Did A 'Heavy' Physics Load Cause This Kid To Crack and Kill A Fellow Student?

Ian Scheuermann, age 22, being held for investigation of second-degree murder.

When a university student kills another, it makes top news billing for the university town in which it occurs, in this case Boulder, Colorado - for the University of Colorado. Hence the news three days ago that a 22-year old physics major (Ian Scheuermann) killed a fellow student (Sean Hudson, a psychology Ph.D. candidate) has the UC campus abuzz as well as the tiny town of Boulder, nestled in the foothills of the Rockies.

How or why would a physics major - of all people - kill a fellow UC student?  Physics majors are supposed to be the epitome of rationality and judicious temperament. The story making the rounds is that the killer was acting "in self-defense" - having been tackled to the ground after an argument and punched in the head. See e.g.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_29246891/boulder-stabbing-sean-hudson-ian-scheuermann?source=pkg

According to the story, the physics student "told police that he cut the victim four times in self-defense after he was tackled to the ground following an argument." Which elicits  answers to the questions that inquiring minds want to know: 1) Why was he even carrying a knife - given Boulder has perhaps the lowest crime rate in the state?  and 2) What was this argument about to provoke such aggressive reactions - a tackling take down on a downtown street, and a knifing?

People can speculate that perhaps it revolved round who was pursuing the more difficult or all encompassing discipline. And maybe Scheuermann said something like "Well, you know the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual is just a bunch of fantasy crap designed to earn money for therps and keep Big PhRMA in business".

But somehow, I doubt even that kind of statement would have triggered being tackled on Pearl Street.

Even if it did provoke the Hudson psych guy to tackle Scheuermann, why would you need a knife to defend yourself? Don't you know how to fight with bare knuckles?  Anyone with good sense knows if tackled by some aggressive person you fight back you don't reach for a damned knife .....or a gun.

This account seems correct as the article in the Boulder Daily Camera further notes:

"When he got to his car, Scheuermann told police that a man he knew as "Jeremy" and two of that man's friends, including Hudson, confronted him. According to the report, Jeremy, who was not identified further in the police report, was still upset over an argument he and Scheuermann had two weeks ago over a shared ex-girlfriend.

Scheuermann said he apologized and said he did not want to fight, and said Jeremy was not physically confrontational, either. But Scheuermann told police that Hudson was being "physically aggressive," and that both Scheuermann's friend and Jeremy tried to break up the argument, according to the report.

At that point, Scheuermann said Hudson shoved him to the ground and began to hit him in the face, according to the report. Scheuermann told police that after he was on the ground, he took a knife out of his pocket and cut Hudson in self-defense and pushed him back. But Scheuermann said Hudson continued "coming back at him," so he cut Hudson and tried to shove him back several more times, according to the report."

So here we have the scene: A bunch of guys (at least 4) loaded with testosterone (and likely booze too) going at each other over a "shared ex-girlfriend" (Always a bad scene given a lot of chicks never want to make a clean break so the former guy thinks he can hang around). The physics junior gets shoved to the ground and maybe even pummeled by Hudson (the psych major) but because he never learned how to fight he reaches for a knife and the most extreme solution.

Another problem I have with these sort of scenarios of a weak kid armed with a lethal weapon appeared in yesterday's Denver Post, p. 1A, That is, that a number of states, including Texas, Arkansas and Kansas are now in the process of passing loose gun laws that allow citizens to pack concealed weapons when they go into public places - including parks,  college classes (in TX) and voting precincts (in AR).

What if some heavy set guy picks  a fight with physically weak gun-carrier  on the way to the voting polls (or on the highway)? Will the wimpy gun -packer reach for his concealed Glock and answer questions later? Or will they proffer the standard rejoinder: "I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six!"

Anyway, it is plausible all this was about a girl, but the extreme reaction of Scheuermann still elicits the question of whether another catalyst might have been at work. It is possible that now - given it's finals week at UC - the pressure may have gotten to him, perhaps to do with his quantum mechanics or E&M test and computer science exam too. We don't know, but we do know plenty of students can crack under exam pressure - or after failure - and go ape shit. Look at James Eagen Holmes (then at the Anschutz campus of UC) who mutated into "the Joker" - the alter persona in the Aurora theater massacre. We now know from a Denver 7 News report by Keli Rabon that Holmes failed a preliminary oral exam before pulling out of the UC neurosciences program.

My past experience at different universities also suggests it is at least plausible and needs to be considered as a distal - if not proximate - cause. Or even as a catalyst to precipitate action.

Looking at the regimen of physics courses needed to graduate at UC,  they are pretty rigorous - but about the same level as we had for students in the Physics Dept. at University of the West Indies. See, e.g.

http://phys.colorado.edu/physics-courses

The profs are apparently pretty tough at UC- Boulder as well - some with low marks on 'rate my professor' for being hard asses. (As I learned, this means you assign a lab report and homework the same night, and don't give Bs merely for turning them in on time.) But who knows what combination might have put the kid in a pressure cooker?

One may even rightly ask if Scheuermann was cut out to be doing majors in both physics and computer science. Maybe he bit off more than he could academically chew.

We will have to wait for further details from this sorry case to emerge, but it certainly hasn't done the university any good to appear to be harboring a physically and mentally fragile student, i.e. who can't take pressure, and another older grad student (pursuing a Ph.D.) who believes it's okay to jump a kid 4 years younger and wail on him in the middle of a downtown Boulder mall.

Defining "Terrorism": Don't Assume You Know What It Means

Incredibly, amidst all the Republican babble in the wake of the San Bernardino massacre, it appears none of them even know what the term "terrorism" means. Of course, it's easy to bandy the word about to gain political leverage or exploit the ignorance of a population, and it serves a long standing interest for Rightists to take the public's eyes off gun control.

In point of fact, there is no single consensus definition of terrorism in federal law and regulation. USC Title 18 specifically defines "domestic terrorism" as:

"A violent act which is committed in the United States and attempts to intimidate or coerce".

The international definition is similar except it includes reference to the locales wherein  the perpetrators committed their fear - inspiring deeds or where they sought asylum.

Under the USC 18 definition, Robert Lewis Dear was definitely a terrorist because he committed his crime with the goal to instill fear or coerce the Colorado Springs community into no longer supporting Planned Parenthood. Conversely, the Newtown and the Aurora Theater massacres were not terrorism under the definition.

At the University of Leiden, two researchers found more than 200 definitions of terrorism scattered around the world. Most shared attributes of violence, political objectives, and causing outright fear. One historian, Walter Lacquer, summed up the differences this way:

"In the real world there is not one terrorism, but a variety of terrorisms. Any attempt to find a common denominator - a formula - say as suited to 19th century Irish terrorism as to narco-terror in Columbia, or Islamic terror in Pakistan is bound to fail"

This is because there will always be divergent emphases, as well as parameter and intenisty distinctions. Recall that in many quarters, the first reaction to the 9/11 attacks was to treat them as a major crime - not terror. It was only when the Bushies introduced the "war on terror" - which is a non sequitur - that terror became a ubiquitous dynamic. The problem is it holds too many in thrall who are prepared to cry 'Terror!' at the first suspicion.

This is misplaced because it makes us all subject to irrational political exploitation and reduces our power as citizens - collectively and individually. We certainly ought to be alert to recognize real actions of terrorists when they arise, but not to call 'Terror!' for everything we see.  As Chris Hayes put it three nights ago: "When everything is terror then the meaning is diluted to the point that we cease to recognize real terror.

That is useful to bear in mind as the calls for more 'wars on terror' heat up and the political Right, especially, attempts to use the word 'terror' as a cudgel to infringe on our civil liberties and misdirect our national priorities - as well as playing right into ISIS' fell hands by refusing Syrian refugees entry.

OK, Let's Take It From The Top - One More Time On Guns Vs. Knives

Mr. Pro Gun blogger didn't waste any time getting back - and claiming he didn't do anything "dishonest" as far as quoting me - but again, leaving out a key segment,  referencing Vester Flanagan with a knife - isn't exactly kosher so let's agree he was at least borderline dishonest in portraying my quote.

Anyway, after delivering a full seminar on the lethality of military and other knives (including reaction times)  he at least finally DID accept my hypothetical, based on a knife (intended generic, but ok, I didn't clarify that so we let him have his way with all these exotic knives, reaction times etc.) He comes away then concluding that Flanagan "sure as shit" could have killed those two reporters - Alison Parker and Adam Ward. Ok, I will be generous and grant the outside chance that might have happened, using one of his exotic knives and assuming  Flanagan at that time possessed the skill and dexterity he assumes. (Which I doubt because Flanagan wasn't in an intact state of mind - but let's not quibble.)

The question remains: Is there a case for mass shootings or killings (he cites a mass killing in China using knives that took out 29), in the U.S. context where knives would prove as deadly as high powered weapons?  This is the key question and let's also admit that Vester Flanagan's act only barely meets the standards of a mass shooting - which hitherto had been defined as four or more victims shot. Hence, we need to find a better example (not marginal) to prove the point that guns are more lethal than knives - even big ones!

I submit that only one case is needed to disprove his contention, and that would be the Aurora movie theater massacre from July, 2012. There, James Eagan Holmes, using assorted high power rifles and a Glock, killed 12 and badly injured 59.  Now, had Holmes ONLY been armed with knives - even lethal ones like Mr. Pro Gun displays - could he have done as much damage? I argue absolutely not!

For one thing, the theater was dark. Holmes' wound and death toll occurred because he was firing blindly into a crowd and given the semi-automatic and automatic  nature of his weapons was sure to kill more than a handful of people and devastatingly wound many others. Unlike with a knife, he didn't need to take careful aim to rack up a death toll - a point many of these gun guys forget. (Sure there will be exceptions like in China, but in the U.S. those perps would likely have been taken out by ex -military or others, while the Chinese remain largely a passive people in their belief systems.)

Even wielding two big knives there is NO damned way in hell James Holmes could have done an equal amount of damage. Even thrusting as fast as Pro Gun argues, he'd have been taken down before he got very much past  the first row (a number of military guys were in the crowd).  The darkness would also have impeded accuracy and obviously, lethality. Hell, you can't very well kill what you can't see! (Though a gun surely can - even firing it wildly- as in a dark cinema.)

As a further note on the original story, Holmes' weapons' lethality basically halted when the clip jammed from his last semi-automatic rifle. Many people by that point were diving behind the rows of seats. To have used a big knife instead, Holmes would've had to ferret out each victim row by row and stab to hit a vital organ. Again, this wouldn't have been a piece of cake as it would've for powerful weapons which can easily rip through seats and find their targets.

The crux of the argument then rests on just one case where knives would not be able to do the damage of guns, and that case is the Aurora theater massacre.

Mr. 'Pro Gun' can now parse this any way he wants, or portray his own takes - i.e. invoking "magic" knives that automatically find their way to vital organs even in a darkened theater.  Or bestowing super x-ray vision on the perp. But I'd say 'case closed.'

If people could only get knives there'd be significantly less than 90 plus killings a day in this country and thirty thousand suicides a year. We'd enjoy similar low gun death stats to the sane world. It's a lot easier mentally to put that barrel up to your noggin and pull the trigger than to put that blade to your jugular and thrust it.

Time To Get Control Of The Gun Insanity

"There is evidence that if guns weren't so widely available.... if  we could just put some space - a time out - between the person that's upset  because he got fired, or after the domestic abuse or whatever other motivation may be working on someone who does this...maybe we could prevent this kind of carnage." - Hillary Clinton yesterday

Alison Parker (24)  and Adam Ward  (27)) were two up and coming stars, reporters for their Roanoke, VA station  WDBJ- 7. They were in the middle of an interview of the head of the Chamber of Commerce when an unhinged nut, Vester Flanagan, opened fire at 6:45 a.m. with 14 shots, killing both. Yet another tragedy,  now after Charleston, Newtown, Aurora and Virginia Tech. When does this insanity end?

Of course you can expect the usual chant from the NRA gun lobby and its assorted followers, to wit:

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people".

But they totally ignore the corollary:

"People wouldn't kill as many people if killing with guns wasn't so easy"


That's the core of it: the ease of killing another with a weapon that doesn't even require you get up close and personal, like using a machete or knife.  If gun sales and distributions were as limited in this country as they are in others, Flanagan might not have been able to carry out his foul deed - say if he only had access to a knife. Yes, he'd likely have inflicted damage but there would at least have been time for the two others shot to react - if only to dodge the knife thrust  which, let's face it, is a lot slower than a bullet traveling at hundreds of feet per second.

All this is firmly supported by a new study from the American Sociological Association just out this week which shows:

- Despite only having 5 percent of the world's population the U.S. has had 31 percent of all mass shootings since 1966

- The U.S. is also first in the world for civilian gun ownership with 88.8 firearms per 100 people. (The next highest rate is Yemen at 54.8 per 100 people)

The other canard that the gun nuts will offer  is that well, it's nuts doing most of the shooting and hence all the gun laws in the world won't stop it but will stop law abiding citizens from the freedom to own Glocks, AK-47s and AR-15s as well as Bushmaster .223s.  But this is false.  The unholy truth is that most shootings are  NOT ideological or random but rather domestic (in people's homes) - either suicides or one spouse (usually male) killing the other after a fiery argument.  Again, the availability of guns makes it easier to solve disagreements in the most expedient and catastrophic way.

This was documented last night on Chris Hayes' All In. Melissa Jeltsen of the HuffPo affirmed we are missing the big picture, especially on mass shootings, but also regular shootings.  She noted the reason our perceptions are distorted is because most mass shootings we hear about happen in public. Hence, we believe the greatest risk is in public spaces - whether schools, theaters or malls. But this is false.

Assaying all mass shootings between 2009 and 2015, she found that 70 percent occurred in the home. Of these, 57 percent involved a family member or current or former intimate partner. 81 percent of the victims were women and children. These killings were not done by 'crazies' but usually normal people who simply lost it in the midst of a heated argument and reached for the weapon nearest and dearest - a gun. Maybe the perp was a gun collector or maybe he just owned one for "protection" - but ultimately it was turned not on an intruder but on his own loved one.

This is the lie we need to expunge - that shootings are only 'random' and done by psychos - in order to pass more rigorous gun control laws including demanding a fully 30 day waiting period for detailed NSA, FBI background checks. If we can do it for terrorists, we can do it for potential gun owners whose killings now vastly outnumber those of terrorists.

Apart from these sociological findings, a historical perspective on the 2nd amendment and gun ownership is also useful.  In a worthwhile book entitled 'Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right To Bear Arms in America', a professor of constitutional law at UCLA - Adam Winkler- has masterfully documented how guns were regulated from the earliest days of our Republic. As an example: laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, in Indiana in 1820 and in Tennessee and Virginia in 1838. Similar laws were later also passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma.

The then governor of Texas in 1893 was heard to proclaim:

"The mission of the concealed weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law abiding man".

WOW! How times have changed!

Meanwhile, Winkler showed that congress passed the first set of laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. Though the law was challenged and wound up in the Supreme Court, in 1939, the crazies lost. FDR's Solicitor General framed the argument correctly to the Court:

"The Second Amendment grants people a right that is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only exists where the arms are borne in a militia or some other military organization provided by law and intended for protection of the State."

The SC decision was unanimous.

While this sane and sober take prevailed for several more decades, it started to unravel by the 1970s as various Right wing (wouldn't you know?) groups coalesced to challenge gun control based on spurious "private gun ownership" interpretations, and successively overturned laws in state legislatures - much like the abortion opponents are now doing (as in Virginia, where its AG Cuchinelli 'read the riot act' to state health clinic administrators ordering them to cooperate with a new state edict to limit safe abortions, "or else"). But we need to know this is how these vipers succeed.

Undissuaded by the gun crazies' arguments, especially that the 2nd amendment granted every man the right to keep and bear arms on his own, Chief Justice Warren Burger responded that this interpretation was "one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

Well, it's good Justice Burger didn't live long enough as to see the arrival of automatic weapons and the claim that the 2nd amendment provided for the ownership of those too!


Finally, kudos to Walmart for formally ending sales of all military-style assault rifles in U.S. stores. You don't need a damned assault rifle to hunt, and if you do need one - you shouldn't be out hunting but strapped down in a psycho ward, on thorazine and lithium.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jaime-oneill/63595/no-more-bullshit-about-shooting-deaths

'The Joker' Gets Life in Prison for Aurora Theater Massacre- The Best Resolution For Victim Families

The refrain after each murder count was the same for each victim, as read by Judge Carlos Samour - with only the name changed:

"We, the jury, do not have a unanimous verdict on this count, and...."

Under Colorado law, the verdict had to be unanimous for the death penalty to be accepted. But as "Juror 17" (unidentified) put it in today's Denver Post ('Juror Said One Said No To Death', p. 4A), one of the 12 jurors adamantly held out - not prepared to align the person's moral view (under which the final phase was adjudicated) of requiring the death penalty for James Eagan Holmes. As attested to by Juror 17 (ibid.):

"The person was solidly and definitely in that position and they weren't going to change."

And so ends a trial that cost over $2.5 million dollars, took 3 years to resolve, with over 300 witnesses and 1,000 pieces of evidence. As Denise Maes of the ACLU of Colorado put it (p. 3A):

"It is deeply unfortunate that our taxpayer dollars had to pay for one of the most expensive trials in the state's history only to achieve the same outcome offered by the defense before the trial began."

That was in reference to the defense's offer of a plea of guilty in return for a life sentence. But DA George Brauchler was determined to move forward with death though he had to know the huge bar he'd have to climb when the defense only had to cross the threshold of "reasonable doubt". 

Of course, many of the victims' families were upset, such as Sandy Phillips - mother of Jessica Ghawi- who said (p. 4A):

"The thought that this monster gets to have visitations with his parents and gets to receive mail and pictures of his very strange girlfriends is hard to accept"

But Mrs. Phillips either forgets or ignores the fact she'd have had to "accept" it anyway, even if the death penalty verdict had come to pass. (Only 1 person has been executed in Colorado in the past 50 years.) As the Denver Post editorial put it:

"Even if Holmes had been sentenced to death no prudent person would have bet on his execution."

Indeed, the incessant appeals would have drawn out the case another 25-35 years (by some estimates) with no sure execution even then. Thus, whether the families realize it or not they have finally attained the closure they sought and oh, btw, life in prison won't be 'sweetbread' for Holmes. He will have to be under constant watch and exercise vigilance given "high profile killers are often targeted for violence".

Thus,  the most likely place he'll end up is Sterling Correctional Facility which has a Management Control Unit Protective Custody housing for hard core, high profile and troubled killers.

He could also be sent out of state, but I doubt it,

James Holmes, aka 'the Joker', will now have to spend the rest of his life behind bars - and if he ever does regain mental health- perhaps wonder why he didn't take those anti-psychotic meds he was prescribed.

As I've noted before, this resolution is the optimum one for the victims' families because it allows them to get on with their lives without appeals being dragged out for decades as they surely would have been. (And Holmes' defense team promised.)  Some families may yearn for swift "justice" (e.g. death) but eventually they will come to grasp that wouldn't have happened anyway. The "justice" they believe would be actuated expeditiously by a death verdict would only be postponed indefinitely as the appeals process dragged out years, then decades. Indeed, Holmes would likely end up - at age 27 now - living longer than most of the aggrieved older family members.

The "Trial of the Century" Begins - BUT - Should James Eagan Holmes Be Found Insane?

Holmes, right, soon after being apprehended in July, 2012, and left the 'Joker' persona that erupted from his submerged consciousness

The 'Trial of the Century' marking perhaps one of the few times a mass murderer didn't off himself - begins today in Arapahoe County, Colorado. This is the trial of James Eagan Holmes, the Aurora Theater mass killer. The horrific tragedy left at least 12 dead and 58 wounded, and  stands beyond comprehension in the annals of state mayhem, including the 1999 Columbine Massacre in Littleton.. Hundreds of people had thronged joyously into an Aurora Century -16 cinema, to see the midnight premier of 'The Dark Night Rises' only to be greeted by gunfire 25 minutes into the film. The shooter, evidently armed with two large  (0.40 cal) Glock automatic handguns, and a Smith and Wesson MP15 assault rifle, mowed down fleeing theater goers at will, as blood spattered all over the cinema floor. Many of those who survived did so not by fleeing (because the shooter waited for victims to bolt to the exit), but by lying low or playing dead between the seats.

The state and its prosecutors will be out to execute Holmes, but his team of public defenders, including Tamara Brady, Daniel King, Kristen Nelson, Katherine Spengler and Rebekka Higgs - will be out to prove that he doesn't deserve to die as he was insane at the time and didn't know what he was doing.

Do they have a case or not? Let us recall a person cannot be tried for a crime unless he is competent to stand trial. To be competent, he must be oriented as to time and place, comprehend the charges against him, appreciate his legal peril, recall the events that caused him to be charged, and be able to communicate with and assist their attorneys to defend him.

Holmes meets all of these criteria except one - he doesn't recall the events that caused him to be charged. .  Indeed, according to the (UK) Telegraph at the time, Holmes claimed that he did not recall the incident, period.. If that is true, he is incompetent to stand trial- but the state didn't buy it - so he is standing trial.

The issue of insanity remains and whether he knew what he was doing at the time and could be responsible for it. This is where Holmes' public defenders are making their stand, and let us note that according to The Denver Post yesterday (p. 1A) Holmes has already offered to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence. But the prosecution, determined to exact ultimate punishment, refused. In a way this is mystifying, as it would have spared the affected families from years more appeals and motions - which the defense team has made clear they will invoke. And, let's be clear - being locked away for life in a high security prison - to especially have regrets aroused in later years, is no 'walk in the park'. To then think of what one could have been, and achieved, and then be forced to contemplate the reality.
 

We consider now the  defense team's claim of Holmes'  insanity at the time. How solid is it?

To recall for readers, The DSM-III, IV, V (Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders) provides a classification of personality disorders and identifies 'clusters' within which specific disorders can occur. These include:

(A) Schizotypal, paranoid and schizoid personality disorders ('odd, eccentric' cluster)

(B) Borderline, narcissistic, histrionic and anti-social personality disorders ('dramatic, emotional, erratic')

(C) Submerged: Avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive, passive aggressive personality disorders('anxious, fearful')

Each Cluster has discrete tendencies within itself:

(A) -> withdraw (no wants from others)

(B) -> exploit (want from others without seeing or responding to what others want from them)

(C) -> comply (want from others, but yields only to others' wants to avoid conflict)

As I showed in my several  blog posts in July, 2012, beginning with Deconstruction of a Psycho Holmes' profile and attributes (as we have assimilated them from sundry reports) fit in with the tendencies in the last (C) ensemble and hence fit the profile of a submerged personality, not a schizophrenic. Also, I have had the experience of observing paranoid schizophrenics at the Black Rock (Barbados) Mental Health Sanatorium in the 70s, and NONE of them demonstrated any capacity for mega-violence of the form James Eagan Holmes manifested via his aggressive pseudo-ego,  the Joker. 

The question again arises: Why should he not recall the event? As I explained in my 'Parsing of the Submergent Psycho- Part II  his incarceration "has torpedoed the 'Joker' (the aggressive pseudo-ego) who is thereby rendered impotent and inactive. What we are seeing is the first emergence of Holmes' authentic self and the expected SHOCK because frankly, HE doesn't know what the hell happened! After all, it was the pseudo ego 'Joker' that did the deed, then vacated or was vacated. Now, the authentic or previously submerged ego is left to wonder what the hell is going on."

So no wonder he has that vacant, million light years distant stare on his face. I also added (in the same blog):

"His self has been dissociated, and the guilty perp -ego is now gone, fled the coop as it were, to leave the authentic 'James Holmes' ego and self to bear the cost"

In other words, to spell it out, Holmes as his authentic (earlier submerged) self, truly can't recall the incident or what he did. He can't because a distinct, different ego (self) perpetrated it. This aggressive pseudo ego masterminded all the planning, as well as execution, while Holmes' submerged self was unavailable and 'out for the count'. His contact with therapist Lynne Fenton may actually have been a last ditch desperate effort to contact the mother-pseudo ego for some kind of relief. (With Fenton embodying the mother ego). We may never know. 

The other real horror (apart from the lives shattered and lost at the theater) may be that the authentic self - who had no clue what was transpiring - may be executed for what his alter ego ("Joker")  did to those 70 people at an Aurora movie theater. 

If this sounds nutso, then further elaboration on "simpleton theory" is needed.  Neuroscientist Robert Ornstein ('The Evolution of Consciousness')  has associated specific modes of behavior with particular neuronal sub-assemblies to assign relatively distinct units of dominant behavior. He calls these sub-units "simpletons". 

For example, every human {H} will be a composite of a number of simpletons, say:


{H} = [A] + [P] + [L] + [R] + ........


where [A] = Altruistic, [P] = Playfulness,[L] = lustful, [R] = reflective and so on.

A dozen or more such "simpletons" may "inhabit" each human brain - and come to the fore if the correct stimulus appears. As each one comes to the fore it represents one side of the Self. Note: this is not the same as saying "multiple selves" as in schizoid splitting or split personality. Each 'self' is legit and valid, since it arises from the person's own neuronal sub-assemblies.

Thus, a "hostile-aggressive" simpleton may appear if one is cut off in a lane of traffic, or is chewed out by one's boss. A "lust" simpleton may appear for any number of stimuli-images which I won't bother to detail, but which anyone can imagine! A "caring-loving" simpleton may appear in response to words of endearment, or an affectionate hug from one's spouse, or child. A "comic" simpleton may appear spontaneously - and proceed to play a practical joke, or take a humorous perspective on everything for the time it is "in control".

Ornstein points out that many humans "require time to get their simpletons in place" for particular situations. A father of two young children may need a half hour or more after he arrives home from work to "chill out" to allow his "hostile-aggressive" simpleton (say after getting snarled in a traffic jam)  to depart, to make way for the "loving-caring" simpleton that can address his children's needs - without yelling at them, criticizing them or swatting them upside the head.

The consequences of simpleton theory as it pertains to crime - especially as in the Holmes' case - are mind boggling and include two aspects for consideration:

i) The typical human is not one steady persona (identity) but up to a dozen or more living together, with more or less equal power shared unless a disequilibrium event manifests.

ii) For a given misdeed or crime, which simpleton (brain sub-system) do you hold accountable? If you hold the whole person accountable you are perhaps assuming more than is warranted by our current brain architecture and its dynamic interplay. After all, why should one's WHOLE self be held accountable because the Lust simpleton briefly got out of control? Or because one's murderous-rage simpleton did? 

In Holmes' case it appears a second "pseudo ego”  was created to defend and protect his submerged, fragile true ego. This pseudo ego then evolved under duress to become the most powerful simpleton in his neural array -  “the Joker”

What duress? Tragically, by the time Holmes’ protector ego (“Joker”) was released, it was already out of control on account of the cumulative stresses on the real self.  Everyone  in Holmes' world then became identified with the introjected parental or authority ego. The warped perception of the defender ego ("Joker") then decided the only way to achieve liberation from the introjected “parent” was to eliminate all who were seen as in its way. In this case, all “normal”, i.e. non-submerged people. 

Those whose personalities had not been coerced into psychological lockdown and submergence by a dominating parent. An alternate possibility, perhaps more convincing, is that the retributional "Joker" persona felt outraged and murderously envious of those normal folk (say in socialized units present at the theater) who were not developmentally stymied and hence whose lives were available for rich and authentic experience.

Why would the Ph.D. level have been the one that finally triggered release of Holmes’ Joker? I suspect that Holmes, lacking an authentic personality, was unable to deal with the extraordinary research demands at the Ph.D. level which necessitate originality. I mean, even if the thesis advisor offers you a thesis subject, you still must have the ability to carry out an original theory! It’s not simply like piling up As and making “honors” at lower levels. No real originality is needed to make the "Dean's List", after all. Even brilliance, so-called, doesn't assure originality at a high research level! (Aside: we know from a Denver 7 News report  at the time by Keli Rabon that Holmes failed a preliminary oral exam before pulling out of the neurosciences program at the Anschutz campus of University of Colorado. A day later he purchased his most lethal weapon, the Smith and Wesson MP15.  The ego fracturing stress had now been maximized.)

What Tamara Brady and her defense team colleagues need to do, if they wish to have Holmes' life spared, is use simpleton theory in concert with submerged personality disorder,  as a basis for why he can't be held responsible for his actions at the time . This is because a more powerful pseudo-persona gained control of him (owing to his weak, submerged authentic ego).. Hence, his real consciousness was detached from the events which is why he can't recall anything now. In a very literal sense, his real self was an innocent bystander that could only watch as his body was taken over by the secondary pseudo-ego in the form of "the Joker".

I personally doubt this will fly - but it may be the only chance Holmes and his defense team has. 

Hello, Obama! SONY Had NO CHOICE!

President Barack Obama is an intelligent guy, but his harsh reprimand of Sony today shows he can also be guilty of making some dumbo claims, rebukes and statements. We saw this earlier in the spring when he actually went on record as saying Russia was a "second class Power". Uh, no, dude. Not when they have nearly half all of the planet's nuclear weapons!

Earlier today Obama again showed he can sometimes be as clueless as Dumbya Bush when he rebuked Sony for withdrawing its year-end assassination flick, 'The Interview'.  The Prez said "I think they made a mistake" then followed it up with:

 "I'd wish they'd spoken to me first. I would have told them 'do not get into the pattern in which you are intimidated by these kind of criminal attacks".

And what would your speaking to them have accomplished, sir?  Let's think about this carefully, not parroting the bollocks and insanity of most of the Neoliberal, paper patriot, pseudo free speech crowd in the U.S. who are also insane and no longer able to reason properly.

First, even if Sony HAD NOT withdrawn this reprehensible flick - which depicts the head of a living leader of a sovereign state (never mind you may hate it)  being blown up in its final scene WHERE the hell could they have shown it? Alas, it was the theater chains like Cinemark, Carmike and Regal Cinema which pulled it after the physical threats were announced. This represented something like 19,200 screens across the country which would have meant the most Sony could have hoped for was maybe getting a few dozen indie flick screens in the malls. Now, seriously, do you really really believe those small indie theaters would have cooperated with Sony after all the majors said 'No'? If so you are more ensconced in the proverbial la la land than your CIA head Brennan - not willing to call the CIA torture, torture.

Second, as Lawrence O'Donnell pointed out last night on "All In", for the benefit of a clueless substitute for Chris Hayes, it was ultimately about possible litigation - given the FBI itself could not 100 percent promise the theater owners that no threat would materialize. (Even a nutso creep like James Eagen Holmes, who committed the Aurora CO theater massacre,  might have used it as a pretext for an incident.)  Given this lack of 100 % assurance, had the theater owners shown the film and ANY kind of violent incident occurred THEY would have been out their with their asses in the lawsuit wind, having to pay up to injured patrons. The repercussions would be similar to what the Aurora, CO Cinemark is facing from the families of the dozen slain and nearly five dozen wounded victims of that theater massacre 2 years ago. (A Denver Judge denied Cinemark's plea to avoid the 20 lawsuits because it "had no foreknowledge". Imagine the consequences for any violent episode in a theater showing 'The Interview')

So, let's get a bearing here on reality, which appears to be a commodity in short supply in the US of A: If you really would like to rebuke anyone or any entity, it is the actual cinema companies, theater owners and litigious lawyers you would have to go after before Sony. The fact you did not do this discloses your analog to "hostage taking" is simply empty rhetoric and posturing.

Obama continued his fulsome, self-righteous bloviation by saying:

"We cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censorship here in the United States."

Sounds real testy with a tinge of humbug, and if I didn't know who had said the words I'd have attributed them to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity - because those two don't think before disengaging mouth or brains (And let's get it clear it isn't a case of  "libtards" being "thin-skinned" - as we see many flocking to the film's defense, yelping they want to see this crappola too - or are four square for Sony putting it up online.  See George Clooney. This is a case of rational people who can still exhibit some mode of discretion and sense, as opposed to jingoistic twits so hyped up on paper patriotism that it's gutted their febrile brains..)

Because when you make a sweeping remark like that as if in some existential vacuum you are revealing yourself oblivious to: 1) the fact that Sony's contract with theater owners allowed their withdrawal from exhibition, and 2) was ultimately because of our litigious society - something which you as a constitutional lawyer ought to know  - because you also must have taken some tort courses at Hah-vahd to get there.

If Obama wanted to be honest in attributing mistakes to Sony, it would have been in green lighting that irresponsible dreck in the first place. Even their own execs, for god's sake, were nervous about the violent ending. Even Obama's own Dept. of Homeland Security(according to an LA Times report) warned Sony that the film "could provoke retaliation."

Ultimately, this crap film masquerading as a comedy deserved to be "assassinated" as one commenter put it in a response at Truthdig.com, because it was neither art or free speech. Showing a living leader's head being exploded and burned up in gory full screen color is not anything any normal, sane human grants as "speech" or "art" - any more than money is speech, and a color photo of a heaping pile of hog shit is art.

But it does show how far along our people - including our leaders- have lost their bearings, their good sense and judgment. More evidence as a whole that our nation - thanks to being pumped by PR and propaganda - is gradually losing its collective mind.  The critical thought test currently is only passed by those who agree that this film never ought to have seen the light of day - and to date- I have seen only two lone voices in the media, which is otherwise overwhelmed with this 'free speech' and "artistic license" BS.

One more point: It would not be wise to instigate a "cyber war" over what one Harvard law prof correctly described as a criminal attack on a lone corporation. Especially as the perceived victim nation does not launch such a war unless it is 100 percent certain all its ducks are cyber-secure and "in a row", including for infrastructure control,  power plants and water systems!

See also:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-sony-japan-ceo-interview-20141220-story.html



http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/12/sony-pictures-should-have-had-sense-not.html

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/12/waaahh-we-caved-in-to-terrists-no.html

And:

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/18/everyone_caved_how_much_of_the_interview_fiasco_is_actually_hollywoods_fault/

Excerpt:

"emails suggest Sony execs remained nervous about the film’s content, especially the ending. On July 9, Lynton wrote to Pascal, “we cannot be cute here,” saying they could work with “no melting face and actually not seeing [Kim Jong-un] die. A look of horror as the fire approaches is probably what we need.” Rogen, while willing to play ball, appears reluctant to completely scuttle the visuals in this Sept. 25 email to Pascal: “There are currently four burn marks on his face. We will take out three of them, leaving only one. We reduce the flaming hair by 50% … The head explosion can’t be more obscured than it is because we honestly feel that if it’s any more obscured you won’t be able to tell its exploding and the joke won’t work.”

Another reason not to back this crappo film:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20141220_ap_1c88ae9ef80a4fe594b0f15402d0bd30.html

"We Caved In to the Terr'ists!" - No - Common Sense Prevailed!

"Bwaaahahahaaa! We surrendered to dem North Korean terrorists! We need to remove 'the land of the free and home of the brave'  from the national anthem!  Boohoooo...Bwahahahaaa!"

Gimme a  break!  A major movie studio makes a damned turd of a movie about killing the leader of another nation  - then has the nerve to call it a comedy. Then  its phony "free speech" supporters (e.g. Judd Apatow, Rob Lowe etc.) whine like brats when theaters correctly pull it, unwilling to risk attacks- even from lone American psychos looking for any excuse to kill. And all this  transpiring pretty close to the same time polls have found most Americans (59%) believe torture is necessary in some or most situations.  Sorry, neither the film studio or the ones clamoring for it to still show the film (The Interview)  have any moral compass by which to set standards for anyone!

As I examined numerous online news sites yesterday evening I was appalled and amazed at some of the stupid comments, which have convinced me that most of the assholes who spout free speech blather (and demand to see this abomination of a flick)  are the same degenerates that support torture. Yes, it's entirely logical, as per this comment I read on one website, after the original commenter mentioned needing to acknowledge 'The Interview' was "terrible" and "objectionable for portraying the slaughter of a world leader as comedy".  The hare-brained response?

"It's good we have drones to eliminate those people with opinions like yours!"

This same jingoistic nitwit replied to a comment by me along similar lines, asking me how I could support using the threat of mass slaughter to halt a comedy. I informed the punk, asking him what planet he came from (Uranus?),  that no one supported either the hacking or the threats of a 9/11 slaughter but merely noted that when actions are taken which include making a film depicting slaughter of another nation's leader then there are bound to be consequences. We use the term "blowback" coined by Chalmers Johnson from his book by the same name.  This is why Sony never should have greenlighted this  $44 m mess of a film. It is NOT a matter of "free speech" but of common sense and sound judgment. A sane film studio, then, has the sense not to release a movie about assassinating a living leader - especially after it receives a heads up from thee Department of Homeland Security to the effect that "the film could provoke retaliation."

I also want to know where these self-proclaimed  "free speech"  people were when Ward Churchill of Univ. of Colorado- Boulder lost his job over an essay he wrote after 9/11, entitled "On Roosting Chickens". The obscure essay, dug up by a college sophomore with too much time on his hands, asserted that those working in the Twin Towers were "little Eichmanns" and conformed to the amoral ethics defined by philosopher Hannah Arendt in terms of the "banality of evil".  No matter how despicable you believe the essay to be, if you truly defend the "right to free speech" - you were (are) obligated to defend his right to write it without repercussions that impacted his life station. But no one with any power or in the media stood up for Churchill.It was as if a lynch mob punished him - and let's bear in mind he wrote an essay, concerning ideas - opinions - he didn't produce a film showing the murder of a real person.

Let us accept as a proposition that a nation - like a person- can go insane, either all at once or incrementally if the right conditions are evident and the right (wrong?) stimuli administered. In the process of going insane, the country's populace loses its bearings, its judgment and even common sense. Because it absorbs PR and propaganda it elects fools to office who actually plan to undermine its very security - even as it applauds torture, and making a movie showing the slaughter of another nation's leader. It can in no way ascend to a larger perspective to allow it to see its actions from the POV of other nations. It claims "exceptionalism" but is really not exceptional at all - it tortures like other nations, and lets the torturers walk free like other nations with dictators.  In the ultimate form, the insanity manifests as mass slaughter and even genocide.

Examples from history come to mind, including Rwanda in 1994 after years of talk radio led the resident Hutus to go on a genocidal rampage leaving more than 800,000 Tutsis slaughtered. Then there was Nazi Germany, where nonstop propaganda from the likes of Leni Reifenstahl slowly gutted the Germans' minds and sensibilities - leading them to accept actions, national decisions they otherwise would reject.  My good fortune has been that on two occasions - one in August of 1978, the other in May of 1985 -  I was able to meet and talk to actual flesh and blood Germans from the WWII era. One  (Kurt Braun) who had been a member of the Hitler Youth, forced to join at the point of a gun to his mother's head.

Kurt Braun, ca. Aug. 1978,  shows Nazi era films and how Germans were brain-fucked.

He showed me a sequence of vintage films - starting with Kristallnacht- that clearly depicted how the Germans' were gradually mind-fucked - to the extent that by the end  of the war they expressed shock that concentration camps even existed.  They had to be frog-marched by U.S. troops into places like Buchenwald and Dachau to see the spoils of what their Fuhrer had wrought.

I submit that the loony outcry from the pseudo-patriots and free speech phonies in the wake of this vile film being pulled -  with few people offering opposite opinions, shows how loopy and unhinged from reason we've become. We're more or less on the same track as the Germans ca. 1932, when one third embraced Hitlerian fascism.. It only remains to be seen what sort of fool we elect in 2016 that might take us all the way. Say some bombastic asshole like Chris Christie, with Ted Cruz as Obersturmfuhrer,.....errrrr.....VP..

As for 'The Interview'  being pulled by the theater chains, most dumbass critics don't seem to process that it was left to the chains themselves to deal with the threats . Other than allowing them out of their exhibition contracts, Sony provided nada nor any guidance.. Hell, it isn't even a matter of some actual terrorist  carrying out the threats. Given the U.S. population is riddled with nuts, many of whom own high -powered weapons, it would only take one lone wolf massacre - such as occurred in Aurora, CO in July, 2012-when James Eagen Holmes opened fire in a Cinemark Theater with his AR-15  and killed 12 and wounded 59. Then all the chains would reap the whirlwind, and all the twits now bawling about "the terrorists won" would be screaming "why didn't anyone see this coming and pull that film?"

Flash now to Hacktivist Hector Monsegur - now a security researcher - interviewed on CBS this morning, who disputes that the culprit was North Korea, as the U.S. is trying to claim. He noted first that "something like this to happen, it had to happen over a long period of time, You cannot just exfiltrate one terabyte or a hundred terabytes of data in a matter of weeks. It would have taken months maybe even years to exfiltrate one hundred terabytes of data without anyone noticing."

Which to me, suggests above all a disgruntled Sony employee who - given the content of the film - found it convenient to even leave North Korean 'tracks' (malware written in Korean) to mislead those trying to get to the source. Even Monsegur agreed the North Korean alleged language links don't tell him much as he's seen "Russian hackers pretending to be Indian, and Ukrainian hackers pretending to be Peruvian" - in other words leaving malware tracks to mislead. So we had better be careful before making wild accusations, or taking precipitous actions without 100 percent proof.

When pressed about the North Koreans as the hackers, Monsegur observed:

"In my personal opinion it's not. I mean look at the bandwidth in North Korea. I mean the pipes going in - they only have like one major ISP to handle all the data for the whole nation. That kind of information flow would have shut down the North Korean information flow completely.They don't have the infrastructure, they don't have the technical capability ...they do have state-sponsored hackers, very similar to Russia, to China and the good old USA."

Monsegur also suspects, like me, a former Sony employee (along the lines of Edward Snowden) downloaded all the info off Sony servers and sold it to someone else. Good luck on finding that lone wolf!

In the meantime, this country - now found guilty of the most abject and depraved tortures  (with a majority of its deluded people supporting them) - needs to back off and stop  its moral  posturing including yahoos squallering about the pulling of this disgusting flick out of theaters. And if you,  like the pundits,  make a really big deal out of protecting  "free speech" - be sure next time you support the speech of those like Ward Churchill too. Otherwise, don't waste your breath. Your 1st amendment eruptions don't mean diddly.

See also:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-sony-japan-ceo-interview-20141220-story.html

And:

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/18/everyone_caved_how_much_of_the_interview_fiasco_is_actually_hollywoods_fault/


Excerpt:

"emails suggest Sony execs remained nervous about the film’s content, especially the ending. On July 9, Lynton wrote to Pascal, “we cannot be cute here,” saying they could work with “no melting face and actually not seeing [Kim Jong-un] die. A look of horror as the fire approaches is probably what we need.” Rogen, while willing to play ball, appears reluctant to completely scuttle the visuals in this Sept. 25 email to Pascal: “There are currently four burn marks on his face. We will take out three of them, leaving only one. We reduce the flaming hair by 50% … The head explosion can’t be more obscured than it is because we honestly feel that if it’s any more obscured you won’t be able to tell its exploding and the joke won’t work.”

Lynton and Pascal ultimately allowed the film’s ending despite their misgivings and despite the industry’s general reluctance (see Sacha Baron Cohen’s “The Dictator,” a Gadhafi-style fictional tyrant leading a made-up country) to directly provoke volatile dictators in the first place. They had a lot of money wrapped up in the project, after all, and Sony’s job is to make entertainments that make money. 

Zimmerman - Another Aurora or Sandy Hook Killer "waiting to happen"

No, not from my mouth or keyboard, but  the Florida police chief in Lake Mary, as reported by The Guardian. According to a release last night, The Guardian has identified a Florida police chief  revealing his belief that Trayvon Martin's killer George Zimmerman is a volatile character who is "a Sandy Hook waiting to happen".

Steve Bracknell is the chief of the Lake Mary police department, which is investigating Zimmerman, 29, for allegedly threatening his estranged wife, Shellie, and his father-in-law with a gun on Monday.
In an email exchange with a Lake Mary resident critical of the department's initial decision not to arrest or charge Zimmerman, Bracknell appears to agree with the writer's description of Zimmerman, acquitted in July of murdering Martin, an unarmed black teenager, as "a ticking time bomb".

Resident, Santiago Rodriguez, told Bracknell in his first email, seeking an explanation for why Lake Mary officers did not charge Zimmerman.

"Zimmerman is a Sandy Hook, Aurora waiting to happen,"

Bracknell replied:

"Your reference to Sandy Hook … I agree,"

So why not get this kook into chains and behind bars, or at least under mental observation in a rubber room with some thorazine - as should have been done to James Eagen Holmes while he suffered delusions of being "the Joker". Well, now we have a new Joker in Georgie Z'man who actually has assorted necrophilous blog defenders who are as fucked up as he is. (As to why, I already explored the necrophilous personality, and its obsessive love for death , destruction and of course, the type of weapons .....like AR-15s and Bushmasters, that can unleash death en masse.)

The Guardian noted that at the end of a follow-up email - urging Bracknell "not to give up" on the investigation -  Rodriguez wrote:

"Sooner or later another mother and father is going to be on CNN lashing out against the system due to this man snapping."

Bracknell replied:

 "As for your final thoughts, again, on a personal note, I agree."


Recall that Shellie Zimmerman called 911 to report Z-man was threatening her and her father with a gun:


"He's just threatening all of us with his firearm, and he's gonna shoot us. He punched my dad in the nose. My dad has a mark on his face,"


Images in The Miami Herald, Tampa Tribune and other Florida papers showed Shellie's dad severely bruised on his face, and that alone might have caused a heart attack or stroke. In any case, one wonders why this little slime ball isn't behind bars. Oh, but wait, his lawyer O'Mara quit the service of this miserable renegade. See e.g.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-loses-lawyer-cops-seek-fight-video/story?id=20212533

According to the ABC News clip and story:

"A spokesman for Mark O'Mara, who succeeded in winning an acquittal for Zimmerman in the racially charged Trayvon Martin murder trial, said O'Mara will not represent Zimmerman in any future litigation including his divorce and any possible charges resulting from the Monday incident involving his wife and father-in-law. "

This means Georgie Porgie is on his own with the most serious criminal cases he may be faced with, as well as the looming litigation with his wife, Shellie, who ought to soak this little  fraud for all he's worth - all the bloviations of his idiotic, semi-educated gun nut defenders to the contrary. The ABC news clip goes on:

"O'Mara will still be Zimmerman's lawyer in a defamation suit pending against NBC and in the remaining motions stemming from the Trayvon Martin trial, including a motion to reimburse Zimmerman's attorneys and a motion to censure the prosecution. "
 

In other words, out of  the goodness of his heart and sheer mercy for this forlorn, pathetic loser - similar to some other gun toting Florida losers- Mr. O'Mara will stay around for the less offensive civil cases.
 

ABC further noted:
 

"O'Mara appeared to struggle with his anger at his client during Monday's incident in which he went to Zimmerman's house while police were still there. During a press conference later, O'Mara was asked if he had any advice for Zimmerman, and he answered, "Pay me."
 

So we see Z-man is not only a sorry ass screw loose whackjob, but a deadbeat to boot. Hey, maybe certain necrotic bloggers - if they love this piece of refuse so much  - can put up his next bail? Wait, given they themselves are only getting a bit of VA disability that might not be enough. Well, in that case maybe they can go back to school and get an A.A. degree for a better job, as opposed to attending Smokehouse Bible College!

Oh another question to show how dumb and ignorant certain necrotic bloggers are: Is Z-man really "mixed", e.g. half black and half white like Obama? Errrrr.....NO! Being Hispanic is not the same as being black. But don't tell that to these ignorant morons because it will sail serenely over their heads.  While they babble non-stop over "jungle jook" this and that they'd be better off taking a hard look at Fla. cracker jook. And I don't mean the eating kind!

One Year Later: The Joker's Insanity Plea Has Been Accepted

One year now after the horrific Aurora, CO theater massacre, which left 12 dead and dozens brutally maimed, James Eagen Holmes has had his "insanity" plea accepted by the judge and will face the consequences. How salient is this plea and what consequences might he face?  Readers will recall that a year ago I put up three blog posts, starting with one  entitled 'Deconstructing the Psycho' , wherein I examined in detail the probable basis for Holmes' derangement.

Holmes is definitely (ok, let's say instead with 90% probability) not schizophrenic - since his behaviors don't fit that cluster of traits as defined and explicated in the DSM-III and IV. To recall for readers, The DSM-III, IV (Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders) provides a classification of personality disorders and identifies 'clusters' within which specific disorders can occur. These include:


(A) Schizotypal, paranoid and schizoid personality disorders ('odd, eccentric' cluster)

(B) Borderline, narcissistic, histrionic and anti-social personality disorders ('dramatic, emotional, erratic')

(C) Submerged: Avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive, passive aggressive personality disorders('anxious, fearful')

Each Cluster has discrete tendencies within itself:

(A) -> withdraw (no wants from others)
(B) -> exploit (want from others without seeing or responding to what others want from them)

(C) -> comply (want from others, but yields only to others' wants to avoid conflict)

As I showed in my several prior blogs, beginning with Deconstruction of a Psycho Holmes' profile and attributes (as we have assimilated them from sundry reports) fit in with the tendencies in the last (C) ensemble and hence fit the profile of a submerged personality, not a schizophrenic. Also, I have had the experience of observing paranoid schizophrenics at the Black Rock (Barbados) Mental Health Sanatorium in the 70s, and NONE of them demonstrated any capacity for mega-violence of the form James Eagan Holmes manifested via his aggressive pseudo-ego, the Joker.

Let's also bear in mind another critical aspect as the trial unfolds: A person cannot be tried for a crime unless he is competent to stand trial. To be competent, he must be oriented as to time and place, comprehend the charges against him, appreciate his legal peril, recall the events that caused him to be charged, and be able to communicate with and assist their attorneys to defend him.

That standard has obviously been met, which is to say that the current manifestation of Holmes is indeed sane and competent to stand trial since he has exhibited that he understands the charges against him and the consequences. What is at issue then, is his state of mind when he donned the Joker outfit and took out his psychotic persona on dozens of hapless movie goers (including Caleb Medley, now still recovering from his head wounds, but facing a long, slow and painful rehab as well as speech therapy.)

When exactly did Holmes' sane persona emerge? Very soon after his apprehension and being put in the dock. As I noted when the first images became available, this legal bondage : had torpedoed the 'Joker' (the aggressive pseudo-ago) and thereby rendered it impotent and inactive. What we are seeing is the first emergence of Holmes' authentic self and the expected SHOCK because frankly, HE doesn't know what the hell happened! After all, it was the pseudo ego 'Joker' that did the deed, then vacated or was vacated. Now, the authentic or previously submerged ego is left to wonder what the hell is going on


So, what will in effect stand trial is the authentic ego, for the crimes of the earlier pseudo-ego which was given the name "the Joker".  So no wonder he had that vacant, million light years distant stare on his face. As I also added (in the same blog):

His self has been dissociated, and the guilty perp -ego is now gone, fled the coop as it were, to leave the authentic 'James Holmes' ego and self to bear the cost


In other words, to spell it out, Holmes as his authentic (earlier submerged) self, truly couldn't recall the incident or what he did. He couldn't because a distinct, different ego (self) perpetrated it. This aggressive pseudo ego masterminded all the planning, as well as assembly of weapons, costume and the execution, while Holmes' submerged self was unavailable and 'out for the count'. (Or at the very most watching passively like a paralyzed bystander.)

The problem facing Holmes's defense is that they must convince the jury that he's innocent by virtue of insanity by sowing reasonable doubt. That means, convincing most of the jurors that the Holmes that committed the grisly deed in Aurora a year ago is not the same as the version of Holmes sitting before them. This is a tall order, perhaps too tall, as the natural tendency will be for people not to make the cognitive disassociation. They only way that might be salvaged is if a tape is available actually showing the deranged "Joker" in action that night a year ago-  so that jurors can compare it to the (apparently) rational and sane person sitting before them.

So far as anyone is aware, no such tape exists - anywhere- so that the probability is that Holmes' will be faced with a guilty verdict. I still maintain that the main error made by the prosecution was in not accepting Holmes' attorneys initial plea deal (which would have sent him away for life) but instead going for capital murder and the death penalty. In other words, going for all the marbles.  One juror who doesn't believe in the death penalty could therefore screw up this strategy. We will see.

Gun Magazine Makers. to CO Legislators: 'Pass That Bill and We're Leavin!' Hasta la vista, chumps!

The news in today's Denver Post (p. 1A) that the makers of multiple-clip weapons magazines will leave the state if Colorado legislators pass a law limiting clips to 15 rounds (not even the 10 demanded by Obama!) is enough to make a normal-brained citizen howl with laughter. All I can say is: 'Hey, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!'

According to the article, if Magpul Industries follows through on its extortion to leave the state unless lawmakers back down, "it could harm more than a dozen Front Range firms specializing in plastic injection molding, and reduce the region's capacity in the manufacturing process." Well, so be it! Collateral damage happens in all spheres of life, and none of us can be protected absolutely, especially when the greater good trumps that of a limited few or even 100.

Besides, are we then- on this basis-  to surrender ANY change in laws because it might hurt or "harm" our economics? In that case, we could as well all to to earthly hell in a handbasket right now, and let the coal pumpers, frackers, oilmen and every other fossil fuel predator have its way ....and to hell with the planet and all future generations! Let them all drink oil-fouled green slime, breathe in polluted high CO2 air, come down with dengue fever or dysentery or....boil to death in a home without any power at 115F.

The Post adds:

"The Erie company which makes weapons components and high capacity ammunition magazines has threatened to leave if the state bans individuals from owning magazines with more than 15 rounds."

Then let 'em leave!

And if there are other high capacity magazine makers who want to go, let them get the hell out too! We don't need or want them!

For those who missed the news, the Colorado State House yesterday passed legislation with gun restrictions that stands as a model for the nation. It passed in the House and is now on the way to the state senate where dems also hold a majority, by 20-15 (compared to 37-28 in the House). And no, in our state we have sanity ruling, so a super majority is not needed, only a simple majority.

Two bills have so far been passed: 1) for ammunition magazine limits, to no more than 15 rounds per maazine, and 2) for universal background checks. Gov. Hickenlooper already declared he backs the provisions and will sign the bills when they arrive.  Had either of these bills been in place back in July last year, James Holmes would likely never have been able to slaughter 12 people at an Aurora, CO cinema, and maim 58 others - including Caleb Medley (shown) still trying to reclaim his life after head injuries and more than $2m in medical bills.
Meanwhile, Greg Alfred, one of the gun magazine company honchos, was quoted as warning:

"If House Bill 1224 passes, we will relocate all or part of our operations out of state."

He added that his company (Alfred Manufacturing) is searching for locations in several other western states, including Wyoming and Montana."

The fact that these guys couldn't even abide clips with 15 rounds shows they're more interested in preserving their profits than even making partial moves to cut down on the number of clips that really can only be for military purposes. But wtf does any ordinary human or hunter need a military assault rifle for? To kill a buck? To kill a rabbit? Gimme a break!

Kudos to the Colorado House for getting these new bills passed, and now let's hoe the Senate soon follows suit.

Details of Aurora Massacre Show the Huge Role Blind Chance Played

WIth the details of the Aurora Theater massacre released last week during James Holmes' preliminary hearing, we are now aware of the enormous role blind chance played in determining who lived and who died.  This is important because in the immediate aftermath there were a number of victims who felt they had special protection from God. For example,  a Denver Post piece by Lynn Bartels, recounted how survivor Bonnie Kate Pourciau proclaimed "God was holding us in His hands" as the shooting unfolded - and hence, she and her friend (Elizabeth) managed to walk out  of the Century 16 cinema with Bonnie Kate only having one gunshot in her leg.


Much of this egoistic foolishness can be forgiven or overlooked either out of youthful folly (Bonnie Kate was only 18) or because too many people inhabit a mythical world of their own confabulation where a 'Daddy God' watches over everything and knows when every sparrow falls or when every rose bud blossoms. A lot is also engendered because of the U.S. of A's hyper religious culture and enabling media which pays more attention to religious nonsense than anything else. I already noted a lot of this and how the American press enables it in an earlier blog, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/12/idiocy-beyond-belief-charles-pierce.html

Anyway, let's look at the findings to see the extent to which people were affected based on totally chance contingency as opposed to any "divine intervention". In other words, it was basically the movie goers' chance decisions which put them in the brunt of harm's way or not.

Some of the chance components of good fortune - which otherwise meant many more killed:

-Investigators found 76 used casings and 224 live rounds, with unused magazines picked up outside as the suspect was searched.  They also found evidence that Holmes' high capacity magazine had jammed, otherwsie perhaps three times more would have been killed. Blind chance!

-Of the total of 375 move goers in Theater 9, 12 were killed, and 58 others injured, including three in the adjacent theater (Theater 8).

- Holmes' actual movie ticket was punched for Theater 8, not Theater 9. Had he followed the information the  killings would have been in Theater 8, not 9. All the victims' names would have been different.

- By happenstance, at the time of the shootings two Aurora police shifts overlapped, allowing 129 officers to respond in 5 minutes to 911 calls, and help ferry the wounded to hospitals. If only one shift had been available many more victims would have died with barely half the number of officers available.

- At least a couple of victims, including Jesse Childress, chose to go into Theater 9 when they had friends who invited them into Theater 8. Others, like Jordan Crofter, had sneaked into Theater 9 to sit with friends. Choices!

- The most lethal area of the Theater was in rows 8- 12 where six were killed.

- A number of victims wouldn't have been in the Theater at all had they followed their usual norms, routines. Jansen Young and friend, for example, noted how tired they were and that "maybe we shouldn't go tonight". They did anyway.  Two bikers were headed for San Francisco and weren't Batman fans at all. They just happened to pull up near the Aurora 16 Cinemark  when they were tired and decided to take in the film.

Each of the above, and more, discloses the extent to which chance decisions and happenstance intervened on that July night. Meanwhile, diehard religionists like Bonnie Kate Pourciau will continue to believe they were spared by some divine intervention - never mind not far from them a 6-year old (Veronica Moser) died a brutal death.

We know the human brain is prey to these exceptionalist fantasies, and we also know there is no way they will ever stop. They are part and parcel of the religious exceptionalism that threads its way through our culture, culminating in the skewed belief that only a chosen select are "saved", who happen to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ". Never mind, 'Jesus' was a god-man fable stolen from the Mithra template, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/12/more-on-mithraic-god-man-mythooogy.html

At some time, however, most humans will grow up and finally put away their childish things, including immature beliefs and acknowledge their lives are more hinged to the vagaries of blind chance than they'd like to think!

Is the Psycho Gaming the System? Could be....

J                
James Egan Holmes: The 'Butcher' of Aurora. Is he gaming the system?

The blogosphere buzz now is that the Aurora Mass Murderer (let's cut the crap here, and leave out all the "alleged killer" BS - he surrendered to the police decked out in his bloody kevlar and other gear) is gaming the justice system. This meme has arisen in the wake of the discovery that he sent a notebook bearing all his massacre plans to a therp that was treating him at the University of Colorado-Anshutz. Evidently, this therapist - Lynne Fenton- had been treating the guy for schizophrenia .

Left unresolved, especially after a judge has sealed further records disclosure from the university, is whether Holmes knew in advance how this would unfold. It is possible that he deliberately decided to seek therapy services from this senior person in the hope that it might later be exploited to make the basis for an "insanity" plea.  Leaving out all the other distractions, I simply believe Holmes - if this was indeed his plan - made the wrong choice of illness. He is definitely (ok, let's say instead with 90% probability) not schizophrenic - since his behaviors don't fit that cluster of traits as defined and explicated in the DSM-III and IV.  To recall for readers, The DSM-III, IV (Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders) provides a classification of personality disorders and identifies 'clusters' within which specific disorders can occur. These include:

(A) Schizotypal, paranoid and schizoid personality disorders ('odd, eccentric' cluster)

(B) Borderline, narcissistic, histrionic and anti-social personality disorders ('dramatic, emotional, erratic')

(C) Submerged: Avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive, passive aggressive personality disorders('anxious, fearful')

Each Cluster has discrete tendencies within itself:

(A) -> withdraw (no wants from others)

(B) -> exploit (want from others without seeing or responding to what others want from them)

(C) -> comply (want from others, but yields only to others' wants to avoid conflict)

As I showed in my several prior blogs, beginning with Deconstruction of a Psycho Holmes' profile and attributes (as we have assimilated them from sundry reports) fit in with the tendencies in the last (C) ensemble and hence fit the profile of a submerged personality, not a schizophrenic. Also, I have had the experience of observing paranoid schizophrenics at the Black Rock (Barbados) Mental Health Sanatorium in the 70s, and NONE of them demonstrated any capacity for mega-violence of the form James Eagan Holmes manifested via his aggressive pseudo-ego,  the Joker.

Now, let us bear in mind another critical aspect as this case slowly wends its way to trial (which I am now informed  may not be for two years):  A person cannot be tried for a crime unless he is competent to stand trial. To be competent, he must be oriented as to time and place, comprehend the charges against him, appreciate his legal peril, recall the events that caused him to be charged, and be able to communicate with and assist their attorneys to defend him.

It is not, at this time, evident that Holmes meets any of these criteria.  Indeed, according to the (UK) Telegraph, Holmes claims that he does not recall the incident. If that is true, he is incompetent to stand trial.

Why should he not recall it? As I explained in my 'Parsing of the Submergent Psycho- Part II  his incarceration "has torpedoed the 'Joker' (the aggressive pseudo-ago) who is thereby rendered impotent and inactive. What we are seeing is the first emergence of Holmes' authentic self and the expected SHOCK because frankly, HE doesn't know what the hell happened! After all, it was the pseudo ego 'Joker' that did the deed, then vacated or was vacated. Now, the authentic or previously submerged ego is left to wonder what the hell is going on."

So no wonder he has that vacant, million light years distant stare on his face. I also added (in the same blog):

"His self has been dissociated, and the guilty perp -ego is now gone, fled the coop as it were, to leave the authentic 'James Holmes' ego and self to bear the cost"

In other words, to spell it out, Holmes as his authentic (earlier submerged) self, truly can't recall the incident or what he did. He can't because a distinct, different ego (self) perpetrated it. This aggressive pseudo ego masterminded all the planning, as well as execution, while Holmes' submerged self was unavailable and 'out for the count'. His contact with therapist Lynne Fenton may actually have been a last ditch desperate effort to contact the mother-pseudo ego for some kind of relief. (With Fenton embodying the mother ego). We may never know.

The other real horror (apart from the lives shattered and lost at the theater) may be that the authentic self - who had no clue what was transpiring - will be executed for what his alter ego ("Joker")  did to those 70 people at an Aurora movie theater.

God was "Holding You In His Hands?" Don't Think So!

Nearly twenty years ago, after a US Air (Flight 405) crash in New York, where there were a number of survivors (27) - but many died (24) - I wrote an article that appeared in the (then ) Baltimore Evening Sun warning of "survivor hubris" and "beliefs in divine exceptionalism",  after a number of the survivors appeared in the media bragging that 'God saved me!' or "God heard my prayers!' or some such rot. While it is understandable that in the wake of a major trauma and near escape with one's life (I had my own in May, 1971, from a head on car collision near Avon Park, FL) people would believe they are special on account of having lived, they need to process that this take essentially spits on the lives of those who didn't make it - and may have prayed just as hard!

So, I make some allowances for harried or traumatized brains that have 'run off the rails' (such as those of 18-year old, home-schooled Southern girls)  who may have expressed such misbegotten beliefs personally and "off the record". Where I take objection is when such wayward beliefs are given major press space such as in today's Denver Post piece by a Lynn Bartels, recounting how survivor shooting victim Bonnie Kate Pourciau claimed "God was holding us in His hands" as the shooting unfolded - and hence, she and her friend (Elizabeth) managed to walk out  of the Century 16 cinema with Bonnie only having one gunshot in her leg. (One wonders, of course, if God really was holding her so fast, how in His infinite power he could have allowed that stray gunshot to hit her. But again, we must bear in mind this is a home-schooled 18 year old from the Deep South - and yeah, I have been to Baton Rouge, so am aware of the culture there.)

My point is that such publicized blarney essentially disrespects, albeit indirectly, the lives of those who didn't make it and who had every right to have lived - just as much as Bonnie Kate Pourciau. Now, maybe as my wife has opined, she -  like some others spouting special divine dispensation -  are "brainwashed" and hence their only recourse is to barf up the sort of specialized pap they've been fed over the years by their Sunday Schools,  ministers or padres. Fair enough. That still doesn't mean The Post has to print it and thereby give wide circulation and credence to such whacked out beliefs.

A question here for Bonnie Kate and other Personal Divine Exceptionalists: How is it that you couldn't have extended your God's power (in your prayers beseeching His Presence) to the others under fire or running for their lives? How is it that He would have allowed little 6-year old Veronica Moser-Sullivan to die? Didn't that child deserve life, survival as much as you did? Didn't Caleb Medley, husband and father, who now is in an induced coma because of a shot to the head - and facing $2 million in hospital bills - merit a better outcome? Inquiring minds want to know!

Could you not, in your desperate moments, have tried to extend the 'umbrella' of (presumably) infinite divine power and protection to all and sundry - instead of only you and your friend?

In the end it really matters not, except again, the Post giving credence to such shallow views and beliefs by their publication. The truth is those like Bonnie Kate and her friend simply lucked out. There was no real "divinity" clasping her hand except in her mind. It was a case of pure dumb luck that her seat wasn't more directly in the gunman's line of fire.

Just as in the case of those US Air Flt. 405 survivors back in March, 1992, who survived simply by the good fortune of being in the right seats. No divine intervention, no individual specialness.

And if survivors, whether of that crash, or the Aurora theater massacre, insist it was divine intervention that spared them, then they need to cut the crap - come clean- and explain logically and completely why a little innocent 6 year old wasn't also spared, or the other 11 now dead victims who might also have been praying as fervently as Bonnie Kate, and have believed just as intensely that their lives were in "His hands" until the last fatal gunshot.

In the meantime, it's best that major news organs,  if they run stories of human interest on the survivors, stick to the facts as opposed to wishful thinking "divine saving" fantasies that indirectly smear and demean the lives of those who perished - implying that they were not good enough, or devout enough to make it!  For myself, as a non-theist, I am at least glad I can provide a rational response to people who ask: "Why was I saved and not  (fill in name)?

Basically, pure dumb luck! Much preferable to a misbegotten species of personal idolatry!