Update from the
Heartland
No.809
26.6.17 – 2.7.17
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To
all,
Happy
Independence Day to all Americans.
I hope and encourage everyone to read aloud the Declaration of
Independence to remember why we celebrate this day.
The follow-up news items:
-- The controversy surrounding President Trump’s immigration
bans has boiled since the issuance of his first Muslim ban – Executive Order
No. 13769 - Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United
States. {82 Fed. Reg. 8977} [789]. The Supremes issued a partial stay of
the lower court injunctions in a per
curiam ruling – Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project [582 U.S. ___ (2017); no. 16-1436]. As a consequence, the Executive
implemented instructions in accordance with the Court’s ruling that requires a
‘bona fide’ relation legally in the United States to permit entry from the six,
designated, predominately Muslim countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,
Syria, and Yemen – for 90 days.
The ruling granted the partial stay and will hear arguments on the whole
matter early in the fall term.
Oddly, the duration of the injunction stay will expire before the Court
can issue their full decision.
This simple interim ruling was a rather weak statement by the Court.
-- After a lot of puff and bluster, Senate Majority Leader
McConnell faced reality that he did not have the votes to pass the Senate
version of the PPACA [432] repeal /
replacement [787, 796]. He still claims they will take the bill to a vote after the Independence
Day recess. Adding fuel to the
fire, President Trump chimed in as he so often does, admonishing Congress to
simply repeal PPACA and figure out a replacement some time later. The sad reality is, there are many
elements of tragedy in the Republican obsession with repealing PPACA. At its most basic level, health
insurance is no different from any other form of insurance, paying into the
insurance coverage early when you are not likely to need it is essential to spreading
the costs. Congress chose to
engage health insurance companies – profit based businesses – to provide the
necessary coverage; thus, their profit must be added to the cost of that
coverage. The individual mandate
was an attempt to spread those costs. I am struggling with why some members of Congress see health
insurance coverage as different from social security. I paid into the social security fund all of my working life
from my teenage years through my military service to my official retirement (1960-2014). My social security benefits are not an
entitlement; they are withdrawals for a lifetime of contribution. Why is health insurance not handled the
same way as social security for all Americans? You pay in when you are young and withdraw when you need the
protection.
Comments and contributions from Update no.808:
“Both sides have disgusting attack mode ads during elections ..
the worst attribute of the Democrats is they drag out lies and false
accusations just to create discord and to distract the American public from the
corruption going on in their own party .. and constant resistance against Trump
.. he could introduce the finest healthcare bill in the history of the country
and the Dems would immediately hate it ...the parties need to work together but
looks like that will never happen with all the stubborn, cry-baby Democrats who
can't accept the fact their party represents the demise of our country and most
of Americans who clearly see this voted for Trump for prevention.
“Insurance premium control is a very important issue .. perhaps
Rand Paul's suggestion (A Republican mind you) is not far from reality ..
premiums should be a dollar a day from every American .. if we all put
that in a pool, it would cover catastrophic illness of the lesser percentage of
the populations. But socialists
like Bernie Sanders keep saying (as you do) FREE healthcare, FREE college!! LET THE WEALTHY PAY! That is a big
problem in that the poor and the younger generation are being fed this
socialist propaganda.. what will ever motivate them to work for subsistence??? Do you want our country to end up in
Venezuela's horrible position???
“Trump is shifting the focus of Russian meddling pre-election to
Obama and the Democrats because that is what the Democrats constantly do since
day one of Trumps presidency ... distract and discombauble everything .. it is
giving them a big taste of their own freaking medicine!! Even many, many
Democrats are starting to see through this and are saying it is going too far
.. with all the unnecessary resistance ..
“And PLEASE!!!! Trump has proven high scores on numerous
intelligence tests .. Mentally ill ??? Haaaaaaa!!!!! He and his team are
on top of all angles the pitiful Democrats will attack him from .. too bad
there can't be more teamwork amongst the parties .. imagine what might be
accomplished?? But the Democrats and the naysayers don't want anything good to
come out of this new administration or they might have to eat crow!!! It boils down to a whole lot of
egocentric, arrogant people who are too righteous to ever be wrong about
anything and the last thing these people EVER want to do is admit that perhaps
Trump could be beneficial for the country .. to the point that they'd rather
see the country continue going downward rather than let Trump fix anything ...
all EGO driven on THEIR part and yet they have the audacity to say TRUMP is
narcissistic!!!???” [emphasis by original author].
My
reply:
I
considered whether or how to respond.
I choose to take a less confrontational, more indirect path.
Insanity
can be defined as continuing to do what we have always done and expecting a
different result.
As
long as both sides remain intransigent, we shall perpetuate this insanity to
our own destruction. To suggest
this insanity is all Democrat or all Republican is simply more insanity.
‘Nuf
said!
A
contributor chose to rebut another contributor’s comment from last week [808]:
“Also .. 're: your reader comment (jab) .... " The
issue with Trump's supporters is not intelligence or education but how they use
or misuse those assets.”
“Again another egotistical remark ... I would like to hear from
this person .. an answer to this question since they think only THEY have the
true ability to use their intelligence (please, I was gagging on this one) ...
JUST HOW DOES THIS PERSON BELIEVE THIS COUNTRY WOULD HAVE IMPROVED IN A
GOVERNMENT BY HILLARY CLINTON ... OR BERNIE SANDERS ... OR ANOTHER OBAMA TERM
GOD FORBID !!!??? If that person
could post a 10 point list I would be ENLIGHTENED???” [emphasis by original
author].
. . . to which the focus author responded:
“I note that the comment is an example of the phenomenon. I can
provide any level of information without the person changing their mind,
because logic and evidence are not at issue. That is why intelligence is not
useful either in reaching the person or in countering their arguments. As I
noted this week, the topic that applies is cognitive psychology. I wonder,
though, whether he or she realizes that all-caps on the Internet denotes
shouting and, thus, loss of any remaining dignity.
“For you and your other readers, I will respond to the attack.
Rather than try to satisfy the demand for a ten-point list, I will point out
that, while some past Presidents have been in the impeachment process, none of
the others were subject to potential criminal indictment (sexual assault,
obstruction of justice) or compelled to testify about their outside business
interests. None of them employed
as a White House advisor someone who was also employed by two foreign nations
at the same time (Flynn; Russia and Turkey). No past President offended all of Europe, Japan, China, and
sundry other allies within a few months, probably with no clue why that
matters. No other President placed
his immediate family in sensitive positions involving security clearances. That list goes on and on. Regardless of who else we might have
chosen, this is the worst President we have seen.”
Comment to the Blog:
“I agree that negative political advertising is out of hand,
although I have not seen restraint among the Democrats here in Ohio. I often have trouble understanding who
the advertiser wants me to vote for because they only talk about the candidate
they oppose. By the time I
actually vote, only the Greens, Libertarians, and independents do not look like
criminals.
“The statistics and predictions site 538.com points out that
the special elections the Republicans have won this year are in deep-red
districts that elect those candidates by much smaller margins than Trump
received last year, say 7% versus Trump’s 23%. The math majors use the smaller margins to support their
prediction that Democrats will benefit from the usual mid-term ‘bump’ that the
out-of-power party usually receives. Maybe so, but I think the Democrats will have to actually
stand for progressive causes and field candidates with records supporting those
stands before they win enough to do any good. Otherwise, progressive/liberal
voters stay home as usual. Funding sources are an issue with progressives, too,
much more than for conservatives.
“The Republican Party is anti-abortion, and ‘pro-life’ is a
term limited to only that meaning. Their supporters do not want them to stop killing, just to
try to force pregnant women to give birth. In other words, they’re hypocrites.
“Trump continues his quest to take attention off his
failings. I wish Obama had handled
his role differently, but that’s past tense. Trump accuses Obama of not stopping Russian election
interference that favored Trump. Huh?
“Re ‘unwitting complicity’: there’s no way to understand
Trump’s mind, but I can’t see him as truly unwitting. Sensible or not, he would be aware of
the most important factors in his own election.
“We can’t understand Trump or his voters via logic.
Cognitive psychology explains much better why people reject reality. I just
finished a college course on climate change denial; the last week’s lectures
all discuss cognitive psychology and how to deal with it. There’s a great deal
of overlap. ‘Worldview backfire,’ ‘confirmation bias,’ and other such ideas
clarify this. No logic does.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
“negative political advertising.”
Well, apparently, the races I watched were the exception rather than the
norm. I was just struck by the
excessive contrast in advertisements used by the two candidates. I note your observation, and I actually
agree. Such negative political
advertising is rapidly becoming a no-go criterion for me, i.e., a candidate who
resorts to such negative advertising (directly or indirectly, regardless of
party) cannot gain my support or vote.
Re:
“statistics.” I’ve listened to the
arguments as well. I find little
positive in such rationalization analysis. At the bottom line, close only counts in horseshoes,
grenades and . . . well . . . what matters is who holds the office. To my thinking, staying at home and not
voting for any reason is not proper citizenship and simply wrong.
Re:
“hypocrites.” On this we agree, as
well. If Republicans cared one
scintilla about the welfare and nurturing of living children, they might have a
more believable argument for the State intruding into a woman’s body and her
fundamental right to privacy. They
do not, and I cannot support hypocrites.
Re:
“Trump.” I’m tired; I just can’t
find anything positive to say.
Re:
“unwitting complicity.” You may
well be correct; I know not. If
his actions are not, the alternative is far more ominous.
Re:
“logic.” Perhaps not, but I
continue to strive to understand.
There are reasons his supporters are so unwaveringly loyal to the point
of rejecting or ignoring his bad behavior. I just want to understand.
. . . follow-up comment:
“My point about logic versus cognitive psychology is about understanding.
We are all humans; logic is only a
part (at best) of how we operate. It's
not really logical to expect to find a ‘logical’ explanation for human behavior
based only on factors outside the individual. We must also take into account the psychological aspects of
human behavior.”
. . . along with my follow-up response:
No
disagreement.
Quite
so; for whatever the reason or basis, I still struggle to understand . . . why?
Another contribution
from a third party:
“Poppycock!
“I guess some democrats don’t pay attention to the nasty rhetoric
by their own party and candidates.
“Democrats are outraged over Russia meddling in the 2016
elections. I point out during that time their ‘Messiah’ was running the
show. In fact, the democrats were
in charge of every aspect of our government. Why didn’t they catch the ‘hacking’?”
. . . to which I replied:
Well
. . . balderdash to the poppycock!
“Why
didn’t they catch the “hacking”?”
Please see DNI letter dated October 07, 2016. It is extraordinarily rare for all 17 agencies of the
Intelligence Community to agree on anything; however, as indicated in that
letter, they did . . . the Russian government was actively interfering with our
election process.
I
was critical of President Obama then, and I remain critical of his tepid
response to this day. He was
between a rock and a hard spot, yet to my thinking he failed to fulfill his
Article II, §2 responsibilities.
He erred on the side of caution rather than action.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
With respect to the Muslim travel ban, here’s a question. If the ban intends to block “terrorists,” why does it not include Saudi Arabia, the home of most of the 9-11 attackers? Could that be a matter of Trump’s corporate activities? The same might apply to the laptop ban on air flights. The first exception to that is Abu Dhabi, the home of a Trump resort.
Not that I have any sympathy for him, but Mitch McConnell is trapped. Having illuminated the advantages of “Obamacare” (PPACA), his party leadership now faces internal rebellion in trying to replace it. It matters that the rebellion arises both from the more moderate and the more radical. He cannot unite all three Republican sides. The GOP will get no help from progressives, who seek a single-payer system similar to those of advanced nations. Clinton Democrats respond to corporate interests, so they might be McConnell’s best hope. However, if they play along with the GOP, they will lose even more of what was once their base. Strange days.
Your other correspondent’s discussion of Trump’s intelligence and mental health status amuses me. I will note that few people indeed have taken “numerous intelligence tests,” simply because those are diagnostic in nature. Mass administration of intelligence tests is only used for standardizing. Once diagnosed, the patient needs only very occasional testing. As far as sanity, that is a functional rather than diagnostic issue in this case. Whether or not Trump has a label, he does insane things.
I’m going to point out something uncomfortable. The most serious attacks on our country are Internet based and otherwise non-military. When the Democrats and Republicans get past their blame game, if that ever happens, the enormity of another nation controlling our political process may sink in. That has a far greater effect on the fate of the USA than some ragtag radicals thousands of miles away. If Putin or the Chinese (or any other nation) controls our elections, they conquer us without ever firing a shot.
So much of US discussion centers on the budget, deficits, etc. We could maintain the largest military budget in the world (by far) and still resolve all our budget issues by applying half the military budget to infrastructure and social spending. We’d come out ahead in the long run by having a sound structure and healthier, less desperate people.
Calvin,
Re: Muslim. “why does it not include Saudi Arabia, the home of most of the 9-11 attackers?” Not just that factoid, but the Saudi government tacitly allowed, if not supported, Wahhabi fundamentalism and extremism in the kingdom and beyond. In fact, the argument can easily be made that Wahhabism was the fertile genesis movement for al-Qa’ida and ISIL. There are plenty of reasons to be more aggressive with Saudi Arabia, but that is not likely to happen. “Could that be a matter of Trump’s corporate activities?” I cannot discount that potential, but I suspect it has far to do with oil.
Re: “laptop ban.” No. I think the laptop ban has far more to do with, if not solely a function of, the detection equipment and security procedures in place to detect new techniques being utilized by the terrorist bomb-makers to mask and hide their explosive devices. I cannot imagine traveling without my laptop and iPad. The potential of having those devices confiscated just to get home is even more unacceptable.
Strange days indeed. We are living in interesting times, to paraphrase the Chinese curse.
Re: “he does insane things.” Yes, he does things that leave little other explanation than insanity. However, to those who avidly support his behavior, he is doing precisely what feeds their loyalty. He could care less about the rest of us. He is staking everything on the solidity of his supporters AND the fundamental political survival fears of his Republican enablers. Time will always tell the tale.
Re: cyber-attacks. “If Putin or the Chinese (or any other nation) controls our elections, they conquer us without ever firing a shot.” Spot on! Josef Stalin so succinctly and accurately stated, “"It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes.” If foreign actors are allowed to fictitiously influence voters, is the result any different from altering the voting machines? I think not.
Re: “U.S. budget.” There is validity to that argument.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment