Update no.927

Update from the Sunland

No.927

14.10.19 – 20.10.19

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

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- The BIC unilaterally, impulsively and precipitously ordered the withdrawal of U.S. armed forces supporting the Kurds in the fight against ISIL in Northern Syria [926].  His action, apparently with little or no consultation with his national security advisors, sparked bipartisan outrage and condemnation.  Then, as with so many of the BIC’s ill-advised actions, the government immediately set about trying to walk back the BIC’s action.  The Turks near simultaneously invaded Northern Syria in an ethnic cleansing operation of the region.  This whole episode illuminates a key element of decision-making and necessary planning associated with the commitment of armed forces to combat operations of any kind—winning the peace, which has been missing from so much of what we have done in the last decades.  I think the genesis of this episode can be directly traced back through the Obama administration's decisions to counter ISIL and the very creation of ISIL, to the foolish war-on-the-cheap decision by Bush 43 to invade Iraq [094].  He ordered that operation and constrained the size of the force to such an extent that chaos ensued when the Hussein regime was deposed.  From that chaos, ISIL came into existence.

-- The evolving illumination of the BIC’s extortion of Ukraine [924] for his personal political purpose(s) is too deep, complex and erupting to be recounted and criticized in this humble forum.  It is telling that administration officials under subpoena have finally defied the administration’s prohibition and begun to testify (albeit behind closed doors).  Like all things the BIC touches, he leaves bodies in his wake, and worse, he could not care less.  While one of the BIC’s “personal attorneys” is currently in federal prison, and another “personal attorney” is now under federal investigation by the Southern District of New York (federal prosecutors in the BIC’s administration), we shall bear witness to the BIC throwing anyone and everyone under the bus once they have served his purpose(s).  All of this chaos would be entertaining if it was not so scandalous and sad.  The lives of so many good and decent citizens are being destroyed and laid waste by the BIC’s egomaniacal endeavors.

--The UK and EU reached yet another “deal” in the Brexit [758] fiasco.  The House of Commons, in a rare Saturday session, voted not overwhelmingly but convincingly to force the prime minister to seek yet another extension in the protracted train wreck.

-- Three unidentified major drug distributors are reportedly in talks to pay US$18B to settle sweeping litigation brought by state and local governments blaming them for fueling the opioid crisis [926].  To my knowledge, these are the first negotiations with contributors beyond the manufacturers in the evolving disaster.  The numbers being reported in the Press sound woefully short for the magnitude of the problem.  I think this is the wrong approach.  If a jury can award US$8B for enlarged breasts on a male [926], then I think an award of more like US$18T is more appropriate for the opioid crisis.

-- Boeing apparently failed to disclose relevant internal communications regarding the certification of the 737 MAX [878 & sub].  This does not bode well for Boeing.  The management of the company apparently failed to learn the political lesson of 1973—the coverup is far worse than the crime.

            I watched and listened to all three hours of the CNN/New York Times sponsored public debate held Tuesday evening at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio.  Twelve of the remaining Democrat candidates qualified for the debate under the Democratic Party criteria.  Once again, Julian Castro came through as the least impressive of the 12 candidates on stage.  To me, Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg were the most impressive based on their poise, articulation, content and demeanor; they handled themselves quite well.  Elizabeth Warren was a close second.  I know the Republican Right loves to label them as socialists, as if that moniker is some form of curse, but I do not buy it.  They all have good ideas worth vigorous public debate to improve this Grand Republic.  The surprise to me was the stridence of Tulsi Gabbard regarding withdrawal of U.S. armed forces from foreign deployments and “regime change wars,” as she calls them.  I believe I understand the sentiment she seeks to convey, but her words to express that sentiment are frightening, quiet akin to the BIC’s impulsive, precipitous and dangerous withdrawal of U.S. forces supporting the Kurds against the remnants of ISIL in Northern Syria.

            As an adjunct, Hillary Clinton decided to weigh in on Gabbard’s comments in a thinly veiled accusation that the isolationists like Gabbard are puppets of Putin, Assad, and Iran.  Clinton’s comments were ill-advised, inflammatory (like the BIC’s drivel), and otherwise not helpful.

            A friend, consistent contributor, and all-around worthy thinker sent along the link to the following article:

“Why Advocates Favor Decriminalization, Not Legalization, of Sex Work”

by Rajvi Desai

theswaddle.com

Published: Sep 11, 2019

https://theswaddle.com/advocates-favor-decriminalization-not-legalization-sex-work/

After reading the article, I offered the following opinion:

            It is sad for me to read about the oppression of sex workers in India.  I am reminded of the old axiom, well my adaptation of it.  The power to tax [in this instance to regulate] is the power to destroy.  I still do not know why the Indians have taken the approach they have, but it seems clear to me the associated laws in India are NOT intended to protect sex workers and/or their clientele.  It appears the purpose is “legal” subjugation and abuse.  The author does mention social stigma overriding the prima facie value to the law.  Just like any law, no matter how well-intended, the key to its benefit to the public good depends upon the interpretation and application of the law.  There are too many good citizens who were or are incarcerated because of overzealous prosecutors using the law to impose their morality on everyone within their reach (jurisdiction) rather than for the public good.  My position remains the same.  It is also clear from the above that the law must be made more robust to protect sex workers and clientele from the abuse of those overzealous prosecutors who do not approve of sex work.  The religious right will be vociferous in opposition to any law to protect sex workers and their clientele; so be it.

To which, the contributor responded:

“I'll note that requiring medical treatment is not correctly taxation, but it costs just the same.  In this instance, the requirement just limits sex workers while continuing the stigma.  The most interesting thing here is that the Indian model resembles the model implemented in Sweden and models of legalization proposed here.  Decriminalization would do more for the sex workers and their clients.  Ultimately, society would benefit more as well.  For example, sex workers would be able to report trafficking and support survivors.”

Round two:

            Yes, decriminalization would do more for sex workers than legalization.  However, my point remains, as long as there are moral projectionists who persist in their efforts to impose their beliefs and Victorian morality on everyone, sex workers will be abused.  Social stigma is just another, less legal, form of imposing that morality on everyone.  The moral projectionists simply cannot accept that anyone would want or enjoy sex work.  I want to protect sex workers from the moral projectionists and especially the subset that carry the weight of the law as prosecutors.  I tend to focus on prosecutors, but the same applies to all forms of law enforcement including the regulators (those who administer licenses, perform medical check-ups, and such).  Protecting sex workers against abuse by citizens and clientele is important, but protecting sex workers from abuses of the law is far more critical to me.  I want sex workers to feel safe in the administration of the law (as it should be, not as it is), but it is even more important that they trust those who are entrusted with their protection so that they do feel safe to report misconduct, illegal trafficking, and such.

The contributor’s response to round two:

“There's no way in hell sex workers will trust people society appoints to ‘protect’ them. At present, those people are the police, who are the biggest danger to them.”

My concluding comment:

            At the current state, yes, absolutely, they have been betrayed too many times, just as homosexuals were until Stonewall.  Long journeys begin with small steps.  We must move forward.  Something is better than nothing.  The same is true for other morality-based enforcement, e.g., psychotropic substance consumption.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.926:

Comment to the Blog:

“The Chump betrayed the Kurds in favor of Turkey.  There are two Trump Towers in Turkey.  Hard on the heels of his abandonment of the Kurds comes word from the BBC and others that Syria’s government has sent troops to assist the Kurdish forces.  Assad has support from Russia, so the brain behind the whole mess might be Putin’s.

“Chief Justice Roberts supports the rule of law more than I’d expected.  That will affect Chump’s appeal results.  The Mueller Report is still available, too, and people have begun to leave the country.  I remember Watergate.  This process feels slow, but that one was slower.  Watergate also reminds me that we need not get a conviction, or even formal impeachment, to achieve change. 

“Economists state that recession always follows expansion.  Let’s hope for a soft landing.

“Remember that companies insure and budget for legal liability.  Unfortunately, the $8 billion judgment against Johnson & Johnson won’t hurt them enough to force real change.  It’s just a business expense.

“The next Democratic primary debate takes place tomorrow, Tuesday.  I look forward to seeing clips and summaries of that Wednesday.  Like you, I appreciate the Democrats’ focus on policy.  I’m keeping my mind open to voting for one of them in the general election.  However, Warren has been snuggling up to the DNC establishment too much for my taste and has stated that she’s ‘a capitalist to my bones,’ so maybe not her.”

My response to the Blog:

            The conflicts of interest in this whole BIC-Syria-Turkey fiasco are incalculable.  The BIC has been a one-man wrecking crew on the international reputation of this Grand Republic.  It is becoming harder and harder to imagine how anyone will trust the United States, again.  I have felt for some time now, based on a host of reasons, that the BIC has been doing Putin’s bidding far better than Putin could ever do it directly.  To the extent that we believe Putin is manipulating the BIC, we have to give the Russia dictator credit.

            On a related side note, the IRI has long accused the United States of being untrustworthy, and regrettably, they are correct.  Like corporate policy, it seems our international policy has been very shortsighted, i.e., what is good for the next quarter—good for the now—rather than the long-term, one, 10, 100 years.  Such shortsightedness leaves us extraordinarily vulnerable.

            This session of the Supreme Court will likely give us a broad insight into how this new bench will approach sensitive topics.  Add in the inevitable multitudinous appeals on the BIC’s myriad legal actions, we should get a good view of the new Court’s sense of Executive power.  The new Supremes have yet to weigh in on various challenges to the BIC’s abuse of power, obstruction of justice, emoluments violations, conflicts of interest, and the seemingly endless examples of the BIC’s failure to respect the office he holds.

            Re: recession.  Indeed!

            I have long been conflicted by that business expense approach to legal liability.  But still, US$8B . . . for enlarged breasts . . . really?  There is no doubt that J&J bears liability for not being forthright with side effects, enlarged breasts are hardly life-threatening or injurious.  Other remedies were probably available.

            I am a long way from deciding who will get my vote.  I have been impressed that all, and I do mean ALL, of the Democrat candidates, are head and shoulders above the BIC in terms of worthiness to hold the office.  They are all better human beings.  I would not exclude one of them in comparison to the BIC.

. . . Round two:

“Conflicts of interest on the national, state, and local levels have become an interest of mine, hence my use of ‘follow the money.’  Unfortunately, I can't begin to keep up with them all.  The Chump's conflicts are particularly blatant and flagrant.  If we look at who benefits from Chump's folly rather than the immediate players, Putin comes to mind often.  Given his documented interference in U.S. elections and the Russian tendency to blackmail others, there's a real possibility that Putin is behind some of this insanity.

“It's not only Iran.  The United States has lost respect worldwide to a degree that makes W. Bush's slow-witted persona seem minor.

“We shall see what we shall see with the Supreme Court.  Supreme Court Justices have no worries about re-election as politicians do, but Mr. Justice Thomas has conflicts of interest.  Possibly others might.

“The business expense approach to liability is precisely the approach of corporations in general.  If Johnson & Johnson had to pay that out of pocket, it might possibly change their approach to drug invention and marketing.  As it is, probably not.

“For several election cycles, Republicans have yammered on about ‘character’ whenever they had someone to point at.  I respect the Democrats for demonstrating character in that respect.  I'm not considering them ‘in comparison’ to the Chump, but as candidates worthy of my vote or not.  I'm still not voting for tools and fools.”

. . . my response to round two:

            Yes, “follow the money” is always wise counsel.

            Yes, the BIC’s blatant conflicts of interest are quite flagrant, and he thumb’s his nose at everything from the Constitution to standards of conduct for public servants—he believes the law does not apply to him.  Worse, so far, he has gotten away with his violative conduct.

            Yes, I see the implications of Putin’s fingerprints, but I am reluctant to give the Russian dictator that much credit. I think it is far more likely a monetary rationale for the BIC’s conduct.  If anything, Putin is using that stark reality.

            I watch the Supremes closely.  The really big test cases are coming up.

            Your words implicate what might well be an important change in criminal and corporate law.  The notion of disallowing deductions of criminal or civil judgments, or even out of court settlements in criminal or civil cases, from their taxable income could go a long way to reducing corporate malfeasance.  Add in the reform of bankruptcy law to reduce the protections against legal judgments would be another positive change.  I like it.

            Yeah, the hypocrisy of the Republicans, the Christian Right, and other wannabe fascists is stark and nauseating. How they can look the other way with the BIC’s conduct is incredible and contemptible.  

. . . Round three:

“Your analysis that Putin is simply making the most of the Chump's financial bind in Turkey is astute and probably correct.

“I would surely disallow the deduction for either fines or civil damages, but look also at corporations' ability to insure themselves for those ‘losses.’

“The Republicans are not the only tools and fools not getting my vote.  Mayor Pete, for example, has expressed his contempt for grassroots-only funding.  The Mayor thus earned my contempt.”

. . . my response to round three:

            Thanks for that.  I truly hope I am wrong, but unfortunately, the markers tell me I’m probably not wrong.

            There are a variety of those changes in criminal and corporate law to make such judgments more punitive, as they should be, rather than just another business expense.

            I am sorry you see Buttigieg in those terms.  He has been impressive in many other ways.  But, I do understand.  We both agree on the corrupting influence of big money donors.  The next debate of Democrat candidates begins shortly.  I will record it to enhance my absorption.

. . . Round four:

“Buttigieg has his positives, but campaign financing is a litmus test for me.  His characterization of Warren's donations as ‘pocket change’ tells me what I need to know.”

. . . my response to round four:

            I understand.  I haven’t heard Buttigieg say that about Warren’s contributions.  I’ll keep an eye on it.

Another contribution:

“Not only did Joe know what his son was doing so did Obama and others who probably got a piece of the pie .. as usual Cap .. blah blah blah .. the Biden’s and many others were and still are corrupt corrupt CORRUPT!  Add On Nancy Pelosi .. Schiff .. etc etc .. impeach THEM and Jail Hillary !!  Turn off CNN and NBC and watch Fox tonight and get the facts !!”

My reply:

            OK, whoa dawgy, I have heard nothing of the sort on Fox News or anywhere else, in credible print or televised news sources.  I will not dignify such unfounded accusations any further.

            That said, as I have written, I denounce Hunter Biden’s very foolish decision to be seduced by such obscene amounts of foreign money.  If something appears unethical, it is unethical.  If it looks to good to be true, it probably is.

            Just a technical point: impeachment is a constitutional process provided in Article II (the Executive section) [Article II, Section 4].  The Constitution also provides the sole power of impeachment with Congress (the Legislative branch) [Article I, Section 2, Clause 5; and Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 & 7].  Congress has internal rules for removal of Members of Congress.  While there are no impeachment provisions in Article III (the Judicial branch), the Article I power has been understood to apply to the judiciary simply because of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, as written.

            It would be humorous, if it was not so bloody hypocritical . . . the BIC accusing anyone of being corrupt.  The BIC has established a new orders of magnitude greater level of corruption for public officials and gotten away with it so far.

. . . Round two:

“No more comment except BULLSHIT .. there has been a swamp in Washington DC for so many years you’re as accustomed to it as a crocodile and quite smug and confident wallowing in that swamp I might add !!  And you will cover for every one of the swamp dwellers before you will ever admit Trump is doing anything right .. understood .. I’ve got your M.O. .. no point talking to you .. why do I even waste my time.”

 . . . my reply to round two:

            I do not recall when you started reading the Update.  Nonetheless, if you would take the time to read my earlier editions of the Update [No.1 goes back to 23.September.2001], you would find that I have been quite critical of every administration’s handling of the inherent corruption, malfeasance and unethical conduct in the federal government and every level of government down to our local city government.  Just for clarity, that criticism includes Bush 43, Obama, and now the BIC; and, the next person to hold the office (if it still exists at the time) will be shown no quarter by me, either.  I have no idea where your notion of “accustomed” has come from . . . other than my criticism today applies to your vaunted messiah now.

            To think anyone who watches political conduct would approve of or even just condone the BIC’s conduct in office, in the employ of We, the People, is truly mind-boggling to me.  The nepotism, multitudinous conflicts of interest, his numerous crimes from obstruction of justice to the Emoluments Clause, to his incessant outright false statements, to his one-man wrecking ball of our allies, international trade, ad infinitum ad nauseum, is literally orders of magnitude beyond the worst of any previous president, or any public servant I know of in history.  My previous criticism of Jimmy Carter was actually quite trivial compared to the BIC’s transgressions.  So, for any American citizen to think the BIC’s conduct is laudable defies logic, reason and imagination.  I am no fan of the dysfunction that has plagued the federal government for decades, but resorting to a wannabe dictator who has only made the “swamp” far worse and even more toxic is not the path to a more stable future.

            Again, I think you may have selectively read the Updates and probably missed my agreement with the BIC regarding the PRC.  We have needed a correction for a very long time.  However, while I have supported the objective, I am deeply critical of his methods of dealing with the trade transgressions of the PRC.

            I have been very clear, direct and candid; I have seen men with his personality traits.  I know the destruction, injury and chaos men like him inflict upon all the rest of us.  I did not need to learn those lessons, again, but here we are.

            You know, [anon.], I feel quite the same . . . why waste my time?  There is just one answer.  Democracy depends upon disagreement, a vigorous public debate about contemporary issues, and an exploration of solutions to our problems.  What has happened in recent years and has been amplified by the BIC’s myriad personality flaws is devolution of this Grand Republic into tribalism so common to Third World nations.  The BIC has made it much worse by inducing further calcification.  He has done nothing to make it better . . . other than give us a near perfect negative example of what president’s should not do.  So, I continue to bite my lip and persist with this public debate for one reason and one reason only—I truly love this Grand Republic.  I am an old man, now, and this is about the only contribution I have left.

. . . Round three:

“Trump is who he is .. his children support him and that says a lot.. they know him the best. what you and most of the left wing see as a bully others see as someone who knows how to get things done .. some people are eloquent with words and can talk for hours of how things should be and others like Trump maybe aren’t the most ‘politically correct’ with words but they actually ACT on their words and make things happen .. I’d rather have his type in office .. too many others had such close ties in politics and the Washington swamp they could rarely move in the direction needed by the people .. they were puppets.  I’ve noticed that those who dislike Trump most are those who have the opposite traits of the man ..

“He obstructs justice ??? What justice is there when every day of his presidency has been interrupted by left wing accusations and lies ?  May the last four years he serves be less chaotic ...”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            Their livelihood is dependent upon the BIC.  What would you do if someone was paying all your bills?  The children of Mafia dons support their fathers, too.  The children of Reinhard Heydrich worshipped their father.  That hardly sounds like a worthy metric.

            So, if I interpret your words correctly, the ends justify the means.  You could not care less about what or how the BIC does things, as long as you get what you want.  Does that sound about right?  So, you also support the BIC even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue in NYC, as long as you get what you want.  I have known you for many years; I have a very hard time believing that is how you truly feel . . . rather than maintaining the tribal intransigence.  I am not interested in political correctness; never have been.  I am very concerned about decency, respect for others, and a sense of humanity.

            Oh sure, the BIC is not a product of the so-called swamp.  He is indeed quite different.  He is so different he has blatantly disregarded long-standing rules against nepotism, conflicts of interest and behavior standards for public servants.  He has pissed on virtually all standards of public behavior.

            Did you read the Special Counsel’s Report?  If not, I strongly recommend and suggest you take the time to do so.  Robert Mueller is hardly a left-wing accuser.

. . . Round four:

“You have your right to interpret him any way you wish .. do tell me in a paragraph how you interpreted Bobby’s “special” report .. is it similar to the way Adam Schiff erroneously reported the conversation between Trump and the Ukrainian leader concerning the Biden’s dishonest dealings?  America has the right to know what goes on behind swamp doors.”

 . . . my reply to round four:

            I have done that [898] and will be happy to do it, again; however, I suspect you will not believe a word I say and will only shuffle it off accusing me of being ultra-left-wing, communist spy.  I am not asking you to believe me . . . or Adam Schiff for that matter.  Read the words.  See the actual evidence.  I read the entire Special Counsel’s Report [898] as well as the edited summary notes of the BIC’s Ukraine telephone call published by the White House (not by Schiff, or me, or anyone else . . . the White House).  Read the words directly.  The BIC will continue to protest what his words mean because he knows most folks will not read exactly what he said.   To give you just one example from the Special Counsel’s Report, he directed several people on different occasions to “dismiss” or “get rid of” Mueller.  The BIC is correct, by the evidence, he never said the precise words, “Fire Bob Mueller.”  So, you tell me, what is the difference between dismiss and get rid of, and fire?  But, once again, do not believe me; read the actual evidence.

            I have seen the evidence of the BIC’s bad behavior.  I have seen NO evidence of Hunter or Joe Biden’s bad behavior.  As I have written, Hunter Biden failed the “If it looks too good to be true” test—perception, imagery.  What the BIC has done is hard, actual, recorded and documented.  Let’s call a spade a spade here.

A different contribution:

“I’m sure you’re aware of the politics of our democratic nation!  But are we getting there? Of course I speak of Brexit, a word we are heartily sick of.  Tonight the EU have agreed a ‘deal’ with our negotiator.  However our PM does not have a working majority and has only managed to govern with support from various independent members and the DUP Northern Irish party. Now therein lies a major problem-they the DUP have this evening, declared they are not in favour of this agreement.  With the major opposition The Labour Party having long disagreed with exiting Europe the chances of defeat for our PM are monumental.  What then after that?  Another referendum on exiting Europe or a General Election.  Can you see then why us Brits are sick of the entire scheme.  However we shall see, this is democracy at work.”

My response:

            Oh my, I certainly understand the frustration.  Brexit has been an ordeal.  I guess this is one of the episodes in the category of “be careful what you wish for.”  I am (we are) not close enough to Commons to appreciate the counts.  The PM support structure seems quite tenuous, and they are already talking about another extension.  Frankly, I do not believe a popular re-vote is or could be beneficial.  Also, I do not see how the Northern Ireland border issue is avoidable; exceptions will be exploited by those the UK seeks to exclude or regulate.  In situations like this, any action is better than inaction.  The failure to put a peg in the ground is far more injurious than any agreement.  Take the best step you can, and then adjust from there.  There is no such thing as a perfect deal . . . despite what the BIC likes to espouse.

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

Cheers,

Cap                 :-)