Update no.798

Update from the Heartland

No.798

27.3.17 – 2.4.17

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

To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- Brexit [758] has officially begun and is expected to take two years to accomplish.  The public action this week came after the British Supreme Court decided only Parliament could enable any Brexit action [789], which Parliament in turn authorized [796].  The unprecedented path to reshape the British relationship with its closest allies will be some of the most complex negotiations the country has ever set upon undertaking.  The collateral effects on the EU, the U.S., and the World, for that matter, are incalculable.  I suspect this is going to be a messy and painful process to watch.  I hope my suspicions are not realized.

-- Regarding purported Russian meddling in the last election [758/9, 771], the White House relentlessly persists in their public position – “Move along, folks.  There is nothing to see here.”  If there was truly nothing to see, why would not the White House be first in line demanding an independent investigation to clearly and unequivocally document the facts?  “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” (Hamlet, Act III, Scene 2)  The last time we witnessed this degree of obfuscation was 1972-1974, when we were treated to memorable Press condemnation phrases like “an effete corps of impudent snobs” and “nattering nabobs of negativism.”  The facts eventually tore apart the Nixon administration.  The more the White House Press Secretary insists there is nothing there, the more I believe there is probably far more “there” than our imagination can conjure up.

--You know, if I was a conspiracist, I might think the White House [i.e., Trump] intentionally compromised the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee [797] to indirectly block the House committee’s investigation into Russian election meddling and potential collusion by Trump campaign operatives.

-- The North Carolina legislature agreed to a compromise bill that dials back a controversial bathroom law, known as House Bill 2 (HB2) [758], requiring transgender people to use the public-facility bathroom associated with the gender of their birth.  The sanctions by businesses and sports organizations have clearly had a positive effect.  The LGBT community was quick to condemn the revised law, since it retains harmful elements of the original HB2 law.  I join the LGBT community; this new law is grossly insufficient to correct a grievous wrong.  When are we going to get government out of private affairs and focused on proper public domain common good?

            Another interesting opinion regarding our beloved president:

“Donald, This I Will Tell You”

by Maureen Dowd – Op-Ed Columnist

New York Times

Published: MARCH 25, 2017

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/25/opinion/sunday/donald-this-i-will-tell-you.html

She concluded her ‘letter,’ “They’re [the Republican elite] counting on you being a delusional dupe who didn’t even know what was in the bill because you’re sitting around in a bathrobe getting your information from wackadoodles on Fox News and then, as The Post reported, peppering aides with the query, “Is this really a good bill?”

“You got played.

“It took W. years to smash everything. You’re way ahead of schedule.”

Dowd was unusually mild in her incisive criticism; however, it is still a worthy perspective.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.797:

Comment to the Blog:

“Representative Nunes has earned the loss of his chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee. An outside special investigator seems appropriate to determine the full extent of his crimes. We also need that investigation to be broad enough to determine whether Russia had any direct involvement in criminal activities affecting the election or the administration. Regardless of Russia’s involvement, any U.S. citizens, including Trump, who have violated the law must be held accountable. Word from as-yet-unverified sources is that General Flynn has ‘turned’ and will testify freely in exchange for immunity from prosecution. It looks more and more as if he will have plenty to say.

“I am not sure what the future holds with Trump or for him. My current reading includes a book on narcissists, but if it gives an end result when their delusions collapse, I have not yet reached that part. We are seeing all factions of the two-party system give up any loyalty to Trump.

“Just in case that’s still not enough insanity, even the Wall Street Journal has turned against the nominally Republican President. On the political side, I hope the Republicans have seen their embrace of the Tea Party extremists destroy the party. Sooner is better.

“That does not mean I favor the comfortable and corrupt Democratic establishment. It means that independents, legitimate progressives within the Democratic Party, and Green Party candidates may get a chance to repair the damage the Tea Party has done this country since the election of Ronald Reagan.

“A couple of notes on the Supreme Court nomination: (A) Judge Garland’s was only one of many nominations stopped by the Obama-era Republican Congresses. Turnabout is fair play. (B) The current Supreme Court recently heard the appeal of a Gorsuch decision. They overturned it 8-0. That says a great deal about Gorsuch’s ability, or lack thereof.

“I still don’t know what is your point in saying, ‘Each individual person cannot be a state.’ Nobody has ever, even once, suggested that. Even the Libertarians don’t want individual sovereignty.

“The response to these attacks that will work is what has worked in the past. Prior to 9-11, we did not dignify insane or politically motivated attackers with the dignity we would sovereign states. We prosecuted such people as criminals, giving no public recognition or dignity to any organization short of a nation that might have supported them. We never should have changed that, but the military-industrial establishment Eisenhower feared has made a great deal of money they would not have made under the old approach. Now, one person or organization may go under or die, but the conflict continues as long as we pour lives and money into it. Every time we bomb some Muslim place, we reinforce the knowledge that we are, in fact even if not in intent, attacking Islam as a whole.”

My response to the Blog:

            For the record . . . at the present state of public knowledge . . . I do not believe the Russians had any “direct” effect or influence in the last election or any previous election.  I do believe the Russians were deeply involved in numerous indirect activities intended to sway citizens and the Press in this country.  If my perception is correct or even close, then the Russian activities and those American citizens involved with those activities are wrong and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

            Frankly, I hope your information about Flynn is correct.  I look forward to hearing what he has to say.  I have never been a fan of Flynn, even when he was in uniform.  He has a personality quite like his former boss.

            I eagerly anticipate your review of the book about narcissism.

            I suspect, and perhaps hope, the majority of Republicans have seen and recognized the consequences of allowing the Tea Party extremists to hijack their party.  We shall see.

            I am with you.  I have lost my tolerance of our current political parties.  The adherence to rigid ideologies has seriously compromised our ability to politically compromise, adapt and negotiate for the common good.

            Garland was the only Obama SCOTUS nominee blocked, and his nomination was blocked in a very anti-constitutional manner.  I do not agree that turnabout is fair play; such conduct perpetuates the cycle.  Someone has to be mature enough to break the cycle.  Wow, you put an awful lot of weight on one case.

            Re: sovereignty.  My point was how far do we take the dissolution of nation-states and how low do we go in accepting lower thresholds of sovereignty?  How far back in history do we go?  It is quite like marriage, I suppose; divorce is easy and absolves the parties from any effort toward negotiating a new, mutually acceptable position.  So, how far do we go?

            I have a hard time forming a counter-point argument to prosecution.  I will acknowledge that we may not have found the correct balance, but I struggle with that very point.  We see “turning the other cheek” as a noble gesture of maturity and evolution . . . while there are those among us who see such behavior as contemptible weakness.  We must strike the correct balance for our safety and sovereignty.  I simply cannot see criminal prosecution as the proper response to what aQ, ISIL and all the other jihadi Islamo-fascist groups are doing within Muslim countries and to our national interests.  There must be a proper balance.

 . . . Round two:

“Your discussion of sovereignty is an answer to a question that has never been asked.

“I don't advocate turning the other cheek. I support punishing criminals as criminals, not as heads of state or their agents.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Re: “an answer to a question that has never been asked.”  I was only responding to your statement “they rise up all over again.” [797]  Independence is an attractive intellectual term.  I was simply probing for your limit – the boundary of your notion.  If Scotland’s independence is OK, then is South Carolina’s independence OK, or Columbus’s independence, or [your] independence?  How far do you see independence going?

            Re: “punishing criminals as criminals, not as heads of state or their agents.”  First, we have been punishing criminals.  Second, illegal battlefield combatants are not “heads of state or their agents.”  We have not recognized aQ or ISIL as states with sovereignty.

 . . . Round three:

“South Carolina, Columbus, or [me] have never been conquered nations.

“The ‘illegal battlefield combatants’ came after we treated al-Qaeda et al., as if they were national entities. We need not recognize them diplomatically to treat them as nations. (See Taiwan, for example)”

 . . . my response to round three:

            Well, actually, if you go far enough back in history, I strongly suspect we will all find that all were part of conquered nations, tribes or peoples.  We are not all descendents of winner, winners.  How far back to we go?

            Well, now, I doubt we have EVER given aQ, ISIL, or any of the rest of them nation-state status or diplomatic recognition.

 . . . Round four:

“I'll say it again. We don't have to give them formal diplomatic recognition to make them be seen as nation-like entities. I'm not discussing international law here, but the drives behind actual events.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            Your opinion is noted and understood.  Thank you for sharing your perspective.

Another contribution:

“As mentioned, I appreciate your work you put into the Update.  Your thoughts and words are always well thought, and often you take something complicated and simplify it for the readers, which I appreciate.

“Rep. Nunes disclosures to news media seems like it was another part of a sick and twisted plot.  Where it leads, I do not know.

“The problem we are in I will describe to you from pilot-to-pilot: We are on the backside of the power-curve (with Trump, and all the distraction and friction to effectiveness and efficiency).  Now, I just opened myself up for some readers to say ‘oh, it's the Democrats’ or ‘it's the deep state’ but I say maybe it is just the script, plot and cycle that we find ourselves as history is in the making.

“As mentioned many times previously, I think our times are dangerous simply because we either elected or the guy was selected, a guy named Trump, with an archetype similar to Putin, which juxtaposed with the polarities, makes a bad cup of coffee in the morning.

“Let's hope we are not going to war with many countries soon (WW3).”

My reply:

            Yeah, this whole Nunes affair stinks to high heaven.  I cannot recall such bizarre behavior by a senior representative or senator.  The image he created for the world to see by his actions was that the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is Trump’s lackey.

            Re: “backside of the power-curve” . . . a rather apt analogy, I must say . . . also a rather tricky part of the performance curve that demands careful attention – miscalculations are costly.  No, it is neither the Democrats nor the so-called Deep State.  There is only one person to blame for all this chaos . . . Trump himself.

            I am not yet prepared to give Trump that much credit.  As I have written, there are more than a few ‘coincidental’ aspects of Trump’s behavior that exhibit distinct similarities to fascist leaders of the past.  However, he is a long way from actually achieving their dictatorial state.  He has publicly professed his admiration of Putin as a strong man (leader) – autocrat at best; dictator at worst.

            I share your hope in all this.  Trump has taken us far too close to the threshold, where miscalculations have far higher consequences.  Likewise, I hope I am wrong, but I do not like the signs I see so far.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“Nunes had no business show parading and going to the press, he only undermined his own credibility.

“Trump is a mistake for America, one big one!

“When I was discussing the ‘backside of the power curve’ I am thinking we are in a potentially bad spot with the friction of Trump, and STALL-STALL conditions we could find ourselves bogged down in due to Trump and his team (and some will say due to Democrats and/or deep state).

“Like you Cap, I do not like the signs, trends and reality I see, we can only hope more stable minds will prevail.  But I am not feeling too good about things today and how the Trump team will handle these serious issues with North Korea, China and Russia.”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

            Re: Nunes.  Spot on, I say!

            Re: mistake.  Again, spot on.  However, for better or worse, he is our president . . . we must endure.

            Re: power curve.  I understood that.  The previous fascist leaders loved to use chaos as an essential ingredient to the eventual “only I can solve this” . . . oh wait, where have we heard that before?

            Re: serious issues.  I share your concern.  There is always hope . . . until there is none.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)