Update no.835

Update from the Sunland

No.835

25.12.17 – 31.12.17

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

            To all,

            A friend and contributor to this humble forum sent along a link to this thought-provoking article:

“The United States of America Is Decadent and Depraved – The problem isn’t Donald Trump – it’s the Donald Trump in all of us.”

by James Traub

Foreign Policy

Published: DECEMBER 19, 2017, 1:08 PM

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/12/19/the-united-states-of-america-is-decadent-and-depraved/

There is a lot to consider in Traub’s opinion.  I offered my assessment and opinion of the Traub article.

Darren,

            Thank you so much for this article.  I had not read it before.

            I find myself in conditional general agreement with Traub’s observations and opinion.  What really struck a resonant chord for me was his statement early on that “We cannot blame everything on Donald Trump” (just as we cannot blame everything on Obama or any president).  Trump has been and remains consistent.  We, the People, elected him; not all of us voted for him, but we elected him; 62M citizens believed his drivel and ignored his grotesque character flaws because they were desperate for an outsider—outside the mold of virtually all previous presidents.  They got what they voted for (and much more of the same, I must say).  I would go farther than Traub.  I think the blame rest entirely with We, the People, for the travesty we suffer today . . . especially all those citizens who did not vote.  Abstention is abdication.  I also liked his observation: “Voters saw cruelty and naked self-aggrandizement as signs of steely determination.”  They wanted a “strong man” to defy the status quo.  They got what they wanted.  I cannot credit him with being a “strong man”; he is an wanna-be dictator and wanna-be emperor at best.  Traub said, “Trump is as much symptom as cause of our national disorder.”  On this I disagree; he is ONLY a symptom; the root cause is We, the People.  He has and continues to act in character.  He is not something new or different today from what he was before the election.  As I said, we elected him; he did not become president by force of arms, or by subterfuge or deception; he used the system we have better than his opponents.  He is what he is and remains what he has always been, and quite probably will always be.  More than a few citizens love him for his nastiness, self-aggrandizement and unapologetic greed.  No, the blame for our state of affairs rests entirely and solely with We, the People.

            Future historians will determine whether this Grand Republic is in decline at this moment in time as a consequence.  I do not and cannot subscribe to Traub’s doom & gloom assessment of our State and future.  Many wrote us off in the debacle that was the Vietnam War and we rebounded.  I truly believe we will rebound from this debacle.  I just hope and pray that We, the People, will find the will and courage to right the ship . . . currently listing to starboard.

            Prince Henry of Wales, KCVO, (PHW) interviewed former President Barack Obama (BHO) for BBC Radio 4.  Regardless of your political affiliation or affinity, I urge everyone to read his words and absorb his wisdom.

BHO: “There is a freshness to what young people perceive as possible.  One of the things that I have discovered I think around the world, not just in the United States, is this generation coming up is the most sophisticated, the most tolerant in many ways, the most embracing of diversity, the most tech-savvy, the most entrepreneurial, but they don’t have much faith in existing institutions.”

PHW: “It’s too easy for people to criticize millennials for being superficial, selfish and self-obsessed.”

BHO: “I haven’t found that.  I haven’t seen it.  I think it is an indication of the disconnect between . . . .”

PHW: “A generational divide.”

BHO: “Not just a generational divide.  I think it is also a . . . the bias of those who are comfortable with power as it’s currently exercised.”

PHW: “Um-hm.”

BHO: “I remember when we ran . . . what, when I ran in 2007/2008, even after we were winning, and we had won repeated contests, you’d have sort of older political operatives, who said, ‘This is never going to work.  You cannot just rely on volunteers.  You’re never going to get people involved by just asking them to . . . ah . . . organize their own neighborhoods.  You’ve got to pay operatives and power brokers”; and we kept on saying, “Well, OK, that’s what you think, except we keep on beating you, doin’ the thing you say can’t be done.  I think people get invested in the old ways of doing things because in part that is where their power has come from.  (emphasis added by Cap)  And, it’s up to, I think, folks like you and me, who have an out-sized voice, to be able to encourage young people to think in new ways about social organizations and social arrangements.”

The interview continued on the topic of social media impact on western culture.

PHW: “You managed to get people to use technology to take real action when you were elected . . . umm . . . all that time ago.  Umm . . . I whoa . . . part of me wants to ask you how you did that, but at the same time, I think what I’ll do is  . . . the social media landscape has changed . . .”

BHO:  “Yeah, it has.”

PHW:  “. . . since then.  Issues of trolling, extremism, fake news, and cyber-bullying are major social issues.  Is there more you could have done as president to get ahead of some of these issues, do you think?

BHO:  “Well, most of this is happening in the . . . outside of government, and in the United States in particular, we have a very strong first amendment.  I am a . . . as a former constitutional lawyer, pretty firm about the merits of free speech, and the question I think really has to do with how do we harness this technology in a way that allows a multiplicity of voices, allows a diversity of views, but doesn't lead to a balkanization of our society, but rather continues to promote ways of finding common ground.  And, I'm not sure government can legislate that, but what I do believe is that all of us in leadership have to find ways in which we can recreate a common space on the Internet.  Because it used to be in the United States at least for example, we only had three television stations, and everybody watched Walter Cronkite, or David Brinkley, or whoever the chief anchor was.  Everybody had a common set of facts.  And so, there might be conservatives or liberals, but people generally could agree on a baseline of reality.  One of the dangers of the Internet is that people can have entirely different realities.  They can be just cocooned in information that reinforces their current biases. (emphasis added by Cap)  One of the things that I think I discovered even back in 2007 and 2008 is a good way of fighting against that is making sure that on-line communities don’t just stay on-line . . . that they move off-line.  And, what I mean by that is . . . I think that is social media is a really powerful tool for people of common interest to convene, and get to know each other and connect, but then it's important for them to get offline, meet in a pub, meet at a place of worship, meet in a neighborhood, and get to know each other.  Because the truth is, on the Internet, everything is simplified.  And when you meet people face to face, it turns out they're complicated.  There may be somebody who you think is diametrically opposed to you when it comes to their political views, but you root for the same sports team, or you notice that they are really good parents and that is something you, as a parent, care about.  And, you find areas of common ground because you see that things aren’t as simple as have been portrayed in whatever chat room you’ve been in, and . . . it's also, by the way, harder to be as obnoxious and cruel . . . in person as people can be anonymously on the Internet.  And so, one of the things we want to do is . . . as we are working with young people is building up platforms for social change is . . . make sure that they don’t think just sending out a hash-tag, in and of itself, is bringing about change.  It can be a powerful way to raise awareness, but then you have to get on the ground and you actually have to do something.”

PHW:  “That is exactly what I ended up saying in the We-Day speech in front of 18,000 kids in . . . ah . . . the [unintelligible] yesterday, was we get it; we get that a lot of you are hooked on social media, but the important thing is, that by liking something and sharing something isn’t actually making a change.  If you really want to make change, you look up from your phone, you need to get out in your communities, and, you need to stand up for what you believe in.  Ahm . . . we can’t be the older generation going no to social media.  It’s bad for you.

BHO:  “That’s hopeless.”

PHW:  “It is hopeless.  It’s a tool, and used . . . managed correctly, it has some amazing powers.  So, on the social media front, educate or regulate?”

BHO:  “Ah . . . I’m . . . I’m big on education, as I said earlier, just because I think the notion that we are going to be able to corral . . . ah . . . that we are going to be able to contain what’s said and what’s not on the Internet seems like . . . unachievable.  Ah . . . and . . . and . . . contrary to the values of an open society that both the United States, Great Britain, and most of the advanced world adheres to.  I don’t want to live in a world in which the State is making decisions about who says what.”

Whether you happen to like or appreciate Obama’s personal qualities, he eloquently offers us some unique insights into contemporary affairs.  In the light of Russian use of social media for meddling in our election process, we must take to heart Obama’s words.

            In the realm of modestly refreshing news in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Senior U.S. District Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein declared the massive, international, accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) was negligent in its auditing responsibilities of Alabama's Colonial Bank and the firm’s negligence contributed to the bank’s 2009 failure.  Officers of the bank were tried, convicted and imprisoned for their part in a US$2B fraud scheme perpetrated by employees of Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corporation.  The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) against PwC in its effort to recover funds lost by FDIC in the bank’s collapse.  The ruling and the suit open PwC to hundreds of millions of dollars in damage claims.  FDIC asserts PwC violated standard auditing rules and did not take steps that could have detected the US$2B fraud scheme before it became so big and destructive.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.834:

Comment to the Blog:

“In re Medicare: by circumstances, I am eligible for Medicare, but my income is lower than Social Security would be.  Medicaid is better for poor people, because Medicare is costly on my scale even if nothing goes wrong.  I wound up with Medicare, Medicaid, and a supplement of sorts.  When I asked if I could get off Medicare, I was told that I could but it would cause permanent complications.  (I forgot the details of that phone call, but they sounded serious.)  Also, it's important to remember that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) and the Republicans have stated their plan to cut ‘entitlements’ (earned benefits) including Medicare and Social Security next year.

“The repeal of the individual mandate, permission to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and other non-tax provisions of the ‘tax’ bill will do as much damage as the gift to corporations.  Let's remember that he of the orange hair did not act alone.

“I have come to see T-rump's election and the long-term trend leading to this sorry state of affairs as powered by voters who seek ‘leadership’ over principles or insight.  This placing of personalities above principles cannot end well, but it repeats many times in history.  It's easier emotionally and mentally to follow a ‘strong leader’ than to use the mind and spirit we are given at birth to do our part in a participatory society.  (That's my understanding of the saying attributed to Jesus Christ: ‘Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.’  Caesar is civil society, and we have a duty here to participate.)  Perhaps we should remind the educated among us that ‘the Leader’ translates into German as “Der Führer”.

“‘Failed’ is not the apt word for Congress's not reining in Trump.  Congress sold out before he was ever elected. Republicans and Democrats by and large have ‘betrayed’ We the People, not merely failed.  The bulk of them have sold out to the highest bidders, which do not include the likes of you and me.  Plenty of Americans realize this, but not enough insist on changing campaign finance.

“The misuse of Mar-a-Lago merely makes blatant and flagrant the corruption that T-rump embodies.

“The attempt to bully the UN defies rational understanding.  One hundred twenty-eight nations told us to stop acting stupid and Trump threatened them.  There’s no word strong enough to define that insanity.

“Catalonia continues.  Let’s be grateful neither side of that issue has a Donald in charge.

“Ukraine-Russia continues as well.  That one was mysterious and underhanded from Day One.  We shall see.

“T-rump's superlatives and general self-serving BS remind me that he is by trade a real-estate developer.  I disrespect that field specifically for their willingness to make rosy, false predictions about what happens if they get their way (and make a fortune) and their disregard of the real, harmful consequences they bring.  Sound familiar?

“Please explain what you mean by ‘parochialism’ in your comment mentioning the To So Few series.  That is not clear in its context.”

My response to the Blog:

            I am certain there are many aspects of the law I do not understand.  I think you have a different perspective of the same point—individual mandate for health insurance coverage has been in existence and operating since the Social Security Amendments Act of 1965 [PL 89-097; 79 Stat. 286; 30.7.1965], or perhaps even the Social Security Amendments of 1960 [PL 86-778; 74 Stat. 924; 13.9.1960], if we wanted to be generous.  Why Republicans are so bloody blind to reality is beyond me.  This is NOT about freedom to choose; it is about covering citizens and controlling costs.

            Re: ancillary inclusions in the tax cut law.  This is not a new legislative phenomenon.  These are the times in which we live.  The next opportunity we have to change things is 6.November.2018.

            Re: Der Führer.  The German phrase has relevant meaning far beyond the literal translation.  I was applying the term by the deeper onerous implication rather than the simple definition.  So it is with the fellow in the Oval Office.  He qualifies as a leader by the definition, and yet to my understanding of leadership, he is the antithesis of a leader.  Yet, my opinion does not matter a hoot; there are many citizens who vehemently disagree with my opinion.

            Re: campaign financing.  You got that right!  I always have hope that one day sufficient numbers of citizens will recognize the mortal flaw in our system of governance—money; and, that majority will insist upon changing the law.  Money inherently fosters and enhances inequality and corruption.

            Re: Mar-a-Lago.  Indeed!  His blatant defiance of the law and to a greater extent moral tradition is precisely consistent with his personality, conduct and attitude—screw the law, I am the greatest person the world has ever known and the law does not apply to me.

            Re: “The attempt to bully the UN defies rational understanding.”  Respectfully, I think his conduct is quite consistent with his behavior over many years, if not his entire adult life.  Exhibit A: his persistent “Fake News” epithets to negate or render impotent the Press, which is a vital if not critical element of any viable democracy.  Exhibit B: his persistent ridicule of anyone (and I do mean anyone) who disagrees with him, criticizes him or does not heap mounds of gushing praise upon his greatness.  I could go on, but I think you can see my point.  So, his conduct with the UN is quite consistent.  The disappointing part is, Nikki Haley is much smarter than that, but she lowered herself to be his foolish mouthpiece.

            Re: Catalonia.  . . . at least not yet.  Unfortunately, the situation is ripe for the dominance of a strong man (I use the term here, not in a good way).

            Re: Ukraine.  One of the failures I criticized President Obama for was his inability to support the Ukrainians in a proper manner when the Russians first invaded.  I also see the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine situation as a failure of western intelligence to produce sufficient evidence of Russian action early enough in the crisis.  In that, Obama was too dependent upon the UN and frozen by the reality that the bad actor was a permanent member of the Security Council—a reality the UN Charter does not recognize.

            I also recognize that he is known as a real estate developer; however, I am reticent to give him that credit, as it is disparaging to other good real estate developers.  I do not think his ebullient use of self-aggrandizing superlatives is a common trait to the profession.  I also think good real estate developers do not take advantage of the little guys as the fellow in the Oval Office has consistently done.

            Re: parochialism in the TSF series.  Thank you for the opportunity to explain.  There are many elements and aspects to my point (and purpose in the storyline); however, I shall try to summarize by referring to an oft-used phrase from that era that has stuck with me since I began reading about such things (i.e., a long time)—their British hosts referring to American servicemen being “over-paid, over-sexed and over here.”  It implies a parochial arrogance that is quite consistent with the “ugly American syndrome” that will show up all too often.  As a related side note: since my very first trip outside the United States (1969), I have been deeply offended and disgusted by loud, boisterous American citizens who often are incensed by things not being done in “the American way” . . . simple things like not serving hamburgers, or telephones being different, or driving on the left side of the road.  The reasons or affectations are numerous and wide-ranging, but the behavior / conduct is all too common.  Anyway, Brian does his part to counter such bad behavior in his countrymen, and he will do a far better job than I did . . . one of the liberties available to an author.

 . . . Round two:

“I am unaware of any enforced individual mandate for lifelong health insurance coverage prior to Obamacare.  That is what officially bothers the Republicans; they claim the lack of choice about having coverage as their issue.  More realistically, some of their corporate donors are threatened by single-payer insurance modeled after the more advanced countries.  Mandated coverage is a step in that direction.

“The ‘ancillary’ inclusions in the tax law are not new, but this round is particularly damaging.  Perhaps that’s why the GOP calls this creature a ‘reform.’

“The importance of the literal term ‘Leader,’ as Hitler's strategists well knew, is that it allows citizens to be followers rather than to take moral and intellectual responsibility for their words and actions.  That abdication of responsibility is the great lure used by all corrupt and/or power-mad leaders, from those as relatively pleasant as Silvio Berlusconi to the horror shows like Stalin or Hitler.  For those who want to avoid feeling and thinking about the well-being of their fellow man or their own long-term interests, blindly following the leader excuses them.  Whatever religion or philosophy they claim to follow does not outweigh that relief from responsibility in nearly enough cases.  Hitler was neither the first nor the last to make use of those people.

“The attempt to defy the UN is indeed Trump's pattern.  I understand that, but being in character does not make it a ‘rational’ explanation.

“I have a hard time finding good people among real estate developers.  That, of course, comes from my perspective as a lover of untouched natural places and as one of the poor whose homes are so often destroyed to make way for developers' next profit center.  My ever-growing disillusionment with capitalism probably factors into that, too.

“Thank you for expanding on ‘parochialism.’  I grew up and learned the word in a place defined by its Catholic parishes and parishioners; hence my somewhat limited understanding of the term.  Your usage is both correct and apt.  Incidentally,

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/parochial
has an excellent list of synonyms for ‘parochial,’ including ‘conservative,’ ‘petty,’ ‘small-minded,’ and ‘small-town,’ all of which I associate with the local people from my childhood.  The reason I expand on it is that it relates to the discussion of the ‘leader’ concept above.  That is part of my study of the two basic approaches to life, as seen in my life.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Re: Individual mandate.  I have not done the research to find the basis of the law that cost us.  All I can say is, our experience sure felt like enforcement of an individual mandate to me.  We had plenty of health insurance coverage (did not need more) that had been operating successfully for many years.  The enforcement came in a passive-aggressive, back-handed manner . . . our existing insurance companies refused to pay for approved treatment citing the fact that Medicare was legally in the primary position.  That sure felt like enforcement to me.  The health care individual mandate is exactly the same as laws requiring automobile drivers to maintain minimum insurance coverage.  The mandate says nothing about how an individual chooses to meet that requirement—only that they meet the coverage requirement however they choose.  PPACA offered USG assistance to those who cannot afford adequate health insurance coverage or are not employed by a company that offers medical insurance coverage.  To me, the Republican position is NOT about freedom of choice; it is ONLY about parochial, anti-anything-Obama.  I have railed against such mindless parochialism all of my political life . . . or perhaps I should say my apolitical life.

            The damage the current administration is doing can and will be undone in time.  This is just a setback.

            Interesting observations regarding the use of the term “The Leader.”  I find myself in agreement.  I will further add that (like it or not) Hitler’s regime accomplished good things for the German people, e.g., autobahn, trains running on time, national air travel, sense of pride in their culture & society, defiance of the Versailles Treaty, et cetera.  There were attractions for the German people of that era . . . making it easier to overlook or ignore the more ominous aspects of his regime.  Those are common traits with other dictators.

            Re: “being in character does not make it a ‘rational’ explanation.”  Perhaps not, but that depends directly upon one’s perspective.  Some can and do consider consistency as rational.

            Re: real estate developer.  Your perspective is quite understandable, and not altogether wrong, from my observations.

            Re: parochialism.  You are quite welcome.  . . . Related to “The Leader” topic . . . quite so and apropos.

 . . . Round three:

“Oh, now I see.  The individual mandate limited to those eligible for Medicare is indeed a real thing that goes back much further than the general individual mandate.  It’s quite expensive and annoying, too.  I believe premiums, co-pays, and what not came in since the development of HMOs, probably during the Clinton Administration.

“I do not believe most Republicans' opposition to Obamacare has anything to do with anything but their friends', donors', and personal financial interests in the medical industry.  Some of the deep-down racists still obsess about Obama, but much of it is a smoke screen.

(The Deep South donors make out by having cheap labor that they can control and there's a thriving private prison industry fed largely by racism, but that's another topic.  It's not about Obama's race there, either, except indirectly.)

“We shall see whether the damage of the current administration and its predecessors back to Reagan can be undone.  All the great powers back to Sumeria eventually declined or fell.  On the other hand, people rebuilt into stable societies in all of them.

“You are right that those ‘Leaders’ always have positive accomplishments their followers can use to justify them.  Mussolini famously ‘made the trains run on time.’  His methods of doing so were insane, but he did it.  That's probably why Trump keeps telling us how wonderful the economy is and will be.  There are ‘strings attached’ for many of us, but he will never admit that.  There are other things, too, but Trump presents them in his random way and most of us don't notice.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            Yes, in a very personal way, it was a quite costly individual mandate for me—Medicare only and very unique in my medical case; but, the law is the law and applies to anyone eligible for Medicare.

            You may well be correct.  I do not know.

            Racism is not limited to the Deep South.  There are more than a few citizens who were (are) against anything Obama . . . some for the pigmentation in his skin, some for his name, some for his party affiliation, some for where he was born or to the parents who birthed him, some for all of the above.  I witnessed mindless irrationality during every administration going back to at least Johnson (36); however, the irrationality was taken to significantly lower levels with Obama.

            When Republicans regained control of the House in 2010, Representative Boehner (the soon-to-be new speaker of the House) succinctly and publicly stated, “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”  It has been a consistent theme by both major political parties—stop the other guys.  This parochial intransigence and I will boldly say idiocy in Washington has brought us the fellow in the Oval Office.  We, the People, are the only ones to carry blame; we have done this.

            Indeed; we shall see . . . or perhaps not in our lifetime.  This Grand Republic has shown itself to be far more resilient than many soothsayers pronounced in the past.

            On a somewhat related side note: I saw a report on CNN today that the fellow in the Oval Office was apparently so incensed that CNN captured video tape of him playing golf in Florida yesterday when he claimed to be working that he ordered a large, white, unmarked, box truck to maneuver back and forth in front of a film crew today to block them from obtaining anymore video of his hypocrisy.  He was quite vociferous in his criticism of President Obama (who was not even a candidate) for playing golf when he has played the game more than any president I can remember.  That is pretty desperate as well as shallow.  He fails to remember that he works for us now; he is no longer a businessman (and I use that term loosely) in command of his empire.  Just another bit of evidence I’m afraid.

 . . . Round four:

“I agree with your view of racism among the general public.  However, I still think for most of the politicians it's merely a tool for getting votes from those dolts, just as their embrace of fundamentalist Christianity does.  The politicians who actually decide the course of the nation have reached the point of serving the donors even if their own views are in conflict with that.  While some of the donors profit from racism (some things have not changed in the history of the U.S.), the point for the donors who control politicians is that they get the money, not who or how anyone outside their social class lives or dies.  Hence, we have marriage equality, which costs the elites nothing.  We do not have a living wage or universal health insurance, which would take money from corporations and the wealthy who own them.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            I cannot disagree with your perspective.  Money has always been a corrupting influence in American politics.  Money also establishes an essential royalty within our society that feels entitled to do as they wish to serve their interests rather than the needs of this Grand Republic and We, the People.  Our only choice is to vote for representatives who are the most immune to such corrosive and corrupting influence.  We managed to break up the monopolies that controlled virtually everything a century ago.  We can do it again.

 . . . Round five:

“We have reached agreement.  I will note that a few candidates have refused large donations.  There will be more in 2018.  Let's encourage Americans to find and vote for them.”

 . . . my response to round five:

            Amen, Brother!

Another contribution:

“First of all, and most importantly, I wish you and yours a joyous Christmas Season, adding that as an Episcopalian I feel obligated to remind everyone that the season (1) follows a lengthy period of anticipation (Advent) during which the mystery is to be contemplated and (2) lasts for twelve days of celebration before the similarly educational observation of the revealing of the Birth to the world through the humble witnesses and the fabled Wise Men.  Too bad we have commercialized the matter to profit by an extended Halloween in which there is little distinction between plastic goblins and tinseled angels all to be torn down along with the anachronistic manger scenes by December 26 and scarcely stored before resuming the sales cycle in the early fall.

“Next, I observe that like most of us you consider and even label your thoughtful conclusions and opinions to be facts, as in for example,

"I simply state and pronounce: facts first!  Even though he thinks of himself as ...   ...   ...  full stop!" '

There is nothing terribly wrong with that, and your habit even lends implications of credibility to those observations, especially in view of your decades of intelligent analysis of world events and your obvious patriotism.  However, the most credible part of your interesting and provocative offerings is usually part of your signature, curiously missing from 834, in which you typically opine that you could be wrong.

“I'm jus' sayin'...

“Happy New Year, Cap!  Keep up the good work.  Much of what you report is actual fact, and the rest is, in my opinion, worthy commentary and appropriate warning about our first truly independent POTUS.  I prefer to watch for actions and the intentions behind them, rather than react to words and the human flaws of upbringing and personality that they reveal.  I recall that Obama's words were more calculated, but his actions were less often good for our country.  Of course, on the other hand, G.H.W. Bush famously said ‘Read my lips...’ and then acted in a way that lost my vote and gave us slick Willie.”

My reply:

            All religions have their specific and sometimes unique rituals to celebrate the essential discriminators that separate their particular religion from all others.  The Church of England and its derivatives are no different.  A millennium past, there was only Christian, or depending upon one’s perspective the Roman Catholic religion, among the Christian path.  Two millennia ago, there was only Judaism.  Ten millennia back, there was only a form of paganism—the historic beginning of religious thought.  Yet, each and every derivative religion maintains its rituals.  Today, we have a vast array that hopefully enables each citizen to find the one that is relevant to her/is life.  I trust you thoroughly enjoyed your Episcopalian celebration.  May you and your family enjoy a peaceful and prosperous New Year.

            I do not (or at least I try very hard not to) present my opinions as facts.  I do not always label my opinions as such, but I do not claim they are facts.  A photograph can be manipulated, which renders it no longer a fact.  A law in the books of statutes is a fact as long as it remains in effect and valid.  The eclipse of the sun at a particular location and moment in time is a fact.  The actual size of the crowd at the last inauguration can be debated since it depends upon the time and methods of estimation, but the reality is there was no controlled census (attendance taking) of those who attended the inauguration.  [Yet, based on the publicly available information, the last inauguration was a long way from the “largest,” “biggest,” “greatest,” or any other superlative he chooses to use.]  The publicly available information does not definitively identify the shooter who murdered 298 innocent people; however, the publicly available facts strongly suggest that it was a Russian operator, ordered by a Russian commander, firing a Russian missile from a Russian launcher located well within sovereign Eastern Ukraine territory that killed those people on MH17.  On occasion, I do offer my current opinion regarding the publicly available facts.  If we extend this element of debate to its logical limit, there are no (or at least very few) actual facts, e.g., we did not actually hear the Donald brag or witness his felonious conduct that he can grab a woman’s genitalia with impunity; we only heard a recording that sounds distinctly like his voice and we see him get off the exact same bus; we deduce that he actually said those words and behaved in that manner with at least one woman (if not many women).  I imagine scientific auditory analysis would pronounce that the recorded voice was quite likely (i.e., with high probability) his voice, but we cannot claim he said those words as an indisputable fact.  He confessed to saying those words, and yet now claims he did not say them.  There was a movie [Capricorn One (1977)] that portrayed a government conspiracy to fake a manned landing on Mars.  Heck, no one could be there to witness the landing.  I suppose the ultimate reality is, there are no facts . . . only perceptions.  Adolf Hitler and his propaganda chief Josef Goebbels were masters of manipulating facts, or at least information, to serve their political objectives.  At the end of the day, each and every one of us are left to do the best we can to evaluate the facts as we know them and develop our opinions to the best of our ability.  Modern technology and devious minds make that process exceedingly more difficult.

            “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

            I have always placed the phrase in quotes, while I have dropped my citation of the originator.  The words belong to Dennis Miller and he deserves attribution.  I have maintained an affinity to those words for a long time, since they do represent a degree of humility in the process of evaluating facts as we know them.  I do not always offer those wise words, since I think most people are turned off by my repetition.  I can only assure you I use Dennis Miller’s words far more often than you see them in print.

            “our first truly independent POTUS”  OK; I’ll buy that.  However, his independence does NOT absolve him of accountability.  I still to this day want him to be successful.  However, on many topics, I fundamentally disagree with his conduct and even his objectives.  I believe to my very core over my many years of life that democracy depends upon vigorous public debate.  I see him consistently attempting to stifle all forms of public debate and control public discourse to conform to HIS view, his perspective, his position, his opinion.   If that is what independence means, then I must reject it.  I would much rather have a measured, purposeful, careful president rather than an independent megalomaniacal narcissist who is driven solely by his own self-aggrandizement and personal profit.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)