Update no.772

Update from the Heartland

No.772

26.9.16 – 2.10.16

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

To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- After last week’s discussion of the independent Bellingcat analysis of the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 shoot down data [771], the Dutch Safety Board [Onderzoeksraad Voor Veiligheid, (OVV)] [722] issued its further analysis.  The OVV concluded the 9-M-83-38 missile was launched from a Buk system on the top of a hill in farmland west of Pervomaiskyi, Ukraine.  The two locations are roughly 300 kilometers apart . . . both still in Eastern Ukraine.  As much as I can see of the two analyses, I will take the Dutch Safety Board’s calculations.  Regardless, either location is consistent with my opinion with respect to who pulled the trigger and who is responsible.

            The first presidential debate is history.  Lester Holt of NBC News was the sole moderator for the debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.  The debate was simultaneously broadcast on all three networks and most news channels.  Holt struggled valiantly to bring order from the chaos the Republican nominee sought to create, but he fell short of properly moderating the event.

            The Republican nominee must get credit for trying mightily to mask his character flaws, but in the end, he failed miserably.  He was rude and disrespectful to both Lester Holt and the Democrat nominee.  At the end of the day, he came across as he has virtually the whole campaign – a typical schoolyard bully and NOT a presidential candidate . . . even marginally qualified.  His attention span seems to be so short he cannot complete a simple sentence most of the time.  There is no requirement in the Constitution for a president to speak properly, communicate minimally, or even to speak English for that matter.  Frankly, his sentence fragments are irritating to say the least.

            As could be easily anticipated, Hillary hit up the Donald on his refusal to release his federal tax returns for public scrutiny.  She suggested that he might be hiding the fact that he may not have paid any federal taxes.  His response: “That makes me smart.”  No, Donald, that makes you wealthy enough to afford the army of accountants and tax attorneys to find and exploit every tax loophole and deduction possible, to hide income probably in off shore accounts, and every other tax dodge your tax avoidance team can find.  That does NOT make you smart.   That said, Congress and their pandering to the wealthy are the root cause culprits in this tax fiasco; they create all those loopholes and dodge opportunities.  I would not be surprised if the Donald has violated tax law multiple times, but none of that has been proven, as yet . . . thus, the supposed federal tax audit . . . which I must state, we still have not seen the actual audit letter, i.e., we have no proof he is under audit . . . beyond his word that we cannot believe.

            He whined about her recent political commercials.  The sad clear reality, her commercials have virtually all been HIS WORDS. In fact, his whining makes her political commercials even more poignant.  I see her commercials as reflecting how most folks hear and react to the Donald’s diatribes.  He is his own worst enemy.

            The criticism of the Democrat candidate is puzzling to me.  She appeared calm, poised, controlled and deliberate.  She remained cool and measured despite his rude and crude interruptions, and other antagonisms.  The Democrat nominee clearly out-classed the Republican nominee.  She appeared and acted presidential; he did not.  He appeared hostile, ill-prepared and far off center like the intellectually weak schoolyard bully he is.

            As a side note, I am reminded by one of my most favorite quotations of wisdom from Sir Winston Churchill.

“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary.  It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body, it calls attention of an unhealthy state of things.”

Churchill truly cherished constructive criticism, learned from those observations, did not always agree, but became better.  The Republican candidate appears to be incapable of listening to any criticism, and even worse, of learning from that criticism.  No one (well other than perhaps his favorite child Ivanka) can tell the emperor he has no clothes.

            The Republican nominee needed an antihistamine before going on stage last Monday night.  Like all egocentric narcissists, he blamed the microphone . . . everyone else other than himself, which I must say, speaks volumes about his qualification(s).  He was sniffling most of the night.  There were ample examples of his absolute, categorical inability to recognize his own weaknesses

            CNN reported that Green Party candidate Jill Stein was escorted off the Hofstra campus because she was trying to conduct “press interviews” and did not have proper credentials to be there.  The optics were not good, but I suspect that was her real purpose.  I do agree with her; she and the Libertarian candidate deserve to be in the remaining debates.

            Lastly, if the Republican candidate truly believes the on-line poll results, “I’m winning by a landslide,” I suspect he is setting himself up for a cataclysmic disappointment when the election results are announced Tuesday night after the election.

            As an adjunct to the observations above and from a parallel forum, a particular,

pointed sub-topic may be useful.

            A contributor to this forum asked, “

“Here is an honest question to you.  I have not read the debate rules, but Holt spent some time correcting Trump on the constitutionality of the ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ procedures Trump was advocating.  Is the moderator in a position to do that?  Shouldn't Hillary have been that dissenter?  Again, I am not well versed on the debate/moderation rules.  By the way, I am not in favor of ‘Stop-and-Frisk.’”

My reply:

            Very good and appropriate Q.  Like any good journalist, you are to report the story, not become the story.  He walked a very fine line.  You cited the one important misstep by Holt.  ‘Stop and Frisk’ remains unsettled law.  Holt was correct in that a federal judge has decided the governmental action is not constitutional, but it has not been tested through the Appeals Court or SCOTUS, and until then, it is not settled law.  Thus, Holt was premature to raise the unconstitutional aspect.  It is not unconstitutional until SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional.

            In that vein, Holt was marginally OK when he jumped the Republican candidate about his support for the Iraq War.  The Stern interview was hardly an enthusiastic endorsement, but he did say ‘yes, I guess so.’  Yes is yes, period.  I have always rejected the Republican candidate’s explanation, and I did not give him that credit, as I do not believe he understands the issues involved in and around the decision to execute Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.

            That said, most of Holt's interruptions were in response to the Republican candidates rude, disrespectful and inappropriate interjections when the Democrat candidate was talking . . . very bad and improper debate form, especially at a presidential level.  We have no choice but to assume that is how he would conduct himself when he might be placed in contentious negotiations with world leaders.

            Several prominent newspapers in major cities broke with tradition in endorsing a presidential candidate.  I chose the Arizona Republic endorsement as the closest to my opinion at this juncture.  For the first time in its 126-year history, the Arizona Republic endorsed a candidate other than the Republican nominee.  The newspaper’s editorial board endorsed Hillary Clinton.  They said:

“Clinton retains her composure under pressure.  She’s tough.  She doesn’t back down.

“Trump responds to criticism with the petulance of verbal spit wads.

“That’s beneath our national dignity.

“When the president of the United States speaks, the world expects substance.  Not a blistering tweet.”

They went on to note:

“As secretary of state, Clinton made gender equality a priority for U.S. foreign policy.  This is an extension of Clinton’s bold ‘women’s rights are human rights’ speech in 1995.

“It reflects an understanding that America’s commitment to human rights is a critically needed beacon in today’s troubled world.

“Trump’s long history of objectifying women and his demeaning comments about women during the campaign are not just good-old-boy gaffes.

“They are evidence of deep character flaws.  They are part of a pattern.”

More importantly:

“The president commands [the most powerful military on the planet and] our nuclear arsenal.  Trump can’t command his own rhetoric.”

They closed with:

“We understand that Trump’s candidacy tapped a deep discontent among those who feel left behind by a changed economy and shifting demographics.

“Their concerns deserve to be discussed with respect.

“Ironically, Trump hasn’t done that. He has merely pandered. Instead of offering solutions, he hangs scapegoats like piñatas and invites people to take a swing.

“In a nation with an increasingly diverse population, Trump offers a recipe for permanent civil discord.

“In a global economy, he offers protectionism and a false promise to bring back jobs that no longer exist.

 “America needs to look ahead and build a new era of prosperity for the working class.”

            That fairly well summarizes things regarding the Republican candidate.  I must add his personality flaws cause me serious, verging upon insurmountable concern for a host of reasons.  We only have another five weeks of this rendition of the silly season, and then one way or another, we will move to another phase of history.

            I offer just a brief comment on “political correctness.”  Just because we can observe another person as being overweight and you call him “fat,” or “ugly,” does not mean you should.  Those observations are personal and devoid of substance relevant to the public domain.  Such adjectives are meant to be hurtful and a personal insult, since the observer cannot possibly know the root causes applicable to the individual.  Refraining from such modifiers is not political correctness; it is simple, courteous respect for another human being.  That said and to the contrary, I continue to use the term “Islamo-fascist” to describe individuals bent upon violence and the forceful imposition of their beliefs on everyone within their reach.  The object in the term is “fascist,” meaning any person espousing authoritarian views for a return to an earlier order.  The modifier (or sub-group) in this instance is “Islamo-,” thus applied renders the meaning of “Islamo-fascist” as any person espousing the use of fundamentalist Islam to return a community, a society, the world to the medieval theocratic past.  The difference between “fat” and “Islamo-fascist” in the political correctness realm or debate is the relevance to the public domain.  I would not use the term “Islamo-fascist” in public debate if there was no public threat from that group of individuals.  “Fat” is not threatening to anyone other than the individual; “Islamo-fascist” is most emphatically threatening.  Further, I did not and never will use the term “fascist-Islam,” since Islam is the object, which is categorically untrue.

            On a related supplementary note, I view the phrase “make America great, again,” in rather similar illumination as noted above.  The phrase implies the United States is no longer great.  I see no evidence, even remotely, to validate such a statement.  I see the term as suggesting we return to the days of segregation, to those days when the United States acted as the world’s policeman to stem the violent expansion of communism, or to those days in this Grand Republic when only white, male, educated, land-owners could vote.  How far back do we have to go to be “great,” again?

            How many of these police-on-black shootings are actually suicide-by-cop?  The latest incident in El Cajon, California, appears to be exactly that.  The subject repeatedly refused to comply with commands by law enforcement officers, and then raised his arms in a shooting stance toward an officer.  Law enforcement is NOT the mental health service . . . if we actually had one.  Full stop!  As a society, we have chosen to deny the need for a public mental health system and intervention process.  We cannot and must not compel law enforcement into making those judgments.  To do so is absolutely unreasonable, unrealistic and distracting from their root mission.

            The Republican candidate loves to use the term “rigged” to describe everything that is not going his way or even not going sufficiently his way to his liking.  “Rigged” is and has been an emotionally charged word that seems to be quite popular these days.  So much depends upon the definition.  The dictionary says: “rigged” is to manipulate fraudulently.  Using that definition, how are the U.S. elections “rigged”?  Or, taking a more liberal slant, how are they manipulated even without criminal intent?  I fully understand that each political faction wants their ideology, their beliefs, their candidate(s), to prevail over all others, and when they don't, the system must be “rigged” against them, as the Republican nominee has consistently espoused in such a juvenile manner.

            We have never changed the rules in the middle of a game . . . well, except perhaps when we were kids . . . not in football, not in ping pong and not in elections.  If we do not like the rules, we change the rules for the next game, the next season or the next election.  There are very real, tangible, valid reasons the U.S. federal election process is codified in the Constitution . . . with its incumbent difficulty in changing the Constitution as the wind changes.  Majority rule has never been the standard in this Grand Republic, again, for very real, tangible reasons.

            As such, I urge everyone to be a little more discriminating in our use of the word “rigged” with respect to our elections.

            Congress voted to override the President’s veto for the first time during his presidency and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act [PL 114-xxx; S.2040; House: 348-77-1-5(4); Senate: 97-1-2-0(0); 130 Stat. xxx] became law.  President Obama was spot on correct to veto the bill.  Congress originally passed the bill by voice vote in both chambers without a scintilla of meaningful and contemplative debate in what was a foolish, emotional, silly season, legislative action that will do far more to put Americans serving, working or traveling overseas at risk than it will ever derive compensation for the families of victims of state-sponsored terrorism.

            Sovereign immunity, like diplomatic immunity, is a principle of law that predates even this Grand Republic and was documented in the Blackstone Commentaries of English law [Book 1, Chapter 7, page 237, 1765].  The principle is represented in the U.S. Constitution (Article III, Section 2), codified in the 11^th Amendment (1795), and reinforced in law by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 [PL 94-583; 90 Stat. 2891; 21.10.1976] [541].

            I laud the President for standing up to Congress; he was and still is spot on correct.  I will be so bold to say this may well be the worst piece of legislation in the history of this Grand Republic, since it may well have incalculable and far-reaching effects on international relations.  I fear this law has opened Pandora’s Box, and will be very difficult to close again and return to the proper status quo ante.

            CNN sponsored a presidential town hall “America’s Military and the Commander-in-Chief” at Fort Lee, Virginia. Jake Tapper hosted President Barack Obama.  In general, I thought he did exceptionally well.  I will illuminate two of the notable exchanges.  The first, a gold-star mother asked, “Why do you refuse to use the term radical Islamic terrorist?”  He offered a thoughtful and measured response that reflects the balancing act of such public language.  While public writing demonstrates my marginal disagreement with the President, I certainly appreciate his concern for not alienating the general Muslim community, both domestic and international, since it is only the Muslim world that can help shorten this conflict.  I say marginal disagreement in that the language can be very precise as noted above.  The second response of note was the President’s reasoning for his veto of the S.2040 legislation (see above).  The President observed the law potentially invalidates status of forces agreements with other nations and violates the historic sovereign immunity principle.  As a consequence, the law may well expose Americans, especially our military personnel serving overseas and the United States to capricious litigation.  This law is quite likely a godsend for lawyers worldwide.

            On Sunday, Colombian voters apparently rejected a peace accord signed by the government with the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC), to end a 52-year-long violent conflict.  I would say this is a shocking outcome after so much death and destruction in the South American nation.  The analysis of what this vote means to peace in Colombia will take days and weeks.  What do the Colombian voters expect?  Do they really want to continue the violence?  What outcome do they seek?  This is a very strange result.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.771:

Comment to the Blog:

“I'll add a comment on law enforcement and their commands. I have a hearing loss in my right ear that doesn't impede normal conversation at all and a bit of an auditory processing issue the usually doesn't cause trouble either. Between the two, the shouted commands of police officers sound a great deal like a dog barking. They don't appreciate me asking, ‘Could you repeat that a little more clearly?’ or something similar, but I have had to do that.  I cannot be the only one.  I'll add that I was blessed with very specific training to be very afraid of any law enforcement officer, and I believe that in itself has saved my life more than once.  Respect for them is not part of me, though. Even the best of them is simply earning a paycheck most of the time.

“One small potential mitigating factor in the prospect of a Trump Presidency is that he may not plan to do the actual work of governing.  He is, after all is said and done, one more ‘trust fund baby.’  During the ‘pick a Vice President’ segment of this terrible reality show, we heard here in Ohio that Trump had offered our Governor Kasich the job with a stipulation that the Vice President would take charge of both foreign and domestic policy.  Kasich, who is not as dumb as he seems, turned it down. Indiana's Mike Pence took the position.  I doubt Trump’s Vice President, Governor Pence, would govern well, but anyone the least bit in touch with reality would do better than Trump.

“The origins of our current quagmire can be debated, but the turning point was the Reagan Presidency. That was when government officials successfully turned public opinion against government.”

Postscript:

“PS: I looked at Mike Pence's biography in Wikipedia and noticed this sentence: ‘During Pence's twelve years in the House, he introduced 90 bills and resolutions; none became law[42].’ He seems very unsuccessful as a legislator.”

My response to the Blog:

            I have not heard of any police officer defaulting to the pistol-drawn level at the get-go without probable cause.  I have never had a law enforcement officer draw and aim his weapon at me.  I have always treated and responded to law enforcement officers with respect and dignity.  I must also confess, there have been a few police officers in my life that were not demonstrating reciprocal respect.  I did not react to their antagonistic attitude.  If you do not give a law enforcement officer a reason to feel threatened . . . by acting suspiciously, nervously or aggressively, then you may avoid life-threatening confrontations.

            Re: Herr Drumpf AKA “Manhattan Mussolini.”  I do not know whether such reports are true or valid, but let us assume they are.  There are some tasks that are not delegate-able, e.g., the nuclear launch codes.  One thing in Pence’s favor; he has a more stable, calm and measured personality and conduct than the presidential nominee.

            Re: turning point.  Reagan – perhaps.  I will argue at least Nixon and more probably Johnson served as that turning point to my knowledge and understanding.  Someone . . . some day . . . will help us overcome this deeply corrosive nonsense.  Government is not the enemy.  I could launch into a lengthy tirade on this subject alone, but I shall resist . . . to avoid boring you and everyone else.

            Re: Pence the legislator.  I think you will find that many, if not all, have similar ratios of successfully passed legislation to introduced bills.  Some bills are introduced just to get “credit” with their contributors.

Round two:

“You are white and obviously middle class. Law enforcement officers will not show you their dangerous side if they can avoid it.

“I'm trying to watch/listen to the Presidential debate as I write this, but the nausea is worsening.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Ah, yes, I have been waiting for this opportunity.  I shall do my best to express my opinion properly.

            Yes, you are quite correct; I do not have dark skin pigmentation.  Truth be told, I am more pink than white; I do not do well in the sun these days.  Apparently, my skin pigmentation disqualifies me from understanding racial discrimination, and its artifacts of violence and oppression.

            So, the implication of your observation is I am incapable of relating to or empathizing with citizens with dark skin pigmentation.  I can and must categorically reject that implication.  I have been an advocate for equal rights for all citizens regardless of any one or a combination of the social factors including skin pigmentation.  In my latest book “The Clarity of Hindsight,” I brought a little known racial violence incident to the fore [25.July.1946] because I am outraged to this day by the senseless, racial bigotry and violence that incident represents.

            I offer no claim or even hint that law enforcement officers have never exhibited racial bigotry and perpetrated violence on citizens with dark skin pigmentation.  There are too many clear examples, e.g., North Charleston, South Carolina [4.April.2015].  As I have written many times over the years, there ARE bad cops.  Heck, it was not uncommon for police officers to be active members of the KKK during the days of segregation . . . and probably even today.  Emphatically, there ARE bad cops, just as there are bad citizens.  My point is, let us deal with the bad apples among us rather than condemn an important and vital profession in our society.

            Lastly, we must avoid generalizations and snap judgments / reactions.  While I agree with Dr. King’s observation, “A riot is the language of the unheard,” I see the recent riots in a different light, not dramatically different from Islamo-fascism; the community must police itself.  The out-of-town criminal elements that descend upon sites of these unfortunate and tragic events cause the destruction and violence; the community must help the police identify and neutralize the bad citizens among their legitimate protests.  The riots occurred before the facts or evidence are known, i.e., an emotional or more probably criminal act rather than logical reaction.

P.S.: I watched the 1^st debate live last night and again on DVR this morning.  I must give the Republican nominee credit for his valiant attempt to mask his personality flaws, but in the end he failed . . . miserably.  He is what he is.

Round three:

“Your skin pigmentation does not disqualify you from understanding racial discrimination.  However, when combined with your social class, it does insulate you from the experience.  I lack that social class, and thus I have less insulation, because social class is part of the underlying contempt and fear that fuels all of this.  I do not have the full experience of being black or Latino in this country, and I do not envy those who do.  It's dangerous.

“You watched that twice?  You have a strong stomach.  I actually managed to stick with it all the way through once.  I saw what I have been seeing from the beginning.  Trump lied about his business background and spread blame anywhere he could.  Clinton mistakenly bragged about her history, which will continue to cost her progressive votes.  She seems not to understand that holding a position does not equal doing a good job or even that ‘Democrat’ has not meant ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal’ since her husband's administration.  I still fear and loathe the prospect of either of them in the White House.

“I will note that in the course of his blame game, Trump took some positions to the left of Clinton, particularly on military action and on NAFTA and the other bogus trade treaties.  He actually said a few things I agree with, but I have no faith in him.  Indeed, nobody has any idea what a Trump Administration would do.  He's noted mostly for bluster and bankruptcy.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            Re: insulation.  Is it possible my compassion and intellect can overcome this insulation of which you speak?

            Re: 1st debate.  I had many impressions from listening to the debate.  I am still evolving my opinion.  The fact that the CPD has excluded the Libertarian and Green Party candidates pretty much assures either the Democrat or Republican candidates will be POTUS in January.

            Re: The Republican nominee.  The debate did not alter my opinion of the Republican nominee.  If anything, his performance reinforced my opinion.  Apparently, the best he can do is whine about the microphone, ‘hostile’ questions, and just about everything else other than himself – a classic reaction of an egocentric narcissist.  What on God’s little green earth does he think is going to happen if he should become POTUS?

            Re: The Democrat nominee.  Her demeanor and skillful performance impressed me.  She managed to poke him just enough to bring out his true character.  Like her expert political commercials, she uses his words, his conduct, his character against him.  She does not have to say a word about him or his policies.  As she asks, is he the president we want for our children, for our veterans, for our daughters?

Another contribution:

“Here I am working at the USAF Museum, and there are visitors (2 dozen) from New Zealand & Australia.  A gentleman asks me ‘After your election, would you like to move to New Zealand?’

“Hard question to answer.”

My reply:

            Keep the faith, my friend.  We shall endure whatever comes in November / January and subsequent.  This Grand Republic is much bigger and resilient than even the “Manhattan Mussolini.”

 . . . Round two:

“Yes indeed, Cap.

“And at the museum, a new building just opened with all the presidential aircraft from FDR to the JFK Air Force 1.  I did not know Bill Clinton actually used the JFK Air Force 1 for a short period of time.  But I had one visitor ask me while I was out in that area – ‘Where did Monica Lewinsky sit on the plane?’

“Hillary will use Monica, right?”

 . . . my reply to round two:

            One more of many reasons I must get to Dayton and the USAF Museum.  I have wanted to see the XB-70 since it was flying.  I also need to see the “Sacred Cow” for an upcoming book.  Further, It is my understanding that the German Ju-88 flown by my maternal uncle from Egypt to Dayton for exploitation during the war is on display as well.  Someday!

. . . Round three:

“Come on over, Cap.  Be glad to show & tell you all the Air Force does not want others to know.  I have visitors ask me frequently what those big hooks are on the tail for that F-4, A-1, A-7 and other aircraft the Air Farce stole from the Navy.  Also in the new building there is an AV-8 Harrier.  The sign in front of it says it was a USMC aircraft thanks to the British.  Air Force did not use it.  But on the aircraft on display, it says AIR FORCE.”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            The USAF Museum is on my bucket list.

            I wonder why they put USAF markings on an AV-8A?  Could it be they bought one to evaluate and it truly was an USAF s/n?

            BTW, I should have asked: is the Ju-88D-1 s/n: 430650 on display?

 . . . Round four:

“Yes Cap - found the Ju-88 today. It is in the WWII gallery. But it has Romanian Air on it. Not sure on serial number.”

 . . . my reply to round four:

            That sounds like the one.  The aircraft was originally flown from Romania to Cyprus as I recall, nearly brand new, something like less than a 100 hrs total time.  The pilot as I recall was German, although he might have been Romanian.  He defected and was very cooperative.  My uncle, Warner E. Newby (my mother's older brother) was an experienced B-25 pilot near the end of his combat tour and held an engineering degree, so he was chosen to fly the aircraft across Africa, the Atlantic to Brazil, and then up through the Caribbean to Dayton, Ohio, for exploitation.  Very impressive story.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)