Update no.1014

Update from the Sunland

No.1014

14.6.21 – 20.6.21

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

 

            To all,

 

I trust everyone celebrated a most enjoyable Summer Solstice. It was a bit toasty for us in the Valley of the Sun, but hey, the pool works great for relief.

 

            The follow-up news items:

-- President Biden’s European summit tour [1013] continued. On Wednesday, 16.June.2021, President Biden met with Russian President Vladimir Putin at Villa la Grange in Geneva, Switzerland. The content of their discussions remains secret. Each leader held a separate news conference after their four-hour meeting. The president was very clear regarding his expectations; “The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.” He anticipated that it would be four to six months before we would see any changes in the behavior of the Russian government and Putin. Biden did get a bit snippy with a question of one journalist and wound-up apologizing to the reporter for his curtness. All in all, I appreciated his measured statement and responses.

If anyone might be curious about why I could not and did not vote for the [person who shall no longer be named (either time)], you have but to compare Wednesday’s news conference with the post-summit joint press conference with President Putin and the [person who shall no longer be named] after their Helsinki Conference (16.July.2018) [863/4].

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwxqOoIyWm0

 

The notion of bipartisanship in Congress for members of the Bully In Chief Party (BICP) [former Republican Party] is simply saying:

Bipartisanship great. Do what I want. Do it my way. Easy. Settled. Ain’t bipartisanship grand.

But even that lopsided stance is not enough. The BICP jointly participated in framing and writing several bipartisan legislative bills, and then they vote against the very bill they helped draft with compromises to gain their support. I am quickly coming to the threshold of congratulating and thanking President Biden and the congressional Democrats for extending their hands to the BICP. You tried valiantly, but no need to continue being bitten for your efforts with no progress. The BICP wants division, so be it.

 

President Biden signed into law the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act [PL 117-017; S.475; House: 415-14-0-2(4); Senate: unanimous consent); 135 Stat. xxx] that establishes Juneteenth as a national holiday for federal employees. This was the first new national holiday since Martin Luther King Day in 1983, and long overdue I might add. For those who may not know the history, please allow me a short primer.

On Monday, 22.September.1862, President Lincoln signed Proclamation 95 that became known as the Emancipation Proclamation, taking effect on Thursday, 1.January.1863, freeing everyone held in slavery. When the Civil War was concluded, Major General Gordon Granger, USA, was given command of the District of Texas, United States Forces, for the occupation and reconstruction of the Confederate States. He quickly determined that news of the emancipation had not reached Texas. On Monday, 19.June.1865, General Granger issued General Order No.3 from his headquarters in Galveston, Texas. The order stated that former slaves had “absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property.” The slaves of Texas were the last to be freed. The former slaves celebrated the day of their freedom as Juneteenth.

This republic celebrates Independence Day (4.July.1776) when our forefathers declared, “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.” While some among us may rationalize that Juneteenth (19.June.1865) may apply to only citizens with dark skin pigmentation, and perhaps others will see the day as only applicable to former slaves in Texas, I think Congress and the president got it spot on correct. Juneteenth is the day when all American citizens were finally informed they were free. We should all rejoice in freedom.

 

The [person who shall no longer be named], the BICP, and all their supporters, believers, sycophants, and minions got quite the shock on Thursday, 17.June.2021. The U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of California v. Texas [592 U. S. ____ (2021); No. 19–840]—the latest and perhaps last challenge to the PPACA (23.3.2010) [432]. The 7-2 decision had two of the three justices nominated by the previous president voting in favor of sustaining the PPACA. The Supremes reversed and remanded the appeal of the 5^th Circuit’s ruling thus allowing the PPACA to stand. I hope that eventually the BICP will abandon their nonsense, and Congress will get on with improving the PPACA rather than trying to kill it by neglect or a thousand cuts.

 

When I ask citizens who voted for the [person who shall no longer be named] why they voted for such an obviously and deeply flawed man, I commonly hear answers like: “He was the Republican candidate,” or “I could never vote for a Democrat,” or “I’ve always voted Republican.” What I think when I hear reasons like those is, you care more about your political party affiliation than you do about the country. Please do not misunderstand me, there are blindly loyal Democrats who say and do exactly the same thing from the opposite direction. The difference in this particular instance rests upon the reality the Democrats have never presented an egocentric, malignantly narcissistic, con man even remotely comparable to the [person who shall no longer be named]. For the last 40 years, I have freely labeled Jimmy Carter as the worst president in American history for a host of reasons. Carter was and is a very good man, and an exemplary human being, but he was a lousy president. To put a fine point on it, if Jimmy Carter had run against the [person who shall no longer be named], I would not have hesitated in the slightest to vote for Carter. I no longer consider Jimmy Carter the worst president after the disastrous conduct and behavior of the [person who shall no longer be named] over the last nearly six years.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.1013:

Comment to the Blog:

“I’ll skip analyzing the California pro-weapons decision except to point out the usual misinterpretation of the 2^ndAmendment. Also, as far as I know, firearms are not addictive in the sense that alcohol and many other chemical compounds are.

“The notion that citizens with small arms could somehow overturn a tyrannical (or other) United States Government is utterly ridiculous today. Also, the people advocating the small arms are mostly seeking a more tyrannical government.

“In your discussion of Houston Methodist Hospital, you make the outrageous claim that ‘the hospital is not forcing anyone to take a vaccine they do not want to take.’ Their alternative is losing their job, so yes, they are forcing people to take a vaccine.”

My response to the Blog:

I would not call the Miller v. Bonta ruling a “pro-weapons” decision. It was a judge’s attempt to provide a balanced decision in accordance with the Constitution. But, I suppose that is quibbling.

Agreed, firearms are not addictive.

OK. I won’t argue that point.

I do not agree with the association of firearm advocates and seeking tyrannical government. Some yes, but not as a general observation. We cannot vilify an entire segment of our citizenry.

Forcing anyone to take the vaccine is strapping them down and injecting them despite their refusal. No one has ever been “forced” to take the vaccine. Employment is a privilege, not a right. I understand the attraction of claiming “forced,” but that is not consistent with the language or reality. Like so many dilemmas during the pandemic period, there is a difference between our emotional response and the precision of the language. Every nurse employee is free to choose what matters to them. Further, the conflict between individual rights and the common good remains a challenge for us all. I imagine the Bridges ruling will be appealed. However, my rudimentary understanding the Supreme Court interpretation of employment law is not in Jennifer Bridges favor.

Round two:

“From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forced

Definition of forced

1 : compelled by force or necessity : involuntary a forced landing

“I think if we include ‘necessity,’ we can count the threat to employment as ‘forced’ vaccination. Let's not kid ourselves, work is a necessity, and being fired pretty much stops one from going elsewhere.”

 . . . my response to round two:

I understand the definition of the word “forced.” I would not choose that word in this instance. I do agree that necessity should be included. However, I do not agree that the employment of those nurses at Houston Methodist Hospital qualifies as a necessity. They can find nursing employment anywhere else they choose.

I might say here, I worked my entire life from teenage to retirement under that axiom of employment—carry out my orders to the best of my ability or resign. I did not have an option to refuse, resist, object, or defy my orders. Like me, those nurses have no “right” to those jobs. Yes, to them, employment is a necessity, but employment at Houston Methodist Hospital is not, since there are other nursing jobs available in virtually any city, town, or village they may choose.

 . . . Round three:

“Ever been fired? Those people cannot ‘work anywhere else they choose.’ I'm sad for you if blind obedience is the only approach to work that you know.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Technically, no, but I have been laid off—same consequence. We shall respectfully disagree on the mobility of nurses. I am grateful for your sadness for me; I certainly do not feel that way or worthy. What I described is a long way from “blind obedience.” I always had choices; no one stood in the way of those choices. I just respected my employers (well, the position of the employer).  [Once, I could no longer respect the man who had been chosen to be my boss; I resigned.] Once again, we have no “right” to employment; it is a privilege we must constantly judge. We have no “right” to direct the employer how s/he should run the business they are responsible for running. If we cannot support the employer’s decisions and direction, we should leave.

 

Another contribution:

“Thanks for the thorough history lesson on the 2^nd amendment. It does give context to the entire conversation.

“I do agree with you that an entire collective should not be punished due to a few bad apples. But I have to question at what price?

“Is there a price too large to prohibit society from a ‘right’?

“I guess I put a lot of emphasis on this thing we call life and to me, that price outweighs an individual’s ‘need’ for a gun.

“And yes, they would be appalled if they could see today’s outcome of their decision. As they should be because we really do suck as a civilization. We fought each other from day 1. And that will never stop.”

My reply:

I do try to look at both sides of every issue. Things are rarely black & white, but rather somewhere on the infinite spectrum of shades of gray.

A very good question. I do not have the answer. We need some balance. When we start taking away rights based on our emotions, we head down a very dangerous path. Who decides? How far do we go? What is enough? Freedom can often be very ugly. One person’s choice is another person’s condemnation. The manuscript I just sent off to the publisher is about that very topic—every citizen’s freedom of choice and right to privacy. The answer to your question lies in focusing on the essential elements and the root causes. Unfortunately, in this country, we always look for the easiest, brute force path, e.g., Prohibition, “war on drugs,” and now gun control. We like to use a nuclear weapon to swat a fly.

So, let me ask you, if you owned an AR-15, would you be tempted to kill someone or group of someones? It is a rhetorical question. I know the answer. You choose not to possess an AR-15. I see no reason to own one either. I was trained to use an M-16 (a fully automatic true assault rifle); I qualified as an expert marksman with that weapon. I know how to use the weapon, and I know how to kill with the weapon. The vast majority—in the 90%+ range—would answer and act just like you and me.

IMHO, the majority, if not all, of those who choose to use those weapons to kill have some degree of mental illness. We choose not to identify and treat their mental illness. Instead, we seek the easy path—prohibit a class of firearms for ALL citizens. Such a prohibition does not affect you and me, because we have chosen not to own such weapons. But, I am quite resistant to prohibition, especially when we refuse to address the root cause(s).

Concomitantly, I am not keen on giving the government, at any level, more authority without serious checks & balances to prevent overzealous politicians, agents and regulators from abusing any new authority. The “war on drugs” started with the Controlled Substances Act. That direct law has mutated into confiscation of property without due process, untold killing and abuse of sovereignty, destruction of entire countries, unchecked asylum migration at our borders, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum. So, to me, this is NOT about a simple prohibition of a class of firearms. That is exactly what I thought when CSA was passed in 1970. I was dreadfully wrong 50 years ago. I do not want to be wrong again.

I want to see a balanced approach to at least make an attempt at addressing the root causes. Until then I shall resist.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)