The Heir protests the Blue Origin flight, and he doesn't give a rat's ass about both the youngest and oldest people on board to ever travel space, which the Heir believes is meant to blunt criticism such as his.  He protests the flight on both an environmental level and on the anti-green infrastructure level.  The Heir sees it as more worth celebrating if Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson highlighted the very first American bullet train going from Boston to Miami, or from Philly to Chicago to San Fran.  But he also believes that he's the only one critical of this flight, because not even green folk are protesting it.  He's not even seeing criticism on the Insurgent News Network, which in light of the voting rights fiasco, is making him more cynical.  He sees a network only defending democracy when it's politically expedient, not when it's not.  The INN has apparently joined everyone else in serving as a transmission belt for an infomercial on steroids, the Heir observes.  So this is the *only* criticism of the flight you'll ever see online or anywhere else, because there's absolutely no dissent.  So much for finding anything on the internet.  We're hoping that Google doesn't see this criticism as a violation of terms of use, but we didn't use swear words or porn or intimidating threats to people, so that should count for something.  How about environmental protestors a block away from the launch pad, booing as the shuttle goes off into space, and then booing again once Jeff Bezos and company get off the flight?  Stay tuned.

It's been 10 days or so into the Cosby Issue, and the Heir *finally* found some more video footage where the Insurgent News Network had an actual substantive discussion accordingly.  He's clued into possibly why INN and the progressives and others never commented on it, whereas the Heir's been talking about it for 10 days now, and he's never forgotten.  And I The Mentor don't think he ever will.  So the video segment involved a legal analyst alongside one of the prosecutors against Cosby explaining how oral agreements are supposed to work between opposing legal teams.  The analyst used a Latin term for that kind of agreement that the Heir can't remember offhand, but the analyst contends that such an oral agreement leading to a jail-springing of a man likely having assaulted 60 women is such a rarity that the analyst believes that such a thing is unlikely to happen again in our lifetimes.  But the Heir made clear that when an obscure legal practice results in a disaster of an injustice, we still need to have a public social discussion about it, because seeing how the progressives largely ignored the Cosby Issue in favor of the Trump Issue, how does the Heir know that Trump won't be let off all cases and accusations and convictions based on yet another obscure legal practice?  What if Trump can't be charged with financial crimes, or sued for sexual assault, or charged with his part in the 1/6 insurrection, or pressuring both Georgia and Arizona to magically come up with 27,000 votes?  What if just *one obscure legal practice* scuttles all of that?  The Heir imagines that there would be riots and unrest and certainly a reprise of the Resistance, and he's wondering, where's the Resistance now that we need them?  Where was the Resistance when Cosby unjustly got out of jail because of an obscure legal practice?  The Heir's question is, what if Charlie Manson got out of jail because of an obscure legal practice?  What about Al Capone?  And how can we possibly teach our children right from wrong if they think going to jail is no big deal if they can get out on an obscure legal practice or a "technicality?"  That's how the Heir hears a roaring silence from the progressives, and that's why he sees their existential campaigns regarding voting rights and neo-Fascist groups as empty gestures.  The Cosby Issue was the one issue the Heir believes the progressives could have taken action on, and agitated all of America to do the same...

"...and they abdicated."

Here are some other actionable options the Heir's thinking about to make sure PASC understands there are consequences for making such an unsound decision that let Cosby out of jail.  He doesn't remember offhand whether he's already made these suggestions, but one of those is about a bar review on the court as to whether those Cosby-goes-home Justices had demanded and received adequate proof from Cosby's petitioners that a prosecutor's agreement was ever made to begin with.  This is about a legal bar's requirement that legal professionals be as truthful as possible in official proceedings, and since the Heir sees the Justices as legal professionals as Cosby's petitioners, it just stands to reason that they, too, are subject to the rules of the bar.  This the Heir was thinking about when he heard about how Giuliani lost his legal license because the bar found that he was untruthful in his official legal statements, so the Heir's wondering, why can't such a procedure apply here?  Another thing the Heir was thinking about is a popular voting referendum preventing a questionable decision process as made by the PASC, again, *if* the PASC never demanded proof of a prosecutor's agreement.  Otherwise, Cosby's team has the ability to untruthfully tell the court that the sky is green, and the court has the privilege of making an arbitrary ruling/decision that the sky is apparently green.  This again gets to the Heir's misgivings about the apparently unlimited power of the judiciary as constitutionally accepted, since as far as the Heir knows, the concept of jurisprudence is not found nor required by the U.S. Constitution.  The Constitution *implies* or *insinuates* jurisprudence, but the Heir doesn't believe that's good enough.  For example, he's wondering where the jurisprudence is in equating an assault rifle with a swiss army knife.  He sees this as going beyond debates about packing courts with progressive/wishing-to-conserve type Justices for the sake of a given political group getting more power than the other, and more about yielding more enlightenment to the populace and to the country at large.  After all, the Heir recognizes the 4th of July as partly being about the country's founding being based on Enlightenment type concepts.

The Heir's already not a Jason Johnson person, but even though the Heir did want to hear what Mr. Johnson had to say about letting Cosby go, even now in 7/21 Mr. Johnson still echoes the assumption that one must separate the artist from the art.  The Heir then came across an Ed Snowden-type Vox article that actually tries to tell people that anyone who doesn't agree with that is somehow a "philistine."  The Heir doesn't quite know what that is, but it's been historically used as an insult to cultural dissenters.  Looks to the Heir as though Mr. Johnson and Vox don't really support survivors in ways that are actually meaningful.  So the Heir found an article on a site that's not as well known as Vox but talks about arts and entertainment that makes the point that when it comes to certain acts, you *can't* and *shouldn't* separate the art from the artist, because the money the artist gets from the art goes toward the atrocities.  The Heir defines as his red line on what acts constitutes non-separation as the artist being credibly accused of a felony, like Cosby was and still is.  The arts site had it more down with Law And Justice and principle than Vox ever did.  This concept of calling a Law And Justice person who believes in the concept of principle a "philistine" reveals the personal corruption of the source using that slur in the first place, and undermines our ability to teach our young people right from wrong.  It's no coincidence to the Heir that shortly after Cosby was released, the Heir was nearly cut off by reckless motorcyclists on his way home from his shift on the Bland Barns Catering Counter, and this certainly *wasn't* among those more conscientious bikers the Heir has come to know from the Harley-Davidson community.  This was a husband and wife team who apparently thought that if Cosby could get out of jail after assaulting 60 women, they're somehow free to drive as recklessly as possible as if they were on a dirt course.  The guy was even doing a wheelie.  That there is proof for the Heir that personal corruption even in 7/21 is alive and well, 8 years after Ed Snowden and 7 years after forced obsolescence.  So don't try to tell the Heir that he's wallowing in the past with Ed Snowden.

It's been about four days since Cosby's been let out of jail, and the Heir is not anywhere near done with him.  But the Heir's seeing almost no regard for what he now calls the Cosby Issue.  Just about all his societal allies gave not even a mention to the case.  It seems to the Heir that they believe that Cosby is merely a "local" issue or a "personal" issue for the survivors.  Neither of these is true, by the way.  The Heir reminds America that the Cosby Issue is *national,* and *trans-personal* to society at large, albeit through the survivors.  He's wondering where all the MeToo marches are at, and why they haven't been conducted on a Black Lives Matter scale.  Another misconception the Heir wants to clear up is that the Cosby Issue is about "entertainment" and not national politics.  This is where the Heir sees the media and the news failing when they have these arbitrary categories of news.  Cosby is an entertainer and many of his survivors are entertainers, so therefore it's only "entertainment?"  That might be one other way Cosby got out of jail, the Heir figures, that the Cosby Issue isn't taken seriously enough for him to stay in jail.  But it interests the Heir that one of the prosecutors in the Cosby cases has put forth the food-for-thought that the prosecutorial agreement that the "technicality" hinged on never actually existed.  He doesn't know if this is true or not, but the only societal ally the Heir has who mentioned the Cosby Issue, the ever uber Jill Wine-Banks, seemed to have dismissed that possibility out of hand by citing claims that the Cosby Team put forth before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, when in fact the Heir was hoping for considerably more critical thinking.  If it is true that the Cosby Decision was made on wrong information, the Heir believes that that deserves an audit of some sort from one of the other Pennsylvania branches of government, or perhaps a Federal court.  This is among those suggestions the Heir made through a below post by Me the Mentor regarding the Cosby Issue, but as the Heir grows madder and madder every day by society's upcoming continuing disregard for the Cosby Issue, keep it tuned here as he makes further thoughts known.  Perhaps a legal eagle among his allies would bother to revisit.

"Where *is* everybody!!!!???"

The Heir responds to the appalling decision to let Bill Cosby out of jail partly by encouraging the survivors to bring lawsuit against the state of Pennsylvania itself.  The system he says should not be allowed to get away with freeing criminal sex offenders on a so-called technicality.  Though the Heir doesn't live in Pennsylvania, in which case he'd move back to Bachelor Blue State, he also wants Tom Corbett to declare that he won't appoint a Justice to the state Supreme Court who's inclined in any way to support letting such a chronic sex offender go on a technicality, and who affirms the utmost rights of survivors.  He also wants the Pennsylvania Legislature to make a joint resolution condemning the court decision, also affirming the rights of survivors.  He calls on all streaming services and e-commerce sites to continue to not carry Fat Albert, or any of the Cosby shows, or him doing standup from back in the day.  He also believes that any deep web providers of such content should be hacked.

"Hack 'em."

The Heir isn't a Biden "lackey" by any means, but he sees the media trying to derail the infrastructure bill by spinning a supposed veto threat on Biden's part that he then supposedly "walked" back from.  He doesn't believe any of this is true, and he wants to see some healthfully dissentful reporting from the trenches to the opposite.  That would be media reporting on media, and how the media's using its access to inside politics to make a largely untrue assertion.  He wonders whether the media's aware of the need for us to make infrastructure upgrades for which the bills are the beginning in order to compete with China, and also the rest of the industrialized world, because the Heir sees the US as the only industrialized country without high speed rail for example.  He thinks that Acela Express is able to go to the full 90-120 past New London, CT, going north, but the portion of the NEC going through practically our backyard is still from the 80's, along with those stripey bread box cars Amtrak is still using.  The Heir's question for the media is this: do they really want us to continue to lag behind to the point where it'll be too late, and the only countries with high speed rail and artificial islands and muchogrids are totalitarian dictatorships?  If so, the Heir wants to guilt trip the media about tending toward that sense of global dictatorship while claiming they're somehow against it by posing as the so-called "Fourth Estate."

"Hey media, riddle me this: What did Jamal Khashoggi die for anyway?  Did he just die in vain while the rest of you practice general abdication from your duties to the public?"

The Heir isn't a religious person in particular, but today Tuesday on his day off from the Bland Barns Catering Counter, he's observing Father's Day and in a particular sort of way.  He's not specifically thinking of me the Mentor or Marco's Grandfather.  He's looking at Father's Day in a more spiritually devout context, and in light of the great social immorality that's still running rampant in the early 2020's as a continuation of it starting in the 2010's.  So while the moguls of this personal corruption are trying to tell the Heir how "wrong" he is for standing with principle, the Heir responds that there's one ally that transcends all others standing by him in his devotion to principle.  Happy Father's Day Week, everyone.

Today sees a test vote in the Senate regarding the voting rights bills, and again the Heir is actually more concerned about the existential message sending about the supposed "end" of democracy that would supposedly automatically result if both these bills don't pass the vote, and more so than whether such an end to democracy would necessarily come about.  And of course neither bill will pass.  This also includes the John Lewis bill, so once that gets blocked and filibustered, the Heir hopes the progressives will try to tell Mitch McConnell that he personally is dishonoring the memory of John Lewis.  He doubts that is going to happen because by resorting to existential messaging the progressives have put their weak foot forward, knowing full well Mitch McConnell will jump for joy on that weak foot.  Also it's the progressive movement the Heir knows full well has no reputation or history of coming up with sound strategies for dealing with a given pending political problem.  They're just not problem solvers inside the central movement or among charismatic public figures within that movement.  The Heir's also not surprised that the progressives may end up going after Ted Lieu for going off the existential messaging when he told the viewers of INN to not lose heart, for he and his colleagues will find a way of getting the voting bills through.  Even though the Heir still plans to help Souls To The Polls and truly in-the-trenches spare-the-PR grassroots groups, it would also satisfy the Heir that some kind of unseen intelligent problem solving pro-voting force would come out of left field and take action in such a way to really stop Mitch McConnell in his tracks, but he also believes the progressives will not allow this force in a million years.  If they're likely to go after Ted Lieu for going off-message, they will also go after this unseen force for taking away from the existential messaging.  That is, until and unless the progressives prove to the Heir *personally* that they do believe in problem solving and that at least some of them get to recant and regret the existential messaging.  Right now, the Heir's still waiting for them.

The Alpha 1 that the Heir got me the Mentor to write about in late March ran into problems, and as is the Heir's wont in such matters, he redid nearly a third of the components, and has certified an Alpha 2, and that's as of 6/16/21.  The Alpha 1 is still historic as it stands as the first test unit of the Tropical Soul Player capable of seriously playing on its own.  But it didn't last because of power compatibility issues.  So now we have Alpha 2, and after the Heir gets a spare battery, he'll feel confident about restarting those field tests we talked about back in March.  One of the Heir's takeaways is that simplicity and reliability wins out time and time again against sophistication and edginess.  The concept of sophistication, both with big tech and with the Heir's experiences with the player, is emerging as a marketing term for convolutedness.  It doesn't matter to the Heir how much marketing big tech does and how many consumers are sucked into believing the marketing, because there's no denying some age-old axioms.  Keep It Simple Stupid.  If It Ain't Broke Don't Fix It.  And where edginess is concerned, that's just another term for riskiness.  It may be appropriate enough for the casinos, like the one in the state neighboring Bachelor Blue State, but it's *not* appropriate for real life.  We in the Bachelor believe that today's naive public who gush about the glamour of "gaming" should really rethink their stances.  1-800-GAMBLER exists for a reason.  You'll notice it doesn't read 1-800-GAMING.  No ifs, ands or buts: "gaming" is gambling.  So, people, stop gambling your lives away, and start actually *living* them.

------------------------------------------------------------

So in terms of labeling Biden's migrant plan as "inhumane," the Heir believes that that merely constitutes preaching to the choir.  This notion of inhumanity the Heir sees as reinforced by Kamala Harris's inability to answer Lester Holt's question as to whether she's visited the border.  That there is an embarrassment the Heir thinks Ms. Harris could have avoided if her press coaches gave her better preparation for that question, since it would certainly have been a question that would have been asked.  But the Heir noticed that just days after Ms. Harris's botched interview with Lester Holt, she discussed with makers and movers and shareholders in a meeting in Mexico City an economic plan meant to prevent migration from occurring in the first place by, among other things, encouraging investment by the private sector while also ensuring against corruption.  The Heir also noticed that the progressives almost totally ignored Ms. Harris's meeting in Mexico City, and focused almost exclusively on the visiting-the-border question in the Lester Holt interview, so in terms of proving the Biden plan as "inhumane," they're not comparing apples to apples.  It doesn't surprise the Heir that an anti-Biden progressivism would eventually emerge, because that's what they did to Funny Named Skinny Kid, and which the Heir believes helped lead to the 2010s midterms.  The Heir has never bought the progressives' "agitation" argument, because their agitation comments in public serve to cast so much doubt on a given targeted figure that the figure loses popular support no matter what s/he tries to do policy-wise.  If they do respond in "shaping up" to the progressives' agitations, the Heir observes, it makes the figures look weak and un-independent, and less leader-like.  And the Heir wants leadership, not capitulation.  That's what he voted for.  That said, the Heir has his own questions about Biden he wants asked of Jen Psaki at the next press corps meeting, and one of these are as below, but the Heir isn't ready to throw Biden under the bus if those questions aren't answered.  That's how the Heir is not progressive, and he's OK with that.

Heir: "My question is, if the infrastructure plan was already bipartisan because citizens from all persuasions polled as supporting it, why did the guy spend nearly two weeks with the Elephantines on a 'compromise' plan, which I'm sure would never have included high-speed rail in a million years, and which the Elephantines would have filibustered anyway?  Ms. Psaki, why did he do that?"

The Heir believes AOC could have handled the situation with Margie Taylor Greene a lot better than she did.  With what little information was available to the Heir, it appears as though AOC suffered in silence behind the door to her office while MTG heckled her through the mail slot.  If MTG tried to do that to the Heir here at the Swank Lounge, and yes we do have a mail slot at our front door *exclusively* for the purposes of MTG coming over from Washington to Bachelor Blue State to try to heckle the Heir with, here's how the Heir would handle it.  The Heir would yell back at her through the slot telling her that he doesn't have time to have a debate with her as he's working on some very important legislation.  He would then advise her to make an appointment with his assistant or send him an email to arrange a time convenient to both him and MTG to discuss whatever's on her mind.  If she keeps heckling the Heir about his "socialism" and affinity for Antifa or something, he's inclined to get some earphones on playing some pink noise while he's busy working on his legislation, so he doesn't have to listen to her endless rantings, with the expectation that MTG will tire herself out and walk away.  And she will never have arranged to have a proper debate with him at a better time.  It gets back to the concept of principle, and MTG as a Trumpist hasn't demonstrated any more of it than the Ed Snowdens do.  If she truly believed what she claimed to believe, she wouldn't have resorted to heckling the Heir through the mail slot and getting frustrated at his lack of response and walking away.  That's so beneath the Heir if I the Mentor do say so myself.

The Heir just the other day reforwarded Ted Lieu's letter to Merrick Garland to his reps in Washington requesting the Garland DOJ to drop its challenge to the lawsuit with E Jean Carroll.  But he wants to follow that up with Ted Lieu, because right after the Heir forwarded the letter, he looked at Glenn Kirshner's video on YouTube showing the actual letter itself, and the Heir's kicking himself for how the letter actually read.  The request in the letter read something to the effect, oh, won't you please maybe you know reconsider your challenge to the lawsuit if you so please, hm?  That was such a wuss wording of that request, and the Heir's now thinking that he should have known that *before* he forwarded it to his reps, because the request wasn't assertive enough.  Neither Kirshner nor Rachel Maddow the Heir sees as pointing out how wussed out that wording was, because the Heir fully expects Merrick Garland to conveniently file the letter in his wastebasket.  Ted Lieu was being too polite, and the Heir really doesn't give a rat's ass about Congressional courtesy, since he's just an ordinary Joe that his reps are supposed to represent.  So the Heir wants to find time to use the assertion that he finds lacking both in Washington and on the Insurgent News Network with regard to this letter, and just spell it out for Mr. Garland.  If he doesn't drop his challenge to the lawsuits, including the one with Lafayette Square, he'd better make a satisfactory explanation for such an unjust challenge.  And if Mr. Garland doesn't do that or get a straight answer, and/or instead engage in stonewalling, the Heir won't see Mr. Garland's services as required, and Mr. Garland might as well go back to writing books in his quiet semi-retirement, and have someone more devoted to law and justice and principle to take up the job.

The Heir wants to go after AOC over misleading comments she made over the so-called "Biden" migrant plan.  But the Heir first wants to go after Merrick Garland, because his DOJ is still fighting, among other things, the lawsuits with respect to E Jean Carroll and Lafayette Square.  This despite the latest IG report, because the Heir doesn't see how it's OK to punch a reporter in the gut just to install security fencing, or to risk injury to protestors with respect to ballistics or the lowering of helicopters over the protestors.  The Heir calls for Mr. Garland to answer some tough questions, and he hopes to see that either in committee or in press briefings.  He hopes that the press corps will ask Jen Psaki about those cases, and not just about Biden's favorite ice cream flavors.  If she passes the buck over to the DOJ, then *their* press corps the Heir wants to ask DOJ about why they're still fighting both E Jean Carroll and Lafayette Square, instead of making a justly declination and concessions in those cases.  So the Heir has his own reasons to be skeptical about the Biden cabinet, though he doesn't want the progressives to think he's ever coming to their side in a with-us-or-against-us anti-Biden campaign.  It was Ed Snowden Day just a few days ago, and the Heir will never forget how the progressives gave cover to Snowden, and Julian Assange, and Anonymous, as well as to North Korea over the Sony hack.  We in the Bachelor choose a separate path to accountability in public life, based on the concept of principle.

Today is Ed Snowden Day.  It was 8 years ago today that someone broke into, stole and weaponized classified information for the express purpose of embarrassing the country, and tried to push himself off as a hero for doing so.  But in that time, the Heir has seen very little public discussion about that guy, so how can someone be a hero and not be talked about?  The Heir was considering getting me the Mentor to re-reference that fifth anniversial Twitter thread that debunks and deposes Ed Snowden's claims, but he's going to put that off for now since most people's attitudes are like, today is *what* day!?  Ed Who?  But among other things, the Heir has observed that Ed Snowden's conspiracy theories aren't any more credible than Qanon's are.  That said, the Heir believes that even Ed Snowden isn't going to try to claim that forest fires are caused by space lasers.

The Heir wants to make some observations on the current Voter Rights Crisis, but he wants to be as brief as possible.  Again he sees the anti-Biden progressives try to make use of the issue for their own ends.  He's observed that since Inauguration Day, the anti-Bidens craved to bring him down any which way they can.  They tried the immigration issue.  They tried the filibuster.  They tried the most recent Israeli conflict.  Every time they tried, the Heir saw that Biden had a swift and certain response to each issue they tried to exploit, and they're just outright infuriated at this point.  But now, here comes the Voter Rights Crisis, and the anti-Biden progressives the Heir sees as not letting the facts of what Biden and the other Donkeys For The People were really saying and thinking and doing get in the way of their tired and untrue Cowardly And Complacent Donkeys trope.  The latest Ed Snowden Lite figure the Heir's seeing is Beto O'Rourke, but inevitably as news cycles move toward an upcoming Russian ransomware attack on Jell-O Pudding, Beto O'Rourke will fade just as readily as the Israeli crisis did.  This is the basis on which the Heir does his own agitation on the people to look beyond the rigidness of the "narrative" they might be seeing on the Insurgent News Network.  The Heir had momentarily considered just quitting following INN entirely, but there are still very thoughtful and intelligent observers there, but once they feel like they, too, have to repeat the talking point memo of It's Now Or Never, that's just going to push the Heir even further away from INN, and it's going to be INN's fault.  They're going to end up wasting their good will and their good grace with conscious people like the Heir.  While the Heir decides on his own about what to do about the Voter Rights Crisis, the ball is in INN's court, and not the Heir's.  It's up to INN to make the right decisions to bring the Heir back on a more regular basis.  If they don't, they're just goners.

"I think Souls To The Polls as well as substantive legal groups standing ready to challenge Anti-Voting provisions such as Sore Loser Gets To Overturn The Election are among what I'm considering supporting to get us through the crisis, not the current Ed Snowdens.  And once the crisis comes to an all-clear, we'll defend Jell-O Pudding against the ransomware attacks happening two weeks from now."