Update no.825

Update from the Heartland

No.825

16.10.17 – 22.10.17

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

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- The sexual harassment, abusive workplace issue [824] continues to expand as Brother Bob Weinstein is exposed as an abusive employer and Fidelity Investments joins the ranks of companies being sucked up into the sexual harassment issue.  The associated “me too” movement was created by Tarana Burke and revitalized in the current intercourse by Actress Alyssa Milano.  Women from all walks of life are giving voice to what has existed for decades, centuries and probably millennia—the disrespect of inequality.

-- The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, backed by U.S. airstrikes and American special forces on the ground, captured ISIL’s [652] self-proclaimed, de facto capital of Raqqa, Syria [726, 759], wrenching away the group's last major urban stronghold in the Middle East, after a four-month long battle.  The city had served as ISIL’s nerve center, to plan and stage attacks on the West.

-- U.S. District Judge Derrick Kahala Watson of Hawaii [796] issued yet another rebuke to the Trump administration, this time Trump Travel Ban version 3.0.  Judge Watson said the president's new policy does not demonstrate that existing law is insufficient to address his concerns about national security and improperly judges travelers' risk to the U.S. based on their nationality.

-- In the aftermath of the independence referendum in Catalonia [822], the Spanish central government moved to rescind the autonomy of the regional government, and remove Catalan President Carles Puigdemont [824] and his ministers from office.  Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy is also seeking new regional elections.  The Spanish situation on top of the Brexit challenge [758] presents the European Union with some unique opportunities.  As the Chinese curse goes, may you live in interesting times!

            OK; once again, I must brave the condemnation of all the Trumpsters among us.  The fellow who currently occupies the Oval Office continues his dreadfully persistent effort to ratchet down the bar of acceptable conduct. . . to lower and lower levels.  This week’s dose came in the disgusting reaction to a simple question from the White House Press Corps.  He said:

“The traditional way, if you look at President Obama, and other president, most of ‘em didn’t make calls, a lot of ‘em didn’t make calls.  I like to call when it is appropriate, when I think I am able to do it.  President Obama, I think probably did sometimes, and maybe sometimes he didn’t, I don’t know, that’s what I was told.  All I can do is ask my generals.”

As long as Trump continues to gaze into the rearview mirror rather than the road ahead, he will continue to smack into bumps in the road.  How he managed to screw up a condolence call to a gold-star wife is beyond me.  His paucity of compassion reinforces the image of him as a deeply narcissistic, egocentric person.

            Trump’s performance this week was bad enough, but to me, the really revolting public performance came from Chief of Staff Kelly.  I certainly understand the sentiment Kelly attempted to convey, but it was being sucked into the same loosey-goosey with facts style so common to his boss that really disappointed me.  What is it with these guys?  Do they really think we are such ignorant idiots that we will not crosscheck their statements?  . . . that they can say whatever they wish and no one will question the veracity of their words?  It is truly sad that Trump has brought down a good man like John Kelly.

            The ray of light this week came from Senator John McCain of Arizona in his acceptance speech at the National Constitution Center in Washington, DC, upon his award of the annual Liberty Medal for his lifetime of sacrifice and service to this Grand Republic.

“To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.”
[emphasis added by Cap]

My opinion precisely, Senator!  Thank you for your illuminating words.

            A week ago Sunday, CBS’s 60 Minutes Program broadcast its Season 50, Episode 4 (15.10.2017).  Two of three segments dealt with “The Whistleblower, Redemption” and the prescription opioid crisis in this Grand Republic.  The exposé offered a compelling and damning illumination of the lobbying power of the prescription drug distribution industry and the contribution of Representative Thomas Anthony ‘Tom’ Marino of Pennsylvania in the process of passing the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2016 [PL 114-145; S.483; House: without objection; Senate: unanimous consent; 130 Stat. 354; 19.4.2016] {Just a side FYI: neither chamber of the Congress recorded a roll call vote}.  The legislation weakened the power of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) over pharmaceutical companies that produce opioid drugs, and nearly immunizes the drug distribution companies in the name of citizen access to powerful pain medications.  The 60 Minutes episode was not complimentary to Representative Marino, and rightly so I must say.  Following the 60 Minutes exposé, President Trump announced that Representative Marino “informed me that he is withdrawing his name” to lead the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy—the nation’s so-called “drug czar.”  If anyone did not see the 60 minutes program, I strongly urge you to do so via this URL:  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-dea-agent-opioid-crisis-fueled-by-drug-industry-and-congress/

The 60 Minutes episode certainly and brightly illuminated one of the significant contributing factors in the opioid crisis that exploded in parts of this nation.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.824:

“I wish you and others with similar habitually negative views of everything Trump does had heard the articulate explanation of the logic and good sense of his decision to simply not affirm Iran's good faith compliance with Obama's embarrassingly one-sided deal, given by an official in a PRI interview a couple of days ago, during which the interviewer tried but could not succeed in diminishing the effectiveness of the young man's presentation no matter how hard she tried.  It was based upon the seldom mentioned details of the agreement, the misunderstood role of the Congress and the latitude intentionally granted the POTUS, the good faith elements which have been violated by Iran, as well as Iran's documented slow-walking compliance and reluctant catch-up actions when caught in its continued progress toward uranium enrichment capability, etc., etc.  I wish I could have recorded it.  The press has not adequately explored, nor has it cared to ascertain, the truthful reasons for and actual effects of the widely criticized decision.  Perhaps you should.”

My reply:

            I confess to a modicum of resentment at the inference I am anti-Trump for the sake of being anti-Trump . . . like so many folks were anti-Obama simply because Obama was who he is.

            Here’s a thought . . . perhaps the “habitual” adjective simply reflects the plethora of foolish, tone-deaf, bonehead things he says and does rather than the mindless anti-anything-Obama mentality.  I understand the anti-establishment sentiment; I truly do.  I am one of those citizens . . . throw all the bastards out and let’s start over.  However, my anti-establishment opinions pale in the harsh light of his very un-presidential conduct.  I think Senator John McCain said it best and most succinctly—“ some half-baked, spurious nationalism” is NOT worthy of this Grand Republic and the lofty ideals upon which this nation was founded.  Lastly, We, the People, keep electing the establishment guys, so what does that say about us?

            Re: IRI nuclear deal.  Odd!  I am not an advocate for Iran or the IRI.  However, I was taught many moons ago that any action is better than inaction.  The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) was better than going to war, which is precisely where we were headed . . . and in a hurry I might add.  Further, the JCPA is a joint agreement, NOT an agreement between the IRI and the U.S.  The Plan was not perfect, but it was better than war.  Odder!  “Iran's good faith compliance” and at the same time “the good faith elements which have been violated by Iran” in contrast with the public statements of everyone short of POTUS saying the IRI is and has been in compliance with the JCPA.  I recognize and acknowledge that the JCPA is far from perfect, but as I said, something is better than nothing, and a working agreement (however weak it might be) is better than war.  He could have sought congressional action via the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 [PL 114-017; H.R.1191; House: 400-25-0-7(3); Senate: 98-1-0-1(0); 129 Stat. 201] rather than de-certify for reasons not in the JCPA.

            I suppose the same argument can be applied to Trump, i.e., something is better than nothing.  As so many have voiced, he is better than nothing.  I could not vote for or support Clinton for reasons given ad infinitum to date.  Trump’s personality flaws are simply too great; they constantly get in the way; nary a day goes by that he does not lay a big stinky one in the dirt.  As much as I wanted change and I am anti-establishment, I am not that desperate to turn to a man so seriously flawed as Donald J. Trump.  Personally, I wanted to give Johnson-Weld a shot at finding compromise and solutions.  Trump is his own worst enemy.  Full stop!  I do not look for negatives things.  My nature is to see the positive rather than the negative in virtually everything in life.  Unfortunately, he gives us so bloody many negatives every day . . . they are unavoidable and overwhelm whatever positives he does.

 . . . follow-up comment:

Please be assured that I do not doubt your sincerity for an instant, so your 

‘modicum of resentment at the inference I am anti-Trump for the sake of being anti-Trump . . . like so many folks were anti-Obama simply because Obama was who he is...’

. . . I believe is just part of the habit I referred to.  I intended no such inference; I just wanted to call attention to the good reasons for the decision concerning the sorry deal, which have not been adequately covered by the media or admitted so far by you.

“BTW, I certainly agree that many were and may still be Anti-Obama simply because of who he is, and I frequently expressed my displeasure at the below-the-belt criticisms and simply ugly or illogical accusations that came from those folks, even as I loudly complained about his actions (as often contrasted with his words).  Now I see the same, or worse, habitual punches thrown at Trump, supported this time inceascently (sic) by the left stream media.  Of course, Trump deserves more criticism for his street language than Obama did for his political mush.

“The Iran deal remains, regardless of Trump's action at this point.  However, I strongly disagree with the ‘better than nothing’ claim.  Maybe I missed something, because I did not have the same impression that you apparently have concerning ultimate war with Iran  {(JCPA) was better than going to war, which is precisely where we were headed . . .}

I was not aware that we were so precisely headed for war before the deal, but now...

The ‘Deal’ with all its ‘imperfections’ (your characterization) helped our enemy enormously and has done little to protect us from that eventuality, while clearly guaranteeing Iran at least a future green light for nuclear weapons, so say nothing of the proven likelihood of its surreptitious activities in the meantime.  Perhaps our Congress can be smarter than Obama or Trump on this one.”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

            Re: JCPA.  I am not aware of anyone who would claim the JCPA is a perfect agreement to stop the IRI from nuclear weapons development.  However, the JCPA gives us more visibility of what is going on inside the IRI than we had before the agreement.  I still contend that the JCPA is far better than bloodshed.  If 45 can make a better deal, more power to him.  However, I suspect (based on his actions to date) he is going to make it worse and he certainly has increased the potential for bloodshed and war.  Further, if we are going to fight a war, then we damn well better mobilize for war and avoid the dreadful mistakes of 43 in Iraq.

            Re: “many were and may still be Anti-Obama simply because of who he is . . .”  To me and my understanding of the genesis of this Grand Republic, that observation of reality is the antithesis of what this country has stood for over 240+ years.

            “we were so precisely headed for war before the deal.”  Perhaps you do not recall, the IAF conducted a full-up wet rehearsal mission into Khartoum, Sudan (23.10.2012).  The pressure for military intervention had been building for months.  The JCPA certainly defused that pressure.  “helped our enemy enormously”  OK; I’ll bite.  How so?  “has done little to protect us from that eventuality”  Well, from the publicly available facts, I do not understand your reasoning.  If we had not acted, the IAF would have flown the mission(s), and the U.S. would likely have been drawn into the fight to protect Israel.  When the negotiations began that led to the JCPA, the war drumbeat quieted.

            Re: “clearly guaranteeing Iran at least a future green light for nuclear weapons.”  I do not see the terminal dates as a green light, but rather a deadline to find a better solution.  It bought time for a better agreement.  Time shall tell the tale.  “Congress can be smarter” oh my, I pray you are correct; however, given the performance of Congress for the last couple of decades, I am not optimistic on that score.  Again, we shall see.

Comment to the Blog:

“On a quick scan, Catalonia’s relationship to Spain looks more like California’s to the United States than Texas’s.  (I admit that my opinion is based partly on negative personal experience of Texas.)  Were Texas to secede, my only concern would be border security.  If California seceded, I’d want to be on the California side of the border. In any secession, legal disputes will be complex and arcane.

“T-rump’s latest executive commandment will eventually affect all US health care.  Effectively taking health care away from millions of people will reduce employment in health care and other resources available to health care providers.  Those Americans whose health care survives will lose services due to the health care industry’s loss of income.  Premiums and co-pays will probably rise in an attempt by insurers to recoup lost income.  If this executive order stands, the ripples will affect all Americans.  Medicare will be affected one way or another, and Medicare is already too expensive for me without help from Medicaid and a third-party ‘Medigap’ policy.

“Agent Orange also seems to be seeking a war with Iran, perhaps because the North Koreans have not yet satisfied his desire for combat.  However, other parties in the Iran treaty he has attacked are EU nations run by grownups.  I hope they can prevent major consequences from this particular tantrum.

“Your list of sexual predators in positions of power could probably be expanded as far back and as broadly as we can find information.  Some of those abusers would be women (think Catherine the Great), and some of the victims were and are men.  Society worldwide has an unsolved problem around how to grant authority on many levels in order to have an orderly and productive society without also giving license to abuse.  Increasingly strong and prompt responses to specific abuses are probably helping, but I suspect an even deeper issue underlies the willful abuse of the weak.  I struggle to even come up with a way to describe what I mean.  Evidence-based reasoning versus easy belief, principles versus personalities, and individual versus societal focus all play into it.  When I come up with something coherent enough to put into an essay, I’ll discuss it with you.

“PS: The church that ordained me tells me October is National Clergy Appreciation Month.  Let me be the first clergy person today to encourage you to appreciate clergy if/when we deserve it, but don’t let your guard down.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: “Catalonia’s relationship to Spain looks more like California’s to the United States than Texas’s.”  We could argue the point on various levels; however, I will accept your quick scan.  Regardless, secession is serious business and should never be taken “for light and transient causes.”

            Re: health care.  Well, actually, whether Trump’s executive order stands or not, the damage has been done just by inference.  Insurance is at its most fundamental the monetization of risk.  His unilateral action has substantially increased the risk.  The Republicans have torpedoed the PPACA simply by their relentless quest to repeal.  They have shown no interest in the health care system . . . only anti-anything-Obama.  The longer this foolishness persists the more I lean toward universal health care like Europe, Canada and other civilized countries.

            Re: Agent Orange.  Good one!

            Re: the man who occupies the Oval Office.  He likes to puff himself up and act tough-guy . . . with other people’s blood.  At least Hitler saw combat and was seriously wounded.  Yes, he seems to have forgotten and perhaps never knew the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) was actually a joint agreement between the P5+1 Group, or more precisely the EU/EU3 + 3, and the IRI.  It was NOT an agreement between the U.S. and the IRI.

        Re: sexual predators.  Quite so; I said as much.  After I posted my short list, I realized I should have added Clarence Thomas to that infamous list.  Yes, agreed, there are female sexual predators; I just contend they are far fewer in number than males.  You may feel you are struggling to describe your thoughts, but I thought you did quite well.  Throughout all of recorded history (all 6,000 years of it), men (and a few women) have succumbed to the powerful narcotic of megalomania—dominating other human beings.  When you add in the very corrosive consequences of narcissism, the combination becomes dangerous to humanity. Leaders like Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus are rather rare in the panoply of human recorded history.  I look forward to your insight.

            I send my heartfelt appreciation for your spiritual contributions.

 . . . Round two:

“That's a clear description of the Republicans' approach to health care.  Unfortunately, the Democrats, with the support of their large donors, have taken a defeatist stance until very recently.  We shall see.

“The problem with abuse by those in authority, or just celebrity, is compounded by people who would rather follow the leader than think for themselves.  That applies to more than just sexual predation.  It's also the central reason tyrants can arise, among other things.  Thus far, my best lens for this is skepticism versus belief. All manner of things complicate the issue, but underneath much suffering is the mental and spiritual laziness embodied in the notion that the people in authority are right simply because they're in authority.  From royalty right on down to local jailers, abusers thrive on that mental laziness.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Yes, we shall see.  I still hope Congress can find the courage and will to achieve the necessary compromise for a viable solution to the health care issue.

            Interesting observations regarding mental laziness.  I would tend to agree.  There were more than a few public voices sounding the clarion call against Hitler’s rise.  Far too many Germans simply ignored the presented evidence due to wishful thinking or mental laziness, as you say . . . until it was too late and the SS eliminated or suppressed all dissent.

 . . . Round three:

“That same mental issue applies to many, and it's not just one segment of society.  I have read a blog by an otherwise intelligent (but maybe pretty shallow) Christian woman who refused to vote for Hillary based on one issue.  Okay, I get that.  But rather than abstain or vote ‘protest,’ she voted for Trump knowing what he is.  She wrote about hoping or believing her God would guide him.  I can accept that God (or some god) might offer people guidance, but it's glaringly obvious that Trump's not tuned in to that.  I will never understand voting for someone repugnant, and I can only conclude that her pastor or some religious leader advised her to vote against Hillary.  The bottom line is that she gets a dramatically un-Christian tyrant rather than the usual basically neutral leader.  I can only conclude that her seeking leadership rather than knowledge led her into that un-Christian vote. The real problem is that millions of other voted the same way.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            Well now, I do not know this “Christian woman” of which you speak, but I certainly recognize the affliction.  In this one, we agree.  Full stop!

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)