Update no.1045

Update from the Sunland

No.1045

17.1.22 – 23.1.22

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

 

            To all,

 

            The follow-up news items:

-- The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) [1041] completed the deployment of all 18 hexagonal primary mirror segments and the secondary mirror. The successful initialization was publicly announced by NASA Administrator Bill Nelson at 13:30, Wednesday, 19.January.2022. The last step in the deployment is the orbital insertion burn into its planned halo orbit around Sun-Earth Lagrange Point L2. The burn is scheduled for Sunday, 23.January.2022 (L + 29). Once established in its proper orbit, the scientific and optical teams will begin the methodical processes of calibrating and certifying the full operation of the JWST.

 

From a separate network, a simple video link URL offers an interview with former presidential candidate and former member of Congress Tulsi Gabbard from the Fox News program The New Revolution with Steve Hilton on Sunday, 16.January.2022. 

Gabbard is of American Samoan descent and is also a serving lieutenant colonel in the Hawaii National Guard. She is an articulate, deliberate person, who is usually careful and measured with her words. Anyone interested can listen to or read the transcript of the interview, if you wish. After listening to the interview several times, I wrote the following response.

I am disappointed in Gabbard. She knows better. By her simple generalization, she has created the image that the USG is going to take action against anyone who speaks out against the USG. I am not in the inner circles of the USG, but I have seen no evidence whatsoever that her depiction is accurate or even real. The right-wing militias and groups (OathKeepers to KKK) have demonstrated their willingness to act violently under the aegis of [the person who shall no longer be named]. They have become no different from other terrorist groups. The USG would be remiss if they did not stand up a unit to preempt violent action by internal terrorist groups. I expect this kind of crap from FoxNews. I held a much higher opinion of Gabbard; not so much now.

As a postscript, I added:

There is a monumental difference between speaking out against the government in any form at any level while standing outside the Capitol building, and a violent attempt to stop the constitutional conduct of Congress—the very definition of an insurrection. With all due respect, Gabbard was wrong to portray the USG as some authoritarian regime intent upon imposing its will and suppressed dissent; in fact, it is quite the opposite. 

 

President Biden’s speech and lengthy presser on Wednesday afternoon to recognize his first year, as president, was good, and then not so much. First and foremost, I must say, what a refreshing and remarkable change from the antagonism, ridicule, nonsense, and belittling so common with his predecessor’s interaction with the Press. It took friendly and unfriendly queries from a wide variety of journalists with no rancor. After a brief statement, he spent nearly two hours fielding questions on a broad spectrum of questions. Just the tone and tenor of the presser was dramatically different and immensely more presidential than his predecessor ever gave.

 Yet, for all the positive I saw and heard, there are a couple major faux pas in this particular rendition. Most notable to me, in addressing a question with respect to the threatened invasion of Ukraine by Russian armed forces, the president said, “And so, I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades.  And it depends on what it does.  It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do, et cetera.” [emphasis mine] In the light of the situation in Eastern Ukraine it was a terrible misstatement and instantly reminded me of another such misstatement in history. On 12.January.1950, then Secretary of State Dean Acheson, in a speech to the National Press Club, verbally drew a defensive perimeter around defeated and disarmed Japan. South Korea, only recently partitioned from the North [1945], was not within that defensive perimeter. Many historians have contended that Acheson’s omission green-lighted the North Korean invasion of the South, to unify Korea as Mao unified China, and the invasion came five months later [25.June.1950]. The Russians are long past the “minor incursion” stage after the annexation of Crimea [2014] and the de facto invasion of Eastern Ukraine [2014]. The president was flat wrong. I appreciate Biden’s reluctance to use military force, but there comes a time when the hegemonic ambitions of dictators must be confronted with force. That time for Neville Chamberlain came in 1938. This moment in history may well be Joe Biden’s moment.

The second faux pas from my perspective came with his answer to a query by Fox News journalist Allison Harris. She asked, “Speaking of voting rights legislation, if this isn’t passed, do you still believe the upcoming election will be fairly conducted and its results will be legitimate?” President Biden responded, “Well, it all depends on whether or not we’re able to make the case to the American people that some of this is being set up to try to alter the outcome of the election.  And it’s one thing — look, maybe I’m just being too much of an optimist.  Remember how we thought not that many people were going to show up to vote in the middle of a pandemic?  We had the highest voter turnout in the history of the United States of America.” The president’s statement was innocuous enough except when placed in the light of the BIG LIE and the concerted efforts of fBICP led state legislatures to suppress the vote of poor and less privileged citizens in this once grand republic. I think I understand what he was trying to say, but frankly, he did not come close to saying it. The president failed to differentiate between the bogus nonsense of [the person who shall no longer be named] and his BIG LIE and the legal voter suppression being executed by the former president’s true believers in state legislatures. I say legal because they are changing state laws by the legal use of the law, although I am convinced those laws are unconstitutional. Unfortunately, they cannot be invalidated except in court [I have seen no court challenges as yet] or by an act of Congress [which failed in the Senate this week]. As a consequence of the president’s woefully inadequate statement, I suspect we should brace for a highly contentious election this coming November. None of the fBICP election suppression laws that I am aware of will affect my ability to vote, and I will most certainly cast my vote. Some legislatures have enacted laws that inject the partisan political legislature into the vote counting process, which is a virtual invitation for malfeasance. However, millions of American citizens do not share my capacity to adapt to these voter suppression laws. Every citizen has a right to vote and have their vote properly counted regardless of their economic means or any of the social factors. The fBICP has chosen to ignore that fact.

Just a related FYI: for the life of me, I do not understand why some rational person in the Senate has not suggested a return to the old Senate filibuster rules—holding the floor instead of the current anonymous single blocking objection. I do appreciate the motives of Manchin and Sinema to preserve the filibuster as a means of compromise, but using the filibuster as a means of stagnation is absolutely wrong—the tyranny of a willful minority. I current filibuster rules are wrong and have been from the get-go—another opportunity lost.

 

The courts have been going back and forth regarding the USG’s vaccine mandate. The Supremes chose to impose stays in two companion cases—National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor [595 U. S. ____ (2022); Nos. 21A244 and 21A247]. In granting the stays, the Supremes want to see the judgment of the Sixth Circuit on the merits of the case. There are several aspects of the Court’s statement in this case and are yet another display of the graphic consequences of what happened from Senator McConnell’s unethical, if not outright unconstitutional action, in 2016 through the nominations of the last administration.  The conservative majority wrote a rather lame, narrowly justified rationale for their decision to issue the stays. They said, “We cannot agree. Although COVID–19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather.” The dissent opinion is far more robust, developed and convincing. The dissent observed, “The majority, in overturning that action [the OSHA rule], substitutes judicial diktat for reasoned policymaking.” They concluded, “Without legal basis, the Court usurps a decision that rightfully belongs to others. It undercuts the capacity of the responsible federal officials, acting well within the scope of their authority, to protect American workers from grave danger.”

From my perspective, the National Federation decision stands in stark contrast to a similar but opposite decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson [594 U.S. 21A24 (2021)] [1025]. It seems the Court is afflicted with the same cancerous misinformation as American society in the main, and that reality is a tragic recognition of what lies ahead of us. I suppose the best we can hope is the majority of the Supremes come to their senses when it eventually comes to the final decision in these cases when fully ripened. Unfortunately and regrettably, it may well be too late for hundreds of thousands of American citizens in the current pandemic. To me, there is no humanity among the conservative justices.

As an irrelevant supplementary note, I understand and appreciate the motives of the USG to protect American workers. However, especially given the Court’s reasoning, the OHSA rule would have been more reasonable if they had included “or, found methods to comply with the CDC guidelines, e.g., social distancing or working at home.” The workplace is just a subset of the community at large.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.1044:

Comment to the Blog:

“I’m glad the James Webb Space Telescope is proceeding apace.

“I’m still reading my book on critical thinking skills. I’d prefer all sides of discussions about the virus, the vaccines, and all related topics to acquire those skills. They’re clearly not in wide use in those discussions.

“I don’t support the Tea Party’s positions, but I share the frustration with the two-party system. It’s a trap.”

My response to the Blog:

Me as well. From my perspective, the JWST is one of the most complex spacecraft humankind has yet sent into space. The engineering, physics, optics, and expectations are awesome and awe-inspiring. There are so many opportunities for something to go wrong with little to no ability to remedy any particular failure. So far so good. It is not just the potential for unprecedented space exploration; it is also the extraordinary, mind-boggling daily-hourly work that goes into bringing us those anticipated discoveries. That is what has bound me to the JWST mission.

I am with you on that, brother. The misinformation / disinformation campaign goes on full tilt, and the USG’s efforts are woefully insufficient. I try to do my part but the sheer mass of this nonsense is overwhelming.

I did as well . . . for a time. I began to get suspicious when the likes of Jordan, Meadows, et al, began to rise to power and displayed far more radical views of the problem and potential corrective action. The Founders / Framers set down a methodical process for change. Revolution by armed force is NOT one of those processes.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“Critical thinking skills could be applied to the various government agencies’ (not just Federal) statements as well as the wackos’. The ever-changing claims, inconsistencies between agencies and sometimes individuals, and general air of incompetence hurt their performance. It’s not only systemic issues (poor data, lack of preparedness) that have made our problems worse than the world’s.

“The ‘legitimate’ Tea Party supporters are not the only group left out of the political process. Plenty of others don’t fit the two major parties’ operations except as dupes that vote for them.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

Critical thinking can be and should be applied in all aspects of life and in all organizations. I cannot argue with any piece of your assessment. I can only add that in my humble opinion, the most damaging element of the U.S. pandemic response was the decision of [the person who shall no longer be named] to make his laissez-faire, every-man-for-himself position the policy of the USG. That decision alone rippled through all government agencies and infected the state governments as well. The confusion was catastrophic. He sought to downplay the situation to make himself look better. President Biden has taken a far more aggressive approach to the pandemic response, but he has been swimming upstream against a raging river from the get-go. Biden is not without fault and blame, but he started in a very deep hole. We should continue to criticize President Biden when his Executive Branch stumbles, but I hold some empathy for what he was handed.

Oh so true. I am one of those. Libertarians come the closest, but they are still a long way from my positions on a host of topics. While I had (and perhaps still have) some alignment with the Tea Party folks in the early days, the majority have mutated into something vile and disgusting, so much so that I cannot recognize anything for even a hope of alignment.

 

Another contribution:

“Thanks Cap-Tea Party? Sorry to be a questioner from across the pond.”

My reply:

As the old saying goes, seek and ye shall find (Matthew 7:7). All queries welcome. No issues out of bounds.

The Tea Party is a uniquely American phenomenon. The genesis was born in our disagreement with Great Britain (1773). The current manifestation grew in the 1990s. The movement was an amalgamation of Libertarian and Republican right-wing thinking that rejected big government, social change, taxes, and government spending. Tea Party politicians began to reach Congress in the early 2000s. [The person who shall no longer be named] adroitly tapped into and exploited that general dissatisfaction with government as represented by the Tea Party to reach the Oval Office. We witness the consequences today.

I hope that simplistic view gives you enough to decipher contemporary American politics.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“Ah I see the resemblance now. Are there still representatives of this group now in congress then? 

“I expect you are aware of the political turmoil raging over this side of the pond. If not I’ll top you up! It is damned worrying to read of the accusations being launched towards our current PM. If the current civil service enquiry finds he is lying, as he may well be, he will be out on the street at No10 looking for work.

“And we’ll be looking for a new one. I seem to remember casting my doubts to you when he was appointed. I can’t say I’m pleased to ‘dredge up’ my earlier judgements.”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

Oh my, YES, far too many—Jordan, Greene, Gaetz, Boebert, Hawley, Brooks, Nunes, Tuberville, Gosar, Lesko, Biggs, and many more. They intimidate other more moderate representatives and senators. These folks are voted into office by a majority of district voters, which speaks volumes of those local electorates. It will take many years to expunge these yayhoos from positions of power. The mutated Tea Party’ers are far more pervasive than is publicly recognizable. They have contributed to a broad distrust of government (except for them of course) that has infected all levels of our society. It will take generations to overcome this travesty.

Yes, I have been following as much as I am able. The PM at best allowed a rather casual attitude and approach to pandemic response within his staff. He handled the controversy very poorly. Sir Keir Starmer, KCB, QC, MP, gave a stinging rebuke to the PM in Commons, and I agree with his assessment completely. I am watching the PM’s Question Time in Commons as I write. It is not looking good for Johnson . . . and rightly so, I must add, the same sort of public censure and condemnation should have been applied to [the person who shall no longer be named] two years ago, but alas, we do not have that feature in our form of governance. It is at times like these that I like to quote Oliver Cromwell, “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

What I have seen and heard about Starmer seems worthy of the premiership.

Your doubts about Johnson were just as I forecast the consequences of [the person who shall no longer be named] long before he was elected. The aftermath has proven my forecast. I join you. I suspect neither one of us wanted to be proven correct with such forecasts. But, we call ‘em as we see ‘em.

 

Another contributor asked me not to publish (his/her) comments. The contribution was rather lengthy and would have been of value for all of us to understand the rejection of vaccines by so many American citizens. Nonetheless, I shall respect that request. My words are my words. I shall include here my words regarding the issue of vaccine rejection.

My response in part:

Let it suffice to say, I believe you are gravely misinformed and choose your sources from a very narrow band. I recognize that there is nothing I can say or do that I believe would better inform you because you distrust anything and everything I offer. Fake news.

I do not argue with your decision to reject vaccinations as a means to stay healthy. That is your choice entirely. I believe it is a dangerously misinformed position, but hey, that is just me. For every medical procedure from aspirin to brain surgery, there are and will always be adverse effects—side effects and risks. What we are talking about here is the general, common good. Hundreds of millions of COVID-19 vaccination doses have been administered all over the world. Yes, there are adverse effects, but the percentage adversely affected events is infinitesimal compared to the greater good. Regardless, you have convinced yourself that vaccinations render you to lab rat status; that is unfortunate, but that is your choice entirely. Conversely, the USG has the responsibility and authority to take action for the greater good. I have criticized the USG pandemic response and action from the get-go . . . not because it came from [the person who shall no longer be named] but because I believe it was wrong. I also believed President Biden would take a more informed approach to the pandemic, but my disappointment is mounting. From my perspective, the current administration’s response is far better than the previous administration, but I still believe it is not good enough for the general welfare.

Lastly, I learned a long time ago that there are dissenters in every profession including medical. I witnessed directly the disagreements between highly acclaimed doctors (world renowned experts in their fields) on a variety of topics. For the same reason we seek multiple assessments before making a critical medical decision for our health, so too do we seek a collective view of any medical position—the best that many minds can provide. If you do not trust any of those opinions, then reject the treatment. You seem to listen to the dissenters rather than the collective. That is your choice entirely.

All that said, I would urge you to visit a hospital or two, and ask the doctors and nurses directly without filtration. You cite Mark’s cousin. I will cite one of our granddaughters who chose to go into nursing. She is an RN today. She is on the verge of burning out and leaving the profession because of the prolonged and enormous burden of unvaccinated people overwhelming her hospital. Military warriors are rotated to give them a break from combat to recover from the rigors. We do not have sufficient medical personnel to give our frontline medical professionals a break. Yes, she is only one person, but her experience is consistent with what I hear and read from widely varied sources.

We all make choices in life. Those choices have consequences. You reject vaccination, which is entirely your right to choose. But there are and should be consequences to those choices. Frankly, I am all in favor of the same “consequences” being applied to smokers, alcoholics, and abusive drug consumers. The effects have long been known and documented, but people still choose to risk lung cancer and cirrhosis of the liver.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)