Update from the
Heartland
No.755
30.5.16 – 5.6.16
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
In
the context of this humble Blog, I draw your attention to a friend and
colleague’s Blog – Lawful Politics, a blog of the lawful, unlawful & awful
political world at URL: http://lawfulpolitics.com. Please visit and contribute as you are
able.
On
Friday, Jeanne and I took our youngest grandchild Wyatt to Tanganyika Wildlife
Park in Wichita, Kansas – an interactive zoo.
Wyatt was trying to
feed the Pigmy Hippo a small carrot
[File: Wyatt &
Pigmy Hippo 160603.jpg]
We had a grand ol’ time, until the Sun and beckoning naptime
wore us all down. We got about
halfway through the available exhibits.
Several animals were not observable, as they were probably taking their
own naps – cheetahs and snow leopards.
Fortunately, most of the animals were out and about. What is unique about this facility is
they encourage interacting with some of the animals like the Pigmy Hippopotamus
(above). Wyatt was supposed to toss
the small carrot into the Hippo’s gaping mouth, but stood too far back and his
aim was not that refined. He did
get to feed birds, rabbits, tortoises and guinea pigs. Nonetheless, Wyatt had a great time; we
enjoyed Wyatt’s experience, and there is a whole other half of the park to
explore the next time.
Watching
the GOP front-runner’s performance at his press conference on Tuesday, as he
lashed out in his typical insult-everyone-who-challenges-him manner, leaves me far
more concerned about the American citizens who support him. The Press must ask tough, incisive
questions. Beyond my disgust over
his obscene performance, I am reminded of an applicable classic Shakespeare
line: “The
lady doth protest too much, methinks.” (Hamlet: Act III, Scene II, Line 219) The GOP front-runner’s incessant
whining and now temperamental tantrums and throwing juvenile insults at
journalists who were doing their job, does not reflect well on his ability to
handle even basic hostile situations.
I am continuously amazed that he stands completely and solely on “just
trust me” . . . you do not need (deserve) the details. The impression I am perpetually left
with is his apparent, concerted effort to intimidate and oppress the Media. “You make me look bad.” No, Donald, you do that all by
yourself. You need no help from
anyone. “I’ve never been treated
so badly for doing something so good.”
Again, no, Donald, you were challenged to prove your veteran
fund-raising claims. Then, at a
campaign stop in Sacramento, he said, “Hillary has no natural talent.” “Does she (Clinton) look
presidential?” Well, actually,
Donald she looks, sounds, responds and acts orders of magnitude more
presidential than you do, and you continue to pile on the mounting evidence in your
tirades, temper tantrums, insult politics, and non-substantive nonsense that
apparently worked well for “The Apprentice” and the Republican primaries. We shall see how your approach works in
the general elections. As my mind
continues to churn over the basis of my opinions and perspective, especially
with respect to the GOP front-runner, I am reminded, as is often the case in my
thinking, of history. “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of
decency?” [9.June.1954]
As
if all of that was not enough, the GOP front-runner threw outright erroneous
and bigoted accusations at a sitting federal judge in his Trump U. fraud court
case, when the judge made a ruling against his case.
“Concerns in GOP over Trump's verbal attacks on federal
judge”
by Mark Sherman – Associated Press
Wichita Eagle
Published: JUNE 4, 2016 11:39 AM
At a campaign rally in San Diego, the GOP front-runner said
(and I quote precisely), “I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a
hater. He’s a hater.” He
also said, “The judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is
great. I think that’s fine.” And then, after all this, he claims the
judge should be disqualified because of his Mexican heritage. His rationale for such statements: “I’m
building a wall,” which he repeated a gazillion times, as if none of us heard
him the first time, or even had a remote clue he intended to do such a thing
[set aside the fact and reality that he does not decide such things; Congress
does].
The
judge in topic: United States District Court Judge Gonzalo Paul Curiel of the
Southern District of California is a first generation American citizen born in
East Chicago, Indiana, to parents who immigrated (legally, I must add, since
someone will suggest otherwise) to this Grand Republic. The GOP front-runner called him a
Mexican judge. So, if a first
generation American is not an American citizen in the GOP front-runner’s
bigoted mind, then is The Donald an American citizen? The GOP front-runner is only a second generation
American. So, Constitution be
damned; in his mind, how many generations are required to be considered an
American citizen? Are we to use
his logic and refer to the GOP front-runner as a German candidate? A presidential candidate’s verbal
assault on a sitting federal judge is beyond comprehension on multiple levels. The appeals process has been established
judicial process for several centuries to deal with any potential issues for
any case for any reason. Rather
than attacking the credibility or impartiality of a sitting federal judge, he
should avail himself of the appeals process.
For
the record, Judge Curiel was born in Indiana; thus, by the Constitution, he is
an American citizen regardless of his parent’s naturalization status; he is an
American, period, full stop; he is NOT a Mexican. The 1st Amendment protects the right of The Donald (as
a private citizen) to say whatever the hell pops into his mind; as a candidate
for a public service position, he does not enjoy any right to flap his gums
like he does, and he appears to be incapable of learning that essential
distinction. The Office of the
President of the United States of America is NOT a pulpit for
self-aggrandizement . . . actually, I should say further self-aggrandizement. These constraints on an individual’s
freedom of speech are NOT political correctness; they are common sense,
logical, and basic respect for the office s/he represents. At this moment in time and in this
instance, he is representing the Republican Party, not his personal, private
affairs. This episode reflects the
fundamental problem I have with this particular presidential candidate.
For
those who believe in and support the GOP front-runner, I have just one
question. Are there no limits or
boundaries to what you will tolerate from the GOP front-runner in the name of
anger with “the system”? Can he
truly shoot someone in Times Square, and you would still support him and see
him as the messiah? Well, since I
am all fired up, one more question: Are you that angry, that pissed off, that
disgusted with professional politicians, that you would find satisfaction, or
refuge, or solace, or comfort with an individual of such outrageous and
boundless personal flaws? What
does that say about us, ALL OF US, me included, that we are attracted to him,
or even an individual even remotely like him? OK, enough rhetorical nonsense (since I know no one will
answer my questions), I am angry with the professional politicians and what
they have done to the federal government, but I am not so angry that I will
resort to any old swingin’ Richard who comes along with a lot of money (so he
claims). I am not impressed by all
his claims, nor his bombast, thus, my skepticism regarding his viability as a
presidential candidate.
I would like to offer a few words about social conservatism.
I
understand the basis for social conservatism, and I certainly respect those who
embrace, believe in, and espouse social conservative values. Choosing such values is the very
essence of our fundamental right to choose our particular, unique path to
“Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.”
Proponents of social conservative values often claim they have the moral
high ground. Their moral standards
and practices are of a higher order . . . and often, they claim God sanctions
their values. Thus, the inverse
becomes the implicit accusation, i.e., anyone who does not embrace socially
conservative values is by definition of lower morality and inherently of lower
class. While I intellectually
reject such characterizations and implications, I can accept individuals who
are driven by social conservatism – those choices belong with the individual
citizen. I accept that socially
conservative folks truly believe in the righteousness and correctness of their
values, and that is perfectly acceptable. Where we get cross-wise occurs when a social conservative
individual, or group of like-minded individuals, does anything to impose their
values on another citizen – for any reason. I would also add one further objection . . . when an
individual’s values cause injury to another human being, e.g., honor killing,
or denying freedom of choice to another person – wife, daughter, anyone. I can accept that some cultures want
women dressed in such a manner to have NO exposed skin, as long as the woman
freely chooses to dress in a compliant manner; that some cultures want women
subservient to men. If a husband
or father beats his wife, or intimidates her, into dressing as he dictates, I
see that as domestic abuse and a felonious crime to be punished. If a woman freely chooses to be
subservient to a man and dress with no exposed skin, then I fully support her
right to choose such conduct and behavior; her choice harms no one.
I
am not socially conservative; in fact, I think I am quite the contrary . . .
perhaps not all, but certainly on most issues. The Comstock morality laws were wrong, just as Prohibition (18th
Amendment), the war on drugs, and a myriad of other morality laws are
wrong. Conformity to the social
morays of the majority, or even a willful and influential minority, is NOT the
freedom envisioned by the Founders and Framers.
I
am not against social conservatism.
How each of us chooses to live our lives is our business entirely . . .
well other than our morality choices are between each of us and God (however,
we choose to see Him). I am just
in favor of freedom of choice and a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy – as
long as no other person is injured or property damaged, and no one else is
intimidated, coerced or otherwise forced to sacrifice their freedom of choice. I truly believe one day we shall mature
as a society to realize the vision of the Founders, and respect each individual
citizen’s fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of choice.
News from the economic
front:
-- The Labor Department reported nonfarm payrolls rose by a
seasonally adjusted, anemic 38,000 jobs in May – the weakest performance since
September 2010. Revisions showed
employers added a combined 59,000 fewer jobs in March and April than previously
estimated. The unemployment rate
dropped to 4.7%. The poor
employment performance should add a negative indicator to the Federal Reserve
policy meeting this month for a rate increase.
Comments and contributions from Update no.754:
Comment to the Blog:
“My liberal/progressive/populist sources continue discussing the
chance of an FBI interview and/or an indictment of Secretary Clinton over the
email flap. The indictment would be over the statute addressing destruction,
removal, or concealment of official records. I would not be offended if Clinton
and her predecessors were all indicted. That would make a group of object
lessons for future high officials. Given my political preferences, I would
rather see that come before the Democrat Convention if it comes. Those
"super" delegates would then serve a useful purpose in nominating
Senator Sanders without last-minute rule changes. Prior to the California
primary would be even better. I fear it will be an "October
surprise."
“Note on the election: I guess both parties have lost track of the
fact that the election ultimately is a popularity contest, not so different
from high school class officer elections. The Donald has proven that to the
Republicans. However, the decision-makers among the Democrats seem to be
ignoring this reality. I suspect they are used to not seeking high turnout,
because in the past lower turnout has benefited the Establishment. This year,
the axe falls one way or the other. Both the Donald and Senator Sanders have
aroused the populace. The Donald can tip the balance if
"un-favorability" is the central issue. Clinton has a brittle personality
that Trump can bring out, and Clinton's team is totally unable to make her look
clean and rational in the face of that strategy. They would be on the defensive
the whole way. Indeed, they already have been since about March. If Sanders is
not the Democrat nominee, we probably get President Loudmouth and whatever
follows.
“I am sad and afraid that Obama is willing to arm Vietnam and
probably other nations in Southeast Asia. That ought to be the headline grabber
in his trip, but he was able to make the visit to Hiroshima overshadow his
preparations to continue our ‘war’ footing. Marketing wins in politics.
Regardless of positive or negative opinions of his Hiroshima stop, the
marketing is the message that the Hiroshima visit is the important part of this
travel. Not true, but a successful marketing of the message.
“Incidentally, the deliberate taking of a quarter of a million
lives merits an apology regardless of claims and circumstances. Whether you can
justify it or not, it was certainly horrific. The bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki scarred the entire world, and the consequences continue today, over 60
years later. How you cannot see that baffles me.
“I am not sure who you choose for your audience. Technical
discussions of military aviation lose ordinary Americans.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
eMail issue. Agreed. I would prefer to have this done with,
however it turns out. I advocate
for a complete, thorough, authoritative investigation, and if the law was
violated, I expect indictment and justice. Regardless of whether she is the Democratic Party nominee,
leaving this open is not helpful to anyone, as I filter out the political
ramifications. A postscript note:
it is unfortunate she did not have more knowledgeable, competent and engaged
friends and colleagues to have avoided such a simple and foolish (serious)
mistake. In her position as
secretary of state, this is by definition a national security matter.
Re:
election. Thank you for your observations. The decisions for both major parties
will be made in July. We shall
see. Truth be told, I think
Hillary Clinton has the capacity and potential to be a good president. Unfortunately, this will likely be her
last shot, and the signs do not look good.
Re:
“war footing.” OK; I don’t see it.
Re:
Hiroshima. Agreed. I only see it as a visit long
overdue. I’m thankful that he did
it.
Re:
war. We are repulsed by the
imagery, but war is all about killing, full stop. It is ugly, nasty, disgusting business, which is precisely
why war should be the choice of last resort, and one of the reasons I give
President Obama credit. You are
entitled to your opinion, and I respect your confidence to express your
opinion. My position regarding
President Truman’s nuclear weapon employment decision should not be baffling
whatsoever. His choice was clear,
and respectfully, he made the correct decision, given the plethora of
contributory evidence. If an apology was to be offered, what
would the apology be for . . . taking 250K to save 3-4M and end ending the
carnage Imperial Japan inflicted upon Asia and the Pacific for 14 years and
taking the lives of many millions?
I
do not ‘choose’ my audience. My
audience chooses to read my Update, and a fraction choose to offer comments and
contributions. Not everything I
write about is of any interest to some, perhaps even most, but readers of the
Update usually find something of value in my yammering.
. . . Round two:
“Hillary Clinton has the potential to continue current trends as
the USA falls further behind the civilized world. She is too connected to the
oligarchy. That approach is failing us.
“Obama's visit to Southeast Asia to ‘discuss’ China prefaces
weapon sales leading to further conflict. I study history, and that is a common
pattern. The Hiroshima visit is a distraction from that, drama for Americans
not aware of international events. I have no clue how you can support a claim
that Obama sees war as a last resort. He has continued the increasingly
pointless conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and has pursued pointless military
action (directly or by proxy) in Libya, Yemen and wherever military contractors
can make an extra billion or two. For crying out loud, we have CIA-trained
soldiers fighting US military-trained soldiers in Iraq, or have had in the past
few months.
“You admit we are repulsed by the ‘imagery’ of Hiroshima, but seem
unable to see that it matters little seventy years later who was to blame or
what circumstances brought about the horrible event. It was horrible even if it
prevented worse. I'll say it again, that still calls for healing. No matter
what we claim ‘would have happened’ (alternate future that did not happen), we
need to be part of the healing, not hold onto the conflict we won. Sore losers
like the Confederate flag wavers are bad enough. Sore winners are worse. Our
standing worldwide is bad enough. Why go on pretending that so many lives do
not matter?
“Cap, you are a writer. Of course you choose your audience. That's
one of the earliest lessons in any course, book, or even magazine article on
writing. Writing groups make that the first question in helping you craft your
work. Your writing style, language level, technical level, marketing, and
pretty much everything in your writing can and should be directed to a
particular type of reader. Aerospace engineering professionals, military
pilots, blue-collar workers, independent voters, business versus pleasure
travelers, lifelong learners, and people seeking clues about social or
political change will each approach reading from different backgrounds and with
different objectives. If you
choose not to choose an audience, that is a poor choice. Almost nobody writes
in a way that reaches everyone. Hence my careful and extensive editing of every
word that your audience will see. The audience I serve is relatively well
educated or self-educated, appreciates verifiable facts and sound logic, and
has a strong interest in current events as well as their context. I might be
able to persuade them to see my viewpoint if I use persuasive but not
inflammatory writing. (One-to-one writing is easier because I usually know the
specific person.) In writing for ‘everyone,’ you reach far fewer readers
because almost everyone has some kind of problem reading your work. Too much of this, not enough of that,
confusing conventions meant for others, too high or too low reading level,
condescending or obsequious tone (as perceived), all lose readers. There are
others, too. That is also the reason for keywords, hashtags, etc., on the
Internet. Who do you want to talk to?”
. . . my response to
round two:
Re:
Hillary. You may well be
correct. Perhaps I give her more
credit than she deserves.
Re:
falling behind. We shall
respectfully disagree.
Re:
the dichotomy of international relations.
It is unfortunate that we find the solution in selling arms, yet I see
few choices to counter the illegal actions of the PRC in the South China Sea. The PRC is doing what Japan did in
1931, Italy in 1935, and Germany did in 1936. The World did nothing to stop the aggressive actions and
protect their neighbors. The
consequences are well known and documented.
Re:
Obama. Example: the Iran nuclear
deal. He sought a diplomatic
solution rather than listening to the voices of war. Time shall tell the tale of whether he made the correct
choice.
Re:
Hiroshima-Nagasaki. I am all in
favor of healing. I would say the
contemporary relationship between Japan and the U.S. is a prime example of the
healing. Am I reading between the
lines in your words that we are agreed?
The Hiroshima gesture was a good move. Who is to blame?
History pegs that answer quite clearly. All lives matter, but as I said, war is killing – people die
. . . innocent people die; that is the nature of war. I am sorry that all those people, including 12 American POWs
I must add, died that morning at Hiroshima, but Truman did what had to be done,
and I see no reason to apologize for ending a tragic war without considerably
greater loss of life.
Re:
audience. My oh my, that was quite
an admonition. My professed
purpose in writing and continuing to write the Update is the stimulation of
public debate on contemporary issues.
As such, I choose to give voice to all sides that choose to speak, and I
offer my opinion – good, bad or ugly.
I do not see my words as persuasion, i.e., I am not trying to change
your mine, your opinion, or anyone else’s. I am selling nothing.
My object is thinking, to consider other viewpoints. A vigorous public debate is an
essential tool in any viable democracy.
Writing about contemporary issues forces me to think through aspects and
perspectives. Responding to the
opinions of others also pushes me to consider the perceptions of others . . .
at least those willing to contribute their opinions. I do not seek agreement, only debate.
. . . Round three:
“I find both of your larger paragraphs thoroughly confusing. I'll
skip the rest of it.
“Hiroshima/Nagasaki: I am trying to divine what you're talking
about. The closest I can come is that you're still involved in justifying the U.S.
government's action. That was seventy years ago and has nothing to do with
healing people's spirits today. ‘Why I defended myself’ has little or no
meaning once the fight is over. I have been through that in my personal
recovery.
“Writing: please study advice for writers. As far as I can tell,
you're asserting that you seek an open debate and claiming objectivity (‘not
persuasion’). I'll get the ‘persuasion’ out of the way first. There is no
objective writing except in the most limited academic sense, and that type of
writing does not reach outside its intended audience of academics. Our choices
about subject matter, which facts we present or leave out, the background we
give, and the questions or statements we use to open discussion are all our own
products. They are not ‘the truth’ in some high, ideal sense. We need not state
‘this is my opinion’: we write based on our opinions.
“Limiting debate has nothing to do with what I wrote. Indeed, just
the opposite. Reaching a larger audience will stimulate a larger discussion,
and that is a well-known issue among writers. Communication is a two-way
process. Why do widely read bloggers and columnists reach far more people than
you or I? They ‘speak’ in a consistent voice on subjects of interest to many.
Not to everybody, but large numbers. Having facts and opinions is not enough to
reach people. We still have to be read by those who want to participate in
dialog on those facts and opinions. That's not each and every adult. Nobody can
do that. This list of the 15 most popular blogs: http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/blogs
shows the Huffington Post reaching 110 million unique visitors per
month (worldwide population = 7 billion) and nobody else above 30 million. I
don’t recognize any other political blogs on that list at all, not even the
Drudge Report or Daily Kos. We must choose a voice that interests a particular
group or range of people. That's what choosing an audience means. Therefore, we
need to focus on the people with whom we want discussion. If they don't
respond, there's no reason to make our writing available to the public. Without
an audience, we just talk to ourselves.”
. . . my response to round three:
I’m
not sure what was confusing, but as you did, I will let it pass.
Re:
Hiroshima/Nagasaki. I’m not trying
to justify anything. I am simply
stating my support for Truman’s decision, given the circumstances. I think President Obama’s initiative
was intended to be that gesture of reconciliation.
Re:
writing. Interesting
perspective. In the context of
your words, I write for myself, to coalesce my thoughts are any particular
topic. I am not a politician, or
anything else other than a private citizen. If my words have any value – positive or negative – for
anyone else, so much the better.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment