Update from the Sunland
No.1100
6.2.23 – 12.2.23
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The People’s Republic of China (PRC) surveillance balloon overflight and shoot down [1099] has sparked a continuing debate in the United States of America and rightly so. The Navy, Coast Guard, et al, are still recovering parts, and the FBI, among others, are dissecting those parts to learn as much as we possibly can about the PRC’s intentions. As the discussion percolated, another smaller floating “object” entered United States airspace north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. It was flying at a more menacing altitude of 40,000 feet with the potential to endanger commercial air traffic. The president promptly issued the order to shoot it down. The remnants of this latest transgression landed on thick ice of the Arctic Ocean and should be recovered quickly. The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.Res.104 - Condemning the Chinese Communist Party's use of a high-altitude surveillance balloon over United States territory as a brazen violation of United States sovereignty [House: 419-0-0-15(1)].
We do not yet know (if we will ever know) what the Defense Establishment knew and briefed the president on regarding the surveillance balloon. The size of that sensor array suspended below that massive balloon identified it as much more than a weather device. From my perspective that balloon should have been labelled as hostile and eliminated when it first entered U.S. airspace over the Aleutian Islands. From what we know publicly so far, I think the president made a dreadful mistake or the Defense Establishment failed to fully inform the president about that violation of U.S. sovereignty. I hope and trust we learned from this episode and do better next time.
President Biden delivered his constitutionally mandated State of the Union message to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday evening. The fireworks started before the president even entered the chamber. The fraudulent liar from New York, George Santos, attempted to shake hands with Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, who reportedly told Santos he did not belong in the chamber.
The president’s speech was not particularly remarkable and there was too much spend, spend, spend with very little additional revenue. I appreciate the president’s message, but it was a smidge farther to the left than I care for.
Marjorie Taylor Greene who looked like a de-hooded Ku Klux Klanwoman with a white fur collar, and of course, like the white trash Klanswoman she is could not keep her vile mouth shut. True to her character and style, she had to shout at the president numerous times calling him a liar because she did not agree with the president’s words. She is a persistent bloody antithesis of civility. Greene has been elected twice by the voters of her North Georgia district, so I suppose they are getting what they want.
The fBICP response was offered by Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders (SHS) of Arkansas. On the whole, the speech was far too BIC-ish for me. Two particular paragraphs struck me.
“I’m the first woman to lead my state. He’s the first man to surrender his presidency to a woke mob that can’t even tell you what a woman is.
“We know not what the future holds, but we know who holds the future in His hands. And with God as our witness, we will show the world that America is still the place where freedom reins and liberty will never die.
If I ever need another reason not to vote for a Republican, SHS’s words are a perfect reason. The paucity of understanding, compassion, and even knowledge is striking. With the likes of SHS in leadership roles, it is no wonder that the fBICP (former GOP) has become the Nescientia super scientia (Ignorance over knowledge!) Party. As such, they have proven themselves unworthy of my vote or support.
The insanity of the Nescientia super scientia (Ignorance over knowledge!) Party [AKA fBICP, former GOP] continues to vomit upon all of us in Arizona (and many other states of this once great Republic). A recent article in our local newspaper alerted me to one of the multitudinous examples.
“Republican-sponsored bill would fine teachers $5,000 for telling the truth – Opinion: Your tax dollars are funding a very expensive game of make-believe being played by politicians in Arizona and D.C. trying to convince us their charade is real.”
by E.J. Montini
Arizona Republic
Published 11:22 a.m. MT Feb. 2, 2023 | Update 2:30 p.m. MT Feb. 6, 2023
The proposed law at issue is Arizona House Bill 2458 (2023) [HB2458]. For those who would like to read the language themselves, here is the URL:
https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/HB2458/id/2638563
Simply put, the proposed bill seeks to whitewash history and deny essential elements of our history. I acknowledge that “Critical Race Theory” (CRT) makes some folks uncomfortable and rightly so. History is like that! Our children are grown, but I do believe they have a good working knowledge of the sordid history of slavery and the persistent disgusting reality of racism in our history. Our grandchildren and eventually our great-grandchildren need to learn that aspect of this nation’s history. I want them to be uncomfortable, to feel revulsion, to ask all the question that need to be asked about slavery, the Black Death riots, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Great Purge of the Stalin era, et al. I want all children to put the good of humanity in the context of the bad that is part of the fabric of human history. Helping our offspring understand the truth of history is absolutely essential to our maturation as a democracy and republic. Fining teachers for teaching the truth of essential history is the kind of ignorance I vociferously condemn. We must have knowledge over ignorance no matter how uncomfortable that knowledge makes us. HB2458 is another version of banning or burning books. Let us grow up, folks! Stop this ridiculous retrograde insanity of conservatism.
A friend, colleague, and frequent contributor to this humble forum sent along the following article:
“My mother was wrong - The problem with ‘everything works out in the end’ reassurance”
by Robert Reich
Published: Feb 9 [2023]
Like Reich, I heard similar idioms from my parents and elders growing up, but today, I have a slightly different take on the phrase. I see the phrase as a reflection of reality—somethings we control, somethings we can affect, and somethings are beyond our control. I certainly appreciate Reich’s general criticism, i.e., the phrase fosters resignation, acquiescence, and acceptance (if not complacency). I believe and support Reich’s underlying implication that without activism nothing will change. The wobble at the boundary becomes the essence of our activism. If I have interpreted his words correctly, I say spot on! We must be agents of change.
In doing other research, I came across the opening statement of former U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii in her testimony before the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. The subcommittee is chaired by U.S. Representative James Daniel ‘Jim’ Jordon of Ohio, himself an election denier, insurrectionist, and MAGA fBICP member in standing. Gabbard’s opening statement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV69ac_AZww
Her words are largely “apple pie and motherhood.” Gabbard’s statement is spot on and poignantly delivered. However, taken in the light of recent pronouncements, I am highly suspicious of her purpose and intentions. In recent years, Gabbard has become a more refined and smoother version of Marjorie Taylor Greene [1085].
The issue Gabbard raises is relevant, valid, and appropriate for public debate—where do the boundaries of freedom of speech lay? Freedom of Speech, like all other freedoms and liberties, is not unbounded. To take such a laissez-faire approach to individual liberty would yield the anarchy and chaos of the ‘every man for himself’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ tactics. That is NOT democracy or individual freedom. For example, George Santos outright lied on his resume to the voters of his district; his lies are NOT freedom of speech. Also, for 45POTUS to publicly declare, “Big protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” that was an incitement of the riot that resulted. Both examples caused irreparable societal harm. The criterion is harm to another individual or the public good. The difficulty in application of the criterion is who decides and by what metrics. I imagine Santos believes it was not his fault that the Press and voters in his district did not perform their due diligence during the campaign. Comparably, [the person who shall no longer be named] would probably claim the stealing of the 2020 election was far worse than the riot that ensued on the 6th of January 2021. Both examples violated the law, but only a jury of peers can decide the interpretation of those events. To that end, I conclude that Gabbard is wrong. I do not and cannot support protecting speech that crosses the harm threshold. The two examples above, and here I will add Gabbard’s public statements at issue, crossed the line of public good and should be rejected. At the bottom line, Tulsi Gabbard is wrong!
Comments and contributions from Update no.1099:
Comment to the Blog:
“The ‘debt ceiling’ is basically nonsense. We need to look to advanced nations for better ways, but the debt ceiling is a useful tool for the Republicans. Fortunately, the Republicans are breaking up into factions. Unfortunately, some of the Democrats are so weak-kneed that they vote with Speaker McCarthy.
“That balloon is caught up in the spy business, so we have no credible public information about it. It’s hard to believe that China wouldn’t use more advanced surveillance methods, but there’s no way to know.”
My response to the Blog:
Agreed! While well-intentioned at its origin, the debt limit has degenerated into a bludgeon used by the Nescientia super scientia (Ignorance over knowledge!) party. It is worthless . . . destructive rather than constructive. I certainly support repeal of §1 [40 Stat. 288] of the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 [PL 65-I-043; 40 Stat. 288; 31 USC §3101]. We must be rid of this nonsense.
All true! I think that (actually those) balloon(s) was (were) much more of a demonstration and test rather than actual intelligence collection. A balloon is an unmanned atmospheric vehicle. As such, the sensor array is closer to its target than a satellite. With a sensor array as large as the one under that balloon, the PRC could have significant collection capabilities. One key element not yet mentioned in any Press report is the electronic transmissions to and from that balloon. The balloon reportedly had some modest propulsion and guidance capacity, which means it likely received commands and reported findings. You are most likely correct; we will probably never know until the intelligence is declassified in 20-50 years.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
Good Monday, Cap,
If the first balloon was what we’re told, the follow-up question is what were the next two or three objects shot down since then? We’re only told they were smaller than the first. (The trajectory over the Arctic Ocean suggests more likely Russian than Chinese, but who knows?)
The State of the Union address is mostly pointless.
You could call your target political party the Know Nothing Party. It has historical resonance and the meaning is clear.
Slander, libel, and causing-panic laws already appropriately limit speech and the press. The question in my mind is how to extend those to meet the speed and volume of the Internet.
Have a good day,
Calvin
Good morning to you, Calvin,
They are oh so many questions about all the objects. I expect the Defense Establishment and/or Intelligence Community (IC) will swiftly determine the construction, the contents, the purpose, and to the greatest extent possible the operations of the objects. Whether we learn those details is yet to be seen. Recent spotty reports indicate the large object may have been detected launching from Hainan Island. At 24+ kilometers altitude, it flew above most weather and with the normal atmospheric currents at those altitudes. One thing is certain, those objects came from somewhere. We deserve to know what the government learns.
Pointless . . . perhaps. The president’s State of the Union report to Congress is constitutionally mandated [Article II, Section 3, Clause 1]. Since 8.January.1790, every president has fulfilled the mandate. President Wilson was the first executive to deliver the mandated message in person and verbally [2.December.1913], with the exception of President Hoover. Since President Roosevelt, the report has been delivered in the same form as President Biden fulfilled last week. I suppose I am an old stick in the mud but history and tradition are important.
Yes, indeedie, quite so! We must relegate them to the dustbin of history. Until then, we must endure and overcome the abuse, the violence, and the travesty of what those die-hard social conservatives who seek to impose upon all of us. Knowledge over ignorance. We shall overcome.
That is a very difficult and prickly question. The faster we move, the more threat to our freedoms we face. The necessary filters should be tested in court to ensure due diligence. I do not share Tulsi Gabbard’s perspective that I believe goes too far back toward a state of anarchy and chaos.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Have a great day. Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment