The banana industry, which is heavily dependent on the Cavendish variety, has been approaching a cliff as the voracious TR4 fungus, immune to darn near everything, has been invading the various plantations world-wide and destroying all the commercial bananas in its path. However, as WaPo reports, a chance finding of a wild banana immune to TR4 was found. So did the banana industry leap in feet first, wild to save itself? Not so much:

It took years to isolate the gene responsible for the resistance. Then, in 2004, a breakthrough: [James] Dale’s lab identified candidate genes worth testing. Over three more years of painstaking work, Dale inserted genes from the M. acuminata subspecies into cells from a Cavendish, developing them first in tiny test tubes, then growing whole plants. It takes about a year to grow a plant with roots that can be placed in the soil.

But despite the clear and present danger of TR4, no one wanted to pay for a field trial; banana producers mistakenly believed they could manage the disease and keep it in check. So it was another three or four years before Dale could cobble together funding and find a facility where he could grow the plants to produce transgenic bananas. He was able to plant a small field trial in 2012, which lasted three years. …

Ironically, a major obstacle to replacing today’s Cavendish with a TR4-resistant strain is the banana industry, which for the most part has dropped out of doing research, says Ploetz. William Goldfield, director of corporate communications for Dole Food, one of the largest producers and importers of bananas, said in an email that the company is “looking at how to develop a disease resistant banana through crop improvement and plant breeding methods,” but he didn’t go into specifics. Requests for comment from the three other top banana producers went unanswered.

I’m sort of hoping the current banana producers get kicked out on their collective ears and are replaced with a new collection of companies that are actually willing to do more than just harvest bananas, sell them, and collect profits. Of course, maybe the WaPo story doesn’t properly portray the industry, in which case I’d retract my statement. But unwilling to fund some simple field trials? Come on, guys. That’s about as short-sighted as trying to put a price on civilization. Existential threats call for covering the hole safely, not trying to edge around the bottomless pit.

The same day we arrived in Seattle, we went dockside with our host. Only a couple of my pictures came out well, unfortunately.

Our host did much better, I thought. Here are a couple of my favorites of his work, by permission.

This one looks a little like an old LST from World War II.

Some nice reflections on some sort of underwater life. I wonder if Roger Corman ever tried to cast that underwater life…

Nicholas Weaver on Lawfare notes a weakness in Wi-Fi passwords in passing while addressing a newly discovered vulnerability in WPA2 called KRACK:

So unless your Wi-Fi password looks something like a cat’s hairball (e.g. “:SNEIufeli7rc”–which is not guessable with a few million tries by a computer), a local attacker had the capability to determine the password, decrypt all the traffic, and join the network before KRACK.

Our Wi-Fi password does actually have a passing resemblance to a cat’s hairball.

And that’s all. I just liked the simile.

Concerning the new threat to the ozone layer, a reader remarks:

Not too surprised to find that chlorinated carbons have similar effects as fluorinated carbons. Fluorine and chlorine have similar electro-negative properties, being the 2 lightest and most reactive halogens.

The article suggested that chlorinated carbons were not expected to survive long enough after manufacture & release to make it up to the ozone layer. The weather in the area, however, apparently funnels those chemicals right to the ozone layer much faster than suggested.

This probably wouldn’t fly in my neighborhood, but it’s a fascinating look, sort of like the Sydney Opera House, which is to some extent the single word Why? Still, one of the goals of artists is to attain an unique look in order to stimulate new thoughts. And this work by LOT-EK is certainly out of the ordinary:

© Danny Bright via DesignBoom

Yep, those are shipping containers. From LOT-EK:

21 steel containers are collected and stacked. The stack is then cut diagonally along both the top and bottom, creating a striking profile that invokes Williamsburg’s industrial past, while providing a sculptural nod to the rapidly changing neighborhood. The house is located in a typical corner lot in Brooklyn, measuring 25×100-feet. Transforming the containers’ assembly into a single-family residence, the diagonal cut generates a very enclosed and private monolith from the surrounding streets. The diagonal also modifies the conventional ground-floor rear yard type and use, allocating private outdoor space at each level of the house. Large glass doors allow access to each deck, offering light and cross ventilation at all levels. A steel stair along the north wall connects all outdoor spaces.

Lloyd Alter on Treehugger.com is torn:

We complain about shipping container architecture all the time on TreeHugger, usually prefaced with that tired phrase “jump the shark” and this 5000 square foot house they built in Brooklyn is just completely nuts. We say that shipping container architecture doesn’t make sense, and this doesn’t either. But there is something about this house and I like it. …

But wow, it’s got drama. Like all of LOT-EK’s container buildings, you can tell that there is an architect at work here. And it’s interesting that the clients for this house have a bit of drama themselves, running popular Brooklyn restaurants that our Brooklyn-dwelling editor and photographer describes as a “total little empire that is almost too rustic-hipster-cool, but the quality is undeniable and they were there early so it doesn’t feel painfully trendy.”

© Danny Bright via DesignBoom

For Lloyd, it fails the functional test, but its sheer novelty has captivated him. More from Lloyd on Treehugger.com.

Even that red tie may be a misdirect.
Nyah.

The Thomas Crown Affair (1999, not the 1968 original, and a hacked up TV version at that) is less a cautionary story than a lesson in leaping to conclusions. We follow the unexpected life seduction of elite insurance recovery specialist Catherine Banning as she begins the investigation of a painting stolen from the Metropolitan Museum of Art: 3 men attempting a sophisticated robbery are foiled, but a painting by Monet is missing anyways.

Suspicion falls on a local Monet lover and millionaire, Thomas Crown, even as he donates a painting from his own collection to fill in for the missing Monet. As Banning pursues Crown, she is, in turn, pursued by Crown, who finds her intelligence and assertiveness very attractive. But what about the other women in his life, not to mention his business, Crown Acquisitions, which does financial deals?

This story specializes in the head feint to the left while moving to the right, from the roles of minor characters to the climactic scene in which the stolen painting is revealed while yet another disappears – in the midst of quite the clever ploy to distract the watching police.

It would be accurate to say the theme is lightweight, and yet it has its useful applications in real life, enough so to make the story interesting, and if it seems to wander afield for a while, the wrap-up makes it worthwhile for the patient, attentive audience appreciative of dry humor. It’s worth a watch on an otherwise drowsy evening.

Our Seattle vacation host took us through Pike Place, where they sling fish and sell chocolate and many other things. I attempted a few pictures.

First, the only bug crawling across an expanse of concrete. Sure, it seems a bit irrelevant, but my Arts Editor felt the shadow was a lot of fun.

And our host caught me at it.

My Arts Editor also fell in love with this effigy on the left. Then there was this shot on the right, which I’m not actually sure I shot from Pike Place. Perhaps that should be in the Gasworks Park collection. Or perhaps from our host’s apartment.

Finally, my favorites from Pike Place.

I wish this was slightly more in focus.

And this was shot through a miror – you can see my paunch on the right, and there’s our host on the left. It was taken at Pigalle Place, a fancy French joint with excellent food.

I did take a number of other pictures, mostly of the bay’s port area, but using the zoom function of a smartphone camera leads to an unacceptable level of graininess, unfortunately. Here’s an example of a reject.

You may have read that President Trump declined to certify Iran as adhering to the JCPOA guidelines. But what about that statement he issued? Elena Chachko of Lawfare examines the two concrete action items:

First, the new designations (and any new non-nuclear sanctions, for that matter) are technically in line with the JCPOA. The JCPOA only covers nuclear obligations and sanctions. Yesterday’s designations, like previous non-nuclear Iran sanctions that the U.S. has imposed post-JCPOA (see, for example, below and here), are based on involvement in terrorism, meddling in Syria, and involvement in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (including missile technology) – all activities that fall outside the scope of the nuclear deal. …

Second, yesterday’s IRGC designation does not set a precedent, contrary to the impression Trump’s statement and some news reports may have created. Trump said that “[t]he execution of our strategy begins with the long-overdue step of imposing tough sanctions on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.” In fact, the IRGC has been on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list for quite a while under multiple sanctions programs. As OFAC’s press release notes, the IRGC was previously designated in 2007 pursuant to E.O. 13382 for supporting Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs; in 2011 pursuant to E.O. 13553 for its role in human rights violations; and in 2012 pursuant to E.O. 13606 for similar reasons. All three executive orders are not among the orders the Obama administration revoked as part of the implementation of the JCPOA (see pp. 3, 37-40 of the implementation day guidance).

Or, per Trump’s modus operandi, he’s full of bluster and thunder, but like any farting cow, it doesn’t mean as much as he’d like you to think. But what about Congress?

The main legislative effort currently under way seems to be the Corker-Cotton plan, titled “Fixing the Iran Deal.” (Of course, the JCPOA can’t actually be unilaterally “fixed.”) The plan includes automatic “snapback” of U.S. sanctions if Iran goes under a one-year “breakout” capability, that is, the ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon. It also contemplates restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program that would ignore the JCPOA’s “sunset” provisions as they apply to U.S. sanctions. The document does not say anything about amending INARA as Trump suggested, nor does it mention any specific elements that would combat “the full spectrum of Iran’s nefarious activities.” It does say that the proposed legislation “would not conflict with the JCPOA upon passage.”

In light of this, it is difficult to say at this point whether the product of this legislative effort, if successful, would necessarily contradict any of the commitments the U.S. undertook under the JCPOA. For example, if the restrictions contemplated by the Corker-Cotton plan would only address specific nuclear weaponization activities and missile development, they would arguably be in line with the JCPOA. As previously mentioned, the JCPOA does not cover ballistic missile development and related sanctions, and Tehran reaffirmed in the agreement “that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons”, in accordance with its obligations under the NPT (see paras. iii-iv of the Preamble and General Provisions section of the JCPOA). In any event, the scope of the Corker-Cotton initiative, at least based on the document Senator Corker’s office released, appears to be more modest than what Trump seemed to suggest in his statement.

I begin to wonder – just kidding, I’ve been thinking this for quite a while – this is all about blunting Obama’s achievements and not about fixing some critical mistake in the JCPOA that only the GOP can see. Much like the panic over the ACA in the area of healthcare, the GOP’s intransigence during the Obama years over working on the Iranian problem has come back to bite them on their ass. In a disturbing trend, they’re returning to their mad skills in marketing to cover up the fact that they don’t appear to have anything at all to offer, even as they dominate the political landscape.

Excuse me: they have bitter partisanship to offer, much to the detriment of the country. It’ll be interesting to see how their marketing holds up. As we saw in the intra-party battle, er, GOP primary, over AG Jeff Session’s old Senate seat, the marketing and tactics have become quite savage. Will they, at some point, be rejected by the voters?

On the conservative side, Washington Beacon Editor Matthew Continetti is confounded at the behavior of the Congressional GOP (from National Review):

What is striking is that, with the exception of Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, none of the Republicans and Democrats who opposed the nuclear deal two years ago with such vehemence have gone out of their way to prepare the ground and make the national security case for the president’s decision.

Now, the Democrats I can understand. They are just playing to type. To say a kind word for Trump’s attempt to improve the deal would violate the secular commandment to resist his very being. The Republican silence, by contrast, is far more maddening.

This is the party that invited Bibi Netanyahu to criticize the deal in an address to a joint session of Congress. This is the party whose 2016 platform reads, “A Republican president will not be bound by” the deal and “We must retain all options in dealing with a situation that gravely threatens our security, our interests, and the survival of our friends.” This is the party that nominated and elected a president who said his “number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.”

Yet the headlines preceding today’s remarks have been almost entirely shaped by the deal’s supporters, by the echo chamber that promoted and distorted the aims and conditions of the agreement to begin with. These were but some of the stories in Thursday’s edition of the Times of Israel: “Barak urges Trump not to decertify Iran nuke deal,” “Netanyahu at odds with security team over Iran deal,” “With Trump set to decertify Iran deal, experts tell Congress to stick to accord,” “Jewish Democrats who opposed Iran nuke deal now urge Trump to keep it.” You have to look hard for a piece detailing Iranian noncompliance, explaining the process of decertification and its relation to the overarching agreement, or quoting defenders of the president and his policy.

Perhaps the GOP in Congress knows what Continetti doesn’t wish to admit: the deal is working, and his objections are insubstantial in the final analysis.

The Editors of National Review also addressed the issue, and there very first paragraph caught my eye:

We have opposed the Iran deal from the beginning. Building on the North Korean model of negotiations, Tehran engaged in a years-long dialogue with the West over the question of whether it would have a nuclear program, all the while developing its nuclear program. The upshot of the agreement was that we accepted Iran’s becoming a threshold nuclear power and showered it with sanctions relief — including, literally, a plane-full of cash — for the privilege.

Since the deal left the rest of Iran’s objectionable and threatening behavior untouched, the regime was free to invest proceeds from its economic windfall into its ballistic-missile program and its agenda of military expansion across the region. The Obama administration hoped that the agreement would moderate Iran’s behavior, but, predictably, it has emboldened it. Giving more resources to a terror state has never reduced terror. Couple these failings with a weak inspection regime and key sunset clauses, and the deal is nearly as historically bad as President Trump says in his characteristically over-the-top style.

Why did it catch my eye? Because it shares with Continetti a certain intellectual dishonest style. Continetti attempts to use the rhetoric of the critics of the GOP in the ‘echo chamber’ remark, yet it’s remarkably clear that many third party observers with relevant expertise felt that the JCPOA is a good deal, including the professionals responsible for our national safety in the military.

The Editors go a little further in the deceit column with their comment about “… a plane-full of cash  …”, which has been thoroughly documented to be Iranian cash that had been given to the United States for weapons systems which we did not deliver; it had been frozen for decades, but finally released per a settlement, as WaPo has documented yet again.

But far more interesting is the sleight of hand they practice in the second paragraph. Once you understand that the monies are unconnected to the JCPOA, it becomes paper-thin. But disregarding that, one must realize that we simply cannot practice the failed Japanese strategy of Kantai Kessen, wherein the World War II Japanese naval strategists attempted to end the war with the United States in one decisive battle. Their fixation on arranging such a battle ultimately led to their failure in the war (among many other factors, such as their lack of resources). This is what the National Review editors are calling for in this paragraph – an agreement that would neuter Iran.

But Iran would never sign such an agreement.

I think that President Obama realized that and prioritized the most important goals of such an agreement and went after the nuclear capability, instead. The JCPOA doesn’t treat missile technology? It also doesn’t forbid sanctions on that account. In point of fact, the JCPOA covers nuclear weapons development, which was its purpose, and by the account of the experts, it’s doing well. That leaves us with the option of pursuing the activities in all those other objectionable areas, now doesn’t it?

But the Editors of National Review don’t want to admit that President Obama’s entire strategy appears to be quite strong, and in fact I suspect is related to the successful strategies which allowed us to survive, and ultimately win, the Cold War.

So the question becomes whether or not Trump is repudiating a strategy with a history of success. Is he fearful that Iran is more stable than the United States? Does he not believe in the ability of democracy to not only defeat the theocracy, but to do it peacefully?

Or is he being manipulated by home-grown theocrats, eager for war?

A resident of Seattle remarks on Gasworks Park:

Look south across Lake Union and you will see a skyline that has dramatically changed in the last five years. The South Lake Union neighborhood is home to Amazon, Google Facebook, and a number of other tech companies.

And so our host mentioned, if memory serves. He also pointed out Amazon’s former headquarters, this big ol’ joint called Pacific Tower.

I tried to find a better picture of it, preferably from the highway, to show how it’s apart from, yet looms over, Seattle, but I was unsuccessful.

Austin Frakt on The Incidental Economist daydreams about an interview with a journalist regarding President Trump’s decision to stop paying Cost Sharing Reductions (CSRs):

A[ustin]: Well, like I said, those who aren’t protected by premium tax credits could pay higher premiums. But there is actually a scenario under which they aren’t worse off, and could be better off. It’s tricky, so I won’t go into it here. Go talk to Charles Gaba. But also keep in mind, since premiums go up, so do the tax credits, which the government pays.

Q: But the government saves money in the end because of not paying cost sharing reductions, right?!

A: No, the premium tax credit increases are larger than the cost sharing reductions savings. The government pays more, so taxpayers are worse off.

And then comes the use of one of my favorite words … gobsmacked. Nicholas Bagley, also on The Incidental Economist, has some interesting background, part of which was also published on Vox:

The Affordable Care Act provides two kinds of subsidies to help low- and middle-income people pay for insurance on the exchanges. Premium subsidies defray the cost of premiums for people making less than four times the poverty level. For those who make less than that, cost-sharing reductions help cover the costs of deductibles and other out-of-pocket spending.

Although they serve similar goals, the two subsidies function in different ways. The premium subsidies are refundable tax credits that go to individuals: They are administered through the tax code. For cost-sharing reductions, the ACA requires insurers to cut their lowest-income customers a break on their out-of-pocket spending. In turn, the statute says the federal government will, reimburse insurers for doing so.

Here’s the catch. The Constitution says that “[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Under the persnickety rules governing appropriations law, it’s not enough for a statute to order the government to make a payment. Congress must adopt a law that specifically appropriates the money to make that payment. And while the Affordable Care Act does link the premium subsidies to an existing appropriation, it’s silent about the cost-sharing reductions.

His conclusion?

If Congress doesn’t act, it’s really the worst of all worlds. To compensate for the loss of cost-sharing payments, insurers will have to raise their premiums for silver plans. Because premium subsidies are keyed to the price of silver plans, the size of the subsidies will increase along with the rise in premiums. And because many more people are eligible for premium subsidies than for cost-sharing reductions, total federal outlays will actually increase.

So taxpayers will have to pay increased premium subsidies at the front end. Then they’ll also pay the cost-sharing money through litigation at the back end. It’s a financial bath, and for no good reason other than sheer political cussedness.

Far as I can tell, the folks at The Incidental Economist have some authoritative heft to them. Perhaps Trump should listen to them rather than his pack of second-rate advisors.

President Trump has periodically complained about the media engaging in chronic lies. For instance, from WaPo:

President Trump, who has demonized the news media as “the enemy of the American People,” alarmed free-speech advocates this week by writing on Twitter that NBC News should be punished by regulators after the organization published a report that he did not like.

So, if we’re really going to demand more truth-telling from everyone involved, let’s have President Trump be a real leader and show us the way.

President Trump, it’s time for you to change your name to better reflect the reality of all the verified lies you’ve told everyday, not to mention the rank incompetency and amateurism.

I look forward to the ceremony where you assume the new name of

Donald J. Trump-Nixon.

I realize former President Nixon might be somewhat insulted, as he at least showed some competency in office, but he’s not around to protest, so I am emboldened to entreat you to embrace honesty and take on this name.

President Trump-Nixon, stand forth and be proud.

We were fortunate that our visit to Seattle landed on a string of sunny days, and so Ron, our host, took us to a place called Gas Works Park, a former gasification plant. Now a rest and recreation area, the shell of the former supplier of gas for lighting remains. Too bad I my sense of balance was still askew after the train ride.

The surrounding hills are also included in this little park. I avoided taking pictures of people, but they were there.

I nearly caught this flock of geese a little earlier in their landing pattern. Obviously, this is a multi-client park.

Here, my Arts Editor approaches one of the dilapidated structures for artistic communion.

And here we look up the communion pipes. Open wide!

He’s the cosmeticist. The mad cosmeticist.

If I’m going to review Blade Runner 2049 (2017), then I’d better review its predecessor, Blade Runner (1982). The problem with reviewing Blade Runner is unusual – there’s a veritable cornucopia of material that can be discussed, from marvelous (especially for the time) dystopic vistas of the city of Los Angeles, through a set of characters who fit in well with the background of a world losing its best and brightest to the off-world colonies, to questions of whether specific characters represent mythic entities (I’ve been toying with the idea that Gaff represents Fate), to a well thought out plot that concentrates on a simple question, one which has occasionally bothered myself, as long time readers know.

And that is the question of the status of artificially created sentient creatures.

The Tyrell Corporation is responsible for the creation of replicants, “meat robots” who are created fully grown and appear to be humans. However, they are physically more powerful than their creators, and their training can range from agricultural skills to armed conflict. When the scientists realize that the emotional nature of their creations become unpredictable after several years of existence, resulting in malfunctions such as mutiny, they install a self-destruct mechanism which activates after four years. The “units” drop dead.

Is this the soft sell or the hard sell?

They have been banned from Earth, regardless of the self-destruct; Blade Runners are Earth cops specialized in hunting and killing retiring illegal replicants. Now four replicants have arrived from off-world, all military models, and former Blade Runner Rick Deckard is forcibly recruited back into the police force to find and retire them. He left the force because the job bothered him, but in his investigations he discovers a new innovation by Tyrell Corp – the ability to insert memories into replicants such that the replicants do not realize their very nature.

This brings up questions of integrity, doesn’t it?

Blade Runner posits the creation of replicants as human beings with no timeline, no period of growing up, burdened with a short life time – and the same human lust for life, family, and belonging that we all have. Then it plays out the consequences, including an ending where Deckard could have easily been killed, but is spared by the last of the replicants, who realizes that his love of life also means that it shouldn’t be taken witlessly. The question is implicit in the material: does the ability to create sentient entities imply the ability to force order on those sentient entities’ lives?

For all the imaginative special effects, wonderfully realized backgrounds, and characters that integrate seamlessly into this future Los Angeles, the thematic material is the driver of this story, the reason for Deckard’s quiet revolt against the social order, and perhaps even the background reason that this future is so dystopic. In my mind, it triumphs over the occasional rough edge and the one or two odd scenes (I watched my copy of the Director’s Cut).

Strongly Recommended.

Pyroclastic flow:

A pyroclastic flow (also known scientifically as a pyroclastic density current^[1]) is a fast-moving current of hot gas and volcanic matter (collectively known as tephra), which reaches speeds moving away from a volcano of up to 700 km/h (450 mph).^[2] The gases can reach temperatures of about 1,000 °C (1,830 °F). Pyroclastic flows normally touch the ground and hurtle downhill, or spread laterally under gravity. Their speed depends upon the density of the current, the volcanic output rate, and the gradient of the slope. They are a common and devastating result of certain explosive eruptions. [Wikipedia]

I’ve read this phrase so many times, and yet have never been entirely clear on its meaning. Noted in “Indonesia’s Agung Raised to Highest Alert for Eruption,” Erik Klemetti, Rocky Planet:

The 1963 eruption of Agung was big. It ranked as a VEI 5, which is on the same scale as the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. The volcano has a history of eruptions of this scale, with another VEI 5 eruption that produced pyroclastic flows, lots of ash fall and some lava flows in 1843. The 1963 eruption also emitted lots of sulfur dioxide and chlorine into the atmosphere, which caused a brief global cooling over the next year.

Remember the ozone hole? Perhaps my reader is too young. Back in the 70s, the ozone which protects the Earth from dangerous solar UV radiation began developing a hole, caused, it was eventually discovered, by CFCs. Through both private and public efforts, the Montreal Protocol was promulgated to reduce the use of CFCs, and now  that hole is shrinking; I briefly discussed this with one of the climate scientists involved and reported it here.

Now Spaceweather.com is reporting a new threat to the ozone:

An international team of researchers led by David Oram of the University of East Anglia has found an unexpected, growing danger to the ozone layer from substances not regulated by the treaty.

The danger comes from a class of chemicals known as “chlorocarbons.” Dichloromethane is an example. It is used in paint stripping, agricultural fumigation, and the production of pharmaceuticals. Over the past decade dichloromethane became approximately 60% more abundant. “This was a major surprise to the scientific community and we were keen to discover the cause of this sudden increase,” says Oram.

Developing economies in East Asia appear to be the source. “Our estimates suggest that China may be responsible for around 50-60% of current global emissions [of dichloromethane], with other Asian countries, including India, likely to be significant emitters as well,” says Oram.

More information on Spaceweather.com, including nuggets on the strange weather patterns in the Far East which may be responsible for moving these chemicals, formerly considered too short-lived to be harmful, into the upper atmosphere.

In a way, it’s a lesson in how there is always something new to learn in science.

While my Arts Editor was reading, a reading light played games with us. That first one’s fairly mellow:

This second one features a creature taken by surprise.

And here’s a ghostly E.T.

Into the mailbag today came another example of the sort of mail you should never forward. If I could easily do it, I’d eliminate the pictures – but most of the email is pictures, not only of the unwritten material, but written material as well. Analysis follows the entirety of the mail this time.

http://nflarrest.com/

NFL arrest record by team since 2000

Team # of Arrests Since 2000

Minnesota Vikings 42
Cincinnati Bengals 40
Denver Broncos 36
Tennessee Titans 33
Miami Dolphins 28
Kansas City Chiefs 28
Jacksonville Jaguars 27
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 27
Cleveland Browns 26
San Diego Chargers 25
Indianapolis Colts 24
Chicago Bears 23
Seattle Seahawks 20
New Orleans Saints 20
Washington Redskins 18
Oakland Raiders 18
Baltimore Ravens 18
Carolina Panthers 18
Green Bay Packers 17
Pittsburgh Steelers 17
Atlanta Falcons 16
San Francisco 49ers 16
Detroit Lions 15
New England Patriots 15
Buffalo Bills 14
Dallas Cowboys 13
New York Giants 13
Arizona Cardinals 12
New York Jets 11
Philadelphia Eagles 10
Houston Texans 9
St Louis Rams 8

Total 656

If we’re not predisposed to be upset at the NFL, then what can we see here?

1. They’re all black. Along with Colin Kaepernick, whose crimes include giving nearly a million dollars to charity in this year alone, as well as Black Lives Matter, the black community’s willingness to speak out concerning injustice has made it a prime target. If this was all about the alleged evils of the NFL, then we should include such athletes as Fran Tarkenton (financial fraud, even if he avoided conviction and admitting to it), Tommy Kramer (DUI), or Justin Strzelcyzk (trying to outrun troopers).But it’s not. The NFL has refused to knuckle under to President Trump’s demand that the American flag be held sacred. It’s not sacred and it’s not healthy to consider it to be, as I discussed here, previously. So we can interpret this as a hit-job on the NFL, but the fact that only black athletes are referenced indicates that it’s meant to play on the racial fears that many folks have.
2. The numbers are out of context. Is 656 a big number? Since 2000? Let’s do the math:

   656 ÷ 16 =41

   So 41 arrests (not convictions) per year. No doubt some arrests don’t make it to trial, some are found Not Guilty, and of course now we’re thinking about how the author of this post managed to neglect this critically important information. Maybe we’re talking about just DUIs and a little rowdiness in the bars.

   And, more importantly, what percentage of players are involved? Do these numbers include coaching staff, admin, etc, or is it limited to just the players?

3. And are all of your colleagues, current and former, completely innocent? Condemning the NFL for having some employees who don’t always follow the rules is hypocritical. I know that a person who used to work at one of my employers was arrested for allegedly attempting to hire a hitman to kill his wife. Should I condemn that employer? Should I condemn my entire industry? How about the cops arrested in Baltimore for planting evidence? Time to condemn all cops? Utter nonsense in all three cases.
4. Are the facts correct? Some I was able to confirm, but I was also able to confirm that “Dante Stallworth” is actually “Donte’ Stallworth”, there was indeed a manslaughter conviction, and I was unable to confirm that President Obama invited him to the White House. The point is not that this appears to be a lie, because my research was relatively shallow. The point is that whoever wrote this up chose not to make it easy to confirm these claims, probably because the details can muddle this person’s hidden agenda. As an example, Stallworth’s punishment was more than just 24 days in jail:
   

   … he received a sentence of 30 days in the county jail, plus 1,000 hours of community service, 2 years of community control, and 8 years’ probation. He has also received a life-time suspension of his Florida state driver’s license. [Wikipedia]

   Context is once again lost.

5. The entire slant of this mail is un-American. One of the finest themes of the United States is redemption, the opportunity to learn from one’s mistakes and live a better life. This mail has nothing of that in it, now does it? A few arrests, oh, quick, let’s condemn the NFL! This is not the type of mail I would expect from any reasonable patriot, because it denies the chance to learn from one’s mistakes – to do better.

In the end, this is a fairly clumsy attempt at manipulative mail. A few “outrageous” numbers get thrown out, an unsubtle attempt to stir up racial hatred (we all did catch that attempt to muddy President Obama), and a pointer at a website of official data, as if that means anything at all.

Look, I have my own problems with the NFL, first to do with the treatment of Kaepernick, a  highly rated, Super Bowl-experienced quarterback with excellent stats who can’t get a job – and the Vikes could sure use him.

Second, the entire concussions leading to dementia thing really bothers me. Is it ethical to be a fan of a sport which can leave its participants in dire straits on a regular basis?

But this assassination of the NFL is inappropriate, and its attempts to paint all the black players as criminals is divisive. It’s really an attack on the American polity, a recognition that when we work together we’re stronger than anyone else – and so that engenders this sort of attack mail by folks who don’t like America. And that’s why we should ignore and rebuff such sordid attempts to manipulate us.

[10/17/2017 Added missing word.]

Apotheosis:

1. The highest point in the development of something; a culmination or climax.
   ‘his appearance as Hamlet was the apotheosis of his career’
2. The elevation of someone to divine status.
   ‘death spared Pompey the task of having to account for the apotheosis of Caesar’

[Oxford Dictionaries]

Heard on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert last night. I was surprised to realize I didn’t have much of a concept of it.

Greg Fallis brings us a little Japanese history:

On the 9th of July in the year 869 (or, to use the Nipponese calendar, the 26th day of 5th month, 11th year of Jōgan) a massive earthquake took place off the coast of Honshu, followed by a devastating tsunami. A history of Japan written about three decades later describes the event:

[A] large earthquake occurred in Mutsu province with some strange light in the sky. People shouted and cried, lay down and could not stand up. Some were killed by the collapsed houses, others by the landslides. Horses and cattle got surprised, madly rushed around and injured the others. Enormous buildings, warehouses, gates and walls were destroyed. Then the sea began roaring like a big thunderstorm. The sea surface suddenly rose up and the huge waves attacked the land. They raged like nightmares.

In the aftermath of the destruction, coastal communities began to erect ‘tsunami stones’ marking the furthest extent of the inundation. The stones served three purposes; they were historical markers, they were memorials to the dead, and they were a warning to future generations.

And then adds the Trump Administration.

Right, this is where we return to Trump and Twitter. I think we can view Comrade Trump’s tweets as a form of tsunami stone. They comprise a historical record of his thoughts and behavior. In the future I hope they’ll serve as a memorial to the social and environmental policies the Trump administration are in the process of destroying. And I hope they serve as a warning, both to us in the next election and to future generations of voters.

Source: A Trinity College (CT) course on the subject of Japanese disasters

I appreciate the thoughtfulness and importance of Greg’s remarks, but I fear Twitter, like the entire Internet, is too much of the mist to serve the purpose. Those Japanese stones … I’ll tell you what. Go read Greg’s full post, it’s good. But those stones, selected, carved, moved, and erected through great and collective effort, are tangible symbols of the worries and concerns of people who were genuinely concerned about the welfare of their collective descendants. They didn’t come up with family stories and pass them down in uncertain fashion until they petered away. They took big fucking rocks, invested the time and effort to chip messages into them, and then erected them for all to see.

And, see, I don’t think the United States really has that sense of community, in both space and time, any longer. The right has split away into raging madness, chipping off human beings through the RINO process, there’s reports of oddball evangelical cults trying to engender the End Times, and denialism, at least on the right, appears to be an accepted philosophical norm. Behind it all lurks a theocratic movement which, if successful, would fundamentally destroy the greatest democracy in the world in service to a supernatural creature for which there is no evidence. Meanwhile, the left is too busy being superior to have much of an impact on the opinions of everyone else, and is even spawning the anti-democratic antifa movement. Add to the mix divisive efforts to stir up racism (I’ll be addressing that later today), and its a depressing mix.

Even if something as brutal as the tsunami Greg cites were to be inflicted on the United States through the incompetence of the Trump Administration and the GOP members of Congress, and their fundamental desire to deny reality in service to an incongruent vision, would we be capable of learning and reform? And how would we pass that warning on to future generations in a form shocking and visible?

Carve it into Mount Rushmore? A vision of Trump being overwhelmed by a wave of water?

Continuing the thread on Kaspersky anti-virus software, Dr. Herb Lin on Lawfare has some more information:

… how widely deployed is Kaspersky software on non-U.S.-government computers? This includes personal computers of U.S. government employees, of course, but also the work and/or personal computers of many in the private sector. What kinds of information have been taken from those computers? And what is the potential for mischief or malfeasance with that information being compromised?

Taken together, these questions speak to an even more serious compromise: the fact that the Russians are able to mine and are mining the documents, one by one, on the computers of every single Kasperksy user. Kaspersky software is used by 400 million individuals and is the most popular European security software vendor. I suspect the information derived from that scale of operation is much more significant than what they got from one user, important though he may be.

I personally find this to be a staggering thought, despite the fact we’re talking about computers, those elementals of multiplication. 400 million people are using software masquerading as a security construct, but is instead a personal spy looking over all of their shoulders – put that thought in your head. Jam it in with a hammer. The only mitigating factor is that the amount of information being stolen is a virtual flood, but software capable of filtering out the chaff has no doubt been developed and employed to find the nuggets of gold among the water & sand. (I was going to work Mata Hari into my metaphors as well, but I think I’ll quit while I’m ahead.)

OK, if you’re feeling a bit paranoiac now – if you’re checking your Windows registry to see if you’re using Kasperksy – then you’re ready for the next thought.

Turn the concept around. I mean, now that you’re properly paranoid, who are you going to trust? Does your anti-virus software come with a personal promise from the company’s CEO stating that the software is not a Trojan Horse? How about the same promise from the engineers at the company? (How about those engineers at third party software suppliers that the first company bought from?) What does your software warranty say?^[1]

Trust on the Internet is, of course, a big topic, and one I haven’t tried to keep up with it lately. But I’ve noticed a lot of it appears to assume that the software in question is, prior to delivery, pristine and ideally suited for its purpose.

But this Kasperksy incident highlights, for me, an underappreciated element. There are relatively few people qualified to study a chunk of software and certify that it accomplishes its putative purpose while having no hidden agendas – not only must they know algorithms and languages, as well as understand the user requirements, a lot of software is written in difficult to understand ways^[2] – when the source is available at all. It’s not like inspecting and testing a hammer.

It justifies my own ill-defined reluctance to place critical data anywhere near a computer, whether a 5.25 floppy drive or in the Cloud^[3]. I’m starting to wonder about the trend to put everything online. While it may be convenient for online maintenance by software engineers, having critical installations such as electrical automation systems^[4] available via the Internet continues to strike me as madness.

So will we see the beginning of a trend towards moving data offline? I know folks more intimate with these incidents are urging same, such as my friend Steve Yelvington^[5]. But will these be taken seriously before a truly damaging incident takes place?

And that leads to the question of what should be automated? Can a principle be promulgated towards making decisions concerning what legitimately should be handled by computers – such as very difficult mathematical calculations – and what should be avoided due to safety concerns?

That may be the question for the future.

¹Does software come with warranties yet? Being a Linux engineer, I don’t expect to see a reasonable warranty since I didn’t pay for this stuff in the first place.

²While it’s tempting to suggest such code reflects the state of a programmer’s sanity, I shall relent and admit to it being the inexperienced. In most cases.

³When it comes to the Cloud, I can only think of the old bit of humor: There is no Cloud, it’s just someone else’s computer. Which always makes me jumpy, because it’s true. We’ve returned to time-share systems.

⁴This I know from a short stint at Siemens Energy Automation Systems. The only job that actually gave me nightmares.

⁵Various Facebook posts. I feel certain Steve has more authoritative sources.

Shooting pictures with your cheap, elderly smartphone is a less than promising endeavour, but we both took a few anyways. Here they are to give you a flavor of traveling across North Dakota and Montana.

Deb has the newer camera, so just for comparison we have shots of the same subject. My camera first:

And here’s Deb. You can see her camera’s superiority fairly well. Yep that’s the start of the blizzard.

And just for fun, here’s another from Deb’s camera of the same subject, but at a different angle. It emphasizes our future in a couple of months. I hope my swollen knee has recovered by then.

Back to my camera. I just liked the blue light in the foreground. But my camera also picks up the snow.

This must have been a sizable lake. But I’m a bad photographer – I don’t notice where I’m located. Nor did the camera, worse luck.

Or maybe we stumbled onto the set for a very early prequel of the Star Wars series:

Here we see the skeletons of two Walkers as they evolve towards their destiny.

Horrid. Ah! Hear David Attenborough’s voice.

Here we see a family of Walkers at the beach, wearing fashionable swimwear rather than their usual heavy armor. Perhaps we’ll see them mating at dusk, their favorite time for amorous activities.

Moving on then … here’s a couple of random pictures to clear the palate before a finale. These are probably food for the Walkers.

Stop that!

And just a little color in Washington. Maybe I should have just skipped this one.

Finally, Deb & I present a couple of pics of abstract art, as presented through the window of the speeding train.

And something vaguely van Gogh.

We hope you enjoyed that taste of the bleak North Dakota farmland.

Kakistocracy:

For this one, I direct you to this post by Dartagnan on The Daily Kos. It’s a really lovely word which I shall have to work into conversations. Although Dartagnan is a little abrasive in his application.

Remember Congress passing a bill to sanction Russia for its various misdeeds against the wishes of President Trump?

Maybe he forgot.

Foreign Policy reports a couple of Senators are irate:

On Wednesday, leading senators from both parties — Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin and Arizona Republican John McCain — criticized the Donald Trump administration for not meeting a deadline for implementing new sanctions on Russia’s defense and intelligence sectors.

“The delay calls into question the Trump administration’s commitment to the sanctions bill which was signed into law more than two months ago, following months of public debate and negotiations in Congress,” they said in a statement. …

Cardin, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and McCain, chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, were the chief sponsors of the sanctions legislation in question, which passed the Senate by a 98-2 vote. The measure was part of a legislative push to give Congress more control over Russia sanctions, and to increase the scope of U.S. economic pressure on Moscow.

Some may say this is the risk you run when those responsible for making the law are separate from those charged with implementing the law. However, I think the Trump Administration is running a long-term risk – pissing off Congress. Congress is a body with a reputation for being jealous of its rank and powers, and if Trump is perceived as ignoring the laws made by Congress, they’ll remember.

They’ll remember if they ever see the Articles of Impeachment on their desks.

It’s not wise for Trump to give them reason to vote against him when push comes to shove. He’s accomplished a lot of firsts, although most of them would be considered blots on his record, rather than highlights. But a successful ouster would be the ultimate black spot for Trump. If he’s listening to advisers who are suggesting he ignore this law, he might be better served by sending those advisers down the same path so many of his people have already taken.

Right out the back exit.

Source: Missoulian

We recently took a vacation trip to Seattle, and we chose to take a train for the outbound leg of our trip, specifically the Amtrak Empire Builder, which has a daily run from Chicago to Seattle, via St. Paul and a number of other stops, going through Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and finally Washington. At Spokane, the back half of the train disconnects and connects to another engine to go to Portland, Oregon.

From St. Paul, where we embarked, the trip is about 36 hours, starting around 10:20 pm in the evening, at least for the Sunday – Tuesday run. We rented a family room, which cost us about $700 with a month and a half gap between buying the tickets and actually traveling. Tickets rose in price as the departure date approached. That price also covers meals, which were actually rather nice, including omelettes, pancakes, burgers, steaks, chicken, etc. The Dining Car has far less capacity than the entire train, so if your party is less than four, you almost always find yourself talking to strangers. We enjoyed that experience. As one of our lunch companions pointed out, this is the slow, relaxing way to travel, and if you can self-entertain in the environs of the train, so much the better. At $700 for us, the price is comparable to plane tickets before considering the superior meal service offered by the train. I wish I knew if it is more environmentally friendly than air travel.

The compartment itself stretches the width of the train car, so we had windows on both sides of us; it was perhaps 4 ft deep. I’m sure the Amtrak site would have more precise information.

We had hoped to experience fall colors, but the trip across North Dakota was dull, and Montana and Idaho was blizzard and then dark. Only in Washington did we get color. By then, my Arts Editor was struggling as she could not sleep; I was more resilient, fortunately, although for a day or so after we disembarked I had minor bouts of vertigo.

For those readers who are unfamiliar with train travel – it was our first experience – we have a few photos of the interior.

Here’s the bathroom facilities, which are shared among all in this particular car. They are much like those on an airplane, in good but not great repair. A shower is also provided (no picture), fairly small in itself, but encased in a room with enough room to disrobe and dress. My Arts Editor tells me that worked out quite well for her.

Here’s the comfortable bench on which I spent several hours catching up on my reading. (Just kidding. I never catch up.) For sleeping, this folds into a bed, which could comfortably contain two slim, intimate sleepers. There was also an upper bunk, although we declined the option, as neither of us wanted to stumble down the steps in the middle of the night.

The bench does not stretch across the entire width, but it was wide enough for me to sprawl comfortably.

On the south side of the room were two chairs, facing each other – although if one of the passengers has long legs, there may be a problem. In this picture, the two chairs have been folded into the sleeping configuration, once again with an upper bunk (not shown). In this way, it’s practical to have four or perhaps five travelers in this room – if two of them are fairly short.

This is another view of facing seats, daytime configuration.

And this is another view of the bench and the northern window, along with the shallow storage locker.

Finally, I mentioned Montana had a blizzard (or maybe it was just light snow). It made for this fun view on the southern window.

I’ll post a few more pictures over the next few days. If you’re wondering if we’d travel by train again, given that Deb couldn’t really sleep, probably not; but I wouldn’t mind it, since I rarely get to simply sit and read.

And no wi-fi service, which I perversely think of as a good thing. Some Amtrak trains have it.