Garner Case Shows Aggressive Cops Need Attitude Adjustment

The segment on 'Morning Joe' several days ago was noteworthy in singling out the Michael Brown incident  as a case where a hyper-aggressive cop (Darren Wilson) could have backed off or called for backup  - but didn't. He chose instead to be the "macho man" and confront an unarmed Michael Brown for swiping a whole pack of cigarillos, then shooting him eight times at near point blank range in the process. The point of the legal guests on 'Morning Joe' is that such an incident called for "talking down" and not "taking down". If one on one talking down was too much for Wilson (or he was too terrified of a guy he described as "bigger than Hulk Hogan" while he was "like a 5 year old"), he needed to get other cops who could.

The problem is that today, too many hyper-militarized cops only want to take down, not talk down. Also exemplified with the Eric Garner case, where Daniel Pantaleo jumped in to confront and wrestle down Garner with a choke hold - rather than use a talk down. After all, big as he was, Garner was still unarmed. In the best case of all, of course, the aggressive Pantaleo and his 'crew' could have left it alone. I mean, for chrissakes, bringing a guy down for selling loose cigarettes? (About which I will do a later post regarding too many damned laws, which provide too many excuses for violent police action. Reduce the number of laws and reduce the incidents!)

But the Garner case also brings up the issue of police power trips, especially by the most aggressive cops. If these guys are then already of a mindset to take down, they will not display the patience and communication skills to talk down. (Note 'talk down' is most often used with persons attempting suicide - but needs to be generalized for all lesser crimes!)    After all, to a Neanderthal or militarist macho authoritarian,  it's easier to tase, shoot or choke than to talk. They want only instant resolution without taking time or trouble  - a recipe for disaster in our ever more complex social world.

The problem is that projection of ego and absolute power is what demands the slave posture. But no citizen, who is unarmed and basically minding his or her own business, should be subjected to this over the top public humiliation - even if he gives a cop some backtalk. And it certainly shouldn't be met with lethal force! Writer Kimberle Crenshaw, in a salon.com interview, puts the power dynamic exposed by these aggressive cops in perspective:

"We look at that video [of Eric Garner] and we can look at what’s happening in Ferguson and see that what was going on was not about policing against particular harms or injuries, it was policing against certain bodies and attitudes that those bodies have. It was about Eric talking back, and not throwing himself, basically, on the ground in a “yes master” kind of position."

Get that? A "yes massah" position, like a slave! In other words, the only way poor Garner could have spared himself was to immediately drop to the ground, and adopt a submissive slave position to the 'massah' cop, Pantaleo (who let us be reminded - as Chris Hayes noted this evening - has already faced 3 lawsuits for use of excessive force.)

 This hearkens back also to the patriarchal, prejudiced attitudes of the southern cops in MS and AL during the era of Bull Connor and the civil rights marchers. When Connor and his imps turned their fire hoses on the mostly black crowd and yelled at specific stubborn marchers,  "Git down on yorn knees, boy!"

Subservience and slavery! The only postures that would be acceptable, to a power drunk, aggressive cop-  if one was not to be construed as "resisting arrest". Hence, the only available postures that could have spared Garner's life. 

Ms. Crenshaw goes on:

"It’s about the imposition of authority and control. And that is the highway through which racial power is colliding with these bodies. So when I think of a dam, I think about shutting down that highway altogether and redirecting that energy.

The idea of all power and control [in policing] is the same as the underlying way the military thinks of itself —  we shock and awe with our power and control. In community policing, that means an officer tackles people, puts a chokehold on someone or shoots someone during an encounter about selling loose cigarettes or walking in the middle of the street."

Again, a spot on observation, especially invoking the military analogy. The same way we as a nation, subjugate lesser nations with our power trips of shock and awe - so also power driven cops subjugate "suspects" with power moves like choke holds for a petty offense like selling "loose cigarettes".

This is power gone mad, as well as authority, in both cases.

Crenshaw's last point is most apt:

"When I think about training, I think about the people who can model police and community interaction outside the need to create total control and domination."

This again is relevant. It was also Buddhist philosopher Alan Watts who wrote ('Does It Matter?') that one is least served in gaining compliance by the use of outright force. Even if the subject is perceived to "resist" - force is absolutely the wrong way to go. One instead empathizes and puts himself in the subject's mind and position and then there can be a "talking down" instead of a taking down. The issue inheres in seeing the humanity in the person, as opposed to seeing him as a "beast" or "wild ape". Therein the problem resides!

As long as aggressive cops are on the loose, alas, the take down reaction won't cease and meanwhile the outcry and public protests and civil disturbances will grow - until they reach a level such as we beheld in the Ukraine in the spring.

It redounds to the benefit of police departments around the country to train their personnel to deal with unarmed citizens without using force as a first resort, or even last. Talking down should be the priority, and if a cop fails at this, he needs to be removed from the force as unstable and incompetent in complex social dynamics.

Brute force in dealing with people will no longer be tolerated by the rank and file of citizens, as the current wave of protests show. The sooner police get that into their noggins, the better off we all will be.

See also:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/04/1349342/--Comply-or-Die-policing-must-stop?detail=email#

Excerpt:

Tyrannical cops wear their entitlement disorder on their sleeves thus:

When I am on the job it's your responsibility to make my life as easy as possible and don't do anything that might get me angry or otherwise set me off:  Just do exactly what I tell you, precisely and without delay, no matter how unreasonable.  If I decide I want to frisk you, let me.  If I decide I want to arrest you, let me.  If this is the fifth time I've hassled you this month, let me.  My whim counts for more than your dignity.

Orion Blasts Off - But How Long Until Mars Landing?

The sight of the Orion spacecraft blasting off this morning - one day late- from Cape Canaveral, was awe inspiring. It brought back the memories of the Apollo launches in the late 60s-early 70s when humanity yet had a vision of manned space exploration. In the intervening decades, of course, that vision was gutted and diminished- mostly by misplaced national priorities and wars of choice (as well as tax, budget cuts). But those of us dedicated to humanity's quest for new worlds, knew that it couldn't persist - we'd be mad to allow it.

True, NASA had to postpone the initial launch on Thursday after a boat entered the launch area, strong winds forced automatic aborts, and two valves failed to close properly. But at no time was I concerned that the launch - when it did occur- would come to perdition like two previous commercial space efforts, including the brutal crash of Virgin Galactic's "Space Ship Two".

But this morning's launch went smoothly, and cameras mounted on the rocket beamed back stunning pictures of the Earth as Orion blasted into the sky. The mission could have huge implications, despite its brief four-and-a-half-hour duration. Orion will fly farther than any spacecraft made for astronauts has in decades, about 3,600 miles (5,800km) above the Earth’s surface, and is a test case for a capsule that NASA hopes will one day land on Mars.

This brings up the question: How long it will be before humans land on Mars?  Right now, the projections - despite today's launch- are drawn out with the first manned test launch not for another seven years - or 2022. (NASA has planned a second unmanned flight for 2018, and a manned mission to travel around the moon for the 2020s.) Much of this delay can be placed at the feet of Obama who, in 2010, cut the budget for Orion by 20 percent which resulted in the loss of 600 engineer jobs for the program. The jobs have come back, especially here in Colo. - but the time projection for ultimate landing, say on an asteroid,  remains set back 10 years.


That's a long time for space junkies! In the meantime we're supposed to be content with the pathetic, 'small ball' commercial space ventures. Pardon me if I snooze - or at least watch old Star Trek episodes! I really don't give two craps if some celebrity boards the 'Space Ship Two' - assuming Branson finally gets it fixed - to take a five minute junket 28 miles up to the "edge" of space. YAWN!

Meanwhile, the first Mars landing is not expected to occur using Orion until "the 2030s". What!? I'll likely be dead by then! What the hell, I'm supposed to witness this milestone as a freakin' ghost? Of course, there is the suicidal "Mars One" which is supposed to land 4 humans there by 2022- but let's get our heads screwed on straight. That mission is one way only (presumably the cargo will be left a few years earlier for the Mars-o-nauts to construct their prefabs) and the would -be colonists will be left to fend for themselves with no coming back to Earth.

And let's not fool ourselves, there's no assurance the crew will survive for long - assuming they do land safely without adequate redundant systems- given the radiation experienced in transit. (See the paper: ''Measurements of Energetic Particle Radiation in Transit to Mars on the Mars Science Laboratory"). 

That showed for a 253 day journey from Earth to Mars, radiation levels of up to 0.33 sievert  (for one way) would be experienced.  And this is likely an underestimate-  because it assumes the ultimate standard for current radiation exposure protection - but which the organizers of Mars One would have to plow much more money in to realize. I suspect the actual radiation exposure for the 'Mars One' crew will be twice that amount.

One way or another, however, we have to get to Mars, and we need to colonize it as a first step to interstellar colonization. This is not fantasy or science fiction but hard reality, if we wish our species to survive. (If we don't, then of course it's a moot point.)   As Isaac Asimov put it, in his Barbados Queen's Park lecture in February, 1976:

"Manned space exploration is not an option or a luxury. No sane intelligent species in the cosmos willingly leaves all its ‘eggs’ in one basket, in this case on one planet. Any large asteroid, remember, could take us out with one strike. This could happen in 50 years or in 5,000 or 500,000. It doesn’t matter when. It will be the end of humanity if we choose to never explore and disperse ourselves….for our own protection”

Are we smarter than the dinosaurs? Recall they went extinct owing to the  Chicxulub impact 65 million years ago. They had no way to prevent their demise, or even detect it in advance. They lacked the brains to do the mathematics for celestial mechanics and the anatomy to construct rockets. We, on the other hand, possess the brains to do both including the ability to compute complex orbits and trajectories as well as design and build rockets. These include providing us with the options to take out an asteroid, or to depart the Earth for new worlds.  Or do both! We don't have to be hostage to the inevitability of another monster (Torino scale 10) asteroid strike. The only question remaining is whether we will act in time. Dr. Asimov believed we would, because he had ultimate faith humans would be intelligent enough to do the right thing.

Speaking for myself, I am not so sure.

CDC Trying To Get Male Teens Circumcised? Are They For Real?

Tools and procedure for infant circumcision. On one Penn & Teller 'BULLSHIT' episode the full procedure was shown with the infant given no anesthetic and screaming uncontrollably afterward. 

Seems the CDC has now stepped into the circumcision controversy advising teens to get the procedure done if the barbaric act wasn't perpetrated on them as an infant. On Tuesday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new guidelines regarding the safety and benefits of circumcision. Wisely, the CDC didn’t actually instruct parents to get their sons snipped - after all, it's a personal decision that could be influenced by culture and religious beliefs. But,  the report makes it clear that it is a very good idea to do so, and urges teenage boys to elect to have the surgery if they have not already.  According to one CDC blowhard,  Jonathan Mermin:

"Male circumcision has been associated with a 50 to 60 percent reduction of H.I.V. transmission, as well as a reduction in sexually transmitted infections such as herpes, bacterial vaginosis and the human papilloma virus (H.P.V.), which causes penile and cervical cancer,” 


But hold strain. First, people that deludedly believe it's not barbaric need to see the Penn & Teller SHOWTIME ('Bullshit') episode ('Circumcision') in which an infant is shown strapped in restraints and then his foreskin sliced off by a Gomco clamp as he screams hysterically. Penn asks: "And you really think that kid doesn't feel pain?" (Implying that only an idiot wouldn't.)

But unsatisfied that sufficient American infants have been butchered for no good reason, the Medical-Industrial -Health complex now wants to take it to another level and get teens to agree to do it - oh yes, for the sake of hygiene, health and preventing STDs, of course.

Look, speaking as one who's never been 'cut' (my parents,  when they inquired from our then family physician Dr. Behnke, were told no anesthetic was given because "he won't feel a thing" - backed away) I dispute the procedure is the least bit useful or valid. But again, let's back up a tad.

If a mature, uncircumcised person is worried about "cleanliness" well - DOH! That's why soap and water were invented! If you're worried about STDs or HIV infection,  well hey, that's why condoms were invented. If you're worried about the HPV (human papilloma virus) that's why they now have HPV vaccines - including for teen males. But for some CDC numb skull to urge teens to go get it done on their own borders on medical malpractice.

First, as barbaric as this antiquated butchery is on infants, it's vastly worse on a grown kid or teen. Consideration first has to be given to the fact that the operation is now  much more involved and thus longer, often requiring general anaesthesia. That means you're chances of croaking are already 3 to 5 times greater, including from many kinds of adverse reactions. 

Then there is the risk of complications (generally seen in up to 5% of operations)  and approximately 10 times higher for circumcision in older boys and adults as compared to infants. The top risk is that of infection, and in a worst case scenario we are talking about flesh -eating bacteria - because of the use of unsterilized implements - and in extreme cases having to lop off part or all of the penis to prevent the necrotizing bacterial spread.

Depending on the extent and degree of infection, the young adult may also face a future of prostatis and urinary problems. If the penis is badly infected and urination proves problematic he may need to be catheterized with a Foley catheter - possibly for weeks. (And having had that for only a few hours during prostate cancer treatment - believe me it's no fun.)

In addition to the above serious issues, healing is a lot slower - since stitches or adhesives are needed, and the person will probably be laid up 4 -6 weeks. And btw, those are 4- 6 weeks during which you absolutely will not be able to wank off! Do not even think of it.

Oh, and we won't even get into the costs which can easily run over $1,000 and there's no assurance that even Obamacare will foot the bill.

Some misguided women often try to pressure their mates to get it done because "it looks more beautiful after". Which is arrant bull pockey.  How can "it look more beautiful"  if nature's own organ has been lopped off? Does a woman look more beautiful after a clitorodectomy? I think not!. These are the mouthings of poppets brainwashed by the Medical -Industrial complex and its surgical instrument manufacturers. If these bozos had their way every manjack would be getting some kind of surgery at least twice per year. It's a "growth" sector!

If the CDC wants to be useful, instead of advising teens and others to get circumcised  it should work harder to develop more effective flu vaccines. The news this morning - that the current flu vaccines are only 50% effective - is not designed to inspire much confidence. (The excuse is 'the virus mutated', well doh, we know that happens - so why not do better advance research to have foreseen that and tweak the vaccine?) Oh, and let's not forget all the CDC foul ups during the Ebola scare-- and leaving deadly viruses like smallpox and anthrax in cardboard boxes in various locations.

Bottom line here: Circumcision is an antiquated RELIGIOUS practice (by Jews and Muslims) that has no place in the modern world of rational, secular society. It is only advised under the rarest of conditions and certainly not as a general Rx for STDs, HPV, cancer or any other red herring reason.

NY Grand Jury Blows It In Eric Garner Murder Case: Would Body Cameras Have Made Any Difference?

Body camera worn by Denver police officer: But if visual evidence is ignored by a grand jury they won't be of much use.

"I honestly don"t know what to say.....I think what is so utterly depressing is that none of the ambiguities that existed in the Ferguson case exist in the Staten Island case and yet the outcome is exactly the same: no crime, no trial,  All harm, no foul - we are definitely not living in a post racial society. And I can imagine a lot of people out there wondering, how much of a society are we living in at all." - John Stewart


I just watched the video of the NY cop putting Eric Garner into a choke hold for the fifteenth time. It is as clear to me now as it was the first time, that Eric Garner's death was a homicide - as the autopsy showed.  And the cop doing it needed to have justice meted out - yet a comatose grand jury delivered a "no indictment" verdict.

Eleven times Garner screamed "I can't breathe!" as three cops wrestled him down and the main culprit  (Daniel Pantaleo) choke-held Garner on the NYC sidewalk, with the victim obviously in distress. Even if one is sympathetic to "the shield" and perhaps a former cop- it is incredible one would not see this behavior was way out of bounds and merited a finding of at least manslaughter by the grand jury.

Now, without a proper verdict- indictment or charge-  WHO will take care of Garner's family, his wife and six kids?  Or will they now be homeless or have to take to the streets to beg for money? It is a question worth asking, especially given that the cops came down on him for selling frickin' cigarettes without a license!  Murdered for selling cigs! What the hell is wrong in this country, especially with those who are supposed to "serve and protect"?

In my earlier post (Nov. 25) on the Ferguson grand jury case, I had written:

"had Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson been outfitted with such a miniature (body) camera - like the police in Laurel, MD - it is doubtful things would have gotten to the stage they did in Ferguson.  All the events would have been immediately accessible and there'd have been no "fatal span" of time within which witness accounts conflicted.  The grand jury, as opposed to only being exposed to Wilson's account and images of his injuries, could have also seen events as they actually went down. "

But as John Stewart observed in his Daily Show comment, a video record was available and has been replayed a million times of Garner taken down and choked. How bad does the vision of the grand jury have to be to indict?  If they can ignore this visual evidence, indeed, why would they take the visual records from body cameras any more seriously? They surely wouldn't and hence the outcome would be the same whether visual video evidence was available or not.

In many instances of such visual evidence, as in the case of the LA cop that wrestled a homeless elderly black lady to the ground several months ago (for crossing a highway) and punched her several times in the face - idiotic explanations and pseudo-justifications reign. "She was resisting! Didn't you see it? She was putting up a fight!" Errr....no, she was not! She was supine on the ground, and you had your meaty legs straddling her arms so she couldn't move and you were punching the fuck out of her face.  What? Do these renegade cops think we're blind? Or stupid? Fortunately, the LA cop had to face the music (on further investigation) and the dept. disposed of that bad egg.

Look, no one is saying ALL cops are bad! Indeed, the sight of the Portland police officer hugging a crying black kid ought to resonate with all of us, e.g.



So let's not get it into our heads that all cops are evil, or fascist storm troopers just because of the incidents in Ferguson and Staten Island and the impotent verdicts of the grand juries in each case.  But at the same time, police departments need to help themselves in an era of burgeoning citizen distrust by ridding themselves of as many "bad apples" as possible. Like the bad apples in the military these jerks do the various precincts no good and can give them a bad name - not to mention paying out millions in damages, as has occurred  in Denver (recently documented by The Denver Post.).

Kudos then to the valiant and decent police around the nation, but brickbats to those creeps that pollute their departments and poison community relations while destroying the essential trust of citizens!

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/04/doj_releases_scathing_report_on_cleveland_police/

Now New Proposed FAA Drone Rules Have Neolibs Squealing

In my Nov. 28 post ('How Long Before a Drone -Aircraft Collision'), I wrote:

 "I pointed out before, the drones should not be allowed to fly ANYWHERE - until ironclad regs are in place. And those regulations ought to demand that drones and drone operators obey the same rules as commercial aircraft. Yes, it is indeed a steep demand - but it is consistent with the peril and calamity of a drone-commercial aircraft collision. The precautionary principle itself demands drone operators prove their craft are safe - before they can fly at altitudes that imperil commercial craft."

It  appears now that the FAA is starting to take these near misses with drones seriously, and is considering enacting regulations at least as rigorous as I had in mind. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Federal Aviation Administration's long awaited rules on commercial drones - to be issued by year's end- is expected to require drone operators to have a pilot's license for unmanned aircraft. Also, these drone pilots will be required to keep drones in sight at all times.

Bravo! Because this is what's needed, but of course the Neoliberal media and its lackeys are squealing like stuck pigs.  (Or gored oxen who will no longer be able to pile up profits without oversight). And having drone operators with a pilot's license is no biggie, given these little beasties have no sense and avoid technology. Thus, the operator must be its eyes and this is why a license is needed.

But the Denver Post editorial howled yesterday:

"If the report is true (and the FAA is not commenting) the proposal would severely limit the rollout of commercial drones. It could even undermine the use of drones outside of heavily populated areas....where they would be the least controversial"

The Editorial goes on to note the proposals could still be "tweaked" by the White House Office of Budget and Management (which I for one would not advise)  and went on to note:

"Even so, the FAA's apparently ultra-conservative approach to unmanned craft - seven years after the agency declared the use of drones illegal without special waivers-  threatens U.S. leadership in a fast changing industry with tremendous potential to lower costs and increase productivity"

This echoed the whining of a Business Week piece- quoted by the Post:

"If regulators regard the person at the control as akin to a private pilot it would mean upwards of 40 flight hours at a cost of up to $10,000, limiting the pool of workers qualified for the job."

Too bad! It is equally critical - I'd say more so- to protect the lives of commercial airline passengers. After all, we are already prepared to have them stand in long TSA security lines to ensure a safe passage - on the outside chance some terrorist might try to bring a plane down.  So why the hell would we also not implement rigorous drone rules - to the same level as regs for commercial pilots - since the potential of a drone collision with a large commercial jet (say an engine) would be at least as catastrophic as a terrorist bomb? And let us recall again, from the released FAA report, there were 25 near midair collisions among 175  reported in the past 6 months by pilots and air traffic controllers near or in restricted airspace.

The Post's resident Neolibs blab:

"The FAA's approach is often justified by reference to near-miss accidents that have occurred between manned aircraft and small drones. But those incidents are occurring because rogue drone owners are ignoring existing law, not because commercial drones are flooding the skies.."

Perhaps so, but it is also logical to expect if and when drones DO flood the skies, we will see a proportionate increase in rogue drone operators. If there are 400 now, there may be 4,000 in a "flood the skies" scenario - and if so, then the probability for a drone- commercial aircraft collision is enhanced.

Needless to say, I submit that the Neoliberal business model must take a backseat to protecting the flying public, in the same way we protect that public from terrorist attacks. Because in many respects, rogue drone operators are like terrorists - even if they lack an ideology. Thus, I applaud the FAA proposal and do hope they get it into the regulatory regime and with no other tweaks!

The Dunning-Kruger Effect: The Same as False Knowledge Syndrome?

In an earlier (Aug. 19) blog post, in which I examined the disparate workings of left and right wing brains, I noted that "values voters" occupy a rung, first observed by Thomas Frank. They define pre-existing "values" on how the world ought to work and then let these trump any contradicting facts - whether scientific, historical or political.  Thus, in their fanciful worlds, human-generated CO2 cannot possibly overturn an entire planet's climate - so they disbelieve any facts trotted out that CO2 concentration is increasing and fueling the greenhouse effect. (This partly explains why James Inhofe- the incoming head of the Senate Environmental Committee, thinks global warming is a hoax - apart from the fossil fuel industry filling his campaign coffers)

In their world they also reject that humans could evolve from a common ape-human ancestor, so reject Darwinian evolution. Oh, and they are convinced that liberals have been the ones shafting this country from the year dot. They believe this without a whit of evidence, and only because some schmoe like Limbaugh or Larry Schweikart tells them so.

 But they often go much farther in asserting their lack of knowledge and information based on their values means ALL liberal values are wrong. The next cognitive step is to tie liberal values to knowledge they implicitly disdain, such as about global warming and evolution. Hence, it's easy to believe bollocks such as "liberal lies about history" or that global warming "is a hoax."  But they don't see these as emblems of ignorance but rather badges of honor.

The question arises as to whether this false knowledge syndrome is the same as the Dunning-Kruger Effect.  For reference and clarification, the Dunning-Kruger effect is defined by Wikpedepia  as “a cognitive bias whereby unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate.” Wikipedia adds that “This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.” Or, as psychologist David Dunning (the discoverer) once explained to Errol Morris, writing in an essay series, “The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Something’s Wrong but You’ll Never Know What It Is,” for the New York Times:

 “If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent … [T]he skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.”  

A recent article by Dunning, “We Are All Confident Idiots,” provides both humorous and serious examples showing just how pervasive the problem is and it certainly transcends all age groups as well as disciplines (i.e. I recall once being a doctoral Physics TA and an incident in which the prof tried to explain a kinematics lab procedure, but got it all wrong. When I tried to enlighten the dolt, he reacted badly and irrationally accused me of being the incompetent! In other words, this twit lacked the skills to recognize the correct process for the experiment and because he couldn't - he didn't accept mine.)

But it goes beyond even that and would also serve to explain the history trotted out by a Larry Schweikart, for example.  Because this fool doesn't know the correct history of our country, he is unable to recognize it for any event and so believes his incorrect, revisionist version is the truth. 

Thus, in at least one aspect the false knowledge syndrome dovetails with Dunning -Kruger which can be seen if one goes through the New York Times series, wherein one can make some observations based on it and conclusions.However, the paradox is the Dunning -Kruger subject will apply none of the criteria to himself, i.e. in highlighting his shortcomings. As far as he is concerned, he has none. By the same token, the false knowledge adherent can't conceive that the knowledge which he possesses is actually inferior to the knowledge of most well educated people.

Related to the preceding is what George Lakoff cites as the concept of hypocognition— i.e. that “we don’t have all the ideas we need.” One example he cited was the concept of reflexivity, “the fact that thought is part of the world. That when you’re thinking, it’s not separate from reality, it’s part of reality. And if your understanding of the world is reflected in what you do, then that thought comes into the world through your actions.”.  This is also, interestingly, not far from the Bohm- Stapp concept of quantum mechanics wherein thoughts are actually things describable, for example, by the quantum wave function. Hence, it is wrong to regard thought as some psychic epiphenomenon with no physical basis, or to commit Rene Descartes' error of dividing reality into res cogitans and res extensa.

The existence of conspiracy is a perfect example and  Lakoff’s discussion of hypocognition naturally comes to mind.  What could be a worse idea to miss than the very idea of missing ideas?  If you don’t think they’re out there, you’ll never go looking for them—never believe anyone who claims to have found one of them, either. If you honestly don't  believe there can be such things as conspiracies- then you will never ever believe anyone who claims to have uncovered one, and you yourself will never go in search of them because you don't believe they can exist in the first place.(Something akin to Leprechauns, except alas, conspiracies - as in the case of Iran-Contra and Watergate- are all too real!) 

Of course, this 'out of perception' thought dynamic will suit the conspirators' aims and objectives to a tee! It's no wonder then that the mainstream media loves the conspiracy skeptic  - because both operate in the realm of hypo-cognition when it comes to conspiracies. (Or, more technically, each conflates real conspiracies - i.e. JFK assassination - with ludicrous ones, like faked Moon landings - to justify the need to have to look for the real McCoy. And the corollary to that is a thought reaction Charles Pierce once noted: IF you do believe an actual conspiracy exists or has existed, you will be compelled to do something about it.)

The "doing" is what distinguishes right and left wing brains,  but let's also bear in mind that believing one's level of competence is higher than manifest is not necessarily the same as believing one's knowledge is much greater than it is. Is Sen. Jim Inhofe competent to judge or separate actual scientific research on global warming from the bogus version? Doubtful, because he's never taken any advanced climate change courses or even thermal physics college courses. Hence, he is lacking the skill level to distinguish the bogus from the real. Hence, by assuming the position of head of the Senate environmental committee he is actually rising to his level of incompetence. (A re-take on the well known "Peter Principle")

(Side note: Is Inhofe capable of doing a basic thermal physics experiment? Say measuring the conductivity of a material? I doubt it.)

At the same time it is clear Inhofe, from his past remarks on global warming, actually believes he knows more than he really does. Else, how could he make the determination it's a "hoax"  when 97% of climate scientists by a recent Eos (American Geophysical Union) survey concur it is real and human-caused? This is based on thousands of peer-reviewed papers in climate journals written by actual climate scientists  - not climate proxy scientists (e.g. chemists, astronauts, etc.

While Sen. Inhofe (so far as we know) exhibits this Dunning-Kruger Effect and hypocognition only in one domain, it is clear others can exhibit it in their own chosen areas of  mental overstretch.

Clearly, quantum physicist Scott Aaronson - in trying to invalidate a conspiracy in the JFK assassination,  was guilty not only of hypocognition (believing there can be no such things as conspiracies) but also over-estimating his competence to assess the validity of a conspiracy (the JFK case, specifically).  Hence, no surprise he committed more than 35 major errors in making his twenty claims to have shown conspiracy in the Kennedy case can't be valid. 

As I showed in several  October blog posts rebutting his nonsense, these ranged from the basic, i.e. not applying Newtonian dynamics to the wounds described by the Warren Commission or the motions visible in the Zapruder film, i.e. Jackie's motion over the rear of the trunk, to more subtle ones based on ignoring the autopsy photos (actual ones) and the statements of actual witnesses (i.e. to the Walker shooting).  In addition, Aaronson showed no knowledge at all concerning the Oswald CIA files - thereby interjecting false knowledge syndrome as well. Can we say "JFK conspiracy clusterfuck"? Yes, we can.

But Aaronson, like Dr. Steve Mason (a qualified psychologist) before him, was quite correct to criticize zany conspiracies such as the claim of a faked Apollo Moon landing, aliens hidden away at Area 51, or an imminent UN takeover via black helicopters. The problems only arose when they over-extended their areas of competence to contexts for which they weren't qualified. Hence, they went into these difficult areas (like the JFK conspiracy) with what were really limited  conspiracy judgment skills  - that only worked on fictitious "conspiracies'.  

But this is a natural human failing, and it can occur with any of us, at different times and in different contexts.   In my own case, it was exhibited when I criticized the work of Syun Ichi Akasofu before I'd taken my first advanced plasma physics course. Akasofu and Joseph Kan had attempted to use a "dynamo flare" model based on field –aligned potential drops and enhancing parallel current densities (e.g. Birkeland currents) to account for solar flares. 

After taking Ph.D. level plasma physics courses I arrived at a level of skill that enabled me to more deeply parse the model and offer valid criticisms. As I subsequently noted, we do not observe “neutral winds” with velocities (± V_n) at solar loop footpoints, but rather we observe the footpoints executing distinct independent displacements that enhance the loops' magnetic helicity (a phenomenon not on Akasofu or Kan's mental radar, hence another  case of hypocognition).

In addition to this,I pointed out it isn’t clear at all that a “loss cone effect" for solar coronal arches or arcades is significant enough to drive the currents needed to trigger flares. In the auroral context, of course, the loss cone concept has validity in connection with field –aligned potential drops and enhancing parallel current densities (e.g. Birkeland currents). To be specific, in the magnetospheric context only electrons of small pitch angles contribute to J .

Bottom line: I argued that the "dynamo model" of Akasofu and Kan over-extended the auroral generation mechanisms to solar flares. That assessment was based after more than 300 hours of plasma physics study as well as developing computer simulations for plasma behavior in a solar magnetic arcade. I thereby compensated for my earlier hypo-cognition (not the same as false knowledge, but rather not enough specific knowledge) .

These examples hold lessons for us all: we need to be more attuned when we're writing or criticizing anything  - especially areas of history we may not have studied as well as we'd believed, or areas of scientific research where we think we know vastly more than we do.

As far as those like Jim Inhofe, or any others who criticize global warming as human-caused or real, a good litmus test is whether or not they've even been exposed to a basic physics course. If not, it's not too likely they're competent or knowledgeable enough to comment.  In the case of Kennedy conspiracy critics like Scott Aaronson, or Marilyn Elias, the key barometer is whether they've actually accessed and read Oswald's CIA files. A further test is whether they are aware of CIA document 1035-960, and its mandate.

If any of the answers is 'No' then they simply aren't sufficiently competent or knowledgeable to be writing anything about the event or inferring there was no conspiracy. Because if they do, the conclusions emerge as gut responses not based on actual examination of evidence (or files). They are victims of the Dunning -Kruger Effect,  acting the part of unskilled individuals who suffer from an imagined superiority in perception,  thereby mistakenly rating their ability to infer a real conspiracy much higher than is accurate.

Live and learn!

Finally - A REAL Manned Space Program We Can Be Proud Of!

Orion spacecraft in vertical test facility near Littleton, CO

Forget the rinky-dink commercial space program and poppets using 45-year old Russian rocket engines and played out space jockeys, to try to do the space tourist thing or ferrying cargo to the International Space Station. We're now on the cusp of a REAL space program, run by NASA in conjunction with some of Colorado's best universities in the space science field. Orion, which is set to launch on the Exploration Flight Test-1, or EFT-1, this Thursday morning from Cape Canaveral, Fla., will take a 17-minute ride into orbit on the world's most powerful rocket — the Centennial Colorado-made Delta IV Heavy.

It will communicate with Earth via antennae, and record its journey with flight cameras. The test flight brings Orion one step closer to meeting the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's mission objective of eventually landing humans on asteroids, Mars and other never-before visited destinations.  While private Colorado companies such as United Launch Alliance and Ball Aerospace  have designed  some of the craft's components - they are not running the show. As with the Apollo program, NASA is the maestro, setting all the pieces in motion as well as defining the objectives and uses.

For some perspective, the December 4  launch of EFT-1 will take Orion farther than any U.S. spacecraft built for humans has gone since Apollo 17 in 1972, reaching the altitude of 3,609 miles during its second orbit of Earth. In comparison, the international space station orbits Earth at about 260 miles altitude. By further comparison, Virgin Galactic's 'Space Ship Two' which recently crashed, e.g.                                                                                


Has minimal aspirations of barely reaching the edge of space, at about some 18-20 miles altitude. By comparison to Orion this is 'small change'. Worse it is mainly for space tourism, to give wealthy hotshots a chance to say they'd at least been to the edge of space (to experience weightlessness) at a quarter million bucks a pop. The total duration of each flight? Five minutes.

Thus, the Orion mission brings a desperately needed shot in the arm to an "uninspired" national space program, in the parlance of NASA astronaut Eugene Cernan, Apollo 17's mission commander. According to Cernan, quoted in a Sunday Denver Post Business piece:

"Forty-two years ago last month, I left my footprints on the moon. And today ... we can't even get an American in space on our own, What we're doing on the space station is exploitation — we're continuing to go where we've been before. Exploration is when you go where humans have never been before, and you see what humans have never seen before."

Bingo! And further, we have to keep telling knot heads who yap about "letting robots do it" - Not good enough! We have to get ourselves off this planet and colonize other worlds - because well, to quote Isaac Asimov in his 1976 lecture at Queen's Park Theater in Barbados: "You don't leave all your eggs in one basket. In the case of humans on Earth, one killer asteroid could wipe us all out."

I don't know how much clearer the case can be made for manned space exploration and ultimate colonization. We have the choice to either move some of our "eggs" to other planetary locations, or remain on Earth and have the species wiped out. There are no other choices.

The Orion spacecraft is made up of three components: the launch-abort system, the service module and the crew module, which is the only part that will return to Earth. It sits atop the Delta IV Heavy rocket for a combined total launch weight of more than 1.6 million pounds. Orion's crew quarters can sustain four astronauts for up to 21 days in a 316-cubic-foot habitable area — a space that's the equivalent of about of two minivans.

Before allowing humans to live in such quarters, all Orion's systems — which have been extensively tested on the ground — must be pushed to their limits in the harsh conditions of deep space. Hence, the critical test on Dec. 4 which I have no reservations about, as I would with a straight up commercial launch overseen by commercial priorities such as large profit margins.

The spacecraft will twice pass through the lower Van Allen Belt — one of two areas of radiation encircling Earth. The radiation is extremely harmful to humans, and can also wreak havoc on sensitive equipment. Orion's cameras will be turned off at this time, and data on how the spacecraft's protective systems fare will be closely monitored.

Then there's the heat inevitably sustained on any space craft re-entry.given re-entry velocity generates friction between the spacecraft and Earth's atmosphere, and that friction results in extreme heat.
Serving as a buffer for the EFT-1  is the spacecraft's 16.5-foot-diameter heat shield to protect Orion and its future crews during re-entry into Earth's atmosphere. The shield is key to Orion's success given that Orion will pass through Earth's upper atmosphere at about 20,000 mph  so will experience temperatures of up to 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 80 percent of what the spacecraft would experience returning from lunar orbit. (Orion's shield is designed to withstand up to 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit.)

Let's look forward to Thursday's launch of the EFT-1 and the promise of a genuinely bright manned space future with adequate redundancy and safety measures as opposed to slapdash craft put together on the fly with future profit the primary driver.