29 October 2018

Update no.877

Update from the Sunland
No.877
22.10.18 – 28.10.18
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            Tall,

            This particular article seems to be quite relevant and illuminating in these troubled times of rampant tribalism.
“The Real Reason They Hate Trump – He’s the average American in exaggerated form—blunt, simple, willing to fight, mistrustful of intellectuals.”
by David Gelernter
Wall Street Journal
Published: Oct. 21, 2018; 3:01 p.m. ET
Gelernter lost me when he boldly stated, “[T]he left’s only issue is ‘We hate Trump.’  This is an instructive hatred, because what the left hates about Donald Trump is precisely what it hates about America.” He went on to conclude, “Those who voted for Mr. Trump, and will vote for his candidates this November, worry about the nation, not its image.”
            My early adult years were spent in service of We, the People, in uniform under arms as a Marine.  One of many axioms we were taught and was deeply engrained in us was: a good-looking Marine is a good-fighting Marine.  The phrase connotes pride in the uniform and the history we represent.  As a consequence, I did not like the ugly-American syndrome 50 years ago; I like it even less today.  It is a very bad image.  Image matters, as it is often how others relate to you because it may be all that they have to assess your character.
            Gelernter uses the word hate a lot.  Not that it matters to anyone, but for the public record, I DO NOT HATE the man; he is what he is and what he has always been.  He is the consummate ugly-American.  So, if he represents that portion of We, the People, who espouse, embrace and practice the ugly-American syndrome, then, yes, I do find that element of American culture disgusting, reprehensible and contemptible.
            Gelernter boldly bandies about the term “left-wing intellectuals” to describe those who “hate” the BIC.  I am neither “left wing” nor an “intellectual.”  I see myself as a student of history, a person who cares about words and how they are used, an independent, moderate with no political affiliation (no tribe), and a proud American citizen who cares deeply for this Grand Republic and what it stands for.
            Since I have continuously professed my interest in learning what American citizens see in the BIC, I genuinely appreciate Gelernter’s attempt to explain why some folks hate the BIC, and by implication, why others love the Bully-in-Chief.  Respectfully, Gelernter did not answer the title claim from my perspective.
            Before all of the BIC supporters in this audience and out there in cyberspace jump on me, I am NOT generalizing.  I am NOT ascribing traits to ALL who support the BIC.  I only ask, before you vilify me more than has already been done, please look, take a very close look, at those who speak for the BIC, hold up hate signs, plaster hate messages on their van windows, gleefully chant hate at the BIC’s political rallies with the BIC encouraging them, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum.  What he is doing to this Grand Republic is NOT good.  The ends do NOT justify the means.

            Damn!  I will sure be glad and enormously grateful when this freakin’ silly season concludes.  I have subscribed to a number of conservative and liberal newsletters to keep track of the political rhetoric from both ends of the spectrum.  This particular silly season has marked a monumental change. I have been inundated with two to three times my normal traffic of Republican political drivel.  Every single day including weekends I have been flooded with pleas for my vote, money and advocacy.  What is worse, the Republicans are bombarding me with campaign garbage for candidates I am not eligible to vote for or against. Two more weeks . . . and I want this nonsense to stop.  Republicans are not winning friends or positively influencing people.

            friend, former brother-in-arms, and regular contributor asked what was going to happen when the “caravan” reached our southern border?  To which I replied:
In accordance with the law, they will be interviewed for the purpose of their visit.  If they are seeking asylum, their application will be taken and adjudicated.  Most will be turned back.  Some will attempt to enter illegally; those who are captured will be charged, evaluated by a judge, and most likely deported.  The sad reality is, they are seeking better lives; even cleaning toilets is better than what they have in their native land, but we cannot absorb all those people who are economically distressed.  It is sad but reality.  We cannot take them all.

            The immensely more serious issue that overshadowed the BIC’s scary caravan invasion nonsense was the more than a dozen, improvised explosive devices sent through the postal system by a man who was arrested in short order near Miami, Florida.  The BIC was upset by the “bomb stuff” upsetting his political momentum for the upcoming mid-term election.  The citizens who were targeted by these IED mail bombs were:
-- President Barack Obama
-- Vice President Joe Biden
-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
-- Attorney General Eric Holder
-- Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
-- Director of Central Intelligence John Brennan
-- Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey
-- Senator Kamala Harris of California
-- Representative Maxine Waters of California
-- Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of Florida
-- Robert De Niro
-- George Soros
-- Tom Steyer
-- Cable News Network (CNN)
The one fact that is common to all of these targets is they are and have been critical of the BIC; many are Democratic Party leaders; all of them have felt the BIC’s wrathful rantings at them specifically.  Of course, the BIC accepts no responsibility or culpability for the incitement of the bomber who is a radical advocate and supporter of the BIC. What does the BIC think is going to happen when he publicly declares the mainstream media are “enemies of the people”?  The Press is NOT the enemy; they are us.  The Democrats are not boogeymen; they are us.  This was NOT a false-flag operation.  This was a disturbed citizen with radical right-wing notions filling his mind, who thought he was carrying out the BIC’s agenda.  The BIC talks admirably about needing all citizens to unify; however, what he fails to add is: “as long as you conform to my dicta.”

            The Commerce Department reported the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—the value of all goods and services produced in the country and a measure of economic performance—rose at a seasonally and inflation-adjusted annual rate of 3.5% in 3Q2018.  According to the report, stronger consumer spending fueled the economic growth, offsetting weak business investment and a drop in U.S. exports. While the economic growth and employment levels are positive signs, I remain seriously concerned that the USG is overheating the economy and inflation concerns will raise interest rates.  I would rather see modest growth, low inflation and low interest rates.

            Mthoughts and prayers go out to the victims, families and friends of those who lost their lives at the hands of yet another right-wing, radical, anti-Semite and the four police officers wounded while trying to stop the shooter and protect worshippers at the Tree of Life Or L’Simcha Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
            The kind of hatred that would lead a man to do something like this is NOT a flash in the pan; it was not a spontaneous event.  Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment; however, it is also a very good clue to potential behavior.  His hatred has evolved over a very long time, probably since he was taught to hate as a child. Many citizens from family to acquaintances and strangers observed this man’s hatred.  He should have been stopped before he could injure anyone.
            We, the People, as citizens of this Grand Republic, must care more about our communities.  The police cannot do it all; they need our help.  Our legislators must do more to pass laws to intercede with citizens who present this type of hatred or mental illness—for their protection and the protection of society; they need our help.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.876:
“Dear Corrupt Centrist..well you said it young sir.”

Comment to the Blog:
“I'm with Hillary (when she's right, she's right) on the Monica issue.  We cannot have utter mathematical proof of what happened, but we almost never do of anything.  From what I found from multiple sound sources at the time, she went to a great deal of effort to get into his presence.  Most interns only see the President at group welcoming and departure ceremonies, but she found ways to spend personal time with him and private time at that.  Were she the least bit uncomfortable with him, she could have avoided him.  Their affair was consensual and then some on her part.  Abuse of power isn't unusual for Bill Clinton, but do we count this specific relationship as abuse when the ‘victim’ went to great effort to make it happen?  I think we're back to our ‘moral projectionist’ discussion.  His use of Paula Jones and some of his other sexual episodes were different, but the one with Monica Lewinsky was not an abuse of power that I can see.
“The Wall Street Journal writer used ‘procure’ and ‘entitle’ for legal and grammatical correctness, very appropriate to formal definitions.  As a very literal language-oriented person, I find that the better definition.
“What about Trump's announcement that we're leaving a nuclear arms treaty?  That's far more important.”
My response to the Blog:
            Re: Monica.  We shall respectfully disagree.  To me, the difference in power is so great that informed consent is not possible . . . like teacher-student, priest-parishioner, doctor-patient, lawyer-client, et cetera, IMHO.
            Re: definitions.  Again, we shall respectfully disagree.  Abuse of power is not some transactional event.
            Re: the BIC’s withdrawal from nuclear arms treaty(ies).  Yes, a worthy topic; however, like so many crises induced by the BIC, he offers us only a paucity of any substance to know what he’s talking about.  There are half dozen nuclear arms treaties between the U.S. and Russia (Soviet Union) since 1969.  It is unclear exactly which treaty he is unilaterally negating or whether it is all of them.  Like the petulant, juvenile, schoolyard bully, when he does not like a call or situation, he takes the ball and bat, and storms off the field. President Kennedy called out Soviet transgressions and presented photographic evidence to We, the People, and the World to expose Soviet conduct.  The BIC has done nothing of the sort, not even remotely close.  We cannot trust the BIC to tell us the truth about anything, so we cannot believe a word he says; this instance is no different . . . caravan hordes attacking our border, nuclear weapons, all the same to him.
 . . . along with follow-up comments:
“The nuclear treaty in question is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF treaty), signed in 1987 by Reagan and Gorbachev, per multiple reliable sources.  The treaty was a major feature of the end of the Cold War and continues to be important.  The Trump camp claims Russia is violating the treaty and gives sources for that information including a Nuclear Posture Review that apparently make it a legitimate issue for discussion.
Of course, Trump is having an extreme reaction to learning this news, some of which dates back to 2014.  He also mentioned China (not part of the treaty) in something of a threatening manner.  Trump, of course, makes a personal issue of all this.  He's quoted more than once as saying, ‘I am terminating the treaty . . .’  I’ll note that John Bolton is conducting talks in Moscow this week, so this could possibly be an insane negotiation tactic on Trump’s part.
“A Russian Deputy Foreign Minister warned that this could lead to a ‘military-technical retaliation’ and a Chinese spokesperson advised the United States to ‘think thrice before acting’ among other statements.
 . . . my follow-up comment:
            Ah yes, you are quite correct; I missed that little detail—INF Treaty signed in ’87 and ratified overwhelmingly (93-5) by the Senate on 20.May.1988.  I still believe withdrawing from the treaty is the wrong way to approach treaty violations.  Too late now.  We’ll see how this turns out.  Bolton has long advocated for this action.

            Mvery best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap                        :-)

22 October 2018

Update no.876

Update from the Sunland
No.876
15.10.18 – 21.10.18
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            Tall,

            CBS reporter Tony Dokoupil interviewed former secretary of state Hillary Clinton on the CBS News Sunday Morning program [14.Oct.2018].  It was a wide ranging, unbounded (to my knowledge) interview, but I was gobsmacked at a few of her specific responses, specifically, when the question turned to her husband’s dalliances in the light of the contemporary “#MeToo” movement.
TD: “There are people who look at incidents of the 90’s, and they say a president of the United States cannot have a consensual relationship with an intern.  The power imbalance is too great.”
HRC: “She was an adult.  Let me ask you this, where is the investigation of the current incumbent, against whom numerous allegations have been made, in which he dismisses, denies, and ridicules. So, there was an investigation, and I believe, it came out in the right place.”
 . . . 
TD: “In retrospect, do you think Bill should've resigned in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal?”
HRC: “Absolutely not.”
TD: “It wasn't an abuse of power?”
HRC: “No.”
TD: “You do not believe he should have resigned?”
HRC: “No."
TD: “How do you contend with members of your own party now saying he should have?”
HRC: “That’s their right . . . to their opinion.  They were not in the middle of it.”
This is one of many reasons (not the dominant reason) I did not and could not vote for Clinton. I appreciate her honesty and forthrightness in answering, but she is just another citizen and she is not entitled to a different standard.  Numerous Press sources noted “crickets” from major women’s groups on Clinton’s tone-deaf responses.  She had a unique opportunity to make a clear, concise statement, but she could not bring herself to do so.
            Abuse of power is predominantly an ethical issue, more so than a legal one.  Bill Clinton did not get crosswise with the law until he lied to federal investigators and tried to cover-up his mistakes.  I wrote two essays 20 years ago that remain applicable and valid, from my perspective.
“Abuse of Power”
20.September.1998
“Thoughts Regarding the Behavior of Bill Clinton”
20.September.1998
The intern’s age and adult status have absolutely nothing to do with abuse of power.  The reality is an intern cannot give informed consent in a relationship with anyone in a position of power, and there could not be greater disparity between the President of United States and a White House intern.  Hillary indirectly played to the double standard of paternalism, and she failed the test . . . again.  Making matters far worse, she resorted to Trumpian deflection to defend her position. The BIC’s multitudinous transgressions have absolutely nothing to do with her husband’s many transgressions. Yet, it was the silence of the “#MeToo” movement that shocked me.  If the BIC had responded the way Clinton did, I would have condemned his response.  I am compelled to comparably condemn Clinton’s terribly short response, and I will also condemn the feminist movement for not condemning Clinton (both Hillary and Bill) for their failure to condemn the transgressors of any party, persuasion or affiliation. Women failed, and I am disappointed in that failure.  Gosh darn it, paternalism must die with all the other relics of bygone eras.

            Icontrast to my opinion above, I offer another public opinion.
“Hillary Clinton Is Right—Her Husband’s Affair Was No ‘Abuse’ – Monica Lewinsky was a consenting adult, and the harassment-industrial complex is out of control.”
by Abigail Shrier
Wall Street Journal
Published: Oct. 19, 2018; 6:45 p.m. ET
Shrier defines abuse of power occurring “when a person exploits the function or resources of his position to procure something to which the job does not entitle him.” There are several elements in her definition that bother me, not least of which is her use of the words ‘procure’ and ‘entitle.’  She makes is sound quite transactional.  I prefer a broader, more balanced definition; abuse of power occurs when anyone uses a position of power or influence to coerce, pressure, intimidate or force another person within their sphere of influence to do anything of they are not comfortable with doing.  The insidiousness of abuse of power exists in the perceptions of the person in the inferior position, which is precisely why sexual favors in abuse of power situation are so difficult to reconcile, and thus must be universally prohibited, condemned and otherwise avoided.  Shrier has a number of valid points.  However, she fails to recognize or acknowledge the one central reality in all this mess.  We cannot know what was said or what happened in the White House between Clinton and Lewinsky.  It may well be as Shrier hypothesizes; we cannot and never will know, and that is precisely the point that Shrier ignores.  In such circumstances, we have no choice but to err on the side of caution.  I absolutely agree that any person in an inferior position, e.g., POTUS v. intern, cannot give informed consent.  The same would be true for employer-employee, teacher-student, priest-parishioner, et cetera.  With respect, I think Ms. Shrier is wrong!  . . . because she misses the essential point!

            Comments and contributions from Update no.875:
Comment to the Blog:
“I will not let pass your claim that Kavanaugh was confirmed by ‘the representatives We, the People, elected to the Senate.’  Nope.  So long as people from Nebraska and Alaska have more powerful votes than people from New York, California, and Florida, I’m not letting you get away with that one.  I and a majority of voters will not take the blame for Grassley and his crew.
“That more people don’t vote is a result of neither party offering worthwhile platforms or candidates.  Their sponsors would rather they indulge in negative campaigning so that they don’t have to offer worthwhile commitments.  (We had this discussion last week.) My conscience will not let me stay home, but I certainly understand why others do. The Green Party in the region of Bavaria, Germany, shows us a fresh example of victory through turnout.  They have made important gains by offering a positive and liberal message in a region previously controlled by conservative politicians including Angela Merkel.
“I will leave the decisions up to the many Constitutional lawyers in Congress, but I suspect we already have evidence to bring those impeachments.  (The standard of proof is ‘whatever Senators vote for.’)  Republicans control Congress right now, so we’re not seeing action there, but evidence abounds.  The plea for civility comes loudest from corrupt centrists who do not want to fight for American ideals.
“In regard to our lengthy discussion on majority rule from last week, I never said states have no functions.  Most of the world allows provinces to address local conditions to whatever level serves the national interests.  I’ll just repeat the topic of the discussion: the Electoral College and the structure of Congress give some states’ voters more power than others’ for no good reason.
“Your understanding of the ‘survival of the fittest’ concept backfires.  What do you think is happening now?  Neither Trump nor W. Bush was elected by a simple majority, nor do the national vote totals determine which party controls either branch of Congress.  We live in an oligarchy, not a representative republic.  That potential is as embedded in our national design as it was in Ancient Greece.”
My response to the Blog:
            Your choice entirely.
            You are a far better man than me.  I do not understand and I am not so forgiving. Our duty, responsibility and obligation as citizens of this Grand Republic is to vote.  I certainly laud your perspective in that a positive, committed message is inspiring and encouraging.  However, we must see beyond the negatives to find the positives, especially when those positives are difficult to find.
            Well, I guess that is what I am . . . a “corrupt centrist.”  I truly believe civility within a vigorous public debate is essential; it is another way of saying we must respect each other as we disagree and seek mutually acceptable solutions to the problems before us.  Yep, I will accept that label, although I do not agree with it.  Despite all our flaws, mistakes, failures and missteps, I believe in this Grand Republic and the principles that have bound us together for generations . . . for nearly 400 years.  I also believe we will be a stronger nation for the trauma we must currently endure.
            I do not disagree with you.  Yes, there is imbalance in our electoral and governance systems . . . by design.  I see the wisdom in that design.  It has served us well for 230 of those 400 years.  The tribalism that has consumed us for the last few decades has accentuated the peculiarities of those principles. The minority that won the 2016 election is not even close to a majority in headcount, and yet, because almost a majority of citizens failed to vote that minority controls the reins of power.  This is not the minority’s fault; this is the majority’s fault—the majority that allowed that activist minority to use the system we have.  As long as the majority of citizens fail to perform their duty several times a year or at least biannually, then we will always get what we’ve always got.
            We shall respectfully disagree.  We do NOT live in an oligarchy. Certainly, Citizens United has brought us a few steps closer to that oligarchy, but the money men are not the puppet masters.  They have no power, if we look beyond the money.
 . . . Round two:
“You seem unable to realize that ‘mutually agreeable solutions’ are not available today.  (Civility is not a strong quality of U.S. political campaign history.)  Those who have taken power have no interest in compromise, and the Democrats have moved so far to the right in their quest for those mutually agreeable solutions that they no longer stand for anything.  They will never find mutual agreement under these circumstances
“That doesn't bother the Democrats' large donors.  Some of the Republicans' donors remain conservatives rather than Trumpists, and their candidates are caught between the uncompromising factions.  Many grassroots Democrats and former Democrats are equally unhappy with their oligarchic party.  Agreeability is not a positive quality in this situation.  For this Constitutional disaster, you (and the Democratic National Committee) blame those who recognize the unworthiness of the candidates and the failures of the system.  Nope, I’m not seeing it.
“I have never seen the wisdom in the imbalances in our electoral structure, and I still do not.  Minority power is a major factor in this mess as it was in the struggle over slavery and ‘states rights.’”
 . . . my response to round two:
            Solutions are always possible.  We choose not to seek those solutions.  There have been extreme groups in this Grand Republic since its founding.  The middle is far bigger, stronger, and more influential than either extreme; the problem of the middle is mobilization against the forces of intransigence.
            You are quite correct.  Although I will say, President Obama was the closest we’ve approached to proper civility in politics we’ve made in contemporary times.
            I am sorry you seem to have such a pessimistic view of the political arena.  There is always hope.
            Any minority, no matter how electorally active they are, can be overcome within our current system.  It is our choice.
 . . . Round three:
“To point out the obvious, mutually agreeable solutions are only possible when all sides are willing to be agreeable.  That situation does not obtain at present.
“The political middle is seriously difficult to find.  The Republican Party has moved far to the right ever since Reagan's first election, and the mainstream of the Democrats moved right along with it, leaving behind a left that is growing.  The centrist/corporate Democrats are the only ‘middle’ left, and the millenials are leaving them behind in an attempt to save themselves.  I'm not as pessimistic as all that despite the past 35+ years of history.  The millenials have a fighting chance.”
 . . . my response to round three:
            You are, of course, quite correct.  It takes two to tango.  Again, some of us elect those representatives for their intransigence.  A significant segment of our population celebrates the Senate Majority Leader’s defiance of the Constitution.  I have come to a selection criterion of solutions by negotiations in words and deeds.  Intransigence in any candidate for any position is now disqualifying for me.
            Yes, the Tea Party folks have had a profound effect on the Republican Party.  Even worse, the current fellow unabashedly delivers on those touchstones despite his immorality.  I am and have been in that political middle you refer to, and I am quite easy to find.  The middle tends to be less vociferous, and more absorptive and discriminating.  The centrist/corporate Democrats you refer to are not the middle; they are part of the middle, but they are not the middle. There are moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans.  The millennials are the next generation; it will soon be there task to remedy.
 . . . Round four:
“I was never in the middle, and it's unlikely that I'll ever understand them. Nowadays, I quote Barry Goldwater sometimes: ‘Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.’
“We make progress backward too fast for any ‘incremental’ actions to avoid losing more ground in our elections. Also, the climate began changing some time ago, and we are making no effort to adapt, much less to try to slow the change.”
 . . . my response to round four:
            Therein lays some of our differences; I have always been in the middle, and there I shall remain for the rest of my days.
            I remember the broadcast of Goldwater’s statement.  I met Barry once—very generous man; my first political candidate.
            I can accept that.

            Mvery best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap                        :-)