Update from the Sunland
No.1098
23.1.23 – 29.1.23
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The U.S. Debt Limit seems to be the hot topic of the moment with the myriad criminal and civil investigations and cases against 45POTUS grinding on, and he continues his worthless yammering. A short primer might be useful.
The debt limit was created and implemented when President Wilson signed into law the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 [PL 65-I-043; 40 Stat. 288; 24.9.1917]. The §1 [40 Stat. 288] of the new law imposed a debt limit of US$7.539B. That is US$174.829B in 2022 dollars. The debt limit today is US$31.4T. The original intent and purpose were well-meaning, but they have been subverted in recent decades.
Robert Reich, the former secretary of Labor in the Obama administration, wrote at relevant article regarding the current debt limit debate.
“Five truths about the pending debt-ceiling fight that the mainstream media doesn't want you to know – Both-sides’ism is rampant. And it's seriously misleading the public.”
by Robert Reich
Published: Jan 24 [2023]
For the most part, I agree with Reich’s opinion. However, I must object to the general tone of the article. The implication of Reich’s words is that Democrats have been fiscally responsible, and Republicans have been fiscally irresponsible. I simply cannot agree or accept the notion. From my perspective, both parties have been comparably outrageous spenders. The only difference between the two parties is what they spend Treasury dollars—the People’s money—on when they have the power to do so. Further, I do not agree with either party’s spending priorities. Lastly, passing a tax cut for corporations and the wealthy with such rampant spending [45POTUS] is outright insanity. At the bottom line and based on the history of the last four decades at least, the lesser of two performances, the Democrat spending is less odorous and offensive. The debt limit purpose has lost its value and should be repealed.
The other hot topic of the day is the use of excessive force by the police. The latest incident at issue occurred on Saturday, 7.January.2023, in Memphis, Tennessee, when 29-year-old Tyre Nichols death was pulled over in a traffic stop reportedly for reckless driving. He died in the hospital three days later from injuries he received at the hands of five Memphis Police officers. Some of the collected videos from that night were released to the public on Friday, 27.January.2023. I watched the released videos.
Regardless of what preceded, once Nichols was handcuffed and restrained, the health and well-being of the detainee becomes the responsibility of those police officers. From my observations, none of the officers even checked on Nichols. They only insisted at he sit up. They failed to fulfill their responsibility to care for their detainee.
The police are charged with enforcing the law from jaywalking or expectorating on the sidewalk to murder. They have the authority, training, and capability to restrain anyone they interact with who they assess as being a threat to themselves, the officers, or the public. The videos we have seen so far begin at the traffic stop, so we do not know what precipitated the stop, other than the officers’ contention that Nichols was driving recklessly. What that means exactly is not yet known. The video of the stop told me the first officer to reach Nichols’ automobile escalated immediately, aggressively pulling Nichols from the car and attempting to handcuff him swiftly. Nichols refused to comply with police instructions to ensure the safety of the officers and the individual. The officers were trying to handcuff Nichols with his hands behind his back. Nichols refused to comply. The officers applied progressively more harsh and violent measures to gain compliance. Nichols broke free and ran. It was the second encounter that seemed to be far more injurious. You can hear the officers speculate that Nichols might be jacked up on PCP or Meth because of the strength and duration of his resistance despite multiple officers, TASERS, pepper spray, and expandable batons. I find it very difficult to kick a detainee in the head; that to me is the definition of excessive force. The five principal Memphis Police officers were swiftly fired and were eventually charged with second degree murder in the death of Tyre Nichols.
From what I have seen and heard so far, I think the second degree murder charge is over-charging by the district attorney and may well backfire. I do not believe and I have not seen any evidence that any one or combination of those officers involved “intended” to kill Nichols. Negligent homicide or manslaughter would be more appropriate as I see it.
The more I see of these violent police encounters, the more convinced I am that the issue resistance and non-compliance with police instructions. An encounter with police is NOT an opportunity to debate the reason for the traffic stop or encounter. The time to debate the reason of the stop is in court, not on the street. Nichols’ resistance and non-compliance escalated the encounter. His resistance instigated the increasing violence. Regardless, those officers failed to render immediate assistance to Nichols once he was restrained, and for that failure, they are legally culpable.
An interesting and relevant article came to me from a frequent contributor.
“This Time It’s Different – Neither we nor our allies are prepared to fight all-out war with Russia, regionally or globally.”
by Douglas Macgregor
The American Conservative
Published: Jan 26, 2023, 12:01 PM
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/this-time-its-different/
MacGregor makes some good points. However, on the whole, I disagree with his opinion far more than I could ever agree with. What is the most obvious missing element is, what does MacGregor propose we do about Russian hegemonic aggression in Ukraine? I am not a fan or advocate for the United States or any other nation being the world’s policeman, but when and where to we reject hegemony. Hitler sought territory from neighboring nations for what he called Lebensraum—living room. The German dictator believed the Germans had a right to ancestral land that no longer belonged to them, and then while he was at it, he started taking more land to expand German territory for native Germans to populate. Putin’s justification is not Hitler’s, but it is equally illegal and immoral. Ukraine was and is a sovereign country and had been since 1992. We must acknowledge that Ukraine has struggled to establish its independent democratic governance. However, that reality does not justify invading a sovereign country. MacGregor writes as if the United States sought war with Russia and used Ukraine as a proxy to fight that war. If that was his intention, I categorically disagree and reject the notion. MacGregor is correct in part that Ukraine will not win a war of attrition with Russia. The latter can throw hordes of men at the fight; the Ukraine cannot. Allied weaponry and logistical support can and will be a force multiplier. I believe Russia’s generals recognize reality, even if Putin and the ultra-nationalists do not. MacGregor is wrong in so many aspects of his opinion, not least of which his implication that the United States wanted a proxy war with Russia. Neither Ukraine nor the United States attacked Russia. Neither country provoked Russia. In fact, the United States did everything it could to avoid war in Ukraine from Obama’s appeasement or tepid response to Putin’s aggression in 2014 to Biden’s multiple warnings to Putin to prevent the Russian looming offensive. No, there is far more wrong with MacGregor’s opinion than there is correct. Yet, it is important that we read and understand what the right is thinking.
Comments and contributions from Update no.1097:
Comment to the Blog:
“The chickens are coming home to roost on 45POTUS. It’s a shame the judge didn’t add punitive sanctions; they’d be highly appropriate.
“Putin’s mistake that neither you nor Oliver Stone mentioned is killing off some of his oligarchs. Any dictator needs the support of the wealthy, and losing the oligarchs will cause much trouble.
“Putin doesn’t ‘love’ 45POTUS or anyone else. Putin uses people, and 45POTUS is no longer useful.”
My response to the Blog:
Quite so, and as you say, highly appropriate. I will add, the sooner the better. He belongs in prison . . . and if I had my way, he would be held in isolation and incomunicado; he deserves nothing more. There is always hope until there isn’t.
As I stated, my friend, I could add a few more mistakes to the list. Putin’s murder of anyone who opposes him or speaks out against him is certainly one of those additional mistakes. He likely did not pull the trigger, or inject the poison, or push someone off the 8th floor balcony, or any one of a variety of methods to kill, but there is zero doubt in my little pea-brain that he was and is the instigator of such crimes. In the case of the oligarchs, he has disposed of, he is trying to send a clear message to the others, just as a dictator or a mafia boss would do—no dissent! Putin is playing a very dangerous game.
You caught me; I overstated reality, opting for simplicity. I think Putin sees the man for exactly what he is—a feckless façade of a human being who has conned millions of people to buy & believe in his worthless snake-oil. No, Putin knows exactly who he is, but to Putin, that makes him a useful parasite. I do think he would welcome him in Russia if he chose to run.
. . . follow-up comment:
“I think of Putin as not merely ‘a’ villain but ‘the’ villain. Whether 45POTUS has the brainpower to seek asylum somewhere remains to be seen. So does whether Putin has enough use for him to grant it.”
. . . my follow-up response:
The choice of article is appropriate from a contemporary perspective. Yet, if he is “the” villain, I must say Xi is not far behind. They both hold serious hegemonic ambitions. I cannot imagine 45POTUS seeking asylum anywhere or running because that would be an admission of guilt. As a former NKGB colonel, Putin has a keen sense of exploitation; he would love to tap the experience of 45POTUS in office. Can you imagine how history would record such an event?
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
Good morning, Cap,
Re Tyre Nichols, I don’t know Tennessee’s definition of second-degree murder. That would be necessary to debate the charges against the officers. Also, defining intent is a dubious thing in law at best. Their intent to punish someone or avenge their perceived disrespect could include a disinterest in whether they die.
I don’t see where extreme courtesy and meekness should be required of the citizen involved, and I don’t believe it would necessarily help based on experience. Also, I myself have usually had trouble understanding police commands due to the barked tone of voice. They don’t enunciate well.
Nobody in the world can be prepared for an “all-out” war. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons make that impossible.
Have a good day,
Calvin
Good morning to you, Calvin,
Indeed! I am not a lawyer, and I do not play one of TV. I am only a citizen with an opinion—informed or not. My opinion does not matter a twit. Intention in the law is defined by the jury. The prosecution works to paint the picture of a perpetrator’s intent, and the defense strives to counter with reasonable doubt. But it is the jury that decides. I only offered my opinion based on what we know so far. Nichols did not help his situation by resisting and defying instructions by the officers. However, that reality does not absolve the police of violating the law in their failure to render aid to Nichols once he was in handcuffs. All of them deserve prosecution and punishment. I just worry that over-charging diminishes the likelihood of conviction. Further, I have seen no justification for the first officer forcefully removing Nichols from his car. We need the dash cam video of events prior to that moment. If the officers failed to turn on their dashboard camera, shame on them, and that failure becomes a constraint to their claim of reckless driving. It would have to be some VERY reckless driving to justify that aggressive initial interaction.
I am not suggesting meekness, only compliance. Many years ago, we used to get out of the car when stopped. I always thought that was a good idea since it was neutral ground and demonstrated respect for the officer since he must get out of his car. But, decades ago, officers changed and insisted on individuals remaining in their cars. The instructions from police officers are intended to protect the individual and the officer. Arguing with a police officer during a stop is never a positive action. The place to argue the validity of any stop is in court, not on the roadside. If you believe an officer acted irresponsibly, file a complaint with the department. If you have the resources, file suit in court. The rules on the roadside favor the officer. The rules in court swing the scale back toward a neutral position. Maintaining a calm, non-confrontational position and asking for clarification of instructions is a better stance. I have seen more than one, not many, video of people shouting, “I can’t breathe,” with no physical interaction whatsoever. Tolerance can go too far the other way as well.
I have seen far too many police videos of citizens arguing with and defying police officers. Many of those have shown far too much deference to the individual. Some individuals should have been arrested and prosecuted for failure to comply. Arguing and defying police is NOT a right or even a privilege; it is just wrong.
The U.S. military, at least the combat units, are trained to deal with nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) warfare. U.S. units are capable of operating in such environments. NBC warfare is nasty business, but it is not Armageddon. War of any scale up to an including world or “all-out” warfare requires mobilization. War is a societal action, not a military one. The military is simply the pointy end of the sword. The potential of NBC warfare is just another form of threat that must be dealt with, not submitted to.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Have a great day. Stay warm, dry, and safe. Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment