27 July 2020

Update no.967

Update from the Sunland
No.967
20.7.20 – 26.7.20
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            Short one this week.

            As I imagine everyone knows by now, Doctor Mary Lea Trump, PhD, 55, daughter of the Donald’s older brother, Fred Jr., wrote a recently published book titled Too Much and Never Enough about her uncle—our temporary employee who we installed in the Oval Office.  She is a clinical psychologist.  I am not likely to read the tome for several reasons, including the fact that type of book does not interest me, and I do not need more evidence to judge the subject of her exposé.  However, I would like to note that I have watched and listened to numerous of Mary’s interviews on various news and entertainment programs.  She is articulate, composed, unemotional, and cogent—traits that stand in stark contrast to her uncle, the Bully-in-Chief (BIC).  Mary is careful with her words and actually forms clear, cohesive, and persuasive sentences.  She also offers quite plausible explanations for the BIC’s destructive personality flaws.  Mary is infinitely more believable than the BIC for a wide variety of reasons.  Unfortunately, her explanations and illumination will do little to no good in awakening the BIC’s blindly loyal followers. Too Much and Never Enough has reportedly sold nearly a million copies in its first day of retail sales.  Good luck to Mary Trump.
            Just a little side note and not a news flash, for an author, it really helps sell books to have the right name at the right time.  I have yet to reach a million copies of any one of my books.  Oh well, such are the trials and tribulations of a struggling author.  Oh, one other note here, it would surely help my book sales if I was a huckster, snake-oil salesman like the vaunted BIC.  Sigh!  Heck, I still enjoy the writing process, and that is good enough for me.

            During an interview with the BIC broadcast on Wednesday’s Fox News Tucker Carlson program, the BIC felt compelled to divulge his incredibly magnificent cognitive test in 2019, reciting five words: person – woman – man – camera – TV.  He can remember and repeat those five words, in order no less . . . genius, I tell you, genius!  He must be the world’s, no wait, all of human history’s most intelligent person.  I will confess to a genuine feeling of sadness watching and listening to a man repeatedly deliver those five words in a halting delivery like he actually had to think about those five words.  Human disintegration is never pleasant to watch even in a man with despicable personality flaws.  Yet one more proof: the man is delusional and totally disconnected from reality.  Doctor Sanjay Gupta, MD, asked the salient question, why did he need that cognitive test in 2019?  Spot on, Sanjay!  We do not know the answer precisely; however, it is quite likely and understandable that someone, or some group of someones, were concerned about his cognitive stability.

            For those who might be interested, I just finished my next novel . . . well, the writing part.  Now, the hard part begins—editing and preparing the submittal package.  Well, actually, the hardest part is selling; I am a terrible salesman.  If I am lucky, this book might be released by the end of the year.
            The book is provisionally titled Heaven on Earth.  The publisher ultimately decides these things.  The book deals with a very sensitive societal issue—psychotropic substance consumption.  The story sprang from my long evolving belief that the so-called war on drugs is unacceptably destructive in more ways than I care to count.  The underlying premise of the story is prohibition is never a viable or successful path in a free society.  We learn that lesson the hard way in the 1920s; we have yet to re-learn that lesson today.  We will sacrifice our rights to impose prohibition on everyone, or we will find a better way that protects our rights.  Our ancestors learned those hard lessons when they attempted to prohibit alcohol.  We have spent 50 years and billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars attempting to eradicate demand for psychotropic substances, and we have nothing to show for that effort.  Heaven on Earth offers a notional better approach to deal with the demand for those drugs.  Prohibition will not and has never worked until we give up our freedoms to the state.  Freedom of choice and every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy are far too precious to be frittered away in some lame attempt to impose social conservative morality on everyone.  Heaven on Earth may not and probably is not the answer, but it should suffice as food for thought, debate, and consideration.  I will issue a proper release statement when the book is published.  All comments, reviews, opinions, and thoughts are welcome—good, bad, or ugly.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.966:
Comment to the Blog:
“The Chump and his family have taken criminality to a new level, but we knew that.
“Apparently, the White House conflicts with Dr. Fauci have reached marketing.  Fauci’s recommendations have largely gone ignored for some time now.  It wouldn’t be like Chump to respect others’ expertise.
“Your faith in ‘We, the People’ as an actual force is touching.
“Your comparison of Chump versus Fauci to Pope Urban VIII versus Galileo crystallized the terms for my ‘thinking about thinking’ question.  The ends of my spectrum for what human minds seek are authority (leading or following) and understanding.  The exemplars of that are ‘true’ academics (including scientists) for the understanding end of the spectrum and the Chump and similar personalities for the authority end.  We can call the people closest to the ends of the spectrum authoritarians or students.”
My response to the Blog:
            Indeed!  And worse, they have been enabled by far too many people.  We can only hope justice will eventually be done.
            Yeah, the BIC has waged an effective campaign to discredit the truth no matter what the source—Intelligence Community (IC), the Press, medical experts, judges, anyone and everyone who bares speak the truth.  I cannot tell whether he truly believes his gut feelings are the only real truth, but that is certainly how he acts.  The particular trait and phenomenon is exactly why I often quote George Orwell from Nineteen Eighty-Four: 
“War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength.”
“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.”
I could go on, but that should suffice.  The BIC desperately wants us to accept his truth as the only truth, and worse, he has been successful with 62M American citizens—that is not a trivial number, and they vote.
            Well, thank you, although I suspect you are being sarcastic.  Yes, I do have faith in We, the People, which is exactly why I persist in using the phrase.
            Interesting spectrum of thinking.  I see some validity in your representation.  However, there are always exceptions and deviations.  We see some of those departures in history—the phenomenon of 1933 Germany being an obvious example.
 . . . Round two:
“In regard to my spectrum of thinking, (A) it's a spectrum, not a pair of poles, and (B) how is 1933 Germany different?  They were looking for leadership.  Logic faded away.”
 . . . my response to round two:
            There were men of science, men of facts, who embraced the authoritarian dictatorship and some were part of the police state.  They existed at both poles.  Or perhaps you are suggesting that such men were in the middle between the poles.
 . . . Round three:
“No, I'm suggesting that people in all fields follow some approach between authority-seeking and scholarship.  There are plenty of examples of prominent scientists who clung to ideas contrary to new information, and occasional examples of people in power who responded to new information with new actions.  The examples I gave were simply fields where the contrast is often easy to see.”
 . . . my response to round three:
            Well said and agreed.  Thanks.

Another contribution:
“My God Cap-just read your first paragraph of the blog- what’s the word I’m looking for-mortification, that will do nicely.  I cannot believe the lengths of professional exhortation this man will attempt to impress you the people.  Well the impression was not a good one-well Americans, it’s your choice, you’ll be voting soon.”
My reply:
            Mortified is a very appropriate word descriptor.  Outrageous is another, but he will, once again, likely get away with his continuing offenses.  Yeah, November cannot get here soon enough.  We need to be rid of this fellow, and it needs to be an overwhelming, embarrassing defeat . . . and to hell with his bevy of sycophants as well.  Definitely not a good impression.  He has no dignity.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap                  :-)

20 July 2020

Update no.966

Update from the Sunland
No.966
13.7.20 – 19.7.20
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            On Tuesday, 14.July.2020, princess Ivanka posted an image of her hawking Goya Black Beans.  When she was reminded that doing so was a federal ethics violation, she had every right to express her support for Goya Foods.  Well, Ivanka, no you do not!  You are a federal employee whether you get paid or not, and you are subject to federal ethics laws.  Then, the next day, not wanting to be upstaged by even his exalted daughter, the BIC posed in the Oval Office, behind the Resolute Desk, with an array of Goya products and offering a broad ‘Cheshire Cat’ grin and two thumb’s up gestures.  The man, and now we have proof that the BIC’s immediate family have no sense of propriety, restraint, or even a smidgen of understanding the law.  The whole damn family are employees of We, the People.  They are NOT private citizens and have absolutely no right to be selling selected products for anyone, for any reason, and especially in their capacities as our employees.  Is there no sewer threshold of tolerance for his loyal consumers of his magic snake-oil elixir?  We can only pray more Republicans come to their senses and recognize they made a dreadful mistake four years ago.  It is way past time to be rid of this scourge of a man.

            Then, in the middle of a pandemic, the BIC pokes his sycophants to do his ‘wet work’ for him and attack the government’s top infectious diseases expert.  The man has no conscience, morality, or sense of reality.  The man of facts is infinitely more believable than the man of “truthful hyperbole” (which are neither).  We are bearing witness in graphic public display and detail of the consequences of malignant narcissism in the mind of a man who was duly elected by We, the People.  This episode in our history will go down as the greatest mistake of democratic elections, on a scale (but not for the same reasons) of the democratic election in 1933 Germany.
            I would like to note that I forecast this kind of destruction as a consequence of his malignant narcissism well before he was even the Republican nominee [746; 3.April.2016].  And yet, not even in my wildest nightmares did I ever imagine it would be this bad.  In that sense, I underestimated the destruction that would be wrought by this man.  My faith that We, the People, will come to our senses and be rid of this man in November (well, actually January) remains diminished but resolute.

            A recent issue of the JSTOR digital newsletter reminded me of a little sliver of history that I wanted to illuminate in this humble forum.  One of the first LGBTQ organizations in the United States was established in 1952 Los Angeles, before a segment of our society was known by that group of letters.  The first issue of the organization’s monthly magazine called ONE was published and distributed to subscribers in January 1953.  The following year, the Los Angeles branch of the U.S. Post Office unilaterally invoked the Comstock Act [PL 42-III-258; 17 Stat. 598 (3.3.1873)] to declare the magazine ‘obscene’ and refused to deliver the monthly periodical.  One, Inc. filed suit to protect its First Amendment rights.  The district court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the action of the Post Office.  The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously and summarily reversed the lower court rulings—One, Inc. v. Olesen [355 U.S. 371 (1958)]—only citing one of their recent decisions without explanation—Roth v. United States [354 U.S. 476 (1957)] [458].  Mixed in with these court rulings, President Eisenhower signed and issued Executive Order 10450 – Security requirements for Government employment.  The E.O. prohibits federal employment that requires a security clearance based among other things §8(a)(1)(iii) – “Any criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful conduct, habitual use of intoxicants to excess, drug addiction, sexual perversion.”  The terms were left open to very wide interpretation enabling persecution of homosexuals and non-heterosexual citizens in the name of national security.  Non-heterosexual citizens have advanced a long way since those dark days, but they still have a long way to go before they do not feel the bite of discrimination and persecution.
            As a footnote, ONE magazine ceased publication in December 1969.  One, Inc. still exists having gone through a number of metamorphic changes through the years and continues to work for equal rights.

            On Thursday, the Arizona Republic published an E.J. Montini opinion column.
“Truth is heresy to Donald Trump, which makes Dr. Anthony Fauci our Galileo—Opinion: The foremost immunologist of our time believes in science, not politics, and is attacked. A 17th century scientist got into the same kind of trouble.”
by EJ Montini
Arizona Republic
Published: 7:00 a.m. MT; Jul. 16, 2010
Italian astronomer Galileo di Vincenzo Bonaulti de Galilei had been observing celestial objects for years and published his treatise Sidereus Nuncius (1610) [Sidereal Messenger, or Starry Messenger] that validated Copernican heliocentrism.  Unfortunately, the Catholic Church favored and sanctioned Ptolemaic geocentrism (circa 147 AD).  The debate continued for a couple of decades.  Pope Urban VIII invited Galileo to present this argument and analysis, which he did.  Galileo published his famous book Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems) [22.2.1632].  It was a bridge too far for the Catholic hierarchy.  The Roman Inquisition prosecuted Galileo for his heretical pronouncement.  The Catholic Church did not publicly apologize for their grievous mistake until 1992; at least the church found the courage to admit their error.  I hold no hope whatsoever that the BIC will apologize for his grievous mistake(s) in denying the science and instigating multiple conspiracy theories.  Yes, E.J. Montini is spot on correct.  The BIC is quite akin to the Roman Catholic Church denying the facts and trying to intimidate everyone into compliance with his dicta, and Anthony Stephen Fauci, a man of science and facts, is our Galileo.  The truth will overcome ignorance, but there will be a lot of pain and injury along the way.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.965:
Comment to the Blog:
“The New York Times has suggested that Chief Justice Roberts is concerned primarily with maintaining the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court.  While that is admirable in itself, I still wish he hadn’t punted on the Chump tax records issues.  However, when the process of revelation completes, the wheels of justice can grind on.
“I’m still startled that Mr. Justice Thomas has found his voice at all.  Making that voice articulate and reasonable probably won’t happen.
“I imagine pretty much everyone is surprised by the Supreme Court’s recognition of the Five Civilized Tribes’ sovereignty.  I’ll mention that their part of Oklahoma is still poor compensation indeed for the territory they lost and the Trail of Tears.
“I saw a report that the Tulsa, Oklahoma, health director attributes a spike in virus cases to the Chump’s rally there in June.
“What process do whistle-blowers use that doesn’t involve classified or soon-to-be classified material?”
My response to the Blog:
            I’m with you on CJ Roberts.  I understand the remand in Mazars; there are serious separation of powers issues imbedded in the congressional subpoenas that the lower courts up to and including DC Circuit Court of Appeals virtually GAF’d off.  The Supremes almost had no choice in that case.  However, I was sorely disappointed in the Court’s rationale in the Vance case.  As I read, the recurring thought kept popping into my little pea-brain—he’s buying time for the BIC.  Very sad.  The important point from both of the BIC’s cases is they left the door wide open and in fact made a very definitive statement—POTUS does not and never has had absolute immunity, as the BIC has consistently claimed.
            I have read enough of Thomas’ writing, it is quite recognizable.  He is consistent, although I seriously disagree with his very narrow, rigid reasoning that virtually ignores the rights of We, the People, i.e., the 10th Amendment.  I am not a fan.
            Yes; good points all.  As I read the McGirt decision, both the majority and the dissent, I was shocked by the lack of any path forward—what happens now?  Gorsuch presented a compelling (but incomplete) case that Congress failed to make a definitive close-out statement, and to the majority of the Supremes, left the original Removal Act (1830) in effect—promise made.  The consequences of the McGirt ruling are incalculable, and the 5-4 majority basically (although not explicitly) stated only Congress can fix the issue.  Also unspoken in the ruling—what happens with Jimcy McGirt, a very bad man, who has been in prison for 20+ years for his heinous crimes.
            Not just the Tulsa health director, others as well have made the linkage.  It is not rocket science—simple cause & effect.  And worse, the BIC keeps going down that dreadful path.
            We do not see so many of the whistleblower complaints.  I am not an expert and have not done an exhaustive study, but I do believe the majority of whistleblower complaints do not involve classified materials.  The ones that reach the Press headlines involve classified material, but those are just the ones we see.

Another contribution:
“What a mess this world of ours is Cap, it most definitely needs sorting.
“Sorry Cap, meant to thank you for your item on the Battle of Britain-I’m a BofB baby, yes born in July 1940 at Manston where my father was serving.  So I’m delighted at the news that Manston, closed to aviation for many years, is to be resurrected as an aerodrome again.  I did fly into there once and was amazed by the width of the runway.  Of course, the unit was used by the USAF after WW2.  What a history.”
My reply:
            Yes, quite a mess.  Sadly, it did not have to be this bad.  If the world ever needed a vivid example of the destructive consequences of malignant narcissism in a national head of state, we have only to look at the United States in 2020.  He did not create the virus and initiate the spread of the virus, but the BIC’s laissez-faire incompetence has made it so much worse—135,000 dead and still climbing.
            My objective for decades has been to make sure anyone who will listen never forgets what happened in the summer of 1940 and especially why it was so bloody important to the cause of freedom in the subsequent world.
            You were an infant during the operating months of Operation PIED PIPER, but do you have any recall of that effort to protect the children?  Your father serving at RAF Manston during the BoB; that had to be scary; Manston got hit very hard by the Germans.  Did you & your Mum stay at Manston during the BoB?
 . . . follow-up comment:
“My personal memories do include air raids with the sirens sounding and being dragged out of bed and carried downstairs to the shelter which was a Morrison shelter-an indoor steel structure with heavy duty wire at the sides. In normal use it was a handy dining table!
“No, little talk in the family they didn’t like to bring the subject up probably as one my aunties, we all lived together, lost her husband on the Atlantic, went down with his ship.  I do remember him he was a radio op and played about with the ancient battery powered ‘wireless.’
“From Manston my father went to Germany recovering air bases.
“I remember the party when they all came home!  Especially the huge bonfire in a bomb crater.  All went well with singing dancing and hot potatoes when suddenly rounds of ammunition start exploding from the fire.  That was a quick evacuation for everyone! End of party!”
 . . . my follow-up reply:
            Anderson and Morrison shelters saved lives.
            Quite understandable.  I’m sure the evidence was plainly apparent; didn’t need to talk about it.
            Your father (and you & family) were at Manston for most of the war, until Allied forces entered Germany?  You were probably too young to remember the pounding Manston took during the BoB?
            Where did the ammunition come from?  There by mistake?  End of party indeed!  Hopefully, no one was hurt.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap                  :-)

13 July 2020

Update no.965

Update from the Sunland
No.965
6.7.20 – 12.7.20
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            The epic aerial Battle of Britain began this week, 80 years ago.  The grotesquely outnumbered Royal Air Force Fighter Command fought desperately every day, several times a day, for the next three months, and those “Few” fighter pilots stopped the threatened and pending German invasion of Great Britain.  For the next year, the British stood alone against the German juggernaut.  Air superiority over the English Channel and Southeast England was a prerequisite for the German cross-Channel invasion; they failed to gain the necessary dominance of the air space.  Yet, history records that the Germans had ground down Fighter Command to such an extent that the British air defense system was literally within days of collapse.  Fortunately for the British and for freedom, German intelligence failed to detect the terrible state of Fighter Command, and then Hitler turned their aerial wrath upon London and other British cities.  Fighter Command was never so exhausted and spent ever again.  God bless all those who served the cause of freedom.

            The follow-up news items:
-- Once again, the Bully-in-Chief (BIC) flipped his middle finger to the world.  The BIC commuted the sentence of his good buddy and self-professed dirty tricks hitman Roger Stone [931].  The message is quite clear.  If you lie for the BIC, you get a pass.  If you remain loyal to the BIC, you get a pass; the BIC will protect you.  Senator Romney of Utah is quite correct: this is the most corrupt and unrepentant president in generations, if not all of history.
-- Well, wonder of wonders!  The BIC finally mustered up sufficient respect for wounded warriors and the medical staff that treat them for their wounds to wear a mask.  For the good that small gesture did, we have the plethora of other times where he demonstrated no respect for other people and thumbed his nose at rules from his own government intended to be guidelines for the reduction in the transmission of the virus.

            The BIC repeatedly and publicly proclaimed, “Because we’re doing more testing, we have more cases.”  NO! You freakin’ idiot.  We have cases because of infections regardless of whether you did any testing.  The only thing testing does is give us all some insight regarding the magnitude and location of infections that have already occurred.  Further, the quantity of COVID19 tests is irrelevant and has NO scientific meaning, which probably explains why the BIC keeps harping on the quantity of our testing.
            And, a lot of people who have swallowed this man’s damnable worthless snake-oil elixir question my patriotism, my commitment to this Grand Republic, and my judgment.  I prefer knowledge to ignorance, which is exactly and precisely opposite from the BIC’s nonsensical ignorance fueled by his rampant malignant narcissism.  He is so desperate that one day soon he will try to tell us the sun will not rise tomorrow.

            The COVID19 crisis did not cause the societal problems we face in the United States of America, but it sure as hell amplified, accentuated and brightly illuminated the corrosive crevasses that have grown in this once Grand Republic in the last few decades.  The virus has also shown a brilliant light on the void of anything even remotely called leadership at the ultimate level of this country.  The man has proven himself incapable to even a smidgen of leadership.  He is what he is.  We, the People, must endure his incompetence until he is gone.

            Two BIC-related Supreme Court decisions were released this week—Trump vs. Vance [591 U. S. ____ (2020); No. 19–635] and Trump vs. Mazars [591 U. S. ____ (2020); Nos. 19–715 and 19–760].  I started to write my review of each ruling as I read them.  Completing both, I abandoned my usual review.  Why, you may ask?  At the bottom line, the Court sent both cases back to the lower courts for further action consistent with the rulings; the consequence being, the BIC’s tax returns will probably not see the light of day until well after the election, which in turn means We, the People, will probably not know how much of a fake the nation’s top snake-oil salesmen really is in life.  C’est la guerre!  In short, the Mazars decision criticized the lower courts’ failure to assess the significant separation of powers questions in the congressional subpoenas for his tax records.  In Vance, the justices unanimously agreed (all nine of them) that the president does not possess absolute immunity, regardless of what the BIC erroneously claims.  The majority (7-2) decided the New York County district attorney has the authority and right to see the BIC’s tax returns for his criminal investigation.  However, the lower courts must establish that it is an appropriate and necessary action that respects the unique position of the president.  We have had three equal branches in the United States system of governance since 1787.  The power of the Legislature is vested in 535 members of Congress.  Nine justices of the Supreme Court hold the power of the Judiciary Branch.  The power of the Executive Branch rests with one person—the president, which emphasizes the vital importance of choosing a president wisely.  These two decisions were Pyrrhic victories for those agencies seeking to hold the BIC accountable for his alleged multiple crimes.  Both decisions directed the cases to be remanded back to lower courts for further considerations consistent with the Supreme Court’s rulings.  The result is likely that no one will see the BIC’s tax returns until well after the pending election.  So, there we go; yet one more time, the BIC gets to dodge accountability.  On the positive side, the Supremes’ unanimous statement that the president does NOT possess absolute immunity opens a crack in the BIC’s sense of invulnerability and perhaps invincibility.  Needless to say, the BIC was not a happy camper this week.

            This is what the BIC has brought to us with his terrible malignant narcissism affliction.  His conduct (no one else’s) has brought us one constitutional crisis after another.  And now, we have the Supreme Court expounding upon presidential immunity, vulnerability and prosecution.  There are very real reasons our precedents for high office have evolved the way they have.  The BIC has thumbed his nose at all of them and defied virtually every one of those precedents including the Constitution of the United States of America.  And yet, there is sits; he is still the duly elected president.  And the Senate proved incapable of removing him from office, so he continues to abuse the power vested in the office he temporarily holds.  I would like to be idealistic about the prospects of him being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law once he leaves office, but my normally optimistic nature has been sorely shaken by the misdeeds of that despicable human being.  Let this era stand for what it really is, a prime, if not ultimate, example of what happens when We, the People, elect a man who is afflicted with malignant narcissism.  This is exactly why character matters.  We simply cannot make this mistake again.

            On a separate but distantly related side note, I read with particular interest Justice Thomas’ dissent in Mazars.  He quoted, “the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable authority, remains with the people.”  Thomas has routinely asserted that privacy does not exist in or under the Constitution (in that, he is of course correct; privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution or any of the founding documents).  Although Thomas fails to articulate what absolute authority means exactly, I will argue that by virtue of that undefined absolute authority beyond the Constitution, every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy resides.  The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  I will argue that like it was illuminated in McGirt (see below), “the magnitude of a legal wrong is no reason to perpetuate it.”  We have allowed the moral projectionists to use federal law to intrude upon our private lives and dictate how we are to live our lives, thus denying us freedom of choice.  I do not expect Justice Thomas or any other justice to endorse a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, since it opens an uncontrollable Pandora’s Box for the Supremes.  Yet, that is exactly what they have done in McGirt.  Perhaps there is hope we might actually get this right someday.

            Just when we thought we had seen sufficient linguistic and legal gymnastics from this session of the Supreme Court, the hits just keep coming.  In addition to the cases noted above, the Court also rendered their 5-4 judgment in the case of McGirt v. Oklahoma [591 U. S. ____ (2020); No. 18–9526].  In 1997, Jimcy McGirt, the petitioner in the case, was charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced by the State of Oklahoma for molesting, raping, and forcibly sodomizing his wife’s four-year-old granddaughter. He was sentenced to 1,000 years plus life in prison.  At issue in the McGirt case 23 years later is jurisdiction.  The Court decided in this narrow decision that the State of Oklahoma did not have judicial jurisdiction to try McGirt.  Beyond the unusual character of the McGirt case sits the history of it all.  This story begins when President Andrew Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal Act of 1830 [PL 21-I-148; 4 Stat. 411; 28.May.1830] [509, 583].  The so-called “Five Civilized Tribes”—the Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choctaws, Creeks, and Seminoles—were forcibly relocated from their traditional homelands in the Southeast United States to newly established reservations of the Indian Territory—the eastern half of the Oklahoma Territory. The process became known as the infamous Trail of Tears (a whole history thread in itself).  This part of the story took an important turn when Congress passed an Indian appropriations act [PL 48-341; 23 Stat. 362] that was signed into law by President Chester Arthur on the day before the inauguration of his successor.  Most notable in that law was the last section (§9 [23 Stat. 385]) that became known as the Major Crimes Act (MCA).  Associate Justice Gorsuch wrote the Court’s opinion that McGirt’s crimes were under the MCA and the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction and reversed the ruling Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote the dissenting opinion to which Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas joined.  He articulated a variety of objections not least of which was his contention that the Creek Reservation ceased to exist when Oklahoma became a state [16.November.1907], and the MCA no longer applied to McGirt’s crimes.  He did not convince his colleagues.  Lastly, the Court did not define what happens next and perhaps more importantly how.  According to the majority opinion, the Tribe and federal government hold part of jurisdiction, but it was not clear what exactly will happen with respect to Jimcy McGirt.  The history aside, the knock-on effects of this ruling are yet to be determined.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.964:
Comment to the Blog:
“‘Normality’ doesn’t yield easily to definition or description.  Let’s seek a more peaceful, caring, and sane future.
“The current Supreme Court, as exemplified by Chief Justice Roberts, shows a consistent pattern.  Social justice issues are decided with some leeway for decency to people.  Anything affecting capitalists or the other oligarchs is going in their favor.”
My response to the Blog:
            Quite true!  Normality depends upon a metric that easily changes from person to person, country to country.  Yet, I think most of us, if not all of us, would say the daily routines of our lives have been affected, perhaps adversely so, by the COVID19 crisis.  We will come out on the other side, of that I am certain.  However, what is in doubt and questionable is how much pain we must suffer on the journey.  In the county where I live, hospital ICU bed occupancy is over 96% and headed inexorably toward saturation.  This is the fear that has held me since the beginning of this crisis, not the virus.  God help me if I have a heart attack or a stroke, something serious that needs ICU treatment to survive.  Our ICU occupancy was comparatively low until Memorial Day (when the governor ordered the state to open for business (under pressure from the BIC).  Today, just four weeks later, we are at a critical level.  So from my perspective alone, there is very little that can even be remotely called normal since the beginning of the year.
            As I have written in my long running debate with the strict constructionists with respect to the interpretation of the Constitution and the law, the law can be, and I respectfully submit should be, seen as We, the People, rather than federalist authority.  Many of these controversial cases raise that focus or perspective. The June Medical Services ruling is the most glaring of the recent bunch of decisions.  There is a famous line from Aaron Sorkin’s writing for the series “The West Wing”—"In the 20s and 30s, it was the role of government; 50s and 60s, it was civil rights, the next two decades are going to be privacy.”  A citizen’s fundamental right to privacy (above the Constitution) is the one essential element supporting our freedom of choice.  Without privacy, we have no freedom of choice.
 . . . Round two:
“I’ve been harping about the specifics of the response long enough to be tired of my own voice.  I’m not paying close attention to the virus news, either.  I’m curious if the Chump’s rally in Tulsa two weeks prior to July 4 has produced a rise in cases there.  That’s a near-perfect event to test whether distancing and masking are as effective as the governors are hoping.
“‘We the People’ is not a concrete term.  How would you have power distributed and how would you get that done?  Also, note the different results in civil liberties cases (e.g., marriage) as opposed to issues affecting corporations and high finance.”
 . . . my response to round two:
            Good Q.  The rally occurred on 20.June.2020.  As I look at the data, the Oklahoma infection rate took a drastic turn in early June, which suggests Memorial Day as the culprit.  There is a further increase after 20.June.  Kansas is similar.  Arkansas is not quite so precipitous.  I’ve not seen any reporting that attempts to make a more direct correlation.
            We, the People, is pretty concrete to me.  I am not quite sure what you are pointing at with your queries.  However, I will make a stab at it.  To me, the difference is a mindset shift away for dicta regarding how people should live their lives, i.e., freedom of choice.  The purpose of all levels of government is to regulate the public domain for the common good.  Government, at any level, has no right to intrude upon the private lives of citizens except when injury or potential injury to another human being is present.  There are far too many laws that intrude directly into our private lives and our freedom of choice.  Most of us say so what, does not affect me, e.g., drug consumption, prostitution.  To me, the key is withdrawing government from our private lives and choices.
 . . . Round three:
“We share that dislike and disapproval of the government meddling in private morality, but the question is what you want to do about it.”
 . . . my response to round three:
            There are only two tools in my kit regarding this question.  1.) write and talk about the issue at every opportunity to convince others of the need for realignment.  2.) vote only for candidates who are willing to change the laws to remove the government from our private lives.

Another contribution:
“I know you have been strong in the past on condemning the leaking of classified information.  In these days of presidential abuse of power, I’m wondering if you are having second thoughts about it.  I’m thinking that if information damaging to the administration can be classified/redacted it may just be in the best interest of the republic to leak it.”
My reply:
            No, my opinion regarding classified material has not changed.  The current occupant of the Oval Office is temporary; he will pass hopefully sooner rather than later.  We must vote.  There are processes to deal with rogue presidents like we have now, hiding damning or derogatory material behind classification—the whistleblower system.  It’s not perfect, but it’s better than unilateral leaking of sensitive material.

A different contribution:
“Cap, when reading the current news items, I despair and am amazed how you can stay on an even keel with your blog.
“We hear the CV virus is still rampant and yet there seems to be very little effort made nationally to curb this dreadful illness.
“And now Cap I read of your BIC’s latest assertion to notoriety. Am I being damned disrespectful by suggesting that you need to replace that man now, not in 2021 but now.”
My response:
            No, no!  You’ve definitely not overstepped.  I’m just saturated reading more Supreme Court cases—two regarding the BIC’s infamous tax returns.  You were NOT over the top on yesterday’s contribution; I was just slow on the uptake.
            It really gets to us over here as well.  We inflicted this idiot on the whole world.  That is extraordinarily sad and regrettable; our friends must suffer for what we’ve done.  He has so badly botched the pandemic response non-effort that 133,000 people died needlessly because of his ineptitude, and I dare say we (Americans) have set the worst, i.e., the greatest negative, example for the entire world.  Brazil is striving mightily with their own inept version of the BIC to surpass the United States in infamy.  This man is embarrassing, despicable, disgusting, and otherwise contemptible.
            For 70 days he denied there was a problem.  Then, when the physical infection data became undeniable, he declared a national emergency and himself a wartime president, and worse, in the middle of the mortal battle, he up and declared victory, everything is over, nothing to see here folks, everybody go back to work.  Of course, regardless of whatever the cretin says, with such idiocy, what happens?  The infections skyrocket worse than at any time since the beginning of the pandemic.  Sadly, the folks that have swallow the man’s worthless snake-oil are trying to deny the pandemic even exists . . . as droves of citizens die from acute respiratory failure.
            The viral infection is bad, really bad, but to me, what is far worse is the outright insanity of the man chosen to lead us in dangerous times.  He has graphically demonstrated his incompetence, e.g., injecting disinfectant, slow down testing, testing makes our infection rate go up, no problems . . . kids go back to school, ad infinitum ad nauseum.  This whole predicament is so far beyond reprehensible that there is no word to describe our dreadful state.
            My worst personal fears have come to fruition as a consequence of the above.  Our ICU treatment capacity in Phoenix is saturated.  We (Jeanne and I) have been successful in defending ourselves from the virus.  Now, we must pray nothing serious happens to us during the pandemic until we can make it out the other side of this situation—one way or the other.
            I’ve read one of the tax rulings regarding the BIC and working on the other.  I hope to have them done for this week’s Update edition.  The BBC accurately reported on the rulings and the BIC’s response.  Yet, the question remains, will he suffer the consequences?  That point remains open for debate.
            No, you are definitely not being disrespectful.  You are being honest and forthright.  I wish we could be rid of him today, but alas that is not going to happen.  His malignant narcissism will not allow him to admit defeat like Nixon had the bollocks to do 46 years ago.  The BIC will force us to ride this out to the end however and whenever that comes.
 . . . follow-up comment:
“I was going to say jump on a jet plane flying NE, we’ll collect you from Heathrow.  Our village is clear, our hospital is running quite normally, our glorious county hasn’t lost a solitary individual for weeks.  But we take all the precautions required. Tomorrow we have a 90-year-old friend staying for a hot chocolate.  We sit outside with no hugging or hand shaking but we meet!  She was a WW2 youngster in London so we have plenty to discuss.
“My comments of yesterday-well I do feel that as a Brit I have no right to make such disrespectful remarks about your leader, so I’m very pleased to hear I haven’t disrupted our empathy.
“Pack your bags!”
 . . . my follow-up response:
            What a delightful suggestion.  It would be a welcome break from the nonsense we have to deal with here in the colonies.  We clearly have a significant segment of our communities who refuse to take precautions . . . and the result is, an exploding infection rate.  Surprise, surprise!
            Your visitor was old enough to be quite aware of what was happening around her.  She may have been shipped off to the countryside as part of Operation PIED PIPER.  I’ll bet she has plenty of stories.  She may have been aware of the contrails above her head during the day, The Blitz, the build-up of Allied forces (Operation BOLERO), the V-1 & V-2 attacks, and of course VE Day when she was 15yo.  Enjoy the visit, my friend.
            Quite the contrary, you have every right.  What this buffoon is doing affects so many people, perhaps not directly for you and your countrymen, but indirectly at the very least.  He is the modern-day Nero playing away on his fiddle while Rome burns.  I have always and will continue to encourage your comments as you see them.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap                  :-)

06 July 2020

Update no.964

Update from the Sunland
No.964
29.6.20 – 5.7.20
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            Independence Day occurred on Saturday this year.  History records 1816 as the year without summer after the cataclysmic eruption of Mount Tambora in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) [10.4.1815].  We are living history as it seems certain history will record 2020 as the lost year, the year of COVID19, and a year worldwide without normality.  As we have done for decades, we read the Declaration of Independence—lest we ever forget.  This year it was my turn to read our founding document.  I have no idea how many times I have read the document in toto, word-for-word, and yet it never fails to bring tears to my eyes and choke me up.  Oh my . . . those glorious words.  It was only me reading to Jeanne and the dogs, but they were a worthy, attentive, and respectful audience.  We cooked up some amazingly delightful ribs for dinner—yum yum.  For the first time in my lifetime (excluding years when I was outside of the country on the day), we had no local fireworks to celebrate that special day 244 years ago, when we were compelled to “dissolve the Political Bands which have connected” us to our Motherland.

            On Thursday morning, after we took the dogs for a walky-walk, I was floating in the pool cooling off and relaxing when the distinct sound of something big caused me to stand up.  There overhead was a B-17 Flying Fortress followed by a B-25 Mitchell bomber.  My imagination immediately went to what it must have been like as hundreds of the aircraft just like those flew away from England toward targets in Germany, nearly 80 years ago.  The two aircraft are based at Falcon Field, Mesa, Arizona, as part of the Commemorative Air Force collection.  I do not know but I surmise they were headed off to some Independence Day weekend air show or aviation event.  They are magnificent flying machines with a melodious sound.

            The follow-up news items:
-- The European Union (EU) will be opening its borders as they have the COVID19 crisis [946] under control.  They are restricting access to those countries that meet the EU requirements:
1. number of new COVID-19 cases over the last 14 days and per 100,000 inhabitants close to or below the EU average,
2.  stable or decreasing trend of new cases over the previous 14 days, and
3. overall response to COVID-19 situation taking into account the available information, including as testing, surveillance, contact tracing, containment, treatment and reporting, as well as the reliability of the information and, if needed, the total average score for International Health Regulations (IHR).
The EU published that 15 nations qualified to their requirements; the United States is not on the approved list, having failed on all three requirements.  The PRC is on the list (with the proviso of reciprocity, not yet agreed to with the EU).
-- In his ruling late Tuesday [30.6.2020] in the case known as CAIR Coalition et al. v. Trump, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly of Washington, D.C., ruled that the asylum ban [859] violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, with governs the nation's immigration system.  The Bully-in Chief (BIC) is incapable of learning any lesson, so this case will undoubtedly be heading to the Circuit Court of Appeals and ultimately the Supreme Court, although pending cases on the BIC’s financial records may offer illumination as the potential outcome of this appeal.

            Moves are afoot in Congress to amend the pending national defense authorization act for FY2021 to remove anything remotely associated with the Confederacy from Defense Department buildings, properties, personnel, and organizations.  Further, military.com reported that Senator Warren intends to offer an amendment (I could not independently verify yet) to the bill revoking the medals of honor awarded to soldiers of the 7th Cavalry for combat valor during the Battle of Wounded Knee (AKA the Wounded Knee Massacre).  If true, the effort is outright wrong, period, full stop!  If Warren wants to condemn someone for what happened at Wounded Knee, South Dakota, on 29.December.1890, go after the politicians who sent those troops into combat.  Those soldiers are not the culprits.  Stop punishing and insulting the military for what the politicians did.  Basta!  Enough already!

            We have begun to see a segment of our society accuse the Black Lives Matter (BLM) Movement of being infiltrated and dominated by Marxists, Communists, of being associated with Antifa, of being a terrorist organization, and any other moniker commonly used by the right-wing, social conservative tribe in our society.  In many related discussions, I usually say, so what.  Is our democracy so fragile that we cannot tolerate or embrace contrarian voices? But, that is not the point of this paragraph.  One question has become recurrent in percolating into my consciousness.  Is there or can there be reverse racism?  Can American citizens with dark skin pigmentation have racist thoughts or act in racist ways?
            Racism is often or usually defined as “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”  That definition should be sufficient for this topic and discussion.  Each of us has a right under our freedom of choice to utilize any one or combination of the social factors as relevant in our private lives.  As a reminder, I define the social factors as: age, gender, race, skin pigmentation, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, economic status, education, political affiliation, marital status (provided that the applicant has the capacity to enter into a binding contract), or disability.  What far too many citizens fail to remember, acknowledge, or apply is the social factors have no place in the public domain or in public conduct.  Discrimination on the basis of race or skin pigmentation in the public domain is wrong.  It has been since the creation of this Grand Republic, although it took us 100 years and a bloody Civil War to recognize that reality, and another 100 years to enforce it within the jurisdiction of the United States.

            The BIC suffered yet another setback from the Judicial Branch, this particular time at the hands of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals—Sierra Club v. Trump [9CCA Nos. 19-16102 19-16300 (2020); D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00892- HSG].  The court decided the Appellants would likely suffer irreparable harm if the USG’s border wall proceeded and thus had standing in the case.  The arguments provided by the court are really thin.  The three-judge panel decided 2-1 that the BIC could not transfer Defense Department funds for building his bloody border wall.  Assuming this case will be appealed to the Supreme Court, I suspect the Supremes will likely reject the injury claims as insufficient to override the USG’s national security and immigration control objectives for the common good.  I have no idea why the BIC is playing games with the separation of powers principles when he told us emphatically that Mexico was going to pay for his wall.  He promised us.  What happened to his promise?

            The legal gymnastics continue this week when the Supreme Court issued yet another controversial ruling.  ‘Tis the season!  This latest ruling dealt with another third-rail issue—abortion.  The ruling is simply the latest in a long running sequence of judicial rulings since Louisiana passed Act 620 in 2014, requiring admitting privileges at a local hospital less than 30 minutes from their clinic.  The latest ruling in this string is June Medical Services v. Russo [591 U.S. ___ (2020); No. 18–1323].  The Court decided 5-4 to declare the Louisiana law was unconstitutional.  The judicial argument in this case hung upon the interpretation of Article III standing, jurisdiction, interpretation of “promoting women’s health and safety,” among other judicial process issues.  Beyond the legal machinations, the essence of the challenge, as it did in a nearly identical Texas case—Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt [579 U.S. ___ (2016)]—hangs upon the assessment that admitting privileges may be appropriate, but there was not a good faith effort to utilize that regulation tool.  Some hospitals in Louisiana prohibited issuing admitting privileges to abortion providers.  Some refused to recognize qualified physicians.  The chief justice delivered the deciding vote in the 5-4 decision with the heart of his “concurring in the judgment” separate opinion based on his invocation of stare decisis (“to stand by things decided”), a principle of the law that dates back to 1765 (Blackstone Commentaries §3-69) and Black’s Law Dictionary (1891; 4th ed., p.1577 [1968]).  Oddly, Roberts dissented in Whole Woman’s Health but chose to join with Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan to produce the plurality decision.  Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh each wrote a dissenting opinion with the dissenters only joining in Alito’s dissenting opinion.  The most disquieting opinion came from Justice Thomas.  He observed, “This Court created the right to abortion based on an amorphous, unwritten right to privacy, which it grounded in the ‘legal fiction’ of substantive due process, McDonald v. Chicago [561 U. S. 742, 811 (2010)] (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).”  In simple terms, he argues that neither the word nor the principle of “abortion” or “privacy” appear anywhere in the Constitution or the supporting documents, and thus are beyond federal judicial jurisdiction.  Thomas quoted Justice Black’s dissent, “[T]his general ‘right of privacy’ was never before considered a constitutional guarantee protecting citizens from governmental intrusion”—Griswold v. Connecticut [381 U.S. 479 (1965)] [166189323].  Justice Thomas is, of course, correct in that the words “abortion” and “privacy” do not appear in the Constitution.  He wants us to believe that the notion of a citizen’s right to privacy is a comparatively new judicial creation stemming from Griswold and used as the central pillar in Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] [319]—thus, his point of attack.
            I have long argued that these abortion decisions transcend and exceed the prima facie matter.  Abortion is simply the catalyst for a chemical (emotional) reaction.  When you distill rulings like June, you see the fundamental and perhaps diametric perspectives of the law.  One comes at the law as a federalist instrument, while the other approaches the law from the people perspective—We, the People.  The restrictions upon providers of women’s services are yet one more mighty effort at moral projection by conservative forces within our society.  If there was no demand, there would be no abortions.  Instead of focusing on the underlying causal factors, the moral projectionists attack the most vulnerable locus in the entire process.  They seek to impose their will to deny safe, regulated, and efficient providing of services under demand.  By their standing arguments, the dissent seeks to expose the private lives and choices of women to the rigors of judicial and public scrutiny, using yet another form of societal intimidation to discourage any woman from seeking abortion services.  Requiring doctors to have admitting privileges is a higher standard.  The Court seems to accept that requiring admitting privileges is appropriate.  The question I ask is, do other doctors—general practitioners, dermatologists, gastroenterologists, et al—have to maintain admitting privileges?  If not, why are physicians who provide women’s services required to have them?  The state appears to have abdicated its responsibility to the less scrutinized private sector to thwart providers of women’s health services.  Put into more narrative terms, the state seeks to pass regulation responsibility to the private sector, i.e., hospital admitting privileges, and then when hospitals refuse to issue those admitting privileges for political reasons, the state throws up its hands and says oh well, not our problem; we did our job.  I have felt this admitting privileges approach was highly suspect from the get-go.
            The privacy element is far more impactful to all of goes far beyond the abortion question.  The root of the matter is every citizen’s privacy.  Breaking down a citizen’s fundamental to privacy is the foundational corner stone to all of the moral projection laws that the social conservatives love to impose on everyone.  Without privacy, there is no bulwark against the intrusion of government in our private lives.  It would have been nice and exceptionally useful if the Founders/Framers had at least expounded in a Federalist paper or some other expository document what they believed about privacy.  If we listen to Justice Thomas, there is no such thing as privacy under the Constitution or the founding documents.  Therefore, privacy is not an issue within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court.  He has never (to my knowledge) expounded upon whether he believes privacy exists, and if so, where does it exist.  However, privacy was a rather distant concept in the late 18th Century.  There are obtuse hints like Blackstone’s Commentaries [e.g., individual private rights (1-1-139 [176]); every man’s house is his castle (3-19-288 [236], 4-16-223 [579]) {1765-69}].  The first reference to a citizen’s right to privacy appears in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford[141 U.S. 250 (1891); 25.May.1891][507].  Samuel Dennis Warren and Louis Dembitz Brandeis articulated the privacy concept in their article titled: “The Right to Privacy” 4 Harvard Law Review, p.193, 15.December.1890.  Without a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, there is no limit to what any government entity is capable of imposing upon our private lives and freedom of choice.  Every citizen, whether they know it or not, should be deeply concerned about the court’s view and treatment of our privacy.
            The Supreme Court made the correct and proper decision in June Medical Services.  Louisiana’s Act 620 is unconstitutional and deserved to be struck down.  None of us should be under any illusion that this matter is done and settled.  The moral projectionists are a relentless bunch, who are intent upon imposing their choices on every single citizen.  Thomas was the only justice who raised the privacy aspect in June Medical Services, but the consequences of the four dissenters is the same.  We must remain vigilant and resolute.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.963:
Comment to the Blog:
“I understand that you’re permanently offended with Agent Orange.  Many of us share that.  My phrase for this week’s trait we both find so offensive is “aggressively ignorant.”  However, it’s no surprise.
“I have no desire to erect or keep statues of military or government figures defeated by the United States military.  We teach in schools and museums about many of them, from John Burgoyne to Tojo, but we do not create monuments to any of them.  We should also strongly discourage any of their followers remaining from ever imagining they could rise again.
“About our discussion last week of the Southwest: my first choice of places to live there would be Tucson, Arizona, and second would be Las Cruces, New Mexico.  Both of those and many other cities are currently affected by wildfire smoke.  Hence, my concern about my lungs if I lived in one of those areas.  Sad to say, that’s not unusual.”
My response to the Blog:
            Aggressively ignorant . . . seems quite apropos.  Agent Orange was aggressively ignorant in the wallow of his malignant narcissism.  Indeed, no surprise and quite predictable given the nature of his affliction.
            So, on this bent to obliterate history, how far back do we go?  There are sins against humanity going back millennia, as far back as the beginning of recorded history.  How far back do we go to erase history?  I guess I’m just on the wrong side of this issue.
            I would encourage you to be not so hard on the Southwest.  Wildfires and smoke from wildfires are not as common as it may seem.  You must make decisions that are best for you.  Good luck.
 . . . Round two:
“Nobody proposes to ‘obliterate history.’  We still teach all of that.  We just don't honor those who attacked us.  There's a difference.
“It doesn't take much smoke (or other particulate air pollution) to trigger my lungs.  I watch weather sources, and they present maps of the smoke and the fires.  My statement stands.  I loved Tucson in the two months I lived there, but I still have to take reasonable precautions about my health and well-being.”
 . . . my response to round two:
            Perhaps not, but that is how is seems to me.  To be frank, I learned more about Woodrow Wilson than I knew prior to this dust-up.  His racism was more overt than most history books record.  I have known about Churchill’s racist thoughts for decades and written about them, but his public display was far less overt.
            Absolutely, you must do what is best for you.  I’m just saying that we lived in Arizona for 10 years the first time plus two more years this time, so far; we have yet to detect any smoke around us . . . dust a few times . . . but no smoke.  During the Bush fire (which has been extinguished), we could see the smoke, but it never affected us.  I’m just sayin’.

Another contribution:
“My God- the news coming from your side is depressing-the effects of this damned virus and your least favourite individual become worse by the day. We see a lot of these in the ‘excerpts’ published from newspapers, there is never a good word, as a consequence your BIC has few friends this side.”
My reply:
            Yes, the situation with our vaunted Oh So Great Orange One continues to worsen.  I am afraid it will continue to do so until he is relegated to the dustbin of history.  I’m amazed he has any friends across the pond.  The BIC has not treated our long-time friends with respect, dignity, or honor.  He is a despicable human being.  On the positive side, he is a temporary occupant of the Oval Office; he will be gone one day (hopefully, he will go in January).

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap                  :-)