Update from the Heartland
No.748
12.4.16 – 17.4.16
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- While we were travelling to Austin last week, SpaceX
carried off another successful space station resupply launch from Cape
Canaveral, Florida. After numerous
‘almost’ landing attempts, the SpaceX team finally stuck the first stage
booster landing on a free-floating barge in the open Atlantic Ocean – an
historic accomplishment – not exactly dead center but in the 10-ring. They also landed successfully on terra
firma [732], but that landing was
not rocking with the ocean swells.
The physics of this event are just incredible and add to the beauty in
what the engineering and recovery teams accomplished. The best video clip I’ve seen of the this latest booster
landing is at:
-- It just dawn on me, as the GOP front-runner continues his
whining about the primary process [747],
that we bear witness to a practical, real-world demonstration of the wisdom of
the Founders & Framers of this Grand Republic. From the beginning, federal elections were NEVER direct
popular elections, for very real reasons – they feared among other things a
demagogue who roused the basest elements of our citizenry. The GOP front-runner certainly appears
demagogic and is bullying the Republican National Committee, as well as state
delegates already elected, to change the rules. He is trying to bludgeon the RNC, and failing that to
intimidate the delegates, to anoint him the Republican nominee by simple
highest vote count rather than the 1,237-delegate threshold per the previously
established rules to achieve the nomination. Using his logic, Hillary Clinton should be president. The Trump campaign has been
out-organized by the Cruz campaign from the get-go; and now, when his outright
achievement of the 1,237-threshold is increasingly doubtful, he is taking the
course of changing the rules. This
is EXACTLY why we have the Electoral College. My cynical, morbid side wants to have the results of the 14.June,
District of Columbia primary to give the GOP front-runner 1,236 – one delegate
short – and then watch the July Republican Convention go through several dozen
votes until they nominate anyone other than Trump or Cruz . . . if for no other
reason than to call their bluff.
The Donald has sown the wind with the seeds of mob rule and riotous
intimidation; he shall reap the whirlwind. I trust history shall record the consequences of his
behavior, conduct and misdeeds, and correctly label them for what they are --
demagoguery.
Now,
we hear the Sanders campaign joining the chorus of those condemning the political
party primary process complainers.
I understand their arguments, however, I will not be joining the chorus. This is an internal party process, not
the election of the next president.
News from the economic
front:
-- The economic output of the People’s Republic of China
(PRC) continued to slow to 6.7% in 1Q2016, the slowest quarterly rate since
early 2009. Industrial output,
fixed-asset investment and retail sales all rose more than expected in March,
suggesting that Beijing's stimulus policies over the past 15 months may be gaining
traction.
Comments and contributions from Update no.747:
“Too bad we Americans generally cannot put aside the debate over
whether or not this was from the beginning ‘a Christian Nation.’ It would
be much better to simply observe the actual history, as you have pointed out
repeatedly, that this was from the beginning a Christian People, while our
Nation as defined by the governmental structures that replaced the colonial
rule was from the beginning carefully constructed by our forefathers so as to
be secular, not Christian, but specifically allowing Christianity and all other
religions to flourish without direct influence on or by government.
“I have always thought this distinction between People and Nation,
while subtle, could help bring civility to such discourse, but, of course, most
folks would rather argue vociferously than nod silently in polite acceptance of
heart felt views that ignore history. Education of our youth is the
ultimate answer, and it is not happening.”
My reply:
Re:
Christian nation. Quite so. Agreed! As a supplemental to your observations, I will say so much
of this continuing struggle rests upon the very essence of the parochial
practice of religious communities, especially the revealed religions. So much of their dicta are driven by
retention of believers, evangelical expansion of believers, and protection of
the power base. Far too many
people need to impose their beliefs on others (whether they agree or not) as a
backhanded affirmation of the correctness, righteousness or exclusivity of
their beliefs. It is the reason they
feel compelled to impose their (private) moral values on everyone within their
reach, which is why they seek to use the law to achieve their purpose.
Re:
education. Again, quite so. The process is also one of many reasons
why cultural change takes so long.
Another contribution:
“Ironic you state we can't trust the flawed men in government yet
you seem to support Obama ... and you oppose Trump who is totally against the
flaws in government? Don't you see
the entire political scams we face daily?
The insiders both Democrat and Republican who could care less about the
American people and only about their own position, wealth and power? And ‘climate change’ is just another
power hungry, money grabbing group of debaucherous fools who leech off the
stupidity of the American fools. And who says the rules of the election game are
appropriate, whether they have been used for however many years or not? Are they truly fair is the question? When do the people and what they want
ever really matter to the insiders?
The insiders in their castles who will fight a bitter fight to keep an
outsider from infiltrating the walls of their castles and try to take away their
luxuries and expose them for the debauchery they run rampant with. Why not give an ‘outsider’ a chance ..
we gave Obama a chance for too many years ...”
My response:
Re:
“seem
to support Obama.” Things
are not always as they seem. The
worst president in my lifetime, in my humble opinion, was Jimmy Carter, for a
host of reasons; and yet, I find plenty to praise in Carter as a person and
even in his performance as president.
I seek balance in our praise and condemnation of citizens who have stood
up to the mark. In that sense,
Obama is no different from Bush (43) or any other prior president. I criticize any president when I
disagree with his actions, but I also praise him when he deserves it. Obama has done a pretty good job on the
whole.
Re:
GOP front-runner. I give him
credit for drawing attention to important issues. I cringe at his inability to clearly articulate
solutions. Yet, in his case, the
personality flaws are monumental.
Churchill had an ego and actually narcissism easily as big as the GOP
front-runner, but he learned early in life how to contain, focus and direct his
energies to finding solutions. The
audacity of any human being thinking he is flawless, perfect, makes no mistakes,
and is the best at anything, set aside everything is simply beyond my tolerance
threshold. Humility is an important
attribute for anyone who may send other citizens into harm’s way. The presidency is NOT a casino.
Re:
political scams. Actually, I think
Bernie Sanders has done the best of all the candidates at articulating the
corruption inherent in our political system. When the GOP front-runner pouts and whines about the primary
/ convention rules that have been in place since he declared his candidacy just
makes him appear juvenile rather than presidential. The rules are the rules. He cannot bully his way past the rules.
Re:
insiders. I am the last person to
support the flawed men inside the Beltway. I have long advocated for term limits, and “throw all the
bastards out” and start anew.
Despite my affinity for a leader from outside the Beltway, I am
unwilling to accept any old swingin’-richard with a heartbeat . . . no matter
how much money he has or how important he thinks he is. His personality traits are simply
insurmountable for me.
In
contrast, it is the political positions and his intransigence that give me the
most concern with TrusTED. Our
system of governance is based on compromise, negotiation and moderation . . .
not on extremes in either direction.
Everyone left in the race would be better than TrusTED.
Re:
power. Unfortunately, the
selflessness exhibited by Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus (460 BC) has become a
very rare, perhaps actually non-existent, quality in contemporary
politicians. The GOP front-runner
is NO different from the others; he seeks more power and will do anything to
attain that power and preserve the power he has. So, let’s not be so quick to condemn the others for their power-seeking
or power-maintenance.
. . . Round two:
“Sorry I just don't agree .. and I don't agree with Socialist
agendas of taking from the well to do and giving to those who don't want to
work and want to just live off handouts. I just sent almost 5K to the feds and
state government .. from what I see, Obama is planning to spend our funds on
immigrants he is allowing into our country when along with other countries
financial assistance, creating a safe zone would have been a less costly
solution. I see his agendas as downright evil and see how much he
dislikes America's people. I think before the year is up you will see Obama
making more erratic moves that will hurt our country even further .. he's
planning on using our social security funds to help these Syrians he's bringing
in !! How do you feel about THAT?
“I have no worries that Trump would make the right moves no matter
how he articulates in a PC manner or not .. Bush could not articulate so well
either and Bush made some very bad moves ... but Trump would make the right
decisions with the help of his selected committees .. and he would not be
controlled by the special interests previous Presidents have been ..
“I believe the people should have all say on who's elected ..
those old delegate rules need to be changed .. the people are smarter now than
back when those rules were made .. the government is just trying to
control who they want in office .. it's all a big deception .. they seem to
have forgotten who they are serving ...
“Trump is not seeking power .. he is just tired, along with the
American people, of the Government making wrong decisions in favor of their own
agendas and pocketbooks ..
. . . my response to
round two:
The
beauty of a free society is our ability to disagree and still be respectful of
other opinions.
Re:
Socialist agendas. We agree. I’m not in favor of socialism for a
host of reasons. What I am an
advocate for is balance and fair share.
The wealthy are NOT entitled to congressionally sanctioned benefits that
only they can take advantage of in our society. Billionaire’s should pay the same taxes that you pay and I
pay. Full stop! That is not socialism; it is basic equality. Wealth does not entitle anyone to
special treatment under the law.
Re:
Obama. We shall respectfully
disagree. Obama is not evil. I do not see the accusations you offer. If they happen, I shall join you in
condemnation. Until then, I shall give
him the benefit of the doubt as I do with all human beings.
Re:
anti-PC. This is not a rationale
of bad behavior, period.
Re:
“Obama
is planning to spend . . .”
How do you know all this?
It is not obvious to me.
Re:
“downright
evil.” Everyone is free to
choose what they wish to see and to believe. I need to see facts, not supposition, innuendo and
projection. We shall respectfully
disagree.
Re
GOP front-runner. I do not share
your perspective or belief in him.
Personally, I believe you place far too much faith in such an unproven
man in the political arena with such monumental character flaws.
Re:
“delegate
rules.” First, these are
the party primaries. The political
parties are deciding who will be the party’s candidate to stand for the fall
election. The primaries are NOT an
election. The parties establish
the rules for whatever reason they choose to emphasize. We, the People, will choose who is to
be president by our vote this coming November, NOT in the primaries. As I have written before, the Founders
/ Framers have very real reasons for creating a system avoiding direct popular
election. Heck, the people did not
elect senators until after ratification of the 17th Amendment
(1913). The time to change the rules
is before the primary season, NOT during the primaries or before the
conventions, full stop, end of story.
Re:
“seeking
power.” We all choose to
see what we wish to see. That
aside, I too am tired of the political parochialism, the intransigence, the
audacity to belief one perspective over another is the ‘only’ path
forward. I am sorry, I am unable
to attribute altruism to the GOP front-runner; that attribute is simply not
consistent, or even possible in my opinion, for anyone as narcissistic as he
has demonstrated himself to be.
I
suppose if you say I “support Obama” enough times, it becomes fact in your mind,
but that does not make it a fact.
Re:
“Democrat
and Republican who could care less about the American people.” The choices are: comply with the rules,
become a part of the system to change the rules, form a new party, or run for
office as an independent. Trying
to hijack the party by changing the rules is far less respectful of our system
of governance than a mob riot.
Primaries are NOT elections; they are ONLY political party processes,
period. The time when We, the
People, speak is 1.November.2016 – not before.
Re:
“debaucherous
fools.” Wow, I thought I
was cynical. I’ll not take the
bait.
Re:
“who
says the rules of the election game are appropriate, whether they have been
used for however many years or not?” The political parties do. The rules are their rules, no one else’s; they are not laws.
The choice is play by the rules or
do something else. Again, these
are party primaries; they are NOT elections. The rules are established by the parties, not by laws as
elections are.
Re:
“When
do the people and what they want ever really matter to the insiders?” Simple answer: 1.November.2016 – election
day.
Re:
“Why
not give an ‘outsider’ a chance?”
Nothing wrong with that.
I’d prefer an outsider as well.
Where we differ is, I’m not willing to accept any old swingin’ Richard
with a heartbeat simply because he is an ‘outsider,’ or supposedly wealthy. We have elected ‘outsiders’
before. We will do it, again, if
we are presented with ‘outsiders’ in the election.
. . . Round three:
[NOTE: The contributor offered five Internet links in
rebuttal. They are like so many
opinion articles available on the Internet and offer a politically biased
perspective of events. I saw no
reason to extend the reach of such articles.]
. . . my response to round three:
Thank
you for your interest in educating me.
I actually read each article.
I have neither the capacity nor the energy to examine and debunk every
article written by either (all) side(s); that is the responsibility of every
citizen. My spectrum of news
sources is quite broad – left to right.
In today’s electronic world, it is far too easy to become saturated with
extraneous information. I
respectfully suggest you might wish to broaden your news sources to gain a
broader perspective.
I
freely choose to see the glass as half full.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
I still detest the Republican front runner. Back when I was a secretarial science major, we were taught to make these buffoons look good until we could find better jobs. Many of his staffers do exactly that. (I later learned, as a communication major, how to work with the crises caused, by their communication and other failings, for a hefty fee.)
All the same, people seem not to realize that both he and Senator Sanders are actually doing what so many of the Second Amendment wing-nuts claim to be preparing for—fighting a corrupt government that is ruining the country. This is the real way those battles take place, from the view of people I know who support either of those candidates. The idea of a few thousands or tens of thousands of semi-organized wannabe fighters taking on the largest military the world has ever known (complete with total surveillance of the population) is ludicrous. The idea of a populist winning an election despite the merciless maneuverings of both parties makes better sense. That has been done at least once, by Teddy Roosevelt. (There’s more history to study there, but the basis holds.) We may hope that the more rational and experienced populist, Senator Sanders, emerges a winner from his party’s milling machine. The reason for that is simple. The only candidates with real chances of winning will be those chosen by the two major party primary processes. At this point, the Democrat nominee is almost certain to win, per many and varied polls. (Remember that the election is typically decided by independents, who are less of a factor in primaries.) Your statement that the Democrat primary is “not the election of the next president” is thus either ill-informed or disingenuous. Besides, you comment on the Republican primary freely and extensively. Why not discuss the Democrats? I see it as important to note that the Democrat internal party process is more effective so far than the Republicans’ at suppressing dissent. Besides the internal machinations, there is some reason the traditional media failed to cover the viewer-grabbing story of Sanders’ campaign for so long. Finally finding it unavoidable, they continue to downplay his chances. We hear nothing of the ways Clinton could stumble again, either.
Changing the phrase for this nation at its founding to “Christian people” still oversimplifies. The Christian population was undoubtedly a majority, but they were widely varied in their religious and political beliefs. There were always substantial populations of non-Christians, and at this late date we need also to include Native Americans and slaves, many of whom retained their African and/or Caribbean beliefs.
Calvin,
Re: service to the buffoons. Quite so. One of my motives when I decided the leave the cockpit for management was along those lines. I wanted to prove you did have to be an asshole to be successful in business. I failed!
Re: the current two-party political system. Interesting observations. I have never . . . well, actually, I guess never is not the correct word, since I considered myself a Republican until Richard Nixon became president. I have been a dedicated, moderate, independent, non-partisan ever since and remain so to this day.
Re: “Why not discuss the Democrats?” Well, I certainly have spent more words on the Republican front-runner than I have all other candidates combined. My bad! However, I do believe I have offered support and criticism about both of the remaining Democratic candidates as well as about candidates who are no longer actively running – both Republican and Democrat.
I am not particularly concerned about the primary process . . . other than the rules are the rules. When the political parties complete their choices and the election ballot is defined, I will make my choice of those on the ballot before I cast my vote on Election Day.
Re: “Christian people.” I can agree with your assessment. My understanding of demographics both then and now suggests Christians remain the majority religious affiliation in this Grand Republic, although diminishing in fraction of our citizenry. Yes, exactly, there have always been non-Christians in our citizenry from the Founding to present, and that fraction is increasing in size.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment