Update no.1006

 Update from the Sunland

No.1006

19.4.21 – 25.4.21

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

 

            To all,

 

We could not see the first flight of the helicopter drone Ingenuity live; however, NASA did release video of the flight taken by the Mast Camera of Perseverance.  Here you go:

2021 April 20: Ingenuity: First Flight over Mars

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap210420.html

Three days later, Ingenuity completed a second, longer, higher flight.  The images being returned are magnificent.  We can only hope for long life for the solar-rechargeable, electric helicopter drone.  My compliments to the NASA team!  They are taking a thoughtful, methodical approach to expanding the flight envelope for Ingenuity and progressively expanding Ingenuity’s reach.

Yet, despite the early successes of Ingenuity, to me, the really extraordinary and encouraging news was another accomplishment by NASA’s Perseverance rover. After a two-hour warm-up process, the Mars OXygen In-situ resource utilization Experiment (MOXIE) produced 5.4 grams of oxygen (O₂) from the abundant atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂), which is enough to sustain an astronaut breathing for about 10 minutes.  MOXIE proved that sustaining processes for the colonization of Mars are possible.

 

We can also acknowledge yet another accomplishment by SpaceX and NASA in the launch of a multi-national four-person crew to the International Space Station (ISS) with re-used Falcon 9 first stage booster and Crew Dragon capsule components.  They launched from Kennedy Space Center Pad 39A at 05:49 [R] EDT on an ascent trajectory up the East Coast.  With approaching dawn, the launch made for dramatic visuals.  The entire process was picture perfect and once again demonstrated the wisdom and benefit of reusable components.  Well done to all.

 

SpaceX appears to be taking their time with preparation for the next starship test flight after the disaster of SN11 [1003].  The next test vehicle, SN15, is a block upgrade to the SpaceX Starship vehicle.  There are physical improvements; however, I hope they worked on the plumbing (too many leaks) and the software (too many misfires).  SpaceX announced they expected to conduct a static firing test of the three Raptor engines on Monday and a possible flight test later next week.

 

            The follow-up news items:

-- The jury in the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin [1005] rendered its verdict—guilty on all three charges, including second-degree murder.  The jury needed just 10 hours to achieve a unanimous verdict.  The judge indicated that Chauvin’s sentencing would be in eight weeks.  I suspect he will spend a goodly portion of the rest of his life in prison.  If it had not been for the bystander cellphone video, we might not have reached this verdict.

 

A local proposed state law, or rather the opinions in the aftermath of the bill, has taught me a new word— epistemophobia.  I have witnessed the affliction most of my adult life, however, until now, I did not know there was a word to describe the mental illness.  Succinctly, epistemophobia means a fear of knowledge.

“Deadly epidemic of epistemophobia at Legislature, as evidenced by passage of a sex-ed bill – Opinion: Yes, epistemophobia, the fear of knowledge, is a real thing, and it's apparently quite contagious among Arizona Republicans.”

by EJ Montini

Arizona Republic

Published: 11:23 a.m. MT Apr. 16, 2021 Updated 1:13 p.m. MT Apr. 19, 2021

The bill that stimulated this discussion is Arizona Senate Bill 1456.  Ostensibly, the bill requires schools to receive written parental permission for their child to be enrolled in any sex education class in school.  Prima facie, that does not seem like a bad thing.  I understand and appreciate that social conservatives seek to keep their children shielded in ignorance.  In short, that is their choice and rightly so.  However, the intellectual in me rejects such archaic thinking.  I grew up with socially conservative parents in a socially conservative extended family.  Sex, sexuality, sexual orientation, or sexual relationships were never mentioned set aside discussed or debated.  I was expected to learn about sex on my own.  I did a very poor job teaching myself.  Sure, I figured out the physical biological mechanics; I fathered children.  That reality stated in this public forum, I must say I look back and resent the ignorance I was left with and induced the myriad mistakes I have made in life.  Fortunately, Governor Ducey vetoed AZ SB1456, but that fact is a pyrrhic victory at best. This kerfuffle leaves a void without a positive societal statement.  Despite my opinion and experience, I confess my conflicted feelings.  On one hand, I want parental rights respected and parents to be held accountable for the conduct and education of their children.  On the other hand, I believe to my core that children should be taught all of the dimensions of sex and sexuality so that they can decide for themselves with knowledge rather than forced to blindly back into their sexuality by myriad mistakes.  At the end of the day, epistemophobia is a mental illness that must not be imposed upon children.  Knowledge is always better than ignorance.

 

The U.S. Senate passed S.937 - COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act [Senate: 94-1-0-5(0)].  This is another bill that leaves me conflicted.  The reality is tragic that a former president personally and selfishly induced such mindless racial hatred that a bill such as S.937 became necessary.  And yet, we already have hate crimes laws.  This bill is simply an emotional re-statement of our condemnation of hate crimes.  While the bill must still go to the House and potential reconciliation, and President Biden must also approve the bill, it is a sad commentary on our times that Congress was compelled to act in this manner.  But, these are the times in which we live.

As perhaps a footnote to S.937, the only senator to vote against the bill was Josh Hawley of Missouri—how apropos.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.1005:

Comment to the Blog:

“I agree that Derek Chauvin committed homicide in George Floyd’s death.

“Whether it will keep people alive and not abused if they stop resisting the police depends on the officer in question and on the race and/or gender of the detainee.  The underlying issues other than actual homicides include pointless beatings and sexual assaults.  I see no debt of gratitude to officers who mostly do an indifferent job for a high paycheck and who may be a danger to those they are sworn to protect.

“The virus restrictions and fear-mongering have aggravated every mental illness and addiction known to Americans.  The increase in mass shootings is only one manifestation of that.

“The issues raised by Black Lives Matter have roots all the way back to the origins of property ownership.  Those who own the means of production have had total control of the people doing the production, and they are slowly being forced to give that up.

“We finally gave up Vietnam and we will give up Afghanistan sooner or later.

“Beyond the pointlessness of these ‘wars,’ Afghanistan, in particular, is the Graveyard of Empires.”

My response to the Blog:

Based on the evidence presented, that is my opinion as well.  I say guilty of 2^nd degree murder.  However, I also thought the physical (hard) evidence in the O.J. Simpson criminal trial (1995) showed he murdered Brown & Goldman . . . but the jury acquitted him.  We shall see when the jury renders its verdict.

I have seen far too many video clips, the latest one just this morning of a man coming after a police officer with a metal pipe; the LE officer shot him dead appropriately.  The perp managed to keep coming despite multiple shots and knocked the officer unconscious; the officer survived, the perp did not.  If anyone chooses to resist and not comply with police instructions, they are by definition escalating the situation.  Unfortunately, and regrettably, we occasionally see a bad cop like Chauvin, whose (criminal in my opinion) actions make things far more difficult for all the other good police officers.  I do not share your dim view of law enforcement.  In the main, they protect and defend us to keep us safe and our communities peaceful.

I share your observations regarding fearmongering.  Fear is a powerful motivator . . . often to do bad things.

Yes, the underlying motivation certainly reaches back centuries although BLM only came into existence in 2015.  The origins of which you speak are also the reasons, motivation and justification for labor unions.  Moguls of the past treated human beings as though they were consumables like fuel or water.  Good leaders recognize that the people who work for them are their very strength and treat them with respect.

I do not think Vietnam is as simple as your statement, but the outcome was certainly the same.  I also do not agree with your “pointlessness” statement, but again, the outcome is the same.

 . . . Round two:

“Your discussion of behavior in the presence of police shifted from requesting utter deference to talking about physical attacks.  There’s an enormous range of behavior from not being servile enough all the way to violent attacks.  Either can get a citizen killed.

“A war is pointless if (a) it can’t be won, (b) it serves no purpose for the ordinary citizens of the nation, or (c) it’s an exercise in egos.  That covers pretty much every conflict we’ve had since World War II.”

 . . . my response to round two:

No, no, no, I’m not asking for “utter deference” for anything, not least of which would be police.  We should always question police actions and examine police actions, especially when injury of any form occurs.  We should also remember that to a police officer trying to perform her/his duty, non-compliance is a threat in itself.  Resisting the police can get you killed.

Let me ask, what were we to do when the DPRK attacked RoK without provocation?  Where do we draw the line?  Is it acceptable for our isolationist elements to lead to our isolation?  What does our isolation do for world commerce?  I do not think war is a simple as you imply.

 . . . Round three:

“The question of police behavior goes far beyond non-compliance.  Based on experience, almost anything unexpected or even slightly ‘disrespectful’ can trigger aggressive/violent police behavior.  This morning’s example comes from here in Columbus.  About the time the George Floyd verdict was read, a 15-year-old girl called the police because she feared she was about to be attacked and she only had a knife to defend herself.  The police shot her 4 times upon arrival and killed her.  Any behavior or appearance that triggers any officer’s fears can cause death to the civilian.

“The world has not asked the United States to police it.  Even if it did, we don’t have the capacity.  Failing to do so doesn’t isolate us or endanger world trade.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Of course it does.  Law enforcement action is often very complex and based on often conflicting stimulants and information.

I watched the Columbus incident video.  The woman with the knife was not defending herself and she moved to stab the woman in pink.  The LE had no choice but to stop the threat.  To my knowledge, the LE officer did not know the perpetrator was 15yo.  He encountered an aggressive woman with a knife, who ignored commands to stop, and lunged at the woman in pink.  That is by definition a threat of bodily harm.  Imagine if the pink woman had been fatally stabbed with the LE officer paralyzed to inaction.  If the perpetrator was in fear of being attacked, why did she not stop when the officer shouted for her to stop?  That perp was not the innocent you portray her to be.

OK, let us take your argument.  Do you believe the hegemonic forces of the dictators (Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, Stalin, et al) would have stopped on their own if we had just left well enough alone?  Would Hitler have stopped at the Urals?  Who decides what is far enough?  Do you think the PRC is building naval and air bases in the South China Sea for humanitarian reasons?  Is it OK for Putin to invade Ukraine and reimpose Russian domination over a country that historically rejected Russian domination?  Where do we draw the line?  How do we draw the line?

I am not keen on the U.S. being the world’s policeman either, but I struggle with those questions.

 . . . Round four:

“Make that last sentence, ‘No international body since World War II asked for our military help.’  We have been asked for humanitarian aid, and we have responded to those requests in a strictly political way.

“Having watched as much as I could of the videos from the scene here, I'm in agreement that it's a very different event from the killing of George Floyd.  The details so far seem to point to factors other than police misconduct.  I will await the outside investigation before coming to any final conclusions.

“You have changed the discussion of war to World War II rather than all the ‘wars’ since.  No international body since World War II asked for our help.”

 . . . my response to round four:

Yes, absolutely.  As with most incidents, we need to see the findings of a thorough investigation.  There are too many unanswered questions.  Based on the body cam video, the LE officer had a split second to decide, and it appears he made the proper choice.  I would like to know why the young woman was so enraged to ignore LE presence and commands.  There is zero doubt in my little pea-brain that the woman in pink would have suffered serious, perhaps fatal, multiple stab wounds if the officer had not acted.  We shall see what the investigation determines.

Even with your correction, I still believe you are in error.  As stated, we shall exclude WW2 and prior.  UN Security Council Resolution 83 approved on 27.June.1950 requested UN members (of which the United States was one) to intervene against the DPRK after its unprovoked invasion of the RoK on the 25^th of June.  Another example: UN Security Council Resolution 425/6 (1978) established a security force that included the United States.  I could go on, but these citations should be sufficient to disprove your statement.  Yes, there are unilateral examples (not from an international body, or from a specific nation) of U.S. intervention.  The salient question remains, where do we draw the line?  When is aggression against another nation-state not acceptable or tolerable?  None of us wants war.  War is violent and bloody.  Military intervention is always the option of last resort; however, we cannot be paralyzed by intractable diplomacy.

 . . . Round five:

“Based on long experience, ‘law enforcement presence and commands’ are part of the problem, not the solution. Shouting at people who are already upset just escalates their feelings.  That is why de-escalation training is so useful with white people.  (I've seen it in action.) It would probably work on others were police to use it.

“What is appropriate intervention in other nations' affairs has been under debate since the British were doing it in the 1800s.  It seems plain to me that Vietnam, Iraq, and the prolongation of Afghanistan all have been reckless and have harmed the United States as well as the other nations.”

 . . . my response to round five:

I absolutely agree.  One of the most famous cases of such police misconduct (criminal conduct) was the Philadelphia, Mississippi incident [21.6.1964]—hardly an isolated event.  There have been bad men in law enforcement for a very long time.  I do not and perhaps cannot see a positive aspect to resisting or not complying with LE instructions.  A bad cop is going to do what bad men do regardless, but non-compliance or resistance forces a good cop to take appropriate action to gain control of the situation, which in turn always carries the risk of injury in escalation.  Yes, absolutely, our youngest son (police lieutenant) preaches de-escalation all the time.  We’ve had many a debate over threshold, i.e., how far is far enough.  I’ve watched vidclips of LE officers retreating rapidly and trying to calm an assailant (FYI: one ended properly, another did not); it is a very fine line that often happens in mere seconds.  I’ve watched more than a few vidclips of events where I think an LE officer yielded too far in a desperate effort to de-escalate.

You raise the point of debate in international affairs.  That is and likely will remain a worthy matter of debate.  I struggle with the same question.  My threshold is apparently lower than yours, and thus a good topic for public debate.  Frankly, I must confess my bias in that I had to rationalize my service during the Vietnam affair.  I was not on active duty for Iraq or Afghanistan.

 . . . Round six:

“The concepts of resistance and especially non-compliance need an understanding of the psychology of extreme stress to be applied to this situation.

“Understanding police (and military) culture will require understanding the depth of in-group influence.  I discussed with a close friend who has a personal and professional interest in cults, which are based on the same use of deep feelings around belonging.  It's all fascinating if one is not easily horrified.”

 . . . my response to round six:

Agreed, without question.  I am not trying to simplify or ignore the effects and consequences of fear.  Citizens of color have substantive reasons to be suspicious, doubtful, and fearful.  The Floyd murder was not the first time a citizen of color has suffered by police misconduct; it will not likely be the last.  Bad cops are going to continue to do bad (criminal) things.  Just as we must resist generalization with victims of police misconduct, we must also resist generalization across law enforcement.  All I am trying to say is, resistance and non-compliance give bad cops an excuse for their bad behavior.  We must all overcome our fears from time to time.

Yes, a fascinating topic indeed.  Having been part of the military culture, I can attest to a certain degree of groupthink by design and intention; however, that does not mean that such groupthink inherently overrides critical thinking.  The same is true of law enforcement, in my opinion.

 

Another contribution:

“Unlike many trials, in the Chauvin case, the defense counsel has little opportunity to cast doubt on the factual evidence.  Thus, the only way for defense counsel to fulfill their duty to try and prevent conviction of their client is to change the perception of how the jury sees the impact of the factual evidence.  They were able to find an expert witness willing to contrast his view of the video with the other expert's viewpoint (and contrary to the reality most humans would have looking at the video).  But, the defense counsel and their client probably realize the scientific evidence is damning and entirely consistent with the video.  Verdict will be for prosecution.

“If, by some absurd twist of facts and fate, Chauvin is not convicted, you can expect an immediate indictment by the U.S. Attorney for felony denial of civil rights, as double jeopardy is not a factor for retrial under exclusively federal charges.  That will probably not be needed.  However, although it will be a good thing that Chauvin gets convicted and the ‘system’ proves its worthiness to the public, there is a negative outcome that hangs on the Chauvin case and the other recent Minnesota case of the ‘accidental’ police shooting.  That negative aspect is that even though it is clear the system has been slanted in favor of the police up until now, we should be careful to insure that Lady Justice's scale of justice does not become slanted the other way due to these two horribly ugly police shootings.  Justice should be no more slanted in favor of the police than slanted against the police.  We give our police officers a horrible duty to wield life and death as they protect us and we should make sure our system of justice gives the police a fair shake also.  Every police officer forced to use deadly force is not a Chauvin.  Likewise, the protestors calling for radical retraction of police operations are not taking into account the reality of what criminals do to invoke police use of force in the bulk of the cases that actually require deadly force to stop a horrible crime.  Calls to ‘defund the police’ are actually a call to free the street gangs, sex offenders and mass killers.  Let us not go too far in correcting the wrongs in the system.”

My reply:

Thank you for your expert observations regarding police action and the Chauvin trial.  I was convinced when I saw the video the day it happened.  Just the expression on Chauvin’s face and his body language told me all I needed to know.  He was a heartless man with a badge and a pistol, and no respect for other human beings.  Yes, he deserves the full weight of the law.

But, I also thought O.J. Simpson deserved the full weight of the law, but that jury found a way to ignore the hard physical evidence.  I hope that does not occur in the Chauvin case.

I am not a fan of “defunding the police” or the vilification of police officers in general.  They are literally what stands between us and chaos & anarchy.  However, that said, in the past, the scales of justice have been weighted in favor of law enforcement, which in turn allows bad men (like Chauvin) to exist and operate within law enforcement.  All law enforcement organizations must find the means to weed out bad cops, or better yet, find the means to prevent bad men from entering law enforcement.

We, the People, can do our part by helping the police instead of holding onto the mindless ‘no snitch’ mentality or worse resisting law enforcement.  We need to help the police help us.  See something, say something, help our first responders including police.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

Update no.1005

 Update from the Sunland

No.1005

12.4.21 – 18.4.21

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

 

            To all,

 

The funeral service for Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, was held on Saturday afternoon, 17.April.2021, at St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle.  It was a modest affair by British standards due to the pandemic precautions in effect in the United Kingdom.  The weather, at least in the vicinity of Windsor, was as close to perfect as anyone could expect—a beautiful day.  The ceremony was a fitting sendoff for a noble life well lived.

 

I have been watching the Derek Michael Chauvin trial, or at least parts of it, as much as I have been able to do.  Closing arguments are scheduled to begin this coming Monday, and then the case goes to the jury.

The defense counsel attempted to create a sliver of doubt in the mind of at least one juror by throwing a pot of spaghetti at the wall to see what would stick.  We can only hope the jury in toto is smarter than the defense thinks.

The hard cold reality is once George Floyd (or any arrestee or detainee) was restrained (in handcuffs behind his back), those police officers had an obligation—a duty—to protect George Floyd (or any other restrained citizen) no matter what his medical, mental, emotional, physical, or combination of conditions.  It does not matter a hoot whether he had a heart condition or was jacked up on drugs, those police officers failed, and failed miserably, to perform their duty.  If Chauvin had stopped and rendered aid as soon as Floyd stopped moving, he might have got away with a minor disciplinary punishment for violating department policy and training, but he did not do so.  No, he did not.  There is no doubt in my little pea-brain that Chauvin murdered George Floyd and deserves to spend substantial time in prison contemplating the errors of his actions.

Hopefully, the verdict is delivered swiftly.

 

Stop resisting police officers!  When a police officer tells you to do something, do not mouth off!  Do not object!  Follow his instructions precisely.  That police officer is trying to keep you and himself safe, while he sorts out whatever the instigating issue was.

The police often do not know anything about the person they stop, or question, or detain.  Conversely, no citizen can know what any Law Enforcement (LE) officer is dealing with at any moment.  It is the solemn duty of LE to preserve the peace and enforce the laws established by the State (local, state or federal).  When a LE officer instructs any of us to do something, let us respect the extraordinary and vital job LE is charged with performing on our behalf.  All of us should be grateful for what they do on our behalf.  Further, we should all feel an obligation to help LE when we are able to do so.

When you fail to comply with LE instructions, the officer has no choice but to view that resistance as a threat; s/he has no way to know why you are resisting.  S/he must also assume the worst since s/he has way to know what any particular person is thinking or what his motives are.

 

There have been so many mass murders in the last few months that it is beyond my capacity to offer observations.

On Friday, the 16^th, a disgruntled former employee shot and killed eight innocent people at the FedEx facility in Indianapolis, Indiana.  What makes this particular event more noteworthy than the others is the boy’s parents notified police and the FBI in March of last year that their son was potentially violent.  With a warrant, LE confiscated a shotgun to prevent him from injuring himself or others.  Unfortunately, according to Press reports, he had at least one legally acquired AR look-alike rifle.  The system, such as it is, failed to prevent the acquisition.  Eight people died as a consequence.  The perp took his own life before the incident was over.

At 02:30 [S] CST, 29.March.2021, a 13-year-old boy in Chicago was killed by a single shot from an LE officer’s pistol.  The stop-frame video capture recorded at the instant the shot was fired shows the boy with his hands raised and empty.  A similar frame just a few seconds earlier appears to show a pistol in his right hand.  A pistol was found in close proximity to where the boy died.  We do not yet know the association.  What is notable with this one is the fractions of a second an LE officer must decide and react.  The officer had multiple reasons to believe the perpetrator he was chasing was armed and dangerous.  He had absolutely no way to know the perpetrator’s age, ethnicity, or other details, and he had to react to the exigencies of that instant in time.  That police officer did NOT enjoy the benefit of stop-frame video and seconds of detailed analysis.  At the end of the day, a 13-year-old boy can kill you just as dead, just as a 6-year-old girl can do.  My generation saw the potential in Vietnam.  Another generation saw it in Iraq and Afghanistan.  If you do not want to be shot by police or military, do not do threatening things.

 

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a loosely structured political protest group that formed in 2015 to publicly illuminate incidents of police brutality and violence against citizens with dark skin pigmentation.  I have not written much about BLM or their activities, but the time has come.

The right has chosen to vilify BLM as some ultra-left, radical, violence-prone organization somehow determined to break down the fabric of this once grand republic.  The right shouts, “All lives matter,” or “Blue lives matter.”  What the right’s incantation of opposition fails to recognize or acknowledge is two centuries of state-sanctioned or at least state-condoned slavery—the subjugation and oppression of an entire race of citizens simply because of the natural pigmentation in their skin.  You have but to watch any one of myriad video clips of excessive use of force by LE, often the instrument of oppression.  This is NOT to say that some of those citizens with dark skin pigmentation helped to escalate the situation by their resistance, defiance or non-compliance.

BLM is not the problem and is in fact a symptom of a much larger societal issue.  Slavery became constitutionally illegal when the “loyal” states ratified the 13^th Amendment (1865).  But alas, those states, so inclined, chose to ignore the U.S. Constitution and passed multiple laws that became known as Jim Crow laws to oppress citizen simply due to the natural pigmentation in their skin.  Those laws remained in force until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Unfortunately, the Constitution and the law were not sufficient to overcome the inertia of segregation, oppression and racism.  The U.S. Supreme Court has multiple rulings involving race, not least of which were Brown v. Board of Education [347 U.S. 483 (1954); 17.5.1954], ending segregation on the basis of race, and Loving v. Virginia [388 U.S. 1 (1967); 12.6.1967] [175] that declared laws against inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional.  The laws and court ruling are but a mere fraction of legal actions by all three branches of government to end institutional racism.  Regrettably, institutional racism is in the hearts and minds of men who were taught the hatred of racism by their parents, perpetuated over many generations.  Racism is with us to this very day, and it is not confined for the former slave states—once referred to as the Confederate States of America.

Yes, BLM is very necessary and quite appropriate.  We need BLM to help us see.  It is time for me to go on record, I support what BLM is doing and must do.  Institutional racism, well actually racism in all its ugly forms, must end and must be confronted everywhere and however we see it.  Racism is the denial of a citizen’s unalienable rights simply because of his skin pigmentation, as such, it is illegal, unconstitutional, unethical, immoral, and otherwise just flat wrong.  The [person who shall no longer be named] supported the racist ideology for political gain and that makes him de facto a racist; there is plenty of other evidence to suggest he is himself a racist as he was taught by his parents.  So, yes, I fully support BLM, and I encourage them to continue their protests against racism in all its forms.

 

On Tuesday, 13.April.2021, President Biden announced the withdrawal of last remaining troops from Afghanistan in coordination with our allies.  The president publicly stated that four presidents (two Republican, two Democrat) had shepherded the war in Afghanistan, and he would not hand it off to a fifth.  On one hand, I laud the president’s courage in taking this important step, and yet, I hold some trepidation regarding the wisdom of the action.  Iacta alea est!  Time shall tell the tale as whether this is a wise decision.  I shall remain optimistic . . . until I have reason not to do so.

 

In the category of really rich (he said with utmost sarcasm), Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia announced she was going to form an America First caucus within the House of Representatives.  Unfortunately, the self-professed QAnon believer should have paid attention in school.  She continues to display her ignorance.  America First is hardly a novel or original thought.  The America First Committee (AFC) was established on 4.September.1940, with many notable politicians, citizens and believers espousing isolationist sentiments and policies.  The AFC was very influential in the political arena until the 7^th of December 1941.  Like her hero, the [person who shall no longer be named], she floated a nonsense idea, and when it did not gain traction, she rescinded her suggestion.  This is not the first of her brain-farts, and it will not be the last.  Unfortunately, we must endure her nonsense as we endured the [person who shall no longer be named].  And so it goes.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.1004:

Comment to the Blog:

“‘Evidence-based problems’ abound, but politicians don’t think that way.  Winning is everything and the means of winning are a matter of group ethics.

“I am not a moderate.  Perhaps those who would address the ills in this nation should give up trying to make deals with the devils that caused them.

“I don’t see the 2^nd Amendment resulting from distrust of government.  The people who wrote it were themselves the government.  It came about because the new United States had no standing army.  The Founders surely knew the potential for insurrection.  After all, such things had been attempted in their recent history, hence the clause about “a well-regulated militia”.  However, those who would commit insurrection were present then and now.  They are inching closer to success ever since Reagan.

“I am very close friends with a retired professional whose career was in mental health institutions.  Doing something useful about mental illness sounds far easier than it will ever be.  Also, check for evidence of mental illness diagnoses in the specific incidents.  One point people who deal with mental illness would like to make is that few of them are ever dangerous.”

My response to the Blog:

Yeah, the “win at all costs” mentality is an anathema in a civilized, law-abiding nation.  Group ethics, yes, but to me, it is more tribal, more primal than group dynamics.  We must get beyond this nonsense.

Now, there is that.  Nonetheless, they are still citizens.

Thank you for expressing your opinion.  Unfortunately, I do not have the time to go reconstruct the evidence in the founding documents.  Yes, absolutely, a “well-regulated militia” was an effort to avoid a standing army, which in itself was considered a potential threat to the sovereignty of the government.  Yes, the forces of insurrection were present two centuries ago and remain present today.  Those who have power seek to retain power; thus, the white supremacy movement.

Yes, again absolutely, the vast majority of those afflicted with various degrees of mental illness are not violent and do not commit crimes, set aside mass murder.  However, mental illness pops up in many of these events, e.g., Sandy Hook, Aurora, Parkland, et cetera.  I could argue Las Vegas, Blacksburg, Orlando, Columbine, and others are in that category as well.  Like all such issues, we must be very careful not to emotionally over-react and penalize all mentally ill individuals to find the few prone to violence.  The most obvious one of the lot was Adam Lanza, the perpetrator of Sandy Hook; he clearly had diagnosed mental illness that remained untreated despite his mother’s desperate attempts to find help to treat her son.  She knew the signs were not good but could not find help.

Lastly, as a reminder, I am NOT focusing my thoughts on the mentally ill in the matter of appropriate firearm regulation.  I am only arguing for balance.  Mental illness is a root cause; firearms are not.  We must deal with the triage and treatment of mental illness in a balanced approach to dealing with a tragic, horrific, and catastrophic societal issue.  Balance!

 . . . Round two:

“What you’re describing as ‘more tribal, more primal’ IS the group dynamic.  What I mentioned was group ethics, which is part of group dynamics.

“Citizenship has nothing to do with political strategy.  Trying to respect and make compromises with the people whose actions destroy the country is irrational.

“Certainly, any mass killer has a mental illness, but they cause a small segment of firearm deaths and make up a tiny fragment of the mentally ill.  I would like to see much more attention and money spent on mental illness, but that’s no way to address firearm deaths.  Let’s put our efforts where they might have some effect.”

 . . . my response to round two:

OK.  I cannot argue with that.  It is all about definitions, I suppose.

Here is a relevant point of debate.  Again, definitions come to play.  If you ask those people you accuse of destruction, they will say that is exactly what they are striving for—saving the country.  If you (in the general 2^nd person plural sense) believe this once grand republic is reserved for only white, protestant, educated, property owners, then you will see “saving” in a very particular way.  Discrimination often by law and often violently imposed goes back long before the Revolution and Constitution.  We fought a civil war and lost hundreds of thousands of citizens in the name of state’s rights and discrimination in the worst possible form.  Why are the followers of and believers in the [person who shall no longer be named] invariably carrying American flags (even Confederate flags, among others)?  They are wrapping themselves in that notion they are saving the nation for white supremacy, Jim Crow, and their notion of proper social conduct.  Arguably, the Charleston shooter was one of those “patriots.”  These forces of discrimination, segregation, domination, and oppression must be overcome as they have been since before the Founding.  So it is today.

Yes, I can agree with that.  Further, I will argue that homicide (other than for self-defense) is a degree of mental illness (or perhaps malformation [i.e., parental]).  To me, causing any injury to another person is disrespect for the rights of another human being.  Again, to me, reckless driving is no different from firing a bullet into the air; it has the potential to injure someone.  Yes, agreed as well; the vast majority of mentally ill or disturbed individuals are not and never will be violent or injurious of others.  We cannot and must not penalize or stigmatize all of those people because we are trying to find those few among that lot who are or have the potential to be violent or injurious of others.  I readily acknowledge the process of filtration and triage of the mentally ill is very complicated and demands a sophisticated system of checks and balances to protect the rights of the majority while identifying the threats to public safety.  Inaction in the face of that complexity is simply unacceptable.  I am with you; I would like to see much more attention to and spending on the treatment of mental illness.  Some of that is public awareness, i.e., educating all citizens of the symptoms, the processes, and means by which we identify and properly treat the Adam Lanzas within our society.  “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has never been the proper thing to do.  I do believe we are in agreement on this matter.

 . . . Round three:

“Most people believe most of what they say, no matter how insane it seems to the rest of us.  That doesn’t change anything.

“We agree on the importance of treating mental illness, but I doubt its effectiveness as a means of reducing firearms deaths.  Perhaps mass shootings, but not deaths overall.”

 . . . my response to round three:

I confess to a bit of a chuckle upon reading your first sentence.  You are, of course, quite correct in your observation.  We see the phenomenon in spades to this very day.  Far too many of our citizens ignore facts and evidence to justify their beliefs.  Absolutely, selective belief changes nothing . . . except 74 million of them voted for the bastard.  That is not a trivial reality.

Perhaps you missed an important implied part of my statement—the key word triage.  In more a familiar medical context, hospitals have rules that requirement them to report evidence involving crimes of violence, e.g., gunshot or stab wounds, contusions consist with violent struggle, and such.  The same should be true for those trained to evaluate mental illness and specifically the potential for violence.  Mental health professionals must be compelled to report observations associated with any propensity for violence or the attributes of violence.  In the case of Adam Lanza, I think there was sufficient evidence to warrant state intervention and treatment.  I have and will continue to argue similar evidence was available in the cases of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, among others.  Qualified observers like schools, hospitals, clinics, EMT professionals, and even law enforcement should have the means to record observations to build a profile.  I can argue that there was sufficient evidence to institutionalize Adam Lanza, and short of that, to remove firearms from his residence counter to his mother’s rights to possess firearms—general public safety and the common good.

 

Another contribution:

“Indeed Cap. No spring here as yet-you know what will happen the sun will shine again and we will all be complaining about the heat!

“Covid, non-essential shops opening, the crowds are barmy, personal spacing etc. forgotten.  Not a good start.  Again we shall see.

“Have a good day mate-

“Shopping this morning, we travel in an almost empty bus provided by the supermarket-free!”

My reply:

Nature of the beast, my friend.  We tend to want what we do not have, so it is with the weather.

Giving up on societal protections too soon is an invitation to an infection spike.  We see the same phenomenon here as well.

Wow, a free bus to the supermarket is unusual.  Take advantage of the generous provision while it lasts.

Even though we are fully vaccinated and inoculated against the COVID19 virus, we must remain protective and cautious until the virus is defeated.  We are not there yet.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

Update no.1004

 Update from the Sunland

No.1004

5.4.21 – 11.4.21

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

 

            To all,

 

I offer my heartfelt condolences to the British People and the British Royal Family for the passing of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich, who was born Philip Mountbatten, Prince of Greece and Denmark.  Philip was 99 years of age—the longest serving consort in British history.  He lived a long, bountiful life.  May God rest his immortal soul and comfort the Queen and the family.

 

The remote . . . very remote . . . semi-autonomous rotorcraft known as Ingenuity was dropped off on the surface of Mars by the rover Perseverance.  Ingenuity was supposed to make its first flight on Sunday but something was not quite right during the pre-flight checks.  The first flight was delayed until at least Wednesday.  Perhaps, I shall report on the first flight in next week’s Update.

 

Instead of these damnable BICP (GOP) new Jim Crow laws to suppress the vote, why don’t we deal with real documented, evidence-based problems.  “Someone told me” is not evidence; it is hearsay and rumor.  Further, let us keep things in perspective.  There have always been bad men who are willing to commit federal and state crimes to achieve their ends.  Election crimes are no different from other felonious crimes.  There have been bad men in this once grand republic for centuries.  Believers and bad men at both ends of the political spectrum have attempted to influence election outcomes.  Some have actually been successful.  Procedural safeguards have been in place for decades, certainly as long as I have been old enough to vote.

The [person who shall no longer be named] began constructing the BIG LIE long before the election [982; 3.11.2020].  He has remained consistent and persistent in the propagandist’s axiom number one—repeat, repeat, repeat.  Do not deviate—ever.  The BIG LIE directly resulted in an armed insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on the 6^th of January [991].  The BIG LIE is being carried on by the believers who have swallow the magic snake oil elixir peddled by the [person who shall no longer be named].

What we see in the BICP’s new Jim Crow laws tells us, unless you have money, can afford to take time off from work, have a car to travel to a remote polling station, they do not want you to vote.

Instead of trying to ban every initiative to make it easier for all voters to cast their votes, why don’t they focus of safeguards to protect the integrity of the vote.  

What we see today is one political party’s desperation and retribution for the BIG LIE perpetuated and amplified by the [person who shall no longer be named].  Just because his infantile, fragile ego is incapable of accepting that 81 million American citizens rejected his nonsense, antics, and outright lies, he chose to burn the whole house down exactly as Adolf Hitler did with the Red Army closing in on his bunker.  As Oliver Cromwell so eloquently and succinctly proclaimed [20.April.1653], I repeat to the [person who shall no longer be named]: ''You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing.  In the name of God, go!''

 

It is truly unfortunate that we seem to have lost the skills associated with the art of dissent.  From my perspective, argument and debate are the lifeblood of any viable democracy.  The calcification and intransigence of so many, left and right, in this once grand republic is a direct indication of the deterioration of the country.  As a neutral, non-aligned, socially liberal, politically moderate, I say we must find a way to recover from this very corrosive affliction.  Perhaps the [person who shall no longer be named] did us a favor by amplifying those forces of division in this country to graphic levels, so they are obvious to everyone, even the most casual, complacent citizen.  Who would have ever thunk'it--insurrection in our time displayed to the world to see.  How tragic is that!

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.1003:

Comment to the Blog:

“My interest in space is less on technology, but I’ll note that capitalism has features, such as information control, that tend to slow creative technology.

“One of my major news sources is that New York Times free newsletters.  I have a couple of items from those from this morning.

“The one that’s relevant to your column is from today’s Morning update.  It discusses findings that Republicans have a long history of attacking ‘mainstream’ media.  That leads their followers deeper into the alternate universe of Fox News and its kind.  Hence, ‘cancel culture’ in its entirety.

“The other New York Times item for today comes from the Dealbook column that covers big business.  Attribute this to specifically to Andrew Ross Sorkin, who gives the Times as his source:

More than two dozen companies in the Fortune 500 paid no federal income tax despite reporting a combined $77 billion in profits over the past three years.

“That one ought to get more attention than Dr. Seuss or ‘cancel culture,’ but few of the politicians in charge want us to look closely at their employers.

“I commend to you the daily newsletter Popular Information, written by Judd Legum.  He focuses on money in politics.  His research holds up and can be checked.  There’s a subscription available, but not required at present.  I’ll be subscribing as soon as I can.”

My response to the Blog:

I am sorry for your distress.  I share your frustration.  While I have been and remain competent with .html programming, I have largely given up on the endeavor where formatting tools are not available.

Interesting observation, although I am not sure I can agree.  Capitalism and information control?  I am not sure I see the linkage or the manifest “slow[ing of] creative technology.”  Capitalism is just now being introduced into space exploration.  So far, I think that element has been positive, although I can certainly imagine some of the negatives if we do not apply appropriate regulation and enforcement.

Yes, they do!  Perhaps the most flamboyant of those long-standing Republican assaults on the Press was Spiro Agnew who publicly said:

16.10.1969:

A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.

11.9.1970:

In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism.  They have formed their own 4-H Club – the ‘hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history.’

These are but a few of the many Agnew pronouncements.  The [person who shall no longer be named] along with his minion sycophants are far less eloquent but remain in the same vein.  Yes, Fox News has striven mightily to pick up the mantle of earlier generations of self-proclaimed victims of the so-called liberal press.  I will note that Winston Churchill possessed a unique ability to deal with dissent.  Other could learn a great deal from Churchill’s cause and effect words 90 years ago.

Well, there certainly is that.  Corporate socialism is a bountiful and worthy topic.  The Dr. Seuss kerfuffle was not the object of the section in last week’s Update; disinformation was.  I was simply illuminating yet another example of how the disinformation of the BICP works, and those who (perhaps unwittingly) contribute to furtherance of the BICP disinformation.  And yet, they wonder (perhaps naïvely) why the mainstream Press seems to be against them.  A simple search would have easily debunked that false meme.

Thank you for your recommendation.

 . . . Round two:

“I was taught information control as part of management.  In this instance, think in terms of patents and also marketing.  Space technology is one more sector for management skills.

“I’ll note that Agnew’s approach resembles King Baby’s, but Agnew’s timing was too soon.

“I have no clue what ‘corporate socialism’ is.  Do you mean social responsibility?”

 . . . my response to round two:

Protecting intellectual property is a vital process.  Protecting a brand name is nearly as important.  However, there are boundaries to the authority implied in those statements, as we see in myriad court documents, rulings, and decisions. In this context, space is no different from ground-based environments.  Various organizations including government have attempted to exceed their legal authority, and the courts have corrected those exceedances.

Perhaps so, but history is history.  I did not agree with the man, but I did appreciate his choice of words.

Socialism has many definitions.  In this context, I shall suggest the simplest version—financial support (benefit) from the State.  No, I do not mean social responsibility; that is an entirely different topic.  Capitalism is the free, unfettered operation of corporations by the profit motive alone without regulation or interference.  U.S. corporations have not been capitalist in more than a century.  The USG has given enormous financial benefit to corporations in the name of job creation.  Jobs are one thing; retained cash is altogether another thing.  Social security is a socialist action.  From my perspective, U.S. corporations derive far more benefit from socialism than We, the People, do, as evidenced in the extraordinary intervention during the Great Recession, and even during the pandemic response.

 . . . Round three:

“That’s a fine statement about intellectual property, but the fact of it being corporate property still slows progress.

“I’m more confused than ever.  How did we jump from ‘cancel culture’ to ‘corporate socialism’ (or corporate welfare)?”

 . . . my response to round three:

Thx mate.  Well, that is a viable point of debate.  I could argue the inverse, i.e., that Intellectual Property (IP) rights encourage and spur innovation.  One company’s success inspires others to invent, produce, and sell more innovative variants—a better mousetrap.  Yes, IP rights like copyrights do slow progress in that the content is not shared.  I cannot see an alternative.  To make IP shared, we eliminate the profit motive.  What is the benefit to the developer?

Your NYT quotation was a direct reflection of corporate socialism and had nothing to do with cancel culture.  Yet, to jump to the topic you intended, I see cancel culture in much the same vein as censorship.  In its most directly applicable reasoning to the issue of cancel culture, the Supremes recorded their relevant wisdom in National Socialist Party v. Skokie [432 U.S. 43 (1977); 14.6.1977] [393] in their defense of American Nazis to march and protest in a heavily Jewish populated community.  I stand with the Supremes in the Skokie decision.  We must be careful not to suppress dissent or contrarian thought.

 . . . Round four:

“The alternative mode of development is to have government, not corporations, do the major innovations for the benefit of the entire nation rather than a few owners.

“‘Cancel culture’ is neither new nor particularly evil.  Prominent people lose their megaphones due to scandals.  So?  They always did.  It's just that some of the loudest people have been temporarily quieted for abuse of their preferred media.  I have no problem with that.”

 . . . my response to round four:

There are certainly positive examples of USG development that offered substantial benefit to society in general, e.g., NASA, DARPA, NIH, et cetera.  There are also positive examples of capitalism (the profit motive) as well.  The key is balance.  USG development for the collective good can be seen in the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 [PL 37-II-120; 12 Stat. 489; 1.7.1862] and the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 [PL 84-627; 70 Stat. 374; 29.6.1956].  Interesting to me (perhaps alone), I am currently working on a novel centered upon the result of the stimulation inspired by the former law.

I am with you in the main, so are the Supremes.  They were very careful to explain in Skokie that boundaries exist to all freedoms.  The flag-wavers like to shout that there are no boundaries to their 1^st Amendment rights.  Incitement to riot or violence is beyond the legal boundaries; thus, the charges and eventual prosecutions from the insurrection.  Further, the [person who shall no longer be named] and his accomplices [Cruz, Gaetz, Gosar, Green, Jordan, Nunes, et al] all deserve to spend time as guests of the State to contemplate the errors of their transgressions.  The next couple of years will be a truth teller for our once grand republic.  I want that whole lot from the [person who shall no longer be named] to the operatives in the Capitol Building that day to go to jail; we need a very clear statement.

 

Another contribution:

“As is frequently the case, your lengthy exchanges in 1003 with your articulate friends dealing largely with gun control brought out the best of your wisdom.

“No one sentence of yours can possibly summarize the truths you espouse, and you could not be any clearer in your attempt to counter the incessant mistaken labeling of AR-15s as assault weapons (unless modern slingshots and hunting bows are also to be so classified).  Perhaps the most fundamental truth this uniquely yet incompletely free people need to be reminded of, as you inserted quickly, is that we have very seldom been smart enough to legally ban anything without very bad unintended but perhaps predictable results!

“The deeper trouble is, gun control as presently discussed is a calculated precursor to confiscation (consistent with ratification the UN backed small arms limitation treaty very likely to be one of Biden’s next pushes).  As radical as this may sound, logic should prevail in resistance rather than emotional responses to our national crisis of poor parenting and mental health ignorance.”

My reply:

Thank you for your generous words, my friend.  I do seek to find balance.

It seems these days is a recurrent theme in my political thinking is freedom of choice and every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.  So that theme rises up in the firearm regulation debate.  I also tend to see prohibitions is a similar light—a nuclear device to swat a fly.  I am not prepared nor can I support blanket prohibitions that penalize the vast majority of law-abiding citizens for the conduct of a very few.  It is the same with virtually every morality-based topic, e.g., abortion, prostitution, election processes, immigration reform, et al.

I like and support your concluding sentence.  To me, that is precisely the point of these related discussions.  I would also add the abandonment of the ‘Kitty’ Genovese syndrome, i.e., every citizen has an obligation to public safety—see something, say something.  We must learn to help law enforcement in dealing with these disturbed or marginal people who commit these horrific crimes.  We know they are among us; we must help law enforcement (at least until a proper mental health treatment and intervention systems can be developed and employed).

 

A different contribution:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56672892

“Cap-106 deaths every day from personal weapons-to us over here that sounds explicitly unacceptable and ghastly in this present age.  Is there anyway of changing that 2^nd Amendment?  Can Mr Biden do it?

“All’s well here just had our 2^nd inoculation so both feeling somewhat tired (ish).  Being locked down means Covid is retreating and we have managed a lot of jobs both in and out of the house so really things are ‘turning up’.  But, as you well know the Covid threat is always there and we are very much aware of that.”

My response:

The BBC article is accurate to my reading.  The firearm violence in this once grand republic is an international embarrassment as was the tepid, laissez-faire, pandemic response of the previous administration.

I doubt the 2^nd Amendment can be changed.  However, appropriate regulation can be incorporated and enforced.  At the very root of this issue is an inherent distrust of government dating back well before the Revolution.  I am convinced there will be changes.  I hope the changes we enact and enforce are balanced and respectful of history.  Prohibition is NOT the answer in a free society.  To me, that reality applies to all of our morality issues—firearm violence, abortion, gambling, prostitution, psychotropic substance consumption, et al ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Congratulations on the 2^nd shot.  You will soon join the rolls of the fully inoculated.  We are going to get ahead of this damnable virus, but I am afraid we will have more pain ahead—far too many anti-vaxxers, non-believers, resisters, and such.  We shall overcome despite the doubters; it will just take longer to accomplish.

 . . . Round two:

“I have a link for you from NASA re Perseverance. When this rotary gets into the thin atmosphere of Mars it will be a wonderful achievement for both science and engineering. I’ll be watching!

https://earthsky.org/space/ingenuity-helicopter-flies-on-mars-perseverance-rover?utm_source=EarthSky+News&utm_campaign=eca0efd80d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_02_02_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c643945d79-eca0efd80d-394689513

“Thanks for your comments re my last ramblings on weapons, you know I always feel uncomfortable discussing the government of other countries, I always feel I’m pocking my nose where it shouldn’t be.  However, I cannot understand this affliction with small arms.  I suppose it originates with my service career where I dealt with weapons of unbelievable power. I was cured, to me all personal weapons are absolutely and utterly superfluous.  However, Cap we don’t work under the freedom of a second amendment, what a mistake that was when it was introduced.  I’m certain others will disagree.”

 . . . my response to round two:

I offer my condolences to you and the British People for the passing of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.  He lived a good life.  I hope his passing is not too great a burden on the Queen and their family.

Thx for the info.  Yep, tomorrow morning (earth time), I plan to watch and learn.  History in the making, I do believe.

The 2^nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is always fair game for debate.  I am sorry you feel uncomfortable.  Government is public, and any public activity is also fair game for debate.  I am not a subscriber to the notion of American exceptionalism as some of my fellow citizens are.  I am a believer in American ideals that include “unalienable rights” and freedom of choice.  We are very far from our ideals as I have written in this forum and others, but we still strive to attain our ideals.  Like the physicists say, progress by jerks.

This once grand republic was born in an inherent distrust of government.  We see that reality in virtually all of our founding documents.  Regrettably, politicians are human being and inherently flawed.  Our current crop as well as prior generations did painfully little to improve from that fundamental distrust of government.  The 2^nd Amendment was created in the environment of distrust of government.  We must understand, recognize and respect the underlying root causes for things when we jump into changing them.  I am not keen on treating symptoms.

 . . . Round three:

“Many thanks for your kind words re our Prince Phillip.  His presence will be greatly missed not just here but over the entire world.  What a gentleman, we are still learning even now about his many charitable and sporting achievements, these run into hundreds.  The Queen has gone into 10 days mourning during which the funeral will take place of course with a maximum of only 30 people present. (Covid).

“Yes I do feel awkward talking to you re the way your country is governed.  I do understand the origins of the 2^ndAmendment but that was formed many years ago.  Surely by now we as the occupiers of this ‘once magnificent’ planet have progressed to peaceable and amiable attitudes towards our fellows and do not need to carry firearms which in the wrong hands do immeasurable harm.  That must stop.  Slowly perhaps but it is an essential step in progress to a better world.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Unfortunately, due to the COVID19 pandemic, Prince Philip will not receive the celebration of his life that he deserves.  Nonetheless, we should all honor a life well lived.  May God bless Prince Philip’s immortal soul and sustain the Queen and family in their hours of grief.

I am sorry you feel awkward, but I certainly understand and respect your feelings.  Yes, you are precisely correct. However, I believe the forces that led to the creation of the 2^nd Amendment are still alive and at play today.  We witnessed a negative demonstration on the 6th of January, and that event was far from the only example.  Possession of a firearm does not violate the peace or amiable attitudes.  I have possessed multiple firearms of various types all of my adult life and I have not yet felt the urge to use them.

The one thing that links most of these tragic firearm events is mental illness in various forms.  Yet, the societal intercedence to prevent mental illness transforming into homicide (or suicide) by firearms comes in direct conflict with privacy and freedom concerns.  This once grand republic has repeatedly and consistently failed to approach intervention processes to prevent mental illness from becoming homicide.  As a consequence, our revulsion at each of these tragic events leads us to avoid the difficult conflict noted above and embrace prohibition that penalizes every citizen because we fail or refuse to deal with the mental illness conflict, i.e., a nuclear device to swat a fly.

Once more into the breech and for the record, I fully support more stringent firearms regulation including registration of firearms including mine, if there are proper safeguards installed to prevent abuse by government at any level.  Further, like immigration reform, I want a full system approach that addresses the root causes.  I cannot imagine a state I can support intellectually or practically that involves blanket prohibition.

 . . . Round four:

“It’s always good to exchange views with you-certainly I do feel awkward commenting on the governance of a nation in which I do not have the ‘voters rights’.  However it’s always good to receive your views which normally and confidently I agree to.

“Over here we are currently experiencing some disturbing riotous behaviour by youngsters in Northern Island-thank God no fire arms have been used by either side.  The extraordinary description of those taking part is that many of them are hardly teenagers.  Very sad.  So who’s fault are these growing up failures due to in their development from child to adult?  We shall see.”

 . . . my response to round four:

Hopefully, the awkwardness you feel will pass.  I never expect agreement.  Disagreement is important.  We must be able to debate societal issues.

I assume you meant Northern Ireland.  Who is at fault?  The parents.  We see the same phenomenon in this country.  Yet, we routinely fail to hold parents accountable for the disasters some of them wrought upon society in the form of their children.  Hatred and disrespect of others is a learned trait, not genetic or inherent.  The same is true for other societal phenomena like racism, homophobia, xenophobia, et al.  Hatred must be confronted wherever it appears.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)