Update no.1130

 Update from the Sunland

No.1130

4.9.23 – 10.9.23

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

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- The former leader of the neo-fascist Proud Boys received the longest sentence yet for their participation in the January 6^th insurrection [991]—22 years in federal prison for seditious conspiracy. And, he was not actually at the Capitol building that day . . . kinda like Tiny. The ultimate instigator, leader, and proponent of the insurrection should receive an even greater sentence.

-- Former presidential advisor Peter Kent Navarro was convicted this week of contempt of Congress [1056] for his refusal to testify before the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6^th Attack [991] on the United States Capitol (HSCJ6) [1020]. He faces a year in prison for his groundless defiance. Navarro joins another convicted Tiny lieutenant, Steve Bannon [1071], who was sentenced to four months in prison. Bannon remains free on appeal. Of course, Navarro immediately started whining about his constitutional right to free speech and separation of power. The one little aspect Peter failed to recognize, acknowledge, or address is neither the Constitution nor any law protects criminal conduct. The HSCJ6 presented far more than probable cause evidence that Ol’ Peter had indeed participated in criminal conduct, which meant the government had every right to compel his testimony. For his blatant defiance of Congress, I hope the judge gives him the maximum sentence.

-- Former White House chief of staff Mark Randall Meadows swiftly filed to move his portion of the Fulton County, Georgia, election interference RICO case {[GA FCSpC 23SC188947 (2023)] [1127]} to federal court. He based his argument on the old Nazi “I was just doing my job” rationale. U.S. District Judge Steve CarMichael Jones for the Northern District of Georgia carefully and surgically dissected Meadows’ argument in his equally swift, 49-page order—Georgia v. Meadows [USDC GA ND Case 1:23-cv-03621-SCJ (2023)]. Judge Jones noted, “When questioned about the scope of his authority, Meadows was unable to explain the limits of his authority, other than his inability to stump for the President or work on behalf of the campaign.” He decided, the “Court’s conclusion that Meadows has not shown how his actions relate to the scope of his federal executive branch office.” In a rather unusual move, Judge Jones virtually accused Meadows of violations of the Hatch Act of 1939 [PL 76-252; 53 Stat. 1147] [570], which prohibits “pernicious political activities” by federal employees, although neither Meadows nor any of the other defendants has yet been charged with violation of the Hatch Act. [I must add here, I think they clearly should be charged with violations of the Hatch Act.] Judge Jones noted in his conclusion, “Assuming jurisdiction over this criminal prosecution would frustrate the purpose of federal officer removal when the state charges allege—not state interference with constitutionally protected federal activities, but—federal interference with constitutionally protected state actions.” [emphasis his] That is precisely the point. Meadows failed, and the order sends a clear message to the other defendants.

 

Here, I need to add just a regrettable FYI: thanks to [the person who shall no longer be named] and his malignant narcissistically distorted BIG LIE, I am afraid the Update is going to carry a very heavy burden of what I suspect will become a flood of court cases of motions, prosecutions, judgments, and appeals. The flood will probably last a couple of years, I suspect. If Tiny is elected again (God forbid), the court cases will grow even more as he tries to inflict his retribution, block prosecution, and vacate convictions. I cannot imagine how bad a second Tiny presidency might be like. Well, frankly, it should be a fBICP (GOP) presidency since far too many of their candidates  and leaders have supported and defended the BIG LIE. Candidly, I would prefer not to think of such a cataclysm. 

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1129:

Comment to the Blog:

“We shall see how the disqualification process plays out. I don’t expect logic and reason to have a major role.

“All the controversies regarding sexual/gender health (abortion and birth control as well as LGBTQ issues) boil down to the MAGAts and radical Christians having serious control issues. Their ‘leaders’ make the most of that.

“Those who send others to war know the benefits to themselves and ignore the cost to everyone else. Your example of Vietnam is apt. The reason LBJ couldn’t convince us of the necessity of that war is that it was unnecessary. The bulk of our history in the USA is exactly like that. Also, remember that no conquered nation rests comfortably. Indigenous Americans are only one example of that.

“No punishment for drunkenness has yet decreased drunkenness. Good luck with that.”

My response to the Blog:

Yes, it will be interesting to witness. The initiative in Arizona last year was the only bona fide effort I am aware of, so far. It was a state action. To my knowledge, the federal government has never tried to pass an enforcement law for §3. I am not sure how Congress would be able to enforcement the provisions of §3, since responsibility for conducting elections rests with the states, not the federal government. What if the federal government disqualifies a candidate under §3 with the authority granted by §5, and a state, oh say Alabama as an example, decides to list his name on the ballot anyway? Does the FBI arrest the Alabama secretary of state? How do they enforce the law? This whole situation is likely to get much uglier and messier before any clarification can occur.

Perhaps so. While the GOP’s waning control is certainly a factor, I think the answer may well be far more complex. Why would anyone believe they have a right to dictate how another person can conduct their lives? How does such intervention square with “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness”?

Well, I have a slightly different take on Vietnam. I think LBJ tried, but he built his argument on lies—a foundation of falsehood. Even GWB built his argument on wishful thinking rather than hard evidence. JFK was in the process of seeing the light, but he was assassinated and never transformed those suspicions into actions. GHWB was the only one that mobilized properly for the task presented; he had three times the number of troops for a tenth of the task as his son chose to do. FDR was the last president to carry out a proper full-scale mobilization for the situation at hand, even he fell short when the Japanese decided to attack. In this whole present discussion, I have not yet discerned what the neo-cons expect when they say such things as the military is not prepared for war with the PRC? In WW2, we had more than a hundred active combat divisions; we have only 10 today. They do not say what they want to happen.

True. But, I am not advocating to change drunkenness, only drunkenness that endangers the lives of other people. You want to get drunk, stay home. You want to get drunk at a bar, have someone drive you home. Local jurisdictions are far too lenient with DUI incidents. I see the Texas law as a small step on a long journey.

 . . . Round two:

“I can’t guess the mechanism for carrying out the insurrection clause, but it would involve appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, which takes time. Could that delay keep Tiny off some ballots?

“The GOP is using fears and prejudices that have been around for my entire lifetime, probably forever. Skilled manipulators can use that stuff to elect candidates that benefit the politicians’ buyers financially. Hitler did.

“Daddy Bush was undeniably intelligent. Amoral, but sharp. There’s still a question of whether any given war is moral. Also, the nature of war has changed and that’s another issue around mobilization.

“Understand that an alcoholic will get a drink. Punishment won’t change that. However, Congress has mandated breathalyzers that disable a car in the event of a failed test beginning in 2026. The technology exists and is in use. That gets better results.

“PS: I watched someone on YouTube pass through a town called Parlier, California. Any relation?”

 . . . my response to round two:

In the last few days, I learn of other legal initiatives to enforce the §3 Insurrection Clause in several additional states, e.g., Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire & Wisconsin. I have no idea how the numerous court challenges may play out, but there is not much time left to figure it out. The first primaries come in four months. The general presidential election will take place 14 months from now. Delays in such definitive judgment will default to inclusion. In my thinking, the central question will come down to what does ‘due process of law’ look like in any §3 enforcement. As the bottom line, I think §3 must be enforced especially in Tiny’s case.

Quite so. Fear and prejudice are replete in history as far back as history goes, and I am fairly certain it existed far beyond the beginning of recorded human history to as far as human communication began. Ignorance enables susceptibility to fear and prejudice, and we have an awful lot of ignorance around us. The only things that will break it are knowledge and public debate.

GHWB . . . amoral . . . wow! I do not see it as you do apparently. I will gladly debate the morality of war. That said, war is a terrible, tragic action, but it is a larger scale response version to burglary, assault, and murder, which is far more immoral and must be rejected. I am not, never have been, and never will be an advocate for war; it is human disaster. However, sometimes we are left with the necessity by bad men trying to subjugate us and others. Yes, the nature of war has changed and will always change as technology advances. And yes, mobilization comes in many forms or levels depending on the threat, but mobilization is still a necessity. Warfighting is much more than military capability; we have been presented with, if not learned, that lesson the hard way several times just in my lifetime.

I am not against alcohol or other intoxicants; quite the contrary. Freedom is freedom. What I am strongly against is any intoxication or impairment that threatens another living soul or creature. Such public conduct, intentional or not, is simply and absolutely unacceptable and intolerable. We have been far too tolerant in our punishment of public intoxication. I am OK with anyone drinking themselves to death, just stay out of the public domain and don’t take anyone else with you. BTW, mandatory breathalyzers are too easily circumvented—someone else blowing the unit, driving a different car.

We did not get enough rain during this monsoon season. We lost another half dozen mature agave plants, and we are fighting to save what is left. Life goes on.

Passing through Parlier, California, did not take long. It is a small farm town in the Central Valley. Yes, it is a relation. My Great-Great Grandfather Issac Newton Parlier, Jr., founded the town in 1876 and incorporated in 1921. No family there anymore. Now you know.

 . . . Round three:

“I keep seeing a figure that the USA has been at peace for a total of 16 years of our existence. The bulk of the war years were not ‘bad men trying to subjugate us.’ Such excursions as the Spanish-American War, the takeover of Hawaii, Vietnam, and Afghanistan were not that kind of conflict. They were rich Americans getting richer.

“I was talking to other recovering alcoholics about those mandatory breathalyzers yesterday. We agree that foolproof identity verification is needed, such as iris scanning. The ‘different car’ dodge will change when the breathalyzers are mandatory; I believe that’s next year.

“I looked up Parlier, California. Yep, it’s a small place but it’s one more town than is named for my family, despite Rittenhouse being a very prominent name a few centuries ago around Philadelphia.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Wow, I have never thought of our history in those terms. Sixteen seems like a rather small number over 247 years, but now I am curious. You picked a very good example to support your contention. I am not sure I buy it, but it is an intriguing hypothesis. One point to argue, I do not see the ‘takeover’ of Vietnam or Afghanistan you suggest. There was no imperial motive.

I have always been a believer in the old adage, where there is a will, there is a way. All addicts will find a way to feed their addiction until they decide not to do so. It is that premise that led me to write Indulgence. We must find the means to make an individual’s freedom of choice safe for the individual and others around them. The fictional world of Indulgence is probably not achievable, but it is certainly better than the ridiculous and failed so-called war on drugs.

Mother Nature is rather capricious. No sense trying to understand things, although we try mightily to predict what may come tomorrow. But, as we see today, far too many people do not believe the science; they want to believe a snake-oil salesman.

My ancestors were quite foresightful and took full advantage of the federal migration program. My great-great-grandfather’s subsequent generations chose to divide and sell the pieces, such that we no longer hold what he created. Such is life. We move on and do the best we can. I am grateful that you showed interest in the small town.

 . . . Round four:

“I phrased the ‘takeover’ clause wrongly, although Vietnam and Afghanistan could easily count as takeover attempts.

“My only point in the drunk driving discussion is that punishment fails to improve behavior.

“People who prosper in a given set of conditions/climate like to believe those conditions will continue, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

“Your family’s generations have done what most Americans do. My name-line ancestors came long before there was a federal migration program (or nation) and also took advantage of what they found here. They diversified from the original paper-making and some of them held onto the wealth right down to today. The rest of us moved on and earned our own living.”

 . . . my response to round four:

Sorry, I do not see it. We held no intent whatsoever to takeover, occupy, dominate, or annex either Vietnam or Afghanistan . . . or any nation since the Spanish-American War of 1898. I do not think we have held imperial designs on other nations. The Native American situation is a different matter. We purchased the land and believed we legally owned it. I am not defending our terrible treatment of Native American tribes throughout our history, but note that history only to say the relationship is very complicated.

Your statement is true for all addictive behavior. We see that compulsiveness in all kinds of addictive behavior like pedophilia, gambling, alcohol, psychotropic substances, pharmaceutical abuse, ad infinitum. Psychiatric and medical treatment are far more effective than punishment, but nothing is completely effective, which is exactly why I suspect isolation indulgence may be the only solution.

Of course, the best buggy whip manufacturer/seller wanted his profitable business to continue, but society moved on. We all must adapt, even if we do not want to.

As did my ancestors. My paternal ancestry can be traced back to 1686; been here ever since.

 . . . Round five:

“The concept of neocolonialism applies to many of those military actions. Certainly, most of those nations offered no threat of taking over the U.S. Vietnam? Really? The bulk of Native American territories weren’t purchased. They were taken by military operations resulting in treaties, which were then violated almost immediately.

“No clear method has emerged to address addictive behavior. The closest I’m aware of is education which prevents some cases and detox followed by education, temporary isolation, and mutual aid for the very motivated addict. I doubt simply isolating the addict would limit the damage much.”

 . . . my response to round five:

Certainly some. I just question the quantity. We could debate the justification for the Vietnam War for a long time. As an American citizen and former Marine who served in Vietnam during that War, it was my understanding that we were there to protect the right of the Republic of Vietnam (RVN; South Vietnam) to choose for themselves their form of governance and thus resist the efforts of the Viet Minh (Vietnamese Communist Party; North Vietnam) to impose its form of governance of the RVN. Most of the Native American land was purchased from France in the Louisiana Purchase [30.4.1803 (8 Stat. 202)] [448]. We could argue the legal basis, but that is a fact. Subsequent military operations (for the most part) were intent upon enforcing that purchase and development. Native American tribal abuse in history is an enormous topic, and one that must never be swept under the rug.

Oh so true. I would agree with you. No matter the addictive behavior, my experience has validated to nearly 100% that the only thing that will change addictive behavior is for the addict to convince himself he must change . . . to me that is education, as you say. But, like the old adage, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink; so to it is with learning. You can give the addict education, but if he was does not to learn, he will not. Thus, my isolation indulgence proposal, i.e., let us at least minimize the collateral destruction of addictive consumption. Yes, you are quite correct as I point out in Indulgence that isolation is not the answer—only one level of community protection. Further, I must add, I do not advocation for isolation; I suggest isolation indulgence, i.e., indulge the addict’s consumption to preclude impact on the community. Isolation indulgence would be the second level, the first level being legalization & regulation from source to consumption.

 . . . Round six:

“I suppose I should let this drop, but I’ll do two more sentences.

“The Native American land being purchased from France doesn’t change the fact that its owners were indigenous, not French.

“Education is an attempt at prevention; recovery is basically a miracle.”

 . . . my response to round six:

Frankly, I would prefer that you did NOT drop these issues. I believe our exchanges (and others) are vital to a healthy democracy. I am truly grateful for all the effort you share in the forum. Nonetheless, I do understand and appreciate that they are time consuming. I do respect your wishes.

Part of the matter is the Native American tribes defined “their land” by violence, by dominating their neighbors and defending “their land.” There were no markers, no borders, no documents, no record of “their land.” The French claimed the upper plains, and they documented their claim. I think the United States made a bona fide attempt to recognize the “Native American land” claims, albeit not universally accepted (e.g., Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851). They also sought compromise to enable development of the land, e.g., granting of right-of-way rights for the Transcontinental Railroad. The two cultures clashed.

Yes, absolutely . . . prevention . . . intervention . . . diversion, et al; none of which can force the addict to alter his behavior. Even punishment cannot force an addict to change as we so well know. Freedom is freedom, and we must recognize that freedom abhors “forced” solutions.

 . . . Round seven:

“I enjoy this interchange, but there are practicalities to recognize about blogging.

“The problem with claiming the Americas for a given European country is that people already lived here. Claiming to own the land makes them not human. That didn’t happen in places like China which possessed prominent military force.

“I’m aware of addiction from the inside. The only apparent remedies I can see are to offer strictly voluntary treatment to the public at large and treatment as a legal consequence, which has resulted in some people recovering. I began my recovery without those choices, but I also came closer to medical death than most other recovering people I know.”

 . . . my response to round seven:

Thank you for that. I am not sure what is meant by “practicalities,” but hey, I accept what comes.

As I suggested earlier, the Native American land ownership is a serious and complicated issue since it involves a starkest of contrast cultures and “legal” systems, so to speak. I do not wish to or intend to lessen the significance. There must be a balance out there somewhere. Most tribes have found an accommodation with the United States; some have not.

As have I, well, at least as close as I ever care to get. I am so glad you found your path out of that hole. Not everyone does, which I know you are well aware. I want to help addicts with their recovery, but only if they want help. What I am most concern about is minimizing or eliminating the collateral damage, i.e., crime and potential for crime.

 

Another contribution:

“In response to your plea re LGBTQ+ children, I suggest the issue in many minds is whether minors are mature enough and parents wise enough to begin permanent sex change procedures for a minor in the face of possibly devastating psychological damage in the event of regrets by a minor victim.”

My reply:

LBGTQ+ medical services are not just gender reassignment surgery. Those needed services include psychological and psychiatric care, hormone treatment, and such. All that aside, a child (<18yo) may not be mature enough to make such a radical choice, but isn’t that the responsibility of the parent(s) and attending physician rather than a neighbor? If the community feels a parent is incompetent or incapable, shouldn’t they be presenting the medical judgment in a court of law long before an LGBTQ+ transition decision? I am struggling with this process . . . why?

From my perspective, this appearance quite akin to racial or ethnical discrimination, i.e., we don’t like Chinese people, so let’s pass a law prohibiting them from becoming citizens, or owning property, or going to public school. Discrimination by any other name or color is still discrimination.

To me, it still boils down to a group of conservative citizens deciding they know best how others should lead their lives regardless of any perceived injury or lack of same. Where is the public harm or injury? By what right do conservatives feels they can dictate to everyone how they live their lives? Just an FYI, the law does not discriminate between positive transitions and negative transitions; it prohibits all transitions . . . plus other non-physical medical processes. By what right, I ask?

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)