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                  :-)