Update from the
Heartland
No.783
12.12.16 – 18.12.16
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The Lake Behind Our
Home
[file: IMG_7435.JPG]
The
image above was taken Sunday morning – our first snow and sub-zero temperatures
– and, it is not even officially winter, yet. The photograph does not do justice to the actual scene. The early morning sunlight made ice
crystals on the frozen lake actually sparkle like diamonds scattered across the
surface. The time has come to
become snowbirds.
Happy Chanukkah
Merry Christmas
Happy New Year to
all.
This
is a rather thin edition. It
happens from time to time . . . not much new to talk about this week. The only substance is in the Comments
Section below.
News from the economic
front:
-- The Federal Reserve raised the federal-funds rate by a
quarter percentage point to between 0.50% and 0.75% on Thursday – the first
increase in a year. The Fed rate
hike will cause other household and business borrowing costs to rise as well. They also indicated the improving economic
outlook suggests the Fed will likely raise short-term rates next year and
perhaps at a faster pace.
Comments and contributions from Update no.782:
Comment to the Blog:
“One more comment on the Electoral College: I have seen several
references this week to ‘Federalist 68,’ presumably part of the Federalist
Papers, wherein Hamilton argues for the purpose of the Electoral College being
specifically to weed out the likes of Trump. I assume that ‘strict construction’
Supreme Court Justices might see fit to ignore that, but we have no way to know
yet.
“It would be willful blindness to ignore the chance of
international meddling in our election, and Russia is as good a candidate as
any, except possibly Israel. Manipulating the affairs of other nations has a
long history, even if we only count those who were caught. You make a good
point that only Democratic Party emails were released. In ascending order of
likelihood, direct changes in vote counts by outsiders are unlikely but
nowadays are possible; influence on state or local officials' handling of
precinct changes, allowed or disallowed votes, etc., are a bit more likely due
to the Electoral College; controlling Wikileaks' choice of materials to release
could have occurred, based on results; and intense pressure on FBI Director
Comey to re-open his investigation in such a public way, thus influencing
voters' choices, seems almost likely.
“Given both of these issues plus the conflicts of interest with
Trump and his office, with Trump's appointments of campaign contributors, and
among the appointees with their offices, all I can say is, ‘Fasten your safety
belts. It's going to be a bumpy night.’”
My response to the
Blog:
Correct. Federalist no.68 was written by
Alexander Hamilton and titled: “The Mode of Electing the President.” While the Federalist Papers are not
law, they are a reflection of the Framers’ thinking. Hamilton used words like: “. . . as little opportunity as
possible to tumult and disorder.”
Further, Hamilton stated: “Nothing was more to be desired than that
every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and
corruption.” He refers in
generality to the electoral process; there are two strongly implied
points. 1.) A deliberate,
independent process was necessary to achieve the objectives noted above. 2.) Electors have the higher purpose of
ensuring the person to be elected is eminently qualified to be president. Yet, the fallacy is Hamilton’s logic
is, what are those qualifications and how are they measured? Thus, it is left to the judgment of the
electors, which means there is the theoretical potential of just 535 citizens
defying the popular vote and electing the next president, or forcing the
election to the House of Representatives.
I
can agree with your observations regarding the potential for foreign
interference in our elections. In
this instance, the voters have to be susceptible to the calculated leaks, but
such selection is grotesquely unfair.
Imagine, if you will, what reaction would there be if the exact same
shoe was on the other foot?
I
absolutely concur with your conclusion.
This is going to be a rough ride.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Just to add emphasis to the issue, someone from the
cyber-security firm that caught the hacking appeared on CBSN a few minutes ago
(roughly 7:40 a.m. 12-13-2016) and stated that the hackers acquired Republican
as well as Democratic information but only passed the Democratic information to
Wikileaks. That leaves them with Republican information that might have all
kinds of blackmail potential on the candidate who appears to have won the
Electoral College.
“It's worth noting that this is something new to human experience
because of the speed of computing and the interconnection. Even the best and
fastest investigation into an affair like this would have taken months or years
longer in the past and become a footnote to history rather than the central
thread. The theft and use of the information would also have been a much slower
process. We have entered unknown territory.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Pass
on only DNC information . . . what does that say? Blackmail potential . . . perhaps . . . but the election is
nearly over. It appears the
Wisconsin re-count showed no abnormalities.
New
in human experience . . . absolutely . . . unknown territory indeed!
As
you said earlier, we are in for a rough ride.
Another contribution:
“Early in the campaign I wrote about my assertion that all the
chatter from the left about Putin favoring Trump was easily explained by
Putin's cleverness in working for a public reaction favoring Hillary, whose
succession to the weak Obama he no doubt wished for instead of the strong
unpredictable capitalist who promised a great America. I still think this
could be one explanation for whatever part the Russians played in the famous
hacking caper that is giving the media so much fun these days.”
My reply:
Not
just the media, my friend.
There
are myriad perspectives regarding the “famous hacking caper” as you call
it. I shall not, nay I cannot,
argue with your perspective. I
will only say there are very tangible reasons only DNC internal communications
were disclosed. On 7.October.2016,
the Director of National Intelligence, endorsed by the chiefs of 17 U.S.
intelligence agencies, signed a letter that clearly identified the Russian
government on numerous electronic intrusions into the political / election
apparatus of the United States.
Just the agreement of the Intelligence Community (IC) verges upon
unprecedented. Let us not GAF-off
the participation of Russia simply because we liked the outcome. How would you feel about the DNI memo
if Trump lost after winning the popular vote by 2.5 million votes (2%) and the
Russian hacking had been against the RNC?
I’m
just sayin’.
. . . a follow-up contribution:
“I agree 100%, Cap. I
just hope the real professionals (the ones not bending to political pressures)
in our intelligence community realize that Putin is probably smarter than many
of them, and that pure business profit motives aside, he surely would have
preferred eight more years of weakness in the White House over the rogue,
unpredictable tough-talking Trump. This leads to the conclusion that the influence he intended
was to scare voters toward Clinton by pretending to openly favor Trump. He is smart enough to have kept secret
any real favoring of Trump because of the damage it would have done to Trumps
campaign. Simple? No, nothing is simple. In any event, I personally believe a
cordial relationship between heads of state is a positive thing, something
strangely akin to honor among thieves.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
Politics
within a democratic society is the art of compromise for the common good. We seem to have lost our appreciation
for the artform.
We
shall respectfully disagree regarding the Obama administration being weak
years. He was certainly not afraid
to pull the trigger when it was appropriate – examples abound. His efforts to avoid war were not
weakness, but wisdom and courage. Time
shall tell whether his approach was successful.
Interesting
hypothesis regarding Russia’s influence in our election.
One
way or another . . . we shall bear witness to this “cordial relationship” of
which you speak. Yes, absolutely,
I would prefer that Russia and the United States were respectful allies for the
common good, rather than adversaries, but that is a bilateral endeavor . . .
cannot survive in unilateral form.
My concern in the soon-to-be present case is the quid pro quo of that cordial relationship. Lining the Trump family pockets is NOT
within the range of acceptable outcomes.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment