18 October 2021

Update no.1031

 Update from the Sunland

No.1031

11.10.21 – 17.10.21

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

 

            To all,

 

The latest New Shepard flight (NS-18) had been postponed one day due to winds above the launch thresholds. The spacecraft launched at 09:50 [S] CST {07:50 [T] MST}, Wednesday, 13.October.2021 on the NS-18 mission from Blue Origin’s Launch Site One in West Texas, near Van Horn, Texas. The passengers on this flight were:

* Dr. Christopher ‘Chris’ Boshuizen, Ph.D. (Physics)

* Glen de Vries – co-founder of Medidata Solutions

* William Shatner – actor, played Captain James Tiberius Kirk of the Star Trek franchise

* Audrey Powers – Vice President of Legal & Compliance for Blue Origin

The capsule climbed to 351,185 feet altitude at apogee and then descended to land safely in the West Texas desert 11 minutes later. Watching the booster land successfully to the target landing pad never ceases to amaze me—the mastery of physics, engineering, and mathematics.

 

I had the pleasure of watching another PBS Nova program, this one titled, “Arctic Drift” (S48 Ep15). The extraordinary science mission was dubbed MOSAiC – Multidisciplinary drifting Observation for the Study of Arctic Climate and was led by Germany’s Polar Institute. The RV Polarstern, a German research icebreaker vessel, provided home for a yearlong expedition. The crew drove the icebreaker nearly to the North Pole in search of a specific size and thickness of summer ice. They intentionally allowed the ship to be frozen in place for the Arctic winter. The science staff included a wide range of experts and specialists from 37 different countries. They deployed a vast array of instruments over a wide area of polar ice, taking measurements and samples continuously over the course of nearly a year, across all four seasons. They will be analyzing the data for years. I learned more than I can possibly recount. This is another highly recommended program.

 

            The follow-up news items:

-- A sad, hard, cold reality . . . 62% of all police fatalities last year were due to acute respiratory failure as a consequence of COVID-19 infection [946]. And still, some resist. And further, the fBICP believers shout—Fake News.

 

A firestorm exploded this week when a school district administrator in Texas tried to offer guidance and instruction to teachers regarding the implementation of recently enacted state laws. NBC News broadcast an illumination of the controversy. “Southlake school leader tells teachers to balance Holocaust books with 'opposing' views – Teachers in the Carroll school district say they fear being punished for stocking classrooms with books dealing with racism, slavery and now the Holocaust.”

by Mike Hixenbaugh and Antonia Hylton

NBC News

Published: Oct. 14, 2021, 12:00 PM MST / Updated Oct. 15, 2021, 2:46 AM MST

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/southlake-texas-holocaust-books-schools-rcna2965?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR0OKd4i1UbtRbtOcWCL_U7oJfUF5n6mX3f-9HPr-UkjOR0dm8L7KHAIbfQ

The spark that detonated the explosive was a recorded statement to teachers by Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction Ms. Gina Peddy of the Carroll Independent School District. She stated, “As you go through, just try to remember the concepts of 3979, and make sure that if you have a book on the Holocaust that you have one that has an opposing, that has other perspectives.” To which, a teacher asked, “How do you oppose the Holocaust?”

A salient question flashed into my little pea-brain. How could state law possibly specify or be interpreted in such a manner? As is my nature, I went to the law. I started the law at issue—Texas House Bill 3979. However, in my research, there was a progenitor law—Texas Senate Bill 3.

I acknowledge that what I am about to do is rather laborious, but it is so bloody important to this particular debate. Please bear with me. Texas S.B. No. 3 – AN ACT relating to the social studies curriculum in public schools was signed into state law by Governor Abbott of Texas on 2021-06-08. I had to include verbatim relevant parts of §2, (h-2), that deleted an interesting number of topics:

(C) (3)AAthe history of Native Americans;

 . . . 

(C) a commitment to free speech and civil discourse [, including the writings of:

[(i) George Washington;

[(ii) Ona Judge;

[(iii) Thomas Jefferson;

[(iv) Sally Hemings; and

[(v) any other founding persons of the United States;

[(F) writings from Frederick Douglass s newspaper, the North Star;

[(G) the Book of Negroes;

[(H) the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850;

[(I) the Indian Removal Act;

[(J) Thomas Jefferson s letter to the Danbury Baptists; and

[(K) William Still s Underground Railroad Records;

[(6) historical documents related to the civic accomplishments of marginalized populations, including documents related to:

[(A) the Chicano movement;

[(B) women s suffrage and equal rights;

[(C) the civil rights movement;

[(D) the Snyder Act of 1924; and

[(E) the American labor movement;

[(7) the history of white supremacy, including but not limited to the institution of slavery, the eugenics movement, and the Ku Klux Klan, and the ways in which it is morally wrong;

[(8) the history and importance of the civil rights movement, including the following documents:

[[(A) Martin Luther King Jr. s "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and "I Have a Dream" speech;

[(B) the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000a et seq.);

[(C) the United States Supreme Court s decision in Brown v. Board of Education;

[(D) the Emancipation Proclamation;

[(E) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

[(F) the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

[(G) the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in Mendez v. Westminster;

[(H) Frederick Douglass Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave;

[(I) the life and work of Cesar Chavez; and

[(J) the life and work of Dolores Huerta;

[(9) the history and importance of the women s suffrage movement, including the following documents:

[(A) the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Section 10101 et seq.);

[(B) the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

[(C) Abigail Adams s letter "Remember the Ladies";

[(D) the works of Susan B. Anthony; and

[(E) the Declaration of Sentiments;

[(10) the life and works of Dr.AHector P. Garcia;

[(11) the American GI Forum;

[(12) the League of United Latin American Citizens; and

[(13) Hernandez v. Texas (1954)].

Now, to be fair, perhaps, the Legislature was simply trying to clean up the law. After all, the listing of the above topics is not exclusive, and I suppose the implication could be derived that the listing was exclusive of other topics. Unfortunately, given the conduct and performance of the Texas governor and Legislature, I cannot be so generous or magnanimous. The optics of S.B.3 alone speaks volumes to me, and those thoughts are NOT positive.

Then, we have the instigating law; H.B. 3979 – AN ACT relating to civics instruction public school students and Instruction policies in public schools, signed into Texas state law by Governor Abbott just one week after S.B. 3 (2021-06-15). Included in H.B>3979 are:

(1) no teacher shall be compelled by a policy of any state agency, school district, campus, open-enrollment charter school, or school administration to discuss current events or widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs;

(2) teachers who choose to discuss current events or widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs shall, to the best of their ability, strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective; [emphasis mine]

Prima facie, the words of HB 3979 seem reasonable and logical. I believe we all want our children to be taught in a balanced, fair, knowledge-based manner. However, as with most laws, the question arises, who defines and how do they define ‘controversial issues’?

To my knowledge, Ms. Peddy has not offered her background information regarding the above question. Did she just pluck the Holocaust out of the air as her example, or had she been bombarded by parents, politicians, and conspiracists about the district’s teachings about the Holocaust? I suspect that is in fact the case. There are far too many conspiracies, who seem to be most common among the fBICP [former Bully In Chief Party, AKA Republican Party or Grand Old Party (GOP)]. I stand with the teacher noted above. What is the opposite of the Holocaust? The only thing I can think of is Mein Kampf—Adolf Hitler’s seminal blueprint for the extermination of the Jews; I suppose that is the opposite of the Holocaust. To me, this kerfuffle represents the political dilemma we face today. Repeatedly, over many decades, the fBICP has demonstrated its propensity for and attraction to ignorance over knowledge. That reality has come to us time and time again, going back to Anthony Comstock and his morality crusade of the late 19th and early 20thcenturies. This Texas fiasco is just one more example of that reality.

History is history! The Holocaust, humans landing on the moon, slavery, et al, are decided and settled history. Opposing the history of the Holocaust is quite akin to opposing the fact that the earth is not flat, or the earth orbits the sun, or insisting upon the notion that Christianity is the supreme religion. This group on non-reality believers must be relegated to the dust bin of history.

 

A long-time friend and frequent contributor to this humble forum sent two newspaper articles to further on-going discussions. The first was:

S/he said:

“I suppose this is copyright-protected, but it makes one of my points about the incompetence in addressing COVID.”

The subject article:

“Good morning. When an F.D.A. panel meets today about J. & J. booster shots, an elephant will be in the room.”

by David Leonhardt

The New York Times

Published: October 15, 2021

To which I responded:

From my knowledge, this article is spot on. I agree. We have every expectation that the USG should be perfect--no mistakes or missteps. But, they are not. They are human beings and flawed like all the rest of us. A near perfect negative example was the mask fiasco at the outset of the pandemic. The USG & medical establishment were ill-prepared for a pandemic. They had insufficient stockpiled PPE for the frontline medical professionals and feared a panic consumption of the thin just-in-time supply. They had no choice but to advise the public that masks were not necessary, to preserve the thin supply for the medical professionals. There is no debate or doubt that that simple reality induced gargantuan confusion, conflict and doubt. I still do not know if we have learned the lessons of failure in this pandemic. I suppose we will not know the answer until the next pandemic.

 . . . Round two:

“I have no expectation that the government will be ‘perfect,’ which is not a quality of humans. I would like them to be competent, and I'm not seeing that with respect to the virus. The mask nonsense is one of many failures, although it's the one that affects me individually the most. Their mistakes in dealing with human factors at every move, as discussed in the article and beyond that, are inexcusable.”

 . . . my response to round two:

I cannot disagree. However, I suppose our debate might rest upon our respective definition of “competent.” I suspect my threshold is lower than yours.

I think “the system” (comprised of flawed human beings) is doing the best it can, given the reality of the situation in which they found themselves. In the contemporary instance, the professionals had to carry the monumental unwarranted additional burden of an unhinged, immature, narcissistic, ill-informed, and contradictory president, e.g., hydroxychloroquine, injecting disinfectant, et al. If we are going to point an accusatory finger, it must start with the [person who shall no longer be named].

 . . . Round three:

“My standard of competence is higher than yours, but at this level of life, the level of competence affects numerous lives lost or heavily impacted. The past President is by no means the only politician who will dodge responsibility for all of this. Most of the governors and many others failed as well. I'll note that the ‘professionals’ in question are government appointees. My experience of government work (and work in general) tells me that appointment to higher positions depends less on professional skills and more on personal connections, interview skills, and office or public politics. It's a shame so many of these are patronage jobs rather than Civil Service.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Well, there ya go!

Political appointment requires confirmation by the Senate, which was a constitutional provision intended to diminish patronage. While some of those involved are political appointees, e.g., administrator of the FDA, and director of the CDC, others are in fact Civil Service employees, e.g., director of the NIAID. Further, some of the political appointees in question are degreed medical doctors, which gives them some degree of intellectual independence. Regardless of their means of employment, they are human beings and inherently flawed and susceptible to political pressure, as we witnessed in the last administration.

 . . . Round four:

“I don't know how to tell you how much my respect for degrees and credentials diminished by the time I got my own degree. There's very little of that left. Anyone who serves at the pleasure of another has no independence. As far as I know, Senate approval was merely a chronic logjam until Mitch McConnell made it a tool to assert power.”

 . . . my response to round four:

It is unfortunate that your university education was not positive. I do not share that experience with you.

Perhaps so! I was one of those “at the pleasure of” people all of my working life from a delivery boy for a florist, to an officer of Marines, to various jobs in the corporate world. My employment always depended upon performance.

Yes, Senate confirmation has been and remains a periodic logjam as each new administration takes command. I cannot imagine an alternative.

 . . . Round five:

“The central difference between my jobs or yours versus political appointive jobs is that political appointees depend on the favor of the appointing official, not on performance. If they really depended on performance, DC would be a very different place.”

 . . . my response to round five:

No argument. You shall have the last word.

The second message opened:

“Here's another New York Times column. This one's about another of my issues, the two-party system. Perhaps the Democrats, the chronically weaker party, ought to think about finding allies.”

The subject article of the second message:

“Loser’s Consent and the Future of Democracy”

by Max Fisher with Amanda Taub 

The New York Times

Published: October 15, 2021

My response to the second message:

To my knowledge, the observations and perspectives expressed in the article are accurate and appropriate. We face exactly the same dynamic as illuminated in Fisher’s words. I also believe Fisher’s concluding assessment that bringing European-style proportional representation is a very long shot. Our current two-party politics are corroding the very fabric of this once grand republic. Whether the situation is recoverable is yet to be determined. I can only add that I had similar feelings 50 years ago when we were at the peak of the civil rights movement coupled with the anti-war dynamics and burgeoning compromise of our collective fundamental rights in the name of the war on drugs. We snapped out of the period. Whether we can do it again remains an open question.

 . . . Round two:

“Agreed. The Founders created an entirely new way of governance, but others have since outgrown us. Whether our ‘leaders’ can let go of the vehicle by which they rose to power remains to be seen.”

 . . . my response to round two:

There is nothing in the Constitution that precludes or even discourages multi-party governance. In fact, the Constitution provides for election reconciliation given a multi-party election. ‘Letting go of the vehicle’ would require a constitutional amendment, which makes such a drastic change unlikely.

 . . . Round three:

“‘The vehicles that got them there’ are unlimited private financing and tight control of ballot access, neither of which was addressed in the Constitution, and that's my point about others outgrowing us. Also, the Electoral College and the structure of the Senate make it possible for a minority of the voters to control the government.”

 . . . my response to round three:

No disagreement, my friend. I am all for ending dark money in elections and in politics at large, but now, it will take a constitutional amendment to override the Supreme Court. I am also adamantly against what the fBICP is currently doing to restrict ballot access and our freedom to vote.

That said, I do not agree with your assessment of the Electoral College or the Senate. Yet, what Moscow Mitch has done to bastardize the Senate is wrong in every possible perspective and spits in the face of history. Given his contamination of the Senate, perhaps it is time we abandon any hoped for collegiality intended for the Senate. It sure does appear that the Senate has been irredeemably contaminated and compromised by the Kentucky senior senator; history should so record.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.1030:

Comment to the Blog:

“At this moment, I'm finding the panic over the virus more amusing than interesting. Good luck to all sides.

“More interesting today is the Five Thirty-Eight analysis of Arizona Senator Sinema.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/kyrsten-sinema-is-confounding-her-own-party-but-why/

They do their usual sound statistical analysis of the horse-race factors, but the more useful information is below the line breaking up the story. Both the nature of her donors and her experience of success take her away from all of that “what the voters want analysis.”

My response:

Yes, it would be humorous if it was not so tragic and sad. I just want this damn thing over with or at least to a manageable level that returns our health care system to something resembling normal. I am not worried about my family, but I remain very much worried about the doctors, nurses, and treatment capacity of our health care system. There are an estimated 50M citizens who are desperately trying to keep us from returning to normal, and they portray their resistance in the disguise of freedom, as if they alone are defending freedom of choice. What they are really saying is, screw your choice or their choices, all that matters is my choice. There is no collective, only individuals who have no obligation to the collective, because there is no collective.

Why? Because Sinema ran in Arizona as a moderate, in a generally conservative state, listening to all sides. Sinema, like Manchin, is trying to walk a very fine line between vociferous opposed factions and seeking to please everyone equally, or in the negative sense, anger everyone equally.

Nonetheless, yes, an interesting analysis. We shall remain vigilant.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“I noticed that you assume feelings and motivations for those you dislike. That kind of assumption is never valid en masse.

“Read further down in that article. It's not about Arizona voters as the primary motivation. Arizona is not West Virginia.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

Quite right. We are all individuals, driven by our own beliefs, opinions, and motives. I do try, perhaps not as successfully as I should, to respect others including those with whom I disagree.

Quite so. Arizona is NOT West Virginia. There are many unique dynamics in Arizona politics, as John McCain illuminated and navigated. Sinema is a bit of an odd duck. Kelly is a moderate as well. But for reasons unknown, Sinema chooses to take a more confrontational stance.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

2 comments:

Calvin R said...

Good Monday, Cap,

I am aware of the MOSAIC expedition, and I look forward to learning what they have learned. PBS typically has their shows as "members only" in the ways I could access them.

I lived in Deep East Texas off and on in the 1980s. Their rapid regression to barbarism doesn't surprise me.

I'm going out to enjoy our beautiful autumn-at-last weather. Enjoy your day,

Calvin

Cap Parlier said...

Good morning to you, Calvin,
Once again, I must offer my apologies for the delayed response.

I have never been a PBS member or supporter. Most of their programming does not particularly interest me, but NOVA always has. I do believe you can find the program on streaming services without subscribing. Anyway, you have the information; do what you will.

I cannot claim as deep an understand of the “Deep East Texas” mindset, but I do have an appreciation for the phenomenon. My appreciation aside, the regression represented by the current Texas administration is disappointing and depressing. Why? It is staggering that American citizens could be cajoled to believing and supporting this absurdity.

“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

Stay safe. Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap