Read the Transcript

Whoa! Have any of the Democrats read the transcript of President Trump’s call to the President of Ukraine? If you have not read it yet, do so. There is nothing left to discuss. (But I will for the sake of the record.) And ignore the scurrilous paraphrase that Chairman Schiff made. He could make a decent living writing sitcoms for CNBC. Except that his monologue went longer than the dialogue between the Presidents lasted. Maybe we should say, “An indecent living.”

At least two critical things pop out. Well, maybe three. First, the original query was about the European contribution to Ukraine. Nothing too intimidating there. President Trump wanted to encourage our NATO allies to pull their fair share of the weight of supporting this ally.

Then he segued into the internet server involved in the Russian allegations. President Trump asked if it belonged to Ukraine. President Z said that he was checking on that.

The third question was about the corruption in their country and the fact that one of their prosecutors was pulled off the case. (No mention of “you know who,” whom we now know was the instigator of that action, by his own confession.) President Zelenskyy lamented that the investigation had stalled and he was going to reinitiate it.

Then, President Trump mentioned “Biden’s son,” in passing and that was that. Schiff was right. That was a terrible story and wouldn’t last for a single four week run on network TV. It needs more spice and drama. His story was much more compelling, and, a bunch of his colleagues “drank the kool-aid.” You can follow the race of lemmings off the cliff on TV.

Frankly, I am embarrassed that this, and I love Senate Majority leader, McConnell’s description of “slap-dash investigation,” that this has gotten as far as it has. It is no wonder that the American people are turning it off in droves. The “Dick and Jane” novels were more credible.

Oh, by the way, keep reading about the previous Ambassador. It sounds like she was actively and aggressively opposing President Zelenskyy. So much for representing the USA and keeping out of local politics. It would seem that there are two “actionable” items in the conduct of foreign policy in Ukraine, and neither has caught the attention of our “diligent Congressional watchdogs” who claim to protect and preserve the Constitution.

Maybe we are hoping that someday pigs will fly. In case your browser is handicapped, here is a link to the actual document.

As they say, “Read it and weep.” Or, just watch the TV and “read it and sleep.”

"We Must Impeach"

Does anybody remember the infamous OJ Simpson trial? The pompous, and sadly incompetent, prosecuting attorney addressed the jury as OJ began the process of trying on the damning, blood-soaked gloves found at the murder scene. Mister DA somberly intoned, “If the glove fits, you must convict.”

Much to everyone’s surprise, and to his chagrin, the gloves, having reacted to the soaking in blood, had become hardened, and possibly even shrunken in size. OJ was not able to draw the convicting evidence over his rubber-gloved hand. He looked up with a helpless shrug and wry smile. “It won’t fit.” (I think I recall his comment, but it was obvious.)

That came to mind as I witnessed a recording of the announcement of impeachment. (Did not waste my time to watch it live.) In somber, sepulchral tones, one after another, the House bigwigs maintained their giddiness and glee as they announced the pending, potential, impeachment charges that they had developed.

I am not a lawyer, nor the son of a lawyer, but I have watched a few “procedural” dramas on TV. Even with that shallow and limited understanding, I pity the poor prosecuting attorney who will have to present this case to the jury. He is starting with three strikes.

Charge one: abuse of power. Even the rawest newcomer in the DA’s office would recognize the dearth of probity in this. Point A: The accused denies that he did anything. (Nothing surprising here. Most of the times this is the case.) Point B: The alleged victim denies that anything happened. (Again, a reluctant witness is not the worst impediment to conviction.) Point C: Nothing happened. Well now, that poses a little more of a challenge. The supposedly interrupted  aid was delivered and no QPQ (quid pro quo) was received.

I remember noticing one case, an actual one in the news, I believe, where an obviously guilty man was acquitted on appeal because the prosecuting attorney had failed to establish the fact that a crime had been committed. Everyone in the courtroom “knew” that the victim was dead, but that fact was never actually introduced into the evidentiary record. An appeal court subsequently overturned the verdict based on the fact that the defendant had been convicted of a non-existent crime.

Quick, before anyone notices, turn to Charge two: The President obstructed Congress. (Aside: I saw a presentation of the “Wizard of Oz” where the curtain was drawn back, showing the “wizard” as a diminutive little guy frantically attempting to present an imposing image of the great wizard, replete with a bull-horn. He turned to the audience and commanded, “Ignore that little guy behind the curtain!”) I did not hear it, but can imagine that over half of the country was cheering when the House leaders lamented that Donald J. Trump had thwarted the will of Congress. Well, the will of the House of Representatives, but why quibble? “Ignore that swell of cheering!”

Now, if DJT had simply ignored the subpoenas they might have a case. But, dastardly, dirty, devil that he is, he appealed to courts, even the Supreme Court.

The cry rang out. “We do not have time for such frivolities! We want, what we want, when we wants it. And we want, what we wants, right now!” The response reminds us of a spoiled, five-year-old child stamping his or her foot, waving arms, and screaming, “I want it! I want it now!” (Well, both sexes of spoiled brats in this instance.)

And we have yet to consider the actual merits of this brouhaha. Did the President intentionally and overtly refuse to respond to the subpoenas? Well, an appeal is a response. If they refuse to consider the appeal process as being legitimate, what kind of justice system are they proposing? Obviously, one that differs from what we currently enjoy under the Constitution.

Oh yes, they continue to trumpet their respect and love for said Constitution. That is the one that they are violating. But let’s go on. Even if the President does eventually defy these tin-pot dictators, oops, that just slipped out. If DJT actually does defy a legal order that has been validated and confirmed by the appeals process, then, and not until then, is there an obstruction charge.

The poor novice prosecutor may even begin with four strikes. No crime. No obstruction. He has less chance than the proverbial tissue paper sail in a hurricane. So, is the declaration, “We must impeach,” making less and less sense? OJ was probably guilty. President Trump is not.

One minor thought, and we will retire for the time being. If the guy in the Ukraine oil company had been the son of John Doe, Bill Gates, or Mike Pence, would the Democrats have gone so berserk at the request to investigate the “corruption?” Or, conversely, had it been the son of Donald Trump, and it had NOT been investigated in these same circumstances, would we be right back here? “Abuse of power!”

(For the record, there are multiple videos floating around the internet, dated 2016, calling for an impeachment. Why did they bother to wait three years? They didn’t need any real charges then, and they seem to have no more now.)

George Washington warned the fledgling country against political parties. His valedictory warning  may be translated today as avoiding “career politicians.” They get so caught up in their own games that they forget who the REAL Boss is. Hide and see. November’s appeal to the voters may surprise a lot of posers.

Hopefully, next time, someone with some smarts will advise, “If you find no grounds, you must not impeach.”

PSA, (Not Political if you can believe it.)

By PSA  I do not mean the test to see if you have prostate cancer. This is a public service announcement. There was an article about an employee at a Buffalo Hot Wings restaurant who died after cleaning a bathroom. The story did not say exactly what happened, but the details ring a bell in my chemical memory.

DO NOT MIX bleach with a toilet bowl cleaner. This might seem to be a good idea to effect a better clean of the toilet, but it does not. It does produce, however, a very toxic gas. And it can be fatal, even in very small amounts.

Want to hear a story? How about two? One goes way back to Grampa Williamson in Small Town, Nebraska. He used to show us kids his “magic trick.” He would take a small amount of bleach in a very small container and sprinkle toilet bowl cleaner crystals into it. “Watch it fizz,” he would instruct.

He went on to say that it smelled very bad and not to do too much or watch too long. He didn’t know that it produced a chemical called chloramine, which is lethal, even in small amounts. We were just lucky.

Story two and the merciful conclusion. Not only does bleach and toilet bowl cleaner make chloramines, mixing bleach with ammonia will also produce it. When our first son was born we used cloth diapers. The diaper pail soon took on an incredible odor. And it was not good. I was going to do a favor for my wife one day and decided to “disinfect” the thing. And, you guessed it, bleach was my disinfecting agent. Whew! What a disaster! That odor was worse than a day old urine-soaked diaper. I got out of there, pronto.

Chemist, I be. (Yoda talk there.) So I checked out the chemistry. I was blown away. (Literally and chemically.) And in those days, before Al invented the internet, we had to do it the old fashioned way. I looked in a chemistry book. The first reaction of bleach and ammonia is to form chlorine gas. You probably recognize that as a poisonous gas used in the First World War and sadly, often since. Not a good thing to breathe and live. Even survivors suffer lung damage for life.

Then the chlorine gas can react with any excess ammonia and produce the chloramine. It is a double whammy. I told my chemistry classes from then on to avoid mixing things that are not specifically designed, and designated for mixing. In actuality, it probably incited as much experimentation as it did abstinence, but they were warned. But, hopefully, they were a little more wary of the consequences than before.

The details of the incident in the news are identical to the effects of the situation that I have described. I am not sure whether the reporters omitted the details or were unaware of them. A warning can often have the reverse effect of its intentions. But, on the other hand, not warning people of danger has its own inherent costs and consequences. You are warned.

My Dad used to say, “It is a wise man who can learn from OTHER peoples’ mistakes.” Be wise. Don’t make your own mistake and possibly pay a very high price.

End of PSA.

Sanctuary City and Hypocrisy

This is almost as interesting as a headline of “Man Bites Dog.” The Tennessean (8/30/19) published an article about Mayor David Briley protesting that some Metropolitan (Nashville) agencies were cooperating with the federal government, particularly the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Here is an excerpt:

In a letter sent Thursday morning to Interim Metropolitan Auditor Gina Pruitt, Briley said it was "absolutely unacceptable" that Probation Director Robert Green and probation officers have been cooperating with ICE agents since at least 2017. Briley said the behavior "does not reflect the character of our city."

This administration is complaining about the city government cooperating with duly appointed and authorized federal law enforcement agencies. The thing that makes this story so interesting is that this is the same mayor who protests, condemns, and has attempted to ban scooter companies for operating in this fair city because they are not obeying the “laws” that he had established.

(We will not address the fact that these regulations are ex-post-facto, attempting to control pre-existing operations. Seems like some obscure document way back there in history proscribed passing laws outlawing ongoing operations. Or something like that–don’t write me to object. I know, it is on-going operations, not past ones. It is not germane  to this discussion.)

Mayor Briley is essentially claiming that his administration is justified in enforcing the laws that he chooses and ignoring those that he does not like. Seems like the term, “scoff-law” applies here. Not to the city, but to the scooter companies, in his economy. Well, maybe it applies to both.

Riders do not wear helmets. They drive where they should not. They go too fast. They are reckless. They abandon the scooters where ever they dang well please. And Mayor B doesn’t like that. (And a few other people as well.) But then he chooses to ignore laws, not just regulations or guidelines. But his rationale is that this does not reflect our city.

Does he mean, by “reflecting,” that this shows the character and conduct of the city in ignoring federal regulations, or that they want to be caring and compassionate? The “caring” moniker is somewhat suspect overall as reported by Bobbie Patray in The Tennessee Eagle Forum. Many instances all over the country deal with convicted felons being released into the community. Once free, they continue to commit further crimes because the jurisdiction refused to comply with ICE requests to hold them until the criminal could be repatriated to his own country.

It seems like the Ma’er (as they say in Chicago) only complains when it is his bull that gets gored. It is okay to disregard and disdain the laws he doesn’t like, but don’t dare scoff at his restrictions. (Ed comment from out of town: Maybe that is why about 75% of those voting for mayor in the preliminary chose a different candidate. They want him out. I didn’t get to vote in that election, but I would have been in the majority.)

“Obey my laws, but I will choose the ones I want to respect.” Does that bite?

Here is a link to the original Tennessean article along with some other comments from other government officials.

And here is a link to the newsletter from the Tennessee Eagle Forum.

No Dog in the Hunt

For the record, I do not have a dog in the hunt. The Tennessean (8/14/19) published an article about a program to dismiss minor offenses involving driving violations. They largely deal with people who are charged with driving with a revoked license, often because they had unpaid fines for other violations. These multiplied fines and charges cripple the individual’s ability to secure housing and employment.

(Without commenting on the merits of the dismissal or even the fact that the individuals have been crosswise with the law for some reason and are now compounding their predicament, we will peruse the dispute between law enforcement agencies over the dismissals, called the “Steering Clear” program.)

The mayor, the sheriff, the district attorney, and the public defender all back the program. The charges are dismissed or not prosecuted. But the police have not removed the citations from the public record, thwarting the intent of the program.

And now we come to the interesting part. Reminder, this is the part of which I have no “dog in the hunt,” but which is extremely interesting. Some adherents of the program have filed suit to have a judge order the police to expunge the records. And the police have responded that they will refuse to comply with the order, stating that there is no statutory authority for eliminating the records. The mayor’s response is to make an attempt to change the state law governing public records. (Again, we will withhold comment on the wisdom of this or the slippery slope consequences that may follow. Just exactly which and how many offenses will be dismissed and erased?)

The interesting part of this brouhaha is one at-large councilman. He said, “I get that there’s a disagreement. But I don’t think resolving that involves a police chief saying he’s not going to follow a court order. He’s there to adhere to the rule of law which means you do what the judge says and follow other legal recourse, not just ignore it."

Hold on thar, Tonto! Analyze the interior logic of this statement. (Or lack of same.) The police chief, according to Councilman at-large, is to obey the law. So if a judge orders him to do something, he has to do it. “He’s there to adhere to the rule of law....” He asserts that this means that the police chief has to do what the judge says.

But, and here, even “his side,” agrees, that state law is in play. Is he demanding that the police chief acquiesce to the judge and violate state law? This is what we loved to find in a debate contest, an internal contradiction. Official X has to obey the law. Official Y rules that Official X must do something contrary to the law. And our “impartial” (not really, it seems) observer condemns Official X because he will not “obey the law” by obeying the order from Official Y, which contravenes the law. Clear?

This is what is known as “legislating from the bench.” A judge changes the law because he or she does not like it by ordering the executive to do something other than follow the legislative mandate.

The good news for Nashville, but maybe not so much for Councilman at-large, is that rational heads seem to be prevailing. Several parties have proposed and even submitted proposed legislation to change the legal basis of the program.

And, since I have no dog in this hunt, I will not have to vote in favor of some alternative,  hopefully, more logical, Councilman at-large in the next election. But it will be very interesting to watch the proceedings as time passes. Just a passing thought. If the subjects of this tempest in a teapot would resist breaking a law in the first place, they would not be in the “pickle” of not being able to pay their fines, losing their driver’s license, driving in violation of that law–a second offense–and then having further fines and sanctions.

For what it is worth.

Apollo 11

This is rich. I just read an article that reported that over 32 million Americans doubt the veracity of the Apollo 11 landing on the moon.

I read the historical accounts and one of them caught my eye. It turns out that Luna 15, a Russian space vehicle was in orbit around the moon at the time the Eagle landed and overflew the site. The Russian craft had been intended to land, retrieve a soil sample and leave before the Americans did. Unfortunately for them and good for the US, they were unable to land when they anticipated and remained in orbit. They had a literal bird’s eye view of the NASA men on the surface along with their craft.

When the Russian engineers attempted to land their vehicle later, they miscalculated and crashed into the side of a lunar mountain. (Note: They needed Neil Armstrong to pilot it. But I digress.) Despite crashing, the probe recorded telemetry and, pictures, which were transmitted back to the earth. Now, think a second. Given the frantic race to beat each other to the moon, do you think that if the Russian propagandists had pictures of an empty landing area that they would not have posted them all around the world as the Apollo astronauts supposedly landed and were lauded for their “successful,” but faked trip to the moon?

After completely humiliating the US space program they would have trumpeted their own successes, even if the landings were unmanned. But, even though they did manage to land a couple times before the Americans did, they were not able to return them to the earth. Only the US has sent manned teams, six in all, to the moon and back. So the conspiracy theorists have a mighty tall mountain of evidence to claim that they were all fake. And the mountain of evidence is even higher than the pile of, well, you know, that the deniers have thrown up.

Are the Russian photos somewhere? They would be fun to see. One other little nugget I discovered was on a site discussing ham radio operators tracking Apollo 11. I quote it here.
Due to the necessary trajectory of the spacecraft, the enroute communications did not appear to be coming from a direct line between the Earth and Moon, which is what another poster is referring to in the earlier comment. Trying to set up something that has the proper characteristics requires, well, that one has a spacecraft with people in it on its way to the moon.


Another note reported that an observatory in England tracked both the Luna 15 and Apollo 11 to the surface of the moon by measuring doppler shift. (Gee I love that kind of talk.) They literally “watched” the Luna 15 crash as it descended too rapidly. Isn’t science great?

Thank you for your time and attention. Some people will contest that the sun came up today, so we just humor them and hurry on to more important topics.

VAR

Disclaimer: There is no political or partisan (maybe) perspective in this post. :>)

VAR

The VAR or Video Assistant Referee has shown up at the World Cup and other soccer (fooootball) games recently. In the game between the United States and England, the VAR “giveth and taketh away.” The supposed tying goal by England by their star, “Google Eyes,” was disallowed. I thought she was offsides when the play ran live.

(Disclaimer: I was rooting for the US but I am sure, and VAR confirmed it, that she was a little ahead. Incidentally years ago a famous football play in the game between UT and Auburn had a similar “close play” and I saw it correctly, as confirmed by instant replay. A friend of mine, an Auburn alum, said the video was at a bad angle and therefore was wrong. Oh yes, one last item. Recall the Music City Miracle? I could tell clearly that the lateral had gone backward by at least the width of the yard line. Wycheck’s foot was on the line as he threw it and it was a sidearm pass. Clearly in front of the line. Dyson caught the ball, facing his own goal, just in front of his foot which was planted on the line. At worst, the pass was a literal lateral that did not move down the field. Our Buffalo friends again argued that the angle was bad and the “pass” was indeed forward and illegal. Perspective, and I do not mean camera angle, comes into play here. Back to soccer.)

So the tying goal did not count, but a few minutes later VAR awarded a penalty kick on a play that certainly did not look like interference on first or second or even third viewing. Only when another view, one from down field and behind the play, could we see the offending “clip.” We should have intuited that from the fact that the offender fell down after the encounter. These athletes seldom fall without being hit some way. (We will withhold commentary on the blatant embellishment that occurs in our beloved game. Can VAR penalize that as well? It seems to work in hockey. But I digress.)

The point of VAR is that it affords multiple camera angles and essentially provides five, or six, or seven, or more additional officials to manage the game. Now instead of only three pairs of eyes, effectively only two as the second assistant referee is over half a field (or pitch) away, we now have multiple, close up viewers from which to make the correct calls.

As a basketball and softball umpire/referee I was counseled and, yes, harangued by seasoned officials, to “be in the right place to make the call.” You cannot make a call on a play that you cannot, and did not see.” With VAR and the various instant replays, that is no longer a critical component of competent officiating. We now “get it right,” most of the time, anyway. (See note above on perspective.)

While contemplating this subject, my mind wandered to what might have been. For instance, in soccer, the infamous or famous, depending on your perspective, “hand of God” goal in soccer would have never happened. Diego Maradona, of Argentina, scored a goal against England in the 1986 World Cup quarterfinals. The video clearly showed him as offside and using his hand to propel the ball into the goal. (The existing video shows it, without the multiple VAR angles currently in use.) At least two referees were asleep on that play. For the record, Argentina, and Maradona again, scored a second goal to win by a 2-1 score, making the HOG goal critical. Argentina went on to win the cup against West Germany.

If VAR had been in play the goal would have been disallowed and all this delicious irony would not color our soccer legends. Additionally, the US lost a goal in the previous game on an offsides that wasn’t. At least, it didn’t look like it to my unbiased eye.

Well, let’s go on with the game. Go USA! Go VAR. Have a great day and Fourth of July.