Update no.928

Update from the Sunland

No.928

21.10.19 – 27.10.19

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

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- The Indonesian Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi (KNKT, National Transportation Safety Committee) issued its final report regarding the Lion Air Flight 610 (LN610) accident [878, 889] on Friday—one year after the accident [29.10.2018].  This accident was the first of two involving the Boeing 737-MAX8 aircraft that eventually grounded the aircraft worldwide to allow the investigations and corrective actions to be completed.  The KNKT report is 322 pages.  The Conclusions section alone involved 12 pages—too long for this humble forum.  And, to avoid boring everyone with technical details, please allow me to briefly summarize the findings.  The KNKT determined that the flight crews had not reported problems with the Angle of Attack (AOA) sensor on previous flights.  The malfunctioning AOA sensor triggered the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) multiple times on the accident flight.  The crew failed to recognize the problem and disable the MCAS, and eventually lost control of the aircraft.  The KNKT report illuminates numerous contributing factors.

            The KNKT report walks a narrow “just the facts, ma’am” line and does not delve into or even hint at the political and legal issues associated with this (and both) accidents.  I still believe the choice made by Boeing management to allow a single AOA source for MCAS was wrong from an engineering and ethical perspective.  This whole debacle has become perhaps the best example of the “penny wise, pound foolish” mentality that drives these cost reduction initiatives.  This one got away from Boeing and has tarnished the conservative reputation of the venerable aircraft company.

            Late Friday afternoon, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) revoked the manufacturing certificate of Xtra Aerospace of Miramar, Florida—the company that supplied the faulty AOA sensor to Lion Air and triggered the accident, killing 189 people.

            The hypocrisy of American politics abounds, and the practitioners display no conscience whatsoever—not one scintilla.

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime, to lose your job in this constitutional republic.  If this body (Congress) determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role . . . Impeachment is not about punishment.  Impeachment is about cleansing the office.  Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

-- [Then] Representative Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, 19.January.1999

I absolutely agree with Graham’s words of 20 years ago, and those words are equally applicable in today’s chaos.  The current Oval Office desperately needs cleansing.

            Just one tweet among so many during this week alone is so bloody typical of the BIC’s . . . (oh, I should not say what I want to say) . . . mind.

The Never Trumper Republicans, though on respirators with not many left, are in certain ways worse and more dangerous for our Country than the Do Nothing Democrats. Watch out for them, they are human scum!

10:48 AM – 23 Oct 2019

These are the actual words issued (I cannot say written) by the current president of the United States of America.  These are the words of the current face of this Grand Republic.  These are the words we are presenting to our citizens and the rest of the world.  These words are not idle, locker-room talk.  And, he does not get a pass by post-event claiming he was just kidding or joking, or some other juvenile nonsense.  There are so many things wrong . . . well, actually, I cannot find one word that is correct . . . with this tweet alone.  These words are NOT worthy of the president of the United States of America, or any decent human being in a leadership position, for that matter.

            The continuing House inquiry being conducted by three designated committees into the actions of the BIC heard sworn testimony from several key individuals this week.  Chargé d 'Affaires ad interim (Chief of Mission-Ukraine; acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine; former ambassador to Ukraine [2006-2009]) William Brockenbrough Taylor Jr. [USMA 1969] testified behind closed doors on 22.October.2019.  He released to the public his opening statement that I urge every citizen to thoroughly read.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-ambassador-william-taylors-full-opening-statement.

I have extracted several important elements of Taylor’s statement.

At the outset, I would like to convey several key points.
First, Ukraine is a strategic partner of the United States, important for the security of our country as well as Europe.
Second, Ukraine is, right at this moment—while we sit in this room-and for the last five years, under armed attack from Russia.
Third, the security assistance we provide is crucial to Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression, and more importantly, sends a signal to Ukrainians—and Russians—that we are Ukraine's reliable strategic partner.
And finally, as the Committees are now aware, I said on September 9 in a message to Ambassador Gordon Sondland that withholding security assistance in exchange for help with a domestic political campaign in the United States would be “crazy.” I believed that then, and I still believe that.

But once I arrived in Kyiv, I discovered a weird combination of encouraging, confusing, and ultimately alarming circumstances.

At the same time, however, there was an irregular, informal channel of U.S. policy-making with respect to Ukraine, one which included then-Special Envoy Volker, Ambassador Sondland, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and as I

Subsequently learned, Mr. Giuliani.

The irregular policy channel was running contrary to goals of longstanding U.S. policy.

I wish to conclude by returning to the points I made at the outset. Ukraine is important to the security of the United States. It has been attacked by Russia, which continues its aggression against Ukraine. If we believe in the principle of sovereignty of nations on which our security and the security of our friends and Allies depends, we must support Ukraine in its fight against its bullying neighbor. Russian aggression cannot stand.

We could not hear Ambassador Taylor’s testimony before the combined committees.  However, from this opening statement alone, we see a very disturbing and emerging image of what the BIC did to further his political re-election.  Despite the BIC’s incessant protestations, his “I would like you to do us a favor, though . . .” extortion of the Ukraine was the very definition of a quid pro quo [924] and extortion of a sovereign nation for domestic political gain, which from my perspective amounts to a violation of federal election campaign law.  Just as the BIC’s “no conclusion” protestations were false in the extreme, so too are his “no quid pro quo” protestations false.

            I listened intently to the BIC’s Sunday morning public statement on the claimed demise of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—the founder and leader of ISIL—at the hands of U.S. Special Operations personnel who executed the raid in Northwest Syria.  First and foremost, congratulations must go to the president and the personnel involved in the raid.  Well done—Bravo Zulu!  Second, the BIC really needs better speechwriters.  I have heard/seen a lot of this kind of presidential statements, and this was not a worthy example for history—very awkward and disjointed.  Third, the BIC needs to practice with teleprompter.  Even with his clumsiness using the teleprompter, he really should have stopped with his statement.  His impromptu answers to reporters’ questions made the event rather banal.  Fourth, and most importantly, given the BIC’s penchant for falsehood, exaggeration and obfuscation (as noted above in just this week’s Update alone), how on God’s little green Earth can we believe a word he says.  I want to believe him; I need to believe him; but regrettably, I cannot believe him.  I had to look at other information sources to validate the BIC’s claim.

            There seems to be considerable confusion regarding the current House impeachment inquiry.  The BIC’s Republican sycophants have carried out incessant whining and screaming tantrums about how unfair the process is.  Let us be very clear, crystal clear, the House is proceeding in accordance with the Constitution and the law.  The current inquiry is equivalent to a grand jury investigation.  All grand jury investigations are secret.  If the grand jury chooses to indict the object of their investigation, the indictment becomes a charging document the prosecutor must decide whether to pursue, i.e., the likelihood of conviction.  For the most part, once the charging document enters the court, it becomes public and prosecuted in accordance with established judicial process.  Comparably, the articles of impeachment (the charging document) become public, subject to the rules of Congress.  The House must vote on whether to pursue prosecution (voting on acceptance of the articles of impeachment), and then the Senate must conduct a trial to determine acquittal or removal from office.  Let us not be distracted 

            Continuation from Update no.926:

“Sorry Cap but I don’t hold you high in my opinion anymore of smart people I know .. Bullshit the Biden’s knew what they were doing and so did the Clinton’s and Obama .. if Trump were never elected President they would have all got by with it just as they have slid unscathed through so many other corrupt dealings .. you listen to the left run media and swallow whole every single lying word they feed the gullible .. I do not ..”

My reply:

            I do not know what I have done to invoke your disapproval, disgust or anger, but whatever it was, I do sincerely apologize.  That was never my intent.  I suppose, like unrequited love, my respect for you shall remain mono-directional . . . regrettable, but such is life.

            Re: “Biden’s knew what they were doing.”  I would say, of course, they did, just like the BIC knows what he is doing.  But, how do you (we) know?  We have only the imagery . . . well, except in the BIC’s case we have physical evidence.  I do not defend the Clinton’s; they both did things I believe were wrong on multiple levels; I have written my condemnation of their actions.  I still do not understand your condemnation of Obama for any reason other than his skin pigmentation.  Whatever your reasons, that is your choice.  Any one or combination of the social factors can be used to discriminate (choose) in our private lives—to choose our friends or those we wish to associate with; the social factors do not belong in the public domain.

            You persist in your accusations that my sources of information are rather narrow and limited, as if it is only my brainwashing that prohibits me from seeing the light . . . the brilliant light of the messiah’s luminosity.   I’m just a simple Joe Friday—“Just the facts, ma’am.”  The words he says and writes are facts, just as mine are.  The BIC is quite like Orwellian 1984: “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.”  Well, I am not a believer.

. . . follow-up comment:

“Omg ..typical .. She's racist !!! Typical left, CNN instigated mind non-think .. Nothing to do with skin color and you KNOW it .. I have stated numerous times the atrocities of the puppet Obama.. He can only speak with teleprompter because without it he's just not that good at speaking... He was a puppet That just happened to be black ... Or mocha or whatever !!! Purple!! I don't care ... Since Reagan they have all been puppets !!”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

            Wait, wait, I missed something.  “Omg ..typical .. She's racist !!!”  Who is she?

            “the atrocities of the puppet Obama”  Atrocities, really?  Atrocity ≡ an extremely wicked or cruel act, typically one involving physical violence or injury.  You may have stated it several times, but I do not recall such statements by you, and I certainly am not aware of anything Obama has done that is even remotely close to an atrocity.

            In this week’s Update, I quote yet another tweet from the BIC—one among so many, just this week alone.  The BIC has never been comfortable using a teleprompter.  Frankly, I think he would be far better served using a teleprompter with crafted, measured and careful words.  The words of POTUS are important—very important.  Calling other Republicans “human scum” is neither dignified nor mature—hardly worthy of a president of the United States, or anyone else in a leadership position.

            “they have all been puppets”  Who is “all”?  If “they” are puppets, who is pulling the strings from your perspective?  For what purpose?

            Obama made his share of mistakes that I have amply criticized in past Updates.  I make no excuses for him.  But, at least he was dignified, proper, and respectful of dissent.  If I had to choose who I think is a better “face” of this Grand Republic, it would be Obama, head and shoulders over the BIC.  Obama never bullied or insulted anyone.  The BIC insults anyone and everyone who dares criticize him; after all, he is infallible and omnipotent in his own mind.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.927:

Comment to the Blog:

“‘ . . . what a long, strange trip it's been.’

“The USA's military misadventures have a long history, but the Chump's abrupt retreat from Syria appears to be a direct result of Turkey's Erdogan bullying the Bully in Chief. Nobody welcomes reminders from the New York Times that Erdogan has expressed a desire for nuclear weapons.

“The Chump's henchmen may have begun to realize that they face prison time even if he doesn't, yet.

“We shall see how the suits against drug makers and distributors behind the opioid crisis proceed. Headlines change daily. Incidentally, the $8 billion award in the male breast development case has been stated to have resulted from a math error.

“The 737 MAX case continues to develop. I have yet to hear politicians use this one to agitate against deregulation in general, which is where it ought to lead. It would make a good feature issue in the general election campaign next year.

“I neither understand nor support Tulsi Gabbard, but I see Hillary Clinton's attack on her as worthy of the Chump. I never supported Mrs. Clinton and I still don't.

“Your pro-Chump commentator exemplifies millions of apparently intelligent people whose fears and resentments have been worked harder than a rented mule.  Ironically, these are the same people who lectured the rest of us on the importance of “character” when Bill Clinton's sex life was on trial.”

My response to the Blog:

            . . . and the trip is long from over.

            The mercurial nature of the BIC has been consistent, persistent, well known, documented, and understood.   This latest example is just one more on a continually growing pile.  He is notorious for responding to the last dictator.  The one thing that is consistent with everything BIC is the chaos he produces in everything he touches.

            You may well be correct.  The thought does come to me on occasion that Ford issued a “full, free & absolute pardon” to Nixon [8.9.1974] to avoid the protracted criminal trial(s) for months & years to come, declaring “our long national nightmare is over.”

            I had not heard the math error rationale.  The enlarged breasts case reminds of the Stella Liebeck case.

            The proper balance between regulation and freedom of action is a worthy topic for public debate.

            Yeah, that is exactly how I perceived Clinton’s public comments—very BICish and equally inappropriate.  Also, I think she was correct in fact, but dreadfully wrong in her articulation of the implication(s).

            I shall allow your last comment to stand without response other than the hypocrisy is starkly illuminated.

. . . follow-up comment:

“I'll note that I agree with Glen Greenwald on Ford's pardon of Nixon.  That was our turning point away from the rule of law in this country.  (I wrote a series of essays based on one of Greenwald's books for a friend's blog several years ago.)”

. . . my follow-up response:

            I am not a fan of Greenwald, but I do agree with him on this point.  That was the turning point.  Nixon clearly and emphatically violated the law.  He should have been tried, convicted and sent to prison for an appropriate time.  The message to future presidents and civil servants in general would have been clear.

            Many factors undoubtedly swayed Ford to take the action he did, not least of which was the gross and costly debacle of Vietnam.  Add in the societal trauma of civil rights, Daniel Ellsberg, the oil embargo, Roe v. Wade, et al, I surmise he wanted to rip off the Band-Aid to enable our national healing.  I understand that sentiment, but I do not agree with the decision.  In essence, in so doing, he placed emotion above the rule of law . . . with profound long-term impact on our culture and society, i.e., short-term gain for long-term penalty.

            As a side note, I suspect Ford was under considerable, if not monumental, Republican pressure to end “their” nightmare.  Allowing politics to enter that decision-making process was equally wrong.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)

Update no.927

Update from the Sunland

No.927

14.10.19 – 20.10.19

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

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- The BIC unilaterally, impulsively and precipitously ordered the withdrawal of U.S. armed forces supporting the Kurds in the fight against ISIL in Northern Syria [926].  His action, apparently with little or no consultation with his national security advisors, sparked bipartisan outrage and condemnation.  Then, as with so many of the BIC’s ill-advised actions, the government immediately set about trying to walk back the BIC’s action.  The Turks near simultaneously invaded Northern Syria in an ethnic cleansing operation of the region.  This whole episode illuminates a key element of decision-making and necessary planning associated with the commitment of armed forces to combat operations of any kind—winning the peace, which has been missing from so much of what we have done in the last decades.  I think the genesis of this episode can be directly traced back through the Obama administration's decisions to counter ISIL and the very creation of ISIL, to the foolish war-on-the-cheap decision by Bush 43 to invade Iraq [094].  He ordered that operation and constrained the size of the force to such an extent that chaos ensued when the Hussein regime was deposed.  From that chaos, ISIL came into existence.

-- The evolving illumination of the BIC’s extortion of Ukraine [924] for his personal political purpose(s) is too deep, complex and erupting to be recounted and criticized in this humble forum.  It is telling that administration officials under subpoena have finally defied the administration’s prohibition and begun to testify (albeit behind closed doors).  Like all things the BIC touches, he leaves bodies in his wake, and worse, he could not care less.  While one of the BIC’s “personal attorneys” is currently in federal prison, and another “personal attorney” is now under federal investigation by the Southern District of New York (federal prosecutors in the BIC’s administration), we shall bear witness to the BIC throwing anyone and everyone under the bus once they have served his purpose(s).  All of this chaos would be entertaining if it was not so scandalous and sad.  The lives of so many good and decent citizens are being destroyed and laid waste by the BIC’s egomaniacal endeavors.

--The UK and EU reached yet another “deal” in the Brexit [758] fiasco.  The House of Commons, in a rare Saturday session, voted not overwhelmingly but convincingly to force the prime minister to seek yet another extension in the protracted train wreck.

-- Three unidentified major drug distributors are reportedly in talks to pay US$18B to settle sweeping litigation brought by state and local governments blaming them for fueling the opioid crisis [926].  To my knowledge, these are the first negotiations with contributors beyond the manufacturers in the evolving disaster.  The numbers being reported in the Press sound woefully short for the magnitude of the problem.  I think this is the wrong approach.  If a jury can award US$8B for enlarged breasts on a male [926], then I think an award of more like US$18T is more appropriate for the opioid crisis.

-- Boeing apparently failed to disclose relevant internal communications regarding the certification of the 737 MAX [878 & sub].  This does not bode well for Boeing.  The management of the company apparently failed to learn the political lesson of 1973—the coverup is far worse than the crime.

            I watched and listened to all three hours of the CNN/New York Times sponsored public debate held Tuesday evening at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio.  Twelve of the remaining Democrat candidates qualified for the debate under the Democratic Party criteria.  Once again, Julian Castro came through as the least impressive of the 12 candidates on stage.  To me, Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg were the most impressive based on their poise, articulation, content and demeanor; they handled themselves quite well.  Elizabeth Warren was a close second.  I know the Republican Right loves to label them as socialists, as if that moniker is some form of curse, but I do not buy it.  They all have good ideas worth vigorous public debate to improve this Grand Republic.  The surprise to me was the stridence of Tulsi Gabbard regarding withdrawal of U.S. armed forces from foreign deployments and “regime change wars,” as she calls them.  I believe I understand the sentiment she seeks to convey, but her words to express that sentiment are frightening, quiet akin to the BIC’s impulsive, precipitous and dangerous withdrawal of U.S. forces supporting the Kurds against the remnants of ISIL in Northern Syria.

            As an adjunct, Hillary Clinton decided to weigh in on Gabbard’s comments in a thinly veiled accusation that the isolationists like Gabbard are puppets of Putin, Assad, and Iran.  Clinton’s comments were ill-advised, inflammatory (like the BIC’s drivel), and otherwise not helpful.

            A friend, consistent contributor, and all-around worthy thinker sent along the link to the following article:

“Why Advocates Favor Decriminalization, Not Legalization, of Sex Work”

by Rajvi Desai

theswaddle.com

Published: Sep 11, 2019

https://theswaddle.com/advocates-favor-decriminalization-not-legalization-sex-work/

After reading the article, I offered the following opinion:

            It is sad for me to read about the oppression of sex workers in India.  I am reminded of the old axiom, well my adaptation of it.  The power to tax [in this instance to regulate] is the power to destroy.  I still do not know why the Indians have taken the approach they have, but it seems clear to me the associated laws in India are NOT intended to protect sex workers and/or their clientele.  It appears the purpose is “legal” subjugation and abuse.  The author does mention social stigma overriding the prima facie value to the law.  Just like any law, no matter how well-intended, the key to its benefit to the public good depends upon the interpretation and application of the law.  There are too many good citizens who were or are incarcerated because of overzealous prosecutors using the law to impose their morality on everyone within their reach (jurisdiction) rather than for the public good.  My position remains the same.  It is also clear from the above that the law must be made more robust to protect sex workers and clientele from the abuse of those overzealous prosecutors who do not approve of sex work.  The religious right will be vociferous in opposition to any law to protect sex workers and their clientele; so be it.

To which, the contributor responded:

“I'll note that requiring medical treatment is not correctly taxation, but it costs just the same.  In this instance, the requirement just limits sex workers while continuing the stigma.  The most interesting thing here is that the Indian model resembles the model implemented in Sweden and models of legalization proposed here.  Decriminalization would do more for the sex workers and their clients.  Ultimately, society would benefit more as well.  For example, sex workers would be able to report trafficking and support survivors.”

Round two:

            Yes, decriminalization would do more for sex workers than legalization.  However, my point remains, as long as there are moral projectionists who persist in their efforts to impose their beliefs and Victorian morality on everyone, sex workers will be abused.  Social stigma is just another, less legal, form of imposing that morality on everyone.  The moral projectionists simply cannot accept that anyone would want or enjoy sex work.  I want to protect sex workers from the moral projectionists and especially the subset that carry the weight of the law as prosecutors.  I tend to focus on prosecutors, but the same applies to all forms of law enforcement including the regulators (those who administer licenses, perform medical check-ups, and such).  Protecting sex workers against abuse by citizens and clientele is important, but protecting sex workers from abuses of the law is far more critical to me.  I want sex workers to feel safe in the administration of the law (as it should be, not as it is), but it is even more important that they trust those who are entrusted with their protection so that they do feel safe to report misconduct, illegal trafficking, and such.

The contributor’s response to round two:

“There's no way in hell sex workers will trust people society appoints to ‘protect’ them. At present, those people are the police, who are the biggest danger to them.”

My concluding comment:

            At the current state, yes, absolutely, they have been betrayed too many times, just as homosexuals were until Stonewall.  Long journeys begin with small steps.  We must move forward.  Something is better than nothing.  The same is true for other morality-based enforcement, e.g., psychotropic substance consumption.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.926:

Comment to the Blog:

“The Chump betrayed the Kurds in favor of Turkey.  There are two Trump Towers in Turkey.  Hard on the heels of his abandonment of the Kurds comes word from the BBC and others that Syria’s government has sent troops to assist the Kurdish forces.  Assad has support from Russia, so the brain behind the whole mess might be Putin’s.

“Chief Justice Roberts supports the rule of law more than I’d expected.  That will affect Chump’s appeal results.  The Mueller Report is still available, too, and people have begun to leave the country.  I remember Watergate.  This process feels slow, but that one was slower.  Watergate also reminds me that we need not get a conviction, or even formal impeachment, to achieve change. 

“Economists state that recession always follows expansion.  Let’s hope for a soft landing.

“Remember that companies insure and budget for legal liability.  Unfortunately, the $8 billion judgment against Johnson & Johnson won’t hurt them enough to force real change.  It’s just a business expense.

“The next Democratic primary debate takes place tomorrow, Tuesday.  I look forward to seeing clips and summaries of that Wednesday.  Like you, I appreciate the Democrats’ focus on policy.  I’m keeping my mind open to voting for one of them in the general election.  However, Warren has been snuggling up to the DNC establishment too much for my taste and has stated that she’s ‘a capitalist to my bones,’ so maybe not her.”

My response to the Blog:

            The conflicts of interest in this whole BIC-Syria-Turkey fiasco are incalculable.  The BIC has been a one-man wrecking crew on the international reputation of this Grand Republic.  It is becoming harder and harder to imagine how anyone will trust the United States, again.  I have felt for some time now, based on a host of reasons, that the BIC has been doing Putin’s bidding far better than Putin could ever do it directly.  To the extent that we believe Putin is manipulating the BIC, we have to give the Russia dictator credit.

            On a related side note, the IRI has long accused the United States of being untrustworthy, and regrettably, they are correct.  Like corporate policy, it seems our international policy has been very shortsighted, i.e., what is good for the next quarter—good for the now—rather than the long-term, one, 10, 100 years.  Such shortsightedness leaves us extraordinarily vulnerable.

            This session of the Supreme Court will likely give us a broad insight into how this new bench will approach sensitive topics.  Add in the inevitable multitudinous appeals on the BIC’s myriad legal actions, we should get a good view of the new Court’s sense of Executive power.  The new Supremes have yet to weigh in on various challenges to the BIC’s abuse of power, obstruction of justice, emoluments violations, conflicts of interest, and the seemingly endless examples of the BIC’s failure to respect the office he holds.

            Re: recession.  Indeed!

            I have long been conflicted by that business expense approach to legal liability.  But still, US$8B . . . for enlarged breasts . . . really?  There is no doubt that J&J bears liability for not being forthright with side effects, enlarged breasts are hardly life-threatening or injurious.  Other remedies were probably available.

            I am a long way from deciding who will get my vote.  I have been impressed that all, and I do mean ALL, of the Democrat candidates, are head and shoulders above the BIC in terms of worthiness to hold the office.  They are all better human beings.  I would not exclude one of them in comparison to the BIC.

. . . Round two:

“Conflicts of interest on the national, state, and local levels have become an interest of mine, hence my use of ‘follow the money.’  Unfortunately, I can't begin to keep up with them all.  The Chump's conflicts are particularly blatant and flagrant.  If we look at who benefits from Chump's folly rather than the immediate players, Putin comes to mind often.  Given his documented interference in U.S. elections and the Russian tendency to blackmail others, there's a real possibility that Putin is behind some of this insanity.

“It's not only Iran.  The United States has lost respect worldwide to a degree that makes W. Bush's slow-witted persona seem minor.

“We shall see what we shall see with the Supreme Court.  Supreme Court Justices have no worries about re-election as politicians do, but Mr. Justice Thomas has conflicts of interest.  Possibly others might.

“The business expense approach to liability is precisely the approach of corporations in general.  If Johnson & Johnson had to pay that out of pocket, it might possibly change their approach to drug invention and marketing.  As it is, probably not.

“For several election cycles, Republicans have yammered on about ‘character’ whenever they had someone to point at.  I respect the Democrats for demonstrating character in that respect.  I'm not considering them ‘in comparison’ to the Chump, but as candidates worthy of my vote or not.  I'm still not voting for tools and fools.”

. . . my response to round two:

            Yes, “follow the money” is always wise counsel.

            Yes, the BIC’s blatant conflicts of interest are quite flagrant, and he thumb’s his nose at everything from the Constitution to standards of conduct for public servants—he believes the law does not apply to him.  Worse, so far, he has gotten away with his violative conduct.

            Yes, I see the implications of Putin’s fingerprints, but I am reluctant to give the Russian dictator that much credit. I think it is far more likely a monetary rationale for the BIC’s conduct.  If anything, Putin is using that stark reality.

            I watch the Supremes closely.  The really big test cases are coming up.

            Your words implicate what might well be an important change in criminal and corporate law.  The notion of disallowing deductions of criminal or civil judgments, or even out of court settlements in criminal or civil cases, from their taxable income could go a long way to reducing corporate malfeasance.  Add in the reform of bankruptcy law to reduce the protections against legal judgments would be another positive change.  I like it.

            Yeah, the hypocrisy of the Republicans, the Christian Right, and other wannabe fascists is stark and nauseating. How they can look the other way with the BIC’s conduct is incredible and contemptible.  

. . . Round three:

“Your analysis that Putin is simply making the most of the Chump's financial bind in Turkey is astute and probably correct.

“I would surely disallow the deduction for either fines or civil damages, but look also at corporations' ability to insure themselves for those ‘losses.’

“The Republicans are not the only tools and fools not getting my vote.  Mayor Pete, for example, has expressed his contempt for grassroots-only funding.  The Mayor thus earned my contempt.”

. . . my response to round three:

            Thanks for that.  I truly hope I am wrong, but unfortunately, the markers tell me I’m probably not wrong.

            There are a variety of those changes in criminal and corporate law to make such judgments more punitive, as they should be, rather than just another business expense.

            I am sorry you see Buttigieg in those terms.  He has been impressive in many other ways.  But, I do understand.  We both agree on the corrupting influence of big money donors.  The next debate of Democrat candidates begins shortly.  I will record it to enhance my absorption.

. . . Round four:

“Buttigieg has his positives, but campaign financing is a litmus test for me.  His characterization of Warren's donations as ‘pocket change’ tells me what I need to know.”

. . . my response to round four:

            I understand.  I haven’t heard Buttigieg say that about Warren’s contributions.  I’ll keep an eye on it.

Another contribution:

“Not only did Joe know what his son was doing so did Obama and others who probably got a piece of the pie .. as usual Cap .. blah blah blah .. the Biden’s and many others were and still are corrupt corrupt CORRUPT!  Add On Nancy Pelosi .. Schiff .. etc etc .. impeach THEM and Jail Hillary !!  Turn off CNN and NBC and watch Fox tonight and get the facts !!”

My reply:

            OK, whoa dawgy, I have heard nothing of the sort on Fox News or anywhere else, in credible print or televised news sources.  I will not dignify such unfounded accusations any further.

            That said, as I have written, I denounce Hunter Biden’s very foolish decision to be seduced by such obscene amounts of foreign money.  If something appears unethical, it is unethical.  If it looks to good to be true, it probably is.

            Just a technical point: impeachment is a constitutional process provided in Article II (the Executive section) [Article II, Section 4].  The Constitution also provides the sole power of impeachment with Congress (the Legislative branch) [Article I, Section 2, Clause 5; and Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 & 7].  Congress has internal rules for removal of Members of Congress.  While there are no impeachment provisions in Article III (the Judicial branch), the Article I power has been understood to apply to the judiciary simply because of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, as written.

            It would be humorous, if it was not so bloody hypocritical . . . the BIC accusing anyone of being corrupt.  The BIC has established a new orders of magnitude greater level of corruption for public officials and gotten away with it so far.

. . . Round two:

“No more comment except BULLSHIT .. there has been a swamp in Washington DC for so many years you’re as accustomed to it as a crocodile and quite smug and confident wallowing in that swamp I might add !!  And you will cover for every one of the swamp dwellers before you will ever admit Trump is doing anything right .. understood .. I’ve got your M.O. .. no point talking to you .. why do I even waste my time.”

 . . . my reply to round two:

            I do not recall when you started reading the Update.  Nonetheless, if you would take the time to read my earlier editions of the Update [No.1 goes back to 23.September.2001], you would find that I have been quite critical of every administration’s handling of the inherent corruption, malfeasance and unethical conduct in the federal government and every level of government down to our local city government.  Just for clarity, that criticism includes Bush 43, Obama, and now the BIC; and, the next person to hold the office (if it still exists at the time) will be shown no quarter by me, either.  I have no idea where your notion of “accustomed” has come from . . . other than my criticism today applies to your vaunted messiah now.

            To think anyone who watches political conduct would approve of or even just condone the BIC’s conduct in office, in the employ of We, the People, is truly mind-boggling to me.  The nepotism, multitudinous conflicts of interest, his numerous crimes from obstruction of justice to the Emoluments Clause, to his incessant outright false statements, to his one-man wrecking ball of our allies, international trade, ad infinitum ad nauseum, is literally orders of magnitude beyond the worst of any previous president, or any public servant I know of in history.  My previous criticism of Jimmy Carter was actually quite trivial compared to the BIC’s transgressions.  So, for any American citizen to think the BIC’s conduct is laudable defies logic, reason and imagination.  I am no fan of the dysfunction that has plagued the federal government for decades, but resorting to a wannabe dictator who has only made the “swamp” far worse and even more toxic is not the path to a more stable future.

            Again, I think you may have selectively read the Updates and probably missed my agreement with the BIC regarding the PRC.  We have needed a correction for a very long time.  However, while I have supported the objective, I am deeply critical of his methods of dealing with the trade transgressions of the PRC.

            I have been very clear, direct and candid; I have seen men with his personality traits.  I know the destruction, injury and chaos men like him inflict upon all the rest of us.  I did not need to learn those lessons, again, but here we are.

            You know, [anon.], I feel quite the same . . . why waste my time?  There is just one answer.  Democracy depends upon disagreement, a vigorous public debate about contemporary issues, and an exploration of solutions to our problems.  What has happened in recent years and has been amplified by the BIC’s myriad personality flaws is devolution of this Grand Republic into tribalism so common to Third World nations.  The BIC has made it much worse by inducing further calcification.  He has done nothing to make it better . . . other than give us a near perfect negative example of what president’s should not do.  So, I continue to bite my lip and persist with this public debate for one reason and one reason only—I truly love this Grand Republic.  I am an old man, now, and this is about the only contribution I have left.

. . . Round three:

“Trump is who he is .. his children support him and that says a lot.. they know him the best. what you and most of the left wing see as a bully others see as someone who knows how to get things done .. some people are eloquent with words and can talk for hours of how things should be and others like Trump maybe aren’t the most ‘politically correct’ with words but they actually ACT on their words and make things happen .. I’d rather have his type in office .. too many others had such close ties in politics and the Washington swamp they could rarely move in the direction needed by the people .. they were puppets.  I’ve noticed that those who dislike Trump most are those who have the opposite traits of the man ..

“He obstructs justice ??? What justice is there when every day of his presidency has been interrupted by left wing accusations and lies ?  May the last four years he serves be less chaotic ...”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            Their livelihood is dependent upon the BIC.  What would you do if someone was paying all your bills?  The children of Mafia dons support their fathers, too.  The children of Reinhard Heydrich worshipped their father.  That hardly sounds like a worthy metric.

            So, if I interpret your words correctly, the ends justify the means.  You could not care less about what or how the BIC does things, as long as you get what you want.  Does that sound about right?  So, you also support the BIC even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue in NYC, as long as you get what you want.  I have known you for many years; I have a very hard time believing that is how you truly feel . . . rather than maintaining the tribal intransigence.  I am not interested in political correctness; never have been.  I am very concerned about decency, respect for others, and a sense of humanity.

            Oh sure, the BIC is not a product of the so-called swamp.  He is indeed quite different.  He is so different he has blatantly disregarded long-standing rules against nepotism, conflicts of interest and behavior standards for public servants.  He has pissed on virtually all standards of public behavior.

            Did you read the Special Counsel’s Report?  If not, I strongly recommend and suggest you take the time to do so.  Robert Mueller is hardly a left-wing accuser.

. . . Round four:

“You have your right to interpret him any way you wish .. do tell me in a paragraph how you interpreted Bobby’s “special” report .. is it similar to the way Adam Schiff erroneously reported the conversation between Trump and the Ukrainian leader concerning the Biden’s dishonest dealings?  America has the right to know what goes on behind swamp doors.”

 . . . my reply to round four:

            I have done that [898] and will be happy to do it, again; however, I suspect you will not believe a word I say and will only shuffle it off accusing me of being ultra-left-wing, communist spy.  I am not asking you to believe me . . . or Adam Schiff for that matter.  Read the words.  See the actual evidence.  I read the entire Special Counsel’s Report [898] as well as the edited summary notes of the BIC’s Ukraine telephone call published by the White House (not by Schiff, or me, or anyone else . . . the White House).  Read the words directly.  The BIC will continue to protest what his words mean because he knows most folks will not read exactly what he said.   To give you just one example from the Special Counsel’s Report, he directed several people on different occasions to “dismiss” or “get rid of” Mueller.  The BIC is correct, by the evidence, he never said the precise words, “Fire Bob Mueller.”  So, you tell me, what is the difference between dismiss and get rid of, and fire?  But, once again, do not believe me; read the actual evidence.

            I have seen the evidence of the BIC’s bad behavior.  I have seen NO evidence of Hunter or Joe Biden’s bad behavior.  As I have written, Hunter Biden failed the “If it looks too good to be true” test—perception, imagery.  What the BIC has done is hard, actual, recorded and documented.  Let’s call a spade a spade here.

A different contribution:

“I’m sure you’re aware of the politics of our democratic nation!  But are we getting there? Of course I speak of Brexit, a word we are heartily sick of.  Tonight the EU have agreed a ‘deal’ with our negotiator.  However our PM does not have a working majority and has only managed to govern with support from various independent members and the DUP Northern Irish party. Now therein lies a major problem-they the DUP have this evening, declared they are not in favour of this agreement.  With the major opposition The Labour Party having long disagreed with exiting Europe the chances of defeat for our PM are monumental.  What then after that?  Another referendum on exiting Europe or a General Election.  Can you see then why us Brits are sick of the entire scheme.  However we shall see, this is democracy at work.”

My response:

            Oh my, I certainly understand the frustration.  Brexit has been an ordeal.  I guess this is one of the episodes in the category of “be careful what you wish for.”  I am (we are) not close enough to Commons to appreciate the counts.  The PM support structure seems quite tenuous, and they are already talking about another extension.  Frankly, I do not believe a popular re-vote is or could be beneficial.  Also, I do not see how the Northern Ireland border issue is avoidable; exceptions will be exploited by those the UK seeks to exclude or regulate.  In situations like this, any action is better than inaction.  The failure to put a peg in the ground is far more injurious than any agreement.  Take the best step you can, and then adjust from there.  There is no such thing as a perfect deal . . . despite what the BIC likes to espouse.

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

Cheers,

Cap                 :-)