Update no.756

Update from the Heartland

No.756

6.6.16 – 12.6.16

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

To all,

            I am Pulse!

            The follow-up news items:

-- As the Church Lady says, “Isn’t that special!”  In the wake of racist statements by the Republican presumptive nominee [755], he whined, “My words were misconstrued,” . . . now, ain’t that rich!  “It is unfortunate my comments have been misconstrued as a categorical attack against people of Mexican heritage.”  He then repeated a gazillion times: “He’s Mexican.  I’m building a wall.”  I am left with one predominant impression.  He must believe no one else speaks the English language as well as he thinks he does.  He must also think many of us are just plain blathering idiots.  What was even worse, he browbeat his surrogates into making valiant attempts to sell his drivel.  The evidence continues to mount, so much so the evidence pile is bound to topple over, soon.

            The last of the Super Tuesday primaries were completed this week (the last six states).  There is only one primary remaining now – District of Columbia; then, it is onto the party nominating conventions in July.  We must all offer our special congratulations to Hillary Clinton for making history and clinching the Democratic nomination – the first woman in history to be the presumptive nominee for a major political party.  As I indicated earlier, once the candidates achieved sufficient delegate counts to clinch their party’s nomination, I would change their reference from front-runner to presumptive nominee; so it shall be.

-- Donald John Trump is now the Republican Party presumptive nominee.

-- Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is now the Democratic Party presumptive nominee.

-- Gary Earl Johnson is the Libertarian Party nominee.

-- The Green Party National Convention will be held the first week of August, in Houston, Texas; we will not likely know their nominee until after their convention.

-- Darrell Castle is the Constitution Party nominee.

Congratulations to each nominee.  After next Tuesday, the primary phase of this rendition of the silly season will close, and the convention-nominating phase will begin.  The stage is nearly set for the fall election.  Then, it will be up to We, the People, all of us. . . . well, at least those of us who do vote, to decide who will be our next elected representatives.

            Then, as the results of the last Super Tuesday were announced, the Republican presumptive nominee publicly stated, “I am a fighter.  Now, I know some people say I'm too much of a fighter.  My preference is always peace, however.”  What the GOP presumptive nominee failed to speak was his parenthetical conclusion – (as long as you agree with me and do what I say).”  That may be a message of peace in a dictatorship or autocracy, but it is a long way from such a message in a raucous, diverse democracy.  Further, he could easily add: “And, if you do not agree with me, I will bludgeon you into submission.”

            Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson was interviewed on CNN after this week’s Super Tuesday primaries.  Refreshingly, he congratulated Hillary Clinton on her historic accomplishment and clinching of the Democratic Party nomination – quite a contrast to the Republican presumptive nominee.  What he said that was most resonant with me was the government should NOT be involved in making decisions or taking actions in the private domain of individual citizens.  I say, amen brother!  The Libertarian candidate offers a refreshing contrast to the two major party nominees.

            When I served as chancellor at a university campus, I had to deal with several alleged rape cases similar to the Stanford University case featured in the news these days.  In every case I dealt with, the accusers refused, despite strong advice, to press criminal charges against their perpetrators.  As a consequence of my frustration, my experience evolved into several items of counsel to students.

1.  An intoxicated or unconscious person cannot give consent, by definition, as that person is not of sound mind or body.

2.  If you consume anything to excess, where your capability or capacity is diminished, you entrust your life to those around you.  If you are going to drink, or consume any other psychotropic substances, whether intentionally or not, ask yourself: do I trust every person in this room or house with my life?  The answer should guide your conduct.

3.  When you consume a substance of unknown origin, you literally entrust your life to the provider.  Ask yourself, do you trust the person handing you a drink, a pill, a powder, a smoke, with your life?

4.  Air is consumption.  If you attend a party or gathering, and anyone creates smoke or gaseous variants or exhalants of illegal substances, you are consuming those substances as well, by default, via the air you breathe.

5.  ANY form to sexual contact – touching, fondling, or any penetration however so slight of any bodily orifice – without consent is a criminal act.

The cases I dealt with were tragic – every one.  I truly believed that every accuser was subjected to sexual intercourse without her consent, and I believed the perpetrators, when they could be or were named, intentionally took advantage of a compromised young woman.  I desperately wanted to prosecute the perpetrators, but we were not able to prosecute a single one.  Two of the perpetrators made subsequent mistakes of sufficient magnitude to result in their dismissal from the university.  At the end of the day, I am left with one overwhelming thought, we absolutely must find the courage to teach our children far better than we do, about sex, relationships, psychotropic substances and social decision-making.  We have failed our children and occasionally we are presented graphic evidence of our failure.  There is no such thing as “affluenza,” or the country bumpkin ignorance claimed by the convicted rapist in this latest crime at Stanford University.  The perpetrators were never taught to respect another human being; everything, for them, is all about me-me-me.

            Just another random thought . . .

            I have been working, for many months now, on finishing up the page proof review of my next book – “The Clarity of Hindsight” – a history book and a unique compilation of significant words of World War II placed in the context of surround momentous events.  This book has been 20 years in construction, and thank goodness my publisher encouraged me to finish the project; but, it is a lot of work, like birthing a baby . . . lots of pain before the impending joy.  If I can get my work done, hopefully, the book will be published in the next month or two.

            Anyway, the thought that came to me . . . when an individual thinks of himself as well . . . God . . . who makes no mistakes, is never wrong, never has to apologize for anything because he is never wrong, who thinks of himself as perfect in every form . . . bad things can happen, and many people usually suffer the consequences.  When you put a man like that in power, at the head of a nation-state, the consequences are amplified by orders of magnitude.

            The moment that comes to mind is the decimation and surrender of the remnants of the entire German 6^th Army at Stalingrad [31.January.1943].  A year after the invasion of the Soviet Union [22.June.1941], Hitler’s ego and sense of superiority led him to divert and commit Army Group B, including the 6^th Army, to taking Stalingrad – a city on the River Volga (formerly Volgograd).  The city had comparatively little strategic or even tactical value other than as an historic way station for river traffic and a railway junction.  As the second winter of the invasion enveloped the Germans, the Soviet Red Army counterattacked [19.November.1942] in a two-pronged operation, clearly intended to encircle and cut off the Germans in the besieged city of Stalingrad.  The German Army commanders wanted to withdraw and regroup in order to blunt and stop the Soviet attack.  Hitler directly countermanded the Army professionals, and ordered the 6^th Army to stand fast and hold the city.  Four days later, the two Soviet penetrations linked up and the 6^th Army was doomed.  A quarter of a million men were lost that winter; 150,000 died in the fighting, 91,000 surrendered, and only 6,000 survived the war.  And, of course, as it virtually always is with egomaniacal leaders like Hitler (and others), he blamed the Army for the defeat at Stalingrad (of course, it could not be his fault; he was infallible) and the loss of all those men.  This is what happens when self-professed, god-like men gain power as a commander-in-chief.  History is beautiful, isn’t it!

            To put a point on it, in the instance cited, a quarter of a million men died because of one man’s ego.  It cannot get more stark and grotesque than that.  There are other examples, but this is the one that struck me at this moment.  This is what is at risk today.

            We knew it was bound to happen, eventually.  At 02:00 [R] EDT, Sunday, apparently a lone gunman entered the Pulse nightclub in downtown Orlando, Florida.  The shooter has been identified as Omar Saddiqui Mateen, an American citizen of Afghan heritage, who was living in Fort Pierce, Florida.  Initial reports indicate Mateen was armed with an AR-15 assault rifle and a semi-automatic pistol.  He killed 50 and wounded 53 others before SWAT officers dropped him.  Mateen reportedly made a 911 call and claimed allegiance to ISIL.  This looks like, sounds like, a lone-wolf attack by an Islamo-fascist sleeper, convert, agent, or sympathizer.  The FBI is leading the investigation as a terrorist event.  We will learn much more in the coming days, much of which we will not like to hear.  These are the days in which we live.  May God rest the immortal souls of those who lost their lives and those who remain at risk, and comfort the families and friends who lost so much early Sunday morning.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.755:

“I am disappointed.  Once again we have predominantly all lambasting of the GOP front-runner and what appears to be a complete oversight of last week’s revelation of the State Department’s highly unethical and illegal editing of videos with no one in the State Department or above at the National Leadership level—who might that be—willing to take the responsibility as to why this was authorized or allowed to happen without consequence.  We continually face the onslaught of such omissions by the liberal left media, have for years, and continually face the leadership challenged Obama and just about anyone that reports to him to take responsibility myriad nefarious goings on within our Government.  And we also have the oversight of the hijacking by Michelle Obama of a commencement ceremony to further the DNC agenda. 

“So, yes, I am willing to side with the GOP frontrunner.  I am ‘that angry, that pissed off, that disgusted with professional politicians, that I would find satisfaction, or refuge, or solace, or comfort with an individual of such outrageous and boundless personal flaws’ at least for the time being.  I am willing to take a chance that Trump can get things turned around from the dismal direction the country has been heading under the “hope and change” that so many unsuspecting voters bought into during the past two elections or the dismal direction we will head if an inveterate liar ends up in the White House and if the same racketeers types that corrupt the present administration retain their usurping positions of power.”

My response:

            I am always sorry to disappoint.  “I am what I am and that’s all that I am.”  At least you know my opinion on any given topic.

            Re: angry.  Well, apparently you are far angrier than me, which is unfortunate.  So, just to be clear, the GOP front-runner could shoot someone in Times Square and you would still support his candidacy for President?  Do you support his verbal attacks on a sitting federal judge?  You did not answer my question: are there no limits?

            Re: State Department video editing.  What is your source, if I may ask?

            Thank you for expressing your opinion.

            Re: take a chance.  I can understand taking a risk.  Thus, I deduce that you see the positives outweigh the negatives.  I trust you can accept that I see the equation heavily weighted to the negative, i.e., the risks appear far too great, based on my assessment.

            We will not know what choices we have until the end of July. We will have more than two choices.  All of us will evaluate our choices before we cast our vote in November.  Until then, we debate potential.

 . . . Round two:

“‘So, just to be clear, the GOP front-runner could shoot someone in Times Square and you would still support his candidacy for President?’  I thought this to be to absurd to answer.  I guess I was wrong.  But to be clear, unless it was self-defense, no, I would not support his candidacy.  As regards the verbal attacks on a sitting federal judge, I am remiss on knowing more about this story.  I will say, that there are many people, in government service or not, regardless of their position, that warrant having verbal attacks levied upon them, and we witness this in your forum each and every week.  It would be hypocritical of me to say otherwise.  It would be even more hypocritical of me to say that I have never verbally attacked someone.

“State Department video editing -- Please see the following links for some background.  There’s a lot more to it, but this is probably a good place to start.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/07202767544f482f83b566d8c93dae35/house-panel-seeks-info-edited-state-dept-briefing-video

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/state-department-appears-to-edit-briefing-video-to-remove-admission-of-falsehood/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/edited-state-dept.-video-hides-key-admission-on-iran-nuke-talks/article/2590837

“Yes, you do deduce correctly, and you make it quite obvious that you see the equation differently.

“You forgot to address Michelle Obama hijacking the commencement ceremony.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            I do not think my question was absurd at all.  The GOP front-runner made that public statement.  I was simply probing for the boundaries, the limits to that loyalty.  Clearly, he believes he has many followers who would not reject him if he shot someone in Times Square, or did anything else outrageous or illegal.  OK, so at least we know there are limits to loyalty for that man.

            You apparently missed my point.  My criticism of his remarks was not that he was dissatisfied with the judge’s contributory ruling.  My objection was that he was using his position as the presidential nominee of the Republican Party; he is no longer a private citizen . . . at least until he is defeated, or his service is complete, and even then as a former president, he should not use his office or position as a personal microphone.  He is now representing all Republicans and perhaps one day he might be speaking for all Americans.  His attack on a sitting judge violated a plethora of principles, precedent and order.

            Re: State Department video editing.  Lynch ‘em all.

            Re: Michella Obama.  I only heard snippets of her speech.  What I heard sounded like so many other commencement addresses.  Guest speakers are traditionally invited to offer words they consider significant to the graduates.  I imagine she believes she did just that.

 . . . Round three:

“Just to be clear, you say the GOP front-runner made the statement highlighted in Yellow below, which you in turn posed to your readers?  So you are saying Trump said he could shoot someone in Times Square and people would still support him?  If that be true, then no, I will agree that your question was not absurd.

“As to missing your point, I suppose I did.  And does not the sitting president—has not the sitting president—representing and speaking for all Americans, violated certain principles by speaking disparagingly against others, by not holding fellow presidential administration corrupters of our country responsible for their acts, by secretly helping to further Iran’s ultimate goal of having nuclear destructive capability, and by speaking in such a manner as to promote divisiveness within our country, use his position as a personal microphone?  And does not the sitting first lady do the same as well?”

 . . . my response to round three:

            For the record, the now GOP presumptive nominee said publicly at a campaign event in Sioux City, Iowa [23.January.2016]:

“The people, my people, are so smart, and you know what else they say about my people . . . the polls, they say I have the most loyal people.  Did you ever see that?  Where I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters.  OK, it’s like incredible.”

What sort of person says something like that . . . any person on the street, you, or me, in public or private, anyone . . . set aside a candidate for the presidency of the United States?  What is more significant, he clearly does not think anyone but him has any intelligence or understanding of the English language.  He believes we are idiot lemmings running for the cliff.

            I suppose to further our boring into the substance of your opinion regarding President Obama, you will need to produce a specific example.  So, pick one, if you wish.  Perhaps I am blind, deaf or blissfully ignorant.  I simply do not see his public rhetoric in the same light you do.

            Since the 2004 Democratic National Convention [27.July.2004], I have seen President Barack Obama as one of the most gifted public speakers and masters of political rhetoric since President Ronald Reagan.  While I would not place him at the level of President Franklin Roosevelt or the paramount public speaker, Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, he is well above the majority of public figures.  He has done exceptionally well regardless of the medium – teleprompter, press conference, impromptu remarks, National Press Club dinner, doesn’t matter.

 . . . Round four:

“Regardless of your contempt for Trump and my disdain for the sitting president and the corruption proliferated during his reign, let us please get to the bottom of this contentious quote you brought forth.  I ask, because this still bothers me, is something taken out of context with the quote you provided.  Did Trump say that he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody or is he restating what someone else (‘…the polls, they say…’) said, which you have presented—in your argument—as if Trump said it in first person?”

“The people, my people, are so smart, and you know what else they say about my people . . . the polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters. OK, it’s like incredible.”

John

 . . . my response to round four:

            I am not, and have never made any claim to being, an expert in the English language.  English was not one of my strongest subjects in high school.  Yet, I have found a passion for the language.  I am a novice, or journeyman at best, and I certainly appreciate the subtleties of the language.  So, to be precise, he had sentences in proximity, which at a distance give him plausible deniability, i.e., I did not say it; I was simply repeating what someone else said.  On the flip side, he did NOT conjoin those sentences.  Thus, both sentences stand alone within the context of the statement.  As a consequence, the actionable sentence was NOT qualified, and therefore, it remains his original statement of thought, not a reflection of someone else.  Lastly, he chooses what he wishes to say; no one is making him say any of these things.  He chose to convey that thought, that image, that impression, as his own, whether repeating it or not.

            At the end of the day, I ask myself, what would Sir Winston think of the GOP presumptive nominee’s words – choice, delivery, message, meter, et al?  He was an expert and master craftsman of the language.

            Perhaps, part of my problem with the GOP presumptive nominee’s conduct is I have given him far too much credit for intelligence, i.e., that he has carefully chosen his words to convey the message he wishes us to receive.  Repeating profanity from his audience is hardly a wise choice.  To me, this whole fiasco surrounding him has absolutely nothing to do with political correctness; it has everything to do with basic human decency and respect for other human beings as your equal.  His purported wealth does NOT make him God, despite the fact he thinks so.

            You are, of course, free to rationalize his speech as you wish, for any reason you wish, but that does not alter the language . . . or his intention, in my humble opinion.  I am not attempting to alter your opinion . . . only to understand the basis of your opinion.  I certainly respect your courage and confidence in expressing your opinion, which is the very essence of this humble forum, I must say.

 . . . Round five:

“Thank you for the kind words.  I wish you were running.  I know without a doubt I could count on you to do the right thing; not pander for votes, not flip flop on your position unless you owned up to being wrong, not usurp the powers of your position to further your party’s position, not condone people in your administration usurping their power to target organizations of the opposing political party, not put out and facilitate a lie to cover up failings in Benghazi, put the justice back in the Justice Department, not play golf or attend fundraisers when your presence is needed elsewhere, and hold those in your administration responsible for their actions, all in the name of making this Grand Republic great again.”

 . . . my response to round five:

            Thank you for your confidence, but I have far too many flaws to even dream of submitting to the process.

            For the record, this Grand Republic has not stopped being great in my entire lifetime.

Another contribution:

“Once again, you give entirely too much space for a reader who is so fond of his/her words that he/she cannot shut up.

“If you were targeting some portion of the population or selling something, which you are not, his/criticism might apply, and you might start telling readers what they want to hear, as he/she apparently thinks bloggers must be bent upon doing in order to gain numbers of readers.

“I say keep on keeping on.  I don't care a whit about being targeted, and I have no need for blog ratings.

“I do care, however, about wasting my time reading inane argument offered by one of your reader who seems to enjoy just arguing.  One round, maybe, but not two, three, etc.”

My reply:

            Guilty!  Anyone who takes the time to express their opinion in furtherance of the public debate deserves a voice.

            I offer my apologies for exceeding your threshold of tolerance.

            I continually seek balance.  Clearly, I am not always successful.

            Thank you for expressing your opinion and reading the Blog.

A different offering from the same contributor:

“Thought you might be interested in part of an exchange on our local solo practitioner list service.”

The opinion submittal to a separate forum:

“In a recent email, I expressed distain for what I considered unbalanced news on June 6, the nearly forgotten D-Day anniversary, in favor of huge coverage of Ali's passing.  I was properly chastised, I think, for a perceived attitude on my own part, a reaction to my use of certain words that struck the responding solonet contributor as religious.  What I said was

    "Thank you, Reggie, for the poignant reminder of the date, once again almost forgotten in the    

            press as it celebrates the life of one obnoxious athlete who managed to REDEEM himself             partially by sharing  a little of his gains.  I am glad we can FORGIVE  Cassius and admire             his adult accomplishments, but I regret the media's unbalanced attention to such a low                         priority in American history."

“Now, having learned much more about the late adult life of AlI, I must confess that I let the attitude of my early years influence even my present willingness to forgive him for those obnoxious early years, and I have become thankful for the extensive coverage of a life that truly seems to have redeemed a youthful self-centeredness.

“Cassius Clay became Mohammed Ali and took political positions under what I considered dubious motivations at the time, but he later repudiated radical Islamic extremism and became deserving of the adulation evident over the years in some circles and covered quite well in the press upon his passing.  And, I must add in retrospect, he was quite right in his objection to our miserable efforts in Viet Nam.

“Let us never fail to celebrate D-Day every year, but let us not forget the example of Ali, who made a difference in the world that continues to inspire young and old.

“I repeat:  I must apologize for my own unbalanced reaction to the lack of adequate coverage of D-Day by overreacting to the quite proper coverage of Ali's death.”

My response:

            First and foremost, remembrance of D-Day is a worthy endeavor.  There were many D-Days and L-Days during World War II.  Operation OVERLORD is not yet forgotten.  The historic event is certainly featured in my next book due out in the next couple of months.  It is also an important event in Book VII of my To So Few series of historical novels . . . just in case you wanted to know.  In this instance, I do not fault the Press.  History never goes away.  Contemporary events superseded history this year.

            Re: Muhammad Ali.  He was a product of his time . . . a very tumultuous and divisive era in our history.  His life reflected the frustration of citizens with dark skin pigmentation during those years.  I have far more respect for Ali than many others of that time.  He sacrificed enormously for his principles rather than run for the sanctuary of Canada.  He was an amazing boxer and truly awesome to watch.  Our middle son asked me, who do you think would have won if Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson had fought?  My answer: Muhammad Ali.  He was a very smart, capable fighter.  BTW, our son disagreed.

            At the end of the day, thank you for your generous words and recognition.

            May God bless the soul of Muhammad Ali and all those veterans who sacrificed everything in the close run thing that was Operation OVERLORD.

May God bless this Grand Republic!

A different contribution:

“Regarding the attacks by Herr Drumpf on a sitting U.S. judge, this is an extremely egregious move that is totally unprecedented.  From media accounts today, he has instructed his surrogates to attack the judge and is doubling down.  This may be in response to the seriousness of the suits, which tend to undermine his story.  Further, one of the California suits is under a civil application of RICO statutes.  There is a similar suit being brought in New York state by the State AG- who calls the Trump U an “outright fraud”.   It is further interesting to hear that AGs in Florida and Texas curtailed investigations of Trump U in their respective states.  Subsequently, the AG of FL got $25K for her re-election campaign and the then-AG of TX got $35K for his election campaign to governor (looks, smells and sounds like a bribe).  And to make things more muddy, the present AG of TX issued a cease-and-desist letter to the retired AG attorney who disclosed data on the investigation that was cancelled- with no further recourse under the state AG for citizens to recover their funds.  Thus, Trump’s ire may be undergirded by real fear of potential criminal action.  Stay tuned.”

My reply:

            Herr Drumpf, indeed . . . that German running for POTUS.

            I had not heard most of that information.  If true, yes, waddles, quacks and looks like . . . a bribe.

            The extreme, unprecedented reaction from the GOP front-runner is precisely why I quoted Shakespeare in the Update . . . a perfect quote.  He has exposed his perceived vulnerability.  I hope the Press picks and bores deeply into this Trump U. nonsense.  I suspect there is much more to this story than what we know so far.

            Stay tuned . . . oh my yes . . . I’m not going anywhere.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)