Update no.1071

 Update from the Sunland

No.1071

18.7.22 – 24.7.22

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

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- Thursday evening, 21.July.2022, in prime time as the television enthusiasts like to say, the United States House of Representatives Select Committee to Investigate the January 6^th Attack on the United States Capitol [1020]{HSCJ6}, held the eighth public hearing of their investigation. This session was focused on the inaction of [the person who shall no longer be named]. There were two in-person witnesses for the 8^th hearing:

-- Matthew Forbes Pottinger, Deputy National Security Advisor to the President

-- Sarah Matthews. Deputy Press Secretary and Special Assistant to the President

Both of them had resigned in disgust with the actions before and inaction during the insurrection. Pottinger, a former Marine officer, answered a question from Representative Luria about his oath of office. He gave a concise and cogent response, and he appropriately cited Richard Nixon’s election concession in 1960 as well as Al Gore’s similar concession in 2000. In fact, Pottinger cited Gore’s concession speech as a model for all future candidates who lose elections. 

At 16:17 [R] EST, Wednesday, 6.January.2022, after 187 minutes of intransigent inaction despite myriad urgent pleas from a broad range of family, friends, advisors, lawyers, legislators, and other politicians, [the person who shall no longer be named] made a video tapes message to the insurrectionist mob occupying and ransacking the Capitol Building. Ignoring his prepared statement and speaking ad lib, the man said:

“I know your pain. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But, you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There has never been a time like this where such a thing happened when they can take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You’ve seen the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. And go home and go home in peace.”

Nearly two hours after the above statement was broadcast, [the person who shall no longer be named] tweeted {before his Twitter account was indefinitely suspended}:

These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!

6:01 PM January 6, 2021

Really? I do not think any of us lived that day will ever forget. After the Capitol Building was cleared and secured, the Senate reconvened circa 20:00, and the House reconvened circa 21:00 to complete the constitutional process of counting the Electoral College votes. The joint session reconvened at 23:32, and the process was finally completed, certified, and Joe Biden was officially the new president-elect. The insurrection failed!

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Milley testified by video that while [the person who shall no longer be named] remained silent, Vice President Pence (from his secure site inside the Capitol Building) gave Acting Defense Secretary Miller very explicit orders to deploy the DC National Guard to secure the Capitol. It is not clear to me whether Miller acted on the vice president’s instructions, but armed units of the National Guard deployed to the Capitol Building later in the day. What was the POTUS doing during the peak of the insurrectionist attack you ask? The man charged by the Constitution with paramount responsibility for national defense and defending the Constitution—the basis of the country—sat in the President’s Dining Room watching Fox News (of course) for two and a half hours despite repeated attempts by his family, friends, senior White House staff, congressional leaders, and others to call off the attack. He sat there watching Fox News! At 18:27, [the person who shall no longer be named] finally left the dining room and went to the residence for the night. Portions of Representative Kinzinger’s and Vice Chair Representative Cheney’s closing statements on the evening were noteworthy. Kinzinger said in part:

Whatever your politics, whatever you think about the outcome of the election, we as Americans must all agree on this. Donald Trump's conduct on January 6^th was a supreme violation of his oath of office and a complete dereliction of his duty to our nation.

It is a stain on our history. It is a dishonor to all those who have sacrificed and died in service of our democracy. When we present our full findings, we will recommend changes to laws and policies to guard against another January 6^th. The reason that's imperative is that the forces Donald Trump ignited that day have not gone away.

The militant intolerant ideologies, the militias, the alienation and the disaffection, the weird fantasies and disinformation, they're all still out there ready to go. That's the elephant in the room. But if January 6^th has reminded us of anything, I pray it is reminded us of this, laws are just words on paper.

They mean nothing without public servants dedicated to the rule of law and who are held accountable by a public that believes oath matters — oaths matter more than party tribalism or the cheap thrill of scoring 

political points. We — the people must demand more of our politicians and ourselves. Oaths matter.

Character matters. Truth matters. If we do not renew our faith and commitment to these principles, this great experiment of ours, our shining beacon on a hill, will not endure.

The majority of those who have sworn that oath of office somberly and soberly to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” feel Kinzinger’s words to the core of our souls. Cheney closed the session with these words in part:

There was no evidence of widespread fraud. It didn't matter. Donald Trump was confident he could persuade his supporters to believe whatever he said no matter how outlandish and ultimately that they could be summoned to Washington to help him remain President for another term. As we showed you last week, even President Trump's legal team led by Rudy Giuliani knew they had no actual evidence to demonstrate the election was stolen.

Again, it didn't matter. Here's the worst part. Donald Trump knows that millions of Americans who supported him would stand up and defend our nation were it threatened. They would put their lives and their freedom at stake to protect her. And he is preying on their patriotism. He is preying on their sense of justice.

And on January 6^th, Donald Trump turned their love of country into a weapon against our Capitol and our Constitution. He has purposely created the false impression that America is threatened by a foreign force controlling voting machines or that a wave of tens of millions of false ballots were secretly injected into our election system or that ballot workers have secret thumb drives and are stealing elections with them.

Please reread and compare the words of the former “whatever he used to be” and those words of Representatives Kinzinger and Cheney. Liz Cheney summed up the man’s culpability precisely. [The person who shall no longer be named] created the very conditions necessary for the insurrection—the BIG LIE—that started the whole sequence of events from before the election to the insurrection executed that afternoon of the 6^th of January 2021, and frankly to this very day. The BIG LIE perpetrated by [the person who shall no longer be named] was the very fuel needed for the insurrection. He had NO evidence of election fraud, even remotely close to probable cause . . . set aside beyond a reasonable doubt.

If that had been a military officer of any rank and any service with responsibility for security in a situation even fractionally similar to what happened that day, and s/he watched television during an insurrection, s/he would face a general court-martial and probably spend much of the rest of his/her life in the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

The conduct of [the person who shall no longer be named] and his delusional minions was bad enough, but they can almost be understood as a consequence of their blind loyalty to a man afflicted with the rabid malignant narcissism of the principal. To me, the monumental disgrace is the conduct of the fBICP senators who blocked what should have been a bicameral investigation and the House minority leader who blocked a more deeply bipartisan HSCJ6. Those fBICP senators and representatives (of which McCarthy is now one) chose to stay true to their party motto – Nescientia super scientia (Ignorance over knowledge!). Like ostrichs, those fBICP leaders in Congress chose to bury their heads rather than know the truth. Thank goodness, the Speaker of the House had the courage and strength to go it without the deniers. And I must say, thank God, Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger for their strength to stand for their commitment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

The long and the short of it all is,  [the person who shall no longer be named] assembled and constructed the bonfire pile of lumber with his BIG LIE before, during, and after the 3.November.2020 election. He added the kindling and substantial accelerant, and then he personally tossed the match into the construct. He could not control the resultant conflagration, but he is solely responsible for the disastrous consequences of his actions. I had forecast a lot of bad things if the man gained the power of the presidency. I must confess that I had no idea he would degrade and degenerate the very fabric of this once grand republic. What he has done is unforgiveable. The HSCJ6 is not finished with their work, but they have given us amble evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for me to say, it is now up to the Attorney General of the United States to prosecute, convict and imprison the true instigator of the insurrection. He should have been convicted and removed from office in 2020. The fBICP senators were successful in preventing his conviction, so in many respects, the fBICP equally culpable for enabling and sustaining that malignant narcissist monster. But hey, as Dennis Miller so succinctly stated, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

-- On Friday, from a trial of a couple of days, a federal court jury took all of three hours to unanimously convict Stephen Kevin ‘Steve’ Bannon, the acolyte, mouthpiece, and arguably the brain of [the person who shall no longer be named]. The House of Representatives passed H.Res.730 [House: 229-202-0-1(3)] [1032] on 21.10.2021, referring two charges to the Justice Department for prosecution and charging Stephen Kevin Bannon with criminal contempt of Congress; he was arraigned on 17.11.2021. He had been indicted, charged and ultimately convicted on both counts—one contempt count involving his refusal to appear for a deposition and another count involving his refusal to produce documents, in defiance of a subpoena from the HSCJ6. Bannon is scheduled to be sentence on 21.October.2022. He faces a 30-day minimum and a one-year maximum sentence in federal prison. Bannon indicated he intends to appeal, which is his right. I hope the judge lets him sit in prison during his appeal.

 

On Tuesday, 19.June.2022, the House of Representatives passed a preemptive legislative action in the wake of the Dobbs ruling [1068] and Justice Thomas’s chilling concurring opinion. The stated purpose of H.R.8404 is “. . . statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.” The bill goes to the Senate now. I must also say, 47 Republicans voted for the bill [too many to list in this humble forum, although I am sorely tempted to do so] to acknowledge their courage, so I suppose there is hope that 10+ Republican senators might vote for passage as well. It is truly sad that we must pass laws to codify what is a private matter between consenting adults. This is what the conservative Supremes have wrought upon We, the People. The Supremes are not done, and neither are We. Yet, to the conservatives among us, we will not go quietly into the good night of regression.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1070:

“Thanks Cap-all docked safely this side…currently in a heat wave over here with temperatures expected to reach 40degs C., which I know is somewhat normal for you guys but not us. When are we, the global population, going to take the threat of global warming with some seriousness? I seem to remember a former leader of your nation denying that this is a true and very serious threat to human survival.

“Send him over here to sit on our patio, he wouldn’t last long.

“We have 37 degs C currently with some 5 hrs of solar gain to come.

“Will we, us Brits, need to become accustomed to this? I fear this may become the case.”

My reply:

Our sympathies to you and all our British cousins. We are prepared and equipped for 40°C. Most Britons are not. Hopefully, you can find some evaporative cooling.

Good question. There are far too many deniers; I think they believe that if they deny things, they go away . . . kinda like an ostrich. Exhibit no.1, as you so appropriately note, is [the person who shall no longer be named]. I truly hope the unseasonable heat does not last long, my friend.

 . . . Round two:

“Thanks Cap-been something of a stinker again but you guys have kindly sent a cold front which should arrive here by Wednesday! Agreed we Brits are not conducive with such heat but it may give strength to the Global Warming argument. So some good may come of it.”

 . . . my reply to round two:

I truly hope y’all realize some relief from the heat. We know how stifling it can be. Unfortunately, we have a major political party that prefers ignorance over knowledge. Denial is ignorance. We shall overcome . . . in time . . . but will it be soon enough? We absolutely must wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.

 . . . Round three:

“Just read that you guys are in a heat wave too-so global warming must still be a hot discussion subject. We’ve had 30 degs. C again all, on and off.

“Looking forward to the blog especially as we hear that Steve Bannon is guilty of contempt.

“Can we now expect that the name of ‘he who cannot be mentioned’ to appear under the same charge? Appalling headlines this side, something needs to happen Cap, resolution is required.

“Of course we aren’t without turmoil here. A new PM is waiting in the wings to assume command- all the governing body need to do is select the right one for the job. That shouldn’t be too much of a problem as there’s only two candidates left in the final ‘punch up’. We await with some perplexity as to who will be issued the keys to Number 10 Downing Street.

“Politicians! I don’t know if there are many former service personnel who can tolerate the ‘shenanigans’ of our ‘leaders’. It isn’t the way we were brought up in uniform is it.”

 . . . my reply to round three:

30°C is certainly better than 40°C. Probably in the apropos category, CNN just broadcast a major news segment about the melting Greenland ice sheet. The ignorance-over-knowledge crowd are going to deny reality no matter what evidence is presented. We must vote for knowledge and relegate the ignorance crowd to the dustbin of history.

Yes, Bannon’s long overdue conviction has dishonorable mention in this week’s Update.

The only resolution to [the person who shall no longer be named] situation from my perspective is absolute, undeniable disgrace, i.e., the only president in history to be convicted in court of felonious criminal conduct and to be sent to prison. The damage that man has done to our once grand republic is incalculable. I want him to live long enough to feel the confinement of prison, and then he can die. He occupies far too much of this week’s Update thanks to the January 6^thCommittee investigation.

No, I do not think [the person who shall no longer be named] will face the same charges as Bannon. His charges should be far more serious, e.g., dereliction of duty, incitement of insurrection, conspiracy to defraud We, the People, et cetera. The despicable man deserves to be a guest of the government for the rest of his natural life with no access to Big Mac’s and utter disgrace in the annals of history.

I have detected no indications that Labour may be maneuvering to force elections to break the Conservative grip. Short of new elections, hopefully the Conservatives move quickly to replace Boris. He had some good attributes, but his arrogance and sense of entitlement were too much. We all need a firm, competent hand on the tiller in these troubled times. As we know, the IRI has chosen to renew their membership in the dictator’s club. And, I suspect Xi is sorely tempted to use the turmoil of these times to launch his long-declared intent to assault and subjugate Taiwan—a monumental difference with Hong Kong. We must remain resolute.

Oh my, you are oh so spot on correct. The nonsense of the ignorance-over-knowledge crowd are progressively more difficult to tolerate. We have a primary election next week, and the general mid-term election in November. Everyone must vote; it is our duty as a citizen.

 

Comment to the Blog:

“‘What existed before the Big Bang?’ is as unknowable as ‘Who created God (or the gods or whatever)?’

“Your lists of attendees at those meetings make a good list of American villains. The participation of prominent capitalist Patrick Byrne is no surprise; we need always look at the money behind the drama.

“I don’t see why either the States or the Federal government should have any control over medical care beyond requiring it to be safe and effective. Also, people who study the Bible have pointed out that life began for Adam when he breathed, not when he was conceived or shaped. I know the Founders didn’t intend government by religion, but that’s happening.

“Your other correspondent seems to have confused me (a Green Party member) with the person supporting the Libertarian candidate. The current two-party system has become untenable.”

My response to the Blog:

Of course, you are once again quite correct. We can chalk up my observation to my youthful and naïve wonder. The query still exists in my thoughts.

Indeed! Quite so! Money, money, money!

States have regulated medical care for longer than we have been alive . . . loosely rather than strictly, but regulation, nonetheless. Yes, I agree, religion is exerting more influence in our politics. If religion wants to be a lobbying group, let them pay taxes. Exhibit no.2, behind the Dobbs ruling, is the denial of communion to Nancy Pelosi. That trend must be reversed.

Your comment noted. I cannot speak to the observation. It still comes back to the salient question: how will they govern?

 . . . Round two:

“If the answer to ‘how will they rule’ is ‘less corruptly,’ let's give them a chance.”

 . . . my response to round two:

I appreciate and agree with the sentiment. No one . . . well other than the corrupters . . . wants any corruption of any form at any level of government. However, that sentiment does not get legislation through Congress and under the president’s signature. Sentimentality may be refreshing to our intellect, but it does not get much needed legislation through an intransigent Congress.

 . . . Round three:

“Perhaps ‘sentimentality’ doesn't get legislation through Congress, but the corruption we have doesn't either.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Yes, quite so! I am somewhat of an idealist. I do NOT want any corruption in any form at any level of government. We should continually strive to root out and punish corruption wherever and whenever we find it. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has enabled such corruption with their declaration that dark money is free speech. I also agree, sentimentality does not get necessary legislation done. All that said and agreed to, how will they get necessary laws passed in a two-party dominated Congress?

Oh wait, are you suggesting the invocation of “. . . it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . .”?

 . . . Round four:

“I'm not an either/or person these days. The corruption has reached a level where a few players control both parties, and that, as you point out, is only part of the problem. Any time there is as much money as the Federal government controls, there will be some kind of corruption. My point is that it's reached a crisis level.”

 . . . my response to round four:

I think your contention is overstated, but I cannot refute your statement. Yes, agreed, there has always been corrupt individuals in any group with authority to disperse enormous sums of money. We both speak out against such corruption. We vote. We encourage others to vote their conscience. What else are you suggesting or proposing that we do . . . thus my query to “. . . throw off such Government . . . .” We have been at crisis level since before 2010 SCOTUS betrayal.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

Update no.1070

Update from the Sunland

No.1070

11.7.22 – 17.7.22

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

 

To all,

 

We finally have the first full-up images from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Adequate words escaped me! I can only say, WOW! The JWST was launched on Christmas Day last [1041] and took a month to complete the unfolding and deployment process into its operational configuration and to reach its final L2 orbital position a million miles from Earth [1046]. The government chose to announce the first full-up images at the White House on Monday, 11.July.2022. The URL for the first image is:

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap220713.html

At the center of the image is distant galaxy cluster SMACS0723-73, some 4.6 billion light-years away. More significantly, we see Einstein’s gravitational lensing of a galaxy behind the cluster that is about 9.5 billion years distant. The spiky stars in the image are located within our Milky Way home galaxy. Everything in the image originated from the Big Bang 13.5 billion years ago. But, as is my nature, I ask, what existed before the Big Bang?

For those who might like to learn more about the complexity, sophistication, and technology of the JWST, I highly recommend the PBS NOVA program “Ultimate Space Telescope” (S49 Ep10) broadcast on 13.July.2022. Awesome! Incredible, mind-boggling awesomeness! The miracle of the early images from the JWST is a sweet foretaste of what is to come from JWST discoveries.

 

The follow-up news items:

-- The seventh public hearing of the United States House of Representatives Select Committee to Investigate the January 6^th Attack on the United States Capitol [1020] {HSCJ6} occurred on Tuesday, 12.July.2022.

To keep time and events in perspective, the presidential election of 2020 was concluded on Tuesday, 3.November.2020. In accordance with the U.S. Constitution and common law, each of the states was required to certify the election results for their respective state by 8.December.2020. On 14.December.2020, also in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, the designated electors in each state convened in their respective state to record and certify their votes to the Electoral College. Also in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, a joint session of Congress met on 6.January.2021 to count and record the Electoral College votes. I am compelled to remind the casual reader that on 29.September.2020, during the campaign, before the election, [the person who shall no longer be named] commanded his contaminated army during a national broadcast presidential debate: “Proud Boys, stand back and standby.”

On 18.December.2020, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, retired lieutenant general Michael Flynn, and former overstock.com CEO Patrick [Michael] Byrne (that is an odd one) entered the White House for an unscheduled private meeting with [the person who shall no longer be named]. The group met for roughly 15 minutes before they were confronted by White House Counsel Pasquale Anthony ‘Pat’ Cipollone and Senior Advisor to the President of the United States Eric Herschmann. The profanity-laced, heated argument lasted six hours. [The person who shall no longer be named] sought to name Powell as Special Counsel for something (as yet unspecified). [Can anyone imagine what might have happened if Powell had been given control of the investigative apparatus of the USG?] Cipollone boiled the contentious meeting down to one question: where is the evidence? Even to this very moment nearly two years hence, the answer is there is no evidence. Accusations are NOT evidence. At 01:42 [R] EST, on 19.December.2020, shortly after the participants in the 18.December White House meeting left the premises, [the person who shall no longer be named] sent a tweet to his loyal minions.

Peter Navarro releases 36 page report alleging election fraud ‘more than sufficient’ to swing victory to Trumpwashex.am/3nwaBCe. A great report by Peter. Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6^th. Be there, will be wild!

1:42 AM December 19, .2020                    [991]

This tweet was the critical trigger for the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to take action on the 6^th of January. Again, just for the record, the Proud Boys is an American far-right, neo-fascist, white supremacist, and exclusively male organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States. The Oath Keepers is an American far-right anti-government militia whose members claim to be defending the Constitution of the United States [FYI: they are not, and their conduct was about as far from the Constitution as anyone can get.].

On 21.December.2020, a near dozen, loyal, sycophant, representatives were summoned to the White House by [the person who shall no longer be named] to discuss the actions intended to overthrow the results of the 2020 election. White House Counsel Cipollone sought to attend that meeting (uninvited), but he was turned away. From several other sources who reported on the White House visitor logs, the representatives who attend that 21.December meeting were:

-- Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama

-- Representative Brian Babin of Texas

-- Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona

-- Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida

-- Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas

-- Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona

-- Representative Andy Harris of Maryland

-- Representative Jody Hice of Georgia

-- Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio

-- Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania

-- Representative-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia

Six of the attendees identified in red above sought requested pardons from the out-going president. Gee, I wonder why? None of them received a pardon. We have seen most of those names before. I suspect we will see some of those names in court records eventually.

The HSCJ6 also heard testimony under oath from Jason Van Tatenhove, who served as national spokesman for the Oath Keepers and as a close aide to Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, and Stephen Ayers, who was one of the rioters inside the Capitol on the 6^th. Their testimony was direct and chilling.

Lastly (for now), ignorance of the Constitution or the law is not a viable defense in any court of law and will not absolve [the person who shall no longer be named] of his direct culpability in the insurrection. See Blackstone 4-2-27 or Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ The Common Law (47-8, Lecture II). Let justice be done!

-- A few continuing thoughts on the recent Dobbs ruling [1067, 1068] from the Supreme Court . . . 

I absolutely agree with the Court that abortion, as a medical procedure, is best regulated by the states as with all other medical procedures. Where I seriously and adamantly disagree with the majority is their relegation of a woman’s fundamental rights to the whims of the states. Women are American citizens with full and absolute rights of all citizens. Our constitutional rights are NOT divisible by the states, period, full stop! I believe the Roe Court [319] was very careful in respecting every woman’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice in their efforts to find balance between conflicting rights—a female citizen’s rights versus the rights of an as yet unborn fetus. The Roe Court defined that balance point as “quickening,” i.e., when the fetus can survive outside the womb (approximately 26 weeks gestation in 1973). Science has lowered that threshold to roughly 20-22 weeks. What the Dobbs Court declared is a woman’s rights be damned, each state gets to decide the dominance of a single cell zygote set aside a fetus. To make matters worse, Justice Thomas has clearly and unwaveringly declared that he has set his sights on other privacy rulings he disagrees with—contraceptive access, consensual sex, freedom of choice in marriage, et al. The other conservatives sitting on the current court bench are not so bold and have limited the Dobbs ruling to abortion only. The Dobbs Court was wrong, and unfortunately, correction is going to take a very long time. Such are the consequences of elections. The Dobbs Court virtually ignored the reality of the conflicting rights question before the Court because they simply could not take their concentrated focus away from their ideological objective. In the flying biz, we call that target fixation, which is an extraordinarily dangerous condition. Just as the conservatives are obsessed with shouting that abortion is not a constitutional right, and thus is not a matter for the federal government or the Supreme Court, they conveniently ignored the implicit (unspecified) rights of female citizens including a 10-year-old female rape victim. The Dobbs Court’s target fixation will be equally deadly as the aviation variant.

 

To use an apropos term favored by our British cousins, I was gobsmacked when the United States Secret Service (USSS) announced they had deleted internal text messages from the 5^th and 6^th of January 2021, after they had been requested to preserve all communications by the Department of Homeland Security. The USSS claims it was an inadvertent consequence of a planned device migration. This despicable (whatever we are going to call it) action reminds me of an almost identical outrage 

The USSS outrage reminds me of a similar event 50 years ago (20.June.1972). Nixon’s staunchly loyal private secretary Rose Mary Woods “accidentally” erased 18 minutes of President Nixon’s Oval Office secret tape recordings. The 18-minute gap just happened to be an Oval Office recorded conversation three days after the second Watergate break-in.

We know now, just like we knew then, that the erasures were not “accidental.” I cannot believe in today’s world that anyone on God’s little green earth would not back-up any device before it is changed for any reason. I am 74 years old and nearly functionally illiterate when it comes to electronic devices, and even I know that devices must be backed-up before they are repair, tinkered with, or replaced. I think the U.S. Secret Service fell victim to misaligned loyalty to the Siren’s Song; they have now become complicit in the insurrection. Far too many of us wonder why so many do not trust the government. This is just one tiny glimpse at the destruction [the person who shall no longer be named] has done to our precious country. 

 

On Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed two important related bills and sent them to the Senate. H.R.8296 - Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022 [House: 219-210-0-2(4)] ensures female citizens have access to the medical treatment services they need regardless of where they live in the United States. H.R.8297 - Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022 [House: 223-205-0-3(4)] protects the freedom of movement of female citizens for whatever reason(s) they choose. Neither bill is likely to pass the Senate, but they are worthy attempts to protect the individual rights of female citizens. There is always hope Congress will restore the rights of female citizens in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling [1068].

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1069:

Comment to the Blog:

“The mental health issue is a red herring as far as mass shooters. Most mass shooters are not diagnosed with a mental illness before or after the event. And given the nature of families, prior detection in young men would be its own nightmare. On top of that, mass shooters don’t kill the most people overall.

“A National Institutes of Health study (National Library of Medicine, 2012, last sentence of the abstract (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267868/) shows that “Compared with the U.S., Switzerland and Israel have lower gun ownership and stricter gun laws, and their policies discourage personal gun ownership.” The study discusses the details of that, including military service weapons.”

My response:

“Red herring” . . . really? I urge you to re-examine the chart provided in the New York Times article posted in Update no.1067. The conclusion of 110 of 433 events studied and represented is suicide—25%. Although we have no way to differentiate the data provided in the article, I dare say some portion of the 131 “the police” may well have been “suicide by cop” realized or not. I will continue to argue that all 433 events have mental health causal factors. I acknowledge that understanding the motivation of a killer for crossing the line of civilized society is not an attractive endeavor, but it is essential to a workable solution to the problem. In order to fix any problem or issue, we must understand the root causes. I also recognize that it is popular to focus on the tools; they are tangible, physical, and identifiable. Understanding what is in a killer’s mind is not. Some are diagnosed before, e.g., Adam Lanza. Many, if not all, would have been diagnosed if they had had access to mental health services, e.g. Robert ‘Bobby’ Crimo III. Millions of American citizens own and use at least one semi-automatic rifle (that looks like an assault rifle) and do not cross the line, do not harm another soul. I must reject the notion that mental health is not a causal factor for firearm violence.

All I know is, I have been to both countries. I have seen and learned what I know. My point was, the weapons are available, but they do not experience mass shootings or other mental breakdowns. Why is that? The answer may not be obvious, but the answer exists.

 . . . Round two:

“Okay, I guess we have to talk about mental illness. First of all, define ‘mental illness’ and specify which ones afflict mass shooters. Then explain what would motivate people with those specific mental illnesses to seek help, which is already widely available. (Our local treatment system will provide immediate help to anyone who says they’re suicidal or homicidal.) Also, since most are young, what would move their families to do something other than ‘protect’ them from the stigma of treatment? I agree that mental health is a factor in suicide, but owning firearms provides a far easier and more reliable method of suicide than ‘by cop.’ Remember that suicide is basically impulsive.

“Your quibble about semi-automatic versus automatic weapons is petty. Either weapon is primarily designed for mass carnage.

“It’s not only easier to focus on the tools shooters use, but it’s also more effective. See the rest of the world for examples. I suspect you need to update your information on Switzerland and Israel. (See the linked paper from my first comment.) They have weapons but they also have far more restrictions on those weapons. One result of that is that suicide has declined sharply among Israeli soldiers.”

 . . . my response to round two:

To me, mental illness is any disease, or hereditary or induced state that affects a person’s sense of happiness and fulfillment. Further, a subset of that afflictive state is those elements that instigate a person to harm anything, anyone else, or himself. The vast majority of people may not like other people for any one or combination of the social factors, but they are not stimulated to harm others. The facet in this context is harm to others, and I chose to represent it as a subset of mental illness. There are many elements of mental illness that adversely affect the ability of a person to enjoy life, but they are not driven to harm others.

As with most such questions, the critical threshold is the ability of an individual to recognize that a problem exists and seek help. The flip side of that condition is those around a trouble individual caring enough to offer help. An afflicted person may reject all efforts to help intervene. At some point, regardless of the individual’s state, public safety becomes the dominant factor. Stigma is a real obstacle and problem.

Where we apparently diverge is the bane of all prohibitions; we punish the whole because we refuse or are incapable of dealing with the troubled among us.

Suicide is a more delicate aspect for me since I am an advocate for death with dignity. What seems to be the demarcation in this context is harm to others. Why would someone seek to harm others? . . . to take others with him? That motivation seems to be the epitome of mental illness.

No, my apologies; I did not communicate properly. Semi-automatic and automatic firearms all have the potential to kill. I was attempting to be precise in that there is a demonstrable difference in the volume of fire and thus the potential damage.

My oh my, your last paragraph is a bit steep, and from my perspective, misapplied. A person’s decision to harm others does not care about the law, controls, regulations, or even the availability of firearms. My point was, firearms are available in those countries whether for personal or militia reasons; they are still available. If they wanted to harm others, there is nothing to stop them. Like the vast majority of American citizens, Swiss and Israeli citizens do not cross that threshold of harming others.

 . . . Round three:

“To have a legitimate debate, we need common definitions. Your definition of mental illness is too broad to use. Also, it doesn’t take into account cultural and family standards and histories. And what of the military, where harm is society’s goal? If you’re going to use ‘mental illness’ in a cause-and-effect relationship to mass shootings, please clarify.

“Even with duly defined and specific mental illnesses, many don’t seek help short of severe consequences. As far as families, I recommend studying the subject of family dynamics.

“Making an absolute of ‘all prohibitions’ being wrong is extreme. The government prohibits owning land mines or meth labs. The question is where to draw the line.

“The bulk of suicides don’t involve death with dignity. Certainly not ‘suicides by cop.’ I benefit from studying some uncomfortable subjects.

“Learn the actual situations in other nations. Firearms being physically in an environment doesn’t mean they’re not restricted in meaningful ways. For example, strict accountability may be in place or ammunition may be limited. The U.S. still has the highest rate of personal gun ownership of developed nations and the least regulation.”

 . . . my response to round three:

OK, let us step back to your point. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) website [https://psychiatry.org/patients-families/what-is-mental-illness] defines mental illness as: “health conditions involving changes in emotion, thinking or behavior (or a combination of these). Mental illnesses are associated with distress and/or problems functioning in social, work or family activities.” That definition seems reasonable and workable to me in our context. The APA definition is not dependent upon source—only consequence; I think that is most appropriate. Whether the source of mental illness is combat-induced PTSD or a genetic schizophrenic episode, the societal consequence is the same. The key to us, in this context, is what causes or stimulates an individual to harm others? I continue to return to the observation that the vast majority of us may disagree, seriously disagree, and even dislike others based on any one or combination of the social factors, but we are not driven to violence against others. In so many of these tragic events, the victims are totally innocent, independent from, and devoid of any threat to the perpetrator. What instigates an individual to be so violent?

Yes. Agreed! So many of these “mental illnesses” that lead to violence against innocent people are born in the family dynamics of the perpetrator, e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer, or John Wayne Gacy. I have long contended that many of society’s ills, e.g., racism, sexism, social phobias, et cetera, are born and nurtured in childhood under the pressure of those family dynamics. Children are essentially born as a blank slate. They are taught hatred and disrespect for others. I shall dare say the mental illness of the majority of these mass killer shooters has a genesis in their childhood families.

On prohibitions, you are absolutely correct. No debate. The point in my statement and contention is prohibition is the “go to” tool for the imposition on every citizen’s freedom of choice and fundamental right to privacy. To me, the starting point demarcation for the imposition of prohibitions or other moral projection laws is the public-private domain threshold. Land mines are indiscriminate and injurious in the public domain. Meth labs are a slightly different issue, but their societal threat is unregulated consumables that are ultimately injurious in the public domain. For society to intrude upon a woman’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice based on an unrealistic hypothesis is a bridge too far. Liberty is not divisible by state’s rights.

I did not think it necessary to explicitly state the facts, but apparently it is required. “Death with dignity” is a very small subset of the overall suicide issue. To me, end of life “death with dignity” is not suicide; rather it is death with dignity. So, let us exclude death with dignity from the suicide mental illness discussion; those who seek death with dignity are NOT mentally ill; they are invariably rational, careful, and respectful of others. Further, I do believe the majority of suicides are very much individual private phenomena and an appropriate mental illness treatment matter. Most suicides do not harm another living soul (excluding the mental / emotional trauma to loved ones). In our current debate, we are dealing with an even smaller subset of suicides where a disturbed individual is instigated to harm others in his suicide. It is that subset that attracts my attention and thought.

I am not sure what the point was in your comment about “suicide by cop”? “Suicide by cop” has absolutely nothing to do with “death with dignity.”

Yes, these are uncomfortable discussions because we are discussing the death of a human being by other than natural causes. Yet, the most salient aspect of that discussion is what motivates a suicidal individual to take other innocent people with him, especially children who have not hurt or threatened anyone.

Pardon me, but I do believe you are missing the point. Regulation, accountability, control, availability, whatnot, are not involved in an individual’s decision to inflict violence on other people. A person who has crossed that threshold could not care less about laws and controls. That said, again, I am in favor of intelligent, rational regulation of firearm ownership and use. What I am adamantly against is prohibitions or loosely defined regulations. Like so many societal matters, we must also carefully regulate governmental authority and actions to preclude zealous prosecutors from imposing their will on society in addition to regulating the conduct of private citizens. I am seeking balance, not prohibition.

 . . . Round four:

Life calls, so I'll only answer one sentence of this one. " Regulation, accountability, control, availability, whatnot, are not involved in an individual’s decision to inflict violence on other people" is untrue. [emphasis by originator] Available weapons change the entire situation.

 . . . my response to round four:

Like John Lennon so beautifully sang,  “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.” I trust everything is well.

OK, I’ll bite. What is untrue about my sentence?

I stand by my contention that prohibition is rarely a viable option in a free society. I repeatedly return to Benjamin Franklin’s words of wisdom. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Prohibition is not the correct path.

 . . . Round five:

“Regulation, accountability, and control affect the individual's ability to do violence to others or themselves; therefore, they affect the decision to do so. Whether impulsive or planned, attacking a group of people with a knife is both more physically difficult and riskier than using a rifle designed for that job.”

 . . . my response to round six:

I would agree in the application with individuals who are at least marginally stable; they have just enough awareness to be affected by regulation. To those who are stable, regulation is unnecessary since their moral values gave them respect for others; so, we could argue that regulation works with them as well. However, to unstable individuals, I cannot agree. Troubled souls could not care less about regulations, if they are even aware of regulation. In that group, I think the old adage “where there’s a will” applies.

I remain resolutely against prohibition, whether for alcohol, sex, psychotropic substances, firearms, et al. Prohibitions will not work in a free society. Liberty is far too precious.

 . . . Round seven:

“It's not whether people are interested in regulation; it's whether they have the tools available to carry out the project.”

 . . . my response to round seven:

I thought I clearly stated that availability is not a dependent factor. I have nothing more to offer. Prohibition is NOT the answer.

 

Another contribution:

“What an articulate contribution from your correspondent!

“I noted with great interest, after savoring the impressive language, the claim of being a Libertarian (although your response mentioning the Green Party either misunderstood or conveys some identity I don't know about). I have read the Libertarian Party platform carefully and agree with it in principle, although I might have worded some passages differently. After attending the Mississippi January state convention and making a sizable contribution following fine discussions by the chairwoman and members and hearing the inspiring keynote speaker, I set about trying to distribute some of the excellent literature provided, put up my yard sign, etc. Quickly I confirmed my belief that most of my contacts actually do support the platform features but have succumbed to the mantra of the corrupt major parties which encourage the popular un-American notion that if you vote your conviction (for an "independent" ) you throw away your vote (as I was accused of doing when I supported Ross Perot as I slowly lost faith in the GOP). Hurray for your correspondent! I hope she or he sounds off often.”

My reply:

I can find elements with which I have affinity in the platforms of all political parties including the fBICP and even the Communist Party USA. Yet, it is the whole that matters for governance. In political discussions such as this, the one question I continually return to is, how will they govern? We see the two major parties struggle every two years to achieve a majority to get things done. Even then, in today’s world of ideological intransigence, it takes a majority in both chambers of Congress along with the White House to make any progress. If we had a major third party with a significant number of seats in either or both chambers, working coalitions would be possible. At the end of the day, it still comes back to, how will they govern?

Intransigence and status quo are not stable states.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-) 

Update no.1069

 Update from the Sunland

No.1069

4.7.22 – 10.7.22

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

 

To all,

 

I finally completed my reading of the recently signed into law Bipartisan Safer Communities Act [PL 117-159; 135 Stat. xxx] [1067]. The law encourages expanded background checks and opens juvenile records for older than 16-year-old juveniles. They closed the boyfriend loophole to include boyfriends convicted of domestic violence crimes. While bipartisan legislation to improve our ability to reduce firearm violence is laudable, the new law must be rendered to the category of “something is better than nothing.” The new law is woefully inadequate, incomplete, and otherwise a very long way from the comprehensive firearms reform and regulation we need. If this law is the best bipartisan effort we can achieve, then so be it.

On the flip side of our tragic firearm violence, I will note that both Switzerland and Israel, and perhaps other countries, have national militias that encompass virtually all conscription age males, and they issue automatic weapons to them, not semi-automatic rifles but fully automatic military grade firearms. Those weapons are retained in their homes as part of a general rapid mobilization process for national defense. My point here is, those governments issue fully automatic weapons to them, and thus the germane question, how many mass killing events with automatic weapons have those two countries experienced?

The issue we face today has been, is, and will likely remain the mental health of those men who are driven to do such heinous crimes. It seems to me that the majority of people are focused on the chosen instruments of their crimes. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act provides more federal funding for state mental health services, but offers no focus to what needs to be done to identify those citizens who are prone to violent acts. The idea is to prevent these episodes before innocent people get hurt. I do not know how the new law will help to that end, but we now must give it a chance.

 

Once again, for the umpteenth time, a young, under-25-year-old, mentally disturbed, white male crossed the line of common humanity and decency. We, the people, appear to be and apparently are incapable of learning that lesson. I absolutely believe the FBI has a profile of these mass killers. I understand the reticence to publicly state such a profile of these killers. It is way past propriety. Yet, we need to know what to look for. The uncle with whom he was living publicly claimed he saw no signs of the impending violence. He saw no signs probably because he had no idea what to look for, or he ignored the signs. While I am quick to criticize parents and family members in such circumstances, I have to acknowledge the potential that they might not know what to look for and be sensitive to. In this latest instance, how could the father and uncle not know of the police visits for previous suicide attempts and threats to harm others. They knew he was troubled, and yet, the father sanctioned his purchase of those firearms. We can implement the most extensive and elaborate “red flag laws,” but this is not a police matter; it is and will forever be a mental health treatment concern. Let us find and retain our sense of perspective on the real root cause of these events. Think about it.

 

A friend and consistent contributor sent the following short message and an attached article.

“Without ever mentioning voting, the lead story here explains why people don't vote. (Probably not shareable.)”

The attached article:

“What Happens When Americans Don’t Trust Institutions?”

by Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux and Zoha Qamar

FiveThirtyEight

Published: JUL. 8, 2022, AT 6:00 AM

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-happens-when-americans-dont-trust-institutions/

 . . . to which I replied:

The article seems apropos to me, and I agree the phenomenon could explain voter apathy.  Yet, if we do nothing, we will continue to get more of the same. Flawed men failed us, but to condemn the whole system of governance seems a bit misplaced to me.  Further, I suspect that if we bore down into the basis of that distrust, we will find that it is perception rather than reality. There are many things I do not like or approve of, but I cannot think of anything in my direct contact with the government that has not been as expected. When people listen to the chants of condemnation long enough, they begin to pick up the chant on their own. Just a thought . . . 

A follow-up comment:

“‘Flawed men have failed us’ works on an instance of a given issue such as Watergate. When the failures become pervasive we look to the society or institution that lets the flawed people operate.”

 . . . my reply:

Agreed.

Round three:

“That's the point of the article. People are looking at the institutions as the problem rather than the solution, whether or not they have personal contact with a given form of corruption or incompetence.”

 . . . my reply to round three:

Understood and agreed. And, those people are quite susceptible to misinformation made worse by their complacency or apathy toward doing the necessary research to validate or refute the misinformation. In essence, they believe and complain about governmental agencies based on reports by some malfeasant entity. Case in point: the mindless condemnation of Critical Race Theory by principally FoxNews. Another excellent example is the ridiculous campaign by [the person who shall no longer be named] and his fBICP based on nothing more than imagined accusations. Most folks do not know how and do not care to learn how to test information before they start advocating against the government.

Round four:

“‘The government’ isn't a single entity any more than ‘religion’ or ‘unions’ are. Nevertheless, people use those lump categories to think about institutions. To some degree, they're right. If a given institution continues to produce corruption or brutality embodied in those ‘bad men,’ the institution needs to change. However, other opportunists make the most of that. Republicans dating back to the Reagan era have insulted and demeaned ‘government’ to their advantage even while most of them worked in government. Other institutions are in the same situation, and our nation suffers.”

 . . . my reply to round four:

Excellent observations. Agreed. I will add that [the person who shall no longer be named] did not create the “swamp” nonsense, but he certainly popularized it. Yes, absolutely, the fBICP attacks the government (of which they are a constitutional part, I must add) because some agencies do not bent to their dicta. The “deep state” is yet another fictitious conspiracy boogeyman they created to intimidate their opponents and mobilize the minions. Yes, as the original article suggests, the broad distrust of government whether founded in fact or fantasy has been a major contributor to the fractiousness of our current situation. It is going to take a very long time to overcome the destruction they have wrought.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1068:

“Good day Cap-that was a lengthy and complicated Blog. Some of which I found a little difficult to follow, not being really up to speed on the subjects involved. You must have spent some time putting that all together.

“I will read again!”

My reply:

Yes, Update no.1068 was very long, but to me, it was a measure of how important the Dobbs ruling from the Supreme Court is to the rights of We, the People. I apparently failed to simplify my review. If you have questions, just ask what you wish to know. I will do my best to answer your queries.

 

Comment to the Blog:

“I found Cassidy Hutchinson’s TV appearance fascinating, if unsurprising. When I was a Secretarial Science major, we were taught that secretaries know “everything.” Ms. Hutchinson’s title is an updated version of Executive Secretary.

“In case it’s not crystal clear, King Baby wanted the January 6 crowd to be not just a mob, but an armed mob. They intended insurrection, not merely protest.

“As we know, the ‘strict constructionists’ on the Supreme Court have decided to ignore the first clause of the Second Amendment. So much for that ‘literal reading of the Constitution’ claim.

“I think I’d defend the right to choice in medical care under the 4^th Amendment. Outlawing a medical procedure that harms no others violates ‘the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.’ When a fetus becomes an ‘other’ (acquires its own spirit or consciousness) can’t be known. The ancients believed it happened at some point following birth.

“Remember here that the Justices we rail against didn’t use reasoning to reach their conclusions. They’d already reached conclusions and tried to use reasoning to support them.

“I’ll point out again that the Declaration of Independence was never made law with its unalienable rights.

“As with your Libertarian contributor, I put my money (such as it is) where my mouth is.”

My response to the Blog:

Yes. We have heard anecdotal reflections of the aberrant behavior of [the person who shall no longer be named], but Ms. Hutchinson gave us the first direct witness testimony under oath of just a few of his myriad defective traits. Her public testimony seems to have stimulated more aggressive criminal investigations as well. I am reminded of Alexander Butterfield’s testimony before the Watergate Committee.

Oh, I think the reality you state is well understood by those of us who are paying attention. Unfortunately, my previous contention still applies; the folks who should be listening and thinking are not doing so. Yes, they intended insurrection, to disrupt the functioning of Congress, presumably to give [the person who shall no longer be named] the opportunity to declare the election failed, impose martial law, and extend his presidency for an indefinite time—the very definition of a coup d’état.

As I wrote in Update no. 1068, the “strict constructionists” hide behind their conservativism when it suits their purposes, and then, they conveniently look the other way when it does not—the definition of hypocrisy.

The conservatives refuse to acknowledge any implied rights by any phrase or words. They believe to their core that only explicit words have meaning to the law.

Oh so true . . . very weak.

Acknowledged and recognized. But that does not alter my admiration for those immortal words. “We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .” BTW, ‘self-evident’ was Benjamin Franklin’s contribution to the Declaration.

I note your money-where-your-mouth-is contribution to the Green Party. I laud your commitment. It is more than me.

 . . . Round two:

“The conservatives (Goldwater would dispute that term) on the Supreme Court are just making things up at a college reading level to support the actions for which they were chosen. There’s no point seeking consistent reasoning there.

“I admire the statement of the ‘self-evident’ and also respect Franklin as a thinker, but the Founders didn’t follow through with those ideals. That’s sad.

“I need to act to support my beliefs; that’s one of the beliefs. I’m not able to do the appropriate protests because my lungs are in no shape to deal with tear gas, but once in a while, I can give money to those who are actually trying to enact change.”

 . . . my response to round two:

I absolutely agree. Barry Goldwater would be appalled by what has happened to the former Republican Party that he once led. Perhaps so, but I simply cannot remain silent as this atrocity plays out and so many American citizens have succumbed to ravages of that man’s snake-oil elixir.

I agree. We are paying the price for the Founders’ trust in humanity. I sincerely believe they chose not to go that far because the Founders truly believed those unalienable rights were indeed self-evident and thus did not need to be restated. To do so would be redundant. A large portion of today’s so-called conservatives are about as far from the Founders/Framers as could be. Today’s conservatives who are influencing the former Republican Party are consumed with retaining power at any cost and imposing their values, their choices, their beliefs on every single citizen—a near dictatorial autocracy. We are immersed in perhaps the greatest test of our representative democracy since the Founding (1788). Those so-called conservatives have now forced us back into a fight to defend the unalienable rights for ALL citizens regardless of the social factors. I trust but do have doubts that We, the People, will rise to the challenge.

You are doing your part. I am trying to do mine. I write. I strive to speak truth to power in every word I write.

 . . . Round three:

“I doubt the Founders’ trust in humanity had much to do with the Constitution. Even the Bill of Rights was approved after great debate, and not in the whole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights.

“Consciously or otherwise, the Founders preserved their position in society and used whatever was left for the benefit of other Americans.”

 . . . my response to round three:

I have not read every word the Founders/Framers have ever written or have been attributed to them, so I do not know what they were thinking at the time. That is only the image I have in my mind based on my assessment of some of their words. I do not share your cynicism regarding the motives of the Founders/Framers. Regardless, the fight for our fundamental rights continues.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)