Update from the Sunland
No.946
24.2.20 – 1.3.20
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- On 17.July.2014, Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, a B777-200ER aircraft, was flying at 33,000 feet on a scheduled revenue flight and an approved international route, when it broke up in flight over Eastern Ukraine killing all 298 souls on board [657, 771, 772]. The Dutch Safety Board (OVV) issued its preliminary report [9.9.2014; 665] and their final investigation report [13.10.2015; 722]. I have read both reports. I also recognize most folks have no interest in reading such reports. For those who have no interest in reading the reports, perhaps the best description of the event was broadcast on Sunday 23.February.2020 – “60 Minutes,” Season 52, Episode 22, 2nd segment; titled: “298 Counts of Murder” reported by Scott Pelley. The URL is:
The “60 Minutes” program matches the official reports and does an exceptional job of “visualizing” the complex event. The program also adds further information by the Dutch to identify the perpetrators of the event and leaves very little doubt that Russian forces operating in Eastern Ukraine shot down MH17, killing nearly 300 innocent people.
I will further add in this context that the Russian government and specifically the Russian dictator unleashed those Russian military forces, and thus he bears direct responsibility and should be held accountable. I doubt Putin ordered the missile shot fired, but he sure as hell set those forces in motion. Ethnic Russian, separatist Ukrainians did not possess a Buk Mk-1 {SA-11} Surface-to-Air Missile system – it was a Russian mobile launcher, driven and operated by Russian soldiers. The MH17 event is yet more evidence the Russians invaded the sovereign nation of Ukraine in August 2014, after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in February 2014.
The South Carolina Democratic Party presidential candidates debate was moderated and broadcast by CBS News from the Gaillard Institute in Charleston, South Carolina, on Wednesday. Seven candidates, who qualified by the DNC criteria, took the stage, again including Bloomberg. Norah O’Donnell and Gayle King served as moderators for the debate. It was a very raucous affair. The moderators did not assert themselves to control the situation, leaving the rules virtually indiscernible. We did not learn a great deal beyond the tension increasing among the candidates. One specific observation had nothing directly to do with the debate. It was rather ballsy for Bloomberg to run a personal campaign advertisement during the debate, but then again, no one has claimed that Bloomberg is not audacious. I know the moderators must ask stimulating, relevant, provoking questions; that is their job. However, when any candidate begins her or his answer with I would do this for that, or I will fix this (only I can fix this), I tune out.
Normally, I would say no president decides the law. He can issue orders to the Executive Branch, but he does not make laws. Congress writes the law. The president signs and approves the law. Once upon a time, I would have claimed that her or his political leanings are not particularly relevant. What matters is how that president influences Congress to pass laws. But these are NOT normal times.
We have degenerated to a once and former grand republic, and we now have a dictatorial monarchy with King Donald I, as crowned by the Senate Republicans. So, in today’s reality, if the believers in one political party elect a demagogue, as the Republicans have done and then they rally around to protect and defend their king, the tide can change, and the other party can and probably will do exactly the same thing. So, if we are being given some pablum pseudo-choice between one king or another, then it will come down to who is the better human being.
Elizabeth Warren continues to erode my potential support for her candidacy. This time it was her public criticism of Joe Biden for his moderate positions and her accusation that he will sell out Democrats to make deals with Republicans if he becomes president. I am sorry Elizabeth, but I am far more interested in how our future president is going to get things done and that takes compromise. I cannot support such a calcified, intransigent position. We have had three-plus years of tribal nonsense. I criticized President Obama for not taking a more aggressive engagement with Congress to find the necessary compromise rather than take the unilateral approach of executive orders. Bush 43 made a modicum of gestures to negotiate to find solutions. President Clinton was more accommodating, but I have a hard time calling his efforts to compromise rather than acquiescence. The last real negotiator in the Office of the President was President Johnson. We simply cannot trade one hardened extreme for the opposite hardened extreme. Sorry, Elizabeth, I reject your position.
Joe Biden handily won the South Carolina primary election with three times the votes of his nearest competitor (Bernie Sanders). The casualties arrived quickly. Tom Steyer suspended his campaign, then a few days later, Pete Buttigieg ended his campaign. The latter one is disappointing for a variety of reasons, not least of which is he was a refreshing voice of calm reason who handled himself in a calm, measured manner. He tended to moderation, which I favor, and he reminded me of President Obama’s even temperament. Super Tuesday brings primaries in 14 states with nearly 1400 delegates at stake. I suspect there will be more casualties after Tuesday’s results are announced.
A friend and frequent contributor sent along a public statement from one of his representatives, Senator Robert Jones ‘Rob’ Portman of Ohio. No need to reprint it since it is the typical, to-be-expected ‘explanation’ of a Republican senator’s vote in the impeachment trial of the Bully-in-Chief (BIC).
I actually agree with Portman, the Framers thought impeachment should be very rare. What he fails miserably in recognizing, the BIC is way beyond a rarity among the panoply of presidents who have served this once grand republic. There is nowhere in the founding documents that even implies only crimes are impeachable. The Framers were very careful in documenting and articulating the genesis of the "treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors" phrase. If they had felt a rogue president should be tried in a court of law, they would have made appropriate provisions. They did not. These damnable "strict constructionists" are using contemporary word definitions and meanings to interpret 18thCentury language. Rob Portman is so bloody wrong. We both know that.
The current strain of the Coronavirus was apparently first detected last November in Wuhan, PRC. This strain is more precisely known as 2019-nCoV, COVID-19, or coronavirus 2019. There is so much that we do not yet know. This event is still unfolding. Plus, I suspect, like in most similar cases, governments know a lot more about this outbreak than we are being told. Since this infection became publicly known, my concern is the apparent imbalance between the medical reaction and public claims about the seriousness of the disease. The medical folks are reacting like this is Ebola, but they are telling us this virus is more like the rhinovirus (common cold) or influenza. Too many disconnects for my liking.
The BIC tried to calm the developing panic with a public statement from the White House, pointing his crooked finger at Democrats, as if they caused the virus spread, then he put Vice President Pence in charge of the federal government’s response to the coronavirus outbreak. He further directed that all communications regarding the government response had to be cleared by the vice president. That is not a reassuring action—throttling communication. Further, the BIC squandered his credibility so early in his administration on silly, nonsense, foolish stuff like his intelligence level about everything over everyone else, inauguration crowd size, he don’t need no stinkin’ intelligence briefings, and idiotic misstatements in the face of clear established fact. Now, he wants us to believe him—no worries. I appreciate his attempt to reassure the American public, but his grotesque wastage of integrity and credibility prior to his public position on this infection episode has made the situation worse.
The administration publicly announced an accord with the Taliban and the Afghan government for peace in Afghanistan. We must give the administration props for the effort to end the war. However, with diplomatic events like this, the proof comes with time; thus, we cannot give the BIC credit for ending the Afghan War until we see a true and lasting peace that holds over time. President Nixon gave us a similar accord in 1973, and less than two years later, the North Vietnamese invaded and subjugated the South Vietnamese—we watched and fled with our tails between our legs. I want to give the BIC kudos for his major milestone, but the record says we must let history cast judgment on whether this is a lasting peace to a very long conflict or just another capitulation.
As I continue my reading and notetaking of “The Gestapo – A History of Terror” by Jacques Delarue & Mervyn Savill, the similarities to contemporary times mount and grow more striking. My opinion is not so much about the Gestapo and the associated violence, but rather it is reflective of the political background that enabled and surrounded the Gestapo. I have never had those thoughts in all of my nearly 72 years as a citizen of this once grand republic. It is my nature to make every effort to remove emotion from my opinions and observations, but this particular president stands out in stark contrast among his 44 predecessors and 232 years of history. Some among us will proclaim that I am exaggerating, yet I believe I am just amplifying history because of my disgust for the man. The BIC’s supporters can choose to ignore history; that is their right and their freedom to choose. I saw the BIC for what he was before he announced his candidacy, and the leopard has not changed his spots since those days. The only thing the BIC has not done (yet, that I know of so far) is murder his opponents and dissenters as the Gestapo did for their master. But, he is coming dreadfully close. I continue to watch since I do not discount that extreme action from someone with the personality anomalies exhibited by the BIC.
Comments and contributions from Update no.945:
“Your top man dominates the blog still-let’s hope for better things, I see my Democratic choice is, so far, leading the polls. This despite some very autocratic campaigning.”
My reply:
Yeah! Nature of the beast, I’m afraid. He goes into convulsions if he is not top dead center of the public attention.
Ah, but the polls will change continuously until it is all said and done. This phase will end in mid-July. Truth or consequences time remains in early November. This is all part of the sorting process.
Comment to the Blog:
“The New York Times ‘On Politics’ column/blog this morning makes a relevant point about Senator Sanders' voters that won the Nevada caucus. His highest dominance was in ‘working-class’ voters, that is, relatively low-income and less-educated people. That seems to me to be the nature of the pre-Clinton Democratic Party that I supported. It was not some patchwork coalition; it was simply the lower and much of the middle classes. I have probably written here at some point about class strife, and I think we're finally winning something. It remains to be seen whether the current DNC can stop us. I'm hoping at the very least that we can stop the New York billionaire.
“The same column also discusses Nevada's caucus counting process. It's past time for something else.
“I also await the Supreme Court decision on the Equal Rights Amendment. Mr. Justice Roberts has shown some inclination toward rule of law, so maybe he would be the swing vote in favor.
“I will say what you can't. Your other commenter combines delusion and self-righteousness in a way that's dangerous both individually and nationally.”
My response to the Blog:
There are many aspects of Sanders’ ascendency in the polls and pledged delegate count so far. I will offer a few additional thoughts to yours. As the Nevada results came in, the image came to me that we may be witnessing the pendulum swing. The 2016 election swung to the right, and this may be the swing to the left. Here I do not use the two major political parties since the voters in those parties appear to be choosing atypical candidates. The BIC is certainly not a traditional Republican, and the current majority of Republicans have abandoned their traditional values for a demagogue. Similar signs are popping up in the swing back toward the other extreme.
A related observation: an important line of dialogue from the HBO series Homeland: “The truth doesn’t matter if no one is listening.” A corollary is: “Political opinions don’t matter unless you vote.”
Yeah, I’m with you. I have never been a fan of the caucus process used in some states, but it is not up to us. The political party members in those states choose their means of selecting delegates for the national conventions as part of the party nominee selection process. Only they can change their methods.
It will likely take years before the ERA case reaches the Supremes. It has been nearly 50 years since the resolution went to the states; it is very long overdue. Yet, it took 203 years to ratify the 27th Amendment. There are several contentious peripheral elements in the ERA case. To my knowledge, state ratification votes have not been rescinded as these five Republican-dominated states are trying to do. The deadline for ratification was in the proposing language not in the actual amendment text, so it is debatable whether it is binding. However, Congress passed at least one extension, which adds weight to the imposition of a deadline. Lastly, it is arguable that once the deadline has passed, the vote count is moot. Many aspects of judicial challenge lay ahead.
Thank you for your comment, and you were correct.
. . . Round two:
“I also see signs of the pendulum swinging back to the left. The study of history tells me that's what happens.
“One of the New York Times columns for yesterday pointed out that the technology failures in this year's caucuses illuminated but didn't cause the bizarre clumsiness of the process. The writer mentioned in passing ranked-choice voting, which allows first and second choices but by secret ballot and doesn't require the in-person gatherings and easily confused results of caucuses. That's a better idea.
“The Equal Rights Amendment is long overdue. Whether the deadline is waived, another extension is passed, or the process begins all over, it must happen.”
. . . my response to round two:
Yes, you are quite correct; my observation as well. The Republican membership overcame establishment resistance to install a renegade; we have born witness to the consequences. It appears the Democrat membership is headed toward taking a similar override of the party establishment. So far, the Democrat renegade is a far better and upstanding human being than the Republican version we have endured for the last three years.
Perhaps so, but I still favor a simple ballot.
Yes; it should have passed and been implemented decades ago. The outcome of the current ERA situation is far from certain. In fact, from my perspective, the ERA does not go far enough. The current resolution language uses the word “sex” rather than “gender.” Further, I think the amendment should extend to all of the social factors.
Social factors =
age, gender, race, skin pigmentation, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, education, political affiliation, marital status (provided that the applicant has the capacity to enter into a binding contract), or disability.
There is no place for discrimination in the public domain.
. . . Round three:
“You startled me with your expansion of the Equal Rights Amendment concept, and I agree with it. My notion of equal rights is ‘any irrelevant factor,’ but we both know that phrase would encounter endless arguments. You put it better.”
. . . my response to round three:
Startled is a strong word. What was so startling?
The social factors may be irrelevant to some of us, but to some among us, the social factors are obsessive (and I will add destructive) to others. I fully accept that each of us in a free or even quasi-free society has the freedom to choose who we wish to associate or socialize within life; but, NONE of us has any right to impose our personal choices on anyone else as we have done in this once grand republic. Moral projection must end, full stop.
. . . Round four:
“‘Startled’ isn't all that strong a word. While I had the concept that the amendment ought to go beyond ‘sex,’ neither I nor anyone I'd read had put the idea into that clear and specific form before. As stated, I agree.”
. . . my response to round four:
It all depends upon perspective and context.
Thank you for your generous words. I try.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
I wouldn't put high hopes on Joe Biden becoming President. He carries the same load of corruption as Hillary, and that doesn't motivate enough voters. On top of that, he has a way of saying the wrong thing and his legislative history is better known than hers. My biggest complaint about Warren is that she has shown her true colors by trying to please both wings of the party.
I will note that Constitutional “strict constructionists” are typically conservative; the phrase sounds right to their base.
I expect the COVID-19 (coronavirus) outbreak will come closer to the medical alarms we hear than to the “no problem” we hear from Chump's people. The government's official response is another example of “crisis communication,” one of the specialties in my degree field. The experts guiding the response (as much as Chump can be guided) seek strictly to minimize damage to the client's public image. That has little to do with medical reality, and that difference will cost more American lives this year than the assorted non-wars.
Every nation that has invaded Afghanistan has lost the war, sooner or later. Add us to the list.
I noted that you use the phrase “the political party members chose. . .” in our exchange as if it were rank-and-file Democrats (or Republicans, in other instances) making the choices. Wrong.
Good morning to you, Calvin,
I do not presume to know how a future election is going to play out. All I know is the incumbent was unworthy to hold any public office of responsibility at any level of government, and he remains and will likely continue to remain an unworthy human being. Hillary violated the law, in my humble opinion, and she got away with it, so far. To my knowledge, none of the Democratic Party candidates, at the outset or current, have violated the law; the incumbent has. Despite the Democratic candidates’ missteps (they all have), they are all head and shoulders better than the incumbent. No human being is perfect, and that statement includes you and me, and all of the Democratic Party candidates. In November, we will be called upon as citizens to choose the best candidate (not the perfect one, but the best of the lot) to serve as president of the United States. I feel safe in guaranteeing that whomever we choose will be a flawed human being who will do things we do not agree within our politics. I felt the nominee the Republic Party chose in 2016 was resoundingly unqualified to be POTUS for myriad reasons; he has repeatedly demonstrated in the last three years why he is unqualified. My opinion has not changed and is unlikely to change, but I keep searching for reasons to change.
Yes, agreed. Further, I used to think of myself as conservative, but I usually defined that term as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The “strict constructionists” have driven me crazy with their reasoning. I have written many times and expansively about my rejection of their reasoning. It is hard to interpret intent behind words laid down two-plus centuries ago; however, taken in the broader context, I find it neigh-on impossible to argue that the Founders believed when they signed their names to the document that they mean that “all men are created equal” applied ONLY to educated, property-owner, Caucasian, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, monied, adult males . . . and the rest did not matter. The vast preponderance of supporting documentation on both sides of the Atlantic cannot sustain such a narrow interpretation of our founding words.
Yes, also agreed. I condemned the BIC’s snake-oil pitch in his public coronavirus statement. I simply cannot believe a word he speaks; there is no substance . . . just hot air about worthless snake-oil.
Parallel note: the influenza virus kills people every year, and so far influenza every year has killed more than the coronavirus. Let’s keep things in perspective.
Perhaps so. We shall see. History shall tell the tale whether we like it or not.
I do not share your opinion of the party selection processes, but hey, that’s just me. If we do not vote, we will approach your dark view of the election process.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.
Have a great day. Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment