Update from the Sunland
No.853
30.4.18 – 6.5.18
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
A life lesson the BIC failed to learn—ever!
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!”
When first we practice to deceive!”
Marmion; A Tale of Flodden Field(1808)
Sir Walter Scott
Lying to We, the People, is not a crime. It is only an indicator of the individual’s integrity and morality. Lying is not even an impeachable offense . . . unless false statements are made under oath. When he lies about the little stuff, he will lie about the big stuff . . . and, filtering out whatever truth exists in his words from the lies or his trademark “truthful hyperbole” (neither truthful nor hyperbole [850]) becomes exponentially more difficult; add in his constitutional job assignment in our employ, difficulty becomes dangerous, threatening and more ominous. The BIC is NOTthe arbiter of facts or news . . . despite his bellicose blatherings. He has proven himself unwilling to deal with facts, and we cannot trust him—a very sad commentary on the presidency.
Footnote:
If he had only told the truth . . . I guess the BIC did not belief his own declaration [23.January.2016]. Extramarital sexual relations fall quite short of murder on the morality scale, but apparently, he feared judgment more than prosecution. And now, even Fox News is turning on him for his false statements (AKA lies; at 3,001 in the 1st15 months of his presidency, according to WaPo).
Another axiom of life:
“Desperate times lead desperate men to do desperate things!”
Contraction from Walden(1854)
Henry David Thoreau
We must remain vigilant and keep very close watch during these troubled times.
The follow-up news items:
-- Since the BIC initiated the specter of trade wars with his (solo) declaration of tariffs [844] against foreign steel and aluminum, he and his administration have issued a steady stream of exceptions, exemptions, and suspensions; the latest being a delayed decision for the European Union and South Korea. They also issued a reprieve for Rusal—the large Russian aluminum company.
-- This week, the BIC achieved his primary objective—dominate the Press by any means possible. The BIC’s new lawyer Rudy Guiliani was center stage this week creating even more confusion, uncertainty and ambiguity regarding the BIC’s intention or willingness to cooperate with Special Counsel’s investigation of Russian meddling in our election [804].
This is what happens when you do not study, understand or appreciate history. If there was only one lesson (and there were multitudinous lessons) from the Nixon crimes and debacle, it is the cover-up is far worse than the crime; except in the BIC’s case, there was no crime—adultery or bad judgment are not crimes. What he and his cronies have done since 15.October.2016 in covering up things, they have created crimes. He has also created an enormously tangled web from which he cannot seem to find his way out . . . or maybe, this sort of turmoil is precisely what he seeks—distraction, slight of hand, bait and switch (the tools of a snake-oil salesman).
The Wall Street Journal reported that PRC agents are using high-powered LASERs and targeting U.S. flight crews in and around the military base in Djibouti.
Back in the early days of the AH-64 Program (1987), we executed an air-to-air combat development project to create defensive measures and demonstrate an offensive capability against both rotary-wing and fixed-wing aircraft. One of those offensive means we proved, the LASER designator that was an integral part of the targeting system could be used to inflict permanent damage to adversarial pilots of any type. To my experience and knowledge, there is no difference between a high-energy stream of coherent light and bullets. Aiming LASERs at aircraft (or human beings, or living creatures for that matter) is a criminal action; when done by nation-states, it is an act of war.
The BIC conducted a love-fest in Cleveland on Saturday. As I listened to the gushing praise heaped upon the BIC for his personal, solo accomplishments in stimulating the economy, I found myself nodding my head. He is correct; under his watch, the economy has improved. The latest positive news is the Labor Department’s unemployment rate continued to contract, down from 4.1% in April to 3.9%—the first time the unemployment rate has dipped below 4% since December 2000. The BIC claims credit that he alone has done this. Certainly, POTUS deserves credit (and blame) for things that happen on his watch. The reality is, the BIC has been the beneficiary of a healthy economy. The tax cut [834, 838] assuredly added stimulus to the economy in the short term, as it puts more money in the hands of consumers. However, the long-term consequences of the national debt expansion are not so rosy. The stock market has grown in value since the BIC has been POTUS, and we are beneficiaries of that increase in value. No debate! What is not said is, the economy began the recovery from the Great Recession [353] early in President Obama’s first term and has continued on a near steady pace since then. We can argue whether the pace of improvement was fast enough, but there is no debate that it was steady. While I acknowledge and credit the BIC for his contributions to our current healthy economy, fair is fair . . . let us not ignore the positive contributions of President Obama and his administration. The BIC deserves credit and so does President Obama.
In Sunday’s Arizona Republic [6.May.2018], a Viewpoint opinion caught my attention—“Should same-sex weddings trump free speech?” by Jon Gabriel. For those who may wish to read the opinion article:
The presented argument implies that religious faith should supersede other freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The counter-argument equally applies: freedom of speech must balance with the establishment clause of the First Amendment. When constitutional rights come into conflict, we must find the path to achieve balance. In this instance, we have the individual rights of one citizen in conflict with individual rights of another citizen. To engage the establishment clause is a stretch. The argument in the Koski-Duka case is not materially different from the Phillipscase awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court (likely to be delivered before the end of the current term). The issue is not whether one citizen’s freedom of expression can impose upon another citizen’s religious freedom. To me, the question is whether one citizen’s religious beliefs can be used to impose discriminatory behavior in the public domain? Koski-Duka, like Phillips, are running a public business, not a religious establishment. While they are allowed and indeed protected to discriminate in their private lives based on any one or combination of the social factors, they are not allowed to discriminate in the public domain . . . at least not within the jurisdiction of this Grand Republic. No one is asking them to sanction, approve or accept homosexuality or same-sex marriage; no one is trying to impose homosexuality or same-sex marriage on them. No one is attempting to dictate what or how they choose to believe or practice their religion. Conversely, they do not have the right to impose their religious beliefs on other citizens in the public domain. Full stop!
Many in this forum have admonished me for being too critical of the BIC, too nit-picky, not respecting him, and not giving him a chance to achieve. That criticism is fair, since I have little other than opinion to base my observations upon in this affair. To all those who believe I am dead set against the BIC, I can only ask: what if I am correct? I am reminded of Winston Churchill during his wilderness years (1929-1939), when he stood virtually alone ringing the alarm bell regarding the rapidly mounting militarism in Germany and the swift dictatorial entrenchment of Adolf Hitler. Churchill was ostracized, ridiculed and essentially banished for his criticism of Hitler and Germany; he was called multitudinous names, not least of which was warmonger. Eventually, history proved him spot on correct regarding the situation in Germany. While I am in no way comparing myself to Churchill, we cannot avoid the “what-if” questions. I freely admit that I could be wrong. Lord knows, I want to be wrong. To be correct in this instance does not bode well for this Grand Republic, and that is never good for anyone regardless of our political leanings or intransigence.
Comments and contributions from Update no.852:
Comment to the Blog:
“North Korea’s Kim family is not insane. Decades of (functional) peace on the Korean peninsula shows that they are rational. They have no ethics or concern for the well-being of their people, but they have not destroyed themselves or their country. The current Kim appears ready to move toward formal peace, logically followed by alliance or unification. That would benefit the Kim family as well as their nation. I watch with guarded optimism. The United States role in this is probably overstated due to the volatility of our ‘leader.’ All parties seem willing to let Trump take credit for leading, but Kim and the South Korean leader are the principals today. Much to my surprise and relief, Secretary of State Pompeo seems to be doing a good job for the United States. Agent Orange will take the credit, but our part in any success will occur despite him, not because of him.
“Nations have meddled in one another’s internal affairs throughout history. Now we have the Internet, and it makes ‘agitprop’ far easier for all parties. As you pointed out, that also applies to many other groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, other extremists, and other foreign nations. The Russians can be expected to run a professional and powerful operation, but it’s a crowded field and their impact ought not to be over-estimated. Your expressed expectation that ‘We the People’ (ordinary Americans) will filter out misinformation and harmful nonsense has already been disproved in too many cases by the 2016 election.
“The conviction of Bill Cosby is a hopeful sign. His method of spiking drinks is no news (hence the term ‘Mickey Finn’). Cosby’s use of wealth and influence to cover up his crimes is common as well. The conviction of a man in his position shows erosion of that power in this particular sphere. Now let’s do that with politics.
“Your other commenter is a troll, but one of his questions merits an answer. ‘How can the Russian meddling situation be a fact if it is not proven?’ There’s a particularly serious flaw in that logic. Facts are facts whether or not they have been proven. Germs, for example, were a fact long before that was proven. We just didn’t know about it until microscopes proved it. No allegation is either true or false merely because we have yet to prove it. The purpose of any investigation, whether scientific or criminal, is to find evidence.
“Who should be the next President? I don’t know either, but I want to state that their character must be demonstrated by their history. We see in Trump’s election the fallacy of relying on first impressions of character in choosing a President. Too many voters did exactly that in 2016.”
My response to the Blog:
Re: peace on the Korean peninsula. I share your guarded optimism. Yes, if this really happens and is sustained, the BIC will be given credit. My goodness, he is already claiming credit, claiming everything about the Korean peace initiative is due entirely and solely to him; no other human being made even the slightest contribution. He will claim credit whether he deserves it or not; that is precisely what snake-oil salesmen have done for centuries. Nonetheless, his conduct in this matter (and many others) has been like no other president in history, so giving him credit for such an historic paradigm shift is a natural extension. That said, I shall be one of those giving him credit, if peace and denuclearization is truly achieved.
Re: due diligence disproved. Quite so! That is my point, precisely. 62M citizens ignored the profound character flaws in the man, ignored his abhorrent personal conduct, and voted for him anyway. We have Members of Congress who professed to stand for moral values, and they stand up in public and defend his conduct to this day. We may not agree with all of his decisions, but at least Barack Obama was a dignified, respectable and moral man . . . (that oughta get me some hate mail).
I’m with you on going after political corruption as well as many more of the abusers. I hope the MeToo and TimesUp movement as well as the conviction of Cosby will convince more victims to file charges and prosecute the perpetrators within the statute of limitations to punish more of these bad men.
Now, now, I will forgive your momentary lapse into Trumpesque name-calling. The fact remains, facts are unproven allegations, charges, accusations and theories or hypotheses until sufficient evidence is presented to establish them as facts, i.e., proven. Yes, the unseen facts remain facts, although in a unique category, except for matters of faith.
The first impressions in the BIC’s case were apparently he’ll shake things up and break the mold of the corrupt political aristocracy, and that impression was so bloody strong that it overcame ALL of his monumental and multitudinous character flaws. The 2016 election demonstrated that a very large number of Americans are perfectly willing to cast aside moral values, beliefs, long held political positions in favor of incidental parochial politics.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Calling someone a ‘troll’ is not especially Trumpesque. That is the common term, without political, racial, or other spins attached to it, for anyone seeking attention on the Internet by means of outrageous accusations, name-calling, and similar deliberately disruptive behavior. A troll is not the same as a bot, which has some specific purpose and is a machine. The rest of us see trolls simply as people who want to upset others en mass. Their own beliefs, if they have any on the topic at hand, need not be the ones shown in their comments. They are as likely to attack Trump as Obama, religion as science, Christians as Muslims or Jews. Fact and reason are not their tools. They just attack people. That’s how they have fun.
“A fact is a fact is a fact. Whatever the Russians have done or not done is as factual as my fingers on my keyboard. The point of investigating is to try to discover facts, but the finding does not cause the facts. Thus, to return to the original point, a fact is a fact whether or not it has been proven to a given observer.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Re: troll. I was using the traditional definition: “under the bridge lived a great ugly troll” (“Three Billy Goats Gruff”); while you are apparently using the contemporary definition: “a person who posts inflammatory or inappropriate messages or comments online for the purpose of upsetting other users and provoking a response.” Using your definition, I do not believe any of the BIC supporters in this forum voice their opinions with a purpose of inciting me or others. I believe they truly believe what they say and they genuinely find is difficult to understand why the rest of us do not share their opinion. There is a huge difference between voicing an opinion and intentionally seeking to inflame others. I do not believe they are voicing their opinion for fun.
Yes, a fact is a fact is a fact, regardless of whether the fact is known or proven. There are no alternative facts. There are no fake facts. There are only facts. The rest are opinions or interpretations. The BIC truly believes he unilaterally and solely decides what is fact, what is fake news, what is relevant for all the rest of us. The difficulty we have is convincing the believers the BIC is wrong; he does NOT decide what is newsworthy. That responsibility rests with We, the People. We must try to collect sufficient diversity of information to understand, validate or prove facts beyond a reasonable doubt; that is the reality of the information warfare environment in which we live today. Sadly, the BIC is a far more active agent in our lives than the Russians.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
There is a difference between lasers and bullets, but it's a matter of physics (and, thus, operations) rather than status as weaponry.
Trump's speech in Cleveland is another exercise in self-love (there's another term for that), but even the unemployment figure has strings attached. It leaves out “discouraged” workers who no longer seek work and the underemployed, many of whom are not making enough to live independently even as single people in substandard housing.
On the argument about freedom of religion versus free speech, after two readings I agree with your reading of the article. It's poorly written because it doesn't present its argument clearly at all and I want to know much more about the situations presented. He also uses loaded, emotional terms. “Grandfather” and “grandmother” in particular carry emotional weight and no relevance to the issue at hand. I also noted that his central (first) case concerns marketing or some other speech rather than actual work production. I want very much to know the circumstances of that case, and he gives nothing. It's as if he's trying to make a point without actually stating his point.
You are not as unrelentingly negative about Trump as I am (see the second paragraph), but I have begun to tire of him. We have other important issues to discuss, especially oligarchy, election reform, and climate change.
Calvin,
Yes, of course; I recognize and acknowledge the physics. However, my point was, firing a LASER at aircraft is an offensive act intended to do harm . . . and potentially harm to everyone on board that aircraft.
Self-love is what narcissists do; the BIC exhibits a severe version. Yes, you are of course correct. There is no perfect metric for the whole of the employment dynamics. The definitions we have are at least consistent and reflective, although not totally descriptive.
In the sense of the Koski-Duka case, services are no different from physical products sold in the public domain as commerce. I do not see sufficient difference to warrant a separate opinion from the pending Phillips case, which in turn means the Phillips ruling will probably apply to the Koski-Duka case. Given recent past performance (post-Gorsuch), I suspect the Phillips ruling will be a narrow 5-4 decision, split along ideological lines. We shall see.
I have noticed my view of the BIC’s conduct is under-going a metamorphosis . . . tiring yes, as I continue to be disappointed; however, lately, I am more aware of the entertainment value, like watching sports event in the class of American football or ice hockey. Yes, there are many other far more important topics than the BIC and his bad behavior, and part of me suspects that is precisely his intention . . . to divert our attention from the real issues.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment