tadmjones

Seems on topic today: https://drhurd.com/2023/08/14/ukraine-the-biggest-money-laundering-operation-in-human-history/

Fermilab Tighter Measurements in Muon g–2 Experiment

Stephen
I think Floyd was responsible(ultimately?) for his own death. He refused to allow the officers to arrest him and detain him in a vehicle, those actions resulted in the officers' subsequent actions of restraint. The toxicology reports showed Floyd had ingested chemicals that actively reduce respiration which likely exasperated the effects of what was determined to be a negligent level of force applied by the arresting officers. The jury was left to decide the distal and proximate causes. The prosecution argued that a healthy person would have died due to the subdual and restraint: prone position while handcuffed and subject to weight/pressure from the officer's position and objective disregard of Floyd's medical status in the moment.
In Chauvin's civil rights convictions he was charged with violating Floyd's right to be free of excessive police force along with violating a 14 year olds' right to be free of excessive police force when he restrained him a similar manner for 14-15 minutes an event that did not result in the death of the young male. I would say he was bad/dangerous cop and that he unintentionally caused a major contributory threat to Floyd's life , legally defined as second degree unintentional murder.
As to the quasi-ritualistic actions of Pelosi, Schumer etal. in the Capitol , I say they were shameless. The theatrics of that escapade stoked resentment of a false charge of rampant racism against blacks perpetrated by all law enforcement. It was almost demonic in its irony, old mostly white public officials miming the 'lethal act' festooned in the 'colors' of an African nation( tribe) known for subjugating and enslaving neighboring tribes. While properly social distanced and masked ! The rot is so entrenched and so deep that 'most' would apologize for it , them . Every two years since 1987 the majority of people in California's 11th district elect her to the same office, obviously the uniquely and single best person in the district to hold the office!

More inter webs serendipity, I’m currently listening to an audiobook version of Whitehead’s Process and Reality. Just experienced a section on a critique of Descartes, Hume , Locke and Kant and theories of perception and resultant conceptualization theory.
This nascent exploration into his thought has caused ( or in Whiteheadian vernacular the actual occasion of my understanding has satisfied the apprehension of the thought or contextually notion) that Existence exists is more satisfyingly felt as the universe is the state of being.
 
This exploration is putting a lot more meat and flesh on the bones on my previous conception of existence as and metaphysics.

The main legal reason is that “abuse of power” is not a federal crime. There actually is a criminal law against “abuse of office” in 25 CFR § 11.448, which applies to tribal police and courts, thus is not applicable to Trump, though given the vague metaphorical slop in the indictment it is a little surprising that they didn’t overlook the limit in the scope of the law. Trump did abuse his power while in office, and the courts did rule against him (see for example travel ban 1.0). But SCOTUS can only say “no, you can’t do that”, they cannot punish a president for exceeding authority. This is the essence of objective law: that a person know in advance what things are forbidden. If there is no law against it, you cannot charge a person.
The matter of intent to deceive is a fundamental tenet of criminal fraud. I doubt that the defense will try to argue that the election fraud charges are true, since that would be an irrelevant side-show. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the claims were actually false, which would require proof that he said something crazy like “What if we make up some story about there being massive voter fraud in those states?”. OTOH, Nixon did have a tape recorder running in his office when he confessed to his crimes, so stranger things have happened.

The first count raises an interesting interpretive question. The law says that

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both
and one should wonder “who / what is the United States?” as far as this law is concerned? Words are often specially-defined for particular statutes. The term is defined:
The term “United States”, as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone.
The three main interpretations that would be sensible would be “the government of the United States”, “the entire United States including the government and all of the population”, or “some entity in the United States”.
We can rule out “some entity in the United States”, since that would make it a federal crime for two people to conspire to “commit any offense” against me. It is settled law that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over every offense committed in the US. To be valid federal law, the federal government would have to have personal jurisdiction – for example, acts against the federal government, or acts against specified federal workers. The addendum “or any agency thereof ” clearly indicates that an agency of the US government is supposed to me included in the scope of “against the United States”.
¶10(a) of the indictment asserts that “The Defendant and co-conspirators used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes for the Defendant's opponent”. However, said legislators and “election officials” are not part of the government of the United States. Maybe a case could be mounted in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, but you can’t make a federal matter out of a state offense.

The claim is that there was an attempt to “defraud” the government of the United States. Therefore we need to turn to the chapter on fraud which brings us to infamous 18 USC 1001 (used to imprison Martha Stewart), which says that

whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry


goes to jail.
The term “matter within the jurisdiction…” means, for example, “a court proceeding”, or “a Congressional investigation” or “an FBI investigation”, it does not make it a federal crime to tell a lie in the US. There is no “matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States” (the election of president is not within the jurisdiction of the United States, it is with the jurisdiction of the several states).
There are a handful of other references to fraud in that chapter: all of then involve something rather specific such as fraudulent contract bids, forging documents and identification instruments, accessing computers (any computer connected to the internet), some violations of the Atomic Energy Act… A knowingly false claim that there had been electoral fraud is not “fraud” in the federally-relevant sense, and by the same logic, the indictment itself is fraudulent (however, not actionable, since one cannot be prosecuted over an indictment no matter how egregiously false it is).
The defense will of course attack everything, but the most important thing to attack, and the most significant crime against rights being mounted by the Biden Administration, is the “weaponizing” of words like “fraud”, and the usurpation of individual states’ interest in properly addressing these acts – or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic

Another article summing up what has been discovered so far: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/room-temperature-superconductor-new-developments

For me, one of the most depressing aspects of the 'scamdemic' was the relative lack of visible governmental force applied to accomplish compliance.
For a long time I expected to see local and state police and National guard personnel posted at major transportation routes, similar to the way airports looked immediately after 9/11. I traveled in October of that year and was affected by the presence of armed military personnel , affected in that it was admittedly reassuring but there is also a visceral effect of their presence , one I was/am not accustomed to by virtue of having been born in the US, thank god.
My wife stopped working at her business for three months partly to care for our daughter as her care services were closed , but mostly from fear that members of the public would notice the activity and 'report it'. In a few months she resumed her business though 'covertly'( shuttered windows and clandestine parking schemes,lol) I was deemed 'essential ' and continued to work full time and for the first few weeks fully expected to see law enforcement presence , especially at the state border I cross, but that never materialized.
Recently I heard a discussion on the difference between force and power as it applies to governance and control. There is an inverse relationship among regimes between the use of force and the power they command. Power means control is established and acknowledged by the citizenry, whereas the actual use of force indicates the regime is being threatened , their control/power is or has been diminished in some capacity and in order to regain control the imminent threat of violence is the only tool left to their disposal.
Looking back now I see that the lack of a visible show of force means I live in a pretty powerful regime.
I know some will say that what I saw was the reaction of a rational citizenry responding to a commensurate actual threat, but the truth is it wasn't.
 

Covid was not as deadly as reported , it was dangerous to the elderly and those with compromised health, not the 'general' or even close to the majority of the population.
The mitigation efforts of masking and distancing were known by the implementers of the policies to be ineffective.
The lockdowns and school closures were morally and constitutionally abusive and solely facilitated by spreading the falsehood of the 'deadly contagion'.
HCQ and Ivermectin along with vitamin D and zinc supplementation in non toxic doses showed efficacy especially when used as a prophylactic. Suppressing the efficacy of safe and available treatments and protections enabled the issuance of the EUA allowing the use and distribution of an experimental medical treatment. Facilitated by the public's belief of the presence of a 'deadly contagion'. 
Hospital beds have been declining as a percentage of the population for decades, added to the fact that most medical facilities curtailed staffing , services and wards that resulted in ' the crush'.
Inaccurate and faulty testing and testing regimes were deployed to promote the idea that daily life was dangerous.
The recommended( read mandated) standard of care coupled with patient isolation practices were at best medically inappropriate and at worst lethal. All facilitated by the rationalization of a 'deadly contagion'.
Historic medical and scientific practices and methodologies were discarded or 'officially ' changed( mass inoculation in the face of a novel infection, three months of safety and effectiveness testing equals five real world years)
Unconstitutional changes to balloting laws across the country were facilitated by the acceptance of the public of being in the midst of a 'deadly contagion'.
Aside from the actual infection , the reaction and the public's acquiescence to the state's response were facilitated by the propaganda fomented by 'the media' along with active suppression of any dissent to the 'narrative'. Do you believe the falsehoods spread were the continued result of separate organizations all making the same mistakes as to the accuracy of their 'reporting'? 
Obama , the FBI and DOJ were briefed on the fact that the DNC/Hillary Clinton were going to perpetuate a fraudulent story about Russian/Trump collusion , allowed it to happen and facilitated its happening. The Mueller report was a joke as was Mueller 2.0 ( the Durham Report) , it's is a laughable idea that the people that perpetuated the hoax would 'investigate' and report out their own complicity.
Hunter Biden's laptop is and was always 'real' and no one thought otherwise, as is Joe Biden's corruption documented on the laptop.
All cause excess death has been running about 10% higher than the five year average for about two years now, numbers that will soon if not already rival the numbers from the deadly delta wave, and cardiac and circulatory problems are on the rise (especially among a younger cohort but no media is talking about it, somehow it seems all of 'the media' is just unaware of it , along with the CDC and the WHO.
I suggest you stop 'listening' to the thoroughly discredited 'media' outlets you seem to follow.
 
 
 
 
 

Covid was not as deadly as reported , it was dangerous to the elderly and those with compromised health, not the 'general' or even close to the majority of the population.
The mitigation efforts of masking and distancing were known by the implementers of the policies to be ineffective.
The lockdowns and school closures were morally and constitutionally abusive and solely facilitated by spreading the falsehood of the 'deadly contagion'.
HCQ and Ivermectin along with vitamin D and zinc supplementation in non toxic doses showed efficacy especially when used as a prophylactic. Suppressing the efficacy of safe and available treatments and protections enabled the issuance of the EUA allowing the use and distribution of an experimental medical treatment. Facilitated by the public's belief of the presence of a 'deadly contagion'. 
Hospital beds have been declining as a percentage of the population for decades, added to the fact that most medical facilities curtailed staffing , services and wards that resulted in ' the crush'.
Inaccurate and faulty testing and testing regimes were deployed to promote the idea that daily life was dangerous.
The recommended( read mandated) standard of care coupled with patient isolation practices were at best medically inappropriate and at worst lethal. All facilitated by the rationalization of a 'deadly contagion'.
Historic medical and scientific practices and methodologies were discarded or 'officially ' changed( mass inoculation in the face of a novel infection, three months of safety and effectiveness testing equals five real world years)
Unconstitutional changes to balloting laws across the country were facilitated by the acceptance of the public of being in the midst of a 'deadly contagion'.
Aside from the actual infection , the reaction and the public's acquiescence to the state's response were facilitated by the propaganda fomented by 'the media' along with active suppression of any dissent to the 'narrative'. Do you believe the falsehoods spread were the continued result of separate organizations all making the same mistakes as to the accuracy of their 'reporting'? 
Obama , the FBI and DOJ were briefed on the fact that the DNC/Hillary Clinton were going to perpetuate a fraudulent story about Russian/Trump collusion , allowed it to happen and facilitated its happening. The Mueller report was a joke as was Mueller 2.0 ( the Durham Report) , it's is a laughable idea that the people that perpetuated the hoax would 'investigate' and report out their own complicity.
Hunter Biden's laptop is and was always 'real' and no one thought otherwise, as is Joe Biden's corruption documented on the laptop.
All cause excess death has been running about 10% higher than the five year average for about two years now, numbers that will soon if not already rival the numbers from the deadly delta wave, and cardiac and circulatory problems are on the rise (especially among a younger cohort but no media is talking about it, somehow it seems all of 'the media' is just unaware of it , along with the CDC and the WHO.
I suggest you stop 'listening' to the thoroughly discredited 'media' outlets you seem to follow.
 
 
 
 
 

As an example of algorithmic ‘serendipity’ , YouTube presented this video to me on Whitehead and though not touching on any politicization of science and obviously nothing on O’ist definitions, the lecture speaks to the connection of science to metaphysics and the role philosophy should play in distinguishing a hierarchy with a view toward how western science has made progress to rational understanding but underscores ,I think, a divide or in-congruency that could lead to “scientism”.
Though I do not know the O’ist stance toward Whitehead ‘officially’ , listening to the lecture is a good exercise in detecting similarities and differences in theories and explanations eg the mechanisms of concept formation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY2vDesht8o
 

As an example of algorithmic ‘serendipity’ , YouTube presented this video to me on Whitehead and though not touching on any politicization of science and obviously nothing on O’ist definitions, the lecture speaks to the connection of science to metaphysics and the role philosophy should play in distinguishing a hierarchy with a view toward how western science has made progress to rational understanding but underscores ,I think, a divide or in-congruency that could lead to “scientism”.
Though I do not know the O’ist stance toward Whitehead ‘officially’ , listening to the lecture is a good exercise in detecting similarities and differences in theories and explanations eg the mechanisms of concept formation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY2vDesht8o
 

I wonder if these errors might be a matter of imprecise phrasing. Maybe I am being too generous.
Not all individuals are inherently heroic -- but heroism, when it exists, is an attribute of the individual.
Governments -- when they overstep their proper bounds -- do only end up restricting human freedom, potential, and happiness. However, a government that does not overstep its proper bounds can be helpful in securing human freedom, potential, and happiness.
[Added later] I suppose I missed the big picture, though. You are right that the core of her philosophy is not political.

Pretty nice.
One misrepresentation: "But the core of her belief system is quite simple: Individuals are inherently "heroic," while governments only restrict human freedom, potential and happiness."
No. The core of her philosophy, even the human-value part of it, is not anything political. And within the political, it is false that Rand held that all governments "only restrict human freedom, potential and happiness." That is someone else's political view, not Rand's. On this point the author was doing the usual of distorting Rand's views to suit his own or his boss.

Common Sense platform doc

A rational man acts according to his nature, which means that he survives by reason. An irrational man does not live by reason: he may behave randomly, in exact opposition to reason, or according to emotion. We have a moral code which we apply to our choices that says what exactly that entails, therefore I know that it would be immoral for me to blow out my brains right now since life is great (that’s a fact about the current context, not the idea of blowing out one’s brains qua absolute). We can apply that moral code to the evaluation of others, and conclude that Putin is, by nature, immoral (not just once, but as a general fact of his character).
I am currently under irrational government compulsion to hand over part of my wealth to the government robbers (multiple governments!). I would not do this if I had a free choice, however, the government threatens me with force if I do not comply. A person’s response to force is by nature outside of the scope of reason – force is the denial of reason. Me paying taxes is not “rational”, it is the best I can come up with in light of reality and my hierarchy of values.
You have drawn a dichotomy between moral and immoral, but there is actually a trichotomy. The actions that another takes when under compulsion cannot be morally evaluated. The slave’s choices are outside the scope of moral evaluation, precisely because of the contradiction created by force. A further problem with your scenario, and with many hypothetical moral philosophy scenarios, is that it isn’t epistemologically consistent, instead it flits between the perspective of the individual and an observer. As an observer, we do not know the slave’s hierarchy of values – his actions cannot be morally evaluated. Evaluating the choices of others in such an epistemologically-impoverished circumstances is not reasonable, I might even say irrational, but I won’t.
The more interesting question is, what would you do in this circumstance, and why? I pay my taxes because even though I value freedom, I also value my life, and I recognize that knuckling under to the demands of government is necessary in order for me to live my life qua me (as opposed to living off the grid in the Sahara desert, where the weather sucks). I recognize that surviving purely by reason is impossible, but I have discovered that living is still possible. That means that the choice to exist, the primary choice, still remains at the very top of my hierarchy of values.
Your scenario adds a strange complication, that the master will free the slave if he engages in a silly symbolic act that he would never otherwise engage in. Equally “applicable” would be the mandate to drink a cup of kombucha in order to gain freedom. At this point, I am starting to think that the slave is not simply “failing to act purely by reason”, I think he is positively insane, in refusing to rectify his enslavement because he has been the victim of force. Change the scenario just a little: a person is subject to improper government compulsion, and he is given the choice of replacing the existing dictatorship with a less-cruel but still not perfectly rational government which still uses improper force. He would ordinarily not choose an irrational government which employs improper force. Since my hierarchy of values is different from that of the slave whose highest value is to not be the victim of force, I have a hard time evaluating this guy.
Since one’s hierarchy of values is chosen, I would conjecture that the person is indeed irrational because he bought into a contradictory philosophy which makes “be free from compulsion” be his primary choice. I would try to get the guy to read Galt’s Speech, to see if that might straighten out his crazy hierarchy of values.

 

When this goes up the food chain, the primary tension will probably be a First Amendment battle between Biden’s right to be a leftist extremist vs. other people’s rights to disseminate false statements. The core issue will be what constitutes coercion. Common sense tells you that if a person tells you “I really could use the money in your wallet. Do you want to continue living?”, your life has just been threatened, but nowhere did the person say “Give me your money or I will kill you” – the threat is implied (you can read between the lines and infer a negative consequence for non-compliance). Common sense is often suspended in court judgments. Section IIIB(1)(a)(i) lays out the legal framework for concluding that the government did coerce, the unrelenting pressure to comply being a significant factor supporting the conclusion that the government was not just “expressing an opinion”.
In principle, the government might attempt to justify violation of the First Amendment because it is “necessary” in aid of the government’s (stipulated) compelling interest is preserving public health – a rotten doctrine to be sure, but it is an accepted legal fact. The scientists’ opinions would largely be irrelevant to this argument, except in testifying to something that they would be on very shaky grounds about – that viewpoint suppression is necessary to prevent an apocalypse.

Religion in Human Evolution – From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age
Robert N. Bellah (Harvard 2017)
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674975347&content=toc
Start with chapter 7 for your interest in Ancient Greeks and their prelude. Jump back to earlier material in the book for needed wider layout and the terminology (use Index).
The Beginnings of Western Science – The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450
David C. Lindberg (Chicago 2007, 2nd edition)
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo5550077.html 
1. SCIENCE BEFORE THE GREEKS
     What Is Science?
     Prehistoric Attitudes toward Nature 
     The Beginnings of Science in Egypt and Mesopotamia

2. THE GREEKS AND THE COSMOS
     The World of Homer and Hesiod
     The First Greek Philosophers
     The Milesians and the Question of Underlying Reality
     The Question of Change
     The Problem of Knowledge
     Plato’s World of Forms
     Plato’s Cosmology
     The Achievement of Early Greek Philosophy

3. ARISTOTLE’S PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE
     Life and Works
     Metaphysics and Epistemology
     Nature and Change
     Cosmology
     Motion, Terrestrial and Celestial
     Aristotle as a Biologist
     Aristotle’s Achievement
. . .
 

https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontopsychology/chapter/2-2-psychodynamic-and-behavioural-psychology/ 
(Some of the things said about types of psychologists in this linked report are incomplete, too coarse-grained, and out of date.)
Neuropsychologists study consciousness as belonging to brain processes.
Tad, concerning epistemological v. metaphysical, the biological is what consciousness is. That likely means it is included under what you may mean by the metaphysical. I propose that when Aristotle talks of earth, wind, fire, and water, what one should now switch to for reality best we know it is the chemical elements and to states of matter such as gas, liquid, or solid. When he speaks of substance, what one should best switch to for best capture of reality is mass-energy and to matter & fields and to more modern-science aware metaphysics, such as in replacement of Aristotle's 'substance' with Rand's 'entity'. The biological is physical. 
Then too, the epistemological should not be something vaguely floating around the philosopher's armchair, but informed by modern cognitive psychology (including developmental cognitive psychology) and neuropsychology. Serious epistemology includes, these days, assimilation of results from empirical psychology research.
There has been some work on how Freud's speculations and key concepts stand up under modern scientific research. Some of the things he drew attention to can be observed in one's own mental operations. If you come awake while dreaming, you therefore will be able to remember some of the dream. Look for your use of objects and events of the previous waking day that you have put into the dream story. Freud called that the day residue, and I find it there just as he did.
I have shied away from Freud's "the unconscious" and usually use instead the less elaborate Objectivist concept of "the subconscious." The powers of Freud's unconscious have seemed to me a long time to have too much the character of a unified agent and one implausibly autonomous from the regular agent we call a person.
When I was college age, I read Freud's On the Interpretation of Dreams during a period I had been without funds to continue school. Concerning Dreams I recommend also a book by Jonathan Winson (1985) titled Brain and Psyche: The Biology of the Unconscious. At the time Freud was writing Dreams, he was also writing Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, which I also found interesting.
 
 

Eiuol,
Your post reminded me of an episode that occurred in Rand's life in the fall of 1940. Except for the link and the square-bracketed text I added, the following is from Barbara Branden's biographical essay "Who Is Ayn Rand?" (1962), based on interviews of Rand by Mrs. Branden.
 

Savage is not a philosophically precise word. But she is still talking about specific cultures with specific standards and methods of operation. Or lack of standards in this case, in her view. As your quotes show, she characterized different cultures as savage, such that they have no legitimate political claims. As far as concerns about borders, Rand's comments about Native Americans are all we have, most likely against people who said that Europeans "stole" land from the natives. 
But this doesn't at all get into people who are leaving the so-called savage culture into the more advanced culture politically speaking. Whatever she thought, incorrectly, about natives, she may give a completely different evaluation when talking to people seeking out the stronger and more developed country. Being an immigrant herself, almost certainly viewing Russia as savage politically, I don't think she would use the reasoning that "people choosing to leave savage cultures are more likely to be savage themselves". If anything, Rand would say that people choosing to remain within savage cultures are savage themselves. 
What Rand did is classify cultures as savage, whether she did that rightly or wrongly is another question. 
What you seem to be doing is classifying people as savage based on nothing but their country of origin. Maybe Rand would say that many people in Africa are savages when it comes to the way they treat politics and technology, but immigrating to the US or Western Europe for example usually indicates recognizing that there is something better and worthwhile. I think she would recognize this fact too. 

I'd think we should leave people alone unless they violate rights in their actions, such as in force or fraud. We wouldn't want to refuse entry and staying here to just everyone who will not acknowledge individual rights in their ideology. There are libertarians who support liberty by various versions of utilitarianism, and they argue against there being such a thing as individual rights, although, in practice they respect such rights. 
We used to have people wishing to immigrate into the US wait on Ellis Island until they had a sponsor to enter the US. Maybe it is still like that. I don't know, but that would be all right with me. My husband's grandmother was like that. She had come over by herself from Germany. She was able to get off the island when a Jewish lady in New York came down and picked her to become her cleaning lady.* 
I have an old joke for you. A little old woman on Ellis Island was asked by the official "Do you support the overthrow of the US government by force or violence?" She thought a bit, and she replied "force."
Welcome to Objectivism Online.

Like Manson or Jack Ruby?

tadmjones link is to a 9 minute video of Dr. john Campbell pointing out that excess deaths across the world remain high.  In the UK, where he is, it is 9.4% above normal.