Update from the Heartland
No.750
25.4.16 – 1.5.16
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Jeanne
and I went to see the new “Jungle Book” movie in 3D in our local IMAX theater –
the 2016 Disney animated version of Rudyard Kipling’s classic story, just
released. Jeanne did not feel it
was appropriate for young children, as it portrays nature in a realistic manner
. . . well, beyond the talking animals, of course. As with Kipling’s original story, I think it is a perfect
model to discuss life, but hey, that’s just me. The Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) is nothing short of
incredible, amazing, awesome and absolutely extraordinary. I enthusiastically recommend this movie
for the CGI alone. Add in the
beautiful story, this is a must-see movie. Even if you do not enjoy animated cinema offerings, I would
still recommend you see this movie; it is that good!
Well,
this week, we heard the death knell for TrusTED, as he instantly transitioned
from dismal to desperately pathetic, when he publicly announced his vice
presidential running mate after he was mathematically eliminated from the
Republican presidential nomination.
I appreciate humility and honor in losing a race well fought, but
desperation is simply disgusting and definitely not admirable. While TrusTED’s foolish gesture cannot
gain him sufficient votes or delegates in the primary phase of this silly
season, he is apparently attempting to pull away enough votes from the
front-runner to deny him the nomination outright and force a floor-fight at the
convention, where his ground game infrastructure and investment might pay off. If they can deny the front-runner the
threshold delegates to gain the nomination on the first ballot, then I suppose
we must acknowledge he still has a shot, no matter how long the odds may be.
I
am not sure which action is more pathetic, TrusTED’s desperate move or Carly
Fiorina’s consent to be a part of this desperate stunt. That aside, you gotta hand it to
TrusTED; he is not giving up and he is willing to try anything . . . no matter
how desperate and pathetic it appears.
Candidates
in the two major political parties seem to think, or at least offer up the
impression, the votes they have received in the primary phase of this silly
season actually mean something beyond their party’s nomination process. How could they possibly know who is
going to vote for them in the general election? Far too many states have open primaries and caucuses, which
means anyone could go vote for whomever they wish, and further I suspect in
some instances an individual might actually vote multiple times. There is nothing to stop individuals,
or even groups of individuals, from voting in the other party’s primary to cast
their vote for the opposition candidate they think will be the easiest to beat
in the fall, e.g., a Democratic Party member, affiliate or sympathizer, might
go to vote in the Republican primary for the GOP front-runner because s/he felt
he would be the easiest to beat.
The notion that they primary vote mean anything beyond the respective
party’s nominee selection process is simply smoke and mirrors – it’s fake. Once the party conventions are completed
in July, and we have clearly defined nominees for all political party’s, I hope
and trust we can get down to the final and only phase that matters – the actual
election.
I tend to be an optimist on most things in life. I trust folks until I am given a reason
not to trust them. I like to see
the bright side of situations and occasionally overlook the dark
underbelly. So, with that preface,
I must confess my suspicions, misgivings and worries with respect to the
broader immigration / border control situation, especially in Europe (due
primarily to proximity), but also in this Grand Republic. I do not like nor appreciate the
coarse, divisive, antagonistic, and otherwise counter-productive and
inflammatory rhetoric of the GOP front-runner; however, I must give him credit
in the larger sense for bringing the immigration issue to the fore in political
debate. Border and immigration
control is, always has been, and always will be a national security issue to
the highest order. The dark side
of my knowledge and understanding sees this refugee, illegal immigrant, border-control
complacency issue in rather sinister terms. Since the days of El Cid (1079) and the Battle of Vienna
(1683), Europe had been under siege from Islamo-fascist forces seeking to
dominate and subjugate the region.
What they could not accomplish by force of arms, they may well
accomplish from within. We bear
witness to the slow, perhaps not so methodical, corrosive compromise of
European culture and society.
Political-correctness and inherent tolerance have fostered a mood of
compassion for those in distress.
Add into the admixture the obverse cultural propensity for polygamy and
unbounded procreation, we see regions over-populated beyond the ability of
“their” land to support those people, and as a consequence, mounting pressure
for the West to save those suffering people, as well as a flood of migrants
“seeking a better life” in Europe.
The magnanimity of European states from the post-apocalyptic refugee
crisis after World War II led to the absorption of many non-Europeans,
including Muslims from numerous countries, e.g., Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Egypt,
and Pakistan, that have either failed or refused to assimilate into their
adopted countries and now demand recognition of their native culture, e.g., Sharia
Law, female modesty, subjugation and oppression, honor killings to feed their
male sense of machismo, et cetera ad
infinitum ad nauseum. This
Grand Republic appears to be on the verge of suffering a similar fate as Europe
now endures. Thus, my acknowledgment
of the GOP front-runners rather arcane but appropriate advocacy of stringent
border controls. I do NOT agree
with or condone his way of saying it, but the objective remains the same. All nations, including the United
States of America, should only allow people into this country who wish to visit
our beautiful country and leave when their time is up, and those who wish to
fully assimilate, i.e., to become Americans in full measure. Short of those two, permanent options,
I could support a temporary guest worker program and other temporary solutions,
only if we have a comprehensive immigration enforcement system down to the
local level to periodically check up on and enforce visa limitations, with an
added proviso of mandatory, permanent exclusion for those who violate their
visa limitations. The status quo is simply not stable or
sustainable, and we bear witness to what the future holds if the political
intransigence of the political parties keeps us in the status quo.
News from the economic
front:
-- The U.S. Federal Reserve left its benchmark interest rate
unchanged at its present range between 0.25% and 0.50% against mixed, domestic,
economic indicators, lingering concerns about low inflation, and the continuing
softness in global economic and financial conditions.
-- The U.S. Commerce Department reported the nation’s 1Q2016
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) advanced at a seasonally adjusted 0.5% annualized
rate – the worst performance in two years. Consumers and businesses pulled back, underscoring the uneven
growth that has been a hallmark of the so-called recovery from the Great
Recession. The economy expanded
1.4% in 4Q2015 and 2.0% in 3Q2015.
-- EuroStat reported the Eurozone’s GDP rose 0.6% in 1Q2016 –
1.6% higher than a year earlier. The
growth rate increased from the 0.3% rate of growth recorded in 4Q2015, and was
equivalent to a 2.2% annualized rate.
The data reflect the Eurozone’s
economic resiliency and stands in contrast with the slowdown in the United
States.
Comments and contributions from Update no.749:
“Here we go again:
“You continue with your lambasting of the GOP front-runner, but
offer no disparaging comments directed toward the despot that became our
president and has sullied protocol numerous times to get his way or the DNC
front-runner who seems to think she is above the law; has thought so for many
years, and seems to have the protection of the Justice Department or the White
House to keep her out of hot water. In your words I am truly gobsmacked
by those that have accepted their sense of royal prerogative while trying their
best to same those who are trying to change things for the betterment of all
accept the establishment.”
My reply:
I
do not disparage our president because I happen to agree with him more than I
disagree with him. The same is NOT
true with respect to the GOP front-runner. President Obama is NOT a despot.
Yes,
I have criticized the DNC front-runner for the exact same detractor – thinking
the rules do not apply to her. It
is one of the greatest detractors in my opinion.
I
am all in favor of changing the rules by calm, contemplative, democratic
change. I am NOT in favor of
anyone who chooses to ignore the rules, and then in the middle of the game,
bludgeons everyone into bowing to his will, to his complacency, to his
ignorance. That particular trait
is dangerous, especially in a potential commander-in-chief.
Comment to the Blog:
“I’ll keep this one fairly short. In discussing the GOP
front-runner, you seem very upset that he does not like the rules set forth by
the parties for their primaries. You seem to use “playing by the rules” as your
standard for valid candidacy. You go on to defend those rules as the parties’
prerogative. However, when campaign finance comes up, you freely admit that the
Supreme Court decision in Citizens United is wrong and must be
changed. How do you believe the corruption works if not through the parties controlling
the elections to suit the buyers? (‘Donors’ is not appropriate to the actions
in question.) No change will occur under the current rules unless at least one
party’s voters can choose an outsider despite those rules.
“The GOP front-runner is popular precisely because he operates
outside his party’s apparatus. The same goes for Senator Sanders in the
Democratic Party’s primaries. This primary season has little to do with other
issues.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
“How do you believe the corruption works if not through the
parties controlling the elections to suit the buyers?” Your rhetorical question implies the
political parties are the conduits for corruption. I cannot agree.
The corruption comes via the quid
pro quo of donations by name to a particular candidate, essentially under
the table. Further, no matter the
intentions or expectations of the GOP front-runner, campaign-financing laws are
changed by Congress, or to overrule Citizens United, by constitutional
amendment. All of that takes a lot
more than one egocentric, narcissistic man to accomplish that.
The
choices are: change the rules within the party for the next election, campaign
in accordance with the rules, or create your own party and make your own
rules. Bernie is critical of the
process, namely campaign-financing laws, but he is operating within the rules
of the DNC. The whiner-in-chief
believes the RNC rules do not apply to him.
. . . Round two:
“I'm not sure how you get the notion that the candidates bear sole
responsibility for the corruption, but there's a larger question. How to you
propose to make change possible while allowing those currently in charge to
control the election process? Is there no hope?”
. . . my response to round two:
Re:
responsibility. Interesting
supposition actually. Is
corruption in the giver/asker or in the taker? I suppose it is an appropriate philosophical question. In my mind, yes, the sole
responsibility rests with the taker, who actions the offer.
Re:
“How to you propose to make change possible while allowing those
currently in charge to control the election process?” Change will not happen with those
currently in power, and perhaps not with the system that is currently in
place. However, electing any ol’
swingin’ Richard could well be akin to jumping from the frying pan into the
fire. Further, the only way to
override Citizens United is by constitutional amendment, which will be
no easy trick.
Re:
“Is there no hope?” There is always hope.
. . . Round three:
“The issue with your first paragraph is that you're trying to
limit responsibility to specific individuals. It doesn't matter which
individuals we discuss if the opportunities for corruption are built into the
process. Individuals come and go, and they will be corrupt people so long as
that is the easiest or most effective way to get elected or to influence
policy. Choosing to vote for party labels, race or gender, or campaign promises
will affect nothing. We've tried that. The only path to change is by history.
If a candidate does not take large contributions from interested parties and
has not done so in the past, he or she at least knows another way to finance
campaigns. If we elect people like that, together they have a chance to change
Washington. No such constitutional amendment or honest Supreme Court will come
from those who prosper under the current system.”
. . . my response to round three:
So,
if I read between the lines, you are suggesting Bernie Sanders (or the GOP
front-runner) is the only remaining candidate of any party who should get our
vote . . . presuming he is not beholdin’ to any of his donors. If so, then built into that assumption
is the belief that the only issue for the next president is campaign finance
reform. Let us extend the assumption
that Bernie is the only viable and acceptable remaining candidate, are we to sacrifice
all other issues before the president?
I do not and cannot agree with his approach to other critical
issues. Further, I do not believe
the majority of citizens will support his political position(s).
. . . Round four:
“Sanders and ‘the GOP front runner’ fit what I said, but you said ‘any’
party. Let's include the Green, Libertarian, and other candidates if they meet
the requirement. Pundits and others have discussed either Senator Sanders or
the Donald running under a different banner if need be, and that could open the
process enough to be really interesting, particularly in its effect on 2020.
“Possibly more important, some down-ballot candidates are taking
this tack, the most important of which is Democrat National Chairman Debbie
Wasserman Schultz's primary challenger, Tim Canova. If he can knock off that
pillar of the Establishment, the D's might just start paying attention. Other
potential members of Congress could also vote their consciences if they are
financed by voters rather than owners. Regardless of party, they would be a new
factor in DC.”
. . . my response to round four:
Re:
“any party.” Yes, that is what I
meant . . . including the Libertarian, Green and other parties. Yes, I agree. This rendition of the silly season could have far reaching
impact on our political system and processes. Bernie can’t get the nomination, now, but he’s vowed to stay
in it to push the DNC farther left.
We shall see. I wish the
Press would at least let the “other voices” be heard.
Re:
down-ballot candidates. Yes, you
are quite correct on that score.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the Press capacity has been
saturated with the GOP fiasco and the shenanigans of the front-runner. It will be interesting to see how this
election plays out both in the White House and Congress, but perhaps more importantly
in the state legislatures.
. . . Round five:
“Don't take the traditional media too seriously. For some reason,
they seem to be in the political ‘game’ mode along with establishment politics.
If Hillary wins the Dem nomination, that certainly increases Republican odds in
November. Hillary is so unpopular with independents and others that her low
turnout will harm the entire Democrat ticket. However, her nomination is far
from guaranteed. The situation today is not different enough from this point in
2008 to give me any assurance. Also, I'm still not at all convinced that the
Donald takes his candidacy seriously. He has been a friend (or patron?) of the
Clintons. If current trends hold
as far as nominations and then the Trump campaign ‘suddenly’ falls apart, that
would almost hand Hillary the Presidency. Trump is far more comfortable as an
owner than as a worker.”
. . . my response to round five:
Re:
“Don't take the traditional media too seriously.” Oh, I don’t, or rather try not to do so
– all things in balance, my friend.
For
better or worse, our political system is what it is. I shall dutifully and diligently fulfill my obligations as a
citizen of this Grand Republic, as I have always done, and try to make the most
of my singular and humble vote.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment