Monthly Archives: May 2017

Benjamin Wittes on Lawfare is profoundly unhappy with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s letter concerning former FBI Director James Comey:

I was profoundly wrong about Rosenstein.

Rosenstein’s memo in support of Comey’s firing is a shocking document. The more I think about it, the worse it gets. I have tried six ways from Sunday to put an honorable construction on it. But in the end, I just cannot find one. The memo is a press release to justify an unsavory use of presidential power. It is also a profoundly unfair document. And it’s gutless too. Because at the end of the day, the memo greases the wheels for Comey’s removal without ever explicitly urging it—thus allowing its author to claim that he did something less than recommend the firing, while in fact providing the fig leaf for it.

In other words, Rosenstein’s actual role was even less honorable than the one he reportedly objected to the White House’s tagging him with. If the original story that Rosenstein’s recommendation drove the train had been true, after all, that at least would involve his giving his independent judgment. But the truth that Trump told is far worse than the lie Rosenstein insisted the White House correct. Rosenstein was tasked to provide a pretext, and he did just that.

Ben has definite opinions on how those involved in national security should act, their behavioral norms, and why. I think he should be a resource to the Administration, because it’s clear that the President and most of his appointees are not well-versed in how Government differs from the private sector, and how those differences require different ethical sets (and thus the existence of an Office of Ethics, which is apparently ignored).

That said, Ben’s bewilderment (if you read between the lines) over the Deputy AG’s behavior suggests Rosenstein may have chosen to sacrifice his knight (Comey) and stay in the game in order to possibly prevent greater damage at a later time. If he knew Comey was already finished, and that Trump could not be dissuaded, he may have laid down his honor at this time in order to pick it back up at a more effectual moment – perhaps to leak important information.

Who knows – maybe Deputy AG Rosenstein will have the honor of actually placing handcuffs on Trump and his associates. Yeah, it’s a fantasy. Gotta have them from time to time.

Maybe I should just drink this beer and go home.

The Sniper (1952) is an odd near-success of a movie. The problem is not in the performances making up the tale, as the actors are all competent or even more than competent in their parts, in that relaxed fulfilling of roles that many 1950s movies achieved so effortlessly. The technical aspects are also all very good, from staging to cinematography. The characters, although unsuccessful in conveying the feeling that they don’t disappear when the movie stops, do have lives with details, tics, and various motivations, all of which contributes to the feeling of reality necessary to this movie.

The story is mostly good, but the lead character may not be entirely believable to today’s viewer. The eponymous character, Eddie Miller, is torn between his ache to be a normal man, with a wife and a future, and his suspicion, even hatred for women, particularly those of the brunette variety. Add in a definite problem with impulse control, and it all ends in periodic bouts of violence against the women who drive him to anger. He already has a history of violence when we see his first killing, his prowess with a sniper rifle giving us the title of the movie. But he doesn’t take joy in the act, and injures himself in an attempt to stop himself; later, he writes a note for the police to find, begging them to stop him, and this is where I start having problems with the character. Perhaps the criminally insane really do these things, but I find that a little hard to believe. However, I appreciated the nuanced lead character.

But the movie’s greatest failing may be in that it is explicit in its purpose, which is to alert contemporary society to the number of sexually driven criminals embedded in society. This is accomplished through a short, to the point introduction to the movie, and it drains the movie of some of the tension it might otherwise have had, which is unfortunate, despite the good intention.

But contrariwise, it has a very good unstated theme, made apparent in a monologue during the metaphorical crucifixion of the police department. It is to recognize that crime is not isolated incidents, but are often a sequence of lesser crimes leading to greater crimes. An advocacy that “sex crimes” (my Arts Editor suggested “gender crimes” as more accurate) result in immediate removal to a psychological institute for immediate treatment and release only on cure is rejected by the assembled “pillars of the community” because it would result in higher taxes, and By God We Can’t Have That. More abstractly, penny-wise, pound-foolish; or the results of greed are unpredictable and vicious.

The echo in today’s society, particularly with the background of the failure of Kansas despite lowering taxes, is particularly surprising, interesting, and believable.

In the climactic ending, there’s an appreciated lack of frenzied gunfire, and, indeed, a return to the lead’s tortured mental state (I hesitate to call it a conscience), leading to an ending of some delicacy. Indeed, this ending may be more effective at attracting the viewer to a more intellectual discussion of the movie’s themes – and perhaps some hoped for actions.

Interoception:

To generate emotions, it is thought that we first need to interpret our body’s internal state – a process called interoception. So if we see a rabid dog, we feel fear only once we recognise an increase in our heart rate or feel our palms get sweaty. [“Feeling your heartbeat helps read others’ minds,” Helen Thomson, NewScientist (6 May 2017)]

Predatory publishing refers to academic journals charging high fees and offering little or no vetting of the quality of the research published, as noted by Retraction Watch. In this interview with Derek Pyne of Thompson Rivers University, BC, Canada, Retraction Watch not only reveals that the problem may be more widespread than expected, but that the culture at Thompson Rivers University – and, by extension, many others – is not properly sensitive to the idea of quality research.

RW: In a recent Op-Ed in the Ottawa Citizen, you say the administration at the business school was less than enthusiastic about your results. Can you say more about that?

DP: In September of 2015, on my Annual Professional Activities Report (APAR), I included my initial finding that I had found that I was one of a minority of researchers in my department with no publications in predatory journals.  The dean requested, through the department chair, that I remove this from my APAR and resubmit it.  I did this but I don’t think he appreciated my rewording as his official APAR response letter quoted from my original APAR instead.  When I informed him that I had facts to back up my statement, he responded that he did not care about facts.  Things went downhill from there.  For example, later he said that the school had promotion and tenure committees to evaluate people’s research and that he thought it was arrogant of me to second guess them.

RW: You note that universities may be “complicit” in the problem of predatory journals. Can you say more about that, and what we can do to address it?

DP: I see no other reason why universities would ignore the issue when it reaches the extent of a majority of research faculty in a school publishing in predatory journals.  In the op-ed, I discuss possible reasons for this.

I have a couple of suggestions for addressing the issue.  One problem we have is that no one in our Dean’s office has a research background.  I would hope that administers with research backgrounds would place a greater value on honest research.  Moreover, I think they would be in a better position to recognize suspicious publication records.  Thus, the first action I would recommend would be hiring administrators with research backgrounds.

In addition, I found that the issue only got attention after my op-ed was published.  I am not saying that other universities would be unwilling to address the issue before getting to this point.  However, honest faculty have to be willing to stand up for academic integrity.  If internal actions cannot bring change, it is sometimes necessary to go further.  In my view, the job security of tenure is wasted on people who turn a blind eye to such wrong doing.

Thing is, I don’t really think you need people with research backgrounds serving on these committees; you need people committed to quality results. Researchers, as people who may have wittingly or unwittingly published in suspect journals, are not necessarily the best selections, especially as administrative work may not be a good temperamental fit.

I suspect the real trick is root out complacency, and in so doing formulate and implement a process which can then be used and, more importantly, reviewed and revised^[1]. Now you have something that can be tracked, improved, and thereby improve the university. If all you have is a bunch of administrators who are checking off the informal boxes from decades ago – support the researchers, count up the papers published, did any win awards [hey, is anyone evaluating the awards won?!] – then you’re running a risk.

It’s a changing world out there. Used to be, you published one monumental work and you were immortalized, such as Newton. Maybe you paid for it, maybe not. Then there was the era of a few publications, and most of them had good reps – because publishing was hard to start and to continue.

Now it’s the era of anyone with a web site and – maybe – a connection to a printing press can pose as a scholarly journal^[2]. Maybe 50 years ago Universities knew all the journals and which ones were good, because so few were bad. But that is no longer true, researchers are no longer as involved as they once were, and so having a process written down and periodically improving it should just make good sense. If nothing else, you can point at the committee and ask them why they aren’t following the process.

But part of the process should be Improve the Process.

¹If you’re muttering “Watts Humphrey!” good for you!

²As NewScientist‘s Feedback column periodically notes.

The recent launch of a North Korean test missile into the Sea of Japan put Russia on high alert, according to CNN:

Russia responded to North Korea’s test by putting its far eastern air defenses on high alert, according to a report from the RIA-Novosti news agency.

“We cannot fail to understand that the territory of Russia is not only an object for attack but also a place where a missile may fall. In order to protect ourselves from possible incidents, we will keep our air defense systems in the Far East in a state of increased combat readiness,” Viktor Ozerov, head of the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security, is quoted as saying. …
The direction of the missile, so close to Russia, was likely an attempt by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to send a message to both Moscow and Beijing, said Carl Schuster, a Hawaii Pacific University professor and former director of operations at the US Pacific Command’s Joint Intelligence Center.

“It tells Russia, ‘I can touch you too,'” Schuster said.

“It tells China, ‘I don’t care what you think, I’m independent,'” he said.

It seems more than a little odd to be challenging Russia and China at the same time. The Chinese in particular are not known for their tolerance of threats. Is Kim really sending a message to Russia and China, or is this possibly an internal message?

Meanwhile, John Schilling publishes an analysis on 38 North as to whether this is a new type of missile – and how this may reflect North Korean progress in the area of ICBM development:

If North Korea has already conducted a successful test using the engines and other components of the first two stages of the KN-08, it may be closer to an operational ICBM than had been previously estimated. US cities will not be at risk tomorrow, or any time this year. since some tests have to be done with the full-scale system. With only one test of this reduced-scale system Pyongyang is probably some time from even beginning that process. But given this test and the possible North Korean path forward, a closer look will be needed to see how much progress has been made, and what technologies the North may have demonstrated, as will a reassessment of their ICBM program in that new light.

Montana’s First Congressional District Voting History
Data from Ballotpedia

The appointment of Representative Zinke to be Secretary of the Interior has left the sole Montana seat in the House of Representatives open. We can see that it’s been a safe Republican seat since 2000, and Ballotpedia states it has been in GOP hands since 1997. Not since 2000 has a race been in the single digits; the last was a 16 point difference.

And Donald Trump won by 21 points in The Big Sky State. But now? Hard to say. I’ve seen poll results ranging from Democrat Quist leading by 7 points (a dubious self-selecting online poll) to a Democratic poll showing Quist down by 6 points to an even more comfortable lead of 15 points for Republican Gianforte (end of last month, a lot has happened since). With a Libertarian also in the race, voters will have a third option if they’re thoroughly tired of the two major parties.

And in that respect, it’s an interesting dynamic. Quist of the Democrats isn’t a politician. He’s a folk singer. A gamble by the Democrats, I suspect, to get away from any negative connotations Montana voters may connect, rightly or not, with the Democrats. Gianforte of the Republicans is a rich entrepreneur, a figure iconic to the GOP, I suppose, who failed in a previous bid for the governor’s seat.

I suspect it’ll be a close race, with a GOP victory, but I could easily be wrong. Are you a Montana voter, looking for more information? Former Minnesota GOP member Syd Sweitzer has it for you here.

And what happens if the Democrat wins? We come another step closer to impeachment. President Trump’s recent actions with regards to the FBI are worthy of impeachment, as Andrew Sullivan notes in greater detail than I care to muster, but the GOP members in Congress are, by and large, in love with power. So long as they see Trump as a symbol of that power, they won’t move against him – in particular the House. Why? Because Trump’s base is their base, and it’s all about team politics – if you’re seen to betray the team, you will lose the support of the base, and you will lose that power.

But if Democrat Quist wins, now the dynamic begins to change. Trump’s base may be cracking. Not enough to release the wolves in the House, where impeachment begins, but if Trump begins to lose his luster of power in the eyes of the House, then a step has been taken.

But the power of team politics has been stronger – and more damaging to the Republic – than I had thought. This storm of idiocy in the White House should have resulted in Trump’s thorough kicking by the GOP held Congress. Instead, they are an inchoate mass, indulging in extremist legislation and tone-deaf actions.

A win by Quist would be a boot to their collective heads. And perhaps the start of the end of the extremist hold on the GOP, and the beginning of the necessary rebuilding of the GOP by the likes of Senator Lugar, the last of the respectable GOPers.

I don’t expect it, but we need to begin.

Nucleate:

Nucleation is the first step in the formation of either a new thermodynamic phase or a new structure via self-assembly or self-organization. Nucleation is typically defined to be the process that determines how long an observer has to wait before the new phase or self-organized structure appears. Nucleation is often found to be very sensitive to impurities in the system. Because of this, it is often important to distinguish between heterogeneous nucleation and homogeneous nucleation. Heterogeneous nucleation occurs at nucleation sites on surfaces in the system.^[1] Homogeneous nucleation occurs away from a surface. [Wikipedia]

Noted in Dark Matter And The Dinosaurs, Lisa Randall, p 177:

Cosmic rays and supernovae as well as cosmic impacts have been suggested as possible culprits with the potential to be relevant on longer time scales. Cosmic rays can affect cloud cover in several ways. One is by ionizing atoms in the troposphere so that water droplets can nucleate nearby. This influence could enhance cloud formation, which would in turn affect the Earth’s weather. [typos mine]

Perhaps the most important aspect of the Turkish documentary Kedi (2016) has nothing to do with its putative subject, and everything to do with how it connects the people of Istanbul, Turkey, with, well, cat lovers around the world. This documentary takes a snapshot of the lives of several cats living in the streets of city, chronicling how they live, their personalities – and, not incidentally, those who actually care for them. One such is a pastry chef, who states that he and others in the neighborhood actually have running tabs at all the local vets, because they bring in the street cats for care when they’re sick or injured. One of the stars of the film actually spent an entire winter at the vet.

Or another man who pins his continued sanity on his devotion to the street cats. He had a nervous breakdown years ago, which abated when he made it his purpose in life to care for the cats.

For the non-cat lover, this may sound strange, perhaps symptomatic of a mental illness. After all, “crazy cat lady” is not a term of cherished endearment in American society, but rather the mark of a person whose sanity is certainly questionable.

But for those of us who make it a condition of existence that a cat, or even plural cats, be in our lives, these seemingly simple, revealing interviews with men and women living in a society supposedly alien to us really serve to personalize their basic humanity. I easily could see myself sitting down with any of these folks and having an animated chat about these cats, street-wise or house pets, and really connecting. Long time readers of this blog know that I often find material on AL Monitor, but even the cultural pieces AL Monitor purveys don’t match the strong connections Kedi builds.  And the material on politics serves, if anything, to highlight the differences between societies, and sometimes, advertise the hatred of those on the extremes.

The opening interview talks about the alien aspects of cats, how they differ so much from humans, but the interviewee might have gone a little further. While that aspect is certainly one of the attractions of living with cats, it’s also true that another lure is that they sometimes metaphorically stretch themselves toward us. We see cat behaviors which remind us of ourselves, from simple friendliness with long-term acquaintances, to the cold shoulder when a visitor shows up without some accustomed gift or possession (in my case, a pair of kittens I usually brought on visits were omitted, and the delighted host cat abruptly turned away and wouldn’t talk to me upon the realization that his friends were not with me).

That same reaching out, that stretching to cover abysses, is perhaps most what we need these days. We’re surrounded with cries of hatred, from nationalist extremists in the West to religious extremists in the Middle East, using past grievances and imagined ideological reasoning to justify violence against those who they hate. Perhaps they should learn to stretch out their paws to those they don’t understand in an attempt to probe the fundamental humanity present on both sides. And ask if the suspicion and ideology and religion contributing to hatred and war and battles is really all that necessary in a world beset with critical problems.

All that said, this is not a perfect movie. It could have been at least ten minutes shorter, and while I enjoyed the visual aspect, I sensed there was more to be seen, perhaps some hidden, iconic view (with a cat in it) that could have really driven home the reality of Istanbul. But it’s a good, even introspective documentary which reminds us of the requirements of basic humanity, without challenge, without shame or guilt.

Just a celebration of the little carnivores and friends who fulfill a role in human civilization, and should not be forgotten as we “progress.”

Recommended.

Former commercial fisherman Bren Smith suffered an attack of conscience and has given up his occupation in order to … create farms in the ocean. He talks about it with NewScientist (29 April 2017):

What is 3D ocean farming, exactly?

It’s farming that utilises the whole coastal water column, from top to bottom, so a lot is produced in a relatively small area. Thimble Island Ocean Farm, my original farm in Connecticut, goes down to 6 metres, but the 3D ocean farming model can work in anything from 3 to about 25 metres of water. Seaweed, particularly sugar kelp, and mussels are grown on ropes hanging in the water above oyster and clam cages (see diagram). One acre of sea can produce between 10 and 30 tonnes of sea vegetables and 250,000 shellfish every five months. We catch a few fish, too. Nutritionally, ocean plants like seaweeds are just as healthy and often healthier than land-grown foods. And bivalves are a source of lean protein that grows quickly.

What is so good about farming in water?

First off, you don’t have to fight gravity, so all you need is cheap but strong underwater infrastructure. An ocean farm is easily tended from a boat and doesn’t require the expensive inputs needed by most aquaculture and land-based farms. Crucially, we don’t have to feed or water “crops” once we seed them. Being in coastal waters means they often benefit from the nutrient-rich run-off from fertilised land farms. And the farms are visually low impact, with just some buoys visible above the water.

You call your farms “restorative”. Why?

Kelp is among the world’s fastest growing plants, so it could absorb large quantities of carbon from the atmosphere, making it the perfect crop for helping to mitigate climate change. And each oyster can filter 50 gallons of water a day. Many aquatic ecosystems suffer from excessive nitrogen, mostly from fertiliser from industrial farms. Shellfish pull that nitrogen out of the water. And we’re not catching many fish, so vertical farms become artificial reefs, havens for hundreds of species. Finally, the farms are strong yet flexible, helping to protect the coastline from storm surges.

Source: Screen scrape from GreenWave.org.

Remind me not to eat the oysters.

Trying to retain my alleged contrarian attitude, I can’t help noticing he hasn’t really broken his most basic orientation – exploitation of the the resource. Rather than work for, say, protection of a specific area of the ocean from human exploitation, he’s simply found a different way to do it.

And, given our hideous over-population, it’s not surprising. I’m not sure any productive area of the planet can NOT be exploited for human purposes, given the pressures inherent in population and human drives. So I suppose he can justify his work on the theme that a few highly productive areas will permit the balance of the ocean to proceed relatively naturally, in the classic (i.e., humans are not part of the natural order – which is sheer nonsense, but the concept does exist and has some usefulness in the form of expression) sense, with only a little bit of human intrusion.

Although I’d still like to see a concerted effort to remove shipwrecks from the sea.

Bren’s organization is named GreenWave. From their flowchart:

It’s been a busy day, and for maybe the first time in two years my opinion center feels burned out. However, while attending a concert by The Fairlanes with my Arts Editor tonight, it occurred to me there’s another weakness to the team politics position that I’ve harped on a couple of times.

Briefly, and it doesn’t require anything more, team politics is simply voting straight ticket for your Party, regardless of how you feel about any particular candidate. I’ve critiqued this position previously, as you can see if you click here. But as we watch the debacle in Washington continue, I’ve been rather dismayed that its continuance is not reflected in the polls.

I would expect sober citizens, observing the self-indulgent antics of the President, as well as the frantic lying of his support staff, would have stepped away in droves, so an approval rating near 40% is dismaying. But this is also profoundly illustrative of the point I’d like to make.

Think about how difficult questions are answered – through debate, intellectual confrontation, argument, and dissension. That last concept is important, because it embodies a very important corollary – the willingness to take a disagreement right to the end point, to break ranks and walk away.

And team politics forbids that.

The very tactic asserted as highly important by Party leaders takes away an important tool in critiquing and improving Party ideology. If you’re staring at the circus in Washington and wondering just how Representative Ryan and company can pass the AHCA and celebrate it, here’s your answer. There is no criticism they need really fear. Oh, sure, the first try failed, because it was too moderate – the extremists are least susceptible to the Party ideology. But they took a little time to work over the moderates, amended the Bill slightly (let’s not pretend it was improved) to get the extremists on board, warned everyone about Party discipline, and rammed it home while everyone was wavering.

So what are left with? A wee bit of discussion, but the elite of the Party dictate, because the general membership cannot pick and choose. They’re in or they’re out, on their honor.

And so they elected honorless politicians who tell their base what they want to hear – and not the truth. There is no picking and choosing because of incompetency or worse. He made it on the ballot with the ‘R’ following his name, he’ll be voted for.

And the consequences, so far, are that we are the laughingstock of the world.

And what do I fear? That the Democrats will stalk down the same path, the un-American path of unending loyalty to some Party – rather than principle.

The independent voter may be the savior of the United States.

In case you were wondering about the origin of the information that Comey enjoyed wide respect within the FBI, it’s mentioned in today’s Senate hearing. Quinta Jurecic covers it in a live blog on Lawfare, and here’s her encapsulation:

[Senator] Heinrich: Is it true, as White House is saying, the FBI agents no longer supported Comey?

[Acting FBI Director] McCabe: That is not accurate. I worked very closely with Comey and hold him in highest regard; working with him was “greatest honor and privilege of my professional life.” Comey enjoyed broad support within FBI and still does today. Vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep and positive connection with Comey.

It’s fairly dry stuff, but can give a sense of how these hearings go – and what the various intelligence services are not willing to reveal in open session. It’s interesting in that the current Administration has put forth, among other reasons, the suggestion that the FBI employees had lost faith in Comey; this suggests yet another lie from Trump.

Ya gotta wonder how much further this is going to go. It feels like the whole debacle is going to come to a head like some horrid zit, and then explode, covering not just those who voted for Trump, but all the rest of us Americans, in a coating of dishonor and disgust.

BTW, this is interesting. A special election for a state house seat in an Oklahoma district which went for Trump in a big way – +50 points better than Clinton – was just held. It was won by the GOP:

After the votes were counted, Taylor won with 50.48 percent. The Tuesday election was the closest victory in the district since Newell’s first election victory when he garnered 61 percent of the vote. Seminole has been represented by a Republican since that election in 2010.

Another signal of an oncoming disaster? Is Team GOP falling apart – as well it should? Reportedly Senator McConnell will not consider any special investigations of the Trump Administration, as Steve Benen notes:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who’s done as much as anyone to shield Trump from any kind of accountability in the Russia scandal, said, “Today, we’ll no doubt hear calls for a new investigation, which could only serve to impede the current work being done.”

Oh. We’re apparently supposed to believe investigating the scandal would interfere with an investigation of the scandal.

McConnell isn’t alone. The entire Republican leadership in both chambers has decided to endorse Trump’s actions, including House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who broke his silence yesterday afternoon to endorse the White House’s position. …

These are the kind of introspective questions for which GOP leaders simply have no use. Trump is on their “team,” and there’s nothing else they need to know.

This is really an outstanding example of the bankruptcy of team politics, as I’ve noted before. Amazing incompetency and buffoonery, the power-hungry are positively leaping out of the bushes to slake their thirst – and a GOP so mesmerized by their own prizes that they fail to see the oncoming disaster.

Or Senator McConnell has a hand behind his back, fingers crossed. Is he that devious? I doubt it, but I’d love to be proven wrong.

Abnegate:

to refuse or deny oneself (some rights, conveniences, etc.); reject; renounce. [Dictionary.com]

Seen in ”Another Addition to the Chevron Anticanon: Judge Kavanaugh on the “Major Rules” Doctrine,” Asher Steinberg, The Narrowest Grounds:

To a certain cast of mind, the most heroic thing the Article III judiciary can do, at least in a post-Brown world, is to make law abnegating its lawmaking power.  So I have to comment on last Monday’s dissent from Judge Kavanaugh in the D.C. Circuit’s net-neutrality case on his discovery of the “major rules” exception to Chevron.

Ya gotta like the humor.

Katherine Martinko on Treehugger.com comments on the recent report from the World Resource Institute regarding the reduction of consumption:

This topic tends to be avoided in corporate boardrooms because it challenges the traditional business model that has proven so economically successful; but the WRI argues that a transition to alternative models of providing goods and services to consumers is inevitable. It’s better for companies to get on board with this now, to start exploring and innovating, to figure out ways of “delinking from increasing resource and environmental impact,” than to be irrelevant and outdated with the inevitable arrival of more transformational companies in the near future.

The WRI’s paper makes three recommendations as a starting point for businesses to become aware of resource limitations:

1. Do the math by looking openly and honestly at their dependency on natural resources and the associated limits on business growth;
2. Take a leadership role by using their influence to change the conversation with key stakeholders; and
3. Transform the business to one that will thrive in a resource-constrained environment.

Consumers are driving this change, too. People are catching on to key phrases like “circular economy,” “cradle to cradle,” and “eco-efficiency,” wanting to see these associated with the products they buy. A shift is happening already, and the sooner big companies realize this and start rethinking their use of resources, the better off we’ll all be.

This is all oddly reminiscent of a story from last year about Millenials not driving cars, and how this was forcing businesses to relocate from office parks in the suburbs, which are generally unserviced by mass transit, into the downtowns, where at least buses will provide service. The managers seemed shocked at this revelation that the Millenials didn’t care to drive – whether for environmental reasons or just not interested in driving (with the associated costs). The behaviors of the oncoming generations will change as their perceptions of how the behaviors of preceding generations have shaped their own reality – and their own chances of survival of themselves and their children.

If they see this as a matter of moral behavior, then companies who do not incorporate that thinking into their economic models may run into some unpleasant surprises.

Spaceweather.com has a violently lovely time lapse of the rise and collapse of a filament of magnetism here. Here’s a screen scrape:

It’s strangely beautiful, acting as if it’s in the midst of a hurricane. More here (look down the page).

To hear Andrew Sullivan tell it in New York Magazine, Trump isn’t really a Republican – he’s a Reactionary. Sullivan presents a long, fascinating article defining the recurring phenomenon and interviews with some of its leading proponents. I’m still mostly absorbing the material, but I did have to note one thing – the intellectuals of the movement do seem to ring some false notes.

For example, this paragraph summarizes Professor Charles Kesler of Claremont McKenna College, and editor of the Claremont Review of Books:

It was an act of desperation, he explained. In classic reactionary fashion, he believes that we are living through a crisis of American democracy. The Claremont consensus (to put a name on this strain of thought) holds that beneath the veneer of constitutional democracy, we are actually governed by a soft despotism of permanent experts, bureaucrats, pundits, and academics who ignore the majority of the American people. This elite has encouraged a divisive social transformation of the country, has led us into disastrous wars, and has created a deepening economic crisis for the middle class. Anyone — anyone — who could challenge this elite’s power was therefore a godsend.

This requires me to believe that the Iraq War was a common decision taken by a professional elite for hidden reasons – and not the decision by the Bush / Cheney administration, taken in contravention of intelligence resources, agencies later proven right, that Saddam Hussein had indeed rid himself of weapons of mass destruction such as poison gases. If I must discard as a reason motives of revenge, personal loathing, and avarice, then I shall also discard Professor Kesler’s apparent conspiracy theory, as it appears to have a logical weakness, and instead consider more probable the bidding of the military-industrial complex as we were warned about by President Eisenhower.

Another example is that of computer programmer Curtis Yarvin, writing as Mencius Moldbug on Unqualified Reservations, who Andrew reports making some dubious sweeping statements. First, he defines the “Cathedral” as an elite amalgam of universities and mainstream press. Then:

And the Cathedral has plainly failed. “If we imagine the 20th century without technical progress, we see an almost pure century of disaster,” Yarvin writes, despairing from his comfy 21st-century perch. His solution is not just a tyrannical president who hates all that the Cathedral stands for but something even more radical: “the liquidation of democracy, the Constitution and the rule of law, and the transfer of absolute power to a mysterious figure known only as the Receiver, who in the process of converting Washington into a heavily armed, ultra-profitable corporation will abolish the press, smash the universities, sell the public schools, and transfer ‘decivilized populations’ to ‘secure relocation facilities’ where they will be assigned to ‘mandatory apprenticeships.’ ”

This is 21st-century fascism, except that Yarvin’s Receiver would allow complete freedom of speech and association and would exercise no control over economic life. Foreign policy? Yarvin calls for “a total shutdown of international relations, including security guarantees, foreign aid, and mass immigration.” All social policy also disappears: “I believe that government should take no notice whatsoever of race — no racial policy. I believe it should separate itself completely from the question of what its citizens should or should not think — separation of education and state.”

A mix of rousing rhetoric and highly unstable system prescriptions, it skips rapidly over the hard work of an honest appraisal of the foundations, and on to the easy work of applying logic. He wants to just assert that it’s been a century of disaster – never mind the recognition and response to the political problems we’ve encountered (i.e., the United Nations), the development of humanitarian organizations, recognition of ecological desolation and how to begin returning the environment to a better condition (nevermind how hard that question can be to answer). In a sense, I’ve read similar crap from other computer-oriented folks since the ’80s – and have real troubles taking it seriously. Programmers, by the nature of the trade, have to make simplifying assumptions, and sometimes they are wrong, wrong, wrong. (Been there, done that.) Noting the flow of how he wrote that, it raises the red flags for me – someone who thinks they have wonderful insights – but has only skimmed to fortify his own predilection, not dug in deeply to question his own desired conclusions.

Or perhaps Andrew is right in the first instance, and Curtis is just putting forth an immense intellectual trick.

It’s worth taking a look at his article, especially if your bewilderment quotient is currently high – a peek behind the curtain that other people are holding.

Sometimes a failure to think comes across the ol’ virtual desk. In this case, someone chose to visit Cuba and then wrote up a report without really thinking much about it. It ended up in my mail, but you can find the full report here on ExpatExchange. Here’s a representative paragraph:

Outside Havana, the country is still in the 19th century. Many people walk, but equally as many use horses, both to ride and pull carts. I saw wagons pulled by oxen on the highway. We traveled by motor coach, stayed in crude motels, and ate in restaurants; all owned by the government. Staying clean was a challenge. In the public restrooms washing your hands was interesting. You need three things to wash your hands; water, soap, towel to dry. Well the towel was your shirt or pants, because there never was any towels. In 1/3 of the toilets there was no water and in one case, there was a lady standing beside the sink with a bottle of water to pour over your hands. In an equal number of places, there was no soap.

I don’t doubt it’s true. In fact, I rather appreciate the report to this point, as I’d probably not do the same trip myself, even if I did biking. But then his or her brain shuts down:

Glad I went, but have no desire to return. Cuba makes our inner cities look like paradise and the poverty is staggering. After two weeks abroad, we flew home and I spent the night in a Hampton Inn at the Atlanta airport, before catching an early morning flight back to Seattle. Took the longest hot water shower every after having a cheeseburger, fries and two gin & tonics for dinner. I was really glad to be back

Dedicated to all Bernie Sanders supporters and other DUMMYCRATS that believe “Government Socialism” is so much better than our country that was built on “Capitalism.”

Indeed? And, ah, did you find the same problems in Sweden, Denmark, and Finland?

It’s a pity, really. He (I’ll make the assumption) could have used the current condition of Cuba to discuss the importance of natural resources, the problems of overpopulation, the fallacies of authoritarianism (which is the proper description of Cuba) – and no doubt several other topics which escape my attention. Instead, he lapses into political gunnery, using a mislabeled example of a country embargoed by the United States decades ago, of a country which might be in trouble even if it was “free” – take a look at the history of Cuba at the time of the Revolution.

It’s a pity, really. An opportunity wasted on stupid political points.

For those interested in on the ground reports of Cuba, my cousin Scott went last year. He knows something about Cuba’s history, so his report is fascinating reading. I recommend it.

She’s located out in our parking lot at work. At first, she’d squawk and run, and sometimes pull the old “I have a broken wing” trick. Quite interesting, really. But now?

She just glares at us. Sometimes yells at us. Her mate watches from a distance.

I wonder if he thinks Omelette, too.

Evolutionarily, it makes sense. Ever feel hungry? It’s caused by a hormone named ghrelin. Apparently it’s multi-use, as Clare Wilson reports in NewScientist (29 April 2017):

But there is also evidence that ghrelin can enhance cognition. Animals fed reduced-calorie diets have better mental abilities. Injecting ghrelin into mice improves their performance in learning and memory tests, and seems to boost the number of connections in their brains.

Now Jeffrey Davies at Swansea University, UK, and his team have found further evidence that ghrelin can stimulate brain cells to divide and multiply, a process called neurogenesis. When they added the hormone to mouse brain cells grown in a dish, it switched on a gene known to trigger neurogenesis.

So if your immediate problem is a lack of food, you get sharper; but once you’ve satisfied that, you go into drowse mode. And then the tiger takes you.

So far, it’s not clear if fasting helps protect the brain, but it’s an interesting thought. Personally, I find “hunger headaches” to be blinding.

FBI Director Comey has been dismissed by President Trump while in the midst of investigating President Trump – power politics at its most despicable. Here’s the statement:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
ADVERTISING
inRead invented by Teads

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 9, 2017

Statement from the Press Secretary

Today, President Donald J. Trump informed FBI Director James Comey that he has been terminated and removed from office. President Trump acted on the clear recommendations of both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

“The FBI is one of the Nation’s most cherished and respected institutions and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of law enforcement,” said President Trump.

A search for a new permanent FBI Director will begin immediately.

Benjamin Wittes and Susan Hennessey of Lawfare:

The question before us now is whether Trump will get away with it. There is no question that the President has the legal authority to remove the FBI director. But there’s also no question that removing the FBI Director in the midst of a high-stakes investigation of Russian influence in the inner circle of the President’s campaign and White House is a horrifying breach of every expectation we have of the relationship between the White House and federal law enforcement.

What’s more, there is also no question that members of Congress, particularly members of the Senate, who are concerned about the integrity of that investigation and, more broadly, about preventing the gross political intervention in ongoing law enforcement and intelligence operations have tools at their disposal. We expect them to use those tools, as every American should.

Jonah Goldberg on National Review:

3) I keep reading that this is a “Nixonian” move. I get it. But that’s not clear. President Nixon fired people in the vain hope that he could stop the bleeding. There’s no evidence that Trump was trying to kill an investigation — yet.

4) Moreover, Nixon was a brilliant, cynical politician. I have a hard time seeing the political brilliance in this decision. Trump does not help himself with this line from his letter to Comey:

While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.

I get what President Trump thinks he’s doing by saying this, but politically it’s the equivalent of saying “It’s not about the money.”

Kevin Drum:

So what’s the real reason? Well…the FBI is investigating the ties between Russia and Trump’s campaign. If I were president while that was going on, I probably wouldn’t want someone running the agency who was eager to prove that he could get tough on my party too. Much better to have a friendly face running things. I imagine that Trump feels the same way.

But it feels like a big old hand in the air saying GUILTY!

Should this be labeled FBI or Trump Administration?

I wonder if this really qualifies as a silencing of Comey, however. He knows what he knows – and the Senate can subpoena him for further testimony as a private citizen. I don’t know how much he’s bound not to answer as a former Director – but his information remains fresh and hot.

But will the investigation continue? I suppose, like a headless chicken, it may run around until the deputy Director, Andrew McCabe, puts an end to it – if he does. But McCabe appears to be the choice of Comey, so we may see a very hurried choice by Trump for a new director. This must be confirmed by the Senate, however – and will the Senate permit itself to be hurried by an erratic Administration?

The political drama continues, while we blow about like a pennant in a hurricane. Will Trump’s successor have an intellectual understanding that there are fundamental differences between governments and corporations? If not, this will just continue.

I think this is a bit of marketing genius on the part of the Democrats. Steve Benen reports:

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) appeared on the show on Friday, the day after House Republicans passed their far-right health care bill, and he raised an interesting idea.

The Republican representative in the neighboring district, Rep. John Faso (R-N.Y.), backed his party’s regressive plan, took his office’s phones off the hook, and decided not to host a local event to explain to his constituents why he’d voted for legislation that would do so much deliberate harm.

Maloney told Rachel on the show that if Faso wouldn’t talk to voters in his own district, answering their questions about health care, Maloney would do it for him. “I think every Republican who voted for this thing ought to have to stand in front of their voters and explain it,” the congressman said. “And if it takes a Democrat to go in and do it for them for a while, I’ll explain what is in this bill. And if he doesn’t like it, he should stand up and explain it himself.”

Wow. I cannot imagine being a Republican who just had a neighboring sitting Democratic Representative come and speak in his district. The embarrassment. The humiliation. What self-respecting voter would possibly consider voting for the guy if he’s not willing to come and defend his vote?

This is starting to stink of Tammany Hall.

I’d been mulling over a hypothetical chain of logically connected incidents, but it turns out it may already be underway in Missouri. glesslib (“an old blue lady”) on The Daily Kos explains:

I have, over the past two years, noticed a marked increase in the number of assisted living facilities in [Columbia, MO], as well as senior apartments and condominiums.  Granted, Columbia is growing a lot, but the number of these senior apartments in a college town is amazing.  At the same time, hospitals in small rural towns in Missouri are struggling to stay afloat.  More will close, if Medicaid is cut.  And that’s something our state legislature is always looking to cut.

As those small hospitals close and our population ages, the time has come where these two problems collide, and that collision brings moves from small towns to cities.  Cities like Columbia.

When there is no hospital in a small town, or the doctors begin retiring, or a peron develops a health issue that sends him or her for medical assistance an hour away, it’s a real wake-up call as to what will happen in a serious medical emergency.  So, if the health care leaves, the people won’t be far behind, starting with the oldest and most vulnerable. And when the people leave those little towns die.  And when those little towns die they don’t need some teapartying, Medicaid-cutting, underemployed lawyer to represent them in Jefferson City.

That’s what I’ve been thinking. Then she continues.

As people move to larger metropolitan areas, even if it’s just a city of one hundred thousand like Columbia,, over time, their thinking begins to change.  They become more cosmopolitan.  It takes time, but they become less susceptible to the classic GOP scares.  Pretty soon, perhaps two or three election cycles, the legislature isn’t just a place favorite sons of small towns come to become semi- important. Hopefully government will begin to mean something again.

That hadn’t occurred to me.

The GOP has come to be the party of stasis – but in this era, stasis doesn’t even apply to monuments. Against the broad background of the inevitable demographic shifts of the Boomers aging and going away, the refusal to provide proper medical care may bring reprisals from their own base. (Curiously enough, this may bring to the fore the problem of different sectors of society, and the mistake of applying one’s methods to another.)

There may be an opening, but whether or not the Democrats are able to take advantage of it is is another question.

Sarah Tate Chambers on Lawfare summarizes the Rivello and Steele cases (the latter featuring a Minnesota rogue lawyer), which are crimes enabled by the Internet. Here’s some detail on the case against Mr. Rivello:

On December 15, 2016, Kurt Eichenwald received a tweet from Twitter user @jew_goldstein that a flashing strobe GIF superimposed with the text, “YOU DESERVE A SEIZURE FOR YOUR POSTS.”

When Eichenwald viewed the tweet, he did in fact have a seizure, which lasted for eight minutes. According to the New York Times, he lost feeling in his left hand and had trouble speaking for several weeks afterwards. …

Three days after Rivello was arrested on federal charges in Maryland, the State of Texas, where Eichenwald lives, indicted Rivello on the charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, defining the deadly weapon as “a Tweet and a Graphics Interchange Format (GIF) and an Electronic Device and Hands.” The state attached a hate-crime enhancement, claiming that Rivello targeted Eichenwald primarily because of Rivello’s prejudice against Jews, as defined either by faith or descent. The significance of this enhancement is underscored by the anti-Semitism displayed by some of those who have rallied behind Rivello.

It may sound funny, but it’s a reality, and so long as we have the Internet and self-playing files, these sordid expressions of hate will continue. I suppose the silver lining is that at least we know the cockroaches of society do still exist and how to find them, but it’s not much consolation.

NewScientist (29 April 2017) is reporting that a new study indicates the legalization of medical marijuana may lead to a reduction in the use of opioids for pain reduction.

In the US, 28 states have legalised medical marijuana in some form. Conditions sometimes treated with cannabis include pain, depression, nausea, psychosis and seizures.

Now, an analysis of data from 2007 to 2014 has shown that states with legalised medical marijuana spent less than others on prescriptions for those five conditions through Medicaid, a scheme for people on low incomes.

The study couldn’t prove that medical marijuana caused this difference. But no difference was found in prescriptions for conditions unlikely to be treated with cannabis.

This is important because of the opioid epidemic the United States has been experiencing of late. However, are the forces opposed to marijuana legalization willing to accept defeat if this study is confirmed through other studies? I don’t really understand opposition as it is, so I can’t really guess.

Iran held its second of three presidential debates, and the focus turned to that irritant under their hide – the nuclear deal. Rohollah Faghihi reports in AL Monitor:

The most controversial issue during the second debate, which dealt with political and social issues, was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). At the time of its signing in 2015, many conservatives expressed staunch criticism of the nuclear deal, but during the May 5 debate, Ghalibaf and fellow conservative Ebrahim Raisi both vowed to protect the JCPOA and remain committed to it. However, they said that they do not consider the deal as perfect, and questioned the Rouhani administration’s ability to take sufficient advantage of it. Indeed, Ghalibaf and Raisi likened the nuclear deal to a check Rouhani “is not able to cash.”

In response, Rouhani challenged Ghalibaf’s and Raisi’s command of the details of the nuclear crisis, saying, “What do you know about the JCPOA that [compels] you to talk like this?” In response, Raisi said, “When Mr. Rouhani was the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council [1989-2005], a meeting was held between him and me, and I told him that we had received some reports about the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty], and I asked him if he was aware of this, but he said [let’s] talk about it later.”

Rouhani also accused his rivals — and the conservative camp more broadly — of plotting to kill the nuclear deal while being “jubilant” about the election of US President Donald Trump, since he had pledged to tear up the JCPOA during his campaign. Noting the installment of anti-negotiation billboards by the Tehran municipality headed by Ghalibaf during the nuclear talks, Rouhani said, “If the JCPOA was acceptable to you, then why did you install billboards across Tehran, and spoke in that way with the [Iranian] negotiators. … Your talk was similar to the statements of [Iran’s] opponents, including the Wahhabists [Saudi Arabia] and the Zionists [Israel].”

It’s interesting how the conservatives on both sides of the conflict hate the instrument of peace. Perhaps the conflict itself gives them a reason to exist? Granted, on the American side there’s more to it; what about the Iranian side?

A live blog of the debate by Golnaz Esfandiari is on RadioFreeEurope / RadioLiberty.