Update from the
Heartland
No.801
17.4.17 – 23.4.17
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
I am proud to announce the publication of my 12th
book and the 5th book of my To So Few series of historical novels.
Royal
Air Force Fighter Command fought mind-numbing fatigue, overwhelming odds and
precipitously diminishing numbers in the desperate aerial battle over Southeast
England the world called the Battle of Britain. With the Air Defense System of
Great Britain rapidly approaching the threshold of ineffectivity, the Germans
shift their horrific aerial assault from the airfields and aircraft factories
to London and the civilian population. His Majesty’s Government focused upon
keeping the Germans from attempting a cross-Channel invasion, keeping the vital
Atlantic supply lines open, and encouraging the United States to provide
desperately needed war material. The miraculous shift of German bombardment
targeting, soon to be known as The Blitz, brings breathing room to the nearly
expended fighter pilots, and enables precious time for refit and renewal. As
German daylight air operations begin to dwindle in favor of night bombing of
the cities, Brian Drummond wades into a bad situation to save a comrade during
an air raid in the West Country. Brian’s aircraft is seriously damaged. Unable
to bailout, he crashes and is seriously injured. After being stabilized in a
hospital, Brian recovers from his injuries under the care of Charlotte Palmer, as
their relationship grows.
The
Verdict is available from all book retail outlets in print and digital
formats. I doubt it will be in
stock with local brick & mortar stores, but the book can be easily special
ordered at your convenience. If
anyone has difficulty obtaining the book in the form you wish, please let me
know.
Cap
is working on Book VI that will take the characters of the To So Few series
into 1941, the invasion of the Soviet Union, and the Japanese surprise attack
on Pearl Harbor.
Saint
Gaudens Press – the book’s publisher – in cooperation with Amazon, has created
a Kindle eBook giveaway of The Verdict. Any interested readers can visit the
relevant web page to enter the contest:
For
those who may seek additional information about my writing, the parlier.com
website has been updated for your review, or just ask. After all, I do enjoy talking about
writing, my characters, the story, and anything else that might come to mind.
As
always, I truly appreciate constructive criticism – good, bad, or ugly.
Attorney
General ‘Jeff’ Sessions announced the days of a slightly more relaxed
enforcement are over and the USG is no longer going to turn a tolerant eye on
state marijuana laws. Sessions’
action stimulated Leonard Pitts to write another cogent, relevant and
appropriate opinion.
“United States doesn’t need another War on Drugs”
by Leonard Pitts Jr. – Miami Herald
Wichita
Eagle
Published: APRIL 17, 2017; 5:12 AM
I agree with Pitts.
In fact, I think he has been a bit reserved with his criticism of the
government decision to reinvigorate the disastrous and ill-conceived notional
“war on drugs.” We have allowed
the government to compromise our freedom of choice and fundamental right to
privacy, and focus on the wrong issue.
The proper place of government is regulating the production,
distribution and sale of psychotropic substances, and enforcement of proper
public domain conduct for the public good and protection of public safety. Richard Nixon took us down the wrong
road criminalizing consumption of psychotropic substances, instead of protecting
public safety. Yes, Leonard Pitts
is quite correct; we do not need another “war on drugs.”
A friend and frequent contributor to this humble forum offered
this article for debate: “MIT expert
claims latest chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged”
by Tareq Haddad
International Business
Times
Published: April 17, 2017
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Emeritus Theodore
Postol argues that the U.S. Government claims were wrong. He interpreted public information to
conclude the event was staged by others to suggest the Assad regime perpetrated
the recent chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun [800] that precipitated the U.S. cruise missile attack on Shayrat
airfield in Homs Province [800].
My comment:
Interesting
perspective. As I read the
reporting of Postol’s analysis, I am left with the impression he does not have
much experience with aerial-delivered chemical & biological weapons. Chemical munitions do not have
conventional explosive charges.
The design intent is the hold the device together during release and
fall, to hold container integrity until the desired activation point. There is generally just enough low-order
explosive material to open the casing at the proper time and release the
chemical agent. Such devices do
not want the heat and energy of a high order explosive as that will often
damage or eliminate the desired agent contained within. Thus, chemical and biological delivery
systems generally do not reflect crater-ing effects common to high explosive
devices. Bottom line: I do not
find Postol’s argument compelling.
Prime
Minister Theresa May made a call for an early general election on 8.June,
apparently in an attempt to solidify her position and give her more authority
in the upcoming Brexit negotiations with the European Union. She became prime minister when her
predecessor David Cameron resigned, which left her with a very slim majority of
17 in the House of Commons. This
move is a gamble for May, but a very smart one it seems to me. If she is correct, it will strengthen
her position and make her less dependent on the support of the euro-skeptics of
her Conservative Party.
The
ouster of William James ‘Bill’ O'Reilly Jr. at Fox News has brought the issue
of sexual harassment in the workplace to the forefront, again. In typical manner, O’Reilly claims the
accusations against him are unfounded, since he has not been charged, tried,
convicted and punished for his crimes.
He gets a reported US$25M pay out for his troubles, and his victims do
not get their day in court for justice.
The behavior of which he is accused of is consistent with his public
conduct. O’Reilly does not respect
those who do not believe as he believes and he does not respect women. I am certain he truly believes he has
done nothing wrong, since he is an alpha-male and entitled to treat people as
he chooses – just another version of royal prerogative – it is his God-ordained
station in life. No wonder Trump
defended his friend; they are two peas from the same pod.
As
this week’s Update closes, the French people voted in the first round of their
presidential election. I confess
to be rather anxious about what may come with this election. No candidate is likely to garner 50% of
the vote, so a runoff election will be necessary in June with the top two vote-getters. As I voiced in the British European
Union vote [758], I think it would
be a very negative outcome if an anti-EU candidate won the presidency in France. We await the decision of the French
people.
According
to widely reported, preliminary (unofficial) results, Independent Emmanuel Jean-Michel
Frédéric Macron collected 23.9% of the vote; and Marion Anne Perrine ‘Marine’
Le Pen, leader of the ultra-right, nationalist, National Front gained 21.4% of
the vote. As the top two of eleven
candidates in the first round, Macron and Le Pen will face off in Round 2 on
Sunday, 7.May.2017, to decide the election.
Comments and contributions from Update no.800:
“You already know how I differ with you to some degree about the
POTUS, so I restrain myself to the following reaction to 800:
“1. Congratulations
on the 800 mark! I wish I had seen
the first several hundred that I missed, and I envy my brother's previous
relationship with you as a friend and fellow patriot who admired your
commentary.
“2. Re: ‘end of bipartisanship.’ ...disagree only in the genesis. ...prior to the Reagan administration
and most likely originated in the Johnson administration ...
My response: BINGO!
“3. Re: ‘Gorsuch. ...the only proper ‘stated position’
for a judge should be, must be, the law.
Personal opinions have no place in judicial pronouncements.
My response: NEAR TOTAL AGREEMENT!
“Having sought and experienced the best and hardest job I ever
had, the trial judge with the highest individual case load in the state of
Mississippi, I was exhausted after my term of 12-14 hour days handling both the
mundane and the esoteric original trial and lower court appeal issues,
listening to the incompetent and the excellent witnesses and advocates, ruling
on incessant objections, doing my own research before we had law clerks at the
trial court level, ruling from the bench without benefit of any jury on which
to blame erroneous interpretation of inconsistent facts, establishing
innovative court reforms to level the playing field for visiting attorneys,
pushing mediation to encourage settlements instead of the wasteful litigation
that had lined the pockets of the attorneys previously, teaching lawyers rules
and behavior standards that my predecessor had ignored in favor of local
attorneys to avoid possible challenge at election time, resisting the constant
threat to avoid all things controversial like other chancellors did so as to
stay popular enough for re-election, etc. I succeeded as a matter of principle and, of course, was
retired at the polls, but sleep well and enjoy a pittance from the public
employee retirement system. THEREFORE,
I claim credibility on this subject because I am still steeped in the
principles of judicial ethics, so I must chime in. The inane questioning of a Supreme Court nominee by members
of the U. S. Senate about his opinion on questions that have been or may be
before the court shows either their individual ignorance or pervasive political
bias. No judge is
permitted--indeed all are prohibited from -- public expression of personal
views on pending questions. Judge
Gorsuch would have categorically disqualified himself if he had taken the bait.
“On the other hand, personal views within written decisions often
help explain, defend, and make more palatable an opinion of an appellate judge
who rules based upon the law as written rather than on his or her personal
opinion, thereby reinforcing the proper role of the judiciary under our
constitution and referring controversial matters to the legislative branch
where they often belong.”
My reply:
Thank
you . . . a labor of love. The
early versions were called “Update from Italy” during my employment and
residency in Italy. I saved ‘em
all. You are welcome to read them;
easy enuf to send ‘em. It just
wasn’t practical to post them.
I
feel like I have known you for many years. Your brother was very proud of you and we talked about you,
even though you and I had not met, yet.
He was a very good man; I miss him.
Re:
“end
of bipartisanship.” Oh, you
were still quoting me. We agree on
the genesis . . . correct?
Re:
“Gorsuch.” My concern with all the fundamentalists
(or strict constructionists) is the relationship between enumerated authority /
rights and fundamental rights (not directly expressed in the Constitution),
most prominently, a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. Are their rights of citizens beyond the
Constitution?
Thank
you for your perspective as a judge.
I have never liked attaching judicial position to popular opinion . . .
inherently politicizing the judiciary – never good.
Comment to the Blog:
“I see that United Airlines passenger as legally wrong and morally
right. He is a doctor who was traveling to see a patient, and he had paid for his
ticket and boarded correctly. He wasn’t even bumped in favor of some other
passenger, but for airline employees who did not pay. The fact that airlines
can over-book and ‘bump’ passengers legally says more about their ability to
buy politicians than about anything else. This sort of runaway greed is bound
to meet with resistance at some point. I hope to see much more. Awareness of this is one more reason
I do not fly. I am not afraid of
flying itself, but I’m not willing to put up with airlines or risk the
Department of Homeland Insecurity. Not everyone has that choice.
“I can only mourn for Turkey. Their experiment with democracy lasted longer than many.
“Your other correspondent’s concern about Trump supporters
punching or otherwise attacking him is supported by events.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
unruly passenger. The airline had
no means to assess the veracity of his statement in a timely manner. He was not morally right to resist law
enforcement. There were other
means for him to object, if he believed his rights were violated.
Re:
airlines. I am NOT defending
United Airlines. They were wrong
to deal with the over-booking onboard the aircraft; should have been dealt with
in the lobby. I have faced onboard
removal more than a few times; I never liked that threat. “runaway greed” – I think that is a bit
steep. In this instance, they were
sacrificing revenue in pocket for the larger picture; they had to move a flight
crew quickly to avoid losing a plane-load of paying passengers. Running an airline is NOT an easy
juggling act. They are driven by
load-factor.
Re:
Turkey. We shall have to keep a
close eye on the political evolution in that important country.
Re:
Trump supporters. Indeed! Passions have been stirred.
. . . Round two:
“The passenger had no means of immediate defense. While he
probably had some sort of ID, it's not as if the enforcers would have
considered it. Appealing to some authority figure later, even if it worked,
would do nothing for his medical mission.
“‘Runaway greed’ is pretty appropriate to airlines and involves
more than their brutal method of removing over-booked passengers. They are the
industry that perfected strategic bankruptcies. Together with telecoms, they made it ordinary to reduce
service and raise ‘nuisance fees’ to an art form. It would be inappropriate to describe airlines as other than
greedy. The only unusual aspect of
the United incident is that such incidents are not common or get little notice.
I suspect that most people just
feel helpless and don't resist. So
much for that ‘rugged individualist’ American image.”
. . . my response to round two:
Re:
“no
means of immediate defense.”
To be blunt, that is irrelevant.
The small print on every airline ticket says something to the effect
that the airline reverses the right to bump passengers. We are all subject to the same rules.
It
is unfortunate that you have such a negative view of the airlines. I wish I had an entire commercial
aircraft to myself and I rode in first class just because they liked me and
appreciated my being a passenger; but that is not realistic. Airlines are driven by load
factor. Most of them need load
factors of 60-80% just to break even.
For years, government regulation seriously constrained the industry;
they lost money. Now, they are
making money. I do not like all
these damnable charges: assigned seats, aisle seats, carry-on bags, everything
of value they can think of; but, it is how they make money. The balance point must be out there
somewhere. Perhaps the USG should
form its own airline to just breakeven.
Most
citizens do not resist law enforcement.
I do not want to do anything that encourages resistance to law
enforcement.
. . . Round three:
“We will disagree on airlines. They lost money only enough and
long enough to declare bankruptcy, escape creditors, and come back to making
even more. I find them repellent.”
. . . my response to round three:
We
shall respectfully disagree. I think
you overly simplified the financial basis of the airline industry. That is your choice.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
I also agree with Leonard Pitts, Jr. that the “War on Drugs” has failed the nation, but he doesn’t examine the cause in depth. Prohibition of alcohol failed and prohibitions of other substances or behaviors continues to fail in their stated purpose. However, private prisons make big money, and if we follow the money flow (contract payments, campaign contributions, vendors, enforcement salaries, etc.), we discover that the purpose of the War on Drugs is, of course, making money for people who own politicians and salaries for many others. Thus, the people who pay the politicians are succeeding. The rest of us fail as taxpayers, as recreational or addicted users, as their family members, and as a society.
Prime Minister May, in calling for a quick election, gambles from the perspective of the Brexit objective, but less so personally. She will either achieve better support for the objective or a way out of that extremely difficult process.
Bill O’Reilly is one more scumbag lifted and dropped on the tide of the Tea Party.
We shall see how the French runoff vote goes. Europe seems to have a bit more resistance to this particular strain of insanity than the US.
Re: the only stated position for a judge should be the law. That is grotesquely oversimplified, as the writer himself seems to point out in an internal contradiction. “The law” is extremely complex at its starting point, then must evolve to meet changing events and societal changes. Nobody’s position can be “the law is good” without an explanation of that person’s perspective. Individual perspective varies wildly even on an idea as relatively simple as “good weather,” much less the entire legal structure of the United States. I am sad that your other correspondent experiences that combination of self-righteousness and self-pity, but that’s not my issue.
Calvin,
Re: ‘war on drugs.’ Interesting perspective. Given current events, your supposition is certainly plausible. I hate to think it might be true, if not in toto, at least in part.
Yes, as I said, I think May’s gamble is a good and necessary action. She either needs more authority to negotiate Brexit, or if the people reject her move, then someone else should take up the task. Either way, May is in a better position.
Re: O’Reilly. I have never been a fan and always objected to his bully style. I would just as soon he disappears, never to be heard from again. I doubt we will be so fortunate.
Re: French election. Indeed! I hope you are correct, and in this instance, I deeply hope the French people rise up and make the correct decision. There is only hope.
Re: the law. On this, we shall respectfully disagree. Our disagreement does not mean I think you are wrong. Interpretation of the law depends upon many factors, all of which cannot be divorced from a judge’s life experiences, political affiliations and social construct. However, judicial standard and practice encourages removal of the personal and interpreting the law as intended rather than as they wish it to be.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment