27 December 2021

Update no.1041

 Update from the Sunland

No.1041

20.12.21 – 26.12.21

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

 

            To all,

 

On Saturday morning, 25.December.2021, Christmas Day, I was manifestly unable to get any work done as I watched the live coverage launch of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which occurred spot on time at 07:20 [R] EST.  The launch took place from the European Space Agency (ESA) Guiana Space Center in Kourou, French Guiana. The journey to its final halo orbit around Lagrange Point L2, 1.5 million kilometers from earth will take 30 days to complete. Using a camera on the second stage, we watched one of the first of 344 distinct steps (deployment of the solar array to achieve a power positive state) that must occur flawlessly to ready the spacecraft for its real work. The unfurling of the spacecraft should be complete by the time it reaches its final working position. The mission calls for another five months of testing, calibration, and certification of the onboard instruments. Hopefully, we should see the first images from the JWST by this coming June.

In the process of preparing for and watching the launch, I learned some interesting details. The primary reflector is 21 feet across (roughly three times the diameter of Hubble’s primary reflector mirror. It is comprised of 18 hexagonal, adjustable, gold-plated mirrors, each about 6.5 meters across. The final position at Lagrange Point L2 is nearly four times the earth-moon distance away from the sun and well short of the 228 million kilometers of the earth-mars distance.

For those who just might be interested in this project, I recommend the following article:

“The James Webb Space Telescope will transform our understanding of alien worlds – NASA's newest eye in the sky will soon launch to study the mysteries of the universe—and some of its first targets will be the fascinating planets that orbit other stars.”

by Nadia Drake

National Geographic

PUBLISHED DECEMBER 15, 2021

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-james-webb-space-telescope-will-transform-our-understanding-of-alien-worlds

 

Merry Christmas, Happy Boxing Day, Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year to all. May the next year finally give us relief from the trauma of the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

As is his penchant, on Monday, [the person who shall no longer be named] filed yet another suit. This time, it is in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of New York. He has claimed his 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendment constitutional rights have been violated by the New York Attorney General Letitia Ann ‘Tish’ James. The plaintiff’s complaint was provisionally titled: Trump v. James [USDC ND NY Case 5:00-at-99999 (2021)] {Title not emphasized because the court has not yet recognized it.} The delusional man is attempting to stop the state attorney general from investigating him and his New York based companies for a wide variety of felonious crimes, and his argument for this injunctive relief is, she called me names. I suspect this suit, like so many others from the man afflicted with malignant narcissism, will not make it past the preliminary hearing stage. This legal document reads more like a child’s grievance book—she called me some bad names and hurt my feelings. And, he apparently intends to make this case trial by Twitter. Interestingly, the man’s attorney repeatedly used the phrase that [the person who shall no longer be named] “will continue to suffer, significant, imminent and irreparable harm in the form of deprivation of their constitutionally protected rights, privileges, and immunities.” I suppose the man wants to saturate the judicial system with extraneous lawsuits to stretch out his remaining days of freedom until he passes.

 

Jeanne sent me an interesting tweet:

Just watched the movie ‘Don’t Look Up’ on Netflix. Where do I begin. It’s both brilliant and horrific. It perfectly depicts the GQP Republican death cult’s dangerous unhinged moronic thought process and corruption as being humanity’s destruction should they stay in power.

Ricky Davila

2:01 PM · Dec 25, 2021

The Davila tweet struck resonance with me on many levels. Likewise, we just watched the star-studded movie “Don’t Look Up,” and had exactly the same reaction. I thought it was an exceptionally well-done parody of contemporary reality . . . “death cult,” indeed.

While we can laugh as we cry at the tragedy we witness play out around us today, I have come to realize some observations. Just as many folks of that persuasion have attributed their resistance to their individual freedom of choice, as if it is their individual rights exceed all rights of everyone else and they thumb their noses at the common good, the reality seems to be that they were dreadfully misled by the people they believe in and trusted. With that said, I also confess that the focus of my ire has been largely misplaced. The real culprits are not the underlying anti-vaxxers but rather the conspiracy theorists and right-wing fear-mongers that have flooded the entire array of communication media with gross misinformation for political purposes. While there are a portion of the anti-vaxxers who refused the vaccine simply because they do not trust the government or medical establishment, I suspect the majority of anti-vaxxers are frozen by the plethora of misinformation. The more people like me pushed on anti-vaxxers to overcome the misinformation and get vaccinated, the more they dug in their heels in suspicious resistance, or perhaps it was outright selfish defiance—nobody is going to tell me what to do!

Further, one last word to the bona fide anti-vaxxers (as opposed to the misguided faux anti-vaxxers), there is risk of complications and side effects in virtually everything in life. There is risk even entering a hospital, set aside receiving any medical procedure. There are risks of walking down the street or driving down the highway. There are risks to virtually everything we do in life. The vaccine risks have been grossly exaggerated by the conspiracy theorists and fear-mongers. And with all the misinformation in cyber-space, it is no wonder some folks are frozen in doubt, suspicion, and fear.

It is the conspiracy theorists and fear-mongers who we should publicly condemn, not their victims.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.1040:

“‘morning young man-goodness Cap that is some blog-you must spend hours assembling all that. However keep bashing the keyboard, it is all of interest.”

My reply:

In editions like 1040, most of my time is consumed with reading and researching. While I do some Blog writing as thoughts come to me, the preponderance of Update writing occurs on Sunday; I call it my Update-day. My curiosity and drive to learn keep me going. I try to achieve a good mixture of book, Blog, and eMail writing each day. It helps that I truly enjoy the thinking and writing processes. Some folks enjoy painting, working on automobiles, playing music, gardening, and such. I enjoy crafting a good sentence now and then, and putting together an engaging story.

 

Comment to the Blog:

“Judges tend to be more loyal to the rule of law and less subservient to those who appointed them than other appointees. No doubt King Baby expects judges he appointed to favor his causes, but oh well.

“My current reading, Critical Thinking Skills for Dummies, discusses propaganda. It’s no surprise that lowest-common-denominator folks would attempt to counter what their ‘leaders’ claimed was happening.

“Your other contributor’s phrase ‘fear porn’ is apt. I don’t see how it applies to weather forecasting, but it fits COVID and some other issues like a glove. Critical thinking matters here.

“As far as ‘driving while white,’ that’s pure imagination. Per DNA testing, I’m as white as anyone. I have been stopped numerous times while driving older cars, especially when away from home. However, I know many middle-class white people who drive ordinary cars and haven’t been stopped unfairly ever, including one who drove with no license for decades. Most of the police pick on people who look like easy targets, whether by race, social class, or the distance they’d have to travel to fight a ticket/charge. License plate lights are a favorite excuse for those stops.

“Rather than follow the discussion of laws about sexual conduct, I’ll address the initial question. ‘Does Law Exist to Provide Moral Order?’ No, laws exist to preserve the established social order. Laws around morality serve that purpose by gaining the support of, originally, the powerful Church. Nowadays, they secure votes from a religious/moral base. Regardless of statements, none of those morality laws affects the actual conduct of the wealthy, but only of those they seek to control.”

My response to the Blog:

Quite so, and as it should be. I read a lot of court decisions at all levels of the Judiciary as well as other legal filings like complaints, briefs and such. The reasoning is refreshing and encouraging, although I am occasionally disappointed, as I was in the latest SCOTUS ruling—Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson [595 U.S. ___ (2021)] [1040]. Despite the contemporary perturbations, the jurisprudence eventually stabilizes, e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford [60 U.S. {19 How.} 393 (1856)] [322] to Plessy v. Ferguson [163 U.S. 537 (1896)] [537] and eventually Brown v. Board of Education [347 U.S. 483 (1954)]. Sometimes it takes time; in the case of racial law, over a century, but we eventually got it correct. There is always hope. Yes, indeed, [the person who shall no longer be named] deeply believes his appointed judges should be loyal to him. Surprise! They are not. I have seen no sign of that phenomenon raising its ugly head, e.g., Judge McFadden’s Opinion and Order in Committee on Ways and Means v. Trump [USDC DC Case No. 1:19-cv-01974 (TNM) (2021)] [1040]. I trust the Judiciary will remain independent and loyal to the law, although there are a number of recent SCOTUS cases that challenge my trust.

We seem to be in another minority obstructs era as our ancestors faced nearly two centuries ago. The worst of it was broken by a horrific Civil War. Unfortunately, we are still dealing with the remnants of that trauma to this day. I truly hope the contemporary rendition does not take us to another civil war, but the jury is still out on that one.

I offered my opinion; nothing to add.

Re: “driving while white.” I know it is, but my framing of the phrase was to contrast the popular issue before us today. I am afraid I cannot agree with your use of “most.” I think a more appropriate modifier is “some.” Yes, bad men with badges and guns are out there, perhaps more so in some regions prone to racist thinking, but most police officers I know or have met from time to time are good, careful, conscientious officers who try very hard to be respectful, fair and equitable.

If you can find the time, I would encourage you to read Lord Devlin’s words in the document and URL link I provided. You will see elements of your position in his words. Matthew Blackman’s reflections of the intellectual debate is quite insightful although incomplete from my perspective. Yes, I do agree that, in my opinion, social conservatives throughout our history have used or attempted to use the law to validate and enforce on everyone their beliefs. When you study the law behind so many of the morality laws, you see the influence of Judeo-Christian religion, as Lord Devlin noted. I do agree with Lord Devlin that public morality laws are vital to the cohesion of any stable society. Where I disagree with his reasoning is the reach beyond the public-private demarcation. As such, I believe he erroneously justified morality laws where harm or injury is very tenuous. I was pleased to see his use of the objective “balance.”

 . . . Round two:

“Especially in ‘minor’ matters, it’s ordinary human behavior to build a career on a high rate of task completion. In police patrol work, that works out to mean making traffic stops with the strongest chance of conviction. Drivers who most likely can’t or won’t fight a ticket become low-hanging fruit. Those will often be poor people, minorities, or outsiders as the officer scans the environment.

“My perspective of the law derives from my interest in history rather than the mechanics of law. Formal regulation of society began with autocrats maintaining order via the military for their own benefit. Police evolved from people hired by aristocrats to guard their estates. That focus on the good of the established order has never gone away. The morality part of it arose because governments need the support of voters and, in the past, powerful Church officials.”

 . . . my response to round two:

While I have no direct, hard evidence to substantiate your statement, my anecdotal empirical evidence suggests it is likely true. That said, I do not think it is widespread or a common phenomenon, but rather more likely in rural, small jurisdiction occurrences. As with many such issues, I cannot ascribe broad generalizations. I urge caution with socio-economic motivations for law enforcement actions. I suspect the majority of law enforcement, urban to rural, are motivated by the law without regard to socio-economic parameters. Yes, there are bad laws that enable such socio-economic rationale; they are wrong but exist.

I will not quibble with your opinion. However, I would like to offer a slightly different twist to your genesis of government. Archaeologists and anthropologists who study such things have theorized the evolution of civilization circa 10,000 years ago and generally summarized their findings into a sequence:
Settlement Ãž Religion Ãž Temples Ãž Farming Ãž Cities

The reasoning can be extended to security and protection and the evolution of kings, i.e., they raised armies to protect their kingdoms (and the people). In general, religion has offered us a moral code to normalize societies. Unfortunately, just as it is true with any clump of human beings, there are bad men in both royalty and religion who do not feel the greater good but rather their own sense of power and self-aggrandizement. Because of that, a symbiotic relationship grew between royalty and religion, i.e., they were divinely given. Yes, religion, especially the revealed religions, gave us morality for a host of reasons and no boundary between public and private. Thus, if religion did not feel or recognize that boundary, then neither did government. Privacy is a concept of law that evolved long after the basic “Thou shall not murder, commit adultery, or steal.” The Ten Commandments as written (other than on stone tablets from The Mount) are roughly three millennia old, while the Code of Hammurabi is 3,800 years old. Privacy did not evolve in English common law until circa 17th Century, although there are hints of the concept of privacy back to at least the 14th Century and earlier. The principle of public-private demarcation did not evolve in law until Sir Edward Coke’s The Institutes of the Laws of England in 1628, and later Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England in 1765. Until then, there was no bulwark to stop or slow the penetration of morality laws into our private lives. The correction has had fits & starts in the last few decades. We have a very long way to go.

 . . . Round three:

“Just for clarification, I'm not suggesting that supervisors give officers quotas or anything similar, although I'm not ruling that out. It's simply a part of Western culture to do the best job one can, and that drive in police officers will often result in target selection by likelihood of conviction, especially in ‘minor’ situations such as traffic tickets.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Understood, accepted, and agreed. We know that traffic ticket quotas existed in the past. I’m not so sure these days, but they might be entirely possible in rural jurisdictions. Police supervisors may not hand out quotas as overt motivation, but if they emphasize the number of tickets as a metric of productivity, it is essentially the same thing. From my knowledge and experience, I think you may be exaggerating the phenomenon. ‘Nuf said.

 

Another contribution:

“What a wonderful long read!

“Thanks for sharing the very lengthy contribution presumably completely.

“Your similarly lengthy response was great, less obsessed with your usual anti-Trump drivel, more directed to each point, and compassionately dealing with your conclusion regarding the contributor's sincere question about his own possible ‘racism.’

Therein lies real issue: is a good faith reaction by a white male to aggressive broad brush antiracism in itself proof of that man's racism?

“I sympathize with your contributor. I suggest only that he try to admit (not in the nature of any confession of guilt) that, like me, he simply cannot justify using historically correct exposure of the evil of white supremacy to shame him personally. It is a natural defense mechanism to resent and respond to being or feeling labeled as ‘racist.’ The problem with today's ‘wokeness’ is it's universal indiscriminate application to denigrate the so-called conservative mindset, erroneously attributing such only to us over-privileged white guys!

“Of course, the leftist agenda encourages tribalism and division, so ‘wokeness’ unfortunately is very much in vogue. I hope the education of non-whites will save us in time.”

My reply:

Re: “usual anti-Trump drivel.” Drivel is defined as nonsense. Is that what you intended to say? If so, I shall ask, how would you suggest I confront the destructive, criminal conduct of [the person who shall no longer be named]? I have illuminated the evidence of his malignant narcissism affliction from long before he became president; I see no reason to cease that effort, since he still wields inordinate influence over the once grand old party. Until his destructive conduct stops, I shall continue to confront him as I do racism.

Your framed query is intriguing and thought-provoking. At the root level, so much of this question lays upon perspective and definitions. For example, you used the words “aggressive broad brush antiracism.” My opinion hangs upon the word “aggressive.” “Broad brush antiracism” is hard for me to resist. Racism is racism in the main or in the minutiae, and such should be confronted wherever and by whomever it occurs. So then, we come to aggressive. To me, an inviolate threshold is injury or harm to anyone at any time or place. A single image instigated the entire thread of which I only included my participation; that photo was of perhaps a dozen, muscular, angry-looking men with dark skin pigmentation bearing semi-automatic firearms moving in formation. The image was used to suggested armed, angry men were Black Lives Matter (BLM). There was nothing I could agree, with the explicit and implicit content. First and foremost was the implication that white was OK, black was not. That particular image displayed NO violations of law. Those men were doing what many white men have done for decades. Second, another implication was those men were BLM, which I categorically objected to as race-baiting fear-mongering. Too many American citizens point to BLM as rationale for white supremacy as displayed at Charlottesville (2017). For the record, BLM has been and remains a peaceful protest group trying to illuminate racial injustice still present in our society. Yes, there are violent provocateurs who use BLM protest events as cover for their felonious activities much like false-flag operations, but that does not make them BLM at any level.

Holy-moly, Roger! “[T]he leftist agenda encourages tribalism and division” is way off the page from my perspective. I cannot find any path to agree with your opinion. In fact, from an independent, non-aligned, moderate perspective, I would say exactly the opposite. I see the division and tribalism coming from the right; encouraged, stimulated, and amplified by [the person who shall no longer be named], which is precisely why I confront his conduct—drivel or not. Again from my perspective, it is white Americans who desperately need education, thus my support for CRT and so-called woke-ism, although I really dislike that term.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“I should first apologize for ever accusing you of drivel, when I have never doubted your sincerity and should have chosen something like ‘tiresome rhetoric that detracts from your spot-on observations about that remarkable narcissist.’

“Secondly, and not to overly prolong an already lengthy discussion, I hope you picked up on my personal realization (which I suspect is not unusual among educated white Americans) after decades of claiming immunity from any racist infection I am recognizing and reluctantly admitting my inability to really relate to and appreciate the understandably aggressive anti-white aspect of ‘wokeness.’ I agree that our society needs balanced education about our racially tainted history, but I bitterly resent overt disregard for the honorable intentions of our forefathers as so hopefully expressed in The Declaration. Our children and their parents need to be taught that the admirable humans who bravely constructed the best ever experimental in free nation building had to compromise and if speaking today would chastise the two ruling parties for their tribalistic tendencies.

“Lastly, I should echo your typically eloquent defense, at least inferred, of the best intentions of those who seek to educate our population. You and I will probably continue to disagree about the underlying intentions of the socialists whose agenda is inconsistent with the intentions of our forefathers to preserve and favor individual freedom over group comfort and welfare.”

 . . . my follow-up comment:

No need for an apology. No harm, no foul. LOL I am not sure “tiresome rhetoric” is any better than “drivel.” Nonetheless, you are entitled to your opinions and views, which I respect. Tiresome my words may be, but I will argue that it is [the person who shall no longer be named] who is truly tiresome and drivel-ish. I simply confront his aberrant behavior, conduct, and words when they sprout. As I tried to sound the clarion warning that his malignant narcissism was and would continue to be highly destructive to anything and everything he comes in contact. That is the nature of his affliction. We see the consequences of giving a malignant narcissist presidential powers and aggrandizement. ‘Nuf said.

From my perspective, your second point opened well and encouraging until you reached “aggressive anti-white aspect of ‘wokeness.’” Respectfully, I suggest that concept is just another right-side baseless conspiracy theory (and I use ‘theory’ reluctantly since it implies logical reasoning). What the right calls “wokeness” is another loaded word like “colored.” That aside, perhaps you do not believe or trust my opinions, and that is perfectly fine. You have that right. At the risk of coming off as more boring, what the right loves to call “wokeness” is a canard when it is simply an argument for equality; it is not and cannot be “anti-white,” as the right likes to present this debate. My gosh, “I bitterly resent overt disregard for the honorable intentions of our forefathers as so hopefully expressed in The Declaration” to me is an excessive exaggeration. To my repeated reading of The Declaration, I can find no reference to slavery or any other racial animus; as you well know, I espouse the lofty principles in The Declaration, despite the common paternalism of the day and the mischaracterization of “merciless Indian savages.” However, the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 and Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3) clearly sanctioned slavery and the subjugation of American citizens with dark skin pigmentation. Even with a horrific Civil War and the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution (1865), American citizens with dark skin pigmentation faced institutional discrimination and oppression, e.g., Jim Crow laws well into the 20th Century, and we witness a resurgence today. They still do not have true equality to this very day, e.g., racially motivated laws, prosecutions, and incarcerations. One more time, the efforts to achieve true equality for ALL citizens regardless of any of the social factors (including race, ethnicity, et al) does NOT detract from American citizens with light skin pigmentation and thus CANNOT be “anti-white.” Are there racist people with dark skin pigmentation—Yes. There are bad men is all groups of human beings. All American citizens should know and understand exactly why slavery came into existence, was codified in the Constitution, and became the basis of institutional discrimination American citizens with dark skin pigmentation face to this very day. Now, in the spirit of equality, we have come a very long way since the days of slavery and Jim Crow; it is just we still have a long way to go. Lastly, I have no intention of retreating to silence as long as racial or sexual inequality exists in any form, anywhere. FWIW, I absolutely agree with the last sentence of that paragraph. Unfortunately, far too many Americans could not care less; they have no interest in learning or understanding; they simply react according to their taught racism and their tribal dicta. Thank you for reading and listening.

Socialism is not some other boogeyman. Neither is communism. There are admirable principles in both political philosophies. The problems arise when flawed human beings attempt to implement those principles, e.g., the Soviet Union, the PRC. What I often react to in those political debates is the blind resistance to the good in those ideologies. Further, it troubles me greatly that we believe our embrace of democracy and free market capitalism is so bloody fragile that it cannot stand up against the argument of socialism and communism without blind dogma. Further, the hypocrisy of our contemporary laws is striking. We embrace corporate socialism but reject off-hand individual socialism; that hypocrisy simply does not compute for me. I am good with W’s “compassionate conservatism,” if we could ever realize that state.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

20 December 2021

Update no.1040

 Update from the Sunland

No.1040

13.12.21 – 19.12.21

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

 

           To all,

 

The launch of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has been delayed from the 18th to no sooner than the 22nd and more likely the 24th at 07:20 [R] EST. I appreciate the caution with this one-of-a-kind payload worth US$10B. More to follow.

 

            The follow-up news items:

-- U.S. District Judge Trevor Neil McFadden for the District of Columbia dismissed the lawsuit by [the person who shall no longer be named] to keep his tax returns [705] from the House Ways and Means Committee—Committee on Ways and Means v. Trump [USDC DC Case No. 1:19-cv-01974 (TNM) (2021)]. In the second paragraph of his 45-page opinion, Judge McFadden stated, “But even if the former President is right on the facts, he is wrong on the law.” He concluded, “It might not be right or wise to publish the returns, but it is the Chairman’s right to do so. Congress has granted him this extraordinary power, and courts are loath to second guess congressional motives or duly enacted statutes. The Court will not do so here and thus must dismiss this case.” Judge McFadden also allowed a 14-day suspension of his order to leave the window open for appeal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which judging from past performance is a safe bet. {BTW, Judge McFadden was appointed by the previous president; go figure.} I am certain it is a shock to [the person who shall no longer be named] that the law applies to him like every other American citizen. Regardless, he has lost in court in multiple jurisdictions and at all levels. The end is near for his obstruction.

 

In the latest, evolving, Supreme Court move to invalidate or resend the landmark Roe v. Wade, [410 U. S. 113 (1973)] decision, the 5-4 conservative majority in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson [595 U.S. ___ (2021)] sent the case back to the District Court after they dismissed the suit against most of the respondents based on narrow, strict, interpretation of the law. They allowed the suit to proceed against a few state government civil servants. Roe, the basis of the legal action, is not even mentioned in the majority opinion for the Court. You may recall, the Supremes refused to issue a stay or injunction in their first pass at Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson [594 U.S. 21A24 (2021)] [1025], thus allowing the punitively restricting law to remain in force while the courts chew on the validity of the law. Justice Gorsuch wrote for the majority, and he noted, “[E]ight Justices hold this case may proceed past the motion to dismiss stage against Mr. Carlton, Ms. Thomas, Ms. Benz, and Ms. Young, defendants with specific disciplinary authority over medical licensees, including the petitioners.” Although they differed on which of the four categories of respondents should go forward, eight of them agreed on the one category noted above. While this is a procedural decision, it offers us a glimpse into where and how the conservative majority is headed. Worse yet, by their inaction, the majority allowed the Texas anti-abortion law (S.B. 8) to remain in force and active. Justice Thomas, the one justice who would have dismissed the case against all respondents outright, bemoaned the fact that supporters of abortion have been sued just three times, while opponents have been sued 14 times over the same period. What Justice Thomas apparently refuses to recognize or acknowledge is opponents are NOT having their civil rights infringed upon. Supporters must defend their rights; the same is not true for opponents. Chief Justice Roberts joined the dissenters. He observed, “Texas has employed an array of stratagems designed to shield its unconstitutional law from judicial review.” And further, “The clear purpose and actual effect of S.B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings.” The chief justice concluded, “The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.” And yet, the conservative majority plows ahead. Justice Sotomayor wrote a far more direct dissent at the root issue. She said, “The Court thus betrays not only the citizens of Texas, but also our constitutional system of government.” “S.B. 8 authorizes any person—who need not have any relationship to the woman, doctor, or procedure at issue— to sue, for at least $10,000 in damages, anyone who performs, induces, assists, or even intends to assist an abortion in violation of Texas’ unconstitutional 6-week ban.” This is exactly the point I have been most concerned about since I first became aware of Texas S.B. 8. How is any particular accuser going to have sufficient evidence to establish a basis for their accusation? A guess, a hunch, a suspicion, a rumor, supposition, somebody told me, are those all sufficient basis under S.B. 8 to file suit against the person(s) of attention? S.B. 8 was ridiculous on its face, and yet, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority refuses to even recognize this reality. Justice Sotomayor concluded, “While the Court properly holds that this suit may proceed against the licensing officials, it errs gravely in foreclosing relief against state-court officials and the state attorney general. By so doing, the Court leaves all manner of constitutional rights more vulnerable than ever before, to the great detriment of our Constitution and our Republic.” I think Justice Sotomayor hit the nail squarely and drove it home in one stroke. That is exactly the acid and fire the conservatives are playing with to validate their social conservative morality and agenda.

 

A recent newspaper article sparked my curiosity and tickle-bone.

“3 residents of The Villages arrested after casting multiple votes in 2020 election”

by Joe Mario Pedersen and Monivette Cordeiro

Orlando Sentinel|

Published: DEC 14, 2021 AT 5:16 PM

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-ne-the-villages-arrested-casting-multiple-votes-2020-election-20211214-ee3t4xa7qzbqtmt2xf563km644-story.html

Three residents of The Villages, a community 20 miles northwest of Orlando, were arrested and face felony charges for 2020 election fraud. See, see, there was real election fraud in the last election! Joan Halstead, 71, Jay Ketcik, 63, and John Rider, 61, tried to cast multiple ballots and were caught. You might be surprised to know that there is no evidence that they knew each other. Halstead and Ketcik are registered Republicans. Rider has no party affiliation in the registry. All three of them have posted messages in support of [the person who shall no longer be named]. So far, the only citizens arrested for election fraud have been Republicans. Is [the person who shall no longer be named] accusing everyone else of doing what he has been doing just another sleight of hand deception by a wannabe dictator and consummate snake-oil salesman?

 

On Tuesday morning, the U.S. House of Representatives voted upon and passed H.Res. 851 [House: 222-208-0-4(1)]—the charging of former White House chief of staff Mark Randall Meadows with criminal contempt of Congress. The resolution goes to the Department of Justice for action. Meadows is now the first former member of Congress since 1832 to be held in criminal contempt of Congress. Judging from Steve Bannon’s arraignment on the same charge [1032] and Bannon’s trial date set for July 2022, which is an extraordinary delay on a such an important task, I suspect Bannon’s and Meadows’ lawyers will be spending much of the intervening time plotting ways to delay the trial further. Meadows has not yet been charged by the Justice Department, and assuming he will be charged, his trial date will likely be even later. A pattern seems to be evolving, these guys appear to be far more afraid of [the person who shall no longer be named] and his supporters than they are fearful of prison. What will be will be.

 

From a continuing exchange with a friend and occasional contributor in this humble forum, I offer this relevant extract:

“The weather people selling fear porn (similar to the fear sold on COVID), tried to make me think I need to be constructing the ARK, and as usual this was a simple cold front moving through San Diego with minimal problems.

“I too share your concerns about where the geopolitical/geoeconomic aspects are as you and I write.

“Maybe I should clarify/qualify that I do not think all racial equality is wrong, I am saying it often is unfair, unbalanced in the totality of problem, and very much exploited by the likes of Jesse Jackson, the good Reverend Al Sharpton, the alphabet news mafia, and other clowns amongst them.

“You mentioned ‘driving while white’: Well a few years ago I was driving in Santee, California and out of nowhere, a sheriff's patrol deputy red/blue lighted me while I was safely driving. She walks up, good looking black woman. She asks for my DL/REGS/INS and I hand them to her, she said she stopped me for one light on my license plate lights being out. She runs me thru system, code-4's her backup unit that arrived, and does not go paper (write and tickets/fix-it stuff) and tells me just to take care of the problem, ‘have a good night.’ I admit it was nighttime and midnight, and she was wanting to bag a DUI. I admit she could not see if I was white, at night. But I could have pulled the proverbial race card, jumped up and down, claimed police brutality and that she only stopped me because I am a white man. No, I did not, and that is why I did not even get ‘paper’ on that one. If Anderson Cooper had for 10-years indoctrinated me too, telling me ‘poor white man, the blacks abuse you’ then I would have jumped up and down that night.

“Does racism exist, it sure does. Are we tribal people? We sure are.

“Do you think I am racist? I had a black (well half Italian) semi-girlfriend. Back in the 1980's my coworker who was black, took me into an all black bar in Culver City. He laughed when I went in because I looked around and it was all black people, I was the only white guy in there. So I acted tough (but Clint Eastwood cool), sat down, and ordered a beer (likely a Colt 45 malt liquor). My friend/peer laughed and laughed because he said no white people would ever sit down in there. I had ‘THOSE’ people coming up to me like I was some celebrity, welcoming me, and saying they never see a white guy in there.

“Let's talk about the hypocrisy Cap: Months back I had a limo gig to our local casino on the Indian reservation, Viejas. The night I took these ladies up there for a B-day dinner, Viejas was incredibly busy unlike ever that I witnessed. It happened to be Latino Nights, for one concert, and then an indoor play/music called Black Pride Magic. Black Pride Magic was cross dressers who were of course black, men dressed as women, putting on a performance. Of course, all were black. Do you think you and I could put a performance together called White Pride Magic????? No, we'd be hauled off by FBI and demonized for life in the news and social media. That is the hypocrisy! You & I try to do White Pride Magic or White Southern Nights, and the villagers would hang us from trees then burn us. So much for equality!

“Back to more serious national security matters: Today on the nationally syndicated Jesse Kelly show (local: 760-AM from 1500 hrs to 1800 hrs), Jesse who is an Iraq War VET, started talking about the woke'ism infecting our military. Cap, you know what Jesse Kelly said? He said this is a cancer and that everyone in the military indoctrinating for woke'ness, advocating it, sympathizing with it, needs to be PURGED from the USA military from the levels of generals to janitors! Jesse has become much more important to me to listen to, after today's show.

“This campaign for SOCIAL JUSTICE is not about equality or helping our nation heal. It is just a tool/instrument to divide us, to cause more strive, to shame whites, and spread the mental illness and madness, in my humble opinion.”

My response:

Weather is weather no matter what we say or think about it. Extreme weather phenomena have occurred throughout history, i.e., 1709, 1816, ad infinitum. We just got a spit last night; expect high winds today.

Beyond the double negative, I assume from your statement that you believe racial equality is an appropriate and worthy social objective. Correct?

Wow! Perhaps my assumption above is incorrect. Pointing an accusatory finger at Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for racial inequality or injustice is rich, really rich (he said with dripping sarcasm). To my knowledge, they have never asked for more than simple equality and the expungement of racism or racial discrimination/segregation from the public domain. They know perfectly well that racism will persist in the hearts of men taught from birth to distrust and yes hate those not like them. You call that division. I call it striving for equality.

Now, for the record, my wife can attest to the validity of the following statement. Every time I see someone (anyone) mouthing off at and defying law enforcement, or fleeing law enforcement, or worse yet, physically resisting law enforcement, I nearly shout and rant at the screen—stop! Stop resisting! In every case I’ve seen in the last several decades of cell phone videos, body cams, and YouTube, I have not seen one officer being disrespectful or acting in a racially biased manner. I have also seen officers not handle situations in a responsible manner, but those are usually instigated by active resistance or defiance, e.g, Derek Chauvin. He would not have found himself in that situation if George Floyd had not resisted.

I can offer a comparable traffic stop example. I was driving down a 5-lane (center turn lane) residential street on a bright, dry, sunny day. There were no other cars (none) on that block of the roadway in either direction. I was distracted by an internal matter and drifted perhaps a tire width across the center white dashed line and promptly corrected. A Wichita PD officer noticed my transgression, pulled me over (lights ablazing), and issued me a ticket for my improper lane change. I did not argue or debate his judgment or action, even though I thought it was a really chicken-shit action. I did not rant and rave about the ridiculousness of his action. Resisting or defying law enforcement is simply wrong no matter what your skin pigmentation happens to be. Resistance and defiance is a threat.

Re: “Do you think I am racist?” Frankly, with your statement above “telling me ‘poor white man, the blacks abuse you,’” I will suggest you really should carefully search your heart. The differentiation of public conduct by the genetic pigmentation of your skin is simply wrong—either way, or any way. Anderson Cooper has never even hinted at such a thought. I am glad you dated a woman with dark skin pigmentation, and you could have a beer in that Culver City bar, but none of that absolves you of potentially racist thoughts. I freely confess that I may have it wrong, but I cannot see any of the civil rights actions from Nat Turner to the Freedom Riders and BLM as seeking dominance, subjugation or abuse of their white oppressors; they simply seek equality and respect. Just because Americans with dark skin pigmentation are trying to achieve equality does not mean they seek to deny equality to Americans with light skin pigmentation. If you think “white privilege” is a right, then I can understand your sense of division and abuse. The impression I am left with is, you feel there is a yin & yang to racial equality, i.e., if we lift up one social factor, we must push down the opposite factor.

With respect, neither of us have ever even remotely felt the oppression, discrimination, disrespect, or outright criminal abuse that Americans with dark skin pigmentation have felt and still feel to this very day. I am grateful that I am what I am by birth, but I also hold considerable sympathy for my fellow Americans who have not enjoyed the same freedoms I have enjoyed; thus, my support for BLM. I have never been a fan or supporter of this new term ‘woke-ism.’ I think it is just one more attempt at division and demonization of the boogeyman—“not like us.” 

Also with respect, I have not and probably will not listen to Jesse Kelly, but if he believes ‘woke-ism’ is destroying the U.S. Armed Forces, then I will respectfully disagree. Critical Race Theory (CRT) is long, very long, overdue throughout American society, not just the military or our educational system. CRT does not denigrate Americans with light skin pigmentation nor does it advance Americans with dark skin pigmentation beyond equality. CRT illuminates history. Racism was NOT limited to the ante bellum South. Redlining existed in Chicago and New York well into the 80s.

I could point to cases like Emmett Till or Medger Evers, but the one case that is irreparably burned into my consciousness occurred on 25.July.1946, honorably discharged WW2 veteran George Dorsey, his pregnant wife Mae, and their friends Dorothy & Roger Malcom were driving down a dirt road near Moore’s Ford Bridge, between Monroe and Athens, Georgia, when they were ambushed by a white mob. The mob tied the four to an oak tree, tortured them, and shot them at least 60 times at close range (according to the coroner’s report). It was the ultimate “driving while black” crime.

Just an odd, off-hand, unsubstantiated opinion, I suspect the children of that white mob at Moore’s Ford Bridge that day in 1946, are probably the same people who elected Marjorie Taylor Greene to the House of Representatives.

Lastly, I cannot and will not agree with anything in your last paragraph. I believe you are dreadfully wrong with every word up to “in my humble opinion.” I respect your freedom of choice to believe and say such things, but I am comparably compelled to confront such thinking. You are wrong, but you have a right to be wrong, but please do not expect me to sit idly by in silence. So, you ask, “Do you think I am racist?” By that last paragraph, I would answer, yes, I do. As a friend, I strongly recommend you seek professional counseling to confront your racism. I do not believe you are overtly racist, as in lynching someone solely because of their skin pigmentation, but the inverse is equally racist and more insidious. Americans with dark skin pigmentation are NOT trying to oppress you or deny you any of your civil rights or freedoms; they are only seeking equality and respect. I say this with a very heavy heart, but it must be said. I hope you can take my words in the spirit of Sir Winston Churchill’s very wise words—”Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body, it calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.”

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

 

A recent article sparked my curiosity in a vital societal question of our time.

“Does Law Exist to Provide Moral Order? – Is social cohesion possible in plural societies? Philosopher H. L. A. Hart weighed in amid debates on abortion and same-sex relationships.”

by Matthew Blackman

JSTOR Daily

Published: December 15, 2021

https://daily.jstor.org/does-law-exist-to-provide-moral-order/?utm_term=Read%20More&utm_campaign=jstordaily_12162021&utm_content=email&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_medium=email

A little more specific history might be helpful as a supplemental to the above article. The original British law that criminalized homosexual conduct was the Labouchère Amendment that became §11 of Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 [48 & 49 Vict. c 69 (1885)] [14.August.1885]. Seventy-two years later, Her Majesty’s Government commissioned a committee of 11 men and 4 women from various intellectual disciplines and charged them with examining the basis of English laws against homosexuality. The committee was chaired by Sir John Frederick Wolfenden, later Lord Wolfenden, Baron Wolfenden of Westcott in the County of Surrey. By a vote of 12 to 1, the committee’s final report titled “Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution,” more popularly known as the Wolfenden Report, was published on 4.September.1957 and recommended decriminalization of homosexual conduct. With the ensuing public debate, Justice of the High Court, Queens Bench, Sir Patrick Arthur Devlin, Bt, later Lord Devlin, Baron Devlin of West Wick in County of Wiltshire, offered his opinion of the Wolfenden Report in his Maccabaean Lecture in Jurisprudence at the British Academy on 18.March.1959. The lecture as given was titled: The Enforcement of Morals [later published under the title “Morals and the Criminal Law”]. Ten years after the Wolfenden Report, British law was finally changed—Sexual Offences Act 1967 {1967 c 60} [27.July.1967]. It was Lord Devlin’s lecture that garnered my attention.

Lord Devlin presented numerous probative and salient points to rationalize his opinion that there is a public morality, and the State has the authority and responsibility to enact laws to enforce public morality. I could argue with much of Lord Devlin’s reasoning, but he was a reflection of his time, and his opinion is not the object of my thinking beyond as a catalyst for public debate. He also acknowledges that the rationale for using the law to enforce public morality is a very tenuous matter since it opens the door to entry into the private domain and can be boundless in its application. Lord Devlin argued that morality is thread, or perhaps the reinforcement of the threads, that define the fabric of any society, and thus without those reinforcements, the fabric will disintegrate under pressure. He also stated that “Immorality then, for the purpose of the law, is what every right-minded person is presumed to consider to be immoral.” On this point among others, I respectfully disagree. Who defines “right-minded”? Further, Lord Devlin repeatedly declared, “I return to the statement that I have already made, that society means a community of ideas; without shared ideas on politics, morals, and ethics no society can exist.” I do not dispute his statement. However, the issue is and remains one of balance and based on what criteria. Lord Devlin does not offer us such a criterion other than a “right-minded man.” Two areas of morality addressed in the Wolfenden Report and Lord Devlin’s lecture are homosexuality and prostitution, but the principles apply to all morality laws.

The homosexuality laws in the United States did not change in their entirety until Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003); 26.June.2003] [082188]. The root issue with homosexuality is public versus private conduct. Although the proper resolution took an inordinately long time to resolve in the United States, it was eventually made right. The same root principle applied to many morality laws, which drew me to read Lord Devlin’s rationale in favor of morality laws.

The demarcation in his debate is the public versus private domain and a collateral variation of harm or injury versus neither. As with all debates of this nature, the devil lays in the definitions and the basis for those definitions, i.e., who and how do we define harm or even injury? 

Morality is often practically defined as what a person does when no one is watching, i.e., it is a very internalized, individual construct, taught and learned from parents, religion, and society. Moral outrage is likewise quite individual and intangible in the mind of the offended. As a consequence, moral indignation cannot and never should have been rationale or the basis for law—applicable to all citizens under the jurisdiction of the law. Lord Devlin is correct in that we need morality and moral laws, but the rub comes in where we draw the limit of reach by those laws.

A woman’s uterus is by definition private—very private, the ultimate in private, NOT public. The State has no right or authority to intrude upon that private sphere. What conflicts in this question is one of when does private conduct cause harm? To the social conservatives, that milestone is conception—a state that current technology is unable to identify instantaneously or even promptly. From a logic and reason perspective, I think the Supreme Court established in Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] [319] that milestone under the law as what they call quickening—viability outside the womb. As the time Roe was decided, quickening was circa 26 weeks. Medicine has lowered that threshold to circa 20 weeks. It is not 6 weeks as set for in Texas S.B. 8. The social conservatives use the harm metric in that context to justify their advocacy before the law. The debate brings us to the question, when do the rights of the fetus exceed the rights of the mother? How do we find balance between the two often-opposing forces? As I have written numerous times, if social conservatives showed just a smidgen of more respect for a living child as they do for an inanimate clump of dividing cells, I might be more amenable to their arguments. They are not, so I am not. We, as a society, culture and nation, have violated the public-private demarcation far too many times in almost two centuries of misguided morality jurisprudence. The nine-justice Supreme Court panel voted 7-2 in deciding Roe. Justice Blackmun’s opinion for the Court sought to find the balance between private and public, between the constitutional rights of a woman and the “rights” of a developing fetus. They never made unrestricted abortion “legal” despite the extraordinary misinformation campaign pushed by the social conservative segment of American society and the unilateral unconstitutional conduct of Mitch McConnell.

We seemed to have learned from our dance with prohibition of alcohol when it came to tobacco. We could have prohibited tobacco, but we did not want to repeat the destructive trauma of the prohibition (alcohol) era. We took a far more intelligent approach to tobacco. We informed and advocated for cessation, but we passed laws to allow tobacco usage while protecting public safety and well-being. Somehow we could not apply that intelligent approach to psychotropic substances. We should take the tobacco approach with abortion rather than the alcohol or drugs approach.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.1039:

Comment to the Blog:

“Thank you for calling attention to the disbarment referrals in that Michigan case. I agree about the importance of those. A fine is an inconvenience at that level of law; disbarment is killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

“Amateur hour in space is useless for science or engineering, but is a familiar marketing method.

“The New York Times has a newsletter report this morning on GOP election manipulation. Horror is an appropriate response.

“Racism has persisted the whole way, but incidents like the George Floyd killing have drawn attention to it. Also, I believe racism goes back not as far as language, but only as far as real property. Fear of the other is the deeper foundation of that entire category of strife. Also, the police here “did something” about the BLM protesters here. A violent protester has been sentenced to 9 years in prison. Also, various members of the police force are being convicted or losing lawsuits as a result of body and other cameras. Interesting note: experts on genetics make a point that race is a social construct, not a scientific reality.”

My response to the Blog:

Agreed all the way around. Far too many lawyers have prostrated themselves at the altar, and they must suffer the consequences. It is one thing for a pseudo-politician to espouse the BIG LIE. It is all together a different matter for an officer of the court to perpetuate the BIG LIE.

There were four paying tourists aboard NS-19. At the level of the New Shepard missions, it is just tourism and marketing.

Indeed! And, it is getting worse. Further, I suspect it will get much worse before we have any hope of seeing improvement. The fBICP seeks an autocracy they direct, or worse yet, a dictatorship, not entirely different from Saddam Hussein and his dictatorship for the Sunni minority in Iraq.

The prosecution of a violence inciter is encouraging, although not widely publicized. Yes, law enforcement officers are being prosecuted as well as vindicated by body cam and other video sources.

Racism is a social construct, not a scientific reality, has been my contention for decades. Racism is learned, thus my comment about language. [I had to choose something. Language seemed like a reasonable demarcation (goes back 200-250,000 years ago). We can see the “not like us” phenomenon in nature, e.g., lions attacking a leopard or hyenas, elephants attacking hippos, et cetera.]

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

13 December 2021

Update no.1039

 Update from the Sunland

No.1039

6.12.21 – 12.12.21

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

 

            To all,

 

Erratum:

I made a dreadful mistake of omission in last week’s Update [1038] that must be remedied. In the paragraph about Judge Parker’s sanctions of the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the King v. Whitmer lawsuit, I omitted perhaps the most important section of her ruling. Prior to the list of plaintiffs’ attorneys and their state(s) of licensure, I should have quoted Judge Parker’s most punitive sanction for the malfeasance of those attorneys. Judge Parker stated, “[T]he Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this decision to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission and the appropriate disciplinary authority for the jurisdiction(s) where each attorney is admitted, referring the matter for investigation and possible suspension or disbarment.” Disbarment (the rescission of their license to practice law) is far more punitive than a meager US$20K fine share. I truly regret the omission in my original rendering, and I even left off the period of the prior sentence. I will claim the missing period suggests I intended to insert the above paragraph but forgot. Nonetheless, I think there is a precise but unstated reason Sidney Powell is listed first in that rogues’ gallery. I can find nothing redeeming in her public statements. The others are guilty by association.

 

At 08:02 [S] CST, Saturday, 11.December.2021, Blue Origins launched New Shepard mission NS-19 into non-orbital space with the latest crew of amateur astronauts, comprised of: 

-- Michael Strahan – NFL Hall of Fame defensive end and television personality,

-- Laura Shepard Churchley, eldest daughter of famed NASA astronaut Alan Shepard, and paying passengers:

-- Dylan Taylor, 

-- Evan Dick, 

-- Lane Bess, father, and 

-- Cameron Bess, son.

It was another flawless mission from what I could see and hear.

 

Later Saturday, the young lads from the Military Academy at West Point and Naval Academy at Annapolis played the 122nd rendition of the annual Army-Navy football game. It was a great game of back & forth; well worth the watching. Navy won 17-13. Go Navy! Beat Army.

 

Last spring, the Arizona Senate (with a 16-14 Republican controlled majority) to do their part toward perpetuating the BIG LIE initiated an independent Republican-controlled detailed audit of Maricopa County’s (only) 2020 election results. The Senate Republicans engaged and contracted with an unknown Florida novice company (recommended by you know who) known as Cyber Ninjas using state treasury funds to perform the audit. The company reported its results last summer. Since then, Senate President Karen Fann, who represents a similar part of the state as Representative Paul Gosar [1036], if that is a clue, has consistently defied the state superior, appeals and supreme courts, to withhold the audit report from public scrutiny.

“Arizona Senate spending big to keep its audit secrets”

by Laurie Roberts

Arizona Republic

Published: Monday, December 6, 2021

This is precisely why we do not want politicians anywhere near the vote counting process at any level. I am left with the impression that Senator Fann fears her messiah, AKA [the person who shall no longer be named], and her radical constituents far more than she does the judiciary or prison. My guess is, the results did not turn out the way she expected as a proponent of the BIG LIE, and she does not want the shenanigans and malfeasance involved in the process to become public knowledge. Fann will not be able to withhold the documents indefinitely; they will eventually reach the public domain. She is probably hoping to hold off public disclosure until after the 2022 elections or perhaps even the 2024 elections. The stark, cold reality of all this remains, none of it would have happened without the BIG LIE originated and perpetuated by [the person who shall no longer be named]; he is the ultimate perpetrator of all of it. The chief culprit sits back fat, dumb, and happy in the sunshine playing golf while his minions compromise their morals, their values, their integrity, and their reputations at the altar of the Oh So Great Orange One. We can only hope those foolish people believe their sacrifice is worth it.

 

The following exchange was extracted from a thread in a different forum. The instigating item was a single image of a group of armed men with dark skin pigmentation and the claim of Representative Marjorie Taylor Green of Georgia that “Congress is Going After January 6 Defendants but Not After BLM.” The contributor commented:

“It has always perplexed me as it might you about how often the race card is introduced, and how so many in school/academia/news/Hollywood continuously tell us how bad race relations are. While it is obvious I am not a person of color, let's say African-American (or in my day we said a ‘black’ person), nor have I had any negative encounters with L.E., I was thinking for a decade plus that race relations had improved in America. The former prejudices and blatant racism I saw diminish. I certainly am not suggesting it still does not exist, but I saw progress. When I am walking around Little Italy in San Diego and a black man with a white woman, or black woman with a white man, and they are hugging and holding hands, I really thought we made progress past the stigmatizations we saw for decades. But it seems an incident like George Floyd, set us back a few decades and back to square one (well not as bad as ‘square one,’ but not as good as we perceived the progress of).

“You are always welcome to share any of my comments/retorts/nasty duel, with your group and the weekly Update.”

 . . . to which I replied:

I shall take you up on your invitation. Thank you.

First, racism is an insidious, corrosive, toxic phenomenon that has been part of humanity since our ancestors began to walk upright and use language for communications, but that does not make it correct or acceptable. It is based on a root emotion—"not like us.” The phenomenon inherently induces fear, distrust, and suspicion. It is also solely a learned phenomenon. It is taught by parents and cultures to their children, and it is perpetuated by that indoctrination of childhood. It is NOT genetic, inherent, or natural.

Second, racism is NOT unique to American citizens with dark skin pigmentation. History is replete with graphic examples of racism in various forms, e.g., Native Americans are “merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions”; Asian exclusionary laws; “Irish need not apply”; et al. Here, I must say, other factors of discrimination pervade other social factors, i.e., religion, language, ethnicity, sexual orientation, political affiliation, and even gender. Again, it boils down to “not like us.”

Third, racism shows up in infinite forms from simple to complex, from mundane to serious. While the Ku Klux Klan may not be lynching 14-year-old boys with dark skin pigmentation today, the reality of racism still exists in the minds of those children of Klansmen, among far too many others; they have been taught. Redlining is not as overt as it used to be, but it still exists to this very day. Now, for the record, racism can and does occur in reverse, e.g., an elderly Caucasian man assaulted simply because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time with the incorrect skin pigmentation, or a truck driver beaten senseless for the same reason.

I could go on, but this is not intended to be a treatise on racism. My point was, racism is so bloody insidious that far too many people are incapable of recognizing the reality of racism, or so inbred with racism, they refuse to recognize it. We see that reality in court tested factual evidence to this very day.

Simply put, that image had one purpose . . . “not like us.” Be afraid of the big bad boogeyman. That image had and has nothing to do with BLM or their purpose in protesting racism. I have seen NO evidence (just inuendo, rumor, and misinformation) that BLM ever sought or even encouraged violence in any form. Have there been inciters who use BLM events to commit multitudinous crimes? Yes, absolutely! That fact cannot be attributed to all American citizens with dark skin pigmentation or even BLM as an organization.

I am adamantly against racism is all its forms, covert to overt. They are human beings just the same as us except for a genetically provided pigmentation of their skin. They are exactly the same on the inside. We must confront racism wherever and however it exists.

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

 

On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit delivered yet another rejection to [the person who shall no longer be named]—Trump v. Thompson [DCCCA no. 21-5254 (2021)]. This decision dealt with the appellant’s claim of executive privilege in his attempt to withhold or delay the release of relevant White House documents to the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol [1020]. One sentence in the 68-page ruling seems to summarize this decision (and perhaps all the myriad failures by the [the person who shall no longer be named]). Circuit Judge Patricia Ann Millett writing for the unanimous panel observed, “He [the person who shall no longer be named] offers instead only a grab-bag of objections that simply assert without elaboration his superior assessment of Executive Branch interests, insists that Congress and the Committee have no legitimate legislative interest in an attack on the Capitol, and impugns the motives of President Biden and the House.” [emphasis mine] Worse for the former president, Judge Millett offers repeated criticism of the former president that verges upon a judicial indictment of the former bully-in-chief. She stated, “[T]here is a sufficient factual predicate for inferring that former President Trump and his advisors played a materially relevant role [in the January 6thinsurrection].” The former BIC is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court in his efforts to obstruct the House Select Committee’s work. Given the DC Circuit’s ruling, I would expect the Supreme Court to summarily deny the appeal, which in turn would be the end of the road for the fBIC’s obstruction efforts.

This is the kind of drivel that so often sprouts from the demented mind of someone afflicted with malignant narcissism. Truly delusional! And this fellow continues to waste the valuable time of the Judiciary with his self-aggrandizing, worthless lawsuits. One common reality of all these presidential court cases, judge after judge at every level from the lowest to the highest have admonished [the person who shall no longer be named] for the flightiness of his arguments. I truly doubt so many lawyers are that incompetent, but they are hungry enough that it compels them to attempt what they must know is wrong and insufficient in order to placate their client. And yet, he persists in wasting the court’s time and capacity on frivolous, unsubstantiated, inadequate, and ill-developed spurious claims. This case is consistent with that guttural level of performance. Once again, this is exactly what malignant narcissism does. This is what Republicans voted for in the 2016 and 2020 elections. Nonetheless, the BIG LIE persists, and we must endure. One thing is as certain as the sun rise in the morning. The ego and malignant narcissism of [the person who shall no longer be named] will not allow him to admit reality, and the evidence of his culpability in the January 6th insurrection continue to mount. I just hope he lives long enough to suffer the punishment he deserves for what he has inflicted upon this once grand republic.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.1038:

Comment to the Blog:

“In cases involving the ex-Resident, the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow, but seem to be working. The continuing education for his lawyer agents is a nice touch, but I agree the sanctions are too light.

“It’s relevant to the ex-Resident and many other facts of life that my current reading is <i>Critical Thinking Skills for Dummies</i>. I highly recommend critical thinking skills as a useful tool for pretty much anyone. This book has sections discussing science and Hitler, among other things, and I’m still in the first part.

“While I agree that the ‘strict constructionists’ don’t evolve, the 8th Amendment uses the term ‘excessive’ twice and ‘cruel and unusual’ once. The terms evolve. Also, I agree that interpretation differs according to the interpreter’s feelings or agenda.

“To me, the point of Ms. Taub’s article on the movie <i>Armageddon</i> compared to the DART mission is the fiction versus the reality of individualism.”

My response to the Blog:

Thank you for your contribution. Your comment on Judge Parker’s sanctions of the plaintiffs’ lawyers sparked me to re-read the Update as published only to discover I had left off the more important and potentially punitive sanction. Thus, I have already written an erratum for next week’s Update. To me, the most important sanction is disbarment. Judge Parker cannot disbar an attorney, but her charging document in the form of the King v. Whitmer Opinion and Order is an important document of evidence piling up against Sidney Powell among others. While Powell’s disbarment is appropriate, I suspect that action is not likely in Texas for political reasons, and conversely, such action would be a bit sad in that she is just a lackey for the real, bona fide, perpetrator in all of this chaos. Powell deserves disbarment, but the ultimate snake-oil peddler in history deserves far more severe punishment for what he has done to this once grand republic.

The attempted italics transfer came through as simple .html code. Not to worry, I will ensure the italics appear in the Update. I am with you on the necessity of critical thinking, and we bear direct witness to what the paucity of critical thinking can do within an electorate and a democracy.

Yes, I agree. Justice Alito quoted a 1958 Court decision—Trop v Dulles [356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958)]. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated, “The Court recognized in that case {Weems v. United States [217 U. S. 349 (1910)]} that the words of the Amendment are not precise, and that their scope is not static. The [8th] Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. [356 U.S. 101].” Why Alito seems to think the reasoning only applies to the 8th Amendment is simply baffling to me. I am not and never have been a “strict constructionist.” I am an “evolutionist,” if a label must be attached. “Interpreter’s feelings or agenda”—I suppose that is one reason there are nine justices on the bench.

Good point. That point is applicable to many topics. Fiction may drive emotions, but we live reality . . . well at least most of us. LOL

 

Another contribution:

“Yes, I enjoyed that Judge Parker named Trump in the same way the characters in Harry Potter spoke of the evil Lord Voldemort, the one who cannot be named.”

My reply:

Yep, lots of good reasoning in Judge Parker’s ruling. Now, I just want those applicable lawyer disciplinary organizations to disbar some of those lawyers, especially Sidney Powell.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)