Update no.1070

Update from the Sunland

No.1070

11.7.22 – 17.7.22

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

 

To all,

 

We finally have the first full-up images from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Adequate words escaped me! I can only say, WOW! The JWST was launched on Christmas Day last [1041] and took a month to complete the unfolding and deployment process into its operational configuration and to reach its final L2 orbital position a million miles from Earth [1046]. The government chose to announce the first full-up images at the White House on Monday, 11.July.2022. The URL for the first image is:

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap220713.html

At the center of the image is distant galaxy cluster SMACS0723-73, some 4.6 billion light-years away. More significantly, we see Einstein’s gravitational lensing of a galaxy behind the cluster that is about 9.5 billion years distant. The spiky stars in the image are located within our Milky Way home galaxy. Everything in the image originated from the Big Bang 13.5 billion years ago. But, as is my nature, I ask, what existed before the Big Bang?

For those who might like to learn more about the complexity, sophistication, and technology of the JWST, I highly recommend the PBS NOVA program “Ultimate Space Telescope” (S49 Ep10) broadcast on 13.July.2022. Awesome! Incredible, mind-boggling awesomeness! The miracle of the early images from the JWST is a sweet foretaste of what is to come from JWST discoveries.

 

The follow-up news items:

-- The seventh public hearing of the United States House of Representatives Select Committee to Investigate the January 6^th Attack on the United States Capitol [1020] {HSCJ6} occurred on Tuesday, 12.July.2022.

To keep time and events in perspective, the presidential election of 2020 was concluded on Tuesday, 3.November.2020. In accordance with the U.S. Constitution and common law, each of the states was required to certify the election results for their respective state by 8.December.2020. On 14.December.2020, also in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, the designated electors in each state convened in their respective state to record and certify their votes to the Electoral College. Also in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, a joint session of Congress met on 6.January.2021 to count and record the Electoral College votes. I am compelled to remind the casual reader that on 29.September.2020, during the campaign, before the election, [the person who shall no longer be named] commanded his contaminated army during a national broadcast presidential debate: “Proud Boys, stand back and standby.”

On 18.December.2020, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, retired lieutenant general Michael Flynn, and former overstock.com CEO Patrick [Michael] Byrne (that is an odd one) entered the White House for an unscheduled private meeting with [the person who shall no longer be named]. The group met for roughly 15 minutes before they were confronted by White House Counsel Pasquale Anthony ‘Pat’ Cipollone and Senior Advisor to the President of the United States Eric Herschmann. The profanity-laced, heated argument lasted six hours. [The person who shall no longer be named] sought to name Powell as Special Counsel for something (as yet unspecified). [Can anyone imagine what might have happened if Powell had been given control of the investigative apparatus of the USG?] Cipollone boiled the contentious meeting down to one question: where is the evidence? Even to this very moment nearly two years hence, the answer is there is no evidence. Accusations are NOT evidence. At 01:42 [R] EST, on 19.December.2020, shortly after the participants in the 18.December White House meeting left the premises, [the person who shall no longer be named] sent a tweet to his loyal minions.

Peter Navarro releases 36 page report alleging election fraud ‘more than sufficient’ to swing victory to Trumpwashex.am/3nwaBCe. A great report by Peter. Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6^th. Be there, will be wild!

1:42 AM December 19, .2020                    [991]

This tweet was the critical trigger for the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to take action on the 6^th of January. Again, just for the record, the Proud Boys is an American far-right, neo-fascist, white supremacist, and exclusively male organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States. The Oath Keepers is an American far-right anti-government militia whose members claim to be defending the Constitution of the United States [FYI: they are not, and their conduct was about as far from the Constitution as anyone can get.].

On 21.December.2020, a near dozen, loyal, sycophant, representatives were summoned to the White House by [the person who shall no longer be named] to discuss the actions intended to overthrow the results of the 2020 election. White House Counsel Cipollone sought to attend that meeting (uninvited), but he was turned away. From several other sources who reported on the White House visitor logs, the representatives who attend that 21.December meeting were:

-- Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama

-- Representative Brian Babin of Texas

-- Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona

-- Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida

-- Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas

-- Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona

-- Representative Andy Harris of Maryland

-- Representative Jody Hice of Georgia

-- Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio

-- Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania

-- Representative-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia

Six of the attendees identified in red above sought requested pardons from the out-going president. Gee, I wonder why? None of them received a pardon. We have seen most of those names before. I suspect we will see some of those names in court records eventually.

The HSCJ6 also heard testimony under oath from Jason Van Tatenhove, who served as national spokesman for the Oath Keepers and as a close aide to Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, and Stephen Ayers, who was one of the rioters inside the Capitol on the 6^th. Their testimony was direct and chilling.

Lastly (for now), ignorance of the Constitution or the law is not a viable defense in any court of law and will not absolve [the person who shall no longer be named] of his direct culpability in the insurrection. See Blackstone 4-2-27 or Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ The Common Law (47-8, Lecture II). Let justice be done!

-- A few continuing thoughts on the recent Dobbs ruling [1067, 1068] from the Supreme Court . . . 

I absolutely agree with the Court that abortion, as a medical procedure, is best regulated by the states as with all other medical procedures. Where I seriously and adamantly disagree with the majority is their relegation of a woman’s fundamental rights to the whims of the states. Women are American citizens with full and absolute rights of all citizens. Our constitutional rights are NOT divisible by the states, period, full stop! I believe the Roe Court [319] was very careful in respecting every woman’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice in their efforts to find balance between conflicting rights—a female citizen’s rights versus the rights of an as yet unborn fetus. The Roe Court defined that balance point as “quickening,” i.e., when the fetus can survive outside the womb (approximately 26 weeks gestation in 1973). Science has lowered that threshold to roughly 20-22 weeks. What the Dobbs Court declared is a woman’s rights be damned, each state gets to decide the dominance of a single cell zygote set aside a fetus. To make matters worse, Justice Thomas has clearly and unwaveringly declared that he has set his sights on other privacy rulings he disagrees with—contraceptive access, consensual sex, freedom of choice in marriage, et al. The other conservatives sitting on the current court bench are not so bold and have limited the Dobbs ruling to abortion only. The Dobbs Court was wrong, and unfortunately, correction is going to take a very long time. Such are the consequences of elections. The Dobbs Court virtually ignored the reality of the conflicting rights question before the Court because they simply could not take their concentrated focus away from their ideological objective. In the flying biz, we call that target fixation, which is an extraordinarily dangerous condition. Just as the conservatives are obsessed with shouting that abortion is not a constitutional right, and thus is not a matter for the federal government or the Supreme Court, they conveniently ignored the implicit (unspecified) rights of female citizens including a 10-year-old female rape victim. The Dobbs Court’s target fixation will be equally deadly as the aviation variant.

 

To use an apropos term favored by our British cousins, I was gobsmacked when the United States Secret Service (USSS) announced they had deleted internal text messages from the 5^th and 6^th of January 2021, after they had been requested to preserve all communications by the Department of Homeland Security. The USSS claims it was an inadvertent consequence of a planned device migration. This despicable (whatever we are going to call it) action reminds me of an almost identical outrage 

The USSS outrage reminds me of a similar event 50 years ago (20.June.1972). Nixon’s staunchly loyal private secretary Rose Mary Woods “accidentally” erased 18 minutes of President Nixon’s Oval Office secret tape recordings. The 18-minute gap just happened to be an Oval Office recorded conversation three days after the second Watergate break-in.

We know now, just like we knew then, that the erasures were not “accidental.” I cannot believe in today’s world that anyone on God’s little green earth would not back-up any device before it is changed for any reason. I am 74 years old and nearly functionally illiterate when it comes to electronic devices, and even I know that devices must be backed-up before they are repair, tinkered with, or replaced. I think the U.S. Secret Service fell victim to misaligned loyalty to the Siren’s Song; they have now become complicit in the insurrection. Far too many of us wonder why so many do not trust the government. This is just one tiny glimpse at the destruction [the person who shall no longer be named] has done to our precious country. 

 

On Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed two important related bills and sent them to the Senate. H.R.8296 - Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022 [House: 219-210-0-2(4)] ensures female citizens have access to the medical treatment services they need regardless of where they live in the United States. H.R.8297 - Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022 [House: 223-205-0-3(4)] protects the freedom of movement of female citizens for whatever reason(s) they choose. Neither bill is likely to pass the Senate, but they are worthy attempts to protect the individual rights of female citizens. There is always hope Congress will restore the rights of female citizens in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling [1068].

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1069:

Comment to the Blog:

“The mental health issue is a red herring as far as mass shooters. Most mass shooters are not diagnosed with a mental illness before or after the event. And given the nature of families, prior detection in young men would be its own nightmare. On top of that, mass shooters don’t kill the most people overall.

“A National Institutes of Health study (National Library of Medicine, 2012, last sentence of the abstract (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267868/) shows that “Compared with the U.S., Switzerland and Israel have lower gun ownership and stricter gun laws, and their policies discourage personal gun ownership.” The study discusses the details of that, including military service weapons.”

My response:

“Red herring” . . . really? I urge you to re-examine the chart provided in the New York Times article posted in Update no.1067. The conclusion of 110 of 433 events studied and represented is suicide—25%. Although we have no way to differentiate the data provided in the article, I dare say some portion of the 131 “the police” may well have been “suicide by cop” realized or not. I will continue to argue that all 433 events have mental health causal factors. I acknowledge that understanding the motivation of a killer for crossing the line of civilized society is not an attractive endeavor, but it is essential to a workable solution to the problem. In order to fix any problem or issue, we must understand the root causes. I also recognize that it is popular to focus on the tools; they are tangible, physical, and identifiable. Understanding what is in a killer’s mind is not. Some are diagnosed before, e.g., Adam Lanza. Many, if not all, would have been diagnosed if they had had access to mental health services, e.g. Robert ‘Bobby’ Crimo III. Millions of American citizens own and use at least one semi-automatic rifle (that looks like an assault rifle) and do not cross the line, do not harm another soul. I must reject the notion that mental health is not a causal factor for firearm violence.

All I know is, I have been to both countries. I have seen and learned what I know. My point was, the weapons are available, but they do not experience mass shootings or other mental breakdowns. Why is that? The answer may not be obvious, but the answer exists.

 . . . Round two:

“Okay, I guess we have to talk about mental illness. First of all, define ‘mental illness’ and specify which ones afflict mass shooters. Then explain what would motivate people with those specific mental illnesses to seek help, which is already widely available. (Our local treatment system will provide immediate help to anyone who says they’re suicidal or homicidal.) Also, since most are young, what would move their families to do something other than ‘protect’ them from the stigma of treatment? I agree that mental health is a factor in suicide, but owning firearms provides a far easier and more reliable method of suicide than ‘by cop.’ Remember that suicide is basically impulsive.

“Your quibble about semi-automatic versus automatic weapons is petty. Either weapon is primarily designed for mass carnage.

“It’s not only easier to focus on the tools shooters use, but it’s also more effective. See the rest of the world for examples. I suspect you need to update your information on Switzerland and Israel. (See the linked paper from my first comment.) They have weapons but they also have far more restrictions on those weapons. One result of that is that suicide has declined sharply among Israeli soldiers.”

 . . . my response to round two:

To me, mental illness is any disease, or hereditary or induced state that affects a person’s sense of happiness and fulfillment. Further, a subset of that afflictive state is those elements that instigate a person to harm anything, anyone else, or himself. The vast majority of people may not like other people for any one or combination of the social factors, but they are not stimulated to harm others. The facet in this context is harm to others, and I chose to represent it as a subset of mental illness. There are many elements of mental illness that adversely affect the ability of a person to enjoy life, but they are not driven to harm others.

As with most such questions, the critical threshold is the ability of an individual to recognize that a problem exists and seek help. The flip side of that condition is those around a trouble individual caring enough to offer help. An afflicted person may reject all efforts to help intervene. At some point, regardless of the individual’s state, public safety becomes the dominant factor. Stigma is a real obstacle and problem.

Where we apparently diverge is the bane of all prohibitions; we punish the whole because we refuse or are incapable of dealing with the troubled among us.

Suicide is a more delicate aspect for me since I am an advocate for death with dignity. What seems to be the demarcation in this context is harm to others. Why would someone seek to harm others? . . . to take others with him? That motivation seems to be the epitome of mental illness.

No, my apologies; I did not communicate properly. Semi-automatic and automatic firearms all have the potential to kill. I was attempting to be precise in that there is a demonstrable difference in the volume of fire and thus the potential damage.

My oh my, your last paragraph is a bit steep, and from my perspective, misapplied. A person’s decision to harm others does not care about the law, controls, regulations, or even the availability of firearms. My point was, firearms are available in those countries whether for personal or militia reasons; they are still available. If they wanted to harm others, there is nothing to stop them. Like the vast majority of American citizens, Swiss and Israeli citizens do not cross that threshold of harming others.

 . . . Round three:

“To have a legitimate debate, we need common definitions. Your definition of mental illness is too broad to use. Also, it doesn’t take into account cultural and family standards and histories. And what of the military, where harm is society’s goal? If you’re going to use ‘mental illness’ in a cause-and-effect relationship to mass shootings, please clarify.

“Even with duly defined and specific mental illnesses, many don’t seek help short of severe consequences. As far as families, I recommend studying the subject of family dynamics.

“Making an absolute of ‘all prohibitions’ being wrong is extreme. The government prohibits owning land mines or meth labs. The question is where to draw the line.

“The bulk of suicides don’t involve death with dignity. Certainly not ‘suicides by cop.’ I benefit from studying some uncomfortable subjects.

“Learn the actual situations in other nations. Firearms being physically in an environment doesn’t mean they’re not restricted in meaningful ways. For example, strict accountability may be in place or ammunition may be limited. The U.S. still has the highest rate of personal gun ownership of developed nations and the least regulation.”

 . . . my response to round three:

OK, let us step back to your point. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) website [https://psychiatry.org/patients-families/what-is-mental-illness] defines mental illness as: “health conditions involving changes in emotion, thinking or behavior (or a combination of these). Mental illnesses are associated with distress and/or problems functioning in social, work or family activities.” That definition seems reasonable and workable to me in our context. The APA definition is not dependent upon source—only consequence; I think that is most appropriate. Whether the source of mental illness is combat-induced PTSD or a genetic schizophrenic episode, the societal consequence is the same. The key to us, in this context, is what causes or stimulates an individual to harm others? I continue to return to the observation that the vast majority of us may disagree, seriously disagree, and even dislike others based on any one or combination of the social factors, but we are not driven to violence against others. In so many of these tragic events, the victims are totally innocent, independent from, and devoid of any threat to the perpetrator. What instigates an individual to be so violent?

Yes. Agreed! So many of these “mental illnesses” that lead to violence against innocent people are born in the family dynamics of the perpetrator, e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer, or John Wayne Gacy. I have long contended that many of society’s ills, e.g., racism, sexism, social phobias, et cetera, are born and nurtured in childhood under the pressure of those family dynamics. Children are essentially born as a blank slate. They are taught hatred and disrespect for others. I shall dare say the mental illness of the majority of these mass killer shooters has a genesis in their childhood families.

On prohibitions, you are absolutely correct. No debate. The point in my statement and contention is prohibition is the “go to” tool for the imposition on every citizen’s freedom of choice and fundamental right to privacy. To me, the starting point demarcation for the imposition of prohibitions or other moral projection laws is the public-private domain threshold. Land mines are indiscriminate and injurious in the public domain. Meth labs are a slightly different issue, but their societal threat is unregulated consumables that are ultimately injurious in the public domain. For society to intrude upon a woman’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice based on an unrealistic hypothesis is a bridge too far. Liberty is not divisible by state’s rights.

I did not think it necessary to explicitly state the facts, but apparently it is required. “Death with dignity” is a very small subset of the overall suicide issue. To me, end of life “death with dignity” is not suicide; rather it is death with dignity. So, let us exclude death with dignity from the suicide mental illness discussion; those who seek death with dignity are NOT mentally ill; they are invariably rational, careful, and respectful of others. Further, I do believe the majority of suicides are very much individual private phenomena and an appropriate mental illness treatment matter. Most suicides do not harm another living soul (excluding the mental / emotional trauma to loved ones). In our current debate, we are dealing with an even smaller subset of suicides where a disturbed individual is instigated to harm others in his suicide. It is that subset that attracts my attention and thought.

I am not sure what the point was in your comment about “suicide by cop”? “Suicide by cop” has absolutely nothing to do with “death with dignity.”

Yes, these are uncomfortable discussions because we are discussing the death of a human being by other than natural causes. Yet, the most salient aspect of that discussion is what motivates a suicidal individual to take other innocent people with him, especially children who have not hurt or threatened anyone.

Pardon me, but I do believe you are missing the point. Regulation, accountability, control, availability, whatnot, are not involved in an individual’s decision to inflict violence on other people. A person who has crossed that threshold could not care less about laws and controls. That said, again, I am in favor of intelligent, rational regulation of firearm ownership and use. What I am adamantly against is prohibitions or loosely defined regulations. Like so many societal matters, we must also carefully regulate governmental authority and actions to preclude zealous prosecutors from imposing their will on society in addition to regulating the conduct of private citizens. I am seeking balance, not prohibition.

 . . . Round four:

Life calls, so I'll only answer one sentence of this one. " Regulation, accountability, control, availability, whatnot, are not involved in an individual’s decision to inflict violence on other people" is untrue. [emphasis by originator] Available weapons change the entire situation.

 . . . my response to round four:

Like John Lennon so beautifully sang,  “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.” I trust everything is well.

OK, I’ll bite. What is untrue about my sentence?

I stand by my contention that prohibition is rarely a viable option in a free society. I repeatedly return to Benjamin Franklin’s words of wisdom. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Prohibition is not the correct path.

 . . . Round five:

“Regulation, accountability, and control affect the individual's ability to do violence to others or themselves; therefore, they affect the decision to do so. Whether impulsive or planned, attacking a group of people with a knife is both more physically difficult and riskier than using a rifle designed for that job.”

 . . . my response to round six:

I would agree in the application with individuals who are at least marginally stable; they have just enough awareness to be affected by regulation. To those who are stable, regulation is unnecessary since their moral values gave them respect for others; so, we could argue that regulation works with them as well. However, to unstable individuals, I cannot agree. Troubled souls could not care less about regulations, if they are even aware of regulation. In that group, I think the old adage “where there’s a will” applies.

I remain resolutely against prohibition, whether for alcohol, sex, psychotropic substances, firearms, et al. Prohibitions will not work in a free society. Liberty is far too precious.

 . . . Round seven:

“It's not whether people are interested in regulation; it's whether they have the tools available to carry out the project.”

 . . . my response to round seven:

I thought I clearly stated that availability is not a dependent factor. I have nothing more to offer. Prohibition is NOT the answer.

 

Another contribution:

“What an articulate contribution from your correspondent!

“I noted with great interest, after savoring the impressive language, the claim of being a Libertarian (although your response mentioning the Green Party either misunderstood or conveys some identity I don't know about). I have read the Libertarian Party platform carefully and agree with it in principle, although I might have worded some passages differently. After attending the Mississippi January state convention and making a sizable contribution following fine discussions by the chairwoman and members and hearing the inspiring keynote speaker, I set about trying to distribute some of the excellent literature provided, put up my yard sign, etc. Quickly I confirmed my belief that most of my contacts actually do support the platform features but have succumbed to the mantra of the corrupt major parties which encourage the popular un-American notion that if you vote your conviction (for an "independent" ) you throw away your vote (as I was accused of doing when I supported Ross Perot as I slowly lost faith in the GOP). Hurray for your correspondent! I hope she or he sounds off often.”

My reply:

I can find elements with which I have affinity in the platforms of all political parties including the fBICP and even the Communist Party USA. Yet, it is the whole that matters for governance. In political discussions such as this, the one question I continually return to is, how will they govern? We see the two major parties struggle every two years to achieve a majority to get things done. Even then, in today’s world of ideological intransigence, it takes a majority in both chambers of Congress along with the White House to make any progress. If we had a major third party with a significant number of seats in either or both chambers, working coalitions would be possible. At the end of the day, it still comes back to, how will they govern?

Intransigence and status quo are not stable states.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)