Tom Cruise Movie Coming True?

This WAPO article was in the print edition of the Pilot this morning, but could not find it in the online version, thus the WAPO link.

The movie is MINORITY REPORT. Spielberg directed this action-thriller based on a Philip K. Dick short story. The basic premise is stopping murderers before they commit their crimes based on evidence from 3 “mediums” (for lack of a better description). The movies is set in 2054. 2024 ain’t that far off.

Because members of the military have to give up some of their rights as part of their service, the DARPA plan is relatively easy to implement. The idea appears to have some bipartisan support. However, I see a lot of potential 4th Amendment challenges to this. On the other hand, would this clear the CDC to investigate the epidemic of violence involving guns in this country as a health hazard? And I am curious as to where the NRA stands.

This line from the piece grabbed my attention: But studies of mass shooters have found that only a quarter or less have diagnosed mental illness. Researchers have noted a host of other factors that are more significant commonalities in mass shooters: a strong sense of grievance, desire for infamy, copycat study of other shooters, past domestic violence, narcissism and access to firearms. Experts note that those with severe mental illnesses are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.” Kind of removes the mental health aspect from the equation, to a point.

7 thoughts on “Tom Cruise Movie Coming True?

  1. What is good mental health?

    Yes, we can probably ascertain the obvious deviations from the norm such as extreme paranoia, deep depression, hallucinations, etc.

    Yet those don’t seem to be the drivers of violent behavior outside of self-destruction.

    Grievance, a desire for infamy, copy cat, narcissistic personality, domestic violence (uncontrolled anger) as listed in the article seemed to the more common denominators.

    Those “aberrations” in less obsessive forms are pretty common. People hold grudges a long time, recognition for deeds is normal, “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”, people get into heated arguments, and healthy self esteem is a good quality for social and financial success.

    From my layman’s point of view, the line between personality quirks and obsession is fuzzy.

    Personally I think the Internet is a problem. I learned recently that there’s a site for “incels”. That stand for “involuntary celibates”. Basically men who can’t relate to women and feel they deserve sex anyway. Add in white supremacy sites and other fringe places and you have an endless supply of enabling support and encouragement from like minded folks.

    “Gee, I’m not the only one who thinks like this, so I’m not that weird after all.” And those site cheerlead. A shooter has been called “hero” on one of the sites after a recent shooting.

    How to solve this I am not sure. Red flags are a start. But who is monitoring those corrosive sites? AI might provide some future insight.

    Notice that I left out the availability of firearms. You can bet that any study of this problem by a government or a government funded agency will not be able to include that part. Just like sea level rise studies can’t use the phrase “climate change” in an Orwellian effort to change reality.

    All this is IMHO.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I also avoided the availability of firearms as it was not part of the article. It was part of the paragraph I quoted, but the larger takeaway was “But studies of mass shooters have found that only a quarter or less have diagnosed mental illness.”… Anger is NOT a mental illness.


  2. RE: “Because members of the military have to give up some of their rights as part of their service, the DARPA plan is relatively easy to implement.”

    Ummm, there’s no DARPA plan. The WAPO article describes a proposal to create a new federal organization called, the Health Advanced Research Projects Agency (HARPA).

    The constitutional issues relate to the idea that HARPA would surveil all of us all the time, even in our homes, through our cell phones, smart TV’s, etc.

    Personally, I don’t care what the benefits might be, I’m against it.


    1. John, cut directly from the WAPO story: “Former NBC chairman Bob Wright, a longtime friend and associate of President Trump’s, has briefed top officials, including the president, the vice president and Ivanka Trump, on a proposal to create a new research arm called the Health Advanced Research Projects Agency (HARPA) to come up with out-of-the-box ways to tackle health problems, much like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) does for the military, according to several people who have been briefed.”

      So not a plan, but an agency within DOD.

      And I am with you on being against it. There should be a better way to go about this than to trample the 4th Amendment.


    2. Nope. HARPA is proposed to be under the National Institutes of Health, within the Health and Human Services department. That’s why WAPO says: “Wright has pushed his HARPA proposal to the White House and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar.”


      1. Dude, you completely missed the fact that DARPA already exists. It is under the auspices of the DOD. I did not say that the HARPA idea would fall under DOD.

        One again, further proof of your ability to counter factual things through your obtuseness.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s