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 1^st, 4^th, and 14^th 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 Þ Religion Þ Temples Þ Farming Þ 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 17^th Century, although there are hints of the concept of privacy back to at least the 14^th 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 13^th Amendment to the Constitution (1865), American citizens with dark skin pigmentation faced institutional discrimination and oppression, e.g., Jim Crow laws well into the 20^th 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                  :-)