Update no.594

Update from the Heartland

No.594

29.4.13 – 5.5.13

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

To all,

The follow-up news items:

-- Why haven’t we heard the hue and cry for laws to prohibit pressure cookers?  After all, they are the weapon of choice for young, misguided, American jihadis [592].  Where is the outrage?  What is it about firearms that drives some folks so bloody crazy?  Is it that firearms must be aimed and a trigger pulled, while pressure cooker bombs are more indiscriminate?  I suspect a greater percentage of pressure cookers have been used as weapons of mass destruction than the percentage of firearms used by mentally ill, mass killers, yet many of us are quite comfortable prohibiting certain firearms, magazines and such.  Why aren’t we banning pressure cookers?

WARNING – The following URL connects to a video clip of a rare and dramatic aircraft accident crash sequence.  It is NOT for the faint of heart.  Forewarned is forearmed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj2GS26Imdo&feature=youtu.be

At 11:20 [D], Monday, 29.April.2013, a National Air Cargo Boeing 747-428 freighter crashed on takeoff from Bagram Air Base, Kabul, Afghanistan. All seven (7), American crewmembers died in the crash; no one on the ground was injured.  The NTSB has dispatched a multi-disciplinary team to assist in the investigation.  This event should not take long, comparatively, to sort out.  There was no known, observed or indicated enemy action, despite the quick public claim by the Taliban.  The video sequence suggests an excessive angle of attack stall.  If so, the most likely cause may well be an internal load shift that took the aircraft out of its center of gravity limits shortly after rotation.  Physics affects all flying machines, even the massive B-747 aircraft.

Apparently, when it comes to sustaining a corruptive environment, Congress is surprisingly efficient and quite effective in a shockingly bipartisan manner.  It took a mere four (4) days – yes, I did say days, not weeks or months, and that included a weekend – from the introduction of the S.716 legislation by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, to the President’s signature, making the bill law.  They did not even have time to come up with some clever or fancy title, and they moved so quickly neither chamber saw the need to take one of those annoying, recorded, roll-call votes – the Senate passed it by “unanimous consent,” and then the House passed it “without objection.”  What was this bill that was so important?  A formal declaration of war against Islamo-fascism?  Nope!  A properly reviewed and approved federal appropriations bill?  No!  For lack of a title, this S.716 bill is called “A bill to modify the requirements under the STOCK Act regarding online access to certain financial disclosure statements and related forms.” [PL 113-007; 127 Stat. 438; 15.April.2013]  Now, as you may recall, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 (STOCK Act) [PL 112-105; 126 Stat. 291; 4.April.2012] [538] was a watered-down, rather lame attempt to curtail congressional insider-trading – a federal, felony crime for the rest of us peons, I must add.  Instead of strengthening the original anti-corruption law, Congress chose to weaken an already weak law even further.  Financial reporting now only applies to the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and candidates for Congress.  Some 26,000 congressional staffers and other senior government officials were removed for the applicability of the STOCK Act; thus, my only conclusion must be that it is OK for congressional staffers to get rich trading on inside congressional information.  I have no idea why Congress decided to do this, but it definitely does not look good; and, they wonder why we distrust them so bloody much.

This is what the Press should be watching, but unfortunately, it seems so few are reporting on these facts.  At least we have two views:

“Why Are We Forcing The Army To Build Tanks It Doesn’t Want?”

by Annie-Rose Strasser

www.care2.com

Published: April 30, 2013; 5:00 pm

http://www.care2.com/causes/why-are-we-forcing-the-army-to-build-tanks-it-doesnt-want.html

and

“A Peek at Pentagon Pork: A Taxpayers’ Guide”

by Winslow Wheeler

Time

Published: May 29, 2012

http://nation.time.com/2012/05/29/a-peek-at-pentagon-pork-a-taxpayers-guide/

The sad reality is, facts like these are just snowflakes atop the tip of the iceberg, and these forms of largesse have been going on for years.  These are hard call-out, non-discretionary funding lines that were not touched by the sequester reductions [585].  Powerful senators and representatives use the public treasury for local jobs – small short-term, local gains at the long-term penalty of the entire nation.  This is wrong in every form, every time and should be labeled for what it is.  One day, we shall take the power from these narrow-minded men.

News from the economic front:

-- Prime Minister Robert Fico of Slovakia has called for an end to “completely counter-productive” austerity policies and for governments to focus instead on reigniting growth.  Slovakia has a small but very open economy that has been pummeled by the economic slump in the eurozone.  The previous coalition administration led by former Prime Minister Iveta Radičová slashed benefits and public sector salaries, driving the deficit down from a high of 8% of GDP in 2009 to 4.3% in 2012, all while keeping taxes low.  Slovakia became a poster-child for austerity processes. Slovakia now represents a growing number of national government leaders in Europe who are rattling the saber against austerity measures implemented to recover from the debt crisis.  My dilemma in such reactions grows from the lack of balance – too much austerity or too much spending.  There is a delicate balance between revenue (taxes) and expenses (spending); too much of either side of the equation means imbalance and ultimately failure.

-- The Federal Reserve indicated they would continue their US$85B/month bond-purchasing program and may vary the amount depending on employment and inflation.

-- The European Central Bank (ECB) cut its benchmark interest rate from 0.75% to 0.5% in an attempt to drag the euro zone out of its longest recession in over 40 years.

-- The European Commission (EC) forecasted that three of five of the EU’s largest economies – France, Spain and the Netherlands – will bust through EU-mandated deficit limits this year as the bloc’s recession continues to deepen.  The EU’s third-largest economy, Italy, will come within a hair’s breadth of missing the limit of 3% of GDP threshold, with a forecasted 2.9% 2013 deficit. The EU bloc GDP is now expected to drop 0.4% this year, down from a 0.3% projection just six months ago.

-- The Labor Department reported the U.S. economy added 165,000 jobs last month, more than the 148,000 gain expected by economists.  Private sector added 176,000 jobs. The unemployment rate dropped slightly to 7.5%, the lowest unemployment rate since December 2008.

Comments and contributions from Update no.593:

“The FSB (ФСБ, Федеральная служба безопасности), the domestic intel arm of the former KGB, may have provided information to the FBI, but apparently that organization did not give enough information to the Bureau.  Also, they have made many requests, and some are simply to harass people who have no contact with terrorism.  The question is did the FSB give enough information, especially regarding phone taps, to the Bureau to go on.  And the FSB, according to some, might just have been protecting sources and means in not telling the Bureau.   Not always simple and not always the obvious answer.

“Also, not totally comfortable charging Tsarnaev with WMD. I recall back in the day, WMD referred to nuke weapons. Period.   Later it morphed to include bio and chem. weps- although many argued about that. Today, while  the federal law might include the pressure-cooker bombs,  the term WMD has really gotten stretched out beyond what it originally meant..  Other commentators have made the same point. Also, if a pressure-cooker bomb is now WMD, what about an AR-15 with expanded magazines that can kill 28 people?  We have changed the term WMD to be almost meaningless, except in charging.

“Regarding the West, TX explosions, it is a prime example what lax or non-existent regulation can lead to.  Texas has notoriously lax zoning laws- and even they weren't apparently followed in the case of the chem. plant at West.  Not only ammonium nitrate, a serious explosive was stored there, but other ammonium products.  Housing and schools were allowed to be built next to the plant.   The schools nearby had to be evacuated to ammonium leaks in the past.  Even more problematic, under the Bush Administration, supervision of chemical plants was taken from the EPA and given to DHS. This was a blatantly political move, made by VP Cheney's son-in-law, to move supervision to a supposedly more lax body.  And away from the EPA, which is a bugaboo to many Republicans.  As might be expected DHS did not have, nor did it obtain, the expertise and ability to do the job. To be fair, the EPA was so thinly staffed, that it couldn’t' sufficiently inspect such plants.  Also the plant was to inform DHS that it was chemicals such as ammonium nitrate- it didn't.  In fact, DHS didn't even know there was a chemical plant at West.  Somebody should go to jail and people should lose their jobs.”

My reply:

            Re: FSB information.  Well said and quite appropriate.  My understanding as well.

            Re: WMD.  What definition would you suggest for WMD?  I will hold mine.  I would like to hear yours first.  Also, when does a criminal act become an enemy action?

            Re: West, Texas.  It has been widely reported that the owners/operators of the fertilizer plant did not comply with federal notification law.  I trust they shall be appropriately prosecuted, convicted and punished.  Oddly, it was executive action by conservative love-child, Tricky Dick Nixon that created the EPA in the first place.  I do not know why Bush 43 excluded EPA.  I do not see DHS as exclusive as the objectives of DHS & EPA are not the same and can work in parallel.  I am still suspicious of this event as something more than a simple workplace accident.  Nonetheless, perhaps this event will re-energized workplace safety laws and practices, including in Texas.

A thread contribution:

[The subject was enemy classification.]

Contributor A:

“That would  be an INCREDIBLY stupid thing to do, AND a massively ‘slippery slope,’

AND has absolutely NO basis in the Constitution.”

Contributor B:

Subject: Re: Update no.593

From: "Darren via smart phone"

Date: Tue, April 30, 2013 3:37 am

To: "Critical E-Loop/Bl"

I agree Bud [Contributor A], and respectfully disagree with Cap on this matter.  Besides the integrity of our Constitution, it has been documented in many sources that torture/etc. (Enhanced Interrogation Techniques) tend to yield little value per any truth. Maybe I don't know something as to its true value, and am open to any persuasion otherwise. On classification of ‘enemy combatant’ the problem is when/why/where that other AMERICAN CITIZENS can also be declared such, breaching our Constitution and due process for a fair CIVILIAN trial.  DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!”

. . . to which I responded:

            Re: “an INCREDIBLY stupid thing to do.”  Pardon me, but I am not sure what the “stupid thing” is here . . . designation, EIT, what?  The rest of my statement explicitly established my support for the administration’s action in the Tsarnaev case.  So, I’m not sure to what he is reacting to here.  I would like to expand this topic, if everyone (anyone) is willing.

            Respectfully, I think both of you jumped to some erroneous conclusions.  Regardless, let us take that line for the purpose of furthering public debate.  When does criminal action become an enemy action?  As noted in my words, I have not seen sufficient evidence to cross the threshold, thus my support for the administration’s action.  For this debate, we must define that threshold, so what are your definitions?

            Now, let us assume the Tsarnaev brothers crossed that threshold.   It appears to me, either or both of you are excluding EIT from interrogation of battlefield combatants?  If so, then what are the limits?  Should every battlefield combatant receive Miranda and a lawyer?  Should interrogation be confined to criminal interrogation techniques?  My advocacy for EITs in battlefield interrogation is simply the tool kit for interrogators.  If combatants offer up their information without inducement, then there is no need for the tools.  I am not sure why everyone jumps to the conclusion that every tool must be used immediately and in every case?

 . . . follow-up from Contributor B:

“Let me weigh-in, [Contributor A] will later.  So I am assuming you support Obama's action of a civilian trial of the surviving Boston Bomber versus military tribunal vs. an ‘enemy combatant’?

“Is the Boston Bomber an American citizen?

“Second, why would we classify him an ‘enemy combatant’? Was he an enemy on a ‘battlefield’?  I understand that scope has changed in the enemy of battlefield can be those using asymmetric methods and any association, even loosely, to an ideology or religious extremism, using violence whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria or here. What I am suggesting is how vague or broad can/will the ‘terrorist’ thus ‘enemy combatant’ or ‘lawful detainees’ application be used in our future?

“What is your retort on the intel/information value of advanced interrogation techniques (is some of that torture?).

“I am going to push the envelope outside the specifics of your stated opinion in your Update to motivate discourse.

“May I add that I think our authorities and media have drifted from reality with their new threshold of what weapons or devices that qualify for a WMD.   While the Boston Bombing was dramatic, violent and killed three people and injured over 100 (with many who lost lower limbs), I am not sure it fits a WMD class. Traditionally, a WMD was NBC (nuke/bio/chem), not a crude homemade explosive.  What's next, a mass shooting using an automatic weapon is classified as a WMD with the perp getting his Bill of Rights stripped?  The reason I raise this issue is because we seem to be on that slippery slope with vague assumptions/classifications and media prosecution of perps.

“The Boston Bomber, do you/FBI have proof he was part of any organized ‘terrorist cell’ and at what point does a perp reach your threshold (or GOV's) for "enemy combatant?"

“One of the other problems I have with this event Cap, is how I perceive it as being used ("don't let any crisis go to waste") by both the GOV and alphabet news agencies to further the objectives/agenda of additional surveillance, data-mining (spying) and data-warehousing, the public's acceptance to minimally, many more surface cameras with new facial recognition applications, and also most likely eventual acquiescence to drone technology.

“The Boston Bombing was most tragic and sad to see human suffering. However, the news media once again has used this event as core focus to distract Americans from all the other news (except today when the top news that came out trumping Boston was the pro basketball player coming out saying he is gay, and both Obama and his wife called and Tweeted the gay ‘star’ applauding him as a ‘hero’ and that ‘Michelle has his back’).  The amount of obsession the psyops outlets (aka: our news) have spent on Boston is not proportionate to the true relevance to Americans based on that one event. If that event is in series to other planned events with real WMDs, then I can understand this 24/7 regurgitation of Boston's news.  Enough already! We've seen enough of the same video of the same bomb and same bloody imagery. Move above the surface and ask what is the objective?

“Our so-called news fails to cover the hundreds killed in Iraq each week, our plane crashes in Afghanistan, the TRUE state of our economy, or whistleblowers vs. GOV being targeted and silenced.  It does not serve the paradigm re-education to show that on our news.

“The ‘slippery slope’ Bud referred to, I think, is the loss of our Constitutional rights using the coin'd Global War on Terror (GWOT); and application of torture at the whim of our government against perps they try in the media versus civilian court.

“Increasingly we live in both dangerous and surreal times where any of us can be declared an enemy of the state, thus ‘enemy combatants’ and tortured or placed on the classified ‘kill list.’

“The Boston Bombing killed 3 people. What’s the next NEW NORM Cap if (God forbid) a real WMD with true NBC qualities strikes 1 or more American cities in 1 week?  We've already been handing over our freedoms for decades. I'd hate to be witness to not only such a horrible event but fear what will happen to the free thinkers and open dissenters during times of national suffering.  Conformity will be the only option ("you're either for us or against us!").   Call it the Enhanced Freedom Patriot Act (EFPA).

“Please excuse typos/spelling/grammatical errors. I wrote this lying down, after being awakened from sleep, with my smart phone and no spell checker and have not proofed it.  My mind is also still tired so I may have drifted from object/sequence/reason. Back to a hopeful REM dream state that Carl Jung would be happy for (and I will feel later on Tuesday like I actually slept).   Hopefully in my dream I don't see that CIA MKUltra guy from Conspiracy Theory telling me they are taking me to Room 101 (from Orwell's 1984).”

 . . . my follow-up response:

            Do I support the administration’s action in the Tsarnaev case?  Yes.  I have not seen sufficient evidence to warrant a different tack.  However, I must say, the local magistrate who invoked Miranda 48 hours after his arrested acted prematurely and adversely to the national security interests of the Grand Republic.

            Re: “Is the Boston Bomber an American citizen?”  To my knowledge, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, was not (rejected by INS), which may have been one of numerous reasons for his radicalization, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, was a naturalized U.S. citizen.

            Re: “why would we classify him an ‘enemy combatant’?”  Well, let me see; perhaps because they acted on behalf of an enemy of the State, i.e., Islamo-fascism.  Again, as noted above, I have seen insufficient evidence to warrant the classification but it can occur, as it did in the case of Herbert Haupt (who actually took no physical action against the U.S., only planned to do so).  Dzhokhar Tsarnaev acted, while Herbert Haupt had not yet acted; they were both U.S. citizens; Haupt was an enemy of the State; Tsarnaev is close to that threshold.

            Re: “Was he an enemy on a ‘battlefield’?”  In today’s War on Islamic Fascism, yes, he was on the battlefield.  The enemy has classified any civilian target they deem appropriate to be a target, therefore the battlefield is the world including cyber-space.

            Re: “What I am suggesting is how vague or broad can/will the "terrorist" thus "enemy combatant" or "lawful detainess" application be used in our future?”  When your professed motive is the destruction of the United States, then you are at war with this Grand Republic.  If you employ non-traditional, asymmetric, methods of war with the expressed intent of terrorizing the civilian population, then you are a terrorist.  Whether he was following orders from al-Qa’ida or self-actualized, their proclaimed purpose was the “defense of Islam” – pretty damn close to al-Qa’ida’s purpose.

            Re: “What is your retort on the intel/information value of advanced interrogation techniques (is some of that torture?).”  My retort?  The intel biz is far more sophisticated than most folks realize.  The CIA interrogators are accomplished, competent and successful.  I want them to have the largest tool kits available, to allow them to adapt to any particular situation.  The more we constrain them, the more we harm our national security.  Yes, I do believe there are limits upon EITs.  To me, it is permanent injury, e.g., extraction of fingernails is permanent injury; death is permanent injury.

            Re: “what weapons or devices that qualify for a WMD?”  Other contributors raised the same question in this week’s Update.  What is your definition?  Yes, traditionally, WMD has been defined as Nuclear/Biological/Chemical (NBC).  To me, WMD are intended to cause indiscriminate mass casualties, especially in a civilian population, e.g., Fat Man and Little Boy were clearly WMDs.  Ricin-laced letters are WMDs.  If a pressure cooker loaded with explosive material and shrapnel-enhancing items with a remote controlled detonator placed in a crowded civilian sporting event is not WMD, then what is?  Are only NBC devices WMD?  What would a rental truck loaded with several tons of ammonium nitrate, kerosene, and a timer detonator be classified?  A frag-grenade in a civilian crowd . . . perhaps.  An automatic weapon . . . debatable; it is aimed rather than indiscriminate.  So, where would you draw the line?

            Re: “do you/FBI have proof he was part of any organized "terrorist cell" and at what point does a perp reach your threshold (or GOV's) for "enemy combatant?"”  To my knowledge, no, they do not as yet have “proof” beyond a reasonable doubt; however, the publicly available information is dreadfully close to that threshold.

            I share your concern regarding the cause de jure.  The West fertilizer plant killed and injured more citizens than the Tsarnaev pressure cooker bombs, but so far, it appears to be a disastrous workplace accident.  If al-Qa’ida or the Aryan Brotherhood was found to be the instigator of the event, I think the Press focus would change quickly and definitively.  Nonetheless, your frustration with the inordinate Press coverage of the Boston bombing is warranted from my perspective.

            Re: “slippery slope.”  I have written my concern with that phenomenon.  We typically allow more latitude in wartime than we do in peacetime.  Regardless, there are thresholds of acceptable conduct.  The drone targeting list or warrantless electronic surveillance teeter on the line, which means we must be ever-more vigilant for abuse.

            Re: “Enhanced Freedom Patriot Act (EFPA).”  I don’t think so.  I also believe we are a long way from such infringement.

Another important contribution:

[Based on this article:

“Kentucky: Boy, 5, Kills Sister, 2”

by the Associated Press

New York Times

Published: May 1, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/us/kentucky-boy-5-kills-sister-2.html?_r=0]

“Does this still hold true to your theory that guns don't kill people, people kill people?  If this kid weren't given a gun that IS MADE FOR KIDS do you think this would have happened?

“We as a people have time and time again proven we are not smart enough to handle and own guns.  Unfortunately the 2nd Amendment is too erotic for many people and they can't grasp the idea of a world sans their Remington.

“Don't get me wrong, these parents should be executed as they're fully responsible but without the tool easily at hand there's no question in my mind this would have been avoided.

“So sad.”

My response:

Tyson,

            This is so clearly the negligence of parents, just as it would be allowing unsupervised children near a pool, or playing in the street, or any other risky activity.  Also, the very first axiom of firearm possession is clearing the chamber to ensure it is safe.  The parents did not realized a bullet was in the chamber – really!  Yes, this is a tragic event, and in my opinion, the parents should be prosecuted and sent to jail to contemplate their grievous error, not so much to punish them, but for a clear message to other parents.  Are you suggesting firearms should be restricted for every single citizen, because their negligent, complacent and foolish parents like the Sparks of Kentucky?

 . . . round two:

“Let's back up one step and I would like for you to answer the question ‘Do you think it's ok for a company to build guns specifically targeted for children's use’?”

  . . . my response to round two:

            Re: “Do you think it's ok for a company to build guns specifically targeted for children's use?”  Short answer: yes.  I also think it is irresponsible for any parent to give a 5-year-old child a firearm.  This is offensive to me, but that does not give us the right to decide for other parents.  When are we going to stand up and demand parental accountability?  The issue here is the parents, not the gun.

 . . . round three:

“If you think it's ok for a company to build these guns then we truly are on opposite sides of the fence.  In my opinion you're giving way too much credit to the human population.  What other evidence have you seen that says differently?  Why are Americans so hung up on the 2nd Amendment when many other developed countries feel and act differently?  Just like the war on drugs it's time to do something different because the current system IS NOT WORKING! 

“How can you argue with these facts?  Or am I missing something that justifies our antiquated laws?”

URL:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg 

 . . . my response to round three:

Tyson,

I do not know if you disagree.  Where we disconnect is the focus of the issue.   Who bought the rifle?  Who loaded the rifle?  Who left a loaded, unsafetied rifle standing in the corner of the room?  How many other families handle that exact same rifle in a proper, responsible manner?  When they say the rifle is designed for and marketed to children, I don't think anyone envisioned pre-school-ers; more likely teenagers.  Let us focus on the root cause, not the tools or symptoms.

Love,

Dad      :-)

Comment to the Blog:

“I support treating the Boston Marathon bomber as a criminal. Indeed, my opinion is that the United States would have benefitted far more from treating each and all of the ‘terrorist attacks’ as the criminal acts they are rather than raise all this hysteria about an indefinable ‘war on terror.’

“The disaster in West, Texas, is tragic enough in its own right and as a horrifying example of corporate negligence. I see no reason to aggravate the damage by claiming that this, too, is an “act of terrorism” unless and until someone presents very strong evidence.

“The ricin letters sent to the White House and to other government officials is appropriately being treated as a criminal law issue. This particular attack seems to have encountered some strange event, such that someone was arrested and then released after one week. I hope once the danger is clearly over someone will investigate the investigation. Such incidents merit handling by (competent) law enforcement agencies and criminal charges rather than a military/intelligence response. We can argue that essentially any criminal act causes terror in its commission. That is no reason to extend the ‘war on terror’ to cover every illegal act.

“The case of Herbert Haupt took place in wartime and so does not apply directly to the Boston Marathon attack.

“I see you still put energy into others’ driving habits. That will aggravate any stress-related illnesses you have and perhaps help bring on more of the same.

“The Congress found the political will to negate the part of the sequester that directly affected them, air traffic control. It’s a pity they cannot find the will to help the rest of us.”

My response to the Blog:

Calvin,

            Re: Boston bombing.  In this instance, as I have stated, I support the administration’s action.  However, if investigative processes establish a linkage to al-Qa’ida, any of its affiliates, or any other organization intent upon doing harm to this Grand Republic or any of our citizens, beyond a reasonable doubt, then they were enemy battlefield combatants and should be treated as such.

            Re: war on terror.  I agree.  It is indefinable.  The War on Islamic Fascism is readily definable.

            Re: West, Texas explosion.  Yes, I agree.  My only point is, again as I stated, I do not like coincidences.  I remain suspicious of that event in that week with those other events.  It may, in fact, be a tragic industrial accident.  It might also be malfeasance for one of a number of motives.  It could also be something far more serious.  I remain vigilant, attentive, and observant.

            Re: ricin letters.  The same as above. 

            Re: criminal versus enemy action.  The differentiation is simple.  Criminal = individual or group self-serving action.  Enemy = external or internal threat to the State.  A bank robbery is not a terrorist act.  Bombing the Murrah Building was.

            Re: wartime.  Well, I guess that says it all.  We have been at war at least since 9/11 and AUMF [PL 107-040, 115 Stat. 224].  Tsarnaev is not yet Haupt, but the evidence is edging closer.

            Re: “driving habits.”  I handle my stress quite well, thank you.  My only purpose is to affect just one person who does not know how to drive with respect for other citizens.

            Re: sequester.  Spot on, brother.  However, it is not about simply un-doing the consequences of the sequester spending reductions; it is all about reducing the hard, non-discretionary spending.  They have yet to face reality.  The air traffic controller kerfuffle was a gnat in a locust plague.  They will have to face reality someday.  They remain delusional today.

   “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

Cheers,

Cap

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)