Creativity finds its soul when it embraces its shadow. The artist’s block, for instance, is a well-know part of the creative process: inspiration stops and the writer is faced with an intractable empty page. Many souls today must have evaporated, leaving emptiness to take over. If we could see how our blank spots have eroded our souls, we might quickly humble our lives. Given our society’s propensity for physical problem solving, it should come as no surprise that murder and assault offenders generally develop pronounced criminal careers. These individuals tends to possess a proverbial short fuse and are not shy about resorting to physical means to resolve life’s problems. For example, one third of all individuals who face a felony assault charge and 58 percent of all murder defendants are typically found to have at least one prior felony arrest. More than one in five murder defendants have a rap sheet that includes five or more prior felony arrests, while one in five defendants have at least ten prior felony arrest. In a recidivism study which tracked more than 272,000 inmates released from state prison, the data showed that 41 percent of all released murderers and 65.1 percent of all assault releases were charged with another criminal offense within three years of leaving prison. Most of these arrests resulted in a second conviction and follow-up term of incarceration. There is some evidence of escalation and specialization in the career trajectories of homicide and assault offenders. For instance, 22 percent of those who served time for assault were picked up for yet another assault charge withing three years of there release. #RandolphHarris 1 of 19

In addition, 12 percent will graduate to murder by the end of that three-year window of time. There plausible explanation for these high levels of recidivism is due to the fact that the average murderer is a confrontational male with a long history of violent rehearsals. Repeated involvement in physical violence tends to produce increasing intensity and severity in one’s actions. While most murderers do not involve themselves exclusively in homicide, an analysis of criminal history data reveals that they have a tendency to concentrate their offending in the area of violent crime. Furthermore, 20 percent of murderer and 35 percent of the assault releases face new violent felony arrests within 3 years. Considering not everyone who goes to jail is actually guilty, and some people may have been acting in self-defense, it seems the goal would be to keep people who have been released from jail away from people and situations that may lead them into recidivism for at least 4 to 5 years. There exists a great deal of conjecture and assumption about what goes on inside the mind of the violent offender. Media outlets are more than willing to produce fictional and nonfictional accounts of the thought processes of homicide or assault offenders. As entertaining as the depictions may be, the public is provided little accurate information about the mindset of the average murderer. For starters, most scholars agree that there is nothing innate or inborn about human violence. Man needs a social system in which he has his place and in which his relations to others are relatively stable and supported by generally accepted values and ideas. #RandolphHarris 2 of 19

What has happened in modern industrial society is that traditions, and common values, and genuine social personal ties with others have largely disappeared. The modern mass man is isolated and lonely, even though he is part of a crowd; he has no convictions which he could share with others, only slogans and ideologies he gets from the communications media. He has become an a-tom (the Greek equivalent of “in-dividual” = indivisible), held together only by common, though often simultaneously antagonistic interests, and by the cash nexus. This phenomenon is called anomie, and is the main cause of death by suicide which had been increasing with the growth of industrialization. Anomie is the destruction of all traditional social bonds, due to the fact that all truly collective organization has become secondary to the state and all genuine social life had been annihilated. People living in the modern political state are a disorganized dust of individuals. In modern society, much of the tradition American community in which all genuine social bonds are made have become illegal or disappeared and it is having an impact on the World. Ceasing pledging allegiance to flag of the United States of America in public schools seems to be a problem. Also, removing God and Christ as symbols of America has influenced people to become unpatriotic, have a loss of fear for God, and indulge in sin. Now people are starting to lose respect for the National Anthem and all of this division is ripping America apart from its core. #RandolphHarris 3 of 19

Others are seeing the nonsense that is going on in California, where they are teaching children to deny their gender, not to follow gender roles, and to have a total disregard for humanity and authority figures, and it is setting a dangerous precedent in countries like China, Japan, and India where people who were once loyal to their government, now riot and protest. It is not population density that is the main cause of the problems, but a lack of social structure, genuine common bonds, and interest in life that is causing human aggression. Long standing U.S.A. violence is also due to our propensity for misunderstanding. Parents allow or even encourage aggressive behavior in children, especially boys; all individuals are exposed to gratuitous levels of violence in the print and television media; and we are exposed to displays of aggression on a daily basis in our work and social lives. These three factors come together to produce a culturally based acceptance of violence. While no one of the above sources actually causes violence in a given individual, they can come together to produce a broad-based tolerance for violent problem solving, especially in pockets of society where frustration and violence is more pervasive. The antecedents of violent crimes that are reported by offenders themselves have always impressed me as extraordinarily petty. Unfortunately, some individuals chose to bestow offensive or threatening meanings to the seemingly innocuous comments, gestures, or actions of another. Too frequently, this flawed assessment is followed by a mental exercise to overcome one’s inhibitions against conflict (id est, a mental stamp of approval) and then an intense physical response. #RandolphHarris 4 of 19

The volatility of these situations is exacerbated by the fact that most violent combatants commit their crimes while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. Therefore, bragging about being drunk and/or high is not a badge of honor. Surveys of incarcerated persons reveal that more than 50 percent of all murders and assaults occur while the offender is under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol—roughly 40 percent report being impaired by alcohol and roughly 30 percent report being impaired by some other form of illegal drug or controlled substance. It is worth noting that burglary, theft, and robbery are the only index crimes that exhibit higher levels of drug and/or alcohol usage at the time of the offense. These substances can significantly numb an individual’s reasoning and motor skills. In interviews conducted with 268 convicted murderers, drug and/or alcohol impairment was often the determining factor that turned a simple argument or fist fight into a homicide. So, one approach to stopping violence of any kind would be to teach people not to drink and/or use drugs. Murderous and/or assaultive behavior can be supported by both expressive and instrumental motives. Expressive motivation is associated with emotional states in which the individual strikes out spontaneously in a crime of passion. Instrumental motivation is used to describe a more calculated mental state in which the offender is driven by the will to achieve a predetermined goal. Scholars have long belabored the issue of violent motivation. Most stress the emotional and seemingly nonsensical nature of violence. It is particularly popular to interpret gang or “ghetto” violence in this manner. Violence occupies a more central role in the normative culture of inner-city America. All violence is bound to the situation or surroundings within which it occurs and one simply must understand the underlying cultural text of the environment if one wishes to unravel the meanings and intentions behind a given act. #RandolphHarris 5 of 19

In the case of “ghetto” violence, street thugs use overt acts of force as a means of enhancing their social status on the streets (somewhat equivalent to accumulating monetary wealth in middle- and upper-class American culture). However, the leads to a somewhat muddled explanation of assaultive and murderous motives. On one hand, the physical outburst represents a situationally bound overflowing of expressive motions. At the same time, this eruption of emotional energy is not mindless, but takes on an instrumental quality as it is generally guided toward solving some tangible problem. In short, the emotions serve as the means of accomplishing what the individual sees as a rational end. We must distinguish between predatory and moralistic murder. The public is most familiar with and intrigued by the predatory variety—those cases that involve a serial or habitually murderous offender stalking victims in a methodical, blood-thirsty manner. This brand of killers is like modern-day gang members. These predatory offenders stalk their impersonal prey and commit what we see as cold, calculated acts of violence. Most murderers do not fit this stereotypical image. Instead, they are moralistic offenders. This brand of killer commits crimes in a loosely structured, sometimes disorientated state of rage. A small minority of murderers chronically commit predatory homicides with instrumental motives, most killers are novices of the moralistic variety who possess expressive motives that are bound to the uncertainty of the movement. We often refer to the moralistic homicides as crimes of passion. #RandolphHarris 6 of 19

If follows that noticeable levels of criminal planning tend to be observable among predatory murderers, whereas moralistic murders take on a more haphazard quality. Habitual murderers are likely to develop set patterns, rituals, and methods to their madness, whereas the spontaneous and emotional nature of moralistic homicide usually precludes the likelihood of structured planning on the part of the offender. Conversely, planning generally occupies a notoriously small role in a moralistic or assaultive transaction. The spontaneous and emotional nature of these acts leaves little time for conscious aforethought. Although these individuals may plan the dynamics of an aggressive response, their heightened emotional state rules out the possibility for them to ponder or preconceive the volatility of the transaction. Normative neutralizations play an important part in the cognitive dimension of murder and assault. Despite all the cultural messages that supply reinforce violence as an alternative means of problem solving, would-be offenders must still redefine the situation. Individuals quickly overcome existing inhibitions against violence by convincing themselves that violence is an acceptable or appropriate course of action. In the case of a mundane assault, this usually involves a preoccupation with the severity of the victim’s actions. #RandolphHarris 7 of 19

In other cases, the offender will draw mental parallels to past experiences in which violence served a viable alternative. Homicide offenders are also known to develop and refine stable normative neutralizations. In fact, even the most vicious murderer (id est, mafia hitman)often becomes adept at recasting one’s actions in a positive, self-righteous light. Manhattan Island was one of the most densely populated places in the World fifty years ago, but it was not then, as it is today, characterized by excessive violence. Anyone who has lived in a big apartment building where several hundred families live together knows that there are few places where a person has as much privacy and is as little intruded upon by the presence of next-door neighbors as in a densely populated building. By comparison there is much less privacy in a small village where the houses are much more dispersed and population density is much smaller. Here the people are more aware of each other, watch and gossip about each other’s private lives, and are constantly in each other’s field of vision; the same holds true, although to a much lesser degree, for suburban society. This example tends to show that it is not crowding as such, but the social, psychological, cultural, and economic conditions under which it occurs that are responsible for aggression. It is obvious that overpopulation, id est, population density under conditions of poverty, causes stress and aggression, which can be another reason murders are committed. #RandolphHarris 8 of 19

The big cities of India, as well as the slums in American cities, are an example of why overpopulation can cause problems. Overpopulation and the resulting population density are malignant, when, due to the lack of decent housing, people lack the most elementary conditions for protection from immediate and constant intrusion by others. Overpopulation means that the number of people in a given society surpasses the economic basis for providing them with adequate food, housing, and meaningful leisure. There is no doubt that overpopulation has evil consequences and that numbers must be reduced to a level which is commensurate with the economic basis. However, in a society which has the economic basis to support a dense population, the density itself does not deprive the citizen of his privacy, and it does not expose him to constant intrusion of others. An adequate standard of living, however, takes care only of the lack of privacy and constant exposure to others. It does not solve the problem of anomie, of the lack of Gemeinschaft, of the individual’s need to live in a World that has human proportions, whose members know each other as persons. The anomie of industrial society can only be removed if the whole social and spiritual structure can only be removed if the whole social and spiritual structure is changed radically: if the individual is not only adequately fed and housed, but the interests of society become identical with the interests of each individual; when the relationship to one’s fellowman and the expression of one’s powers, rather than the consumption of things and antagonism to one’s fellowman, become the principles which govern social and individual life. This is possible under the condition of high population density, but it requires radical rethinking of all our premises and radical social change. #RandolphHarris 9 of 19

Fantastic technical advances have filled the sky with eyes and ears automating the collection of mass data. Satellites, advanced optics, and other imaging equipment constantly monitor the Earth. Acoustical sensors blanket strategic sea lanes. Listening stations, giant radars, and other electronic devices dot the planet from Australia to Norway. Technological intelligence, or “Techint,” now includes: Signals Intelligence, or “Sigint” (which, in turn, embraces communications, electronics, and telemetry); “Radint” (which sweeps up signals sent by or to radars); and “Imaging intelligence” (which includes photography, infrared, and other detection tools). All use the biggest and most advanced computers on Earth. So vast, costly, and powerful are these systems that they have shoved intelligence gathered by humans, or “Humint,” into a second-class position. William E. Burrows, author of a study of space espionage, has summed up these high-tech systems in the following terms: “The remote sensing systems with which each side monitors the other and most of the rest of the World are so many, so redundant, and so diffuse that no preparation for an all-out attack could take place without triggering multiple alarms…Orders for armies to march, planes to fly, and civilians to hide must be communicated relatively quickly over vast areas, and what is communicated can be intercepted; everything necessary to wage the war must be moved, and what is moved can be photographed.” #RandolphHarris 10 of 19

The big eavesdroppers in the sky can monitor all military, diplomatic, and commercial messages sent by phone, telex, radio, teletype, or other means via satellites or microwave systems. They have even been able to listen in on Kremlin bigwigs in their limousines and Chinese scientists at the Lop Nor nuclear weapons site. (The Chinese subsequently quit using over-the-air communications and installed secure below-ground lines.) There are serious limits on all this. Despite its vaunted “spy-in-the-sky” capabilities, the United States of America was red-faced to discover that the Soviets, who were supposed to have destroyed 239 SS-23 missiles, had secretly transferred 24 of them to East Germany. There are other failings too. An increasing number of codes can no longer be cracked because of computer advances in coding. Weather still interferes with some photoreconnaissance. Adversaries can use their own electronic countermeasures to blind or deceive the collection systems. Nevertheless, factory-style mass collection of data has been spectacularly achieved. Naturally, not all intelligence involves either high technology or trench-coated snoops. A vast amount is derived from “open sources”—careful reading of the press, monitoring of foreign broadcasts, study of officially released statistics, attendance at scientific and commercial conferences—all of which, when added to the secret materials, becomes raw material for the intelligence mill. To handle all these data, from both human and technical sources, a dizzying bureaucracy has grown up which applies the factory principle of the division of labor, breaking production into a sequence of steps. #RandolphHarris 11 of 19

The process begins with the identification of client needs, the collection of raw material from both open and secret sources, translation, decoding, and other preparation, followed by analysis and its packaging into reports which are then disseminated to clients. Many corporations today are learning that this form of sequential production is inadequate. As we saw, in the new economy steps are eliminated or made simultaneous. Bureaucratic organization is too slow and cumbersome. Markets change rapidly. Mass production itself is giving way to “flexible production” of more and more customized products. The result for many industries has been a profound crisis. Not surprisingly, intelligence, too, finds itself at a crisis point. The new collection technologies have been so effective, they now vacuum up so much computerized imagery and listen in on so many phone calls, they deluge intelligence agencies with so much information it can no longer be processed adequately. They now increasingly cause “analysis paralysis.” Finding the right piece of information, analyzing it correctly, and getting it to the right customer in time are turning out to be bigger problems than collecting it in the first place. Today, therefore, as the World moves toward a new system of producing wealth, superseding the smokestack system, intelligence operations face a crisis of restructure paralleling that which has overtaken the economy itself. There is a final aspect of control that is essential for effective brinkmanship. The threatened party must be able to reduce the risk sufficiently, often all the way to zero, by agreeing to the brinkman’s terms. Spade must have the assurance that Gutman’s temper will cool down sufficiently quickly once he knows the secret, and Khrushchev must be sure that the United States of America’s forces will withdraw as soon as he complies. Otherwise you are damned if you do and damned if you do not, and there is no incentive to comply. #RandolphHarris 12 of 19

The conduct of America’s trade policy illustrates brinkmanship without the control mechanism. The United States of America trade administration tries to compel the Japanese and the Koreans to open their markets to American exports (and also to export less to the United States of America) by pointing out the risk of more serious protectionist actions by the Congress. “If we can’t reach a moderate agreement, the Congress will enact restrictions that will be a lot worse for you.” The so-called voluntary export restraints on automobiles agreed to by Japan in 1981 were the result of just such a process. The problem with the regular use of such tactics in trade negotiations is that they can create risk, but cannot control it within the requisite range. When other issues are occupying the legislations’ attention, the risk of protectionist action by Congress is too low to be an effective threat. On the other hand, when the Congress is exercised about trade deficits, the risk is either too high to be acceptable to our own administration, or simply unresponsive to a modest foreign restraint and therefore an ineffective threat. In other words, the American system of checks and balances can create risk, but cannot control it effectively. With our present technology, which is simpler to build—a car that runs on gasoline, or one that forages for fuel in the forest? A foraging car would be very hard to design, cost more to manufacture, and have more parts to break down. The situation is similar with nanotechnology. #RandolphHarris 13 of 19

Ralph Merkle of Xerox Palo Alto Research Center discussed this issue at the First Foresight Conference on Nanotechnology. He explains, “It’s both uneconomical and more difficult to design a self-replicating system that manufactures every part it needs from naturally occurring compounds. Bacteria do this, but in the process they have to synthesize all twenty amino acids and many other compounds, using elaborate enzyme systems tailored specifically for the purpose. For bacteria facing a hostile World, the ability to adapt and respond to a changing environment is worth almost any cost, for lacking this ability they would be wiped out. “But in a factory setting, where adequate supplies of all the needed parts are provided, the ability to synthesize parts from scratch is not only unneeded, it consumes extra time and energy, and produces excess waste. Even if we could design artificial self-replicating systems as flexible as existing natural ones, an inflexible and rigid system is better adapted to the controlled factor setting in which it will find itself than a more complex, more adaptable, less efficient design.” What is more, the Desert Rose Industries scenario showed how an expandable factory setup could operate with no self-replicating machines at all: molecular manufacturing does not require them. If they are used for some purpose, they will most likely resemble automobiles in their finicky requirements. A self-replicating molecular machine built for industrial purpose (and made as simple as possible) would float in a container of specially selected chemicals not commonly found in nature, and it would be easy to make that a design rule: Never make a replicator that can use an abundant natural compound as fuel. If we follow this rule, the idea of a replicator “escaping” and replicating in the wild will be as absurd as the notion of an automobile going feral and refueling itself from tree sap. #RandolphHarris 14 of 19

Whether for replicators or cars, to design a machine that could operate in the wild would not be a matter of a flick of the draftsman’s pen, but an intense, sustained research-and-development effort focused on that objective. Crashes and explosions occur in machinery by accident, but complex new capabilities do not. A simple psychological error frequently occurs when someone first hears about nanotechnology, and hears mention of “molecular machines,” and “replicators,” and “nanocomputers,” and “nanomachines that operate in nature.” The error is this: The person makes a single new mental pigeonhole for “nanotechnology,” throws everything into it, and stirs. After some mental fermentation, the result is the mythical nanomachine that does everything: it is a replicator, it is a supercomputer, it is a BMW X7, it slices, it dices, it makes Julian carrots—and on reflection, this imaginary nanomachine sounds uncontrolled and dangerous. With enough effort, a do-it-all nanomachine could perhaps be built, but it sounds difficult and there is no good reason to try. There are advantages to making systems of molecular machinery that can use inexpensive, abundant chemicals, and devices that can operate in nature, but these machines need not be replicators. A facility like Desert Rose might be designed to use little but electric power from solar panels and molecules from the air, but a setup like this is not going to slip away. Nanomachines built for cleaning up pollutants and other outdoor tasks could be manufactured infacilities run like Desert Rose and then spread or installed where they are needed. Extraordinary accidents deserve attention, but with a little care they can be completely avoided. The incentive to build anything resembling a Star Trek-scenario replicator is negligible, even from a military perspective. Any effort toward building such a thing should be seen not as a use of nanotechnology, but as an abuse. Other abuses seem more likely, however, and are quite bad enough. #RandolphHarris 15 of 19

It should be plain that failure of the participants in an engagement to contain their activity can not only lead to a betrayal of one or more of their numbers, but also cause the content and feeling generated in the engagement to flow over into the situation at large. At such times bystanders may become dislodged from their own involvements, making it very difficult for them to continue to extend civil inattention to the uncontained encounter. An instance of this doubly offensive disloyalty is found during what are sometimes called “scenes.” Here, an individua who is supposed to be enclosed in an engagement may make a deeply engrossing appeal to others outside it, even though the appeal bears on a specific issue generated within the original engagement. Thus, one pair of patients I studied would (according to nursing notes) travel on a bus under the guidance of a nurse, start an argument with each other, and soon “open up the encounter” to all the passengers, dragging them in on both sides of the altercation. A woman in a lower-class street who is struck by her male companion may similarly make a direct appeal to others for help, thereby forcibly embroiling them. The disturbed feelings created by such bursting of the bounds of the engagement give us a clear picture of exactly what the rules of public conduct operate to prevent. In the extreme, a scene can break down all conventional closure separating the various engagements and unengaged individuals in the situation, providing an instance of an exhaustive engagement where none had been expected or desired. #RandolphHarris 16 of 19

The fact that bystanders may desire or feel obliged to remain out of an accessible encounter allows for a special kind of half-scene, where persons in an encounter talk in a sufficiently loud and pointed fashion to be heard by an outsider, yet modulate their talk enough to give him a slight opportunity to distend. Here the terms “grumbling” or “muttering,” and “stage whisper,” are sometimes used. Thus, two middle-aged ladies sitting at a drugstore counter waiting for their lunch sandwiches may, upon receiving them and finding the filling thin, ostentatiously life up a piece of the bread and complain to each other in a tone of voice that the countergirl is half-meant to hear. (The countermeasure for this, as suggested, is for the person who is grumbled at to attempt directly to ratify the half-spoken comment as a message formally addressed to him, employing some such phrase as “Did you say something?”) In addition to “selling out” an encounter while he is yet a member of it, a participant can also leave it in such a ways as to expose the feelings within the encounter to the situation at large. Those remaining in the encounter may not be given a chance to compose themselves during the leave-taking, and the leave-taker may decline to damp and muffle the particular affect generated in him as a participant of the engagement. Ordinarily, of course, a brief leave-taking ceremony functions to allow leave-taking without exposure. #RandolphHarris 17 of 19

One’s expectations that a leave-taker will “cut back” to the tone and temper prevailing in the gathering at large becomes evident when an individual fails to discipline his leave-taking in this way. A special kind of momentary scene can be observed among children, opera stars, mental patients, and others who have the privilege of temperament, when they precipitously take leave of an engagement, stalking or flouncing out of it and often out of the situation, leaving a wave of affect marked materially by slammed doors and overturned chairs. Yet it must also be said that the leave-taker is expected to show in the situation at large at least some marks of his recent participation, some lingering, albeit fading, signs of the animation the encounter inspired in him; should he not do so, he exposes the encounter a one that has failed to move him. It should be apparent that affective disorganization is particularly likely when the leave-taker leaves what was in the first place only a two-person engagement. In such cases the remaining person, having no others to whom to deflect his readied response, and left deeply involved in an encounter that no longer exists, finds himself in a poor position to cut back his own affect to that prevailing in the situation as a whole. This possibility can, of course, be exploited. For example, one patient I studied, who seemed to know exactly how to attack social arrangements at their joints, as it were, would—according to nursing notes—leave with a package from a store after paying the clerk all but one or two cents of the requested amount, thereby leaving him in a position neither to terminate his involvement in the encounter nor to sustain a role in it. #RandolphHarris 18 of 19

Unless people make sufficient efforts from the beginning the system will be useless to them. Efforts must be organized. What does this mean? Unless you understand our work, we shall not be able to help you. You can be helped only if you enter into our work. One must work on three lines. Before one can understand what this means in relation to the work, one must understand three different lines of work in oneself: intellectual work (acquisition of knowledge), emotional work (work on emotions), and work on will (work on one’s action). One has no big will such as man no. 7 has but one has will at certain moments. Will is the resultant of desires. Will can be seen at moments when there is a strong desire to do or not to do something. Only those moments are important. The system can help only those who realize that they cannot control their will. Then the system will either help them to control their will, or they will have to do as they are told. “Is there no such thing as forcing a situation?” It may look like that but really it happened. If it could not happen in that way, then it could not happen. When things happen in a certain way, we are carried by the current but we think that we control the current. “If one feels for a moment that one is able to ‘do,’ say, to put through a particular job in ordinary work what is the explanation of that?” If one is trained to do something one learns to follow a certain kind of happenings, or if you like, to start a certain kind of happenings, and then these develop, and one runs behind although one thinks one is leading. #RandolphHarris 19 of 19

Cresleigh Homes

There’s something magical ✨ about dreaming about your new life in a new home this year – and we think the time has come for you to check out our safe and peaceful community at #Havenwood!

If you Located off of Virginiatown Road and McCourtney Road, our neighborhood is located in the charming city of Lincoln, with Palo Verde Park just down the street! Head to our website to find out more about available homes.

#CresleighHomes

Destructiveness appears in two forms: spontaneous, and bound in the character structure. By the former, I refer to the outburst of dormant (not necessarily repressed) destructive impulses that are activated by extraordinary circumstances, in contrast to the permanent, although not always expressed, presence of destructive traits in the character. The most ample—and horrifying—documentation for seemingly spontaneous forms of destructiveness are on the record for civilized history. Disagreement seems to be a cornerstone of human interaction. In most cases, disputes are revolved calmly and civilly with little more than heated emotions and words being exchanged. However, this is not always the case. In some instances, there is a breakdown in verbal problem solving and a violent physical altercation occurs. Research shows that the outcome severity of these violent confrontations (id est, lethal versus nonlethal) can hinge on everything from luck to the level of emotion and force that are present in the situation. Most lethal altercations do not start out with death as an intended outcome. Instead, most murders manifest themselves as assaults gone awry wherein an unintended fatality results from an overly efficient weapon, an errant blow, or the blind rage of the moment. As such, it is best to think of the crimes as assault and murder as comprising a single conceptual category wherein varied degrees of negative consequences are possible (id est, injury versus death). #RandolphHarris 1 of 17

According to the Model Penal Code (American Law Institute, 1962, p.125), a person is guilty of a criminal homicide if he or she “purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causes the death of another human being.” Most jurisdictions distinguish between three grades of homicide: murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide (although the label may vary). These gradations are shaped by the element of criminal intent, with murder referring to a purposeful or knowing material state, manslaughter referring to a condition of recklessness, and negligent homicide encompassing those acts committed under a state of unjustifiable risk or “negligence.” This three-pronged definition leaves room for noncriminal homicides, as in the case of a state-sanctioned killing (id est, capital punishment, wartime killing, or lethal force on the part of a law enforcement officer). The law also recognizes a private citizen’s right to use deadly force against another person where it can be shown that failure to do so would likely result in his or her own death (id est, self-defense). Involuntary intoxication and insanity are legal defenses that speak to a private citizen’s inability or lack of capacity to form criminal intent and thus, in extreme cases, have been used as criminal homicide defenses. Lawmakers have also long frowned upon nonlethal means of physical problem solving. As far back as the ninth century, judges are known to have sanctioned instances of battery (defined as unjustified offensive touching), and assault (defined as attempted or threatened offensive touching) among the populous. #RandolphHarris 2 of 17

Over time, these two legal categories grew together into what is today commonly referred to in criminal codes as criminal assault or assault and battery. In most jurisdictions, one is guilty of assault and battery (shortened hereafter to assault) is one purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently engages or threatens to engage in an act of offensive touching against another person. Criminal statutes differentiate between simple and aggravated assault as a way of allowing the state to factor in the amount of harm that is caused by a given attack. The Model Penal Code (American Law Institute, 1962, p. 134) defines simple assault as any attempted threatened, or completed act whereby an individual knowingly, purposely, recklessly, or negligently cases bodily harm to another. This statutory provision is generally invoked in response to minor fights or fisticuffs. Conversely, the Model Penal Code states that the more serious criminal offenses of aggravated assault occurs when a perpetrator purposely, knowingly, or recklessly seems to “cause serious bodily injury” to another. Central to this more flagrant offense category is the presence of a deadly weapon or any violent behavior that demonstrates an “extreme indifference to the value of human life.” Practically speaking, a charge of aggravated assault is usually reserved for potentially lethal violent encounters or those requiring medical attention. #RandolphHarris 3 of 17

Each year, the federal government conducts the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). This study uses a complex sampling strategy to query tens of thousand of households about their victimization experiences over the past year. The survey asks about a wide variety of violent and property offenses and is used to generate victimization estimates (raw numbers and rates) for the entire U.S.A. population. Data from the 2021 NCVS suggest that nearly 4.9 million assaults (3.7 million simple assaults and 1.2 million aggravated assaults) took place in America that year. All total, those two offense categories constitute 20 percent of the 27.4 million total criminal victimizations and 82 percent of the violent victimizations (id est, robbery, rape, and assault) that occurred that year. This translates into victimization rate of 27.4 victimizations per 1,000 persons or households. About 46 percent of violent victimizations were reported to police in 2021, higher than 2020 (40 percent). No other form of violent crime registers a victimization rate this high and theft and burglary are the only other forms of major crime to post higher victimization rates. Put it a different way, data suggest that one in every fifty-five Americans was a victim of criminal assault. The FBI estimates that an aggravated assault occurred every 34.8 seconds. Although assaults tapered off from 1993 until present from 31.5 simple assaults per 1,000 persons/households, these same victimization reports are of little help when it comes time to assess the scope of the homicide problem—dead individuals cannot tell tales. #RandolphHarris 4 of 17

Our best source of homicide data is the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). The homicide rates generally increased through the 1960, and 1970s (reaching an all-time high of 11.6 per 100,000 persons in 1980), and homicide rates had decreased rather steadily over three decades to 5.5 per 100,000 in 2000, but we experienced a sharp uptick in 2020 to 7.8 per 100,000. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that U.S.A. residents face a one in 154 chance of being the victim of a homicide during their lifetime. There were 22,900 homicides in 2021. Thus, unlike assault, homicide is a relatively rare criminal event comprising 1 percent to 2 percent of the roughly 1.5 to 2 million violent crimes that are reported to the police annually. Homicide and assaults have long been largely urban phenomena with the highest rates reported in major metropolitan areas. For example, 80 percent of the homicides in 2021 took place in locales with a population exceeding 50,000 persons. America continues to lead in murder and assault rates. Our nation’s sizable murder and assault rates are due a few factors. High levels of economic and racial inequality, the proliferation of the illegal drug trade, and a culture of violence that is clearly manifest from a “code of the streets.” Social inequality can effect levels of homicide and assault. The strongest democracies and wealthiest countries have traditionally experienced the highest homicide rates. Moreover, factors such as poverty, chronic stress and frustration, and relative deprivation are contributing to the high homicide rates that are experienced in our inner-city, minority neighborhoods. #RandolphHarris 5 of 17

The illegal drug market is contributing to our nation’s high rates of interpersonal violence. Drug deals and competition over drug markers add to a culture of lethality. Over 50 percent of the murders that occurred in New York City and Washington D.C., are directly linked to the cities’ illegal drug trade. Factors such as rising poverty rates and the proliferation of the drug markets (especially crack cocaine) have led to the emergence of a code of the streets in most urban areas. They observe that blocked opportunities and mounting frustrations have slowly lead to the emergence of alternative core beliefs and values. Many inner-city youth no longer view earning potential and educational attainment as viable sources of social capital. Instead, a steadfast willingness to engage in violence or a menacing public presence becomes the primary source of self-respect and cultural capital for these youth. Contrary to public perception and television portrayals, interpersonal violence—be it murder or assault—is generally not associated with high levels of skill and precision. Most homicide and assaults are spontaneous acts of rage. Most assault take shape as low skill, low tech confrontations. More often than not, offenders enlist their bare hands to inflict their injuries. In 2021, there was an absence of weaponry in 70 percent of all assaults—6.4 percent involved a firearm, and 5.6 percent a knife or sharp object, and 4.6 percent a blunt object. A decidedly different portrait emerges among those assaults during which serious bodily injury was incurred (id est, aggravated assaults). Here, victims reported that a weapon was present 94 percent of the time. Guns were the tools of trade in 27 percent of these cases, knives or sharp objects were present 24 percent of the time, and blunt objects in 19 percent of the cases. #RandolphHarris 6 of 17

Why is vengeance such a deep-seated and intense passion? I can only offer some speculations. Let us consider first the idea that vengeance is in some sense a magic act. By destroying the one who committed the atrocity one’s deed is magically undone. This is expressed by saying that “the criminal has paid his debt”; at least in theory one is now like someone who never committed a crime. Vengeance may be said to be  magic reparation; but even assuming that this is so, why is this desire for reparation so intense? Perhaps man is endowed with an elementary sense of justice; this may bebecause there is a deep-rooted sense of “existential equality”: we all are born from others, we were once powerless children, and we shall all die. Although man can often not defend himself against the harm others inflict upon him, in his wish for revenge he tries to wipe the sheet clean by denying, magically, that the damage was ever done. (It seems that envy has the same root. Cain could not stand the fact that he was rejected while his brother was accepted. The rejection was arbitrary, and it was not in his power to change it; this fundamental injustice aroused such envy that the score could only be evened out by killing Abel.) However, there must be more to the cause of vengeance. Man seems to take justice into his own hands when God or secular authorities fail. It is as if in his passion for vengeance he elevates himself to the role of God, and the angels of vengeance. The act of vengeance may be his greatest hour just because of this self-elevation. Cruelties like physical mutilation, castration, and torture violate the minimal demands of conscience common to all men. Is the passion for vengeance against those who commit such inhuman acts mobilized by this elementary conscience? #RandolphHarris 7 of 17

People are not always prepared to obey. Usually we have a bad will. We very seldom have good will. There are many things mixed here. One does not know how to think about will. With one side of you, your realize that you are machines, but at the same time you want to act according to your own opinion. In that moment you must be able to stop; not to do what you want. This does not apply to moments when you have no intention to do anything, but you must be able to stop if your desire goes against rules or principles, or against what you have been told. It is important to realize two things: that we cannot “do” and that we live under the law of accident. In most cases people think they can “do,” that they can get what they want and that it is only accidental that they do not. People think that accident is very rare and that most things are due to cause and effect. This is quite wrong. It is necessary to learn to think in the right way, then we shall see that everything happens and that we live under the law of accident. In relation to “doing,” it is difficult for us to realize, for example, that when people build a bridge that is not “doing”; it is only the result of all previous efforts. It is accidental. To understand this, you must think of the first bridge that Adam built and of all the evolution of bridges. At first it is accidental—a tree falls across a river, then man builds something like that, and so on. People are not “doing”; one thing comes from another. If you remember that you can do nothing, you will remember many other things. Generally there are three or four chief stumbling-blocs, and if you do not fall over one, you fall over another. #RandolphHarris 8 of 17

“Doing” is one of them. In connection with this, there are some fundamental principles which you must never forget. For instance, that you must look at yourself and not at other people; that people can do nothing by themselves, but—if it is possible to chance—it is possible only with the help of the system, the organization, persona work and study of the system. You must find things like that and remember them. To remember these things, imagine yourself start to make plans to do something. It is only when you really try to do something differently from the way it happens that your realize that it is absolutely impossible to do differently. Half of the questions asked are about “doing”—how to change this, destroy that, avoid this and so on. However, enormous effort is necessary to change even one small thing. Until you try you can never realize it. You can change nothing except through the system. This is generally forgotten. Everything happens. People can do nothing. From the time we are born to the time we die things happen, happen, happen, and we think we are “doing.” This is our ordinary normal state in life, and even the smallest possibility to “do” something come sonly through the work, and first only in oneself, not externally. Even in oneself, “doing” very often begins by not doing. Before you can do something that you cannot do, you must not do many things which you did before. “Does one sometimes have a choice between two possible happenings?” Only in very small things, and even then if you notice that things are going in a certain way and decide to change them, you will find how awfully uncomfortable it is to change things. So you come back to the same things. #RandolphHarris 9 of 17

“When one really begins to understand that one cannot “do,” one will need a great deal of courage. Will that come from getting rid of false personality?” One does not come to this understanding just like that. It comes after some time of work on oneself, so that when one comes to this realization one had many other realizations besides; chiefly that there are ways to change if one applies the right instrument at the right place and at the right time. One must have these instruments, and these again are only given by work. It is very important to come to this realization. Without it one will not do the right things; one will excuse oneself. Open collusion is, of course, a phenomenon observed frequently in mental wards. In the years 1776, the parish officers of Frindsbury applied to me for advice in the case of a maniacal patient confined in their workhouse. This unhappy object had been very desperate and had committed many acts of outrage and violence; was naturally of strong, muscular shape, and rendered much stronger by his present complaint. He had overpowered almost everyone before the could properly secure him, which was now effected in a very extraordinary manner. He was fastened to the floor by means of a staple and iron ring, which was tied to a pir of fetters about his legs, and he was hand-cuffed. The place of his confinement was a large lower room, occasionally made use of for a kitchen, and which opened into the street; there were wooden bars to the windows, through the spaces of which continual visitors were observing, pointing at, ridiculing, and irritating the poor maniac, who thus became a spectacle of public sport and amusement. #RandolphHarris 10 of 17

Just how does one go about generating a threat that involves a risk? In the past, we talked about mixing one’s moves, and suggested several random mechanisms that could be used when selecting one from the range of actions being mixed. We might try that same idea again. For example, suppose that during the Cuban missile crisis, one in six is the right risk of war for Kennedy to threaten. Then he might tell Khrushchev that unless the missiles were out of Cuba by Monday, he would roll a die, and if six came up he would order the U.S.A. missiles to be launched. Quite apart from the horror of this picture conjures up, it just will not work. If Khrushchev refuses to comply, and Kennedy rolls the die and six comes up, the actual decision is still in Kennedy’s hands. He still has the powerful urge to give Khrushchev just one more roll of the die (“let’s make it two out of three”) before Armageddon. Khrushchev knows this, and knows that Kennedy knows that, too. The credibility of the threat collapses just as surely as if the elaborate mechanism of rolling the die had never been mentioned. As essential insight is that when a sharp precipice is replaced by a slippery slope, even Kennedy does not know where safety lies. It is as if he is playing nuclear Russian roulette instead of rolling a die. One number leads to disaster but he does not know which one that is. If the number comes up, he cannot change his mind and roll again. With rational opponents, no one would ever cross the nuclear brink. However, it is possible to fall down a slippery slope by mistake. Brinkmanship deliberately hies the precipice by creating a situation that is slightly out of control. #RandolphHarris 11 of 17

The risk in brinkmanship is therefore fundamentally different from the element of chance in mixing your moves. If the best proportions of your tennis serve are 50:50 between forehand and backhand, and you toss a coin before a particular serve and it comes up heads, you have no reason to feel happy or sorry about the fact. You are indifferent as to your action on each occasion; it is only the unpredictability of individual occasions, and the right proportions of chance, that matter. With brinkmanship, you are willing to create the risk before the fact, but remain unwilling to carry out the threatened act if the occasion arises. To convince your rival that the threatened consequences will occur, you still need other devices. The most common is to take the actual action out of your control, It is not a matter of “If you defy me, then there is a risk that I will choose to do such and such.” Instead, it is “If you defy me, there is a risk that such and sch will happen, however much both of us may regret it then.” This the credibility of brinkmanship still needs a device of commitment; only that device contains within it a coin toss or a die that governs what happens. This conjures up the image of an automaton or computer that will act in response to the roll of a die—an unlikely scenario. However, many circumstances, a generalized fear that “things may get out of hand” serves the same purpose. Kennedy does not have to spell out exactly how a chance of Armageddon will be created. #RandolphHarris 12 of 17

Soldiers and military experts speak of the “fog of war”—a situation in which both sides act with disrupted lines of communication, individual acts of fear or courage, and a great deal of general uncertainty. There is too much going on to keep everything under control. This serves some of the purpose of creating risk. The Cuban missile crisis itself provided instances of this. For example, even the president found it very difficult to control the operations of the naval blockage from 500 miles out to 800 miles off the shore of Cuba in order to give Khrushchev more time. Yet evidence based on the order to give Khrushchev ore time. Yet evidence based on the first ship boarded, the Marcula (a Lebanese fighter under charter to the Soviets), indicates that the blockade was never moved. Nor did Defense Secretary McNamara succeed in persuading Chief of Naval Operations Anderson to modify the Navy’s standard operating procedure for a blockade. As recorded in Graham Allison’s book Essence of Decision, McNamara explained to Anderson: “By the conventional rules, blockade was an act of war and the first Soviet ship that refused to submit to boarding and search risked being sent to the bottom. However, this was a military action with a political objective. Khruschev must somehow be persuaded to pull back, rather than goaded into retaliation.” Allision continues with his portrait of the meeting: “Sensing that Anderson was not moved by this logic, McNamara returned to the lined of detailed questioning. Who would make the first interception? Were Russian-speaking officers on board? How would submarines be dealt with? #RandolphHarris 13 of 17

“What would he do if a Soviet captain refused to answer questions about his cargo? At that point the Navy man picked up the Manual of Naval Regulations and, waving it in McNamara’s face, shouted, ‘It’s all in there.’ To which McNamara replied, ‘I don’t give a damn what John Paul Jones would have done. I want to know what you are going to do now.’ The encounter ended on Anderson’s remark: ‘Now, Mr. Secretary, if you and your Deputy will go back to your offices, the Navy will run the blockade.’” The standard operating procedures for a naval blockade may have imposed a much greater risk than Kennedy desired. This is where it is important to realize that the crisis was not a two-person game; neither the United States of America nor the Soviet Union was one individual play. The fact that Kennedy’s decisions had to be carried out by parties with their own procedures (and sometimes their own agenda) provided a method for Kennedy to credibility commit to taking some of the control out of his hands. The ways in which a bureaucracy takes on a life of its own, the difficulty of stopping momentum, and the conflicting goals within an organization were some of the underlying ways in which Kennedy could threaten to start a process that he could not guarantee to stop. Speaking of threatening to start a process that one cannot guarantee to stop, President Vladimir Putin announced, on 21 February 2023, that he has suspended a landmark nuclear arms treaty with the United States of America because they are supporting Ukraine, while Russia is at war with them. Putin is threatening to resume nuclear tests. “The elites of the West do not hide their purpose. But they also cannot fail to realise that it is impossible to defeat Russia on the battlefield,” he told his country’s political military elite. #RandolphHarris 14 of 17

One of America’s funniest humorists, Art Buchwald, once imagined a meeting of spies in the Cade Mozart in East Berlin, including George Smiley, John le Carre’s famous fictional character. “Does anyone know who’d like to buy the plans for the Warsaw Pact defense of the northern corridor?” Buchwald has Smiley ask. “Forget it, Smiley,” comes the reply. “There’s no market for defense secret anyone. The Cold War is over and Moscow is giving away Warsaw Pact plans, not buying them. The Buchwald column was amusing, as usual. However, the loudest laugh must have come from the World’s real, as distinct from fictional spies. For among the boom businesses of the decades ahead, espionage will be one of the biggest. Spies are not only here to stay, we re about to see their entire industry revolutionized. As the entire society shifts toward a new system of wealth creation based on knowledge, informational functions of governments mushroom, and certain types of stolen knowledge, secret knowledge, are worth more, not less, to those who need them. In turn, this will challenge all conventional ideas about democracy and information. For even if we leave aside covert action and domestic surveillance, and focus instead on the “pure” work of the find a system emerging that goes beyond anything we have previously known as espionage. Just how far beyond become clear when we glance briefly backward. #RandolphHarris 15 of 17

At times of conflict, it is especially important to have a health population. Did you know that medicine can be safer too? Drugs often have side effects that can do permanent damage or kill. Nanomedicine will offer alternatives to flooding the body with a possibly toxic chemical. Often, one wants to affect just one target: just the stomach, or perhaps the ulcer. An antibiotic or antiviral treatment should fight specific bacteria or viruses and not damage anything else. When medicine achieves the sophistication of immune machines and cell-surgery devices, this will become possible. However, what about medical accidents and side effects? Molecular manufacturing will make it possible superior sensors to tell medical researchers of the effects of a new treatment, thereby improving testing. Better sensors will also help in monitoring any negative effects of a treatment on an individual patient. With care, only a few cells would be damaged and only small concentrations of toxic by-products would be produced before this was noticed and the treatment corrected. The resources of nanotechnology-based medicine would then be available for dealing with the problem. With biostasis techniques available, even the worst medically induced illnesses could be put hold while a treatment was developed. In short, serious medical mistakes could be make far rarer, and most mistakes could be corrected. The conclusion that follows from these examples of oil spills, chemical plants, and the effects of medical treatments is straightforward. #RandolphHarris 16 of 17

Today, our comparative poverty and out comparative technological incompetence press us in the direction of building and using relatively dangerous and destructive devices, systems, and techniques. With greater wealth and technological competence, we will have the option of accomplishing what we do today (and more) with less risk and less environmental destruction: in short, being able to do more, and do it better. With better-controlled technologies, and with an ample measure of foresight and concern, we will even be able to do a better job of recovering from mistakes. It will not happen automatically, but with normal care we can arrange for our future accidents to be smaller and less frequent than those in our past. However, Nanotechnology also raises the specter of what have been termed “extraordinary accidents”: accidents involving runaway self-replicating machines. One can imagine building a device about the size of a bacterium but tougher and more nearly omnivorous. Such runaways might blow like pollen and reproduce like bacteria, eating any of a wide range of organic materials: an ecological disaster of unprecedented magnitude—indeed, one that could destroy the biosphere as we know it. This may be worth worrying about, but can this happen by accident? #RandolphHarris 17 of 17

Cresleigh Homes

Welcome to the neighborhood! 👋

We’re thrilled to meet newcomers to the #Havenwood community. Ideally located in the charming city of #Lincoln just down the street from Palo Verde Park.

Not a neighbor yet? Find out more on our website! https://cresleigh.com/havenwood/

#CresleighHomes

If one believes that satisfaction of all physiological needs is enough to provide for a feeling of well-being in an animal (and in man), their zoo existence should make them very content. However, this parasitic existence deprives them of stimuli that would permit an active expression of their physical and mental faculties; hence they often become bored, dull, and apathetic. This disposition can lead to deviance in man. When men are engaged in deviant behavior, they are often involved in criminal activity. There is much more to understanding criminal behavior than simply mapping out the pattered aspects of the behaviors in question. For starters, one must consider the thoughts and cognitions that underlie the behaviors. Appreciating how different criminals think is anything but exact science. After all, we are talking about trying to figuratively crawl inside the heads of criminals in an effort to tap their state of mind and decision-making process across whole categories of offenders. Nonetheless, there are important issues that must be considered. First, one must tackle the issue of criminal motivation. As mentioned, criminal definitions expressly indicate that the criteria must be satisfied before an act can be considered a crime. For the legal scholar, criminal motivation is a relatively simple concept referring narrowly to the individual’s state of mind (men reus) at the time of the crime. For the criminologist who seeks to better understand criminal behavior, criminal motivation is a broad and complex concept that speaks to the totality of the offender’s mental state, in that time period preceding the crime, during the actual commission of the crime, and in the post-offense aftermath. #RandolphHarris 1 of 21

Criminal motivation must thus be approached as a complex, situationally based phenomenon in need of careful consideration. Moreover, a full treatment of this concept must also take into account the ways that the expected victim and setting roles can shape the mindset of the offender. For example, the issue of criminal motivation, as it applies to the mindset of street thugs (id est, stick up artist). Criminal planning is yet another important part of the criminal thought process. Once the prospective criminal decides that it is beneficial to commit an offense, the individual must settle on what constitutes the most effective and efficient set of behavioral processes to achieve said act. Planning refers to the rational decision-making processes that map out target selection and the way in which the individual(s) intend to commit the crime. For instance, burglary crews often implement a system of planning that includes a clearly established division of labor, event simulations, and contingency plans. Whereas juvenile car thieves use limited amounts of pre-event planning with offenders engaging more haphazard target selection method and operate with little concern for police intervention. Having a clear conscience is a hallmark of the contemporary human psyche. We as Americans have developed a near instinctual desire or need to think of ourselves as good people. In effect, there appears to be no wrongful behavior that the human mind is unable to cognitively reconstitute as normal or acceptable. Normative neutralizations are part and parcel to the cognitive dimension of crime. When their behavior is called into question by themselves or others, criminals are compelled to generate a cognitive neutralization that excuses or justifies their actions. #RandolphHarris 2 of 21

In effect, when persons do wrong, they feel the need to convince themselves and others that it was not so bad. They make believe that victims of intimate partner violence deserved their abusive situation. Also, rapists often vilify their victims and downplay personal wrongdoing, and men and women of the evening come to think and talk about their careers and clients. All criminal events are social phenomena. As mentioned, they occur in a given social situation or what is termed a “situated criminal transaction.” The form of that transaction is often patterned for any given offense and may even appear to be scripted. While the habitual interactions of victims and audience members is worthy of notice, criminologists are also interested in the routinized behavior of the offender. We have come to realize that the patterning of offender attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors can be a by-product of the behavior and sentiments that exist in the larger criminal subculture. In a noncriminological context, we acknowledge that cultural-based learning is a force to be reckoned with. Few would question the influence that a place of employment, say a law firm, has on the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of, say, a new attorney who seeks partner status. The same can be said of criminal subculture. A large part of a criminal’s normative and behavioral makeup can be fostered though interactions with fellow offenders. Significant relationships and scripted roles can be developed and these relationships often play a significant role in the way that the offenders think and behave. For example, there is often a complex web of roles and relationships that exist within the Sacramento sex-for-crack market. #RandolphHarris 3 of 21

It is useful to conceive of a criminal subculture as having two central features: organizational alignment and socialization scripts. Organizational alignment refers to the networking or structuring of interactions that shape a given criminal subculture. Membership plays an importance in the roles and position in criminal outcomes. Criminals typically carry out their misdeeds within the context of one of the following organizational forms: loners, colleagues, peers, teams, and formal organizations. Loners work alone, relying on no one to assist them in their misdeeds. They manipulate and/or adapt the behavioral and cognitive aspects of their legitimate (noncriminal) Worlds as a means of developing and refining their criminal repertoire. When it comes to the term “therapeutic self-medicators” they are described as pharmacists who misappropriate their pharmacological expertise en route to developing their own private drug abuse patterns. These insolent professionals use drugs alone and slowly manipulate their legitimate training and professional roles until they have in effect taught themselves how to think and act as a drug addict. We term other drug-using pharmacists “recreational abusers.” These individuals often operate within a colleague-based organizational alignment. Colleagues offend alone but look to the misdeeds and rationalizations of other deviants to shape thoughts and behaviors associated with their illicit behavior. Those organizational alignment that fit into the peer category take on a slightly different social format. #RandolphHarris 4 of 21

Peers take on co-offenders and openly interaction with other perpetrators in a loose and transient social setting. For example, hard-core heroin addicts comingle and draw upon the collective experience of the junkie subculture to refine their drug-related skills and attitudes. Criminal subcultures can also take on an organizational alignment that is referred to as teams. A term structure is defined by its consistent and patterned interactions. Here, the offender comes to interact and offend with the same group of individuals. Consistent relationships are seen as mutually beneficial, s offenders gain proficiency from a patterned division of labor and loosely structure mentoring. For example, the loose social organization of marijuana grower in Kentucky blue grass country has a growth and distribution system that is held together by informal norms and behaviors. The mot advanced of criminal subcultures manifest itself as formal organizations. By operating in a membership-like format, these criminals serve fixed roles, with some sort of formal or informal mentoring system to recruit and retain the membership base. Organized crime “families” are the best example of this organizational form. An example of the organized crime family is demonstrated by the way in which Adolph Hitler used the Nazi regime to carry out the Holocaust. Organizational alignment represents the structural dimension of a criminal subculture as it describes the context in which criminal interactions occur. This structural, dimension gives way to a process-oriented aspect of criminal subcultures termed socialization scripts. #RandolphHarris 5 of 21

When it comes to socialization scripts, the actual content of subcultural messages and interactions is placed center stage as we seek to ascertain the process through which criminal learning occurs. There is evidence that the cultural message and cues within our nation’s universities can serve to shape the motives and behaviors of college men to engage in gang rape. We often find an illuminating way that the content and dynamics of the learning process comes to produce a socialization script that is somewhat unique to gang rapists. Criminal acts are, by definition, prohibited by law, and the laws of this democratic country are supposed to represent the collective conscious of the collective conscious of the populous. As such, in theory, that which is defined as a potential harm or offense to the state should be defined as a potential harm or offense to the average citizen. Reactions to criminal behaviors can take on one or two forms: formal or informal. Formal reactions to criminal events take the shape of institutional responses. In most cases, the institution in questions is the criminal justice system (id est, law enforcement, courts, and corrections). When a mother openly beats a child in public, law enforcement officials are quick to reference existing criminal statues and cite the mother with child abuse. This matter is then forwarded to the court system where the courtroom workgroup (id est, prosecutor, defense attorney, judge) sets out to determine if in fact a crime has been committed and, if so, what should be the appropriate punishment. Once a sentence has been handed down, members of the correctional system impose the prescribed punishment. To this end, a full understanding of crime begs consideration of the way that institutions such as law enforcement, the courts, and our correctional system respond to the various types of criminal offenses. #RandolphHarris 6 of 21

Institutional (formal) contacts are not the only form of societal rection that can potentially shape the thoughts and behaviors of those involved in the criminal event. Informal reactions are also important. These are the perceived or real responses from audience members and/or valued relations that help shape criminal event. On a most fundamental level, audience members may intervene or choose not to intervene in a criminal event, thereby altering its existence. In fact, the mere existence of an audience changes the nature of the offense. For instance, the group dynamic plays an important role in the occurrence of gang rape on university campuses. Whereas the one-on-one dynamic of marital rape produces a significant different series of events. Informal reactions also serve as important precursors to a criminal event. Namely, the perceived responses of valued relations (id est, friends, family members, role models) can and do effect both the decision to commit a crime and the accounts and justifications that are constructed once the event has transpired. Scholars once again observe that these perceptions often become pattered for a given type of crime. This is even applied to audience roles in the murder event. There often times a subtle spirit of treachery in a system. Some crime families are suave and unctuously polite. As one man puts it: “If we wish to kill a man we approach him, we ear, drink, sleep, work and rest with him, it may be for several moons. We bide our time. We call him friend.” As a result, in the not infrequent cases of murder, suspicion falls on those who have tried to be friends with the victim. #RandolphHarris 7 of 21

That is one reason some people do not trust others who start hovering around them, act as if they know them, or sit around watching one. When an individual is infrequently seen, and varies one’s times of outings, always seeing the same people in the vicinity is a sign to be cautious. It is not statistically probable that they all are on the same varied and infrequent schedule, so chances are these individuals are up to something unholy. Therefore, it is important to pay attention to engagement disloyalty. During an encounter of three or more participants, it is possible for a subset of participants to form a byplay, a noninclusive engagement that is carried on simultaneously with the first but in a way carefully calculated not to interfere with it too openly. These byplays may be carried on relatively openly when they appear to be in the interests of the business at hand—as when a speaker quietly asks some questions of the chairman before turning to speak—or relatively furtively when byplay is patently not in the interests of the dominant interaction. This kind of disaffection seems especially common in large engagements where the presence of manly loyal participants guarantees that the dominant engagement will be sustained. Disaffection is especially treacherous in clusters of three or four, where the participants remaining loyal may be in a numerical minority, subjected to pointed insult by the byplay of others. As might be expected, when an encounter must be sustained by persons unable to use their eyes to scan and monitor what is occurring, byplays employing physical acts become difficult to control and constitute a special threat to the integrity of the encounter. #RandolphHarris 8 of 21

For instance, consternation was felt by visually impaired man in an engagement of three men and one woman, when he heard rustling and suppressed giggling that did not seem to arise from what was being stalked about by the full company at the time. In many instances, these subordinate byplays involve only members of the dominant encounter, and involve them in such a way as not to broadcast to the company at large—to the situation—that disloyalty is occurring. I do not propose to consider this phenomenon here, since it could just as well be considered solely in terms of the dynamics of the engagement itself. Relevant, however, as those byplays that draw some of their membership from persons officially excluded from the dominant engagement, for here disloyalty is made visible to bystanders, and the doings of the betrayed engagement are “opened up,” to at least some of the nonparticipants present. An extreme form of disloyalty is fond where an individual, in the process of being led into the role of the butt, is brought into an engagement maliciously, just so the instigator can be disloyal to the engagement that results. The perpetrator makes a pretense to the butt that he is treating him as a coparticipant, while at the same time openly using the interaction thus created as a source of amusement for oneself and others. The model here, perhaps, is the kind of baiting of animals that people engage in at a zoon, where one individual interacts with an animal until the animal responds, and then uses the animals response as a source of fun between himself and a second individual. #RandolphHarris 9 of 21

People can spend their lives studying systems and system word and never come to real things. In fact, 90 percent of our ordinary knowledges does not really exist; it exists only in imagination. Realization of sleep is the only one thing. It is necessary to find ways to awaken, but before that you must realize that you are asleep. Compare sleep and waking. All ideas of the work begin with the idea of sleep and the possibility of waking. All other ideas—life ideas—may be clever or elaborate but they are all ideas of sleeping people produced for other sleeping people. Sleep is the result of many things: division of personalities, different “I”s, contradictions, identifications and so on. However, the first of all, just pure without any theory, is the realization of sleep. Currently, life is not long enough for changing our being if we work on it as we do at everything else in life. Something can be attained only if one uses a more perfected kind of method. The first condition is understanding. All the rest is proportionate to understanding. There must also be efforts in connection with emotions and will. One must be able to go against oneself to give up one’s will. First you must ask yourself: What is will? We have no will, so how are we to give up what we do not have? This mean, first, that you never agree that you have no will; you only agree in words. Secondly, we do not always have will but only at times. Will means a strong desire. If there is no strong desire, there is nothing to give up; there is no will. At another moment, we have a strong desire that it is against work, and if we stop, it means that we give up will. #RandolphHarris 10 of 21

It is not at every moment that we can give up will but only at special moments. And what does it mean “against work”? It means against rules and principles of the work or against something you are personally told to do or not to do. There are certain general rules and principles of the work or against something you are personally told to do or not to do. There are certain general rules and principles, and there may be personal conditions for different people. “Should one ask for further personal directions?” Yes, but if one asks one must obey. One is not obliged to do anything if one does not ask, so before asking one must think twice. In common home accidents, a dangerous product is wrongly applied, spilled, or consumed. Homes today are full of corrosive and toxic materials, for cleaning drains, dissolving stains, poisoning insects, and so forth. All too often, children dink them and die. With advanced technology, none of these tasks will require such harsh, crude chemicals. Cleaning could be performed by selective nanomachines instead of corrosive chemicals; insects could be controlled be devices like ecosystem protectors that know the difference between a cockroach and a person or a ladybug. There will doubtless be room for deadly accidents, but with care and hard work, it should be possible to ensure that nanotechnologies for the home are safer than what they replace, saving many lives. It is, of course, possible to imagine safety nightmares: nanotechnology could be used to make products far more destructive than anything we have seen because it could be used to extend almost any ability further then we have seen. #RandolphHarris 11 of 21

Such products presumably will not be commonplace: even today, nerve gas would make a potent pesticide, but it is not sold for home use. Thinking realistically about hazards requires common sense. We have already seen how post-breakthrough technologies can eliminate oil spills by eliminating oil consumption. A similar story could be told of almost any class of industrial accident today. However, what about accidents—spills and the like—with the new technologies? Rather than trying to paint a picture of a future technology, of how it could fail and what the responses could be, it seems better to try a thought experiment. What could be done to deal with oil spills, if oil were still in use? This will show how nanotechnologies can be used to cope with accidents: If there were a spill and oil on the shore, advanced nanomechanisms could do an excellent job of separating oil from sand, removing oil from rocks, and cleaning crude oil from feathers on birds and the feathery legs of barnacles. Oil contamination is a pollution problem, and nanotechnology will be a great aid in cleaning up pollution. But why should the oil reach the shore? Economical production would make it easy to stockpile cleanup equipment near all the major shipping routes, along with fleets of helicopters to deliver it at the first distress call from a tanker. Oil cleanup equipment built with nanotechnology could surely do an excellent job of scooping oil from the water before it could reach the shore. #RandolphHarris 12 of 21

But why should the oil leave the tanker? Economical production of strong materials could make seamless hulls of fibrous material far tougher than steel, with double, triple, or quadruple layers. Smart materials could even make punctures self-sealing. Hulls like this could be run into rocks at highway speeds without spilling oil. But why should anyone be shipping crude oil across the sea? Even if oil were still being pumped (despite inexpensive solar energy and solar-derived fuels), efficient molecule-processing systems could refine it into pure, fuels at the wellhead, and inexpensive tunneling machines could provide routes for deeply buried pipelines. Any one of these advances would shrink or eliminate today’s problem with oil spills, and all of them are feasible. This example suggests a general pattern. If nanotechnology can provide so many different ways to avoid or deal with an oil spill—one of the largest and most environmentally destructive accidents caused by today’s industry—it can probably do likewise for industrial accidents in general. The most direct approach is the most basic: the elimination of anything resembling today’s bulk industrial plants and processes. The shifts from messy frilling activities and huge tankers to small-scale distributed systems based on solar cells is characteristic of the style in which nanotechnology can be used. #RandolphHarris 13 of 21

The chemical industry today typically relies on plants full of large, pressurized tanks of chemicals. Not surprisingly, these occasionally spill, explode, or burn. With nanotechnology, chemical plants will be unnecessary because molecules can be transformed in smaller numbers, as needed and where needed, with no need for high temperatures, high pressures, or big tanks. This will not only avoid polluting by-products, but reduce the risk of accidents. Now, given that the United States of America wanted the Soviets to pull their missiles out of Cuba, during the Cuban missile crisis, why could Kennedy not have threatened that he would annihilate Moscow unless Khrushchev removed the missiles? This would be a compellent threat; it must specify the precise conditions of compliance (missiles back to Russia, or in crates on a ship in Havana harbor?) and a deadline for compliance. The problem is that in practice such a threat would not be believed, either by Khrushchev or by anyone else. The threatened action, surely leading to a global thermonuclear war, is simply too drastic to be credible. If the missiles were not out by the deadline, rather than annihilate the World, Kennedy would surely be tempted to extend the deadline by a day, and then another day. There are several ways of lending credibility to threats. The use of an automatic device seems the most promising in this context. (Reputation will not work, because after the threat is carried out there is no tomorrow. Contracts will not work, because everyone will face the overwhelming temptation to renegotiate. And so on.) #RandolphHarris 14 of 21

The use of an automatic device is an approach basis for the movies Failsafe and Dr. Strangelove. In Dr. Strangelove the Soviets have installed a “doomsday machine” that monitors American transgressions and automatically launches Soviet retaliation under circumstances specified in a tamperproof computer program. In Failsafe it is the Americans who have the doomsday machine. Those who have seen these movies (which we recommend highly) know why Kennedy should not use a similar device to make his threat credible. In theory, under ideal circumstances, everything works just as planned. The very knowledge that an automatic device is in place makes the threat credible. Khrushchev backs down, the threat does not have to be carried out, and all is well. If a threat is sure to succeed, it need never be carried out, and it does not matter how big or dire it is, or how much it would hurt you too to carry it out. However, in practice, you cannot be absolutely sure that it will work as planned. There are in fact two kinds of errors that can occur. First, the threat may not succeed. Suppose Kennedy has totally misjudged Khrushchev’s mindset. Then Khrushchev does not back down, and the doomsday device annihilates the World just as Kennedy is regretting having installed it. Second, the threat may be carried out even when it should not. Suppose the Soviets back down, but the news reaches the doomsday computer just too late. Because such errors are always possible, Kennedy does not want to rely on threats that are too costly to carry out. Knowing this, Khrushchev will not believe the threats, and they will not deter or compel him. #RandolphHarris 15 of 21

Kennedy may claim that an automatic launcher has the sole authority to fire at Moscow if the Soviet missiles are not out of Cuba by Monday, but Khrushchev can be sure that Kennedy controls and override button. Although the threat of certainty of war is not credible, one of a risk or probability of war can be credible. If Khrushchev fails to comply, there is a risk, but not a certainty, that the missiles will fly. The uncertainty scales down the threat. The scaling down makes the threat more tolerable to the United States of America, and therefore more credible to the Soviets. This is a lot like another device for credibility we mentioned in the past, namely moving in small steps. There we considered breaking up a large promise into a succession of small ones. If I am trying to sell you a valuable piece of information for a thousand dollars, I may not be willing to disclose it in return for your promise to pay, but may be willing to reveal installments one by one in return for corresponding payments. A similar principle applies to threats. And here the steps consist of degrees of risk. Each stage of escalation by the United States of America or the Soviet Union increases the risk of global war; each small concession reduces the risk. The calculation for each side is how far to proceed or retreat alone this route. If Kennedy is willing to go farther than Khrushchev, then Kennedy’s brinkmanship will succeed. Kennedy cannot credibly threaten an immediate all-out nuclear strike, but he can credibly raise the risks to some degree by taking some confrontational actions. For example, he may be willing to risk one chance is six of nuclear war to ensure the removal of the missiles. #RandolphHarris 16 of 21

Then Khrushchev can no longer conclude that Kennedy’s threat is vacuous; it is in Kennedy’s interest to expose himself to this risk if it will motivate the Soviets to remove the missiles. If Khrushchev finds this degree of risk intolerable, then the brinkmanship has accomplished its objective: to allow Kennedy to choose a more appropriately sized threat, one big enough to work and yet small enough to be believed. We still have to ask how Kennedy can go about threatening a risk of war, short of a certainty. Moving forward, in the spring of 1989, when Dr. James T. Hansen chief of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, prepared to testify before the U.S. Congress on the “greenhouse effect”—the overheating of the global climate—he submitted his text for clearance to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OBM). Hansen firmly believed that the time had come for the U.S.A. government to take significant action to prevent drought and other severe effects of climatic warming. When he got his text back, however, he discovered that the OBM had come for the U.S.A. government to take significant action to prevent drought and other sever effects of climatic warming. When he got his text back, however, he discovered that the OMB had added a paragraph throwing doubt on the scientific evidence about planetary warming, and considerably softening his position. He protested, lost the internal battle, and then made his personal views public through the press. Behind this collision between the administration and one of the government’s top scientists lay a little-noticed bureaucratic battle. #RandolphHarris 17 of 21

The U.S.A. Department and the Environmental Protection Agency both wanted the United States of America to take the international lead in combating the greenhouse problem. By contrast, the OMB and the Department of Energy backed a go-slow approach. When Hansen took his protest to the media, Senator Al Gore, one of the few technologically sophisticated members of the U.S.A. Congress, demanded that OBM “testify about the basis for their conclusions. I want to determine…the climatic models they have used.” This reference to “models” is a sure tip-off that the struggle would be waged at the meta-tactical level. For more and more government programs and policies are shaped by the assumptions and sub-assumptions buried inside complex computer models. Thus while Gore in the Senate was questioning the models relied on by the go-slow camp, Sununu in the White House was challenging the reliability of the models that provided ammunition for the other side. He was on top of the scientific literature and thought the computer models predicting significant warming were too primitive to form a reliable basis for action. Today, whether dealing with the economy, health costs, strategic arms, budget deficits, toxic waste, or tax policy, behind almost every major political issue we find teams of modelers and counter-modelers supplying the raw materials for this kind of political controversy. A systematic model can help us visualize complex phenomena. It consists of a list of variables, each of which is assigned a weight based on its presumed significance. #RandolphHarris 18 of 21

Computers make it possible to build models with much larger numbers of variables than the unaided intellect alone. They also help us to study what happens when the variables are given different weights or are interrelated in alternative ways. However, no matter how “hard” the final output may appear, all models are ultimately, and inescapably, based on “soft” assumptions. Moreover, decisions about how much importance to assign to any given variable, or its weighting, are frequently “soft,” intuitive or arbitrary. As a result, political in-fighters, skilled at meta-tactics, battle fiercely over weights, variables, and the way they are linked. Despite the political pressures that tilt and bias the outcome, the results of which conflicts normally come packaged in impressive, seemingly neutral and value-free computer printout. Models are used in developing and choosing policies, in evaluating program effectiveness, and in asking “what is…” questions. However, as we learn from Data Wars, a recent study of government modeling, they can also be used to “obscure an issue or two lend credence to a previously made policy position…to delay decision-making; to give symbolic rather than real attention to a decision; to confuse or obfuscate decision-making,” and so on. “Model use occurs as much for political and ideological need as for technical [substantive decision] need.” This, they note, is necessarily so because “computer models influence ‘who gets what.’” A study by the U.S.A. Congressional Research Service, for example, pointed out that government cuts in social programs during the 1980s, threw at least 557,000 Americans into poverty. The number provided ammunition to politicians who opposed such cuts. However, this figure was not based on counting the poor. #RandolphHarris 19 of 21

Instead, like an increasing number of other statistics, it was a result of politically contentious premises built into a model that attempted to show what might have happened had the budget cuts not taken place. Just how rarefied meta-tactics become as computer data spreads in government is illustrated by the controversy that broke out over missing people and what the Census Bureau technicians called “hot deck imputation.” In November 1988 the cities of New York, Huston, Chicago, and Los Angeles field a lawsuit against the U.S. Bureau of the Census to force a change in the way it counts. They were joined by civil rights groups, the Conference of Mayors, and other organizations. In any census, some groups are undercounted. Poor, transient, and homeless groups are harder to count. Undocumented aliens may not wish to be counted. Other escape the information net for other reasons. Whatever its reason, undercounting can have potent political consequences. Because Washington sends billions of tax dollars back to the cities and states, cities can be deprived of federal funds to which they might otherwise be entitled. Since seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned on the basis of population, states with large uncounted populations may be cheated of full representation. This, in turn, can cost them many other benefits. Inadequate information can thus shift power. To compensate for undercounting, the Census Bureau’s computers, on finding a house for which information is lacking, are now programmed to assume that the unaccounted-for people have characteristics similar to people who live nearby. The computers then fill in the missing data, as though it had been provided by the missing people. #RandolphHarris 20 of 21

The result is that millions of persons, presumed to exist, are really a phantom population whose characteristics we are guessing at. Hot deck imputing may be a better way of compensating for the unknown than previously used statistical methods, but, as with all such techniques, its assumptions are open to challenge. On the strength of these assumptions—informed as they might be—voters in Indiana lost one member in Congress whose seat was reassigned to Florida instead. “Hot deck imputation” shifted political power. In sum, therefore, a new stage of political conflict is developing—a battle over the assumptions that lie behind still other assumptions, often embedded in complex computer software. It is a conflict over meta-questions. It reflects the rise of the super-symbolic economy. This new economy could not run for a second without human contact, imagination, intuition, care, compassion, psychological sensitivity, and other qualities we still identify with people rather than machines. However, it also requires ever more complex and abstract knowledge, based on vast avalanches of data and information—all of which is subject to increasingly refined political manipulation. What this look at info-tactics, and especially the new meta-tactics, teaches us is that laws set limits on governmental secrecy only touch the outermost skin of democracy’s knowledge problem. The new economy, by its very nature, requires a free exchange of ideas, innovative theories, and a questioning of authority. And yet…despite glasnost, despite “freedom of information” legislation, despite leaks, and the difficulty of today’s governments face in keeping things secret—despite all of these and more—the actual operations of those who hold power may well be growing more, not less, opaque. That is the “meta-secret” of power. #RandolphHarris 21 of 21

Cresleigh Homes

Open concept means freedom. 😍 It means flexibility. And it means the whole family (and lots of friends!) can all chill in the same space. 🎉

We love showing off our floor plans at #PlumasRanch! There’s so much to enjoy (and so much space to enjoy it in!)

Learn more about #CresleighHomes on our website.