No (Candy) Treats Tonight For Any Kid Wearing A Trump (Or Other Objectionable) Mask.

Wearing any of these despicable masks will get a kid a Granny Smith green apple, nothing more.

No - there will be NO candy or other sugary goodies for any kid who shows up tonight in a Donald Trump mask.  There will be a "treat" of  sorts (recommended by a good friend):  a nice green, Granny Smith  apple. This is the same approach I used some years ago for kids wearing racist Obama masks, e.g.

 but for different reasons.Why a kid would choose such a mask instead of a zombie, dinosaur, Frankenstein  or demon, is beyond me.

But maybe the kid perhaps believes Donald Trump's visage is scarier than any 'Walking Dead" zombie's or a Satan mask.  Or maybe a parent (Trumpie) thought it'd be cool to "scare the libtards" with a Trump mask.  No, not cool, not a good idea.

We already see this depraved beast and man -baby con man defiling the office and the nation at large. An oozing pustule on the U.S. body politic,  contaminating the public airwaves every night on the news. So we don't need to see a facsimile of the orange bastard on a kid's face for Halloween..  As psychiatrist Allen Francis writes in his book, 'Twilight of American Sanity' (p. 35):

"Trump's peevish truculence, previously confined to reality TV shows, temper tantrums at business meetings, and petty feuds....is now destabilizing the world."

So we don't need a Trump mask to also destabilize the kid world of 'Trick or Treat' which ought to be totally apolitical.

Look, this is simple and basically common sense.  There are aesthetic and moral limits to the Halloween costumes that can be tolerated and accepted.  Further, education concerning what is appropriate needs to be an integral part of the event.  This also goes far beyond the meme of "political correctness" which is mocked these days even when it's blatantly over extended into areas pertaining to civility, and plain old common sense.

With that in mind here's a list of Halloween costumes which  merit a Granny Smith green apple, should trick or treaters show up in any of them.  Those appearing with good old fashioned, non-political  costumes (i.e. devil, ape, zombie, etc.) get a bag filled with Reese's Pieces, M&Ms, Snickers, and Nestles Crunch mini (2 oz.) bars.

1) Barack Obama rodeo clown mask: Absolutely not, no way and no how. Besides, it's not even funny but merely a sneaky way to mock our first African -American President. I already explained all of this in a previous blog post, http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/08/good-riddance-to-obama-rodeo-clown.html

2) Blackface: This is a more generic extension of (1) given it mocks African Americans in general. People need to know, however that , blackface   was developed in the country's primitive early social era barely five decades after the Civil War as a form of "entertainment". Sadly, despite supposedly having entered a more refined and civilized era, it remains a perennial favorite among both intentional and accidental racists. For those in need of some education before you don it, here is a handy flowchart in case you need further guidance on the subject.


3) Adolf Hitler: Jeebus, this ought to go without saying, no? Especially in the full array, as decked out in the official Führer uniform, i.e.

This guy, perhaps the greatest monster of the 20th century, needs no advertising from either wayward kids, or parents. It simply ought to be a no-brainer to not even go there!

4) Donald J. Trump,  Second only to Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin (I rank them co-equal 1s) in manifest evil.  So just as I'd not tolerate a Hitler mask I'd not tolerate one bearing the face of the most malignant criminal, con man, traitor and demagogue to ever foul the office of the presidency.  

5) 'The Joker' -  This was the get up mass killer James Eagen Holmes' used in his murderous assault on an Aurora, CO theater in July 2012. It's now had a new iteration in a new movie entitled 'Joker' but people here in Colorado are still sensitive to the subtext and message and don't want reminding.  Just as theaters have barred patrons in masks from entry so many of my neighbors don't want to see kids coming  down the cul-de-sac with such masks to their doors.  Fortunately, the costumes-masks were relatively rare - let's hope they remain that way. People here in Colorado don't need to be reminded of that tragedy 

6) Anna Rexia: Lol. Get it? A personification of Anorexia, a high fave of teen girls over the years. Sorry to suck the fun out of your pun, chickies, but eating disorders are never sexy, nor are they something to be mocked — same goes for any other illness or disorder.


7) The Human Centipede:  Fortunately, this one is rare - so unlikely to be seen anywhere in my burg - also, this place is far too conservative to remotely tolerate it so I probably don't have to worry about it.  Compared to the real-life horrors cited above, dressing up as the Human Centipede, the horror film machination of humans stitched together from mouth-to-anus, is hardly the most offensive costume. But it’s still  really gross- and isn't one to be rewarded.

Have fun, get the kids outside - as opposed to keeping 'em corralled  merely at house parties or Malls- but know what costumes are appropriate and what are not.  And remember: political correctness has value - despite some of Bill Maher's objections  - in the promotion and service of moral consciousness and the cultivation of a moral compass!

See also:

 How Halloween makes kids more monstrous

And:

American Chemical Society Investigates How Much Ha...

Seriously? NRA Tries To Get Me To Join With Guns "Sweepstakes"

Part of flyer I received in mail about prizes (multiple guns) to be won in NRA sweepstakes.

In the interest of full disclosure let me say first that although I have owned and fired firearms I've never had any interest in the NRA or joining its government-leery minions. That hasn't stopped the organization from plying me with "provisional" membership cards as well as other inducements to join. In the latest iteration I received a two page form letter from none other then Exec VP Wayne La Pierre with the end sign off "Yours in freedom".

The intro of the letter reads:

"Dear Fellow American,

This is YOUR  official call for entry in our exciting NRA sweepstakes and you don't have a moment to lose.  Because there will be over 700 WINNERS GUARANTEED and I want to give you a chance to win!

Don't wait. This is your shot at incredible gun, hunt and gear prizes - and best of all, you get to pick the prizes you'd like to win most.

PLUS it's WINNER TAKE ALL.

You read that right!

You'll not only have a chance to win your First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Prize selections - you could also win EVERY SINGLE PRIZE you've chosen at each of thee levels if you're drawn as our LUCKY GRAND PRIZE WINNER!

----------------------------

Yep, and IF I was a rabid gun nut or collector or even NRA aficionado I'd no doubt place all the accompanying prize stickers on in a heartbeat.

But the problem is I am not a gun grabber or NRA fan. Indeed, I have written multiple posts before against this bunch, such as after James Eagen Holmes' Aurora theater massacre and the Newtown bloodshed. 

After the Tucson shootings by Jared Loughner with Gabby Giffords one of the victims, I explained the basis of the 2nd amendment in one January, 2011 post:

Let me cite again the Second Amendment to the Constitution:

"A self-Regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now, one must understand and comprehend the era and period in which this was written. At that time muskets were the primary weapon, and no major organized standing army existed such as we now have. Indeed, the Continental Army of Washington, though it prevailed over the British, now had massive war debts to pay off. There was no way to keep thousands of men under arms for sustained periods, as well as clothing and feeding them - far less recycling them with newer equipment each year!

It therefore became necessary to authorize the basis for a non-centralized force or "Militia" in order to supplement any governmentally organized army called up. This "Militia" originated in the countryside, from citizens living across the land in various villages, towns and states. In effect, the 2nd amendment drafters were asserting the necessity for a subsidiary people's army to assist the main one. Citizens then became in effect, necessary to the security of the nation. One could then describe the state militias as "adjunct armies".

Indeed, some interpreters of the amendment believe the original content is really even more diluted than what I portrayed. They see the "well regulated militia" provision as actually devised as protections from any marauding, "loose cannon" generals. These interpreters insist the framers would never in a million years have envisaged people possessing permanent private weapons in their own homes - claiming it would have really detracted from a militia's effectiveness (E.g. who controls when they fire weapons at whom, and when? Or whether or not the owners are even trained in their use? DO we just let thousands of gun owners go off half-cocked to do their own thing?)

But there is NO way, not one bit, the framers would behold what we have now ....the most formidable organized military in the world - with more weapons than all the empires of all previous centuries put together, and insist that separate citizens' militias were still needed. And they certainly wouldn't confer any benediction on owning powerful automatic rifles or even semi-automatic Glocks that can spew off 31 rounds in seconds!

Adding:

So what has happened? The NRA, with enormous political clout, has succeeded in vaporizing what few common sense controls were left and given us a very close version of the "wild West". It began when a federal law enacted in 1994 that restricted the sale of certain semi-automatics was allowed to expire in 2004. This expiry was sought by the NRA which put pressure on congress critters to allow it. (The NRA doubtless subscribed to the "slippery slope" fallacy: that if semi-automatics weren't permitted, then ordinary weapons would follow.)

The next major piece of follow -up idiocy was in allowing 'make my day' laws in many states from around 2006. Thus in Colorado now, a home owner who even thinks he's under a serious threat can open fire and use deadly force with barely a question asked.

Later, after the San Bernardino massacre on December 9, 2015 I wrote:

Who the hell needs a semi-automatic anyway? The Founders, for sure - including Madison, Jefferson and even Hamilton (himself killed in a duel) would have been aghast to behold what's on display as in the photo and allowed under a perversion of the 2nd amendment. In fact, they'd likely all re-croak if they came back to life and saw how that amendment has been disgraced by nuts and the NRA gun lobby.

The fact is NO one is taking away a person's precious right to own a proper, functioning gun by banning these high -powered weapons, which really were originally designed for MILITARY use in Vietnam, NOT for target shooting or protection. Jeezus Peace, you use a shotgun or 30.06 for target shooting or hunting a deer - you don't need a god damned AR-15!  As for home protection, get a shotgun or .38 special, you do not need a damned assault rifle. WTF are people expecting an alien invasion?

The Aussies surrendered nearly all their assault weapons back in 1996 after a massacre in which 35 were slaughtered in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Since then, the violent murders by assault weapon have been cut in half. Of course, there will still be those who get such guns and use them in malicious ways, that's not the damned point  - which the gunnies always distort. NO, it's to keep such weapons out of mass hands where even in a home dispute the disputants will not be tempted to just reach for their guns.

Highland Park (Illinois) ban is also spot on given how easily an AR-15, originally semi-automatic - can be altered to an automatic.  As yesterday's WSJ piece observes:

"The AR-15 re-cocks itself immediately after firing. The only thing keeping the gun from firing again on its own is a sear, a piece inserted in the gun that stops the cycle from continuing. By replacing the sear and a few other key components, an AR-15 can be made fully automatic."

Ending with:

As for the professed love (by gun aficionados)  for these weapons, I attribute most of it to the "regressed kid" syndrome. You know, when kids could set off firecrackers om the 4th or New Year's Eve and get a bang out of the noise and distraction?  Today, these  powerful weapons are de facto substitutes and include "uses" such as reducing small trees to splinters,  blowing up melons in the woods and blasting tin cans. They provide  that 'bang'  (and demolition) attraction for baseline "entertainment' of modern day adults. Until they are used against a family member or on oneself in a suicide.

I say, enough is enough and it's time to put away the things of a child.  Back in the 1960s we didn't have such weapons and we got along just fine. Sure there were murders and homicides but not like the regular mass slaughters one sees today - over 355 now and counting.

Can sanity prevail in this country or will the people continue to allow a powerful gun lobby to hold them in thrall - and in fear?  The question will be raised often by serious people in the coming months and years and it may well come down to imposing local or state assault weapons bans since at the federal level there is no will to act. At that level, the NRA has most lawmakers - or at least their balls-  in its maw.

----------------
My positions haven't changed since those posts. I still am convinced the NRA has twisted the 2nd amendment toward an interpretation never intended by the Founders.  Despite the debasement of too many brains with time, I still stand foursquare with the unanimous (1939) Supreme Court decision that affirmed:

"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."

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 .

At the time Chief Justice Warren Burger responded that these lax state gun law interpretations comprised "one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

What do we infer from these historical perspectives? That the REAL un-Americans are those who have twisted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to their own ends, with the result that the fallout has created a never-ending sea of maimed, crippled and murdered gun victims

So how did the NRA get hold of my name and address to peddle their baloney? Most likely from a customer subscriber list  -likely provided by one magazine ('World War II History') to which I subscribe. Therefore, they made the erroneous assumption that because I am interested in World War II history I must also be a gun aficionado.

Bad mistake!

The French Truck Killer - A Psycho, NOT A "Radical Jihadi" Terrorist

Andreas Lubitz  - deliberately killed 150 last year by crashing his jet airline into a mountain. Why wasn't his act deemed "terrorism"? Because he has a German name?


The front page of The Denver Post today led with the follow-up story about the  19-ton truck attack in Nice, France leaving 84 dead and over 200 injured, many critically. According to the Post (p. 1A): "French authorities continue to puzzle over why a deliveryman and petty criminal would have mounted a Bastille Day attack that left 84 dead."

The piece went on to note (p. 14A): "the 31-year old Mohammed Bouhlel wasn't known to intelligence services......nor was he ever placed on a watch list for radicalization".. Nor was there any evidence of Bouhlel contacting ISIS or using its terrorist website to plan or mount the attack. (The same Post piece points out that the only real weapon he possessed apart from the truck was a handgun. The rifles weren't real but "replicas" and the lone grenade was a dud. )

More to the point, the guy's whole history bespeaks more petty crimes "theft, vandalism" etc.  than highly motivated terror inclinations. In addition, we now know in the weeks before, his wife broke up with him and he also lost his job as a trucker.  All of this adds up to a severely depressed guy who just happened to have a Muslim name, but not a terrorist.

This was also reinforced in a front page New York Times story ('A Surly Misfit With No Terror Ties, Turned A Truck Into A Tank') noting:

"He was known to his neighbors only as moody and aggressive oddball. He never went to the local mosque, grunted in response to greetings and sometimes beat his wife until she left him".

Sounds like a surly nutcase to me, not a jihadi terrorist. The Times adds: "Even French authorities had much the same view - definitely trouble but not a grave menace to the nation."

Marc Theissen of the WaPo has noted an ISIS "handbook" (Inspire)  for terror attacks and plans, but despite his conjecture there is no evidence at all that Bouhleil was privy to its contents or schemes.

Where have we seen this M.O. before, of a mass slaughter by a psychotic or depressed person? Well, last year with Andreas Lubitz  who deliberately crashed his Germanwings jet into into the side of a mountain in the French Alps killing all 150 people on board.  For a very brief time that also was thought to be an act of terror, until it was subsequently learned the guy was being treated for severe depression and a form of psychosis.

Indeed, German sources subsequently reported Lubitz had had a "psychotic episode". The German paper Die Welt reported he was being treated for "severe psychosomatic illness" and actually had been prescribed anti-psychotic meds for "strong subjective overload syndrome" . He tossed his meds away along with the prescriptions (according to the reports).  In addition, he'd received a medical note of dispensation that he was unfit  to fly- including on the day he arrived for the Dusseldorf flight!  In other words, this psycho never should have been anywhere near the plane - far less inside the cockpit.

Reinforcing this, clinical psychologist Dr. Ruth Wittersgreen proposed at that time how the psychotic episode would have unfolded. First, there would be Lubitz dealing day to day with the stress of hiding his severe mental illness (which was so severe he had to be monitored over time) from the company. Second, if he fell into a pattern of sleep deprivation this would have directly triggered the "psychotic episode".

Amdist all this many asked, as one expert did on CNN the morning after:

"Why this tragic communications breakdown between those treating Lubitz and the airline?"

Indeed. And here we also have parallels with the case of Aurora mass killer James Eagen Holmes, who was also being treated for severe psychological illness (at the Univ. of Colorado, Anschutz campus) prior to his rampage at an Aurora theater, slaying 12 and severely wounding dozens.  Why wasn't this information passed on to the proper authorities?

The horrific mass slaughter last year might also have been prevented had people -e.g.  at least one of his ex-girlfriends, spoken the hell up after he was claimed to have said.

"After tomorrow everyone will remember my name."

Now, in the case of Mohammed Bouhlel, it appears from the information we do know (reported by his family living in Tunisia, and related on MSNBC two nights ago), he had been "severely depressed" for months and he likely went over the top - or into the pits - after his separation from his wife and loss of job. In addition, his family didn't believe he'd been taking meds for his ongoing depression.

Then, just as German Andreas Lubitz  took out his psychosis and depression on 150 innocents, so did Mohammed Bouhlel take out on his on 84 - killed, and hundreds of others injured.

My point is we must not be misled into jumping to a "terror" conclusion merely because the offender happens to have a Muslim name. Such conflationary thinking - minus ancillary evidence (e.g. of being radicalized or making contact with ISIS) will only lead us to see terrorism in every mass killing act. Yes, ISIS insisted they were responsible, but what would you expect them to say as a terror group? They will always claim credit for any random act of butchery or mayhem, thereby exploiting the terror meme even if they weren't responsible in any way.

In retrospect then if we declined to call "terror" on  Andreas Lubitz' act of killing 150 by deliberately  crashing his jet last year, we can only do the same with Mohammed Boulhlel. That is, unless definitive evidence to the contrary turns up of actual connections and contacts with ISIS, say via evidence on laptops that he had been following them..

Up to now that has not appeared, so it makes more sense to treat his act like we did Andreas Lubitz', and acknowledge a too ready penchant to call "terror" on every act of mass violence. By over inflating acts of terror and especially crediting the ISIS vermin with dastardly acts actually committed by one or other form of psycho, we play right into the bastards' hands!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-margolis/68129/the-bastille-day-from-hell

Excerpt:

"But after all the bombast and hot air, it turned out that the crime in Nice was the product of a domestic crisis and one man’s suicidal impulses, rather like the three pilots who dove their aircraft into the ocean."

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.

The Crazy In The Cockpit: Could This Air Tragedy Have Been Prevented?

The Psycho before he commandeered the controls of Germanwings 9525

The name "Andreas Lubitz"  will now live on in infamy along with that of Timothy McVeigh, Adam Lanza (Newtown massacre),  James Eagen Holmes  and Eric Harris and Dylan Kliebold, the Columbine killers. As most of us are now aware, this Lubitz melted down just after the Germanwings flight took off from Barcelona, Spain, en route to Dusseldorf, Germany. After locking the pilot out of the cockpit he set the altimeter's  automatic flight path on a dive to 100' altitude. Of course, as we know, in a place like the French Alps, no such altitude would be reached and the jet actually crashed into the side of a mountain at about 4,000 ft. with all 150 lost.

The evidence now in, from German sources and others, is the guy had a "psychotic episode". The German paper Die Welt reported today he was being treated for "severe psychosomatic illness" and actually had been prescribed anti-psychotic meds for "strong subjective overload syndrome" . He tossed his meds away along with the prescriptions (according to reports).  In addition, he'd received a medical note of dispensation that he was unfit  to fly- including on the day he arrived for the Dusseldorf flight!  In other words, this psycho never should have been anywhere near the plane - far less inside the cockpit.

Reinforcing this, yesterday morning  on MSNBC, the clinical psychologist Dr. Ruth Wittersgreen proposed how the psychotic episode would have unfolded. First, there would be Lubitz dealing day to day with the stress of hiding his severe mental illness (which was so severe he had to be monitored over time) from the company. Second, if he fell into a pattern of sleep deprivation this would have directly triggered the "psychotic episode".

Amdist all this many have been asking, as one expert did on CNN this morning:

"Why this tragic communications breakdown between those treating Lubitz and the airline?"

Indeed. And here we also have parallels with the case of Aurora mass killer James Eagen Holmes, who was also being treated for severe psychological illness (at the Univ. of Colorado, Anschutz campus) prior to his rampage at an Aurora theater, slaying 12 and severely wounding dozens.  Why wasn't this information passed on to the proper authorities? The  canned excuse of "patient confidentiality" simply doesn't cut it -especially when the patient had produced violent diaries depicting himself as the "Joker" slaying people in a cinema. This all ought to have been out in the open, shared with the proper authorities.

In like manner, the fact Andreas Lubitz had been issued antipsychotic meds, as well as  been issued an "unfit to work" notice, ought to have been known by Lufthansa.  This was after he'd reported waking up screaming from nightmares.  THEY should have known of his condition in the immediate time sense and by virtue of the medical personnel informing them, not trusting a psycho to share it!  Of course, he would be determined to hide it, as we saw. Thus, this incident will militate in the future for medical professionals to directly share their diagnoses with airlines. No more hiding treatments, or "sick notes".

And no more balderdash that "he was fully fit to fly" - spouted out of abject ignorance  traced to dated information. With much higher scrutiny, including background checks - not just for criminality- this tragedy might have been prevented.

It also might have been prevented had people -e.g.  at least one of his ex-girlfriends, spoken the hell up after he was claimed to have said.

"After tomorrow everyone will remember my name."

Which interjects other famous declaratives issued the day before monumental tragedies, including:

"After tomorrow, those goddamned Kennedys will never bother me again!" - LBJ, night of Nov 21, 1963, to his then mistress Madeline Brown attending a party at Clint Murchison's Dallas home

"By tomorrow our names will be burned in everyone's memory!" - Dylan Kliebold in video diary kept by Columbine killers, Apr. 18, 1998.

Alas, no proactive moves could be made in response to the last, since it was only revealed after the Columbine massacre. On the other hand, timely action for the other two might have stopped an assassination, and a murderous airline crash.

Lastly, this incident is only the most recent in a string of deliberate pilot crashes since 1982 including:

- Feb. 9, 1982:  Japan Air Lines crash blamed on captain declared "mentally unstable" (174 lost)

- Aug.21, 1994, Royal Air Maroc flight intentionally plunged in Morocco by unstable pilot (44 lost)

- Dec. 19. 1997, Silkair plane deliberately crashed off Indonesia. (104 perished)

-- Oct 31, 1999: Egypt Air co-pilot yelling "I rely on Allah" crashed plane with 217 on board into Atlantic Ocean.

- Nov. 29, 2013, Mozambique Airlines captain believed to have deliberately crashed  plane in Namibia, 33 killed.

While these incidents are rare, in terms of general aviation statistics, they do induce dread in people because we disdain the possibility that a psycho might grab plane controls and take us on a one-way trip to perdition. The only way to prevent such events in the future is to delve into personnel backgrounds for signs of psychological  'hiccups' . No airline (or pilot)  squeamishness on this score ought to be tolerated.

No one deserves to be in the position of  an unwilling captive on a flight commandeered by a psychotic, left screaming with fellow victims in the final minutes as they approach their certain doom.  And hundreds of distraught family members left to mourn in the aftermath. We wouldn't tolerate this BS for terrorists, and we shouldn't for psycho pilots or co-pilots!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/missy-comley-beattie/61543/andreas-lubitz-the-adam-lanza-of-air-travel


http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-margolis/61566/terror-in-the-sky

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

Self- Improvement: A Pathway to Psychosis?

In the American cultural and social milieu, self-improvement is taken almost as a right of passage or some singular spiritual birthright. Anyone who would disclaim such effort is generally regarded with deep suspicion and his/her American creds questioned. I mean, only a communist would disavow the need for everyone to partake of self-improvement. Right?

Not really! Enter now clinical psychologist Richard Lind, in his book, The Seeking Self (Phanes Press) who argues that those who aggressively strive or seek to be vastly better than their “natural” selves, are in fact neurotics and might be on the way to becoming psychotics.  Is this some kind of heresy or is he serious?

Well, it turns out he’s totally serious.  And he warns that dogging the efforts of every self-improvement seeker or striver is a barely concealed “shadow identity” just itching to break loose and make the passionately striving self-enhancer look like a proverbial fool. Therapy itself is not to be trusted because it “mirrors a dysfunctional dominant relationship”. In other words, the therp plays the role of Domme, while the patient acts as the submissive who blurts out, “Beat me please!’

Breaking away from the path to self-perfection  then means “unlearning the conditioned patterns of self-dominance and submission to dominance by others”. In other words, being able to toss that little voice in the head that keeps harassing you to “do better” into the shit pile, as well as those external voices that harangue you for  not being better than you are. (Ok, you don’t want to toss them into a shit pile, but at least ignore them)

Lind puts all personal goal directed self-perfection and improvement schemes and agendas under what he calls the “progressive development” meme. In all such cases and instances, these schemes rest on the delusional assumption (according to Lind) that human nature is infinitely “perfectible” and can be pushed to become something beyond what is characteristic of one’s natural self. Hence, the use of the term “progressive” in the sense of being able to get better and better, i.e. “progress” in the goal of self-perfection.

 

Quoting psychologist Martin Seligman (p. 129):

“Improving is absolutely central to American ideology. It is tantamount in importance to freedom in our national identity. Indeed, advancement is probably the end for which Americans believe freedom is the means”

 

Which Lind takes as one of the most pathetic attributes of Americans ever unearthed. He also goes on to another pertinent Seligman quote (ibid.):

 

“Traditionally, most people in the West have believed that character is fixed and unalterable. That people do not and cannot advance, improve, advance or perfect themselves.  This change from a deep belief in the unchangeability of character to the equally deep belief in the capacity to improve is recent and it represents one of the most fundamental and important developments in  modern thought.”

But in Lind’s theory, it also represents the deepest reservoir of personal frustration and inner rage when the sought after advancement doesn’t materialize. The person then devolves into a psycho of sorts who is consumed by self-hatred and whose shadow identity may well take control. (Think of the ‘Joker’ persona in the case of mass murderer James Eagen Holmes.)

As Lind puts it (p. 130):

“The goals may then become the substance of madness that operates by continually mistaking fictional prescriptions and goals for reality”

I.e. if God “loves me” then I need to become the best God-believer I can be and that means praying at least five times a day for a half hour each time. But I find there are too many time conflicts and I can’t do it, can’t meet the goals! Then I have failed and am no longer a godly God believer, so God must hate me! I’ve now no choice but to hate myself as well for how can it be otherwise,  if God does? And what of those people out there…..hmmmmm…they must hate me too! This must mean I am evil, so I could as well…… (Perish that thought!)

 

Lind then cites contrarian psychologist James Hillman and observes that “Hillman is proposing that the Self’s compulsive tendency toward striving can be regulated by recognizing the illusory, fictitious ideals it is striving toward.”

Thus, from the example earlier, the “best God believer one can be” amounts to an illusory goal, a fictitious ideal. It’s no more sane or real than the goal of counting angels on the head of a pin. If one pursues it, therein madness lies and a likely trip to the nearest rubber room with thorazine and ECT administered three times daily.

What then is the healthy approach for a human to take? (A human that doesn’t feel obliged to take him-herself too seriously 24/7?)   The answer in a nutshell is to learn to recognize one’s “natural self” or basic  character, and leave it be, i.e DO NOTHING! Live with it, as opposed to treating it like a pie or cake that hasn’t been fully baked!

Lind does admit this can be damned near impossible for most Western culture psychology and self-improvement addicts, especially Americans. As he writes (p. 152):

“Although many people seem to reach the end of their rope in the pursuit of ideals, they do not recognize the alternative of giving up altogether. This is because, after creating and structuring a self construct based on the progressive developmental paradigm, to give it up is experienced as mental illness or psychological death.”

 

Which begs the question of WHY?  After all, if reality dictates one recognize the goals of self-improvement are illusory or unreal then surely cessation is the only sane response.  Hence, the very self construct that actively and endlessly strives for an ideal self is that for the genuine mentally ill person.   Worse, the ‘shadow identity’ that is persistently disowned or disavowed (because it is too ‘weak’, or too ‘sexual’ or too ‘uninhibited’) then threatens to break loose and foul everything up anyway. Lind observes this usually happens via assorted unpredictable pathways including: forgetting important events or duties, blurting out foolish statements in inappropriate settings, making boondoggle mistakes (forgetting to correct an important line of code in a new beta program) or all the above. Basically, you can keep the ‘shadow self’ out part of the time but not all the time, and if you’re too effective it’ll break free in the least appealing conditions. To contain it and tread the ‘perfecto’ path you better be damned good at ‘whack-a –mental mole’!

 

Lind also cites a book that can be of use to perpetually hooked self-improvement addicts:

Stephen Harrison’s  Doing Nothing – Coming to the End of the Spiritual Search  “where the realization of the futility of seeking is described in personal, graphic  and convincing language.”

More to the point, Lind leaves all those enmeshed in the self-improvement matrix to seriously consider answering the following questions:

 

-        What are you seeking?

-        How are you seeking it?

-        How are you going to achieve this goal?

-        How much progress have you actually made?

-        WHY are you suffering?

-        WHO are you?

-        WHY don’t you like yourself as you are?

-        What would it be like if you achieved your goal?

 Lind argues that these open-ended questions "ought to provoke a thorough questioning and understanding of the modern, heroic, self-improvement construct”. And to the extent that self-interest is imbued in this effort, the person is pursuing an illusory path destined to end in pain, suffering and disaster.

 Fortunately, speaking for myself, I ditched the self-improvement bullshit soon after getting prostate cancer and having it treated. I realized then and there that whatever I am I will remain and the odds are slim to none I will ever be any “better”.  So, I accept myself as a basic pessimist and curmudgeon and see no need to delude myself  that I can become a chirpy  “Pollyanna” even after another decade – should I live so long.

 Of course, this goes counter to the twaddle pushed by the self-improvement BS factories which actually insist that “cancer ought to spur you to becoming a better person”. And hence, for some reason, those morons believe a disease – a freaking awful disease – can spur you to betterment, to personal advancement. Don’t believe it! I was no different, no better after the disease than before. Indeed, it’s likely I still have the disease though it is in abeyance.  The point is that no amount of “attitude adjustment”  or  self-seeking goal pursuit can suddenly convert you to being a better human being. The main lesson in Lind’s book is to therefore accept who you are and live with it. Trying to change who you are to become a superior human is a fool’s errand.

 

These Halloween Costumes Will Merit An Apple for Each Owner!

One of the masks that will earn the wearer a green 'Granny Smith' apple.


Not that I'm a Halloween Grinch, or my wife - but there are limits to the Halloween costumes that can be tolerated and education concerning what is appropriate needs to be an integral part of the event.  This also goes far beyond the meme of "political correctness" which is mocked these days even when it's blatantly over extended into areas pertaining to civility, and plain old common sense. With that in mind here's a list of Halloween costumes which, should trick or treaters show up in any of them, will be rewarded by delivery of one Granny Smith apple. Those with good old fashioned costumes (i.e. devil, ape, etc.) get a bag with Reese's Pieces, M&Ms, Snickers, and Nestles Crunch.

1) Barack Obama rodeo clown mask: Absolutely not, no way and no how. Besides, it's not even funny but merely a sneaky way to mock the 1st African -American President. I already explained all of this in a previous blog, http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/08/good-riddance-to-obama-rodeo-clown.html

2) Blackface: This is a more generic extension of (1) given it mocks African Americans in general. People need to know, however that , blackface   was developed in the country's primitive early social era barely five decades after the Civil War as a form of "entertainment". Sadly, despite supposedly having entered a more refined and civilized era, it remains a perennial favorite among both intentional and accidental racists. For those in need of some education before you don it, here is a handy flowchart in case you need further guidance on the subject.


3) Adolf Hitler: Jeebus, this ought to go without saying, no? Especially in the full array, as decked out in the official Führer uniform, i.e.

This guy, perhaps the greatest monster of the 20th century, needs no advertising from either wayward kids, or parents. It simply ought to be a no-brainer to not even go there!


4) Ariel Castro:  This sexual monster from Cleveland kept three young women as sex slaves and captives in his grungy home as he had his way with them.  After being captured when one of the women broke free, he was sentenced to so many years in prison he'd have to become a zombie to complete them. Yet, as always - as with the case of Jeffrey Dahmer costumes some years ago- there are shameful marketers and manufacturers who wish to cash in on the notoriety. For those who may not know, this fiend ended up hanging himself, in his cell, apparently in a final act of sexual asphyxiation. Anyone who dons this costume won't even get a 'Granny Smith' but a phone call to the nearest psych ward - appraising the officials of a "psycho on the loose".

5) A Tea Bagger ' Patriot', especially with the funny tri-tipped hat and carrying a "Don't Tread on Me" flag.  For this sort of absurd, ridiculous display of the personification of the bunch that nearly brought the country crashing to its knees (and might again) two Granny Smiths would be the reward - and a lump of charcoal.

6) A Victim of Violence: This also ought not require any explanation. I mean, Jeezus Peace! This includes, but is not limited to, dressing up as a student shot in Columbine, someone injured in the Boston Marathon bombing, or a bloody, assassinated president (i.e. John F. Kennedy with a bloody bullet hole in his head and brains partly hanging out).


7) 'The Joker' - aka Aurora Killer:  Amazingly, assorted episodes of James Eagen Holmes' "Joker" (as well as James Holmes' solo masks) had already appeared in assorted  Colo. burgs last year. Fortunately, the costumes-masks were relatively rare - let's hope they remain that way. People here in Colorado don't need to be reminded of that tragedy last July, especially as Holmes' trial is soon coming up.

8) Lee Harvey Oswald:  The alleged Kennedy assassin. Don't even think of it! Oswald had nothing to do with it, and if you wear any such outfit (given the 50th anniversary of the assassination is coming up- so the putative wearer is trying to be too clever by half) it will show you as not only ignorant and possibly dumb, but brainwashed.

9) Anna Rexia: Lol. Get it? A personification of Anorexia, a high fave of teen girls last year. Sorry to suck the fun out of your pun, chickies, but eating disorders are never sexy, nor are they something to be mocked — same goes for any other illness or disorder.


10) The Human Centipede:  Fortunately, this one is rare - so unlikely to be seen anywhere in my burg - also, this place is far too conservative to remotely tolerate it so I probably don't have to worry about it.  Compared to the real-life horrors cited above, dressing up as the Human Centipede, the horror film machination of humans stitched together from mouth-to-anus, is hardly the most offensive costume. But it’s still  really gross- and isn't one to be rewarded.

Have fun, get the kids outside - as opposed to keeping 'em corralled  merely at house parties or Malls- but know what costumes are appropriate and what are not.