Update no.1030

Update from the Sunland

No.1030

4.10.21 – 10.10.21

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

 

            To all,

 

In the on-going struggle with facts in this country, an anti-vaxxer from a different network submitted the following article as for (her/his) claim and accusation that the U.S. Government was forcefully administering the COVID-19 vaccine to citizens against their will.

“Scots care home resident ‘held down and vaccinated against her will’ as two workers suspended – The Care Inspectorate warned that unless there is marked improvement at Millport Care Centre it will cancel the home’s registration.”

by Vivienne Aitken, Health & Education Editor

The Daily Record

Published: 04:30, 19 APR 2021; UPDATED: 12:57, 19 APR 2021

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-care-home-resident-held-23937350?fbclid=IwAR3O3oeMzSehX8SGuvs6lbY-fbaoagoA1dmAD7N-h3Xm9GdgJL8tloB_j9k

Beyond the fact that the cited incident was one instance and it occurred in Millport, Isle of Cumbrae, Scotland, United Kingdom, the proponent sought to use the episode as justification for resisting the U.S. Government (USG) efforts to break the chain of infection by getting all citizens vaccinated. My response to the above article was, those health care workers violated the law and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. To me, what occurred in Millport, Scotland, was a crime. Those care workers had no authority to administer the vaccine against the person’s will and choice. I will resist the quantum leap of extending this incident to the UK or the U.S. as even remotely indicative. This is exactly why I have been so sticky regarding our language related to the pandemic response. Both sides use exaggerated words, often without facts, or they select a fact to rationalize their pre-conceived position. This is the legacy of the [person who shall no longer be named]—everything is fake news; only he speaks the truth; listen to only him—Big Brother in the flesh. It will take several generations to repair the damage he has inflicted upon this once grand republic.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.1029:

Comment to the Blog:

“Senators Manchin and Sinema as well as conservative Democrats in the House are supported by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) so that the DNC can continue to ‘lose’ on policy initiatives that their base and the majority of voters support. That's how the owners of the major parties want it. 

“Cap, the vaccine is mandatory for many, with the full support of the government. Job loss is coercive regardless of what you say. I'm vaccinated myself, but the implementation is every bit as clumsy under Biden as it would've been under the Chump. 

“I use Wikipedia often, although it's not a formal academic source. I donate to Wikipedia and I recommend any user to do the same. 

“The fact that history is indeed replete with pork-barrel spending doesn't justify it, nor does ‘everybody does it.’ Perhaps the ‘good folks’ (if any) in Congress could grab some of the Defense pork barrel spending for other purposes that would benefit their districts more. There's plenty of need. In fact, some of that need is in the DNC budget proposals.”

My response to the Blog:

That is a rather cynical perspective. I cannot refute your hypothesis, since I am not in the DNC and certainly not in the policy presidium of the DNC. Thus, the best I can say is, you are entitled to your opinion for whatever reasons you wish.

We shall respectfully disagree. Mandatory means being restrained and forcefully vaccinated against your will. The USG & Press are wrong to use that word in the context they are using it. From another network, a contributor quoted a British source that reported a woman in Scotland being forcefully restrained and vaccinated against her will. The two health workers were suspended and may be prosecuted. If true, that was mandatory administration. To my knowledge, all Americans of any status always have a choice: 1.) take the vaccine, or 2.) find other employment. That is not mandatory application; that is choice.

Likewise, I use Wikipedia as my starting point when available. Their articles are usually accurately sourced, which I validate and corroborate. I do not cite Wikipedia itself as a definitive source.

You are absolutely correct. I was only offering an observation, not justification or rationale. I am all for that. But, it is like an addiction that must be broken. Yes, absolutely, there is myriad good causes to fund other projects rather than defense pork projects. The Build Back Better (BBB) bill is a good example. We’ve had enough right-wing spending for a while. Let us try some left-wing spending. The fBICP spending resistance is a fallacious and spurious effort. The fBICP has no problem spending money they never had on their stuff. I am good with Congress and President Biden having their turn. I urge Congress to get the Infrastructure and BBB bills passed ASAP. To me, the BBB bill is far better than that damnable wall or tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.

 . . . Round two:

“From Merriam-Webster:

“Definition of mandatory

“(Entry 1 of 2)

“1 : required by a law or rule: obligatory the mandatory retirement age 

“Let's not play word games. This particular rule is enforced by loss of employment, which is a very serious situation, especially because no comparable job will be available.”

 . . . my response to round two:

I am not playing word games. I am trying to be precise with my word choice. Employment is not a right. I worked my entire life “serving at the pleasure of . . .” I had to perform my assigned tasks to the level demanded (required) by my employer. That was true in both military and commercial jobs. I do not buy the loss of employment argument. Nurses are nurses throughout the country and the world for that matter; nurses are always in high demand. Employers have every right under law to require certain specified conditions of employment. Vaccination is NOT mandatory. People have a choice. There are always consequences to the choices we make. One of those is, “go find employment elsewhere.” I have little empathy for those who choose to reject the vaccine and remain a fertile potential host for a highly infectious virus. Those so inclined are endangering all of us since they are enabling the virus to mutate.

 . . . Round three:

“More word games. ‘Privilege’ or not, the threat of unemployment is coercive.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Of course, it is. That is the whole point. Organizations, corporations, agencies and any grouping of human beings are struggling to protect their employees, their associations, their businesses, from illness, incapacitation, and potentially death. The COVID-19 virus remains a serious threat to the health and well-being of all citizens and the public domain. We have tried other gentler inducements with limited success. The flat, hard, cold reality is the un-vaccinated remain a serious threat to all of us. I suspect “loss of employment” is not going to be the most severe inducement we shall see before we are done.

 . . . Round four:

“This has reached the point where I cannot even find your last reply. Enough”

 . . . my response to round four:

I am not sure what that implies, but enough is sufficient.

 

Another contribution:

“Found this in the lap top this morning.

“What the hell is going on here Cap we’ve been seeing articles on this subject for weeks now.

“It looks more like a war between the law courts than those affected by this. Can’t it be finally sorted?

“https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58853859

[The article is:]

“Texas abortion: U.S. appeals court reinstates near total ban”

BBC News

Published: circa [03:30 [T] MST; Saturday, 9.Sep.2021]

My reply:

Democracy is like sausage-making—the result tastes great but you do not want to watch the production process.

I am not sure how deep you wish to drill down with this topic, so I shall leave that decision to your curiosity. The emotional public subject of abortion is simply the salient for this judicial conflict. The question illuminates the division between two major factions of constitutional jurisprudence—conservative versus liberal. The conservatives are generally strict constructionists, i.e., abortion or anything like it are not mentioned in the Constitution, therefore, abortion is not a constitutional or federal matter. The liberal faction views the Constitution as a living document greater than just words on paper. Taken to the next level, this translates into whether there are unalienable rights beyond the Constitution, e.g., the fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice (neither of which are addressed in the Constitution). At the next level below that rests the U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973); 22.1.1973] [319]. The popular notion exists that Roe established the constitutional right to abortion. The conservatives have long proclaimed Roe was improperly decided and must be overturned. So to conclude this little treatise, the question of Roe is far greater than abortion. I fear (truly) that the conservatives on the Court are finally going to do what they set out to do 50 years ago. There ya go; that is the short version.

 . . . Round two:

“Here’s some more reading for you young man….Biden v Trump-it goes on.

“https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/08/biden-overrules-trump-white-house-files-6-january-panel

[The article is:]

“Biden overrules Trump effort to keep White House files from 6 January panel – The National Archives told to give documents to House committee despite ex-president’s attempt assert executive privilege”

by David Smith in Washington

The Guardian

Published: Fri 8 Oct 2021; 18.07 EDT

 . . . my reply to round two:

Yep, accurate. The [person who shall no longer be named] has once again been given bad legal advice or more likely chose to ignore proper legal advice. “Executive Privilege” is a bona fide principle to protect the Office of the President and separation of powers. The principle does not extend to the human being elected to perform the duties of the Office of the President. This effort by the [person who shall no longer be named] is at best a blatant attempt to delay the work of the January 6^th Commission. President Biden took the correct action.

 . . . Round three:

“Cap, yes judicial conflict sums it up conclusively. That’s precisely why I asked the question why have two views in law-the law is the law and there should be only one view on the one law…but it isn’t like that is it Cap.”

 . . . my reply to round three:

Yes, you would think that is true—the law is the law. However, as a former president told us, “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” With that kind of obfuscation, it should be no surprise that lawyers will try anything with words.

 . . . Round four:

“Simple question-‘Why make laws that are for the nation’s good by the governing body’ if these laws can be ignored at will. Sounds a simple question Cap! Shall I send Boris over to sort this out for you? He’s taking a week off so he will be available for a small fee and we need lots of those this side of the pond.”

 . . . my reply to round four:

Valid question. Freedom is not always attractive. We have a long history of resisting laws we do not agree with, i.e., Duties in American Colonies Act 1765 (AKA Stamp Act of 1765) [5 Geo. III, c. 12]. Another good example is S.J.Res. 17 [40 Stat. 1050; 18.12.1917] that became the 18^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—alcohol prohibition.

The [person who shall no longer be named] figured out that he could amplify the Tea Party dissent into a national force, and he was successful. His perpetuation of the BIG LIE continues to this very moment, and it will most likely persist into the 2022 mid-term elections and possibly the 2024 presidential election. It will take several generations to expunge the forces he has unleashed. Millions of good American citizens have swallowed his magic snake-oil elixir, and they believe. That cannot be easily undone.

We may well bear witness to the degeneration of this once grand republic. Sad to say, but may well be true. Only time shall tell the tale.

Boris for president? Anything is worth a try. We are failing miserably.

 . . . Round five:

“Indeed you raise some historical events that underline the past occasions that could bring us to the conclusion that his modus operandi is the way to behave but it isn’t. We must all move on into a better future. No, I don’t believe it is an announcement of freedom, we cannot ignore that we, us humans, must lead a governed life, but we in general, fail to do exactly that. As a consequence we eventually reach a boiling point with in your case violent rally in Washington and our citizens attaching themselves with adhesives to block major roads.

“When will the human race learn to live a civilised life? Maybe never, subsequently it will be our doom.

“Sorry to be so gloomy, I’ll try better next time…but we do live in melancholy times.”

 . . . my reply to round five:

Yes, exactly. Most mature democracies recognize and acknowledge that we “must lead a governed life.” Unfortunately, there are minority factions that have been drawn out of the shadows in this country who believe freedom is no government—survival of the fittest. We have the [person who shall no longer be named] to thank for giving those minority factions a voice. Regulation is essential to the common good and peace in the public domain. He has done many bad things; that is but one. We can only hope that someday he is held to account.

In that context, your country is far more civilized than mine. Those anarchist factions within this once grand republic garner far too much attention because they are such a threat. Squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say. The problem we have is, those vocal factions are small minorities. The vast majority of American citizens are peaceful, law-abiding, productive citizens, but they do not get the press attention.

Be what you are, my friend—gloomy or not. Life is like that.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)