OK, people, look very closely at this one.  The Heir got me the Mentor to take a picture before he wrapped up his completed ballot, and put it in an official Bachelor Blue State Ballot Box.  This is just in case no one thought he was serious about being against legal pot.  All this time Flaileef kept telling the Heir that the Heir's opinions don't matter, every single time Flaileef started a political argument with the Heir over the Heir's supposed political weakness for not supporting Ed Snowden or Julian Assange or the Anonymous hacking group.  Every single time Flaileef and the Ed Snowden progressives came after the Heir just for being an ordinary Joe with what I as the Mentor kind of see as a healthful skepticism on mainstream politics at large, the Heir stood for principle (i.e., National Principle as per this share tag).  They then berated him for his supposed ignorance, and how the facts are on *their* side, not *his*, and that only if he considered those their-side facts, he would automatically change his opinions on things and join their groups without question.  He said no, pointing out to them that factuality doesn't always figure as much as values and principle does, and that's when they keep yelling at him saying, "Your Opinions Don't Matter!!"  This they did to him since 2006, actually since we started the Bachelor series, and this below is the result of their efforts.  They turned the Heir officially against them for their skepticism.  The Heir figures that this is a preview of a coming of tropical soul for our Bachelor culture, though right now we don't know all the specifics of how it's going to go.  All we can say is that going forward, it's going to get far harder for all the Flaileefs and the Ed Snowdens in the world.

The Heir offscreen, voiceover: "The Ed Snowdens have no-one but themselves to blame for losing people like this."

So with the Ed Snowden faction the Heir believes is hijacking the cause of social justice, he observes them as falling silent on the arrest of that one suspect in the derailment incident in New York.  The Ed Snowdens seemed to have acknowledged that they can't protest the treatment of the derailment suspect, since cameras on visual catching the perp walk showed no evidence that the suspect was brutalized or mistreated in any way, shape or form.  The Heir figures that the Ed Snowdens can't make the case for abolishing the police (on an apparently permanent basis, contrary to the Camden Project), since you need the cops to arrest this person in the first place.  What happens to the suspect after that legally, e.g., hearings, indictment, a court case, the Heir sees a separate at this point in time.  He could certainly make objections in the future if he believes the suspect is going to get Roger Stone Style Leniency solely because of what the Heir sees as our overly lenient society.  That's why there was that one rude couple we encountered back in August near the beach conformant with Sonya's and Leeanna's preferred dress code who placed their belongings on top of a drinking fountain the Heir was going to use.  They never even cared to notice that someone wanted to use the fountain, and left their items there for at least 10 minutes.  The Heir believes that if our society adhered more to principle, the rude couple wouldn't have done that.  So he sees the cops as having a role in shaping the moral development of society at large.  Their being unpopular now because of excessive force the Heir sees as no excuse for anyone to act like they can do anything they want.

We see the passing of RBG as a bummer, and acknowledge the accomplishments Justice Ginsburg made in her lifetime.  That said, the very minute the Heir's coworkers on the catering counter at Bland Barns showed him the headline on their smartphones, the Heir knew right away what kind of political bleep storm was going to result.  So this contentiousness over the Supreme Court in an election year comes as no surprise to the Heir.  Part of that is how around this time the Heir has observed the progressives as writing off the entire future of America just because the Supreme Court is somehow more "conservative" and isn't always going to rule the way the progressives want.  But as an example, the Heir points to the court opinion that effectively overturned job discrimination against gays.  He points to the analysis that it's not as if Neal Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh became "pro-gay" all of a sudden, as much as the conservatism of the court is at least partially about *conserving* precedent.  The analysis went into detail on how that's the case, so if someone like Amy Coney Barrett gets on there or someone else, what the Heir sees as important is that you don't get a hack on there that'll totally ignore precedent or throw jurisprudence into the junk heap and try to legislate from the bench.  That has to go for all Justices, regardless of politics.  That said, the Heir wonders just what *really* keeps the Supreme Court from becoming a third house of Congress, because he doesn't recall anything in the letter of the Constitution that says that the Court *has* to exercise jurisprudence, and *cannot* legislate from the bench, and *has* to respect precedent at least in those cases where the petitioners failed to provide sufficient reason for the Court to overturn precedent with respect to a given type of case.

It's been at least three weeks, but the Heir has only just gotten a chance now to agree with that one FOP that Pat Lynch shouldn't have made a political endorsement.  Their concern, also shared by the Heir, is that it makes the cops a partisan force, and makes it harder for them to do their jobs.  This at a time when the Heir sees BLM's side in the excessive force debate being hijacked by the Ed Snowden types.  He imagines having to have a debate with one of those and making negotiations of some sort, but the problem with "debates" is that when one person comes out as the "winner," the other person is counted as the "loser" as in a zero-sum game.  And then the "loser" has to completely endorse everything the "winner" says, and not stand for one's own sense of conviction.  The substantive specifics of the debate get lost and are long forgotten.  Look at when Ed Snowden himself said, "I already won."  The Heir sees videos of these self appointed spokespeople amidst some of the protests, and he sees them acting like just because there's been excessive force, they as spokespeople can never be wrong.  They try to tell the Heir that just because the Heir himself didn't have to deal with excessive force, that somehow that means the Heir never had to deal with *anything*, period.  The Heir wants to remind those spokespeople of how forced obsolescence caused him to lose a job five years ago when the economy was "great," and how he was told he had to utilize the "power of positive thinking."  His loss of that job also made him look "wrong" when it came to his disagreements with Ed Snowden.  So, in that sense at least, the grass is greener on the other side.  Also, the bit about being rendered forensically "wrong" can actually be fatal, because the Heir believes that those two deputies in Los Angeles were not necessarily shot out of revenge over excessive force.  He believes they were shot because they were perceived as weak for being in the "wrong" in the debate.  The Heir doesn't recall the officers having a debate with anyone at the time.  They were ambushed in their vehicles when they apparently least expected it.