Update no.948

Update from the Sunland

No.948

9.3.20 – 15.3.20

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

            To all,

Reading gives us
someplace to go
when we have to stay
where we are.

-- Mason Cooley

            The follow-up news items:

-- A very little-noticed event began this week in a Dutch criminal courtroom in Schiphol, Netherlands.  A five-judge panel (three will hear the case; two are alternates) with Presiding Judge Hendrik Steenhuis will hear the case against three Russians and one Ukrainian in the murder of 298 innocent souls aboard Malaysian Airlines flight 17 (MH17) at 15:20:03 [B] CET {13:20:03 [Z] GMT}, Monday, 17.July.2014 [657, 665, 722, 771, 772, 946].  Some of the leading perpetrators are being tried in absentia and will not likely face justice; however, this is an important gesture toward justice for the families and friends of those killed by the Russians.  Unfortunately, the real, source perpetrator will not face trial—Vladimir Putin—yet.  Putin unleashed the forces that invaded Ukraine; he is ultimately responsible, but he is the BIC’s bosom-buddy, so quite unlikely to face justice.  We may learn more; there is always hope . . . until there is none.

            I offer apologies for my failure to illuminate yet another monumentally foolish statement by our beloved Bully-in-Chief (BIC), AKA our employee in the Oval Office.  This event occurred late last week, and I did not document the BIC’s words in his public statement.  So, I shall make amends.

            This latest, particularly bonehead “let them eat cake” misstatement comes to us in the midst of the worldwide COVID19 pandemic concerns and the in situ quarantine of passengers on the MV Grand Princess at sea off the coast of San Francisco, California.

            On Friday, 6.March.2020, after an off-again-on-again site visit to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia, actually happened, a journalist asked the BIC what is he going to do about the passengers stranded on the cruise ship.  Our vaunted and beloved POTUS publicly stated:

Well, that’s a big question.  So, I was just on the phone with the vice president, and they are trying to make a decision on . . . I mean frankly, ah, if it were up to me, I’d be inclined to say leave everybody on the ship for a period of time and use the ship as your base.  But, a lot of people would rather do it a different way. They would rather quarantine people in [unintelligible]. When they do that, our numbers are going to go up.  OK, our numbers are going to go up—the 240 is going to go up—and I assume that perhaps—you know it’s a very big ship.  There are thousands of people on it, including the sailors and the crew.  You’re talking about a massive number of people.  That is a big ship.  If it were up to me, I would do it that way.  A lot of people think we should do it the other way.  They are Americans, or mostly Americans, and we have to take care of Americans.

They would like to have the people come off.  I’d rather have the people stay, but I’d go with them.  I told them to make the final decision. I would rather—because I like the numbers being where they are.  I don’t need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn’t our fault.  And it wasn’t the fault of the people on the ship either.  OK, it wasn’t their fault either, and they are mostly Americans.  So, I can live either way with it.  I would rather have them stay on, personally.  But I fully understand why they want to take them off.  I gave them the authority to make the decision.  [emphasis mine]

A cruise ship is NOT a hospital ship.  No cruise ship has the capacity, equipment or expertise to deal with serious medical situations like infectious disease transmission.  Many of the people on that cruise ship are in the vulnerable category—older folks like me.  All of the passengers and crew need to be tested and the affected, at risk, individuals need to be evacuated to proper medical treatment facilities—NOT confined on a ship to make the BIC’s numbers look good.

            Does he really think his words instill confidence in him and his administration in their handling of this situation?’  Does anyone think the BIC’s words sound presidential?  Can anyone detect even a sliver of empathy in his words?  They were largely American citizens on that ship.  Do the BIC’s words sound like any president, or even any dictator, ever in history?  In essence, the BIC is arguing ignorance is bliss and reminds me of the combat pilot’s countermand adage, “What you don’t see can’t shoot you down!”  The words recorded above are bad enough, but it is the BIC’s delivery of those words that make them truly injurious.  He speaks like a snake-oil salesman or carnival barker rather than a president of the United States.

            Why on God’s little green earth does he say such foolish, misinformed, injurious things?  Why should we believe a single word he says or tweets?  . . . especially now after all these years of his falsehoods.  Does he really think he is helping the situation?  Does he really believe his words are perfect, divine utterances from the oh-blessed-one?  Why didn’t he just say what he really thinks—let them die, who cares?  People who really care only care about him.

            The BIC loves to be the commander-in-chief, the top dawg, when it suits him and his grotesquely inflated image of himself, but then at times like these, he shuffles off responsibility and accountability to other hapless minions like Vice President Pence, who, by the way, has not backed off standing up to the line in taking on this difficult assignment.

            I surmise the BIC’s parents never taught him as a child the old adage: if you don’t have something good to say, say nothing at all.

            By the way, the BIC apparently forgot to apply his characteristic orange face paint or wash his hair.  He appeared like a rotund ghost with a big red ballcap that declared Keep America Great (as if he fulfilled his prior claim) to hide his hair.

            To anyone who cares to comment or offer an opinion:

What does drain the swamp mean to you?

            Congress passed and the POTUS signed into law the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020 [PL 116-123; H.R.6074; Senate: 96-1-0-3(0); House: 415-2-0-13(5); 133 Stat. xxxx] that allocates US$8.3B to various governmental agencies for combating the COVID19 virus in the United States.  The bill had broad, bipartisan support.  The only votes against the bill were Senator Randal Howard ‘Rand’ Paul of Kentucky, and Representatives Andrew Steven Biggs of Arizona and Kenneth Robert Buck of Colorado.  Further, the House passed H.R.6201 - Families First Coronavirus Response Act [House: 363-40-1-26(5)] that proposes additional funding allocations to PL 116-123, as well as the expansion of the federal government response to the COVID19 spread.  The H.R.6201 bill has been passed to the Senate for action.

            The president’s address to the nation Wednesday evening regarding the on-going COVID19 situation was a valiant attempt to calm the developing panic.  His words were prepared by someone, or group of someones, and were presumably vetted by experts.  He read the words on the teleprompter, and yet, he misspoke in a number of places.  How on God’s little green earth does that happen?  Was he adding words on the fly?  Was he just making stuff up?  To my knowledge, we have not had a president in history that had to deploy his minions immediately after his speech to correct the misstatements.  What the king meant to say was . . .  Just his delivery alone failed to instill confidence in me, and perhaps many other citizens.  His monotone, droning delivery did NOT inspire confidence in any shape or form.

            In many respects, every leader, every president, every prime minister, every general have years to prepare for such moments.  Accomplished leaders are very careful with their words, their tone, and the meter of their speaking are all part of the leverage a leader’s words have in any organization.  My only interpretation: he simply does not care.  It is a part of his job assignment that he does not enjoy, does not want to perform, and only reluctantly succumbs to the pressure from his minions.  We saw no heart in that speech.

            I am reminded of perhaps the single best descriptor of history’s greatest orator and arguably the best national leader in history—Sir Winston Churchill.

                 “He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle.”

                             -- Edward R. Murrow (1954)

                             -- President John F. Kennedy (1963)

Churchill is my standard by which all leaders are judged.  The BIC has been found wanting.

            On Friday, 13,March.2020, in the White House Rose Garden, the BIC invoked the Stafford Act [PL 100-707; 102 Stat. 4689] and declared a national emergency to fight COVID19 (novel coronavirus) spread.  The BIC went from his public claim that the whole coronavirus situation is the Democrats’ “new hoax” to declaring a national emergency in two weeks—two weeks!  There are multitudinous examples of the BIC being far more interested in his image, or his impression of his image, than anything even remotely concerned with national security or the health and welfare of We, the People.  This is just the latest example of his egocentricity, selfishness, and paucity of any semblance of empathy for his fellow mankind.

            An interesting column appeared in Saturday’s Arizona Republic (14.March.2020) titled: “McSally touts Trump’s virus ‘leadership.’  Is she ill?”  The article refers to Arizona’s junior senator, Martha Elizabeth McSally, who has been and remains a steadfast sycophant for the BIC.  To answer the question, I think she is seriously ill and not worthy of the office she holds.

            The latest debate among Democratic Party candidates took place Sunday evening in advance of the next Tuesday primary election, involving four more states.  The event was moved from Phoenix, Arizona, to the CNN studios in Washington, DC, without an audience, as a consequence of the COVID19 assembly restrictions.  The Sunday evening debate was the first event of this silly season between the two leading candidates—Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.  Senator Sanders scored some major points early on with the questions regarding the COVID19 response of the current administration.  This was the first debate where we actually had a debate rather than a bunch of public relations sound bites.  One thing illuminated in brilliant lights: both of the remaining Democratic candidates are orders of magnitude beyond the incumbent.  They are knowledgeable, informed, articulate and persuasive.  They also display vastly more compassion than the incumbent ever has.

            As retired citizens, we are largely abiding the social-distancing guidance.  We are also taking all the necessary precautions: washing our hands often, using hand sanitizer, not shaking hands, et al.  I have not been a crowd person for many decades; the large assembly restriction is the easiest to comply with now.  We have also been touched by the restrictions of the crisis.  We expected to pick up our youngest son and his family Monday morning.  We really looked forward to seeing our youngest grandson and his family.  The pool was ready (I have been enjoying it for the last week).  We were ready and eager to pick them up.  Unfortunately, after numerous communications, the visit was postponed to some as yet unspecified date once the situation settles down—a disappointment but understandable.  There is far too much uncertainty to be traveling with a seven-year-old boy.

            The federal government’s woefully late response to the COVID19 pandemic as a consequence of the BIC’s juvenile denials has finally begun to break down when the BIC could no longer deny what was happening.  We lost precious days because the BIC was far more concerned about his damnable image than he was about the welfare and safety of the American people.  We do not know our real situation because the federal government failed to deploy sufficient test kits and evaluation capacity to know what our real infection rate is.  Thank goodness this deplorable under-response is finally turning around.  The medical professionals have argued gallantly to invoke preventative measures to hold the infection rate below out capacity to treat ill people.  The situation reminds me of airline deregulation.  After the passage of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA) [PL 95-504; 92 Stat. 1705; 24.10.1978], the airlines based their operations on load factor—the number of paying passengers versus the available seats.  We may not like the shrinking seat spacing and the elbow-to-elbow packed occupancy, but that is how the airlines make their profit.  The model works for the airlines.  It does NOT work for health care, especially in peak, risk events like the current COVID19 situation.  Hospitals set their capacity by normal demand, not by peak demand; thus, the concern of the Center for Disease Control (CDC) regarding capacity, namely ventilator capacity, a primary tool for treating patients with respiratory distress.  The federal government, possibly in the form of the military reserve and national guard, must hold the surge capacity for situations just like this.  For-profit constraints leave us vulnerable to major events.  We need a paradigm shift.

            Of course, what would life be like without one of the BIC’s outlandish tweets for us to chew on?  In the middle of the COVID19 pandemic response, the BIC tells us:

So now it is reported that, after destroying his life & the life of his wonderful family (and many others also), the FBI, working in conjunction with the Justice Department, has “lost” the records of General Michael Flynn. How convenient. I am strongly considering a Full Pardon!

10:29 AM - Mar 15, 2020

Is this the contemporary manifestation of the Keystone Cops?  The BIC is the leader of both the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  Of course, the BIC tells us he bears no responsibility as he loves to remind us. Further, he is inching closer to pardoning a self-confessed criminal who committed multiple federal felonies.  This is what the BIC does.  More evidence!

            Comments and contributions from Update no.947:

Comment to the Blog:

“The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has again chosen to ignore its membership and independent voters.  Whether or not the candidates and campaigns that endorsed Biden coordinated, the DNC has chosen a candidate acceptable to the high-dollar sponsors.  The only hope for progressives is that Sanders can get enough votes to overwhelm the DNC.  Otherwise, we get Chump 2.0.

“Due to a failure at my County Board of Elections when I voted, I am registered as a Democrat at the moment.  That bothers me.  I'm a Green Party member and don't want to be associated with the corruption and foolishness of the DNC.  I'm also an older white man, and I think it's time for us to gracefully concede power to younger people better equipped to meet changing times.

“The men who control the Republican Party and their allied Christian denominations fear women, hence their sick need for control even of women's medical decisions.  Yes, terminating a pregnancy is a medical decision.  The medical side of that is uncontested.

“Senator Schumer could/should have told Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh clearly that their decisions would come at a cost to their political sponsors.  That vague threat about ‘paying the price’ is indeed unworthy.

“In regard to our discussion last week, I didn't say that all the Democratic candidates were evil/corrupt.  I said the DNC and their chosen candidates are.  I'll stand by that.

“Your other commenter objects to the term ‘BIC,’ but specifically doesn't support the Chump.  I share the dislike of less-than-obvious terminology, but I typically have other fish to fry.”

My response to the Blog:

            I appreciate your opinion, but regrettably, I do not share that view.  We have always agreed about the need to get dark money out of politics.  I still admire your indirect argument for Bernie Sanders.  The only hope we have for silencing the BIC is his overwhelming, historic, and embarrassing electoral defeat in November, which I currently see as highly unlikely.  I genuinely fear what might happen if he loses by a very narrow margin.  If he wins, we will have to endure BIC v 2.0, and it will be far worse (if that is possible) than the first version.

            That is exactly why I refuse to participate in the primaries.  Most states have that effect.  I cannot tolerate being associated with any political party (they both disgust me), and I guard my independence religiously.  I’m all in with you regarding passing the torch.  As I have written many times, our generation has failed; we have only made things worse.  It is past time to hand the reins to the next generation, which is one of several reasons I liked Pete Buttigieg’s approach to the political conundrum.

            Oh my, you way understated the problem in my humble opinion.  I think the Republican Party fears everything that threatens their tenuous grip on power.  Their fears go way beyond women.  For a long time, I felt they sought maintenance of the status quo—old white guys decide what matters and how we are to live our lives.  Now, in the BIC era, they want us to regress to a time a century or more ago.  We see it in virtually everything they do or touch.  It is long past time to relegate their antiquated thinking to very distant minority status—everyone must vote!

            “Political sponsors” . . . for Supreme Court justices?  Do you mean supporters, or politically aligned?  No matter how we cut it, Schumer’s remarks were very BIC-ish, and as such, I energetically condemn them.  He sacrificed the intellectual high ground with his very foolish, misguided statement of contempt.  Descending to the gutter with the BIC is NOT the answer or a winning path.

            I do not believe the DNC has chosen candidates any more than the RNC chose its candidate in 2016.  I think the RNC establishment believed the BIC was the antithesis of Republican values.  The DNC is in the same spot.  The DNC establishment likely believes Sanders & Warren are taking the party too far to the left.  Unfortunately, as the RNC learned the hard way in 2016, Republican voters sought a far more right-ish candidate.  Likewise, Democratic voters are taking the party far more left-ish.  Today’s primary will be interesting.

            What is more obvious than Bully-in-Chief?

 . . . Round two:

“There’s an important point I didn’t get across in my discussion of candidates.  The Democratic National Committee (DNC) corruption bothers me, but that’s not the point.  The point is that voters refuse to turn out for them in enough numbers. That ought to be the lesson of 2016.  “Duty” doesn’t move people who don’t believe their votes matter.

“I agree about the Republicans’ fears, but your blog discussion centered on abortion.

“Speaking of old men, wouldn’t it be fascinating if several of those powerful old men caught COVID-19 at the CPAC or AIPAC conferences?  Those guys are obsessed with seeming strong.

“The Supreme Court Justices are nominated by Presidents.  That’s a close parallel to being sponsored for membership in a lodge or fraternal organization except for being much more important.  I like the term “sponsor” for all of the relevant people because large amounts of money are behind the USA political enterprise, much like the sponsorship that makes TV shows possible even though the show content might never discuss or show the sponsor or product.

“The RNC got out-played in 2016, but let’s not be naive about the political parties. The DNC is sharper, not nicer.  You’re right to feel disgust.  By the same token, the DNC’s choice of candidates has less to do with moral/ethical values and more to do with the sources of their income.

“‘Bully-in-Chief’ works fine.  The abbreviation is the problem.  The initials ‘BIC’ don’t have the resonance with ‘Bully-in-Chief’ that, for example, FBI does with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Always write (if it’s for publication) with your audience in mind.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Corruption is a very strong word.  I fully understand that you and many of us are not tolerant of the evolved means of conducting political campaigns, but those means have been established over decades, if not centuries.  But, them’s the rules!  I have and will continue to laud Bernie’s efforts to reject the system, but he still must compete within the rules to gain the Party’s endorsement.  Duty or obligation may not move skeptical people to vote, but it should.  Abdication of that obligation to the nation gives the power to others . . . thus we have our current situation.

            One note: winning the presidency is not enough.  In our current state, Congress matters for a whole host of reasons.  I understand Bernie focusing on his guiding principles, but how will he help others get elected to help him lead the nation.  I have given up on any Republican leading the Senate.  The down ballot is very important.  Despite the Republican Senate crowning King Donald I, the president is not, or at least should not, be a dictator, a king, or a demagogue.  I see the Senate as more important than the presidency.  If Bernie has any hope of winning, he must convince citizens like me that he can manage a disparate Congress to get things done for We, the People.  We have King Donald I solely because enough people were unhappy with the intransigence, tribalism (factionalism), and damn bloody bickering about nonsense to elect a consummate snake-oil salesman to the presidency.

            Abortion happened to be the stimulant for that discussion as a consequence of Schumer’s quite ill-advised public statement.  The rest of it just rolled out.

            I don’t wish COVID19 on anyone.

            I do not agree with your supposition that nominated and sponsored are equivalent or even related.  Sponsored implies political alignment that is far more intimate than the singular action of nomination.  The process of confirming nominees to the bench has worked well for more than two centuries, except for Senator McConnell’s despicable adulteration and abuse of the process in 2016.  The political alignment we all have feared is the worst we have seen with King Donald I’s nominations, and yet, Supreme Court justices often become surprisingly independent and faithful to the law rather than politics.  The jury is still out on Gorsuch and Kavanaugh [and, I think that was what Schumer was trying to point out].

            I am not quite so cynical regarding our political selection process.

            Perhaps so, but we use acronyms all the time with respect to all sorts of people, organizations and entities.  I have conceded to the contributor’s admonition to introduce the acronym at the outset, which is established practice in the English language.  I will abide common practice.

. . . Round three:

“I'm also good with words.  To simplify, ‘the evolved means of conducting political campaigns’ that are ‘established over decades’ (specifically since Reagan) in this country amount to corruption.  The people with the money make the rules.  Let's not pretend that's morally sound or good for the country.  If it can't evolve in a different direction, we'll just get in deeper trouble.  Why keep voting when it's not realistic to believe I have the power?  I can't give away what I don't have.  You and the DNC telling us our moral duty won't move a majority of those eligible to vote.

“I'm turning my attention away from the race for President.  Biden probably won't defeat the Chump and may not have the mental capacity to govern if he did.  He's a tool, even more than the Clintons.

“The Congress is indeed the key.  We have seen Congress frustrate a far more capable President as recently as the Carter Administration.  In assessing the Senate races, the question remains the same.  The problem is not getting the votes of people like you.  You have done very well in this country as is and reached the relative safety of retirement. Also, you haven't suffered the losses and indignities of being a minority or a woman.  The people whose votes we need are those suffering the wrong side of the oligarchy and of their hateful allies.  Those people won't vote for the likes of Biden, Alabama's Doug Jones, or any of those other ‘moderates.’  Moderates don't make change.  They can't or won't stop the Republicans from dragging us deeper into trouble.  Why waste energy voting for them?

“I don't wish COVID19 on anyone either, but it's a possibility made more likely by Chump's insistence on operating as he likes.  The results would be fascinating if he and/or Pence became ill.  The death rate is relatively low even in the high-risk categories, but the unavoidable appearance of illness would throw a monkey wrench into his entire marketing.  His followers seek strength above all.  Otherwise, their fears kick in.

“You'd have to show me that the DNC's decisions aren't based on money before I accept your belief in anything else.  The evidence supports my statement, even if we only have access to FEC filings.

“I understand your background in engineering and especially the military required the constant use of acronyms.  Writing for a more general audience, not so much.  It's a matter of balance.  Just because we recognize USA, FBI, or perhaps SCOTUS immediately doesn't mean we can decipher all the initialisms on social media.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            I do not share your opinion regarding corruption in our political selection process.  I think you are extending the definition of corruption too far, but hey, that’s just me.

            How do you expect to change things if we do not vote?

            Our singular vote is one of our few tools for change short of violence.  Your cynicism regarding our political processes (and you are not alone) is a direct reflection of the broad dissatisfaction.  The inverse of your ill-feelings is exactly what elected the BIC to be POTUS.  The Republicans will vote; they are desperate for regression to an old order.  If we do not vote, they will get their way.

            I do not share your apparent opinion regarding Joe Biden.  I recognize your implied support for Bernie Sanders, but that does not make Biden incompetent or unworthy.

            Yes, many of us have noted the president’s rather cavalier approach to the COVID19 situation.  I do certainly agree that his conduct deserves infection, but I do not wish that on him or anyone else.  At his age, hospitalization for COVID19 infection would likely invoke the 25^th Amendment.  I can easily envision a scenario of running through our succession plan in short order.

            You know I cannot prove DNC (or RNC) decisions are not based on money.  I am not and will never be party to those decisions.  I suppose in this instance you can declare me naïve and ignorant.  I just do not share your cynicism even in the BIC era.  This too shall pass.

            I understand and appreciate your admonition regarding my use of acronyms and specifically the acronym in reference to our current employee in the Oval Office.  I accepted the constructive criticism; I had erroneously assumed it had become common usage in my communications.  I shall stick with the Chicago Manual of Style; I will introduce the acronym at the outset and let it stand for that edition.

 . . . Round four:

“The evidence on the DNC supports my ‘opinion.’  The decisions don't and won't conflict with the sponsors' interests.

“I personally am hoping for an overwhelming number of votes, enough to overcome both the Electoral College and manipulation of polling places, voter suppression, etc.  A majority of voters gave up on that years ago and I have to admit it's unlikely.  I don't think we have any other recourse.  Violence was never a viable option.  Those dimwit militias running around the woods with military weapons totally failed to recognize when people took over the government.

“Biden was always a DNC tool.  His executive functioning and word-finding issues may be getting worse under pressure.  Please excuse the neuroscience terminology, but that's what I see.

“My approach to the COVID-19 issue avoids panic.  The Chump isn't always completely wrong.  Odds are, per experts, most people will not get it and 80% of those that do are mild cases.  There are 7 billion people on this planet, and 124,000 (this morning's figure) have been diagnosed.  Of those, 88,000 are in China (population 1,435,000,000,000), where new cases have begun to decline.  The math says most of us are safe, especially if we are not in high-risk groups.  The high-risk groups are international travelers, those in close contact with them, and healthcare personnel.  There's none of that in my circle except one nursing-home worker.

“As far as the Chump and Pence, we both know the 25^th Amendment will not come into play.  That depends on the Cabinet.  It's not an issue whether he's hospitalized, either.  What I'm interested in is the public perception of their illness, if any.  After all, Chump and some of his minions came into contact at those conferences with people who've been diagnosed.  At this time, even an ordinary cold would damage his image with his followers.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            So you say.  I shall leave it there since I have no means to present hard evidence to the contrary.  Let it suffice to say, I do not share your cynicism, but I do share your revulsion to dark money in our political system.

            I join you in hoping for an overwhelming vote count in both the popular and Electoral College vote counts, which is precisely why I persist in advocating for every citizen to vote.  The only hope we have for relegating the BIC to the dustbin of history is a thoroughly embarrassing vote rejecting him and all his minions & sycophants.  The worst election defeat for an incumbent president in history would be quite appropriate.

            We do not agree regarding Joe Biden.  He is far from perfect, but he is orders of magnitude better than the BIC.

            The issue with COVID19 is the ease of transmission coupled with the 14-day incubation period when collateral infection can occur before precautions or preventative measures can be implemented.  Yes, COVID19 appears to be far more lethal to citizens over 60yo than to individuals under 18yo.  The medical professionals are trying mightily to overcome governmental lethargy.  The BIC foolish statement last Friday that ignorance is better than knowledge did not help matters at all.  He is incapable of learning a valuable lesson that sometimes it is best to keep his mouth shut and his finger still.  Yes, the math says most of us are safe, but the uncertainty in the marketplace may well push all of us into global recession or even depression since the Fed does not have a bountiful toolbox.  We are not crowd folks and likewise do not have contact with high-risk groups.  We may not face COVID19 infection, but all of us will suffer the effects of economic recession or depression.  Fortunately for us, we no longer have to worry about employment.

            FYI: PRC population is 1.4B rather than 1.4T (three too many zeros).

            I did not intend to suggest the 25^th Amendment might be invoked to replace POTUS and/or VPOTUS, but rather that the provisions might be activated for temporary substitution to cover periods of incapacitation.

            The COVID19 situation took on a face when Tom Hanks & Rita Wilson announced they have tested positive in Australia and are now quarantined.

 . . . Round five:

“I won't bother looking it up, but there's a correct term for message over-saturation.  Put simply, I and many others come to ignore hysteria that reaches a certain point.  Even more simply, I don't care anymore.  No energy left for this one.

“Once more.  My point about whether the Chump gets sick (still not especially likely) is not about law, Constitutional or otherwise.  Again and again, it's about what happens politically if he appears weak to his followers.”

 . . . my response to round five:

            Very well.  Understood.

            Yeah, a germane question: what happens if the strong man gets wounds, and shows weakness and vulnerability.  He might be no longer the strong man they believed in for their support.  Time shall tell the tale.

Another contribution:

“Bullshit that none of the candidates have violated any laws .. Biden tops the list and if he wins an election shame on those who vote for him and they will get what they deserve.. he will never be a true president, only a puppet controlled by those you may or may not see.  He isn’t mentally competent enough to preside.  Am sure if he becomes the candidate he will select Michael Obama as his running mate ... God help the ignorant people have no foresight...”

My reply:

            OK.  I’ll bite.  What laws have the candidates violated?  Please list as many as you can, and while you are at it, please list the BIC’s violations of law as well, for comparison sake.  This might be an interesting list for discussion.

            Who is Michael Obama?  I have not heard of him.

A different contribution:

“Two comments only, because of lack of time:

Your consistent position has two primary themes which may be paraphrased roughly as follows:

1.  The constitution favors prohibition of government interference with a woman’s choices about her own body.

2.  The constitution was written by old white male slavery sympathizers and therefore needs to be interpreted to fit modern needs of society.

“I anticipate your denial of my characterizations of your positions, so please expand your response beyond denial to address the essence of my observations and the questions I raise.  As you, I am a longtime admirer of your intellect and your articulate constructive criticism, as was my brother, when it is not diminished by blatant disrespect.  I hope you will see through any lack of clarity in the following:

“As to number one, please state clearly your position on when a fetus attains rights of citizenship.

“As to number two, please state your reason for not attributing any current inapplicability of our constitution to the failure of Congress to propose and urge adoption of appropriate amendments to the constitution as intended by our far-sighted but non-prescient founders.”

My response:

            If you distilled out the “primary themes” you noted, then I have failed to communicate properly, and I offer my humble apologies.

1.  The Constitution takes no position regarding a woman’s body . . . or a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.  As I have stated multiple times over many years, I see Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] [319] as far more important and impactful with respect to the Court’s recognition of every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy than the ruling is about abortion.  A citizen’s fundamental right to privacy is not addressed anywhere in the Constitution either, but it underlays the Constitution’s definition of federal authority.

2.  I think many “strict constructionists” see the Constitution in that light.  I am not one of those.  I can find nothing in the supporting documentation or in the language of the Constitution that even remotely suggests the rigidity implied by the “strict constructionists.”  The Founders/Framers sought to lay out a framework and guidelines for us to follow as a society and culture that evolved over a long period of time.  The wisdom of their founding principles has been proven over centuries of trial & tribulation.

            Your anticipation was well-founded.  Thank you for that.

            Re: your first Q: I think the Court’s reasoning in Roe v. Wade was carefully, thoroughly and respectfully laid out. They used the antiquated term “quickening” to define that threshold of extra-uterine viability; in 1973, that point was the third trimester of pregnancy (26 weeks).  Using the Court’s term, medical technology, capacity and reach have shifted that threshold and it does not reach conception.  Roe NEVER established unbounded freedom of choice.  I have felt since my first reading and study of Roe that the Court’s logic was reasonable, understandable, and supported in the law.

            Re: your second Q: Your query construction leaves me a little confused and baffled, so in the interest of response and furtherance of the debate, I shall surmise your intent.  The key for me rests in my (albeit broader) interpretation of the 10^th Amendment.  The “strict constructionists” reason that the federal government and specifically the Supreme Court has no authority to rule or decide upon anything not explicitly stated in print in the Constitution; thus, privacy, abortion, et al, are beyond the authority of the Court.  By that reasoning, Roe should be overturned prima facie as an exceedance of the authority of the federal Judiciary.  As an extension, by the 10^th Amendment, each state retains the authority to enact laws restricting a citizen’s privacy et al.  To me, that reasoning is not sustainable in the full body of supporting documentation. For example, as reflected in English Common Law by Blackstone’s Commentaries, Chapter 1 – Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals, which contains § 1-1-139 (individual private rights) and extends to § 4-16-223 (man’s house is his castle).  The Court has often cited English Common Law as the underlayment of the Constitution.  It is via those facts that the Court has said there are limits to what any level of government can (or should) do with respect to absolute individual rights that lay beyond the Constitution.

            My “disrespect” for the current POTUS is a direct reflection of his monumental disrespect of the Office of the President of the United States that belong to us—We, the People—NOT to him.  Despite what Senate Republicans have done, he is not and never will be king.  I will continue to condemn his despicable behavior regardless of the good he may do; Hitler did good things for Germany, but his chosen means were contemptible.  ‘Nuf said.

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)