Update no.1035

 Update from the Sunland

No.1035

8.11.21 – 14.11.21

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

 

            To all,

 

I imagine most folks are getting tired of my viewing recommendations. However, I am simply too impressed by good documentaries. The latest edition was another PBS NOVA program; this one titled: “Universe Revealed – Alien Worlds” S48 Ep19, broadcast on 10.11.2021. The program described the search among exoplanets for earth-like candidates, i.e., sustained liquid water. As with most of these programs, I learned a lot about the process and the state of our knowledge. This is another highly recommended program.

 

            The follow-up news items:

-- After the House passed H.Res.730, referring the contempt of Congress charge [1032], the Justice Department finally got around to indicting Steve Bannon on Friday. He is expected to be arrested on Monday and arraigned shortly thereafter. Bannon deserves a fair trial, but the prosecution should make quick work of this one. He also deserves to go to prison to contemplate the error of his ways, and his buddy is no longer in the Oval Office, so there will be no pardon coming to mask his criminal conduct.

 

I am reminded incessantly these days of just one of Edmund Burke’s myriad pearls of wisdom.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

-- Edmund Burke

When I see incorrect statements, misinformation or opinions based on such false pseudo-facts, I confront it with facts as directly as I am able. I could probably spend the rest of my old, tired life doing nothing but fact-checking and refuting the avalanche of false information flooding our communications. So much of the problem is complacency. Folks just do not want to take the time to research issues; they simply believe what feels good to them.

Now, we will debate what is good and evil? To the consumers of magic snake-oil elixir peddle by [the person who shall no longer be named], anyone who does not believe as they believe is evil. To me, anyone who disregards the Constitution is evil and must be resisted.

 

A political cartoon depicted the voters popping the bubble of WokeWorld in which the cartoonist showed Democrat mules holding signs:

Defund the Police

America is Racist

Silence the Parents.

To me, the cartoon represents precisely the acid that is corroding this once grand republic—the grotesque exaggeration to the extreme of political rhetoric. To be fair, the acid is thrown and splashed by both sides, and the burn alienates both sides. To be direct, no human being has ever even remotely suggested the “Defund the Police” means disbanding the police. It was a poor choice of words chosen to call for police reform. Or, that America is Racist. Yet, there should be zero doubt whatsoever there is individual racism and worse institutional racism does exist and must be confronted and resisted. America may not be racist, but non-trivial segment of America and Americans are in fact racist. Further, no one is trying to silence the parents in the education of their children. That is precisely why school board meetings are public events. The education curriculum cannot be left to the lowest common denominator or allowed to descend into chaos. If parents want their children to be taught what they want taught, then they should home school them. We have a public school system—not a fBICP school system. Just like the BIG LIE, the tactic used in that cartoon (and many others) is not to inform, resolve, or heal, but rather to incite and sustain the believers.

 

On Tuesday, 9.November.2021, United States District Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued her ruling in the case of [the person who shall no longer be named] v. Thompson [USDC DC Civil Action No. 21-cv-2769 (TSC) (2021)]. The plaintiff claimed executive privilege to withhold a long list of documents from the United States House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6^th Attack on the United States Capitol [1020]. The judge bitch-slapped the plaintiff when she noted, “But Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.”  Judge Chutkan went on to conclude, “Accordingly, the court holds that the public interest lies in permitting—not enjoining— the combined will of the legislative and executive branches to study the events that led to and occurred on January 6, and to consider legislation to prevent such events from ever occurring again.” Judge Chutkan was asked to review her ruling, which she did and affirmed the finding on the 10^th. The judge’s ruling meant the National Archives would release the requested Executive Branch documents from the previous administration to the Select Committee on Friday the 12^th.

The following day, the 11^th, a three-judge panel of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an “administrative injunction to protect the court’s jurisdiction to address appellant’s claims of executive privilege and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits.” They did not review or reference Judge Chutkan’s findings and simply stopped to preserve ability to review the arguments. If they had not issued injunction, an appeal or appellate review would have been moot, since the document would have already been in the hands of the Committee. The Court set the 30^th to hear oral arguments, which means we should have the Appeals Court ruling in the first couple of weeks of December.

The Appeals Court is showing far too much deference to a former president who incited an insurrection against the constitutional government of the United States of America. [The person who shall no longer be named] is NOT attempting to preserve the integrity of the presidency. He is blatantly trying to run out the clock on the Select Committee’s work in hopes that the fBICP takes control of the House in next year’s mid-term elections.

He likes to rationalize what happened on the 6^th of January by claiming people were very angry . . . yeah because he made them angry by pumping the BIG LIE incessantly to everyone. Sure, there is a faction among our citizenry who believe what [the person who shall no longer be named] said, simply because he said it. That faction is a minority. The majority of Americans cheered when the election was decided. Further, the minority faction is so bloody delusional from the magic snake-oil elixir they have swallowed that they are now claiming the former president will be reinstated by the end of this year. Sadly, such claims demonstrate the ignorance of that group; they have not the slightest clue what the Constitution or the law allow, specify, or establish. This nonsense simply moves us closer to Putin’s objective—discredit democracy as a viable form of governance. They are aiding and abetting one of our principle adversaries. Further, the chaos that he leaves in his wake has apparently convinced Putin to renew his military efforts to subjugate Ukraine and destabilize Poland. [The person who shall no longer be named] is a one-man wrecking crew of this once grand republic. History shall record his presidency in infamy.

 

The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin, is expected to be placed in the jury’s hands next week. The defense rested on Friday. I have not heard all of the testimony, but I have listened to healthy chunks of the evidence and testimony. From 23.August.2020 to 1.September.2020, Kenosha was gripped by violent riots in the aftermath of the August 2020 police shooting of Jacob Blake, a young man with dark skin pigmentation. Rittenhouse went to Kenosha ostensibly to assist law enforcement in protecting people and property, and on the 25^th, he shot and killed two men, and wounded another—the event for which he stands trial today. Rittenhouse voluntarily went to the police and surrendered himself.

I confess to dramatically mixed feelings and opinions on this one. I acknowledge that the anti-gun crowd condemns any firearms usage by private citizens, i.e., not law enforcement. I am not the jury, and we shall soon see what the jury’s assessment of the evidence and arguments is. That aside, I saw / heard nothing that suggests Rittenhouse went to Kenosha with his semi-automatic rifle and any intent to use or injury anyone. The evidence I saw suggests quite the opposite that he was attacked and fired his weapon in self-defense.

Some have and will continue to argue that Rittenhouse was not law enforcement but a vigilante and should not have gone to Kenosha with or without his weapon. Conversely, I have long argued that, as citizens, we have an obligation to assist law enforcement in protecting our public safety. We never have enough law enforcement officers. I saw no evidence that he acted in an offensive or aggressive manner until he was attacked by multiple assailants, and he was not acting independently from law enforcement. Therein lies the difference with the Ahmaud Arbery murder aftermath, or even the Trayvon Martin case. The McMichael father-son vigilante team acted unilaterally from the police in Georgia. George Zimmerman also acted unilaterally from the police. There is a fine line between warranted and unreasonable     violence, but the same fine line exists for police.  The difference is that the police are usually well trained to recognize the line and mostly try to avoid crossing the line.

 

On the 5^th of November, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) [86 Fed. Reg. 61,402]. Petitioners, a long list of business entities and states, challenged the OHSA ETS. They sought and received a temporary stay to preserve the status quo pending a hearing for a permanent injunction {BST Holdings v. OSHA [5CCA no. 21-60845 (2021)]} that was granted the next day [6.11.2021]. A three-judge panel of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the arguments and rendered judgment on the 12^th. The Circuit based its judgment of OHSA on the interpretation of “grave danger.” The court argues that we have been dealing with the pandemic for nearly two years, thus the danger could hardly be classified as grave. At the end of the day, the court granted the stay pending adequate judicial review. No timetable for that judicial review was set or even mention, which implies that the process will be laborious and time-consuming.

The court makes a reasonable argument, albeit a good way along the conservative end of the spectrum. The difficulty I find in the court’s reasoning is it virtually ignores the contextual reality in which the question is asked. The current administration inherited a baffling mash of non-compliance, fragmented enforcement, and mind-numbing consequences. The administration was relegated to encouragement / enforcement in progressive stair steps that led to the OHSA ETS. In reading the court’s reasoning for issuance of the stay, they were focused on the negative rather than the positive, or even a balance between the two. They failed to acknowledge any compelling interest of the government to protect public safety and well-being. Nonetheless, with past Supreme Courts, I would say the Fifth Circuit’s BST Holdings ruling would not likely stand. However, with the current Court, I am doubtful the Fifth Circuit findings will be overturned. The Court is ensuring that we will continue to muddle along as citizens die from a terrible virus. I cannot see what more we need to present to show the direct threat to public safety we still face.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.1034:

Comment to the Blog:

“The Democrats have salvaged the bipartisan infrastructure bill. That will most likely benefit me as a utilitarian cyclist and pedestrian. Maybe our transit agency will even make improvements. The Democrats have fumbled the larger social-needs bill as expected. The big-money folks fear it would cost them some small share of their immense wealth, and it’s not going anywhere. Moments like this are the reason the Democratic Party supports tools like Manchin and Sinema. They willingly take the blame for the party once again failing to deliver on their promises. I will note that the amounts of money being discussed are spread over ten years and are much less than we’re spending on the military-industrial complex.

“I watched the January 6 insurrection for hours live on TV. I saw enough.”

My response to the Blog:

Yes, the infrastructure bill (H.R.3684 - Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) is finally passed, although, as of this writing, the president has not yet signed it into law. I would also like to illuminate another large recently passed law {Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2021 [PL 117-044; H.R.5434; Senate: unanimous consent; House: 365-51-0-15(4); 135 Stat. 382]}, which approved significant federal spending on a wide variety of surface transport projects. I hope you see demonstrable benefit from the new law soon. The fate of the Build Back Better Act is unclear. One of the factors not mentioned to date to my knowledge is the congressional leadership can easily and readily negate the obstinance of Manchin and Sinema by finding two Republicans in favor of the bill. There is no hope for the fBICP; they are a lost cause. But, there are still a few Republicans in both chambers to pass these bills. I also agree with your observations on defense spending.

Yes, I watched as well. I saw it live and I still watch it. Further, I will probably continue to watch those videos in the context of investigation and prosecution. Both documentaries cited in last week’s Update [1034] were not simply the re-display of those videos, but rather placing those public events into a much larger context. They were enlightening.

 . . . Round two:

“Senator Murkowski might play along with the Democrats, according to a rumor. Meanwhile, I find it strange that the Democrats can’t bring two of their senators into line. Sinema is particularly difficult to understand. She started her political life as a Green Party person and claims to have converted to ‘practical’ politics. Her financial sources might be more important than her claims of values.

“The wheels of justice grind slowly in the insurrection cases. It remains to be seen how fine the results will be.”

 . . . my response to round two:

Senator Murkowski is not alone. Frankly, on this issue at this time, I would rather leave Manchin and Sinema to their choices. We need to move on . . . soon. There are too many equally important topics to deal with like voting rights, immigration reform, civil rights reinforcement, law enforcement reform, ad infinitum. All members of Congress—House and Senate—should have not just their tax returns made public but also all donors large and small. We need full disclosure to have any sliver of hope of returning integrity to Congress. To be blunt, I fear those opposed to the fBICP in this once grand republic will not rise to the challenge next November.

 . . . Round three:

“I'm poor and so are most of my family. The middle class needs help, perhaps even more than the poor. I don't agree that it's time to move on. The Democrats aren't going to win those other battles anyhow.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Some among us are wealthy solely by the providence of birth. At the end of the day, all of us must do the best we can with what we have. When you say you don’t agree that it is time to move on, what are you proposing? We cannot continue to wallow around in the muck of this sausage-making. We must move on.

 . . . Round four:

“‘All of us must do the best we can with what we have’ seems to support social Darwinism. Nope.

“What is really needed is to take money out of our political process. In the meantime, continuing effort to drag the good of the entire public and the planet ahead of the greed of the wealthy at least some of the time is the only worthy cause.”

 . . . my response to round four:

“Social Darwinism” was not or is not my intention. I am sorry that you see my words in that context. I am only attempting to convey my sense of citizenship duty. I simply see abstention or worse outright complacency as dereliction of the duty I see and feel. We have 234 years of history as a representative democracy—a republic. I see complacency or abstention as abdication of citizenship and relegates the republic to any motivated minority that comes along. To be blunt, a version of that reality played out before us in history in 1933 Germany. Voting complacency brings us yet one more step closer to the dictatorship the Germans suffered for the next several decades of war and its aftermath; albeit, we are still capable of voting for a dictator.

I will confess to significant confliction with the inadequacy of candidates in our binary system of realpolitik. In the 2016 election, more so than any other election I can recall, I could not vote for either binary candidate for vastly different reasons. Nonetheless, I felt the duty to vote for the best candidate on the ballot; frankly, I was not impressed with any of the nearly dozen candidates, but I tried to choose the best among that lot. I doubt my vote aided the election of [the person who shall no longer be named], but the potential was certainly present.

We are in absolute agreement. Money is the ultimate corrupting factor in our system of governance. Dark money is far worse. Why the Supreme Court chose to ignore those realities is beyond my comprehension. I have read that case several times and I still shake my head. Short of an unlikely constitutional amendment to override the travesty of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [558 U.S. 310 (2010); 21.1.2010] [424], we must endure the corruption of money. As such, I would agree in principle with your worthy causal purpose. Yet, as always, the devil is in the details of every individual instance. We shall overcome.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)