Update no.1062

Update from the Sunland

No.1062

16.5.22 – 22.5.22

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

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- The Russian brutalization of Ukraine [1050] is difficult to watch or tolerate. It was sad to witness the subjugation of Mariupol, the Ukrainian port city on the shore of the Sea of Azov. In addition to the dictator Putin’s unprovoked, naked, unilateral aggression against a peaceful neighboring sovereign nation, we must bear witness to Putin’s vengeful, inhuman, wonton destruction of everything within reach of his weapons of war.

-- Finland and Sweden officially approved, signed and submitted their application to join NATO [1057]. Of course, the dictator Putin has issued more threats in his effort to intimidate his neighbors. Putin has done more to unify NATO than any single individual. Having observed more than a few Russians back when they were Soviets, and then when they were free, Putin’s conduct is not Russian, it is Putin and the power hierarchy that supports Putin and dominates today’s Russia.

Is the dictator Putin really that bloody naïve to think his free neighbors would simply kneel before the distant memory of the once indomitable weight of the Red Army? The Finns fought a war against the Soviet Union 83 years ago and convinced them to join Germany against the Soviet Union during World War II, just as many Ukrainians and Romanians joined the Nazis. The 14^th Waffen-SS Grenadier Division was composed of Ukrainian volunteers, and the 1^st Waffen-SS Grenadier Regiment had all Romanian volunteers. And the dictator Putin refuses to ask himself the salient question . . . why?

-- Several reliable news sources reported that unspecified U.S. officials have indicated the most likely cause of the March 2022 crash of the China Eastern Boeing 737-800 [1054] was intentional. The U.S. NTSB publicly announced and affirmed that the official final report will come from the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC). The final report is not expected until next spring.

Since the day the China Eastern crash happened (21.3.2022), I have seen the shadows of the Germanwings event on 24.3.2015 [693] and Egypt Air Flight 990  on 31.10.1999. The two dates may be coincidence, but I am not a fan of coincidences, because such occurrences always remind me of 20.4.1889 and 20.4.1999, or 19.4.1992, 19.4.1993, and 19.4.1995. Other similarities bother me, namely that no weather, mechanical or other non-human failures have been detected. Why remains an active question. 

 

Prohibition is rarely—I will not say never—but very rarely the answer to our moral objections to the choices of others. I have owned and possessed firearms from pistols to long guns all of my adult life. I have been well trained to kill other human beings with a variety of weapons from my extremities to firearms and offensive flying machines. I have and know these elements of death, but I do not use them. I do not hate. I do not feel any urge to use the tools and knowledge I have. What I ask is, should I be included in a firearms prohibition? Is that right and respectful of my rights? The same rationale applies to many, if not all, of the prohibitions so many of us choose to bandy about, e.g., abortion, psychotropic substances, firearms, censorship, et al. One side wants to impose their prohibitions on the other side and everyone, while the other side seeks to impose their different prohibitions on everyone. Neither side is correct or respectful of every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. The latest racist mass shooting in Buffalo has brought social media ranting back to the fore. Instead of beating up on the various social media sites, I would encourage them to monitor and report radical ideology to the FBI, DHS, or state or local police, and record their notification. I want these haters out in the open where we can see them. Returning them to the shadows just makes it easier for them to hide. Let us deal with solutions to societal problems without imposing upon every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice.

 

In another sign of the times Supreme Court case, we have yet another money over citizenship case to add to the growing list—FEC v. Cruz [596 U. S. ____ (2022)]. I struggled mightily to get through my reading of this case; it is so bloody depressing. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the 6-3 majority [you know the divisions]. The majority opinion is a rather convoluted circular argument not intended to clarify but rather to obfuscate. The reasoning is ridiculous and a rationalization obtuse view of the law. What Roberts fails or refuses to acknowledge—the law was the law. Cruz chose not to obey the law, and after the fact, Cruz claimed the law imposed upon his freedom of speech. Regrettably and erroneously, the majority conceded to Cruz’s defiance of the law.

Twenty years ago, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA){AKA McCain–Feingold Act or Shays-Meehan}[PL 107-155; 116 Stat. 81; 27.3.2002] [322, 501] in a valiant effort to clean up the inherent corruption of money in politics. Since then, the Supremes apparently see money and corporations as interchangeable with speech and citizenship; they have been hell bent upon carving up McCain–Feingold. They were wrong 10 years ago {Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [558 U.S. 310 (2010); 21.1.2010] [424]}; they remain wrong today. Congress sought to “level the playing field” in an albeit brutal contact sport that is American politics. The Supremes have done their level best to negate the best efforts of Congress. The Supremes have not made this a better country. They only made us more susceptible to corruption and abuse by the wealthy and privileged. 

 

Congress passed H.R.7691 - Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022 [Senate: 86-11-0-3(0); House: 368-57-0-5(5)]—the US$40B additional aid package for Ukraine. President Biden reportedly signed the aid package into law on Saturday while he was in the Republic of Korea on his Asian journey. I have not yet been able to independently confirm the president’s action, so I will have to wait for the full citation. In a vote like this one, we get to see physical evidence of the true believer fBICP members of both the House and Senate. We have only to look at the list of representatives and senators who voted against the aid bill.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1061:

“Rep. Jordan of Ohio has already dodged a major scandal from his Ohio State days. He might believe he can skip out of the January 6 one too. Given that Attorney General Garland seems reluctant to do his job, it could happen.

“Criminalizing drug use has failed and has caused massive collateral damage.

“Be careful with any saber-rattling. That ‘mutual assured destruction’ concept isn’t taken as seriously as it once was.

“The discussion of Scotland reinforces my notion that no conquered nation is ever content.”

My response:

Yeah, Jordan has dodged several controversies. He may not dodge this one. AG Garland is very slow and deliberate. Sometimes the facts are overwhelming. In the Meadows case, I believe he is moving far too cautiously, almost deliberately slow. Not a good thought, but that is the image I have. I wish he was more forthright in keeping We, the People, with him, i.e., what is he concerned about? Prosecution of Meadows will now be well past the mid-terms; the AG is not likely to change, but Congress might. If the fBICP takes over the House, I can easily see them immediately withdrawing the criminal complaint {H.Res. 851 [1040] 13.12.2021}.

Oh my, yes . . . and your statement may well be a gross understatement . . . massive collateral damage indeed! I will continue and persist until I am unable to do so in voicing my grave objections to the monstrous invasion of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy that is the Controlled Substances Act [Title II; PL 91-513; 84 Stat. 1236; 27.10.1970].

{Just an unrelated side note: I’ve always found it mildly intriguing that CSA stands for Controlled Substances Act as well as Confederate States of America. Connection?}

I do believe I am quite mindful of “mutually assured destruction.” I also know that, if we cower in the face of nuclear threats, we display weakness a sociopathic, megalomaniacal dictator will exploit to feed his purposes. We bear witness today.

How far back into history does your “conquered nation” hypothesis go? Virtually every nation, region, or tribe has been conquered at one time or another. Do we dissolve nations and just revert to every person for his or herself? Do we allow and accept the Confederate States of America to reconstitute itself and separate? How far do we go back? IMHO, people like Mary Louise McDonald and Nicola Sturgeon are far more interested in power than solving issues.

 . . . Round two:

“I’m sure you are aware of ‘mutually assured destruction.’ My point is that various generals and heads of state can find ways to ignore that idea.

“Even Rome couldn’t maintain order in the nations it conquered—and I was referring to nations, not individuals. The states of the Confederacy were never an established nation, but we can map the radical right onto its territory. I have no solution for that one. Lincoln’s plan for Reconstruction wasn’t carried out, and it’s too late now. However, we conquered Germany and Japan after World War II, then helped them become sovereign nations again. Hence, we have far less stress with them.

“The Defense Department has indeed been audited. It just hasn’t passed an audit.”

 . . . my response to round two:

I have lived with ‘mutually assured destruction’ for decades—all of my military career and after. Frankly, I cannot imagine any military or political leader ignoring MAD. Perhaps, you are conflating the confrontation of naked aggression with circumvention. I doubt Putin is ignoring MAD; I think he is gambling that his threats will cower and split the Western Allies, just as Hitler did in 1938. If we allow his threats to work, we have given him another tool to use for his hegemonic ambitions today and ahead. There will be no winners in a nuclear exchange, but he has to know that Russia is likely to suffer more than Europe or North America. Then again, perhaps Putin has suicide pact mentally, i.e., if he cannot have what he wants, burn the whole house down. He is doing just that in Ukraine, and he is certainly capable of doing it to the world. If we give in to him in Ukraine, where will it stop. Chamberlain thought appeasement would stop Hitler at Sudetenland in 1938; how did that work out?

Members of the Confederate States of America might vigorously debate you on that question. They raised a standing and very effective Army. I sense that the radical right is heading in the direction of secession; they cannot countenance anyone who does not look and believe like them reaching leadership and positions of power. The notion has been around longer than this once grand republic and was not confined to the former CSA states. I would say the answer is education, but where education will not or cannot work, perseverance must be our watchword.

Yes, indeed, Lincoln’s Reconstruction Plan was the best hope we had to heal the wounds swiftly. He chose Andrew Johnson in a gesture of reconciliation, but that choice backfired with his assassination. Fate works that way on occasion. Yes, two excellent examples . . . again Sir Winston’s wise words: “In War: Resolution, In Defeat: Defiance, In Victory: Magnanimity, In Peace: Good Will.” We have strong allies today as a consequence.

I suppose it boils down to your definition of ‘passed.’

 . . . Round three:

“I’m aware of mutually assured destruction, and I expect that’s what would happen if someone used nuclear weapons. However, I remember a discussion a few years ago of ‘battlefield’ or ‘tactical’ nukes, and that’s an attempt to support the use of nuclear weapons.

“The Confederacy lost their war. My point is that the area still has the collective resentment of a conquered nation.

“Even internal audits of the Department of Defense haven’t met their standard.

https://www.govexec.com/management/2021/11/defense-department-fails-its-audit-again-officials-have-no-doubt-it-will-eventually-pass/186865/”

 . . . my response to round three:

There is a difference between “support the use” and “not afraid to use.” There are also monumental differences between a 2KT weapon and a 10MT weapon. I am in the camp of never take anything off the table. I would give no one unilateral use. If Putin is crazy enough to use them, then so be it; he will suffer the consequences. Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons are NOT weapons of vengeance. Putin must know and realize we are not afraid of him or his weapons.

OK, I’ll grant you that. So what do you suggest we do about it? Further, I suspect the majority of citizens in the former CSA are not supporters. Nonetheless, there are those who do hold resentment, just as there are still second and third generation Nazis in Germany. My salient question remains, how far back do we go?

We may never know what produced the “failed” conclusion. Hard to fix what we do not know. My experience within the Defense Department tells me there are good people trying to do the correct things responsibly, but there is no doubt there is waste and perhaps even fraud. However, I am still driven by the old adage, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

 . . . Round four:

“Regardless of semantics or size, the potential use of nuclear weapons scares me.

“We can’t go back with our radicals, but we need to find a way to go forward.

“Nobody wants to shut down the Defense Department, but it gets a bloated budget. Change is in order.”

 . . . my response to round four:

To be candid, biological weapons concern me far more than nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are predictable; biological agents are NOT. I am NOT an advocate of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, thus my previous distinction between ‘support’ and ‘not afraid.’ Your fear is quite understandable; they are all mass, indiscriminate killers.

To me, irrational hatred is quite like an infectious, lethal virus and needs to be treated as such. As I have previously written, I am of the mind that we need these hateful people in the open where they can be monitored, illuminated, and appropriate sanctions applied.

Oh my yes, change for DoD is very much in order. I have been convinced for some time that the DoD budget is the favored hiding ground for the far right. I think we were surprised to see in the last administration that reality reached public scrutiny. Yea verily! Change for DoD is very much in order.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)