Update no.773

Update from the Heartland

No.773

3.10.16 – 9.10.16

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

To all,

            Oddly, the urge to not pile on has overtaken me.  The Press coverage of the Republican nominee’s latest, misogynistic revelations have seen near universal illumination and condemnation.  Republican Party leaders and office holders continue to abandon their standard bearer, and the loyal surrogates strive mightily to defend the “Manhattan Mussolini.”  There is no purpose in my recounting the latest fiasco.  I will only say his conduct is either a true reflection of his character, or it was some, foolish, juvenile, machismo performance.  Either way, this event is yet one more reason not to vote for the “Manhattan Mussolini.”  I’m just sayin’.  Now, it appears we are only testing each voter’s tolerance threshold, and we shall have our proof in four weeks.

            The only Vice Presidential debate of this silly season was held at Longwood University, in Farmville, Virginia, between Republican Mike Pence and Democrat Tim Kaine, and was moderated by Elaine Quijano of CBS News.  In the main, I was very disappointed in Kaine, who continually interrupted Pence during the governor’s time.  I thought it was rude for Trump to do it, and I think it was rude and discourteous for Kaine to do it.  His continual refusal to respect Pence was quite unbecoming.  Pence presented a far more calm, measured and contemplative demeanor.  On style points alone, for the most part, Pence knew where the camera was and spoke to the American people, while Kaine spoke almost solely to the moderator – not the camera and the People.  They traded barbs.  Pence did a magnificent job deflecting and avoiding any attempt to defend the outrageous words of the Republican presidential nominee; he must get credit for a job well done in that sense.

             The real truth teller between the two vice presidential candidates, and the political parties for that matter, came at the end of the debate.  Quijano asked both men, “You have both been open about the role that faith has played in your lives.  Can you discuss in detail a time when you struggled to balance your personal faith and a public policy position?”

            Kaine: “I try to practice my religion in a very devout way and follow the teachings of my church in my own personal life.  But I don't believe in this nation, a First Amendment nation, where we don't raise any religion over the other, and we allow people to worship as they please, that the doctrines of any one religion should be [not] mandated for everyone.

            “I think it is really, really important that those of us who have deep faith lives don't feel that we could just substitute our own views for everybody else in society, regardless of their views.”

            Pence: “[m]y faith informs my life.  I try and spend a little time on my knees every day.  But it all for me begins with cherishing the dignity, the worth, the value of every human life.”

            Therein lies the difference.  Both are men of faith.  One believes his faith should naturally and normally flow into public policy.  The other can differentiate between his faith (personal) and governance policy (public).  My political position has been and remains clear . . . I want private out of the public domain and the public out of the private domain.

            A few related thoughts:

-- Building a border wall will NOT secure the border, EVER!  Immigration reform that develops a defense in depth will have the best opportunity for success.

-- Get the criminal element out . . . nice thought, but this is no different from the detainees from the War on Islamic Fascism.  It is highly doubtful that the home countries of those criminal individuals will take them back.  Further, for those individuals prone or inclined to criminal conduct, I suspect their lives in a U.S. prison are markedly better than their lives in their homelands.

-- Republican talking heads used the term “unhinged” in describing the Democrat nominee’s performance.  OK, does that mean the Republican nominee’s performance last week was “unhinged”? 

            A related observation from a friend, colleague and contributor:

“Last night, during the VP debate, Governor Pence repeatedly said that Obama Administration leadership had been ‘feckless.’ He repeated the refrain three or four times, so I assume it was part of the advice from his Prep team or speechwriter to call Obama and Clinton feckless. While I must assume Pence knew what the word meant to have used it so often, I have to question how many Americans listening to the VP debate knew what the word ‘feckless’ means. They probably know it is a bad thing to say about a President or political candidate, in part because it just sounds so bad, ‘FECKless!’

            “But that leads to the question of ‘What's the feck?’  What does the word really mean?  If feckless is a bad thing, what is the opposite, the antonym of feckless.  ‘Feck’ comes to us from the old Scots language and passed into old and Middle English.  We no longer use the direct opposite ‘feckful,’ I suspect we still use feckless, because Shakespeare liked to use it, ‘this feckless knave.’  But, Shakespeare never used ‘feckful,’ hence its obsolescence.  And, the Middle English and modern English users French-ified ‘feck’ into a more common and less pejorative sounding word ‘effect.’  They also gave ‘feck’ an English verb ‘affect.’  So, ‘feckless’ is actually the synonym of ‘ineffective.’

            “Since it is most often used now as a pejorative for a government policy or leader, it is often misused by people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh as though it meant slothful or incompetent, but it really just means ineffective.  Also, it is incorrect to use it as a pejorative for something you disagreed with, or when that leader or policy did something you did not like, because if it actually did something, it is not feckless.”

            Another related opinion from another friend, colleague and contributor, and a different forum:

            “Hillary Clinton fervently urges women to reject Donald Trump because of male chauvinism and occasional ugly commentary about women he dislikes, but thinking women must realize that votes should not be emotional because there are more important qualities at stake.  Let's try forgiving both candidates for treatment of some women so we can concentrate on what matters.  Forgive Hillary for vicious organized attacks on the many female victims of Governor and President William Jefferson Clinton's decades of extra-marital philandering as she cunningly followed her ambitions for power on his coat tails.  Forgive Donald for alleged marital indiscretions and his selective and sometimes public verbal abuse and dislike of those few women who displeased him, unlike those he gave great business responsibility.  What is left is a choice for this country's future, and the differences are huge!  Look at just a few.  Hillary, the classic political insider, honestly promises more of Obama's domestic and foreign policies, more taxes, and more liberal federal judges interpreting the constitution according to today's social norms.  She guarantees more opportunity for disrespect from foreign enemies, more Clintonian cleverness and big money influence on government, and more alignment with Hollywood's ideas of morality.  Donald, the classic political outsider, honestly promises actual change in our federal government's direction domestically and internationally, lower taxes and less governmental interference for the businesses that generate most American jobs, and federal judges with records of respect for the constitution and non-legislative role of the judiciary.  He guarantees earned respect from our enemies, experienced businesslike leadership to trim the fat executive branch of government while relying only on his personally earned wealth, and elevation of family values in our nation.  Think about it, and vote for what matters most in the long run, not for what feels good this year.”

To which, I could not resist a counter-opinion:

            You clearly believe (or perhaps desperately want to believe) the Republican nominee’s promises and guarantees.  I simply do not.  I see him in the light of a classic, stereotypical, used car salesman, who will say and do anything to get the sale no matter how bad the object is he is trying to sell.

            I refuse to defend or justify the Democrat nominee’s numerous serious mistakes, the most grievous of which (IMHO) was her extraordinarily disrespectful handling of classified material (her words alone as Secretary of State).  When she chose to mix personal and professional material, she sacrificed whatever privacy she had left.  I still cannot believe the USG allowed her to even attempt it, let alone get away with it.  However, that said, I see her character flaws in far less threatening terms than I view the monumental character flaws of the Republican nominee.  But hey, that’s just me.

            Truth be told, the Libertarian candidate is probably the closest to my political opinions, but I am not pleased with his public performance either.  And frankly, I find little attraction to the Green Party political positions.

            My sample ballot remains blank on my desk.  I have still not decided . . . well, except for the foolish state constitutional amendment referendum on this year’s ballot – the right to hunt, fish and trap shall not be infringed upon.  REJECT!  I have one month to decide on the remainder of the ballot.

            The second presidential debate was held Sunday evening, at Washington University, in St. Louis, Missouri, and was moderated by Martha Raddatz from ABC News and Andersen Cooper from CNN.  This event was done in the town hall format with questions from citizens and from the moderators.

            Well, I guess . . . no more mister nice guy, huh!

            “Manhattan Mussolini” has validated my impressions and perceptions in vivid colors.  The body language alone spoke volumes.  “Locker room talk” . . . really?  His justification for virtually everything he says is “trust me,” or “believe me.”  Some will and do believe him simply because he says so; I am not one of those individuals.

            I shudder to think what the aftermath of this silly season nonsense is going to look like, as the citizens of this Grand Republic must pick up the pieces.

            News from the economic front:

-- The Reserve Bank of India unexpectedly cut its repurchase rate by a quarter point to 6.25%, the lowest level in more than five years, citing a marked slowdown in global growth.

-- The Labor Department reported non-farm employment rose by a seasonally adjusted 156,000 jobs in September, the smallest gain since May.  The unemployment rate ticked up a tenth of a point to 5.0%. The overall labor force grew quickly as discouraged Americans came off the sidelines to seek jobs.  Wage growth also accelerated.  The increase reflected encouraging signs for the economy and positive indicators the Federal Reserve is likely moving closer to raising interest rates.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.772:

Comment to the Blog:

“The first Presidential debate is indeed history.  Mrs. Clinton looked quite Presidential compared to the blowhard Trump, but then almost anyone would who could hold their temper with days of preparation.  My sad conclusion is still that our nation’s choice, barring the unforeseen, is to continue down the highway to Hell in our current fashion versus driving directly over a cliff.

“Whether the U.S. is currently ‘great’ depends primarily on one’s viewpoint. The millions of people who have fallen out of the middle class can’t see the greatness right now, and their friends and relatives fear following them.  Many of them are Trump’s followers.  Most minorities, the poor, and many women have yet to taste the ‘great’ part.  (We’re mostly too smart to vote for Trump in those categories, but ‘great’ doesn’t apply to our lives in the U.S.)

“The public mental health system you refer to once existed to a degree, but it has been almost eliminated via repeated budget cuts.  That fact also accounts for a percentage of the homeless.

“The big surprise in your posting came near the end of the Arizona Republic’s Clinton endorsement.  They caught me off guard with their realization about Trump’s promise to ‘bring back jobs that no longer exist.’  I read that literally.  The editorial board at the Arizona Republic agrees with me that technology (or something) is permanently eliminating jobs.  That startles me more than educated people rejecting the worst kind of agitator.

“One further objection to the term ‘Islamo-fascist.’  According to defectors and prisoner interviews, most of the people in question are not religious or knowledgeable about Islam.  Calling them Islamic is rather like calling Westboro Baptist Church members Baptists.  Most Baptists differ.  The fighters are simply people from a particular part of the world who have gone radical.  Religion makes a vehicle, but doesn’t influence their actions much.  They cherry-pick a few ideas, but with the same distortions as the radical Christians, the equally radical Jews, etc.  Real religion has about as much real meaning to them as the Constitution has to the so-called ‘militias’ in this country.

“U.S. elections have certainly been influenced in the past.  The fiascoes of 1876 and 2000 as well as the quieter undercutting of 1980 stand out, but many other examples can be cited.  Why does this not change?  The people who take office would have to change the methods put them in office.  That’s not happening.”

My response to the Blog:

            I do not share your apparent pessimism regarding the future of this Grand Republic.  We shall endure and continue to be great regardless of who becomes POTUS in January.

            It is unfortunate you do not share the perspective of greatness, but that reality is certainly understandable.

            The paucity of any mental health triage and intervention system is appalling in a civilized nation.  Even worse, we are defaulting to law enforcement and that is just flat wrong.

            I agreed with all of that editorial.  We do need to listen and understand.  The British went through a serious transition from an industrial, manufacturing nation – the ultimate industrial revolution country back in the day.  They are now primarily a service nation.  It appears they successfully made that transition.  I suspect we are headed down that road.

            Interesting observations regarding terms.  I can neither validate nor refute your claims.  I will only say, there are real reasons their death cry is “Allahu Akbar.”

            Personally, I would not compare any elections to the fiasco of the 1876 election, but hey, that’s just me.  One thing that is certain in this silly season, the Republican nominee has intentionally and purposefully tapped into a deep vein of dissatisfaction in a segment of our society.  We shall see what lasting effects, if any, the shenanigans of this particular silly season might have on the body politic.

Another contribution:

“too much

“too anti-Trump

“too pro-Hillary

“regarding the Muslim world:  the peace that the Muslim world promises is when all the world accepts Sharia law and converts or pretends to convert to Islam.

“Until I see Muslim leaders not just condemn ISSL and selected atrocities but condemn the very words of their own holy book that guide the movement for world domination, I will see the current terrorism as nothing more than another inevitable episode in the Muslim world's 2000 year plan.  The Muslim world will not help shorten, much less end, this conflict.

“And Hillary's Obama-like peashooter military games will only prolong the anti-American lessons we are teaching.”

My reply:

            My apologies.  It is never my intention to exceed your tolerance threshold, or anyone’s tolerance threshold.  As a moderate independent, I was simply responding to what we in the attack aviation world call a “fat target.”  ‘Nuf said.

            Re: Muslim world.  We shall respectfully disagree.  Based on the Muslims I know, they are tolerant and accepting of others.  I have never felt imposed upon.  Those who seek to impose Sharia law on others are not particularly different from evangelical Christians who seek to impose their beliefs and their values on everyone they can.  No body should be imposing their values on anyone.

            Re: condemn the Qur’an.  Would you ask or expect Christians to condemn the Bible, or Jews to condemn the Torah?  Catholics used the Bible to persecute and murder Protestants.  Protestants used the Bible to retaliate and kill Catholics.  Respectfully, I believe you are focused on the wrong thing.

            I guess you did not see the interview with King Abdullah of Jordan on a recent 60 Minutes program.  He is no friend of ISIL.  Let us not condemn an entire population of believers in one of the revealed religions because the perverted actions of a mere fractional minority.  Imagine, if you will, what Christianity was dealing with 600 years ago; that is what Islam is dealing with.  Maturity takes time.

 . . . Round two:

“Please, no threshold has been exceeded, and no apology is ever needed for for expressing beliefs held in good faith.

“Re: Muslim world.  Yes, Muslims I know are also nice, and yes, most are, and yes, some Christians are evangelists unrealistically pushing others to adopt their religion.  However, you should be willing to admit that few Christians in the last several centuries have been killing Muslims by the hundreds in the name of Christianity.  Compare the radical Christian behaviors and stated intentions with those of the radical Islamic minority in the Muslim world you so generously defend.  I say that world, like the Christian world, needs to be far more proactive in condemning its radical branch.

“Re: condemn the Quran.  I don't know where you got that idea.  If you just read my words, you see that I am referring to those justifications for acts of violence to assure worldwide Jihad and worldwide Sharia law, regardless of how many centuries it takes.  I never have suggested asking any religion to condemn its sacred book.  I am suggesting that Muslims need to condemn those passages in theirs that are used by radical Islam, and I am pointing out what you seem to ignore: the Muslim world is NOT condemning those words, any more than fundamentalist Christians are willing to admit that parts of the Bible are abominable.

“Re: Jordan.  I too have the utmost respect and admiration for King Abdullah, having toured part of the country with a guide who convinced me that my impressions from limited reading were correct.  I admire his brave efforts to deal with overwhelming regional problems and do not question his devotion to the best of Islam and the defeat of the radicals who have hijacked the peaceful religion using authority of its scripture.  I have never ‘condemn(ed) an entire population of believers,’ so I assume you did not direct that advice at me.  I do condemn the attitude of the majority of Christians and Muslims who continue to worship their books (‘every word is true’) instead of their God (God is Allah is Love).

“Forgive me when I opine that your response this time (as has happened on a few previous occasions) generally reveals that you gave my comment to 772 only a quick glance and reacted with a defensive opinion not worthy of your usually careful intellectual expressions.

“That said, we shall continue with our mutual respect for good faith discourse, with the hope that misunderstandings are temporary and harmless in the long run!  We share the same goals if not the same strategies.”

 . . . my reply to round two:

            Re: “However, you should be willing to admit that few Christians in the last several centuries have been killing Muslims by the hundreds in the name of Christianity.”   As I have tried insufficiently to suggest, I see Islam as being 600 years behind Christianity in maturity.  There are violent periods in the past of both Judaism and Christianity.  The first two of the revealed religions matured out of their violent phases.  I see similar evolutionary changes in Islam.  I also hold onto hope and expectations that Islam will mature far faster than the older two religions as a consequence of the vastly greater speed of communications.

            Re: “needs to be far more proactive in condemning its radical branch.”  Yes, actually, I agree.  Speaking out about a radical element is not as easy as it sounds.  Again, I ask you to think back 600 years; there were not many voices speaking out against the violent faction; those that did usually found themselves being tied to a stake and burned alive as heretics.  I do not see what Muslims are enduring as fundamentally different.  I have not travelled to every country in the world, or met and lived with all those different people.  However, of those countries that I have visited, I have observed and truly believe that people are the same everywhere.  We just want to live our lives to the best of our ability, live in peace, and help our children have a better life than we had.  At the root, people are the same.  What is different are governments, religious clerics, or other authoritarian constructs that serve their selfish, megalomaniacal objectives – domination.  Just as we did not condemn all of Christianity or all of Judaism back in their violent periods, I urge us not to condemn all of Islam in their violence phase.

            Re: God is God.  Whatever name we use to refer to Him, God is still God.

            That is the beauty and magnificence of this Grand Republic – “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness,” i.e. freedom of choice.  We continue to struggle with attaining that ideal, but it is still out there in front of us.

            I accept your criticism with grace.

            Yes, we shall respectfully disagree . . . on occasion.

 . . . Round three:

“I truly admire your optimism as so eloquently and consistently expressed, but I do not share it and do sincerely despair over the apathy of moderate Christians and Muslims.  We, or our grandchildren's children, shall see...”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            Indeed, we shall see!  Time always tells the tale.

            You shall have the last word on this one.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)