Update no.1064

Update from the Sunland

No.1064

30.5.22 – 5.6.22

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

 

To all,

 

Congratulations to Queen Elizabeth II on her Platinum Jubilee—70 years of service—the only British regent to achieve that milestone. At the moment, The Queen is the second longest serving monarch behind French King Louis XIV, who ruled as an absolute monarch for approximately 72 years from 1643 to 1715. She has already passed Thailand’s King Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX), who was on the throne for about 70 years from 1946 until his death in 2016. The Queen will pass King Louis XIV in two years. I wish The Queen good health and long life. At 96 years of age, The Queen is five years away from passing her mother in age—101+ years. 

 

Jeanne and I made our first foray to the movie theater in more than three years, due in large part to the pandemic. The object of our interest was Top Gun - Maverick (TGM) on Tuesday afternoon in IMax 2D [on-line sources indicate the filmmakers did not or could not use current 3D technology; it would have been even better in modern 3D]. The myriad trailers and release postponements certainly raised expectations. We both thought TGM exceeded our expectations. For all the hype, there are a few hokey parts that are not realistic. However, that said, the filming of the flight sequences are incredible and noteworthy. Well done! For those that enjoyed the original version (1986), you will not be disappointed. Well worth the effort and expense. If anyone even remotely enjoys flying machines, you must go see the TGM movie, and I would urge you to see it in IMax with Surround Sound.

 

The follow-up news items:

-- A federal grand jury in Washington, DC, indicted Peter Kent Navarro [1056], the trade representative in the last administration, for contempt of Congress for refusing to testify before HSCJ6 [1020] investigating the insurrection [991]. Navarro certainly deserves what he is going to get. He will join Bannon [1032] in the dock, whose trial starts next month.

Also on Friday, the Justice Department announced they would NOT prosecute Mark Meadows or Dan Savino [1040]. WOW! I have not seen, read, or heard any rationale or justification for this foolish decision. How much evidence do we need for prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment of these culprits? This decision, above all others so far, does NOT bode well for the indictment, prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment of the ultimate perpetrator—[the person who shall no longer be named]. If the DoJ cannot indict the chief of staff, I doubt they will find means to indict a criminal POTUS.

Further, the HSCJ6 plans to open their public hearings next Thursday. To put it bluntly, so much is riding upon the hearings to bring along We, the people, to what truly happened prior to, during, and after the January 6^th insurrection. I hope the HSCJ6 has done the work and preparation. I certainly laud their decision to conduct these public hearings in prime time to make hearings accessible to the most citizens as possible.

-- President Biden decided the United States would provide the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (M270 MLRS) to Ukraine for use in their defense against the unprovoked invasion of their country by the dictator Putin [1050]. The president added the stipulation that the Ukrainians would not get the full range rockets (200 miles) but rather a shorter range rocket limited to 49 miles along with the promise they would not fire those rockets into Russia.

Then, not to be upstaged, the Russians launched a barrage of long-range rockets at Kyiv after President Biden announced his decision on MLRS for Ukraine. The rocket attack had no military purpose. It was a political statement, i.e., I can reach you, but you cannot reach me.

The restriction reminds me of operational restrictions applied to our military forces in both the Korean War and Vietnam War—you can’t do this; you can’t do that. I am not a fan. We must stop bowing to Russian threats. If Putin wants general warfare, he will take us their, and we must not hesitate to confront his wonton aggression.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1063:

Comment to the Blog:

“I have been reminded that the U.S. had an assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004. Mass shootings dropped 43% but the NRA got rid of the ban. And we still need to address the many other firearm deaths. We need to look to places with lower homicide rates for role models.

“Let’s also admit the Founders were not sacred. The actual purpose of the Second Amendment was to keep the indigenous peoples out of the territory we’d taken and to prevent slave rebellions.”

My response to the Blog:

You are quite correct— Title XI, Subtitle A – Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (AKA Federal Assault Weapons Ban or Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban) [108 Stat. 1997] [1013] that was part of the much larger Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 [PL 103-322; 108 Stat. 1796; 13.9.1994]. Just because Congress says it does not make it correct. Every assault rifle I know of is either fully automatic or selectable to fully automatic. I am not aware of any assault rifle that is restricted to semi-automatic or single shot discharge. The vast preponderance of chit-chat is a prohibition on firearms that “look like” military assault rifles. If the root causes are ever mentioned, it is always a passing phrase in a longer sentence. I remember the emotions of 1970 that led to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) Title II – Control and Enforcement [84 Stat. 1242] that was part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 [PL 91-513; 84 Stat. 1236; 27.10.1970]. The CSA had nothing to do with control; it was ignorance over knowledge—an outright prohibition in every sense but the name. We have a demonstrable penchant for prohibitions of anything we do not like, anything we fear. Today is no different—using a thermonuclear weapon to swat a fly. Before anyone attempts to color me as some right-wing gun nut, I advocate for rational change. I advocate for comprehensive firearms reform. We clearly do NOT have proper laws in place to keep dangerous weapons of any type out of the hands of unqualified people. To me, comprehensive means the law addresses the root causes. Case in point is the Sandy Hook incident. The perpetrator was clearly and demonstrably a mentally disturbed individual. His mother repeatedly sought help in finding treatment for her son without success. The State should have intervened to either treat or confine that boy, and denied him access to any firearm or any type to that boy. If the mother could not demonstrate proper security for the firearms in her possession, then they should have been impounded until the threat was removed. Simple executive action is not proper except in immediate threat situations. We must make a bona fide attempt at due process. We must have some means to filter. Mental illness is not sufficient reason for such constriction of personal rights and freedoms. Only a fraction of mentally ill people are a threat to society. Lastly, because I have gone on too long, We, the People, are part of the problem and thus part of the solution. We must find the means to abandon this damnable “no snitch” mindset in our culture. The perpetrator in the Uvalde incident offered many signs over years. His action was NOT some spontaneous emotional reaction. The people around him ignored or discounted the signs. The carnage was amplified by a foolish decision and order by the local incident commander that froze law enforcement for scores of precious minutes. That has got to change. We must be part of the solution. Parents should not and cannot escape culpability.

Yes, agreed, again. The Founders / Framers were not sacrosanct or flawless. They were human beings after all, and inherently flawed as we all are. They made many mistakes. We have corrected some of those mistakes. I am not adverse to such corrections.

Further, you cite one of the reasons for the 2^nd Amendment. But, that was not the only reason. If it was, they would have stated it as such. They were explicit in other areas; they could have been explicit in this issue as well. There are many other reasons for the 2^nd Amendment.

If we want role models to study in addition to the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, let us add Switzerland, Israel, and Sweden. I am good with detailed study, as we should have (and still have not) studied psychotropic substances prior to 1970. Let us not repeat our emotional reaction mistakes; the consequences are too important.

 . . . Round two:

“Other arguments aside, an assault weapons ban has helped in the past. Also in the past, long experience demonstrates people’s reluctance to “get [loved ones] in trouble”. Perhaps fear of their violence also comes into it.

“The 2^nd Amendment cites a well regulated militia.’ That the Court has chosen to ignore that clause doesn’t change it.

“Psychotropic substances? Certainly, addiction has been studied. The law on those substances contradicts what we know.”

 . . . my response to round two:

We can go ‘round and ‘round on aspects of this issue. When the applicable law was active, there were far fewer “look alike” weapons in private hands. What happens to all of the peaceful, law-abiding owners of “look-alike” weapons? Do they automatically become felons? Does the USG have to go to court in every single case to ensure due process?

As long as we continue to do what we’ve always done, we will continue to get what we’ve always got. There is zero doubt in my mind that parents and families are part of the problem. The vast majority of citizens are raised to respect others and know right from wrong. Something has gone dreadfully wrong for a child to become such a hateful, vengeful, violent person. Ignorance is not an acceptable defense in such cases. Parents and families must know with certainty that they will be held accountable for the conduct of their children. 

With respect, my friend, the Supreme Court has not ignored the “well regulated militia” phrase in the 2^ndAmendment. They have repeatedly tried to place the phrase in the context of the origination, i.e., what did a militia mean in 1787?

Yes, addiction has been studied, but that was not the basis of the CSA. The Schedule I designation was based on:

“(1) SCHEDULE I.—

“(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

“(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

“(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.”

The perhaps untended consequences led to de facto prohibitions of any medical research regarding the potential beneficial uses of those substances, and the confiscation of property without due process of law. I contend that virtually every substance designated in Schedule I alone have beneficial medical uses if their purity and dosage are controlled to ensure proper usage. The CSA sought ignorance over knowledge. We have just begun to break that ignorance dictum in the case of marijuana and its derivatives. We have a very long way to go to reform CSA. We do not need another such abuse of legislative power.

The subsequent governmental abuses of the CSA, FISA, the USA PATRIOT Act, et al, are other examples of USG overreach. What protections are provided in future legislation to diminish the potential of USG overreach as an unintended consequence?

 . . . Round three:

“The only part of this we haven't discussed ad nauseum is ‘look alike’ weapons. The only question about them is whether they can be modified to function in a fully automatic mode.”

 . . . my response to round three:

On this point, we are absolutely agreed. Automatic weapons have been prohibited in the United States since 1934. Modification or adaptation of any weapon of any type to fire in automatic mode, i.e., multiple rounds with a single trigger pull, e.g., bump stocks, should be a serious federal felonious crime. Any corporation, company, entity or person who produces or distributes such modification kits should be fully prosecuted with comparable seriousness.

 

NOTE: I did NOT received permission to share the stimulating contribution by publication time: Monday AM, so I am unable to include the original here. My reply, however, is my words and my thoughts. The reader will have to imagine the missing stimulus.

I advocate for respecting every single citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice. The current incidence of the potential transgression on those fundamental rights happens to be firearms. My advocacy applies far more widely to every woman’s right to control her bodily functions, to the use of psychotropic substances, to read what we choose to read, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum. With respect to firearms, I continue to hold the very unpopular view that a firearm is simply a tool; it is a dysfunctional, and often mentally ill or deranged, person who chooses to use that tool for destruction.

I think the slippery slope is not a given, but it should be a serious concern. We see the slippery slope in action with psychotropic substances. I am all in favor of careful, crafted, respectful gun control. We must not be frozen to inaction by the slippery slope concern. We must deal with the root causes of the disgusting events like Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland, and Uvalde, et al.

I am sorry you do not see the hypocrisy. The right has been far more dedicated to invading a woman’s body than they have EVER been about caring for living children.

If the right was concerned about responsible gun control, they would work out a compromise that respected peaceful, law-abiding, gun owners. Instead, as dictated by the NRA, they maintain a ‘give no ground’ mindset. I am guardedly optimistic the unofficial committee with Senators Murphy and Cornyn can find that point of compromise. We must do something. I have taken a lot of heat from family and friends for my stance on firearms reform, but our fundamental rights are just too bloody important. I am not in favor of punishing all citizens for the demented actions of a fraction of 1%. That said, I also condemn the government as a whole, both sides, for not dealing with the obvious mental health issues associated with these events. The Uvalde perp, like the Sandy Hook perp, gave off consistent, repeated signs of their violent inclinations and WE did nothing. That element most of all must change.

Prohibition is rarely, if ever, the correct path in a free society. Either we are free, or we are not.

If you read Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973); 22.1.1973] [319], you will find that the Supremes agreed with you. They used an old term ‘quickening,’ i.e., to describe the point where a fetus is survivable outside a woman’s uterus. In 1973, that medical threshold was placed at the third trimester (26 weeks of gestation). They were very careful to use quickening as the legal threshold, not some number. They recognized that medical technology would advance that milestone. [Today, that threshold is roughly 20 weeks]. Since my reading of Roe, I have seen the case in far broader terms than just the threshold of quickening. To me, Roe is ultimately about every woman’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice. Personally, I wish abortion never had to happen, but I simply cannot, and never will, accept the far-rights PROHIBITION on all abortions. Prohibition is NOT the correct path; it is the lazy path. I will emphatically state that late term abortion—post-quickening, post-extra-uterine viability—has NEVER been the law of the land; it has been and remains illegal; Roe never authorized or sanctioned late term abortion. That has been a myth created by the far-right for their political ends. Full stop!

 

Another contribution:

“Yes the vote count matters.. which is why we are pushing so hard to look at the evidence of fraud from all different angles .. when video surveillance tapes show the same person depositing multiple ballots into drop boxes multiple times, wearing latex gloves and snapping a picture of the box as they are stuffing the ballots , are we supposed to consider it normal and not suspicious?”

My reply:

There is a key threshold regarding potential voting fraud—impact on the outcome. There has always been attempted fraudulent voting (or counting). Every state, every jurisdiction, has processes and procedures to identify and prosecute voting fraud. More than a few people are in prison or have served prison time and are now felons for attempting to cast a fraudulent vote. The latest criminal was a wealthy man who tried to vote in two states (any guess who he voted for?). We have a pretty good, secure, and functional voting system.

The issue we face today is not fraudulent voting, but rather fictitious accusations of “stealing the vote.” He LOST, by exactly the same system, he won with four years earlier. What that man has fomented is sacrilege—a direct affront to the Constitution and history. He is the ONLY president in American history (234 years worth so far) to instigate insurrection, and even worse by an absolutely false “Stop the Steal” myth. Several scores of courts across the country have found every accusation unsubstantiated and insufficient to pass probable cause, set aside beyond a reasonable doubt. It was and still is a myth. Now, because of what he has done, we have dozens of states imposing Jim Crow v2.0 in voter suppression. He was wrong; he still is wrong; and, he will remain wrong in perpetuity for the rest of history. Yes, there was attempted fraudulent voting, as their has been in every election in history, but one person voting twice or voting in two states did not and will not alter the result. HE LOST! Full stop!

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)