Update no.838

Update from the Sunland

No.838

15.1.18 – 21.1.18

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

            To all,

            First, I offer my genuinely humble apologies to those who actually read this Blog, for the tardiness of this edition of the Update.  The beginning of the end finally arrived.  Last week, I returned to Wichita to supervise the load-out of our household goods.  Fortunately, I found some time to spend with our local children and grandchildren.  I drove a rental van choker-blocked full to the few items we did not want to ship and the few odds & ends that were not packed last November.  The Wichita house is empty, being professionally represented and has not sold, yet—terrible time of year for home sales in Wichita, Kansas.  Our ‘stuff’ was delivered early Monday morning, which took priority over the Update this week.  We are official residents of Fountain Hills, Arizona.  Now, the unpacking process begins.  We hope to settle out our lives as quickly as possible.  In my own form of whining, I have not been able to exercise my normal and routine writing process since August of last year—I have missed that time; yet, that is the price that had to be paid.  We are not in a rush to vacate the cottage we have occupied since November; we will slowly move the remainder of our ‘stuff’ over the next few days.  We will be fully disengaged from the cottage in Mesa and living in our new, permanent home.  There is my excuse to missing my self-imposed deadline of Monday morning for the Update.  I expect to return to normal quickly.

            Apple, Inc., announced its intention to accept the encouragement of the recently enacted Tax Cuts and Jobs Act [PL 115-097; 131 Stat. xxxx; 22.12.2017] and specifically § 14103—Treatment of Deferred Foreign Income upon Transition to Participation Exemption System of Taxation [131 Stat. xxxx] of Title I (no name); Subtitle D—International Tax Provisions; Part I—Outbound Transactions; Subpart A—Establishment of Participation Exemption System for Taxation of Foreign Income.  The company has reportedly earmarked US$36B to cover deferred taxes on roughly half of its US$246B in overseas cash holdings.  It is not clear why the company chose not to repatriate all of its overseas cash holdings and hopefully they will see fit to complete the process.  Further, I must say I expect Apple is leading the way for other corporations to take up the encouragement and repatriate the nearly US$3T in overseas cash holdings.  This is the positive side of the new law.

            The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. intelligence developed detailed evidence of at least six Chinese-owned or -operated cargo ships violating United Nations sanctions against North Korea (DPRK), by making ship-to-ship transfers at sea of illicit cargo to Russia and Vietnam.  The intelligence identified the ships by name and tracked their movements to and from DPRK ports.  The DPRK reportedly generates an estimated US$1B per year in hard currency for the rogue nation, by smuggling exports of coal, iron ore, lead and seafood.

            While the WSJ report is quite plausible and consistent with previous violations by UN member-states quasi-friendly to the DPRK, I actually find the news rather disturbing on a different level.  Having worked on the dark side, I know how highly classified such raw intelligence usually is, and public exposure of such information is often more costly than the benefit intended—exposing means and methods.  We have not seen the evidence or even a representation of the documentation, which places this latest disclosure in contrast to what the public saw when President Kennedy declassified over-head photography of the Soviet build-up of nuclear-capable missiles in Cuba.

            On Thursday, the House of Representatives scabbed on yet another continuing appropriations extension to avoid performing their constitutional duties.  They passed H.R.195 - Federal Register Printing Savings Act of 2017 – along party lines [230-197-0-4(4)], extending current appropriations until 16.February.2018.  The Senate has balked, so a federal government shutdown began at 00:01 [R] EST on Saturday.  There is plenty of blame to be doled out to all sides of the political spectrum; every member of Congress has a contribution to this regrettable situation.  However, history will note that this is the first federal shutdown in history where one party controlled the House, Senate and the Executive Branch of government.

            The essence of this dysfunction in Congress centers predominately on the DACA issue.  President Trump lit the fuse for this bomb last September [819], when he unilaterally rescinded the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.  There is broad bipartisan support within Congress and the citizenry in general for a legal remedy to the ambiguity the so-called Dreamers face.  The Democrats have very little power in the current situation other than the Senate’s super-majority requirement to pass legislation.  The President encouraged Congress to produce a bipartisan bill.  Senators Graham and Durbin did just that; they crafted a bipartisan bill that President Trump then rejected . . . go figure!

            After writing the above and as a consequence of my tardiness, I acknowledge late breaking news on Monday, 22.January.2018.  The Press reported that Congress passed yet another continuing resolution and the fellow in the Oval Office apparently signed the resolution, extending federal government funding at current levels for another three (3) weeks—kick the can down the road.  I have not been able to see the stopgap measure, as yet, so I have nothing beyond the Press reports.  Government shutdown averted for now.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.837:

Comment to the Blog:

“I come from a rough enough background that I usually don't concern myself with T-rump's foul language.  If he called someone a ‘dumbass’ or something, that wouldn't mean much to me.  However, international status counts.  That insult directed at many of our allies and at immigrants from those places demonstrates insensitivity that borders on unfitness for office.  Were it not for damage already done, such an unprovoked slur would do great harm to our national interest.  As is, we have already lost a great deal of prestige and useful relationships in the rest of the world.

"I'm going to mention a possibility nobody wants to see with respect to Trump.  He's the oldest person ever to occupy that office, and some of his behaviors (such as ‘covfefe’) could be caused by organic dysfunction.  What happens if he dies or becomes completely disabled by clearly organic health failure?  After all, that’s also the reason I won’t be voting for Bernie in 2020, and he seems far healthier than the Orange Menace.

“I don't care who T-rump has had consensual sex with, any more than I did when it was Clinton.  As we have seen, payoffs are part of the practice among the powerful and famous.

“Clearly, the Hawaiian emergency alert system needs a tune-up.  I’m glad nobody told T-rump until it was over (and I’d bet money that’s what happened).

“On your other contributor's phrase ‘the things we voted for him to do’; he is wrong.  The Constitution names the branches and enumerates their duties.  The Legislative Branch was created to set policy directions, specifically including budgets, taxation, and many other important particulars.  The basic job of the Executive Branch, from the President right down to the mail carriers, is to ‘execute’ the direction set by the Congress.  Yes, checks and balances affect each branch's freedom of action, but at the bottom line, we do not elect a President to ‘run the country,’ as so many seem to believe.  We elect a President to carry out the will of ‘We the People’ as represented by the Congress, for whom we also voted.  However flawed they may be at a given time, the Congress has the authority and responsibility for the direction of the nation, and no single individual is given that level of authority.

“Incidentally, I agree with you on the added topic of dangerous drugs.  However, I believe society should either stand ready to help remedy the damage done by dangerous products (cars, weapons, drugs, cleaning products) or to demand such remedies from those making money selling the products.  Trying to change human nature (e.g., eating laundry pods) is pointless, as is retribution for stupidity or mental illness.”

My response to the Blog:

            Quite so.  His word choice (most folks would call profane) is not the objectionable element; I’ve certainly heard and used far worse.  A quickly produced meme undoubtedly from the staunchly loyal Trumpsters shows a third world slum scene and the President’s word choice in association.  No!  The issue is the context of the speaker and the office he holds.  The continued rapid erosion of U.S. prestige within the international community will continue unabated and may quite likely accelerate as the fellow in the Oval Office becomes more desperate for headlines.  Further, in his specific case, his word choice appears to reflect undignified bias on his part.

            “What happens if he dies or becomes completely disabled by clearly organic health failure?”  The 25^th Amendment will be invoked and executed.

            I am with you 100%.  The issue is not sex or even extra-marital sex.  In the Clinton case, it was abuse of power, i.e., who & where he chose to enjoy the pleasures of the flesh.  In the current case, it is the sanctimonious hypocrisy of the fellow in the Oval Office that offends me.

            Yeah, a grave mistake produced the false Hawaii alert.  If I was a conspiracist, I might argue it was a far more nefarious event.

            Re: “things we voted for him to do.”  Spot on!  The President is not a dictator (well, at least not yet; although that seems to be his objective) or a divinely anointed king (as I imagine he sees himself).  Just because he spewed nonsense during the election campaign does not make it government policy or even a wise choice.

            Re: government regulation.  I believe we are in agreement.  There is a proper and necessary place for government regulation.  A worthy example in this context might be automobile design regulation in the 60’s & 70’s, e.g., seatbelts.  There should be no debate that the government dictum for inclusion of mandatory (not optional) seatbelts in all vehicles improved the safety of automobile operators and passengers.  Where I diverge from that regulation is the laws making non-use illegal . . . that is government overstepping its proper place and authority.  When I see press reports of a teenager ejected and gruesomely killed during an automobile crash, I grieve for the tragedy of the event, but I must confess my private thoughts of validation of Darwin’s theory—natural selection at work.  Legislative provisions for such things as safety seals & wrapping, explicit labeling, and quality control are quite appropriate in the interests of public safety.  Our limit for governmental authority should be public versus private.  What I choose to consume in my home is my business only, beyond the acceptable domain of the government—a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.  The government should not be making moral decisions for me or anyone else.

 . . . Round two:

“Where we differ, as we often do, is the specific level of government authority.  The Libertarian approach ignores many real responsibilities.  Homo sapiens is the most social species even to exist by a large margin, and that matters far more than Ayn Rand and her psychopathic kind have ever admitted.  The individual person's failure to use seat belts makes a good example.  You want him (and they are more often male) to have sole responsibility for that fatal result.  The problem is, it can't be done. Someone has to pay for emergency medical services, police action, towing, and cleanup; the loss of a car that may belong to another; damage, injury, and possible death of others involved in the crash; and other drivers' lost time.  If our subject has the minimum legal auto insurance and no life insurance, someone else must take responsibility even for the body as well as the other costs involved in its burial and/or cremation.

“The cost of social services will and should be assumed by the state, accompanied by the authority to try to reduce their costs.  None of that involves the person’s moral responsibility to family and others under any religion or philosophy known to me, but financial cost is one way of allocating responsibility and its accompanying authority.

“Thus, the reason I see the prohibition of drugs as a social problem is neither morality nor political philosophy but the simple facts that (a) it fails in its purpose, and (b) it creates violent criminal behavior. Use of drugs in general (including alcohol) costs society plenty, but the ‘War on Drugs’ multiplies those costs rather than reducing them.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Well now, that is an interesting argument.

            Please help me understand . . . how does using a seatbelt cause an accident?  If there is no accident, there is no need for a seatbelt.

            From my perspective, while I do not broadly disagree, your argument seems to be a tad specious to me.  If it is cost aversion we seek, then perhaps the government’s intrusion into our private lives should be confined to those who do not have medical insurance coverage.  I do not share your opinion that social services costs should be born by the state—some yes, all no.  If we ever reach a universal payer system, we might get close to your implied utopia; until then, the government does not belong in our private lives.

            Re: “the reason I see the prohibition of drugs as a social problem is neither morality nor political philosophy.”  I do not deny or reject the notion that consumption of psychotropic substances is a social problem; it most assuredly is . . . at least in our current societal configuration.  I also acknowledge that for some it will always be predominantly a social problem in that they want to decide how other people live their lives.  Respectfully, it is not the right or place for anyone to decide how another citizen chooses to live (or not live) their lives.

 “(a) it fails in its purpose, and”

I’m not sure exactly what the basis of your claim is here.  Individuals seek the oblivion of psychotropic substances for a host of very personal (and private) reasons.  What is the purpose of which you speak?

“(b) it creates violent criminal behavior.”

It seems to me, this is a circular argument.  It is criminal behavior because we made it criminal in a rather lame attempt to dictate how individual citizens chose to live their lives.  The criminality of consumption is bogus, prima facie.  The real criminality is the criminal sub-culture that inherently springs up and flourishes to supply the substances to meet demand.  While I will not claim that negation of Prohibition (of alcohol) [21^st Amendment] eliminated the evolved criminal sub-culture of the 20’s & 30’s, it certainly reduced the violence and associated behavior.

            I recognize and acknowledge that the physical, mental and emotional cost of excessive consumption of psychotropic substances (and in this I include alcohol and tobacco) adds at least a quasi-public domain concern, and thus some degree of governmental regulation is most likely necessary.

            We have allowed the camel’s nose into the tent, and we will have a helluva time getting the camel out of the tent.  The societal cost of fallacious moral projection into our private lives is incalculable and will continue to worsen, if we do not restore a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and broadly reject the notion that we have some right to dictate how other citizens choose to live their lives.  There are other ways of dealing with societal issues (like drug use) without the government in the private lives of everyone.

 . . . Round three:

“Using a seat belt does not, in itself, cause an accident.  What it does, according to decades of evidence, is mitigate the injuries and lower the death rate in accidents.  You seemed to operate on the assumption that the person using or not using the seat belt was the only one affected by the accident and therefore should freely choose whether to use it.  That is not so.

“Please read what I wrote. I referred to the ‘War on Drugs’ failing in its purpose, not to drug use failing.  In the same vein (and the same sentence), I was pointing out exactly what you said.  The War on Drugs creates criminal behavior.  I fail to understand how you could mis-read that sentence.  You write at a very high language level.  Do all of us the favor of reading at that level.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            First, I am not arguing against seatbelts.  I use them every time I am in a vehicle that can move.  I am also a staunch advocate of seatbelt usage.  I am not debating the wisdom of using seatbelts.  I am only saying that the government making it a criminal omission of not using seatbelts is over-stepping its constitutional authority.  Just because I believe seatbelts are mandatory does not mean I should be able to dictate that you must use seatbelts . . . that is your choice and yours alone.  Just a reminder: seatbelt usage mandates are simply an example of the much larger issue.

            Oh my, rather snippy, aren’t we.  Since you chose to critique my reading skills, let us examine the sentence in question.  “the reason I see the prohibition of drugs as a social problem is neither morality nor political philosophy but the simple facts that (a) it fails in its purpose, and (b) it creates violent criminal behavior.”  The subject of the sentence is “prohibition of drugs” and the actionable phrase is “it fails in its purpose.”  So, once more, what do you see as the purpose of the prohibition of drugs.  Further, the Constitution restricts the federal government to only those powers enumerated by the Constitution and its Amendments.  So, under what authority does the federal government justify intruding upon a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice?

Another contribution:

“Regarding the comment regarding selling the Embassy in London “for a song,” I would like to pass on a little known diplomatic event that may be relevant.

“The Duke of Westminster leased to the USG the property at 24 Grosvenor Square for our Embassy, where it was located from 1960 until just recently for the price of 5 peppercorns per year.  When Philip Lader became Ambassador in 1997 he discovered that the ‘payment’ was many years in arrears.  He had 5 golden peppercorns made and arranged a horse drawn carriage to take him pay a call on the Duke and present the golden peppercorns in payment of the lease ‘in perpetuity.’

“When we moved to the new location, in accordance with the original lease agreement, the property reverted back to the Duke of Westminster. ...so much for not getting market value for the property.”

My reply:

            This feels like Paul Harvey’s “The Rest of the Story.”  I did not know that little factoid . . . five peppercorns per year.  Love it!  Thank you for illuminating history.  Unfortunately, the fellow in the Oval Office is not particularly concerned with history.  Thank you for the added color.

A different contribution:

“On Trump's purported comments about ‘shithole countries’ I am very surprised those meetings are not recorded.  Trump believes everyone is out to get him, he claims others mis-report what he said/says, so why not tape those meetings?

“Though, the Wall Street Journal reported in their Q&A with POTUS, that Trump said his relationship was good with NK's Kim, The Donald denied he said that, stating he said the relationship could be good, and the WSJ released their own audio recording, and I support the WSJ's version, and press secretary ‘Sarah’ released what she called the White House audio recording, claimed it supported Trump, and it was identical to the one the WSJ released.

“[Background: http://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-journal-clashes-with-trump-over-north-korea-quote-2018-1]

“We live in times where any news outlet can be deemed #FakeNews, and thus is there any trusted sources.  Trump even called the Wall Street Journal #FakeNews.

[Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/14/trump-attacks-wall-street-journal-as-fake-news-over-his-north-korea-comments.html]  The Wall Street Journal was a good friend to Trump, he used them for what he could get, then once they lost favor of one of their #1 fans (Donald), he turned on WSJ like a pit bull will his owner.

“The only news outlet Trump applauds and does not call #FakeNews, is Fox News, which is clearly slanted in favor of Trump, even advertising Trump products like a doll and cap.  I suspect Trump could order a simultaneous attack on North Korea, ‘Shithole countries,’ Mexico, and China, and Fox News will feature Sean Hannity laughing and saluting a Trump statue in the Fox News & Friends studios.  And the following day Trump will order the Treasury to print $100 bills with Trump's image printed.

“Seems we are in times where far too much is smoke & mirrors.  Left is right, up is down, black is white (black is no longer confused for gray).

“I developed my own hashtag for Trump in Twitter: #FakeTruths

“I have a hard time understanding how the staunch Trump fans, many who are Christian, have not called out Trump for the alleged sexual encounter (while married) with ‘Stormy Daniels.’ and then Trump's personal lawyer set-up a separate company (LLC), not to be traced to the law firm, to payoff ‘Daniels’ some $130k, for a NDA.  None of the self-proclaimed evangelicals on Fox News have said one word about the issues with this, while they have pointed out all the moral failures of Democrats and even Republicans not supportive of Trump.

“I suppose few on the ‘right’ want to discuss the affair by King Trump, with ‘Stormy’ because she looks too much like a Fox News talking head.

“It astounds me that the hypocrisies are not further discussed in outlets that claim to be truth seekers.

“Trump has said in front of cameras ‘life is an act, and I can act in front of anyone.’

“Currently, trending chatter is suggesting a current extramarital affair is in progress involving Trump, we shall see.  Both ‘Stormy Daniels’ and the others (maybe sympathetic of the #MeToo movement) should be careful to check their 6's, and be concerned for their personal security/safety.

“This is the strangest and most surreal president I've ever seen, and I've seen many.  And since you're an aviator, Trump failed miserably at running an airline (Trump Shuttle), so I guess he can perfect the art of running a country.  ;o/

“We are in a global show of The Apprentice, and each week brings USA more uncertainty, volatility, division, and partisanship.  It could be the very chaos either Trump thrives on/from, or those that may handle him, designed the perfect archetype in our current point in history—Donald Trump.  I do not claim to know anything for sure, regarding this situation, though it is not making America great again.

“Trump masterfully empowered in his base the paradigm 'US versus THEM' with no clear proof who the foes are, and no clarity of what values make a good person and American.  Trump is busy in his orgy with Wall Street corporate chieftains and banksters, surrounds himself with SWAMP members, yet the very working stiff who believed in Trump during his campaign, continues to cheer their man, and willing to beat down anyone who does not agree.

“Trump shits in gold plated toilets, owns his own Boeing 757 in executive configuration with gold plated fixtures, yet Joe the Plumber thinks Trump is fighting for him. ?????

“Trump is fighting to help his Goldman $achs buddies who surround him in his administration.

“Truths that are so obvious to some, are so fogged for others in times of universal deceit.

“Many workplaces now prohibit the discussion of our national politics, as it has caused so much friction, fights, firings and more.  The commoners did not become disenchanted with the establishment status quo just because of Trump, this climate was brewing for decades.

“Too much Kool-Aid has been served, and our nation is becoming highly fractionalized.

“Terrible mistake in Hawai'i on the inbound missile false alert.”

My response:

            “why not tape those meetings?”  Short answer IMHO: it gives him the greatest deniability.  He does not want a record.  Further, he likely wants to see who supports him and who does not.  If so, I would say he was successful.  We must all remember, with this particular fellow in the Oval Office, it is ALL about him and his aggrandizement—nothing else; literally and absolutely nothing else matters.

            Yeah, I saw the WSJ interview.  I can only ask, who is more believable, the WSJ or DJT?  The answer is crystal clear to me.

            I see his “fake news” assault on the national & international Press as a direct attack to sustain his hyper-inflated image of himself.  Thus, any Press criticism absolutely must be fake because it does not praise his greatness (which “everyone” knows is beyond measure in the history of the entire world for all time).  Every dictator in history has done exactly the same thing—eliminate or control the Press; never allow them free voice.  Those (or perhaps I should say ‘the’) news outlets that feed his ego by definition cannot be “fake news.”  “Seems we are in times where far too much is smoke & mirrors.”  Yes, absolutely, and that is precisely consistent with his “fake news” and “I’m the greatest” mentality.  Only his view of himself is clear and precise; everything else beyond his view of himself is irrelevant, ‘fake news,’ sour grapes, envy, and such.

            “#FakeTruths”  I like it!  The inverse of “fake news.”  I’m not into Twitter, but I understand how it works.  Twitter and all the other social media are absolutely no different from the Internet or other modern communications forms.  The nefarious elements among us will find ways to use it for their bad purposes.

            Re: “Stormy Daniels.”  She is only the snowflake on the tip of the iceberg, and his extended affair with her is perfectly consistent with his character and his flawless image of himself.  After all, he is entitled by divine providence to the divine right of kings.  The latest rumors of his extra-marital, sexual dalliances reach current times and on-going affairs with Nikki Haley or Hope Hicks, which are also exactly consistent with his self-image.  His supporters will cheer him on, after all he da-man!

            To be frank, I think Trump is spot on the money when he said, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” (23.January.2016)  He is exactly correct.  Those who see him as the messiah will never be dissuaded from their image of him.  As I have said previously, some folks are so desperate for change they will resort to a wannabe-dictator to affect that change.  What is even sadder than that desperation is the reality that they will be disappointed in the achievement of the change they seek, and thanks to the wannabe-dictator, they will vehemently blame the messengers.

            I absolutely agree; the fractionalization of our society has been building for a very long time.  I could and will argue the genesis can be clearly traced back to at least the Johnson administration and the mortal wound of what the Pentagon Papers represented—the federal government betrayed us.  Roosevelt was masterful in mobilizing the nation for war; Johnson failed virtually in the inverse in his constitutional duties.  From those revelations, a corrosive distrust of government began to erode the fabric of this Grand Republic.  Bush (43) had a “Pearl Harbor” event to bring the nation together, but he failed miserably as well, choosing to fight a war on the cheap, not mobilizing the nation, and worse borrow money from the PRC to fund his misguided adventures.  The consummate snake-oil salesman was perceptive enough to sense and tap into the root dissatisfaction, and we could argue he has done so masterfully.  He is striving mightily to reinforce the corrosion, since he believes it enhances his self-image as a wannabe-dictator.

            Terrible mistake indeed; I want to believe it was an innocent mistake, but I fear much worse just because of the fellow in the Oval Office.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)