Life As A Surfing Metaphor

 I listen to Andy Stumpf's Cleared Hot podcast, and he most recently had former NFL kicker Steve Weatherford (episode #158) as a guest. A couple things from their conversation struck me as potentially important to living life, possibly ever, but certainly here in the early decades of the 21st century.

First Steve Weatherford's contribution to my continued growth; Roman's 5: 3 - 5:

Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.

Whatever the source of your (or my own) faith, possibly the most important result of that is your individual sense of hope, regardless of external circumstances. Keeping yourself open to inspiration and insight, regardless of source, is an important aspect of developing one's humanity, I think. Taking what we learn and adapting that to our individual circumstances might be the most important lesson we each learn about ourselves. We should make a better effort to learn that (and pass it along) in a more organized fashion.

In the same podcast, Andy Stumpf equated life to a series of wavetops and troughs. Not to equivocate with a man with the accomplishments he has managed to live through accumulating, but I think his view is a bit limited (or more likely his opportunity to discuss it in the context of a podcast is the constraining factor). Whatever the case, I think that a better rendition of this life view is that life is a series of wave-building individual and group efforts that, when successful, result in a wavetop we can all surf down into the next trough. Which is where we start the cycle all over again; build the wave to be able to surf down into the next trough.

I understand why my fellow vets contemplate, and all too often choose, suicide; we spend a lot of time wandering around in life's troughs trying to find the next wave to build after the military spent "x" years trying to drown us in wave after wave to surf down the face of. I do that contemplative thing a lot, personally (one of the "benefits" of retirement). The main reason I listen to Andy Stumpf's podcast is because he so often talks about learning how to build your own life wave (I'm waxing on metaphorical; work with me here!). I was never a Navy SEAL; if not for the Coca Cola bottling company I never could have qualified to just be in the same (if earlier version) Navy as him. That said, all of us can find life lessons from our fellow humans if we're willing to see them and find the connection to ourselves.

Thus endeth today's sermon.

Help us, Obi-Won Elon

The Brooking Institute just published an economic analysis of the latest US Presidential election with some interesting findings. Most prominent of these is the division of aggregate wealth (GDP) apportioned over America's 3,142 counties (or county equivalents). Roughly 600-odd counties account for production of 70% of the country's total GDP, with the overwhelming majority of those counties containing the majority of US citizenry and urban development as well. The authors of the article focus on political/electoral analysis, but my interest is on the potential for market growth illustrated by the remaining 30% of current US GDP generated by the other 2,400 or so counties.

As Elon Musk's Starlink project continues through its development beta phase, the financial growth potential in the 2,400 counties identified by the Brookings Institute article linked above strikes me as being most easily realized by a communications network effectively identical to that which Mr. Musk is in the process of building out as you read these words.

As ever, the devil (and the trick) is in the details of how one goes about doing the deed.

As we approach the final decline of the Old Republic (or alternatively, the growth into the New People's Republic of the United States of America), there remains the presence of Opportunity (a basic strategic premise being that all confrontations inherently present opportunity to those who position themselves to take advantage of same). Opportunity to connect, train, support, and develop a network of individuals creating financial gain for themselves and those new or existing businesses they work with in markets that literally do not exist as of yet being my specific point of interest today.

One market few seem to consider is that of financial support, a credit union (I suggest calling it The Spacers Guild Credit Union) that serves anyone working directly or indirectly in support of off-planet enterprises (and thus all potential members of The Spacers Guild), providing traditional banking services as well as legal representation and continuing education (delivery and certification) for its members (and their families) would be both the most prominent and most basic of these, I think. Such a business, being intended to serve an off-Earth clientele from inception, would seem a natural enough fit to service any Luna, Mars, or Asteroid Belt based market should such develop in future.

In the interim, and given that these underfinanced counties are scattered over all 50 states (and one assumes all 5 US Territories as well), they begin with easy access to the already developed regional networks already centered around existing urban markets to draw upon for potential labor and other networked resources. The lower costs of residing and doing business in rural regions (relative to heavily developed urban environments) are probably not as pronounced as is commonly assumed, but nevertheless are a reality to some degree; it is the previous-to-now lack of connectivity that has been the stopper. Which segues neatly into the next opportunity I spy.

One of Elon Musk's other companies, Tesla, has been straining under the great expense required to achieve the final few percentage points of engineering necessary to achieve device autonomy. I suggest a better financial expenditure (and potential societal, or even civilizational rescue) can be achieved by creating the trained people to operate a semi-autonomous technology, linked together through the Starlink network. These people create businesses analogous to over-the-road drivers, who are organized, trained, and certified through the Spacers Guild. The provision of legal counsel, analogous to that provided to firearms owners by the US Law Shield  legal group, would be one of the benefits available to the membership of the Spacers Guild Credit Union (which, like any other credit union in the US, is a member-owned business, so not a bank).

The jobs Starlink trains these Americans (and, fairly quickly I predict, citizens of other countries too) to perform are as mundane and necessary as the truck drivers I associated them with earlier. One purely space oriented job is that of "orbital garbage collector". When you take into account the huge expense invested in putting all of that now-scrap metal (and other substances and materials) that currently create a hazard to navigation and structural integrity to orbital platforms and satellites, just pushing them into atmospheric burn-up doesn't make sense. Instead, contracting with a (presumably large-ish) number of individuals to capture each object (some of which will require many different operators to coordinate their thrust efforts) and drive it into stable orbit at the L-4 point for eventual re-use seems a much more financially useful alternative (side note: the L-4 La Grange Point is also the logical place to build the infrastructure necessary to converting asteroids into products). Supervising the semi-autonomous fleet of logistical transport and delivery vehicles on the Earth's land and liquid surface would be an even more numerous job opportunity.

Enabling the transition of the digital content creators present day efforts into what I have seen described as a Blog 2.0 structure - that is, a more text-driven melding of the heavily visual presentation technology we currently associate with YouTube and the like - that bypasses the gatekeeping efforts of existing technology providers will be a civilizationally transformative outcome all in itself.

There is apparently a vast pool of money just floating in the air over more than 2,400 largely rural counties in the US today (and no one has any idea how great the potential is elsewhere on the planet). Bringing that down to Earth, and expanding it to the edges of our Solar System, is a challenge we humans simply must succeed at ... or quite literally die not trying.

A Molehill To Die On

The Trump Administration, and to an extent the GOP more generally, argue that there has been fraud committed in the 2020 election for the US presidency. I have heard/read it argued that since there appears to be an insufficiency of fraud to alter the projected outcome the media has announced, we shouldn't make any effort to discover the extent of the fraud or punish the perpetrators. 

The question seems to be that there hasn't been enough cheating to merit any corrective action being taken. Let me offer this analogy; the Democratic party seems to be arguing that the amount of rape that occurred in Nanking isn't enough to justify any effort at punishing the occupying Japanese troops in 1937.

In the several states in which criminal influence on the 2020 election can be proven to ordinary US criminal standards, the ballots that cannot be proven to have been counted honestly must be dis-allowed. The individuals that can be proven to have made that occur should be prosecuted for that crime(s). If that action changes the electoral outcome (one way or another), then that is the result of the 2020 election. The states appoint the electors the legal vote count establishes. The Electoral College informs the Congress, which then certifies the election, just as the Constitution requires.

The amount of criminality prosecuted makes no difference as far as the legitimacy of the election (or the identity of the candidate subsequently sworn into office) is concerned, so long as the Constitutional requirements are satisfied. It should be the minimum standard expected by any citizen that legal, transparently honest elections be the only acceptable mechanism allowed to determine US elections.

Like rape, a little bit of fraud is unacceptable, and anyone arguing otherwise must be considered to be pursuing an equally unacceptable outcome.

2020 isn't done with us yet, it seems

Investment Watch Blog is not one that I'm personally familiar with. That notwithstanding, the reporting here seems worth further attention.

In 2017, the DHS assumed authority over US election infrastructure. Machine Identification Code micro dot technology is well-established, making identification of the particular machine that printed out a document not exactly trivial but certainly a straightforward process. The concept and technology involved with including a not-visible-to-the-unaided-eye watermark isn't a particularly novel or difficult security feature either. After a not-that-comprehensive or thoroughgoing look at DHS and election security related .gov websites, I can say that there seems to be remarkably little public discussion about including such technology into the printing of mail-in ballots. Make of that what you will.

I do wonder if Pres. Trump's seemingly unshakable confidence in the 2020 election outcome isn't due, at least in part, to his knowledge of the ballot integrity security technology in place for this election cycle. If in fact all official (that would be legal) US General Election mail-in ballots do have a MIC micro dot unique to each machine producing that ballot, and there is a watermark visible only under a particular wave length of light unique to each voting jurisdiction on every mail-in ballot, then I can only assume there exists sufficient physical evidence of election jiggery-pokery necessary to seeing somebody (and possibly a great many somebodies) into jail ... and Donald Trump continued residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for another 4 years.

Assuming that there is physical evidence that some number of ballots now being counted towards the election outcome are provably fraudulent documents, I shouldn't think the USSC will have too much difficulty ruling that any ballot not provably legally printed and postmarked prior to the close of elections on Nov 3rd be discarded as ineligible. In those instances where ballot counters have ignored the law(s) regarding separating late-arriving ballots from those posted prior to Nov 3rd, it also doesn't seem too much of a stretch for the court to rule all mail-in ballots not posted prior to Nov 3rd as tainted and unlawful.

I personally doubt anyone in DC feels any sense of urgency to cross this particular political rubicon, so I don't expect any attempt at such a ruling very much prior to a week or so before the constitutionally mandated Dec 8 deadline for states to certify elections.

I don't think it that unsupportable to conclude that Donald J Trump very much has this election in the bag already.

Chin up Kevin Baker; it may (or may not) be a simulation, but it's certainly entertaining!

Twitter Tag With Tam

In another iteration of the famous Away Game comes the following:

Tamara K @tamslick: Words I never thought I’d say: “There might actually be too much #bacon on this sandwich.” The #bltsandwich at @halfliter_bbq isn’t kidding around. #lunch #southbroadripple #halfliterbbq #yum #blt #sammich https://instagram.com/p/CHLtqxipy1U/?igshid=1hvxixxvexi6b

Me in response: If you can still take a bite, it's not too much.

Also, for those of us going for the Tom Sellick Magnum PI look, keeping the mayo out of the mustache is a secondary boundary effect.

Point of Order, Ms X

In an overall quite unobjectionable post at The Adventures of Roberta X, I do feel it necessary to point out her oversimplification of the concept of "press".

Specifically, this:

When I wrote about law enforcement apparently targeting journalists, in reports a Federal judge found so credible he grated a temporary restraining order, I received a few comments.  They were...heated.  Vitriolic.  The people who wrote them are free to hold such ideas, of course.  I'm not obliged to post them on my blog, but I will quote from them in order to address the significant concerns they raise.

Followed later in the post by this:

 As for "lefty so-called journalists," there's nothing in the Bill of Rights that limits press freedom to one political leaning or another: John Stossel, Glenn Greenwald, Sean Hannity, Rachael Maddow and some nitwit with a blog are all protected from government interference, even when they're offering up nothing but opinion. " It is generally understood that the government is expected to not shoot them, especially when they have taken pains to make themselves identifiable as "press.

My thanks to Roberta X for including me in her list of protected examples.  :)

All of which to frame my question; what is the practical distinction between "press" and "activist", and does the one necessarily preclude being the other? If so, by what degree, and by what discernible measure available to the average onlooker?

As justification for my questions, I submit the documented actions of Canadian journalist/activist Lauren Southern. A paid (and therefore professional) journalist for online media companies, Southern nonetheless actively participated in the activities she was reporting on as a clearly identified member of the "press", an activity she continued to various degree in her subsequent professional iteration as a documentarian.

As Ms. Southern's past actions make clear, there is a very real distinction that needs to be made between those who "report" from within the ranks of those committing a "political action", and those who clearly, physically delineate the separation between themselves and those they are reporting on, regardless of whether, or by what means, they mark themselves and/or their apparel.

Unless and to the degree the effort is undertaken to make that distinction between press (those observing and commentating on others visible, or at least demonstrably known to them, but of which they are discernibly not a part) and activists (those who participate in the activities which they may or may not be also reporting on - regardless of any 1st Amendment-begging disguise they may affect while doing so), there can never be any practical means for police (who are by design the action arm(s) of government's enforcement efforts) to make any reliable distinction between them. Are we as a society to accept that any random seditionist or scofflaw is to be permitted carte blanche because of a questionable mastery of a Sharpie pen? Taking the opposite tack, where in the 1st Amendment is delineated the means and mechanisms by which "press" must be identified to qualify for the stipulated freedoms therein?

As should be clear by now, the concept of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" are not at all simple in their instantiation, nor are they amenable to simplistic applications of theory or principle by any of the involved parties. Those who choose to take active part in reporting on events of the day, especially those who do so in the moment, necessarily must also assume an elevated degree of personal responsibility for what befalls them as a result of their immediate presence to events. Similarly, we citizens should make a regular practice of joggling the elbows of our state and national legislators to craft legislation that assists government (and citizens more generally) making spontaneous distinction between bystander observers, and those involved more directly, a greater degree of likelihood.

It truly is essential that a self-governing people have ready access to knowledge of events effecting the function of their society. Reliably being able to discern who said what to whom, and within which topic or activity that all took place, really has to be the minimum necessary knowledge base that any society needs to develop the means for its citizens to obtain in a clearly discernibly biased fashion. Unless and until we do that, we are going to continue to suffer examples of police applying the tactic(s) of the day (more commonly night) to all and sundry they come in contact with "in the heat of the moment", and the content of the news of the day to be opaque and misleading at best. I think we can all agree that the status quo is far less than desirable, but the currently available alternatives seem at best less than satisfactory either.

Oklahoma, the Sooner AND Later state.

Granted that nobody really knows what the Supreme Court ruling issued today regarding tribal reservation land within the Oklahoma state boundaries, at this point in time (hours after the SC ruling was published) the only change in the legal status quo appears to involve tribal members being charged and prosecuted for state law violations committed within tribal reservation territory as established when Oklahoma was made a US state. As with all tribal reservations recognized by the US government, federal law enforcement has the primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting crimes committed by tribal members on tribal reservation lands.

Of course, the interwebs are going  ... what's the clinical term? Batshit Crazy, that's it!

This is certainly going to make the rest of 2020 much more interesting, but I don't think anything substantive will happen in the next several months. What needs to happen is that the Secretary of the Interior needs to immediately establish a commission to address the consequences of this latest SC ruling between the involved parties (the US .gov, Oklahoma state .gov, the various tribal interests involved, at the least - and hopefully most) to determine what they regard as an equitable resolution available under existing legal agreements. Only if that fails of an acceptable resolution should Congress be invited to finally complete Oklahoma's acceptance to statehood by declaring the resolution to the tribal reservation question that Congress failed to resolve at the time.

Building Our Soup Bowl*

Recently, Elon Musk announced that SpaceX will begin building "floating superheavy-class spaceports" for its launch and recovery of spacecraft; IOW VTOL aircraft carriers. One presumes these vessels will include repair and re-condition capabilities for Falcon and Starship vehicles as an initial minimum standard, with all that that includes engineering-wise.

It probably shouldn't go without saying that the usual run of blue-water vessel crewing requirements will also be necessary; Captain, bridge watchstanders, communications and radar operators and maintenance workers, both ship and flight deck engineering and maintenance personnel, culinary and other human support crew ... it's a long list of ship handling and maintenance specialties whose tasks have to be provided for both in personnel and in logistic support, along with all of the financial commitments doing that entails. I presume Mr. Musk will operate these ships under Texas registration and regulations; if so he might want to strongly consider creating a Texas-based security company which employs Level III licensed guards trained to function in a nautical environment (trained EMT's/Paramedics and maybe rescue swimmers combines several potential requirements), particularly in light of the threat potential such a complex investment seems almost certain to attract. (See: Update below)

There is plenty of existing commercial experience to draw upon to develop a shore support effort (all those oil well platforms in the Gulf and elsewhere); and let's face it, aircraft carriers have been in existence for a century now, as has replenishing them logistically underway - hardly cutting edge science there. A lot of additional features to develop of course; making sure your boat doesn't catch fire and explode every landing and launch understandably being high on that list. Mr. Musk and his team will be fully occupied for some years getting all of this underweigh.

A technology I think Mr. Musk should look into is Life Proof Boats (I don't have any connection to the company, I'm just impressed with what I've seen so far) . They don't heavily advertise them, but they do offer a 48' version that at first look seems a useful platform to economically provide logistic support to a vessel operating within a few hundred miles of harbor, as well as fire fighting support and crew escape (one of these could easily tow one or two standard 20 person life rafts) while the carrier is on station. Hanging some Oxe Diesel Outboard Engines off the stern would permit an economy of performance hard to beat, I think (no connection to this company either, but one fuel for all vessels just seems a better option to me). Additionally, I can't help believing that Star Link provides a platform by which much of the work involved with one or a fleet of space launch and recovery ships can be equally well performed remotely by operators on shore.

Additionally, I find myself attracted to the idea that, much like commercial yachts hiring their Captain and Chief Engineer to be involved in the vessel build process, potentially being able to watch the development of the procedures and technologies used to achieve the SpaceX fleet logistics requirements during their development strongly attracts me. In part because I served on a USN carrier back at the tail end of the Vietnam war, in part because I like the challenge of small boat handling (on and off the boat), and in part because I worked 15+ years in some aspect of logistics that didn't involve a desk.

We'll see ... and that's the best part of all.  :)

*Jerry Pournelle famously coined the phrase, "It's raining soup in space, we just need to build a bowl and go get some."

Update 6/21/2020: A security force - importantly, one that works for you - that is trained in repelling, investigating, and documenting (to appropriate legal standard) criminal acts both on and off the high seas isn't a needless cost; see: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/world/americas/gulf-mexico-pirates-ships.html

He said, He said.

Kim du Toit posts an argument on the practical necessity to occasionally modify the rights Americans are recognized to possess by our national Constitution, which I have linked to below. It's a well-written argument, as is his usual fashion, which I urge you to read in full, as otherwise what follows won't make a lot of sense. Below is my comment to Kim's post in full (and you probably ought to go read his post first):

File this comment under: Bone; picking thereof.

Your post is quite well argued, Kim, as is your usual. However, in this case, I think you overlook a necessary distinction.

Numerous US courts have ruled that rights cannot be restricted or denied, even temporarily, so your basic premise is flawed as both a practical matter and as a point of law. It is further well established that the mutual exercise of immutable rights can, and routinely are, subject to lawful constraint, so as to provide the maximum opportunity for all citizens to exercise their rights without violating other’s exercise of their rights.

The distinction between possessing rights and exercising rights is not just a pedantic one, I submit, as your post makes clear.

There already is a substantial body of law regulating the exercise of rights by US citizens and residents. Whether, how, and to what extent those laws should be modified (or removed) ought to be a routinely ongoing topic of discussion at all levels of social and political discourse in our country (and any reader of this blog knows that to be the actual case). Framing discussion about emergent or transitory circumstances threatening human existence (or even only general welfare) in terms of specifically limited exercise of rights, which would necessarily include return to the status quo, avoids the question of infringement upon, or denial of, rights entirely.

How you frame an argument is often more than half the battle of winning it, and I suggest you’ve framed this particular argument poorly. Preempt the concept of denying rights by confining the discussion to ways and means of temporarily adapting existing regulations on the mutual exercise of rights between citizens.

http://www.kimdutoit.com/2020/06/11/rocks-and-hard-places/

2nd Amendment anyone?

Famously, the M-16 battle rifle is a development of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. The fully automatic/semi-automatic difference seems to be the dividing distinction between military rifle and civilian rifle. At the link below a fully automatic turret-style heavy machine gun system is (deliberately) generically described, along with a brief history of its development.

Question: since Gatling type guns are covered by the 2nd amendment as not requiring a special license for a citizen to own, how soon can we expect a privately developed civilian version of the weapon system described in the linked article? Bonus question: what relevance does such a development have regarding civil unrest, or even military invasion, here in the US?

https://strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20200607.aspx

Given: There WILL be cops ...

... and by cops, I mean organized efforts to impose legal restraint upon everybody.

The inescapable failure inherent to this whole "defund the cops" idea is that it completely reverses the problem. Cops enforce the laws of the legal jurisdiction that employs them. If you want cops to enforce laws differently, change the laws cops are required to enforce. Change the training cops receive so as to change the ways and means they are trained to use to enforce the laws. Change the courts so as to remove the unlawful separation of responsibility from actions taken ("qualified immunity" has no basis in written law, but is instead the intended result of the US Supreme Court ruling in  Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)  ,and is generally defined as follows:

"Specifically, qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether or not a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case.

Qualified immunity is not immunity from having to pay money damages, but rather immunity from having to go through the costs of a trial at all. Accordingly, courts must resolve qualified immunity issues as early in a case as possible, preferably before discovery.

Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials’ actions. Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials. While judges, prosecutors, legislators, and some other government officials do not receive qualified immunity, most are protected by other immunity doctrines."  See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity

 IANAL but "qualified immunity" seems to be an obvious extension of "judicial immunity" by the Supreme Court which itself is a matter of written law (see: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983).

Is this a desirable condition of American jurisprudence? Call or write your state's Attorney General's office, call or write your state's Governor's office, call or write your Member of Congress and your state's Senator's offices, register your opinion and legislative desires with them. Make your voice heard, agitate with those who have the ability to make the needed change(s). But do so from an inescapable minimum condition of existence; there will be cops, because we need cops - preferably one's determinedly working from a clearly delineated position of neutrality between the generally conflicting interests of members of US society.

The assertion that "the law is what it is" is probably made only slightly less frequently than is "the law is an ass", but equally inescapably, the law is ... and in some form or another will continue to be. That being so, it is desirable and necessary to frequently review the law, and those who are employed to enforce it. Not just cops, prosecutors, and judges either; there is a serious argument being made that the US (at all levels of governance, not just federally) has too many laws, too many of which are already part of previously existing legislation (which is how a law is legally made - executive orders that do not specifically reference an enabling act of legislation do not have force of law no matter how hard or often a Governor or President says otherwise).

Changing the laws of the US (again, at all levels of governance) would be the most certain means of reforming police interactions with the general public. Changing police training to reflect the enforcement requirements of the law would complete the reform process. Doing all of that at the federal level would almost certainly be necessary to achieve at least some degree of national uniformity of enforcement (and achieving that degree of uniformity would itself be a drawn out process, if only due to the complexity of competing interests inherent to the multi-level nature of US legal and political structure). While a dramatic performance before the House Ways and Means Committee demonstrating the sheer volume of federal legislation (and how much less is actually required to achieve the same - arguably better - levels of public protection) would certainly be entertaining, the reality is this will be a long and contentious effort requiring multiple iterations of change.

Personal note: I lived in S. California during 1991 and '92. I'm quite familiar with the events surrounding the arrest of Rodney King and the prosecution of his arresting police officers (I lived roughly a mile away from the arrest scene). I fully expect that the essentially identical legal process will play out in Minnesota, probably during the 2020/21 winter months (for what I regard as obvious reasons). The officers will be found "not guilty" by reason of qualified immunity in state court, and in very short order thereafter found "guilty" in federal court of violating George Floyd's civil rights, for which they will be imprisoned for a number of years. It goes without saying that Floyd's family will receive a financial settlement from Minnesota.

If we are going to achieve this change in US laws and how they are enforced, and I agree that we should if we wish to continue as citizens of a recognizably USA, then we must begin to organize the mechanisms necessary to doing all of that.

Or, we can just go ahead and form the national circular firing squad and do it that way.

Smile for the Birdy!

Much has been made in recent days about President Trump's visit to the St. John's Church National Monument on the evening of Monday June 1st following his speech from the White House Rose Garden. Below is a quote from the US Park Police regarding that department's actions that same evening (quoted in full):

"The United States Park Police (USPP) is committed to the peaceful expression of First Amendment rights. However, this past weekend’s demonstrations at Lafayette Park and across the National Mall included activities that were not part of a peaceful protest, which resulted in injuries to USPP officers in the line of duty, the destruction of public property and the defacing of memorials and monuments. During four days of demonstrations, 51 members of the USPP were injured; of those, 11 were transported to the hospital and released and three were admitted.

Multiple agencies assisted the USPP in responding to and quelling the acts of destruction and violence over the course of the weekend in order to protect citizens and property.

On Monday, June 1, the USPP worked with the United States Secret Service to have temporary fencing installed inside Lafayette Park. At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids. The protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street.

To curtail the violence that was underway, the USPP, following established policy, issued three warnings over a loudspeaker to alert demonstrators on H Street to evacuate the area. Horse mounted patrol, Civil Disturbance Units and additional personnel were used to clear the area. As many of the protestors became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons, officers then employed the use of smoke canisters and pepper balls. No tear gas was used by USPP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park. Subsequently, the fence was installed.

Throughout the demonstrations, the USPP has not made any arrests. The USPP will always support peaceful assembly but cannot tolerate violence to citizens or officers or damage to our nation’s resources that we are entrusted to protect."

As you can read for yourself, the Park Police discovered a cache of weapons while installing a temporary fence in Lafayette Park, and were subsequently attacked by "protestors". "At approximately 6:33 pm" Park Police began clearing Lafayette Park in response to rioters attacking them.

Was this action by US Park Police unlawful, or only just undesirable? These are questions that US courts are designed to determine answers to. Anyone lying about the events cited above (which would seem to be just about everybody "reporting" or commenting on them heretofore) would do well to stop undermining their efforts at influencing public opinion, and simply do so by reporting on actual events instead of fantasy ravings. Tired of the #fakenews hashtag? There's a simple fix. Simple, not easy* * No, I was never a SEAL, but I can read like one. :).

NPS.GOV

Statement from United States Park Police acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan about the actions taken over the weekend to protect life and property - United States Park Police (U.S. National Park Service)

The United States Park Police (USPP) is committed to the peaceful expression of First Amendment rights. However, this past weekend’s demonstrations at Lafayette Park and across the National Mall included activities that were not part of a peaceful protest, which resulted in injuries to USPP office...

"You go to war with the Army you've got"

Is there an official US .mil award for "casual valor"? Perhaps there ought to be. Yes, I know that Mstr Sgt Royer will be formally recognized in some fashion, possibly the Soldiers Medal. My point is that, there is a none-too-subtle message inherent to this entire incident; this is what US soldiers will do ON THE DRIVE IN TO WORK. Imagine what they will do when all tooled up and organized for action.

Foreign policy isn't just communique's, demarche's, and the like, it's also all of the "little things" that go into empowering the alternative to all of that as well. Highlighting those Immediate Actions like Sgt Royer's speaks to that effort in a way that few on the receiving end of US Foreign Policy can easily fail to extrapolate to their own national (and other) considerations. We would do well to take full advantage of opportunities like this that indirectly strengthen arguments against too vigorously arguing in opposition to, instead of mutual benefit from, cooperation with such policies.

Army Strong is more than just a recruiting slogan, if we make it so.

See here for earlier reporting on this event: https://www.kmbc.com/article/fort-leavenworth-kansas-solider-saves-countless-lives-by-ending-active-shooter-situation-on-centennial-bridge/32689990#

"All right, Lunger"

Via Instapundit comes this item about tobacco smoker's apparent increased immunity to COVID-19 infection. As is only to be expected, the expert-atti in the comments get all Chemical Wedding about it. From my personal experience smoking cigarettes for 40+ years, I suspect one of the principal causative factors for this statistical result might be much simpler; smoker's cough.

People who regularly inhale burnt tobacco enjoy the mildly euphoric effect tobacco use is well known for (until they eventually don't - ask me how I know). At the same time, smokers are regularly irritating the tissue of their throat and lungs which causes them to cough. A lot. Certainly a lot more frequently than non-smokers, and a lot more deeply too. There is an associated phrase to describe the phenomenon; coughing up a lurgy. Tobacco smokers commonly have more mucus in their lungs as a response to the increased levels of lung tissue irritation the smoke causes.

Because tobacco users who inhale the smoke much more frequently cough on a regular basis, and cough up some of the mucus from their lungs more frequently than do non-smokers, my suspicion is that this is at least as likely a source for the apparently slight difference in infection rates between smokers and non. If you more frequently energetically expel the air from your lungs, as well as more frequently expel the mucus that coats lung tissue, any viral material has a more difficult time reaching the capillary network the lung tissue interacts with to oxygenate the human body, and spends less time inside the lungs due to the mucus being coughed out of the lungs more frequently than might be considered a "normal" rate.

A product I found helpful in recovering my lung capacity (less so in recent years - I quit smoking 13 years ago) is the Expand-A-Lung (this Adurance model appears to be functionally identical, and you can buy a singleton for cheaper) which allows you to vary the degree of resistance you experience filling and emptying your lungs. 8 to 12 inhale/exhale cycles between sips of that first cup of coffee while leaning against the kitchen sink is a useful way to get your reps in while you fully wake up. When I'm finished, I rinse the device off and put it back in the dish drainer beside the sink, and make sure all that I coughed up is safely down the drain too (you know how you're supposed to run some dish soap through your disposal regularly? This is a good time for that :)).

Another activity I've found useful once I've finished the restricted breathing is to go sit down at the dinner table with the rest of my coffee and get in some reps of the focused breathing advocated by Wim Hof among others (I'm still working my way up to the whole cold training thing - I'm certain I'll get there any day now).

Between these two activities my "lung sounds" are clear during my regular medical check ups, and I haven't had to resort to my inhaler more than a half a dozen times a year for the past 6 to 8 years. I don't know to what degree, if any, a general feeling of improved well-being contributes to resisting viral lung infections, but I do believe the process I follow to arrive at that feeling does contribute to that.

YMMV and I DO NOT recommend taking up tobacco smoking for its purgative effects.

Chinese Takeout and Delivery

I'm currently re-reading David Hackworth's book About Face (I'm at the part where he is recalling his reaction to the lack of Lessons Learned by the US Army regarding counter-insurgency and anti-guerrilla operational requirements in Vietnam circa early-1966 while assigned as escort officer to S. L. A. Marshall). I'm wondering if we in the US aren't going through something similar right now as regards PRC offensive actions against us (not to mention the rest of the world).

It seems not unreasonable to assume that the PLA (along with its subordinate Naval and Air Force components - everyone in the People's Republic of China military is a soldier, whether assigned to an army, navy or air force position) is willing to regard the current coronavirus pandemic as a useful model for determining the various responses to be expected to future, deliberate offensive actions against the US and other countries. It is also well known, if not often commented upon in the US media, that the PRC is active throughout the North and Central American region, whether via the PLA, PLAN, PLAAF, or other PRC agencies.

It occurs to me that now, during the current largely shut down status of so much of US national activity (industrial, commercial, governmental), that an effort by the PLA to develop a guerrilla organizational structure from within the ranks of the existing Mexican smuggling gangs shouldn't be all that out of the question.

The PLA has disrupted Nicaraguan government and societal stability to further the PRC's construction of a canal through that country to rival the Panama Canal, the resulting violence having effect on human migration patterns out of Nicaragua (from there into Guatemala, from there into Mexico, from there …). The PRC is well known to have established relationships with Mexican drug cartels to supply them with drug or drug precursor materials. Mexican "drug cartels" are in actual fact drug and anything else smugglers, so how outlandish an idea is it to suppose the PLA isn't working right now to supply Mexican smuggling gangs with the means to also smuggle a ready-made-to-order guerilla insurgency into the US as well?

The PRC is demonstrably willing to actively work to permit the wide-spread dispersal of this latest coronavirus around the world; why wouldn't they equally be willing to inflict a plausibly deniable physical attack on the US by "Mexican bandits"?

I can offer no evidence for this guerilla warfare scenario other than my willingness to not presume my enemies stupidity. Is that sufficient to justify investigating the current reality on the Mexican ground, before it "just appears out of nowhere" here on US ground?

Asking the Question Rightly

This past January 30th I asked on my Facebook page whether or not Chief Justice John Roberts was subject to impeachment himself due to his refusal to follow the impeachment trial structure developed by the US Senate for President Trump's impeachment trial. It was my observation in subsequent comments that the Senate's Art. 1, Sec. 3 sole authority over Presidential trials, specifically to include being presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, appeared to place Chief Justice John Roberts into unavoidable conflict with the requirements of the "Whistleblower Protection Act", as made evident by the specific question submitted by Sen. Rand Paul in conformance with the Senate's trial requirements.

Right constitutional issue, wrong question.

This having belatedly become more clear to me, my question now becomes; what method best permits this apparent constitutional conflict, the Senate's Art 1, Sec 3 absolute and sole authority to structure Presidential impeachment trials and the existing legal constraints the Whistleblower Protection Act imposes on the execution of such a trial, being argued before the remaining members (presuming Chief Justice Roberts concurs that recusing himself from the hearing and subsequent discussions is in the best interests of justice) of the US Supreme Court to arrive at a just resolution?

It should be openly acknowledged that impeachment is at least partially comprised of a political judgement component so as to arrive at a just outcome for both the individual being judged and the country as a whole. This being true, impeaching Chief Justice Roberts for deciding as he did during President Trump's impeachment trial would be unjust for him and the country. It is my entirely layman's understanding of US law that any portion of a legislative act being in conflict with the US Constitution makes the entire act "as if it never were". How then to best get this issue before the US courts to resolve this apparently unconstitutional aspect of the Whistleblowers Protection Act?

Confronting the Inevitable

My dad has been fighting Parkinson's disease for several years now. Today, at 11:45 am PST, he tapped out of that fight. Despite the inevitability of the outcome, I and my family are discovering the crushing speed of the arrival of that long-known end.

We remain aweigh on the voyage of our own lives.

A Considered Response to the Viral Circumstance of the Day

Submitted without additional comment:

The Chyna Swing

Or Not

ENDMSG

Shout

MTF

And

MTF

Scream

MTF

Circles

MTF

Whose Lab seems a pertinent question here

The Al Fin Next Level blog is one that I have been following for 6+ years now, largely because the posts there cover a range of topics I often have at least some interest in and the posts themselves present a well-thought-out, balanced, and well sourced approach to the topic du jour. As witness, see: It Wouldn't Be the First Virus to Escape from a Laboratory 

Some Experts Believe the Virus May Have Escaped a Lab

Viruses in the same family as Wuhan Coronavirus are routinely collected and studied at minimal protection levels, making lab accidents and viral leaks more likely.

Ebright thinks that it is possible the COVID-19 pandemic started as an accidental release from a laboratory such as one of the two in Wuhan that are known to have been studying bat coronaviruses.

Except for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, two deadly viruses that have caused outbreaks in the past, coronaviruses have been studied at laboratories that are labelled as operating at a moderate biosafety level known as BSL-2, Ebright says. And, he says, bat coronaviruses have been studied at such labs in and around Wuhan, China, where the new coronavirus first emerged. “As a result,” Ebright says, “bat coronaviruses at Wuhan [Center for Disease Control] and Wuhan Institute of Virology routinely were collected and studied at BSL-2, which provides only minimal protections against infection of lab workers.” __ TheBulletin

Which, as any blogger strives for, brings us back around to the titular point of the post; precisely whose lab had this particular strain of coronavirus get out into the world?

Which brings this post to the website Veterans Today  Billed as "Serving the Clandestine Community since 2004" may provide some useful framing for the following story:

 https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/03/26/us-athlete-intelligence-officer-in-china-games-named-as-patient-zero-for-covid-debunking-trump-rhetoric-updating/

I can't figure out how to quote from the article directly; it's in English, but not in a coherent fashion, you'll have to go see for yourself.

At first glance, the article at Veterans Today appears to be a mash-up of someone's propaganda, or equally arguably someone's public relations efforts. Not being a professional in either, I decline to speculate. In any case, the article specifically identifies US Army Reserve Staff Sergeant Maatje Benassi as a US "intelligence officer" and "an armed diplomatic driver ... for General James Jones" who is further claimed to be assigned to US Army Intelligence. Given that Fort Meade is publicly acknowledged as the home of the US National Security Agency, a General Jones - a US Army Intelligence Officer specifically - being assigned duties proximate to the NSA doesn't seem particularly noteworthy, unless said General Jones isn't publicly identified to be in that assignment. Some cooberative linkagrey would seem the least effort required to retain even a fleeting grasp on 1st amendment claims. Also, it strikes me that an "armed diplomatic driver" would almost certainly be drawn from the ranks of active duty personnel, not a reservist (unless she were to be on active duty status at the time of posting to the position).

At the very least, this reporting verges uncomfortably close to doxxing absent the links to corroborate such claims.

Adding at least the appearance of legitimacy to all of this is this article from October 25, 2019 by the US Department of Defense: https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/1998827/us-women-place-8th-despite-crash-in-50-mile-cycling-race/

A hit from behind on the final lap may have dashed the U.S. team's hopes for gold in women's cycling, but bruised ribs and a cracked helmet didn't stop Army Sgt. 1st Class Maatje Benassi from crossing the finish line.    Teammates from a trail vehicle rushed to her side to provide aid, but she refused medical care for the moment, jumping right back up on the bike. "My goal was to finish it. … I came this far, I trained this hard, I had to finish it," she said. "I was in a lot of pain, and my bike was rubbing, too. … Nothing went smooth, but I said, 'Forget it, I'm just going to finish.'" Benassi finished last among the 30 competitors from 11 nations who completed the road race.

 "But that's racing", she said. "You win some, you lose some". The Army Reserve noncommissioned officer from the 312th Observer-Controller-Trainer unit at Fort Meade, Maryland, said she won't let the setback keep her down. A few days later, she was back out training.

 It may seem trivial to non-service members, but getting the Sergeant's rank wrong is a prominent red flag regarding the factuality of everything that follows. Beyond that, is SFC Benassi's duty posting, A) correct, B) a matter of public knowledge, or did Jim W. Dean, managing editor of Veterans Today, just break operational security and subject SFC Benatti to career ending scrutiny via his deliberate doxxing of her?

It seems obvious to me that this story about the source of the COVID-19 coronavirus takes a plausible-seeming sports story from last October, associates it with nebulous claims of nefariousness (source of said claims not identified), and aligns the story presentation with known PRC/CCP propaganda that they aren't the source of this pandemic, the US Army is (there are two USAF LTC's and a US Navy Commander also mentioned in the DoD story, if infection was the objectivity why wouldn't they be included in the effort? Is veteranstoday.com officer-class snobbery showing through? Maybe PRC/CCP money is the easiest answer).

What makes this potentially something more than a moderately interesting blog post is the national security questions riddled throughout. Is this an example of PRC/CCP 4G warfare? How about "mere" collusion with a foreign power as an undeclared agent of influence? OTOH did what we know as COVID-19 get out of a lab at Fort Detrick, which is 40-odd miles northwest of Fort Meade? Not impossible, and neither is it seemingly implausible, which makes it all seem more likely as propaganda absent further facts to support such a claim.

US Army Chief of Staff General James C. McConville has the duty to his country and his fellow soldiers to investigate this matter as fully as possible, and to report his findings to the Commander-in-Chief. One direct way of starting such an inquiry is to poll the four women identified in the DoD story from last October (along with the unidentified teammates in the support vehicle) as to their physical health during the months of October and November, 2019, with medical records to support such recollections. A second line of inquiry needs to identify all of the possible means of "cross pollination" between Forts Detrick and Meade. This would be useful whether or not any member of the US team became infected with any disease. Finally, this investigation needs to happen as a matter of considerable urgency. In what I regard as on my Top 5 Worst Case Scenarios list, The USA and the PRC going Def Con 1 with each other is certainly in their somewhere. We absolutely want to know as certainly as we possibly can that we know why while we go all "duck and cover". On a different list is the names of those who get a traitors just rewards.

And you were lamenting just the other day about the lack of sports stories, weren't you? Personally, I'd rather go back to ignoring Jim Lampley.

In

MTF

Run

MTF

Doubt

MTF

In

MTF

Or

MTF

Fear

MTF

In

MTF

When

MTF

Twelve and a half years later ...

Taking into consideration the borderline-ridiculous range of topics I've commented on here over the years, I think the following observation is probably required reading at this point.

I write on this blog, not because I have any particular expertise or insight into the topic of the day, but as a mechanism to allow the voices in my head the opportunity to yell at the world, rather than each other. The degree of correlation between the topic and the speech is only occasionally deliberate on my part.

You are invited to believe as much of this as you think appropriate.

:)

COVID-19 and The Rule of Law

I originally posted the below quotation as a comment (#3) at Joe Huffman's blog, but I want to claim it for my own more publicly. Joe Huffman linked to an article published by the Second Amendment Foundation quoting SAF founder and Executive Vice-President (and justly famous attorney) Alan M. Gottlieb regarding the status of constitutionally enumerated civil rights during a public health crisis.

The Constitution of the United States clearly stipulates that the Several States, and The People of which they are comprised, retain all authority not expressly forbidden them by the Constitution itself (do I really have to point out the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution to this audience?). In accordance with each states particular constitution, the chief executive of said state (and such executive office holders who derive their subordinate official authority therefrom) absolutely and without qualification DO HAVE the legal authority to promulgate any action they individually deem necessary to protect the Public Health and Safety within their state’s borders, or their legislative sub-section of that border. This completely uncontroversial legal principal is frequently summarized as “the police powers” authority granted to state Governors, which expressly include the public’s health and safety. It remains an unresolved constitutional question as to whether, or to what degree, the US government has authority to regulate/restrict travel between the Several States, but there seems to be no question of the President having the authority to organize state efforts to achieve the ends those state’s Governors agree to be necessary to protect their state’s citizenry and commerce.

The United States’ chief executive has effectively the same authority as regards the external borders of the United States.

There seems to be NO evidence that what President Trump has done in regards to the COVID-19 outbreak differs in any substantive measure from what I have described above.

As Mr. Gottlieb has observed, the legal liability for results of the declarations issued does exist (and should be rigorously safeguarded after the fact), but anyone who attempts to argue that the authority described above doesn’t exist is undeniably lying, and may be a traitor (see efforts by journalists and others to promote propaganda efforts by the CCP and others to the detriment of the safety and security of the United States as example).

 I think that a crucially important distinction lies between the constitutional limits imposed by the US Constitution and the authorities granted by the individual state's constitutions. This distinction was arrived at deliberately by the framers of the US Constitution, and repeatedly clarified and supported by court rulings since (though as Mr. Gottlieb points out, that task remains a work in progress). I think it such an important component of the US constitutional republic framework of national government that I consider attempts to circumvent the structure as tantamount to treason or an act of war (in the present circumstance, looking directly at you PRC/CCP).

We can lay claim to being a Nation Governed by Rule of Law only for as long as we are willing to (paraphrasing a currently prominent science fiction character) "make it so". We should do more of that.

Strange Bedfellows

AOC lives up to her nickname and takes the occasion of the COVID-19 outbreak to exercise her cortex in public.

Visions of her going all OCD in the shower trying to wash the Ted Cruz off may not be all that for you, but now you have that thought in your head too.  :)

File under: Things To Do While In Self-Isolation

This is a D-I-Y ventilator. The project appears to have begun as a slightly OCD response to an earlier outbreak of Avian Flu, which shares many symptom attributes to COVID-19. Keep in mind, most people who contract COVID-19 won't really need a ventilator, and if you don't use one right you can hurt yourself worse than not using one at all, nevertheless finding one mid-pandemic will be challenging to put it delicately.

This concept is very much a "Tim the Tool Man" idea (that absolutely DOES NOT require moar power), but I think the basic design would benefit from a creative adaptation of miniature air compressor technology and CPAP components (think tubing, head mounting hardware, and face mask), all easily sourced from Amazon.

Not for everybody, I admit, OTOH you never can tell what might develop from amateur projecting.

Hat Tip to Rand Simberg for finding this one.

Too Soon?

Now that Dr. Demento has out-crazied The Commie, President Trump can begin his campaign to Cookoo the Cocoa Puffs!

Who could have predicted that I would exceed the boundaries of political electoral genius by 6 years of age? Whoever you plan to vote for, get ready to point and laugh a lot these next 8 months or so.

What makes a hormone?

No, it's not a burning $100 bill.

It has been well known, if not at all well understood why, that women frequently experience elevated levels of pain as part of menstruation (amongst other female-specific life events). Researchers at the University of Arizona have recently published a paper that appears to have identified at least one of the neurological pathways such pain signals may follow.

Frank Porreca, Ph.D., associate department head, a professor of Pharmacology, anesthesiology, cancer biology and neuroscience at the college, and senior author on the study, notes it always has been understood that women experience some types of pain that occur without injury (known as "functional pain syndromes") more than men. The reasons for this never were clearly understood. A possible explanation the researchers explored was the differences in the cells and nerves that send pain signals to the brain in women and men.

The findings suggest new pain-management therapies targeting the prolactin system would greatly benefit women suffering from functional pain syndromes.

Don't take my word for it, RTWT. And take hope ladies; not only is PMS a real thing medically, you have reason to believe a method for managing the process may soon be available to you.