Update no.834

Update from the Sunland

No.834

18.12.17 – 24.12.17

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

            To all,

            Happy Holidays to everyone.  May the New Year bring a prosperous peace to all of us.

            The follow-up news items:

-- Congress finally passed and the fellow in the Oval Office signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act [PL 115-097; HR.1; House: 224-201-0-7(3); Senate: 51-49; 131 Stat. xxxx] [831].  At the end of the day, we can only hope the Donald is correct, where Ronnie was not—trickle down economics will benefit us all.  So, the tax cut is what it is (I hesitate to use the term reform, since I do not see much reform, just a ‘uge tax cut for corporations).

            As I noted previously, my examination of the publicly available versions of the HR.1 bill were unsuccessful in discovering the wording of the alleged PPACA individual mandate repeal.  Well, you may be happy to know, the final version passed by both chambers of Congress clearly states what was done.  The relevant section is: Title I (no name); Subtitle A-Individual Tax Reform; Part VIII-Individual Mandate; § 11081-Elimination of Shared Responsibility Payment for Individuals Failing to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage [131 Stat. xxxx].  This section simply zero’s the tax penalty imposed by the PPACA for those who failed to maintain adequate health insurance coverage.  To be specific and precise, § 11081 states in its entirety:

(a) In General—Section 5000A(c) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (2)(B)(iii), by striking “2.5 percent” and inserting “Zero percent”, and

(2) in paragraph (3)—

(A) by striking “$695” in subparagraph (A) and inserting “$0”, and

(B) by striking subparagraph (D).

(b) Effective Date—The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2018.

That is it . . . in toto.

            Before I jump into my commentary, I must offer a related side note.  When I turned 65 years of age, I learned a very painful lesson the hard way regarding the individual mandate.  I was still working when I turned 65 years of age.  We had good company health insurance coverage plus my military health insurance, which gave us both exceptional medical and dental protection—at virtually no cost to us.  I happened to be undergoing radiation treatment for residual cancer (not inexpensive I must add) when I learned by rejected medical insurance payments that Medicare for citizens over 65 years of age is required by law regardless of what other insurance coverage you may have.  I mistakenly assumed I did not need Medicare, since we had plenty of medical coverage already in effect.  That mistake cost us several thousand dollars out of pocket.  Further, the key for reducing medical insurance cost for all of us is the inclusion of every citizen—old, young, healthy, ill . . . everyone.

            Then, while the fellow in the Oval Office was reveling in the effusive praise of his singular accomplishment, he proclaimed, “The individual mandate is being repealed.  When the individual mandate is being repealed, that means Obamacare is repealed.  Because they get their money from the individual mandate.  So the individual mandate is being repealed.  So in this bill, not only do we have massive tax cuts and tax reform, we have essentially repealed Obamacare and will come up with something that will be much better, whether it's block grants or whether it's taking what we have and doing something terrific.  But Obamacare has been repealed in this bill.  We didn't want to bring it up.  I told people specifically ‘be quiet with the fake news media’ because I don't want them talking too much about it.  Because I didn't know how people would - but now that it's approved, I can say the individual mandate on health care, where you had to pay not to have insurance, okay, think of that one.  You pay not to have insurance.  The individual mandate has been repealed.”

            Beyond the factual inaccuracies and outright falsehoods of his public statement, I see a far more sinister undercurrent that feeds the solidifying impression of him as emperor, or perhaps more properly Der Führer!  There were more than a few good German citizens who managed to look beyond reality 90 years ago, just as there are many good American citizens who choose to see what they wish to see and look beyond the factual reality before us all.  These are the times in which we live.  We must have faith this Grand Republic will survive this travesty and will become stronger for this annealing process.

-- Congress quickly scabbed on a “Further Additional Continuing Appropriation Act” to a previously passed House Bill (HR.1370) to extend current funding levels of the federal government through 19.January.2018, so they could recess for the holidays with a clear conscience.  The fellow in the Oval Office signed it into law on Friday before leaving himself for Southern Florida.

            On a related side note: I continue to be amazed and hugely disappointed that Congress has failed in its equal branch of government responsibility and allowed the Donald to get away with his blatantly thumbing his nose at We, the People.  If Mar-a-Lago was his residence, I would have no complaint; but, it is NOT!  It is a revenue-producing property that allows undisclosed people (domestic and foreign) at least casual access to the President.  The administration continues to refuse disclosure of who is staying at the property.  Further, he is making money from the government for housing his staff and support personnel.  It is things like this clear conflict of interest (real or perceived) that feeds the impression of his genuine belief in the divine right if kings . . . of which he sees himself as emperor.  It is just wrong!

-- The United Nations General Assembly voted [128-9-35(21)] in favor of Resolution AlES-10/L.22, effectively rebuking President Trump for recognizing the disputed city of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and pledging to move the U.S. embassy there [538].  The United States voted against the resolution; there is no veto in the General Assembly, as there is in the Security Council.  The rejection of our “go it alone” defiant approach to international diplomacy did not compliment our position on the world stage.  Then, we had the disgusting “I’m taking my ball and bat home,” retributive conduct of the fellow in the Oval Office and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley that further tarnished our standing in the world community.

-- On Thursday, Catalan citizens voted for a new regional assembly.  Three Catalan separatist parties won 70 seats in the 135-seat regional assembly, a slight decrease from the last regional election in 2015, but still a majority.  The vote will sustain the region's independence movement [822, 824/6] and the constitutional crisis before the government of Spain.  Deep divisions within the secessionist movement about how to achieve independence suggest there is a very bumpy road ahead for the formation of a pro-independence government, leaving considerable uncertainty over how and when Spain's political crisis could be resolved.

-- The U.S. State Department confirmed the sale of Javelin antitank missiles to the government of Ukraine in support of their on-going defense effort against Russian-backed separatists [640, 657, 680, 771/2]  {For the record: I hesitate to dignify what has been going on in Eastern Ukraine since the Orange Revolution (21.2.2014) as a civil war; it was and still is an invasion by Russia.}  This action by the Trump administration will not sit well with his good-buddy Putin, but it should have been done a long time ago (by President Obama).  I hope these new weapons will assist the Ukrainians in their proper efforts to reassert control over their sovereign territory.

            Just an inconsequential side note: the fellow in the Oval Office truly loves to use adjectives like best, greatest, biggest and such, when they are clearly not true.  I understand that he is the consummate snake-oil salesman, but his persistent use of those adjectives for his self-aggrandizement defies history.  He either believes we are not smart enough to check the history, or he could care less what the history is.  I am not a doctoral history professor, but I am a sufficient student of history to know he is simply wrong.  For him, it is ONLY about me, me, me!  Further, more than a few good citizens see my criticism (and those of others) as just blind rejection of the man.  I simply state and pronounce: facts first!  Even though he thinks of himself as the omnipotent emperor of this Grand Republic (nay, truth be told, he sees himself as emperor of the world), the fact is he is just a deeply flawed man with a grotesquely over-inflated view of himself and his importance.  Full stop!  ‘Nuf said!

            Comments and contributions from Update no.833:

Comment to the Blog:

“Should the ‘tax reform’ bill pass, my initial concerns are more about the various non-tax provisions that will harm people and the environment. The first one that comes to mind is that it will allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Considering the current energy situation and the changing climate, that is strictly a gift to the oil companies.  Many other provisions lurk in that bill that are not taxation issues.

“Pardoning General Flynn would almost constitute an admission of guilt by Trump. Unfortunately, it would slow the process of proving that guilt.

“Various sources report the defeat of Roy Moore in Alabama as the result of high turnout by black voters, who very likely were aware of his actions and statements in his prior positions there.  I'm glad they defeated this sleazeball, but the Democrats still need to reach far more voters if they are to defeat Republicans more generally.  The position of being the ‘lesser evil’ has pretty much outlived its usefulness except in extreme cases like Moore, and the Democrats will have to take actions that will displease some of their corporate donors to draw independent voters.  Many of those independents have not voted in several years.

“In the current discussion of sexual harassment and assault, I suspect we disagree on the proportion of the accusations involving unwelcome touch, rather than merely words.  I was a secretarial science major who went into temporary work for many years.  In that situation, I became acquainted with many women in subordinate positions.  The bulk of them had experienced unwelcome touch at least a time or two.  Penetrative rape is probably another matter, but touch is common.

“Also, I'll note that incidents consisting of ‘only’ words have a more powerful impact if one fears for one's job or safety, and that is usually the case in work situations, where the aggressor typically has a higher rank.  In the case of a Harvey Weinstein, such events could lead to industry-wide UN-employability, even if all a target did was politely turn him down. I agree that caution is in order, but so is action.

“The discovery and study of extra-solar planets fascinates many of us.  Mathematical analyses have long offered strong odds in favor of other habitable (and even populated) planets existing.  The new evidence creeps ever closer to confirming that.  Our ever being able to travel such distances is currently impossible, but many ‘impossible’ things have occurred in the past couple of centuries.  Also, we have no idea whether other sentient creatures might have solved that problem.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: tax bill.  I hesitate to use the term “reform” with this tax bill (HR.1) Congress finally passed and sent to POTUS.  It is a corporate tax cut . . . with some other stuff added on.  I believe our tax burden will change comparatively little, perhaps not even discernibly, and certainly nowhere even close to the size of the cut for corporations.  Also, I still have not found the provision eliminating the individual mandate of PPACA, although now POTUS has admitted it is there and he asked lawmakers not to talk about it—hiding it from We, the People.  Unfortunately, if the President is correct, health insurance bills will now undoubtedly increase more; it is simple mathematics.

            Re: pardon for Flynn.  I think it is quite apparent that the fellow in the Oval Office does not give a hoot in hell how guilty he appears.  I suspect he truly and genuinely believes that his public denials are sufficient to absolve him of any guilt.  Given the circumstances and facts as they exist today, a Flynn pardon (or associated others) or his version of the “Saturday Night Massacre” will virtually guarantee impeachment, if not removal from office.

            Re: Moore.  Agreed in toto.

            Re: touch.  I do not think we disagree.  There is a huge difference in felonious criminality between penetrative rape and unwanted touching.  I agree that unwanted touching is far more prevalent.  The difficulty, as with suggestive words, the unwanted portion is solely in the mind of the victim.  This will lead us to the lowest common denominator, as we have done with so many things, which can and I suspect will become just another form of oppression.  I urge caution.  I also urge us to find a means to encourage and protect those who feel they have been abused.  This might lead us back to the “social police” as a means to “build a picture” to help us identify and correct the behavior of abusers.  We simply cannot allow the abusers to remain in the shadows.  I do also agree on the potential injury of words versus physical action.  My caution remains.

            Re: space.  I will add, 100 years ago, humans walking on the moon was considered impossible.  Jules Verne imagined it (1865), but it took those intervening 100 years to actually send men to the moon and safely return them to Mother Earth.  I am one of those who believes hyper-light speeds or our ability to traverse vast space distances will be possible, simply because it is necessary.  “Others” may show us the way as suggested in Carl Sagan’s book “Contact.”

Another contribution:

“More ‘great’ USAF Museum stuff.  In the new building there is an area for space items.  There they do have a Titan missile - but that thing is so big it is laying on its side - not standing up.  And there is a Mercury capsule, a Gemini capsule, and an Apollo capsule.

“But reading all the info signs in front of the capsules, there's no mention of Alan Shepherd, of John Glenn, or even Neil Armstrong.  I guess being the first American in space, first to orbit, or walking on the moon does not count if you're not in the Air Force!!!???”

My reply:

            Dripping sarcasm noted.  LOL  We are agreed.

            I always find such parochialism disgusting in any form and any venue.  I will add the USAF Museum to that long list.  Such behavior is exactly why we have the political problems we do . . . politicians are far more loyal to their donors and their ‘party’ than they are to what is best for this Grand Republic and We, the People . . . Exhibit A—HR.1 (just passed by Congress).

            Just a distantly related FYI: It is nice to be an author and write about what is and what should be.  The main character of my To So Few series of historical novels is a consistent adversary of parochialism and uses his status from accomplishments to counter such parochialism.

            Just thought you might like to know my opinion, FWIW.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)

Update no.833

Update from the Sunland

No.833

11.12.17 – 17.12.17

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

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- The joint conference committee has filed its report, which indicates they have reconciled the two versions of HR.1 [829, 831].  The House and Senate are expected to vote on the revised, reconciled bill in the next few days.  The tax cut will likely help my IRA account bottom-line, but I doubt this bill will have any positive effect on our effective tax rate—what is given in rate is taken away in excluded deductions.  I am far more concerned adding more to the deficit without reductions in spending—US$1.5T over 10 years.  We are betting on the come.  Heck, at least we can be happy for the wealthy; this is a really good deal for them.  Unfortunately, we are not among that lot, but hey, The Donald and his brood are, so good on you, Donald.

-- President Trump dangled the potential for a preemptive presidential pardon for ‘Mike’ Flynn in a blatant attempt to silence Flynn in the on-going Russian meddling investigation [782, 792, 828].  The Donald is thumbing his nose at all of us, and taunting his obstruction-of-justice accusers.  Then, he denigrates the Federal Bureau of Investigation to diminish their standing in support of the on-going special counsel investigation.  The more resistance Trump and his lackeys throw up the guiltier he appears (and respectfully . . . he likely is).

            I commonly choose to refrain from comment on political doings in other states—just too much detail for my little pea-brain to deal with responsibly.  However, the special election in Alabama lands as an exception for a bevy of reasons.  Men like Roy Moore have repulsed me for a very long time.  If I was to select the archetypical model of a moral projectionist, it would be Roy Moore; I can think of no politician more audacious and unadulterated in expressing his intentions to impose his perception of radical Christian morality on every single citizen.  I have been offended by Moore’s conduct and public pronouncements well before his female accusers made their allegations public.  Now, we can add his sexual misconduct to the long list of disgusting behavior.  Unfortunately, the statute of limitations has long passed for Moore.  That said, there is little doubt in my mind that he did those things he is accused of, and given the conduct of similar abusers, he has quite likely abused others and done worse.

            The election defeat of Moore at the hands of Doug Jones yielded another very public defeat for the narcissist-in-chief, which cannot sit well with him; and, for his former henchman-in-chief Steve Bannon.

            I offer a couple of additional thoughts for proper debate with respect to the myriad accusations of sexual abuse, misbehavior and inappropriate conduct.

            Part of the disquiet I feel with the continuing revelations and accusations rest primarily upon the paucity of any remedy in a court of law.  Further, the specter of moral projection amplifies my concerns.

            First, any physical touching of another person without consent is wrong and should be treated as a felonious crime.  Penetration without consent is rape and must be punished as a capital crime.  Yet, as I have tried to absorb the bevy of accusations, it seems to be that most of the transgressions do not involve touching in any form, but rather pressure, innuendo, suggestion, intimidation, and such.  Further, these verbal (non-physical) exchanges are predominately personal (i.e., no witnesses or corroboration), or private (beyond public scrutiny).

            Second, the degree of offense is solely in the thoughts and perception of the accuser.  This brings us to perception.  One person’s metric of acceptability, tolerance or appropriateness hangs entirely upon that person’s attitude regarding sex, sexual conduct and circumstances.  The exact same words may have monumentally different meaning and impact from one person to another.

            Third, the incidental circumstances are critical to the perception.  Physical location is important to the perception: private, workplace, public, et cetera.  More important: the collateral relationship between the two individuals, e.g., position of power or influence, inequality, dependency and such, have substantial effect on how an individual perceives any particular set of words.

            A proposition for sexual conduct between individuals can be perceived in dramatically different terms depending upon the individuals and circumstances involved in the specific incident.  The exact same words might be welcomed by one person and deemed as gravely offensive by another individual.  The latter might well be seriously offended by even the hint of sexual innuendo.  Just because a person is crude, insensitive, uncaring, or ignorant does not warrant societal condemnation.

            This potential gross disparity between intention and perception appears to be pushing us into the domain of or under the influence of the moral projectionist and the dicta of the lowest common denominator.  Will the near future bring an environment where we are afraid to discuss sex, sexuality, sexual orientation, sex education, or anything even remotely related to sex?  Surely, we are not returning to the highly restrictive Victorian sexual morality.  We have so much farther to go in our societal maturity regarding sexual morality that we cannot afford regression.  We are destroying lives with even the hint of sexual misconduct.  I am seriously concerned about our looming over-reaction beyond the retribution of long-past transgressions.

            The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 on Thursday, to roll back far-reaching rules governing how internet-service providers treat traffic on their networks.  The Obama administration’s 2015 “net neutrality” rules required broadband providers to treat all traffic equally, without blocking or slowing content, or providing fast lanes for favored sites and services.  The FCC’s action is expected to empower cable and wireless providers and transform consumers' online experience.  The three Trump nominees cast the in-favor votes.  For the record, I think this action is extraordinarily cynical and biased by the commercial profit-motive.  The potential for abuse and favoritism increased exponentially, in my humble opinion.  Internet access should have been treated like other infrastructure elements, e.g., roads, rivers, rails, air, telephone, satellite access, et cetera ad infinitum—equal access for all citizens without bias by money or any other means of influence.  With the FCC action, we are no longer equal on the Internet, and once again, money dominates.

            NASA’s Kepler space telescope provided the data . . . analysis by various groups determined the existence of an 8^th planet orbiting the Kepler-90 star system.  The Kepler-90 star is 2,545 light-years from Earth, so not within reach of humans without warp-drive.  Several of the Kepler-90 planets are within the habitable band—not too hot, not too cold.  Unfortunately, the analysis suggests they are large mass, gas giants.  The solid, rock planets are too close to the star to possess a life-supportable environment.  There are several important points from this latest disclosure: 1.) the analytical technique utilized for this discovery will yield more planetary finds; 2.) evidence indicates there are many other planetary systems out there, and 3.) we really need a hyper-light speed drive system for inter-stellar exploration.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.832:

Comment to the Blog:

“Trump’s travel ban, regardless of its legal outcome, further convinces the Muslim world that the U.S. hates them.  It’s as if somebody wanted to keep the ‘war’ going.

“Senator Franken’s announcement that he will resign in the future struck me as unusual because he did not simply resign, either with that speech or in the future.  He stated that he will resign later, which is not final.  His comparison and response to others similarly accused was probably inevitable.  Had he not done so publicly, many others would have done it for him.

“I welcome the new awareness of sexual harassment and assault.  I agree that the aggressors are primarily male, although I, as a male, have experienced the target side of that from women.  The larger discussion might center on the dynamics of power rather than anything directly masculine or feminine.

“I share your concern about false or exaggerated accusations.  This is not only a phenomenon in politics and entertainment.  The reports permeate our society, or they will shortly.  Based on personal experience in many environments, sexual aggression pervades work places and many others.  That makes it more important, not less, to seek justice for both the victims and those falsely accused.  Even deciding what actions constitute harassment or assault will be difficult.  No part of the process will be easy, but if we are to make progress rather than do further harm, we must do our very best.

“In the discussion of ‘Make America Great Again,’ we need to specify what we mean by ‘great.’  You point out, accurately, that it differs for those who are ‘Caucasian, Protestant, male, literate, and quite likely a land/property owner’.  I will add specifically not in poverty and perceived as heterosexual to the list of adjectives.  Even for them, I submit the Eisenhower and Kennedy years were the greatest.  That period was guided by Eisenhower, a Republican with very different policies than the Tea Baggers and with a clear understanding of the horrors of both war and the military industrial complex.  For most of the rest of us, the 1970s were probably the best.  We enjoyed much more of the post-WWII progress than we had before, and we had not yet been attacked as we have been by both parties since.”

“PS: I'm predicting low turnout in the Alabama special election, for the same reason as in our last Presidential election.  People would rather not vote for either candidate.”

My response to the Blog:

            I’m not so sure about “keeping the ‘war’ going”; however, the blanket ban affects a lot of innocent, good people, i.e., guilty by association.  I suppose we could make the same association between Trump and the KKK.  I still believe Trump’s blanket ban is wrong in every possible way, i.e., a nuke to swat a fly.

            Franken’s quasi-resignation was indeed quite unusual.  I suspect the results in tomorrow’s Alabama special election may have some effect on Franken’s action.  He was the sacrifice at the altar of perceived righteousness.

            I only note the gender propensity as an observation—not a control factor.  Abuse of power and the sub-element of sexual misconduct is far more a consequence of the opiate of power rather than gender.  Power over others tends to amplify character flaws especially in those who feel entitled by their birth, wealth or position, or some other contributing factor.  I suspect we could track abuse of power back to childhood indoctrination; some children are raised to be abusers.

            You are, of course, quite correct in that dealing with abuse of power is difficult in that it often blossoms from the private domain, i.e., he said—she said.  Like virtually all of the morality issues plaguing modern culture, we must find the means to alter (mature) the mindset of all citizens to respect everyone regardless of the social factors.

            I will accept your additional qualifiers, although I might broaden the inclusive envelope by using the term “conform to the social conservative normalcy.”

            For argument’s sake, I might quibble with your 1970s as a candidate for the greatest era.  I look back on that time as a valley rather than a peak in “greatness”—the debacle of Vietnam, racial unrest, Equal Rights Amendment, Watergate, the larger betrayal by Nixon, the Arab oil embargo, Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.  I think Moore answered as he believes—the ante-bellum South.  I have no idea how Trump would answer other than he thinks it’s a catchy phrase.

            I truly hope you are wrong.  If it is low voter turnout, I believe Moore will win the election, and we shall all suffer the consequences.  Time shall tell the tale; we will likely know the outcome tomorrow night.

 . . . a follow-up comment:

“You have a good point about Moore (and some others) specifically citing the ante-bellum South as a ‘great’ time.  It makes me wonder if he knows anything at all about anyone's conditions then other than the ‘quality.’  Even most white people in the South lived poorly. Conditions were slightly better in the North, but not enough for me to envy most people.  I pray these delusional, hateful people fall completely out of power.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

            I am with you.  I see little to envy in that era.

            Many people like Moore and Trump apparently have very selective memory that ignores history.

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

Cheers,

Cap                 :-)

Update no.832

Update from the Sunland

No.832

4.12.17 – 10.12.17

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

            To all,

            Well, once again, our congratulations go to the Corps of Cadets at West Point—two years in a row. Well done!  Army beat Navy 14-13.  I also offer my personal congratulations to my cousins: Greg [USMA 1974] and Sandy [USMA 1978].  It was a really good game played in the snow of Philadelphia.  Navy beat themselves with two rare and crucial penalties on the final drive at the end of the game, and a missed field goal . . . by a few feet.  Nonetheless, a win is a win, no matter how sloppy.  Next year!  Go Navy; Beat Army!

            The follow-up news items:

-- The Supreme Court issued a brief written order granting an administration emergency request to void lower court injunctions and let the restrictive Trump travel ban rules [789 & sub] take full effect while litigation challenging the travel restrictions continues.  The Trump rules cite national-security concerns and apply to eight countries: the Muslim-majority nations of Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, as well as North Korea and some government officials in Venezuela.  This action is related to the injunction only and is not affirmation of the USG policy by the Supreme Court.

-- Senator Al Franken of Minnesota announced on the floor of the Senate, “Nothing I have done as a Senator—nothing—has brought dishonor on this institution.”  He said, “Today, I am announcing that in the coming weeks I will be resigning as a member of the United States Senate.”  He also drew contrast to his action versus Trump [774, 807] and Moore [829].  We are a long way from being done with this topic.

            The seductive opiate of power over others knows few boundaries, although I must observe it is predominately confined to males (the 1994 movie Disclosure aside).  Beyond the gender affinity, there are few other discriminating factors.  I am becoming progressively more troubled of the trial by Press and public opinion that is far more punitive than due process of law and trial by a jury of peers.  A precedent is de facto evolving—wait until the statute of limitations has expired to make accusations of sexual misconduct to achieve the greatest possible damage to a target individual; he has little to no recourse.  Whether the Democrats are setting up the Republicans is irrelevant to me.  Crucifying Franken and Conyers while Moore garners Republican support presents a very stark contrast in political morality.

            Wow, in recent days, I have listened to more than a few angry women who do not flinch when they proclaim these victimized women were not given “due process” why should the perpetrators whine about “due process.”  So, in essence, two wrongs make a right; we have a new world, or at least societal, standard to live by.  This is beginning to feel like vengeance and retribution, which is a very slippery slope to be on, and will quite likely lead to unintended collateral damage (and may have already occurred, I suspect).

-- The U.K. and the European Union have reportedly reached agreement on the Brexit [758] divorce terms after six months of difficult negotiations.  European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the EU's negotiating team will recommend to EU leaders next week that the process should advance.

-- The Wall Street Journal reported that some of Trump’s supporters are pressing him to take a harder line in portraying Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation [804] as politically motivated.  The President would not be well advised to listen to such counsel, unless he intentionally wishes to taunt obstruction of justice charges.

-- The Trumpian campaign phrase “Make America Great Again” [735 & sub] implies that the United States is not great today, but was once great; and, only he and his buddies can make it great again.  Numerous times I have wondered when that greatness existed in the eyes of Trump—he has never answered the question.  We do know that Trump’s bosom buddy Roy Moore provided his answer during a campaign speech in Fairhope, Alabama, on Tuesday.  “I think it was great at the time when families were united — even though we had slavery — they cared for one another.  People were strong in the families.  Our families were strong.  Our country had a direction,” Moore publicly stated.  His imagination apparently sees the ante-bellum era (prior to 1860) as that idyllic time he wants to return us all to whether we agree or not.  If he would ever answer the question, I suspect Master Trump would say the same thing.  They may well be correct, as long as you are Caucasian, Protestant, male, literate, and quite likely a land/property owner—a rather narrow definition of great, it seems to me.  Do we really have political leaders who actually think like that?  Are we going to elect future political leaders who think like that?  The under-current behind such statements are strong and dangerous, especially if you believe in equality, respect and dignity for all citizens regardless of the social factors.  We can only hope Alabama voters do the right thing; we shall know in a few days.

            The issue of Israel’s capital has been simmering for decades.  On Wednesday, President Trump unilaterally announced the intention of the United States to abandon decades of national policy and move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as recommended by Congress in the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 [PL 104–045; 109 Stat. 398; 8.11.1995] [538].  Once again, I find myself in agreement with Trump . . . continuing to do what we have always done, while expecting different results, is not a stable state.  As his predecessors have done, Trump waived the directive for six months, which means his action was a shot across the bow for the Palestinians to get serious about peace and two-state negotiations.  As expected, the Palestinians did not react well to the warning shot.

            Amazing!  Congress passed yet another continuing appropriations resolution.  The bill was introduced on the 4^th and signed into law by the President on the 8^th; they certainly can move fast when they want to do so.  The bill funds the U.S. Government (USG) through the 22^nd of December, presumably to give Congress a couple of more weeks to pass a proper appropriations bill.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.831:

Comment to the Blog:

“I am as cautious as I can bring myself to be about convicting anyone without due process.  All the same, I don't ignore what I know.  Special Counsel Mueller follows the process of criminal prosecution exceptionally well, and his investigation is edging closer to Trump.  I await Trump’s disowning of Jared Kushner and Ivanka’s response to that with the same fascination others have for soap operas.

“Odd trivia note: The New York Times' morning update today (12-4-2017) points out that only one person has ever been Time Magazine's ‘Person of the Year’ twice in a row.  That was Richard Nixon in 1971 and 1972 (shared with Kissinger in 1972).  Trump's recent blowhard incident about repeating that status is just plain weird.  It's not evidence of anything at all, but it's a strange ‘echo’ of the Watergate era.

“We are largely helpless over the Congress's handling of the tax (and social structure) bill currently headed to a conference committee.  The Senate version of this passed with no chance of anyone having read the whole thing, much less having studied it.  The odds of anyone really understanding a revised version by the Republicans' self-imposed Christmas deadline are almost zero.  I'm sure many of the ‘donors’ want it that way.  Most of the speculation I've seen says that the current version does include repeal of the PPACA individual mandate, but who knows?  Unpredictable changes will be made in the conference committee, then both houses vote again.

“Trump made an appropriate symbolic gesture by donating his pay toward intervention in the opioid crisis, but I want to see how much money his party's Federal budget will devote to that effort and how that funding will be directed.

"Your correspondent who seeks ‘religious reformation’ ignores history.  Historically, religion and politics were synonymous.  Among many other things, that is the cause of Christ's crucifixion for those who believe any of the Christian Bibles.  That continued into modern times and still prevails in several Muslim and Christian countries and one Jewish nation.  If that writer follows any of those religions, they should try living in one of those places for a year or two.  They might regret their loss of freedom, but that’s not our problem.

“I believe sexual harassment and assault have increased only to the degree that women entered the work force after World War II, thus becoming more vulnerable to attackers.  What we are seeing now is women finally speaking up in large numbers together, so that they can't be ignored any more.  That begins a process that I believe will improve society in many ways over the long term.”

My response to the Blog:

            I share your caution.  I am troubled by the mounting examples of trial by Press & popular opinion, rather than due process of law before a jury of peers.  In the case of the current administration, we are well within the statute of limitations.  Given the guilty pleas so far, I continue to believe whatever bad conduct there was will be given due process of law.  Unfortunately, with far too many of the sexual misconduct cases, we are beyond the statute of limitations.

            An interesting and relevant mini-debate occurred this morning (Tuesday, 5.Dec.) on CNN between lawyers Alan Dershowitz and Jeffrey Toobin regarding the President’s vulnerability to obstruction of justice.  On this one, I think Alan expressed the law, i.e., the President cannot be prosecuted while in office.  He is only vulnerable to impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate, i.e., removed from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  However (although it has never been tested in court), once removed from office by Congress, I believe he would be prosecutable in court for his crimes.  If as Toobin argued, the President obstructs justice for corrupt purposes, he could only be prosecuted within the statute of limitations once he was removed from office.  It is conceivable that a president could use the shield of his immunity of office to exceed the statute of limitations even for a felonious crime.

            The fellow in the Oval Office does not have a good track record with Time magazine covers, e.g., his fake cover in one of his properties.  That said, Time has chosen Hitler and Stalin as past persons of the year.  If they can justify those choices, they can justify the recognition of the fellow in the Oval Office.  There is certainly little question or debate that fellow has dominated the consciousness of the world.  We continue to debate his conduct virtually every single day since well before he was rightfully elected.

            Yes, correct, we have little direct effect on Congress.  We only have our votes for who represents us in Congress.  We can and should voice our opinions to our representatives, but they have no obligation to listen.  Yeah, the Press continues to report that the PPACA personal mandate repeal remains in the HR.1 bills.  As I said, it is well disguised.  I have used all of my search techniques and I’ve not found that repeal in either version.  I do not have the capacity for a word-for-word search to find it.  Quite so, unpredictable changes in conference committee will occur.  We shall see.

            I share your concern for federal budgetary provisions for opioid intervention.  The President’s 3Q2017 salary is a pittance of what is needed, but it is a noteworthy gesture.

            Additionally, I share your apprehension regarding the injection of religion into the political arena.  We have far too many examples of the oppressive product of mixing religion and politics.  We do not need another example.

        Certainly, the entry of women into the workplace has been a contributing factor.  I do not know about a direct correlation.  I do believe some of what we bear witness today is a consequence of the changes in our ability to communicate with each other, bypassing the traditional means centered upon the Press.  The Press knew quite well about President Roosevelt’s disability and his affairs; they also knew quite well about President Kennedy’s philandering; and yet, we heard nothing until many years later . . . after the passing of both men.  The restraints of the Press have been substantially overcome by our ability to communicate directly.  Further, I believe the abuses in the workplace have been present for a very long time.  The victims self-suppressed their accusations by their isolation.  The warm embrace of the collective has given them voice, finally.  Lastly, on this topic, the religious conservatives (Muslim, Christian & Jewish) contend and reinforce their dicta of strict separation of the genders in the public domain for a host of reasons, which adds to the headwind in rectifying this offense.  Yet, we must endure, survive and grow from the current catharsis.  To me, this issue is not about sexual harassment or the transgressions of weak men; it is ALL about equality and respect for others regardless of the social factors.  We are in violent agreement; we will improve society once we move through this period toward a more enlightened state . . . that is conditional upon the social conservatives not regressing society to a bygone era.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)