Update from the Heartland
No.781
28.11.16 – 4.12.16
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Several
subscribers reported receiving the distribution message for Update no.780 with no content. I have no idea how or why it happened .
. . it just did. Everything
appeared normal on my end. Of all
the editions that had to screw up, it had to be that particular edition. Beyond the expanded debate on the Electoral College, the hot
topic of these days, Update no.780
also announced the publication of my latest book – To So Few Book IV – The
Trial. I also made a
unique offer to Update subscribers.
Rather than taking time and space repeating the notice, I will ask
interested readers to visit:
The offer remains valid, as well as any topic for
discussion. All feedback welcome.
Saturday
night, Jeanne and I attended the Trans-Siberian Orchestra (TSO) concert at
InTrust Arena in Wichita. After my
poor experience at the Garth Brooks concert a year ago [729], I held some reticence to try another concert. Recommendations overcame my
apprehension. The music was not
particularly to my liking – too heavy metal-ish; however, everything else was
magnificent – the video, graphics, story-telling in music and the visuals. The thought kept coming to me through
the entire evening – the computer programming to make everything play not only
in synchronization, but also in mood, in tone and in sensation. The laser light, latticework literally
filled the arena. All taken
together as a whole . . . well worth the money and effort. Thank you, Jeanne . . . for the push
and delightful companionship.
The follow-up news items:
-- The conflict of interest aspect for our soon-to-be,
president-elect Donald Trump remains a major concern [778 & sub]. He announced
he would be “leaving my great business in total in order to fully focus on
running the country.” Trump
indicated “legal documents are being crafted which take me completely out of
business operations. The
Presidency is a far more important task!”
Sadly, it does not appear Trump understands ethics or the purpose of
ethics. Placing his business
holdings in the hands of his adult children hardly qualifies as separation. No reasonable person on the planet
would see such a move as eliminating the obvious conflict of interest. His belief that conflict of interest
cannot apply to the president, by definition [780], continues to be a very worrisome mindset. Trump further said he would give
details of how the business change would occur at a New York news conference
with his children on the 15th of December, so I will wait to see how
he expects to separate himself from the myriad of international conflicts of
interest he has.
Trump
continues to use a really odd euphemism: “I didn’t mean it quite that way.” OK, now that The Donald is soon to be
the president-elect, someone must tell me where I can get the decoder ring to
translate his actual words into some message of what he really means. I worry! Euphemism at the international diplomatic level is capable
of starting wars. Trump’s
persistent penchant for loose language is troubling. Yet, that characteristic is just one of many such
disquieting traits possessed by The Donald.
News from the economic
front:
-- The U.S. Labor Department reported nonfarm payrolls rose
by a seasonally adjusted 178,000 in November from the prior month. The unemployment rate dropped to 4.6%
from 4.9% in October – the lowest rate since August 2007. As much as some citizens berated
President Obama for not doing well enough on the economy, do you think those
individuals can find the courage to give the President credit as they gave him
blame? The employment data will
likely more weight for Federal Reserve officials to raise interest rates later
this month.
Comments and contributions from Update no.780:
Comment to the Blog:
“The Electoral College exists because some of the Founders foresaw
the United States as a relatively loose confederation of independent nations. Hence the term ‘States’ in the name
rather than ‘provinces’ or something similar. Such ‘states’ would choose a President in the manner given so
that each member of the confederation had an equal say. However, the notion of self-governing
States met with defeat in 1865 by military force. From then on, I see no clear role for the States in electing
the President, who is a Federal official not bound to a given State. We have
become far more urban and less agricultural economically since then, and the
time has come to choose ‘one voter, one vote’ over the Electoral College. That gives rural people an equal voice,
not their current bullhorn.
“As a Green Party USA member, I will note here that the Clinton campaign
has not been invited to ‘participate’ in our request for a recount. They are,
of course, free to state their support. Individual donations would also be welcome in legitimate
amounts, but we do not accept money from corporations, SuperPACs or anything
similar.
“Thanks to the ACLU, I now have a copy of the Constitution within
easy reach. The Nobility Clause
(Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8) reads, in full, ‘No Title of Nobility shall be
granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or
Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any
present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King,
Prince or foreign State.’ That phrase ‘no Person holding any Office of Profit
or Trust under them’ clearly includes President Trump, should he be sworn in.
The term ‘under them’ refers clearly to its antecedent, ‘the United States’.
“Your call for unity borders on a call to suppress dissent. No. No more than the Republicans have practiced unity under
Obama. I will support him exactly
to the degree that I see his actions as beneficial to the U.S.A. and not a bit
more.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
Electoral College. I think you are
being a smidge too cavalier in your rendition of history. The Founders recognized the failure of
the Articles of Confederation in just a few years and led to the constitutional
convention just six (6) years after the Confederation was ratified. The cartoon in last week’s Update is
probably the best depiction of what will happen without the Electoral
College. The Founders / Framers
recognized the incessant and perpetual struggle between federalism and state’s
rights, between government and the individual. In this, we shall respectfully disagree.
Re:
Green Party. Noted. To be clear, the Green Party submitted
the recount petition. The Clinton
campaign only intends to monitor the recount with lawyers / observers.
Re:
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8. My
only point was, the interpretation has not been challenged and determination
rendered before the Supreme Court, and I am certain the kind of pervasive
entanglement represented by Donald Trump has never been faced by our system of
governance. I do not hold much
confidence that he will do the correct ethical action on his own. So, the sooner the petition for redress
is placed before the Supremes the better.
I would much rather have a clear, definitive statement by the Supreme
Court rather than face the potential of impeachment, conviction and removal in
the future. I believe The Donald
truly believes he is covered by the “divine right of kings” and that there is no
requirement for him to do anything, i.e., by definition, the President can have
no conflicts of interests, therefore there is no reason for him to do anything
. . . just as he so easily violated virtually every presidential
precedent. His clear conflict of
interest is no different from everything else – taxes, decorum, dignity,
respect, et al. I cannot argue
with your interpretation, but the interpretation has not been tested.
Re:
unity. Oh wow! Suppression of dissent . . . surely you
do not level that accusation at me.
I see myself as the voice of dissent. My comment came from the reality that insanity is defined by
continuing to do the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome. As long as we continue our
intransigence, we shall continue on the path to insanity.
. . . with follow-up comment:
“On one thing we clearly agree. The sooner Mr. Trump's conflicts
of interest and other legal issues are resolved, the better. Even though I
would not like to see a President Pence, I do not see him as in sanity in
nearly the same way as Trump.”
. . . with my follow-up response:
Agreed. Pence is a more stable individual. However, his socially conservative,
moral projectionist tendency remains quite objectionable to me. Pence would certainly be far less
controversial in the global sense than Trump, but I suspect far more injurious
to our civil liberties.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment