Janissary:
- often capitalized :a soldier of an elite corps of Turkish troops organized in the 14th century and abolished in 1826
- :a member of a group of loyal or subservient troops, officials, or supporters
Noted in “‘The Saddest Thing’: President Trump Acknowledges Constraint,” Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare, previously quoted here.
Reading AL Monitor‘s Week In Review, it appears President Trump is being completely outmaneuvered in Iraq by Russian President Putin:
Russian President Vladimir Putin repositioned himself as a key broker of Iraqi energy politics last week, while US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was scolded by the Iraqi government for his comments about Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMU).
Given America’s history and assets in Iraq, it seems a reach that Russia could be outflanking the United States in Iraq, as we suggested last week. But while Putin choreographs each move with a wary and calculating eye on Iran and the ever-shifting regional landscape, the United States limits its options by seeing every Iranian move as adversarial and in zero-sum terms, which only serves to frustrate Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who prefers that the United States and Iran not play out their hostility in Iraq.
So in the same week that Tillerson earned a rebuke from Abadi’s office for saying “Iranian militias in Iraq” should “go home” — the prime minister’s statement termed the PMU “Iraqi patriots” — Iraq and Russia signed an expansive energy and economic protocol. The agreement opened discussions of more favorable terms for Russian companies and contractors in Iraq involving electricity and hydropower plants, oil and gas fields, equipment and supplies. The protocol touched on Russian soft loans in support of these projects as long as Russia has the lead in building and running these plants and operations.
Particularly striking is the description of how the United States sees the landscape. While this is not nearly enough information to go on – and I’m not an expert in this sort of thing – it smells like the triumph of false preconception over realism in the State Department. Our preoccupation with Iran can be very injurious if we permit that to limit how we think about the Middle East, and let our inevitable provincialism rule us.
That’s the danger of despising the experts, many of whom have spent their lives learning and evaluating their particular areas of expertise; “down home wisdom,” out of its context, has no application and, in fact, a negative potentiality.
If this bears out as a negative outcome for the United States, we should then consider how Secretary of State’s Tillerson’s management has brought about this result, whether it’s his lack of experience, or his diligent approach to reducing the ranks in the State Department.
I’d rather not hope for this, but this may turn out to be one in a long series of failures for the United States. However, this may be mitigated as most of the energy landscape in Iraq is, of course, oil, and the world is slowly moving away from fossil fuels. If this accelerates, whether through government incentives or a populace that realizes this energy source is not scaling properly, then this failure may not be important as some might assume, except, of course, symbolically.
Snow is not the end of the outdoor picture season, it only seems like it.
Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare describes the situation at the DoJ:
But what are these chains? They are not the stolid personality of Jim Comey. Trump managed to get rid of Comey. They are not Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Rosenstein, neither of whom has shrouded himself in glory. Both men have vacillated, rather, between honorable behavior and dishonorable behavior over their times in office. Both men have sometimes acted to protect the integrity of independent law enforcement—Sessions by recusing himself from the Russia matter and Rosenstein by appointing Robert Mueller and stalwartly protecting his investigation. But both men also facilitated the President’s firing of Comey. And they have both covered for Trump’s grotesque interactions with law enforcement even as Trump has humiliated them repeatedly. Rosenstein’s speech vouching for the President’s commitment to the rule of law is only the latest example. Neither of them has shown one tenth the backbone of the now-resigned head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Chuck Rosenberg.
So what are the chains then? The chains are the workaday women and men of federal law enforcement, and their expectations that the political echelon at the Justice Department will shield them from becoming the President’s janissaries and enforcers. Trump is menacing the norm of independent law enforcement. He is chomping at the bit to do violence to it. But at least for now, it is holding. It remains strong enough that Trump can fulminate all he wants about how the Justice Department should be investigating Hillary Clinton and he can spit fire about the fact that Sessions hasn’t done more to “protect” him. Yet Mueller grinds on and does his job. The FBI grinds on and does its job. And the Justice Department grinds on and does its job. And the President finds it the “saddest thing” that none of their jobs, as our democratic polity has determined them to be over a long period of time, includes fulfilling his undemocratic aspirations to loose investigators on people he doesn’t like or to have a Justice Department that protects him and his family and his campaign from scrutiny. The saddest thing indeed.
It’s a stunning statement of presidential constraint by the rule of law, if not a statement of belief in it: Trump actually declared this week that while he aspires to corruptly interfere with law enforcement, he just can’t pull it off.
And I suppose I should be reassured that the strong democracy built by Whigs and Republicans and Democrats over more than two centuries is standing up to the depradations of the unprincipled Trump.
But even granite can be worn away by the slow, relentless assault of water, and so I don’t think we can wait for Trump to simply run out his term. I think he should be impeached before he can do more official damage; and it would be good if he went out as the public embarrassment that he is, rather than some sort of martyr to the conservatives. But for that to happen, the right wing media would have to turn on him.
Scurrilous:
adjective
- grossly or obscenely abusive:
a scurrilous attack on the mayor.- characterized by or using low buffoonery; coarsely jocular or derisive:
a scurrilous jest.
Just because I used it earlier today, and I wanted a more precise definition than I had in my head.
Lloyd Alter surprises me with this statement on Treehugger.com as he discusses the world’s largest building constructed with Cross-Laminated Lumber:
Anthony Thistleton, speaking in Toronto at the Wood Solutions Fair, explained that the reasons for using CLT are prosaic: it is a lot lighter, a fifth the weight of a concrete frame, so it doesn’t need deep pile foundations, which would have been problematic with a new Crossrail subway line going underneath. It goes up a lot faster, and in real estate development, time is money. Because the CLT has a bit of insulation value, it needs less additional insulation. Because the CLT buildings have more wall and less column, there is less infill framing. So that overall, the cost often ends up being less than building with concrete.
All those other green benefits, the storing of carbon, the saving of 600 heavy trucks running through London, the renewable resource? Nice to have too, but the real story here is that you can build a better building for cheap.
Thistleton said he wasn’t thrilled about cladding the building in brick, necessary to fit in with the neighbourhood; he thinks it’s inappropriate to put such a heavy cladding on such a light building. I don’t agree; architects have been putting brick facades on wood frame buildings for centuries, and it does fit in with the neighbourhood. I love how they photograph the building from in front of an old brick wall with old mattresses and junk; it is now part of the urban fabric. “The building’s intricate brickwork references both the surrounding Victorian and Edwardian housing and the craftsmanship-like detailing of the local warehouses.”
The brick also gives it a bit of weight; Thistleton notes that a problem with such a light building isn’t holding it up, but holding it down. Wind loads become more important.
It hadn’t occurred to me that generally reasonable winds might cause a building made of lumber to take flight. Naturally, extreme weather such as tornadoes and hurricanes are a different matter, but the implication here is of more reasonable winds.
Into the old email feedbag comes another bit of dubious email. It feeds off some true life scandals, making it easy to lead its readers down scurrilious paths. Due to its nature, I’ll quote it in total and then descend upon it. It was quite colorful, with red dominating the first set of entries, and green the second half.
FALL IS NEARLY UPON US WITH THE GIVING SEASON RIGHT BEHIND – DONATING ITEMS OR MONEY… WHICH GROUP? A TIMELY REMINDER BEFORE YOUR GENEROUS SPIRITS OPEN YOUR WALLETS. Who Would Have Imagined That This Was The Case
The
American Red Cross
President and CEO Marsha J.
Evans’
salary for the year was $651,957
plus expensesMARCH OF
DIMES
It is called the March of
Dimes because
only a dime for
every 1 dollar is given to the
needy.The
United Way
President Brian
Gallagher
receives a $375,000 base salary
along with numerous expense benefits.UNICEF
CEO Caryl M. Stern
receives
$1,200,000 per year (100k
per month) plus all expenses including a ROLLS
ROYCE.
Less than 5
cents of your donated dollar goes to the
cause.GOODWILL
CEO and owner Mark Curran
profits $2.3 million a year.
Goodwill is a
very catchy name for his business.
You donate to his business
and then he sells the items for
PROFIT.
He pays nothing
for his products and pays his workers minimum wage!
Nice Guy.
$0.00 goes to
help anyone!
Stop giving to this
man.Instead, give to any of the following
GO “GREEN” AND
PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE IT WILL DO SOME GOOD:
The
Salvation Army
Commissioner, Todd Bassett
receives a small salary of only
$13,000 per year(plus housing) for
managing this $2 billion dollar
organization.
96 percent of donated dollars go
to the cause.The
American Legion
National Commander receives
a $0.00 zero
salary.
Your donations go to help
Veterans and their families and youth!The
Veterans of Foreign WarsNational Commander receives
a $0.00 zero
salary.
Your donations go
to help
Veterans and their families and youth!The
Disabled American Veterans
National Commander receives
a $0.00 zero
salary.
Your donations go
to help
Veterans and their families and youth!The
Military Order of Purple Hearts
National Commander receives a
$0.00 zero salary.
Your donations go
to help
Veterans and their families and youth!The Vietnam Veterans Association
National Commander receives
a $0.00 zero
salary.
Your donations go
to help
Veterans and their families and youth!Make a Wish:
For children’s last
wishes.
100% goes to funding trips or
special wishes for a dying child.St. Jude
Research Hospital
100% goes towards funding and
helping Children with Cancer who have no insurance and
cannot afford to pay.Ronald
McDonald Houses
All monies go to running
the houses for parents who have critically ill
Children in the hospital.
100% goes to housing, and feeding
the families.Lions
Club International
100% OF DONATIONS GO TO HELP THE
BLIND, BUY HEARING AIDES, SUPPORT MEDICAL MISSIONS
AROUND THE WORLD.THEIR LATEST
UNDERTAKING
IS MEASLES VACCINATIONS
(ONLY $1.00 PER SHOT).Please share this with everyone you can.
So do these accusations fly? Or is this more like that poor cow used in catapult testing? Here’s my analysis:
American Red Cross – Via Charity Navigator, here is the data on the American Red Cross:
ARC is characterized as being in excess of $1 billion. While the mischaracterization of the CEO’s salary is minor, it’s important to keep in mind the size of the organization, the high rating of the organization – and how little impact the CEO’s salary has on it. So long as the CEO is an effective leader, it’s difficult to fault the salary. Still, it’s a judgment call.
March of Dimes – Via Charity Navigator, I chose to use their Financial Performance Metrics, since the complaint was about how much money makes it to the recipients.
Financial Performance Metrics
Program Expenses
(Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers)75.6% Administrative Expenses 11.0% Fundraising Expenses 13.3% Fundraising Efficiency $0.14 Working Capital Ratio (years) < 0.01 Program Expenses Growth 0.6% Liabilities to Assets 88.1% All data for Financial Performance Metrics calculations was provided by March of Dimes on recent 990s filed with the IRS.
Questions concerning the above categories can be answered by following the link, above, and clicking on the category names. In general, it appears to fairly well run, but with room for improvement – Charity Navigator’s score of 75.6% for Program Expenses is near the top of its second-tier in that category, nearly first tier. I’d rate this claim false.
The United Way – Via Charity Navigator –
| Compensation | % of Expenses | Paid to | Title | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $849,581 | 0.94% | Brian A. Gallagher | President, CEO |
So the mail is accurate. However, here are The United Way financials:
Program Expenses
(Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers)91.4% Administrative Expenses 5.4% Fundraising Expenses 3.0% Fundraising Efficiency $0.04 Working Capital Ratio (years) 0.49 Program Expenses Growth 0.3% Liabilities to Assets 44.5% All data for Financial Performance Metrics calculations was provided by United Way Worldwide on recent 990s filed with the IRS.
A Program Expenses value of 91.4% is very good, indeed. So here you have to decide if you’re terribly offended at the high salary of a very well run, apparently, charity.
UNICEF – Via Charity Navigator –
Compensation of Leaders (FYE 06/2016)
Compensation % of Expenses Paid to Title
$537,682 0.09% Caryl M. Stern President, CEO
Or less than 50% of the claim. Still, it’s a hefty amount, isn’t it? Does the CEO deliver?
Financial Performance Metrics
Program Expenses
(Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers)89.8% Administrative Expenses 2.7% Fundraising Expenses 7.4% Fundraising Efficiency $0.07 Working Capital Ratio (years) 0.22 Program Expenses Growth 3.1% Liabilities to Assets 50.2% All data for Financial Performance Metrics calculations was provided by UNICEF USA on recent 990s filed with the IRS.
Program Expenses of 89.8% puts it in the top tier for efficiency, and suggests far more than 5 cents of your dollar makes it to recipients.
At this juncture, honestly, the authors of this mail are beginning to look like cold-blooded manipulators who object to these causes on ideological grounds – and will lie and bully to get their way. Still, let’s see on this last one.
Goodwill – In Charity Navigator there are a number of Goodwill entries, confusing me, so I did a search of the Web for Mark Curran and Goodwill. The result, as summarized on Wikipedia (other sites supporting):
A widely circulated email titled “Think Before You Donate” aims to convince readers that “Goodwill CEO and Owner Mark Curran profits $2.3 million a year”, but fact-checking groups have debunked the content of the email: the CEO of Goodwill Industries International is not Mark Curran, nor does he make $2.3 million a year.[27] The current President and CEO of Goodwill is Jim Gibbons, who in 2014 received a total reported compensation of $689,418.[28]
So this appears to be out and out deception. For those who believe that all scandals should be revealed, Goodwill has certainly had a few, such as pay out of line for CEOs of the various branches, and some questions about the use of disabled labor. In the end, this out and out lie was unnecessary, as the facts on the ground may be enough to discourage potential donors.
So how about this manipulator’s favorites?
The Salvation Army – I do not see a Todd Bassett on the Salvation Army’s list of Commissioners. Ah, here we go – PRO bono of Australia covered a similar email, and I’ll just borrow their coverage on The Salvation Army:
Finally, in reference to The Salvation Army Snopes.com said “The information presented above is outdated, as W. Todd Bassett stepped down as National Commander of The Salvation Army in April 2006; the current National Commander of the Salvation Army is William A. Roberts. The Salvation Army is not required to file a Form 990 with the IRS because it is primarily a religious organisation, but according to the Better Business Bureau (BBB), Roberts’ last reported total annual compensation was $126,920, much higher than the $13,000 reported above. Forbes rates this organisation’s efficiency at 82 per cent, a fair bit lower than the 93 per cent figure claimed in the story.”
The American Legion has been difficult to find uptodate figures. Back in 2009 and 2011 stories were published refuting this $0 salary claim, but of course, this may have changed – perhaps current General Rohan is not receiving a salary. However, given the size of the organization, I feel that’s not true, and feel reasonably confident in the suspicion that the author of this mail has, once again, lied through his teeth.
Well, that’s enough of today’s game of Manipulate the Reader – I feel full up to the ears of malignant lies. We’ve seen buttons pushed and money thrown around. Were you a victim? Or did you smell rotten fish and ignored this one? I hope it was the latter.
And I must say there are many sites out there that will discredit mail like this. Rather than accept these malignant lies into your lives, perhaps a little research is in order.
Or just discard the damn things. They rot the mind and the soul.
Lloyd Alter, design guy on Treehugger.com, surveys the terror truck landscape and sees it all about being a design problem:
So a solution to the problem of vehicular terrorism is the same solution that we have been proposing to reduce the number of deaths of pedestrians and cyclists all along: Make SUVs and trucks as safe as cars or get them off the road. It is a vehicle design problem. Or if you are going to still allow a more dangerous design of vehicle, give it a tougher licensing regime. Reduce their availability to those who actually need them and regulate the hell out of them.
I cannot agree, because the first rough patch in the road will be the drivers who will howl in protest on any limitations on their vehicles. First you have to deal with how the perception of absolute freedom is leading to advancing terrorism, both in terms of vehicles and in terms of guns.
And why did the guy in NYC end up waving around a paintgun, rather than some NRA special? I sure hope he – or someone – provides an answer to that one.
On Lawfare, Mieke Eoyang, Ben Freeman, and Benjamin Wittes performed some polling and have a warning for Robert Mueller:
The first question, regarding Mueller, ran from October 25 to October 27, which was coincidentally the day that Mueller obtained the indictments from a grand jury but which preceded any announcement of charges. The results show that the public has low confidence in Mueller. In fact, 32 percent report having “no confidence” in Mueller on a scale ranging from 1 (“no confidence”) to 5 (“high confidence”). No confidence was by far, the modal response. When combined with respondents selecting 2 on this scale, more than 45 percent have low confidence in Mueller, compared to just 30 percent that have above average confidence in him (those selecting 4 and 5 on this scale). While other polls have found that Americans are sharply divided along partisan lines about the investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 election, we find this same general pattern of low confidence in Mueller holds across all age, gender, and regional sub-groups. Google Survey’s inferred demographics do not let us screen for party preference, registered voters, or likely voters.
Given that Mueller is a Republican, I suppose the Democrats don’t trust him, and the GOP tribal members regard him as a traitor to the Party. Don’t despair, though:
At the very moment we published this post, the Washington Post released its own poll on confidence in Mueller, one with a strikingly different finding:
More than twice as many Americans approve as disapprove of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of possible coordination between Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds, indicating that the conservative effort to discredit the probe has fallen flat as the case has progressed toward its first public charges.
A 58 percent majority say they approve of Mueller’s handling of the investigation while 28 percent say they disapprove, the Post-ABC poll finds. People’s views depend in large part on their political leanings, but overall, Americans are generally inclined to trust Mueller and the case he has made so far.
Meanwhile, fewer than 4 in 10 Americans say they believe Trump is cooperating with Mueller’s investigation, while about half believe he is not.
The poll was taken a few days after ours, between October 30 and November 1, and thus may well reflect respondents’ reaction to the indictment and plea this week. In other words, the two surveys may be less inconsistent they are evocative of volatility in public opinion about the investigation.
Time will tell. I thought this was interesting as well:
While concern about foreign influence may be lower than many in D.C. would expect, the public is unabashedly opposed to foreign influence in U.S. elections and the spreading of fake news, even if it is designed to help a candidate respondents support.
A majority of respondents (51 percent) “strongly disagree” with the statement “I believe that spreading inaccurate news is an acceptable tactic in a U.S. election if it helps a candidate I support.” And, a plurality (42 percent) “strongly disagree” with foreign interference if it helps a candidate they support. If respondents that just “disagree” with these statements are included, then more than seven in ten respondents oppose both foreign influence generally and the spreading of fake news specifically even if it would help their preferred candidate.
Source: Lawfare
I’m fairly appalled that the barest majority strongly sees fake news as an illegitimate political tactic; I take the simple “Disagree” category respondents to be fairly wishy washy on the topic, no matter how tempting it is to add them to the strongly oppose group and come up with a 75% or so opposition. Unfortunately, the poll respondents were not classified as to political leanings or to age group, so I can only speculate that the finding reflects the feelings of those who feel threatened by today’s controversial and new topics – that is, the older white male, who sees their dominant cultural position threatened.
Still, I’d hope the adherence to the best principles of our Republic – not to mention various religious sects – would be stronger than this. I’d be far happier with a number in the 80s or 90s; a reading of 51% suggests a culture of lip-service to principle which will eventually destroy the nation if it’s not corrected.
So this is not an encouraging poll for the future of the nation.
And in a bit of unexpected … well, insert your own emotion here … CNN put up a report overnight that echoes our own problems. It’s entitled:
“Until now, the North Korean system has prevailed through an effective and credible reign of terror and by almost perfectly preventing the free-flow of outside information,” according to Thae Yong-ho, a former high-ranking North Korean official who defected to South Korea. …
“There are great and unexpected changes taking place within North Korea. Contrary to the official policy and wish of the regime, the free markets are flourishing … the citizens do not care about state propaganda but increasingly watch illegally imported South Korean movies and dramas,” he said. …
The US could “touch the Achilles Heel of Kim Jong Un” by tapping into the societal shift within the North Korean population with a targeted information campaign that disseminates basic concepts of freedom and human rights, according to Thae. …
But by strategically producing and distributing tailor-made content that challenges the North Korean population to critically analyze their own living conditions, the US could counter the Kim regime’s brainwashing operation over the long-term — a move that could foster domestic dissatisfaction that may eventually help drive Kim toward a willingness to compromise, he said.
“These changes, however, make it increasingly possible to think about civilian uprising in North Korea,” Thae told US lawmakers. “As more and more people gradually become informed about the reality of their living conditions, the North Korean government will either have to change and adapt in positive ways for its citizens, or to face the consequences of their escalating dissatisfaction.”
This is congruent with Obama’s strategy of patience, but I don’t know if that Administration was attempting to insert information into North Korean society. Such a strategy, it’s worth noting, is not congruent with American Instant Gratification.
FiveThirtyEight‘s Clare Malone and Jeff Asher are upset at the latest FBI Crime Report:
Every year, the FBI releases a report that is considered the gold standard for tracking crime statistics in the United States: the Crime in the United Statesreport, a collection of crime statistics gathered from over 18,000 law-enforcement agencies in cities around the country. But according to an analysis by FiveThirtyEight, the 2016 Crime in the United States report — the first released under President Trump’s administration — contains close to 70 percent fewer data tables1 than the 2015 version did, a removal that could affect analysts’ understanding of crime trends in the country. The removal comes after consecutive years in which violent crime rose nationally, and it limits access to high-quality crime data that could help inform solutions.
And this move by the FBI – or the Trump Administration – can be construed as a head feint:
The FBI noted that in addition to its decision to streamline the report, UCR had launched a Crime Data Explorer, which aims to make crime data more user-interactive. But data contained in the explorer does not replicate what is missing from the 2016 UCR report, and it doesn’t allow users to view data for particular years, but rather aggregates trends over a minimum period of 10 years. The National Incident-Based Reporting System is another tool the FBI uses to provide more detailed information on crimes, but it too does not replicate what is missing from the 2016 UCR report and has a substantially lower participation rate4 from police departments across the country.
By placing a software interface between the data and person, the data can be manipulated as the author and/or controller of the interface wishes, whether to change the data or simply not make it available. I much prefer the raw data be made available, even in slightly processed form, over the provision of some fucking interface.
In general, this is the sign of authoritarianism – the control of information. And in the Age of Information, this is a blow to the knees of the nation. This is information which needs to be made freely available in order to assess ongoing efforts to resolve issues associated with criminality. For example, former NYC Mayor and Trump ally Guiliani likes to claim policies he instituted reduced crime in NYC, but this has drawn criticism from crime researchers. FBI information may be critical for assessing the claims – and if it’s not available, a Trump ally can continue to claim success (and prestige).
As much as it makes me cringe, I think it’s worth exploring the option of having Congress require the FBI issue this report and specify the content of the report. It’s not nearly enough, but Congress can only do so much; malcontents within the Bureau could still contaminate the data. It would at least fix the suppression of data on a political basis.
But I’m a little at a loss as to what else to do.
The Alliance to Secure Democracy is watching Twitter, or more specifically those accounts linked to the Russian campaign to influence American opinion. It’s a near real-time dashboard summarizing the activity of suspected and known Twitter accounts. There current Top Themes section:
Between October 14 and October 20, we examined 58 unique URLs that were promoted by Kremlin-oriented Twitter accounts. The most prominent theme (24% of all URLs shared) was the probe into the sale of a uranium mining company to Russia’s Atomic Energy Agency that was approved by the Obama administration in 2010. The original reporting by The Hill was a top URL for several consecutive days, all other URLs shared promoted some variation on a theme of corruption, collusion, cover-up by the Clinton-led State Department and/or the Mueller-led FBI (#ClintonRussianCollusion was also a top hashtag last week). Outside of the uranium probe, ten other URLs shared (17% of the total) were coded as anti-Mueller, Comey, and/or Clinton. Conversely, four stories (7%) shared by the network were pro-Julian Assange/Wikileaks. Syria was again the most discussed geopolitical topic, appearing in 10% of the URLs shared by the network. Among other geopolitical topics, “whatboutism” was a prominent theme, with individual stories shared that compared Catalonia to Kosovo and that blamed the United States for worsening U.S./Russian relations due to the bombing of Belgrade in 1999.
I’m not a Twitter user, and I can’t imagine bothering, but if I were and had the time, I’d keep an eye on this in an attempt to understand the psychological approaches the Russians are using to subvert our Republic.
So we can at least say the GOP is not led by zombies. NBC News reports on the progress of the tax reform bill:
House Republicans will delay releasing their tax bill until Thursday, it was announced Tuesday night.The bill had originally been scheduled to be unveiled Wednesday. But speculation over a delay was rampant on Capitol Hill on Tuesday night, with representatives of House leaders pointing to the Ways and Means Committee for any final decision or announcement.
“In consultation with President Trump and our leadership team, we have decided to release the bill text on Thursday,” said Kevin Brady, R-Texas, the committee’s chairman. “We are pleased with the progress we are making and we remain on schedule to take action and approve a bill at our Committee beginning next week.”
Republican members privately aired their frustration with a process that they feel cut out of, and some issues were still unresolved hours before the bill had been slated for release.
My bold. I wonder how much longer Rep. Ryan (R-WI) will remain Speaker of the House. In this position, he has the ultimate responsibility on how these bills are written, and if he’s pissing off members of his own caucus, well, that’s not encouraging happy feelings. Right now it seems like Congressional Republicans, with key exceptions, are mostly useful for being votes – and nothing else.
That can’t be a good feeling, especially as they watch their dominant Party demonstrate amazing incompetence.
How many of them have learned to assess the long-term with clear eyes? Or are they crippled there, too?
For those of you who use the ACA for healthcare coverage, the open enrollment period is now available here. Please spread the word.
CNN is reporting Trump’s reaction to the supposed terror attack in NYC:
President Donald Trump called for “quick” and “strong” justice for terror suspects in the wake of the deadly New York City attack, saying that it is not surprising terror attacks happen because the way the United States punishes terrorists is “a laughing stock.”
So what, does Trump want a lynch mob to bust into the jail holding the alleged terrorist and lynch him?
To be frank, I suspect Trump would have no problem with that. Trump the politician has existed on the unrestrained emotions of his followers, and for his continued political survival, he has to keep stirring the pot.
No matter how much more damage this does to the reputation of the United States.
Quick and strong justice is the recipe for INjustice, for discouraging the highest quality immigrants which we depend on. It is in the strongest American legal traditions to permit a strong defense of all accused criminals, and then to incarcerate them, whether in jail or in a mental institute, once a finding of Guilty or Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity is reached.
I suggest that, in view of the newly emerging trends of today, the Era of Information, President Trump, if he’s honest, give up his “Oh, believe me” schtick, and provide us information that shows the world thinks the world’s finest justice system is really a laughingstock. A poll run by a reputable polling service might be just the ticket.
The catch is, he’s not allowed to suppress polls he doesn’t like.
No, Mr. President, this nation is not going down the path of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Not ever. You can quit your rabble-rousing ways right now.
Take a very close look
If you can get that big ball of incredulity regarding the background of Screamers (1995) down your throat, the balance of the movie is a nitty-gritty story that hews fairly close to the logic inherent in the background and premises, bringing a certain grim integrity to this example of noir.
The NEB is a corporation mining for “barynium” (I think) on another world, but when the scientists realize that radiation is flooding out of the mines, they demand they be shut down. The greedy corporation refuses, and the scientists and miners shut them down by force; the corporation retaliates through the use of nuclear weapons.
It’s five years later, the Alliance and the soldiers of the NEB are holed up in bunkers, and the revolt now employs “screamers,” cat-sized robots capable of fast burrowing through the sand of the planet, equipped with sensors with which to distinguish friend from foe (through “tabs” worn by the Alliance), armed with “swords” with which they hack opponents to pieces and make an unholy racket.
And they’re also armed with artificial intelligence.
When an NEB soldier appears in front of an Alliance outpost carrying a message, and is hacked to pieces by the screamers, the message is conveyed to the Alliance commander. It’s a request for peace negotiations, as the NEB has found a new source of barynium and no longer needs this planet.
The commander, along with a new recruit rescued from a crashed transport, decide to investigate, and they make their way to the NEB bunker. On the way, they pick up the unexpected: a child, clinging to his teddy bear, who has survived these 5 years in the ruins of a city, and they take him with them.
When they come across an NEB outpost, they come under fire, which is certainly unexpected, but even more unexpected is the target: the child. And when the child is hit, it doesn’t bleed.
It erupts sparks.
The Alliance commander discusses this with the NEB outpost, who seem half-insane, but agree to take him to the NEB commander, if he can be found. But the place is a charnel house, dead soldiers hacked to pieces, and no sign of the commander. And now a new type of screamer appears, a type that appears to be collecting intelligence.
Joining forces, the Alliance and NEB troops retreat out into the open, hurrying back to the Alliance outpost. Communications has been lost, apparently due to the systemic radiation, but as they approach, suspicion takes hold, and they avoid being caught in the flood of screamers which bursts forth from the compromised outpost.
Now down to two, the commander and a black marketeer woman, they decide to head for the emergency escape ship and return to Earth. Once there, and discovering the ship can only take one, a double of the black marketeer woman appears.
She’s a screamer.
In fact, they’re both screamers.
But because the first one has fallen in love, they fight, and in the end, the double is dead and the first is badly damaged, confessing all.
The commander boards the ship and it takes off for home. As we watch, a reflection in a viewport reveals a teddy bear.
And it’s moving.
While there are certainly some plot holes to go along with the preposterous background, and as long time readers of this blog will realize, I was very appreciative of the subtle but effective handling of the question of how artificial intelligence might evolve in response to the evolutionary pressures of being in the middle of a shooting war – and realizing that the side that created it isn’t necessarily the side it must be on. While Ex Machina (2015) was a more vivid and shocking movie, it didn’t address the question of how an artificial intelligence might evolve; it was really about the madness of the inventor infecting his creation, which may be more romantic or dramatic, but is less believable than the ideas presented in Screamers.
This is a dark and depressing movie, featuring characters at the end of their rope, in the midst of the insane situation which is war, struggling to adapt to a situation in which the constants have become variables, the servants struggling against masters.. It’s also one of the few movies I’ve caught on TV which I regret not seeing uncut, as there were some anomalies possibly attributable to the ready blade of the TV editor which detracted from the movie.
If you’re in the mood for some futuristic darkness, you may find Screamers is the under-rated movie for you.
