Update from the
Heartland
No.776
24.10.16 – 30.10.16
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- In this category, a friend and contributor wrote:
“As I generally begin my search each day for any updates on MS804
and MH370, I found the following this morning:”
The article linked above:
“There’s something we haven’t been told about MH370”
by Anthony Colangelo – Reporter
The New Daily
Published: Oct 25, 2016; 11:00pm
My response:
I
am troubled by more than a few things in that article.
However,
first and foremost, I do agree with the conclusion: “[Cox] now believes ‘rogue pilot’
[hypothesis] is no more likely than any other theory.” My opinion favors the rogue pilot
hypothesis simply because it is the hypothesis that fits most of the publicly
known data, but I cannot espouse the rogue pilot hypothesis over other
plausible hypotheses.
Windscreen
failure is so low on the plausible hypotheses scale as to be essentially zero .
. . verging upon a wild-ass guess, i.e., the aircraft could have been hit by a
meteor. It suggests a very poor
understanding of modern windscreen design and experience.
Windscreen
heater failures occur in all high altitude aircraft (to my knowledge). I have dealt with that class of failure
in virtually every high altitude aircraft I have ever worked on. While there have been instances of
smoking units, I have never heard of a full-on fire caused by windscreen heater
malfunction in any aircraft.
The
documented flight track required pilot action, either by active flight control
or programming the FCS, either way it was an intentional act.
Lastly,
I am troubled by the graphic at the bottom . . . my primary objections: 1.) the
boxed “Likely Flight Track,” and 2.) the implication the found debris indicates
the likely crash site, i.e., Western Indian Ocean. The arc pointed to by the boxed text is actually the
equi-distant arc from the maritime satellite (InMarSat) that picked up the last
electronic ping from the aircraft.
The debris has been floating debris, which by definition is subject to
wind and ocean currents. While
there are factual elements in the graphic, the annotations and conclusions are
wrong.
I am so bloody tired of this eMail crap. There is ONLY one person to blame for
the mess she is in – Hillary Rodham Clinton – period, full stop, end of story.
Hillary
can blame no one else! It does not
matter who advised her, who suggested it would make her life easier, or
anything or anyone else. She
decided to mix private and professional communications, hosted, processed and
stored on a personal server she purchased, had installed and maintained in her
home. Once she decided to mix
private and public communications, she abdicated her communications
privacy. When she unilaterally
decided (regardless of any third party she hired) to delete her “private”
eMails, she violated several laws at least on intent, if not explicit legal
precision. By my understanding of
the law, both the bill enacting Title 5 – Government
Organization and Employees [PL 89-554; 80 Stat. 378; 6.September.1966]
and the Presidential
Recordings Preservation Act [PL 93-526; 88 Stat. 1695;
19.December.1974] defined the intent of the law regarding governmental
communications. Her professional
communications belong to the People, NOT to her. Once she chose to mix those messages, her private
communications during her years of service became part of the public record by
default, i.e., she had no right to delete communications she unilaterally
deemed “private” or personal.
Hillary
decided to sluff it off in a lame attempt to minimize what she had done and
exposed governmental communications to potential compromise. Her actions have allowed this matter to
remain an open wound that cannot heal for more than two years. I can find no evidence she understands
the full dimensions of her “mistake.”
Hillary
probably did not want people rummaging through her private communications with
other people. I sure as hell know
I do not want anyone rummaging through my communications. However, the biggest point of all in
this sordid episode remains, she ABDICATED her privacy when she decided to
combine professional and private communications. I have attempted to strictly keep my professional and
private communications separate. I
have known all my professional life that my professional communications were
the property of the military (the USG) and whatever company I was working for
at the time. How she rationalized
the mixing of professional and private for her personal, selfish convenience
was beyond me. She probably
considered it a classic “easier to seek forgiveness than to gain permission”
scenario. Well, the forgiveness
has been very difficult to attain for one principal reason it seems to me. Hillary (and her husband) has(ve) a
long pattern of behavior and conduct that demonstrates or strongly implies they
see themselves as above the law, i.e., the divine right of kings. At the end of the day, such conduct is
absolutely, categorically unacceptable and intolerable . . . regardless of
apologies.
Pardon me . . . it took me far too long to figure out that
Donald Trump is spot on correct!
The presidential election system is rigged . . . in spades. The Founders / Framers were wise enough
and intellectually astute enough to recognize and acknowledge the vulnerability
of the new Republic to simple, popular vote. They created a system with some insulation between simple
popular vote and the actual election of the president. The people are susceptible to
demagoguery, as history bore witness in 1932/33. A third of the German people voted for the National
Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP).
The German political establishment of the day convinced President
Hindenburg they could control the firebrand NSDAP leader. As a consequence, Hindenburg appointed
Hitler to be chancellor [30.January.1933]. It took less than three months [23.March.1933] for the
German Parliament under National Socialist coercion to pass by a vote of 441 to
94, a law giving Adolf Hitler dictatorial power – actually, Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich [Law in order to
remedy the misery of the people and the Empire] also known as der
Ermächtigungsgesetz [the Enabling Act]. At that moment, the political
establishment lost any hope of controlling the new dictator. Suppression of the Press, opposition and
the Judiciary began simultaneously, but took a little longer to achieve and was
just as absolute. While our
electoral process, established by the Constitution, would NOT prevent such
unilateral power being placed in the hands of one person, it certainly makes
the likelihood substantially less.
If we think similar demagoguery is not possible in this Grand Republic,
we are only fooling ourselves. So,
yes, our presidential election system is rigged (to use the erroneous word of
the Republican nominee), and I want it to remain that way. Any human being who thinks and
proclaims, “I alone can fix it” [762]
is a demagogue in the classic sense and the worst possible way.
Footnote: The next Update will be the last before the
election on Tuesday, 8.November.2016.
I will state for the record, if I did or even could believe the few
kernels of policy positions espoused by the Republican presidential nominee, I
could actually support those few positions. Unfortunately, I do not believe him. Yet, for me, I cannot get past his
seriously threatening character flaws, just one noted above. As I have stated more than a few times
in this humble forum, I have seen his kind far too many times in my life.
To
be fair and balanced, I also find affinity with some of the policy positions
offered by the Democrat presidential nominee. However, the perception of entitlement above and beyond We,
the People, as illuminated above, is simply a bridge too far for me.
In
just over a week, I expect we shall have a president-elect. Whomever the new president shall be, I will
do my best to see the positive and find the good, and more importantly, I shall
advocate for compromise to find solutions to our very real national issues. Full stop!
Leonard
Pitts sank the nail with one stroke, again.
“Trump whines and blames instead of accepting reality”
by Leonard Pitts Jr. – Miami Herald
Wichita
Eagle
Published: OCTOBER 24, 2016; 5:16 AM
Senate
Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada publicly suggested that FBI Director James
Comey may have violated the Hatch Act, when the director sent a disclosure
letter to cognizant members of Congress regarding the “pertinent” eMails
discovered on Wiener’s laptop computer in an unrelated criminal investigation. Comey was left in an impossible position
after his declaration last July [760]. For a man of integrity, I truly believe
he had no choice but to issue that disclosure letter. The Comey letter was NOT an open
letter. It was NOT intended for
public disclosure. While we do not
know who made that letter public, I have very strong suspicions. President Roosevelt signed into law the
Hatch Act of
1939 [PL 76-252; 53 Stat. 1147; 2.August.1939] [570], “to prevent pernicious political activities” by Federal
employees. Given the circumstances
created solely by Hillary Clinton (see above), there is no way on God’s little
green Earth the word “pernicious” can be applied to Comey’s action. Hillary can rail against the timing and
precedent, yet again, she did this completely to herself. Apparently, she has no problem throwing
Director Comey under the bus – not a high point in personal integrity on her
part.
News from the economic
front:
-- The U.S. Commerce Department reported the nation’s Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) grew at a 2.9% annual rate in 3Q2016 – the fastest
growth in two years, which eased concerns of a near-term slowdown. Economic growth remains on a long, slow trajectory.
Comments and contributions from Update no.775:
Comment to the Blog:
“To repeat the obvious, Donald Trump's personality failings make
him a dramatically inappropriate choice for President. Unfortunately, the high-functioning
gentlemen who wrote the Constitution failed to foresee our national descent
into madness. They neglected to
specify admission of criminal behavior or dramatic personality dysfunctions as
disqualifying factors for high office.
“However, ‘Even a blind hog can find an acorn once in a while.’
(Attributed to William F. Shumaker by goodreads.com) Trump's proposals on
revolving-door lobbying, should they be enacted, would benefit the U.S. a great
deal. I see term limits on
Congress less favorably unless similar limits could somehow be imposed on
lobbying. Otherwise, experienced
lobbyists could manipulate even more rookie members of Congress as easily than
they do now.
“Comparing Trump to Clinton resembles comparing arsenic to cyanide
as a food additive. You die either
way. I am glad I already voted. My
enthusiasm drops lower daily. The
only reassuring factor is that Congress could restrain either of them.
“I would not oppose lawsuits exposing corruption in our electoral
system, although the outcomes of those are beyond my imagination. However, some of Trump's supporters may
make some attempt at armed revolt when their candidate loses. The duly elected President will put that
down forcibly. In the process, she will demonstrate the futility of those who claim
to keep arms in anticipation of revolting against an oppressive government. The United States has by far the largest
military in the world. If someone thinks they can beat that with a few thousand
personal arsenals, let them have at it.
“Your statement about Senator Sanders is false. ‘Bernie sought to protest those rules
and went a long way to doing just that; he still played by the rules.’ Not quite. The ‘rules’ that bother most of us in regard to the Clintons
deal with fund raising. Sanders out-raised Mrs. Clinton more months than not
without taking corporate or PAC money. That's on record at the Federal Elections Commission. Sanders
did not play by ‘the rules’ (Citizens United and the rest). A few
others are still doing that grassroots fundraising. Voters may forget that for a while, but progressive office
holders and potential candidates will not. Furthermore, Senator Sanders is not
going away. If the Democrats
successfully re-take the Senate, as they may, Sanders will become the chief
check on Hillary Clinton's corporate paybacks. Senator Warren, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and others will
support his efforts.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
“failed
to foresee our national descent into madness.” On the contrary, I think they constructed the Electoral
College to avoid or deal with just this situation – popular seduction by a
demagogue.
Re:
lobbyists. That is the flaw in
term limits. Many laws are drafted
and pushed by the lobbyists for their self and client benefit. I am not sure how we break that one
without impinging upon the 1st Amendment.
Re:
“arsenic
to cyanide.” Good one!
Re:
“lawsuits
exposing corruption.” I do
not know anyone who would oppose such litigation, well other than the
culprits. However, it should be
criminal prosecution, not civil lawsuits, against such felonious conduct.
Re:
“armed
revolt.” That is my concern
as well. The Republican nominee
has unleashed the white supremacists and xenophobes among us. If we have an oppressive government, we
have ourselves to blame. We
elected, enabled and allowed the moral projectionists in government, who pass
those oppressive laws. It is up to
us to undo what they have done.
Returning us to slavery or oppression of women in the name of “Making
America Great Again” is on us.
Re:
“the rules.” I understand the
resentment to the fundraising rules.
I share in that resentment.
I was gobsmacked throughout my reading of Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission [558 U.S. 310 (2010)] [424] that struck down the guts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
(BCRA){AKA McCain–Feingold Act or Shays-Meehan}[PL 107-155; 116 Stat. 81; 27.March.2002]
[322], which made a valiant attempt,
albeit not far enough, to constrain the effects of money (and more importantly,
dark money) on federal elections.
I strongly disagreed with the lopsided interpretation of the
Constitution, then, [by the so-called strict constructionists in the Court] and
my opinion has not changed. If
anything, the Hillary Clinton campaign of 2016 has demonstrated the negative
consequences and reinforced my opinion.
SCOTUS has forced the issue into the realm of a constitutional amendment
to clean up elections. Given my
experience with the Equal Rights Amendment {House Joint Resolution No. 208; 22.March.1972},
I know how hard constitutional amendments can be, but that does not mean we
should not try.
Re:
“chief
check.” I pray you are
correct.
Another contribution:
“Good letter…the one big red-line (among others) that Trump
crossed for me was regarding nuclear weapons. He has not the temperament, judgment, knowledge or even
common sense to be the one in charge of our nuclear arsenal - of which BTW, he
has no clue. Most Americans are
not really aware that the order can be given and carried out in only a few minutes…it
was designed that way. Those
hoping that others would be a brake on Trump’s urges to use nuclear weapons
were he to win don’t understand the system. HRC has issues, but I am not concerned with her starting a
nuclear war on during a bad day.
“Also, regarding the comment of one of your correspondents re
Trump ‘As Chief Executive, Trump would restore international respect for our
country while cleaning house in the Executive Branch, protecting the integrity
of our Judicial Branch (Federal Courts) by nominating constitutional scholars,
and inspiring our Legislative Branch (Congress) to do its constitutional job by
doing his.’
“Actually, Trump has already caused immeasurable harm to
international respect for the United States. I go overseas a lot and deal with foreign officials and
politicians. To a person, they all
are aghast at Trump, and wonder what has happened in the U.S. Even back in the summer of 2015, they
were asking what the hell he was about. I can say that it will take a long time for the U.S. to get
back the respect of many foreign governments and peoples in the wake of Trump’s
candidacy. The statement that he
would ‘restore international respect’ for the U.S. is utterly ludicrous and
without any basis in fact.
“Another writer has ably commented on Trump’s bizarre relationship
with the President of the Russian Federation. He says it better than I can.”
“‘Trump is
dangerous because he refused to agree that he would accept the election’s
outcome if he loses, inviting a violent reaction by his supporters — and
because he sided with the Russian Federation against U.S. intelligence and
military leaders over their alleged interference in this election. Even his
running mate Mike Pence has found these bizarre positions insupportable.
‘What Trump’s
startling debate responses showed was not merely his vacuum of proper
temperament and judgment — personality defects that are all too well known by
now — but his casual lack of respect for basic American institutions and
traditions. His casual dismissal
of profound concerns over Russian incursions against U.S. citizens, despite the
briefings he has received from American intelligence officials, was stunning. He accepted the denials by Russian
officials and implied that his own country’s services are lying.
‘Frantically
as he waves the flag, spouting nationalism and xenophobia, Trump’s ‘patriotism’
is now exposed as a ruse. Although he pretended to denounce interference in
American elections ‘by any country,’ at the urging of moderator Chris Wallace,
he has encouraged the suspected Russian intrusions into this process all along
— and reaffirmed that position last night.
‘No doubt
many Republicans have been troubled by Trump’s shadowy and compromised
relationship with the regime of Vladimir Putin. His strange pronouncements about Ukraine, Syria, and other
foreign issues, seeming to justify or whitewash aggressive Russian policies,
are far outside the American mainstream in either party.’”
My reply:
Re:
“redline(s).” There were (are) so
bloody many, and he has sprinted (as best he can these days) across virtually
all of them. I do absolutely agree
with you . . . his comments about nuclear weapons were irresponsible and
extraordinarily ill informed.
Re:
“immeasurable
harm.” Indeed . . . of that
there is no doubt. What is even
worse, I am quite concerned the aftermath of his candidacy will be the vile
gift that keeps giving. Further,
he will blame the lack of international respect on Obama.
Re:
“Trump-Putin bro-mance.” The
contradictions in the Republican nominee’s public positions, statements and
other brain-farts abound. There is
NO consistency . . . well, other than his brand (name) and his voracious
appetite for publicity (of any kind) – classic extreme narcissism.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
This Presidential election campaign has gone far beyond the usual “silly season.” It occurs to me that it’s more like spending a year and a half in daily preparation for a national colonoscopy. Who knew we had that much crap in us? Let’s hope the “test” results are not cancerous. There’s no more denying that something unhealthy is going on at gut level.
Hillary’s damn emails are indeed Hillary’s doing. I have kept work versus personal email separate with ease. So have any number of other government and corporate workers. In the “sympathy for the devil” department, the latest round is not about her own emails. Maybe Wikileaks didn’t get around to these. In sending the letter at the center of this round, FBI Director Comey disobeyed instructions from his superior, admittedly a close friend of the Clintons. Your claim that the letter was not intended to be made public doesn’t hold water. He had to know that would happen, unless you also want to claim that he’s not aware of the election campaign. Also, I have seen an excerpt from the Hatch Act supporting the statement that intent is not a factor in that law.
We already know that Hillary could not be elected in normal conditions due to her unpopularity and her husband’s anti-progressive Presidency. That leads me to a headline I saw this morning on Alternet, a Hillary supporter. It read, “Understanding the Psychopath Candidate.” Leaving aside the unfairness to diagnosed psychopaths, that is the only viable explanation for Hillary leading the polls. If she wins, she owes it to Donald Trump.
Your argument in favor of the Electoral College (our “rigged” election system) fails. What can you offer to make me believe that our “leaders” in these more-educated times are better informed, wiser or more benevolent than the masses? I have not seen that since at least the 1970s, and maybe it never truly applied.
Calvin,
First and foremost, thank you for your continuing contributions.
Re: “something unhealthy.” Amen, brother . . . in so many dimensions. The root causes of our unhealthy state are deep and complex. They seem to be related to our inherent distrust of government and the failure of Congress to find the path to compromise for solutions. Intransigence has become a badge of courage for those who seek to impose their beliefs on everyone else. I could go on, but this may suffice.
Re: “FBI Director.” The Director was between a rock and a hard spot. Let’s imagine, if you will, the public outrage that would have occurred if the disclosure of those discovered eMail’s on the Wiener laptop had come after the election . . . or, even worse, they contained classified material (on an unsecure computer). From my perspective, he had no choice. I do not agree that he violated the Hatch Act. Given my hypothetical above, a good portion of our population would accuse him of transgression either way . . . disclosing or withholding – better to be ahead of it than behind.
Re: Hillary. I do not agree that she was un-elect-able. Again, given her terribly selfish and ego-centric decision in 2009, she could have come out OK, if she had handled it differently. She has been subjected to right-wing propaganda, abuse and attack for much of her adult life. I can appreciate her reluctance to open her private life (communications) to public scrutiny. No one is perfect or without flaws, including her, so I understand her efforts to minimize her exposure while living in public life. I could go on, but basta! . . . as the Italians say.
Re: rigged. As I wrote that section, I debated stooping to his erroneous use of the word. Your response illuminates my failure. Rigged in this context means to manipulate fraudulently. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution established the electoral process. It is the law. Each state determines their electors in accordance with the Constitution. To “rig” the electoral process would take a conspiracy of epic proportions, and I shall respectfully suggest such a massive conspiracy would be virtually impossible to keep hidden. Lastly, there is zero – nada, niente, nothing – evidence or even hints of evidence of a conspiracy of that magnitude. The Republican nominee has been using and abusing the word “rigged” erroneously, emotionally and quite inappropriately. He has never had the ground game to play by the rules. He has been whining about the process, from the primaries to now the election itself, because he apparently believes the rules do not and should not apply to him. While the latest popular polls suggest they are nearly tied in popular vote, the electoral map (the rules according to the Constitution) suggests the Democrat nominee is and remains in a dominant position. His persistent whining will do nothing to improve his prospect and will only harm this Grand Republic . . . then again, he cares only about himself. Our election system is NOT rigged and has never been rigged, period, full stop!
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment