Update no.758

Update from the Heartland

No.758

20.6.16 – 26.6.16

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

To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- There is considerable jibber-jabber about war with Russia since pro-West Ukrainians took control of their government [21.2.2014, 657] and sought alignment with (and protection of) NATO and the European Union.  Then, to exert its presence and intimidate the Ukraine, Russia stimulated ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine to “rebel” and unilaterally annexed Crimea [16.3.2014, 640].  Russia’s aggression in the region resulted in the shoot down of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 [17.7.14; 657, 665, 722], and the war talk persists.  So, I ask, does Ukraine have the right to align with any other countr(ies) other than Russia?  Do they have the right to join NATO and/or the EU?  Does Russia have a right to occupy the sovereign territory of a neighboring nation simply because ethnic Russians make up a majority or largest population segment of that region?  And, if so, how is that any different from what Adolf Hitler did in 1936-1939?  Where do we draw the line?

            Part of the problem with the congressional action on gun control, so far, is simply beyond the obvious of making a law prohibiting individuals on the “No-Fly” list from purchasing firearms – the potential collateral or unintended consequences.  The list is exactly what it is intended to be . . . a “WATCH” list.  People who are suspected of being affiliated with or supportive of terrorist organizations should not be allowed to fly, and logically, they should not be allowed to buy or even own firearms of any kind, or weapons with mass casualty potential, e.g., an 8-inch, double-edge knife.  Sounds quite reasonable and appropriate, doesn’t it?  Yet, what happens when you or I are erroneously placed on that list?

Re: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/21/health/child-gun-lockdown-picture-trnd/

            Considerable hubbub erupted over the image of a pre-school girl standing on a restroom stall toilet seat, purportedly in a lock-down drill.  Those who are outraged must not be children of the 40’s or 50’s.  During my elementary school years (1953-1959), we did “duck and cover” drills in preparations for a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union.  I remember well, but I was not scarred by those drills, or by the reason we even did those drills.  Those drills were just a reality of the times in which I lived.

            In a campaign speech this week, one particular line (among many) from the Democratic presumptive nominee struck me.  She said, “Everyone should make a living wage to feed a family.”  No!  If you do not have a job that pays sufficiently to afford a family, you should not create or produce a family.  It is no different from living within the means of any set of conditions.  If a person wants a family, s/he should acquire the necessary education, skills, and sufficient income to properly care for and provide for a family.  Further, you should not be procreating beyond your means.  The State is not your piggy-bank.  And, producing children is not a right . . . only a privilege.  Yes, every citizen has a fundamental right to freedom of choice, but that choice does NOT obligate the State, or any other citizen into supporting, or sustaining your choice(s).  You earn the means to support your choices.  So, if flipping burgers does not pay you well enough to support a wife and/or children, then do not get married and do NOT procreate, period, full stop, end of story.

            An interesting off-shore perspective:

“America's Last Hope: Can Clinton's Reason Defeat Trump's Rage?”

by Holger Stark

Der Spiegel

Published: June 23, 2016 – 01:08 PM

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/clinton-and-trump-wage-battle-of-reason-versus-rage-a-1098719.html - ref=nl-international

            My hat is off to CNN for holding the Libertarian Presidential Town Hall on Wednesday evening in New York City.  My main complaint . . . it was not long enough.  I must say in general, what a welcome respite from the insult politics of the Republican presumptive nominee and the ethical uncertainty of the Democratic presumptive nominee . . . well, both major party nominees.  The Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson and his vice presidential running-mate William ‘Bill’ Weld – self-proclaimed fiscally conservative, socially inclusive (liberal) – gave us some thought-provoking responses.  As Governor Johnson stated, “Most Americans are Libertarian, but they just don’t know it.”  They are in favor of small government, less international intrigue and intervention, and removing government from our bedrooms and private lives.  To be frank, I find far more affinity with their message than I find objectionable; and yet, my single greatest concern is how would they get things done without a majority in Congress and two opposition parties (one of which is likely to have a majority of seats)?

            I listened and heard Green Party presumptive nominee Jill Stein, as well, again on CNN only.  What a contrast with the shallow, emotional, insult politics of the Republican presumptive nominee.  I must say, I truly hope CNN can bring all four candidates together on one stage, at least once for the presidential and the vice presidential debates.  I truly believe if the American people are allowed to see the candidates together in the same forum, we will see clear choices and quite likely the best choice.

            The British people voted to leave the European Union.  With 72.2% of eligible voters casting their ballots, 48.1% voted to remain in the EU and 51.9% voted to leave the EU.  The divorce begins.

            The action shocked markets and spurred nationalistic movements in Scotland, France, Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Hungary and even our beloved Republican presumptive nominee.  Divorce is never (well, rarely) a pleasant action, but sometimes it is necessary.  I truly hope and pray we are not bearing witness to a resurgence of nationalism.  I would not be surprised to hear from South Carolina or Louisiana to leave the United States.  Perhaps the endgame to all this is, we break up the Union, then the States, down to the counties, oh hell, why not make every individual a nation-state.

            We appear to be headed toward disassembly or devolution.  We disagree, reject compromise and inherently find attraction to those who look like us, belief like us, act like us, and all the other social factors that govern our affinity associations.  Unfortunately, desperate times lead desperate people to do desperate things.  There are no guarantees how all this is going to settle out, and we likely have a very rough ride in our future.  Hang on tight!  We shall overcome!

            Comments and contributions from Update no.757:

“With the news stories coming out today regarding redactions of the Pulse Nightclub shooter’s telephone calls with 911 I have to question whether or not the editing and release of the initial transcripts was a lame attempt to by the Justice Department to help soften and provide some deflection of the ensuing condemnation toward radical Islamic terrorism, and help to possibly politically shape this abhorrently insidious act as a hate crime for the head of the Justice Department and on up the chain of command.  The more we learn, the more this appears to be precisely what it was, another radical Islamic terrorist attack.”

My response:

            I cannot argue with that.  The redaction was an ill-conceived, perhaps well-intentioned, action by the Justice Department.  They promptly reversed and released the unedited transcript.

 . . . Round two:

“But who allows such things to go on?  Who will hold them responsible?  Who does the Justice Department ultimately report to?  Something like this doesn’t happen by accident.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Whoa, dawgy!  These are bureaucrats performing their dut(ies) as they understand it.  No law was violated by their actions.  Last time I checked, we do not lynch people for doing their job, even when they make a well-intentioned mistake.  I understand you are not a fan of President Obama, and probably not anyone serving in his administration, but we need to lighten up just a smidge.

 . . . Round three:

“Did you see that Attorney General Loretta Lynch refused to say who gave the order for the editing of the Pulse terrorist 911 call tapes.  What a surprise!  Who is she protecting and why?  Why can’t people just do the right thing and take responsibility for their actions.  Lighten up, huh?  Why does this bother me so much, but not you?  Over the years I have learned much from your blog.  I have been here from the beginning.  But it seems things have changed.  Maybe it’s me, as I have grown fed up and become extremely disenchanted with the state of our country—with leadership more and more not taking responsibility for their actions and the actions of their subordinates.  But from you I see a continuous attack against those you don’t like, just like you see from me, but a blatant practice of protectionism for those you favor.  This is certainly your prerogative.  And now I don’t know where I am going with this.  I am just so damn frustrated with the state of things.  I can’t stay away from the news for I do not want to be ignorant of what’s going on, but I get so upset when I watch the news and I see stonewalling, deflection, and obscuration by those that are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions.  This is so against my character that it just drives me up a wall.”

. . . my response to round three:

            I am sorry this public debate is so upsetting to you.  Unfortunately, these are the days in which we live.

            We must acknowledge the Republican presumptive nominee has successfully tapped into and unleashed the anger, xenophobia, and contempt in a significant portion of the citizenry of this Grand Republic.

            For the record, I do not favor anyone.  The candidates for president have not been determined, as yet, and I am at least several months away from favoring anyone, or more importantly deciding on my vote.

            Just an FYI, I suppose, Jeanne used to watch The Apprentice.  For the record, I did not like his characteristics then either, even in that context.  That was a television show of no substance.  Today, we are talking about the presidency of the United States, commander-in-chief of the most powerful military on the planet . . . not some meaningless television show.  This is serious business.

Comment to the Blog:

“I agree with your assessment of Mr. Mateen, the Orlando shooter, and also with your statement that, ‘. . . we ignore and will do nothing about the mentally ill or violence-prone people in our midst.’ However, conflating the mentally ill with those prone to violence is a false correlation. Many of those prone to violence cannot be found to have a mental-illness diagnosis, and most of the mentally ill are not violent. Perhaps rather than try to read individual minds, we could rely on making mass homicide (and other homicide as well) more difficult.

“Your ‘social police’ idea suffers from many flaws. First, it embodies the ‘thought-based, pre-emptive, governmental interdiction prior to crimes being committed’ that you decried in your response to one of my comments. Not calling your agency ‘police’ does nothing to change its nature. It's still an enforcement agency without even the grace of law enforcement's limits to restrain it. The balance of the issues stem from a failure to recognize psychology (broadly and accurately defined) as the source of personal behavior. The nature of caring prevents most of the parents and others closest to potentially violent people from contacting any extra-legal control system, probably even more than it now slows them from calling the police. As time goes on and violent behavior develops, fear of the violent person's response to such behavior reinforces the reluctance to seek ‘help.’  In the case of minorities and the poor, the practical consideration of further harm from ‘the system’ is not only psychology but experience. Benevolent results do not come to us from the behavior-control authorities. The psychology of secret operations is a further threat. We need look no further than the multiple failures of the spy agencies to confirm that.

“The spy agency failures include the ‘no fly list’ and/or ‘terrorist watch list’ currently being put forward by liberals as standards for screening firearm buyers. Those lists are essentially arbitrary, totally lack oversight, and provide no means of correcting their many mistakes. Beyond the internal flaws of those lists, they also provide no means of screening violent criminals, violent American radicals, or diagnosed mentally ill people who have violent histories but may not have been convicted due to insanity pleas or treatment outside the legal system. I am surely a liberal myself, but that does not blind me to the failures of good intentions that are not well considered.

“Your response to the UK commenter is too dismissive. I agree that we need not ‘bin’ (end) the Second Amendment, but we surely need to go back to the Amendment as written and intended. Americans' freedoms do not and should not include imposing death, injury, and physical coercion on other Americans. By the way, the ‘gun lobby’ is not composed of the broad population to which you refer. It is basically the NRA and their corporate members. The majority of NRA individual members do not support unlimited firearms ownership, and even they are not as large a group as you may think. The NRA's membership is around 5 million as of 2013; the U.S. adult population is close to 245 million (figures per Wikipedia.org).

“In a point of legal fact, the U.S. is not at war. As a former military officer, you should know better.

“Your UK commenter also makes a very important point. The UK and the rest of the world no longer see the United States as a leader because they understand that our government has become corrupt and irrational. Our level of internal violence, our catering to the very wealthy and corporate interests, and our permanent undeclared ‘wars’ against much smaller nations or, worse still, organizations (most of which are predominantly Muslim) have eliminated the respect necessary to leadership.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: “conflating the mentally ill.”  Agreed!  Quite so, which is precisely why we need some form of active triage system to sort those facets out for public safety.  Ignoring or pretending the problem does not exist serves no one, and in this instance, any action is better than no action.

            Re: “making mass homicide . . . more difficult.”  Amen, brother.  I am all for that.  However, I learned a long time ago that treating symptoms rather than root causes is often and usually wasted effort that does not resolve the illness and sometimes actually makes things worse.

            Re: “social police.”  I make no claim to that being the solution.  At best, it is only an earnest attempt to find a solution.  Certainly, my suggested social police have the potential for abuse by zealous moralists intent upon enforcing their values and beliefs on others.  We must have safeguards to protect against such abuses.  I will disagree with your “thought-based” assessment.  It is really an active, dedicated, intelligence process of collecting public facts like school reports, un-action-ed police reports, citizen complaints, et cetera.  There is no intention of intruding upon a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.  It is solely intended to collect dots and develop an image, to find those who need mental treatment or have the potential for violence.  Yes, it is a proactive process short of law enforcement.  Case in point – Adam Lanza, who clearly had public signs of his instability, including his mother’s repeated effort to get mental treatment (protection) for her son.  His school knew he was disturbed.  The social police is not a “behavior control” mechanism, only a means of finding those with the potential to harm others.

            Re: no fly list.  As you recall, the list was a knee-jerk reaction to our obvious intelligence failures prior to the 9/11 attacks.  When the first reports of the wrong people being denied freedom of movement by “The List,” I began voicing due process concerns over the apparent unilateral, anonymous, action-agents; the potential for abuse is literally unbounded.  Now, we have a goodly portion of our society and the legislature vigorously trying to link up this extra-judicial “list” with the government’s sanction authority surrounding a constitutional right.  Omar Mateen had a history of violence and anti-social behavior over many years that should have triggered red flags, but did not. We are bounding down the road of yet another knee-jerk reaction.

            Now, wait just a minute, I am not and have never been a member of the National Rifle Association or any other “gun lobby” organization, so your generalization is either exaggeration or ill-informed.  Yet, I remain concerned about infringement upon our collective constitutional rights.  Passing a blanket law that imposes upon every single citizen especially in the realm of fundamental or constitutional rights must have a very compelling reason.  We failed miserably with the 18th Amendment.  I do not want to see that mistake repeated.

            Re: war.  Well, actually, I agree from a legal perspective, i.e., Congress has not formally, properly, and legally declared war in accordance with Article I of the Constitution, e.g., PL 77-I-328; 55 Stat. 795.  FYI: this Grand Republic has fought several major and more minor wars since the last formal declaration of war – PL 77-565; 56 Stat. 307.  Yet, that does not alter the reality that we are and have been under attack from a violent enemy, seeking to harm Americans and impose their will, their values, their beliefs on everyone including the United States.  That sure as hell sounds like war to me.

            Re: “respect necessary to leadership.”  The reluctant leader, I suppose.  The United States should not be the world’s policeman.  So, there is so much wrapped up in this one, and I have run out of capacity.

 . . . Round two:

“So far as I know, no person or group has a believable clue to the nature of a ‘root cause’ of mass homicide, or of other homicides. How many more deaths should we tolerate while we pursue a ‘root cause’ before we address the obvious means? Very likely, no single uniting factor exists.

“Your social police concept suffers the same flaws as the no-fly list and the terrorist lists. In my view, zealous moralists are by no means the only threat. Consider personal vendettas, power-mad officials or politicians, human error, and all the other flaws already revealed in ‘intelligence’ processes. By their nature, these processes cannot be transparent, so safeguards will fail.

“The alleged infringement on the Second Amendment of firearm registration and of refusing firearms to dangerous felons is purely the creation of the NRA. Not selling combat weapons to civilians likewise. Even Ronald Reagan supported the assault weapon ban. A solid majority of firearms owners support at least registration and stopping sales to felons.

My comment stands.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Well, then, I guess we are at loggershead . . . and we do nothing.

            Continuing to call them assault weapons does not alter reality.  Automatic weapons have been illegal in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934 [PL 73-474; 48 Stat. 1236; 26.6.1934].  Firearms that look like automatic weapons does not make them automatic weapons.

 . . . Round three:

“Not calling them assault weapons does not alter reality either. Semi-automatic weapons, particularly with large clips, offer firepower never needed for civilian use. Beyond that, weapons sold as semi-automatic can be made into automatic weapons without exotic knowledge or skills. As I mentioned earlier, I encountered two easy options for that conversion in the two days after the Orlando shooting with no request, effort, or interest on my part.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            We are discussing the prohibition of an entire class of firearms.  It is important that we do not erroneously generalize.  The conversion of a semi-automatic firearm to enable automatic operation has been and remains illegal and a federal felony; we do not need any new laws; just enforce the ones we have.  Also, banning firearms because of their appearance is equally wrong and vastly too generalized.

            I am far more concerned about preventing and criminalizing the ownership, possession or purchase of ANY firearm from a muzzle-loader on to current weapons by certain individuals.  You categorically reject my attempts to find that solution.  So, here we sit.

 . . . Round four:

“First and most, I have not rejected the prevention of dangerous people from owning firearms. I have objected to one method (the no-fly and terrorist watch lists) because it will not work.

“Second, I see no reason why a person who is capable of committing mass homicide would respect the law on his choice of weapon.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            Re: rejection.  Essentially, you have.  You rejected my proposal and have not offered a better process that you believe would work.  What do you propose?

            Re: respect for the law.  Quite so, which is precisely why citizens should be armed with capable weapons.  The police cannot be everywhere all the time.

 . . . Round five:

“Yes, I rejected your proposal for the reasons given. I also believe ideas involving the no-fly list or any terrorist ‘watch list’ will fail. Instead, how about simple screenings, rigidly enforced, of people convicted of any violent offense (felony or misdemeanor) and of people with documented violence handled by the mental illness treatment system? That has not been done, although most of the legal mechanisms are in place. A national database connection would be necessary, but not involving any kind of spy agency or function. Closing a few loopholes would accomplish much, as would banning weapons useful only for mass homicide.”

 . . . my response to round five:

            I believe there are both state and federal existing laws prohibiting violent felons from owning, possessing or purchasing any firearm.  That is the principle purpose of the existing background check.  Notably, citizens who show up on that search have been tried, convicted and sentenced, so restricting those is fairly straightforward.  The “no-fly” or “watch” list involves no due process or judicial process, thus the difficulty with linking those lists to the background check process.  As you have so aptly noted, adding mentally ill or violence-prone individuals is even farther away from due process.  One salient question: who approves someone to be on the prohibited list, and how is that qualification determined?  I am in favor of the linkages of which you speak; however, there must be a concomitant due process provision to protect the rights of those falsely accused or erroneously identified, and to avoid political abuse.  The process from initial entry through reconciliation of errors must be clearly and precisely defined.  Linkage of the “No-Fly” list to the background check process without due process is unacceptable.

 . . . Round six:

“You have restated my argument against using the no-fly and similar lists. We agree on that. You have a valid point about being cautious in regard to the mentally ill; that whole field still needs a great deal of progress. There are indeed laws prohibiting felons from owning firearms. They are enforced by means of finding the weapon in the felon's possession, often after a subsequent violent incident. Why not take reasonable steps to prevent the felons (and people with violent misdemeanor convictions) from acquiring such weapons? Closing the various loopholes by which these people obtain weapons will be preventive rather than reactive and will not change anyone's legal right to own weapons. It will only prevent those who have lost that right from easily getting them.”

 . . . my response to round six:

            The current background check does just that – check the background of each gun purchaser to see if they have a criminal record that warrants rejection of their purchase.  The last bunch of firearm mass murders have been committed by mentally ill or disturbed individuals with firearms legally purchased or acquired.  The Pulse killer in fact passed FBI background checks and three terrorism interviews.  The current system failed.  We need to widen the net and close loopholes, yes, but to do so, we need to ensure due process protections.

 . . . Round seven:

“With what you just pointed out, you still don't want to ban that kind of weapon?”

 . . . my response to round seven:

            I thought I was clear on that point.  Short answer: nope, not until the background check system is improved and the constitutional rights of all citizens are protected.

Another contribution:

“Omg ... All Islamic extremists are angry power hungry men (and women) Cap!!!  Was the Boston Bombing a hate crime too???  How about the following. ..is this hate?  YES!  Hatred of America!  Open thine eyes!!! Someday your rose color glass of wine is going to turn black!!  I'm not being overly reactive .. just proactive!!

“By the way .. As usual, the liberal media turned around what Trump said about the Pulse shooting ... not so much the President was involved but the President uses a crises situation to his advantage to further promote gun control (or gun confiscation) and now wanting to control free speech I.e. Facebook and recent meetings with Zuckerberg.. don't be surprised if he starts talking about internet restrictions !! Again .. proactive ..”

My reply:

            Re: “Islamic extremists.”  Actually, we agree.  They are angry and power-hungry, and more importantly violent, who seek to impose their beliefs, values and ideology on everyone, which is precisely why I call them Islamo-fascists.  Yet, we need to be careful and precise with our accusations.  All Muslims are NOT Islamo-fascists; in fact, a mere fraction are the violent variety.  We need Muslims to help us find the bad guys in our midst, not alienate them with all this ill-conceived, mis-applied, inflammatory, emotional rhetoric.

            Re: “the liberal media turned around.”  Really?  I am not in the liberal media.  I have a reasonable understanding of the English language.  Why on God’s little green earth should we need some magical de-coder ring to understand what “he really means” with his peculiar choice of words.  My opinions of the Republican presumptive nominee have absolutely nothing to do with the Press.  I simply listen to his words directly.

            Re: “the President uses a crises situation to his advantage.”  First, he is President of the United States.  He has a responsibility, if not an obligation, to speak about crises in this Grand Republic.  So, if I simply compare the words spoken by the President with the words spoken by the Republican presumptive nominee, there is a world of difference between meter, tone, image, content, delivery, or any other metric between the two messages.  Second, as he has done repeatedly, he has jumped to conclusions that are not supported by the facts.  That may be tolerable for a private citizen; it is outright dangerous for a president.  Third, you imply that it is OK for the Republican presumptive nominee to use a crisis for his advantage, because you happen to agree with him, while you reject the President’s right to do the same.  I cannot support such disparity.

            Re: “wanting to control free speech.”  Holy moly, this is way off the page.  The Republican presumptive nominee wants to choose who he talks to, who he grants press credentials to, who he approves of, and attempts to bully anyone in the Press he does not like . . . who the hell is trying to control free speech?  I respectfully suggest you listen more carefully to what the Republican presumptive nominee actually says – publicly.

            His word choices speak volumes.  I refuse to buy the decoder ring.  My opinion of each presidential candidate will stand on their words, period, full stop.

 . . . Round two:

“IT'S been reported that many Muslims hold fear in turning in others they believe may be involved in terrorist activities .. people who worked with the Orlando shooter heard him make threatening comments yet no one came forward .  Everyone is way too concerned about being politically correct .. not I ...if I see or hear ANYTHING suspicious from any person that appears to be a potential ‘fascist’ I will report and follow up on my report .. I believe the word fascist is loosely used on too many however ...fascist is a description used against anyone who doesn't have ideas agreed on by the describer  .. In my opinion, based on our country's financial and security position, Trumps ideas/platforms are on target  ..  those who try to categorize him as a fascist are ignorant.  Clinton is the one who speaks the words Sharia Law.  That is more of what constitutes fascism  .. if the persistently negative few would just realize Trump’s ideas will be beneficial for America, this election would be a certainty for him and us.

“The persistently negative few will read his words negatively persistently .. no need for a decoder ring if one relaxes and realizes Trump has no intentions of ruining America ..Hillary has every intention of continuing in Obama's footsteps .. this will be the ruin if she is elected ... Trump is the business minded outsider this government needs ... 

“All I meant was Obama instantly talks gun control (again and again) ... he is so hung up on this idea and actually gets enraged when he doesn't get his way..just about everything he has wanted he has forced on us whether the majority want it or not .. he uses executive power to meet his awful agendas .. I honestly feel he needs to move to an Islamic country since that is what he is trying to convert this country into. When he says the phrase ‘This is not what WE are’ I am always offended.  

“And Hillary controls what questions the press gets to ask her.. the media IS predominantly left oriented .. I challenge you to send me ONE link to an interview involving Hillary being asked intelligent questions that involve the future of our country and Americans .. 

“I believe Trumps so called bullying of the media is a necessary tactic .. they would try to run all over him otherwise .. and they do ... 100 times more than they do Hillary ..”

 . . . my reply to round two:

            Re: fear.  Muslims are not alone in that apprehension.  Perhaps the most famous case I cite in such cases is the murder of ‘Kitty’ Genovese [13.3.1964] in Queens, New York.  More than a few people witnessed her murder and did nothing; did not even call the police.  This is not the only example.  So, please, let us not imply such fear is unique to Muslims.  Further, regardless of the social factors, when we choose to do nothing to help the police, we are accomplices to the crime we endure.

            Re: political correctness.  We often confused political correctness with simple respect for other human beings.  If you see someone weaving randomly from lane to lane on the highway, littering on the roadway, assault a woman in the parking lot, or a myriad of other crimes, political correctness is not and cannot be your excuse for doing nothing.  I say, “There but for the grace of God, go I.”  I help the police; I’m another set of eyes.

            Re: fascist.  My use of the word is independent of any one or combination of the social factors; it only reflects a governmental system led by a dictator having complete totalitarian power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism.

            Re: Clinton & Sharia Law.  We shall respectfully disagree.  BTW, I do agree that Sharia is certainly close to fascism as is any theocracy, e.g., Islamic Republic of Iran.  Hillary is a long way from such beliefs or actions.

            Re: the “ideas” of the Republican presumptive nominee.  Again, we shall respectfully disagree.  If he (or his supporters) must constantly tell us what he really meant by his persistent outrageous statements, we need a decoder ring.  His use of the English language is offensive and often obscene, beyond outright wrong in far too many cases.

            Re: “ruining America.”  Oh, I’m sure he has no such intention, since he is driven, if not obsessed, by his self-promotion, self-aggrandizement and deeply narcissistic me-ism.  He could care less about America or any other human being beyond himself (or those he anoints [as long as they do as he commands]).

            Gun violence usually evokes discussions of gun control – guns are a clear and obvious symptom.  I do not fault the President for voicing the concerns of all of us, but conversely, I truly wish he would focus far more on the root cause – the men who do these heinous acts.

            Re: Hillary vs. the Press.  I believe you are wrong.  Unfortunately, I have too many other high priority projects in front of me.  I have seen no signs (independent of the Press) of her even attempting to control the Press.  In fact, she has endured considerable abuse from the Press.  The same is NOT true for the Republican presumptive nominee.  A “necessary tactic” . . . oh my . . . then, do you believe Hitler’s oppression of the Press [1933 & sub] was a “necessary tactic”?  In that time, Press critics died; they were not just insulted.

 . . . Round three:

“Hello .. we could banter back and forth over our differences of opinions .. I have learned that those who have their minds made up to dislike Trump can not be swayed .. can only hope that perhaps before the election he will have done the swaying himself .. I believe he is a very intelligent person and deserves a chance just as America took on Obama .. I believe Trump If elected Will surround himself with good qualified people that will in total help this country.  We are in massive debt that NO President will be able to get us out of in one term .. Obama, with all his programs/agendas has not improved our debt issues one iota.. he has only made it worse.  I have read that Trump has some good ideas to attempt to stimulate the economy .. I do not believe he is egotistical enough to make things worse .. he states that he cares for America and that is why he is ahead .. he has children and grandchildren he considers.. all the Democrats seem to care about is global warming, gun control and bringing more and more people into the country, putting them on social programs and making us pay for them .. we are doomed if Hillary is elected ..”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            I have not made up my mind, as yet.  We do not even have the nominees for each political party for another six weeks.  I will decide upon who will get my precious vote after the debates are concluded and before going to my polling station.

            As is my practice, once We, the People, have spoken with our votes, I will do my best to see the positives in our new president.  My practice will be no different, if the Republican presumptive nominee should actually become president.

            You appear to overlook one important, constitutional reality.  The President does NOT spend the Treasury – Congress does [see Article I, Section 8].  Blaming any President, set aside President Obama, for increasing the debt is simply wrong; again, Congress does.

            The Republican presumptive nominee is selling us a pig in a poke.  I am quite cautious with such hucksters.  My criticism of his personality flaws are simply intended to open eyes, induce thinking, and urge everyone to look carefully at what he is trying to sell us in that bag he holds up before us.

            You say he cares for America.  I simply do not see it.  His actions, his words, his conduct speaks volumes that he cares about only one thing -- himself.

            Hillary is a long way from a shoe-in.  She has her considerable baggage, as well.  I am not a fan of her character flaws either.

            So far, the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson is the closest to what I would like to see in our president, but he has his peculiarities as well.  No one is perfect, and he carries a different set of baggage.

            This Grand Republic is far stronger than you imply.  We are NOT doomed, if Hillary, or The Donald, or Gary, or Jill, or anyone else becomes president.  We shall endure and prosper, as we have endured bad presidents in the past.  I might vomit more, but I shall survive.

            When Muhammed Ali proclaimed, “I am the greatest,” it had a brash reality to it.  When The Donald says it, I hear a snake oil salesman.

 . . . Round four:

“Key words !  Set aside Obama .. 

“Who says a president needs to have a specific personality .. who are we to judge  .. let his actions be what counts ..

“I why wouldn't he care for America ??? It's obvious Obama doesn't !! And Hillary will follow suit ..

“I would never vote for him .. it would be a vote for Hillary 

“We ARE doomed if Hillary gets in .. more taxing .. more spending ... more population explosion 

“Trump does not say he is the greatest .. you are using a decoder ring again .. a very biased one ... GO BRITAIN .. Good work !!! 

 . . . my response to round four:

            Re: personality.  You and I do . . . along with 219M other citizens.  It is our task to judge the worthiness of each candidate.  Well, actually, it is his words, his actions, his conduct that bothers me the most.

            Re: doomed.  It is your choice entirely to view anything including life or the future of this Grand Republic in any manner you wish . . . glass half empty or half full.  FYI: Republicans spent more money than Democrats; they just spent it on different stuff.

            DJT: “Nobody reads the Bible more than me.” [25.6.2016]  “I will be the greatest jobs president that God has ever created.” [6.6.2015]  “I am the most successful person ever to run for president.” [22.3.2016]  “Nobody has more respect for women than I do” {well, except for those who do not agree with me}.  I could go on; such quotes are bountiful from him.

            Re: Brexit.  Now, Scotland seeks another referendum to leave the United Kingdom.  So, you are apparently a fan of this vote.  Should South Carolina or Louisiana votes be allowed to leave the Union?  Should we break up the United States?

            Your hero is welcome to sway.  I am still listening . . . and hoping a more appropriate Donald appears soon, but I’m not optimistic given his history.  His latest outrage: haul the Press with him to Scotland for personal business activity; this is what we have to look forward to with him.

            You can buy the pig in the poke; that is your choice entirely.  Apparently, I am more skeptical than you, and that is cool.  Your choice, entirely, as it is mine.  You choose what you wish to see, what you wish to believe, and that is your right . . . as it is mine.

A different contribution:

“AHA!  At the risk of creating even a faint glimmer of positive halo effect for Hillary, which I would not intend, I too fully AGREE with you (and with her on this narrow point) that persons who have been put on a no-fly list by our government should as a consequence be prevented from buying weapons (of any kind, to the extent possible, which is dubious), so long as the criteria for the list (unknown to me) is enforced fairly and is judicially appealable to protect due process.  The problem is, and NRA is only too quick to remind us, even incremental infringement is unconstitutional, so an open and accessible due process avenue must be provided for the ‘accused.’   I think Mr. Trump agrees, too.  Congress?  Maybe next year.”

My response:

            It is nice to agree from time to time.

            In this instance, I happen to agree with the NRA.  If the USG is going to deny a constitutional right to a citizen, the Constitution demands that the citizen be treated with due process under the law before such infringement is carried out.  There have been too many examples of the wrong person being subjected to transportation denial for another individual with a similar name on the “No-Fly” list.  I am all in favor of denying a firearm purchase to a person on the “No-Fly” list, as long as the law provides for a reasonable, public, transparent reconciliation process.  I can easily imagine some zealous bureaucrat abusing the list for political purposes.  What and where are the safeguards against such abusive collateral usage?

Yet, another contribution:

“Well today the British nation makes the decision to stay or leave the European Union. The campaign  has been less than friendly. The ‘out brigade’ concentrating hugely on unwanted and unpreventable immigration from any of the member states and the cost of remaining a member. Whilst the ‘stay’ side explain the benefits of remaining. The polls, bless them, are putting it neck and neck but they are totally unreliable and untrustworthy.

“As we have spoken before – Europe needs to remain together, we have seen the results of a divided Europe in the past century and before so from that point of view we need to stay together. However we all agree over here that we must stop or at least slow down the desperate would be immigrants who wish to be here as a financial immigrant.

“Well Cap we shall see-this is an immense decision and I hope we get it right.”

My response:

            The British people have spoken.  Prime Minister Cameron has resigned.  World markets have been thrust into uncertainty and instability.  No one can predict how this is going to turn out.  But . . . I truly think Sir Winston would be deeply disappointed.  Then again, after all he did for the World (not just the United Kingdom), he was disappointed in the election results of his day [26.7.1945].  We shall overcome.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)

Update no.757

Update from the Heartland

No.757

13.6.16 – 19.6.16

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

To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- The shooter in the Pulse attack last weekend [756] may have alleged affiliation with ISIL and Islamo-fascism, but such statements may have been lame justification for his internal rage, hatred and homophobia.  As we learn more, he gave seriously conflicted statements that strongly suggest he was not truly a jihadi, but rather an angry man looking for an excuse to ‘prove his manhood and worthiness (in his mind).’  The more we learn, the more this appears as a hate crime, rather than a dedicated Islamo-fascist attack.

            He successfully passed numerous background checks.  Yet, such background checks search for criminal records or activities, and terrorist activities.  They do not search for homophobia or hatred toward non-heterosexual citizens.

            Then, President Obama asked: “Why does this keep happening?”

Answer (should be): “Because Mister President, we ignore and will do nothing about mentally ill or violence-prone people in our midst.”

            I return to my suggestion of a service similar to what I call the social police – in between law enforcement and social service workers.  We need a system of mental health (violence behavior) triage that enables and allows progressively more comprehensive scrutiny and intervention short of our current threshold of law enforcement.  As we are learning, the FBI did not find anything verging on illegal (prosecutable) or worthy of protracted surveillance or investigation (probable cause).  I will argue there were plenty of clues that would prompt the “social police” to collect public information and at least open a file of intelligence collection and build a picture.  He apparently did not cross the threshold for prosecution (other than beat his wives, which he had absolutely no right to do), but there was certainly enough clues to build a picture of him as a disturbed man with potential for violence.  It was not sufficient to deny him weapons, but it should have been sufficient to make him aware his actions are being watched carefully.  In the weeks before the massacre, such a picture should have been sufficient to assign surveillance and dig deeper.

-- Egyptian officials announced the recovery of the EgyptAir Flight 804 (MS804)[753], Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR) from the sea floor.  Initial reports indicate the devices were damaged, but should be readable.  The next important step will be the determination of data retrieval and readability.  We might begin receiving information from the two devices any day, now, but such information may take several weeks or months, depending on what the investigators find.  With guarded optimism, I suspect they will sort this one out in comparatively short order, now that they have the FDR and CVR devices.

-- A recent Patriot Post image seemed quite appropriate given out current debate topic [756].

“If a gun ban would stop shootings . . .
then, wouldn’t a terrorism ban stop acts of terrorism?”

I could not have said it better.

            On Tuesday, the President and the presumptive nominees engaged in rather heated exchanges in the aftermath of the Pulse attack in Orlando.  I go directly to the point.  President Obama and Secretary Clinton were spot on the money.  The words of the Republican presumptive nominee were ill informed, emotionally charged, and other than that, they are categorically wrong.  Further, accusing or even implying the President of the United States supported or enabled the Orlando shooter is so far beyond the realm of outrageous to be indescribable.

            I note a very rare event in the assassination of Helen Joanne ‘Jo’ Cox, née Leadbeater, 42, Member of Parliament for Batley and Spen.  She was fatally shot and stabbed after a campaign event in the village of Birstall, West Yorkshire, England.  Cox was a rising star in the opposition Labour Party and a proponent for rejecting Brexit – the referendum vote scheduled for next week – Thursday, 23^rd of June – Britain’s exit from the European Union.  Police arrested Thomas A. ‘Tommy’ Mair, 52, of Birstall, reportedly a former psychiatric patient, with some indications of affiliation with an American white supremacy group – National Alliance – and a pro-apartheid group in South Africa.  At his arraignment on Saturday, Mair gave his name as “death to traitors, freedom for Britain.”  He appears to be one of the crazies that slipped through the cracks.  May God rest her immortal soul.

            Not that it matters a hoot what I think . . . if I was a British citizen, I would follow the wisdom of Sir Winston Churchill, who advocated for a United States of Europe beginning in 1946, with threads of his thoughts on the topic reaching back at least into his Wilderness Years.  I would vote against Brexit.  Good luck to our British cousins.  Vote well!

            News from the economic front:

-- The Federal Reserve decided to hold its benchmark-lending rate unchanged and lowered their forecast for expected increases to its short-term interest rates in the coming years.  They cited persistently slow economic growth and low inflation for forcing the central bank to back off its planned rate increases.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.756:

“You really should research ‘the rest of the story’ concerning the judge in the Trump University case, his family connections to Mexican interests, etc.  There is much more to Trump's attitude about this judge, who if the information I have heard is correct should have recused himself.  As a former trial judge, I am sensitive to the need for judges, even lifetime appointed federal judges, to recuse themselves when their own backgrounds and family activities might suggest bias or an appearance of impropriety.  Of course, justified attitude is one thing; I agree that Trump should not have said what he did the way he said it.  However, their is plenty of information to suggest that that judge should not be hearing the case.”

My reply:

            Re: “the rest of the story.”  That admonition can be leveled anytime you wish.  There is never enough time or capacity.  I am not a journalist or investigative reporter.  I am a simple citizen, doing the best I can, with a handful of competing projects.

            Re: the judge.  I suspect the accusations against the judge are bogus, but I cannot prove a negative.  Nonetheless, or should I say regardless, there is a judicial process that has been established law for decades, if not centuries, to deal with a biased judge.  The bottom line: I do not care whether or how compromised the judge may be; that is irrelevant in my opinion.  The Republican presumptive nominee was wrong on many levels and for a myriad of reasons, and then his grotesquely inflated ego drove him to double down with his “He’s Mexican.  I’m building a wall.”  [FYI: The judge is American, and he cannot build a border wall; only Congress can.]  What is more telling here, his own attorneys saw no reason to take pre-emptive action against the judge.  So, in this, we shall respectfully disagree.

            If your opinion is correct, why haven’t his attorneys filed the proper legal motions to remove the judge?

 . . . Round two:

“Good question!  There are some possible answers, but if you really have not heard of any of the reasons why Trump is concerned about this judge, I am very surprised.  As you note, of course, the important point for ‘Nevertrumpers’ is not the facts about the judge but Trump's comments, which bother me almost as much as you.

“As a matter of law, it is initially and always the primary responsibility of the judge to sense, note, and act upon appearances of impropriety and possible reasons for recusal, especially in a high profile case where the reputation of the Court (I don't mean the judge.) is at stake along with the interests of the parties and the potential for public outrage over perceived judicial bias.  Many lawyers are hesitant to suggest that a trial judge has not properly evaluated the facts relevant to recusal, for simple habitual fear of aggravating the judge and somehow prejudicing their client's chances.  Personally I was always open to motions for recusal, and only once was my refusal to recuse ever appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.  In that one case my decision was affirmed, but it bought more than a year of time for the lawyers.  In many other cases, motions to recuse are a delay tactic, used when lawyers are no longer concerned about offending because the problem really is that they are not confident in their case.

“There may be other reasons why Trump's lawyers have not moved for recusal.

“We certainly agree on the inappropriateness of Trump's remarks and the puzzling and foolish ‘out of context’ defense he raised when criticized, but at least you have to admit that he is consistent in his non-politician unguarded carelessness of speech!”

 . . . my reply to round two:

            I certainly respect your service as a judge.  Thank you for your experience and insight.

            Careless speech is one thing for you or me, as private citizens; it is something altogether different and orders of magnitude more dangerous and threatening for a presidential candidate.  The litigiousness of that man is disturbing, independent of everything else.  There are people far wealthier than him, who are rarely, if ever, involved in legal action.  His conduct, demeanor, character and actions are common to a bully; he uses the legal system (which is his right) to intimidate, bludgeon and marginalize anyone he disagrees with or dislikes.  That seems to be a fatal flaw for a commander-in-chief.

 . . . Round three:

“Hard to disagree with your evaluation of careless speech, except perhaps for the ‘fatal’ part of your well articulated opinion.

“I truly believe that another Clinton (Obama) 8 years will bring the end of our democratic republic which began accelerating in the past 20 years or so, primarily because of the gutless Repandercrats  in congress and Hillary's assured left wing Supreme Court for another generation.”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            Re: “fatal.”  My comparison in last week’s Update was the “fatal” reference . . . in that, many people will die to serve his ego, if he became commander-in-chief.

            Re: Clinton.  Her positives are barely greater than her negatives, but at least there is a positive net.  The inverse is true for the Republican presumptive nominee, except the margin to the negative is far greater.

Comment to the Blog:

“Senator Clinton is the presumptive and presumptuous Democratic nominee. The Clinton campaign’s history of premature celebration supports a reminder here that the FBI has not finished with her. If that nomination prevails, I and others are done with the Democrats. Theirs has been the most openly corrupt primary process I have ever seen. President Nixon’s Watergate transgressions are looking relatively minor in comparison.

“The Green Party’s nominee will almost certainly be Dr. Jill Stein. I was not aware of the Constitution Party. In how many states have they achieved ballot status?

“I will listen to the Libertarian Party’s nominee, assuming his history does not contradict his words. The Libertarians certainly have a different viewpoint from what remains of the Republicans, and what you stated about keeping the government out of people’s private lives resonates with me. However, I fear the Libertarians would allow corporate entities so much freedom as to further harm most Americans.

“I will note that you did not say whether your ‘items of counsel’ in alleged rape cases were provided to the accused, the accusers, or both. The accusers need to know that drunkenness or drug use does not excuse their actions.

“I tire of the description of any and all mass homicides as ‘terrorist’ attacks. The ease of acquiring and operating these weapons made the horror in Orlando possible, regardless of motivation. I will spare your readers the intent and wording of the Second Amendment because I am morally certain they don’t care, but at some point we must consider international relations. As long as we continue to prove daily how barbaric our nation has become, the rest of the world will see that. Who can respect a government that lets these multiple murders continue?”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: Democrats.  Well, with one major distinction . . . what Nixon did was felonious on multiple levels.  To my knowledge, Hillary has complied with the law . . . as it stands today.  So, if there is any wrong-doing, I would say Congress has failed to pass appropriate laws to avoid the alleged corruption.

            Re: Green Party.  I suspect you are correct, but their nominating process is far less publicized . . . thus my statement.  To my knowledge, the Green Party candidate will be listed in at least 36 states; FYI, Kansas is one of those states.

            Re: Libertarian candidate.  Gary Johnson is not a particularly articulate public speaker, but he does have a resonant message.

            Re: “items of counsel.”  Those items were provided at special disciplinary sessions and at new student orientation.  The alleged perpetrators (when identified) received a far more pointed counsel along the lines of we know what you did and we will be watching you.  All students were repeatedly informed that intoxication by any substance by any means for any reason will never be accepted as an excuse for bad behavior.

            Re: mass homicides.  Good point, actually.  In fact, I have already begun writing about the Orlando event in this week’s Update.  As more information becomes publicly available, it is looking progressively more like a hate crime rather than a terrorist event.  The ‘perp’s’ Islamo-fascist claims were contradictive and not particularly well informed . . . as if he cited his affiliation with ISIL as justification for his violence, rather than his true homophobic hatred.  His father’s post-events comments are quite telling to me.

            Re: “Who can respect a government that lets these multiple murders continue?”  Unless we are prepared to accept “Minority Report” thought-based, pre-emptive, governmental interdiction prior to crimes being committed, we will suffer these events.  Mateen passed multiple background checks.  It was not like he was an invisible unknown.  The authorities had recorded glimpses of his violence, but I suspect they were looking for the wrong form of hatred; they were looking for Islamo-fascist leanings or potential, and he appears to be far more homophobic than jihadi.  Also, the various governmental databases are not connected.

 . . . Round two:

“Well, no, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have made strong efforts to reform the campaign finance laws.  We have set the fox to ‘guard’ the henhouse, and it's not working. My opinion stands. After corruption need not be illegal when the corrupt gain power.

“I am quite aware of the Green Party's efforts to get on state ballots. You mentioned a Constitution Party with which I am not familiar. Have they achieved enough ballot access to have a chance at the Presidency? If so, where can I find further information?

“Thank you for clarifying the items of counsel.

“Regardless of your argument, the U.S. has lost a great deal of respect worldwide by allowing large numbers of mass murders to continue unchecked. Perhaps we could study the example of Australia, which is hardly the totalitarian nation that Fox News and others claim to fear becoming. They had a mass murder twenty years ago and promptly banned assault weapons. Their mass murders ended. In this context, it might be helpful if our government databases were connected, but there are problems with that idea. Why not do what has already worked in a fairly similar nation and situation?”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Re: campaign finance laws.  We are in complete agreement.  The obscene corruption of money in politics has got to stop.

            Re: Constitution Party (formerly U.S. Taxpayers Party).  Frankly, I would classify these folks as a fringe party.  My understanding is they will be on at least 26 state ballots, including Kansas (to my knowledge, no confirmation, yet).  It is not a party I find much (if any) affinity with for a host of reasons.

            You are welcome.

            Re: mass murders.  There are a variety of thoughts here.  Bottom line: we shall respectfully disagree.  As I have long argued, an inanimate object cannot fire itself; it takes a deranged person, who does not respect other human beings, to kill.  These weapons are NOT assault rifles; they look like assault rifles.  They are incapable of automatic fire – a requirement for an assault rifle.  Our emotional response to these horrific events are quite like the temperance movement of the 19th century, i.e., ban an activity for everyone because of the bad actions of a few.  I’m in favor of studying other countries like England, Australia, Japan, et cetera, but I would prefer we go far deeper than the symptoms, i.e., how do they treat mental illness, how do they triage mental illness, how do they find mentally ill or violence-prone people before they can act?  We must focus on the human beings who do these things . . . not some inanimate weapon.  Lastly, I share your apprehension regarding the linkage of governmental databases.  It is the logical thing to do, but the potential for abuse is enormous.  I could support such linkage as long as there is a transparent means of appeal and reconciliation.  To my understanding, it is easy to put someone on the list; it is not so easy to remove them in cases of wrongful identification.  Names are not sufficient . . . too many Smiths and Joneses.

 . . . Round three:

“Having considered the argument for trying to control ‘deranged’ persons versus a more general system of registration and exclusions for firearm ownership for the years we have been discussing this, we shall indeed continue to disagree. Reasonably reliable detection of the few potential homicidal mass murderers among the many mentally ill people (and the undetected mentally ill) has yet to become possible and may never happen. Certainly not here, where Congress frequently reduces funding for any mental illness cause. I doubt you will find that capability in England, Australia, Japan or elsewhere.

“However, other nations do regulate firearms and explosives, and they have far lower rates of death from those sources. The mass killer in Norway, Anders Breivik, went to the trouble of international travel seeking weapons and of starting a corporation to obtain the agricultural chemicals for his bomb. Everything he obtained for his particular rampage involved permits--some of which were refused--and at one point he was on a watch list for terrorists. (He was dropped because he was not a terrorist.) My point? It's far more difficult to commit mass homicide or any other firearm homicide in the rest of the developed world. Their homicide rates are far lower.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            As I have written, I could support a more aggressive and thorough background check process, if there is a concomitant process of appeal and reconciliation for erroneous, abusive or collateral usage of such information.  Without those safeguards in place before our privacy is compromised further, I suspect there will be broad resistance.  I do agree with Hillary, if you are considered unsafe to fly, then you are unsafe to own or buy a firearm of any kind.

Another contribution:

“We’re all appalled by yet another shooting in your ‘grand republic.’ When will your people bin the 2nd amendment- when will the gun lobby stop supporting this endless bloodlust and behave as the civilised nation that you are? I know it’s nothing to do with us on this side of the pond and I expect you might tell me so. But Cap it has to end. The innocent are suffering, not those who pose as the macho gun tooting individuals who roam your republic with killer weapons ready to use in ‘self-defence’. You’ve had a child killed playing in the car with his father’s pistol, you’ve had church and school shootings and you have ignored the pleas of your president to take the action required. Come on America get into the 21st century, you’re not at war, you do not have to defend your state, you have highly trained professionals to do that. You do not need a well-regulated militia- you do not have to defend your state.

“The U.S. people must learn to live without weapons of death at arm’s length. Both you and I have carried and been responsible for weapons of death and I shudder at the thought of carrying a loaded weapon without a reason or without an enemy. Do we think the same?”

My reply:

            Re: “Do we think the same?”  In this instance, no, we do not, I’m sorry to say, my friend.  The gun violence issue in the United States is a complex matter that goes back to the days even before the Revolution.  King George III had as much to do with the genesis of the Second Amendment to the Constitution as Native Americans did at the time.  More to follow.

            Re: “When will your people bin the 2^nd amendment?”  I cannot imagine that day.  The Second Amendment is so deeply interwoven into the tapestry that is this Grand Republic.  To be frank and candid, I hope and expect that day will never come.

            Re: “when will the gun lobby stop supporting this endless bloodlust and behave as the civilised nation that you are?”  To be direct, the gun lobby is not and does not support “endless bloodlust,” any more than a rifle or pistol can fire itself.  With events like Orlando, we need to be very careful not to ascribe criminal accusation to a broad population for the demented actions of an individual.  It is the same as what the Republican presumptive nominee is saying today in demonizing Muslims, because the shooter was an American citizen of Afghan (legal) immigrant parents and at least a nominal believer of Islam.

            Re: “you’re not at war.”  Well, actually, we are at war.  I have consistently argued that the War of Islamo-fascism has been on-going since . . . well . . . I could peg the date at 1968, 1972, 1979, 1988, 1993, 1998, or 2001 . . . or a myriad of other dates.  Your country was attacked by the same Islamo-fascists in 2005 and 2007.  The Security Service thwarted a major attack(s) by Islamo-fascists in 2006.  What does it take to be considered at war?

            Lastly, as I said at the outset, the firearm issue in this Grand Republic goes back to pre-Revolution days and involves many aspects and elements of history, society, culture and frankly emotions.  I wrote two relevant essays a few years back that might be useful.

“THOUGHTS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT” [2.August.2000] –
http://www.parlier.com/essay-3.html - second

“CHILDREN and GUNS” [17.May.2001] –
http://www.parlier.com/essay-6.html - guns

The vast majority of citizens in this Grand Republic do not carry firearms on the streets or even have them at arm’s length at home.  I have no idea how many citizens or households have firearms, which is part of the point.

            I certainly appreciate the culture in England.  Jeanne, the kids and I truly enjoyed our time in your fair country.  In an idealistic sense, I admire the paucity of violence and crime in your country.  Unfortunately, your history and ours are different.  This Grand Republic cannot and will not be defined by a few obscene acts by bad people or mentally disturbed individuals; we are far bigger than those horrendous events.  I am far more concerned with our abysmal triage and treatment of mental illness and our enforcement of existing laws.  I inherently seek the root cause and corrective action(s) against those causes – an inanimate firearm is NOT a root cause; it is at best a symptom.  Can our laws be improved, yes; however, our fundamental fear of government leads us to a “give them an inch, they’ll take a mile” mentality and distrust of government.

 . . . Round two:

“Indeed when I wrote my views I knew I was ‘stirring the pot’ somewhat. I also knew that my totally English opinions would clash somewhat. However the world, not just us English looks on with dismay and concern for what is seen as a love of killer weapons.

At war.-  I say you are not at - you maintain you are. My view of war is when your country is threatened with an enemy who proposes total domination of your society, I would not class the struggle against neo-fascism as ‘war’. Yes it is an evil that needs defeating and one that we must aggregate our efforts against.

“Cap, it’s like any temptation that you put in front of people, be it drugs, alcohol, sex, firearms, eventually someone, be they a child, a terrorist, or criminal will submit to that temptation. The only solution, and you will not like this is my friend, is that apart from licenced firing ranges to totally ban all firearms nationally.

However I appreciate your ‘historical’ points and I know how embedded in your society your constitutional 2^nd amendment is.

“These are my views Cap, probably, I would venture to suggest, the views of many others.

“I have long admired your President’s rejected efforts at some form of gun control and shudder to think what your Republican front runner might do should he succeed to power.

“‘We have exchanged views for some years and at last we have a dissimilarity of views-we should sit down with a pint of something and chew this one over.’”

 . . . my reply to round two:

            Many Americans agree with you, including many who read and participate in the Update.  While there are some who would qualify for “love of killer weapons,” I believe most Americans who own firearms do not have a love for those weapons; they view them as necessities, valuable tools, should the need arise.  The police cannot be everywhere, all the time.  And, let us never forget, the vast majority of firearm owners are responsible, peace-loving, respectful, law-abiding citizens, who have no intention of harming another soul.  We are talking about penalizing everyone for the malignant actions of a very few disturbed individuals.

            Even by your definition of war, I believe we are at war.  I am puzzled as to what reasoning leads you to believe we are not at war?

            Ownership of firearms is largely, if not totally, a private matter.  Where firearms enter the public domain, the government has a responsibility to regulate public conduct for the general welfare.  Prohibition of private affairs, be it “drugs, alcohol, sex, firearms,” et cetera, will never work in a free society, as such prohibition demands the government enter the private domain and thus compromise a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.  Again, government does have a responsibility to regulate public conduct, where private matters intersect the public domain, i.e., quality / dosage of psychotropic substances, health & protection of sex workers, use of firearms, et cetera.

            Thank you for offering your perspective.  These issues are never easy.  I wish the whole world was a peaceful, respectful, law-abiding community and thus firearms (or weapons) of any kind would not be necessary.  Unfortunately, there are bad men in this world who are neither peaceful, respectful nor abiding of any known law, including Islam Sharia.

 . . . Round three:

“Cap, good evening-we must stop meeting like this!

“Yes that’s where I have the problem-seeing a firearm as a necessity. I suppose because in our land anyone with a firearm needs authorisation a mile long with the final signature from the police. I know because I have certified the original application-it’s a mind blowing experience I assure you. This includes inspecting the secure case where the weapon will be stored. And that’s only for shot guns used for rat/rabbit hunting. I assume you must have a similar requirement.

“However, at war.

“Of course I understand where and why you are basing your thoughts. My experiences of ‘war’ include the end of the 2nd. World war, air raids  in my childhood home at Canterbury, air raid shelters, broken glass and relatives who we never saw again and the GIs driving their wagons of war to the south coast past our garden for D day landings. These early life experiences of course have been compounded by the utter unbelievable life devastation evidence of the graves where yours and our brave young soldiers and airman lie in Flanders fields. These experiences together with service visits to North Africa where so many of our soldiers died fighting Rommel’s army have communicated to me exactly what war is. And later my memories of loading weapons that even now I cannot talk about. This is ‘war’.

“Indeed my friend we wish the world was a totally peaceful place where our children could go peacefully about their business, but that is not the case. And then I see your point of view, they must be protected from the scum who lurk amongst us. I cannot call that war in the sense that I perceive it to be.”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            Re: firearm application.  I do not know about the application process in the UK, and I have not bought a firearm in quite some time now.  That said, I believe the difference in governmental oversight is, in UK the government decides if your reason to possess a firearm is worthy, whereas in the US, the government reviews if there is a reason not to approve the purchase.

            Re: war.  I understand and respect your experience with war.  What you did not answer was, why doesn’t the present war qualify as a war by your definition?

            Part of the problem in this Grand Republic rests upon our abysmal identification, triage, treatment and follow-up with mentally ill or violence-prone citizens.  The vast majority of these mass shooters are mentally ill, if not clinically certifiable, and we do NOTHING.  The Pulse shooter fits that profile; there were signs.  Perhaps the worst example is the Sandy Hook shooter.  His mother tried repeatedly to find help in treating her son, who she knew was deeply mentally ill; no help available.  We know the result.

 . . . Round four:

“Your question brings a great conundrum attached-when is war not war?

“Are we attaching this word to subjects that do not justify this word? For example so many subjects are described as ‘war’ here’s only a few- ‘war against child poverty’, war against ‘litter dropping’, war against almost any campaign dreamt up by those who believe they are doing right.

“Plainly these examples and others are not ‘war’ as I have suggested to you earlier. Do we need another English word that correctly describes these ‘crusades’. There’s a possibility for a start.”

 . . . my reply to round four:

            I trust it was a fitting tribute to your Burma Star veteran.  That was a particularly tough fight – very thin forces in an inhospitable environment, intimidating terrain, against a determined & fanatical enemy.

            Ahso, I think I understand the context of your resistance to the use of the word ‘war.’  My favorite topic example to fit your resistance is the “war on drugs.”  It might as well be war on wind or the sun; we have sacrificed enormously for nothing – absolutely nothing, other than abridgement of our freedom.  War implies mobilization to face a common foe.  Except in my instances of usage, we are talking about an enemy with a near fanatical commitment to killing our citizens, to imposing their beliefs, values, practices and way of life on everyone, and literally kill everyone who does not embrace their beliefs.  I see very little difference between Nazism, fascism and now Islamo-fascist groups like ISIL, al-Qa’ida, Taliban, et cetera; they all seek domination of everyone with their particular ideology.

            I am quite reticent to use the word ‘crusade’ in the current instance.  The Crusades in the classic sense involved our ancestors a millennium ago seeking to take and hold the holy land in Christian hands, to remove Muslims from Jerusalem and Palestine.  I am not aware of any motivation to take and hold any land, anywhere today.  I believe we are helping local Muslims, who seek peace, to rid themselves of a violent, oppressive faction among them, predominately because that faction has chosen to export their violence to our countries and our citizens.

One more contribution:

“Your insights and opinions are always appreciated (as are everyone's).  Your thoughtfulness too is of value.

“Congratulations on your upcoming new book!!!  I will look forward to purchasing it wherever available.

“As many as my good friends are into Donald Trump, I am not at all.  At times I found him entertaining and sort of liked how he was stirring the pot of the establishment politics (and fixtures), but you are pretty much spot-on with your comments on Trump.  He reminds me of a 'spoiler' to the Republicans, which could allow Hillary the shoe-in.  Ross Perot and that great "sucking sound" comes to mind.

“As mentioned before on Trump, I find his archetype dangerous and especially dangerous when compared to Putin, though the news media is reporting Putin seems to respect Trump more than Obama.

“On the shooting in Orlando, it was interesting that just the previous night, just miles away from the mass-shooting Sunday, a popular social-media and The Voice singer Christina Grimmie was executed in cold blood, as she signed autographs.  It appears it was a targeted killing, possibly because she was self-proclaimed as a strong Christian.  But I am not sure I buy that.  I tend to think as the investigation continues, we'll discover the gunman who took his own life after being tackled by the singer's brother, was another celebrity obsessed fan.

“On the shooting at the nightclub, a very tragic time for all those involved, and as well our nation.  I am though concerned as someone supportive of our U.S. Constitution, that many politicians will use the capital of the tragedy (and/or MEME), as a method to further their agenda on breaching the 2nd and 1st Amendments (ranked in the order I see the attacks on them [gun control then free speech]).  I also believe due to the for-public information that this was possibly an ISIS sympathizer or another radicalized rabid Muslim, the need for further surveillance and intrusion into the common person's privacy, is going to be further ramped-up.  One question we have is if the perp was twice interviewed by FBI for possible connections to terrorist networks, and possibly on a ‘watch list’, why was he purportedly still working for G4S (Formerly Wackenhut), in a security function, and then of course do our gun laws properly protect us if someone suspected of being terrorist sympathizers, get relatively easy access to guns like an AR-15?

“I also am concerned that if you look at France, they are still in a national emergency security state from their last attacks, and as such, has allowed France to squash protests unrelated to any terrorist attacks or true threat to government.  Will many of Western countries go into perpetual emergency states with no expected return to normalcy?  Just like the FOREVER WARS, are we approaching the FOREVER RED ALERT?  See this:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/11/24/france-new-emergency-powers-threaten-rights”

My response:

            I’ll have an announcement when the book is available.  Thank you for your interest.

            As more than a few supporters of the Republican presumptive nominee have stated, they are angry at the state of politics and the dysfunction of government, and they are so angry they are attracted to anyone who they believe will shake things up in Washington.  I’m angry, too.  I have been for quite some time.  I’m just not that angry to resort to a candidate with such enormous character flaws.

            Yeah, dictators tend to respect other dictators.

            Indeed, the Pulse event heavily overshadowed the Grimmie assassination.  We have heard a lot about the Pulse shooter, but virtually nothing about the Grimmie shooter.  I suspect the Grimmie shooter is probably similar to John Lennon’s assassin – mentally ill and fixated.

            I share your apprehension regarding the emotional response to the Pulse tragedy.  Frankly, I agree with Hillary; if you are not safe to fly, you are not safe to buy a firearm.  Linkage of governmental databases is a logical move, but before we take that step, I want to see a transparent appeals process in place to deal with erroneous or abusive entries, or inappropriate collateral usage.  Further, we need to understand the threshold criteria for entry.  If I visit a jihadi website for research, does that singular action put me on a watch list?  We must be VERY careful how we proceed.  At the bottom line, I cannot and will not support a blanket ban of weapons that look like assault rifles (BTW, they are NOT actually assault rifles – no automatic capability).

            Re: emergency powers.  We are in complete agreement.  My meter of disturbance moves closer to the peg with each day.  The potential for abuse is immeasurable.

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

Cheers,

Cap                 :-)