Update no.802

Update from the Heartland

No.802

24.4.17 – 30.4.17

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

Notice

            This humble Blog will be suspended for the next two (2) weeks.  If everything stays to plan, Update no.803 will return us to the weekly publication routine on Monday, 22.May.2017.  During this hiatus, I will be unable to keep up with current events, or respond to comments and contributions.  I hope and trust everyone will return to the forum on the other side.  Thank you for your understanding and patience.

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Representative Jason E. Chaffetz of Utah (Republican) and Ranking Member Representative Elijah Eugene Cummings of Maryland (Democrat) issued a joint statement regarding the President’s former national security advisor.  “I see no evidence or no data to support the notion that General Flynn [792/3, 796/7] complied with the law.  He was supposed to seek permission and receive permission from both the secretary of state and the secretary of the Army prior to traveling to Russia to not only accept that payment, but to engage in that activity.  No former military officer is allowed to accept payments from a foreign government, and my guess is this is probably not the first time this has happened.  General Flynn had a duty and an obligation to seek and obtain permission to receive money from foreign governments prior to any engagement with them . . . It does not appear to us that that was ever sought, nor did he ever get that permission.”  No wonder Flynn is seeking immunity from prosecution.  This matter is personal and not directly related to the Russian meddling investigation.  I suspect this whole situation is going to get far more messy and ugly before we reach the other side.

-- United Airlines has apparently reached an undisclosed settlement with David Dao, the Kentucky man forcibly removed from a 9.April.2017 flight at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport [800].   Part of me understands and accepts that this is a business decision by United Continental Holdings, Inc. – a cost / benefit analysis – to move on from the incident.  The majority part of my thought thinks this is a really, REALLY bad idea that will only encourage other citizens to physically resist proper instructions from the flight crew and from law enforcement officers.

            Despite all of his myriad character flaws, no one can claim or even suggest that Donald Trump does not possess unprecedented audacity.  He hyped his tax reform and tax reduction plan for months, and then treated us to a crude sketch of one-liners that he wants us to believe is a real plan.  My impression from his sketch, for what it is worth . . . he offered us the candy without telling us the price.  For being such a self-proclaimed ‘greatest’ businessman, the absence of a balanced cost-benefit proposal is shocking – shocking I tell you.  Another impression: this sketch appears to be far more beneficial to the wealthy and his supporters, and oddly quite the dichotomy, it does not seem to benefit a goodly portion of his base element.  Lastly, the plan would repeal a provision of the present tax code that allows individuals to deduct the state and local taxes they pay from their reportable federal income – sounds a lot like double taxation to me.  That would hurt residents of high-tax states such as New York, New Jersey and California. Hummm!  Who won those states in the last election?

            The Trump administration took what appears to be a retaliatory action against Canada – yep, Canada, our neighbor and ally to the north – over a trade dispute, moving to impose a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber that is typically used to build single-family homes. The determination that Canada improperly subsidizes its exports is preliminary, but the decision has immediate real-world consequences, by discouraging importers from buying lumber from Canada.  Slapping a neighbor in the face hardly seems like a neighborly thing to do or a worthy negotiating position.  If I did not want to believe otherwise, I think Trump’s America First notion is to simply piss off everyone else you possibly can and threaten the others.  His conduct is bizarre, to say the least.

            Congress passed and presumably the President consented to a short continuing resolution to keep the government in operation until 5.May.2017 – An Act Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2017, and for other purposes [PL 115-xxx; H J Res 99; Senate: xx-xx-0-x(0); House: 382-30-0-18(5); 131 Stat. xxxx].  This action hardly seems worth the paper, but hey . . . we do what we gotta do.  I guess another week of politics will get the Donald his cherished wall.  At least we do not have long to wait.

            This view from Germany of our political situation appears to be fairly typical of most public opinion outside the United States.

“100 Days of Chaos – Donald Trump and the Erosion of American Democracy – With his attacks on judges, journalists and critics, U.S. President Donald Trump is chipping away at the foundations of democracy. Is the American Constitution strong enough to withstand the assault?”

by Christoph Scheuermann

Der Spiegel

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-100-days-the-erosion-of-american-democracy-a-1145294.html - ref=nl-international

The observations and opinions expressed by Scheuermann are comparatively subdued from my perspective.  I will draw attention to a few of Scheuermann’s statements.  “Trump has never made a secret of his intense disdain for the institutions that are necessary for a vigorous democracy: an independent judiciary, a critical press and a healthy opposition.  Essentially, Trump would be happy to do away with all of that, or at least marginalize it.”  I could not have said it better, and he drives the nail home with one stroke.  That is exactly my interpretation of the Donald’s efforts to date.  Burn the house down!  That may work in his real estate businesses, but it is NOT an option for a nation-state.  He went on to observe, “He has also inflicted wounds on democracy by regularly doing the exact opposite of what he promised during the campaign.  The faith of the electorate in their political leaders, which was already low, will likely sink further – and the desire for a strong ruler, who will impose his will on the system, will grow.”  This is my precise fear . . . “inflicted wounds on democracy.”  He concluded, “The first 100 days have revealed an immoral president without a plan, an unpoised leader with no interest in the political process.  It seems unlikely that Trump will impose a state of emergency or strive for single-party rule: The U.S., after all, isn't Turkey or Venezuela.  But he has set in motion the internal erosion of democracy and is taking advantage of its weaknesses.  As such, the only hope lies in his own incompetence.”  The simple answer to Scheuermann’s subtitle question: Yes, the Constitution and the United States shall endure this episode of the amateur hour.

            As a particularly relevant postscript to this topic, I was appalled at Trump’s insensitive and callous treatment of German Chancellor Angela Merkel during her state visit to the United States.  Germany has been an important ally since the reconstruction after World War II.  For him to snub her, repeatedly, during her state visit was unconscionable.

            Just a personal note for Donald Trump, not that you give a twit what I think: you really should stop telling us to “believe” you and “trust” you.  I do not, no matter how many times you repeat your nonsense, and worse, I dare say the majority of American citizens do not believe you either.  Contrary to your hyper-inflated opinion of yourself, things are not the best, the greatest, the most incredible, just because you say so.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.801:

Comment to the Blog:

“I also agree with Leonard Pitts, Jr. that the ‘War on Drugs’ has failed the nation, but he doesn’t examine the cause in depth.  Prohibition of alcohol failed and prohibitions of other substances or behaviors continues to fail in their stated purpose.  However, private prisons make big money, and if we follow the money flow (contract payments, campaign contributions, vendors, enforcement salaries, etc.), we discover that the purpose of the War on Drugs is, of course, making money for people who own politicians and salaries for many others. Thus, the people who pay the politicians are succeeding.  The rest of us fail as taxpayers, as recreational or addicted users, as their family members, and as a society.

“Prime Minister May, in calling for a quick election, gambles from the perspective of the Brexit objective, but less so personally. She will either achieve better support for the objective or a way out of that extremely difficult process.

“Bill O’Reilly is one more scumbag lifted and dropped on the tide of the Tea Party.

“We shall see how the French runoff vote goes. Europe seems to have a bit more resistance to this particular strain of insanity than the U.S.

"Re: the only stated position for a judge should be the law.  That is grotesquely oversimplified, as the writer himself seems to point out in an internal contradiction.  ‘The law’ is extremely complex at its starting point, then must evolve to meet changing events and societal changes.  Nobody’s position can be ‘the law is good’ without an explanation of that person’s perspective.  Individual perspective varies wildly even on an idea as relatively simple as ‘good weather,’ much less the entire legal structure of the United States.  I am sad that your other correspondent experiences that combination of self-righteousness and self-pity, but that’s not my issue."

My response to the Blog:

            Re: ‘war on drugs.’  Interesting perspective.  Given current events, your supposition is certainly plausible.  I hate to think it might be true, if not in toto, at least in part.

            Yes, as I said, I think May’s gamble is a good and necessary action.  She either needs more authority to negotiate Brexit, or if the people reject her move, then someone else should take up the task.  Either way, May is in a better position.

            Re: O’Reilly.  I have never been a fan and always objected to his bully style.  I would just as soon he disappears, never to be heard from again.  I doubt we will be so fortunate.

            Re: French election.  Indeed!  I hope you are correct, and in this instance, I deeply hope the French people rise up and make the correct decision.  There is only hope.

            Re: the law.  On this, we shall respectfully disagree.  Our disagreement does not mean I think you are wrong.  Interpretation of the law depends upon many factors, all of which cannot be divorced from a judge’s life experiences, political affiliations and social construct.  However, judicial standard and practice encourages removal of the personal and interpreting the law as intended rather than as they wish it to be.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“On the law: ‘interpreting the law as intended’ is fraught with all sorts of issues. That is why a discussion of the judge's past cases and understanding of the Founders' intention ought to be part of the confirmation process.”

  . . . my follow-up response:

            Questioning a judge’s past rulings is quite appropriate.  Asking him how he is going to rule in future cases on specific topics or pending cases is rather gauche and ethically obscene.  Unfortunately, senators are far more driven by political posturing and partisan intransigence than they are properly vetting a judicial nominee.  These are the times in which we live.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)