Update from the
Heartland
No.759
27.6.16 – 3.7.16
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- I suppose the lesson learned from the Brexit event [758] is the federal government must
control the borders and closely regulate immigration, since that obligation
commits all the states to whatever happens at the border. It is right and proper that citizens
have freedom of movement within a federal assembly. It is not reasonable that complacency or inadequacy at the
federal level should obligate all states to endure that failure. Brexit appears to have been heavily
biased by that conflict. It is
also one of the principle nerves stimulated by the Republican presumptive
nominee, which in turn portends the potential outcome of the fall election in
this Grand Republic. The major
difference is, there is no Article 50 provision in the U.S. Constitution, as
there is in the Lisbon Treaty.
-- Russia’s antagonism continues [758]. This is not
normal . . . not even during the height of the Cold War.
“Russia is harassing U.S. diplomats all over Europe”
by Josh Rogin
Published: June 27 (2016)
Washington Post
CNN re-broadcast an extraordinary video recorded by two
courageous women, to document life in Raqqa under ISIL oppression. Raqqa, Syria, is the so-called capital
of ISIL.
“Women secretly film inside ISIS stronghold”
by Susanna Capelouto
CNN
Published: Mon March 14, 2016; Updated 4:22 AM ET,
When I say those women were courageous, I mean they
literally risked their lives to document some of life as they are living it in
Raqqa under ISIL domination. Like
so many fundamentalists of many different religious faiths, they seek to live
as our ancestors did millennia ago, in a very paternalistic manner. Females, wives and female children were
possessions of value, like prize, productive cows. Just the visual alone was sufficient to raise my ire. Under ISIL, women are required to have
no skin exposed – not feet, not hands, not even eyelids, nothing. Yet, men can dress, as they wish, with
skin clearly visible. Women have
no rights. Clearly, from the
content of the video, the two woman filmers were not there by choice. If a woman freely chooses to live like
that, to dress like that, I say good for them. However, if they are forced to submit to those conditions, I
see them as captives, illegally restrained and oppressed by a feudal system of
antiquated practices, and such systems should be resisted in any manner
possible under the law. Equality
is an essential element of freedom. If one of us is oppressed, we are all oppressed.
Now,
one important point . . . from current public political rhetoric. The Republican presumptive nominee
simply enjoys spouting all his falsehoods, exaggerations, deflections and
subterfuge, and one of those is his outright blaming President Obama and former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the rise of ISIL. He conveniently ignores history for
political gain, and regrettably, I doubt most folks will remember, know or even
attempt to learn the history involved, as they are attracted to the
preconceived image. If we wish to
blame anyone for the rise of ISIL, it should be the other Donald – ‘Rummie’
Rumsfeld – and as a consequence President Bush (43); it is they who advocated
for and decided to fight the Battle for Iraq on the cheap, without sufficient
forces to maintain security in the country they invaded and deposed the
existing regime, leaving lawlessness in their wake. So, for me, the blame is clear, and I categorically reject
the Republican presumptive nominee’s false accusations . . . one more reason!
One
more point, I give President Obama credit, at least in part, for not succumbing
to the voices of military intrigue.
He has done as much as can be done, short of invasion, in Syria. President Obama is not making the same
mistake as President Bush. The
American people do not support another active ground combat fight, yet. If we are not prepared to maintain law
and order, and restore lawful governance, we should not invade any
country. Thus, my opinion,
President Obama is doing about as much as can be done . . . short of invasion,
occupation and enforcement of law, before a proper indigenous government can be
established.
WTF!
“Meeting Between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch Provokes Political
Furor”
by Mark Landler
New
York Times
Published: JUNE 30, 2016
“Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch’s toxic meeting”
By Ruth Marcus Columnist
Washington
Post
July 1 at 3:40 PM
What on God’s little green earth was he thinking? Bill Clinton met privately with
Attorney General Loretta Lynch aboard her aircraft on the flight ramp at
Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. To me,
it does not matter what topics were discussed, how long the chat lasted, or
even what was said. I do not care
a nit whether they were best buds, bosom-buddies, or more. The implication of impropriety while
his wife and Democratic presumptive nominee is under active criminal
investigation by the FBI (for another serious impropriety) is so far beyond
audacious . . . there is no word.
Hillary professed her disquiet as to why people do not trust her. Well, Hillary, here is a reason (one of
oh so many) and a perfect example why we do not trust you or your husband. You and your husband do NOT enjoy royal
prerogative – divine right of kings.
You are just ordinary citizens who have no more or no less rights than
the rest of us. Unfortunately,
both of you apparently believe you are different and ‘entitled’ to special
treatment . . . just because you are who you are . . . self-anointed royalty. Well, surprise, surprise; you are NOT
special. Your husband (at least in
name) may have just blown the last chance you had to make history. I truly hope that little ‘social’ chat
on the flight line ramp was worth it.
So, I shall respectfully disagree with Landler and the New York Times; the furor is NOT
political; it is ETHICAL! The
cynics may surmise this bone-head stunt was a calculated move intended just to
tweak Republicans – interesting, but does not matter to me. As I have been repeatedly and broadly
criticized for not being hard enough on the Democratic presumptive nominee,
this garbage is just too much for even tolerant, moderate, middle-of-the-road
me to tolerate. I am neither a
Republican nor a Democrat; I am a true independent, non-aligned, non-affiliated
citizen who is perceptive (I think) and has an opinion. Full stop!
News from the economic
front:
-- Bank of England Governor Mark Carney publicly stated the
central bank would need to cut its key interest rate ‘over the summer,’ adding
that an initial assessment of the economic damage from the Brexit vote would be
made at the Monetary Policy Committee's July meeting, and a ‘full assessment’
alongside new forecasts for growth and inflation in August. Carney predicted economic growth will
slow in the coming months and that further cuts in interest rates and other
measures will be needed even as he declared his confidence in the U.K.'s
ability to successfully adapt to a future outside the European Union.
Comments and contributions from Update no.758:
Comment to the Blog:
“I will not go so far into the vernacular as to use ‘jibber jabber’
in public writing.
“I have not heard much lately on the Ukraine-Russia situation, but
you may have different sources than I. You seem to be more in touch with the
spy community than I, and probably you have other sources. It's always wise to
consider the source of any given bit of information. After all, I consider Fox ‘News’
to be fiction, and poorly written fiction at that. I am not alone in that.
“In all those questions about who has a right to do what, you do
not say whether you refer to legal rights or moral ‘rights.’ I'm not sure even
legal rights matter in these wars and rumors of wars, but legal rights can at
least be determined by historians. Moral rights are pretty much a matter of
opinion.
“You are quick to judge the poor for having families. How your
morality works is beyond me. Almost everyone has a deep drive to have children,
and I know of no widespread exceptions in any period or place. That is why
celibate clergy are seen as sacrificing a great deal for their religion. You
also utterly fail to consider the effect of oligarchy on income. If the people
who own our government have decided we have no need to live indoors, eat
adequately, or work in sane conditions, how is that justifiable? Beyond the
moral question, in the long term, impoverished workers do poorer work and function
poorly as customers.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
“jibber-jabber.” Your choice,
entirely . . . as it is mine.
Re:
Ukraine-Russia. Yes, apparently I do
have different sources, and none of my sources includes Fox News.
Re:
“legal
rights or moral ‘rights.’”
Ah, yes, interesting question.
First, a personal opinion / observation, if you will permit me. Morality is between the individual and
God. Legal rights are defined, can
be interpreted, and violations established. If the UN Charter has any meaning or value, the violations
of Russia can be established.
Unfortunately, the single, major (perhaps fatal) flaw in the UN Charter
is the one critical assumption – none of the five permanent members of the
Security Council would be an aggressor nation. So, as a consequence, there is no legal means to prevent
Russia from doing what it is doing, and those opposed to Russia’s actions will
have to decide where the line of tolerance lies and when Russia has crossed
that line.
It
is not my place to judge families.
I have no right to judge.
My comment, my opinion is simply that all people must live within their
means. Our compassion should
protect those who fall into hard times, to help them overcome hard times. People who marry and procreate beyond
their means are taking advantage of our compassion. We must find the proper balance. We should not be paying for people to procreate beyond their
means. So, the question to us as a
society rests upon where we draw the line between freedom of choice and
unilateral obligation of the State.
Thus, the minimum wage should be determined by subsistence levels for a
single person in local conditions . . . not to sustain a non-working spouse or
children. Where is the balance
point?
Another contribution:
“Bravo to your dialog regarding not procreating beyond your
means. I have often thought precisely what you have espoused. Too little forethought is put forth by
those who condemn themselves and their offspring to endless poverty, and burden
the state with their thoughtless actions.”
My reply:
Thx. Nice to agree . . . from time to time.
Not
everyone agrees, as you will see in this week’s Comments.
. . . follow-up comment:
“Yes, it is nice to agree from time-to-time. I was very pleased we were in sync. And yes, I expected there would be
disagreement to what you posited, and that is precisely why we have more and
more people born into a life of poverty.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
Quite
so; that process of balance is always a delicate one.
. . . a follow-up, follow-up comment:
“Nothing the Four Horsemen won’t solve in the long run.”
. . . my follow-up, follow-up reply:
There
is always that.
A different comment:
“Of course, the original ‘terrorist watch list’ in this country
included names like John Hancock, Ben Franklin, John Adams and George
Washington, among others. We like to call them the founding fathers but
to the legal government of the time, they were terrorists who took their
private firearms out of their homes and shot the legal authorities. They
were as well armed, or probably better armed, than the British government.
Silly people, when they later wrote the Constitution they wanted to keep
the people, ‘a well regulated militia,’ as well armed as the government.
Unfortunately they didn't specify firearms, but only ‘arms,’ in the
Constitution and that term would now include nuclear weapons and nerve gas.
We probably need to amend the Constitution, and in the process we need to
decide if there's a reasonable possibility that our government still warrants
such suspicion as the founding fathers held.
“Vote Libertarian.”
My response:
Interesting
perspective and quite appropriate.
We shall see where this heads.
One last comment
thread:
“Well we’re all
reeling! We are witnessing the internal destruction of the Labour opposition-we
are witnessing the resignation of our Prime Minister and our pound sterling has
sunk to its lowest level against your dollar for 30 years, although this
morning we hear there is some rallying in Asia.
“I think the word ‘Turmoil’
might well be adequate.
“So now we have
less friends in Europe with other members of the union mumbling about leaving.
“Personally I’m not
surprised at the results of this referendum, the EU has become too bureaucratic
and demanding, even to the extent of overruling judgements made by our courts. I cannot believe your nation would
tolerate this interference. The leaders there are seen by many as the ‘fat
cats’ of politics receiving in their bank accounts more that we pay our own
ministers. There is much change required in that organization.”
My reply:
We
are reeling with you, my friend.
Shocking outcome, actually!
I suppose the resignation of Prime Minister Cameron is understandable
given his stated, public position on Brexit. However, the devastation of the Labour Party leadership is
mind-boggling. The Pound Sterling
will recover, as will England, if not Great Britain. This too shall pass.
You
were much closer to the reality of Brexit, so I’m glad you were not surprised,
but I must confess I was and I still am surprised. To be frank and blunt, y’all may have given us a preview of
what we will face in the fall election – similar forces appear to be at play
here, as well.
You
are quite correct. The internal
resistance to external dicta, e.g., the United Nations, is quite real and
palpable. A comparable conflict
exists between the states and our federal government with multitudinous
examples, the greatest of which being the genesis of our Civil War (1861-1865,
and the years of aftermath). Federalism
has worked for several centuries, but we are hardly a worthy example in the
last few decades.
. . . follow-up comment:
“On a more sombre
note today the 1st July.
“You will I know
realize I’m talking about The First Day of the Somme, a day that is remembered
for the dreadful loss of almost 20,000 of our brave young men who died on the
fields of Picardy. At 7.30 am, as the birds were singing, they rose from the
protection of their trenches believing that the German defences had been
annihilated by days of heavy shell bombardment. The shelling stops, the
whistles blow and over the top they advanced to their deaths. The most
solemn and grave day in the history of The British Army.
“This morning, as
all over this country and France, we attended our war memorial at this
melancholy time, blew our whistle, prayed with our padre and gave our thanks
for their brave deeds. We didn’t know them for there are none left- we can only
give our thanks for what they did for us a time long ago.
“We will remember
them.”
. . . my follow-up comment:
Indeed,
a very somber but reverent centennial, and a tragic period in history. It was a hard lesson to learn. Artillery or air power will never take
and hold ground . . . well, short of the NBC nastiness. Unfortunately, I must say, far too many
Americans do not know what happened in the Somme Valley 100 years ago. I remember the history.
May
God rest their immortal souls.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
The lesson from Brexit (and other “puzzling” current events) is that people in general are more aware of government corruption than the Establishment has understood. Much more basic than immigration is the chance to break the stranglehold of banks, corporations and the wealthy on government. The oligarchies here and in the EU have seen declining voter participation as a sign the general public has lost interest in politics. In fact, many lost hope, not awareness. That hope has been revived by signs of weakness and division among the Establishment and by the rise of leaders including Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. Even Donald Trump, never the sharpest tool in the shed, has seen and used that general opposition to politics as usual, represented by Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and the “mainstream” of the GOP, along with their nominal opposition, at this point Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz for the Democrats. This election is not about political personalities or parties. It’s about the good of We the People. Let us hope that enough people see through the Donald as readily as we do the Washington Establishment.
We can blame nearly anyone for the rise of ISIL. The underlying cause is American interventionism, which goes back to the Monroe Doctrine (1823). Certainly Bush the Younger made it worse by treating 9-11 as a political, rather than a criminal, act. Obama, however, has not improved our position. In his defense, I will note that his first Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was notably more hawkish than Obama. For some reason unknown to me, the Republicans picked on a single incident at Benghazi rather than point to her entire record as Secretary of State. Maybe their campaign contributors guided that mistake. Obama has tried to limit our action in Syria, but we’ve seen “limited wars” since Vietnam. No good. We in the US need to mind our own problems for once. We have plenty right here at home.
We are in complete agreement on Bill Clinton’s visit to Loretta Lynch. It’s hard to believe from that mistake that Bill was a Rhodes Scholar back in the day and is a veteran success in politics.
Calvin,
Re: Establishment corruption. Well, I do not think I can argue with that or even disagree. Our current crop of representatives (by current, I mean the last several decades worth, and by crop, I mean the Legislative and Executive branches) have not served us well. So, now, we have rebellion. I just hope We, the People, do not do anything foolish, out of spite for our anger. We shall see.
Re: interventionism. Not that is important to your point, but the United States has projected power earlier than the Monroe Doctrine, e.g., Barbary Wars (1801 & sub), Commerce Act (9.7.1798) [PL 5-II-068; 1 Stat. 578], French Naval War [1798-1801] and others. The issue from those early days through today has been and will remain commerce. This is not to say the United States has not made its share of mistakes. Yes, we have plenty to do at home. Yet, free commerce is an essential element of freedom itself. As I read your words, the impression I am left with is isolationism, in the true spirit of the America Firsters (1939-1941). There must be a balance point somewhere short of either extreme.
Re: Bill Clinton’s most recent stunt. Amen, brother! I chalk his conduct up to him believing his own drivel – divine right of kings. Neither of them is stupid, ignorant or unintelligent, but I suspect they do believe they are special and entitled to special treatment, regardless of the law, ethics, or morality.
At the end of the day, We, the People, will decide their fate in November . . . through the Electoral College in December, of course. It is up to us to change things.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment