Update no.765

Update from the Heartland

No.765

8.8.16 – 14.8.16

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

To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- An interesting interview with retired Transport Safety Board of Canada investigator Larry Vance regarding Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (8.3.2014) [638, 691, 711, 716]:

“Expert on MH370 Disappearance: ‘There Is Absolutely No Mystery To What Happened’”

Interview Conducted by Marco Evers

Der Spiegel

Published: August 11, 2016 – 12:24 PM

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/mh370-disappearance-that-fuselage-is-in-one-piece-says-expert-a-1107149.html - ref=nl-international

To be blunt, I am surprised that a qualified, experienced, aviation accident investigator would be so absolute, based on such spotty factual data.  That said, I do agree with his conclusion when we apply Occam’s Razor.  The evidence he cites points to the most likely scenario – an intentional, controlled (by an experienced pilot), low-speed ditching in the Indian Ocean.  While I agree with Vance, I cannot be so absolute.

            We now have a horse race – the card is set.  Doctor Jill Ellen Stein, MD, accepted the Green Party nomination for president, and chose Ajamu Baraka as her vice presidential running mate.  I would like to note that CNN will hold a Green Party Town Hall meeting on Wednesday evening, 17^th August.  I urge everyone to listen and think.

             Also, David Evan McMullin declared his candidacy for the presidency as an independent to represent the anybody-but-Trump, conservative folks, although it is not clear how many states he will qualify to be listed on the ballot (of course, any citizen can write-in his name, even if he does not appear on the ballot).

            So, the ballot for November will be:

Democrat:            Hillary Rodham Clinton [763]

Green:                  Jill Ellen Stein [765]

Libertarian:           Gary Earl Johnson [756]

Republican:          Donald Joseph Trump [762]

[and I suppose, if we really want to give him a listing,]

Independent:        David Evan McMullin [765]

I am not sure whether any of the networks can carry off a four or five way debate of the candidates, regardless of the Federal Election Commission criterion.  I am not optimistic, just hopeful.  We need (deserve) to hear someone other than the Republican nominee.

            Our middle son offered this contribution:

“[Trump] does not want the job, or ever was serious about the presidency.  Watch this, it may be the best thing on the Internet right now.”

URL:

http://www.cracked.com/video_20056_what-if-donald-trump-just-elaborate-prank.html

My response:

            Good one!  And, it may not be far from the truth.

            Worse: what does that say about the American people?

Love,

Dad         :-)

Lastly, while this rendition is not likely a historical documentary or even loose portrayal, it does explain at least some of the conduct of the Republican nominee.

            Supporters of the Republican nominee point to one very attractive trait they see in him – he says what he means.  He is not constrained by political correctness.  Then, when he says really idiotic stuff, they defend his misstatements – that’s not what he really meant.  One of Teddy Roosevelt’s many pearls of wisdom was, say what you mean, mean what you say.  He was plain spoken as well, but to my knowledge he did not resort to foolish innuendo or juvenile insults of those who disagreed with him.  To my knowledge, Teddy never allowed sarcasm, ‘just kidding,’ or ‘that was a joke’ to color his public rhetoric.  My favorite Teddy-ism is, speak softly and carry a big stick.  The Republican nominee’s words and conduct are just about the polar opposite from Teddy.  He likes to portray himself as a tough guy.  He may well be . . . with other people’s blood, but I suspect he would crumple into a babbling, crying baby if he got a bloody nose (just like in the video clip noted above, I must add).  At least Adolf Hitler served as a corporal in the army and was wounded in combat. 

            The next to latest faux pas from the Republican nominee:

“In many respects, you know, they honor President Obama.  He’s the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder of ISIS.  He’s the founder.  He founded ISIS.  I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton.”

The statement defies logic and all known facts.  His statement is devoid of any semblance of reality.  The worst part, his statement publicly demonstrates his ignorance and paucity of any desire to learn.  He repeated it over and over and over, again, and he ignored repeated attempts by other folks to help him out of the hole.  Eventually, he lamely claimed he was being sarcastic . . . “well, not so much.”  Unfortunately, Donnie-boy, leaders do NOT get to be sarcastic, kidding, joking or other drivel, since such thoughts exist only in his mind, and there is no decoder ring on the planet to help another living soul understand what is in his mind and what he “really” meant to say.

            The latest [I cannot say the last, since I know beyond a reasonable doubt, this will not be the last] faux pas from the Republican nominee:

“The only way we can lose, in my opinion, I really mean this, Pennsylvania, is if cheating goes on.  I really believe it.”  [Sadly, I think he really does believe it; worse, he will convince more than a few American citizens that it is true.]

First, this sounds exactly like a desperate man striking out at anything he can think of.  We have witnessed the phenomenon many times.

Second, he is delusional – a classic response of an extreme narcissist, i.e., his problems cannot possibly be his doing, his fault; whatever problems exist for him, e.g., failure, must be someone else’s doing.

Third, he is now attacking anything and everything he can see: the Press, the electoral system, the Republican Party, nearly everything except his opponents.

Lastly, this blathering nonsense reminds me of a day gone by – 19.March.1945, the day Adolf Hitler issued his “Nero order.”  He believed that Germany failed its leader and therefore nothing of value in Germany should survive him; burn it all down, he ordered.  Such blatant, extreme, narcissistic, ego-centric people in positions of power simply cannot and refuse to believe they could possibly lose anything – not an election, not a battle, not a war, not a game of chess.  Thus, the system must be rigged against them (him).  So, as he is trying to do, since the entire system is rigged against him, burn it all down; nothing should survive his failed candidacy.

Post Script: There are far too many similarities to Adolf Hitler for this to be coincidence.

            You know, even if the Republican nominee instantly transformed his conduct, and acted and performed as a proper presidential candidate, who took the position he is seeking seriously, I doubt many of us would believe him anymore.  He has wasted and frittered away any presumption of innocence in the last year plus of his antics.  I must confess my genuine sadness that a once noble political party has been laid so low by the novice-ness, outrageousness and immaturity of the Republican nominee.  We can only hope and pray the remainder of this silly season passes swiftly.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.764:

Comment to the Blog:

“I find it encouraging that the Donald is already talking about the election being rigged. That happens (2000 and 2004, for instance), but talking about it now, with no evidence, shows us that Mr. Trump is thinking about losing.  I have seen a headline that the American Psychological Association has issued its usual advice not to diagnose the Republican candidate.  I support that for the reasons they give.  However, I will point out how thoroughly he resembles a large number of people I have seen and heard who speak in similar assumptions, tones and even words when they reach a certain stage of drunkenness.  I have worked for a few of those, too, but only a few.  The one I remember best had inherited the business, just like Mr. Trump, and ruined it.  How can a person (Trump) who ran casinos into bankruptcy claim business success?  Owning a casino is almost a license to print money.

“I also fear the election of the Democrat candidate, for a completely different set of reasons. Her dishonesty seems to me pretty much ordinary in current U.S. politics, sad as that may seem.  Moderation typically is a reasonable course of action, and Hillary Clinton certainly counts as a moderate.  However, Secretary Clinton is a moderate mostly because she depends on Wall Street and other corporate connections for campaign financing and her personal income.  Meanwhile, climate change is making her fields of experience (starting needless wars, supporting big business) irrelevant.  Climate change has been studied seriously since at least the 1980s, and the only difference between the reality and most scientists’ predictions is that every aspect of the change is happening faster than expected.  Senator Clinton’s backers will not allow her to respond with the appropriate strength and boldness.  Other issues needing a similar approach will meet the same fate.

“Should climate change (and corruption) go on unchecked, the U.S. and the rest of the world will face much more severe disasters than a loudmouth President who plans to let his Vice President handle all policy.  (Given that the Vice President would be Governor Pence, that’s still big trouble.)

“The mainstream choice this year reminds me of an old advertising slogan for some kind of preventive maintenance. ‘Pay me now or pay me later.’

“I will vote for a woman in November, but not for Secretary Clinton. I must vote my conscience, and that will mean Jill Stein, M.D., of the Green Party USA.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: “rigged election.”  Agreed, precisely, which is exactly why I suspect he believes he has no chance to win.

            Re: “casinos.”  Spot on!

            Re: election financing.  We cannot fault Hillary for playing by the rules as they are.  Citizens United set the stage, the ground rules (or lack of same), and the reality of what me must suffer these days.  I do not see that she has done anything different from what every other politician has done in perpetuity . . . well, except Bernie, perhaps.  Until we change the law (and now thanks to Citizens United that means the Constitution), the means by which political candidates finance their election campaigns will not change.

            Re: climate change.  The existence of climate change is far less debatable than the source of the changes and more so what we do and how fast we do it.

            Re: “Pay me now or pay me later.”  Interesting perspective.

            Re: Jill Stein.  Congratulations.  I’m not there, yet.  If she gets elected, will she have a Green majority in Congress?  If not, how is she going to get anything done?

 . . . Round two:

“Re: Stein as President. She would probably not have a Green Party majority, but if we think in policy terms, there's a real chance she would have a large enough liberal/progressive contingent to succeed. In particular, the Republican Party is disintegrating, which leaves many opportunities.

“Re: election financing. I am quite aware that Hillary plays ‘by the rules.’ The problem is that the rules tie her hands even more than those of most candidates. She has a long and lucrative relationship with Wall Street, and they don't ‘give,’ they invest.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Re: Green.  Good points.  She has my attention.  I just hope one of the news agencies can overcome the Federal Election Commission 15% access rule for participation in public debates.  Fortunately, CNN, among all the newsies, has given a platform to the Libertarian nominee.  I hope and trust they will do the same with the Green nominee.  I want to see a proper debate between all four leading party nominees – not likely, but there is hope.

            Re: election financing.  Every president as far back as we can see such things has sought funding from outside sources to prosecute their election campaigns.  Hillary is no different from Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan, or John Kennedy or Richard Nixon.  Why do you believe Hillary is somehow different from every other candidate who has run for the presidency?  I agree with you in my objection to the grotesquely corrupting influence of money, especially hidden money, but those are the rules we have.  So, let us not blame Hillary for following the rules.  If we don’t like the rules, let us focus on the proper root cause.

 . . . Round three:

“Reagan, Carter, Nixon, and the Bushes found funding from many sources, often including labor unions (for the Democrats of the past) and conservative Christians (for the Republicans). Neither party was limited to Wall Street, corporations, and the very wealthy. Secretary Clinton is basically that limited.

“One additional point here is that the past need not dictate the future. I saw an announcement yesterday that Secretary Clinton has now reached a total of 2 million donors, a mark Bernie Sanders passed in March without dark money to use in marketing. If Senator Sanders and his down-ballot Democrats (Debbie Wasserman Schultz's challenger, Tim Canova, for example) can do without SuperPACs and corporate support, so can others.”

. . . my response to round three:

            Re: Clinton campaign financing.  You are beyond my knowledge and capacity to go find out.  Let it suffice to say, I doubt Wall Street banks and corporations are the only source of funds for the Clinton campaign.  Her funding is probably not as populist as Bernie’s, but we shall see.  Let us assume you are precisely correct, the implied conflict of interest would be quite real; yet, because it is so focused, it would be easy enough to watch, illuminate and criticize.

            Re: without dark money.  Voluntary rejection of funding sources is a huge step to ask any candidate to make given the enormous amounts of money necessary to run a successful national campaign.  Plus, leaving such rejection voluntary strongly favors the wealthy, who have “other” funding sources beyond public scrutiny.  We must change the law and enforcement provisions, which in turn means we must overturn Citizens United, and thus a constitutional amendment.

 . . . Round four:

“Feel free to research Secretary Clinton's (and her husband's) relationship to Wall Street. Much of the financial information is public.

“I did not discuss eliminating SuperPAC and other dark money at this moment. However, plenty of us are making that an important criterion in choosing how to vote. That's one of the major factors the Democratic Party has not noticed in this election. Trump caught on; that's why he has claimed to be self-funding at various times. Most of us won't ever vote for him based on his apparent mental state, but he caught on to voters' rebellion against corruption.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            You may well be correct.  I sincerely hope so.  So, who is that candidate?  And, more importantly, how do you proposed to s/he elected?

 . . . Round five:

“As of the present, the only Presidential candidate not using dark money is Jill Stein of the Green Party, although I have not checked out the Libertarian candidate. However, this is the strangest election in our lifetime. One indictment, fifteen seconds of damning video, or another set of hacked emails could elect or finish any candidate.

“Also, the circus-like atmosphere of the Presidential race distracts us from the power struggle. Some ‘down ballot’ candidates are following Senator Sanders' lead, including Tim Canova and at least one Senate candidate in Florida. This is where real change could take place. As we see today, it is Congress that passes the laws or not, controls the purse strings, and (sometimes) talks to the folks ‘back home.’ Presidents are influential and make the important daily decisions, but Congress is the legislative body that ultimately guides policy.”

 . . . my response to round five:

            I do not know how any of us can have confidence in any campaign financing, fund raising activities for any candidate, including Jill Stein, or Bernie Sanders for that matter.  As long as fund raising can be hidden, it will be hidden, at least in part, and we will never know.  I do not trust any of them – not Bernie, not Jill, not any of them.  Our system of governance was built on checks and balances, and yet, of all our processes, election financing remains the least ‘supervised,’ and thus it also remains the most corruptible, and Citizens United made it orders of magnitude worse.

 . . . Round six:

I certainly agree about Citizens United and more broadly about transparency. All we can do is our best, and that requires not setting the fox to guard the henhouse as nearly as we can detect.”

 . . . my response to round six:

            Amen brother!

Another contribution:

“In your unfortunate prejudice against Trump and consistent willingness to forgive the Clintons of everything in favor election of a female with only that one qualification, you have overused one alleged idea that you and others attribute to Trump, which I quote’ he alone is the savior.’  Never do you paraphrase Hillary's similar claim with any negative connotation.  Come on!  Get real!  The nominee of either the Democrats or the Repandercrats will be our next president, and each truly believes he or she is the only one.  In fairness, I never have heard either one use your word ‘savior.’  So, to be fair, admit that Hillary has said in so many words that ‘SHE alone is the savior.’  She is just a better politician than the Donald, much better, and up to now anyway has had better speech writers, and surely you agree with me that our most skillful professional politicians and speech makers have this country is a mess never anticipated by the patriots who designed our government!  Bottom line:  We may not know what Trump will do, but we know what Clinton will do, and our country cannot survive a another generation of increasing national debt and liberal Supreme Court Judges.

“...and another thing, while we are at it: I agree with the inference that one of the independent candidates (other than the closet independent Trump, who with his truly independent style and substance captured the GOP voters' imagination but not that of its entrenched leadership) might make a nicer president and be capable of political correctness, a trait Trump blessedly lacks.  However, we do not need a nice president, and a vote for those guys, whom I admire very much) is a vote for Hillary.  We have had  a nice leftist Muslim sympathizer and we do not need and cannot afford an imitation substitute, whose word is her bond and is worth nothing.”

My reply:

            Re: prejudice.  Wow!  Apparently, I have failed miserably to communicate properly, or someone has made a quantum leap in presumption.  I have forgiven no one – not the Clintons, not Trump, not Obama, not Bush (43), not even Reagan.  No one gets a pass.

            Re: “I alone can fix it.”  His words . . . no one else’s.  Hillary may well believe she is the savior, but she is humble enough to not proclaim to the world what is clearly and absolutely not true – for either of them, or any human being, for that matter.  His statement is not self-confidence; it is ego-centric arrogance; there is a monumental difference.  As you well know from your service to this Grand Republic, anyone who goes into harm’s way must believe he will survive and prevail.  I have long known the difference between a pilot’s loose flapping of his gums and another pilot’s demonstrated actions.  My actions speak for themselves; I don’t need to beat on my chest.

            Re: national debt.  Spot on!  I have a long history of public objection to the obscene spending by Congress – Republicans are just as bad as Democrats.  In the first six (6) years of the Bush (43) administration, he had a Republican dominated Congress, and that Congress increased the national debt more than any Congress in my lifetime.  So, let’s point our accusatory finger at the correct source.

            Re: liberal SCOTUS justices.  Well, to be blunt and direct, I don’t care what the political leanings or preferences of SCOTUS justices are.  I want justices who will protect the rights of citizens rather than enhance the power of government to intrude upon and dominate our private affairs.  To me, the critical jurisprudence matter is a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom to seek their chosen path to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  I see Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] in a far broader light; abortion happens to be the topic, but the root issue is a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy in making intimate, personal, medical decisions.

            Re: political correctness.  Let’s not confuse the popular notion and generalization of the term with the proper, moral responsibility to respect other people and their particular choices for their “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.”  From my perspective, many who rail against political correctness might be well served to refresh their reading and understanding of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.   Plain spoken-ness does NOT give anyone the right to insult and demean other people.  The First Amendment protects the right of the Republican nominee to say whatever he wants, but that does NOT make his speech correct.  A leader, especially in a diverse, inclusive society such as the objective of this Grand Republic, must represent all citizens, not just the chosen, or the majority.  Insulting people who disagree with you is not frankness; it is disrespect.  It is not strength; it is weakness.

            Re: “nice president.”  I am a firm believer in the wisdom of Teddy Roosevelt (POTUS - 26).  I can never accept a leader in the frame of Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin.  The Republican nominee is far closer to the latter than the former.  Full stop!

            Re: “a nice leftist Muslim sympathizer.”  Surely you jest.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“Well said, my friend, as usual.  However,

“1. Your self defense is always accepted, but IMHO it is your words over the years that have evoked my opinion about your current bottom line conclusions concerning the Clinton (‘better than the alternative’).  Hillary does not ‘get a pass,’ but it sounds as though she may get your vote.  Wow.

“2. How about ‘I alone AMONG THE CANDIDATES can fix it?’  This is the actual accurate and true claim, if overly optimistic just like most coaches and candidates, and not humble (as you astonishingly suggest may be a Clinton attribute) for sure, but it is what Trump means as a summary statement distinguishing an independent candidate from the establishment of either party.

“3. I have always ‘pointed the accusatory finger’ at the correct source regarding the need for a balanced budget.  It will not happen with currently entrenched Democrats or Repandercrats, and I don't hear Trump (certainly not Hillary) promising otherwise with any credibility.  We agree on this.

“4. Political leanings or preferences of SCOTUS justices don't bother me either, except when they dictate their decisions in contradiction to the letter of the Constitution as written and amended.  We all know what Hillary will expect from her nominees.  Our only hope is a newly principled Senate to disapprove any nominee who cannot convincingly promise to not allow his or her leanings or preferences (we all have them) to sway any decision or opinion.  And to repeat my earlier tirade, with which you agree, the GOP leadership should be ashamed for not doing its job of prompt Senatorial consideration of Obama's nominee and any future nominee of any POTUS.

“5.  We agree about political correctness, except that you are too unforgiving of a non-politician who foolishly and sometimes boorishly fails to restrain his habitual bully nature.

“6.  We need a POTUS with Trump's apolitical attitude and strength, if not the bully in him, not just more of the same leadership-in-name-only stuff.

“7.  I do not jest about Muslims.  They really are peaceful in their majority, like most southerners abhorred the KKK and most Germans were not Nazis and both failed to stop what they saw happening, but the majority of Muslims are not successfully rejecting the huge Islamic minority bent upon eventual domination.  Obama's unusually high number of Muslim appointees and his actions and words leave me convinced, not in jest.”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

            Re: my vote.  Simply put, you have misjudged my words.  ‘Nuf said.  I shall not be one of those Germans who voted for the National Socialists in 1932.  For the record, I will not likely make my choice until some time after the last debate and before I enter the voting booth.

            Re: “I alone can fix it.”  Ahso, you must have found one of those secret, magical, decoder rings to understand what he “really” meant to say.  Unfortunately, he does not get a pass for words he meant to say; he said what he said, in those exact words; I heard him speak those words live and I nearly vomited.  Further, I shall respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

            Re: political correctness.  A private citizen enjoys the full expanse of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech rights.  A political leader, or a wannabe leader, does not enjoy the same freedom.  A leader must be far more measured, and they must represent all citizens, not just a loyal constituency or the chosen.

            Re: apolitical attitude.  You know, taken in general, I would actually agree with you, especially given the calcified intransigence of the last dozen Congresses.  Unfortunately, the Republican nominee’s mind-numbing myriad of abhorrent personality traits disqualify him, from my perspective.

            Re: Muslims.  Once again, we shall respectfully disagree.  President Obama is NOT “a nice leftist Muslim sympathizer.”  The last time I checked, the Constitution set the standard [Article 6, Clause 3] for all of us, not just those in political office.

 . . . the last word:

“Thanks.  Sorry if I have misjudged your words.  I do not misjudge your patriotism or sincerity, friend.

“I continue to very much enjoy our exchanges!”

A different contribution:

URL:

http://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-accuses-barack-obama-of-being-founder-of-isis-10531559

“I do not envy the American voter - this item is quite unbelievable. Over here we have a constant flow of the most disturbing comments being made by what can only be a most disturbed individual.  Yes we are, as is the rest of the world, most concerned over the state of your presidential election.  There is a damming article about Mrs. Clinton and an involvement with your CIA.  Are both of the candidates unsuitable to be ‘Commander in Chief’ of your armed forces?  What a desperate choice your people have, my friend. Should we, the rest of the universe butt out it being no business of ours?  Absolutely not, your nation’s choice of leader is paramount to the peace and prosperity of the entire globe.

“This may not be the view of your nation but I urge all of our American cousins to consider most carefully their options next November.”

My response:

            This particular silly season in this Grand Republic is by an order of magnitude more embarrassing than any other election in my lifetime and perhaps in all others combined.

            Re: butt out.  Absolutely not!  If the United States was a small, third-world country like Zimbabwe or Nepal, perhaps this election campaign nonsense could be ignored.  Unfortunately, the United States remains the most powerful nation of our time, and that simple reality cannot be ignored.  I have been through social episodes, through war, through assassination attempts on our presidents, through more than a few bad times.  I have voted in every general election since I was old enough to vote and through all of those hard times, I have NEVER been so apprehensive about a presidential election and at a far more serious level, about what might happen after the election is decided.  The Founders and Framers were concerned about the popular vote.  At the time of the Founding, only adult, educated, Caucasian, male, land-owners were considered qualified to vote, and even then, they created the Electoral College . . . just in case.  So, no, you should not butt out.

            The sad, cold reality is, depending upon what happens in the next few months, we may be faced with voting for the person most likely to prevent a very dangerous man from becoming POTUS.  Just like your Brexit vote, far too many Americans are enamored by the coarseness of that particular candidate.  Currently, the person most likely to defeat that dangerous man has an uncomfortably large number of detractors as well.  I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime, nor am I aware of any even remotely similar election event in the history of this Grand Republic.  That latter fact alone scares the hell out of me.  We saw an angry vote in your Brexit; we may well see another angry vote this coming November.  I hope not, but it is all too real.

            Your urging of American voters is quite appropriate, reasonable and logical.  We can only hope the majority in sufficient states see the light, and vote for the future of this Grand Republic rather than with their anger over the abysmal status quo.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)