26 December 2016

Update no.784

Update from the Heartland
No.784
19.12.16 – 25.12.16
To all,

Happy Boxing Day

            I watched the Lockheed Martin Armed Forces Bowl on Friday, played in Fort Worth, Texas, between Louisiana Tech and U.S. Naval Academy.  While Navy lost after a last second field goal by Louisiana Tech, they played quite well – a fun game to watch.  The final score was 48-45 – an impressive offensive display.  Throughout the game, I continued to think . . . if only they had played like that against Army [782].  Nonetheless, I am still very proud of the Middies.  Well done.  Go Navy, Beat Army.

            Members of the Electoral College met in their respective state capitals across this Grand Republic on Monday, to cast their ballots in accordance with Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  There were a number of faithless electors [782]; however, the outcome remained the same as predicted on election night [778].
Donald Trump                        304
Hillary Clinton                        227
Colin Powell                              3
Bernie Sanders                         1
John Kasich                              1
Ron Paul                                   1
Faith Spotted Eagle                  1
            TOTAL                      538
Having accumulated a majority of the Electoral College votes, Trump has officially won the election.  While we must wait for the new Congress to officially validate the election results early next year, for the election to be complete and closed, we can now properly refer to Donald John Trump as President-elect and soon-to-be 45th President of the United States of America.
            Just a related FYI: on election night, the Election vote was expected to be: Trump – 306; Clinton – 232.  Most of the faithless electors abandoned Clinton.
            Let us (and especially The Donald) not forget the final count of actual votes by citizens in this election:
Hillary Clinton                65,844,954
Donald Trump               62,979,879
Gary Johnson                 4,488,919
Jill Stein                          1,457,044
Evan McMullin                   725,902
            Trump hardly has the clear mandate he so vociferously claims.  We can only hope he develops some semblance of humility and more importantly respect for the office he is about to occupy (at least in principle).

            On Friday, the United Nations Security Council voted on and approved Resolution 2334 (2016), by a vote of 14-0-1, with the United States abstaining.  The resolution harshly criticizes Israel's expansion of settlements in the West Bank region.  The Obama administration's decision to break from longstanding U.S. policy made the historic vote possible.  The vote comes amid international political jostling and took place a day after Egypt withdrew its draft of the resolution, following pressure from Israel and President-elect Donald Trump.  The Netanyahu administration was characteristically incensed over the vote and threatened to withdraw all its support from the United Nations, and he condemned President Obama for betraying Israel.  Frankly, President Obama took the correct action.  I have long opposed the Israeli practice of encouraging and supporting West Bank settlements in a de facto effort to carve off more land from any potential Palestinian state.  When the two-state solution finally comes to fruition, as I believe it most assuredly will, those Jewish settlements outside Israel (as presently defined) should be transferred to Palestine, and further the occupants should be given the option of repatriation to Israel, or becoming Palestinian citizens.  And further and unfortunately, some form of protection must be provided to prevent the current occupants or the Israeli state from destroying those structures.  What Israel has been doing in the West Bank has been and remains wrong.  Full stop!

            Comments and contributions from Update no.783:
Comment to the Blog:
“I'll keep this one fairly quick. I need to catch a bus to the Electoral College protest.
“The Fed raising the interest rate is boring but significant.  It means they believe the economic crisis is over. I guess that depends on perspective.
“I mentioned in my comments the hackers who published the DNC emails having Republican information for a reason.  The election is (probably) over, but damaging information about the Republican President just becomes more valuable. The hackers have private information about the President of the United States.  This one seems immune to ordinary scandals, but if the hackers hold evidence of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ they can make a very credible threat of impeachment.  There's incredible blackmail leverage there.  I thought that was obvious, which is why I didn't explain it.”
My response to the Blog:
            How did the protest go?  The outcome remained the same . . . to be certified on or about 6.January.2017.
            Unfortunately, the national economy does not and cannot represent an individual state.  Rather, it is a national average.  Perspective is an appropriate word.  Hopefully, your view of the economy will improve soon.
            Re: blackmail.  Conjecture, but an interesting hypothesis, nonetheless.  Time shall tell the tale . . . soon enough.
 . . . a follow-up comment:
“The protest went reasonably well.  It matters to meet people who share one's views and are willing to work for them.
“The source of the story on Republican information was as authoritative as we'll ever have.  Of course, the content is unknown, but so far Mr. Trump's life is a sewer.”
 . . . my follow-up response:
            I have an aversion and unease around crowds, so I shall not be attending protests of any sort in my remaining lifetime.  Good on you for standing up to voice your opinion.
            We may never know the content of any material stolen from the RNC or any other political organization.  The vulnerability alone is disturbing.
            I believe I have clearly written my displeasure and disapproval of so much of Trump’s personality and character traits.  I doubt the leopard can change his spots, but I am prepared to be surprised.
            C'est la guerre et c'est la vie!

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap                        :-)

19 December 2016

Update no.783

Update from the Heartland
No.783
12.12.16 – 18.12.16
To all,
The Lake Behind Our Home
[file: IMG_7435.JPG]
            The image above was taken Sunday morning – our first snow and sub-zero temperatures – and, it is not even officially winter, yet.  The photograph does not do justice to the actual scene.  The early morning sunlight made ice crystals on the frozen lake actually sparkle like diamonds scattered across the surface.  The time has come to become snowbirds.

Happy Chanukkah
Merry Christmas
Happy New Year to all.

            This is a rather thin edition.  It happens from time to time . . . not much new to talk about this week.  The only substance is in the Comments Section below.

            News from the economic front:
-- The Federal Reserve raised the federal-funds rate by a quarter percentage point to between 0.50% and 0.75% on Thursday – the first increase in a year.  The Fed rate hike will cause other household and business borrowing costs to rise as well.  They also indicated the improving economic outlook suggests the Fed will likely raise short-term rates next year and perhaps at a faster pace.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.782:
Comment to the Blog:
“One more comment on the Electoral College: I have seen several references this week to ‘Federalist 68,’ presumably part of the Federalist Papers, wherein Hamilton argues for the purpose of the Electoral College being specifically to weed out the likes of Trump. I assume that ‘strict construction’ Supreme Court Justices might see fit to ignore that, but we have no way to know yet.
“It would be willful blindness to ignore the chance of international meddling in our election, and Russia is as good a candidate as any, except possibly Israel. Manipulating the affairs of other nations has a long history, even if we only count those who were caught. You make a good point that only Democratic Party emails were released. In ascending order of likelihood, direct changes in vote counts by outsiders are unlikely but nowadays are possible; influence on state or local officials' handling of precinct changes, allowed or disallowed votes, etc., are a bit more likely due to the Electoral College; controlling Wikileaks' choice of materials to release could have occurred, based on results; and intense pressure on FBI Director Comey to re-open his investigation in such a public way, thus influencing voters' choices, seems almost likely.
“Given both of these issues plus the conflicts of interest with Trump and his office, with Trump's appointments of campaign contributors, and among the appointees with their offices, all I can say is, ‘Fasten your safety belts. It's going to be a bumpy night.’”
My response to the Blog:
            Correct.  Federalist no.68 was written by Alexander Hamilton and titled: “The Mode of Electing the President.”  While the Federalist Papers are not law, they are a reflection of the Framers’ thinking.  Hamilton used words like: “. . . as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.”  Further, Hamilton stated: “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.”  He refers in generality to the electoral process; there are two strongly implied points.  1.) A deliberate, independent process was necessary to achieve the objectives noted above.  2.) Electors have the higher purpose of ensuring the person to be elected is eminently qualified to be president.  Yet, the fallacy is Hamilton’s logic is, what are those qualifications and how are they measured?  Thus, it is left to the judgment of the electors, which means there is the theoretical potential of just 535 citizens defying the popular vote and electing the next president, or forcing the election to the House of Representatives.
            I can agree with your observations regarding the potential for foreign interference in our elections.  In this instance, the voters have to be susceptible to the calculated leaks, but such selection is grotesquely unfair.  Imagine, if you will, what reaction would there be if the exact same shoe was on the other foot?
            I absolutely concur with your conclusion.  This is going to be a rough ride.
 . . . a follow-up comment:
“Just to add emphasis to the issue, someone from the cyber-security firm that caught the hacking appeared on CBSN a few minutes ago (roughly 7:40 a.m. 12-13-2016) and stated that the hackers acquired Republican as well as Democratic information but only passed the Democratic information to Wikileaks. That leaves them with Republican information that might have all kinds of blackmail potential on the candidate who appears to have won the Electoral College.
“It's worth noting that this is something new to human experience because of the speed of computing and the interconnection. Even the best and fastest investigation into an affair like this would have taken months or years longer in the past and become a footnote to history rather than the central thread. The theft and use of the information would also have been a much slower process. We have entered unknown territory.”
 . . . my follow-up response:
            Pass on only DNC information . . . what does that say?  Blackmail potential . . . perhaps . . . but the election is nearly over.  It appears the Wisconsin re-count showed no abnormalities.
            New in human experience . . . absolutely . . . unknown territory indeed!
            As you said earlier, we are in for a rough ride.

Another contribution:
“Early in the campaign I wrote about my assertion that all the chatter from the left about Putin favoring Trump was easily explained by Putin's cleverness in working for a public reaction favoring Hillary, whose succession to the weak Obama he no doubt wished for instead of the strong unpredictable capitalist who promised a great America.  I still think this could be one explanation for whatever part the Russians played in the famous hacking caper that is giving the media so much fun these days.”
My reply:
            Not just the media, my friend.
            There are myriad perspectives regarding the “famous hacking caper” as you call it.  I shall not, nay I cannot, argue with your perspective.  I will only say there are very tangible reasons only DNC internal communications were disclosed.  On 7.October.2016, the Director of National Intelligence, endorsed by the chiefs of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies, signed a letter that clearly identified the Russian government on numerous electronic intrusions into the political / election apparatus of the United States.  Just the agreement of the Intelligence Community (IC) verges upon unprecedented.  Let us not GAF-off the participation of Russia simply because we liked the outcome.  How would you feel about the DNI memo if Trump lost after winning the popular vote by 2.5 million votes (2%) and the Russian hacking had been against the RNC?
            I’m just sayin’.
 . . . a follow-up contribution:
“I agree 100%, Cap.  I just hope the real professionals (the ones not bending to political pressures) in our intelligence community realize that Putin is probably smarter than many of them, and that pure business profit motives aside, he surely would have preferred eight more years of weakness in the White House over the rogue, unpredictable tough-talking Trump.  This leads to the conclusion that the influence he intended was to scare voters toward Clinton by pretending to openly favor Trump.  He is smart enough to have kept secret any real favoring of Trump because of the damage it would have done to Trumps campaign.  Simple?  No, nothing is simple.  In any event, I personally believe a cordial relationship between heads of state is a positive thing, something strangely akin to honor among thieves.”
 . . . my follow-up reply:
            Politics within a democratic society is the art of compromise for the common good.  We seem to have lost our appreciation for the artform.
            We shall respectfully disagree regarding the Obama administration being weak years.  He was certainly not afraid to pull the trigger when it was appropriate – examples abound.  His efforts to avoid war were not weakness, but wisdom and courage.  Time shall tell whether his approach was successful.
            Interesting hypothesis regarding Russia’s influence in our election.
            One way or another . . . we shall bear witness to this “cordial relationship” of which you speak.  Yes, absolutely, I would prefer that Russia and the United States were respectful allies for the common good, rather than adversaries, but that is a bilateral endeavor . . . cannot survive in unilateral form.  My concern in the soon-to-be present case is the quid pro quo of that cordial relationship.  Lining the Trump family pockets is NOT within the range of acceptable outcomes.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap                        :-)

12 December 2016

Update no.782

Update from the Heartland
No.782
5.12.16 – 11.12.16
To all,

            It was bound to happen eventually . . . after 14 consecutive wins.  The cadets of the Military Academy finally defeated the midshipmen of the Naval Academy – 21-17.  Not a good start . . . two turnovers in short order, 14-0 by halftime and Army controlled the clock.  To say the least, Army dominated the field this year – double the time of possession, nearly double total yards, and triple the number of first downs.  There were far too many turnovers in the game, 4-3 to Navy’s favor.  It was an ugly game.  My sincere congratulations go to the Black Knights of West Point.  A win is a win, however it is accomplished.  Well done, I must say!  And the soon-to-be president-elect showed up for some face time.  Go Navy, Beat Army!

            A contributor asked: “You have more/better resources than I. Do the electors have a duty to determine fitness for office? (Question, not assertion).”  Technically, there are no rules in the Constitution in that the instructions to electors are established by each state respectively.  However, each state has distinct rules that govern who can become an elector and what instructions they must follow.  The applicable federal law is contained in AN ACT To codify and enact into law Title 3 of the United States Code, entitled “The President [PL 80-771; H.R. 6412; Chap. 644, p.672, Sess. II; public law 771; 62 Stat. 672; 25.June.1948].  The Supreme Court addressed and validated the authority of the states to regulate, as they deemed appropriate, the qualifications, selection and conduct of electors in Ray v. Blair [343 U.S. 214 (1952)]; yet, the Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of punishing “faithless electors.”  A “faithless elector” is one who does not vote as expected in accordance with their respective state’s rules.  As of this moment, I believe there are 29 states plus the District of Columbia that imposed various punitive actions upon “faithless electors,” and thus 21 states that have no penalty for “faithless electors.”  To answer your original question: To my understanding of the applicable law, I believe electors have the latitude to make such a determination, e.g., fitness for office.  However, taking such an action – to countermand the votes of state residents – is a monumental step to take and rather audacious, if you ask me.  Various reports peg the number of known “faithless electors” for this year’s Electoral College at seven (7) on both sides of this election.  One from Texas was interviewed on CNN this week.  Given the extreme emotional content of this year’s presidential election, I suspect we may see more than seven when the ballots of the Electoral College are cast on Monday, 19.December.2016, and counted in a joint session of Congress on Friday, 6.January.2017.  By the popular vote in each state and the respective states rules, Donald Trump holds a 36-vote margin, so seven “faithless elector” votes will not alter the outcome.  I shudder to think what might happen if there might be more than 36 “faithless electors.”  As always, time shall tell the tale.

            Numerous news sources reflected this supposedly secret CIA report on possible external interference in the 2016 election.  President Obama has also ordered an official federal executive branch investigation to determine whether Russian actions affected the election results, and he reportedly wanted the investigation completed before the inauguration (20th January).  I would be shocked if there was physical evidence of actual vote count manipulations.  Conversely, there is little doubt in my little pea-brain that Russia executed a concerted program to influence the election.  There is no coincidence that the only internal campaign eMail messages released to the public via WikiLeaks were Democratic Party messages.  Personally, I think the same machinations occurred within the Republican Party and probably much worse in that they were dealing with convulsions induced by the Trump campaign.
            They were celebrating in Moscow after the election . . . job well done.
            I will say, the Russian hacking of the Democratic Party campaign files was not materially different from the myriad of ridiculous fake news stories, misinformation, and outright erroneous propaganda designed to play to emotions and the penchant for so many to “believe.”  The Russians had nothing to do with that reality.
            The consequences of what the Russians have done will undoubtedly be felt for many years.  It says a lot that they wanted Trump that much and respected the United States that little to risk being exposed.  We shall see how this plays out, but the deed is done.  They were successful.  They got what they wanted.  They have sown the wind; they shall reap the whirlwind.

            No comments or contributions from Update no.781.  Apparently, my screw up in transmission last week missed a narrow window.  C’est la vie!  I shall endeavor to improve my performance henceforth.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap                        :-)

05 December 2016

Update no.781

Update from the Heartland
No.781
28.11.16 – 4.12.16
To all,

            Several subscribers reported receiving the distribution message for Update no.780 with no content.  I have no idea how or why it happened . . . it just did.  Everything appeared normal on my end.  Of all the editions that had to screw up, it had to be that particular edition.   Beyond the expanded debate on the Electoral College, the hot topic of these days, Update no.780 also announced the publication of my latest book – To So Few Book IV – The Trial.  I also made a unique offer to Update subscribers.  Rather than taking time and space repeating the notice, I will ask interested readers to visit:
The offer remains valid, as well as any topic for discussion.  All feedback welcome.

            Saturday night, Jeanne and I attended the Trans-Siberian Orchestra (TSO) concert at InTrust Arena in Wichita.  After my poor experience at the Garth Brooks concert a year ago [729], I held some reticence to try another concert.  Recommendations overcame my apprehension.  The music was not particularly to my liking – too heavy metal-ish; however, everything else was magnificent – the video, graphics, story-telling in music and the visuals.  The thought kept coming to me through the entire evening – the computer programming to make everything play not only in synchronization, but also in mood, in tone and in sensation.  The laser light, latticework literally filled the arena.  All taken together as a whole . . . well worth the money and effort.  Thank you, Jeanne . . . for the push and delightful companionship.

            The follow-up news items:
-- The conflict of interest aspect for our soon-to-be, president-elect Donald Trump remains a major concern [778 & sub].  He announced he would be “leaving my great business in total in order to fully focus on running the country.”  Trump indicated “legal documents are being crafted which take me completely out of business operations.  The Presidency is a far more important task!”  Sadly, it does not appear Trump understands ethics or the purpose of ethics.  Placing his business holdings in the hands of his adult children hardly qualifies as separation.  No reasonable person on the planet would see such a move as eliminating the obvious conflict of interest.  His belief that conflict of interest cannot apply to the president, by definition [780], continues to be a very worrisome mindset.  Trump further said he would give details of how the business change would occur at a New York news conference with his children on the 15th of December, so I will wait to see how he expects to separate himself from the myriad of international conflicts of interest he has.

            Trump continues to use a really odd euphemism: “I didn’t mean it quite that way.”  OK, now that The Donald is soon to be the president-elect, someone must tell me where I can get the decoder ring to translate his actual words into some message of what he really means.  I worry!  Euphemism at the international diplomatic level is capable of starting wars.  Trump’s persistent penchant for loose language is troubling.  Yet, that characteristic is just one of many such disquieting traits possessed by The Donald.

            News from the economic front:
-- The U.S. Labor Department reported nonfarm payrolls rose by a seasonally adjusted 178,000 in November from the prior month.  The unemployment rate dropped to 4.6% from 4.9% in October – the lowest rate since August 2007.  As much as some citizens berated President Obama for not doing well enough on the economy, do you think those individuals can find the courage to give the President credit as they gave him blame?  The employment data will likely more weight for Federal Reserve officials to raise interest rates later this month.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.780:
Comment to the Blog:
“The Electoral College exists because some of the Founders foresaw the United States as a relatively loose confederation of independent nations.  Hence the term ‘States’ in the name rather than ‘provinces’ or something similar.  Such ‘states’ would choose a President in the manner given so that each member of the confederation had an equal say.  However, the notion of self-governing States met with defeat in 1865 by military force.  From then on, I see no clear role for the States in electing the President, who is a Federal official not bound to a given State. We have become far more urban and less agricultural economically since then, and the time has come to choose ‘one voter, one vote’ over the Electoral College.  That gives rural people an equal voice, not their current bullhorn.
“As a Green Party USA member, I will note here that the Clinton campaign has not been invited to ‘participate’ in our request for a recount. They are, of course, free to state their support.  Individual donations would also be welcome in legitimate amounts, but we do not accept money from corporations, SuperPACs or anything similar.
“Thanks to the ACLU, I now have a copy of the Constitution within easy reach.  The Nobility Clause (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8) reads, in full, ‘No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.’ That phrase ‘no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them’ clearly includes President Trump, should he be sworn in. The term ‘under them’ refers clearly to its antecedent, ‘the United States’.
“Your call for unity borders on a call to suppress dissent.  No.  No more than the Republicans have practiced unity under Obama.  I will support him exactly to the degree that I see his actions as beneficial to the U.S.A. and not a bit more.”
My response to the Blog:
            Re: Electoral College.  I think you are being a smidge too cavalier in your rendition of history.  The Founders recognized the failure of the Articles of Confederation in just a few years and led to the constitutional convention just six (6) years after the Confederation was ratified.  The cartoon in last week’s Update is probably the best depiction of what will happen without the Electoral College.  The Founders / Framers recognized the incessant and perpetual struggle between federalism and state’s rights, between government and the individual.  In this, we shall respectfully disagree.
            Re: Green Party.  Noted.  To be clear, the Green Party submitted the recount petition.  The Clinton campaign only intends to monitor the recount with lawyers / observers.
            Re: Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8.  My only point was, the interpretation has not been challenged and determination rendered before the Supreme Court, and I am certain the kind of pervasive entanglement represented by Donald Trump has never been faced by our system of governance.  I do not hold much confidence that he will do the correct ethical action on his own.  So, the sooner the petition for redress is placed before the Supremes the better.  I would much rather have a clear, definitive statement by the Supreme Court rather than face the potential of impeachment, conviction and removal in the future.  I believe The Donald truly believes he is covered by the “divine right of kings” and that there is no requirement for him to do anything, i.e., by definition, the President can have no conflicts of interests, therefore there is no reason for him to do anything . . . just as he so easily violated virtually every presidential precedent.  His clear conflict of interest is no different from everything else – taxes, decorum, dignity, respect, et al.  I cannot argue with your interpretation, but the interpretation has not been tested.
            Re: unity.  Oh wow!  Suppression of dissent . . . surely you do not level that accusation at me.  I see myself as the voice of dissent.  My comment came from the reality that insanity is defined by continuing to do the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome.  As long as we continue our intransigence, we shall continue on the path to insanity.
 . . . with follow-up comment:
“On one thing we clearly agree. The sooner Mr. Trump's conflicts of interest and other legal issues are resolved, the better. Even though I would not like to see a President Pence, I do not see him as in sanity in nearly the same way as Trump.”
 . . . with my follow-up response:
            Agreed.  Pence is a more stable individual.  However, his socially conservative, moral projectionist tendency remains quite objectionable to me.  Pence would certainly be far less controversial in the global sense than Trump, but I suspect far more injurious to our civil liberties.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap                        :-)