Update no.887

Update from the Sunland

No.887

31.12.18 – 6.1.19

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

            To all,

            I suppose in the back of my little pea brain I knew it was a potential, but a very distant, unlikely one.  I switched from Windows to Mac more than a decade ago.  One of the glorious features of Apple’s Mac computers is an application called Time Machine.  It saves files automatically several times an hour as long as the computer is operating and files are changing.  Time Machine is integral to iMac desktop computers, but it is an external, plug-in on MacBook laptop computers.  My Time Machine backup on my laptop has not been working for a year [long story; not relevant]. In the light of the old adage, what can go wrong will go wrong, that day came yesterday.  For many years, my primary writing on the Update occurred on Sunday—my Update Day, as I call it; I do some writing during the week, which is reflected below, so I can write my book during the workweek.  I finished my primary writing on my laptop, as I had done essentially every week for more than a decade.  I closed the file and moved onto other writing tasks, in this instance working on my To So Few series novel outline for Book VIII (the first six chapters are ready to start first draft writing).  My Update file had been closed for three hours.  As we were shutting down for bedtime, I went to copy my files in separate areas.  My Update no.887 file had vanished; I mean literally vanished; everything I had written on Sunday afternoon was lost.  I have never seen this before—ever! Time Machine would have saved my work.  So, this Monday morning, as I should be editing the Update for publication, I must offer my humble and embarrassed apologies to my readers, since a goodly portion of this week’s content has been lost, and especially to my contributors.  I lost the last few days of exchange. I failed and I am deeply disappointed that my complacency with respect to getting my laptop Time Machine feature working finally bit me hard.  C’est la vie.  Lesson learned.  Priority set.  We move on.

            We have another impressive space exploration achievement for NASA.  On 1.January.2019, the New Horizons spacecraft [launched: 19.1.2006] made its Closest Point of Approach (CPA) (28,000 km) to the farthest celestial object yet explored by humans—2014MU69, or Ultima Thule at a distance of 43.4 AU (6.5B km) from the Sun.  The odd-shaped, bonded, dual sphere object is in the Kuiper Belt beyond the orbit of Pluto.  The largest sphere is 19 km across and the smaller one is 14 km in diameter. The first image is a bit fuzzy and will likely be digitally processed to draw out details.  The download and processing of the data from this flyby encounter will reportedly take six months to complete; there will undoubtedly be many more magnificent images ahead. The Ultima Thule flyby came after the spacecraft carried out a similar data collection flyby of the dwarf planet Pluto, at roughly 39.5 AU from the Sun—CPA on 14.July.2015.  The engineering, physics, astronomy, imagination and ingenuity of this mission were on glorious display with this latest space accomplishment and were nothing short of exemplary and out-of-this-worldly.  Congratulations to the team!

            A couple of related FYI factoids: the signal from the spacecraft at the distance of Ultima Thule takes six hours to reach Earth; thus, the spacecraft was largely on its own in the last few days of approach.  Also, the Kuiper Belt is a donut-shaped body of orbiting objects at a distance of 30 to 55 AU. Further, another ban of orbiting celestial objects beyond the Kuiper Belt is called the Oort Cloud, spanning a distance of 1,000 to 100,000 AU.  Lastly, if anyone is interested in the science of exploration missions like this one, I strongly and enthusiastically recommend the PBS NOVA program broadcast on 2.January.2019 (Season 46, Episode 1).

            The follow-up news items:

-- The OSGOO, otherwise known as the BIC, decided to publicly bash another general.  I guess he is learning (well, probably not), the generals are NOT “his generals” [813].

“‘General’ McChrystal got fired like a dog by Obama. Last assignment a total bust. Known for big, dumb mouth. Hillary lover!

Donald J. Trump added,

https://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle/status/1079824312708808710

Laura Ingraham Verified account @IngrahamAngle

Media Didn’t Like McChrystal Until He Started Bashing Trump https://www.lifezette.com/2018/12/media-didnt-like-mcchrystal-until-he-started-bashing-trump/… via @LifeZette”

7:32 AM - 1 Jan 2019

The referenced article was:

“Media Didn’t Like McChrystal Until He Started Bashing Trump – Former Army general, fired by Obama in 2010, agreed over the weekend with those who insist this president is 'immoral'”

by Michele Blood

lifezette.com

Published: Monday, December 31, 2018

https://www.lifezette.com/2018/12/media-didnt-like-mcchrystal-until-he-started-bashing-trump/

One essential fact: the admirals and generals do NOT serve the BIC.  They took an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not the BIC (Adolf Hitler forced the Wehrmacht to swear allegiance to him personally [2.8.1934—one month after the Night of the Long Knives]).  The admirals and generals serve this Grand Republic and We, the People—not the BIC.  The BIC’s persistent use of the possessive regarding generals is as wrong and false as it gets.  Above all else, I am encouraged and heartened by generals with integrity and the courage of their convictions.  In uniform, there are only two choices—obey legal commands to the best of your ability or resign.  Admiral McRaven and now General McCrystal are speaking as private citizens, with all the unencumbered rights and privileges of all citizens of this Grand Republic. General Mattis carried out his orders and responsibilities until his threshold of tolerance was exceeded, and then he resigned in protest, as is the honorable thing for him to do in such circumstances.

            And, what does the BIC do?  He publicly asked (perhaps rhetorically), “What has [Mattis] done for me?”  That one statement speaks volumes.  Mattis devoted his life in service to this Grand Republic and We, the People. The better question is, what has the BIC done for us (that does not benefit him)?

-- On the very first day of the 116^th Congress, the House passed and sent to the Senate two appropriations bills to fund those segments of the federal government affected by the BIC’s shutdown extortion [885].  The two bills are:

** H.J.Res.1 - Making further continuing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2019, and for other purposes [House: 239-192-0-1(3)], and

** H.R.21 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 [House: 241-190-0-2(2)]

It is unlikely that the Senate will approve the bills and send them to the BIC for signature. Republican Majority Leader McConnell has decided (alone) he will not allow the bills to reach the Senate floor for a vote, since he has abdicated his constitutional responsibility to the BIC.  The Republicans, oh, and the BIC, are playing semantic games in a desperate attempt to find a way for the BIC to save face—the wall, a fence, some kind of barrier, technical means, call-it-what-you-will.  You know if the BIC was serious about this issue beyond a braggart’s achievement, he would present a comprehensive plan that made sense rather than huffing & puffing, turning red in the face, and dropping to the floor pounding his fists as he screams, “I want my wall!  I want my wall!”  Tell us—We, the People—the details of what the government thinks are necessary for border security.  Exactly where does a solid concrete wall make sense?  Where does a tall, slatted fence provide a better solution?  Where is no barrier necessary due to formidable terrain?  Instead of pouting and acting like a petulant child, give us a comprehensive plan.  Border protection and control measures are warranted and appropriate.  When the BIC persists in his “I want my wall” mantra, he fatally diminishes the seriousness of his argument.  He must justify his request for funding rather than the child’s “I want my wall.”  His attempted extortion using some federal employees as hostages is a direct measure of how bloody desperate he has become.

-- Then, we have this tweet from the BIC:

“How do you impeach a president who has won perhaps the greatest election of all time, done nothing wrong (no Collusion with Russia, it was the Dems that Colluded), had the most successful first two years of any president, and is the most popular Republican in party history 93%?”

5:16 AM - 4 Jan 2019

You know, when you read something like this, you have no choice but to conclude this man is delusional, perhaps clinically delusional.  This is not just “truthful hyperbole” [837], as he likes to claim; it is outright falsehood. We cannot call them lies, because I am fairly certain he actually believes what he said, which thus makes him delusional.

            Interesting essay from a frequent contributor!

URL:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=588693934908837&id=249557685489132

            I am not scared by the terms or ideology of socialism, or communism for that matter.  They are noble concepts intended to improve human existence. Unfortunately, flawed human beings seek power over others and mutate the concepts to become autocratic, verging upon dictatorial, and thus extraordinarily oppressive of the human spirit.  The failures of such ideology exceed the successes.

            To me, the key is implementation and enforcement.  When individual freedom of choice, privacy, and such are compromised, we are at or beyond the threshold of tolerance.  I also worry about motivation of the individual to achieve—the drive to improve their standard of living.  If an individual can realize a decent standard of living or even a survivable standard of living without working (to earn it), why would anyone work? Why would they perform jobs that are not attractive but necessary?

            Interesting topic, indeed!

. . . to which the contributor responded:

“We could argue that notion of motivation endlessly.  Assuming and controlling others’ motivations is as silly on a national scale as it is in an alcoholic family environment, which has been studied.

“My strong opinion is that we are out of balance.  We have given corporations personhood to the detriment of actual people.  The ‘greed is good’ outlook and its shallow foundation are disproven by the simple fact that their claimed results don't materialize.  The question for the non-wealthy then becomes survival, not the means of becoming equal.  The means of becoming equal are in the possession of those who will never relinquish wealth or control voluntarily even though they have far more than they need or can even use.”

 . . . Round two:

            I think you missed my point.  No one I know, and certainly not me, is arguing for controlling individual motivation—a very private, personal activity.  There is a huge difference between controlling, and stifling or enabling.  If you take the application of the ideology to its limit, what motivation would an individual have to invent an infinite life light bulb, or do nothing; both states have the same reward & benefit.

            I share your view of the Supreme Court defining “personhood” and even more so citizenship for corporations, and money is speech.  [Of course, they are not alone in the effort to extend the power of the monied elite (royalty).] The corrupting influence of money goes back centuries and millennia, and the Supreme Court stimulated that corruption.  We have only begun to see the consequences of their decision.  I suspect this will get much worse before we are able to correct the mistake.  We will eventually regain balance, but we are definitely unbalanced today.

 . . . the contributor’s response to round two:

“You wrote of controlling ‘ideology’ as if it were related to religious beliefs.  The issue of claiming religious aims to justify violence exists with every religion of which I know and dates back to prehistoric times.  There are deeper and different motivations behind the kernel of violent actions that touched off these conflicts.  Unfortunately, framing the conflict as a war serves the aims of the wealthy and powerful in this country.”

 . . . Round three:

            Religion is an ideology.

            Yes, precisely, religion has been used for millennia to justify violence, aggression and domination of others.  We still see vestiges to this very day, e.g., Jewish Defense League.

            OK.  I’ll pull a BIC . . . whatever you want to call it.  As for me, armed conflict is a war, whether declared or not.

[The remainder of this exchange was lost, as noted above; again, my apologies.]

            Well now, the BIC has reason to brag about how great he is, above all others.  The Labor Department reported U.S. nonfarm payrolls increased a seasonally adjusted 312,000 in December.  The unemployment rate climbed to 3.9% from 3.7%, mainly due to more people entering or returning to the workforce.  Average hourly earnings rose a seasonally adjusted 0.4% from November and 3.2% from December 2017, the best full-year gain since 2008.  The data suggests the underlying economy is strong, despite the BIC’s machinations, instability and uncertainty.

            Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell publicly stated, “With the muted inflation readings that we've seen coming in, we will be patient as we watch to see how the economy evolves.”  The statement suggests there is no imminent interest rate increase.  He also said he would not resign his post if the BIC asked him to do so, in an apparent attempt to assert the independence of the Fed with respect to monetary policy.

            Continuation from Update no.885:

“Probably because they have been moving their lips for too many years about reform... nothing gets done and both sides can never agree .. so let’s just stop them from coming in and make their own government do a better job of helping them .. if it were just a few a year coming over the situation would be different.  But we are spending way too much of our taxes taking care of all these people!!  And there’s no end in site without more deterrances.. before you know it no one will be living south of the border.. they will all be HERE !!  Maybe the Mexican government should just go ahead and give us the rest of their territory since they obviously can’t manage it !!”

My reply:

            I share your frustration with the intransigence in Congress.  In this instance, Congress has presented several bipartisan bills that the BIC initially encouraged and supported, and at the end of the day rescinded his support.  Congress is frustrated not knowing what the BIC will really support.

            Here’s a few good & relevant Qs: how will the wall deal with visa overstays, which is the largest number of illegal immigrants?  How will the wall deal with all of the illegals already in this country by any entry means? For the sake of open discussion, what if Congress gave the BIC all US$25B for all 1,954 miles of his vaunted wall, what would he do?

            Comments and contributions from Update no.886:

Comment to the Blog:

“Well, yes, 2018 is within 16 hours of ending (Eastern time) and we’re both still here, as is the USA, so far.  As I write this, people in Australia have already finished their New Year celebrations and gone to sleep (or passed out).

“Senator Lindsey Graham met with Chump and says he’s ‘encouraged.’ Perhaps he managed to explain modern-day security to the baby, or maybe money changed hands.

“Your other correspondent has an overwhelming sense of entitlement, but no understanding of information sources.  He uses youtube to study news.  What does that tell us?  Also, he seems not to realize that most immigrants arrive by air or sea, many through regular points of entry.  Maybe they come in the back of trucks but through points of entry.

“Beyond that, real trends in and results of immigrants and immigration don’t call for action beyond pre-Trump procedures.

“On another Chump topic, as you know I support ending the dimwit foreign ‘wars.’  I still maintain the War on Terrorism is no more winnable than the War on Drugs.  I’d rather the withdrawal not be chaotic and unplanned, as it was in Vietnam, but I want it to end.  The Democrats’ outraged opposition to withdrawal from Syria and a cutback in Afghanistan show me their blind opposition to Trump.  This is an unannounced policy shift for them, but policy means little to either major party today, despite its life-and-death importance to the world, our nation, and its people.

“One of my causes typically not supported by liberals is sex worker rights.  In that context, I don’t really see Melania as ‘lovely arm candy’ because she looks very stressed any time she appears in public.  Also, her face just isn’t that attractive around the eyes.”

My response to the Blog:

            I’m not sure I believe Senator Graham anymore, either.  I see no corroborated signs for encouragement.

            Indeed.  Visa overstays are the largest group of illegal immigrants by far.  We have no procedures to deal with that group proactively—none whatsoever.  The BIC’s wall does absolutely nothing about dealing with illegals already in this country by any entry method.   We need comprehensive immigration reform that offers a defense in depth. A wall will never accomplish that.

            I will disagree with you on the pre-BIC immigration control procedures; they did not work and will never work, as they are totally reactionary and not proactive—the defense in depth to which I refer.

            Bush 43 and Rummie made a huge, if not fatal, mistake in committing U.S. troops to combat without the necessary mobilization to win the peace.  It was an obvious, foolish mistake that brought extraordinary cost.  As a general rule, I would rather fight a war in their backyard rather than ours.  Whether the War on Islamic Fascism is winnable or not remains an active question.  It is certainly not winnable if we do not deal with the underlying ideology that drives their violence.

            We are all entitled to our opinions. She lost virtually all of her credibility when she wore that infamous parka on a visit to the border, no less.

 . . . Round two:

“I believe the facts about unauthorized immigrants (crime rate, taxes paid versus benefits received, etc.) and the drop in unauthorized immigration via the southern border do not justify using national assets to reduce unauthorized immigration.

“‘Winning the peace’ has never been achieved.  Scotland, the entire Middle East, and the Confederate States stand among examples of that fact.  They were conquered long ago, but resentment and resistance linger on.  The current alleged wars on ideology are even more fanciful.  A concept cannot be conquered, whether it's drugs, poverty, or ideology.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            I’m not quite to your position regarding illegal immigration, but I am much closer to you than the BIC & his sycophant cronies.  His foolish wall nonsense distracts from the far larger problem—visa overstays and birthright citizenship.  But hey, that’s just me.

            I would agree that ideology cannot be overcome with force of arms alone.  Dealing with ideological insurgencies required counter-ideological action. The British have successfully accomplished it, but the United States has not.  There is a lesson there.

 . . . Round three:

“On the ‘War on Islamic Fascism,’ nobody can ‘deal with’ beliefs.  For example, pagans have lived and practiced our beliefs in an unbroken line since long before any of the other religions, and we still do.  We're a living example of the futility of fighting concepts.  We have been attacked by armies, executed individually, and reviled by essentially everyone else.  Oh, well.  Islamic beliefs will continue, and I imagine a few people will use them to justify violence, as others do with Christianity and Judaism.

“I see Melania as a sex worker whose difficult job has gone terribly wrong.  She copes as best she can.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            You know, I am generally in agreement with you regarding the fight against beliefs—it’s a ghost.  That aside, Judaism and Christianity have matured over centuries.  I believe Islam will mature as well, if we can find the means to enable them to do so.

            “Sex worker” . . . I like it—a most appropriate analogy.  “Terribly wrong” . . . indeed.

 . . . Round four:

“Please give me more information about British accomplishments regarding ideology. I've never known that to happen in an effective, long-term sense.”

 . . . my response to round four:

“The Malayan insurgency of 1948 would be a good starting point.”

 . . . Round five:

“No clue. I haven't studied history in that depth, but I know that none of the former colonies are still colonies.”

 . . . my response to round five:

            The British response to the insurgency is a studied example of how to fight an insurgency.  The U.S. military thought that we should have fought the Vietnam War with the same techniques, but the Executive would never authorize it . . . beyond more half-measures that got a lot of good men killed.

            Anyway, ‘nuf said.

 . . . Round six:

“I don't think Christianity, Judaism, or Islam as such have much to do with the conflict at hand.”

 . . . my response to round six:

            Well . . . other than the jihadis use their religion as justification for their violence.

 . . . Round seven:

“You mean like the Christians in Ireland and other places, the Jews in Israel, and even the Buddhists in Myanmar?  It's not the religion that matters.  There's a faction like that in any religion.”

 . . . my response to round seven:

            To me, there is a huge difference between individuals or groups using religious mutations to justify their violence and the encouragement or advocacy of religion for that violence.  When clerics preach for violent action by their believers, that is religion acting.  To my knowledge, it has been centuries since Jewish or Christian clerics called for violent action.  That observation is not true for Islamic clerics.

 . . . Round eight:

"I think you have not studied the radicals among Christians and Jews or those in religions throughout history."

 . . . my response to round eight:

            You are quite correct.  I openly and freely confess that I am not, never have been and never will be a scholarly student of religious-based violence in history.  I refer you to my oft quoted tag line from Dennis Miller, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

[The remainder of this exchange was lost, as noted above; again, my apologies.]

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)