Update no.821

Update from the Heartland

No.821

11.9.17 – 17.9.17

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

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- The Trump administration released yet another revision to their controversial travel ban [790] in advance of the Supreme Court’s hearing of formal arguments and deciding the case.  The latest version – travel ban 3.0 – appears to be more reasonable and refined in adapting restrictions to the real objects rather than a general ban based on religious beliefs.  Regardless, we must give Trump credit; he is relentless.

-- With the latest Republican attempt to repeal and “replace” the PPACA [432, 512, 533, 553] pending on Tuesday or Wednesday next week, Senator John McCain of Arizona rejected the latest attempt, for one declared reason – unacceptable process.  He has repeatedly and consistently advocated for the fully legislative process, including public committee hearings, proper debate, appropriate compromise, and complete cost-benefit analysis.  I stand firmly and solidly with McCain – health care insurance (protection) is simply too important to accept less.  I urge everyone to contact their senators and representative and encourage them to vote no on the Graham-Cassidy proposal (it’s not even a proper bill).

            President Trump delivered an address at the opening of the current United Nations General Assembly.  On the whole, I thought he did a pretty good job . . . good message although awkwardly delivered. However, in specific, his “totally destroy North Korea” and “Rocket Man” drivel is unnecessary, unbecoming and otherwise a really bad move.  “Totally destroy” in the English language means the killing of 25 million people and the destruction of every building, roadway, dam, tunnel, bridge . . . everything.  Schoolyard hyperbole is simply and absolutely unacceptable in the arena of international diplomacy.  Just because the DPRK finds affinity with such rhetoric does not make those words acceptable.  What is done is done; now, we live with the consequences.  I have tried to understand why the President would be so foolish and cavalier with the lives of innocent people.  My conclusion: He is either ignorant of or chooses to reject the wisdom of Teddy Roosevelt.  Instead, he chose to speak loudly about the military power of the United States.  I have never been a fan of anyone who chooses braggadocio and bluster.  By his conduct, he is narrowing our options and moving us closer to war . . . not comforting behavior.  For all the good he tried to communicate, I am left with no choice but to condemn his speech before the United Nations.  He was simply wrong!  Full stop!

            Then, what happens?  The DPRK threatens to detonate a nuclear device above or in the Pacific Ocean.  Really?  Such an action would clearly and definitively be unacceptable.  Inappropriate bluffing sucked us into the Vietnam War.  We do not need another half-hearted war that gets a lot of people killed.  If he really intends to take us into war with the DPRK, then I would recommend he focus on mobilization of the nation rather than making foolish public statements like he did.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.820:

Comment to the Blog:

“Neither of us has much respect for Hillary Clinton, but that’s pretty much where the agreement ends this week.  I see the email server fiasco as evidence of the hubris that permeates the top level of our government these days, but not as worthy of extensive investigation or of prosecution.  I suspect most of the more powerful people in our government share that careless approach to functional decisions unless they fear losing elections or contributions over those decisions.

“The content of the various hacked emails interests me much more, and that content has not been disputed at any time. Indeed, the most interesting part, Democratic National Committee (DNC) manipulation of the primaries, became an open statement in a lawsuit that has been dismissed for now.  Those emails reveal the DNC’s (Clinton, Podesta, Wasserman-Schultz) central concerns to be electing Mrs. Clinton and collecting large donations, not anything to do with the nation’s well being or the best way for the party to win the election.  That influenced me to not vote for Mrs. Clinton despite my fear and mistrust of Trump.  Given the low turnout, I was not alone in that.

“The other major factor was research into Clinton’s actual record as Secretary of State and as a senator from New York.  She supported Wall Street over the general public and she did some nasty marketing for contributors (such as supporting baby formula over breastfeeding in impoverished African nations and petroleum over any other power source).  Even more importantly, she supported every military action under way or proposed.  Her advocacy at State probably pushed us into action in Libya.  I see Benghazi as one of those things that can happen in modern combat.  The real question is what we were doing there.

“We have discussed the Electoral College before. I favor one voter having one vote and see no reason to favor voters from one state over those from another.  That only adds to the factionalism the Founders feared.  Mrs. Clinton collected about 3 million more votes than Trump, but Trump won the election. What justifies that under the notion that ‘all men are created equal’?”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: “the hubris that permeates the top level of our government.”  Actually, there is plenty of evidence to support your claim.  It is the intoxication of power.  She certainly exhibited the traits.  And, there are many others who have succumbed to that intoxicant.  The wisdom of Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus (519–430 BC) has been lost on contemporary politicians . . . for quite some time now.

            Re: “manipulation of the primaries.”  The DNC got caught.  The RNC did not.  The establishment in both parties attempted to manipulate the primaries to obtain a candidate they supported; the DNC succeeded; the RNC did not.  Personal opinion: The Russians hacked the DNC, turned over material that suited their purposes to WikiLeaks, and that information became public at a time calculated to do the most damage to Clinton’s campaign.  For all we know, they were able to accomplish the very same thing with the RNC, but chose not to release their acquired information.  I strongly suspect Mueller’s investigation results will be shocking and sobering in many aspects, once all the available data becomes public.

            Re: Benghazi, Libya.  I am not so sure.

            Re: Electoral College.  We will continue to disagree, and I hope we will continue to discuss the various aspects of the constitutional presidential election process.  I see it differently.  Although I remain disgusted by the outcome, I believe the Electoral College performed exactly as the Founders / Framers intended.  Clinton cast all her effort on the coasts and what I see as minimal effort in the Heartland.  Trump made a concerted and determined effort in more states and regions.  He tapped into a deep vein of dissatisfaction among the citizens of this Grand Republic.  The bottom line: he waged a far more effective constitutional campaign than did Clinton . . . although I am quite reticent to give him credit for understanding the Constitution.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“What the Republicans did or failed to do in their primaries has no bearing on what the Democrats did.  As stated, the authenticity of the leaked DNC emails is unquestioned.  That information demonstrates manipulation of the primaries.  That same collection includes evidence that the DNC supported making Trump the candidate on the assumption that even Hillary could beat him in the general election.  The best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

            Quite so!  I was only including the RNC to point out that manipulation of the primaries is NOT limited to the DNC.  Also, political parties seeking favorable opponents is certainly not a new phenomenon.  This reality is precisely why I am so opposed to open primaries.  The temptation of political parties to meddle or contaminate opposing party primaries for their political gain is simply too great.  I strongly suspect the DNC did just that and now we endure the consequences.  But, hey, that’s just me.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)