Monthly Archives: April 2017

Excurse:

a sally or digression [Merriam-Webster]

Noted on Lawfare, in a book review:

Priemel’s research is prodigious, involving not on the many thousands of pages of the official records of the IMT and NMT, but research in more than three dozen archives in Europe and the United States, as well as the voluminous memoir literature and contemporaneous press accounts of the trials. Across ten substantial chapters, Priemel paints the background to the trials and analyzes the conduct of the IMT and all of the successor trials. For good measure, he offers short excurses on French and British military trials related to the successor trials as well.

On the Simple Justice blog, Judge Richard Kopf comments on the impending results of the GOP use of the ‘nuclear option’ to force the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch to SCOTUS:

The Nuclear Option

But it is not solely the stupid questions and political posturing at Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing that will deal the death blow to the federal judiciary in the minds of the general public. When the Senate goes nuclear, a clear and unmistakable statement will have been made to the American public. The Senators will be declaring once and forever that federal judges are just like them [my bold – HAW]. One’s political party is all and everything that matters, be you a United States Senator or a United States Judge or Justice.

The Funeral Pyre

The partisan treatment of Gorsuch is a disaster for the American people and the federal judiciary. With the use of the nuclear option, baked into the mind of ordinary people will be the notion that judging is based upon personal political predilection. The Gorsuch debacle will have cemented—with steel rebar—that untrue but unshakeable belief.

The politicization of the federal judiciary in the minds of our citizens will be complete when the roll is called and a simple majority of the United States Senate carries the day after staging the worst Kabuki dance drama of modern times. At that point, a mortal blow will have been inflicted on the federal judiciary.[i] I wish I was exaggerating.

Continuing the analysis of China’s ban on coal imports from North Korea, Yun Sun on 38 North notes that the official reason given by China, which was exceeding an United Nations’ quota on North Korean coal imports, seems to be misleading, and then plunges into speculation:

There are two possible explanations for China’s decision to impose such a radical measure on North Korea. First, two events occurred a week before the announcement of the ban that almost certainly aroused Chinese ire with Pyongyang: 1) North Korea’s test of a Pukguksong-2 intermediate-range ballistic missile on Feb 11; and 2) the assassination on February 13 of Kim Jong Un’s half-brother Kim Jong Nam, who had been under Chinese protection. Both events gave Beijing ample reasons to put more pressure on North Korea to rein in its provocative behavior.

Second, the Chinese may have wanted to send a conciliatory signal to Washington, given their concern over US-China relations under President Trump. Beijing has wanted to sweeten the pot with Trump in order to induce a friendlier US policy toward China and solidify a quid-pro-quo, transactional approach on key issues important to both sides. Since the Trump administration has identified North Korea as a key national security threat, it is reasonable to infer that China’s action on North Korean coal imports was aimed at heading off harsher US demands for stronger Chinese sanctions against North Korea. Considering the US-Chinese tensions that will form the backdrop for this week’s summit between Presidents Xi and Trump, Xi’s ability to show that it is punishing Pyongyang severely on coal imports could help to lower tensions with the United States and preempt US demands on North Korea that China cannot accept, such as cutting Chinese energy and food aid. China will not go so far as to trade North Korea with US for a positive China policy by Trump. In fact, it is hard to imagine what US can offer for such a trade. However, taking some heat off the potential demands by the US may well be China’s calculation.

I suppose China would prefer not to have a nuclear power angry next door, even if it’s much larger, so even though North Korea may be angry now, this is the lesser setting. But I’d love to be a bug on the wall in China’s leaders’ offices.

Evidently Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare is feeling a trifle frustrated these days:

I believe there is nothing unusual about Trump’s solicitude for Vladimir Putin. I believe that the whole Russia connection story is “fake news” designed to cover up an embarrassing electoral loss on the part of the Democrats.

I believe there is nothing unusual about Michael Flynn’s dealings with the Russian government. I believe there is nothing unusual about Carter Page’s dealings with the Russian government. I believe there is nothing unusual about Paul Manafort’s dealings with the Russian government. I believe there is nothing unusual about Roger Stone’s dealings with the Russian government. I believe there is nothing unusual about Russia’s setting up a secret line of communication to the Trump administration through Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater and brother of a cabinet secretary. I believe there is nothing unusual about Jared Kushner’s meeting with a sanctioned Russian bank while working for his father-in-law’s transition. I believe that kind of thing happens all the time in all transitions.

And it goes on and on and on. In fact, it makes a handy list of all the unbelie- er, common-sense beliefs about our Commander-In-Chief.

Stop staring into the fire, Ben. Sooner or later, a Republican will dare to demonstrate some backbone. (Oh, bad visuals of invertebrates legislating the law. Each wears a mask. I think the one wearing the Ryan mask is missing a limb or two. They all seem to be dancing at the Masque of the Red Death. Now it’s just a pile of masks. Wait, how’d I get here?)

Is there some reason Stephen Colbert puts on these absolutely squirm-worthy segments? In this case, it’s the H&R Block bit where he seems to be brain damaged – both of us wanted to crawl out of our skins and not admit we’d seen it.

On Dead Things Gemma Tarlach comments  on the final days of the woolly mammoth:

Source: BBC

The genome of the Wrangel mammoth, which lived in a population of about 300 animals, had numerous mutations compared with its distant mainland cousin. Accumulating mutations over time is not in itself an issue — it’s the way of evolution, man — but it does create problems when the mutations have a negative impact on gene expression and function. And that’s what happened with the Wrangel animals.

According to the research, published today in PLOS Genetics, the pile-up of deleterious mutations left the Wrangel mammoth without a significant number of olfactory receptors, reducing its ability to pick up scents. The Wrangel woollies also lost a number of urinary proteins. In related species, such as the Indian elephant, these proteins are part of the language of social interaction and mate selection.

It also appears that mutations to genes controlling fur texture led to a satiny coat. Because typically stiff mammoth hairs evolved to offer some protection from the harsh Arctic elements, the satin stylings of the Wrangel herd may have made it harder for the animals to survive.

The accumulation of these and other mutations led to what the researchers describe as a “genomic meltdown.” The new evidence supports what are known as nearly neutral theories of genome evolution, which hold that harmful mutations can accumulate in small populations. Essentially: inbreeding bad. It might sound obvious, but this woolly mammoth study represents a rare chance for researchers to make direct comparisons between genomes from markedly different population sizes within a species.

I know some readers will scoff that this tells us nothing new. But thanks to the study, scientists have a better idea of how genomes change (and deteriorate) in small populations. This is important both for conservationists trying to save species with dwindling numbers and for de-extinction advocates who want to bring back departed flora and fauna — including the woolly mammoth.

And so passed one of the sexiest extinct beasties known to man – destined to be an object lesson.

The final episode of Bones, completing 12 seasons, has been broadcast and viewed. Bones marked a valiant attempt to bring science, and scientists, into the realm of humanity, as Dr. Temperance Brennan, for all of her nearly inhuman competence and confidence at the gurney, also has the insecurities that come with childhood bullying and abandonment, the foster care system, and how to interface her atheistic philosophy with a world which is rarely so rational and scientifically ordered; the other scientists also make similar contributions. Whether or not Bones succeeded in influencing society toward a more appreciative position on science and the contributions it makes to society is a matter to be assessed in the future.

But Bones was, as it had to be, so much more, taking on topics ranging from love, sex, and marriage to the morality and backlash of sniping. It’s really fairly hard to just toss off a piece on such a long-lived show in which stuff happened. It wouldn’t be so hard with a sitcom in which nothing really changes, but in Bones characters grew, suffered setbacks, moved on, died – and then were mourned and sent on their way down the last river, so to speak. In other words, all the previous episodes mattered.

So, in some ways, that’s what this piece covers. Bones was unremittingly excellent, unafraid to explore hard topics, and willing to sacrifice characters when a story demanded it. It was fun but hard-nosed, but willing to question that nose when it was wrong, with the exception of the unexamined fidelity of a polygraph machine in the final episode – an aspect of pseudo-science that could have been fun to explore in another episode, but here only served as a gear in the plot. As it was the final episode and it provided some lovely tension, I’ll just have to excuse it with a regretful shrug.

Thanks for the memories, Bones, and I hope we’ll get a movie or two out of you.

Does this wedding veil make my butt look big?

A female zombie, in wedding veil and filched golden wig, galloping, metaphorically speaking, through the dusky forest with chainsaw in hand, gunning it for all she’s worth, in pursuit of the young man caught in the bear trap.

This classic scene, one that I’m sure haunts all horror afficianados, is the very essence of … The Video Dead (1987).

I must admit, I came to this movie with a bar so low even Stephen Hawking, famed wheelchair-bound victim of ALS, could have bounded over it with ease. And I expected The Video Dead still might trip over that bar.

And I was quite wrong. It outleapt Mr. Hawking.

Before we all become far too excited, I’ll admit there are problematic facets to this movie. The camera work is fairly amateurish, as is some of the acting. The action scenes are a mishmash of adequate and, well, they were at least smart enough to not try some of the more difficult effects. A little audio, maybe some debris, time to move on.

But the zombies themselves are interesting. Good solid makeup. I haven’t kept up with the general sociological development of the zombie community (outside of one superb Minnesota Fringe Festival show exploring the social life of zombies), so perhaps this is not all that new – but these zombies had vanity. The aforementioned stolen wig, hats and glasses, and even a group interested in dancing, all showing they’re more than just murderous creatures from another dimension.

But that they are.

And then there’s the story. On the one hand, the acting dulls some of the more subtle edges, and the characterization is somewhat hit & miss. But when it hit, it did well. Case in point is a character, seen once on a B&W television, named the Garbageman. He delivers a frightening warning to the viewers of the TV show, hitting the timing perfectly to come across as a battle-weary veteran of the zombie wars.

And just what’s going on? A TV is misdelivered to a residence, where it powers itself up and begins spitting out zombies. The lone resident is summarily butchered, but the zombies disappear. Six months later, the house has been sold and a brother and sister, barely adults, are prepping it for their parents. The TV, sitting in the attic, lures the young man upstairs. Zombies jump out and attack, but he escapes in a marijuana haze, not believing what has happened.

Neighbors are not so fortunate, finding various ways to be offed by the invaders, but a man from Texas shows up looking for the TV; before long, he and the annoying young man (his voice inflections were wretched) are on the hunt for wandering invaders, who are really driving down home values. Eventually, the young man is used as bait in a most amusing way, and the slaughter of the invaders begin.

And goes awry. This plot has twists and turns, although they’re not really symbolic of anything, which is a bit disappointing, but are good if you’re indulging in some sort of game during the show.

In general, a movie that disrespects its story really annoys me. Any story has rules – bad stories break them. They’re both spoken and unspoken, but they form the backbone by which people can measure their own responses to exotic situations; by breaking them, they lessen the importance of the viewer’s tentative reactions (see here for more on the survival facets of story telling), and thus dull the story in the eyes of the audience.

And, in this respect, the story really follows through. Several constraints are stated at the outset, and they are scrupulously followed by the movie makers, making for a rather delightful approach to the ultimate elimination of the zombies roaming the forest.

In the end, though, complications ensue, and a predictable ending brings the movie to a close.

I think what we can say about this amateur hour effort is that there are actually some good bones to the story, but it’s hampered by technical problems, and the story could have used a couple of more drafts to hone it. But the humor made me laugh, and I had to admire the fidelity to the precepts of the story.

Good try, guys.

And I particularly enjoyed the David Bowie zombie. Rarely do I see such emotion in a zombie.

Oh, nothing like seeing someone use one of your favorite Word of the Days.

http://www.gocomics.com/bloom-county/2017/04/04

I’d be worried.

Oreos fans sampling the limited-edition Peeps Oreos in February expressed alarm that not only their tongues and saliva turned pink, but also their stools (and leaving a pink ring in the bowl). A gastroenterologist told Live Science it was nothing to worry about. [News of the Weird]

Heh.

Continuing this thread, in NewScientist (25 March 2017) Owen Gaffney may have touched on the real reason Russia interfered in the United States elections – climate denier and new EPA chief Scott Pruitt:

Pruitt’s appointment, part of a grander, darker geopolitical strategy, makes that reshaping less likely. This is not about the science. It is not about economic priority setting nor conflicting values. It is not about a desire for small government, the primacy of individual freedom or myopic belief in capitalism. The only fact that matters is that solving the climate issue means killing the fossil fuel industry – arguably the most influential on the planet. …

Dealing with climate change means summoning the economic “gales of creative destruction” – economist Joseph Schumpeter’s phrase for how innovation kills and replaces old industries to drive economic growth.

The first gales are here. Zero-carbon technology is now cheaper and easier to install. Renewables promise individual freedom through energy self-sufficiency.

The world economy is at a crucial inflection point. The US is well placed to ride the storm and capitalise on the next economic revolution. But vested interests dominate the landscape and US policy could delay the revolution.

In contrast, there are no Russian gales. Its economy is a basket case. Apart from oil and gas, it produces little anyone wants to buy. A clean energy revolution is likely to put its economy in a death spiral.

And, being a strong man country in its essence, Putin cannot afford to look in the least weak. Obama’s war on Russia has put Putin in a precarious position, and the restivity demonstrated by the citizenry recently must have made him nervous, although I suspect he works hard to keep the police corrupt. An honorable citizen is his most frightening enemy.

Russian attempts to influence elements of the United States is a subject we’ve discussed before, but it’s worth noting how Gaffney ties it to Putin through his euphemism – death spiral of the economy. But this may be more desperation than sinister plotting, because the free enterprise system, for all its faults, is tied to freedom of choice and free flow of information, and therein lies the key to proper decision-making. Are some American citizens misinformed? Inevitably. That’s part & parcel of the system. Russian influence may result in more misinformed, misbehaving citizens than normal. But so long as those who believe in truth and the essential goodness of their fellow Americans continue to speak out, disseminate real information, and practice Strong Science, industry will take note and change in order to follow the money. We’ve already seen this with the advent of Tesla, tapping into a surprising demand for electric cars. States where science is strong are moving away from polluting technologies.

Just gotta keep shouting.

It’s a continuing roller coaster for Israel’s government. First, the joy of not having a President Clinton. Now the sudden realization there’s an ambitious new President in the United States – ambitious and contemptuous of norms in a way that may make Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu yearn for the years of President Obama. Ben Caspit opines in AL Monitor:

Netanyahu had explained to the ministers that this was Trump’s request, a request that ought to be fulfilled. According to an Israeli diplomatic source, wind of something Trump had said had reached Israel. When Trump’s associates asked him what he would do if the Israelis and Palestinians failed to reach a peace deal, Trump said, according to the source, “Then I’ll do what I understand should be done.” Netanyahu doesn’t really want to find out the hard way what the president understands should be done. This strange turn of events, in which Israel’s most extreme right-wing government offers to limit West Bank settlement construction, is the tip of a giant iceberg of important events taking place under the radar.

The bottom line is that Netanyahu clearly knows how challenging the coming year will be. It might be even more difficult than the bad old days he spent dueling with President Barack Obama. He knows that Trump is determined to deliver the “ultimate deal.” While Netanyahu officially expressed his support for a two-state solution in his famous 2009 Bar Ilan speech, he has no real faith in the process or any desire to carry out significant concessions to achieve that goal. Netanyahu would be willing to gamble all his pension money on zero chances for achieving an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Therefore, Netanyahu’s game is to orchestrate the events of the coming year in such a way that the blowing up of diplomatic contacts between Israel and the Palestinians, and the sooner-or-later diplomatic dead end, will be the obvious fault of the Palestinians, not Israel. That is the whole story in a nutshell. Netanyahu knows he has no other option, assuming he will still be in power when it happens.

But surely they must be aware of the possibility – even probability – that Trump will be impeached. I’m guessing the Prime Minister will continue to prevaricate and delay until – he hopes – President Pence can take over. Pence is also a fringe radical, but may have far more respect for the Middle East than Trump does.

The Environmental Defense Fund has been releasing maps of methane leaks for various US cities, created with the help of Google Map’s vehicles. Here’s Pittsburgh:

Pittsburgh methane leaks, Source: EDF.

Here’s Indianapolis.

Indianapolis methane leaks. Source: EDF.

Who do you think spends more on fixing methane leaks?

Megan Treacy on Treehugger.com comments:

Why don’t more cities replace the pipes? The upgrades are very expensive. Replacing just a mile of pipeline can cost between $1.5 and $2 million. Utilities typically only replace pipes where major leaks are found while slower leaks are left alone.

The exception is in New Jersey where the state’s largest utility is taking on a major pipe replacement project. The Public Service Electric & Gas (PSEG) worked with the Environmental Defense Fund and Google to map out hundreds of miles of urban pipeline and found that their own estimates were way off. The utility now has a detailed plan to replace 510 miles of pipes and reduce methane emissions by 83 percent by 2018.

At a price of $1.5M / mile, that suggests New Jersey will be spending something like $750M to $1B. Has anyone told GOP Governor Chris Christie about this?

And the importance of methane? Jason Mark of the Sierra Club explains in Earth Island Journal:

Actually, any CH₄ released today is at least 56 times more heat-trapping than a molecule of CO₂ also released today. And because of the way it reacts in the atmosphere, the number is probably even higher, according to research conducted by Drew Shindell, a scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Center. So why is the 21 times figure the one that gets bandied about? Because methane breaks down much faster than carbon dioxide. While CO₂ remains in the atmosphere for at least a century (and probably much, much longer, according to Stanford’s Ken Caldeira), CH₄ lasts only about a dozen years. When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to come up with a way for comparing different greenhouse gases, it decided to use a century baseline to calculate a molecule’s “global warming potential.”

In light of the repeated falsehoods coming from Senator McConnell regarding the confirmation of Supreme Court justices (“we never do that in election years“, his reference to the non-existent Biden Rule, his misleading interpretation of Biden’s proposal, his suggestion there’s no principled stand against Gorsuch, and some minor stuff that can be found here), I think there’s an opportunity next time Mitch comes up for election, an opportunity for Republican or Democrat.

Suggest to voters he’s suffering from dementia.

Sure, someone could lie and poorly rationalize this badly. But it’d be more fun watching him and his supporters become angry at the suggestion that he’s incompetent.

But the alternative, of course, is admitting he’s just lying and therefore betraying sacred Senate traditions.

Sure, he’ll wiggle and scream foul. But reminding voters of his preference for party over country will certainly break a few votes loose. And he just might lose his cool.

Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare can share the pain of the Trump transition team, as he too has been incidentally collected. The information was used to warn him that he might be the target of spear-phishing attack:

My point here is that incidental collection in and of itself is not a bad thing. It’s merely an inherent feature of surveillance. To say that the Trump transition was the subject of incidental collection communicates nothing of interest at all. Of course it was.

And guess what? So are members of Senate of the United States and the House of Representatives.

To know whether incidental collection is good or bad or neutral with respect to the civil liberties of its subjects, you have to know not merely that it occurred, but what happened to the information afterwards. In my case, it was a very good thing. And if for any reason there exists some intelligence reporting around the government that the FBI warned “US Person Number 437” about a spear-phishing attack planned against him after a presidential tweet, and if any official is wondering who that “US Person Number 437” may be, let me save you the trouble of asking the bureau to unmask him.

That would be me.

And please guys, feel free to incidentally collect on me like that any time you like.

Realism from a professional.

First heard in conversation yesterday.

Planning to waterski on Mars? Not so fast. Following up on earlier speculation concerning what appears to be water on Mars, NewScientist (25 March 2017) is reporting that what has been thought to be streaks of water may be something else:

“There’s part of your brain that immediately tells you that it should be ice melting,” says Sylvain Piqueux at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, California. “The problem is, it’s really hard to melt ice on Mars.”

Now, Frédéric Schmidt at the University of Paris-South and his colleagues have an idea that needs no liquids: sand avalanches caused by sunlight and shadow.

When sunlight hits the sand, it heats up the top layer while leaving deeper layers cool. This temperature gradient changes the pressure of tiny gas pockets around the sand particles, shifting the gas upward. This in turn jostles grains of sand and soil, causing them to slip down the Martian slopes.

The effect should be most pronounced in afternoon shadows cast by boulders or outcrops. In this situation, the contrast between the cooling surface and the still-warm layers just below creates a pressure gradient as well, shifting the gas and sand even more (Nature Geoscience, doi.org/b4jr).

Killing is not a context-free activity.

The old morality of a man defending his honor by killing the man his wife is sleeping with comes under fire in Human Desire (1954). We see it unfold from the viewpoint of a man, Jeff, caught in the outer swirl of the vortex of doom which is pulling down the murderer and his wife. Jeff”s a Korean War vet, fresh home from the war, the romantic fixation of a fresh young lady, and a railroad engineer; the murderer, Carl, assistant to the station master, loses his cool with his boss and is fired for his troubles. Knowing his much younger wife has some influence with a railroad customer, he presses her to ask him for a favor.

The job is won back, but it slowly dawns on him that the price she paid for his job was a trifle high. Knowing the customer’s schedule is putting him on the train, he forces his wife to write a note indicating another opportunity to thank him for the job, and on the train he avenges his honor in the ways of old, and appropriates the incriminating letter to boot.

Through lucky happenstance, she finds an ally in Jeff, and she works her charms on him, looking for a way free from the vortex whirling about her. The fresh young lady, too much of a novice to the ways of warfare, fades from the engineer’s mind, as the carnal desires take over. Meanwhile, the murderer himself is not insensitive to his act, and his drinking worsens, the sprite of guilt riding his hefty shoulder.

The moment comes, she strikes for her freedom – will it work? How much more dark death will be dealt?

This is a plot of shifting glances and lifted chins, of dawning thoughts and insecure egos, of men aware of their limitations – and being pushed past them, relying on the old, outdated instincts which evolution installed in us – and forgot to remove when they became inappropriate. Of fighting against instant gratification – and losing.

This is film noir.

And if you like it, this is Recommended.

In view of the GOP‘s violent reaction against the JCPOA (aka the Iran nuclear deal), the apparent close ties between Russia and Iran must be making them doubly uncomfortable, since about half the party seems to think Russia’s completely harmless and is even eligible to interfere in our elections. From Rohollah Faghihi in AL Monitor:

Rouhani first met with Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev. Following the meeting, Rouhani said, “There is no doubt that cooperation between [our] two countries positively impacts stability and security in the region and in the world.” Medvedev described the Iranian president’s visit as a significant step in the development of relations and said it can aid the development of deeper bilateral ties.

On March 28, Rouhani received an honorary degree from Moscow State University and addressed professors and students at a ceremony. “Resolving the issues of today’s world requires cooperation among scientists and governments,” Rouhani said, adding, “The decline of the West’s dominance and the end of the monopoly on wealth is a historic opportunity to build a new world.”

Noting that “there should be a global consensus to root out extremism and violence,” Iran’s president emphasized, “Islamophobia, racism and takfiri [jihadi] ideas have common roots.”

Note how he combines the roots of Islamophobia with takfiri. While the GOP might want to just shrug it off, it may make an impression on those outside of the GOP’s roost.

Also on March 28, Rouhani and Putin held “important” and “intensive” negotiations about regional and global issues as well as about the bilateral relationship. Referring to the 515 years of diplomatic ties between Tehran and Moscow, Putin said, “Iran is a good neighbor and a stable and reliable partner.”

On his part, Rouhani said, “The cooperation between Tehran and Moscow is not targeted at a third country.” He added, “Iran and Russia’s relations are being conducted to enhance stability in the region, and the main intention of the two countries is to strengthen regional peace and tranquility.”

In another year, a less incompetent and controversial Administration, this might get more attention. And it should. The Trump’s Administration’s ties to Russia has now made it an inadvertent, and probably exceptionally reluctant, ally of Iran. It may also put Trump on notice that Putin will not be pleased if he messes with Iran – and the general suspicion is that Putin has something on Trump.

On Lawfare Seamus Hughes and Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens overview the sociology of American jihadi recruitment:

Hussain was always happy to advise potential jihadis on matters large and small. In one case, he provided an Ohio man, Munir Abdulkader, with the address of a U.S. military officer, and suggested that he be killed. Abdulkader relied on Hussain to provide material details. “Make sure the soldier was in Iraq or Afghanistan,” one text stated. “Do you know his work schedule? When he home etc?” said another. Abdulkader went further in his requests: “How do you make Molotov? You have a link? And what’s the knife to use? Sharpest?” He gave Hussain a play-by-play of his surveillance of targets and the supposed ease of purchasing a AK-47. At each step, Hussain was online and encouraging. Abdulkader was arrested shortly after that, having plotted part of his attack with an accomplice who was an FBI informant.

Heavy reliance on IS virtual entrepreneurs’ knowledge and connections is not unique to Abdulkader. Jihadist propaganda has been easily accessible through various online platforms over the last decade, and has played a role in radicalizing Americans. Now, with the advent of numerous social media applications (many of which use encryption technology), a would-be recruit can access real-time support and be given a stronger sense that he is part of the wider movement. This online support therefore sustains and encourages the recruit’s continued participation in the Islamic State.

In the past, American jihadis also sought religious justification and validation for their intended actions from recognized extremist leaders. Now, they can receive this from foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq, who have reached “rock-star” status due to their presence in the Caliphate. Their communications with these virtual entrepreneurs has in many cases been seen to provide them with the affirmation they think they need. The deaths of figures like Junaid Hussain may help stem the number of homegrown attacks and plots, but the experience of the last three years points to an emerging online approach that is likely here to stay.

In other words, a role model accepted with their only requirement being success. Sure, it doesn’t hurt that they’re fighting “for God” – but in any heavily hierarchical environment, it’s easier to recruit someone young to fight for a cause, because they lack prestige. Add in the human brain’s tendency to not mature until the late 20s, and you might as well shoot fish in a barrel.

Ironically, I suspect Trump’s xenophobes will just exacerbate the problem by denying potential jihadis a place in society, as well as a ladder of success, through the promotion of racism. There really is a point to an open, tolerant society – but sometimes I wonder if we all get it.

The lead in Igby Goes Down (2002) is the youngest son of a wealthy New York City couple. He has an older brother (“young fascist”), a father (now residing in a “befuddlement home”), a godfather (“D.H., who is amazing. His mind functions only to make money. He thinks he has everything he could possibly want, so he walks around acting the way he thinks a happy and content man should act. He’s a parody.”), and Mimi (“Why do I call my mother Mimi? Because ‘Medea‘ was already taken.”).

And this is the story of how a boy who witnessed his father’s permanent breakdown handles the pressures of conformity and exacting expectations: by becoming a nihilistic, occasionally funny, contrarian. Repelled by learning, as it only seems to lead to fulfilling Mimi’s expectations, he bounces from incident to incident, occasionally getting laid (gah!), eventually reaching the level of drug dealer.

And then Mimi, ill with breast cancer, announces she wants her sons to kill her.

A sometimes mystifying film, it seems to be a condemnation of the underside of high society, the schemes, the constant pressure to achieve in order to thrive in a society of perhaps dubious value – the single minded pursuit of wealth, and how it can break people in more than one way.

And whether you want to be part of that.

At least he’s not alone.

The initial post on this thread mentioned Representative Chaffetz’ submission of a bill that would authorize the government to sell of public lands, and the public reaction that caused him to withdraw it. Well, Walter Einenkel on The Daily Kos is reporting that, under the cover of fog, Chaffetz is trying again:

Rep. Chaffetz told the public he was “withdrawing” his bill on February 2. Eight days later the bill was referred to a subcommittee. Here’s a refresher on H.R. 621:

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell certain Federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified as suitable for disposal, and for other purposes.

And here’s the early spin, right in Section 1:

(a) Short Title.—This Act may be cited as the “Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2017”.

There’s only one thing “excessive” in our government these days and it’s politicians like Rep. Chaffetz.

It appears Representative Chaffetz is quite the weasel. It appears it might be time to contact your Representative and let them know what you think of this bill.

On Lawfare Andrew Kent discusses the various legal maneuvering involved in General Flynn’s offer of immunized testimony. I found this devious bit interesting:

The immunity statute grants only “use immunity.” An immunized witness before Congress does not get blanket immunity for the entire transaction about which he or she testifies. Rather, no testimony under the court order granting congressionally-requested immunity, “or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony,” “may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.”

Why seek such apparently limited use immunity from Congress? In practice, use immunity can turn into full transactional immunity. It turns out that it can be devilishly difficult for prosecutors in a later criminal case to prove that no evidence they are presenting was “directly or indirectly derived” from immunized testimony before Congress.

The prosecutions of Oliver North and John Poindexter for Iran-Contra crimes fell apart in just this way. Both were granted use immunity by a select congressional committee investigating Iran-Contra, and the public testimony under the immunity grants was televised. In the later criminal prosecutions, the D.C. Circuit ruled that protecting the defendants’ Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination essentially required the prosecution to affirmatively demonstrate that none of its witnesses were in any way affected by that testimony. This proved impossible.

Witnesses can compound the problems for prosecutors by ranging widely in their immunized congressional testimony. If Flynn were immunized by Congress, it would be for testimony about Russia. But a friendly House committee member, say Chairman Nunes, might lead him to talk about his potentially illegal work for Turkey, thereby extending the immunity in practice to that topic.

An unwillingness to take responsibility for bad behavior? Or another Ollie North “I know what’s good for this country!” attitude? Or is this just hypotheticals and General Flynn really wants to dump the dirt on Trump?

Here’s a poke. I swear there’s a pig in there somewhere.