Update no.1016

 Update from the Sunland

No.1016

28.6.21 – 4.7.21

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

 

            To all,

 

Wednesday, 30.June.2021, at 15:31 [R] EDT: the SpaceX Falcon 9 Transporter 2 launch vehicle lifted off, after a range violation by an unauthorized aircraft had scrubbed the previous day’s launch attempt. The first stage booster flew back to Cape Canaveral and executed a perfect dead-center landing three minutes after launch. This mission was the 8^thflight for that particular booster. Fifty-five minutes after launch, at an altitude of 530 kilometers, the Transporter vehicle began 31 separate deployments of 88 mini-satellites. I do not know how many space launches I have watched through my advancing years, but they never cease to bring a smile to my face and a special joy to my heart. The engineering and physics are impressive no matter how routine they become. We can marvel in that engineering each and every time.

 

Now, we have dueling billionaires seeking to become astronauts. Sir Richard Charles Nicholas Branson is expected to be aboard the inaugural flight of his Virgin Galactic spacecraft VSS Unity with a planned launch date of 11.July.2021. The flight is designated Unity 22. A week later, Jeffrey Preston ‘Jeff’ (Jorgensen) Bezos is expected to launch aboard his Blue Origin spacecraft New Shepard with his brother Mark, 82-year-old Mary Wallace ‘Wally’ Funk, and the as-yet unnamed winner of a seat auction. The winning bid of US$28M surprised most, if not all, observers. Elon Musk, the owner of SpaceX, has not yet indicated whether he intends to join the billionaires into space race.

 

I trust all Canadians enjoyed and celebrated Canada Day [1.7.1867] when they became a self-governing dominion and essentially independent. Likewise, after the year from hell, American citizens celebrated Independence Day [4.7.1776] when we separated from the United Kingdom and became a sovereign state, although we had to fight mightily for the next six (6) years to enforce our independence. We remain a work in progress. Jeanne and I sat out on the back porch with the dogs and watched the city’s 20-minute fireworks display along a different fireworks display at the local tribal casino. Happy Independence Day!

 

In the continuing debate regarding the so-called cancel culture, Critical Race Theory (CRT) and related topics, a friend and contributor sent along the following article for our cogitation:

“Dropping the hammer on ‘cancel culture’”

by Judd Legum

Popular Information

Published: Jun 29 (2021)

https://popular.info/p/dropping-the-hammer-on-cancel-culture?r=a27i&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email

 . . . to which I responded:

I found the last sentence to be a great summary statement about the BICP, QAnon, lemmings who perpetuate and expand the BIG LIE. “It's about motivating a political constituency around buzzwords.” Amen!

The problem is, most of those believers will never research these matters to learn more about what they believe in; they just believe.

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

 . . . with this follow-up comment:

“I've always wanted to know more about many things. The blind followers scare me.”

 . . . to which I simply replied:

You and me both.

 

On Monday, 28.June.2021, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily rejected the Virginia appeal (No. 20-1163) of the 4^th Circuit’s ruling in the case of Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board [4CCA No. 19-1952 (2020)], which had affirmed the district court judgment. District Judge Arenda Lauretta Wright Allen of the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, made the original ruling in favor of Gavin Elliot Grimm [USDC VA ED, No. 4:15-cv-00054-AWA-RJK]. The Supreme Court’s rejection of the appeal of the 4^th Circuit’s ruling means the Supreme’s affirmed the 4^th Circuit’s affirmation of Judge Allen’s original judgment. Grimm is a transgender person who identifies as a male and was denied access to the male restroom at his high school. After conflict with the school board, Grimm went to the extraordinary effort to have his official birth certificate amended to reflect his gender identity and comply with the board’s directive, only to be denied by the school board again.

U.S. Circuit Judge Henry Franklin Floyd wrote for the 2-1 majority. He recorded, “For seven weeks, Grimm used the boys’ restrooms at Gloucester County High School without incident. Despite that smooth transition, adults in the community caught wind of the arrangement and began to complain.” It was not the students who had the problem with Grimm’s gender identity; it was the adults with all their taught prejudice. Floyd when on to note, “Perhaps unsurprisingly, those schools also discovered that their biggest opponents were not students, but adults. The proudest moments of the federal judiciary have been when we affirm the burgeoning values of our bright youth, rather than preserve the prejudices of the past.” [Emphasis mine] In his concurring opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge James Andrew Wynn Jr. wrote, “[T]he [board’s] policy grossly offends the Constitution’s basic guarantee of equal protection under the law.” He concluded, “History demonstrates that this self-conception is unshakeable indeed. Transgender individuals have persisted despite the significant harms that arose from living in societies that did not recognize them: cultural marginalization and disregard at best, and horrific oppression and lethal violence at worst.” Writing a dissenting opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Paul Victor Niemeyer observed, “[T]he word ‘sex’ in Title IX refers to biological characteristics, not gender identity.” He concluded, “We are commissioned to apply the law and must leave it to Congress to determine policy.” This one sentence starkly illuminates the difference between the strict constructionists and the living constitutionalists. Judge Floyd sought to protect the rights of an individual, while Judge Niemeyer sought to confine the court to the authority of the state. Frankly, I am grateful to Judges Floyd and Wynn for standing on behalf of the individual.

My thoughts: We are bound by a sexual / biological construct that was formed in ignorance.  Gender identity is not solely defined by genitalia at birth. Other factors contribute to gender identity, e.g., hormones, mental and emotional genetic factors, et al. It is simply impractical and unrealistic to suggest we amend the Constitution every time we learn more, or the definition of a word takes on more expansive meaning. The court did not and does not address the root cause, namely parents and other citizens with archaic notions of gender identity. Further, while the tenacious grip of Victorian morality on this republic continues to weaken, it remains a strong force that we must deal with in life. Those parents and citizens who objected to the school proper treatment of Gavin Elliot Grimm are apparently incapable of rational consideration; they were consumed by a deeply antiquated notion of gender identity. In this case, we have an example of why we cannot take the easy road, i.e., prohibition for all based on a perceived fear of a few. We must deal with identification and intervention with the few transgressors rather than punish the whole. The deep fallacy of the social conservative status regarding transgender individuals rests upon the reality that sexuality and gender identity exist in the minds, thoughts and beliefs of the individual—not in the person’s genitalia. We are learning more and more every day that sexuality is a vast array of spectral colors; it is NOT (and never was) binary as social conservative mores dictate. We must grow up in so many ways. Gender identity is only relevant to the individual. How each of us responds to the individual based on any one or combination of the social factors is on each of us, not the transgender person. Every citizen is entitled to equal protection under the law regardless of the social factors, one of which is sexual or gender identity.

 

C-Span has hosted a survey of 142 presidential historians after the end of each presidency over the last two decades. Each president’s conduct and performance were evaluated and ranked in ten specifically defined areas:

-- Public Persuasion

-- Crisis Leadership

-- Economic Management

-- Moral Authority

-- International Relations

-- Administrative Skills

-- Relations with Congress

-- Vision / Setting an Agenda

-- Pursued Equal Justice For All

-- Performance Within Context of Times

The results were quite understandable in many respects, but a tad surprising in a few findings. First across all four of the polls stands Abraham Lincoln. Just behind Lincoln are: George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ike Eisenhower. At 9^th and 10^th are Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, respectively. From my perspective, the Iran-Contra Scandal and Beirut bombing of the Marine Barrack push him back about five places, but hey, that’s just me. Bill Clinton was ranked 19^th, which is substantially higher than I would rank him, but I confess to my bias against him for his conduct with Monica Lewinsky and his handling of the scandal. His impeachment would push Clinton back in my rankings. My previous worst, Jimmy Carter, was ranked 26^th—too high from my perspective. Tricky Dick Nixon stands at 31^st. He deserves credit for ending the Vietnam War and opening relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). However, Nixon’s blatant disregard for the Constitution and felonious conduct should have ranked him lower on this list. Then, we come to the [person who shall no longer be named], who is ranked at 41^st, ahead of Pierce, Johnson, and Buchanan (last). Of course, the transgressions, crimes, and malfeasance of the last president are quite fresh in our experience, but even with that proviso, the last fellow should have been dead last by a long way. Oh well, no one is perfect.

 

I considered reporting and commenting on the latest of the atrocious public statements by the [person who shall no longer be named], but I want to relegate him to the dustbin of history. The man is pathological and apparently cannot help himself. The BIG LIE continues in his mind, and we must suffer the consequences.

 

The Supremes released a number of important end-of-session decisions, some of which we have already discussed. Another one was issued Thursday—Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee [594 U.S. ___ (2021)]. As reported in the Press, the Brnovich ruling affirms the recent restrictive election laws incorporated in Arizona as a consequence of the BIG LIE. The Brnovich decision is on my reading list for next week, so my opinion will have to wait.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.1015:

Comment to the Blog:

“The sentence Derek Chauvin received for killing George Floyd was considerably lighter than Floyd (or anyone) would have received were the tables turned. Nevertheless, I see it as progress. I sincerely hope it will not be undone upon appeal.

“The Democrats have not and probably will not enact the policies they campaigned on, as usual. The Clintons and their allies sold their spines.

“Critical Race Theory is a red herring.

“Criminal charges are apparently in the works against King Baby’s company, courtesy of the Manhattan DA’s office. The wheels of justice grind ever so slowly.”

My response to round two:

That is my opinion as well. I also agreed with Al Sharpton on that matter—the strongest yet but not yet equal. I also agree that it is progress. I thought Chauvin should have gotten a lot stiffer sentence under the law for a host of reasons. Likewise, I do not want it to be undone on appeal. Progress by jerks as the physicists say.

My oh my, you are hard on Democrats. I am not quite so pessimistic, but only time shall tell the tale. Next year, we will be reaching the peak of the midterm election process, so we shall see.

CRT may well be a red herring, but I am not certain I see that clearly. I would agree that is how the BICP members are trying to use it. However, the purpose or objective of CRT as I understand it is worthy and appropriate. As General Milley stated it, understanding white rage and white privilege is important to achieving true equality and equal treatment under the law, and if not ending institutional racism, at least we might diminish it to obscurity and irrelevance. I thought General Milley was spot on the money.

Exactly . . . ever so slowly. These charges, as I understand them so far, are against the company, not the principal. I suspect this is an intermediate step to turn the vice another couple of turns in the ultimate objective. I sure as hell hope we get to criminal charges against the man himself for what he has done to this once grand republic.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“The thing to know (other than the material) about critical race theory is that it's a post-graduate subject. It's not taught in any K-12 school anywhere or even in undergraduate courses. The entire discussion about teaching it to children is as ridiculous as the accusations of voter fraud.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

Oh my, you got that right, all the way around. The BICP displays airs of desperation trying to find the useful triggers to keep their believers aligned and committed. It is rather grotesque to witness, and even worse, far too many Americans actually believe the BICP drivel. That is why I thought General Milley’s statement was so appropriate.

 

Another contribution:

“Good evening Cap, at last a chance to read the blog! Oh liked the cover of your latest book. I’m somewhat behind with your books. Looking at the cover picture you have gone for the heavy 4 engined aircraft- need some catch up. Could be Amazon then.

“Good to see the discussion on firearms. Your country has a long way to go with the abolition and control of personal firearms. Will you ever get there-I personally doubt it.”

My reply:

I am glad you were able to read the latest Update.

Thanks for your compliment. The cover was the publisher’s concept. The books are there when you are ready. The heavies seemed quite appropriate since the Allies amped up their strategic bombing campaign over Germany in 1943, and the limited range of Allied fighters enabled horrific losses among the joint bomber commands. Yes, print and digital versions should be available from any source.

I cannot imagine that the United States would ever reach a complete abolition of small arms for citizens. I absolutely believe there will be more safeguards implemented to seriously reduce the access to firearms for mentally ill, violence prone, and disturbed individuals. As I stated, I espouse balance as we create these additional laws. I think your doubt is appropriate. I don’t think we will ever get to that point . . . at least in my remaining lifetime.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)