Update from the
Heartland
No.765
8.8.16 – 14.8.16
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- An interesting interview with retired Transport Safety
Board of Canada investigator Larry Vance regarding Malaysia Airlines Flight
MH370 (8.3.2014) [638, 691, 711, 716]:
“Expert on MH370 Disappearance: ‘There Is Absolutely No
Mystery To What Happened’”
Interview Conducted by Marco Evers
Der Spiegel
Published: August 11, 2016 – 12:24 PM
To be blunt, I am surprised that a qualified, experienced,
aviation accident investigator would be so absolute, based on such spotty
factual data. That said, I do
agree with his conclusion when we apply Occam’s Razor. The evidence he cites points to the
most likely scenario – an intentional, controlled (by an experienced pilot),
low-speed ditching in the Indian Ocean.
While I agree with Vance, I cannot be so absolute.
We
now have a horse race – the card is set.
Doctor Jill Ellen Stein, MD, accepted the Green Party nomination for
president, and chose Ajamu Baraka as her vice presidential running mate. I would like to note that CNN will hold
a Green Party Town Hall meeting on Wednesday evening, 17th August. I urge everyone to listen and think.
Also,
David Evan McMullin declared his candidacy for the presidency as an independent
to represent the anybody-but-Trump, conservative folks, although it is not
clear how many states he will qualify to be listed on the ballot (of course,
any citizen can write-in his name, even if he does not appear on the ballot).
So,
the ballot for November will be:
Democrat: Hillary
Rodham Clinton [763]
Green: Jill
Ellen Stein [765]
Libertarian: Gary
Earl Johnson [756]
Republican: Donald
Joseph Trump [762]
[and I suppose, if we really want to give him a listing,]
Independent: David Evan McMullin [765]
I am not sure whether any of the networks can carry off a
four or five way debate of the candidates, regardless of the Federal Election
Commission criterion. I am not
optimistic, just hopeful. We need
(deserve) to hear someone other than the Republican nominee.
Our
middle son offered this contribution:
“[Trump] does
not want the job, or ever was serious about the presidency. Watch this, it may be the best thing on
the Internet right now.”
URL:
My response:
Good
one! And, it may not be far from
the truth.
Worse:
what does that say about the American people?
Love,
Dad
:-)
Lastly, while this rendition is not likely a historical
documentary or even loose portrayal, it does explain at least some of the
conduct of the Republican nominee.
Supporters
of the Republican nominee point to one very attractive trait they see in him –
he says what he means. He is not
constrained by political correctness.
Then, when he says really idiotic stuff, they defend his misstatements –
that’s not what he really meant.
One of Teddy Roosevelt’s many pearls of wisdom was, say what you mean,
mean what you say. He was plain spoken
as well, but to my knowledge he did not resort to foolish innuendo or juvenile
insults of those who disagreed with him.
To my knowledge, Teddy never allowed sarcasm, ‘just kidding,’ or ‘that
was a joke’ to color his public rhetoric.
My favorite Teddy-ism is, speak softly and carry a big stick. The Republican nominee’s words and
conduct are just about the polar opposite from Teddy. He likes to portray himself as a tough guy. He may well be . . . with other
people’s blood, but I suspect he would crumple into a babbling, crying baby if
he got a bloody nose (just like in the video clip noted above, I must add). At least Adolf Hitler served as a
corporal in the army and was wounded in combat.
The
next to latest faux pas from the Republican
nominee:
“In many respects, you know, they honor President
Obama. He’s the founder of ISIS.
He’s the founder of ISIS. He’s the
founder. He founded ISIS. I would say the co-founder would be
crooked Hillary Clinton.”
The statement defies logic and all known facts. His statement is devoid of any semblance
of reality. The worst part, his
statement publicly demonstrates his ignorance and paucity of any desire to
learn. He repeated it over and
over and over, again, and he ignored repeated attempts by other folks to help
him out of the hole. Eventually,
he lamely claimed he was being sarcastic . . . “well, not so much.” Unfortunately, Donnie-boy, leaders do
NOT get to be sarcastic, kidding, joking or other drivel, since such thoughts
exist only in his mind, and there
is no decoder ring on the planet to help another living soul understand what is
in his mind and what he “really” meant to say.
The
latest [I cannot say the last, since I know beyond a reasonable doubt, this
will not be the last] faux pas from
the Republican nominee:
“The only way we can lose, in my opinion, I really mean
this, Pennsylvania, is if cheating goes on. I really believe it.”
[Sadly, I think he really does believe it; worse, he will convince more
than a few American citizens that it is true.]
First, this sounds exactly like a desperate man striking out
at anything he can think of. We
have witnessed the phenomenon many times.
Second, he is delusional – a classic response of an extreme
narcissist, i.e., his problems cannot possibly be his doing, his fault;
whatever problems exist for him, e.g., failure, must be someone else’s doing.
Third, he is now attacking anything and everything he can
see: the Press, the electoral system, the Republican Party, nearly everything
except his opponents.
Lastly, this blathering nonsense reminds me of a day gone by
– 19.March.1945, the day Adolf Hitler issued his “Nero order.” He believed that Germany failed its
leader and therefore nothing of value in Germany should survive him; burn it
all down, he ordered. Such
blatant, extreme, narcissistic, ego-centric people in positions of power simply
cannot and refuse to believe they could possibly lose anything – not an
election, not a battle, not a war, not a game of chess. Thus, the system must be rigged against
them (him). So, as he is trying to
do, since the entire system is rigged against him, burn it all down; nothing
should survive his failed candidacy.
Post Script: There
are far too many similarities to Adolf Hitler for this to be coincidence.
You
know, even if the Republican nominee instantly transformed his conduct, and
acted and performed as a proper presidential candidate, who took the position
he is seeking seriously, I doubt many of us would believe him anymore. He has wasted and frittered away any
presumption of innocence in the last year plus of his antics. I must confess my genuine sadness that
a once noble political party has been laid so low by the novice-ness,
outrageousness and immaturity of the Republican nominee. We can only hope and pray the remainder
of this silly season passes swiftly.
Comments and contributions from Update no.764:
Comment to the Blog:
“I find it encouraging that the Donald is already talking about
the election being rigged. That happens (2000 and 2004, for instance), but
talking about it now, with no evidence, shows us that Mr. Trump is thinking
about losing. I have seen a
headline that the American Psychological Association has issued its usual
advice not to diagnose the Republican candidate. I support that for the reasons they give. However, I will point out how thoroughly
he resembles a large number of people I have seen and heard who speak in
similar assumptions, tones and even words when they reach a certain stage of
drunkenness. I have worked for a
few of those, too, but only a few. The one I remember best had inherited the business, just like
Mr. Trump, and ruined it. How can
a person (Trump) who ran casinos into bankruptcy claim business success? Owning a casino is almost a license to
print money.
“I also fear the election of the Democrat candidate, for a
completely different set of reasons. Her dishonesty seems to me pretty much
ordinary in current U.S. politics, sad as that may seem. Moderation typically is a reasonable
course of action, and Hillary Clinton certainly counts as a moderate. However, Secretary Clinton is a moderate
mostly because she depends on Wall Street and other corporate connections for
campaign financing and her personal income. Meanwhile, climate change is making her fields of experience
(starting needless wars, supporting big business) irrelevant. Climate change has been studied
seriously since at least the 1980s, and the only difference between the reality
and most scientists’ predictions is that every aspect of the change is
happening faster than expected. Senator
Clinton’s backers will not allow her to respond with the appropriate strength
and boldness. Other issues needing
a similar approach will meet the same fate.
“Should climate change (and corruption) go on unchecked, the U.S.
and the rest of the world will face much more severe disasters than a loudmouth
President who plans to let his Vice President handle all policy. (Given that the Vice President would be
Governor Pence, that’s still big trouble.)
“The mainstream choice this year reminds me of an old advertising
slogan for some kind of preventive maintenance. ‘Pay me now or pay me later.’
“I will vote for a woman in November, but not for Secretary
Clinton. I must vote my conscience, and that will mean Jill Stein, M.D., of the
Green Party USA.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
“rigged election.” Agreed,
precisely, which is exactly why I suspect he believes he has no chance to win.
Re:
“casinos.” Spot on!
Re:
election financing. We cannot
fault Hillary for playing by the rules as they are. Citizens United set the stage, the ground rules (or lack of
same), and the reality of what me must suffer these days. I do not see that she has done anything
different from what every other politician has done in perpetuity . . . well,
except Bernie, perhaps. Until we
change the law (and now thanks to Citizens United that means the
Constitution), the means by which political candidates finance their election
campaigns will not change.
Re:
climate change. The existence of
climate change is far less debatable than the source of the changes and more so
what we do and how fast we do it.
Re:
“Pay
me now or pay me later.”
Interesting perspective.
Re:
Jill Stein. Congratulations. I’m not there, yet. If she gets elected, will she have a
Green majority in Congress? If
not, how is she going to get anything done?
. . . Round two:
“Re: Stein as President. She would probably not have a Green Party
majority, but if we think in policy terms, there's a real chance she would have
a large enough liberal/progressive contingent to succeed. In particular, the
Republican Party is disintegrating, which leaves many opportunities.
“Re: election financing. I am quite aware that Hillary plays ‘by
the rules.’ The problem is that the rules tie her hands even more than those of
most candidates. She has a long and lucrative relationship with Wall Street,
and they don't ‘give,’ they invest.”
. . . my response to round two:
Re:
Green. Good points. She has my attention. I just hope one of the news agencies
can overcome the Federal Election Commission 15% access rule for participation
in public debates. Fortunately,
CNN, among all the newsies, has given a platform to the Libertarian
nominee. I hope and trust they
will do the same with the Green nominee.
I want to see a proper debate between all four leading party nominees –
not likely, but there is hope.
Re:
election financing. Every
president as far back as we can see such things has sought funding from outside
sources to prosecute their election campaigns. Hillary is no different from Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan,
or John Kennedy or Richard Nixon.
Why do you believe Hillary is somehow different from every other
candidate who has run for the presidency?
I agree with you in my objection to the grotesquely corrupting influence
of money, especially hidden money, but those are the rules we have. So, let us not blame Hillary for
following the rules. If we don’t
like the rules, let us focus on the proper root cause.
. . . Round three:
“Reagan, Carter, Nixon, and the Bushes found funding from many
sources, often including labor unions (for the Democrats of the past) and
conservative Christians (for the Republicans). Neither party was limited to
Wall Street, corporations, and the very wealthy. Secretary Clinton is basically
that limited.
“One additional point here is that the past need not dictate the
future. I saw an announcement yesterday that Secretary Clinton has now reached
a total of 2 million donors, a mark Bernie Sanders passed in March without dark
money to use in marketing. If Senator Sanders and his down-ballot Democrats
(Debbie Wasserman Schultz's challenger, Tim Canova, for example) can do without
SuperPACs and corporate support, so can others.”
. . . my response to
round three:
Re:
Clinton campaign financing. You
are beyond my knowledge and capacity to go find out. Let it suffice to say, I doubt Wall Street banks and
corporations are the only source of funds for the Clinton campaign. Her funding is probably not as populist
as Bernie’s, but we shall see. Let
us assume you are precisely correct, the implied conflict of interest would be
quite real; yet, because it is so focused, it would be easy enough to watch,
illuminate and criticize.
Re:
without dark money. Voluntary
rejection of funding sources is a huge step to ask any candidate to make given
the enormous amounts of money necessary to run a successful national
campaign. Plus, leaving such
rejection voluntary strongly favors the wealthy, who have “other” funding
sources beyond public scrutiny. We
must change the law and enforcement provisions, which in turn means we must
overturn Citizens United, and thus a constitutional amendment.
. . . Round four:
“Feel free to research Secretary Clinton's (and her husband's)
relationship to Wall Street. Much of the financial information is public.
“I did not discuss eliminating SuperPAC and other dark money at
this moment. However, plenty of us are making that an important criterion in
choosing how to vote. That's one of the major factors the Democratic Party has
not noticed in this election. Trump caught on; that's why he has claimed to be
self-funding at various times. Most of us won't ever vote for him based on his
apparent mental state, but he caught on to voters' rebellion against
corruption.”
. . . my response to round four:
You
may well be correct. I sincerely
hope so. So, who is that
candidate? And, more importantly,
how do you proposed to s/he elected?
. . . Round five:
“As of the present, the only Presidential candidate not using dark
money is Jill Stein of the Green Party, although I have not checked out the
Libertarian candidate. However, this is the strangest election in our lifetime.
One indictment, fifteen seconds of damning video, or another set of hacked
emails could elect or finish any candidate.
“Also, the circus-like atmosphere of the Presidential race
distracts us from the power struggle. Some ‘down ballot’ candidates are
following Senator Sanders' lead, including Tim Canova and at least one Senate
candidate in Florida. This is where real change could take place. As we see
today, it is Congress that passes the laws or not, controls the purse strings,
and (sometimes) talks to the folks ‘back home.’ Presidents are influential and
make the important daily decisions, but Congress is the legislative body that
ultimately guides policy.”
. . . my response to round five:
I
do not know how any of us can have confidence in any campaign financing, fund
raising activities for any candidate, including Jill Stein, or Bernie Sanders
for that matter. As long as fund
raising can be hidden, it will be hidden, at least in part, and we will never
know. I do not trust any of them –
not Bernie, not Jill, not any of them.
Our system of governance was built on checks and balances, and yet, of
all our processes, election financing remains the least ‘supervised,’ and thus
it also remains the most corruptible, and Citizens United made it orders of
magnitude worse.
. . . Round six:
I certainly agree about Citizens United and more broadly
about transparency. All we can do is our best, and that requires not setting
the fox to guard the henhouse as nearly as we can detect.”
. . . my response to round six:
Amen
brother!
Another contribution:
“In your unfortunate prejudice against Trump and consistent
willingness to forgive the Clintons of everything in favor election of a female
with only that one qualification, you have overused one alleged idea that you
and others attribute to Trump, which I quote’ he alone is the savior.’ Never do you paraphrase Hillary's
similar claim with any negative connotation. Come on! Get
real! The nominee of either the
Democrats or the Repandercrats will be our next president, and each truly
believes he or she is the only one. In fairness, I never have heard
either one use your word ‘savior.’
So, to be fair, admit that Hillary has said in so many words that ‘SHE
alone is the savior.’ She is just
a better politician than the Donald, much better, and up to now anyway has had
better speech writers, and surely you agree with me that our most skillful
professional politicians and speech makers have this country is a mess never
anticipated by the patriots who designed our government! Bottom line: We may not know what Trump will do, but we know what Clinton
will do, and our country cannot survive a another generation of increasing
national debt and liberal Supreme Court Judges.
“...and another thing, while we are at it: I agree with the
inference that one of the independent candidates (other than the closet
independent Trump, who with his truly independent style and substance captured
the GOP voters' imagination but not that of its entrenched leadership) might
make a nicer president and be capable of political correctness, a trait Trump
blessedly lacks. However, we do
not need a nice president, and a vote for those guys, whom I admire very much)
is a vote for Hillary. We have had
a nice leftist Muslim sympathizer and we do not need and cannot afford an
imitation substitute, whose word is her bond and is worth nothing.”
My reply:
Re:
prejudice. Wow! Apparently, I have failed miserably to
communicate properly, or someone has made a quantum leap in presumption. I have forgiven no one – not the
Clintons, not Trump, not Obama, not Bush (43), not even Reagan. No one gets a pass.
Re:
“I alone can fix it.” His words .
. . no one else’s. Hillary may
well believe she is the savior, but she is humble enough to not proclaim to the
world what is clearly and absolutely not true – for either of them, or any
human being, for that matter. His
statement is not self-confidence; it is ego-centric arrogance; there is a
monumental difference. As you well
know from your service to this Grand Republic, anyone who goes into harm’s way
must believe he will survive and prevail.
I have long known the difference between a pilot’s loose flapping of his
gums and another pilot’s demonstrated actions. My actions speak for themselves; I don’t need to beat on my
chest.
Re:
national debt. Spot on! I have a long history of public
objection to the obscene spending by Congress – Republicans are just as bad as
Democrats. In the first six (6)
years of the Bush (43) administration, he had a Republican dominated Congress,
and that Congress increased the national debt more than any Congress in my
lifetime. So, let’s point our
accusatory finger at the correct source.
Re:
liberal SCOTUS justices. Well, to
be blunt and direct, I don’t care what the political leanings or preferences of
SCOTUS justices are. I want
justices who will protect the rights of citizens rather than enhance the power
of government to intrude upon and dominate our private affairs. To me, the critical jurisprudence
matter is a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom to seek their
chosen path to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I see Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113
(1973)] in a far broader light; abortion happens to be the topic, but the root
issue is a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy in making intimate, personal,
medical decisions.
Re:
political correctness. Let’s not
confuse the popular notion and generalization of the term with the proper,
moral responsibility to respect other people and their particular choices for
their “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.” From my perspective, many who rail against political
correctness might be well served to refresh their reading and understanding of
the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Plain spoken-ness does NOT give anyone the right to
insult and demean other people.
The First
Amendment protects the right of the Republican nominee to say whatever
he wants, but that does NOT make his speech correct. A leader, especially in a diverse, inclusive society such as
the objective of this Grand Republic, must represent all citizens, not just the
chosen, or the majority. Insulting
people who disagree with you is not frankness; it is disrespect. It is not strength; it is weakness.
Re:
“nice president.” I am a firm
believer in the wisdom of Teddy Roosevelt (POTUS - 26). I can never accept a leader in the
frame of Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin.
The Republican nominee is far closer to the latter than the former. Full stop!
Re:
“a nice leftist Muslim sympathizer.”
Surely you jest.
. . . follow-up comment:
“Well said, my friend, as usual. However,
“1. Your self defense is always accepted, but IMHO it is your
words over the years that have evoked my opinion about your current bottom line
conclusions concerning the Clinton (‘better than the alternative’). Hillary does not ‘get a pass,’ but it
sounds as though she may get your vote. Wow.
“2. How about ‘I alone AMONG THE CANDIDATES can fix it?’ This is the actual accurate and true
claim, if overly optimistic just like most coaches and candidates, and not
humble (as you astonishingly suggest may be a Clinton attribute) for sure, but
it is what Trump means as a summary statement distinguishing an independent candidate
from the establishment of either party.
“3. I have always ‘pointed the accusatory finger’ at the correct
source regarding the need for a balanced budget. It will not happen with
currently entrenched Democrats or Repandercrats, and I don't hear Trump
(certainly not Hillary) promising otherwise with any credibility. We agree on this.
“4. Political leanings or preferences of SCOTUS justices don't
bother me either, except when they dictate their decisions in contradiction to
the letter of the Constitution as written and amended. We all know what Hillary will expect
from her nominees. Our only hope
is a newly principled Senate to disapprove any nominee who cannot convincingly
promise to not allow his or her leanings or preferences (we all have them) to
sway any decision or opinion. And
to repeat my earlier tirade, with which you agree, the GOP leadership should be
ashamed for not doing its job of prompt Senatorial consideration of Obama's
nominee and any future nominee of any POTUS.
“5. We agree about
political correctness, except that you are too unforgiving of a non-politician
who foolishly and sometimes boorishly fails to restrain his habitual bully
nature.
“6. We need a POTUS
with Trump's apolitical attitude and strength, if not the bully in him, not
just more of the same leadership-in-name-only stuff.
“7. I do not jest
about Muslims. They really are
peaceful in their majority, like most southerners abhorred the KKK and most
Germans were not Nazis and both failed to stop what they saw happening, but the
majority of Muslims are not successfully rejecting the huge Islamic minority
bent upon eventual domination. Obama's
unusually high number of Muslim appointees and his actions and words leave me
convinced, not in jest.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
Re:
my vote. Simply put, you have
misjudged my words. ‘Nuf said. I shall not be one of those Germans who
voted for the National Socialists in 1932. For the record, I will not likely make my choice until some
time after the last debate and before I enter the voting booth.
Re:
“I alone can fix it.” Ahso, you
must have found one of those secret, magical, decoder rings to understand what
he “really” meant to say.
Unfortunately, he does not get a pass for words he meant to say; he said
what he said, in those exact words; I heard him speak those words live and I
nearly vomited. Further, I shall
respectfully disagree with your conclusion.
Re:
political correctness. A private
citizen enjoys the full expanse of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech rights. A political leader, or a wannabe
leader, does not enjoy the same freedom.
A leader must be far more measured, and they must represent all
citizens, not just a loyal constituency or the chosen.
Re:
apolitical attitude. You know,
taken in general, I would actually agree with you, especially given the
calcified intransigence of the last dozen Congresses. Unfortunately, the Republican nominee’s mind-numbing myriad
of abhorrent personality traits disqualify him, from my perspective.
Re:
Muslims. Once again, we shall
respectfully disagree. President
Obama is NOT “a nice leftist Muslim sympathizer.” The last time I checked, the Constitution set the standard
[Article 6, Clause 3] for all of us, not just those in political office.
. . . the last word:
“Thanks. Sorry if I
have misjudged your words. I do
not misjudge your patriotism or sincerity, friend.
“I continue to very much enjoy our exchanges!”
A different
contribution:
URL:
“I do not envy the American voter - this item is quite
unbelievable. Over here we have a constant flow of the most disturbing comments
being made by what can only be a most disturbed individual. Yes we are, as is the rest of the world,
most concerned over the state of your presidential election. There is a damming article about Mrs.
Clinton and an involvement with your CIA.
Are both of the candidates unsuitable to be ‘Commander in Chief’ of your
armed forces? What a desperate
choice your people have, my friend. Should we, the rest of the universe butt
out it being no business of ours? Absolutely
not, your nation’s choice of leader is paramount to the peace and prosperity of
the entire globe.
“This may not be the view of your nation but I urge all of our
American cousins to consider most carefully their options next November.”
My response:
This
particular silly season in this Grand Republic is by an order of magnitude more
embarrassing than any other election in my lifetime and perhaps in all others
combined.
Re:
butt out. Absolutely not! If the United States was a small,
third-world country like Zimbabwe or Nepal, perhaps this election campaign
nonsense could be ignored.
Unfortunately, the United States remains the most powerful nation of our
time, and that simple reality cannot be ignored. I have been through social episodes, through war, through
assassination attempts on our presidents, through more than a few bad
times. I have voted in every
general election since I was old enough to vote and through all of those hard times,
I have NEVER been so apprehensive about a presidential election and at a far
more serious level, about what might happen after the election is decided. The Founders and Framers were concerned
about the popular vote. At the
time of the Founding, only adult, educated, Caucasian, male, land-owners were
considered qualified to vote, and even then, they created the Electoral College
. . . just in case. So, no, you
should not butt out.
The
sad, cold reality is, depending upon what happens in the next few months, we
may be faced with voting for the person most likely to prevent a very dangerous
man from becoming POTUS. Just like
your Brexit vote, far too many Americans are enamored by the coarseness of that
particular candidate. Currently,
the person most likely to defeat that dangerous man has an uncomfortably large
number of detractors as well. I
have never seen anything like this in my lifetime, nor am I aware of any even
remotely similar election event in the history of this Grand Republic. That latter fact alone scares the hell
out of me. We saw an angry vote in
your Brexit; we may well see another angry vote this coming November. I hope not, but it is all too real.
Your
urging of American voters is quite appropriate, reasonable and logical. We can only hope the majority in
sufficient states see the light, and vote for the future of this Grand Republic
rather than with their anger over the abysmal status quo.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
