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                  :-)