Update no.961

Update from the Sunland

No.961

8.6.20 – 14.6.20

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

            To all,

            Shortly after 03:39 [U] PDT, Wednesday, 10.June.2020, a young man was found dead and hanging by a rope from a branch of a tree in the 38300 block of 9^th Street East, Palmdale, California.  He was identified at Robert L. Fuller, 24 years old, and just happened to have dark skin pigmentation.  The death was initially reported as an apparent suicide, but the Los Angeles County Coroner stepped back from the position, and then classified Fuller’s death as a potential homicide.  The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has opened a homicide investigation.  We do not know whether it was a suicide or a lynching.  Yet, given the sordid slivers of our history and tumultuous times in which we live, probability says this event was a lynching of a young American citizen with dark skin pigmentation.  This is the destruction wrought by the BIC.  This is the hatred he has fertilized and encouraged.  Some group of hatred-filled someones have decided to take us back one hundred years, to a time when they perceive America was great.  We must wait for the investigations conclusions, but I fear the worst.

            A friend and former colleague sent along this contribution:

“I am predicting to you that before this is over, anyone not kneeling during the national anthem will be arrested for overt racism;

“And, I am quite serious – we will reach a point where the American flag will no longer be allowed to be displayed as it is a source of historic and unyielding racism – it will not be tolerated.”

 . . . to which I responded:

            I have captured and saved your prediction.  We shall see.

            On this, we shall respectfully disagree.  In 1989, the Supreme Court decided flag burning was covered under the 1^st Amendment freedom of speech clause—Texas v. Johnson [491 U.S. 397 (1989)] [420].  How much have we seen flag burning since then?  Freedom of choice is one of our bedrock freedoms.  We have learned to tolerate all kinds of behavior under that umbrella.  My prediction: this phenomenon will be no different.

            Lastly, I think it is vital that we listen and think.  There were (are) very real reasons that Colin Kaepernick started this particular phenomenon.  We need to understand the underlying motives.  I do not believe disrespecting the flag is among those motives . . . as it was in the flag-burning case.

 . . . along with a follow-up comment:

“I truly hope this is a short-term media frenzy and you are right.

“Thanks for the perspective . . .”

 . . . and my follow-up response:

            Me too, my friend.  None of us can predict the future.

            We must find the means to look beyond the symptoms to the root cause(s).  Kneeling for the national anthem is a symptom.

            We appear to be learning a very hard lesson that lockdowns are not a viable option for a pandemic response in a free society . . . well, at least not one like ours, where the freedom of choice for an individual means far more than the general welfare of We, the People.  Freedom of choice also means we are free to be stupid.

            The hospitalization and death rates are continuing to go up in some places, e.g., Arizona, with no signs of turning the corner, and yet the governor is withdrawing restrictions and encouraging the state to return to normal as are other governors at the direction of the Bully-in-Chief (BIC).  He is desperate to get the economy back up and running at full tilt that is a worthy objective, except the virus is not done.  Is the BIC’s re-election campaign and his vanity worth another couple hundred thousand dead?

            If every citizen had followed the government guidelines regarding self-protection and social distancing, we would have broken the chain of infection.  Unfortunately and regrettably, far too many citizens did not heed the government guidelines, e.g., the BIC being the primary example, and thus the sacrifices made by 44 million citizens will be for naught.  OK, so we have established our individual freedom of choice exceeds the common welfare of We, the People.  Lesson learned!  Let’s get on with it.  Let the virus run rampant until we die, gain herd immunity, or acquire an effective vaccine.  Since I am in the high-risk group, I shall have to hope and pray I do not develop some other ailment that requires hospitalization or intensive care.  Life goes on.  Who the hell cares about old-farts like me anyway?

            I suppose this is our new normal.  Dead citizens are the price of freedom.  I hope everyone who chooses to follow the BIC in his defiance of virus response guideline his own government published thinks all of these dead innocent people are worth their freedom to do as they please.  I do NOT share their expansive view of freedom of choice.

            I watched and listened to an interview with film producer, director, screenwriter Shelton Jackson ‘Spike’ Lee.  Like me, he is no longer able to speak the surname of the BIC.  I say this to note and give proper credit to Spike for his far more elegant moniker to describe the fellow who happens to occupy the Oval Office at the moment—Agent Orange.  His choice is far more sophisticated and complex than my silly monikers.  For those who may not know, Agent Orange is also the name for a very toxic substance used as an herbicide during the Vietnam War.  So I say, thank you very much, Spike . . . perfetto, as the Italians say. The man you describe is truly a toxic substance.

            Agent Orange wanted to hold a campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma on Friday, 19.June.2020—Juneteenth, the celebration of the end of the Civil War and slavery on 19.June.1865.  Tulsa is also the site of what is believed to be the worst racial massacre in our history—31.May.1921—hundreds died simply because of the pigmentation God gave them in their skin.  Beside the insensitive timing, Agent Orange is requiring every attendee to sign a ‘hold harmless’ agreement to protect him, his campaign organization, and the venue should anyone contract COVID19 at the event.  Ya just gotta love it.  He has no clue about anything beyond protecting and promoting himself.  He probably employs a small army of cleaners to go along ahead of him so he can appear to be the omnipotent tough guy who doesn’t need no stinkin’ mask.

            Now, we are seeing multiple claims that all this COVID19 nonsense is just a left-wing, deep state, conspiracy to make the Agent Orange look bad.  So, they want us to believe 114,000+ dead Americans are all fake, made-up, to make the BIC look bad.  Yep, like I said, ya just gotta love it.  These folks can insist that: the Holocaust did not happen (fake); JFK was assassinated by the CIA; the moon landing were staged (fake); TWA800 was shot down by the U.S. Navy; 9/11 was a deliberate destruction by the USG to justify going to war like FDR did with Pearl Harbor; and now we add to the long list, the COVID19 pandemic and all, as if the dead are all fake—they are just old folks who would have died anyway.  We simply must find the means to relegate the BIC—Agent Orange, the Oh So Great Orange One, the snake-oil salesman extraordinaire—to the dustbin of history like his predecessor, Clark Stanley.

            Lastly, I am reminded of history, specifically the McCarthy hearings on Wednesday, 9.June.1954.  Lawyer Frederick George ‘Fred’ Fisher Jr. had been subpoenaed by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) under the Committee on Government Operations against his former law partner Chief Counsel for the United States Army Joseph Nye Welch.  Fisher professed, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?  At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”  My feeling and opinion precisely, I say to Agent Orange, “Have you no decency?”

            Comments and contributions from Update no.960:

Comment to the Blog:

“Your sentence about what ‘journalists are not’ gave me a chuckle.  You list doctors, lawyers, politicians, and clerics among those fields where people get things precisely correct.  If you were serious, that’s an unsupportable argument for those professions.

“Minneapolis has the votes to de-fund the police department, which was performing poorly in addition to its brutality issues.  They plan a transition period to a replacement.  Let’s not assume others are irrational.

“The concept of race is artificial.  However, skin pigment, features, hair texture, etc., are easy visual markers to give the hateful people targets.  Plenty of those same people would make a target of me if they knew that I was poor, not their religion, not 100% heterosexual, etc.  How do I know that?  In my small-town youth, people knew some of those things about me, and I was a target.  Race endangers people simply because it marks a person as an easy target.  Hence, I see class strife as underlying racism.

“One quibble from last week’s discussion. You said, ‘You have the opportunity to join a political party and help shape the party’s selection process and candidates.’  That’s manifestly untrue of major U.S. parties and is my central point about the Democratic Party.  The Democratic National Committee (DNC) successfully resists and refuses the policies supported by a majority of their members.”

My response to the Blog:

            I had to go back and re-read what I wrote.  I still think the language is clear, but apparently, it is not.  I think the implied object of the whole sentence (and paragraph) is the reporting of journalists on a very wide variety of subjects, e.g., medical, legal, military, aviation, politics, religion, and such.  Journalists are experts in none of those topics, but they must still do the best they can to report on those subjects.  I do not see how you translate that sense into an implied validation that other professions make no mistakes.  The question at hand in that section was the reporting on the incident in Lafayette Square.  My opinion was the journalists who wrote the article, Jonathan Easley and Zack Budryk, did a respectable job reporting on the event—not precisely correct, but generally correct.  The object is journalistic reporting, NOT the perfection of other professions.  IMHO, no one can ever be precisely correct; the ambiguity of human nature is by definition very imprecise.

            Yes, they do, and they are threatening to disband the police.  And I say, OK, so what’s next?  What are they going to replace the police with afterward?  Disbanding a police department must be part of some overarching plan, and there must be some police function to cover any transition.  Rather than disband a police department, pass a law to replace the chief, major lieutenants and the police union.  In the instance of Minneapolis, it is my perception that a large majority of the problem is the police union that strives to maintain the status quo and member jobs.  Talk about disbanding a police department without the overarching plan is the definition of irrational to me.

            I cannot argue with your perspective.  Racism is a different form of us versus them.  From a DNA perspective, we are far more alike than we will ever be different.  None of those physical attributes bear one twit of a hoot on the content of one’s character.  I have always said what matters is what is inside, not what package our character comes in for the conversation.

            Please pardon my ignorance.  I do not see your point.  You focus your ire on the Democratic Party.  Is this phenomenon of which you protest unique to the DNC?  Internal party politics have always been a matter of concern in every and any human organization, including all of the political parties.  However, not participating in whatever the political process happens to be is an abdication to other forces.  I do not like any of the political parties (some more than others), but I still believe we are called upon to choose the best of the lot presented.  Further, if you want to influence a particular political party, jump in and participate.  Work your way up to a leadership position and influence the party. Non-participation is not the answer.

 . . . Round two:

“I agree that simply getting rid of police would cause more problems than it would cure. 

“Police brutality is not only a Minneapolis problem.  Replacing the individuals involved in the specific incidents won’t change the nature of the system that allows the brutality, and the brutality and racism are nationwide.  Examining and immediately limiting the powers that police unions nationally have acquired to protect their members from the consequences of their actions would improve the situation somewhat for now.  Beyond that, we must study, deeply and publicly, how the police have come to see the public as their enemy and how that can be changed.  I expect that deeper examination, if it ever happens, to touch on deeper divisions in society that the people at the top don’t want to discuss.

“Let’s come back to your statement, ‘You have the opportunity to join a political party and help shape the party’s selection process and candidates.’  No, I don’t.  Per your statement, I would join the party relatively close to my perspective in the hope of somehow influencing them to come closer to my ideas.  Millions of people have done that with the Democratic Party, to no avail.  The Chump, despite his massive flaws, overcame the Republican Party by offering policies people sought (insane policies, but policies) and appealing directly to those voters.  The Democrats have not allowed Warren, Sanders, or their allies such an opening.  It ain’t gonna happen.  You can go on about how a representative republic is supposed to work, but we’re not getting that in the two-party privately-funded system.  In reality, most of the electorate is expressing itself the only way it can, by not voting for either party’s tools.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Agreed.  Simply prosecuting bad apples will not cure the ills we see amid the convulsions of the last few weeks.  Yes, absolutely, police unions have emerged as a major root cause of the problems we see in law enforcement abuses.  We have several police officers in our family; none of them see the public as the enemy.  Do some within law enforcement feel that way?  Of that, I am fairly certain, just as there are racist, xenophobe, homophobe, bad apples in law enforcement.  They deal with the dregs of humanity; it is hard to prohibit bleed-over in their work.  Further, I will add, as long as We, the People, do not feel a sense of duty to help the police, I cannot see the way forward.  The police are us; we are the police.  We need to help them do their job.  If you see something, report it.  A national LE database for accused or dismissed bad apples would be helpful, but that will only be as good as local LE organizations participate in good faith.

            It is most unfortunate you hold such a pessimistic view of our electoral processes.  However flawed our system is, it is what it is.  I choose to avoid the political parties because membership implies blind loyalty regardless of content.  That is precisely what brought us the BIC.  Not voting is your choice entirely; I cannot argue with your freedom of choice.  I am fairly certain (as history suggests) that you are not alone.  We shall once again bear witness this November when the voter turnout percentage is determined.  I respect your freedom of choice even though I fundamentally disagree.  Once again, I will vote for the best candidate on the ballot, none of which I participated in their selection.

 . . . Round three:

“Middle-class and wealthy white people, especially men, live in a bubble.  The police treat you nicely because (a) they identify with you and (b) you have resources to hire lawyers and otherwise fight back. That's one facet of white privilege.  They treat the rest of us as ‘the dregs of humanity’ you mentioned.  That whole ‘sense of duty to help the police’ is ridiculous where I live.  My sense of duty is to myself and my family, to guard against police attacks as best I can.  We have occasions when it's necessary to call the police, but that can backfire on innocent parties.

“So, if you yourself don't believe party membership is a valid approach to implementing policy, how do you plan to have a voice in a representative republic?  The method you offered me has the flaw I pointed out.  If you can't vote for a candidate that supports your policies, where does that leave you?”

 . . . my response to round three:

            That is a rather broad generalization that I cannot support.  My “dregs of humanity” comment has absolutely nothing to do with any one or combination of social factors.  [Side note: I need to add ‘economic status’ to my list of the social factors.]  It is only reflective of criminal or anti-social behavior.  Law Enforcement (LE) must deal with law violators by the very definitions.  There is no argument from me that “white privilege” exists just as systemic racism exists.  There are more than a few “white people” who support and fight for an end to systemic racism.  As long as we make all LE officer ‘them,’ they will have no choice but to act as ‘us.’  I am terribly sorry you feel as you do about LE.  To me, us versus them is a corrosive acid to the fabric of our society.  I understand the resentment, but we must collectively find a way to overcome and neutralize the acid.

            I am doing what I believe is my path.  I have been expressing my opinions, criticizing our leaders and policies, and offering alternatives for nearly 20 years in the medium of this evolving Update forum.  I seek active debate, and I persistently search for solutions.  Part of me wants to participate in party political process, but unfortunately, I have come to see that very process to be the source of our rampant tribalism we suffer today, and in that, I cannot subscribe to or participate in the furtherance of tribalism in this once grand republic.  Tribalism is just another corrosive acid eating away at the fabric of our society.  I send my Update to each of my congressional representatives (two senators + one representative); I have done so for many years; I express my views to my representatives.

            Re: “If you can't vote for a candidate that supports your policies, where does that leave you?”  An interesting philosophical question worthy of a thoughtful reply.  The very nature of our society, culture, and founding documents remains freedom—all of our freedoms, not least of which is freedom of choice.  As a consequence, we must deal with extraordinary diversity, which in turn means, we will inherently disagree.  I do not know another human being who agrees with everything that I believe in, that I want to see change.  So taken to the end point, will we have 330M candidates who gain a single vote?  In a representative democracy, we cannot possibly write laws; we would never find consensus; we trust our elected representatives to do the best they can for the whole—We, the People.  When we vote, we are NOT voting on policies; we are voting on the content of their character; that is the very nature of representative democracy.

 . . . Round four:

“Please note, I didn't say you called us "dregs of humanity."  I said the police (too many of them; I didn't mean that as an absolute) treat us that way.  My statement stands.

“I don't seek a 100% agreement with my every position.  That's silly, and you know it.  Please read for meaning, not just to attack.  I have a significantly different perspective in general from the management of the Democratic Party, as do millions who will vote for it in preference to the Republicans.  Far more potential voters recognize the reality that neither major party comes close enough to their policies to be worthy of their votes and/or that both are too corrupt for any voter who values ethics.  They withhold their votes.  My choice is to join the Green Party USA.  I differ from them on some policy matters but agree with their philosophy and respect their dedication to it versus seeking large contributions.

“You didn't address my question.  I'll word it more formally.  If neither major party is responsive to voters, how is an ordinary citizen supposed to participate?”

 . . . my response to round four:

            I responded to your words as I read them.  I stand by my words.

            Oh my, I do understand.  You are far more engaged than me.  I refuse to participate in the political party process largely because of the effects of tribalism on our political systems.  My refusal applies to ALL political parties; I have found nothing to help me find affinity.  Yet, I still contend that our duty, ney obligation, to vote has nothing to do with the political party processes.  There will never be a perfect candidate.  I have long revered and quoted Winston Churchill, but he also had flaws, quirks, and policies that I could never support.  The same is true for Lincoln, Roosevelt, and for any leader.  But, my contention remains; we must vote for the best of the lot on the ballot.  I do not see voting as particularly different from the legislative process; no law will be perfect, but we try to find the best compromise we can amid widely conflicting forces.  To me, abstention means I do not care what happens next.  Also to me, abstention is exactly why we suffer our current malady of leadership.

            I thought I did respond to your query.  The party policies (their campaign plank) are established by party leaders.  If you wish to affect the policies of any particular party, join the party and work your way up to a policy making leadership position.  Representatives from each state vote on the party plank, but not all members do; and certainly, if you are not a member, you have no vote.  Political parties are generally reflective of our system of governance.  The only other way is to write, speak, or otherwise attempt to influence your representative to advocate for whatever it is that matters to you.

 . . . round five:

“Much of your reply goes right over my head.

“The notion that I ‘must vote’ for the lesser of two evils is what has us this deep in the mess.  I must somehow find a choice that won't upset my conscience.  If there's no choice who's at least not harmful, we've lost what the Founders sought to give us.

“As you probably know, working one's way up through a major party hierarchy is a full-time job available to a very limited number of people, unless the person in question can afford to buy politicians.  Besides, some of us are disabled or too old to start now.  What about us?

“I already advocate with those who are supposed to represent me, to the level of a dozen or more mass emails or petitions daily and the occasional phone call.  There will be more communication in the future, and more personal ones.  That work may have some effect.  My U.S. Representative and City Council President took some tear gas recently on my behalf as well as their own.  I respect that.”

 . . . my response to round five:

            We seem to be reaching the limit of productive discussion on this matter.  Whether you vote or not is your choice entirely.  Your “lesser of two evils” position strikes me as a rather staunch glass is half empty attitude.  If our goal is complete alignment in a representative democracy, we will be paralyzed to inaction.  To me, there is no such thing as a perfect fit, perfect candidate, perfect anything.  At the heart of any representative democracy is negotiation and compromise, because perfect is unattainable.  So, rather than waste your time any more than I already have, let us simply leave it as is—do whatever matters to you.  I will be voting for the best candidate on the ballot.  Full stop!

            I understand at least some of your objections to our political system, but it is what it is and it has evolved over decades and centuries.  As Winston Churchill so aptly observed, “[D]emocracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”  Democracy is ugly, but it is the means we use to find consensus.

            The long and short of it is, we do the best we can.

Another contribution:

“Seriously:

“Can we talk Mitt Romney into offering for the nomination again?

“I believe he could beat the don this time.

“I think ur President has sealed his own fate and will loose to Biden, who will not prevent the Democratic Party from ruining our country.

“Of course, the more important thing is not to loose the Senate.

“BTW, remember, I AM NOT a Republican.”

My reply:

            I am not sure to what you are protesting, my friend?

            Mitt Romney, not my choice, but he would be one helluva lot better than what we have now.  At least he holds and displays character traits far more worthy of a president than the current fellow.  Too late to beat the BIC; he is the Republican presumptive nominee.  Unfortunately, for Republicans, the BIC is their leader.

            Yes, I agree.  The BIC has sealed his fate.  However, I could not believe 62M American citizens would ever vote for such an obviously and deeply flawed man, but they did.  And by a quirk in our constitutional election process for the office of president, he received 3M less votes than his principal rival and still won.  I was tragically wrong in 2016, and I freely and openly acknowledge that I could be wrong again.  The evidence against the re-election of the BIC is vast, overwhelming, and ominous, but I will not underestimate the power of the BIC’s magic snake-oil elixir again.  62M people believe and that counts for a lot; they buy his snake-oil and they are convinced they are cured of what ails them.

            We have had Democrat presidents many times in the past.  We were not ruined.  If Biden is the nominee and is elected, we will not be ruined in the future.  We survived the BIC; we can survive anything.

            I agree with you about the importance of the Senate, but I do not agree with Republicans retaining control of the Senate.  Mitch McConnell turned me absolutely and unwaveringly against that notion when he unconstitutionally stonewalled President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination.  If I was a resident of Kentucky, I would be voting against McConnell; he has proven himself unworthy.

            I do not care what political party (if any) you or anyone else has affinity.  We have disagreed on the BIC for many years, but that does not alter my sense of friendship with you going back far more years than the BIC’s administration.  I believe our friendship will endure.  I try very hard to relate to people by the content of their character, not by any one or combination of the social factors: age, gender, race, skin pigmentation, religion, ethnicity, national origin, economic status, sexual orientation, education, political affiliation, marital status (provided that the applicant has the capacity to enter into a binding contract), or disability.

A different contribution:

“‘the current turmoil does not meet the threshold level for invocation of the Insurrection Act.’ .. and what would business owners say about him if he DIDN’T take some kind of tough stance ..

“Any perceived racism needs to be taken up state by state .. presided by state organizations, preferably Private, non government .. when reports come in that can be classified as neglect based on race it can be best acted on at a city and state level

“You really believe the election teeters on the ones who don’t go out and vote huh?  I do find entertainment in your urgency to help those few people who are clueless how to register and vote .. are you talking to subscribers of your blog ?  Or should you be getting out and reaching the masses somehow ? 😄

“Do you not give Flynn the same respect for his services as you do Mattis ?  Or only the ones who have dislike of Trump as yourself ?  As stated so well by Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind.:

"As a fellow Marine, I know that General Mattis and others will respect the fact that I'm not going to get in the middle of a row between the president of the United States and his former secretary of Defense, and instead focus on threats to our freedom like the Chinese threat to Hong Kong, like Iran's threat to our close ally Israel, and all the other threats we're currently dealing with."

“In other words our perceived threat of racism is minimal to the much bigger fish ..

“You might listen to this black man .. Mattis (and you) says the President has done nothing to bring the American people together.. has there really been the need .. has there been division up until the Floyd killing which reopened old wounds ? This man lived in the 50s and 60s and he knows there’s so much more opportunity now ... I think you and many are falling into the white guilt trap you’re being baited for ...” 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6162853990001/#sp=show-clips

“‘Let us judge people by the content of their character rather than the level of pigmentation in their skin.’  .. you quote .. did the Floyd incident bring this out ?  Do you live by this motto ?  Do you make close friendships with those of different colors?  Are you okay if you live in a neighborhood where you are the only White family ? Are the ones of darker color and poorer less in character?  I rented one of my duplexes in Wichita to a black family .. it was a very nice duplex in an area where many black families were starting to afford to live .. Jeanne told me it was an area she would never want to live (off N Woodlawn) .. why was that ?  Because there is a general fear of living among too many of a different color for whatever reason mostly because of crime statistics.. So it is a big statement to make ‘Let us judge by character rather than skin color’ if you aren’t prepared to get out there and study it rather than preach it .. again this needs to be addressed at a much smaller level than federal government..

“My personal opinion is many of the younger generation blacks want instant gratification and money without necessarily having to work hard for it .. thus many get into illegal activities for money. The movies glamorize it. Watch the video above .. try to get over your Fox mental block.”

My response:

            A couple of thoughts on the first item: 1.) we are dealing with a criminal minority within a much larger peaceful protesting group; 2.) we are NOT dealing with insurrection; 3.) the BIC’s desire to appear like a tough guy is not sufficient for employment of federal troops; and 4.) I find it quite the juxtaposition that the BIC insists the states are on their own for the pandemic response, and then unilaterally seeks to impose martial law via an 1807 law to deal with criminal conduct that is clearly the domain of the states during the protests.  His inconsistency and persistent lack of understanding of the Constitution and the law are shocking.

            I actually agree with you up to the point that racism exceeds that authority, e.g., national organizations like the KKK, Aryan Nation, et al.; or, the instruments of state are themselves racist or racialy biased, e.g., a few police officers violate the constitutional rights of citizens.  

            Very good point.  I’m using the tools in my kit bag.  I am not a crowd person—never have been, thus I will not be on the streets protesting.  I’ve not taken a poll of the Update subscribers, but I surmise most, if not all, are voters.  My message is not to my subscribers, but to encourage my subscribers to talk to their children, their families, their friends, and to others they come in contact with, in life.  Lastly, I trust you will note that I have never even suggested how or for whom any citizen should vote; it is a very personal and intimate action.  I only encourage everyone to vote . . . however they wish, but vote.  I resent and condemn any actions intended to suppress the vote as we witnessed in Wisconsin and most recently in Georgia.  I also condemn the BIC’s foolish, ill-informed, and outright wrong statements intended to suppress the vote.

            Flynn was a controversial general when he still wore the uniform.  I do respect his service, but I do not respect the man.  My opinions about Flynn, Mattis, Kelly, McMaster, et al, have absolutely nothing to do with the BIC—niente!  If you wish to see my opinion from long before Mattis said what he did [960], I invite you to go back to Update no.129 (30.5.2004).  The first time Flynn was ever mentioned in the Update was no.778.  Believe it or not, the world does NOT revolve around the Oh So Great Orange One.  I agree with Senator Young’s paragraph of his statement.  I will quibble with your following paragraph.  Regrettably, Young displayed his ignorance when he suggests there was no racial division in this country until the George Floyd murder “reopened old wounds.”  I’m not going to waste my precious time recounting the long history of systemic racism that continues to exist in this country.  George Floyd was not the first to suffer while in custody and in restraints at the hands of police, e.g., Freddie Carlos Gray Jr. in Baltimore.  Unfortunately, Floyd will not be the last until we outgrow the inherent racism that still exists.

            Wow!  That is quite an accusation, my friend.  I know no one has read all of my words, but I will only note a few that are clearly documented.  My first mention in the Update of the social factors (of which race is only one) in our social intercourse comes from Update no.105 [14.12.2003].  I have lived my entire life by that simple phrase given to us by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; I have loved those words since I heard him speak them in 1963.  There is a very real, hard reason I quote those very words on the home page of my website since my website was created in 1997, along with Churchill, Lincoln, Jefferson, and the Constitution.  I wrote an essay on Diversity that was published on my website on 23.11.1999, if you are so inclined: 

http://www.parlier.com/essay-3.html#diversity.

I stand on my record.  Can you?

            As always, you are entitled to your opinions for whatever reasons you choose as important to you.  I can argue with your opinions; I do not have to agree with your opinions; but, I respect your right to express your opinions, and in fact, encourage you to do so, as I express mine.  There are bad people in every walk of life, among every element of the social factors, and in every profession.  The majority of people are good, law-abiding, peaceful, productive citizens.  I refuse to judge a group by the actions of a few that includes Russians, Muslims, people with dark skin pigmentation, Republicans, or any other one of the social factors.  Yes, I live by judging people by the content of their character, which is precisely, exactly, and totally why I see the BIC for what he is.

            I have no mental block over Fox, FoxNews, or anything Fox related program.  I evaluate and judge every single individual by their words and actions, NOT by what group they belong to, for whatever reasons they choose to belong.

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)