Update no.963

Update from the Sunland

No.963

22.6.20 – 28.6.20

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

            To all,

            An “On This Day in History” listing noted that the 23^rd of June 1888, marked the first time in history that an American candidate with dark skin pigmentation had his name placed in nomination for president of the United States.  Abolitionist Frederick Douglass received one vote from the Kentucky delegation at the Republican convention in Chicago.  The factoid raised a salient question.  What happened to the Republican Party and when?  The party of Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Teddy Roosevelt, and Barry Goldwater—whatever happened to lead them so far away from their roots?

            Well, we finally have the definitive statement from the Bully-in-Chief—AKA the BIC, Agent Orange, Oh So Great Orange One, Chump, the fellow in the Oval Office.  After his controversial proclamation at his not-so-well attended campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma on Saturday.  On Tuesday, when questioned about those Saturday remarks, he responded to journalists:

            I don’t kid.  Let me just tell you, let me make it clear.  We have got the greatest testing program anywhere in the world.  We test better than anybody in the world.  Our tests are the best in the world, and we have the most of them.  By having more tests, we find more cases.  We did 25 plus, 25 million tests.  Think of that 25 million.  If you look at other countries, they did one million, two million, three million, big countries.  We did 25 million, way more by double, triple, quadruple, any other country.  . . .  Here’s what I said, testing is a double-edged sword.  In one way, it tells you, you have cases.  In another way, you find out where the cases are, and you do a good job.  We are doing a great job.  We’ve never been credited for it.  We are doing the best testing job anywhere in the world.

OK, so now we know the BIC never jokes, kids, speaks tongue-in-cheek.  He is always telling us exactly what he is thinking—good, bad, or ugly.  He has removed one of the primary, if not ultimate, tools in the kit bag of his loyal sycophants; they can no longer just wave their hand when the BIC says something outrageous and indefensible, and say he was just kidding.  Nope; all done!  The BIC does not kid; he said so himself.  Unfortunately, that means he really is advocating that ignorance is far better than knowledge.  This is so nineteen eighty-four Oceania . . . in real life, now.  This is the president we have—only he, no one else, speaks the truth; everything else is fake, and he does NOT kid or joke about anything.  Sounds quite like Big Brother, doesn’t it?  With that revelation, don’t you feel so much better?

            A few salient questions for the BIC:
-- If we are doing such a great job, why is our COVID19 fatality count continuing its inexorable rise?
-- Why is our fatality rate higher than anyone in the world?
-- Why do we have hospital Intensive Care Units (ICUs) filled nearly to capacity with COVID19 respiratory distress cases?
-- If we are doing so great, why does the actual data look for bad?

            A few thoughts on the toppling of not just Confederate statues, but others like Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt.  First, I understand the urge to destroy and remove statues of men who offend us.  Second, the Confederacy sought to withdraw from the United States to defend their way of life.  Third, that way of life depended upon slavery—the confined, uncompensated servitude of people forcibly brought to this country against their will, pressed into service without their consent, and sold as property.  For anyone who knows and understands history, many of the generals were deeply and profoundly troubled by the conflict between their serve to the United States, and their loyalty to the states in which they were born and raised.  I do not see Robert E. Lee, Tom Jackson, James Longstreet, George Pickett, and others, who were professional military officers and served with distinction and honor, in the same light as the political leaders.  On the other hand, there were non-professional Confederate generals who do not garner such respect, e.g., Nathan Bedford Forrest—the founder of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), a subversive, guerilla organization.  I can see removing the monuments to Confederate political leaders like Jefferson Davis and dishonorable generals like Forrest.  I have always been careful to separate the professional military from the political leaders.  German generals like Guderian, Rommel, Galland, and many others, were not Nazis, i.e., members of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP).  Their accomplishments as professional military officers can be admired and should be respected.  I will note here that many of the professional military officers got crosswise with the political leaders they served.  For example, Lee was deeply troubled by the task of fighting his brothers-in-arms, his classmates from West Point, to defend his state, but he did his duty as he understood that obligation.  In this context, I see the removal of monuments to the celebrated professional military officers as sad, regrettable, and grotesquely out of context.  To me, those actions do not respect history.

            Now, we hear the European Union (EU) is on the verge of banning anyone from the United States from entering the EU because of the increasing infection rate in this country.  Based on the available physical evidence, I say spot on.  We deserve to be isolated.  We have 4% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s hospitalizations and fatalities.  We deserve to be isolated and quarantined since we have refused to deal with the pandemic responsibly.

            Weekly unemployment numbers continue to rise adding 1.5 million more citizens and taking the total to 47.2 million unemployed.  Sooner or later, Americans will return to work, especially since it has been convenient to ignore the viral pandemic.

            As reported last week [962], my reading of the 5-4 DACA decision had to wait until this week.  It is done!

            Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority in the Court’s ruling in the case of Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California [591 U. S. ____ (2020); No. 18–587] [962]—the so-called DACA decision.  In summary, this was not a definitive ruling on a small segment of illegal aliens known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) individuals.  This rather unusual decision was more like a shot across the bow to Congress and slapped the hand of the Executive Branch in the form of the Department of Homeland Security rejecting enforcement of the ambiguity of immigration law with respect to DACA individuals.  The rejection of the government’s action to rescind the Obama administration’s deferment of deportation proceedings for qualified DACA individuals violated established administrative procedures and was declared an “arbitrary-and-capricious” action.  This case directly reflects the consequences of dysfunctional government.  Congress refused to act more than two dozen times in the last two decades to solve a very real and outright injurious problem.  The dysfunction of Congress has now contaminated the Judiciary.  The dysfunction of Congress has also left everyone hanging with the DACA individuals at extraordinary risk of serious injury.  The law has failed.  The Obama Administration sought a humanitarian band-aid to buy time . . . to avoid the injury of innocent individuals.  There is zero doubt—NONE—in my little pea-brain that the BIC’s administration took its action to unilaterally terminate DACA with extraordinary animus.  Thank you Justice Sotomayer for documenting that fact in her concurring in part, dissenting in part opinion.  Justice Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion that expounded upon his consistent ‘the law is the law’ position; consequences and fairness are not concerns of the law.  Justice Kavanaugh also wrote a dissenting opinion and his conclusion perhaps best summarizes the situation.

For the last 20 years, the country has engaged in consequential policy, religious, and moral debates about the legal status of millions of young immigrants who, as children, were brought to the United States and have lived here ever since. Those young immigrants do not have legal status in the United States under current statutory law. They live, go to school, and work here with uncertainty about their futures. Despite many attempts over the last two decades, Congress has not yet enacted legislation to afford legal status to those immigrants.

The legal gymnastics are amazing and incredible, especially in contrast with Bostock [962].  Although the DHS ruling is not a high point of American jurisprudence, it is a monumental to how dysfunctional our grotesquely tribal government has degenerated in my lifetime alone.

            Decades ago, individuals crossed the border illegally for economic reasons.  In recent years, families crossed the border as refugees from the dangerous situations in their countries (induced by the damnable war on drugs), bringing their children with them.  Those children have grown to productive adulthood.  Our rampant tribalism has infected everything from our social structure to the most insulated branch of government—the Supreme Court.  The DACA individuals (some of them are no longer children) are simply necessary or regrettable (depending upon one’s perspective) collateral damage.  Especially Thomas’s dissenting opinion in essence says screw all those DACA individuals . . . collateral damage to his rigid interpretation of the law.

            This case has amplified the terrible conundrum all three branches of government face when our system of governance breaks down.  The federal government failed to enforce existing immigration law.  Congress failed to adapt the law to the changing immigration situation, and as a consequence, the Executive Branch felt compelled to act outside existing law to avoid the collateral damage induced by the dysfunction of our governance system.  Justice Thomas is correct under the strict interpretation of existing law.  The original DACA memorandum is not legally based, but what every single one of these nine justices failed to do is represent the extraordinary collateral damage caused and threatened by all three branches of our seriously dysfunctional government.

            All of the above aside, I cannot accept the collateral damage threatened by our dysfunctional government to 700,000 innocent people who know no other country other than the United States.  Many do not speak the language of their native countries.  We must accept the facts and reality that We, the People, caused this situation.  We, the People, must accept the reality that we must correct the errors of our failures.  The only solution is for Congress to do what must be done and pass comprehensive immigration reform that gives us enforcement in depth to prevent future transgressions and to remedy the consequences of our broad failures, including recognition of the DACA individuals as what they have been for many years—citizens of the United States.

            Given this broad failure, I laud the Court’s effort here.  Roberts tried to walk a very thin, squiggly line to do the right thing from a human perspective.  He cannot rely upon humanitarian rationale in his interpretation of the law.  He relies on an administrative quirk to justify his action, but at the end of the day, the Court did the correct thing for those most vulnerable to our failure(s).

            ‘Tis the season!  I spent my available capacity this week reading through the DHS decision noted above.  My limited throughput does not stop the courts from rendering more important judgments.  This week’s edition was yet another judicial setback for the BIC, AKA Agent Orange, Oh So Great Orange One, or the fellow in the Oval Office.  A three-judge panel of the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a 2-1 ruling—Sierra Club v. Trump [9CCA Nos. 19-16102 19-16300 (2020); D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00892- HSG].  The court declared the BIC’s diversion of Defense Department funds to build his vaunted border wall was unlawful.  My review should be in next week’s Update.

            A relevant extract from a separate thread exchange with a long-time friend and frequent contributor to this humble forum seems quite appropriate to include here.  The contributor sent a very long list of the BIC’s “accomplishments” in his three and a half years in office along with the following comment:

“You can double check all this .. mainstream news would never publicize his positive work so you would not have seen this listing in any of your reference choices. Trump is not pitching this .. his team who believes in him and knows of his hard work has put this extensive listing together so people know truth .. Let me know if you find any of it false .  If you don’t double check it I assume you accept all the work listed is accurate.  I know you say you don’t have time and I know you can’t stand the guy and your standard response is LIES and SNAKE OIL but unless you prove any of it wrong, I am considering it TRUTH .. afraid your sophomoric responses don’t mean anything to anyone.  I know the FACT is you rely on mainstream news and left generated propaganda to formulate your opinions which has proven most lacking in truth and/or full information.”

My response:

            A couple of thoughts on this thread . . . 

            I do not think it matters a twit what I think about your list of the BIC’s “accomplishments.”  You are going to believe what you wish to believe regardless.

            My primary point is not anything on your list of the BIC’s “accomplishments.”  There is no debate that he has been the beneficiary of more than a few “accomplishments.”  Unfortunately, we tend to forget he was handed a steadily improving economy.  My concern has been and remains the content of his character.  A leader, any leader (military, political, corporate, sports, et al) is predominantly a function of trust and confidence, i.e., if we believe, then s/he cannot fail.  We see that reality in successful leaders like Churchill, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Patton.  They were all flawed men; some with serious flaws like Churchill’s barely contained racism, or Patton’s unbounded egocentricity.  But people believed in them.  One of my uncles was a soldier serving under Patton.  He would rail about “blood & guts,” but staunchly defend the general because he believed.  As is the nature of the man, the BIC loves to exaggerate, inflate, twist, and yes outright lie because that is what snake-oil salesmen do.  We cannot trust a single word he says.  So while his “accomplishments” are notable, he fails as a leader because he does not understand or perhaps even know what leadership means, and he has a very hard time with the truth, e.g., slow down COVID19 testing.

            Second, what you see as “accomplishments” are occasionally seen as detractors—not an accomplishment.  Case in point, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act [PL 115-097; 131 Stat. 2054].  I saw no tax cut and respectfully neither did you.  I do not support this law’s tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations.  I see this law as benefitting the wealthy and adding substantially to the national debt.  So, I do not give him credit for the tax cuts he likes to tout.

            There is no question or debate that the BIC has been the beneficiary of good things that his believers like to bandy about as “accomplishments,” e.g., the economy until the COVID19 collapse & recession.  He takes credit, as all presidents do, and I do not fault him for those claims.  He likes to brag about deregulation.  I do not see those deregulation efforts as positive, making our environment better, or improving things.  There are very real, hard reasons those regulations came into existence; those conditions still exist, only now corporations can ignore their obligations.  Lastly, we can argue with “The Space Force” is an accomplishment or just another Defense Department spending program.

            Some items on your list are bona fide accomplishments and we can all agree on those items.  Others are subject to perspective.  Yet, his “accomplishments” do not justify or validate his grotesque character flaws.

            At the end of the day, what I have just written does not matter a hoot.  You believe in the value of the BIC’s magic snake-oil elixir; I do not.  That is all that matters to you.  I have no interest in trying to dissuade you from the folly of that belief.  You believe; that is all that counts.  I respect your right to believe what you wish to believe.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.962:

Comment to the Blog:

“I wasn’t aware of the specific fire near you, because I’ve mostly been watching southern New Mexico.  I hope you and yours are safe from all the fires.  The wildfire season has convinced me that moving to the Southwest would do my lungs more harm than good.

“I believe the issues about policing are systemic and rooted in the origins of police forces.  I favor finding a different approach than the ‘us versus them’ that has always permeated law enforcement, but let’s not underestimate the political will that’s needed for that.

“The Chump and his base have become a self-solving problem if his appointees are to be believed.  After all, his highest rate of support in 2016 came from the over-70 crowd.  In the fullness of time, plenty of those individuals will have died or become unable to vote.  The ranting voices of Dr. Faust (lol) and others tell us that older folks are more vulnerable, so the Tulsa rally (and future ones) would accelerate that process.  Problem solved.  Also, the Chump himself comes across as having health issues, although the odds of any given person contracting a fatal case of COVID-19 are pretty small.

“John Bolton’s tell-all book came to our attention too late to prevent its publication in some form.  Review copies had been sent and the text quoted publicly.  Yesterday, I saw a link to a purported .pdf copy of the book.  The lawsuit is just noise.

“I suspect you are too optimistic about the economy.  The stock market is doing well, but that only measures the psychological state of the wealthy.

“New York is the jurisdiction most likely to bring the Chump to justice, whether State or Federal.”

My response to the Blog:

            Thx for yr well wishes.  Yes, we are safe.  Fires should not be a reason to avoid the SW U.S.  While the Bush Fire, was large and fast, it was all to the east of us and downwind.  We never were affected by the smoke.  The fire is 61% contained as of two days ago.  We still see traces of smoke, but nothing like we saw in the first week of the fire.  Arizona is still a great place to live.

            I am always interested in better, but I have seen nothing to suggest there is a better out there.  To me, the problem is not the system but the people.  To that end, here enters the detrimental effects of the police unions.  We are rapidly marching toward throwing the baby out with the bath water.  I am not in favor of such extreme and radical action.

            I cannot argue with your assessment of the BIC & the pandemic, although it seems more fatalistic than I care for in this.

            United States v. Bolton may be just noise as you suggest, but it is the type of noise the BIC prefers.  He has a very long history to intimidating people with legal action and threats of legal action ala Roy Cohn.  The BIC will continue to rattle the saber and press the case until a judge slaps his hand.

            Hiring or return to work is progressing; that’s positive.  My measure is as simple as the daytime road traffic.  By that metric, Phoenix is nearly back to full employment.  The stock market is not the economy.

            Exactly my point.  The SDNY is that instrument of justice, which makes the BIC’s and Barr’s meddling in the affairs of the SDNY with Berman’s firing as just one more obstruction of justice that the BIC will get away with in this sordid affair.  I have enough faith in the energy and integrity of the SDNY that they will press their investigations of the BIC and his cronies.

 . . . Round two:

“‘To me, the problem is not the system but the people.’  Cap, the people are the system.  Rooting out individuals and changing procedures without larger systemic action has failed time and again.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            So, if I understand your words correctly, you are saying that we can change the people and the system will change.  But then, you say we have been changing the people, but the problem has not changed.  I am not sure what you are trying to say.  I see the problem differently; we have not changed the people.  Police unions tend to protect their members, protect their jobs, regardless of criminal conduct.  Police unions are part of the system, and it seems to me, that salient should be our point of focus.  Lastly, you keep talking about ‘larger systemic action.’  Please give me some of your ideas.  What kinds of things are you thinking about or suggesting?

 . . . Round three:

“Two larger systemic changes come to mind.  One is taking police officers out of schools and social-work environments.  This is what the ‘defunding’ thing is about.  We need to fund appropriate people to deal with education and social-work issues, not police officers.  Police in schools have proven disastrous, and they do poorly at dealing with issues involving feelings, especially anything including sex.  All or most of the work in those settings should be handled by those trained in the relevant kinds of work.

“The other change is recruiting and training the police to actually serve ordinary people rather than to see us primarily as threats.  Some of that is underway, including a local project that is training the local police departments in recognizing mental illnesses at work when they're not essentially criminality.  That calls for very different behaviors than apprehending bank robbers or things like that.  Autism, an issue close to my personal experience, is included in that training.  The officer understanding what is not a threat to their personal safety is almost as important as their understanding of how to deal with actual dangers.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            Good points, actually.  Agreed.  To further the discussion, I would like to point out that the topics you raise in this discussion are NOT police reform issues.  They are local political matters.  Politicians used the most convenient tools albeit a pile driver to sink a nail.  The politicians placed the police in schools, or addressing mental health crises.  The city councils, state legislatures, and Congress must take appropriate steps to legislate and more importantly reliably fund proper school security and mental health intervention situations.  None of the conditions you cite are police issues.

            Further, I will also add that we have a serious community education problem in that we are seeing more cases of citizens resisting or failing to comply with police instructions.  Non-compliance with police direction is simply not a viable option.

 . . . Round four:

“Ignoring the protesters for the moment, I personally have a problem understanding the words police say much of the time.  I can't obey if I don't know what they want.  They speak very loudly but not very clearly.  I suspect this ties into the attitude issue, but whatever it is, it's a problem that training could lessen.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            Quite understandable, and you are not alone.  I have seen enough Live PD to know that others share that observation.  The logical thing to do is stop, hold your hands out, up or away from your body, and do nothing threatening.  A police officer is presented with a potential deadly event every time they stop someone; s/he never knows, sometimes until it is too late.  A police officer is trained to safe the situation until probable cause determinations can be made.  They usually call for back-up to ensure they can control a situation.  If back-up is not available and they are alone, they must cuff the person being questioned to protect themselves.  I have seen far too many people who do not comply, which in turn becomes threatening to the officer.  Arguing with a police officer is not a positive move.  He has a job to do.  Help him do his job.  I have had police officer stop me for ridiculous alleged infractions of traffic laws.  I never argue with them.  I answer their questions truthfully.  On two occasions, I went to traffic court to contest the ticket and won both.  Yes, absolutely, every single police officer from a one-man rural officer to every officer regardless of position in the NYPD should be (must be) trained in de-escalation techniques, community relations, among many other skills.

 . . . Round five:

“I was trained in surviving the police by my father, who knew we needed that.  The hearing issue remains a common problem, though.  The officers are taught to be on edge, and anything other than split-second obedience endangers their target.  As far as I know, training for clear speech ought to be in ‘De-escalation 101,’ but I don't know if it is.  Based on reality TV, it isn't carried out.”

 . . . my response to round five:

            I’ve seen a few too many videos of police officers approaching a car on a routine traffic stop and being shot without a word exchanged—some survived, others did not.  You only have to see one of those videos to understand why officers are taught and are rightly on edge until they can assess and control the situation.  I know our son was taught de-escalation during his police academy training.  He practices it and teaches the officers who work for him.  Yes, there are bad men in policing, and those bad men must be dealt with firmly.  However, I see the root cause of many of the police “problems” as the politicians who direct them, e.g., the BIC and his pseudo-strongman bravado.  We need to help the police, not burn down the barn to clean a horse stall.

 . . . Round six:

“Yes, those videos do get re-played often, don't they?  Nothing about them changes the importance of actually being understood by the target, and it's primarily the stress (not the volume) in their voices that makes them less clear.”

 . . . my response to round six:

            So you say.

            Nonetheless, they are a reminder of the dangers police face every day.

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

Update no.962

Update from the Sunland

No.962

15.6.20 – 21.6.20

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

            To all,

            Some of you may be aware that the Bush Fire in Arizona began across the Verde River Valley eight miles from us.  It was reportedly initiated by a vehicle fire near the intersection of Bush and Beeline Highways.  I called 911 a week ago Saturday afternoon to report the fire.  Unfortunately, we watched the fire grow in the mountains to the east of us.  As of this Sunday, the fire has grown to 115,000 acres and is as yet not contained.  We could see the flames from our property for the first handful of days.  The visible flames have progressed beyond the farthest ridgeline.  The smoke has diminished but is still present.  The fire is still burning.

            Here is the salient question of the day.  If police are expected to serve and protect the communities as well as enforce the laws applicable to their jurisdiction, why do they tolerate and protect (by their silence) criminals who wear the same uniform as them?  When one police officer looks the other way when another police officer is committing a crime, e.g., Chauvin murdering George Floyd, that complacency or acquiescence taints the whole organization, thus fostering distrust of the whole.  That mindset among police must change, and We, the People, must help the police change that destructive thinking.

            Contrary to what the Bully-in-Chief (BIC) incessantly tells us and desperately wants us to believe, the COVID19 pandemic is NOT over and infections are not going down.  He claims the virus is dying out.  He cannot will it to be so.  Forget about the infection rate; that could easily and understandably be discounted by the frequency or extent of testing.  Yet, how on God’s little green earth can the BIC claim the virus is dying out when the hospitalizations and fatalities are continuing to rise?  Hospitalizations and fatalities are hard physical evidence, not subject to interpretation or sleight-of-hand maneuvers.  How can he possible deny the facts?  Oh wait, that is exactly what snake-oil salesmen do—deny facts.

            As Americans, our greatest strength yields our greatest weakness and vulnerability.  Freedom of choice inherently means we are free to be stupid.  Today, we suffer that reality.  Yet, I am encourage by the wisdom of Howard Stern, who declared, “Freedom does not mean you get to do whatever the f**k you want.”

            When the BIC failed to intimidate John Bolton or his publisher to stop the publication of Bolton’s upcoming book, the BIC resorted to his go-to tool—a civil lawsuit.  The book in question is titled: The Room Where it Happened; the publisher is Simon & Schuster.  The BIC had the Justice Department file suit against Bolton to block the publication of the former national security advisor’s book.  The BIC ordered the Justice Department to file the blocking legal action—United States v. Bolton, USDC for DC Case 1:20-cv-01580, filed: 16.June.2020.  It is interesting, relevant and telling that the suit is against Bolton, singularly, not the publisher. The suit is focused upon Bolton’s alleged violation of NDAs he voluntarily signed at the time he entered the White House as the president’s national security advisor.  Bolton’s legal counsel, Charles J. ‘Chuck’ Cooper, Cooper & Kirk PLLC, submitted a detailed objection of the USG’s administration delaying tactics [Exhibit P to the USG’s complaint] and is quite illuminating.

            On Saturday, U.S. District Judge Royce Charles Lamberth of the District of Columbia denied the BIC’s and USG’s efforts to block the publication of the book.  For believers in the curative properties of the BIC’s magic snake-oil elixir, this is just another so-what.  They believe, and their belief is unshakeable.

            I sure hope and trust Bolton and his publisher will take this to court as soon as possible to gain a formal judicial statement that the suit is a frivolous attempt to avoid embarrassment for the BIC and stifle Bolton’s perspective on events he observed.  I do not trust the BIC, the White House, or the Justice Department.  The USG has been so bloody compromised by the BIC and his serving minions.  A federal judge needs to properly assess this standoff and resolve it.  The BIC cannot stonewall yet another derogatory report by using the instruments of states as he has done more than a few times during his tenure.

            The U.S. economy is finally showing signs of recovery, although the unemployment situation remains net negative but diminishing.  The Labor Department reported 1.5M American filed for unemployment benefits bringing the total to 45.7M unemployed, 28% of the entire workforce.  The difficulty we face at the moment is balancing the re-opening of the economy with the inherent increase in infections, hospitalizations, and deaths.  There will be a price to pay.  The virus does not care a hoot about our economic well-being.  As noted early on in this crisis, the choices are decreasing the infection rate or increasing the ICU capacity of the country and specifically at sites of infection outbreaks.  We clearly failed at the former.  Perhaps, it is time to seriously focus on the latter.

            Once again, the BIC proudly displayed his ignorance, paucity of any intellectual curiosity, and fundamental unwillingness to learn.  Oddly, he publicly admitted to his ignorance when he confessed that he had never heard of “Juneteenth” or its significance.  He was surprised that the White House staff had issued an official public statement every year of his presidency to acknowledge Juneteenth.  He clearly was not paying attention in American History class in school.  Then, he had the bloody audacity to claim he alone had brought the day in history to public attention (with his ignorance).  We have to admire the guts of his malignant narcissism.

            Friday night, as is the BIC’s modus operandi, he had the attorney general announced the resignation of United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) Geoffrey Steven Berman.  A short time later that night, Berman publicly stated he had not resigned and had no intention of resigning.  Then, the following day, the BIC himself fired Berman.  So, now, we have one more bloody sordid affair perpetrated by Agent Orange—the BIC.

            Prior to his current assignment, Berman was in the law firm of Greenberg Traurig LLP, the same law firm in which Rudi Giuliani served.  Berman was appointed by Attorney General Sessions to replace Preetinder Singh ‘Preet’ Bharara, who was himself fired by the BIC.  What complicates this situation, Berman was not nominated under the normal 28 USC 541(c) provision, but rather the 28 USC 546(d) section under which he was confirmed by the district court judges.  Whether Berman will press this distinction to challenge the BIC’s action is yet to be seen.  I hope he does.  What the BIC and his lackey Bill Barr were wrong in some bloody many ways.  The SDNY happens to be conducting many of the investigations into the BIC, his companies, and some of the BIC’s cronies, not least of which is Giuliani himself.  One more time, this whole thing stinks to high heaven.  The BIC is using his office and the instruments of state for his personal gain (and obstruction of justice).

            Agent Orange held his campaign rally in Tulsa, after he had to back down from his originally scheduled day because of his paucity of knowledge or empathy.  The BIC claimed there were more than a million people seeking to attend his rally, so many applied, they engaged and adjacent venue to video simulcast his greatness.  The Oh So Great Orange One was supposed to address the vast number of overflow folks next door before the rally, but there were only 12 people, and they cancelled.  Then, their primary venue, the BOK Center, was only a third full.  It had to be such a disappointment to the BIC’s grotesquely inflated ego.  Yet, you have to hand it to the man, being the consummate snake-oil salesman, the BIC stood up there and delivered his usual sales pitch.  Of all the outrageous things he said, there was one that jutted out above all the others.  He railed against the pandemic response (because it was making him look bad), then he said, “So I said to my people slow the testing down please.”  What the BIC is really saying is ignorance is far better than knowledge—so BIC-ish.  Now, we wait to see whether the infection rates increase in Oklahoma and neighboring states.

            Supplemental: if the BIC had been a trustworthy, honorable person, his jokes, ‘tongue-in-cheek’ attempts, and ‘just kidding’ would be tolerable and perhaps even entertaining.  Unfortunately, we have NO FREAKIN’ CLUE when Agent Orange is trying to be truthful or lying through his teeth; thus my comment about needing a decoder ring to understand the BIC [758].  No, the BIC does NOT get to say things like he did above, and then when he gets called on his idiocy, he and his sycophants claim ‘oh he was just speaking tongue-in-cheek, he didn’t really mean it’ – like they did with his potential fatal suggestion about injecting disinfectant [954].  This guy was not worthy to be president, and he continues every day to prove that observation is correct.

            On Monday, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County [590 U. S. ____ (2020); No. 17–1618], which is actually a consolidation of three similar cases with different appellate rulings.  The case (or actually the ruling) is notable for numerous reasons—stellar jurisprudence is not one of those reasons.  The 6-3 decision was written by Associate Justice Gorsuch, which really has to stick in the craw of all the noble evangelicals and conservatives who had to sacrificed their ideals, beliefs, positions and expectations for the BIC and Supreme Court nominations to serve their needs.  The short version of this ruling: discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is now illegal.  The decision hangs upon one word of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [PL 88-352; 78 Stat. 241], Title VII, §703 that prohibits employment discrimination based on an “individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” [78 Stat. 255].  By this decision, the word ‘sex’ includes sexual orientation and gender identity.  Gorsuch argued in his majority opinion that if Congress intended the law to be constrained to only an anatomical, bilateral, genitalia classification at birth they would have chosen the word gender rather than sex.  Thus, the majority’s interpretation is that the word ‘sex’ is characteristically more expansive.  Five other justices joined Gorsuch without qualification.  Justice Alito wrote a rather expansive but disjointed dissent that centered up textualist versus literalist interpretation of the law.  According to the texualists, the definition of the word ‘sex’ in the context of the Title VII, 1964 timeframe, and the intention of the Congress of the day.  Alito argues that in 1964 that ‘sexual orientation’ was a distant moral question largely ignored by society, and ‘sexual or gender identity’ was wholly unknown.  Further, if Congress had intended to include sexual orientation or gender identity in the list of classes covered by Title VII, it would have done so. The 88^thCongress (1964) could have chosen far more precise words in the construction of §703, but they did not; they chose broad, general terms.  Alito notes expansively that homosexuality and homosexual conduct was a federal felony in 1964, therefore inclusions of sexual orientation could not possibly be included in the meaning of ‘sex’ in §703

            The law is not static monolith, as if engraved in granite to remain solidified and calcified in perpetuity.  It is interpreted by nine (9) justices using their best judgment of the meaning and application of the words.  Alito (successor to Scalia) holds a very narrow, constrained, and restrictive view of interpretation.  The Founders/Framers never used the word ‘sex’ in the construction or in their writings regarding the Constitution, thus they were mute with respect to the applicability of the law to anyone other than ‘men’ as they understood the word, i.e., adult male, Caucasian, educated, Protestant landowners who spoke English. Is that really what the Founders/Framers intended?  I, for one, do not and cannot believe the answer is yes . . . that they intended to be just that restrictive.  I see nothing in history that even remotely suggests such a narrow interpretation.  Does Alito’s (the apparent successor to Scalia in such discussions) preclude the shifting meaning of a word over decades, centuries and millennia?  I cannot and do not believe that was the intention of the Founders and Framers.  Further, I believe strict constructionists (or in this instance textualists) fail to acknowledge that judges and the Supreme Court must interpret and render judgment based on their understanding of the law as written.  There is a very real, tangible reason the Supreme Court has nine justices who must find a majority consensus for the interpretation of the law.  There has NEVER been ONE Supreme Court justice to make such judgments.

            The definition of sex in the context of §703 is quite akin to the on-going debate about what is meant by a “well-regulated Militia”?  This philosophical debate has relevance far beyond this case.

            So, using Alito’s reasoning, when Thomas Jefferson wrote, “[T]hat all men were created equal,” he literally and precisely meant only adult males were created equal.  Thus, women and children (both male and female) were less than equal, or rather had essentially no rights whatsoever, in other words only adult males had unalienable rights—no one else.  Further, by the standards of 1775, ‘men’ were considered to be only educated, Protestant, Caucasian, landowners who spoke English.  Is this really what we have become?  We are unable to see the majesty of Jefferson’s words beyond the strict meaning of the words (or a word) in 1775?  Extending Alito’s reasoning, this means the Constitution and other laws must be re-written anytime there is a new scientific discovery, or expanded knowledge of our human existence is realized.  Did the Founders really believe that?  Or, did they believe the system of governance established by the Constitution would be interpreted by judges and justices of the day?  There is no evidence I am aware of that the Founders and Framers were so rigid in their establishment and definition of the law.  Alito then goes into an expansive discussion of various state efforts to suppress and oppress homosexuals as further justification for his narrow judgment.  Justice Thomas joined Alito’s dissent without qualification.

            Justice Kavanaugh offered a separate dissent based upon the separation of powers.  I must say at the outset that I was impressed with Kavanaugh’s writing and his reasoning—a worthy and compelling argument.  Yet, what is the most striking in Kavanaught’s dissent is one sentence in his conclusion.  He stated, “Notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans.”  How about that!

            As a footnote or perhaps a postscript, after reading Bostock, and especially both dissenting opinions, I was reminded of an earlier SCOTUS ruling—Dred Scott v. Sandford [60 U.S. {19 How.} 393 (1856)] [322].  The dissent aside, the Court did what was long overdue.  Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is wrong and needed to go.  Unfortunately, those so inclined will not accept this ruling, but the decision gives disenfranchised Americans the weight of law on their side now.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited DACA ruling—Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California [591 U. S. ____ (2020); No. 18–587].  The ruling was a consolidation of three similar cases and a narrow 5-4 decision, although rather convoluted.  The chief justice wrote the opinion for the Court in which the liberal wing joined. 

The previous decision [Bostock] took longer than expected to review, so my assessment of this decision will have to wait until next week.  I really must get back to my writing . . . at least for a few days.  Standby!

            Continuation from Update no.960:

“Short and sweet .. I respect your desire to voice your opinions over mine . As you don’t agree with me, I don’t agree with you .. your mental block will always be to disagree with pretty much everything Trump says and does because based on your perception of his character, you just don’t like him .. I would never vote for Biden .. it is blatantly obvious he is not mentally fit .. everyone sees it .. which makes the Democrat party look ever more mischievous because we know whoever he picks as a running mate would be the actual President In a short time so it is obvious they are going to pull yet another shady, surprise attack in his choice of VP.  Like Michelle Obama which over half of America, maybe more by now, would not like at all.  And this is NOT about racism, far from it .. this is about transparency and the lack of it .. We do NOT want Barack in the White House ever again.”

My reply:

            No, [anonymous], NO!  I absolutely, categorically, and emphatically do NOT want to express my opinions “over” yours . . . only with yours.  I do not edit any opinions, including yours, expressed in this forum; they are as you chose to say them.  I have never sought to overcome, overpower, overwhelm, or otherwise diminish your opinions.  Yes, I do not agree with some of your opinions, but disagreement, debate, argument, and discussion among citizens is essential—vital—to any democracy, not just ours.  That observation goes back more than two millennia to the ancient Greek democracy. That principle is exactly why I encourage anyone and everyone to express their opinions on things in this forum.  I am most grateful that you have chosen to take the time to express your opinions.  I truly and genuinely appreciate your efforts.

            Who you choose to vote for is your personal and private choice, which I respect and defend.  At least you vote; the majority does not.  That is all I seek.  I just want people to VOTE.

            My condemnation of the BIC is only a product of his gargantuan personality flaws; his ascendency to the presidency has dramatically amplified the BIC’s personality flaws.  As I wrote before he ever gained the nomination or election, I have seen the destruction of his kind far too many times in my life; I did not and do not need more examples, but here we are.  He has proven my observations in spades.

            I believe good citizens see him in exactly the same light as I do, but they choose to overlook his malignant narcissism because they believe he will give them the ultra-conservative Supreme Court justices they ultimately seek.  If it had not been for Moscow Mitch and his defiance of the Constitution, I would have been saying, these are the consequences of elections.  He was duly and properly elected to be president; this is what presidents do.  But I do not see the BIC’s appointments as those consequences; I see them in the light of McConnell’s unconstitutional action.

            Interesting assessment.  The BIC is just three (3) years younger than Biden; what makes you believe their general health or durability is different?  Did you see the video clips from West Point?

            There is no point for me to waste your time and mine in any effort to defend President Obama.  You have made your position crystal clear.  ‘Nuf said.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.961:

Comment to the Blog:

“In connection with Mr. Fuller’s death by hanging, I will note that Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has blocked a bill making lynching a Federal crime.

“Your ‘good friend and former colleague’ provides an example of why the slippery slope argument is a fallacy in logic.

“I recognize your experience in Arizona, but we are not seeing a resurgence as we re-open here in Ohio.  It’s pointless to argue against the human-nature result of the lock-down in any case.

“In regard to nicknames, I’ll note that the Chump has moved his address to Florida, perhaps to escape state income taxes.  Down South, a white racist is often called a ‘peckerwood.’  Perhaps we have a Red-Headed Peckerwood?”

My response to the Blog:

            I was aware of Rand Paul’s action against the lynching law—speaks volumes.  Thank you for reminding me.

            Opinions are opinions; all are welcome.

            Yes, I agree in the general sense.  However, I think my comment was applied to a more specific element beyond the general human nature level.  To be precise, a society of people and their willingness to submit to restrictions of freedom of choice.  We see in dramatic contrast in the effect of draconian measures to break the chain of infection versus a more flaccid approach, e.g., PRC versus USA.  Sometimes our freedoms are our own worst enemy.  Add on top of that the graphic defiance of the so-called leader to compromise weak voluntary measures, we have hundreds of thousands dead versus tens of thousands—an order of magnitude.  I was only recognizing this apparent reality.  Perhaps in the future, we should just bite the bullet and let people choose to kill other citizens by their complacency and obliviousness.

            More like Orange Peckerwood.

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

Update no.961

Update from the Sunland

No.961

8.6.20 – 14.6.20

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

            To all,

            Shortly after 03:39 [U] PDT, Wednesday, 10.June.2020, a young man was found dead and hanging by a rope from a branch of a tree in the 38300 block of 9^th Street East, Palmdale, California.  He was identified at Robert L. Fuller, 24 years old, and just happened to have dark skin pigmentation.  The death was initially reported as an apparent suicide, but the Los Angeles County Coroner stepped back from the position, and then classified Fuller’s death as a potential homicide.  The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has opened a homicide investigation.  We do not know whether it was a suicide or a lynching.  Yet, given the sordid slivers of our history and tumultuous times in which we live, probability says this event was a lynching of a young American citizen with dark skin pigmentation.  This is the destruction wrought by the BIC.  This is the hatred he has fertilized and encouraged.  Some group of hatred-filled someones have decided to take us back one hundred years, to a time when they perceive America was great.  We must wait for the investigations conclusions, but I fear the worst.

            A friend and former colleague sent along this contribution:

“I am predicting to you that before this is over, anyone not kneeling during the national anthem will be arrested for overt racism;

“And, I am quite serious – we will reach a point where the American flag will no longer be allowed to be displayed as it is a source of historic and unyielding racism – it will not be tolerated.”

 . . . to which I responded:

            I have captured and saved your prediction.  We shall see.

            On this, we shall respectfully disagree.  In 1989, the Supreme Court decided flag burning was covered under the 1^st Amendment freedom of speech clause—Texas v. Johnson [491 U.S. 397 (1989)] [420].  How much have we seen flag burning since then?  Freedom of choice is one of our bedrock freedoms.  We have learned to tolerate all kinds of behavior under that umbrella.  My prediction: this phenomenon will be no different.

            Lastly, I think it is vital that we listen and think.  There were (are) very real reasons that Colin Kaepernick started this particular phenomenon.  We need to understand the underlying motives.  I do not believe disrespecting the flag is among those motives . . . as it was in the flag-burning case.

 . . . along with a follow-up comment:

“I truly hope this is a short-term media frenzy and you are right.

“Thanks for the perspective . . .”

 . . . and my follow-up response:

            Me too, my friend.  None of us can predict the future.

            We must find the means to look beyond the symptoms to the root cause(s).  Kneeling for the national anthem is a symptom.

            We appear to be learning a very hard lesson that lockdowns are not a viable option for a pandemic response in a free society . . . well, at least not one like ours, where the freedom of choice for an individual means far more than the general welfare of We, the People.  Freedom of choice also means we are free to be stupid.

            The hospitalization and death rates are continuing to go up in some places, e.g., Arizona, with no signs of turning the corner, and yet the governor is withdrawing restrictions and encouraging the state to return to normal as are other governors at the direction of the Bully-in-Chief (BIC).  He is desperate to get the economy back up and running at full tilt that is a worthy objective, except the virus is not done.  Is the BIC’s re-election campaign and his vanity worth another couple hundred thousand dead?

            If every citizen had followed the government guidelines regarding self-protection and social distancing, we would have broken the chain of infection.  Unfortunately and regrettably, far too many citizens did not heed the government guidelines, e.g., the BIC being the primary example, and thus the sacrifices made by 44 million citizens will be for naught.  OK, so we have established our individual freedom of choice exceeds the common welfare of We, the People.  Lesson learned!  Let’s get on with it.  Let the virus run rampant until we die, gain herd immunity, or acquire an effective vaccine.  Since I am in the high-risk group, I shall have to hope and pray I do not develop some other ailment that requires hospitalization or intensive care.  Life goes on.  Who the hell cares about old-farts like me anyway?

            I suppose this is our new normal.  Dead citizens are the price of freedom.  I hope everyone who chooses to follow the BIC in his defiance of virus response guideline his own government published thinks all of these dead innocent people are worth their freedom to do as they please.  I do NOT share their expansive view of freedom of choice.

            I watched and listened to an interview with film producer, director, screenwriter Shelton Jackson ‘Spike’ Lee.  Like me, he is no longer able to speak the surname of the BIC.  I say this to note and give proper credit to Spike for his far more elegant moniker to describe the fellow who happens to occupy the Oval Office at the moment—Agent Orange.  His choice is far more sophisticated and complex than my silly monikers.  For those who may not know, Agent Orange is also the name for a very toxic substance used as an herbicide during the Vietnam War.  So I say, thank you very much, Spike . . . perfetto, as the Italians say. The man you describe is truly a toxic substance.

            Agent Orange wanted to hold a campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma on Friday, 19.June.2020—Juneteenth, the celebration of the end of the Civil War and slavery on 19.June.1865.  Tulsa is also the site of what is believed to be the worst racial massacre in our history—31.May.1921—hundreds died simply because of the pigmentation God gave them in their skin.  Beside the insensitive timing, Agent Orange is requiring every attendee to sign a ‘hold harmless’ agreement to protect him, his campaign organization, and the venue should anyone contract COVID19 at the event.  Ya just gotta love it.  He has no clue about anything beyond protecting and promoting himself.  He probably employs a small army of cleaners to go along ahead of him so he can appear to be the omnipotent tough guy who doesn’t need no stinkin’ mask.

            Now, we are seeing multiple claims that all this COVID19 nonsense is just a left-wing, deep state, conspiracy to make the Agent Orange look bad.  So, they want us to believe 114,000+ dead Americans are all fake, made-up, to make the BIC look bad.  Yep, like I said, ya just gotta love it.  These folks can insist that: the Holocaust did not happen (fake); JFK was assassinated by the CIA; the moon landing were staged (fake); TWA800 was shot down by the U.S. Navy; 9/11 was a deliberate destruction by the USG to justify going to war like FDR did with Pearl Harbor; and now we add to the long list, the COVID19 pandemic and all, as if the dead are all fake—they are just old folks who would have died anyway.  We simply must find the means to relegate the BIC—Agent Orange, the Oh So Great Orange One, the snake-oil salesman extraordinaire—to the dustbin of history like his predecessor, Clark Stanley.

            Lastly, I am reminded of history, specifically the McCarthy hearings on Wednesday, 9.June.1954.  Lawyer Frederick George ‘Fred’ Fisher Jr. had been subpoenaed by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) under the Committee on Government Operations against his former law partner Chief Counsel for the United States Army Joseph Nye Welch.  Fisher professed, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?  At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”  My feeling and opinion precisely, I say to Agent Orange, “Have you no decency?”

            Comments and contributions from Update no.960:

Comment to the Blog:

“Your sentence about what ‘journalists are not’ gave me a chuckle.  You list doctors, lawyers, politicians, and clerics among those fields where people get things precisely correct.  If you were serious, that’s an unsupportable argument for those professions.

“Minneapolis has the votes to de-fund the police department, which was performing poorly in addition to its brutality issues.  They plan a transition period to a replacement.  Let’s not assume others are irrational.

“The concept of race is artificial.  However, skin pigment, features, hair texture, etc., are easy visual markers to give the hateful people targets.  Plenty of those same people would make a target of me if they knew that I was poor, not their religion, not 100% heterosexual, etc.  How do I know that?  In my small-town youth, people knew some of those things about me, and I was a target.  Race endangers people simply because it marks a person as an easy target.  Hence, I see class strife as underlying racism.

“One quibble from last week’s discussion. You said, ‘You have the opportunity to join a political party and help shape the party’s selection process and candidates.’  That’s manifestly untrue of major U.S. parties and is my central point about the Democratic Party.  The Democratic National Committee (DNC) successfully resists and refuses the policies supported by a majority of their members.”

My response to the Blog:

            I had to go back and re-read what I wrote.  I still think the language is clear, but apparently, it is not.  I think the implied object of the whole sentence (and paragraph) is the reporting of journalists on a very wide variety of subjects, e.g., medical, legal, military, aviation, politics, religion, and such.  Journalists are experts in none of those topics, but they must still do the best they can to report on those subjects.  I do not see how you translate that sense into an implied validation that other professions make no mistakes.  The question at hand in that section was the reporting on the incident in Lafayette Square.  My opinion was the journalists who wrote the article, Jonathan Easley and Zack Budryk, did a respectable job reporting on the event—not precisely correct, but generally correct.  The object is journalistic reporting, NOT the perfection of other professions.  IMHO, no one can ever be precisely correct; the ambiguity of human nature is by definition very imprecise.

            Yes, they do, and they are threatening to disband the police.  And I say, OK, so what’s next?  What are they going to replace the police with afterward?  Disbanding a police department must be part of some overarching plan, and there must be some police function to cover any transition.  Rather than disband a police department, pass a law to replace the chief, major lieutenants and the police union.  In the instance of Minneapolis, it is my perception that a large majority of the problem is the police union that strives to maintain the status quo and member jobs.  Talk about disbanding a police department without the overarching plan is the definition of irrational to me.

            I cannot argue with your perspective.  Racism is a different form of us versus them.  From a DNA perspective, we are far more alike than we will ever be different.  None of those physical attributes bear one twit of a hoot on the content of one’s character.  I have always said what matters is what is inside, not what package our character comes in for the conversation.

            Please pardon my ignorance.  I do not see your point.  You focus your ire on the Democratic Party.  Is this phenomenon of which you protest unique to the DNC?  Internal party politics have always been a matter of concern in every and any human organization, including all of the political parties.  However, not participating in whatever the political process happens to be is an abdication to other forces.  I do not like any of the political parties (some more than others), but I still believe we are called upon to choose the best of the lot presented.  Further, if you want to influence a particular political party, jump in and participate.  Work your way up to a leadership position and influence the party. Non-participation is not the answer.

 . . . Round two:

“I agree that simply getting rid of police would cause more problems than it would cure. 

“Police brutality is not only a Minneapolis problem.  Replacing the individuals involved in the specific incidents won’t change the nature of the system that allows the brutality, and the brutality and racism are nationwide.  Examining and immediately limiting the powers that police unions nationally have acquired to protect their members from the consequences of their actions would improve the situation somewhat for now.  Beyond that, we must study, deeply and publicly, how the police have come to see the public as their enemy and how that can be changed.  I expect that deeper examination, if it ever happens, to touch on deeper divisions in society that the people at the top don’t want to discuss.

“Let’s come back to your statement, ‘You have the opportunity to join a political party and help shape the party’s selection process and candidates.’  No, I don’t.  Per your statement, I would join the party relatively close to my perspective in the hope of somehow influencing them to come closer to my ideas.  Millions of people have done that with the Democratic Party, to no avail.  The Chump, despite his massive flaws, overcame the Republican Party by offering policies people sought (insane policies, but policies) and appealing directly to those voters.  The Democrats have not allowed Warren, Sanders, or their allies such an opening.  It ain’t gonna happen.  You can go on about how a representative republic is supposed to work, but we’re not getting that in the two-party privately-funded system.  In reality, most of the electorate is expressing itself the only way it can, by not voting for either party’s tools.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Agreed.  Simply prosecuting bad apples will not cure the ills we see amid the convulsions of the last few weeks.  Yes, absolutely, police unions have emerged as a major root cause of the problems we see in law enforcement abuses.  We have several police officers in our family; none of them see the public as the enemy.  Do some within law enforcement feel that way?  Of that, I am fairly certain, just as there are racist, xenophobe, homophobe, bad apples in law enforcement.  They deal with the dregs of humanity; it is hard to prohibit bleed-over in their work.  Further, I will add, as long as We, the People, do not feel a sense of duty to help the police, I cannot see the way forward.  The police are us; we are the police.  We need to help them do their job.  If you see something, report it.  A national LE database for accused or dismissed bad apples would be helpful, but that will only be as good as local LE organizations participate in good faith.

            It is most unfortunate you hold such a pessimistic view of our electoral processes.  However flawed our system is, it is what it is.  I choose to avoid the political parties because membership implies blind loyalty regardless of content.  That is precisely what brought us the BIC.  Not voting is your choice entirely; I cannot argue with your freedom of choice.  I am fairly certain (as history suggests) that you are not alone.  We shall once again bear witness this November when the voter turnout percentage is determined.  I respect your freedom of choice even though I fundamentally disagree.  Once again, I will vote for the best candidate on the ballot, none of which I participated in their selection.

 . . . Round three:

“Middle-class and wealthy white people, especially men, live in a bubble.  The police treat you nicely because (a) they identify with you and (b) you have resources to hire lawyers and otherwise fight back. That's one facet of white privilege.  They treat the rest of us as ‘the dregs of humanity’ you mentioned.  That whole ‘sense of duty to help the police’ is ridiculous where I live.  My sense of duty is to myself and my family, to guard against police attacks as best I can.  We have occasions when it's necessary to call the police, but that can backfire on innocent parties.

“So, if you yourself don't believe party membership is a valid approach to implementing policy, how do you plan to have a voice in a representative republic?  The method you offered me has the flaw I pointed out.  If you can't vote for a candidate that supports your policies, where does that leave you?”

 . . . my response to round three:

            That is a rather broad generalization that I cannot support.  My “dregs of humanity” comment has absolutely nothing to do with any one or combination of social factors.  [Side note: I need to add ‘economic status’ to my list of the social factors.]  It is only reflective of criminal or anti-social behavior.  Law Enforcement (LE) must deal with law violators by the very definitions.  There is no argument from me that “white privilege” exists just as systemic racism exists.  There are more than a few “white people” who support and fight for an end to systemic racism.  As long as we make all LE officer ‘them,’ they will have no choice but to act as ‘us.’  I am terribly sorry you feel as you do about LE.  To me, us versus them is a corrosive acid to the fabric of our society.  I understand the resentment, but we must collectively find a way to overcome and neutralize the acid.

            I am doing what I believe is my path.  I have been expressing my opinions, criticizing our leaders and policies, and offering alternatives for nearly 20 years in the medium of this evolving Update forum.  I seek active debate, and I persistently search for solutions.  Part of me wants to participate in party political process, but unfortunately, I have come to see that very process to be the source of our rampant tribalism we suffer today, and in that, I cannot subscribe to or participate in the furtherance of tribalism in this once grand republic.  Tribalism is just another corrosive acid eating away at the fabric of our society.  I send my Update to each of my congressional representatives (two senators + one representative); I have done so for many years; I express my views to my representatives.

            Re: “If you can't vote for a candidate that supports your policies, where does that leave you?”  An interesting philosophical question worthy of a thoughtful reply.  The very nature of our society, culture, and founding documents remains freedom—all of our freedoms, not least of which is freedom of choice.  As a consequence, we must deal with extraordinary diversity, which in turn means, we will inherently disagree.  I do not know another human being who agrees with everything that I believe in, that I want to see change.  So taken to the end point, will we have 330M candidates who gain a single vote?  In a representative democracy, we cannot possibly write laws; we would never find consensus; we trust our elected representatives to do the best they can for the whole—We, the People.  When we vote, we are NOT voting on policies; we are voting on the content of their character; that is the very nature of representative democracy.

 . . . Round four:

“Please note, I didn't say you called us "dregs of humanity."  I said the police (too many of them; I didn't mean that as an absolute) treat us that way.  My statement stands.

“I don't seek a 100% agreement with my every position.  That's silly, and you know it.  Please read for meaning, not just to attack.  I have a significantly different perspective in general from the management of the Democratic Party, as do millions who will vote for it in preference to the Republicans.  Far more potential voters recognize the reality that neither major party comes close enough to their policies to be worthy of their votes and/or that both are too corrupt for any voter who values ethics.  They withhold their votes.  My choice is to join the Green Party USA.  I differ from them on some policy matters but agree with their philosophy and respect their dedication to it versus seeking large contributions.

“You didn't address my question.  I'll word it more formally.  If neither major party is responsive to voters, how is an ordinary citizen supposed to participate?”

 . . . my response to round four:

            I responded to your words as I read them.  I stand by my words.

            Oh my, I do understand.  You are far more engaged than me.  I refuse to participate in the political party process largely because of the effects of tribalism on our political systems.  My refusal applies to ALL political parties; I have found nothing to help me find affinity.  Yet, I still contend that our duty, ney obligation, to vote has nothing to do with the political party processes.  There will never be a perfect candidate.  I have long revered and quoted Winston Churchill, but he also had flaws, quirks, and policies that I could never support.  The same is true for Lincoln, Roosevelt, and for any leader.  But, my contention remains; we must vote for the best of the lot on the ballot.  I do not see voting as particularly different from the legislative process; no law will be perfect, but we try to find the best compromise we can amid widely conflicting forces.  To me, abstention means I do not care what happens next.  Also to me, abstention is exactly why we suffer our current malady of leadership.

            I thought I did respond to your query.  The party policies (their campaign plank) are established by party leaders.  If you wish to affect the policies of any particular party, join the party and work your way up to a policy making leadership position.  Representatives from each state vote on the party plank, but not all members do; and certainly, if you are not a member, you have no vote.  Political parties are generally reflective of our system of governance.  The only other way is to write, speak, or otherwise attempt to influence your representative to advocate for whatever it is that matters to you.

 . . . round five:

“Much of your reply goes right over my head.

“The notion that I ‘must vote’ for the lesser of two evils is what has us this deep in the mess.  I must somehow find a choice that won't upset my conscience.  If there's no choice who's at least not harmful, we've lost what the Founders sought to give us.

“As you probably know, working one's way up through a major party hierarchy is a full-time job available to a very limited number of people, unless the person in question can afford to buy politicians.  Besides, some of us are disabled or too old to start now.  What about us?

“I already advocate with those who are supposed to represent me, to the level of a dozen or more mass emails or petitions daily and the occasional phone call.  There will be more communication in the future, and more personal ones.  That work may have some effect.  My U.S. Representative and City Council President took some tear gas recently on my behalf as well as their own.  I respect that.”

 . . . my response to round five:

            We seem to be reaching the limit of productive discussion on this matter.  Whether you vote or not is your choice entirely.  Your “lesser of two evils” position strikes me as a rather staunch glass is half empty attitude.  If our goal is complete alignment in a representative democracy, we will be paralyzed to inaction.  To me, there is no such thing as a perfect fit, perfect candidate, perfect anything.  At the heart of any representative democracy is negotiation and compromise, because perfect is unattainable.  So, rather than waste your time any more than I already have, let us simply leave it as is—do whatever matters to you.  I will be voting for the best candidate on the ballot.  Full stop!

            I understand at least some of your objections to our political system, but it is what it is and it has evolved over decades and centuries.  As Winston Churchill so aptly observed, “[D]emocracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”  Democracy is ugly, but it is the means we use to find consensus.

            The long and short of it is, we do the best we can.

Another contribution:

“Seriously:

“Can we talk Mitt Romney into offering for the nomination again?

“I believe he could beat the don this time.

“I think ur President has sealed his own fate and will loose to Biden, who will not prevent the Democratic Party from ruining our country.

“Of course, the more important thing is not to loose the Senate.

“BTW, remember, I AM NOT a Republican.”

My reply:

            I am not sure to what you are protesting, my friend?

            Mitt Romney, not my choice, but he would be one helluva lot better than what we have now.  At least he holds and displays character traits far more worthy of a president than the current fellow.  Too late to beat the BIC; he is the Republican presumptive nominee.  Unfortunately, for Republicans, the BIC is their leader.

            Yes, I agree.  The BIC has sealed his fate.  However, I could not believe 62M American citizens would ever vote for such an obviously and deeply flawed man, but they did.  And by a quirk in our constitutional election process for the office of president, he received 3M less votes than his principal rival and still won.  I was tragically wrong in 2016, and I freely and openly acknowledge that I could be wrong again.  The evidence against the re-election of the BIC is vast, overwhelming, and ominous, but I will not underestimate the power of the BIC’s magic snake-oil elixir again.  62M people believe and that counts for a lot; they buy his snake-oil and they are convinced they are cured of what ails them.

            We have had Democrat presidents many times in the past.  We were not ruined.  If Biden is the nominee and is elected, we will not be ruined in the future.  We survived the BIC; we can survive anything.

            I agree with you about the importance of the Senate, but I do not agree with Republicans retaining control of the Senate.  Mitch McConnell turned me absolutely and unwaveringly against that notion when he unconstitutionally stonewalled President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination.  If I was a resident of Kentucky, I would be voting against McConnell; he has proven himself unworthy.

            I do not care what political party (if any) you or anyone else has affinity.  We have disagreed on the BIC for many years, but that does not alter my sense of friendship with you going back far more years than the BIC’s administration.  I believe our friendship will endure.  I try very hard to relate to people by the content of their character, not by any one or combination of the social factors: age, gender, race, skin pigmentation, religion, ethnicity, national origin, economic status, sexual orientation, education, political affiliation, marital status (provided that the applicant has the capacity to enter into a binding contract), or disability.

A different contribution:

“‘the current turmoil does not meet the threshold level for invocation of the Insurrection Act.’ .. and what would business owners say about him if he DIDN’T take some kind of tough stance ..

“Any perceived racism needs to be taken up state by state .. presided by state organizations, preferably Private, non government .. when reports come in that can be classified as neglect based on race it can be best acted on at a city and state level

“You really believe the election teeters on the ones who don’t go out and vote huh?  I do find entertainment in your urgency to help those few people who are clueless how to register and vote .. are you talking to subscribers of your blog ?  Or should you be getting out and reaching the masses somehow ? 😄

“Do you not give Flynn the same respect for his services as you do Mattis ?  Or only the ones who have dislike of Trump as yourself ?  As stated so well by Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind.:

"As a fellow Marine, I know that General Mattis and others will respect the fact that I'm not going to get in the middle of a row between the president of the United States and his former secretary of Defense, and instead focus on threats to our freedom like the Chinese threat to Hong Kong, like Iran's threat to our close ally Israel, and all the other threats we're currently dealing with."

“In other words our perceived threat of racism is minimal to the much bigger fish ..

“You might listen to this black man .. Mattis (and you) says the President has done nothing to bring the American people together.. has there really been the need .. has there been division up until the Floyd killing which reopened old wounds ? This man lived in the 50s and 60s and he knows there’s so much more opportunity now ... I think you and many are falling into the white guilt trap you’re being baited for ...” 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6162853990001/#sp=show-clips

“‘Let us judge people by the content of their character rather than the level of pigmentation in their skin.’  .. you quote .. did the Floyd incident bring this out ?  Do you live by this motto ?  Do you make close friendships with those of different colors?  Are you okay if you live in a neighborhood where you are the only White family ? Are the ones of darker color and poorer less in character?  I rented one of my duplexes in Wichita to a black family .. it was a very nice duplex in an area where many black families were starting to afford to live .. Jeanne told me it was an area she would never want to live (off N Woodlawn) .. why was that ?  Because there is a general fear of living among too many of a different color for whatever reason mostly because of crime statistics.. So it is a big statement to make ‘Let us judge by character rather than skin color’ if you aren’t prepared to get out there and study it rather than preach it .. again this needs to be addressed at a much smaller level than federal government..

“My personal opinion is many of the younger generation blacks want instant gratification and money without necessarily having to work hard for it .. thus many get into illegal activities for money. The movies glamorize it. Watch the video above .. try to get over your Fox mental block.”

My response:

            A couple of thoughts on the first item: 1.) we are dealing with a criminal minority within a much larger peaceful protesting group; 2.) we are NOT dealing with insurrection; 3.) the BIC’s desire to appear like a tough guy is not sufficient for employment of federal troops; and 4.) I find it quite the juxtaposition that the BIC insists the states are on their own for the pandemic response, and then unilaterally seeks to impose martial law via an 1807 law to deal with criminal conduct that is clearly the domain of the states during the protests.  His inconsistency and persistent lack of understanding of the Constitution and the law are shocking.

            I actually agree with you up to the point that racism exceeds that authority, e.g., national organizations like the KKK, Aryan Nation, et al.; or, the instruments of state are themselves racist or racialy biased, e.g., a few police officers violate the constitutional rights of citizens.  

            Very good point.  I’m using the tools in my kit bag.  I am not a crowd person—never have been, thus I will not be on the streets protesting.  I’ve not taken a poll of the Update subscribers, but I surmise most, if not all, are voters.  My message is not to my subscribers, but to encourage my subscribers to talk to their children, their families, their friends, and to others they come in contact with, in life.  Lastly, I trust you will note that I have never even suggested how or for whom any citizen should vote; it is a very personal and intimate action.  I only encourage everyone to vote . . . however they wish, but vote.  I resent and condemn any actions intended to suppress the vote as we witnessed in Wisconsin and most recently in Georgia.  I also condemn the BIC’s foolish, ill-informed, and outright wrong statements intended to suppress the vote.

            Flynn was a controversial general when he still wore the uniform.  I do respect his service, but I do not respect the man.  My opinions about Flynn, Mattis, Kelly, McMaster, et al, have absolutely nothing to do with the BIC—niente!  If you wish to see my opinion from long before Mattis said what he did [960], I invite you to go back to Update no.129 (30.5.2004).  The first time Flynn was ever mentioned in the Update was no.778.  Believe it or not, the world does NOT revolve around the Oh So Great Orange One.  I agree with Senator Young’s paragraph of his statement.  I will quibble with your following paragraph.  Regrettably, Young displayed his ignorance when he suggests there was no racial division in this country until the George Floyd murder “reopened old wounds.”  I’m not going to waste my precious time recounting the long history of systemic racism that continues to exist in this country.  George Floyd was not the first to suffer while in custody and in restraints at the hands of police, e.g., Freddie Carlos Gray Jr. in Baltimore.  Unfortunately, Floyd will not be the last until we outgrow the inherent racism that still exists.

            Wow!  That is quite an accusation, my friend.  I know no one has read all of my words, but I will only note a few that are clearly documented.  My first mention in the Update of the social factors (of which race is only one) in our social intercourse comes from Update no.105 [14.12.2003].  I have lived my entire life by that simple phrase given to us by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; I have loved those words since I heard him speak them in 1963.  There is a very real, hard reason I quote those very words on the home page of my website since my website was created in 1997, along with Churchill, Lincoln, Jefferson, and the Constitution.  I wrote an essay on Diversity that was published on my website on 23.11.1999, if you are so inclined: 

http://www.parlier.com/essay-3.html#diversity.

I stand on my record.  Can you?

            As always, you are entitled to your opinions for whatever reasons you choose as important to you.  I can argue with your opinions; I do not have to agree with your opinions; but, I respect your right to express your opinions, and in fact, encourage you to do so, as I express mine.  There are bad people in every walk of life, among every element of the social factors, and in every profession.  The majority of people are good, law-abiding, peaceful, productive citizens.  I refuse to judge a group by the actions of a few that includes Russians, Muslims, people with dark skin pigmentation, Republicans, or any other one of the social factors.  Yes, I live by judging people by the content of their character, which is precisely, exactly, and totally why I see the BIC for what he is.

            I have no mental block over Fox, FoxNews, or anything Fox related program.  I evaluate and judge every single individual by their words and actions, NOT by what group they belong to, for whatever reasons they choose to belong.

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)