi has passed House Bill 1523, AKA the Religious Liberty Accommodations Act” law proclaims that marriage is between man and woman, sexual relations are reserved for marriage, and gender is determined at birth.  The law would enable businesses to discriminate against non-heterosexual residents but also those who have had extramarital sex (regardless of consent).

            This madness has got to stop!  The government (federal, state or local) has NO business injecting itself into private affairs – nada, niente, nothing.  And, no commercial enterprise should have any right and thus no protection to discriminate against another citizen for ANY of the social factors; their choices are serve all citizens or close.  The government has no business being in anyone’s bedroom or body; and that means no business owner or manager should have that right.  This continuing nonsense is one of many reasons elections are so bloody important.  Get government out of our private lives!

            As seems to be the practice, especially during the silly season, we are bombarded by anonymous, send-this-on messages for any of a host of topics.  This particular messaged concluded, “Let’s put it around the world, and let the world see and remember what this great country was Built on The Holy Bible and belief in GOD!”  And then, s/he asked, “How then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this Country is now suddenly wrong and Unconstitutional?”  I shall come back to the author’s question, asked perhaps rhetorically, but I shall treat it as sincere.  The author cited some facts to support her/is premise.

1.  “DID YOU KNOW?  As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view...It is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!”  Yes, actually, I did know this particular factoid.  It should be noted that the Supreme Court building as it stands today was completed in 1935, when Jim Crow laws continued to deny citizens with dark skin pigmentation the right to vote and other basic rights simply because of their skin color or anatomical features.

2.  “DID YOU KNOW?  As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.”  Nope.  Didn’t know this one, but see no.1 above.

3.  “DID YOU KNOW?  As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court Judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!”  I didn’t know this either.  I am not sure when that display was installed, so no comment on this one.

4.  “DID YOU KNOW?  There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.”  Truth be told, the same is true in many, if not most or even all, of the states in the Union.

5.  “DID YOU KNOW?  James Madison, the fourth president, known as 'The Father of Our Constitution' made the following statement: ‘We have staked the whole of all our political Institutions upon the capacity of mankind for Self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to The Ten Commandments of God.’”  Of the whole original message, this is particular one is the greatest stretch and most misleading.  In 1811, President Madison vetoed the bill passed by Congress establishing the Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia.  In his message, he stated he vetoed the bill, “Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited, by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates, in particular, the article of the Constitution of the United States, which declares, that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.’”  President Madison along with President Jefferson clearly recognized the separation of church and state, contrary to the implications of the author’s original selective quotation.

6.  “DID YOU KNOW?  Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.”  I knew this one, too.  The Supreme Court has sought a proper balance, last articulated in Town of Greece v. Galloway [572 U.S. ___ (2014); 5.5.2014] [647, 656].  They advocated for non-denominational, non-sectarian prayer to represent all citizens.

7.  “DID YOU KNOW?  Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established Orthodox churches in the colonies.”  Wow, this statement depends heavily upon one’s definition of “orthodox.”  There is no question that the majority of Founders, like the population of the American Colonies they represented, were Protestant Christians, who fled Europe to escape persecution for their religious beliefs.

8.  “DID YOU KNOW?  Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of Interpreting the law would begin making law an oligarchy the rule of few over many.”  Indeed, he did.  He also most clearly articulated the necessity of “a wall of separation between Church & State.”

            That said, I return to the original question: “How then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this Country is now suddenly wrong and Unconstitutional?”  My first blush response: Evolution.  At the ratification of the Constitution, 228 years ago, slavery and the oppressive subjugation of an entire race of citizens was protected by the Constitution.  Women and children were considered the property of their husbands / fathers.  The power of the State did NOT include electronic, or multi-spectral, perpetual surveillance of citizens.  The question alone suggests a profound paucity of comprehension of the Constitution and the associated writings of the Framers and Founders.  Logically, based on the circumstances surrounding the birth of this Grand Republic, the separation of church and state has been and remains an essential cornerstone for the basis of our Republic.  I have faith that one day, probably not in my lifetime; we shall one day mature to be the citizens the Founders believed we could be.  With questions like the subject of this tirade, we are simply not there yet, not even close.

            News from the economic front:

-- The Labor Department reported nonfarm payrolls rose by a seasonally adjusted 215,000 in March, while the unemployment rate ticked up to 5.0% in March from 4.9%  – a sign of the domestic labor market's resilience despite economic turmoil overseas.  They also reported that average hourly wages of private-sector workers rose by US$0.07 last month to US$25.43.  Wages rose 0.3% from the prior month and have climbed 2.3% from a year earlier.

           Comments and contributions from Update no.745:

“Another good one!

“On a light note about the serious subject of our national epidemic of Political Correctness, the ‘Tale of the Pinched Butt Punishment’ episode reminded me of the GMC sedans (at least the Buicks, and I think the Chevys) of the 90's (or was it the late 80's?) which simply for the sake of style change, for the sake of style change that would last only a few years, narrowed the rear ends uselessly, resulting in what I called the ‘pinched butt’ look along with reduced trunk space, etc., . Like all unnecessary (except for crass marketing purposes to amaze or deceive) style changes for the sake of style changes (cars, clothes, food containers, etc.), these to have passed.  Maybe the overreactions to the reactions to the reactions to the actions to perceived political incorrectness will, like obsessions with current styles and anticipated changes, will also pass.  America will be more peaceful and productive when we all learn to take a joke, even the poorly expressed or mean ones.

“On the U.S. vs Apple subject, I was for weeks on the fence but mostly in support of Apple even while not liking some of its public responses to the embarrassing pleas of our government.  I changed to open support of Apple when the Bullying by the U.S. government reached more onerous proportions.  Now we see that Apple's well-stated objections were well founded and that even our civil servants have what it takes to hack their way into any secure system devised by man.

“On the continued Trump bashing you understandably encourage, I must remind us all that your terms like ‘narcissist,’ ‘creepy,’ ‘character flaws,’ ‘inflammatory,’ ‘self-aggrandizing,’ etc., etc. are perfectly applicable to many of our previous presidents.  We just did not have the 24/7 microscopic views of them as candidates and only discovered these attributes or proved the allegations of them after their elections.  The examples are numerous; I'll let your readers who know history think of their own.”

My reply:

            Re: political correctness.  My first blush reaction: how dare you accuse me of political correctness.  My more reasoned response: my opinion was not based upon or even considered political correctness.  My opinion was specifically about equality.  We cannot and should not have unequal treatment of anyone based on any of the social factors, including gender.  As a related side note: I am an advocate for the basic respect of other citizens.  If anyone wishes to label that courtesy as political correctness, then so be it.  I do not do so.  I see political correctness as a lame societal endeavor to constrain free speech, free debate and limit dissent.  Free speech is too bloody important to be constrained.

            Re: U.S. v. Apple.  The USG announced today they have formally withdrawn their suit against Apple, since they found a ‘third party’ to break open the subject iPhone.  Now, don’t we all feel safer?  I am not impressed with the USG’s conduct in this matter.

            Re: continued bashing.  I do not recall ever hearing this kind of offensive rhetoric or even a representation of the insult politics being demonstrated during this particular silly season.  My presidential political awareness goes back to the 1964 election with some limited awareness of the 1960 election.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“Didn't mean to accuse you of political correctness and didn't think I did, but I'm sorry if it read that way.  I just meant to suggest that much of the sillyness (one of your best descriptive terms yet!) of the current presidential campaign seems to me to be over reaction to commentary that, while undeniably low-class, would not have warranted such vehement response in years past.  Of course, as you have pointed out, in years past there was not so much silly stuff.  Of course, in years past the American public had not quite reached the point of near rebellion against the political establishment, the mentality into which Trump has opportunistically tapped, as is his trademark skill.  Too bad Cruz can't just ignore the jabs below the belt.”

“BTW, has anyone matched my partial list of your adjectives with prior presidents yet?”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

            My apologies.  I was not clear.  My first blush reaction was incorrect, although I did not explicitly state so.

            Re: “silly stuff.”  Indeed!  Quite so.  There is no question the Republican front-runner has seized the opportunity to tap and let slip the dogs of discontent and anger.  Yet, he has ignored the perennial caution: be careful what you sow.

            Re: “partial list.”  No, to my knowledge, no one has yet connected the dots.

Comment to the Blog:

“I care about Kansas politics, partly out of human concern for Kansans and partly because Governor Brownback exemplifies voodoo economics and scary Republicanism in general. The assorted disasters in your State are an object lesson for the rest of us, but I would not wish them on you or anyone. In the case of a religious excuse for discrimination, the best hope in other places is that such laws will not complete the legislative process or will be vetoed. I imagine Kansas’ law will have to go through the courts. Such nonsense cannot withstand that test. With any luck, an injunction early on will prevent people from attempting to carry out their supposed freedom to discriminate.

“About the 12-year-old girl who is caught up in the legal system for pinching a boy’s butt: I see this as a grossly overstated response to a common incident. No essentially innocent 12-year-old should spend even a few minutes in any of the U.S.’s juvenile jails. If the genders were reversed, I would feel exactly the same way I do now. Those places are too dangerous and ugly. My concern in that situation would be whether the ‘victim’ would harm the ‘perpetrator’ too much. Certainly that’s a possibility if a boy pinched my daughters, granddaughter, nieces, or any girl in my family. Some of those females have found it necessary to hit back, but nobody went to jail over it. I’m not sure what the boys would do.”

“Davis Merritt’s analysis of Donald Trump’s psychology strikes me as spot on. In other words, without the open, bombastic way his ego presents, he would be a typical politician. However, in a year that pundits and game-playing partisans cannot fathom, his appeal is simple. He comes across as ‘real’ in an environment where both parties’ manipulative, self-serving actions show through the veneer of their messaging. That is, he may be asinine but at least we know what he is (we think), and too many share his backward positions. The same feeling of authenticity applies to Senator Sanders, but the Democrat machine has withstood its own and independent voters’ desire for change better than the GOP has coped with Trump. That may be changing, though. http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/hillary-clinton-running-away-political-reality?akid=14113.235367.GixZ-i&rd=1&src=newsletter1053402&t=2.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: Kansas politics.  Thank you for your human concern.  It is nice to know there are others who are concerned about our plight out here on the Great Plains.

            Re: Brownback = scary Republicanism.  Indeed!  My thoughts precisely.  I am not a fan.  I would like to think you are correct.  However, the majority of voting residents elected the . . . the . . . man; no, I won’t even give him that . . . the person.  He sweated the last election; just barely got re-elected.  Hopefully, the next time we will knock him off his holier-than-thou, sanctimonious pedestal.  I guess you can tell I am not a fan.

            Re: 12yo girl.  As I read your words, I think we are saying the same thing from different perspectives.  As I said in last week’s Update, I agree with equal treatment regardless of gender.  I also agree that girl’s punishment was excessive for that age, regardless of gender.

            Re: “both parties’ manipulative, self-serving actions.”  Perhaps you are correct.  I cannot argue against your perspective.  As I interpret your words, you are suggesting there is no difference between, the Republican front-runner, or the second place fellow, and Senator Sanders.  Perhaps you are correct.  The personality differences are monumental and a differentiator.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“I do see serious differences between the GOP front runner, Senator Sanders, and Senator Cruz. What I was pointing out is the perception about the GOP front runner and Sanders both presenting as very direct and not like ordinary politicians. Their substance is very different. Sanders stays on issue questions most of the time. The GOP has degenerated into a schoolyard bragging match around personalities and macho status. Senator Cruz is his own kind of wingnut, but his demeanor is closer to a traditional politician's.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

           Quite so!  Portraying themselves as outsiders is a common theme, but they are indeed seriously different.  An outsider at any cost, or overlooking any character flaw, is just a bridge too far for me to negotiate.

Another contribution:

“Has Merritt conveniently forgotten the dishonesty involved with the current administration and high ranking sycophants, i.e., no one or few taking responsibility for Benghazi and the smokescreen of a video that was a lie that was quickly pedaled by our nefarious administration afterward, the targeting of conservative organizations by the IRS and the lack of responsibility in taking appropriate action toward the perpetrators, and allowing high ranking state department members and their leaders to circumvent classified information handling protocol.  Need I mention the travesty with the VA?  Not being a Wichita Eagle reader, perhaps I owe Davis Merritt an apology for he may have reported appropriately in the past of the liars and deceivers of our administration regarding the aforementioned.  Then again, he may not have, but I’m sure he must have apologized.”

My reply:

            Re: Benghazi attack.  I have studied too much history.  Dishonesty is a very strong word.  I do not see the purpose.  I see the fog of war.  I remember distinctly thinking the Benghazi attack was an emotional reaction to that damn video.  As the attack developed and we learned more, it was pretty clear it was a purposeful attack.  They made the wrong call.  Is that dishonesty or an incorrect knee-jerk reaction?  I ask, if it was truly dishonesty, for what purpose?  How could anyone believe they could bury the facts?  Most of us, who are students of war, recognize the extraordinary confusion that accompanies any sudden enemy action.  I believe I understand why some folks are so critical of the President, the former Secretary of State and the administration for their erroneous initial assessment.  I am not willing to condemn them for their error.

            Re: IRS abuse.  Surely you are not suggesting the Obama administration was the first or only administration to use the IRS feloniously for political purposes.  Like most folks, I condemn what the IRS did.  It was wrong in so many ways.  The people who decided, directed and executed those actions should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  I am disturbed that those characters have not and may never be prosecuted.

            Re: classified information handling.  As we have learned, many other political leaders across contemporary administrations and political parties have made that terrible mistake.  Of all the things that bother me about Hillary Clinton, it is the apparent arrogance of power – normal rules do not apply to them – that bothers me the most.  For her to claim that none of her communications were marked classified when they were transmitted defies logic, reason and common sense.  The Secretary of State, or any other cabinet secretary, creates classified information by their words alone; those words are often highly classified and rarely if ever so marked until well after they are spoken or written.  To suggest otherwise, it is simply ridiculous.  All their communications must be protected with the utmost security, and of all jobs, their personal and work communications should be strictly exclusive.

            Re: “Need I mention the travesty with the VA?”  Again, surely, you are not suggesting or intimating that VA travesties are unique or original to the Obama administration.  The VA, as we know it today, came into existence in 1944.  But, veteran treatment issues go back all the way to the Founding of this Grand Republic, e.g., Newburgh Conspiracy [1783], and the ‘Bonus Army’ confrontation [1932].  So, let us not condemn the current administration for what has been a perennial problem, predominately due to inadequate funding from Congress, not the performance of the Obama administration.

            Re: “liars and deceivers of our administration.”  Wow, these are very strong words that imply this administration is somehow unique.  I do believe I can offer similar examples for every administration in my lifetime – Republican and Democrat.  I wrote a book about a previous administration’s obfuscation regarding an important public event.

            I challenge your opinion, not to refute or discourage your expression, but only to seek a reasonable, apolitical balance in our assessment of the actions of public women and men.  The Obama administration is not as bad as some like to portray it, and it certainly could have done better.

One more contribution:

“Regarding Herr Trumpf- his comments about ‘being open to the idea of Japan and the ROK getting nuclear weapons’ should be the final straw in declaring him unfit for the Presidency. Already those comments are causing major problems for us overseas and are against what has been against U.S. policy since the advent of the nuclear age.  And they are going to be eagerly seized by Little Kim and the Norks.  The man has no idea of what he is talking about- and he is getting dangerous.  And Japan pays a lot for our forces- in fact, if we had to rebase the 1st Marine Wing and 3rd Marine Division back in the States, it would cost us billions.”

My response:

            Actually, Herr Drumpf, I do believe.

            I had exactly the same reaction to his statement about nukes – that is insane!  We don’t need more nukes floating around; we need less.  The most recent episode of “Madame Secretary” was good and reflective of just some of the issues.

            Too many people see forward basing in Germany, England and Japan as wasted deployment.  I cannot imagine how much more complicated and expensive Middle East operations would be without just Mildenhall in England.

. . . follow-up comment:

“I used to go out of Frankfurt AB to go on our missions to Russia.  We lost an enormous logistical asset when we handed it over to the Germans and Lufthansa.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

            Quite so!  List could go on.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)