Update no.777

Update from the Heartland

No.777

31.10.16 – 6.11.16

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

To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- A frequent contributor sent along a new article on MH370 [638, 691, 711, 716]:

“New MH370 analysis suggests no one at controls during crash”

Associated Press

Published: November 01, 2016

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/11/01/new-mh370-analysis-suggests-no-one-at-controls-during-crash1.html

“I am sure hoping the two pilots did not accidentally lock themselves out of their own cockpit. This would not be the first time that has happened.

“Though with the amount of time they had out of cockpit, I would think one of them would have figured a way to breach the cockpit door and get re-entry.

“In the future, there should be a system of contracting ground control (airline ops) and getting a remote entry to cockpit in case pilot or pilots are locked out.”

 . . . to which I replied:

Interesting hypothesis.

 . . . with a follow-up query:

“Did they ever rule out a loss of cabin pressurization and lack of/loss of O₂ capacity for the flight crew?”

 . . . and my response:

No, not that I'm aware of.  Apparently, the recovered wing debris is suggesting an uncontrolled impact.  Analytic simulations suggest a high rate, spiral, final descent.  If we assumed that hypothesis, cabin depressurization would be a nice, painless suicide.  I think there is little doubt the aircraft was pilot-controlled at least through an FCS programming effort, or until it was headed south into the Indian Ocean.  Cabin depressurization (without supplemental oxygen) would ensure everyone was dead prior to fuel exhaustion.

            On the eve of our historic election, I wish to proclaim my profound disappointment in virtually all of the mainstream news sources with the paucity of coverage given to Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.  I suppose there should be some consolation that Stein and Johnson are at least shown on some of the polling status reports.  The lack of coverage for the Libertarian and Green Parties does serious disservice to We, the People.  CNN had a good start prior to the presidential debates, but they failed in the final stretch.

            Furthermore, the reporting on the early voting, while I am certain it is factual, is highly misleading.  The party registrations of citizens choosing to vote early may reflect blind party affinity and presumably voting, but the states are bound by law to not report actual votes cast until the election polling stations close on Election Day.  Party registration and ballot cast (the act of voting) are facts of public record; the specific vote selection of every citizen is private and protected.  This is the same fallacious implication we saw in the open primaries, i.e., we have no way to know the actual votes or voting intentions of citizens, except as an individual chooses to public disclose.  We will not know who citizens voted for, including early voting, until the votes are tallied on Election Day.  Further, as we bore witness in the 2000 presidential election, we may not know for weeks, if there are any anomalies during the voting process, or the vote count is so close that it automatically triggers a recount.  The only thing that matters is the actual vote counts at the end of the election process, and ultimately, the translations of those votes within each state into the voting of state electors in December – the outcome of which actually determines the president-elect.  An added twist, in accordance with the Constitution, if no candidate achieves a majority, i.e., 270 electoral votes, the election of the president goes to the House of Representatives for decision – a provision never exercised in our history, yet.  The consequences of that potential verge upon unimaginable and would make the confusion, uncertainty and rancor eclipse our experience in the 2000 presidential election – hanging chads et al.  Let us hope there is a clear decision (>270 electoral votes).  We do not need more disturbance in the Force.

            News from the economic front:

-- The Bank of England indicated their forecast for the Brexit impact is improving, and thus lessened the potential for further stimulation by interest rate reductions.  Bank officials also suggested there are limits to their tolerance of inflation in excess of their 2% target and they are prepared to raise borrowing costs.

-- The Labor Department reported nonfarm payrolls rose by a seasonally adjusted 161,000 in October and revised September's employment gain upward to 191,000.  The unemployment rate ticked down to 4.9% last month from 5.0% in September.  U.S. employers continued steady growth in October, as well as accelerating wage growth to its strongest pace since the Great Recession.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.776:

Comment to the Blog:

“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.”

My response to the Blog:

            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 prospects 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!

 . . . with follow-up comment:

“I certainly agree that the FBI Director is in an untenable position. I doubt it matters whether we perceive him as having placed himself there.

“Hillary's problems run far deeper than the specifics of her email mistakes. Were the primary process not controlled by her close friends at the DNC, she could not have won the nomination. Her elitism and its results were ably pointed out by Senator Sanders and others, and many progressives, including me, refuse to vote for her based on the sources of her personal and campaign income as well as her hawkish term as Secretary of State. The email issue is a symptom, not a cause.

“The term ‘rigged’ was not the focus of my comment. Mr. Trump brought that up when he was making an excuse for losing the election prior to doing so. That's just noise. I understood your section as a defense of the Electoral College based on its original reasoning that a demagogue might be able to persuade an uneducated and credible public to elect him despite what the Founders would see as inappropriate attitudes or criminal intent. My question stands. What is your basis for believing that the ‘leaders’ they left in charge would do any better, given that the population at large is far better informed and educated than in 1783?”

 . . . my follow-up response:

            We can argue whether Comey’s predicament is self-generated, but that element verges on irrelevant at this point.  Let it suffice to say, I do not believe his situation was self-generated.

            Re: Hillary’s deeper problems.  Oh my, yes, spot on!  Full stop!  Her conduct (and her husband’s conduct) has consistently indicated her sense of superiority and entitlement, i.e., divine right of kings (queens) – the law does not apply to them.  What is different from Trump’s version is subtlety, i.e., she is less obvious, thus offering her plausible deniability, which her supporters swallow hook, line and sinker.

            Re: Sanders.  Bernie Sanders carried out a far more credible, anti-establishment campaign than the Republican nominee was, is or might be capable of conducting.  Of all the candidates, he was certainly the most noble . . . although I have a hard time accepting his democratic socialist agenda.

            Re: “What is your basis for believing that the ‘leaders’ they left in charge would do any better, given that the population at large is far better informed and educated than in 1783?”  There is zero debate that the population at large is far better informed 2 ½ centuries hence.  As a related side note: let us not forget, the only people who could vote in 1788, were white, educated, male, property owners – a rather narrow segment of the population.  The constitutional construction was focused on that voting population, which I believe says even more about their concerns.  My argument within this topic is that their concern then is still applicable today.  Further, the filtration process is intended to distill out the demagogues and radicals.  The process has worked for more than two centuries.  There are clear failures of the process sprinkled throughout our history, but I will respectfully argue there have been more successes than failures.  Let it suffice to say, I will never make any claim the electoral process is perfect or flawless, but it is a demonstrably successful system in the main.

Another contribution:

“‘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.’  ... taken from below .. you wouldn't be saying this if you were for the candidate being slighted .. it's okay .. the right is on it ... 

“You say you do not believe the ‘Republican nominee’ .. so you believe Hillary will do anything she is stating she'll do ??  Ha.... as far as publicity a candidate needs it .. especially the good kind .. I find it brave and admirable that Trump has taken on the corrupt system as do a large amount of the American people .. that he is wealthy and confident are highly needed characteristics in a Presidential election (go ahead and continually call it narcissism as a true left winger does).. without wealth unfortunately and confidence one stands no chance .. kudos to him, win or lose ..”
My reply:
            Re: rigged.  I tried to write that section tongue in cheek.  Our election process has never been rigged.  The rules have been the rules for more than two centuries.  Just because the Republican nominee does not like the rules he must play by, that does not mean the system is rigged.  BTW, rigged means “to manipulate fraudulently.”  There is not one scintilla of evidence even remotely hinting at such a necessary vast conspiracy.  The Constitution remains the law of this Grand Republic.

            Re: believe.  You jumped to an erroneous conclusion.  I do not believe the Democrat nominee either.

            Re: corrupt system.  I categorically and emphatically disagree.  The fact that the Republican nominee has convinced you and many others that our presidential electoral system is corrupt is no small measure of how much damage the Republican nominee has done to this Grand Republic with his incessant whining.

            Re: “highly needed characteristics.”  From your words, apparently you favor an elite class.  I must respectfully disagree.  We cannot tolerate such a divided class structure that your words suggest.
 . . . with follow-up comment:
“Is this a SCINTILLA of evidence??? (Attachment)”

Attachment: 14956391_1783652088540291_1802698128176861270_n.jpg

[NOTE: The attachment was a purported eMail fragment from Todd Macklerr to Donna Brazille and John Podesta.  I cannot establish the authenticity of the message, thus I will not be a party to further dissemination of the document.  If the reader chooses to search for the noted file, the file name is as offered by the Update contributor.]

 . . . my follow-up reply:

            We can discuss rules of evidence and such, but I will not waste your time, or anyone else’s for that matter.

            I could create a similar, more condemning example message, but I have enough other projects in hand.

            Each of us is free to choose whether to believe such “evidence” as authentic and bona fide.  I shall not argue with your freedom and right to choose.

            Just a related side note: one essential element of propaganda and disinformation campaigns is the element of believability, i.e., does the document play to the target audience’s preconceptions, and thus “confirm” those preconceptions, making them “facts”?  Case in point, Operation BODYGUARD during World War II – a highly effective disinformation campaign that was arguably pivotal in the success of the Allied offensive into Germany.

            Lastly, for the sake of argument, let us assume the attached message fragment is precisely accurate, authentic and un-tampered – a felonious, federal crime, if true, I might add.  There are 50 separate states and something like 200,000 separate voting precincts in this Grand Republic, with several million voting machines.  The number of tampered voting machines necessary to affect the election would be massive – a conspiracy of epic proportion.  In our hypothetical, let us take a less ambitious sub-set, i.e., not a national conspiracy, but a more focused, smaller conspiracy, on those “battleground” states that are a toss-up – seven (7) states as of this writing and continue to vary.  We are talking about roughly 30,000 precincts and several hundred thousand voting machines, all of which are not the same, i.e., different processes.  The magnitude of even the smaller conspiracy is mind-boggling.  The potential tampering with one voting machine or even dozens of voting machines will not alter the outcome.  Let it suffice to say, to believe such a conspiracy speaks volumes to the effectiveness of the electoral system distrust sown by the Republican nominee – a substantial number of citizens want to believe what they are being fed.  Every citizen is free to choose.  At the end of the day, I do NOT accept the conspiracy espoused by the Republican nominee, and his continued advocacy reflects negatively upon him.

  “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

Cheers,

Cap

P.S.: I am far more concerned about voter exhaustion, voter apathy and active voter suppression efforts than I am about voting machine tampering; but hey, that’s just me.

A different contribution:
“I really appreciate your objective assessment/opinion on Hillary, and her problem.
“Knowing you like many do not support Trump, makes me see your integrity/honesty on this issue, as you are able to clarify the reality of the individual, her character, versus what she wants us to see, or her spin machines like CNN and many-many other so-called independent journalists.
“Did you see that the guy you and I followed closely during the TWA#800 investigation, former FBI director James Kollstrom, said during a radio interview in the last 48-hours:

“The Clintons, that’s a crime family, basically,” Kallstrom said. “It’s like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool.”

[Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303458-former-fbi-official-clintons-are-a-crime-family]

“Interesting the progressives in the press, are trying to throw FBI's director Comey under the bus now, for allegedly violating the Hatch Act.  Too bad the same talking anchor heads (including Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper) did not focus on the deleted emails, and much more, during their clear cheerleading campaign to install their girl, Hillary.  My take on Comey's timing of the re-opening of the probe as announced to his letter to the U.S. Congress, was possibly because he has information brought to him by lead investigators, that there may be serious (if not) criminal conflicts of interests, at the worst, at best--political conflicts of interests, by our own A.G. Loretta Lynch.  So you bet, Comey's timing while awkward, may be preemptive so we don't start Hillary's potential presidency in a vacuum akin to Nixon and Watergate.  Perhaps Comey is asserting that FBI does have integrity and is not compromised, because once We the People lose our trust in a few institutions we entrust to help maintain political legality, we become like many third-world nations, if not nations like Russia, Brazil or Venezuela.  The more popular theory being bounced is Comey moved last week because of an in-house mutiny brewing, with many FBI agents ready to sign their resignations.
“Whoever is brought to the office of POTUS, we need someone with utmost integrity and leadership in these dangerous times in our world, where the state of relations with Russia is low and could trend to a much more dangerous point, we need to entirely avoid, while exercising strong leadership and diplomacy, with Russia and all.
“This is shared with many in my group (including some pilot friends), and I ask many of you to share Cap Parlier's Update, with your folks too.” [emphasis by the contributor]
 . . . my response:
            Rather than respond directly, I shall offer a few related observations.

            I had not seen the Kallstrom quote.  Thank you.

            Your disdain for the Press has been clear.  I would only urge you to take a broader view of the Press in this Grand Republic, or any free society for that matter.  Every news anchor, reporter, journalist or other member of the Press are human beings, just like all the rest of us.  We do not agree on many topics, and we agree on others.  Members of the Press are no different.  The key to interpreting the news is reading, listening and absorbing a broad and diverse enough spectrum of news sources to develop a reasonable understanding of events.

            I do not believe Director Comey violated the Hatch Act.

            Director Comey was and remains in an impossible position.  He did what he had to do to stay ahead of the situation created by the terrible conduct of the Democrat nominee, from her selfish, ego-centric decision seven years ago, to her decision to unilaterally delete eMail messages to which she had abdicated her right to privacy.  Clinton created this situation.  Comey did what he had to do.

One last contribution:
"Indeedy young Sir-that blog was a blast. And if I might add, quite suitable a reaction to those belligerent aggressive voices we hear far too frequently these days. What a mess you are facing.  Why and how did your main political parties ever select such a pair of poor quality ‘burdened’ candidates for what is the most important leadership position on our planet.  My advice would be dismiss them both and start again.  Maybe your ‘Founding Fathers’ did get it right for their age but now, worldwide, there is considerable concern over what the outcome of your election might be. [emphasis by the contributor]
“However Cap to use your words. ‘I could be wrong’.”
My reply:
            You are not the first to suggest discarding both of them and starting over.  I’d be for that.  Unfortunately, that option is not available.  The inexorable cogs of our electoral process continue to grind on.  We are less than a week from the conclusion of this damnable silly season.  No matter who wins, we’ll make the most of the result.

            It is truly unfortunate that our rather disgusting election has such consequent effects upon our allies, friends, neighbors . . . and even potential adversaries.
 . . . with follow-up comment:
“‘Spring up and fall down’. I know it refers to the position of the ‘Big Dipper’ in our northern skies however it could be seen as the way the world is viewing the state of American politics currently-let us all hope, as you have suggested, that whatever the outcome y’all will accept that result and drive your nation forward. It is essential for the peace of our world. Do you need proof? Just look at the chancing Putin is up to currently while you are so involved in your election process.
“Their one carrier has just wheezed it’s way along our south coast on its way to support the disgustingly outrageous attacks on families in Syria. Whoever takes control your end they will need to be strong with these murdering empire builders. So let’s look forward to the ‘Spring Up’.”
 . . . my follow-up reply:
            We have less than a week to go before we have a decision [excluding the anomaly of the 2000 election].  I will vote in the conventional manner early in the morning of Tuesday (Election Day), and then I shall wait with everyone else for the results.  We can only hope we have a clear result before the following dawn.

            Putin is quite like Trump in many ways, although far less obnoxious.  He (Putin) exhibits classic bully traits.  He expects his victims to back down out of fear of his reaction(s).  The difficulty with Putin, any confrontation to stop his intimidation of others will play directly to the nationalism inside Russia.  Putin needs external confrontation to solidify internal support.

            I certainly agree . . . whomever becomes POTUS must find the means to contain Putin’s intimidation of his neighbors.

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

Cheers,
Cap                        :-)