Is the MAGA-Trump reign of terror about to come to an end?

US Government shutdowns are somewhat pooh-poohed by conservatives in particular, because of their contempt for government in general, but, bear in mind, the longest government shutdown in history was under Donald Trump, and, it only lasted 35 days. There's actually a very good and simple reason why government shutdowns don't last very long in the US, and that's because no federal government agents, and not even the US military, are paid a thin dime while they're going on. Nothing. Not till they end. Sure, they get back pay when they're over, but, that doesn't help much if they go on for years, does it now? And, so, if they went on very long at all, even a few months, there would be massive loss of personnel in all services -- Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, ICE, Airport Security -- at the federal level, and, quite likely, a real risk of mutiny in the military as a whole, as service personnel ceased to be able to support their own families. All the federal law enforcement agents would quit, out of sheer necessity, and the US military would be in open revolt against their own government. So, now that you understand precisely why government shutdowns don't last very long, you can understand just how powerful a position the Democrats are now in, now that the US population as a whole has had just about enough of the fascist tendencies of the Trump government. Effectively, the Democrats can virtually eliminate the entire US federal law enforcement service -- including and especially ICE -- by forcing them all to quit, or face starvation. They can put the US military in a position where they will actively revolt against Donald Trump, so that they can feed their families again. The Democrats can crush the entire federal government if they wish. And, at this time, the people would support them, they've had enough. So, what's going to happen, exactly? I would suspect, at some point, enough pressure will be applied to the Trump administration that they will simply have no choice but to abandon most of their policies. ICE will be largely dismantled, the border will be opened up again, the cities will be demilitarized, funding will be reestablished to critical government agencies, that have been cut back. Of course, the Senate could just abandon the filibuster. Then, the Republicans can do what they want. But, if that happens, when the Democrats take over again, they'll do exactly the same thing. And, Republicans wouldn't like that at all, would they now?

The prosecutors of Tyler Robinson are making a serious legal error.

The prosecutors of Tyler Robinson for the murder of Charlie Kirk, in their anger, are making a very serious legal error. Tyler Robinson is guilty of simple murder, by Utah Law, not aggravated murder, which requires circumstances that do not apply here. The prosecutors are attempting to argue, that because the shot he fired could have hurt someone else in the area, that he put others in "extreme danger". This is patently false, unless virtually all gun crimes are considered aggravated murder, and, they are not. The reason they are doing this, is because they want Tyler Robinson to inevitably be either executed, or have life in prison without parole, which are the only options for aggravated murder, under Utah law. Now, Utah Law has a simple murder charge, which involved penalties from 15 years to life in prison. And, the judge has the option of stipulating that the defendant does not have the option of parole, if convicted. That is the correct charge here. Sure, Tyler might be out in 10, 15 or 20 years. That is a possibility. However, that is the normal procedure in these cases. The fact is, because Donald Trump took such an interest in this case, they're making a special issue to try to ensure Tyler is punished as severely as possible, whether this is legal, or not. The problem from the prosecutors point of view here, is that Tyler is simply not guilty of aggravated murder, under Utah Law. He may have slightly increased the danger for the people in the area, but, he was obviously a skilled marksman, he only fired one carefully aimed shot, and no one else was touched, as he quite reasonably expected. The "extreme danger for others" criterion simply does not apply, and that is quite obvious. Sure the prosecutors might talk the jury into a conviction. They don't care what the law says, they're just thinking that this is a guy who killed someone, and they want him punished as much as is possible. However, Tyler can, quite literally, get dozens of appeals, over a period of decades. And, this conviction is illegal, and some judges with a legal bent are going to see this, and, they're going to acquit him. And, he can't be tried for simple murder, after the aggravated murder acquittal. Ever. That's double jeopardy, totally illegal under US law. Tyler will get acquitted, he will have no criminal record, and he will have an excellent case against the state of Utah for prosecutorial misconduct, that will make him a rich man. Is that what the prosecution really wants? The prosecutors should go for what they certainly can get, a conviction for simple murder. They are making a serious legal error here, that they will certainly regret, in a few years, if not sooner.

How confusing social and physical reality distorts human perceptions

One of the more striking illustrations of exactly how our perceptions of physical reality can be distorted by social structures and controls, is, interestingly, to be found in a major current phenomenon in popular culture -- The Lord of the Rings. Where does the idea that rings have great power over physical reality come from, exactly? After all, rings are primarily simple ornamentation, why would anyone think they had any power at all, beyond, perhaps, creating a certain physical attraction to those bearing them? Nevertheless, the concept of Rings of Power lies very deep in popular mythology, from the Ring of the Niebelungen to Wagner's Ring Cycle to the Lord of the Rings in its various incarnations, since JRR Tolkien wrote this fantasy classic. And, the roots of this phenomenon in popular culture lie much deeper, and are older than this. Where is this all coming from, exactly? Well, there is one way in which, for a time anyway, rings did posess a certain considerable practical power over the physical world. I am thinking of chain mail armor, which is formed by interlocking metal rings. For many centuries, chain mail armor was a very important means of self-protection in warfare, and provided an excellent defense against arrows, spears and swords. Still though, it's a bit of a stretch from chain mail armor -- just one of many forms of defensive armor -- to the "rings of power" that can control the entire world, isn't it? I think the more persuasive explanation of the power of rings is not practical or physical, but, rather, merely social. Rings, particularly large expensive rings, with gemstones, or sophisticated engravings, were, for perhaps thousands of years, a preogative of the rich and powerful. Indeed, signet rings, with special engravings, were often used as official seals of Kings and other powerful individuals, when dipped in melted wax, and could be the basis for a wide variety of critically important legal proceedings such as treaties, wars, great financial endowments, political appointments, or judicial court decisions of a criminal or a civil nature. The Ring syboloized official power and privilege. However, people are easily confused. One thing becomes associated with another in people's minds, and social power, in our unconscious, becomes associated with physical power, the ability to destroy whole nations, or the entire world itself. Social power can appear to match divine powers of physical creation, although, when we look quite closely, this is almost never the case. The social powers of the world's leaders are declaimed on high, and form the basis for much of our attitudes to reality. However, on close inspection, it is often found, that the emperor, although he may indeed be the emperor, has no clothes at all!