Conservatives and Preservatives

Conservatives, if they are not conmen, are creatures of habit who want their environment to stay the same. In a sense, they are alergic to change and perceive it as a personal threat. However, the habits they form and aim to preserve develop in response to a hormone surge. Hormones are chemicals and, ipso facto, subject to fluctuation in response to environmental conditions. Which, I guess, means that our habit-focused friends are subject to environmental forces of which they are totally unaware.

Can we say that conservatives are at war with themselves, not because habits are prone to turning into self-destructive obsessions (which we can see), but because hormone levels are erratic.

New question for today. What is the long term effect of people dousing themselves with chemical emolients and dyes?

Acosta/Epstein Trial

So, while this story is a big deal in terms of revealing how it happens that children and women are regularly abused with impunity under the U.S. Constitution, it is not just because children, whom the law considers to be the property of their parents, have no civil or individual rights. It is also because prosecutors are the ONLY PUBLIC OFFICIALS ACCORDED ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. Prosecutors cannot be held to account for their decisions because their behavior is presumed to be purely ministerial — i.e. to just deliver information developed by executive personnel (law enforcers) to the judiciary entities, sans any input of his own. That was the original intent, but it has not worked out that way and Congress has failed to define and adjust responsibilities. Nor has the SCOTUS been able to render corrective rulings because prosecutors have insured that no relevant cases are brought to them. Unlike the Florida Supreme Court, the SCOTUS is not empowered to issue advisory opinions.
So, resurfacing Acosta and Epstein as a civil case is a big deal. Just imagine the chutzpah of the prosecutor extending immunity to the perp AND ANYONE WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH HIM.

An interesting distinction—substantive v. process crimes

That is the argument now being pushed by the supporters of the Dude—that the crimes being charged by the Special Counsel have no substance and are merely about process. That argument is consisrent with an inability to perceive process. If applied to a knife murder, it would mean that a stabbing, despite the evidence of blood, if it results in the discovery of no body, is not a crime.
This way of reasoning is consistent with the exclusive focus on results (victims). The Intent of the agent can be discounted entirely and that actually makes sense. If we accept, for example, that the Dude has no intent to do anything, then we can conclude he just reacts to events like a light bulb to the flip of a switch. If there is no agent and no intent, there can be no crime—just an amoral force that wrecks destruction wherever it goes.

I have long suggested that perhaps, instead of worrying about robots acting like humans, we should be more of concerned about people acting like robots. It is a lot easier to disconnect HAL than to remove the Dude from the White House.