Update no.1115

Update from the Sunland

No.1115

22.5.23 – 28.5.23

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

 

To all,

 

The Memorial Day holiday weekend got rather discombobulated and rendered me incommunicado, which in turn disrupted my preparation and distribution of the Update. As a consequence, this is a rather minimal edition. Please forgive my tardy distribution. I expect to be caught up and back on plan for the next edition of the Update.

 

Senator Timothy Eugene ‘Tim’ Scott of South Carolina announced that he was a candidate for president of the United States. He made the public proclamation on Monday morning on a stage at Charleston Southern University in North Charleston, South Carolina. Scott is the only Republican in the Senate with dark skin pigmentation. During his rah-rah announcement, Scott said publicly, “As president, I would sign the most conservative legislation.” That statement alone disqualifies him directly and absolutely. Scott insists the conservatives are under siege and increasingly subjected to discrimination. He is correct. Why? Conservatives feel under siege because the majority of the nation do not agree with their “values” and their dicta, and the rest of us are damn tired of so-called conservatives imposing their values on everyone else. To his notion of the future, I say no thanks.

 

Governor Ronald Dion ‘Ron’ DeSantis of Florida finally took the official leap, declaring himself to be a candidate for president of the United States. He tried to do it in a Twitter audio chat with Elon Musk (not sure why). The plan evaporated into a fiasco . . . rather typical of the man. To me, DeSantis will be forever known as the creator of woke so that he could declare “Florida is where woke comes to die.” Nice catch phrase; wrong ideology. He created the concept, and he wants credit for killing the concept he created.

 

[The person who shall no longer be named] stated publicly, “I say to the Republicans out there — congressmen, senators — if they don’t give you massive cuts, you’re going to have to do a default. And I don’t believe they’re going to do a default because I think the Democrats will absolutely cave, will absolutely cave because you don’t want to have that happen. But it’s better than what we’re doing right now because we’re spending money like drunken sailors.” [emphasis mine] This is a clear demonstration of the ignorance we face in this once grand republic. That man was once president of the United States. Can you believe it!

 

When I hear these folks, like those noted above, say they will bring “conservative values” to the political stage, I see, hear, and feel someone who:

-- bans books they do not like,

-- seeks to relegate women to second-class status as property and as vessels for impregnation and incubation for future generations,

-- passes laws to restrict the rights of LGBTQ citizens simply because of who they are, 

-- constrains school curricula and conduct to the lowest common denominator, i.e., any one social conservative parent can block any progressive education,

-- seeks to keep children ignorant to life,

-- denies history and wants all children to not be taught history,

-- seems to desire ignorance over knowledge so much so that they deserve the motto: Nescientia super scientia (Ignorance over knowledge!),

-- seeks to bring down the entire nation to reduce spending of the other guys while they spend Treasury funds like drunken sailors on their stuff; the hypocrisy is gargantuan,

-- tolerates the Tea Party, MAGA extremists among them advocating isolationism, white supremacy, and exceptionalism,

-- wraps themselves in the flag and patriotism to justify their extremism,

-- offers blind allegiance to party dogma regardless of the U.S. Constitution, 

-- embraces an outright conman, huckster, snake-oil salesman as ihr Anführer that has bamboozled them all,

-- actually supports and defends an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States of America in an effort to install their dictator to enforce their values,

-- ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Thus, as long as conservatives favor any one or combination of these observations, I say no thanks and the pox on your house.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1114:

“I guess it’s still morning where you are so ‘good morning’ Cap. You’ve been busy again, then that’s life in the full. I’m utterly convinced there is no such pastime as retirement, in fact, like yours, my retirement has been a busy span of life and I guess we shouldn’t need anything else. And what comes next!”

My reply:

Yea verily! Retirement is just work in a different form. At least we are working for ourselves. By the time I retired, I was exhausted by foolish corporate political shenanigans. I loved the engineering work and being around machines that fly, but the politics were exhausting and disgusting. I have been consumed by writing, but at my age, medical appointments are taking a greater and greater portion of my time capacity. So far, I doing well staying ahead of the grim reaper. I suppose that is the objective at our age. One positive thing, we define what comes next . . . until nature decides.

 

Comment to the Blog:

“One more argument against vigilantism: the untrained, such as Daniel Penny and George Zimmerman, lack even the minimal threat assessment skills in which police officers are trained. Furthermore, many of them will kill, rather than subdue, those they perceive as dangerous. Whether that is deliberate we can’t know.

“My impression of the article on religion was that they assumed we were aware of the far-right faction of Christians and their political ambitions. Based on this and other sources, the far-right Christians are gaining a few adherents even during a decline in the voting power of religion in general. However, the demographics of age and ethnicity will put a stop to ultra-conservatives in general unless they can manage a takeover soon.

“I re-posted to Facebook a few minutes ago Robert Reich’s opinion that the Biden Administration should simply ignore the debt limit, continue finding ways to pay the bills, and let the Republicans sue. I agree.

“I’ll note that various organizations have issued travel advisories for Florida. I myself wouldn’t take the risk of going there.”

My response to the Blog:

You are absolutely correct. No argument or debate. Trained citizens are not a reasonable expectation or achievable goal. Like pilots, retired law enforcement officers are not current on laws, policy, and guidance. The reality of which you speak does not alter my contention. We cannot afford to have a law enforcement apparatus we need to deal with the bad men out there. Regrettably, even if we provide intelligence, often the police do not have the capacity to act on the intelligence. Like military and medical operations, the police must triage and prioritize what they can address. We have focused our discussion of the governmental or law enforcement side, but there is also a perpetrator side. If Jordan Neely stopped disrespecting and imposing upon other patrons, I doubt Penny would have engaged. The same is true with Martin; if he had just kept walking on his way rather than turn and confront Zimmerman, there would have been no encounter. We must not forget the stimulant for these incidents. We see the result when citizens do not engage in the blatant and aggressive (and costly) shoplifting in San Francisco. Companies are leaving the city because of the phenomenon. These are our communities. Law enforcement is our responsibility as well. When we see an apparent drunk driver, we call the police and report it. The driver may be tired or having some medical event, but an erratic driver is still a physical threat to other citizens on or near the roadway. Sometimes we see the police react; sometimes not.

Well said, I would say. We cannot know the inner-workings and hidden mechanisms of the far-right and Evangelical Christians, but we certainly see the results and consequences. U.S. history is replete with examples of social conservatives dictating what we could see, or read, or do, or in some cases even think. We do not need more examples. I believe they have felt their “authority” and dominance is waning, and they have become progressively more desperate and extreme to reassert their dominance. They appear to be perfectly comfortable abandoning democracy for some form (perhaps any form) of authoritarian or autocratic governance they control . . . all in the name of patriotism. We bear direct witness to their extremism in the January 6^th insurrection and its aftermath. Fortunately, so far, our system of democratic governance has withstood the assault. Yet, this confrontation is far from over. We must remain vigilant and persistent.

Ignoring the debt limit imposed by §1 of 40 Stat. 288 is a potential option as Reich suggests. That statute contains no enforcement provision. In this latest Republican-induced crisis, it is too late to repeal the law, which is the correct way to deal with the problem. As we have discussed, short of repeal, this may be the time to test the validity of §4 of the 14^thAmendment, and while we wait for the challenge to work its way through the Judiciary, the USG can and should suspend the debt limit. I would rather keep this fight within the domain of the Constitution and the law rather than simply ignore the law. I trust President Biden will remain strong against that MAGA faction and the rest of the fBICP dupes.

I have no interest in visiting Florida for the same or similar reasons you cite. It has become a very hostile place and does not reflect the values I cherish. We have no plans that involve that rogue state.

 . . . Round two:

“There are distinctions to make among your examples. I don’t believe Trayvon Martin would have survived his encounter with George Zimmerman regardless of his behavior. Jordan Neely needed treatment (and housing) he didn’t receive and his response to that entangled him with Penny, who no doubt has his own sanity issues. (My friend with expertise in that field would probably not support an insanity plea for Penny, though.) With regard to your shoplifting comment, Walgreens has admitted to exaggerating the shoplifting losses. Actual shoplifting has been in decline for years.

“‘Law enforcement is our responsibility as well’ cries out for a clear definition. Turning that notion to homicide, as George Zimmerman did, is still homicide to me.

“Simply ignoring the debt limit law will keep the discussion as a legal/Constitutional one. I wouldn’t count on Biden to be strong against anyone the DNC doesn’t tell him to.

“At this point, I’m pretty sure Mexico would be safer and more welcoming than Florida.”

 . . . my response to round two:

The long and the short of the Neely case is, if he could not conduct himself in a non-intrusive, non-threatening, respectful manner in the public domain, then he should not be in public. There are distinctions with every case, but the similarity was a citizen engagement in a public incident. I will argue that if Trayvon Martin had not turned and physically confronted Zimmerman, he would still be alive today. Martin is not without responsibility for the incident. Zimmerman was holding his distance and observing when he was confronted. Yes, Zimmerman committed homicide, but it was deemed in court to be justifiable homicide (self-defense). I am truly sorry Trayvon Martin lost his life, but he does not escape culpability for inciting the incident.

Yes, we do need a better, more precise definition of the distinction between community engagement and vigilantism.

Re: the San Francisco shop lifting . . . come now, we have all seen the multiple video clips of those crimes from mass smash & grab incidents at jewelry stores to a man riding his bike into a store, sweeping stockage shelves clear into a trash bag, and peddling out. What gives those perps the right to blatantly break the law without consequences?

Yes, desired or appropriate community engagement should be more accurately and precisely defined. I argue that the ‘Kitty’ Genovese incident [13.3.1964] is a prime example of what the paucity of community engagement is and does.

We generally agree on the debt limit matter, but we shall respectfully disagree on Biden’s alleged fecklessness.

I am not a fan of DeSantis’s Florida, but I cannot agree that Mexico is safer.

 . . . Round three:

“I’ve met a few men like George Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin was doomed when Zimmerman targeted him.

“Those video clips are anecdotal evidence. They’re great for getting people to watch the newscast, but they don’t tell us the state of crime in a given place. Actual numbers dispute the claim.

“What happened to Kitty Genovese is also anecdotal versus quantifiable evidence. It’s also an old story; we don’t know what might have changed since then.

“Biden is a tool.

“Middle-class white men are probably safer in Florida than Mexico, unless they are gay.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Likewise, and he is not a likable or sympathetic person. I am not defending him or his conduct. However, I cannot accept him being held solely responsible for what happened that day. There is no evidence Zimmerman “targeted” Martin; he believed he appeared and was acting suspicious, and he was observing until he was confronted. Martin does not get a pass from me.

As I read your words, I wonder how you differentiate hard versus anecdotal evidence. The tape of George Floyd’s murder is quite telling, although not complete or total.

There was no video of the Genovese murder, only the facts. Some 80+ people witnessed the crime, and not one assisted the police in finding her killer. It is the paucity of any assistance that I condemn.

I do not agree with your assessment of President Biden. He is far from perfect, but he is not a tool . . . in my humble opinion.

I am a middle-class man with light skin pigmentation. I have never thought of myself in those terms. I have always tried to see events with a different skin. I cannot claim comparable doubt in Florida as I would in Mexico, but I will not be traveling to either place.

 . . . Round four:

‘I’m very startled that you didn’t understand anecdotal evidence. Per Wikipedia, ‘Anecdotal evidence is evidence based only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner. . . .

‘When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine. Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method.’ 

“Video clips from newscasts, for example. As I stated earlier, any value in those was diluted by Walgreens later admitting they’d exaggerated the effect of shoplifting on their bottom line. The issue with the Kitty Genovese incident is not whether it happened but whether that incident is either common or a growing trend.

“Thus far in my studies, I’d be more likely to move to Pennsylvania or Michigan. Florida and Texas are both off limits for any purpose.

“This reply has run long due to the Wikipedia quote, but I find that distinction very important in the discussion of large issues.”

 . . . my response to round four:

It is unfortunate that you apparently interpreted my query as one of ignorance rather than curiosity. Nonetheless, thank you for the definition of “anecdotal evidence.” I was searching for your perception of the threshold between anecdotal and hard evidence. I know what the dictionary and legal term means. The impression I am left with is you feel there is little value in video clips, as if they are less real or tangible, i.e., hard. My query was where do you place that threshold between anecdotal and hard evidence? You apparently place very little weight on a video of a perpetrator scooping masses of shelved products into a trash bag and pedaling his bicycle out of the store without paying for them. Presumably, I place more weight on the video clip; it does not matter what occurred before or after; the act along was morally wrong and illegal, punishable under the law.

Walgreen’s may have exaggerated their losses due to shoplifting, but whether US$1 or US$1,000,000, they are all losses, not a normal or acceptable cost of doing business. I am not debating the magnitude of any retailer’s losses. I am only debating the morality of those losses.

In the context of my Genovese example, whether common or trending  is irrelevant. My issue was the paucity of just one of those 80+ witnesses aiding the police in finding the perpetrator. The fact is, Kitty Genovese was murdered by an assailant who stabbed her multiple times with dozens of witnesses, and not one chose to help in any form or manner. That fact is my issue.

The issue that started this exchange was vigilantism versus community engagement. My query was where does the line between the two exist. Your threshold may well be different from mine. I was only seeking your definition of that line.

Despite the flaws and disgrace of Gosar & Biggs, I like it here in Arizona. Pennsylvania and Michigan are just too cold at my age. I wish you the best of luck in finding a more suitable home than Ohio. FYI: Austin is a deep blue island in a red sea; there is always hope.

No worries about length, my friend. Say what you wish to say; that is most important.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-) 

Update no.1114

Update from the Sunland

No.1114

15.5.23 – 21.5.23

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

 

To all,

 

A friend and frequent contributor to this humble forum forwarded a Daily Kos newsletter dated Wednesday, 17.May.2023 at 08:42. It was not appropriate to ‘cut & paste’ here, and I could not find a URL for the whole newsletter to share. Two topics raised in the newsletter sparked my attention and thought—vigilantism and religion.

 

Where does the boundary line exist and how is that line defined between vigilantism and community engagement?

“Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: The ominous rise of vigilantism”

Greg Dworkin for 

Daily Kos

Published: Wednesday May 17, 2023 4:00 AM PDT

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/5/17/2169707/-Abbreviated-Pundit-Roundup-The-ominous-rise-of-vigilantism

The recent death of Jordan Neely [1113] has raised the public debate about vigilantism, again. It is not first time and certainly will not be the last. The death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot to death in Sanford, Florida, by neighborhood watch volunteer (i.e., a vigilante) George Zimmerman [26.2.2012]. Neely died at the hands of good Samaritan (i.e., vigilante) Daniel Penny. The episode has been widely covered in the Press, so I do not believe there is any need to recount the details. The Penny case, like the Zimmerman case, returns us to the leading question.

Penny is charged with second-degree manslaughter. We can argue whether the charge is appropriate or not, but the case is headed to court, so we are likely to see the factual details in a court trial. From what we know from the publicly available information, the incident is not entirely clear. I do not believe Penny intended to kill Neely, but the fact remains, he did. Penny held the chokehold he had applied to Neely after the man had been subdued and rendered unconscious. The extended application eventually suffocated Neely. At the bottom line, Penny went too far and deserved the appropriate charge and punishment for erroneously (or accidentally) taking Neely’s life.

The Penny case and the Daily Kos article raise the societal question: when is it appropriate for a citizen to intervene? I will argue that Penny did the right thing in subduing Neely, neutralizing the threat to other subway riders, but he made a dreadful mistake and went too far.

The police cannot be everywhere all the time. Yes, citizens should report crimes or potential crimes to the police and allow them to perform their community protection functions. On that subway train car that day, the police (in any form) were not present. Neely reportedly acted in a manner that threatened other passengers in that subway car. Penny acted to subdue the threat. Neely reportedly did not physically assault anyone but was acting erratically and intruding into the space of other riders. His behavior did not respect other passengers. I have long argued that citizens must do more to assist law enforcement in keeping all of us safe. To me, there is a very fine and misty line between vigilantism and community engagement, and the differentiation comes at reaction versus intention or premeditation. Penny reacted to an apparently threatening situation. Zimmerman’s actions were very near the line and perhaps crossed over. We need community engagement. We do not need vigilantism.

 

The Daily Kos article pointed to the following Politico article:

“The Religious Landscape is Undergoing Massive Change. It Could Decide the 2024 Election – The new decennial Religion Census offers cause for hope — and alarm — for both parties.

By Ryan Burge 

Politico

Published: 05/14/2023 07:00 AM EDT

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/05/14/democrats-religion-census-secular-00095858?cid=apn&link_id=5&can_id=6ac14f0628ab93fcaaee736c00efbfd0&source=email-vigilante-violence-is-part-of-the-rights-plan&email_referrer=email_1920327&email_subject=the-religious-landscape-is-undergoing-massive-change-it-could-decide-the-2024-election

Whether religion is growing or declining in the United States of America (or the world for that matter) is a problem for another time. I am struck by one overriding concern. On 1.January.1802, president-elect Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter response the Danbury Baptists, in which he spoke of “. . . a wall of separation between Church & State.” The hard-right and Evangelical Christians want to believe that Jefferson’s Wall of Separation of which he spoke was a one-way membrane. The State could not and must not impose upon religion as articulated in the First Amendment. In both examples, the hard-right Christians are wrong in such assumptions. In reality, the Wall of Separation is a two-way street. The Government must not enter into the affairs of religion, but it is equality true that religion must remain out of the political realm.

The Burge article misses an additional aspect. Perhaps religion has just become another political hack organization, seeking to impose their will, their values on all citizens. Morality, the private thoughts and conduct of people, is the domain of religion. Public or injurious behavior is the domain of the State. Yes, there are intersections and crossover. The problem is too many religious organization or so-called religious individuals have gone too far into the public domain. I can appreciate the zealousness of evangelicals, but I cannot support their attempts to impose their beliefs on other citizens.

The abortion issue represents perhaps the paramount example of a crossover too far. The anti-abortion crowd repeatedly attempts to claim the pro-choice folks support late term (near birth or birth capable) abortion. To be precise and crystal clear, late term abortions have NEVER been legal, not before Roe, not during the validity of Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] [319], nor after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization [597 U. S. ____ (2022)] [1067, 1068], which overrode Roe. That stated, the real constitutional question is not the morality of abortion. I have long contended that Roe was about our fundamental right to privacy. The Dobbs Court ignored every citizens’ right to privacy to return the regulation of abortion back to the states. Now, for the record, that is exactly where medical procedure regulation belongs—with the states, with virtually all other medical regulation. So, the Dobbs Court got that part correct. Where the majority of Dobbs Court went wrong was the outright paucity of any sensitivity to every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy in making medical decisions for her/his life. The political wrangling over the abortion issue is exactly and precisely why religion must not cross the Wall of Separation. The State must do likewise, although I must state that the State has been far more restricted than the religious community. The Supreme Court has maintained a very strict interpretation of the religion clause of the First Amendment. The reverse has not so tested and is not likely to be so tested as a consequence of the current conservative Court.

So, if we want to discuss the apparent decline of religion in the United States, we do not need to look much deeper than the abortion issue. Hard-right conservatives and Evangelical Christians have penetrated too far beyond the Wall of Separation, and they must be resisted. The intrusion of religion into the public domain has to be a major factor in the diminishing influence of religion in our lives. Individual rights and freedoms are not the domain of states. Religion should stay in their lane, and religious citizens should keep their religion to themselves—private. I do not want religion to disappear. Organized religion has been a significant positive influence in the evolution of humanity, but sometimes they have gone too far for parochial reasons. Let us get back into balance.

 

Once again, we have a very small fraction of our society willing to force their views on everyone and punish the entire nation for their beliefs. We have discussed the fallaciousness and worthlessness of the so-called national debt limit in numerous previous Updates. Yet, here we are again. The once noble purpose of §1 [40 Stat. 288] of the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 [PL 65-I-043; 40 Stat. 288; 31 USC §3101; 24.9.1917] has been malignantly mutated by one portion of a political party over recent decades, when they had sufficient numbers to use the law maliciously. We are long past due in taking that weapon from their tool kit. Today, the law serves no beneficial purpose beyond a willful minority dictating and potentially punishing the entire nation to further their political agenda. This debt limit fiasco is identical to all the other efforts of that group to impose their values on every citizen—majority be damned. My opinion has become more calcified and perhaps extreme. If the miniscule minority wants default, recession, or deep depression, I say let us get on with it. Perhaps deep depression will be sufficient motivation to overpower that disgusting minority and finally repeal §1 of 40 Stat. 288. We must render that minority toothless and irrelevant. Congress allocated the funds, and the Executive spent the funds; we must pay our debts, period, full stop, shut the front door. The proper time to deal with the debt is at the allocation stage. Let us stop this senseless foolishness. I hold McCarthy and the fBICP House members directly responsible for this induced crisis. I hope President Biden remains strong and does not give into these extortionists.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1113:

Comment to the Blog:

“What I find hard to believe about Tiny’s recent history is that CNN gave him a forum to spew his venom. I imagine they were trying to acquire Fox viewers put off by that enormous finding against them for lying about Tiny’s election loss. The loyalists will ignore that and it will cost CNN legitimate news viewers.

“We may hope George Santos is removed from Congress. Given the polarization, neither party can afford to lose any votes.

“I’m less interested in people emigrating to the United States at this point than in barriers other countries put up to me immigrating there.”

My response to the Blog:

I would be lying if I claimed I was not conflicted about allowing him to have a national/international platform. The primary in-favor aspect is the fact that he is the leading fBICP candidate; he may well be the Party’s chosen candidate . . . again. We can attribute all kinds of motives. The final judgment for me to watch that abomination was the need to expose that conman to bright sunlight. We need to know what the radicals are thinking and saying, so that we can deal with them appropriately. That said, I look forward with yearning hope to the day when we never see him, hear him, or have any reflection of his existence. Lastly, I will laud Kaitlin Collins for her challenging moderation and standing up to him despite the hostile audience.

Yes, we can, and I do hope for that rectification. Having read the charging document, I suspect the USG has ample evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of those charges. I also suspect that additional charges will be added before he is convicted and sent to prison. Whether McCarthy expels him upon conviction is yet to be seen. Yeah, McCarthy is going to hold onto every vote as long as he can.

I am not sure what you were trying to say in your last sentence. Are you trying to immigrate to another country? If so, which ones?

 . . . follow-up comment:

“I'm not planning to move at the moment, but if the government gets worse, it might be the wisest way. Canada doesn't take poor people, but there are alternatives.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

Ahso. I confess to that thought coming to me more than once, but such considerations have been brief, passing, and aperiodic. I trust the troubles we face today are temporary and not a sign of unrecoverable decline. I admit that I could be wrong, but I will hang in here until there is no hope. The challenge to We, the People, is our capacity to reset comes every four years and partially every two years. Slow! Good luck with your choices. Voting is so bloody important.

 

Another contribution:

“Politicians huh! You know my views-I know that’s democracy at work but we, the public, need to be very cautious who we put into power. I guess the person whose name is unmentionable will figure highly in all politically minded spiel for some time to come which I guess is just how he would wish it.”

My reply:

Yes, absolutely. While I have criticized politicians from all political parties, recently, I have been woefully disappointed in the myopia and paucity of vetting by voters in this once grand republic. The likes of George Santos (if that is his real name), Marjorie Taylor Green, Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, et al ad infinitum ad nauseum, all come from one party and are mind-numbing. A disproportionate share come from Arizona. Each of them told us who they were before their first election, and voters in their districts elected them. The election and repeated election of those crazies says far more about the mindset of voters in those districts than in the crazies themselves. It is going to take quite some time, perhaps several generations, to overcome this nonsense. I am left with only one conclusion—they want chaos, dysfunction, and revulsion. And, they are led by the worst of them all—a conman, huckster, snake-oil purveyor.

We live in an insane time, my friend, but we shall endure.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

Update no.1113

 Update from the Sunland

No.1113

8.5.23 – 14.5.23

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

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- Well, we did not have to wait long! The jury in the case of Carroll v. Trump [USDC NY SD case no. 20-cv-7311 (LAK)] [1112] reached a very swift verdict and found [the person who shall no longer be named] was liable for sexual assault (not rape) and defamation. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, no relation to Carroll’s attorney Roberta Ann ‘Robbie’ Kaplan that I am aware, took roughly 90 minutes to issue instructions to the jury before their deliberations. It took the jury, six men and three women, just under three hours to reach their verdict and agree on the damages. The jury determined that Tiny lied about the 1996 sexual assault—surprise, surprise! The jury levied a US$2M judgment against Tiny for the sexual assault plus an additional US$3M for the defamation. Tiny declared he did not know the woman, and he was going to appeal the ruling. One of Tiny’s myriad fallacious statements under oath during his deposition for this case and reported in last week’s Update [1112] was, “Historically, that’s true with stars. If you look over the last million years, that’s largely true, not always, unfortunately—or fortunately.” I should have stated explicitly the obvious, but I failed to do so. Hey, bozo, a history lesson . . . anatomical human beings have not existed and did not walk the earth until 50,000 years ago—not one million years. I would agree that rape has been a dreadful artifact of war throughout most of recorded human history. However, does the disgusting reality of human history entitle him to sexually assault women at will? Rape and sexual assault have been prohibited internationally since 12.August.1949, after the brutal ravages of the Nazis, Japanese, and the Red Army during World War II. Additionally, the jury’s decision in the Carroll case differentiated between penile and digital penetration (however so slight) as the difference between rape and sexual assault, but the consequences and results are the same. At the bottom line, [the person who shall no longer be named] was found liable for sexual assault and defamation. Regrettably, [the person who shall no longer be named] will escape having to register with the state as a sex offender because this trial and decision were a civil judgment rather than a criminal trial.

The standard of proof for his case was “a preponderance of the evidence,” or more likely than not; it was not “beyond a reasonable doubt” since it was not a criminal prosecution. From what I saw of the evidence presented against Trump by E. Jean Carroll easily attained that threshold. I will also add that the statute of limitations for rape in New York is seven years, clearly and admittedly expired in this case. I am compelled in the context of the Carroll trial to remind readers of Tiny’s infamous declaration on Saturday, 23.Janurary.2016, at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible.” Let us not forget . . . even though we should.

Of course, [the person who shall no longer be named] spewed his rage on everyone after the verdict was rendered. For historical consistency, I probably should record and debunk his words in this forum; however, also, as usual, there is nothing of substance in anything he said . . . just uncontained juvenile outrage and outright falsehoods. Move along, folks. Nothing new here.

-- Federal criminal charges have been filed in New York against Representative George Santos (if that is his real name) [1094]. Charges were initially sealed and made public when he surrendered to authorities. Santos was arrested on Wednesday. He is charged with seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the House of Representatives. These are all federal felonious crimes. He has not been charged with the myriad false statements about his personal life that he made to the public. I trust that the prosecution process will convict him and send him to prison for a long time to contemplate the error of his ways.

 

Well, I wasted 70 precious minutes of life with induced nausea. I knew I should not, but I felt I had to hear and see what [the person who shall no longer be named] had to say and, more importantly, how he chose to say what he had to say. He is the current fBICP front-runner, after all. His believers love him and his worthless snake-oil elixir. Anyway, the Republican Presidential Town Hall moderated by Caitlin Collins was held at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, and broadcast on Tuesday evening. CNN agreed to conditions dictated by [the person who shall no longer be named]. He wanted a friendly, supportive, non-confrontational audience; he got it. He acts like a king – above the law . . . when in fact he is far worse . . . a king from 700 years ago, not any modern-day monarch. Tiny has never acted presidential or as a servant of We, the People. We are left with the distillate that his supporters want a king or a dictator. They do not want democracy, compromise, debate, or negotiation. It would be great to just ignore him, but when he can conjure up a group of his believers who actually swallow his lies and tripe whole, we must take his candidacy with considerable attention and scrutiny. I ignored him seven years ago as a joke and a disgrace, but he was duly and constitutionally elected and became president. It could happen again if we do not vote. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich called the phenomenon Trumpian fascism, and Reich is spot on correct. We must resoundingly reject such attitudes.

 

A recent incident on a Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) of New York City train resulted in the death of Jordan Neely. He was reportedly harassing and threatening subway riders with claims that he was hungry and thirsty. He was confronted by another rider, Daniel Penny, and became combative and was placed in a choke hold by Penny in an attempt to subdue him. Several other riders assisted Penny. As a result, Penny was charged, arrested, and arraigned on a second-degree manslaughter charge.

A few thoughts about the case came to me. Public conduct is based on respect for others . . . their space, their safety, their peace, their freedom. Just because someone is homeless, hungry, thirsty, or suffering from any mental illness or condition does not give him the right to disrespect the rights of other citizens. Neely did not deserve to die for his transgression, and I do believe Penny went too far. He should have stopped as soon as Neely was subdued. The second-degree manslaughter charge seems appropriate to me. Penny went too far, and he should have known better.

The case has generated more than a little ranting and raving about vigilantism. Such protests are correct in general. The public is not charged with law enforcement responsibilities. On the flip side of this debate is the case of 28-year-old Catherine Susan ‘Kitty’ Genovese, who was stabbed to death on the street near her Queens, New York, home [13.3.1964]. An estimated 80 citizens witnessed her murder and did nothing, even refusing to assist law enforcement in finding her assailant. Law enforcement needs our help and support. They cannot do it all alone. Daniel Penny did the correct things. He just went too far. I will argue that protecting other citizens from individuals who transgress is not vigilantism; it is involved citizenry. 

 

The expiration of Title 42 and the immigration situation at the southern border have dominated the news for several weeks now. I have written my thoughts, opinions, and recommendations about immigration control for several decades. I have even recounted my experience of being one of those immigrants when I moved to and worked in Italy in 2002 [Updates 1 through 25]. I had a similar experience in 1993 through 1995 when I worked in England, but the Update did not exist back then. I have lived with immigration control systems that work.

When I applied for and received a work permit/visa for employment in England and in Italy, I had to have a specified job and company sponsorship to enter, remain, and work in those countries. I also had to register with the county/provincial government and maintain my residential address and employment status. I had evidence that local law enforcement in both countries routinely checked to ensure I was still employed at the location specified in my work permit and I was residing at the same place.

I have long argued that immigration reform is critical. It must be a defense in depth. I have no objection to a domineering obstacle to significantly increase the risk to unauthorized border crossings. No barrier is impenetrable or insurmountable. No security system is perfect. But, slowing down transgressors enables Border Patrol to have time to apprehend them. Such crossers should be expelled (deported) outright. They should not be able to claim asylum if they cross the border illegally, period, full stop. Any defense system must be a defense in depth, which means that states, counties, and cities are essential layers in that system just as they are in other countries. The federal government cannot do the job alone across a 2,000-mile border.

The reality is we need immigrants to keep the republic viable. We need employees. You can go through any city and see boundless held-wanted signs, and that is with an historically low unemployment rate. There are a wide variety who want to enter this country from simple tourists (temporary) to permanent immigrants seeking to reside, work, and become citizens. We need migrant work permit visas that enable seasonal or extended workers to enter this country, work in open positions, and cross the border as they wish. Such work permits should be tracked at the local level and maintained in a national database. We could also require monthly check-ins and such to ensure compliance. Failure to comply would be subject to deportation and temporary or permanent exclusion. At the bottom line for immigration status other than short-term tourist visas should be based on contributions to our society, i.e., immigrants must be contributors and not burdens. They pay taxes. They have benefits. We need their labor. Let us welcome them to make our nation better.

Refugees are a slightly different category. They are fleeing what is likely certain death, e.g., Jews escaping Nazi occupied Europe. In such cases, we must take a more generous approach to filtration. Regardless, there are limits to our magnanimity no matter how we cut it. We cannot serve as the sanctuary for the world. We cannot feed the world. We cannot remedy all wrongs and injustices. We simply do not have the capacity to be such an expansive refuge. We must regulate, restrict, and control the process, and it is not just a federal problem. The solution belongs to all of us. We are the people after all.

Lastly, both political parties are equally culpable. They both share in responsibility for the abysmal immigration control system. It is as if they each want a dysfunctional immigration control system so they can blame the other guys to score political points. The solution is up to us. We must elect representatives who will construct a worthy solution for us—We, the People. We are decades passed our need for a robust, functional, immigration control system. Let us get it done.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1112:

Comment to the Blog:

“E. Jean Carroll may be Chump’s undoing. She speaks well and her story is consistent. The Chump, on the other hand, sounds like a guilty party. Should he continue campaigning, his deposition will be played over and over through the primaries. Should he win nomination, those and more of his statements will fill the airwaves. That’s aside from any criminal convictions he may accumulate.”

My response to the Blog:

I have not seen or heard all the evidence against Tiny, but from what I have seen, I expect the jury to find him liable in the Carroll case. The jury should get their charge today [Tuesday]. The next question will be their judgment for punitive damages. Yes, Carroll does speak well, and her story has remained consistent or corroborated in part . . . unlike Tiny’s story. I believe her. Yes, indeed, he sounds guilty as hell. The coup de grâce from my perspective was that deposition video recording. I think he truly believes he has been anointed with the divine right of kings—he can take and do whatever he wants. He can do no wrong—by definition. I suspect and expect the Carroll jury is about to give him a brutal smack in the face and a rude awakening. Unfortunately, I cannot imagine the jury and court giving a sufficient punitive damages judgment to make him feel it. Regrettably, the consumers of his worthless snake-oil elixir do not care about civil or criminal convictions—they believe. Even if he is criminally convicted and imprisoned, his believers will still vote for him, and what does that say about them? We can only render them to oblivion by voting against them.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

Update no.1112

 Update from the Sunland

No.1112

1.5.23 – 7.5.23

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

 

To all,

 

Congratulations to the British People on the coronation of King Charles III on Saturday, 6.May.2023, eight months after the passing of his mother. A low overcast and light rain all day limited the military flyover to helicopters and the Red Arrows. It was unfortunate that the weather was not better; I always enjoy a good airshow. The ceremony was steeped in history and symbology. A new era of history has begun. While we rejected our affiliation with the British monarchy 247 years ago, we can still appreciate the history and the pageantry. Well done, let the party continue.

 

Just when I thought I might get away with a weekly Update without the mention of the Oh So Great Orange One (thick sarcasm), he drags me back into the muck of his gutter of a life. In just one of the myriad legal cases against [the person who shall no longer be named], the video and transcript of the man’s deposition in the case of Carroll v. Trump[USDC NY SD case no. 20-cv-7311 (LAK)] was released to the public. And, Senior District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued a public deadline to the man that he had until Sunday night to decide whether he would testify in his own defense. Closing statements are scheduled for Monday. Elizabeth Jean Carroll, AKA E. Jean, filed a civil suit against [the person who shall no longer be named] for rape (the statute of limitations expired for criminal charges) and defamation of character. A verdict is expected next week.

Other than the reality of the facts in this case, the graphic audacity his words and body language in the deposition that give us a very clear view of who the man is. Tiny was shown a photograph of the back of his head conversing with a smiling blond woman. He was asked to identify the woman. He answered, “That’s Marla. My wife.” It was actually E. Jean Carroll. Later in the deposition, when asked to explain his position that he could not have raped Ms. Carroll, he answered, “She’s not my type… it’s not politically correct to say it. I know that, but I’ll say it anyway.” I found the statement interesting in that he married the woman he identified in the photograph as his second wife. His claim of “not my type” rings very hallow and lame. I suspect any reasonable person would come to exactly the same conclusion. In 2005, the man was interviewed and recorded for an Access Hollywood program in which he said, “I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything, Grab ’em by the pussy.” The tape recording, originally not broadcast, was publicly released in 2016. At the time, Tiny claimed that the recording was just “locker room talk.”  When Ms. Carroll’s attorney asked about his statement on the Access Hollywood video, [the person who shall no longer be named] stated under oath, “Historically that’s true with stars. If you look over the last million years, that’s largely true, not always, unfortunately—or fortunately.” The attorney asked, “Do you consider yourself a star?” He answered, “I think you could say that.” Carroll’s attorney wisely chose not to press him on his answer, presumably to avoid giving him an opportunity to soften the impact of what he had just declared. What is inferred by his words that Tiny believes that raping women under the divine right of kings was tolerated a millennia ago, it is acceptable for him to do so.

As Maya Angelou once said, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” We failed to do so in 2016. We can only hope the jury in the Carroll v. Trump case does not fail in their judgment. Of course, this is only one of many still pending cases, but “Long journeys begin with small steps.” [The person who shall no longer be named] belongs in prison for the rest of his natural life. He has told us exactly who he is. There is always hope . . . until there is not. No man is above the law. He is not a star—never has been, never will be.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1111:

Comment to the Blog:

“Didn’t Mr. Justice Scalia die suddenly in a remote place? One of those true-crime shows ought to do a series on the Supreme Court, and maybe someone could make a series on the Jeffrey Epstein mess.

“I noted the current Equal Rights Amendment upon its introduction in 1972, read the text and have vocally supported it ever since.

“We know what the Republicans represent with few exceptions. I realized some time ago that I wouldn’t ever vote for Senator Schumer, and I wish Feinstein would go ahead and resign. Even Adam Schiff would be better than “absent”. I’ll point out that the DNC Democrats don’t act to remove procedural tools invented by the Republicans for their partisan benefit.

“I share your admiration for that quote from President Washington. We must find a way to heed his warning.”

My response to the Blog:

Yes, he did—Cibolo Creek Ranch, Marfa, Presidio County, Texas, in the Big Bend region of the state. He apparently died in his sleep, which is not uncommon; an autopsy was never performed; his cause of death was officially listed as “natural causes.” His death could have been as official recorded, or by some far more nefarious cause(s). We will never know. As the New York Times noted at the time, “But some people argue that in the case of a prominent government official, the public has a right to know.” I am one of those people. Epstein was not in the same category, but the connections to so many prominent people and government officials should have triggered that precise examination.

After so many years under the legal oppression of the “Doctrine of Coverture” [458, 571], the Equal Rights Amendment should have been ratified unanimously in months after it went to the states [30.3.1972]. The social conservatives want us all to go back to those days of coverture and “head & master.” I was wrong to have ever called this republic great or even once great. Until all citizens have and feel equality regardless of the social factors, we cannot be great. At best, we are a work in progress. The Senate vote on S.J.Res.4 last week reminds us we have so bloody far to go. There is always hope . . . until there isn’t.

I have been sorely disappointed by Schumer. He is woefully inadequate, especially in comparison to Minority Leader McConnell. Schumer’s vote against S.J.Res.4 was inexcusable and his self-administered coup de grâce. I suspect Feinstein is into her end of days. It is one thing for a king, a pope, or Supreme Court justice to remain until death, but for a U.S. senator to do so is disrespectful to her constituents. For me, she has exceeded my tolerance of respect and propriety. If she was still functional, she could have voted remotely like they did during the pandemic. Yes, she should resign . . . as I now think Schumer should as well.

Far too many citizens have swallowed the pill and not read (or understood) President Washington’s immortal words of wisdom. I fear there is little hope of shedding the grip of political tribalism until following generations have time to mature and grow out of this damnable tribalism.

 . . . Round two:

“I’ll note that Justice Scalia died in exactly the place I’d choose for a mystery novel—remote, few witnesses, with local officials who might play along. Such is remote Texas. McConnell benefitted.

“I see no excuse in law or morality why equal rights have not been enshrined into the Constitution.

“I’ve given up on the Democratic Party as a whole. There are decent and ethical people there, but they can’t or won’t change the DNC. Electoral reform would help.”

 . . . my response to round two:

There is insufficient evidence to substantiate any of these hypotheses. Thus, Scalia’s death shall remain a mystery and raw meat for conspiracy theorists. I will note here that McConnell’s unilateral stonewalling of President Obama’s constitutional nomination of a replacement for Justice Scalia was not explicitly authorized or allowed by the U.S. Constitution or common laws, only by a distorted interpretation of Senate rules. It was the Republican majority in the Senate that allowed him to “ignore” the president’s constitutional nomination for nine freakin’ months, gambling that the GOP candidate would win the presidency and override the nomination on the table. They did, and that minority won.

You are quite correct. To me, the mentality and process behind such resistance is the same as the thinking used by many political and social conservatives, who seek to regress our society to a bygone era with all its inequalities and oppression. White males dominated the landscape back then. Those days are slipping away. That bunch must grow up and adapt or be rendered to shadowy irrelevance. I stand for equality and freedom, and thus against the social and political conservatives. Their time has passed.

I am not quite so negative, but I do share your skepticism. Yes, electoral reform would help. If we want to amend the U.S. Constitution, I can support that, but let us make the changes properly.

 . . . Round three:

“Brief digression on Republican abuse of the Constitution: the 14^th Amendment, Section 4, disallows not honoring national debt. The ‘debt ceiling’ is therefore unconstitutional.”

 . . . my response to round three:

To my knowledge, section 4 of the 14^th Amendment [9.July.1868] has never been tested before the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, the law is not “settled.” The strict constructionists might well argue that section 4 applied to federal debt incurred and the irrelevance (or voiding) of Confederate debt during the Civil War. Extending section 4 to the contemporary national debt limit shenanigans by fBICP members in the House is not inferred by the words.

In fact, the national debt limit was created by Congress in §1 of the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 [PL 65-I-043; 40 Stat. 288; 31 USC §3101; 24.9.1917]. {Just an FYI: the original debt limit was set at US$7.539B, quite a bit below our current US$31.4T.}

The perennial use of the national debt limit by the Republican Party and now the fBICP as a bludgeon to impose their dicta on everyone has negated whatever usefulness it may have offered once upon a time. I cannot agree that the debt limit is unconstitutional, but I do agree that the debt limit since it has vastly exceeded its useful value. Further, I agree with President Biden; the fBICP is flat wrong and off-the-charts hypocritical.

 . . . Round four:

“If the Supreme Court can deliberately ignore the first clause of the Second Amendment, they can recognize Section 4 of the 14^th Amendment as applying to Federal debt in general.

“The debt limit and the filibuster, among others, are tactics that allow the Democrats to claim the Republicans overwhelmed them again. The Democrats don’t get rid of those when they could. DC isn’t as hyper-partisan on the Democrat side of things as it looks.”

 . . . my response to round four:

Good point. Instead of interpretation machinations by the Supremes, I would rather see the repeal of §1 of 40 Stat. 288; 31 USC §3101. The national debt limit has not been used for its intended purpose in many decades . . . if ever.

Another good point. In recent decades, those tools to induce compromise have been used by the GOP / fBICP to obstruct progress, which in reality is simply the efforts of a declining minority to hold onto power. We are long past due the time to correct this egregious abuse. Yeah, the GOP / fBICP have proven themselves far more aggressive in using the obstruction tools to their political advantage.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

Update no.1111

Update from the Sunland

No.1111

24.4.23 – 30.4.23

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

 

To all,

 

With recent Press reports on repeated conflict of interest transgressions by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, I recall a similar . . . oh, shall we say . . . predicament involving an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In the case of Cheney v. United States District Court [542 U.S. 367 (2004); No. 03-475]. Justice Scalia was accused of conflict of interest, and the Sierra Club filed an official motion to recuse Scalia since he had flown with then Vice President Cheney on a duck hunting event (5.January.2003) while the case was before the Court. The Supremes issued a 7-2 decision with Scalia and Thomas dissenting. Of particular note in this case was Scalia’s 21-page assessment of the motion to recuse against him in his Memorandum of Justice Scalia [No. 03—475. Decided March 18, 2004]. 

The memorandum attached to the decision was not high up on the list the scholarly Scalia writing. He pitched his rationale in a personal ‘nothing happened’ manner, rather than an impartial legal perspective. He actually stated in words that his job as an associate justice is too important to recuse himself since doing do so might alter the eventual outcome of the Court’s decision. Scalia concluded, “I believe, however, that established principles and practices do not require (and thus do not permit) recusal in the present case.” In essence, Scalia tells us, trust me, neither the vice president nor he did anything inappropriate or untoward during the hunting trip, and they barely talked on Air Force Two or at the encampment. After all, they were not in the same duck blind together. His reasoning was rather juvenile.

What Scalia failed (or refused) to acknowledge is the appearance of impropriety and the tarnishment of the Supreme Court’s integrity and impartiality. The myopic presentation was far beneath Scalia’s usual lofty ideals. By the way, I will note here that Scalia and Thomas would have found for the appellant in Cheney. Fortunately, Scalia and  Thomas did not prevail in the Cheney case . . . but they could have. Since Scalia was Thomas’ mentor, I now understand why Thomas was also so bloody myopic and self-serving. Scalia was wrong then. Thomas is wrong now.

 

If I was looking for or needed another reason to never vote for another Republican (ever), Senate Republicans gave me to perfect, if not ultimate, reason on Thursday, 27.April.2023, at 12:30 [R] EDT, when the Senate voted on S.J.Res.4. The resolution sought to approve the Equal Rights Amendment [H.J.Res.208; 22.3.1972] having been ratified by ¾ of states. They voted 51-47-0-2[0], with 60 votes required for passage. Two Republicans (Collins & Murkowski) joined 49 Democrats & Independents to vote in favor. One Democrat, none other than Senate Majority Leader Schumer, joined 46 fBICP members to vote against the resolution. Two senators (Feinstein & Lee) did not vote.

The issue with the Equal Rights Amendment was the deadline. The original H.J.Res.208 placed a seven-year deadline that was extended by three years. Thirty-five states had past the amendment by the extended deadline. The ratification tally became quite confusing when a few states revoked their original ratification. One state revoked its ratification after the extended deadline. Three additional states ratified the amendment after the extended deadline. The question of revocation has not been tested in Court. S.J.Res.4 sought to supersede all that confusion and certify the ratification. There is no provision in the Constitution for revocation of a ratification.

The tragedy in all this nonsense is the Equal Rights Amendment should have been passed when Suffragette Alice Paul drafted the original language in 1921. The amendment has been introduced in every session of Congress since 1923. The original amendment text was:

Section 1. No political, civil, or legal disabilities or inequalities on account of sex or on account of marriage, unless applying equally to both sexes, shall exist within the United States or any territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The current [1972] amendment:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

I have been and remain an outspoken supporter and advocate for the Equal Rights Amendment since I became aware of it. Equal rights under the Constitution should have been explicitly and emphatically stated by amendment a century ago. The fact that the fBICP has decided to continue resistance to such an obvious declaration is unconscionable and inexcusable.

 

Now, as seems to be the case these days among fBICP-dominated states, Montana decided to join Tennessee [1108] in the realm of intolerance of anyone different from them. The Montana House of Representatives voted 68–32 along party lines to bar a member from the House floor, gallery, and antechamber until the adjournment of the 2023 session, the first week of May. The member will be allowed to vote remotely for the remainder of the session. The offending House member is a self-professed bisexual, transgender, 34-year-old, woman—State Representative Zooey Zephyr of Missoula (100^th District). Her offense to the Montana House . . . she chose to speak against draconian anti-LBGTQ+ legislation restricting or denying rights to LBGT citizens in the state.

For all the whining and whinging the fBICP, MAGA bunch does about woke culture, they actually pass laws to deny freedom of speech to non-heterosexual citizens. Zephyr had the audacity to say no; denial of equal rights and protections is wrong. As a consequence, the fBICP, MAGA bunch muzzled her, denying her the right to speak on behalf of her constituents. I will take woke over these fascist dicta we see denying freedom to women and other minority groups. The fBICP is NOT Making America Great Again. They are corroding and destroying the very foundation and fabric of this once grand republic. The fascists must be defeated at the ballot box, and permanently relegated to the dustbin of history.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1110:

Comment to the Blog:

“Corporate marketing includes showing the public only impressive successes on TV. SpaceX had a major failure in that sense.

“I also regret the settlement in the Dominion versus Fox “News” case. The money penalty won’t harm Fox. Nothing short of repeated on-air apologies would heal the damage to viewers of the nation’s largest “news” source. Publicized firings might help, too. Perhaps Smartmatic will do better.

“Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling hasn’t been overturned, only stayed. Of course, by the time the case comes before the Supreme Court, justice may come to Justice Thomas.

“What on earth makes your local writer insist that independents have no ideals unless they belong to one of the two political parties that are failing the electorate? That’s ridiculous. I respect your independence. Like you, I am an American first. I think for myself, and my ideals are for the good of all. After that, I am a Green Party member because I agree with their ideals and agenda most of the time.”

My response to the Blog:

“Maximize the positive, minimize the negative” is an axiom of marketing, speechwriting, politics, and other forms of salesmanship. If you recall the early Starship atmospheric tests, they had a number of dramatic failures until they figured out the control issues. SpaceX will sort this out, and we will see successes. We all learn from failures.

I agree. The Dominion settlement was a fraction of Fox News annual profit. Plus, the money will be written off as a business expense, which means We, the People, are ultimately paying the bill. The firing of Tucker Carlson, allegedly for his contribution to causing the Dominion suit, is a big step forward. I do not think any of these “penalties” will put a dent in the hold Fox News has on the far right. Likewise, I have hope that Smartmatic’s turn at bat will yield the court jury decision we need.

Correct. Kacsmaryk’s order has not been overturned . . . YET! It was a foolishly written, poor jurisprudence ruling that must be struck down. The 5^th Circuit’s assessment is expected next month. Hopefully, the Supremes’ decision will come before the end of the session. I am not confident justice will come to Thomas. Justice Scalia faced a similar but less egregious conflict of interest than Thomas’s transgressions. I just finished Scalia’s 21-page justification for his refusal to recuse himself from a case before the Court and review the memorandum in Update no.1111.

Short answer: insufficient curiosity and blind loyalty to a political party . . . ‘us’ versus ‘them’ tribalism. Yes, her reasoning is ridiculous, myopic, and grossly ill-informed. As I respect your independence. I find positive and negative in all political parties, but I cannot find affinity with any of them. Further, even if I could, I feel internal resistance to risking the negative consequences of joining the corrosive political tribalism that is so injurious to this once grand republic.

 . . . Round two:

“I agree about the ‘tribalism.’ I get a ‘word of the day’ email from Merriam-Webster. I think I found my term for the different approaches to life in a linked essay comparing pragmatism to dogmatism. That, rather than specific policies or philosophies, shapes our problems and progress. The dogmatic approach to politics (and life in general) has done great damage. I'll stick to being pragmatic about the national well-being.”

 . . . my response to round two:

We have an awful lot (far too much) of dogmatism in these troubled times. Made even worse, far too many people refuse to do the necessary due diligence with respect to the information they are being fed by unchallenged social media, unethical talking heads, and blatantly politically biased so-called news outlets like Fox News, News Max, and such. Likewise, I prefer pragmatic and try to avoid dogmatic. I will add here that I think dogmatic on the left is just as bad as dogmatic on the right. We need thinking, debate, negotiation, and compromise to find solutions.

 . . . Round three:

“A dogmatic approach always creates trouble, whether the dogma comes from Tucker Carlson, Don Lemon, the Bible, the Quran, or any given source.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Oh my, yes! Dogmatism is a cancer within the body politic. Yet, the social conservatives and far right are driven to dogmatism and authoritarianism by their diminishing position. There are dogmatics on the far left, but they appear to be less stringent and pervasive than the far right version. Also agreed, the source of dogma is irrelevant; it is all bad and not helpful to any democracy.

 

Another contribution:

“Good morning! I’ll respond to Nancy Plencner’s letter with an excerpt from George Washington’s farewell address, a prophetic caution regarding political parties, which beautifully and eloquently articulates why I, an independent voter, choose not to affiliate with them.

“. . . I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

“This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

“Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

“It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

“There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume….”

-- President George Washington (19.9.1796)

My reply:

Thank you for your contribution.

Excellent choice and wise words from President Washington. If only more citizens would read and heed his wisdom.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)