Update no.936

Update from the Sunland

No.936

16.12.19 – 22.12.19

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

            To all,

            I have been called a lot of names in the last few years.  It seems to be a product of these times.  The most colorful moniker being that I am a pompous arrogant asshole.  Well, that may be.  That is certainly not my intention.  My only purpose in this Blog is to illuminate contemporary issues, present the facts as I understand them, offer my opinion regarding the facts, and debate the issues that swirl around us.  I have also been accused of hating the president, and thus in my blind rage of hatred, I cannot stand anything he does or says.  I wish I could be as eloquent as Nancy Pelosi in facing such accusations, but the best I can say is such accusations are patently false.  I simply see the man for what he is, and I am quite prepared to call him out for his flaws, transgressions and mistakes.  To me, the ends do NOT justify the means.  I took my oath of office as an officer of Marines quite seriously.  I see his conduct as a very serious and profound threat to the very foundations of this Grand Republic.  I cannot ignore that reality.

            The follow-up news items:

-- The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary issued its 658-page report on the impeachment of the president [924] [H.Rept 116-346]—both Majority and Minority sections.  The report provides analyses of the findings of fact presented by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) in their Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report.  Both reports are supplemental documents to the House charging document [H.Res.755] voted on and noted below.  I have read them all, cover to cover, every word.

            To set the proper tone here, I would like to quote James Madison’s words contained in Federalist no. 51 [6.2.1788]: 

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it control itself.”

The charging document takes a traditional, far broader perspective of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” was first described by Sir William Blackstone in his seminal Commentaries on the Laws of England. Book IV, Chapter 1, page 1 used the term “public wrongs, or crimes and misdemeanors,” which the framers used in the creation of the constitutional term in use today.  While I am strongly and staunchly against abuse of power in any and all forms, including the demonstrated abuses (multiple) of the BIC, it is H.Res.755, Article II—Obstruction of Congress that represents the clearest and most graphic reason for conviction and removal from office.  In his three years of employment by We, the People, the BIC has consistently, persistently and aggressively obstructed justice and Congress.  The articles of impeachment [H.Res.755] and the voluminous report of findings and analyses [H.Rept 116-346] present a clear, exhaustive and well-documented case for the BIC’s conduct unbecoming of the office he was elected to hold.  To me, the BIC’s blatant obstruction of Congress is the most corrosive to the very foundations of our system of governance.  He is, in essence, standing on the balcony, with his arms tightly crossed across his chest and looking down his nose at all of us minions when he repeatedly shouts out, F*** You!  This man thinks he is Mussolini and probably even King George III.

            The “Dissenting Views” Section of the Report was illuminating and instructive.  The Minority conducted a valiant defense of the BIC with one purpose—create sufficient doubt.  Even a mob boss or a genocidal dictator deserves an aggressive defense.  Because the BIC refused to participate in any form and defend himself, the House Minority was thrust into the defense task.  The Majority chose to use the broader term “abuse of power” to encompass the BIC’s crimes.  Clearly, the Minority disagreed with that decision.  Yet, for the Minority to contend that “the President has publicly released the transcript of the July 25 call, which shows no conditionality for any official act.”  First, the document released by the White House is NOT a transcript of the 25.July call, as noted on the very first page of the documents.  It is an edited (not redacted) summary.  We have no way to establish exactly what was said when.  Second, to deny conditionality is exactly the same as the BIC’s earlier defense, “I never said fire him.”  In this instance, the BIC did not explicitly state, you will not get the military assistance aid until you announce your investigation into the Bidens.  The implication of the BIC’s “a favor, though” takes on a far more sinister meaning in the light of the BIC’s public statements, as noted below.  Even the edited words of the White House document leave very little doubt regarding the conditionality, despite the Minority’s rather lame claim.  The BIC’s words also leave very little doubt as to the quid pro quo bribery that is conditionality.  Coupled with testimonial observations of multiple other knowledgeable professionals, any remaining doubt vanishes except in the minds of his defense attorneys, struggling to defend his inappropriate conduct.  Factual evidence also clearly establishes that the BIC did not release the military assistance aid allocated by Congress until well after he was caught in the act.

            The Minorities efforts to maintain the Party line and deflect attention from the BIC’s misconduct and criminal behavior by pointing at the Bidens simply does not hold water.  The Republicans controlled all branches of government for two years; did they investigate or charge either of the Bidens—no!  Their use of the Bidens is so weak as to verge upon ridiculous.  The Minority’s presentation of the Bidens is quite like so much of this—just enough fact to appear plausible.  The Minority states, “There is nothing untoward about a president asking a foreign government to investigate the same questions about potential corruption the American media was asking publicly.”  Taken as an isolated sentence, the statement is correct.  However, what pales the argument is the fact that there was no U.S. government investigation as an official context for such a requirement.  This was a personal effort, using his personal attorney, outside the legal and diplomatic system, which gives such a request the color of a vendetta or effort for personal gain.  That is precisely the problem with the Minority’s argument.

            Bottom line: we have more than enough physical evidence that does not require further interpretation or analysis to establish that the BIC has proven himself unworthy of the office he was elected to serve.  We, the People, voted and elected him to the office, despite the interference by Russia.  This process has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do about the 2016 election [we had the evidence in the Special Counsel’s Report and refused (or failed) to act].  This process is solely about his conduct in office in just this year alone, and the physical evidence brightly illuminates his behavior is unbecoming of the office in which he was elected to serve We, the People.

-- Then, as is the BIC’s penchant, he wrote a six-page letter of protest to the Speaker of the House on the day before this historic lower chamber vote [924].  He was certainly flamboyant with his words, and yet very imprecise and outright false in numerous places.  The best I can say is, this letter is a good example of the “pot calling the kettle black” and the art of distraction.  I carefully read the letter.  I invite everyone to read it as well.  I am not going to waste any more of my precious time on this drivel.

-- The House voted on Wednesday, 18.December.2019, to impeach the president [924] on both charges (articles) delineated in H.Res.755.  The vote was:

Article I (abuse of power)                  – 230-197-1-3(4)

Article II (obstruction of Congress)   – 229-198-1-3(4)

(216 votes required by the U.S. Constitution for passage.)

Well, the BIC made history.  He went from being the fourth president to face impeachment to the third president to be officially and formally impeached.  The articles of impeachment now pass to the Senate for trial—conviction & removal, or acquittal.  Regardless of the Senate outcome, history was made.  Just a simple note here: the representatives for more than half of the population (not just voters) voted to impeach the BIC.  That is a message that even the BIC cannot ignore.

            It is moderately interesting that it was Democratic Party presidential candidate Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii that voted “Present” twice, which is just another form of abstention.

            Did the president have the authority under the Constitution to do what he did in and around the 25.July.2019 Ukraine telephone call?  Yes, absolutely, without question or debate.  Did the BIC abuse the power vested in him as POTUS?  The answer depends upon one’s perspective.  For those who believe the president has unlimited power and sovereign immunity, I suppose the answer is no, i.e., by definition he cannot abuse the power that is unbounded by the Constitution and immune from prosecution under the common law.  I am not even remotely close to that faction.  Just because great power is vested in the president does not mean he has the right to exercise that authority without constraint.  If the BIC and his agents had made even a modicum of effort to disconnect his personal interests from the national interest, we would not be where we are.  He did not, so here we are.

            All that said, the one point that can be distilled from all this sad turmoil, when a president wields his power without respect for history, for precedent, for others, for the Press, or for the other branches of government, regardless of whether they agree with him, this is the outcome.  No president in history has done even a fraction of the things this president has done.  He has disrespected anyone and everyone who does not sing his praises; this by definition is conduct unbecoming of the Office of the President.  Full stop!

            With Republicans of all shapes and sizes, relentlessly chanting about the process—too short, not enough, unfair, incomplete—I ask again, how much is enough?  Of course, the BIC wants to go to court, that way he can continue to delay, confuse and obfuscate, and take months, if not years, to decide.  So, I come back to the obvious question.  How much is enough?  The House has prepared a 658-page, exhaustive supplement—H.Rept 116-346—to the charging document—H.Res.755.  Even a fraction of that volume is sufficient to establish the BIC’s abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

            At this stage, I say, get on with it.  Make every senator go on record.  We need to know who approves of the BIC’s conduct and who rejects the BIC’s conduct.  Regardless of the Senate’s outcome, history will forever record that the BIC was impeached by the House of Representatives.

            Just a reminder at this juncture, the Constitution does not limit the number of impeachment actions that can be brought against anyone president.  This is not a one-and-done exercise.  This particular case focused on a well-established, clear, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress well beyond acceptable norms of presidential conduct.  So far, the BIC has gotten away with his blatant obstruction of justice and obstruction of Congress well-documented in the Special Counsel’s Report [898, 902].  There is little doubt in my little pea-brain that the BIC is incapable of learning; he will continue to trample upon good order and discipline, and offend the office he holds with conduct unbecoming the Office of the President, until he is stopped—one way or another.  The salient question remains: how much is enough?  When will We, the People, have had enough of his conduct unbecoming of the presidency?  My threshold of tolerance was broached long ago.  I can see that some folks do appreciate the image of a king or dictator is attractive.  It is not to me.  Thus, we shall respectfully disagree regarding the threshold of tolerance.

            The BIC and his sycophants relentlessly chant that he was not given due process in the impeachment inquiry.  And, more than a few of our citizens actually believe him.  The facts and reality are, the BIC refused the proffered due process.  He has singularly and steadfastly stonewalled the inquiry.  His conduct is the very definition of obstruction of Congress.  The fallaciousness of the BIC’s public statements is absolute.  Despite his apparent belief that he is the king of America, the BIC is not.  Regardless of the outcome of this impeachment process, the BIC will eventually be removed from office and lose the immunity he flaunts.  I trust We, the People, will have the courage and strength to prosecute him for his crimes to the fullest extent of the law; whether it happens in one year or five years, I trust that it will happen.  He cannot be allowed to thumb his nose at the law from behind his immunity shield; that shield he hides behind will be taken away from him sooner or later, and he must be answerable for his crimes.

            Ignoring the myriad other offenses and focusing solely upon the facts surrounding the infamous 25.July.2019, telephone call between the BIC and President Zelensky of Ukraine, the sad reality is there are numerous elements that might have precluded an impeachment inquiry.

1.  If the BIC and the USG had raised even a semblance of interest in general corruption before the call, he would not be in this predicament.  As multiple, knowledgeable witnesses testified under oath (something the BIC & his cronies have NOT done), the BIC was only interested in the image of official inquiry—not the corruption in Ukraine.  He sought personal gain—not the interests of this Grand Republic.

2.  If the BIC had sent his personal attorney on the personal project, spending his own money, without any linkage to congressionally appropriated assistance funding, i.e., he had not implied the linkage with his statement: “. . . do us a favor, though. . .”, he would not be in this predicament.

3.  Whether the BIC intended to imply linkage, more than a few direct lieutenants believed the linkage had been directed.  The BIC could have been more circumspect.  His lieutenants, as reflected in Sondland’s testimony, believed he directed a linked quid pro quo for his personal gain.  It was that reflection that instigated the whistleblower to act and open this whole fiasco.

4.  If the USG, either the Legislative, or Executive branches, or both, had initiated a formal investigation into Hunter Biden’s alleged inappropriate conduct, or Joe Biden’s alleged abuse of power, he would have had a context for this statements in the 25.July telephone call.  They have not, even to this moment.

I could go on, but this should suffice.  The BIC had multiple opportunities to avoid all this impeachment stuff.  He chose to do it his way.  The House of Representatives has made an emphatic statement that the BIC’s actions are not acceptable and not tolerable.

            The latest rendition of the Democratic Party candidate debates occurred Thursday evening, 19.December.2019, hosted by PBS NewsHour and Politico at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California.  By the DNC qualification requirements, only seven candidates appeared in this edition of the Democratic candidate debates—Biden, Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Steyer, Yang.  Kamala Harris reportedly qualified but suspended her candidacy.  As a footnote FYI, the debate had been scheduled to occur at the UCLA campus, but a labor dispute blocked the venue.  The events noted above overshadowed the debates.  Once again, I was more than annoyed by the audience's interference.  There were many salient points proffered during the debate, but the one that stuck out the most was an exchange between Buttigieg and Warren over campaign financing.  Mayor Buttigieg responded, “According to Forbes magazine, I am literally the only person on this stage who is not a millionaire or a billionaire.  So, if [applause interruption] this is important.  This is the problem with issuing purity tests you cannot yourself pass.  [audible audience howls.]  If I pledged to never be in the company of a progressive Democratic donor, I could not be up here.”  The exchange went on and sparked a bit of a firestorm on the stage.  At the end of the three-hour marathon, in an odd and demonstrably halting question, Judy Woodruff asked each of the candidates if there was a candidate you would ask forgiveness or give a gift.  Again, it was Mayor Buttigieg who offered the most colorful response; he answered, “I think all of us want the same thing at the end of the day.  We know what a gift it would be to the future and to the country, for literally anybody up here to become president of the United States compared to what we’ve got.”  Hear, hear!

            Let us not forget, no president makes or passes any laws; only Congress is charged with passing laws.  No matter who becomes president that person must find a way to work with all factions to pass appropriate laws for the common good and We, the People.  It really does not matter much beyond the personal domain of what the candidates think they will do.  The only thing that matters is what they will do working with Congress to pass the necessary laws.  I want to know how they think, what matters to them, and most importantly, how they are going to work with a tribally divided Congress for the common good.

            On this matter, I feel compelled to illuminate two examples from history.

1.  In early 1941, in an isolationist bent country not at war, President Roosevelt proposed, negotiated, and in three months signed into law the Lend-Lease Act—arguably the most influential law of the era.

2.  In a seriously divided nation and Congress in 1964, President Johnson worked his legislative connections to help pass and signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that proved decisive in breaking the shackles of “Jim Crow.”

Neither president cared much about their tribe.  They instinctively knew what had to be done at the time for the good of the nation.  They defied a strong faction of their respective political parties.  I want and need to see the greater good.

            I continue to listen intently to the president’s words for one reason and one reason alone—he is the duly elected President of the United States of America.  I am obligated as a citizen to listen.  I also learned long ago, well before he declared his candidacy and became president, that his words are worthless.  His self-proclaimed “truthful hyperbole” is in fact neither; it is outright falsehood—just a fancy label for lying.  He has proven himself to be an accomplished snake-oil salesman and as such is incapable of telling the truth, since the truth does not serve his purpose.  Yet, especially as related to the impeachment inquiry, he has in fact done exactly what he said he was going to do in at least two instances.

1.  On Wednesday, 24.April.2019, on the lawn of the White House during one of his impromptu news conferences, the BIC declared, “We’re fighting all the [House] subpoenas.”

2.  On Tuesday, 23.July.2019, at Turning Point USA’s Teen Student Action Summit 2019, the BIC proclaimed, “Then I have an Article 2 [sic], where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.”

Please note, the date of both of the BIC’s declarations preceded his 25.July telephone call and the opening of the House impeachment inquiry.  Prior and subsequent to the BIC’s public declarations [and to this very moment], he has done precisely what he said he would do.  If he was advised to take that stance (I do not think he was), he got very bad advice.  Unfortunately for him, that is not how the U.S. Constitution works.  Those two statements and his consistent conduct to fulfill his declarations are precisely the definition [in fact, textbook examples] of Obstruction of Congress.  He is not a king, despite what he thinks.  He is not a dictator.  And, today, he is the third president in the 231-year (so far) history of this Grand Republic to be impeached by the House of Representatives in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.  We do not need the courts to compel more witnesses to prove those violations or justify this action.  That’s it, end of story, full stop, drop the mic!

            Does anyone want to take a bet that despite his impeachment, the BIC will continue to act in a manner unbecoming the Office of the President, and quite likely will continue to violate the law?

            As a closing note for this week’s Update edition, it is truly and genuinely sad, solemn and a depressing time in the history of this Grand Republic.  Impeachment is never a positive action.  Many current and previous presidents have faced impeachment inquiries.  Only three have been impeached by the House of Representatives—so history records.  I truly wish the BIC had learned in office that he does not hold the Office of the President by some divine providence.  As he demonstrated with witnesses on 25.July, he has not learned (and I contend his personality anomalies preclude his ability to learn).

            The Speaker of the House has apparently drawn the line against the public proclamations of several key senators that indicate the controllers of the Senate’s business have no intention of conducting a fair trial of the articles of impeachment.  So far, she has stated that she will hold the articles of impeachment until the rules for a fair trial can be established.  Perhaps, the Speaker seeks to hold Damocles Sword over his head for a while.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.935:

Comment to the Blog:

“The impeachment is being discussed exhaustively at any news source.  Senator Mitch McConnell has already stated that the Senate-as-jury trial will not be impartial, at least on his part.  McConnell still stands out in my mind as a larger villain than the Chump due to the actual results of his actions.

“The Department of Justice Inspector General's report on their investigation of the FBI's Russia collusion investigation satisfies me twice.  First, it refutes the Chump's claim of political motives for the investigation, then it exposes one of the major dangers of FISA warrants.  Good work!

“The name of the report above comes from the Rolling Stones song ‘Jumpin' Jack Flash’.

“I'll note that the Steele Dossier (Trump-Russia Dossier per Wikipedia) is another example of the spy community at work.  As much as I relish some of that content, much of the information remains unsupported and at least one piece is disproven in the Mueller Report.  The ‘moving force’ for this operation seems to have been the founder of Fusion GPS, but a DNC attorney provided money for some of it.  (Feel free to provide evidence otherwise.)

“The statistics blog Fivethirtyeight has weighed the odds of Senators voting to impeach and found a majority (never mind two thirds) probably against.  That's a reason the House should have prolonged the proceedings; the next Senate could be Democratic.

“I prefer the Founders' term ‘factionalism’ to ‘tribalism’.  Finding one's ‘tribe’ is used in a healing context and I personally relate to that understanding.

“I applaud Time Magazine's choice of Greta Thunberg (I didn't need the middle names) as their Person of the Year.  Young people, especially women, have begun to lead our society in most of its facets.  She exemplifies that.  Of course, I also feel a ‘tribal’ connection to her as an autistic person.  We knew the Chump would say something nasty.  (Yawns)”

My response to the Blog:

            I’m with you on McConnell.  He attained despicable status when he defied the Constitution and stonewalled President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination.  He has gone farther downhill from there.

            I’m with you as well on the OIG Report.  Fortunately, Director Wray is taking aggressive steps to amend the FISA procedures to make such omissions less likely.  There is no such thing as perfect, because human beings are flawed creatures and some bad samples will try to find a way to circumvent any rules; thus, my choice of “less likely.”  We need FISA, but we clearly must improve the safeguards.  What those Crossfire-Hurricane folks did was make vital intelligence collection all the more difficult, which is not positive to national security.

            Well, I’ll be damned.  I never made that connection and I’ve listened to that song countless times.  I learn something new every day.

            To my knowledge, the original funding was actually Republicans attempting to eliminate the “reality” show frontman.  They abandoned the initiative as the fellow gained in the primaries.  The DNC picked it up to dig up dirt on their likely opponent.  The money colors the analytical conclusions, but not the facts.  That was the FBI’s point, and I agree.  Intelligence takes information from all sources, and then must analyze their collected information for accuracy, reliability, relevance and veracity.  I do not fault that process.  All professional intelligence analysts are suspicious of single sources.  How the politicians color and spin their products is entirely a different matter.  I know how hard the IC professionals work to get it right, but we have born witness to failures.

            I cannot disagree.  Nonetheless, nothing in the Constitution says or even implies a one and done opportunity.

            I know you prefer factionalism; it is a more elegant term.  However, I think tribalism is more descriptive of our current predicament.  The connection between tribe and healing is beyond me.

            You may have noted, I try to introduce new characters with their full name for precision and to minimize confusion.  I agree; I think the TIME magazine editorial staff chose wisely.  Yes, the BIC is consistent . . . consistently disgusting.  He may not agree with her message, but as a quasi-leader (and I use that term with trepidation and reservation), he should have praised her for being involved.  But, that is way too much to expect from the BIC.

. . . Round two:

“Impeachment not a ‘one and done’?  That's a fascinating point.  The Chump is the most obviously villainous person ever to occupy the office, and on top of that, the world is watching.  Hmmm.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Agreed!  We shall see how the House vote and potential trial goes; but, it is not looking like a positive event, so far.

            I suspect this will be the shot across the bow, regardless of the election outcome a year from now, short of the BIC being arrested, smoking gun in hand, after shooting someone of 5th Avenue (presumably to demonstrate his hypothesis).

            And so it goes.

 . . . Round three:

“According to his henchmen, Chump couldn't even be arrested with that smoking gun.  What's really sad is that society, as represented by Congress and their sponsors, still supports him.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            Sadly, I suspect and fear that you are correct.  After all, sovereign immunity means the king can do no wrong . . . no matter how egregious, heinous, or revolting.  These are the times in which we live.

            Worse, when a Democrat president comes along, as surely as s/he will, it will be morbidly entertaining to see these hypocrites screaming bloody murder.  What price glory?

Another contribution:

“I bet Boeing wish Santa would come and sort out their Max jet-we hear today that production is to cease next month, what a mess. They must have a pile of new machines just standing around in the open. What a tragedy, I trust you don’t have shares in that company. Joking aside I cannot believe they haven’t solved this problem Cap-what’s your views, surely it should have been sorted by now and the aircraft back on route.”

My reply:

            Boeing has more than 400 B737-MAX aircraft parked on ramps all over the Western U.S.  One reason they cite for suspending production is, they are running out of space to store the aircraft.  The sunk inventory cost alone of those aircraft is roughly US$54B; not many companies could sustain that magnitude of negative cash flow.  Given Boeing’s recent conduct, I suspect they have not paid suppliers to pass off those costs.  If so, they will likely bankrupt many suppliers that are unable to front that kind of money.  Boeing has already squeezed suppliers severely; this is like the coup d’grâce.  Unfortunately, Boeing abused the Delegated Engineering Representative (DER) system.  I suspect the FAA has called into question a good chunk of the original certification, thus the extra time to go back over all of the DER certified content beyond just the MCAS.  The shockwaves beyond just the Boeing debacle are significant.  This is clearly a violation of the trust placed in Boeing all for the bottom line—penny wise pound foolish.  This is what happens when accountants gain the upper hand in aircraft certification programs.

            “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

            I’m not sure the Brexit path matters much anymore.  Any outcome would be better for the UK, the EU, and the world, than this persistent uncertainty.  Drive a peg in the ground, and then adjust from there.

 . . . Round two:

“Good day Cap, MCAS? Minimum -----

“My God I had no idea they had stockpiled that many jets! Are they making any problem-solving progress at all? 

“Yes, you’re right Boeing may well survive this crisis but many sub-contractors may not-is it time that the White House should step in and show who is leading the country, handing the problem over to NASA, if they couldn’t sort it who could?”

 . . . my reply to round two:

            MCAS = Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System – Boeing intended it to be a stall protection system, e.g., Air France 447 (1.June.2009).  Unfortunately, to save a dime, they tried to do it on the cheap.  They got burned—a foolish, foolish decision that will cost many billions.

            I’ve seen this before, certainly nowhere near the scale of the Boeing B737-MAX debacle, but the cause & effect were quite similar.  I suspect Boeing solved and “certified” the MCAS fix months ago.  What is holding them up now is quite likely the loss of trust factor, i.e., if they cut corners to cut costs on the MCAS, what else have they cut corners on.  My guess is, the FAA is applying the microscope of scrutiny to all changes in the B737-MAX certification.  Further, my guess is, they are probably finding other anomalies beyond the MCAS.

            Yes, as suppliers fail, or refuse to bear the costs to the production suspension and the restart (if that ever happens), Boeing will have significant added costs of qualifying new suppliers—not trivial.

            The consequences of this fiasco are going to be felt far & wide, and for a long time.  To me, Boeing management during the B737-MAX development and certification failed far beyond the technical; they failed at a moral level.  They should be prosecuted for what they did; it was wrong at every level I can think of.  Tragic!

            No, no need.  The FAA seems to be handling this quite well, now.  Unfortunately, it took the deaths of 346 innocent people to brightly illuminate Boeing’s transgressions.

 . . . Round three:

“Thanks for your explanatory reply-excuse me for asking but I’d never come across these abbreviations during my time in aviation.  Mind you we’re told that the early Tornado’s computer had less power than a current laptop-but it worked!  You cannot mess with flight control systems.  They must be perfect from the word ‘go’, no corner-cutting, no cost savings-it has to be right.  We all await the outcome Cap.”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            As most designers and manufacturers do, Boeing coined the term MCAS to identify their unique subsystem.  While I do not know the details of the MCAS software (proprietary), I suspect the software may have been simplistic, but the fatal flaw was the decision to offer a system like MCAS with only ONE (1) source sensor—the Angle of Attack (AOA) vane.  Customers were given the option: 1.) take the system as designed (one AOA sensor); or 2.) purchase a 2^ndAOA sensor.  U.S. operators chose option no.2, while many, including Lion Air and Ethiopian Airline chose option no.1.  Most modern commercial aircraft have at least three source sensors on flight control sensors.  I cannot believe any responsible engineer would advocate for a single source flight control system.  The problem with such a system is that a faulty or damaged sensor could or would provide erroneous data to the flight control system with obvious consequences.  To me, the fatal flaw was even allowing a single source flight control subsystem to go into operational service.

 . . . Round four:

“This sensor AOA sensor is that a physical device i.e. a vane that is affected by the AOA or an electronic device.

“We had brief mention on our local news, apparently, I gathered, there are one or two Boeing 737 Max parked on our local airfield and the parking space is needed.

“Get it sorted Boeing.”

 . . . my reply to round four:

            Yes, the AOA sensor is a physical vane (often appears as a small, symmetric, swept-wing foil on the side of the fuselage, usually near the pitot-static probe) that transforms the measured angle of attack of the aircraft into an electrical signal sent to a cockpit indicator and in the B737 case to the MCAS computer module for processing.  The AOA vane stays with the slipstream as the aircraft changes its angle of attack.  After the AF447 accident [1.June.2009], the industry became far more concerned about AOA.

            I’m not surprised some of the B737-MAX aircraft are grounded in the UK and Europe, as well as the rest of the world.  The aircraft at issue are the yet to be certified & delivered aircraft.  They are approaching the end of the line.

            Indeed, get it sorted out Boeing.

A different contribution:

“I have pondered much (as I am sure you have) how so many of the Christian Right including people in my family and friends circle, have fallen for Trump.  What makes it worse, is I think deep down they really do not like him, but cannot admit it, and with much pride, continue to support their guy.  He will be our first president ever to run again for office after an impeachment.  And the scary fact is he could likely get reelected!!!!”

My response:

            Yes, it has always been a point of curiosity for me.  How do citizens with professed and unwavering touting of their morality, and their willingness to project and impose their morality on everyone, set aside their moral beliefs to vote for such a consistently immoral man?  I still seek to learn what motivated 63M citizens to vote for the BIC.  My search continues.  Yes, he could get re-elected; I do not underestimate him.  Millions of American citizens have bought his snake-oil and truly believe they have been cured of all their ills; that power should never be underestimated.

            This will be an interesting dynamic we and history have never experienced before.  Nixon and Clinton were both in their second terms.  Johnson, however, was a War Democrat chosen by Lincoln as a running mate for a form of a coalition government.  Even after his razor-thin acquittal in the Senate (one vote), he stood for re-election, but the Democratic Party selected a different candidate—Horatio Seymour.  Grant won the popular vote by six points, and more to the point, he won 73% of the Electoral College vote.

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)