Update from the Sunland
No.845
5.3.18 – 11.3.18
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To
all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Well, the fellow in the Oval Office did what he said he
would do against the advice of nearly everyone and signed an executive order
imposing tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports [842/4] . . . well, except for Canada and Mexico (as yet) . . .
presumably to pressure our neighbors into concessions in the NAFTA re-negotiations. My opinion remains the same. Trade wars are NEVER a good thing,
regardless of what the fellow in the Oval Office claims. Tariffs are just another form of
taxation, rationing, price controls and other interventionist actions, and have
an isolationist bent to them.
Ultimately, We, the People, pay the price for his parochial whims.
Just
a question for the forum: where are all the Republican ideologues who should be
screaming about the fellow in the Oval Office using executive orders to
unilaterally dictate his policy whims regardless of (or despite) Congress? Where are all the Republican Members of
Congress screaming about the president ignoring their place in the tripartite
form of governance that is this Grand Republic? The sanctimonious hypocrisy is nauseating.
-- Hat’s off to President Trump! . . . I think.
For reasons we know not, DPRK dictator Kim Jong Un [too many to list, so
I’ll say 844] issued a summit
invitation through his RoK counterparts to meet with President Trump and
signaled a willingness to denuclearize the Korean peninsula. Even more surprising, the President
accepted the dictator’s invitation to meet (reportedly in May) without pre-condition(s)
at some, as yet, unspecified location.
The
Wall Street Journal offered an
interesting opinion:
“The Trump-Kim Summit—The President is giving recognition
before any nuclear concessions.”
by The Editorial Board
Wall
Street Journal
Published: March 9, 2018 5:59 p.m. ET
“Mr. Trump doesn’t do normal diplomacy, and this leap to a
face-to-face meeting had his impulsive trademarks: spur of the moment in
response to a Kim Jong Un offer relayed through South Korean mediators; no
vetting with his senior advisers or as far as we can tell our Japanese allies;
and no pre-planning. What could go wrong?”
Indeed! What
could possibly go wrong? I am
afraid I shall be holding my breath in my anxious worry about what might happen
AND I will wish him the best for what lays ahead. The nuclearization of the DPRK is not a good thing, no
matter how we cut it. In that,
President Trump and I are in complete agreement. There is one thing in the President’s favor: “When you
always do what you have always done, you will always get what you’ve always
got.” I will say: Godspeed and
following winds.
-- Stormy Daniels [837]
= the gift that just keeps giving.
Stormy wants her muzzle removed.
A chunk of our citizens want to hear the salacious details of her story
for a host of reasons from simple curiosity to those who seek to expose the hypocrisy
of the fellow in the Oval Office.
And so, we learned the fellow in the Oval Office has used the alias
David Dennison. Stephanie Clifford
is apparently not going to go quietly into the night. Her argument appears to be headed to court to address the
nuances of California contract law.
We have a number of licensed attorneys within this forum; perhaps, we
can have some professional opinions.
-- The Florida legislature passed and the governor signed
into law a firearms control bill—the Marjory Stoneman
Douglas High School Public Safety Act [SB 7026; House: 67-50; Senate:
20-18] less than a month after and in response to the Parkland incident [842]. The new state law:
• Creates
“Risk Protection Orders,” which allows a court to prohibit a violent or
mentally ill individual from purchasing or possessing a firearm or any other
weapon;
• Allows
law enforcement to preemptively seize firearms when a person has been detained
under the state’s “Baker Act” [Fla. Stat.
§§ 394.451/47892 (2017); AKA Florida Mental Health Act of 1971]—an involuntary
commitment process;
• Requires
all individuals purchasing firearms to be 21-years-old or older;
• Establishes
enhanced criminal penalties for individuals who make threats to schools, such
as social media threats of shootings or bombings;
• Bans
sale or possession of bump stocks;
• Creates
a three-day waiting period for all firearms sales;
• Provides
US$162M for safe-school officers and requires a safe-school officer at each
school in the state;
• Creates
the Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program under the purview of locally-elected
sheriff’s offices that establishes a regulated process for certain qualified
volunteer teachers to carry concealed firearms;
• Requires
mandatory active shooter training in schools every semester;
• Provides
US$99M to address specific school safety needs within each school district;
• Increases
the sharing of information among various state agencies;
• Establishes
a new, anonymous, K-12 “FortifyFL” suspicious activity reporting tool, which
would allow students and members of the community to anonymously report
dangerous threats through a mobile app;
• Provides
US$75M for dedicated mental health counselors to provide direct counseling
services to students and youth mental health assistance training; every student
in Florida will have access to a mental health counselor;
• Requires
every school in Florida to have a threat assessment team with expertise in
mental health counseling and other attributes;
• Requires
crisis intervention training for all school resource officers;
• Establishes
the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission to
investigate system failures in the Parkland school shooting and prior mass
violence incidents and develop recommendations for system improvements; and
• Provides
US$28M to expand mental health service teams statewide to serve youth and young
adults.
There
are elements I am not particularly impressed by, but this law is certainly a
positive step forward for the protection of children, schools and public safety
in general. This is a reasonable
first step toward dealing with violence-prone citizens and providing a due
process intervention system.
-- The fellow in the Oval Office suggested the administration
intends to urge states to pass laws with provisions similar to Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act (above)
in the aftermath of the Parkland incident [842]. The implicit message in the most recent
statement from the White House is the federal government intends to do little,
if anything, to improve our present situation with respect to firearm violence
on innocent citizens.
A recent opinion column in the Arizona Republic stimulated my fingers to dance on the keyboard.
“Valdez: How Oscar gowns sabotage MeToo”
by Linda Valdez, opinion columnist
Arizona Republic
Published: 5:03 p.m. MT March 5, 2018 | Updated 7:58 a.m. MT
March 6, 2018
My opinion submitted on
As
our British cousins colloquially say, I am gobsmacked!
I
think I understand and appreciate the sentiment Ms. Valdez was attempting to
convey, but frankly, I found the premise of her opinion offensive and rather
disgusting. Her words implicitly
suggest the notion that a woman’s attire somehow nullifies a woman’s accusations
of sexual misconduct or worse sexual abuse. Sexuality is a function of the mind . . . not the body. It does not and should not matter
whether a woman chooses to be naked; her body and space remains inviolate. Whether a woman chooses to make her
livelihood as a sex worker or an erotic film performer, no means no—anywhere,
anytime—and her choice of attire, or lack of same, does not and should never
diminish the validity of her voice in condemnation of sexual misbehavior of
perpetrators who violate her space.
Advocating
the status quo ante in social
conservative values is the choice of Ms. Valdez, as it is my choice to
encourage all of humanity to grow-up and mature beyond the façade of attire,
appearance, body shape, whatever.
The burqa, niqab,
hijab, or Frances McDormand’s
choice of attire is not the standard of acceptable female clothing.
Lastly,
her concluding sentence sent me over the edge. “It won’t go away if children grow up watching powerful,
accomplished women expose their bodies while men claim the dignity of covering
theirs.” Teaching our children
socially conservative values is totally and absolutely a parental function . .
. NOT another woman’s choice of attire.
I
fundamentally and categorically disagree with Ms. Valdez.
P.S.: submitted: 6.3.2018; published: 8.3.2018
P.P.S.: while I received many concurrences, at least a few
disagreements were published in the Arizona
Republic. It is interesting how
social conservative values remain strong in this Grand Republic. We have a very long way to go in
achieving equality for all.
P.P.P.S.: the Linda Valdez’s of our community couch their
arguments in equality, i.e., men don’t dress seductively, therefore women
shouldn’t have to do so. The
argument is rather specious in that the argument if for equality to the
standards they dictate. That
hardly sounds like equality.
Comments and contributions from Update no.844:
Comment to the Blog:
“Oddly enough, I suspect there's a precedent for taking
things first and following with due process. Suspected drunk drivers' licenses can be (and are) taken from
them prior to trial, at least here in Ohio. If we sort that out until it applies to the weapons of the
violent (rather than the mentally ill), it might survive a court challenge.
“Your larger point about Trump's attitude to the
Constitution and the office he occupies is a good one. When King John took that approach, the
nobility imposed the Magna Carta on him. We already have the Constitution, but we need to use it. If Melania were to give up on him that
raises the question of how much she knows. Spousal immunity is available to her, but the law does not
require her to use it. I doubt
infidelity would figure into her decision. It's not that kind of marriage. Further public humiliation might do the job, though.
“Many of us have not become numb to the dimwitted aggression
of the Orange Menace, but he has power and so do his cohort. His supporters never had much awareness
of the legal issues here.
“Speaking of his supporters, I object to your likening
Trump's typical supporter as ‘an uneducated, redneck moonshiner in the
backwoods of Appalachia’ on two separate grounds. First, it lacks accuracy. Trump's supporters tend toward a middle-class demographic and
plenty of them are college educated (for all the good it's done them). They also are more suburban than either
urban or rural. Many of the poor
and less-educated have begun to read the writing on the wall. His support runs higher among
small-business owners and the remaining manufacturing workers than anywhere
else.
“My second objection is personal. I got my education later in life and am the only one of my
siblings to finish high school. I'm
not a moonshiner, but during Prohibition my father was. I grew up around people from Appalachia
and their children, and some of my siblings call themselves ‘redneck’ with pride.
I and much of my family do not
want to be included in your characterization of Trump supporters.
“The pornography discussion is a pure distraction.”
My response to the
Blog:
Interesting
perspective. The example you cite
(as well as other similar preemptive law enforcement actions) is part of due
process of law. Probable cause
must be demonstrated or established as the reason for LE preemptive action, or
such action negates prosecution as based on ill-gotten gain. The 4th Amendment requires the
government show and document probable cause to avoid unreasonable search and
seizure. Mental illness does NOT
broach the threshold of probable cause.
Violent conduct does. To
me, unprovoked violence toward another person would qualify. I would support a judicial warrant for preemptive
firearm confiscation as a consequence.
I am quite reluctant to simply grant law enforcement that authority
without independent review (judicial).
Frankly, there are too many over zealous, moral projectionist
prosecutors and law enforcement agents to accept such unilateral intrusive,
preemptive action.
Such
constraints on executive power like the Magna Carta reined in power that
existed for centuries. In our
current circumstance, the Constitution provided that constraint with few
exceptions—Nixon being the ultimate example—for more than two centuries. The fellow in the Oval Office is doing
his utmost to erode the constitutional constraints. We, the People, cannot allow it.
Re:
Melania. As with Hillary &
Bill, marital relations are a private matter between Melania & Donald. As a dispassionate observer, I cannot
imagine Donald’s ego allowing a split in his “marriage.” I doubt the transgressions alleged to
date are the full extent; they appear to be simply the snowflake on the top of
the iceberg; his personality flaws suggest there are many more humiliations out
there for Melania . . . and frankly, yet to be created I suspect.
I
am trying mightily to avoid the subject numbness. Yet, I must confess to a noticeable tiring in the
process. Last week was
overwhelming.
I
tried (perhaps woefully inadequate in performance) to thwart accusations of
prejudice by including myself in my general statement. Such statements, by their nature, must
be over-generalizations. The
notional redneck moonshiner has just as much right to express his opinion as I
do, or you do. My apologies for
any offense; certainly none intended.
I have listened to countless interviews with Trump supporters from all
walks of life. Numerous Trump
supporters have contributed their opinions to this humble forum. I am disturbed by the paucity of
knowledge or even awareness of history, the law, the Constitution, foreign
relations, economics, or even critical review by more than a few of those
supporters. I continue and
persistently ask why? What is it
about his conduct and behavior that induces such loyalty?
A
highly ill advised potential law or resolution in a state legislature is hardly
a distraction. I object to any
inappropriate legislative authority exceedance when I see them. That was simply the topic on point.
. . . follow-up comment:
“I'm happy to say we agree on probable cause as necessary to ‘take
their guns.’
“My point about Melania's marriage is not that we know or should
know the private details. It's
that, were she to leave in a vengeful mode, she might have information about
criminal actions her husband is likely committing.
“My information about Trump supporters pictures them far closer to
Joe the Plumber (remember him from Obama's campaign?) than to people in
McDowell County of West Virginia. Many people in McDowell County lack education
and money, and they may have bought into the campaign. However, they're not ignorant enough to
believe Trump is helping them, as too many of Joe the Plumber's kind are. Joe is or was a small businessman
worried about his taxes and not concerned with the well-being of anyone not
exactly like him. I believe he has
since gone bankrupt. Those are the
people I believe are commenting on this blog and expressing themselves
elsewhere in blind support of Trump.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Re:
probable cause. Nice to agree from
time to time.
Re:
Melania. Quite so . . . and agreed
as well. I suspect she could offer
very enlightening testimony.
Re:
Trumpsters. There are also highly
educated citizens in this category as well. I suppose we can understand the motivation of the moonshiner
or Joe the plumber, but we must also understand the motivations of those
citizens who know history, know the law, understand consequences, and yet still
staunchly, vociferously and loyally support the fellow in the Oval Office.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
Trump's tariffs are yet another childish impulse with legal standing. Look for them to be modified into nonexistence or stopped by Congress before long.
Congress holds few idealists. Most of those people talk as if they believed in certain sets of ideas because the people who fund them and their parties support saying that stuff. The few exceptions include Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders.
The Resident has agreed, apparently without thinking about it, to hold talks with the semi-sane leader of North Korea. That temporarily locks him out of starting a war with North Korea, but dangers abound. I believe the two men in charge are using the term "de-nuclearization" very differently, for one thing. Trump means that North Korea gives up nuclear weapons; Kim is thinking of something more like the SALT and START treaties. I could go on at length about other misunderstandings and problems, but you get the idea.
Revelations of adultery, in themselves, will not even be an issue for Trump. He's on record bragging about that and worse. What could bring him down is (as an old song says it) "the payoffs and the ripoffs and the things nobody saw." Whether it's the porn star(s), the Russians, the ongoing shady business deals, or some other specific thing, what will bring him down is his underhanded response to damn near anything.
Thanks for posting the provisions of the new Florida firearm law. I didn't expect that strong a response from Florida or Governor Scott. Florida's experience could shape this into a good model statute. At first glance, the provisions that address the flow of firearms in general and the "Risk Protection Orders" help the most in preventing mass and individual shootings. Those effects will extend outside of schools. The sections about mental health in schools don't address actual shooters we've seen but will be helpful for students. I see only the arming teachers and increasing "resource officers" (police in schools) as real drawbacks. (Even the best-trained soldiers don't do especially well at defending others in combat situations; police in schools cause more trouble for students than they prevent in a long-term perspective.)
Calvin,
Re: “childish impulse.” Spot on . . . from my perspective as well. While we have yet to see any constructive reaction from Congress, my impression is the fellow in the Oval Office may have finally crossed the threshold of tolerance among Republican Members of Congress. Among the myriad of his transgressions of Republican orthodoxy, it is tariffs that may well have pushed them too far. His abduction of the Republican Party is their own damn fault.
I do not see ideologues and idealists as the same or even similar for that matter. Nonetheless, I do agree . . . although I believe there are rays of hope among a few (very small number) Members of Congress.
Oh my yes . . . as I wrote in last week’s Update . . . what could possibly go wrong . . . the fellow in the Oval Office proclaiming to the world he his never wrong, never makes a mistake, and he is thus infallible, omnipotent and beyond reproach. Oh yes, what could possibly go wrong!
Clearly, adultery, sexual assault, outrageous & inciteful pronouncements, volatile & erratic behavior, et al ad infinitum ad nauseum, does not matter a hoot to his true & loyal believers, regardless of their moral beliefs. In that, the Donald was spot on correct: “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters” [755, 23.January.2016]. As I have felt from long before he announced his candidacy, his undoing would be his own ego . . . as it was for O.J. and so many other similarly flawed men.
While the Florida law was a valiant step forward and has flaws, I am troubled by the focus on “bump stocks” rather than any device, modification or adjustment that could enable any firearm to operate in automatic mode at any time. There are risks in several provisions of the law, but they are a worthy start. I just hope Florida and the rest of us can see our way toward improvements rather than regression as happened with the PPACA.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment