Update from the Sunland
No.858
11.6.18 – 17.6.18
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
It was said of Sir Winston Churchill at his passing:
“He enjoyed a conflict of ideas, but not a conflict between people.”
– Lord Chandos (1965).
– Lord Chandos (1965).
That has been my objective for this forum from the get-go. The rejuvenation of our democracy with the rigors of active, vigorous debate on contemporary issues is the lifeblood we must maintain through our disagreements, arguments and conflicting perspectives. We simply must relearn how to disagree without being disagreeable.
The follow-up news items:
-- The long-hyped summit meeting between the BIC and the DPRK dictator lasted less than a day in Singapore.
Fact:
The BIC tweeted:
“Just landed - a long trip, but everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. Meeting with Kim Jong Un was an interesting and very positive experience. North Korea has great potential for the future!”
2:56 AM - Jun 13, 2018
Fact:
The BIC was on such a roll, he added:
“So funny to watch the Fake News, especially NBC and CNN. They are fighting hard to downplay the deal with North Korea. 500 days ago they would have “begged” for this deal-looked like war would break out. Our Country’s biggest enemy is the Fake News so easily promulgated by fools!”
6:30 AM - Jun 13, 2018
Opinion:
The BIC should have studied history just a little more. After bowing to Hitler’s demands, Chamberlain signed away the Sudetenland (territory over which he had zero authority) and publicly declared: “We have only laid the foundation of peace,” and holding up the Munich Agreement, he proclaimed, the agreement was “peace for our time.” Those words were spoken 80 years ago. History also records the outcome and consequences of those words. For the BIC to unilaterally declare that the DPRK nuclear threat is no longer before us was just as premature and unwise as Chamberlain’s words eight decades ago. That said, I certainly laud the President’s eagerness to break with historic precedent, to find a different path; after all, continuing to do what we have always done and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity. Yet, I am troubled with his exaggerated hyperbole and the appearance of weakness—generosity without verifiable concessions. We shall see how this plays out.
-- The trade war [844] with our allies and adversaries, induced by the BIC, continues to escalate, as other nations respond to the unilateral action of the United States. He has certainly piqued my attention. I wonder where he thinks this is going end up? What is the outcome he seeks? Stealing some kids lunch money just does not seem like a worthy objective for this Grand Republic.
-- U.S. District Judge Amy Jackson did not like the allegations and evidence presented by Special Counsel Robert Mueller against former BIC campaign manager Paul Manafort [761,766, 815]. He was accused of witness tampering while he was free on bail for other charges. Judge Jackson declared, “I cannot turn a blind eye to this allegation.” She revoked his bail and ordered him to jail immediately, while awaiting trial. Manafort just dug his hole much deeper.
The international community is beginning to coalesce against the BIC’s unilateral efforts to dismantle a century of alliances and alignments.
“The G-7 Fiasco—It's Time to Isolate Donald Trump: The G-7 summit once again made it clear that U.S. President Donald Trump is intent on treating America's allies worse than its enemies. Europe must draw the consequences and seek to isolate Trump on the international stage.”
A Commentary by Roland Nelles
Der Spiegel
Published: June 11, 2018; 12:02 PM
From my perspective, this opinion is spot on, warranted, and truly unfortunate. The historian and optimist in me believes the relationships with our many allies are reparable, once a more grounded and reasonable Commander-in-Chief is inaugurated. We must endure and persevere for the next two and a half years . . . unless he is impeached earlier. The moderates and independents among us must vote this fall.
I reviewed a case of some interest . . . at least to the LBGTQ segment of this Grand Republic—Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission [584 U. S. ____ (2018); no. 16–111]. The Supremes stood back from the root issue and ruled on a narrow procedural anomaly. Because of public comments made by two of five members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in their original review of the case, and more significantly (to the justices) the paucity of any confrontation or criticism of those comments by the other commissioners and during the judicial appeal process, the majority of the Supremes decided the Commission had shown “hostility to religion” that was inconsistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and thus overruled the Appeals Court judgment. This ruling was a process judgment rather that a decision on the substance.
In general, the Court’s “hostility” determination was a rather long stretch, but it is what it is. The conflict between constitutional and/or fundamental rights in specific situations must be carefully adjudicated, so as to preserve the respect for each individual’s rights. I can see the Court’s point that legally compelling a shop owner to violate his religious beliefs is contrary to the spirit and letter of the law. However, where I get crosswise with the Court in instances like this one rests upon the use of religion as an excuse to discriminate and violate the civil rights of another citizen within the public domain.
A couple of thoughts not addressed by the Court. Marriage (of any form) is a civil, NOT a religious, process, well within the proper domain of the State, and outside the purview of any particular religion. The fact that some citizens choose to perform their marriages in a religious manner, in accordance with religious dicta, and have their marriages sanctioned (blessed) by clergy is a personal and private matter. The baker applied religious significance—a personal choice—to the meaning or purpose of the cake requested by Craig & Mullins. By the available public evidence, Craig & Mullins sought to purchase a generic wedding cake for their celebration. They did not seek any specific reference to their same-gender relationship. Phillips objected to their purpose, not specifically to any offensive content in the cake decoration. Therein lies the rub for me. Phillips objects to non-heterosexual, monogamous marriage; I get that; he has every right to reject such things in his private life. What he does not have a right to do, in my humble opinion, is impose his beliefs on others in the public domain. In this sense, the Court failed to address the root issue. Furthermore, the Court sought to avoid the root issue to focus on process, leaving the matter open for lower court adjudication, for the time being.
I also reviewed another ruling issued by the Supreme Court this week—Azar v. Garza[584 U. S. ____ (2018)]. The case dealt with an unaccompanied, minor, illegal immigrant female who crossed the border and was eight weeks pregnant at the time. While in federal custody in Texas, she petitioned for an abortion. A swift set to judicial actions ensued. Before the various court ruling could make it to the Supreme Court for judgment, the abortion was performed in accordance with Texas law, which rendered the case moot. Judgment shall have to wait for another case and another day.
Comments and contributions from Update no.857:
“The Summit- where two fat guys with bad haircuts can think that they run the world.”
My reply:
Quite so! The contrast between his conduct with other dictators and our historic Allies is stark, sobering and frankly depressing. I wonder when sufficient citizens will reach their threshold of disgust. I am way past mine.
Another contribution from a third party forum:
“Sir Winston, the eternal rebel in Brit affairs, would sense a kindred spirit. The snotty-nose-in-the-air pin-stripe diplomats he (too) abhorred are to blame for everything that’s gone with the world over the past two centuries.”
My reply:
I do NOT share [that] opinion. My impression: someone needs to study history a little more.
A different comment:
“This may sound like a strange question, but in attribution to Trump (idiot), what does B.I.C. stand for? I assume it might be "Bastard in Charge". Just curious my friend. Glad we agree on the chief narcissist, which is very dangerous.”
My reply:
Nice possibility, but no . . . my intention: BIC = Bully-in-Chief, since that is how he conducts himself . . . as graphically demonstrated this last week alone.
A thread contribution:
“Time magazine has certainly captured the essence of Trump. That cover is ugly but accurate. Certainly, the notion of pardoning himself ought to be a tipoff that he sees himself as all-powerful.
“The openness of Trump's affection and admiration for tyrants puzzles me. It seems to me that even the most cold-blooded, power-mad or greedy dictator would not so carelessly trash all the nation's international alliances. That harms the very country (the USA) that is the source of his power and profit. There's no excuse for this. Indeed, there's not even an explanation short of mental illness (in a correct sense) or addiction. (Those would not be excuses.)
“Rudy Giuliani has lost his good sense as well as his morals. He is saying pretty much anything that comes to his desperate mind to try to defend Trump. It's not going well.”
My response:
FYI: No comments were uploaded to the Blog. I’m not sure what the problem is with the Blog; I’ll keep an eye on it.
Re: TIME Magazine cover. I thought so as well. Even his expression in that graphic speaks volumes—the Mussolini pout. The relevant section of Blackstone’s Commentaries is §I-7-237 [772] that defines sovereign immunity, in essence the King can do no wrong (or inverse, he can do whatever he wants with immunity). He is a long way from a king or even a dictator, but worse, that is precisely as he sees himself, but he is only a wannabe. A wannabe can be and often is far more dangerous than an actual dictator—he overreacts to everything.
Re: the BIC’s affinity for dictators. It does not puzzle me. From my perspective, his open affinity for dictators is precisely consistent with his myriad personality flaws. He has been true to his image. I strongly suspect that he chose not to take his company public for one primary, overriding reason—he never wanted to answer to a board, or any other person or group. As his personality traits dictate, the BIC could care less about this Grand Republic, history, precedent, morality, or any other human being other than Ivanka. He is playing his role to the T.
Re: Giuliani. That is my impression as well. He has sold his soul to the devil, as they say.
. . . Round two:
“What puzzles me is not Trump's affinity for dictators, but that he's so unblushingly open about it. Does he realize we all know what it says about him?”
. . . my response to round two:
Frankly, he does not care nor does he believe he should. Any human being who would publicly claim he could shoot someone in public with impunity clearly does not care one iota what we think. I think he truly believes he is above the law, above morality, above ethics, above any other metric of mature, human conduct. He apparently believes he is the next thing to God, if not God personified on Earth. Furthermore, he has a substantial portion of the citizenry of this Grand Republic, as well as faithful believers in the international community, who see him in those terms. He is incapable of doing anything wrong; he is infallible.
. . . Round three:
“He is correct that Americans are easily led astray; after all, he won the election. However, he is a minority ‘president’ whose approval rate continues dropping. On top of that, the international community was never deceived and calls have begun for stopping him. If he had even a modicum of self-awareness, he could have avoided much of that opposition. (He'd still be evil, but he'd function better.)”
. . . my response to round three:
I do believe your statement is an over-generalization. Not all Americans are so easily led astray. While there are blind-faithful Republicans, there are comparable blind-faithful Democrats—those of both parties that believe whatever the party says or does; right or wrong their party, and they are more than willing to follow and support a deeply and dangerously flawed “leader.” In the contemporary instance, it was the Tea Party activists who mobilized to vote in the primaries. Very few people took the BIC seriously until it was too late . . . sound familiar? Those who remain blindly faithful to the BIC are the same citizens he was referring to in his shoot-someone statement. They are still a minority, but they are an energized minority. It is the independents and moderate centrists of both parties who must decide, and that mobilization must be broad enough across the country to overcome the constitutional constraints of the Electoral College.
That said, yes, I agree with you. He had options and numerous opportunities to take a less confrontational, in-your-face approach and avoid his dictator mentality, but alas that was not what his believers wanted. They want the confrontations and strongman persona. The rest of us were not sufficient in voting numbers to overcome his activist minority. I remain guardedly optimistic the independents will be sufficient to reign in his congressional support in the pending election and vote him out of office in the 2020 election. Time shall tell the tale.
. . . Round four:
My statement was about the balance factor. I'll point out that the Trump loyalists (the easily led, to put it mildly) and the blind-loyalist Republicans elected Trump. There are or were relatively moderate Republicans, but not enough to stop that. The DNC Democrats are not realistically anything but tools of big donors. They have their blindly loyal voters as well, but they will not save anyone from the excesses of corporate America. They'll put a better face on it, but they're bought and they will stay bought. A majority of the electorate recognizes all this and stays home. If anyone succeeds in rebuilding a representative republic here, it will be someone who inspires them to vote.
. . . my response to round four:
OK . . . balance of what?
I write about an opinion in der Spiegelthat seems to express the views of many Germans and many Europeans, but not all. There are Europeans who taut and laud the BIC for his pseudo-strongman façade.
I certainly agree that he had the potential to be so much more, but I’m afraid he has squandered multiple opportunities to do the right thing for this Grand Republic and We, the People, rather than for himself and loyalist followers. Such is life!
. . . Round five:
“The balance factor is that many Americans are not led astray by Trump's BS. That's why I wonder at his openness about being drawn to tyrants. Your reference to his ‘opportunities to do the right thing’ gave me a chuckle. He never had either an inkling of what is the right thing or any intention to do such a thing anyhow. My latest indication of international events is a call from China for the rest of the world to unite against him. (Source not available at the moment.)”
. . . my response to round five:
I’m not entirely sure I understand your balance point, but not to worry.
The fact that he chose not to recognize them or take them, or simply was oblivious to those opportunities is quite irrelevant. The fact is, he did not take those opportunities for whatever reason.
I have not seen the international calls in the collective, but I would not be surprised. He has sought to isolate the United States and he has done a marvelous job of accomplishing just that objective. In so doing, he is indirectly making the PRC and Russia stronger. I can’t imagine any American citizen wanting that, but hey, there was a large chunk of Americans called American Firsters who sought just that in 1940.
. . . Round six:
“You seem to think Trump has objectives and ideas as a sane person would. I see no signs of that. He just does whatever comes into his sick mind.”
. . . my response to round six:
Sure he does . . . and very sane and rational, too. His singular objective is enriching his brand, his name, his bottom line. The fact that his actions violate virtually every long-established ethical rule for the conduct of public servants is irrelevant, i.e., not applicable to him, as he is a deity and thus above the law. His actions make perfect sense when viewed in that singular and personal light.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment