Update no.1115

Update from the Sunland

No.1115

22.5.23 – 28.5.23

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

 

To all,

 

The Memorial Day holiday weekend got rather discombobulated and rendered me incommunicado, which in turn disrupted my preparation and distribution of the Update. As a consequence, this is a rather minimal edition. Please forgive my tardy distribution. I expect to be caught up and back on plan for the next edition of the Update.

 

Senator Timothy Eugene ‘Tim’ Scott of South Carolina announced that he was a candidate for president of the United States. He made the public proclamation on Monday morning on a stage at Charleston Southern University in North Charleston, South Carolina. Scott is the only Republican in the Senate with dark skin pigmentation. During his rah-rah announcement, Scott said publicly, “As president, I would sign the most conservative legislation.” That statement alone disqualifies him directly and absolutely. Scott insists the conservatives are under siege and increasingly subjected to discrimination. He is correct. Why? Conservatives feel under siege because the majority of the nation do not agree with their “values” and their dicta, and the rest of us are damn tired of so-called conservatives imposing their values on everyone else. To his notion of the future, I say no thanks.

 

Governor Ronald Dion ‘Ron’ DeSantis of Florida finally took the official leap, declaring himself to be a candidate for president of the United States. He tried to do it in a Twitter audio chat with Elon Musk (not sure why). The plan evaporated into a fiasco . . . rather typical of the man. To me, DeSantis will be forever known as the creator of woke so that he could declare “Florida is where woke comes to die.” Nice catch phrase; wrong ideology. He created the concept, and he wants credit for killing the concept he created.

 

[The person who shall no longer be named] stated publicly, “I say to the Republicans out there — congressmen, senators — if they don’t give you massive cuts, you’re going to have to do a default. And I don’t believe they’re going to do a default because I think the Democrats will absolutely cave, will absolutely cave because you don’t want to have that happen. But it’s better than what we’re doing right now because we’re spending money like drunken sailors.” [emphasis mine] This is a clear demonstration of the ignorance we face in this once grand republic. That man was once president of the United States. Can you believe it!

 

When I hear these folks, like those noted above, say they will bring “conservative values” to the political stage, I see, hear, and feel someone who:

-- bans books they do not like,

-- seeks to relegate women to second-class status as property and as vessels for impregnation and incubation for future generations,

-- passes laws to restrict the rights of LGBTQ citizens simply because of who they are, 

-- constrains school curricula and conduct to the lowest common denominator, i.e., any one social conservative parent can block any progressive education,

-- seeks to keep children ignorant to life,

-- denies history and wants all children to not be taught history,

-- seems to desire ignorance over knowledge so much so that they deserve the motto: Nescientia super scientia (Ignorance over knowledge!),

-- seeks to bring down the entire nation to reduce spending of the other guys while they spend Treasury funds like drunken sailors on their stuff; the hypocrisy is gargantuan,

-- tolerates the Tea Party, MAGA extremists among them advocating isolationism, white supremacy, and exceptionalism,

-- wraps themselves in the flag and patriotism to justify their extremism,

-- offers blind allegiance to party dogma regardless of the U.S. Constitution, 

-- embraces an outright conman, huckster, snake-oil salesman as ihr Anführer that has bamboozled them all,

-- actually supports and defends an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States of America in an effort to install their dictator to enforce their values,

-- ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Thus, as long as conservatives favor any one or combination of these observations, I say no thanks and the pox on your house.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1114:

“I guess it’s still morning where you are so ‘good morning’ Cap. You’ve been busy again, then that’s life in the full. I’m utterly convinced there is no such pastime as retirement, in fact, like yours, my retirement has been a busy span of life and I guess we shouldn’t need anything else. And what comes next!”

My reply:

Yea verily! Retirement is just work in a different form. At least we are working for ourselves. By the time I retired, I was exhausted by foolish corporate political shenanigans. I loved the engineering work and being around machines that fly, but the politics were exhausting and disgusting. I have been consumed by writing, but at my age, medical appointments are taking a greater and greater portion of my time capacity. So far, I doing well staying ahead of the grim reaper. I suppose that is the objective at our age. One positive thing, we define what comes next . . . until nature decides.

 

Comment to the Blog:

“One more argument against vigilantism: the untrained, such as Daniel Penny and George Zimmerman, lack even the minimal threat assessment skills in which police officers are trained. Furthermore, many of them will kill, rather than subdue, those they perceive as dangerous. Whether that is deliberate we can’t know.

“My impression of the article on religion was that they assumed we were aware of the far-right faction of Christians and their political ambitions. Based on this and other sources, the far-right Christians are gaining a few adherents even during a decline in the voting power of religion in general. However, the demographics of age and ethnicity will put a stop to ultra-conservatives in general unless they can manage a takeover soon.

“I re-posted to Facebook a few minutes ago Robert Reich’s opinion that the Biden Administration should simply ignore the debt limit, continue finding ways to pay the bills, and let the Republicans sue. I agree.

“I’ll note that various organizations have issued travel advisories for Florida. I myself wouldn’t take the risk of going there.”

My response to the Blog:

You are absolutely correct. No argument or debate. Trained citizens are not a reasonable expectation or achievable goal. Like pilots, retired law enforcement officers are not current on laws, policy, and guidance. The reality of which you speak does not alter my contention. We cannot afford to have a law enforcement apparatus we need to deal with the bad men out there. Regrettably, even if we provide intelligence, often the police do not have the capacity to act on the intelligence. Like military and medical operations, the police must triage and prioritize what they can address. We have focused our discussion of the governmental or law enforcement side, but there is also a perpetrator side. If Jordan Neely stopped disrespecting and imposing upon other patrons, I doubt Penny would have engaged. The same is true with Martin; if he had just kept walking on his way rather than turn and confront Zimmerman, there would have been no encounter. We must not forget the stimulant for these incidents. We see the result when citizens do not engage in the blatant and aggressive (and costly) shoplifting in San Francisco. Companies are leaving the city because of the phenomenon. These are our communities. Law enforcement is our responsibility as well. When we see an apparent drunk driver, we call the police and report it. The driver may be tired or having some medical event, but an erratic driver is still a physical threat to other citizens on or near the roadway. Sometimes we see the police react; sometimes not.

Well said, I would say. We cannot know the inner-workings and hidden mechanisms of the far-right and Evangelical Christians, but we certainly see the results and consequences. U.S. history is replete with examples of social conservatives dictating what we could see, or read, or do, or in some cases even think. We do not need more examples. I believe they have felt their “authority” and dominance is waning, and they have become progressively more desperate and extreme to reassert their dominance. They appear to be perfectly comfortable abandoning democracy for some form (perhaps any form) of authoritarian or autocratic governance they control . . . all in the name of patriotism. We bear direct witness to their extremism in the January 6^th insurrection and its aftermath. Fortunately, so far, our system of democratic governance has withstood the assault. Yet, this confrontation is far from over. We must remain vigilant and persistent.

Ignoring the debt limit imposed by §1 of 40 Stat. 288 is a potential option as Reich suggests. That statute contains no enforcement provision. In this latest Republican-induced crisis, it is too late to repeal the law, which is the correct way to deal with the problem. As we have discussed, short of repeal, this may be the time to test the validity of §4 of the 14^thAmendment, and while we wait for the challenge to work its way through the Judiciary, the USG can and should suspend the debt limit. I would rather keep this fight within the domain of the Constitution and the law rather than simply ignore the law. I trust President Biden will remain strong against that MAGA faction and the rest of the fBICP dupes.

I have no interest in visiting Florida for the same or similar reasons you cite. It has become a very hostile place and does not reflect the values I cherish. We have no plans that involve that rogue state.

 . . . Round two:

“There are distinctions to make among your examples. I don’t believe Trayvon Martin would have survived his encounter with George Zimmerman regardless of his behavior. Jordan Neely needed treatment (and housing) he didn’t receive and his response to that entangled him with Penny, who no doubt has his own sanity issues. (My friend with expertise in that field would probably not support an insanity plea for Penny, though.) With regard to your shoplifting comment, Walgreens has admitted to exaggerating the shoplifting losses. Actual shoplifting has been in decline for years.

“‘Law enforcement is our responsibility as well’ cries out for a clear definition. Turning that notion to homicide, as George Zimmerman did, is still homicide to me.

“Simply ignoring the debt limit law will keep the discussion as a legal/Constitutional one. I wouldn’t count on Biden to be strong against anyone the DNC doesn’t tell him to.

“At this point, I’m pretty sure Mexico would be safer and more welcoming than Florida.”

 . . . my response to round two:

The long and the short of the Neely case is, if he could not conduct himself in a non-intrusive, non-threatening, respectful manner in the public domain, then he should not be in public. There are distinctions with every case, but the similarity was a citizen engagement in a public incident. I will argue that if Trayvon Martin had not turned and physically confronted Zimmerman, he would still be alive today. Martin is not without responsibility for the incident. Zimmerman was holding his distance and observing when he was confronted. Yes, Zimmerman committed homicide, but it was deemed in court to be justifiable homicide (self-defense). I am truly sorry Trayvon Martin lost his life, but he does not escape culpability for inciting the incident.

Yes, we do need a better, more precise definition of the distinction between community engagement and vigilantism.

Re: the San Francisco shop lifting . . . come now, we have all seen the multiple video clips of those crimes from mass smash & grab incidents at jewelry stores to a man riding his bike into a store, sweeping stockage shelves clear into a trash bag, and peddling out. What gives those perps the right to blatantly break the law without consequences?

Yes, desired or appropriate community engagement should be more accurately and precisely defined. I argue that the ‘Kitty’ Genovese incident [13.3.1964] is a prime example of what the paucity of community engagement is and does.

We generally agree on the debt limit matter, but we shall respectfully disagree on Biden’s alleged fecklessness.

I am not a fan of DeSantis’s Florida, but I cannot agree that Mexico is safer.

 . . . Round three:

“I’ve met a few men like George Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin was doomed when Zimmerman targeted him.

“Those video clips are anecdotal evidence. They’re great for getting people to watch the newscast, but they don’t tell us the state of crime in a given place. Actual numbers dispute the claim.

“What happened to Kitty Genovese is also anecdotal versus quantifiable evidence. It’s also an old story; we don’t know what might have changed since then.

“Biden is a tool.

“Middle-class white men are probably safer in Florida than Mexico, unless they are gay.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Likewise, and he is not a likable or sympathetic person. I am not defending him or his conduct. However, I cannot accept him being held solely responsible for what happened that day. There is no evidence Zimmerman “targeted” Martin; he believed he appeared and was acting suspicious, and he was observing until he was confronted. Martin does not get a pass from me.

As I read your words, I wonder how you differentiate hard versus anecdotal evidence. The tape of George Floyd’s murder is quite telling, although not complete or total.

There was no video of the Genovese murder, only the facts. Some 80+ people witnessed the crime, and not one assisted the police in finding her killer. It is the paucity of any assistance that I condemn.

I do not agree with your assessment of President Biden. He is far from perfect, but he is not a tool . . . in my humble opinion.

I am a middle-class man with light skin pigmentation. I have never thought of myself in those terms. I have always tried to see events with a different skin. I cannot claim comparable doubt in Florida as I would in Mexico, but I will not be traveling to either place.

 . . . Round four:

‘I’m very startled that you didn’t understand anecdotal evidence. Per Wikipedia, ‘Anecdotal evidence is evidence based only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner. . . .

‘When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine. Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method.’ 

“Video clips from newscasts, for example. As I stated earlier, any value in those was diluted by Walgreens later admitting they’d exaggerated the effect of shoplifting on their bottom line. The issue with the Kitty Genovese incident is not whether it happened but whether that incident is either common or a growing trend.

“Thus far in my studies, I’d be more likely to move to Pennsylvania or Michigan. Florida and Texas are both off limits for any purpose.

“This reply has run long due to the Wikipedia quote, but I find that distinction very important in the discussion of large issues.”

 . . . my response to round four:

It is unfortunate that you apparently interpreted my query as one of ignorance rather than curiosity. Nonetheless, thank you for the definition of “anecdotal evidence.” I was searching for your perception of the threshold between anecdotal and hard evidence. I know what the dictionary and legal term means. The impression I am left with is you feel there is little value in video clips, as if they are less real or tangible, i.e., hard. My query was where do you place that threshold between anecdotal and hard evidence? You apparently place very little weight on a video of a perpetrator scooping masses of shelved products into a trash bag and pedaling his bicycle out of the store without paying for them. Presumably, I place more weight on the video clip; it does not matter what occurred before or after; the act along was morally wrong and illegal, punishable under the law.

Walgreen’s may have exaggerated their losses due to shoplifting, but whether US$1 or US$1,000,000, they are all losses, not a normal or acceptable cost of doing business. I am not debating the magnitude of any retailer’s losses. I am only debating the morality of those losses.

In the context of my Genovese example, whether common or trending  is irrelevant. My issue was the paucity of just one of those 80+ witnesses aiding the police in finding the perpetrator. The fact is, Kitty Genovese was murdered by an assailant who stabbed her multiple times with dozens of witnesses, and not one chose to help in any form or manner. That fact is my issue.

The issue that started this exchange was vigilantism versus community engagement. My query was where does the line between the two exist. Your threshold may well be different from mine. I was only seeking your definition of that line.

Despite the flaws and disgrace of Gosar & Biggs, I like it here in Arizona. Pennsylvania and Michigan are just too cold at my age. I wish you the best of luck in finding a more suitable home than Ohio. FYI: Austin is a deep blue island in a red sea; there is always hope.

No worries about length, my friend. Say what you wish to say; that is most important.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)