Monthly Archives: June 2017

Being an engineer, and thus burdened with this irrational urge towards excessive precision, I should preface this screed with the statement that my main exposure to progressives is The Daily Kos Spam mail, so perhaps it’s atypical. But, well, consider this representative paragraph:

While this is the common thought process of the red-faced American bunker dweller, it is not normal logic for any supposedly functioning member of society. The man remains paranoid and only barely hinged, and we cannot suppose his behavior will improve as the pressures of the office continue to rapidly mount. He might indeed fire the special counsel; he might institute a brand new war just to bask in the praise of his generals. There are no limits, and no external Republican forces willing to rein the lunatic in if he were to do any of those lunatic things.

It’s insulting – not only to Trump, which I don’t mind, but also to their fellow Americans. It’s callow, condescending, pretentious, and fairly much designed to ensure their agenda, their plan for America, is viewed with distaste, even outright loathing, by anyone not in their little tribe.

You worry about our future robot overlords? Given the attitude of the progressives, I’d say the conservative’s worry about future Progressive overlords is nothing to dismiss. There is a certain know-it-all attitude that was brought to a sharp point by my recent post concerning Professor Steinberg’s desire to teach ethics and wisdom, because they strike me as smart people – but not necessarily wise people.

I do read selected articles from The Daily Kos Spam, not because I agree or disagree with their opinions, but mainly for topics that might interest me. Rarely are they worth quoting; I’m actually more likely to wash myself afterwards. And these are folks for whom I could sympathize – because their arguments, stripped of their withering condescension, often make good sense.

On a related note, I’ve been meditating on this article by Nick Hanauer in Business Insider for about a month now. Note this guy’s attitude right from the get-go:

From the fear-mongering headlines marking passage of $15 statutes in New York and California, you would think nobody ever dared raise the minimum wage before.

“Raising minimum wage risky,” the Lexington (Kentucky) Herald-Leader tersely warned.

“Raising minimum wage hurts low-skill workers,” the Detroit News bluntly declared.

“Even left-leaning economists say it’s a gamble,” Vox solemnly cautioned.

Nonsense. We have been raising the minimum wage for 78 years, and as a new study clearly reveals, 78 years of minimum-wage hikes have produced zero evidence of the “job-killing” consequences these headline writers want us to fear.

In a first-of-its-kind report, researchers at the National Employment Law Project pore over employment data…

I don’t know the precise political position of Hanauer – so I shan’t lump him in with the callow progressives. But he’s definitely out to score political points on our conservative siblings and up the resentment quotient, not to win an argument. Why do I say that? I mean, we can always say that by winning, we mean we’ve vanquished the enemy, driven him from his lands, burned his crops, and raped his women and children. Right?

But we’re not having an argument with an evil enemy, we’re having this argument with our fellow citizens. These are our fellow taxpayers, the folks who grow the food we eat, drive the trucks, invent new medications, doctor our wounds, and run our clothing stores. They’re not our fucking enemies.

And, having read Libertarian rags for 30 years, I know somewhat how the argument runs – this isn’t just some vague theological gesturing, the economic case is built on reasoning concerning how businesses, faced with higher labor costs, will reallocate resources and classify tasks. Some tasks will be moved from the maybe necessary category to the unnecessary category, and management will work to drive productivity even higher, and thus jobs will be lost.

It’s an understandable argument, even for non-economists like me. I’ll bet it makes a lot of sense to businessmen, especially those who think that being a businessman makes them an economics expert.

So when Hanauer uses this new study, a “first-of-its-kind report,” as a war club to beat up a position with which he disagrees, I’ll tell you I very deliberately picked war club as a metaphor. There will be no quarter in the war Hanauer wants to fight.

And that’s the problem – going to war with the other side. Losers in America are rarely appreciative of being losers. They brim with resentment, with grudges, with a sullen, hidden vengeful attitude.

Worse yet, today we have a GOP that should be incandescent with pride over controlling the government – but is instead showing itself to be incompetent in all but one respect – getting itself elected. It can’t govern, it can’t formulate a governing philosophy, write competent bills, or damn near anything else (did they win the Congressional baseball game?). The Party faithful are having their faces rubbed in their leaders’ absolute failures.

And then having some dolt call their economic reasoning idiotic to their faces?

Resentment will just reign supreme. We’ve had to deal with that since at least the Civil War. It’s not been pretty.

Let me be clear: I am separating the message from the messenger. If the conclusions of the study are confirmed, which is another point which bears noting, then I think that’s fascinating. But this sort of finding shouldn’t be used to call someone else an idiot. It’s unproductive. We’re all in this together, folks, and we should be working together on understanding how economics works. It’s not enough to say that the guys with degrees are working on it, because this is a science that impacts all of us. And, as we should all know, the GOP is currently not even paying attention to experts – only to ideology. Therefore, new knowledge like this should be integrated with the common (and academic) understanding of economics, that understanding that many folks share concerning the dismal science, and shown how it overrides or swamps the reasoning I mentioned above.

It’s commonly understood that getting knifed in the back leads to hurt feelings, but getting knifed in the front generally also leads to hurt feelings. Delivering a superior argument requires neither, though – just a mature messenger.

Pablum:

Pablum is a processed cereal for infants originally marketed by the Mead Johnson Company in 1931. The trademarked name is a contracted form of the Latin word pabulum, which means “foodstuff”. The name had long been used in botany and medicine to refer to nutrition or substances of which the nutritive elements are passively absorbed.

The word can also refer to something that is bland, mushy, unappetizing, or infantile. [Wikipedia]

I just used it in a previous post. Best I understand all the words I use, eh?

… you often mistake one thing for another. Rebecca Ingber takes on the topic of the “Deep State” on Lawfare:

So then what about that dastardly career bureaucracy, twiddling its thumbs inside its sealed SCIFs from D.C. to Virginia? Do they share any of the blame? Let’s break down the reasons the Deep State is not out to get the President: First, assertions about a “Deep State” within the U.S. government do not begin to describe the reality of working for this large, disaggregated, messy bureaucracy. (In the interests of full disclosure, I formerly served as a career attorney with the U.S. State Department, the mother of all bureaucracies, where I worked for several years and across two political administrations.) Second, what the President sees as a resistance movement directed at him personally is largely, though probably not exclusively, what I call the “neutral friction” of a huge organization that does not change course on a dime, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. And third, while it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to steer the mammoth executive branch bureaucracy, the President is himself making a difficult job impossible by not only failing to make his own appointments at every level throughout that bureaucracy, but openly antagonizing those individuals who continue to work in it.

The Deep State as such does not exist.

The Real Bureaucrats of DC likely find it partly amusing and partly bewildering that so much of the country imbues them, collectively, with such power, and such organized power in particular. They may also quite reasonably find it insulting that, having in many cases given up higher salaries and certainly better offices for the privilege of working long nights and weekends to serve their country through multiple presidencies across political lines, they are being painted as traitors or at the very least political hacks. But far from an organized cabal of conniving puppeteers, these faceless bureaucrats are just people like you and me. (And, as I mentioned, one of them once was me.) They go to work every day, put dinner on the table at night, procrastinate, gripe, and generally do the best they can at their jobs, whether or not they are enamored of their boss that day. There is a certain degree of organization among the career ranks, but look at an org chart: the real, organized ties between offices and agencies, and up from the line officials to the cabinet secretaries, are drawn through individuals who are politically appointed. As I’ll discuss below, those placements are within the President’s power to control. And at the moment, those seats are generally vacant, leaving those offices rudderless, often run by career officials trying to keep the ship afloat the best they can, at times without support or direction from or clear lines of communication to those above them.

Transplant a real estate mogul into the Presidency, with so little preparation that it probably counts as nothing – and what did you expect? The problem, of course, was making Alice in Wonderland promises, and that enough people were gullible and desperate enough to believe them.

But as important as it is to get the Nation through this period of incompetency and mendacity, we also need folks who are thinking somewhat more long-term: What comes next?

Is it still viable to run a nation using the political amateurs? Conversely, is it ever safe to run a nation using professional politicos? (I use that phrase to emphasize the politicos who run for office, not the members of the bureaucracy.) This might characterize the politicians of Britain and Australia, who appear to see everything in terms of politics and not necessarily reality.

In the end, we have the often overworked and overwhelmed ignorant selecting power-hungry politicians who hardly understand the institutions for which they run, but they happen to know how to pander to the local biases. Our Founding Fathers believed in a wisdom of the masses (or at least recognized that incompetent government was better than pitchforks and torches in hands of the angry mob).

But, honestly, who’s going to run for the Presidency from either party – and be worthy? There’s no one in the GOP, no one at all. Their “deep bench” of last year was really quite horrid, in my view. And the Democrats, now that Clinton is too old and – barely – rejected, are also lacking. O’Malley doesn’t seem to be getting traction, and I can’t tell if he’s competent in any case. He needs to demonstrate he can do the job. And after him? Lincoln Chaffee? Elizabeth Warren? I suspect she’s more effective as a Senator than a President, but maybe they’ll have to run her for lack of anyone else.

I might consider Joe Biden, simply because he knows the job and isn’t too much of a loon – but he’s too old as well. So’s Bernie Sanders.

And this should serve as a partial blueprint of the next campaign. Sure, you have ideology, you have too much, in fact – show us your competency. Show us you’ve studied government and understand what it’s about. You’ve looked at the current issues and you know who to consult.

This is what I worry about.

Selection pressure refers to the factors in the environment which shape the evolution of a species through reducing reproductive success. This is the biological definition, more or less, but, slightly loosened, it can also apply to less tangible aspects of, say, a society. Scientific American interviewed Cornell University psychologist Robert Sternberg regarding his lecture given when he received the William James Fellow Award. It’s on the American educational system. His concerns? That we don’t teach wisdom.

Tests like the SAT, ACT, the GRE—what I call the alphabet tests—are reasonably good measures of academic kinds of knowledge, plus general intelligence and related skills. They are highly correlated with IQ tests and they predict a lot of things in life: academic performance to some extent, salary, level of job you will reach to a minor extent—but they are very limited. What I suggested in my talk today is that they may actually be hurting us. Our overemphasis on narrow academic skills—the kinds that get you high grades in school—can be a bad thing for several reasons. You end up with people who are good at taking tests and fiddling with phones and computers, and those are good skills but they are not tantamount to the skills we need to make the world a better place. …

Do we know how to cultivate wisdom?
Yes we do. A whole bunch of my colleagues and I study wisdom. Wisdom is about using your abilities and knowledge not just for your own selfish ends and for people like you. It’s about using them to help achieve a common good by balancing your own interests with other people’s and with high-order interests through the infusion of positive ethical values.

You know, it’s easy to think of smart people but it’s really hard to think of wise people. I think a reason is that we don’t try to develop wisdom in our schools. And we don’t test for it, so there’s no incentive for schools to pay attention.

This is a fascinating subject. Wise people I might consider to place on the list include the Dalai Lama and Pope Francis – but not Pope Benedict XVI. While I have little truck with religions in general, I do grant that, at their best, they teach the balancing of material desires with communal needs, and while some ideologies^[1] will happily suggest that communal needs are minimal, will take care of themselves, or are merely excuses for socialism, I think it’s becoming increasingly clear that this theoretical hand waving has some visible faults in it.

His brief discussion of ethical reasoning is thought-provoking:

A lost source of ethics

I don’t always think about putting ethics and reasoning together. What do you mean by that?

Basically, ethical reasoning involves eight steps: seeing that there’s a problem to deal with (say, you see your roommate cheat on an assignment); identifying it as an ethical problem; seeing it as a large enough problem to be worth your attention (it’s not like he’s just one mile over the speed limit); seeing it as personally relevant; thinking about what ethical rules apply; thinking about how to apply them; thinking what are the consequences of acting ethically—because people who act ethically usually don’t get rewarded; and, finally, acting. What I’ve argued is ethical reasoning is really hard. Most people don’t make it through all eight steps.

Granted, it’s an interview, but I was a little disturbed when he stated that those who act ethically are not rewarded. Look, people don’t do things that are not rewarding on any level; many even won’t if there’s a delay involved. It’s not human nature; it’s evolution. If you’ve just lessened your reproductive chances, or those of your group, then that choice will most likely be discarded. An ethical choice will have some benefit, perhaps in the future. Maybe your choice means a lower probability that a riot will occur in the next ten years – because your’s is but one of many similar choices made. And that lack of a riot definitely benefits you. What really happens is that by being ethical, you’ve given up immediate gratification for delayed gratification.

All that said, I enjoyed the interview. Does he really think wisdom can be taught? Or is wisdom a politically charged term? Will atheists and Baptists clash over the definition of wisdom? I do agree that how we teach children today will shape how they act tomorrow, and if we don’t find ways to teach ethics and wisdom as being part of their everyday lives, then we’ll be poorer for it. Thus we have selection pressures; if we don’t emphasize ethics and wisdom, and instead put everything on results, then we’ll end up with a poorer society. And you can define poorer any way you wish.

So then I turn around and decide to drop in on Retraction Watch, which I always find amazing. First, I’m appalled to read this:

Springer purge of fake reviews takes down 10+ more neuroscience papers

Ten more? Oh, there’s a link, let’s see HOLY SHIT!

A new record: Major publisher retracting more than 100 studies from cancer journal over fake peer reviews

¹This is quite at odds with the common definition of libertarianism, which puts the individual and his primal, tangible desires at the center of the Universe – and then preaches that, by doing so, all will be well.

²Teaching an ethics course merely teaches one how to game the system.

CNN/Media reports the retirement of one of the more famous slogans in media:

The Fox News Channel quietly dropped its “Fair and Balanced” slogan last year in an effort to move beyond the era of its former chairman and CEO, Roger Ailes.

Really? The slogan attaches to the disgraced founder that strongly? I frankly find that a little hard to believe; however, I also have some real trouble finding any other reasons as well. CNN/Media goes on:

In its place, producers have been asked to use the network’s other slogan: “Most Watched. Most Trusted” — a statement that is at least half true, insofar as Fox News maintains some of the highest ratings in cable news. The network will also introduce a new slogan soon, a source there said.

I suspect it’s completely true. After all, why watch a news station if you don’t trust the news? The era of television has made a lot of Americans passive consumers of pablum, rather than active, double checking sorts. Or even the sort who depends on other people to double check – I fall into that category, most often.

And I wonder how much damage may be attributed to the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine? It was removed in 2011, and here’s a summary of the rationale for implementation as well as abolition from Wikipedia, which I assume is, ummm, fair and balanced:

The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.^[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at all.

The reality is there is a lack of time and a tendency to nestle in that zone of media that most comforts you – and not seek out truth. The tremendous flood of information – puerile, trivial, mendacious, oddball, local, national, important, and all out fake – makes it far more difficult than I think the fair-minded have realized. We may have exposure to a thousand channels worth of news – but we don’t know what’s fake, what’s partial, and what’s slanted. Many of us no longer even know what the arguments of the opposing side might be – we only know that’s the other tribe and must be hated on (more on that in another post).

And yet, how could the FCC enforce such a doctrine on the Internet? Even cable news would be difficult. Perhaps it’d be better to offer certifications that any given channel is “fair and balanced” if they meet the standards previously created.

And then watch the politics as evolutionary biologists protest every debate with creationists, pointing out that there is no debate within scientific circles – only certain religions oppose it. Or “complementary medicine”… the mind whirls….

A reader writes concerning political training:

Local Democrat party training their candidates? In what? Kung fu? Maybe in reporting crimes, but otherwise, what the hell do you actually mean?

Operations and expectations. Everything from what positions you should expect to have to fill in your campaign staff to the mechanics of media interactions to the questions they’ll ask all the way to Here’s what do you do when someone physically assaults you. The failure to report and document the crime by Treiman leaves its very existence open to question – and could be used to darken his own reputation.

The new governor of North Carolina, Roy Cooper (D), despite facing long odds in the NC legislature, where the Republicans hold supermajorities, shows there are ways to push the legislature around. For example, if the GOP is sitting on a new redistricting plan in order to give their own side time to prepare candidates and plans, what are you going to do? DocDawg on The Daily Kos explains:

Fittingly, it’s a no-brainer strategy for state Republicans: all upside, and nothing down. Or at least it seemed that way, until Gov. Cooper turned the tables on the GOP yesterday, when he issued a proclamation:

WHEREAS, all North Carolinians have a fundamental right to have their laws enacted by a legislature composed of members elected from valid and lawful districts; and

WHEREAS, on June 5, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States in Covington v. North Carolina affirmed without dissent the unanimous decision of three federal district court judges that the General Assembly violated the United States Constitution and misinterpreted federal law in establishing twenty-eight state legislative districts in 2011;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Roy Cooper, Governor of the State of North Carolina, pursuant to Article III, Section 5(7) of the North Carolina State Constitution, do hereby proclaim an “EXTRA SESSION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY” commencing Thursday, June 8, 2017 at two o’clock in the afternoon, which shall continue until a new plan is enacted or for a period of two weeks, whichever is earlier, for the purpose of enacting new House and Senate district plans for the General Assembly that remedy the legislative districts ruled unconstitutional.

The legislature attempted to void the order, but they lack the authority. DocDawg has little sympathy:

It’s at least conceivable that, if he chose to, Cooper could order state police into the General Assembly to enforce his proclamation. But that would be quite beside the point in this chess game. The whole idea behind Cooper’s proclamation was to give Republican legislators one last chance to do the right thing — their third chance, after first drawing an unconstitutional racist map in 2011, and then failing to meet the March 15th 2017 court-ordered deadline to draw a remedial map, and then unconstitutionally defying the governor’s order to do so this week. An interesting legal argument can now be made that, having whiffed three strikes in a row, the legislature is now — or should be — out on strikes: the legislature, having abrogated its duty multiple times, has unambiguously demonstrated its bad faith. The task of drawing a new map in a timely manner must now be taken from it by the U.S. District Court and handed to a non-partisan Special Master.

In a follow on post, DocDawg reports:

… attorneys for the victorious plaintiffs in Covington v. North Carolina filed a motion for the U.S. District Court to “expeditiously consider and order relief,” by imposing a strict deadline for the legislature to act: fourteen days to draw and adopt a new map, backed up by a grant for the plaintiffs to submit their own map for the court’s consideration if the legislature misses that deadline.

He’s excited.

Stay tuned. This is wildly exciting stuff, being present at the sudden, utterly unexpected rebirth of democracy in the Tar Heel State. It really is always darkest just before the dawn.

Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes on Lawfare comment on the initial performance of Trump’s personal attorney, Marc Kasowitz:

Solon:

n. “legislator,” 1620s, from Greek Solon, name of early lawgiver of Athens, one of the seven sages. Often, especially in U.S., applied (with perhaps a whiff of sarcasm) by journalists to Congressmen, township supervisors, etc. It also is a useful short headline word. [Dictionary.com]

Seen in “In Texas, a State Supreme Court Maintains Integrity, Despite Politics,” Mark Pulliam, National Review:

The existence of partisan judicial elections, controversial in some circles, ensures ideological consistency in a red state such as Texas but also requires judges to raise money and campaign, activities that many black-robed solons find unappealing. This may explain the relatively high turnover on Texas’s supreme court, which is helmed by Chief Justice Nathan Hecht, 67, a silver-maned jurist initially elected to that venue in 1988.

This is upsetting on a couple of levels – the mayoral race for Binghamton, NY, just lost its lone Democratic candidate. Syracuse.com reports:

Michael Treiman, the only Democratic candidate for Binghamton mayor, pulled out of the race on Tuesday after receiving threats.

WNBF reports that Treiman quit one week after he announced his campaign for public office. Treiman made his announcement on Facebook, saying that he was “officially dropping out of the race as of this moment.” …

Treiman returned home at 8 p.m. after picking up his two-year-old and eleven-month-old children from a sitter. That’s when an unidentified person in a pickup truck threw a full soda container at him. Treiman said he was hit in the back as he turned to shield the child he was holding.

Treiman said the man who threw the can yelled “liberal scumbag” before driving away from the scene.

1. Reportedly, Treiman failed to report this to police immediately. This is clearly assault and battery. He doesn’t take it seriously? Then why drop out? So it’s clearly a serious incident that frightened him. He should have reported it to have a chance to catch and jail the cretin who did it.
2. The local Democratic Party has failed to adequately train their candidates to handle jabs from opponents. Sure, we think we have a civilized system – until we get crap like this. Or remember the burning of the local GOP HQ in North Carolina?
3. By leaving the race, he’s encouraged similar activities elsewhere. And then it may escalate. This, again, is a problem of the local Democratic Party not training their candidates properly.
4. And, of course, the fact that the incident happened at all is unacceptable. Intimidation is not part of our political culture – or at least it shouldn’t be. The long term consequences will be severe if this sort of thing gets out of control.

AL Monitor has a fascinating article on the fallout of the Trump trip to visit the various nations of the Middle East:

The most acrimonious split is in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which held its own private summit with the president. The Qatari emir allegedly told an audience at home just after the summit that the Saudis were placing too much trust in a president in deep political trouble at home. He also criticized the virulent rhetoric castigating Iran at the summit. Emir Shaykh Tamim bin Hamid Al Thani has publicly said the Gulf states need to engage Tehran, not isolate it. He called Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to congratulate him on his re-election. In response, the Saudis and Emiratis blocked Qatar’s Al-Jazeera network. The Qataris said the emir’s remarks had been hacked by unknown sources and misinterpreted, but they provided little evidence to support their claim.

And this part, reporting on a failure of the Qataris to be “pure” enough, sure sounds reminiscent of RINO-ism:

The Saudis next escalated the dispute with Qatar considerably. The Saudi media reported May 28 on an open letter from the Al-Shaykh family, the descendants of Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. The letter is signed by all 200 of the male descendants of the founder of Wahhabism in the kingdom. The al-Shaykhs are the al-Saud’s critical partners in the ruling of the kingdom and provide its religious legitimacy. The minister of Islamic Affairs and the grand mufti both signed the letter.

The letter accuses the emir of an unidentified Gulf emirate of falsely claiming that he is a descendant of Wahhab. This false claim is not only “fabricated” but it also is allegedly being used to misinterpret Islam. The letter demands that the bad emir change the name of the largest mosque in his country, currently named the Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab Mosque. (The largest mosque in Doha, Qatar, is in the only other Wahhabi state aside from Saudi Arabia).

Lawfare bought a bitcoin a few years ago, and just recently sold it. Paul Rosenzweig comments on the experience, and some tentative conclusions:

To this one must add another factor (one that does sound somewhat in the tone of national security).  Bitcoin has also become increasingly useful in Dark Web transactions.  The recent flood of ransomware attacks (of which WannaCry is only the most recent and the most infamous) would have been impossible without Bitcoin as a means of anonymous payment.  This too contributes to the demand for Bitcoin and, likely, the run-up in value.

It also, however, gives one pause and strikes a note of caution about the future of Bitcoin.  One has the anecdotal impression that malignant uses of Bitcoin are outstripping in frequency its use for benevolent purposes.  If that anecdotal suspicion is borne out factually, then the time of government’s hands-off approach to Bitcoin may soon come to an end.

One can imagine any number of responses.  The most benign would be stringent regulation.  More severe might be de-legalization.  In extreme need, one can even imagine governments investing in the technical capability of destroying bitcoin as a currency by attacking the blockchain.  If these suppositions are correct, then bitcoin may well have reached its peak value and our decision to sell will have proven prescient.  Or not …. We may be missing the boat here, but for now our experiment is over.

I wonder how it compares to cash in terms of untraceability.

Today we lost a dear friend, Lee Norman, to cancer. She turned a 6 month prognosis into a 5 year battle, and she brought laughter and insight and joy to everything she did, including her wonderful marriage to our old friend, Jeff. We shall miss her.

And I’ll always regret forgetting to get her to write down her story of the day she spray painted the closet, herself, and the dog. I think I pulled a muscle that night, laughing.

Godspeed, Lee.

It’s sort of like having Big Louie hanging around.

And then along comes a couple of buddies.

Seeing the local news tonight tells me that we shouldn’t weep over the Twin Cities’ weather today. We left home shortly before the storm hit, and while Deb did get drenched running from the car to the fencing venue, that was more or less all we knew until we returned home in the late afternoon. First I speculated it was just heavy water coming off the garage roof, but later my opinion changed as we found the hostas were shredded.

Deb attempted emergency surgery on the Opalka tomato plant that appeared to have taken a direct hit.

I fear that being snapped in half may have been a fatal blow. If we’d known what was coming we could have tried covering the tomatoes in upturned buckets.

They speak for themselves.

No, it’s really not two electric shavers taped together!

Thunderbird 6 (1968), a puppet movie adventure story, is an oddball medley of elements: fascinating, even revolting puppets (a scene in which puppets are shown shouting with laughter gives us glimpses down their throats, which was creepy), excellent sets and special effects (the explosion at the missile launch site is especially effective), a fairly slushy plot involving a new skyship, its rather ridiculous procedures (they apparently thought they’d never have an emergency), and a fanciful, unexplained scheme to use it in an apparent assassination or kidnapping of its inventor, the top scientist at the famed institution International Rescue, thinly drawn and, frankly, just about interchangeable characters (such as Tin Tin, who has a great name and, er, what does she do now?), and, in the end, dialog which is awful in its banality. Spoken clearly and concisely, the dialog never gives a hint in its inflection as to whether they’re about to leap into the void to escape oncoming death, or if they’re sitting around the pool, sipping cocktails.

I could not help noticing that the movie might have been improved immeasurably if, at a few specific places, we’d had glimpses, just quick, hurried glimpses, of Godzilla going about his business in the far distance. I kid you not, that really passed through the colander I use for a brain.

Imagine Godzilla off in the far distance on the left, no doubt tidying up.

From a technical point of view, it seems interesting enough, if you’re a puppeteer or, perhaps, a fan of Team America: World Police (2004). The occasional spectacle is a lot of fun. But you have to be fairly credulous to swallow the plot, and the dialog is dry sand wafers, doing nothing to help you believe in this story – or find anything useful to learn from it.

Today’s high winds and heat made everything seem a little brighter and shinier, so I took a couple of far away shots, just for fun.

Previously on this thread, we saw Martyn Williams discussing the computer tablet in North Korea, including its abilities and government-imposed security limitations. Now Nat Kretchun, also on 38 North, continues the discussion and how this information restriction strategy may be continued on desktops and other devices – and how its efficacy may be limited:

Network Expansion: Will This New Security Strategy Move Beyond Mobile Phones?

It is likely that the North Korean authorities view the introduction of mobile phones as largely successful, given the security features they have been able to include. Analysis of other devices and software such as tablet and desktop operating systems indicate that many of the defining security features of the domestic phones are also present for devices that are not connected the cellular network. This seems to suggest that authorities may be preparing for expansion of other digital networks such as the domestic intranet. This would allow the government to pursue a similar security strategy for a whole range of devices beyond mobile phones with the goal of moving citizens away from un-networked devices that authorities cannot track or control to those on government networks.

Person-to-Person Connection: A Silver Lining?

The North Korean government has been able to allow the introduction of legal mobile phones, while still maintaining some level of control of their usage. The rollout of new sophisticated censorship and surveillance tools are likely to severely limit the spread of unsanctioned media through mobile devices and open up some forms of communication to surveillance. Yet, it is also important to keep in mind what authorities are ceding. Given the availability and legality of mobile phones, North Koreans will undoubtedly experiment with the bounds of acceptable use—many already report routinely conducting quasi-legal business dealings via their mobiles.

However, mobile phones in the North still provide the potential for much greater horizontal interpersonal connection between North Koreans. The wide proliferation of legal mobile phones effectively signals the end of the regime’s former strategy of control by individual isolation. As connections between individuals continue to broaden and strengthen, aided by mobile communications, informal issue constituencies will undoubtedly form and share information—farmers will connect and talk to each other about what’s important for farmers, computer programmers will discuss computer programming and so forth. It is through those connections and the start of informal, non-state directed social organization that North Korean citizens may begin to constitute more than a collection of isolated individuals and more credibly engage in some forms of state-society negotiation. As North Korea’s society and economy continues to evolve, connection among ordinary citizens provides a way to potentially coordinate efforts to influence the direction of those changes, which could prove as transformative as the influx of foreign media the authorities are going to such great lengths to block.

I am reminded of the now-dated catchphrase, Information wants to be free!, and I wonder if this will constitute a laboratory experiment measuring the truthfulness of a phrase I’ve always considered to be somewhat disingenuous, even a bit of a cart before the horse. People want information to be free, because, at least for many, they are more efficient when they have more, and accurate, information. As North Korean authorities limit the information and connectivity of citizens, will this make them more or less productive and happy? If they can improve the average accuracy of information, then the artificial limitations may be worth it, although I have to believe that the limitations on creativity implicit in such a security system may leave them continually stealing our commercial secrets in order to keep up.

On the other hand, even in the West is the sky the limit, as we say, or are the advantages gained from connectivity and high information exchange more like an ore deposit – the top layers easily worked, but as time passes and the deposit is worked, it becomes less and less productive, requiring more and more effort? Based on my informal and anecdotal observations, I’d say yes, it’s more like an ore deposit. If so, then the limitations the North Koreans impose on their citizenry may not be so important.

Heard that some are saying that the President cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice by definition? Professor Rick Pildes disagrees, based on a SCOTUS decision, on Lawfare:

The Ethics in Government Act was created out of the recognition that the President should be taken out of the process of controlling investigations and prosecutions that involved potential crimes by himself or high-ranking government officials—i.e., close aides of the President. As the Supreme Court thought was obvious, “Congress, of course, was concerned when it created the office of independent counsel with the conflicts of interest that could arise in situations when the Executive Branch is called upon to investigate its own high-ranking officers.”

The Act created a process that could lead to the appointment of an Independent Counsel for this role, and the entire point of the Act was to insulate the Independent Counsel—and hence the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving the President and his or her top aides—from the President’s complete control. The Act essentially put the powers of the Department of Justice in the hands of the Independent Counsel: it vested him or her with the “full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers of the Department of Justice [and] the Attorney General.”

Then, to even further ensure that the President not have unfettered control when potential crimes involving himself and his top aides were at stake, the Independent Counsel, once appointed, was wrapped in several layers of additional insulation from presidential control. Thus, the only person who could remove the counsel from office was the Attorney General—and, very importantly, the Attorney General could only do that for limited and specific reasons (“good cause”), such as misconduct in office or inability to perform the counsel’s duties.* If the Attorney General did remove a counsel, the AG had to file a report with Congress and the courts stating the factual basis for this removal. And as yet further protection of the Independent Counsel, the federal courts—which were given the power to reinstate an Independent Counsel who had been illegally removed—would be the ultimate adjudicator of whether any removal was in fact for good cause.

There’s plenty more good detail, but it basically boils down to SCOTUS, back in 1988, deciding that permitting the President unfettered control of federal prosecutions, when those prosecutions involved himself and his aides, was a gaping wound, ready for infestation by the worst sorts of bacteria, once a President of poor character had assumed control; the challenged law, the Ethics in Government Act, was thus permitted to stand.

To my mind, there’s a further problem with assuming the President is immune, and that is to presume the President is ruler supreme. He’s not; he’s the Executive in charge of implementing the laws put forth by Congress, as modulated by the judiciary; to equate him to a monarch is not only repugnant, but a profound misunderstanding of our system of government. He is an elected officer of the government, much as is the Vice President. He nominates various persons for the roles we’ve developed for the government, and gives them direction to implement policy.

Just as it is important that his decisions be challenged in court, so, too, must be his conduct. Granted, nuisance suits are a danger to the country, but investigation by specially appointed counsel in extraordinary circumstance is not only necessary, it should be obvious. This appears to be something overlooked by the Founding Fathers; fortunately, SCOTUS backed up the new law when challenged in 1988.

But I am not Jason Robards!

Jason Robards takes a star turn in Murders in the Rue Morgue (1971), a rather limp rendition of the Edgar Allan Poe classic. Not having read the original story myself, I am uncertain as to the fidelity of the movie to the original story; a quick glance at the Wikipedia entry suggests the fidelity may not be high. In any case, I prefer to judge a story on its own presentation terms.

And this one lacks tension. Part of this may be attributed to the characters, who fail to engage our sympathies. Between theater director Charron (Robards) who seems queerly unaffected as members and former members of his troupe begin to die in various & gory manners, and his wife, Madeleine (Christine Kaufmann), who appears to have nightmares at the drop of a hat, but has no will of her own, it was hard to feel sympathy for the leading characters. Meanwhile, other characters who are, at best, barely sketched in, die of slit throats, so messily done, or acid thrown on them, or they simply fade away. Basically, if they survive most or all of the movie, you don’t really believe they’re human, at least not one you’d wish to know, and if they die early, the sympathy is pro forma, as we haven’t a clue as to their wives, children, political aspirations, or even their favorite rock.

Another part of the problem is the style in which the story is told. A number of times we are presented with realistic action, only to discover it was really part of Madeleine’s recurring nightmare. Now, this is perfect permissible once, perhaps even twice, but this limit is far exceeded in this movie. A famous writer^[1] may have once said, “If you’re going to break the rules, do it big, make it a virtue,” but in this case, it was not made a virtue^[2]. It was merely confusing.

Finally, the resilience of the antagonist in the face of multiple physical attacks is truly remarkable, while the stage combat instances were more or less laughable. And if an attempt is made to attribute his fortitude to sheer will and love, it didn’t click for me. Perhaps it’s a temperament thing.

All that said, the basic technical features of the film, excepting the stage combat, were competent, as was the acting. But in the end, it felt like a waste of time, for the audience, the actor, even the director.

¹Roger Zelazny, if memory serves, but I cannot find a quote online, so perhaps I misremember.

²A memorable case of such virtue would be Inception (2010).

As in In-di-go …

Depose:

to remove from a throne or other high position plotting to depose the kinga deposed military leader [Merriam-Webster]

to ask questions of a witness or a party to a lawsuit at a deposition (testimony outside of the courtroom before trial). [The Free Dictionary / Legal]

Given these two definitions of depose, there’s a certain delicious double meaning to this remark by Senator Jack Reed. From Talking Points Memo:

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked if Reed was saying Trump should make a statement under oath.

“I think that’s ultimately what will happen,” Reed said. “I would expect at some point, not right away, but at some point that Mr. Mueller will would feel he has to depose the President.”

And you’ll need $65,000 that isn’t doing you any good.

And you probably need to live in Britain.

But if you have those, then you need this:

Made by legendary car maker Morgan, it’s electric and has its limitations – but is outright gorgeous. My Arts Editor is drooling. CNN/Money got a test drive:

The topless sports car is remarkably loud for an electric vehicle and produces a satisfying “vroom” that’s sure to thrill attention-seeking drivers. (Bystanders were suitably agog during CNNMoney’s test drive.)

The UK1909 is not the most powerful car, with just 70 horsepower. And its range (150 miles per charge) is limited by its smaller frame and battery storage capacity.

They are available via department store Selfridges, and only 19 will be made. That’s one of the smaller production runs in the car world.