Update from the Sunland
No.899
25.3.19 – 31.3.19
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
“We do not talk – we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests.”
-- American author Henry Miller
“The reading of all good books is like a conversation with the finest minds of past centuries.”
-- French philosopher Rene Descartes
The follow-up news items:
-- The public speculation surrounding the two recent Boeing B737-MAX8 accidents {Lion Air [878, 889] and Ethiopian Air [896, 897]} continues to percolate. Reportedly official (although not official that I recognize) sources indicate preliminary findings show the MCAS stall-protection fired erroneously and prematurely, precipitating a similar, rapid, chain of events shortly after takeoff, resulting in the crash of both aircraft. As a decent, investigative engineer, I ask what triggered the MCAS during the climb out?
Further, the FBI’s involvement with the investigation of the certification process [898] does not bode well for Boeing . . . and perhaps even the aircraft design and manufacturing industry as a whole. If Boeing management coerced or compromised the DERs during the certification process, there will be a price to pay. This aspect of these two accident investigations may well prove to be the far more impactful and enduring element of whatever the eventual outcome will become.
-- The House of Commons voted yet again to reject Prime Minister May’s Brexit [758] plan—this time by the narrowest vote so far, 286-344, a margin of 58 votes. The contemporary colloquial term is WTF. One of the myriad lessons I learned early in life was any plan is better than no plan—a corollary of any action is better than inaction. The tragedy playing out in the House of Commons is staggering to the imagination and raises the level of foreboding I feel.
-- Attorney General Barr publicly stated the redacted version of the Special Counsel’s report [804,898] will be available to the public by mid-April. He said there are no plans to submit the report to the White House for review of any confidential information. Barr also declared the redactions were intended to protect intelligence sources, ongoing investigations, grand jury information and the privacy of individuals not charged with crimes. While I would prefer to read the entire report—good, bad or ugly—I appreciate the need to protect sources & methods and such. I would also feel a lot better about the information we will be denied, if the opposition, or at least an independent apolitical review, passed judgment on the redacted elements.
Then, I read a Wall Street JournalEditorial Board opinion:
“The Mueller Conclusions -- All Americans should be pleased with the end of the collusion illusion.”
by The Editorial Board
Wall Street Journal
Published: Updated March 24, 2019; 7:14 p.m. ET
The last time I checked, I am an American citizen in good standing. I want to be grateful that our president did not collude with a foreign, adversarial government to win the 2016 election. I want to believe the Attorney General’s summary. Unfortunately, we have the BIC’s multitudinous yammerings in public that point directly to collusion with an adversarial nation. The Barr Summary does absolutely nothing to reconcile the disparity. We can only hope the redacted version of the Special Counsel’s report provides us sufficient evidence for that reconciliation I seek. I suspect the redacted version will not satisfy that need; thus, my hope that some independent review will give us the reassurance we require. Yes, we should be pleased, but no, I am most emphatically not pleased . . . because I do not trust those telling me I should be pleased, or accept the BIC’s “truthful hyperbole” pronouncements.
-- The BIC’s relentless attacks upon Freedom of the Press [863] continue unabated and devoid of even a scintilla of understanding of the Constitution or the rich heritage of this Grand Republic.
The Mainstream Media is under fire and being scorned all over the World as being corrupt and FAKE. For two years they pushed the Russian Collusion Delusion when they always knew there was No Collusion. They truly are the Enemy of the People and the Real Opposition Party!
3:54 AM - 26 Mar 2019
The BIC uses the term “Mainstream Media” erroneously, when he really means the Media he does not like or he disagrees with; of course, the Press he likes, the Media that flatter him, are the real Press to him. The BIC never learned the political art form of dealing with the Press, which is probably why he so openly subscribes to the common trait of dictators—suppression of the Press. He has had numerous masters to use as an example, to learn from, but as we all know, he does not read, does not learn, does not care to absorb the lessons of those who preceded him—Churchill, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, et al.
Nonetheless, despite his blather-ous rantings, it is the BIC that is false, fake and untrue. He has no basis to make such claims. And yet, the BIC persists with his claims there was no collusion with the Russians, and yet he fails to acknowledge or recognize that the Special Counsel’s threshold was felonious conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. That is NOT the standard by which he will be judged. Very few citizens have seen or read the Special Counsel’s investigatory report. He further ignores all of the public evidence to the contrary. We, the People, deserve a reconciliation of the Special Counsel’s findings with that public evidence. I cannot subscribe or endorse the BIC’s “no collusion” protestations, until I have seen the evidence myself. I do not trust the BIC and I most likely never will . . . for the nature of the man.
-- The House of Representatives took the first shot at overriding the BIC’s veto [897] of H.J.Res.46 [897] and failed [House: 248-181-0-3(3) (292 yes votes required), no Senate vote]. Of course, the BIC could not simply take the win.
Thank you to the House Republicans for sticking together and the BIG WIN today on the Border. Today’s vote simply reaffirms Congressional Democrats are the party of Open Borders, Drugs and Crime!
2:31 PM - 26 Mar 2019
The BIC continues his penchant for falsehood. No Democrat, nor any American citizen period, wants open borders, drugs and crime. This is yet one more example of why nothing the BIC says can be believed.
-- The hits just keep coming. A series of opinion articles in the wake of the Barr Summary left me shaking my head is disappointment and dismay.
“Accountability for a Dossier – The dirty trick that started the collusion fable needs exposing.”
By The Editorial Board
Wall Street Journal
Published: March 25, 2019; 7:05 p.m. ET
The Christopher Steele Dossier is a documentary compilation of raw intelligence that remains an object of focus for the BIC, his supporters, and apparently the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board. For that reason (among others), I would like to read the Steele Dossier myself. Contrary to the WSJ Editorial Board, I do not believe the Steele Dossier was a dirty trick, nor do I believe the dossier alone was the stimulant for the Special Counsel’s appointment and charge.
“What Mueller’s report reveals: Collusion by media, not Trump”
Glenn Harlan Reynolds – USA TODAY Contributor
Arizona Republic
Published: March 26, 2019
What struck me so directly and harshly was the notion Reynolds could make such a headline statement. First, I think it safe to say Reynolds has NOT read the Mueller Report; he has no idea what the Mueller Report findings are or the evidence upon which those findings are based. At most, he has read the Barr Summary letter. He apparently believes the Barr Summary is fully representative of the Mueller Report, and yet offers no substantiation for such a judgment. Second, Reynolds’ words suggest the entire Russian investigation was created and sustained by the Press. As a “journalist,” I see such supposition shocking and most regrettable.
Yet, it was this particular article that really pissed me off.
“Mueller Exposes Spy Chiefs – Did our intel leaders have any evidence when they pushed the Russia collusion line?”
by William McGurn
Published: March 25, 2019; 7:15 p.m. ET
The intelligence chiefs illuminated Russian interference in the 2016 elections [782]. They did not implicate, or accuse the BIC or his minions. The BIC brought that on all by his orange self. The reputation of the Wall Street Journal for factual reporting is dropping fast. McGurn has not read the Mueller Report either. For him to condemn the intelligence chiefs based on the Barr Summary is just flat wrong and so openly biased—deeply disappointing.
Then, we had:
“Mueller and the Obama Accounting -- The former President now owes the country an explanation for the historic abuse of government surveillance powers.”
by James Freeman
Wall Street Journal
Published: March 25, 2019 1:17 p.m. ET
Hey, James Freeman, no he does not. The Obama Administration did everything by the book and in accordance with existing law. The BIC and his minions gave them more than ample probable cause to seek a warrant for active surveillance. James Freeman, I think it is you who owes President Obama an apology for such a baseless accusation.
You know, if the BIC had not acted so bloody guilty from the get-go, this whole damn episode and investigation may not have even happened, or may be not lasted as long as it did. When he convinced good people to lie for him . . . good people who certainly knew better . . . he created this atmosphere of suspicion, doubt and collusion. And of course, the BIC being the BIC, he will claim he never ordered or explicitly asked for anyone to lie for him; and being the accomplished mob boss that he thinks he is, he is correct—he probably did not, but his minions knew emphatically they were expected to do so.
If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, then probability says it probably is a duck. For the BIC to now blame everyone else other than himself is really . . . really rich, and I do not say that with admiration.
With a week to absorb:
-- the submittal of the Mueller Report,
-- the issuance of the Barr Summary, and
-- the multitudinous chest-beating demonstrations like highland gorillas,
I would like to capture for the record a few observations.
Every president, at least since and including Franklin Roosevelt, have faced legal challenges to their policy decisions. Few, to my knowledge three, presidents have had to deal with legal challenges regarding their personal conduct—Nixon, Clinton and now the BIC. In the two latter cases, we had more than a few clues regarding personal conduct before their election to the presidency; and yet, We, the People, elected them to the most powerful (and I will argue immune) political office on the planet and arguably in human history to date. To me, the message is clear; We, the People, do not care about the nature or character of the human being we vote for in any election; we only care about whether we believe the individual will implement the policies we care about, e.g., nomination of judges we like, or building a modern day version of a medieval wall to keep those not like us out of our land. What we enable in such selection is the myriad other actions that diminish the reputation of the very office they were chosen to hold.
The gloating of the BIC and his sycophants may be a tad bit premature. All this talk of vindication, exoneration and vengeance are based on the Barr Summary, which might well be seriously colored by political bias. As noted in last week’s Update [898], Barr made a good gesture to quote the Mueller Report, and yet there remains two primary salient points.
1.) The threshold for Special Counsel Mueller was criminal prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Since collusion is not a crime, Mueller carefully chose his words to establish the narrow finding.
2.) Mueller stated and Barr explicitly repeated his findings on obstruction of justice were not sufficient for indictment, presumably because they could not find sufficient factual evidence of obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt (the felonious threshold); however, he also felt compelled to state that the evidence did NOT exonerate the BIC, which implicitly means there was evidence, presumably between probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt, of efforts that qualified as obstruction of justice. If my assessment is correct, there are serious questions of ethics, morality and quite likely derogatory coloration of the BIC’s conduct.
Lastly (for now), we have all witnessed the public events and statements by the BIC himself (in his words) that raised red flags with respect to collusion, e.g., “Russia, if you’re listening . . .”; to me, such a statement by a presidential candidate is comparable to “I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue . . .” The Barr Summary does absolutely nothing to reconcile the Mueller statement with the physical public evidence.
This unbecoming gloating may well come back to bite the BIC. Then again, perhaps the BIC is immune to bad conduct accountability; after all, he is unique, omniscient and omnipotent, as we all know. He has never made a mistake or needed to apologize . . . just ask him. So, he is incapable of bad conduct.
The Supremes will hear arguments and decide an important and often overlooked issue in U.S. politics—gerrymandering . . . the convoluted drawing of congressional district lines to optimize the influence of one political party over the other. Two recent articles voiced the opinion of some.
“A Gerrymander Mulligan – The Supreme Court should keep judges out of political redistricting.”
by The Editorial Board
Wall Street Journal
Published: March 25, 2019; 11:35 a.m. ET
and
“Gerrymandering Disputes Don’t Belong in Court – The Framers left it to the legislative branch to draw district lines—and didn’t anticipate political parties.”
by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Richard Raile
Published: March 25, 2019; 7:09 p.m. ET
In principle, I tend to agree. The Judiciary should stay out of political affairs for a host of reasons. However, in this instance and on this issue, the above opinions are wrong, period, full stop . . . for one primary reason—abuse of power. Each political party has used their power in state legislatures to draw district lines that isolate opposition voters and maximize the advantage of one party over the other. I believe all of us who are concerned about gerrymandering have seen the obscene districts delineated in bizarre, illogical (other than for political advantage) shapes. What these opinions ignore is the Court’s historical involvement, e.g., Baker v. Carr [369 U.S. 186 (1962); 26.3.1962] [539]. Luther v. Borden {48 U.S. 1 (1849); Jan. 1849] [544] established in American jurisprudence the political question principle of the Court after the Dorr Rebellion [19.5.1842], and yet since Baker, the Judiciary has injected itself into the gerrymandering issue because the practice represents gross unfairness and an abuse of power exerted by the temporal majority party. The political parties have repeatedly and consistently demonstrated their inability to resolve the issue in a fair, reasonable and logical manner. Further, there are more than a few cases where legislatures have failed multiple times to satisfy a court order to produce fair, properly apportioned, district lines. The Court’s eventual decision will be interesting to read and understand, and may well give us a clear view of the Supreme Court given recent changes.
Comments and contributions from Update no.898:
Comment to the Blog:
“I see no reason to take Attorney General Barr’s summary of the Mueller report seriously, given his partisanship as revealed during his confirmation hearings. Still, even Barr goes so far as to state the report does not exonerate Chump. Multiple other investigations continue. I’ll note here that all of the Department of Justice figures in this drama began as lifelong Republicans. They have no personal reason to deliver inflammatory anti-Chump results.
“It would serve the British Parliament right if PM May took a plane to a nicer climate, leaving them to solve their self-created dilemma. As best I understand it, the PM is supposed to lead her party in a system based on party, rather than personal, votes and policy. Her party and the opposition party are both fractured over this issue.
“On last week’s discussion, I believe the voters as a whole are less corrupt than our ‘leaders’ because it takes a certain corruptible personality to succeed in U.S. politics, for the most part. There are a few exceptions, but most winning politicians are desperate enough for ‘success’ to be bought. The rest of us don’t have the stomach for it.
“I follow the weather in several Southwestern places. Southern New Mexico is having exactly what I like, while Tucson is already a bit warm for some tastes (not mine). Here in Ohio, spring has more or less arrived, but we’re running ten degrees below average and, of course, spring here is rainy. Manchester, in the U.K., is having our spring, a little warmer and not as wet.”
My response to the Blog:
In this instance, I’m with you. Barr broadcast his opinions quite starkly and his impartiality is compromised, as a consequence. In this question, Barr’s interpretation of the Mueller Report is irrelevant. What could be more valuable would be an open congressional hearing on the report and Mueller’s direct testimony. I trust Mueller far more than I do Barr, who is orders of magnitude above the BIC.
The BIC’s gloating is quite characteristic and consistent with his myriad personality flaws; however, it is disgustingly unbecoming and reprehensible.
Just today, Commons moved to take control of Brexit negotiations from the PM. Both major parties are fractured and perhaps irrevocably split. I do not know how this whole tragic trauma will get any worse, but I suspect means will be found. To me, this is like ripping a bandage off a wound—just do it!
The problem I have with your hypothesis is not the reality of the obvious but the short range of the observation. Corruption is all about the paucity of ethics and morality. Yes, us common folk are probably less corruptible . . . until we get access to the powerful corrupting influence of money. People seem to lose their morality when dollar signs appear, e.g. the Indecent Proposal. To me, success will be found in insulating people of all ranks from the corrupting influence of money, especially dark money.
. . . Round two:
“With respect to ‘human nature,’ I have seen the movie Indecent Proposal. It struck me as fun, but not especially realistic.”
. . . my response to round two:
With all due respect, I pointed at the movie for the imagery of the underlying question, not the literal portrayal. I am not passing judgment. As you well know, I advocate for a far more enlightened approach to human sexuality including prostitution.
. . . Round three:
“Sexuality or sex work was not my point. My point was that violating one's own values for money is a trait less common in ordinary people than in politicians and ‘successful’ capitalists. The movie was unrealistic not because of the sex work (and the movie leaves it open whether that even happened) than because the woman and the husband, not in an open relationship, gave up their personal values so easily. Even in the movie, it required a very serious discussion, but it occurred in the movie when it probably wouldn't happen in real life. I haven't seen that among the poor, the blue-collar, or the other people I know.”
. . . my response to round three:
I understood that point. I was simply making a relevant comment. I do agree with your salient point in the main, although I will note my original observation opinion that access is an important factor. It is easy to be noble and moral when no one offers you obscene amounts of money. I still think you are being too literal, but hey, that is your right entirely and I respect that reality. At the end of the day, morality is not the sole domain of the poor. All walks of life are corruptible, as all walks of life are just as susceptible to immorality. For the sake of this discussion, I define morality as what each of us does when no one is looking, not how we conform when someone is looking or might be looking.
Another contribution:
“I know you have a sense of humour-this is utterly suitable for the fiasco being conducted by our democratically elected parliamentarians. Let’s have them out and replaced pronto. What a shambles and us the ‘mother of democracy.’”
My reply:
It would be funny, if it was not so sad . . . kinda like the Keystone Cops of the silent film era. The paralysis is devastating. Any action is better than inaction, but I suppose some MPs failed to learn that life-lesson.
Odd that folks chose a coin to express their frustration. We created a coin, too. It’s called a Mar-a-Lago = US$3.4M, i.e., the cost of each trip the BIC takes to his Florida resort—50+ Mar-a-Lagos have been spent, so far and he is only two years into his presidency. The BICs entire, vaunted, 2,000 mile border wall would cost just seven (7) Mar-a-Lagos. The hypocrisy is staggering . . . quite akin to “Let them eat cake.”
Yet, with all that, I have confidence we shall endure this era of outrage. Keep the faith.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
3 comments:
Your Henry Miller quote (“We do not talk, we bludgeon one another . . .”) is apt to many conversations but is at least an over-generalization.
As an observer at the most ordinary level, I will ask two more questions about the MCAS on those planes. (1) Was there no redundant sensor that might have functioned correctly? (2) Why were the pilots unable to detect and correct the system’s failure?
I already brought up the airplane regulatory question. This relates to the larger “free market” issues of privatization and self-regulation/regulatory capture.
The UK is in deep trouble with Brexit, and their “leaders” show no sign of coming to their collective senses. It’s a good bet the people know better, but the elected officials cling to their entrenched positions for no sane reason.
Attorney General Barr has stated, under pressure, that he will forward a redacted version of the Mueller Report to Congress within a few weeks. I’m betting the redactions will protect the guilty. The Clintons are noting the irony that the report on his sex life was published in full, not redacted and in graphic detail. On another of your points, my college courses included one on “crisis communication.” The use of the word “collusion” allows all and sundry to avoid the correct term “obstruction of justice.” Those are not synonyms under the law. In some future court case, they can say they didn’t lie about Chump’s obstruction of justice.
The Wall Street Journal is the voice of capitalist wealth. We can safely discount its informational value and ignore its opinion.
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), the Senate Majority Leader, is single-handedly preventing us from holding Chump accountable and is otherwise harming the United States. He is also running for re-election this year. The leadership of the Democratic Party is quietly playing along with much of this harm, against the wishes of their own base and some of their elected officials.
I live in a State afflicted with gerrymandering. I certainly agree with you on that.
PART 1:
Good morning to you, Calvin,
Thank you for yr head’s up.
I just liked the two quotes—nothing more.
To your appropriate Qs regarding the B737-MAX8 accidents:
1.) Re: “Was there no redundant sensor that might have functioned correctly?” I am not and I do not have a definitive, official source (yet); however, it is my understanding from my sources that both accident aircraft were capable of dual AOA sensors, but the operator chose not to pay extra for the second sensor, thus they were in a single sensor configuration when the accident occurred. If this information is accurate and true, as I have written before, I cannot believe any competent flight control engineer or DER would approve of such a system. All sensors fail or output erroneous data from time to time, no matter how expensive those sensors are. It is unusual for a fairly simple sensor like an AOA device to malfunction or fail so early in operation, but it happens. So, this issue—single versus redundant AOA sensor(s)—raises a number of other far more impactful issues: A.) certification, B.) pilot training, and C.) documentation, i.e., was system properly explained to the pilots & maintainers?
2.) Re: “Why were the pilots unable to detect and correct the system’s failure?” This Q is more difficult to answer. I have not yet seen the transcripts of the CVR downloads in either event, or the correlation between the CVR & FDR data, to gain a look-see as to what the crew was doing in those fateful seconds once the upset sequence began. My guess, they were probably stunned by the initiation and confused as to what was happening. I fear the pilots fell victim to saturation with the system rather than every pilots primary axiom—fly the aircraft first. There are more than a few reasons attitude upsets can occur. As reported in a number of usually reliable sources, a prior event with the LionAir aircraft was quickly resolved by a deadheading jump-seat pilot, who knew enough to switch off the MCAS. If officially validated, that information raises more questions about training and post-event maintenance to troubleshoot and resolve the cause.
The more I learn about these two accidents the more I am left with one salient question: how on God’s little green Earth did Boeing get into this situation? Boeing has always been an industry-leading, conservative, engineering company. How and why did all that history get overcome? So many questions; so few answers.
The DER system is NOT self-regulation. I can assure you the system in general is a carefully supervised system. And yet, the unofficial, public information suggests something failed in that system at Boeing. Nonetheless, your concerns and apprehension are valid and warranted. Those of us who have lived in that world share your concerns and apprehensions.
End PART 1, go to PART 2.
PART 2:
Re: Brexit. You clearly expressed by feelings as well. This is a tragedy of the first-order and an indictment of those charged with representing the British people in Her Majesty’s Government. My opinion is beginning to grow that perhaps the only way out is for the Queen to beg indulgence by the EU for a year extension, and then dissolve Parliament to force a new general election in hopes of finding better representation—a major event, but no less serious than Brexit without an agreement.
Excellent assessment of the Mueller Report situation. I have been impressed with Barr as a person, but he is a compromised attorney general. I am not able to imagine how Congress can or will accept his redactions as a consequence. The capability and facilities exist and operate for selected members of Congress to view highly classified material. The same system should be sufficient for viewing the un-redacted report. How the administration takes the next few steps may well head us into a serious constitutional crisis? I hope they tread lightly. I am not confident given the BIC’s penchant for self-protection, self-aggrandizement, and willingness to obstruct justice (put his thumb on the scale).
I held the Wall Street Journal to a higher journalistic standard until now. They have fallen and succumbed to the seduction of political bias.
McConnell’s harming of this Grand Republic, its foundation principles, and our form of governance began long before the BIC became POTUS, e.g., not least of which was his singular stonewalling of President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination. We can only hope the voting residents of Kentucky see the greater good when it comes time to vote next year.
You are not alone. Most states suffer the affliction, which is precisely why the Supreme Court can and should weigh in.
Thank you for your contribution. Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment