Update no.947

Update from the Sunland

No.947

2.3.20 – 8.3.20

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

            To all,

            Just a few days after his overwhelming win in South Carolina, Joe Biden gained even bigger wow!  Buttigieg and Klobuchar suspended their campaigns after an inadequate showing in South Carolina.  And then, shock of shocks, both of them, along with O’Rourke, publicly and enthusiastically endorsed Biden in advance of the Super Tuesday primary elections.  Incredible!  Whether the dramatic endorsements helped is impossible to definitively ascertain.  Nonetheless, Joe Biden appears to have won 10 of 14 states in the Super Tuesday primary election.  California, Colorado, Utah and Vermont are still counting the advance and absentee votes, although Sanders holds the lead in all four states and a commanding leading in the two more populous states.  No one I am aware of predicted Biden’s domination of Super Tuesday, and he now becomes the Democratic Party frontrunner.  Bloomberg withdrew after coming in a distant fourth on Super Tuesday and promptly endorsed Joe Biden.  A few days later, Elizabeth Warren suspended her campaign, but chose not to endorse another candidate at this time.

            After starting a year ago with 20 plus candidates . . . and then, there were two . . . two old white guys. Well, actually, three since King Donald I is the presumed Republican nominee, and he is in his 70s as well and very white when he does coat himself with that orange face paint.  The next up primaries & caucuses are Super Tuesday Round 2 on 10.March.2020: Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, and Washington. 

            On Wednesday, the 4^th of March, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of June Medical Services LLC v. Russo—a Louisiana case testing the state’s oppressive restrictions on physicians who perform abortions. Once again, Republican politicians want to jump into a woman’s body and mull over her biological functions, and then impose their beliefs on the hapless woman.

            On the steps of the Supreme Court Building that morning, Senator Charles Ellis ‘Chuck’ Schumer of New York, Senate minority leader, joined a group of pro-choice protesters and publicly stated, “They’re taking away fundamental rights.”  I generally agree; the issue at hand is every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice.  I will quibble with his choice of the third-person present continuous tense of the verb “take.”  He cannot possibly know the outcome of any Supreme Court case before the decision is rendered.  He went on to say, “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”  I emphatically condemn Schumer’s very-BIC-ish public statement.  Stooping to the BIC’s vitriol is not acceptable from anyone, especially the POTUS or the Senate minority leader.  Schumer tried to deny that his words were threatening.  Unfortunately, most of us understand the English language and see his words for exactly what they were—a very thinly veiled threat intended to intimidate the Court.  Schumer was dreadfully wrong.  Denial is inappropriate; apology is in order.

            In a rare public rebuke, Chief Justice John Glover Roberts Jr. made his own public statement regarding Schumer’s threat.  “Threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.  All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”  I believe Justice Roberts was spot on the money; Schumer was terribly wrong when he joined the BIC in the gutter of contemporary public rhetoric.

            I appreciate Schumer’s sentiment while I condemn his words.  I laud the effort to end abortion as a medical procedure; it is a terrible action given the myriad other means available to both men and women to avoid unwanted impregnation.  However, superseding my revulsion for the medical procedure, I absolutely condemn the actions of the moral projectionists to place the state in a very private and personal freedom of choice moment and intrude upon the most intimate elements of a woman’s body and physiological processes.  Like so many other private freedom-of-choice matters, prohibition of private conduct will never be successful in a free society.  We must find other means that respect privacy and freedom of choice.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.946:

Comment to the Blog:

“I wouldn't put high hopes on Joe Biden becoming President.  He carries the same load of corruption as Hillary, and that doesn't motivate enough voters.  On top of that, he has a way of saying the wrong thing and his legislative history is better known than hers.  My biggest complaint about Warren is that she has shown her true colors by trying to please both wings of the party.

“I will note that Constitutional ‘strict constructionists’ are typically conservative; the phrase sounds right to their base.

“I expect the COVID-19 (coronavirus) outbreak will come closer to the medical alarms we hear than to the ‘no problem’ we hear from Chump's people.  The government's official response is another example of ‘crisis communication,’ one of the specialties in my degree field.  The experts guiding the response (as much as Chump can be guided) seek strictly to minimize damage to the client's public image.  That has little to do with medical reality, and that difference will cost more American lives this year than the assorted non-wars.

“Every nation that has invaded Afghanistan has lost the war, sooner or later.  Add us to the list.

“I noted that you use the phrase ‘the political party members chose. . .’ in our exchange as if it were rank-and-file Democrats (or Republicans, in other instances) making the choices.  Wrong.”

My response to the Blog:

            I do not presume to know how a future election is going to play out.  All I know is the incumbent was unworthy to hold any public office of responsibility at any level of government, and he remains and will likely continue to remain an unworthy human being.  Hillary violated the law, in my humble opinion, and she got away with it, so far.  To my knowledge, none of the Democratic Party candidates, at the outset or current, have violated the law; the incumbent has.  Despite the Democratic candidates’ missteps (they all have), they are all head and shoulders better than the incumbent.  No human being is perfect, and that statement includes you and me, and all of the Democratic Party candidates.  In November, we will be called upon as citizens to choose the best candidate (not the perfect one, but the best of the lot) to serve as president of the United States.  I feel safe in guaranteeing that whomever we choose will be a flawed human being who will do things we do not agree within our politics.  I felt the nominee the Republican Party chose in 2016 was resoundingly unqualified to be POTUS for myriad reasons; he has repeatedly demonstrated in the last three years why he is unqualified.  My opinion has not changed and is unlikely to change, but I keep searching for reasons to change; yet, We, the People, elected a grossly unqualified candidate to be POTUS.  The establishment politicians did not elect him; we did!

            Yes, agreed.  Further, I used to think of myself as conservative, but I usually defined that term as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.  The “strict constructionists” have driven me crazy with their reasoning.  I have written many times and expansively about my rejection of their reasoning.  It is hard to interpret intent behind words laid down two-plus centuries ago; however, taken in the broader context, I find it neigh-on impossible to argue that the Founders believed when they signed their names to the document that they mean that “all men are created equal” applied ONLY to educated, property-owner, Caucasian, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, monied, adult males . . . and the rest did not matter.  The vast preponderance of supporting documentation on both sides of the Atlantic cannot sustain such a narrow interpretation of our founding words.

            Yes, also agreed.  I condemned the BIC’s snake-oil pitch in his public coronavirus statement.  I simply cannot believe a word he speaks; there is no substance . . . just hot air about worthless snake-oil.

            Parallel note: the influenza virus kills people every year, and so far influenza every year has killed more than the coronavirus.  Let’s keep things in perspective.

            Perhaps so.  We shall see.  History shall tell the tale whether we like it or not.

            I do not share your opinion of the party selection processes, but hey, that’s just me.  If we do not vote, we will approach your dark view of the election process.

 . . . Round two:

“I understand that the Chump is a massive problem.  However, as with so many others, I refuse to vote for ‘the lesser of two evils.’  That's still voting for evil.  In this case, the evil is that the oligarchy continues to amass all the wealth rather than only most of it.

“My understanding of language includes the awareness that it can be interpreted in almost any way the reader chooses.  Hence, ‘strict constructionists’ are telling us the meanings of the Constitution as they choose to read it.  That often doesn't resemble the apparent intentions of the Founders.

“In my world, there's no ‘fiscal conservative and social liberal.’  A great deal of social justice involves where the money goes.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            I cannot agree with or even condone the notion that all the Democrats candidates are evil.  OMG man, compared to the BIC, they are all saints.  Further, I cannot accept your argument of the “lesser of two evils.”  None of them are perfect—flawless.  There are usually six or more presidential candidates on the ballot; there are more than two choices. Abstention simply gives the decision of who will be president to others; every abstention moves us back to more of the same.  Surely, that is not acceptable.  I cannot see how that is an acceptable state.  Vote!  I urge everyone to vote; make the best choice you can.

            Which is precisely why we spend so much time debating definitions and meanings.  We do the best we can.  I have had a long-standing battle with the “strict constructionists.”  I categorically and emphatically cannot accept the “strict constructionist’s” implied position that the Founders & Framers intended for the republic to remain in the 18th Century with them.  They intended and meant for the Constitution to be the framework for our governance, not some dicta written in stone from the mount.  I see absolutely nothing in any of the documents of that era that would even remotely suggest they intended such intransigence.  The difficulty with my interpretation, as the strict constructionists are quick to point out, is where do we draw the line?  Are all the words in the Constitutional fungible and totally liquid?  I do not find the argument compelling, but it is worthy of public debate.  I do believe I stated that I “usually defined,” which implies I do not now.  I do agree with you, the lines have been muddled, muddied, confused, and nearly erased.  The governmental subsidies for industry, corporations, banks, those who can afford tax lawyers & accountants, rich folks and such are simply socialism for the rich.  Bernie’s message is clear and concise—time for a little socialism for the non-rich.  I’m in for some of that.  That is hardly fiscally conservative.  I do not support the notion of it is time for a revolution, but I do support the idea that a correction is long overdue.  The PPACA was a valiant attempt to help the less wealthy among us, and the Republicans have blindly tried every way possible to dismantle it, simply because of the name commonly attached to the law.  But, above all else, nothing will change if we do not vote, period, full stop, end of story.

 . . . Round three:

“I don't typically use the term ‘evil.’  Would ‘corrupt’ suit you better?  Follow the money and find the truth.

“We are long overdue for important structural change.  We have fallen behind the developed world in too many ways.  Elizabeth Warren speaks eloquently of this, but she cannot deliver if her Presidency depends on a Super PAC (recent headline) and/or the DNC's donors.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            I certainly laud the Herculean effort of Sanders and Warren to shun big money in their campaigns.  I truly admire Sanders “grass roots” campaign to engage the non-wealthy voters out there.  I actually agree with him in that the “same ol’ same ol’” is not a winning position.  While his message seems to be resonating with that constituency, I hold serious concerns.  1.) With all the voter suppression activities carried out by predominantly Republican state and local governments, will sufficient people go the extra mile to vote?  In yesterday’s Texas primary election, one voter had to wait in line for 6-7 hours at a polling station to fulfill his “duty.”  That is the kind of dedication and commitment it will take.  2.) Winning the presidency is not enough.  A recalcitrant Congress can and will stifle any bold initiative(s).  To affect real change, it takes cooperation among all three branches of government; a noble and energetic president cannot do it alone.  3.) I remain concerned the left shift espoused by Sanders is too far.  I am good with the left shift after what we have endured, but I am not convinced the broad socialist largesse is the correct path.  We have corporate socialism.  I am OK with a little socialism for We, the People.  I am not OK with a general Robin Hood effect.  4.) To be frank, I am disappointed Bernie has not argued for a constitutional amendment to overrule Citizens United.  I could add more.  Yet, that said, I cannot vote for an Ugly American bully to represent We, the People, to the world, full stop.  I just do not want the left shift to take advantage of my current revulsion.

            Agreed.  To be frank and candid, any of the messages I have heard so far are better than what we have suffered for the last three plus years.  This debacle must end.  We must rid ourselves of a king once again.

 . . . Round four:

“I write this on Wednesday morning, after the ‘Super’ Tuesday primaries.  With Biden having won Texas and several lesser delegate-count states, I will turn my attention to the Senate races in the assumption that the Chump's followers will defeat the DNC's candidate.  My feelings about the issues do not influence the results of the votes, but a progressive Congress can change the course of this nation.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            Oh my, yes!  A progressive Congress would be a refreshing change.  I’ll have some of that.

Another contribution:

“I very much appreciate your response.  Surely you must know I disapprove of our POTUS’s embarrassing behavior through unnecessarily shortsighted and seemingly childish tweets and other bullyish and even occasional puzzlingly stupid comments and easily misinterpreted moves.

“When a better drainer of the swamp runs for POTUS, I will no longer support Trump.  Meanwhile, as a careful reading of my comment to 943 (?) shows, my purpose was simply to urge discontinuing the term BIC, which in my opinion detracted from your valuable commentary.

“Keep up the good work!”

My reply:

            Thank you very much for the generous words.  Yes, I can reassure you that I have long looked beyond the contemporary words.

            I suppose the salient question is, where does your threshold of tolerance lay?  When will enough be enough?  The man has demonstrated his inability and/or unwillingness to change, to improve, to learn, to be a better human being.  I hold no hope with him.

            I am intrigued by your implied supposition that the current occupant of the Oval Office is draining the swamp.  I am all in favor of reform at the federal level.  I have written for many years of my dissatisfaction with the obscene spending without regard to the national debt by both political parties.  That is NOT draining the swamp; it is the swamp.  To be blunt, intellectually, I have not, do not and will not ever condone the end-justifies-the-means approach of the current occupant of the Oval Office.  While you have not explicitly stated the facts, I know as a former judge and attorney you recognize the criminal conduct we have witnessed.  That conduct is not acceptable for Joe Blow the plumber; it is even less acceptable by the POTUS; in fact, it is contemptible when perpetrated by any person who represents We, the People, in the most powerful office on the planet.

            I truly appreciate your continued admonition regarding my persistent use of the acronym in reference to our current president.  My persistence despite your admonition is, and should be read as, a measure of my disgust, anger and contempt for how he has behaved.  The presidency is NOT his.  That office is not his private company to do as he pleases.  History matters.  I genuinely believe history will NOT be kind to the current occupant, but we know he does not care; he is king.  Well, I care.  I can promise you and every other supporter, believer, and consumer of his vaunted snake-oil elixir that I will do my best to recognize the emperor has no clothes, and disagree respectfully until this nightmare is done and rendered to the dustbin of history.

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

            My passion for public debate keeps me going with this humble forum.  I will press on as long as I feel the effort is relevant.

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)