Update no.1017

 Update from the Sunland

No.1017

5.7.21 – 11.7.21

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

 

            To all,

 

After a weather delay, the Virgin Galactic Mother Ship (VMS) took off from Spaceport America, Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, on Sunday, 11.July.2021, at 08:40 [T] MDT. The VMS carried Virgin Galactic Space Ship Unity22 slung under the center of its wing. At 09:24, at 46,000 feet and Mach 0.9, the VMS released Unity22. A few seconds later, the hybrid rocket motor ignited. They accelerated to Mach 3 and climbed straight up, reaching an altitude of 282,000 feet (53 miles). At 09:39, Unity22 landed successfully and safely on the same runway from which they took off.

As planned and expected, Sir Richard Charles Nicholas Branson was aboard Unity22 along with three other “mission specialists” plus two pilots for what was technically still a test flight. Revenue flights are planned to begin in September of this year. Sir Richard is an ambitious, accomplished person who does not feel any compulsion to splatter his name in fauxgold on everything he owns or has licensed his name. There are reportedly several hundred passengers signed up to take commercial flights as soon as they are allowed.

 

            The follow-up news items:

-- The dominoes have begun to cascade for poor, hapless Rudolph William ‘Rudy’ Giuliani [1015]. On Wednesday, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals suspended his license to practice law in the District of Columbia pending the outcome of the original action imposed by New York State. Circumstances precluded my reading the two-page ruling by the DC court, but I will read it as soon as I am able. I like so many of the henchmen close to the [person who shall no longer be named], Rudy is paying a helluva price for his loyalty to the man who has shown no loyalty to anyone other than Ivanka, and even that bond may be questionable as she and her husband appear to be distancing themselves from the former president. What is wrong with this picture? Some may say, nothing. I say this is a direct consequence of the malignant narcissism of the [person who shall no longer be named]. In general, such outcomes were easily predicted five plus years ago. Malignant narcissism is a very destructive affliction.

 

As reported in last week’s Update [1016], the Supremes rendered judgment in an important voting rights case—Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee [594 U.S. ___ (2021)]. The alignment of the 6-3 split can be easily recognized in this specific ruling. Justice Alito’s majority opinion was quite predictable and not particularly noteworthy in its construct or content. The concurring opinion of Justice Gorsuch was comparably unremarkable. Justice Kagan wrote the only dissenting opinion. She observed, “Democratic ideals in America got off to a glorious start; democratic practice not so much. The Declaration of Independence made an awe-inspiring promise: to institute a government ‘deriving [its] just powers from the consent of the governed.’ But for most of the Nation’s first century, that pledge ran to white men only. The earliest state election laws excluded from the franchise African Americans, Native Americans, women, and [white men] without property.” Kagan went on to note, “Throughout American history, election officials have asserted anti-fraud interests in using voter suppression laws. Poll taxes, the classic mechanism to keep black people from voting, were often justified as ‘preserv[ing] the purity of the ballot box [and] facilitat[ing] honest elections.’” Criticizing the majority decision directly, Kagan said, “By declaring some racially discriminatory burdens inconsequential, and by refusing to subject asserted state interests to serious means-end scrutiny, the majority enables voting discrimination.” Spot on! Further, she added, “Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act to address a deep fault of our democracy—the historical and continuing attempt to withhold from a race of citizens their fair share of influence on the political process.” Kagan concluded, “This Court has no right to remake Section 2 {of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) [PL 89-110; 79 Stat. 437]}. Maybe some think that vote suppression is a relic of history—and so the need for a potent Section 2 has come and gone. . . . (“[T]hings have changed dramatically”). But Congress gets to make that call. Because it has not done so, this Court’s duty is to apply the law as it is written. The law that confronted one of this country’s most enduring wrongs; pledged to give every American, of every race, an equal chance to participate in our democracy; and now stands as the crucial tool to achieve that goal. That law, of all laws, deserves the sweep and power Congress gave it. That law, of all laws, should not be diminished by this Court.” Again, spot on!

At hand, the issue before the Court in the Brnovich case was two elements of the recently enacted Arizona voting reform law, namely, elimination of out-of-precinct vote counting and prohibition of anyone other than an election official, a mail carrier, or a voter’s family member, household member, or caregiver handling mail-in ballots. Prima facie, those sound like reasonable exclusions. However, as Justice Kagan carefully presented, such prohibition tacitly accept the reality that some number of citizens will be precluded from casting their vote. Therein lies the essence of my joining the dissent in this ruling. The majority is wrong.

For what it’s worth (FWIW), as is often the case with significant court judgments, I offer my observations and opinions. The reality with the Brnovich ruling, neither tribe is correct. The conservative extreme seeks to dictate a solution to an imaginary problem, while the liberal extreme appears to want unbridled access to the ballot box. Neither one of them is correct, and yet, both have valid points that deserve reform.

Soviet dictator Josef Stalin often stated that it does not matter who votes; it only matters who counts the votes. The contemporary corollary is, it does not matter what the law says; it only matters how the law is implemented or enforced. That is exactly the problem we are dealing with at present. A state law might specify that ballot drop off boxes are to be provided, but the executive chooses to provide one drop off box at a police station to service five million citizens—hardly a fair or equitable implementation of the law. Or, even if the law might say that a ballot drop-off box is required for every 100,000 citizens, a devious executive might install them all in one location. Federal election fairness laws cannot reach the details that affect the ability of an individual voter to cast her or his ballot. Fifty-six (56) years after the VRA legally ended 88 years of Jim Crow laws, and

151 years after ratification of the 15^thAmendment,

153 years after ratification of the 14^thAmendment,

and four bloody years of a horrific Civil War,

here we are still dealing with efforts by one political party to suppress or dilute the voting rights of a portion of our citizenry. Restrictions may not be outwardly or blatantly racist with intent, but their practical consequence is racist in all aspects except perhaps facial intent. I have been blessed with income, resources, and most of all an ability to adapt to changing polling station locations, operating hours, voting process changes, and such. My blessings have not been bestowed upon all citizens. Just something as innocuous and facially unimportant as polling station location becomes an insurmountable obstacle for a citizen with less resources than me. Today’s voting restriction legislation may not be overtly seeking racial discrimination and marginalization; however, when constructed as they are, they are politically discriminatory. The consequences are the same. The new laws are not facially racial, but the majority of the current Supreme Court fails to recognize or acknowledge the economic access to the ballot box can be a de factoracial bias.

 

COVID19 infections, hospitalizations and fatalities are rising again in states with low vaccination rates. From a scientific perspective, this reality is inevitable. Viruses are generally very effective at mutating and evolving to find more efficient means of reproduction—it is what they do. As long as the virus can find fertile hosts to infect, they will change to improve their ability to infect others, and even eventually overcome vaccines and other protections.

To me, this is yet another example of the collective security and well being of the community paying a very expensive and heavy price for individual freedom. It is also a prime example of selfish, every-man-for-himself nonsense fostered by the [person who shall no longer be named]. I absolutely believe in and advocate for freedom of choice and every individual’s fundamental right to privacy. No one should be forced to take the vaccine against his or her wishes. Conversely, those individual rights do NOT give any individual the right to endanger others by their actions. The refusal of inoculation is a slow version of Russian roulette, verging upon suicidal— almost a death wish. While I believe the individual has the fundamental right to decide such things for themselves, they absolutely have no rights whatsoever to impose that choice on others. That said, I am not in favor of or advocate for mandatory, imposed inoculation, however, I do support restrictions upon those unvaccinated individuals. I condemn Governor DeSantis’s directive prohibiting cruise lines from asking for or requiring proof of vaccination from their passengers; his directive is the ultimate in insanity.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.1016:

Comment to the Blog:

“I am less conservative than most people. Consider, though, what ‘conservative’ really means. The idea behind it is that society’s current (or imagined past) institutions and concepts are ideal, hence the need to ‘conserve’ them. Due to the imperfections of humans, conservatives are always wrong on some (or many) issues. Hence their irrational opposition to anything they’re not used to, such as Gavin Grimm using the boys’ restroom.

“On ranking Presidents: I would drop Reagan further for the same reasons you cite. Clinton would lose more points in crisis leadership, vision/setting an agenda, and pursued equal justice for all. I’d put him well below the median, say 35^th. I’d put Carter around 20, for various reasons including sabotage (see Reagan). Buchanan was a drunk and it showed, but I also would put the Chump last.”

My response to the Blog:

Likewise, my friend; I used to think of myself as conservative. I shifted decades ago, calling myself fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Today, I refer to myself as a socially liberal moderate. I agree with your assessment of conservatives. This republic has never been perfect, and never will be perfect. We will be a work in progress in perpetuity; today’s political debates are the prime example.

Yeah, the Grimm situation was quite sad in so many ways, not least of which was the fact that the students did not have a problem with Grimm, only the adults holding onto their antiquated ignorance and prejudice. We shall overcome; the courts took the correct step forward.

Yeah, the ranking of the presidents offered an intriguing medium of debate. Carter-sabotage . . . I do not understand. Agreed equally, to my knowledge, none of the presidents except one actively sought to destroy or marginalize vast portions of the federal government and vigorously attack the very essence of our system of governance. Buchanan was incompetent; he was not destructive. The [person who shall no longer be named] has been and continues to be destructive, and as such, he should be dead last in so many ways, off the chart so to speak.

. . . Round two:

“The goal of the Iran-Contra affair was to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran until after the election to the detriment of President Carter. Unfortunately, the conspirators succeeded.”

. . . my response to round two:

Whoa now, dawgy! I think the timeline is skewed a smidge. Reagan and his cohort had no authority until 20.January.1981. The U.S. hostages in Tehran were released that day, arriving back in the U.S. on the 25^th. To my knowledge, the Iran-Contra scheme was not hatched until circa 1985 to circumvent the continuing funding restrictions imposed by Congress in the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 1983 [PL 97-377; 96 Stat. 1830; 21.12.1982], specifically Title VII; §793 [96 Stat. 1865] {AKA Boland Amendment}. Do you have better, more accurate information?

. . . Round three:

“I may have the name of the scandal wrong (there are so many), but study the background of the hostage release.”

. . . my response to round three:

I have, but perhaps not deeply enough. I still do not see any connection. A clue would be helpful.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)