Monthly Archives: September 2017

The Arpaio pardon continues to stir the dust. Professor Joshua Geltzer offers the following summation on Lawfare:

Critical to the work of an amicus here would be exploring the Court’s precedent specifically on the pardon power. The leading case remains 1925’s Ex parte Grossman. That case established that a president can pardon a conviction for criminal contempt, just as Trump did for Arpaio. But it’s the underlying violation, not the contempt order sitting on top, that distinguishes Grossman from Trump’s putative pardon of Arpaio. A federal court had deemed Grossman to be running a speakeasy contrary to the law at the time and barred him from doing so. Another court found he’d continued to do so and therefore held him in contempt. President Coolidge pardoned Grossman to reduce his punishment to a fine because the President viewed imprisonment as too harsh a sentence for operating a speakeasy. That fits one traditional pardon paradigm: The President steps in to show leniency based on the particular facts of a case.

Trump’s pardon of Arpaio may be distinguishable from that. By his own account, Trump thinks Arpaio simply did nothing wrong. In this instance, the argument would go, that’s not Trump’s prerogative to determine, once the federal judiciary has found precisely the opposite by speaking to what the Constitution means in this context. Grossman itself explains that “[e]xecutive clemency exists to afford relief from undue harshness or evident mistake in the operation of enforcement of the criminal law” (emphasis added). And that’s just what Coolidge offered Grossman – some relief from enforcement of the criminal law. Trump, however, has attempted to overrule the federal judiciary’s very interpretation of the Constitution. And that, an amicus might argue, would run headlong into the separation of powers our country rightly holds so dear.

My bold. Not being a lawyer, I can only say this seems like a very fine hair to split. But it’s still a point, as Trump has strayed into the land that is supposedly the Judiciary’s private reserve – the interpretation of the law. It does seem to me that the Executive gets to interpret the law as well, but the Executive doesn’t get the last word.

Reading Steve Benen on Maddowblog this morning sparked a repeated thought in my head. First, the passage:

The Washington Post‘s Jennifer Rubin had an item yesterday, which didn’t directly reference the president’s comments, in which she noted, “You almost get the idea that the entire GOP economic philosophy is dependent on a never-ending stream of tax cuts for the rich.”

The thought was NOT that I should subscribe to WaPo in order to read the material first hand, although I probably should. The thought was related to one of my repeating themes on this blog: the problem of sector methods crossing into, and unexpectedly hindering the accomplishment of the goals of other sectors.

But this is not quite the same. For whatever reason, Jennifer’s remark focused my mind on goals rather than methods, and it suddenly occurred to me that Trump, and probably most of the GOP, has confused the goals of government with the goals of the private sector. Tax cut, tax cut, tax cut – given the current fascination with the accumulation of wealth, of which President Trump is an exemplar, taxes are viewed with loathing by the GOP. No big insight there. But if we then stipulate that the accumulation of wealth is such an important goal for members of the GOP, it doesn’t take much to suggest all they see is that when it comes to government – how it hinders their accumulation of wealth.

Now I’m back to that old tension between amateur rulers and professional rulers. I’m quite certain that Trump, nor most of politicians of either stripe, have engaged in a formal study of the purposes and methods of government. Of course, they may point proudly at informal study, but there’s be an almost inevitable slant to such studies, as they are not guided by experienced, disinterested experts. This leads to rule by amateurs who have clashing understandings of the important points of government – and may even engage in corrupt practices without realizing it. This would certainly explain Donald Trump, Jr.’s many blunders over the recent months.

The other side of the coin are professional rulers, which not only clash with American traditions of governance, but are only a short step from their own form of permanent corruption. It’s a conundrum.

Standfirst:

 (journalism) an introductory paragraph in an article, printed in larger or bolder type or in capitals, which summarizes the article [Dictionary.com]

Noted in a correction to a Nature editorial:

Editor’s note: The original version of this article was offensive and poorly worded. It did not accurately convey our intended message and it suggested that Nature is defending statues of scientists who have done grave injustice to minorities and other people. We have corrected the headline, standfirst and a line in the text to make clear we do not support keeping those memorials; our position is that any such memorials that are allowed to stand should be accompanied by context that makes the injustice clear and acknowledges the victims.

In case you thought scientists move in lockstep, Smithsonian.com delivers up a report on scientific vandals:

If you’re a scientist who wants to name a newly discovered form of life, your first step is to gather two to three lines of evidence—from DNA and morphology, for example—that prove that you’re dealing with something new to science. Then you have to obtain a holotype, or an individual of the species that will serve as an identifier for future researchers. Next you’ll write up your paper, in which you describe your discovery and name it according to taxonomic naming conventions.

Finally, you send your paper off to a scientific journal for publication. If you are the first to publish, the name you’ve chosen is cemented into the taxonomic record. But that last step—publication—isn’t easy. Or at least, it isn’t supposed to be. In theory, the evidence you present must adhere to the high scientific and ethical benchmark of peer-review. Publication can take months, or even years.

However, there’s a loophole. The rules for naming a new animal taxon are governed by the ICZN, while the International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) governs plants. And while the ICZN requires that names be published, as defined by the commission’s official Code, “publishing” doesn’t actually require peer-review.

I’m a little amazed at the omission of peer-review. It’s also a surprising that it’s a race to the publishing house, rather than a well-documented process that shows which scientist found the critter first.

Here’s one glory-hound scientist sounding a bit grumpy about the rest of the field:

Vandals have zeroed in on the self-publishing loophole with great success. [Doug Yanega, a Commissioner at the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature] pointed to Trevor Hawkeswood, an Australia-based entomologist accused by some taxonomists of churning out species names that lack scientific merit.  Hawkeswood publishes work in his own journal, Calodema, which he started in 2006 as editor and main contributor.

“He has his own journal with himself as the editor, publisher, and chief author,” Yanega says. “This is supposed to be science, but it’s a pile of publications that have no scientific merit.” (In response to questions about the legitimacy of his journal, Hawkeswood delivered a string of expletives directed towards his critics, and contended that Calodema has “heaps of merit.”)

It’s a little like buying your victories at, well, any sport. The uninitiated may be impressed, but the folks in the field will well-understand how little these scientists are really contributing to the field. No true legacy for them, I’d say – and, in fact, due to the conflicting nomenclature problem, as Smithsonian.com details, it raises the spectre of the use of the wrong meds in emergency situations. See the article for more information.

And I suppose predatory journals could also be part of this problem.

He’s swinging for a homerun, but doesn’t even get a single.

The makers of Terror Birds (2016) clearly don’t know the tropes of the terror genre. The vapid blonde would-be Valley Girl should have been eternally annoying until she becomes the first victim of the birds. Instead, amidst the annoyance, she knees a horny guy in the balls really good (we cheered), gets off a few snappy lines, is mildly clever once, survives way too long, and then doesn’t even fall prey to the birds. Instead, she is presumably snapped up by the alligator/crocodile that we see taking a run at her – right after she says, “Oh, you’ve got to be kidding!”

Or the lass with the best lines in the movie, who should have made it nearly to the end, but instead is the second victim of the final group of six contestants in this run-and-hide-and-run-a-thon. She shows a fine pace, even if she doesn’t quite have the speed of a 15 ft tall flightless bad-tempered bird, but somehow the damn thing sneaks up on her while she’s cleaning her glasses and, well, have you seen … ah, just look to the right.

Of course, terror requires a sense of injustice. Remember the guy who took it in the family jewels? He ends up, involuntarily, as one of our six contestants. Given his poor behavior with the blonde, he would have perfectly fit the bill of injustice by surviving nearly until the end. Indeed, he could have exhibited a behavior indicating he was maturing out of his “I’m all horny” phase, and then be disposed of.

Instead, he’s victim #1, handily and quickly beheaded. His terror point total must have been fairly low.

In case you’re worried, though, there is an amoral millionaire and some sufficiently repulsive minions (poor puppies!), and the most pathetic of our contestants do win out in the end. They’re even slightly clever doing it.

But if you’re going to mess with the tropes, do it well. Remember Mr. Hornypants and the blonde? I think those two should have been the surprise winners. She could have taught him a thing or two about being a gentleman – or at least breaking into cars – and who knows what she could have learned from him.

Ah, well. Hey, I learned a new word – slutosaurus.

And in case it hasn’t become obvious just yet, don’t bother with this stinker. OK, the acting is mostly adequate. But even the special effects sucked.

While visiting an estate sale yesterday, we ran across this little malformation:

None of the other trees on the property exhibited this growth pattern, so we’re a little puzzled.

I’ve seen doomsayers come and go, and it appears the latest is a certain David Meade, who has received far more coverage than he deserves from the media – as usual. His claim? The recent eclipse presages the end of the world, in which the hidden planet will finally bang into our planet. And then the Tribulations start. From the introduction on his web site:

When the birth of Jupiter from Virgo occurs, we also see the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12:4 when great and fearful signs in the heavens are given. This birthing occurs according to the latest astronomical data available on October 15, 2017. This is when the King Planet – Jupiter, crosses the womb region of Virgo.

This is the day of the onset of the 7-Year Day of the Lord, or Tribulation. If we use astronomical calculations and the Book of Revelation only, and no extra-Biblical source such as visions, this takes us to the most important date of this century or millennium – October 15 this year of 2017. The American Eclipse of August 21, 2017 is the TIME MARKER – a 40 day countdown – the Sign of Jonah, to the beginning of the month of October. October is the month to watch!

The major signs that converge on September 23 are indeed amazing, but those are celestial events. They are time markers. The mainstream media states that something visible will occur on these dates. I don’t believe that. The actual event of the beginning of the Tribulation occurs on October 15. That’s when the action starts. Hold on and watch – wait until the middle of October and I don’t believe you’ll be disappointed.

Revelation is progressive. My book Planet X – The 2017 Arrival has the detail. You don’t have long to read it.

Or, he doesn’t have long to make his money, so quick buy his book!

I’m not going to burden you with the usual sober analysis or clever mockery. No, I went to his website hoping to find a Donate button, because a thought came to me. I thought, how about this? I offer David a $100 in exchange for a post-dated check for, say, a $1000. Or maybe $1 million. He can post-date it to a year from now.

Shouldn’t matter, right? At best we’ll be fighting our way through the Tribulations, and I’ll be eating my words. And if that mysterious planet has hit the Earth, I can fairly much guarantee I won’t be around to cash the check.

But, sadly, no Donate button.

NewScientist (26 August 2017) notes that researchers have observed a strong correlation between images of familiar and unfamiliar objects and activity in the perirhinal cortex of monkeys. I thought this was interesting:

[Yasushi Miyashita at the University of Tokyo] says perirhinal neurons help convert the perception of an object – what it is – into its meaning.

A better understanding of this conversion process could help improve machine learning, says David Sheinberg at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. “Any realistic robot would not only need to know what it’s looking at, but also need to know if it’s seen that thing before,” he says. “The computer vision world is still stuck looking at that first part.”

A step towards self-awareness? How do we know that we know something about an object? This has both practical and philosophical facets.

We look in a mirror, and we see something which we recognize as ourselves. How do we attach meaning to that image when it’s about ourselves? Is this a deeply metaphysical question, or just a matter of storing information? I think it’s the former because of the profound, yet paradoxically practical questions it raises about that image: can we trust it, since it’s a secondary information source, what does this mean in comparison to other members of the tribe, etc.

And a key difference between us and the artificial intelligences about which we so freely speculate is that we are, quite naturally, encased in these physical entities, one to a customer. They are mobile and distinguishable. This is not necessarily true for artificial intelligences, which could be distributed to numerous processing units that are geographically distributed; the machines that might function as a body are certain to be manufactured once the problems are shaken out; etc. Will this modify the reactions of an artificial intelligence in a such a way as to differentiate its reactions to stimuli compared to humans?

You betcha.

Nous:

\ˈnau̇s\ chiefly British :  common sense, alertness [Merriam-Webster]

Noted in “Losing the plot,” Colin Barras, NewScientist (26 August 2017, paywall):

Our species, Homo sapiens, is special. We have achieved things beyond the capacities of all others in our family tree. Even with their wanderlust, the ancient humans that came before us probably never made it to the Americas, let alone reaching for the moon, of course. Ancient human species never learned to write, or compose symphonies, nor did they develop the scientific nous to explore their own evolutionary roots.

We ran across this by the side of the road, and since we were stopping anyways, I took a few snaps.

Smartphone cameras don’t focus so well.

Following up on this thread, Lyme disease is notoriously hard to detect, so this report in NewScientist (26 August 2017) is welcome news:

John Belisle at Colorado State University and his colleagues wondered whether [Lyme disease and southern tick-associated rash illness (STARI)] could be distinguished by measuring the changes each causes to the abundance of specific metabolites in the blood.

Flouncing with the flock.

The AARDMAN production of Chicken Run (2000) has been a favorite of mine ever since I was introduced to it. It has a lot going for it, from an unusual medium (stop motion using clay figures), sympathetic characters, a good story full of authentic obstacles and setbacks, to a classic moral dilemma and the consequences of a wrong choice. One can even argue it’s an Other story within an Other movie.

How so? The outer Other story is that this is about a captive flock of verbal, intelligent chickens – a species which we humans, at least the Western civilization members, mostly consider to be a domesticated food animal. We defend it and care for it only in order to easily predate it, unlike dogs or cats, who are primarily working members of the family. So by portraying chickens as intelligent creatures, fighting for their lives and freedom, opens the audiences’ mind to the idea that creatures as common and mistreated as chickens may have individuals wills and needs – and even a cloudy self-awareness.

And then, within, is the story of the intruder into the flock, Rocky. As a non-member of the flock, and even from another nation, he brings new thinking to the terrifying problem facing the flock, opening their minds to new thoughts. And, of course, the flow is symmetrical, as his secretive escape from the farm, leaving the flock behind, leaves him unexpectedly sick to his stomach, eventually paving his return to help save the flock.

It may seem irrelevant or immaterial, but opening the minds of viewers to new thoughts leads to people considering how to better treat each other, not just directly, but indirectly as well.

Or you can just go watch the movie and enjoy yourself.

Recommended.

Catfished:

Being deceived over facebook as the deceiver professed their romantic feelings to his/her victim, but isn’t who they say they are.

Having a fake facebook profile, images and avatar in order to lure people to have romantic feelings. They are then catfished when the victim realises the person they have falled for via facebook is not who they APPEAR to be [Urban Dictionary]

Noted in “Trump’s strange legal team can’t seem to help itself,” Steve Benen, MaddowBlog:

Asked about his missives, Cobb told Mother Jones’ David Corn that he “was trying to turn someone who appeared angry into a friend. And privately. My bad. This was what I believed to be a private conversation. There are many pros and talented people in the White House. I am proud to be there. It was not for public consumption but it appears I was catfished.”

That’s not even close to what “catfished” means.

In the days following the earthquake in Mexico, I hope Mr. President arranges to send substantial aid to our old ally.

The Nashville Statement is receiving more attention, this time from Andrew Sullivan in NYMag, who suggests it’s a suicide note:

And so in the Nashville Statement, there is no advice to gay or transgender Christians, except to be heterosexual, dammit. They don’t even air the possibility of chaste spiritual friendship as a way for such people to lead lives not beset with loneliness, or sexual repression of a kind no human is truly capable of without profound psychological distortion. There is no mention of love at all — as if human attraction is not bound up with that deepest Christian imperative. Instead, we are told that gay and transgender people are deceiving themselves or are incapable of loving each other. All this constant rhetoric of loving us is therefore phony. You can’t love people without respecting them. You can’t welcome people you are simultaneously dehumanizing and writing out of creation. …

I believe that for an entire generation, this question is a litmus test for whether Christianity really is about love, and whether the Gospels (which have nothing to say about homosexuality) should even get a hearing. I can date my own niece’s and nephew’s rejection of Christianity to the day the priest urged them to oppose equal rights for their uncle. That’s why Evangelicalism is dying so quickly among the young. The latest PRRI survey shows that only one in ten Evangelicals are now under 30. It is no accident that the generation that has come to know gay and transgender people as people also finds it hard to dehumanize us in the way the Nashville Statement does, and see a church leadership that still treats us in this fashion as inimical to their own, yes, Christian values. And they are right to. This is what the signers of the Nashville Statement do not quite grasp. They just signed one of the longest suicide notes in history. Because what they’re saying is not merely callous. It is manifestly untrue.

When you place your movement’s entire existence on a wobbly pillar, the power that comes from being a strong proponent of that pillar will begin dissolving when that pillar effectively falls. French, and those others who have signed the Nashville Statement, have found it more important to affirm an arbitrary statement from an arbitrary authority than improve their movement, because they’re their entire ideology proceeds from flawed assumptions.

But Andrew merely made an assertion concerning the decline of the Evangelical movement. Kevin Drum has some solid numbers:

The chart below shows their problem. After years of gaining followers, evangelical strength began to decline during the Bush years and then fell off a cliff in the Obama years, dropping from 21 percent of the population to only 17 percent:

This decline is heavily age dependent—and not because of abortion. Young people feel about the same way toward abortion as older people. The real fault line is gay marriage. As the old evangelicals became ever more strident about it, they lost the loyalty of young people who just weren’t willing to buy the anti-gay hatred. Among 18-29 year-olds, only about 8 percent currently identify as evangelicals.

For those folks who consider themselves anti-Evangelicals, this is heaven sent news, obviously – the older the demographic age of a movement, the closer it is to decline and extinction – not that this will ever happen to the Evangelicals. But the Evangelicals need to sit down and really consider what’s going on and correct their thinking on homosexuals. This is not in the least unprecedented, as such subjects as slavery and witches are no longer interpreted as they had been. As the anti-homosexual streak has a weaker Biblical basis than some^[1], as I understand it, the Evangelicals may manage to accomplish this sooner than some might expect.

Or they can go into deep decline until the anti-homosexual champions have passed away and the movement can renew itself. I, personally, don’t care to see such a renewal, as it tends to descend into irrationality, even denial, on a regular basis, a tendency irritated by right-wing radio and the Internet. But the renewal will happen, as many by temperament will eventually flock to the banner-carriers of the movement.

And I’m looking forward to seeing this same chart again in two years. How will Evangelicals, who helped carry Trump over the electoral finish line, react to his abysmal Presidential performance? Will more current Evangelicals lose faith in the movement for selecting such a horrid President, currently on course to be the worst ever? Or will they merely leave the GOP as hopelessly corrupt?

¹Then again, I haven’t read the Bible in 45 years.

Kimberley Paige Barnette has been attracting attention in the last couple of days as she runs in the GOP primary for Mayor of Charlotte. Most people are talking about a Facebook post in which she said, HuffPo reports:

As the mystery of Tabby’s Star ages, the bizarre explanations fade away in favor of something a little more likely. NewScientist (26 August 2017) reports:

Credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute

… Mario Sucerquia and his colleagues at the University of Antioquia in Colombia have proposed another possibility: a ringed planet, similar to Saturn, orbiting close to the star. Such a planet would dim the star’s light in an irregular way during a transit.

First, the rings would block some of the star’s light, followed by the planet, which would dim it further. Then, after the planet passes, the rings would block some light again.

But because the rings would be at a different angle each time, the small dips at the beginning and end of the transits would be larger or smaller. Without seeing many transits, there would be no obvious pattern to this.

To test this idea and measure the irregularity, Sucerquia and his colleagues simulated a light curve from a ringed planet about one-tenth the Earth-sun distance from its star. They found another effect: the star would tug on the rings, making them wobble. This would make the silhouette of the rings as seen by an earthbound observer even more irregular from transit to transit (arxiv.org/abs/1708.04600).

Sounds a bit like my software designs’ evolution – from byzantine to the mundane.

Another hangnail injury leading to death and dismemberment.

It’s the brick’s fault in Terror At London Bridge (1985, aka Bridge Across Time). Specifically, when Jack the Ripper is shot and falls off the bridge, he takes a brick of the bridge with him into the water – and his spirit managed to transfer into the brick at the same time.

But where’s the bridge? It’s now located in Lake Havasu City, AZ, USA (true story), all of it except the missing brick – and now it’s been found and sent over to LHC. Bad things are about to happen in this tourist trap as Jack comes boiling out of that brick. And I do mean that literally – or Jack is highly carbonated. But he’s definitely decaf.

I generally figure a story can have one incredible plot mechanism, and so this qualifies. But now the local police have to figure out what’s happening to the women, and, well, it’s scattershot, between a detective, formerly of the Chicago Police Department, suffering PTSD after having shot a 14 year old boy to death during a burglary in his former life, to the detective’s assistant who has no life, apparently, outside of being an assistant, to the papier-mâché victims, there’s really no character with which to empathize. The Sheriff (or Chief, I forget now) has nothing, the detective might have a former relationship with some lady, but we’re not really sure, the assistant has a bit of gumption at the end, and the possible former girlfriend shows she can run like mad from Jack. There’s a mysterious fellow who wants to blow up the Bridge, but all we find out about him is a generic “mental illness.” He could have been interesting, but instead he’s consigned to the metaphorical loo.

But that’s about all. Oh, wait – I did appreciate the fact that clubbing the detective upside the head actually did result in a severe concussion and left him ineffective – and with a terrific headache – for several hours. It’s a sporadic attempt at enhancing the tension in the film.

And I noticed one attempt at a head feint – always important in detective stories, if not horror stories – but I’d guessed it was coming, so it was ineffective. Otherwise, it’s really just about the screaming and the slashing and the running.

And, as my Arts Editor observed, “This is baaad acting.” And a bad story.

Boring.

Kevin Drum rebuts Press Secretary Sanders:

[Sanders:] “It’s a known fact that there are over 4 million unemployed Americans in the same age group as those that are DACA recipients; that over 950,000 of those are African Americans in the same age group; over 870,000 unemployed Hispanics in the same age group,” Sanders said during Tuesday’s press briefing. “Those are large groups of people that are unemployed that could possibly have those jobs.”

What Sanders leaves out is that those 800,000 DACA recipients also buy lots of stuff, creating jobs for other people. In fact, the amount of stuff they buy is almost exactly equal to the wages of the jobs they take. In other words, if every DACA recipient got deported tomorrow, GDP would decrease by about the equivalent of 800,000 jobs. It would help nobody.

As interesting an observation as that is, there’s a sleight of the hand – transitioning from wages to jobs and implying the same jobs that are lost if the Dreamers are forcibly deported would come out of the pool held by Hispanics and African-Americans.

Still, it’s another page added to the coloring book of the Trump Administration, the one entitled, We Can’t See Beyond The End Of Our Nose.

Holographic will:

A holographic will is a will and testament that has been entirely handwritten and signed by the testator. Traditionally, a will must be signed by witnesses attesting to the validity of the testator’s signature and intent, but in many jurisdictions, holographic wills that have not been witnessed are treated equally to witnessed wills and need only to meet minimal requirements in order to be probated: … [Wikipedia]

Heard on Perry Mason.

Rep Tom Marino (R-PA) has been nominated for the job of Drug Czar. Representing the 10th District of Pennsylvania, here’s the chart since 2010, the last redistricting:

This suggests Marino’s selection is at least partially influenced by the safety of his district. Still, if confirmed, this will  require a special election in order to replace him – giving the Democrats a chance to embarrass the GOP on the national stage. While they have come close, they have yet to flip a national seat; at the local level, however, they are reportedly doing quite well, indicating a great deal of dissatisfaction with the GOP.

It did occur to me to wonder if Marino might not actually be favored by Trump, but marked as disagreeable and to be replaced by a Trump loyalist (see this post for more on this general speculation). However, he has a Trump score (that is, he votes in conformation to Trump’s wishes), as of this writing, of 94.7% according to FiveThirtyEight, so on objective measures he seems loyal enough; however, subjective measures are much more difficult to ascertain.

And will he fit in with the Trump Administration? WaPo has a report:

As a congressman, Marino called for a national program of mandatory inpatient substance abuse treatment for nonviolent drug offenders. “One treatment option I have advocated for years would be placing non-dealer, nonviolent drug abusers in a secured hospital-type setting under the constant care of health professionals,” he said at a hearing last year.

Both I and my Arts Editor took shots of our garlic chives over the last couple of days, because they’ve attracted a strong population of something. To me, they look like Monarch butterflies, but my Arts Editor thinks they’re some variety of moths.

And if you think that last two pictures seemed a little off on the color palette,this last one is truly odd. We’re thinking the camera is starting to degrade.

Source: Art Gallery of Nova Scotia

Having recently seen Maudie (2016) at the Edina Cinema, the performance of the two leads, Sally Hawkins and Ethan Hawke, and their chemistry really sticks in my memory. A biography of Canadian folk artist Maud Lewis, Hawkins depicts the various challenges Lewis faced throughout her life, brought about principally by her physical problems, which appeared to be degenerative arthritis and perhaps a touch of autism or OCD.

Or maybe not OCD, but instead simply the compulsion to create experienced by every artist; for her, expressed as a need to paint.

The Lewis House, now located in the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia

Signing on as a housekeeper for fish peddler Everett Lewis (Hawke, who portrays his character as the very archetype of the infamous Norwegian bachelor farmer), she swiftly marries him and begins selling greeting cards to his customers. To beautify her surroundings, she proceeds to turn their one room shack into a display case of her artistic predilections.

A seasonal visitor from New York happens to get wind of her production and introduces her art to the greater world, and soon the art world flocks to their one room shack in Nova Scotia.

Hawkins and Hawke work well together, she looking for any way to continue her painting, he barely articulate and with his own set of mental challenges to confront, if not conquer. Together, they battle through those challenges to find their happiness, while accidentally becoming famous.

I expect at least one Academy Award nomination for the production, if not two.

Recommended, if you like fine acting performances and general technical excellence. The story is not particularly surprising, but it is competent.

In an informational mail, the Center for Inquiry (CFI), an organization of skeptics who believe strongly in the importance of the separation of church and state, blows the horn about a new Florida law. CNN provides some detail on the law:

A new Florida law would let anyone in the state challenge, and possibly change, what kids are learning in school.

Any Florida resident can raise concerns about teaching material they find unfit for public school classrooms, according to legislation that went into effect Saturday. The bill was introduced in February by Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Naples, and was signed into law last week after passing with bipartisan support.

An “unbiased hearing officer,” not employed by the school district, would determine if a complaint has merit, requiring schools to take any controversial books or material out of the classroom.

CFI‘s worries center around how the curriculum may change. From their mail:

The Florida Citizens’ Alliance, a group lobbying for pet causes of fundamentalist Christians, celebrated, declaring “Touchdown!” on their website. Their Managing Director Keith Flaugh has stated: “Darwin’s theory is a theory, and the biblical view is a theory, and our kids should be taught both in a balanced way.”

Let’s call this what it is: the blatant disregard of church-state separation.

This is a worrisome, expensive mistake by the Florida legislature, but I don’t think CFI can make a credible case for this law being a direct violation of the separation of church and state. I see there being two problems here, and therefore two different reasons for lawyers to get involved, much to the expense of Florida.

First, this law is not for the exclusive use of, say, Christian fundamentalists dismayed at the thought that they are the product of Evolution. Oh, no, anyone can use this, Christians, Hindus, Satanists, Anarchists, Communists, American Indians, Pastafarians, ex-patriate Minnesotans, or, in short, anyone who is capable of taking offense.

And I’m not talking about folks who glory in the denial of reality, as CFI worries. No. Suppose some fundamentalist Christian sect objects to the teaching of evolution and insists that their favored theory gets the lead position. Now what happens? The American Indians come along and insist they’re the offended ones, and now the fundamentalists are the victims of a legally permitted protest. In the end, someone hauls out the lawyers and sends them off to do their thing, and things start getting expensive.

Secondly, of course, the legislature would like to counterpunch this argument with the assertion that an “unbiased hearing officer,” unaffiliated with the school district, will hear complaints and require changes. But I’ll tell you what – no one’s really unbiased. The first time a hearing officer makes a decision against a party with lots of money, the lawyers will come out and dismember that hearing officer in court for not being unbiased.

And how will the victim hapless hearing officer prove he’s unbiased?

Who will defend our “unbiased” hearing officer? Not the school district – there’s expressly no affiliation. That means either he or she has to defend themselves, or the State will have to pay for that defense. So either the State will be rocked by unexpected expenses, or there won’t be any hearing officers.

Rather than bowing to pressure from small grievance groups, the Florida legislature should get back to working on secular, public education as it should be – teaching the tools we use to interact and study reality. Let religious groups teach their alternative theories creation, but since they all lack any factual evidence, they don’t belong in secular schooling, and science should teach what it knows with a reasonable degree of certainty. Textbooks should be selected for their fidelity to facts and / or science, not for ideology, cost, or other factors which will, in the end, negatively impact the education of our children – in particular, their understanding of reality.

If we become a nation based on whim and whimsy of the grievance groups, we’ll become a second-rate nation.