Update no.928

Update from the Sunland

No.928

21.10.19 – 27.10.19

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

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- The Indonesian Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi (KNKT, National Transportation Safety Committee) issued its final report regarding the Lion Air Flight 610 (LN610) accident [878, 889] on Friday—one year after the accident [29.10.2018].  This accident was the first of two involving the Boeing 737-MAX8 aircraft that eventually grounded the aircraft worldwide to allow the investigations and corrective actions to be completed.  The KNKT report is 322 pages.  The Conclusions section alone involved 12 pages—too long for this humble forum.  And, to avoid boring everyone with technical details, please allow me to briefly summarize the findings.  The KNKT determined that the flight crews had not reported problems with the Angle of Attack (AOA) sensor on previous flights.  The malfunctioning AOA sensor triggered the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) multiple times on the accident flight.  The crew failed to recognize the problem and disable the MCAS, and eventually lost control of the aircraft.  The KNKT report illuminates numerous contributing factors.

            The KNKT report walks a narrow “just the facts, ma’am” line and does not delve into or even hint at the political and legal issues associated with this (and both) accidents.  I still believe the choice made by Boeing management to allow a single AOA source for MCAS was wrong from an engineering and ethical perspective.  This whole debacle has become perhaps the best example of the “penny wise, pound foolish” mentality that drives these cost reduction initiatives.  This one got away from Boeing and has tarnished the conservative reputation of the venerable aircraft company.

            Late Friday afternoon, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) revoked the manufacturing certificate of Xtra Aerospace of Miramar, Florida—the company that supplied the faulty AOA sensor to Lion Air and triggered the accident, killing 189 people.

            The hypocrisy of American politics abounds, and the practitioners display no conscience whatsoever—not one scintilla.

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime, to lose your job in this constitutional republic.  If this body (Congress) determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role . . . Impeachment is not about punishment.  Impeachment is about cleansing the office.  Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

-- [Then] Representative Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, 19.January.1999

I absolutely agree with Graham’s words of 20 years ago, and those words are equally applicable in today’s chaos.  The current Oval Office desperately needs cleansing.

            Just one tweet among so many during this week alone is so bloody typical of the BIC’s . . . (oh, I should not say what I want to say) . . . mind.

The Never Trumper Republicans, though on respirators with not many left, are in certain ways worse and more dangerous for our Country than the Do Nothing Democrats. Watch out for them, they are human scum!

10:48 AM – 23 Oct 2019

These are the actual words issued (I cannot say written) by the current president of the United States of America.  These are the words of the current face of this Grand Republic.  These are the words we are presenting to our citizens and the rest of the world.  These words are not idle, locker-room talk.  And, he does not get a pass by post-event claiming he was just kidding or joking, or some other juvenile nonsense.  There are so many things wrong . . . well, actually, I cannot find one word that is correct . . . with this tweet alone.  These words are NOT worthy of the president of the United States of America, or any decent human being in a leadership position, for that matter.

            The continuing House inquiry being conducted by three designated committees into the actions of the BIC heard sworn testimony from several key individuals this week.  Chargé d 'Affaires ad interim (Chief of Mission-Ukraine; acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine; former ambassador to Ukraine [2006-2009]) William Brockenbrough Taylor Jr. [USMA 1969] testified behind closed doors on 22.October.2019.  He released to the public his opening statement that I urge every citizen to thoroughly read.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-ambassador-william-taylors-full-opening-statement.

I have extracted several important elements of Taylor’s statement.

At the outset, I would like to convey several key points.
First, Ukraine is a strategic partner of the United States, important for the security of our country as well as Europe.
Second, Ukraine is, right at this moment—while we sit in this room-and for the last five years, under armed attack from Russia.
Third, the security assistance we provide is crucial to Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression, and more importantly, sends a signal to Ukrainians—and Russians—that we are Ukraine's reliable strategic partner.
And finally, as the Committees are now aware, I said on September 9 in a message to Ambassador Gordon Sondland that withholding security assistance in exchange for help with a domestic political campaign in the United States would be “crazy.” I believed that then, and I still believe that.

But once I arrived in Kyiv, I discovered a weird combination of encouraging, confusing, and ultimately alarming circumstances.

At the same time, however, there was an irregular, informal channel of U.S. policy-making with respect to Ukraine, one which included then-Special Envoy Volker, Ambassador Sondland, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and as I

Subsequently learned, Mr. Giuliani.

The irregular policy channel was running contrary to goals of longstanding U.S. policy.

I wish to conclude by returning to the points I made at the outset. Ukraine is important to the security of the United States. It has been attacked by Russia, which continues its aggression against Ukraine. If we believe in the principle of sovereignty of nations on which our security and the security of our friends and Allies depends, we must support Ukraine in its fight against its bullying neighbor. Russian aggression cannot stand.

We could not hear Ambassador Taylor’s testimony before the combined committees.  However, from this opening statement alone, we see a very disturbing and emerging image of what the BIC did to further his political re-election.  Despite the BIC’s incessant protestations, his “I would like you to do us a favor, though . . .” extortion of the Ukraine was the very definition of a quid pro quo [924] and extortion of a sovereign nation for domestic political gain, which from my perspective amounts to a violation of federal election campaign law.  Just as the BIC’s “no conclusion” protestations were false in the extreme, so too are his “no quid pro quo” protestations false.

            I listened intently to the BIC’s Sunday morning public statement on the claimed demise of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—the founder and leader of ISIL—at the hands of U.S. Special Operations personnel who executed the raid in Northwest Syria.  First and foremost, congratulations must go to the president and the personnel involved in the raid.  Well done—Bravo Zulu!  Second, the BIC really needs better speechwriters.  I have heard/seen a lot of this kind of presidential statements, and this was not a worthy example for history—very awkward and disjointed.  Third, the BIC needs to practice with teleprompter.  Even with his clumsiness using the teleprompter, he really should have stopped with his statement.  His impromptu answers to reporters’ questions made the event rather banal.  Fourth, and most importantly, given the BIC’s penchant for falsehood, exaggeration and obfuscation (as noted above in just this week’s Update alone), how on God’s little green Earth can we believe a word he says.  I want to believe him; I need to believe him; but regrettably, I cannot believe him.  I had to look at other information sources to validate the BIC’s claim.

            There seems to be considerable confusion regarding the current House impeachment inquiry.  The BIC’s Republican sycophants have carried out incessant whining and screaming tantrums about how unfair the process is.  Let us be very clear, crystal clear, the House is proceeding in accordance with the Constitution and the law.  The current inquiry is equivalent to a grand jury investigation.  All grand jury investigations are secret.  If the grand jury chooses to indict the object of their investigation, the indictment becomes a charging document the prosecutor must decide whether to pursue, i.e., the likelihood of conviction.  For the most part, once the charging document enters the court, it becomes public and prosecuted in accordance with established judicial process.  Comparably, the articles of impeachment (the charging document) become public, subject to the rules of Congress.  The House must vote on whether to pursue prosecution (voting on acceptance of the articles of impeachment), and then the Senate must conduct a trial to determine acquittal or removal from office.  Let us not be distracted 

            Continuation from Update no.926:

“Sorry Cap but I don’t hold you high in my opinion anymore of smart people I know .. Bullshit the Biden’s knew what they were doing and so did the Clinton’s and Obama .. if Trump were never elected President they would have all got by with it just as they have slid unscathed through so many other corrupt dealings .. you listen to the left run media and swallow whole every single lying word they feed the gullible .. I do not ..”

My reply:

            I do not know what I have done to invoke your disapproval, disgust or anger, but whatever it was, I do sincerely apologize.  That was never my intent.  I suppose, like unrequited love, my respect for you shall remain mono-directional . . . regrettable, but such is life.

            Re: “Biden’s knew what they were doing.”  I would say, of course, they did, just like the BIC knows what he is doing.  But, how do you (we) know?  We have only the imagery . . . well, except in the BIC’s case we have physical evidence.  I do not defend the Clinton’s; they both did things I believe were wrong on multiple levels; I have written my condemnation of their actions.  I still do not understand your condemnation of Obama for any reason other than his skin pigmentation.  Whatever your reasons, that is your choice.  Any one or combination of the social factors can be used to discriminate (choose) in our private lives—to choose our friends or those we wish to associate with; the social factors do not belong in the public domain.

            You persist in your accusations that my sources of information are rather narrow and limited, as if it is only my brainwashing that prohibits me from seeing the light . . . the brilliant light of the messiah’s luminosity.   I’m just a simple Joe Friday—“Just the facts, ma’am.”  The words he says and writes are facts, just as mine are.  The BIC is quite like Orwellian 1984: “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.”  Well, I am not a believer.

. . . follow-up comment:

“Omg ..typical .. She's racist !!! Typical left, CNN instigated mind non-think .. Nothing to do with skin color and you KNOW it .. I have stated numerous times the atrocities of the puppet Obama.. He can only speak with teleprompter because without it he's just not that good at speaking... He was a puppet That just happened to be black ... Or mocha or whatever !!! Purple!! I don't care ... Since Reagan they have all been puppets !!”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

            Wait, wait, I missed something.  “Omg ..typical .. She's racist !!!”  Who is she?

            “the atrocities of the puppet Obama”  Atrocities, really?  Atrocity ≡ an extremely wicked or cruel act, typically one involving physical violence or injury.  You may have stated it several times, but I do not recall such statements by you, and I certainly am not aware of anything Obama has done that is even remotely close to an atrocity.

            In this week’s Update, I quote yet another tweet from the BIC—one among so many, just this week alone.  The BIC has never been comfortable using a teleprompter.  Frankly, I think he would be far better served using a teleprompter with crafted, measured and careful words.  The words of POTUS are important—very important.  Calling other Republicans “human scum” is neither dignified nor mature—hardly worthy of a president of the United States, or anyone else in a leadership position.

            “they have all been puppets”  Who is “all”?  If “they” are puppets, who is pulling the strings from your perspective?  For what purpose?

            Obama made his share of mistakes that I have amply criticized in past Updates.  I make no excuses for him.  But, at least he was dignified, proper, and respectful of dissent.  If I had to choose who I think is a better “face” of this Grand Republic, it would be Obama, head and shoulders over the BIC.  Obama never bullied or insulted anyone.  The BIC insults anyone and everyone who dares criticize him; after all, he is infallible and omnipotent in his own mind.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.927:

Comment to the Blog:

“‘ . . . what a long, strange trip it's been.’

“The USA's military misadventures have a long history, but the Chump's abrupt retreat from Syria appears to be a direct result of Turkey's Erdogan bullying the Bully in Chief. Nobody welcomes reminders from the New York Times that Erdogan has expressed a desire for nuclear weapons.

“The Chump's henchmen may have begun to realize that they face prison time even if he doesn't, yet.

“We shall see how the suits against drug makers and distributors behind the opioid crisis proceed. Headlines change daily. Incidentally, the $8 billion award in the male breast development case has been stated to have resulted from a math error.

“The 737 MAX case continues to develop. I have yet to hear politicians use this one to agitate against deregulation in general, which is where it ought to lead. It would make a good feature issue in the general election campaign next year.

“I neither understand nor support Tulsi Gabbard, but I see Hillary Clinton's attack on her as worthy of the Chump. I never supported Mrs. Clinton and I still don't.

“Your pro-Chump commentator exemplifies millions of apparently intelligent people whose fears and resentments have been worked harder than a rented mule.  Ironically, these are the same people who lectured the rest of us on the importance of “character” when Bill Clinton's sex life was on trial.”

My response to the Blog:

            . . . and the trip is long from over.

            The mercurial nature of the BIC has been consistent, persistent, well known, documented, and understood.   This latest example is just one more on a continually growing pile.  He is notorious for responding to the last dictator.  The one thing that is consistent with everything BIC is the chaos he produces in everything he touches.

            You may well be correct.  The thought does come to me on occasion that Ford issued a “full, free & absolute pardon” to Nixon [8.9.1974] to avoid the protracted criminal trial(s) for months & years to come, declaring “our long national nightmare is over.”

            I had not heard the math error rationale.  The enlarged breasts case reminds of the Stella Liebeck case.

            The proper balance between regulation and freedom of action is a worthy topic for public debate.

            Yeah, that is exactly how I perceived Clinton’s public comments—very BICish and equally inappropriate.  Also, I think she was correct in fact, but dreadfully wrong in her articulation of the implication(s).

            I shall allow your last comment to stand without response other than the hypocrisy is starkly illuminated.

. . . follow-up comment:

“I'll note that I agree with Glen Greenwald on Ford's pardon of Nixon.  That was our turning point away from the rule of law in this country.  (I wrote a series of essays based on one of Greenwald's books for a friend's blog several years ago.)”

. . . my follow-up response:

            I am not a fan of Greenwald, but I do agree with him on this point.  That was the turning point.  Nixon clearly and emphatically violated the law.  He should have been tried, convicted and sent to prison for an appropriate time.  The message to future presidents and civil servants in general would have been clear.

            Many factors undoubtedly swayed Ford to take the action he did, not least of which was the gross and costly debacle of Vietnam.  Add in the societal trauma of civil rights, Daniel Ellsberg, the oil embargo, Roe v. Wade, et al, I surmise he wanted to rip off the Band-Aid to enable our national healing.  I understand that sentiment, but I do not agree with the decision.  In essence, in so doing, he placed emotion above the rule of law . . . with profound long-term impact on our culture and society, i.e., short-term gain for long-term penalty.

            As a side note, I suspect Ford was under considerable, if not monumental, Republican pressure to end “their” nightmare.  Allowing politics to enter that decision-making process was equally wrong.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)