Monthly Archives: April 2018

According to WaPo, Trump’s base should be in their bunkers just about now:

According to multiple reports, people in agricultural communities are on edge over President Trump’s trade war with China. Now that China has retaliated against Trump’s tariffs by announcing its own tariffs on more than 100 American products, fears of a serious escalation are becoming more real by the moment, with stocks sliding and companies registering their objections over Trump’s actions to the White House.

New data supplied to me by the Brookings Institution show that agricultural communities are right to worry about what’s happening. But that’s not all: The data also show that other targeted industries should be worried as well. And it reveals that those who are vulnerable to negative impacts from these trade tensions are mostly concentrated in counties carried by Trump, though a lot of them are in counties carried by Hillary Clinton as well.

Makes me wonder if the Chinese are deliberately selecting Trump’s base as a target, or if the nature of the trade is such that Trump’s base would get his regardless. Interestingly, MPR mentioned tonight that we run a trade surplus in terms of agricultural goods with China. No more? That’s not so clear, as the MPR report suggests:

“If there’s going to be retaliation by [China], the odds are pretty high that it’s going to impact agricultural products,” said [Agricultural banker Kent] Thiesse.

Thiesse said that’s because the U.S. has a trade surplus with China for agricultural goods overall. So it’s not surprising China would target that sector for reprisals. But China’s demand for U.S. farm commodities also gives him hope that the two sides can reach a deal.

Thiesse, who works for MinnStar Bank in Lake Crystal, said since American farmers help feed the Asian nation, any reduction in that supply could be a problem for China.

“Are they going to be able to find enough soybeans in the next twelve months in the rest of the world to fulfill their needs if they aren’t buying as many from the U.S.,” said Thiesse.

Soybean producers are hoping that’s what will happen.

In any case, I’m sure the Chinese will be delighted to cause more turmoil in what used to be the most influential nation in the world; an ever-weaker President will, no doubt, aid their plans to supplant us in that regard.

In case you were wondering about the social aspects of SCOTUS during this highly partisan era, here‘s Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor in Research News @ Vanderbilt:

She credits mutual respect for sustaining the collegiality of the nation’s highest court despite some strong differences. She cited fellow Justice Clarence Thomas as the judge with whom she disagrees the most, but said the way he treats people outside the courtroom is endearing.

“He knows the name of every single employee in the building,” Sotomayor said. “I can stand here and say I just love the man as a person. He has the same value towards human beings as I have, despite our differences.”

Which tends to put attempts to discredit the members of SCOTUS in a dark light.

There’s something grimly funny about the Laura Ingraham situation. She’s the Fox News host who taunted school massacre survivor David Hogg concerning his college admissions failures; he then returned fire by listing her show’s commercial sponsors and suggesting his Twitter followers might call them up and discuss that support. Sponsors began dropping, although I haven’t tried to keep track.

So who’s rallying to her beleaguered side? From WaPo:

Embattled Fox News host Laura Ingraham has found some unlikely allies: Russian bots.

As Business Insider reported, Russian-linked Twitter accounts have rallied around the conservative talk-show host, who has come under fire for attacking the young survivors of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting.

According to the website Hamilton 68, which tracks the spread of Russian propaganda on Twitter, the hashtag #IstandwithLaura jumped 2,800 percent in 48 hours this weekend. On Saturday night, it was the top trending hashtag among Russian campaigners.

The website botcheck.me, which tracks 1,500 “political propaganda bots,” found that @ingrahamangle, @davidhogg111 and @foxnews were among the top six Twitter handles tweeted by Russia-linked accounts this weekend. “David Hogg” and “Laura Ingraham” were the top two-word phrases being shared.

Wading into controversy is a key strategy for Russian propaganda bots, which seize on divisive issues online to sow discord in the United States. Since the Feb. 14 Parkland shooting, which claimed 17 lives, Russian bots have flooded Twitter with false information about the massacre.

Assuming botcheck and Hamilton 68 are accurate, the rush of Russian bots to the rescue of Ingraham is a rather noir commentary on the status of a voice that would want to be associated with liberty and the right-wing. The Russians have little history with liberty, what with a dubious recent Presidential election and the attempted assassination of a former Russian spy in the UK. Further, the fact that foreign ‘bots on Twitter are being used to rally support suggests she’s dependent on foreign support to stay afloat, a suggestion which might be dubious in itself, but is hard to separate from authentic support.

Do authentic American Twitter users who support her know about the Russian support? Are we learning how to recognize efforts to stir up divisiveness, or are we not yet getting it?

Beats me.

These are the restrained hats.

The vampires are out to get you, if you live near their castle and are a villager, or so we’re lead to believe in Twins of Evil (1971). This is a dull story of that village near the castle, and the lives and deaths of the various villagers. First, there’s the painfully devout Brotherhood, led by Gustav, who have a hobby of capturing the local social outcasts, subjecting them to a quick trial as to whether they’re evil or not, and burning the losers. Up in the castle lives a vampire or two, who occasionally take victims from the village.

Into this village come a set of orphaned twins, lasses visiting their Uncle Gustav, who distinguish themselves with a couple of pairs of gorgeous hats, and cleavage nearly as magnificent as their hats (the uncut version, from what I’m seeing on the Internet, is considerably gamier). But one of them is predisposed to evil, and when the Count living in the castle puts the bite on her, she doesn’t die, but transforms into a vampire. She wreaks a little havoc over the next few days, but eventually the old bloodlust lures her into putting the bite on a member of the Brotherhood while he is on his way to a meeting, and she’s captured with blood on her chin, as it were.

Well, it was probably a soul-crushing meeting in any case.

She’s imprisoned, and, in case you didn’t guess, while the cats are away, because these meetings are never cancelled, the vampires shall play, in this case substituting the innocent twin for the vampire twin. We come close to burning the innocent one (and Anton, the handsome choirmaster and local atheist, nearly gets laid, but that would have ended badly), but disaster is averted, and the vampires are tracked down and staked.

Yeah, it was dull. The technicals were fine, but the story was numbing. Perhaps if I’d viewed an uncut-for-TV version … but I doubt it.

NewScientist (24 March 2018, paywall) reports on another way we can cross our circuits:

ELLIOT FREEMAN was a student when he first noticed that he could hear Morse code. Looking out into the dark one evening, he spotted a lighthouse flashing a signal. “Every time I saw the flash I heard a distinct buzzing sound,” he says. “I thought ‘That’s kind of odd. I should look into that sometime.’”

It turns out Freeman isn’t alone. He is one of a group of people who experience a phenomenon called visually evoked auditory response. This form of synaesthesia makes people hear noises when they see certain silent moving images. Now he has carried out the biggest study of the condition so far and found that one-fifth of us seem to experience it.

With his colleague Christopher Fassnidge, Freeman, a psychologist at City, University of London, built an online survey that tests for this response. They found that about 22 per cent of the 4000 respondents rated more than half the videos in the test as stimulating clear sounds.

22% showed visual-to-audio synaesthesia? Wow!

This does remind me of some experiments done a few years ago in which computer code was translated into sound, and then programmers would attempt to detect problems with the code by listening to the sound generated from the code in question. There was some evidence that this actually worked, but I’ve not heard anything since the initial report.

Here’s my guess how Windows 10 might sound:

Just kidding!

Way back in 2015 we talked a bit about the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, and how it appears to be approaching Three Stooges territory. Tonight, my partisan mail included this notification from the Democrats:

Wisconsin: With precincts still coming in, progressive candidate Rebecca Dallet has easily won a race for state Supreme Court, ousting a right-wing justice appointed by Scott Walker.

Perhaps the right wing magic is beginning to fail in Wisconsin, a state I tend to identify as more of a labor bastion than a right-wing bulwark; in fact, I’ve been puzzled by the support for Governor Walker. But I don’t live there – perhaps the Democrats fouled things up and disgusted the voters.

Now it may be the Republican’s turn.

I was trying to take pictures of our April snowstorm, but instead ended up proving the Universe is flat.

Now I’m tempted to get window screen and make it wavy before taking pictures at extreme angles.

Stoat:

The stoat (Mustela erminea), also known as the short-tailed weasel or simply the weasel in Ireland where the least weasel does not occur, is a mammal of the genus Mustela of the family Mustelidae native to Eurasia and North America, distinguished from the least weasel by its larger size and longer tail with a prominent black tip. Originally from Eurasia, it crossed into North America some 500,000 years ago, where it naturalized and joined the notably larger, closely related native long-tailed weasel. [Wikipedia]

Noted in “Why ancient deer returned to the sea and became whales,” Colin Barras, NewScientist (24 March 2018, paywall):

Some of the most spectacular species now living in the sea have land-living ancestors. Whales are descended from animals similar to deer, while walruses evolved from animals a bit like stoats.

The competition in the special election for AZ-8 continues to draw attention, even as Republicans claim they have a comfortable lead, reports Politico:

Source: Ballotpedia

House Speaker Paul Ryan will headline an April 18 fundraiser for Arizona Republican Debbie Lesko, according to a copy of an invitation to the event obtained by POLITICO. Attendees to the Capitol Hill fundraiser are being asked to give up to $2,500.

Lesko, a former state legislator, is running for a suburban Phoenix seat that President Donald Trump won by 21 percentage points. Party officials say their internal polling shows Lesko with a comfortable lead over the Democratic candidate, physician Hiral Tipirneni.

Yet Republicans are taking few chances after last month’s loss in a special election for a conservative Pennsylvania seat.

They don’t call out President Trump, who appears to have very short coattails, but a more predictable extremist – Speaker Ryan. There’s a hidden danger here for the Republicans, though. If Lesko fails to win what should be an easy victory in this district, this will taint Speaker Ryan. He’s strongly denied rumors that he’s intending to retire at the end of this current term, or even resign in the midst of it.

Source: Ballotpedia

However, if his presence fails to spur the faithful on to victory (yes, I chose that metaphor quite deliberately), and the Democrat takes the prize, or loses narrowly, that may spur Mr. Ryan to change his mind. If he leaves his seat open, which is the Wisconsin 1st district, then the Republicans lose the advantage of incumbency. Could the Democrats take the Speaker’s seat at the mid-terms?

The Republicans fear looking weaker and weaker, which is why they’re pouring resources into a “safe” seat. But there may be more at stake than is apparent.

The city of Atlanta was recently hit by a ransomware attack by a savvy gang of hackers – they only want somewhere in the neighborhood of $40,000 – $50,000, which is more than doable for a big city. Paul Rosenzweig and Megan Reiss on Lawfare explore two of the lessons:

Second, this episode is a prime example of a situation where what is good for the city is at odds with what is good for the federal and state governments.

Knowing it could lose a significant amount of data if the ransom is not paid, the city of Atlanta is facing a serious burden. Six bitcoins, while expensive, is almost certainly far less than the costs and man-hours that went in to the creation of the data that could be lost and will need to be recreated as a result of the freeze. If we were advising Atlanta as a client, our advice would be simple: “Pay the ransom.”

However, the federal government will almost certainly see things differently.

And you can guess why – paying the ransom will simply encourage the criminal behavior. A prime example of scoping, and why the Federal government isn’t a business.

Third, this episode should serve as a cautionary note on the unfettered growth of cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency can have malignant uses that seem to overwhelm—in both volume and effect—the benign purposes to which it can be put. The Atlanta attack is yet another example of a situation that would be nearly impossible to replicate in a world where no cryptocurrency existed. In the long run, the attack provides another data point in the ongoing effort to determine whether and how cryptocurrency should be regulated.

This would be a radical form of value transfer.

Yet, crime occurred prior to the advent of cryptocurrency. While not wishing to step on the authorss venerable toes, I have to wonder if the many ways to conceal and handle stolen money are not roughly equivalent to this particular scheme. I’m also somewhat baffled by their assertion that this scheme wouldn’t work without cryptocurrency. There are many ways to transfer value, which money is just one representation, from one entity to another – I have to wonder if it’s worthwhile to get hung up on the method of payment.

designboom has the word:

a campaign revealing mini furniture for cats is unveiled in japan amid a new generation of craftsmen’s hopes to build upon a once-prosperous industry. the 60-second clip shows the feline friends-come-guinea pigs getting comfy on genuine furniture scaled down to their size.

Pics on designboom.

Remember our vengeful expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats for the attempted murder of a former Russian spy? Business Insider discovers this is just a bit of political theater:

But there’s a catch.

A State Department official confirmed to Business Insider that the White House’s diplomatic expulsion will not require Russia to reduce its staffing levels in the US, and vice versa. In other words, the 60 diplomats who were kicked out — many of whom were undercover intelligence operatives— can be replaced by others.

USA Today first reported the news on Friday.

The revelation initially gained traction in Russian state media, which said an anonymous senior White House staffer told the Russian government that it could send new diplomats to take the place of those who had been expelled. The Russian state media outlet Vesti quoted the official as saying, “The doors are open.”

Or, in other words, Please replace your 60 spies with a different set of 60 spies. There’ll be a slowdown in spy production, true, but nothing truly damaging.

In a way, I find this revelation reassuring, because it returns Trump to his pattern of Russia-loving, and deception. For a while there, he actually looked like he was doing the right thing, and while that, in itself, is a good thing to see from our Executive Branch, it was somewhat disturbing to see an anomalous behavior.

But now we find that, behind the curtain, he’s still pulling the levers so as not to hurt Russia.

Good ol’ Donny, back in pattern.

There’s one hundred weasels waiting to attack you, you say? What were you doing in the forest, my friend?

Cyrano de Bergerac (1950) is a story about truth and falsity, ranging from fidelity to the needs of a story, to the needs of the heart and how ill-served it is by Cyrano’s insincerity. Cyrano, the bearer of the largest and ugliest nose in France, is a Guardsman in the 17th century, the leading member of his military unit, and the finest swordsman in the country. But his opinions are at least as pointed and aggressive as his sword; it is his supreme skills with the sword that keeps him alive – and esteemed by his comrades.

As the story opens, he appears shouting critiques of a play at a tavern, accusing the lead actor of playing poorly, of his failure to be true to the story he is to tell. He is pre-emptory, dominating, ecstatic, and when it is required, he donates all his available funds to refund the tickets to the patrons gathered: a considerable sum. This does not settle one patron, though, a member of the upper classes disposed against a man for interrupting a play – and possessing such a nose.

Cyrano owns up to the nose in memorable fashion, embracing its existence and how it might serve as a pivot for the agile wordsmith; during the following duel, he embraces his three most important attributes, of wit, nose, and swordsmanship, composing a ballad and reciting it during the fight, capping it all off by critically injuring his opponent.

But when his love, Roxanne, appears, he is uncertain, hesitant, his stomach in his mouth, as it were. She wishes to arrange a meeting, and his heart soars; when a friend and amateur poet appears, fearful for his life due to maladroit wordplay, Cyrano is delighted to fight the hostile band off, and even expresses disappointment at their small numbers.

The meeting with Roxanne, it turns out, is a dart in his chest: she loves a new Guardsman by the name of Christian, despite never having spoken with hi, and begs Cyrano to take care of him. Wracked with disappointment, he returns to his comrades, and pressed to recount his night’s battle, begins to do so – only to be interrupted by a stranger who makes wordplay of Cyrano’s deeds – and famous appendage. Cyrano demands this puppy’s name – Christian! His comrades, expecting the quick end of the newest Guardsman, are astounded at Cyrano’s restraint, and soon Cyrano chases all but Christian out.

Soon enough, Christian admits to admiring Roxanne, and Cyrano, betraying his allegiance to truth, has agreed to supply the words Christian lacks the wit to use. Let the wooing commence! It’s a rough road, but soon enough tongue meets tongue, much to their mutual delight. Roxanne is not above a little deceit, for when a message arrives instructing her to marry a military commander not to her liking, she reads it to all present as instructions to marry Christian, and Cyrano is assigned to delay the commander until the ceremony is complete.

But the commander has one more set of orders to his name, and that’s to wheel out and engage in war with the Spanish, and to leave immediately: there will be no wedding bed for Christian, no rest for Cyrano.

At the front of the war, Cyrano seals his fate with the letters he writes Roxanne under Christian’s name, for when Christian dies in her arms, it proves impossible for Cyrano to hope to court her, even as he proves his courage against the Spanish.

Years later, he is now a somewhat faded version of the man he once was, writing condemnatory opinions of how France is run for the local broadsides. No man willingly will face his sword, but assassination need not be accomplished via that avenue. Mortally injured, he finds himself making one last pilgrimage to the still-bereft Roxanne, where his lies are finally laid bare for Roxanne to mourn, and he faces death, sword in hand: and if he’s delusional, it is the sort he’d like, facing opponents and dealing them their blows, but he’s lost his way through his ill-considered lies, not only his life wasted, but Roxanne’s as well. A man cannot be two men and hope to have either end well, it seems.

This film has its problems, primarily with the visuals – they are blurry and, perhaps, this was not the best copy of the film available (Amazon Prime). On the other hand, the lead, José Ferrer, has a wonderful voice and plays the part just about perfectly. If you can put up with the visuals – or find a better copy of this film – then you should have a very good time.

Recommended.

Checking the partisan mail files, this came in from the Democrats:

Not long ago, the GOP leader in the Iowa Senate resigned in the aftermath of a sexual harassment scandal that cost taxpayers nearly $2 million.

Now Republicans are scheming to prevent his seat from flipping blue, and we only have a few days to stop them.

In the wake of the resignation, Republicans called a snap special election for April 10thto fill the vacant seat – that’s one week from tomorrow.

With little time for Democrats to recruit volunteers and a severely limited early voting period, Republicans think they can run out the clock on us before local Democrats can get their campaign off the ground.

The GOP is so sneaky? Well, no,  not really. According to The Courier, this date was announced March 17:

How vacancies are filled in Iowa

See also: How vacancies are filled in state legislatures

If there is a vacancy in the Iowa General Assembly, the vacant seat must be filled by a special election. The governor of Iowa is required within five days of a vacancy in the General Assembly to call for a special election. If the vacancy happens in session, the governor must call for an election as soon as possible with a minimum 18-day notice. All other special elections require a 45-day notice as long the election does not happen on the same day of a school election.

In accordance with the law, unlike Governor Walker of Wisconsin, who didn’t want to call one at all. So we have a little fear-mongering coming in from the left. Something to remember.

Jennifer Rubin, Right Turn, WaPo:

Contrary to the positive spin that Trump is now getting the Cabinet he wants (was he not president before this?), he’s in fact getting the dregs, the cranks, the Fox News personalities and the even more unqualified hangers-on to backfill posts.

That’s just so reassuring, JR.

My Arts Editor, due to return Saturday from Traverse City, Michigan, reports the weather forecast for tomorrow is calling for 1-2 feet of snow. Nothing like having a big lake next door to multiply winter weather.

Echoing other strikes, WaPo is reporting that Oklahoma teachers are walking out. Why?

The 30 or so teachers joined thousands more at the state Capitol, part of a statewide walkout that has shuttered schools across the state. Teachers in Muskogee, where the gym roof is so leaky that volleyball games get “rained out,” arrived to urge lawmakers to restore education funding. Many of them came bearing a threat: Increase education funding, or teachers will not return to work.

“I’m fed up,” said Rusty Bradley, a high school technology teacher whose classroom computers are more than a decade old, as the bus rumbled toward the state Capitol. After nearly 28 years on the job, he has seen state lawmakers repeatedly pledge to give teachers raises and restore education funding, only to be disappointed. “I want them to get off their butts and do something.” …

They were joined by students who also feel the impact of dwindling financial support for education. Many schools do not have enough textbooks for students. The tomes are often outdated, tattered and missing pages.

Raylynn Thompson, 16, a top student at Muskogee High, said her history textbook is at least 10 years old — stopping at the 2009 inauguration of President Barack Obama. Wearing red sneakers, she wrapped herself in a blanket on the back of the bus, saying she made the journey because she hopes the next generation of students does not have to suffer through leaky classrooms with shared textbooks.

“For me, school is a big thing in my life, and it’s one of the only things that matters,” the aspiring doctor said. The chronic textbook shortages and deteriorating classrooms make it hard to concentrate, she said. “It’s just making it really hard for me to go school.”

It’s not so much teachers’ pay, but the entire educational establishment is underfunded. Steve Benen presents a rather dire history of GOP governance:

Under former Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), Louisiana Republicans took control, cut taxes, and slashed spending. The result was a fiscal crisis and weakened public services. Under former Gov. Sam Brownback (R), Kansas Republicans took control, cut taxes, and slashed spending. The result was a fiscal crisis and weakened public services.

And under [Oklahoma] Gov. Mary Fallin (R), the same experiment has unfolded the same way.

Here’s what concerns me – this could become a self-reinforcing vortex if the Republicans get stubborn about their taxes. There is a certain value to having well-educated workers to fulfill business needs. I don’t even mean college graduates, but folks with high school degrees which actually mean something. If business doesn’t find what it needs, it has two choices.

First, It can pick up and leave. That would be very bad for Oklahoma. While small, locally run businesses are certain critical to any State, large, national businesses are at least as important, if not more so. Their tax revenue would dry up even more, which would no doubt be compensated for by sucking it out of the education budget – if the educational establishment doesn’t protest it. Soon, education would consist of unpowered schools run by folks who don’t even have a high school degree themselves. How does this lead to prosperity?

Second, business can try to remedy the problem. I’m not talking about for-profit schools, which are an entirely different kettle of fish, and have done poorly, as I’ve discussed elsewhere on this blog. I mean business simply does the educating it needs to do to get workers with the proper skills. Vocational schools, if you will, but this is not a good situation, either, because those skills may be very narrowly defined, such that they don’t transfer to any other employer. Now the workers are really tied to the apron strings of a company that may not be sentimental about you – or may go under abruptly itself.

Furthermore, businesses don’t know much about doing a full education. It’s not their job. Properly, it’s the job of the local government to provide high quality schooling, and that requirement should be a priority. Why? Because study after study show that better educated people are more productive and, generally, happier.

Oklahoma has pursued the illusion that dropping tax rates will cause prosperity, and it hasn’t worked out. Kansas Republicans had the balls to reject that approach, finally. Will the Oklahomans? For a bunch of Sooners, they’re way behind the curve.

On this thread, it’s a little after midday, and the markets are decidedly unhappy. All three primary indices are down in excess of 3%, although they still have time to recover. I think this time around, everyone’s going to agree that this all about the politics. CNN certainly thinks so, blaming China’s reaction to our tariffs with a fine selection of their own, as well as noting Trump’s tweets attacking Amazon, owned by Jeff Bezos, and who also owns WaPo, which is generally features critical coverage of President Trump. They must have singed his tailfeathers recently.

I don’t put a lot of faith into the Amazon tweets being a source of the stock sell-off. We own some Amazon stock, but we’re a bit split on actually using them. I order virtually nothing from them in terms of generally available commodities, as things tend to arrive broken and I prefer to see a broad variety of suppliers competing, so I direct my dollars to other retailers when I can. Meanwhile, my Arts Editor uses them quite a bit more.

But the China tariffs have to have the Iowa farmers in a real quandary. Iowa went for Trump in the last Presidential campaign, and, in fact, I happened to drive through the western corner of Iowa just prior to the election and was appalled at the nearly uniform blanket of Trump  / Pence signs, as if they had completely lost their self-respect. CNN is reporting the tariffs will include products such as pork & meat – and if that doesn’t affect the farmers directly, it may do so indirectly (animals gotta Eat!), and also indicate the future may hold more tariffs that could more directly impact those farmers.

Which is all sort of funny since apparently Trump boasted just last week that we’ve never seen such a fine economy as the one he’s running. Of course, Presidents don’t typically “run” the economy, as that’s more a Federal Reserve responsibility, although policy choices such as the upcoming tariff war will have its effect.

And stock markets are also poor proxies for evaluating the economy. Unemployment and GDP are far more typically used.

But the markets can function as a prognostication mechanism, and right now money is saying that the President’s behavior is not conducive to prosperity. That’s something to keep in mind going forward – a whole lot of fairly smart people just said No!

Looks like we have a trend this week.

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) is evidently one of the attack dogs selected for the damaging the Veteran’s Administration. Here he is on Meet The Press:

… yeah, it’s, it’s a reflection of the fact that the VA healthcare system is a government-run, single-payer, bureaucratic healthcare system. And it doesn’t work. You know, Senator Coburn, one of his last reports talked about how the VA system, in– on average, doctors have about 1,200 cases. In the private sector, it’s about 2,300. You know, we’ve, we’ve, we’ve spent so much money on the VA. And we’ve increased funding, overall, about 2.3 times in the last ten years, on healthcare spending, 1.5. And it’s still a mess.

Hey, buddy, let’s add in some relevant facts. Remember the Iraq War? The Afghanistan War? I know you didn’t vote for them, but still – you do understand they generated casualties, which now require treatment?

In fact, because emergency medical care has improved drastically over the years, a higher percentage of casualties survive their wounds long enough to make it back to the States than was true during other conflicts, which means these wounds – which are often far more expensive to treat – end up on the V.A.’s gurneys, operating rooms, and rehabilitation rounds.

And just one more thing, Senator. Demographics. The Vietnam vets are entering late middle age, even senior citizen status. Those old wounds still require treatment as those old bodies start coming apart. And that’s expensive. From old shrapnel to chemical wounds to psychological wounds, those all cost money.

You gave them lots of money? Good. You did the right thing. Stop being a putz about it. Steve Benen points at this article in the Washington Monthly which refutes Johnson’s claims – and asserts this is a manufactured scandal:

This, combined with the increasing volume of vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, contributed to an increasingly large backlog of unprocessed eligibility claims. For those who managed to get into the VA, the quality of care continued generally to be demonstrably better than that found out outside the system. A systematic review of thirty-six studies comparing the quality of VA and non-VA care found that as of 2009, “almost all demonstrated that the VA performed better than non-VA comparison groups.” But during the Bush years, access was becoming an increasing problem, causing many vets to become embittered, though often without understanding what the root cause of the problem was. As frustrations with red tape mounted among vets and the press focused on breakdowns in claims processing, the conditions were set for new attempts by conservative ideologues and corporate health care providers to privatize the VA.

That’s just a taste. Under Obama’s pick of General Shinseki to lead the V.A., performance was even better. It’s a big article, and worth reading.

It’s a socialized medical system, and that’s why it has to go – because it works. And that’s why the GOP is upset. It has shortcomings, but no one should be surprised – an institution that large will always have shortcomings. We just have to be engineers, calmly and soberly addressing those issues.

Not running around trying to destroy an institution supporting vets better than the general health system might. That’s just outright betrayal.

Over the weekend, Veterans Administration Secretary David Shulkin was fired. No, wait, he resigned. What happened?

CHUCK TODD:

Let me start with just a simple question. Were you fired or resigned? Because the White House now claims you resigned.

DAVID SHULKIN:

Well, you know, I came to the V.A. because our men and women in the country fight for us and don’t give up. And I came to fight for our veterans. And I had no intention of giving up. There would be no reason for me to resign. I made a commitment. I took an oath. And I was here to fight for our veterans. [Meet The Press]

So why is this more than a tempest in a teapot? Steve Benen explains:

As it happens, we know the answer. Politico  reported over the weekend that the fired-vs-resigned distinction “could have far-reaching implications that could throw the Department of Veterans Affairs, the second-largest federal agency, into further disarray.”

In announcing the removal of Shulkin as VA secretary, Trump tapped Defense Department official Robert Wilkie as the acting leader of the department, bypassing Shulkin’s deputy, who was next in line to succeed him. That decision has reignited a debate among legal experts about the president’s ability to hand-pick replacements for ousted Cabinet secretaries.

The debate centers on vague language in the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, which gives the president broad authority to temporarily fill a vacancy at a federal agency with an acting official if the current office holder “dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office.”

In other words, if Shulkin didn’t resign, the president’s personnel authority is far more limited. What’s more, if Shulkin was fired – and literally every piece of evidence makes clear that he was – then he should be replaced by Deputy Secretary Thomas Bowman until the Senate confirms a permanent successor.

But the White House doesn’t like Bowman, an opponent of the far-right privatization push.

If you’re a vet, and you think the V.A. is going roughly in the right direction (based on how my Dad, a medically retired Air Force officer, was treated over the years, I think it is), even with its known flaws and scandals, you should be alarmed. Private sector medicine, despite the efforts of the individual medical personnel employed by them, is by and large dedicated to making money, and in some institutions that goal mutilates the medical goal.

This, in essence, is an attempt to do an end-around the rules, just for the right to temporarily appoint the proper ideological agent to the post. Perhaps the Administration believes that having the guy in the post, with a bit of a record, will be enough to sway a Senate that may otherwise be disinclined to privatize the V.A. As I understand it, most vets rather strongly believe it should not be, so this would go against the will of a lot of voters, although not all of them are Republicans. The Senate may be viewed by the White House as somewhat fragile on the topic, faced with a GOP base that nearly always backs the President, and the vets, who mostly prefer the V.A. as it’s currently formulated.

If you’re a vet, get the word out. I’m sure the big vet organizations already have, but it’s worth reiterating.

… between MFG and CSR.

Malacology:

1. the science dealing with the study of mollusks. [Dictionary.com]

Noted in “Mussel pain: The crisis engulfing our freshwater molluscs,” Jason Bittel, NewScientist (10 March 2018, paywall):

When the Wilson dam was built on the Tennessee river in Florence, Alabama, for example, it put the most diverse mussel bed on the planet under vast amounts of standing water, says Paul Johnson, a malacologist, or mollusc specialist, at the Alabama Aquatic Biodiversity Center. Some of the 75 or so species in this area adapted and got on with their lives but more than half disappeared. And that is just one spot. There are similar stories all over the place, leading the US Geological Survey to declare freshwater mussels the most endangered group in the country.

CNN is speculating on the possible retirement of Justice Kennedy, and in the process they reference a January article by Ed Whelan for National Review, in which he states:

1. Will a Supreme Court vacancy arise?

Your guess is as good as mine. If the rumors are true that Justice Kennedy has been looking to retire, then it seems a reasonable bet that he would do so this spring. Indeed, the very real prospect that Democrats will win control of the Senate in the November 2018 elections might clinch his decision to do so. If he waits until next year, and if Democrats take control of the Senate, his seat would probably remain empty until 2021. That’s probably not a scenario that Kennedy would welcome.

I very much doubt that any other justice is considering stepping down. But, as Justice Scalia’s death reminds us, vacancies can arise when you’re not expecting them.

If a vacancy does arise this year, the White House ought to be able to obtain Senate confirmation of an outstanding candidate. Thanks to the Senate Democrats’ foolish obstruction of the Gorsuch nomination, Senate Republicans abolished the filibuster (the 60-vote threshold for cloture) for Supreme Court nominations. So the White House will know from the outset that the next nominee will need the support of only 50 senators, plus the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Pence, for confirmation.

Yet, that suggests Kennedy would prefer a strongly conservative court, and, quite frankly, that would not be congruent with his voting behaviors, where he swings back and forth over the liberal / conservative line.

My suspicion? He may choose to not retire until the mid-terms are completed and the new Congress is sworn in. The Republicans, although often into team-voting, may find themselves at the barest of majorities in which every single Republican could withhold their vote for a Trump-nominated new Associate Justice, demanding approval of pet projects in exchange for their vote. If the House GOP has suffered catastrophic losses, as may happen, a Republican Senator may project that the Republican base is no longer the potent force that they apparently currently fear, and be willing to pursue their own priorities by such means.

If these Republican Senators are excessively principled, they might even reject the nomination outright, assuming the nominee is either unqualified, or is too extreme for the Republican’s taste – both of which are richly possible from this White House. In this case, Trump may be forced to nominate a more reasonable candidate, one which the Democrats might even be able to endorse – which is not necessarily a negative issue for their electoral chances. After all, governance competency is emerging as an issue in the uproar over GOP incompetency during the current Congressional term.

And if the Democrats control the Senate at that time? They expressed their loathing for Senator McConnell’s corrupt behavior by rejecting Gorsuch, a much hyped candidate who has yet to demonstrate excellence, unless you’re a conservative – not the best test around. Whelan may think it foolish that the Democrats refused to endorse Gorsuch and thus engendered the abolition of the filibuster, but Senator McConnell’s decision to abolish the filibuster of cloture can take place at any time. It was necessary to underscore McConnell’s failure in the conservative realm, to highlight how he would break the rules and abandon traditions that had been set in place for good reason in order to stack SCOTUS with an ideological Justice. Whelan focuses too much on the conflict within the Senate, and not on the ammunition the Democrats were stockpiling for upcoming elections – if they’re wise enough to use it.

But they need not continue to reject the President’s choices automatically. If the Democrats want to build their Party’s reputation as the best qualified on governance issues, then they need to demonstrate their willingness to separate the nominee from the nominator. This means careful evaluation of the nominee on her merits, not on the merits of the incompetent Trump. Indeed, if they wish to establish themselves as a Party that embodies wise conservative principles, they could even bring back the cloture requirement Whelan referenced. Such a move, if handled and advertised properly, would enhance the Party’s reputation for fair and just dealing, and could easily be contrasted with the Republicans to create a Republican reputation for greediness and abusive power politics that is employed for the gain of the Party, to the detriment of the country.

But all this depends on Justice Kennedy’s choice. I’m just guessing, really, upon when he’ll retire. But the Democrats do need to be prepared, strategy in mind, for each of the situations.

Andrew Sullivan has been involved (first part of his usual tripartite column) in the genetics of intelligence debate for along time – by his word, since Murray’s controversial The Bell Curve was published. The current state of the debate, according to Andrew, is that the left rejects any suggestion that intelligence, or for that matter much of any attribute of a human, vary based on genetics and racial grouping:

For many on the academic and journalistic left, genetics are deemed largely irrelevant when it comes to humans. Our large brains and the societies we have constructed with them, many argue, swamp almost all genetic influences.

Which is understandable, as suggesting otherwise might lead to idiotic race-based supremacy claims. I say idiotic because it would indicate basic ignorance: statistics do not apply to individuals. (Also, statistics are descriptive, not prescriptive.) But what if science, the study of reality, says different? Andrew references an editorial from a geneticist at Harvard, David Reich:

… who carefully advanced the case that there are genetic variations between subpopulations of humans, that these are caused, as in every other species, by natural selection, and that some of these variations are not entirely superficial and do indeed overlap with our idea of race.

I have no opinion – I’ve not read The Bell Curve, and while Andrew used to reference the debate on his now-dormant blog The Dish, he didn’t go into it in much detail. But let’s stipulate Professor Reich’s conclusion, which seems reasonable, while assuming the political left continues its unbending ways. What will happen?

Reich simply points out that this utopian fiction is in danger of collapse because it is not true and because genetic research is increasingly proving it untrue. On the male-female divide, for example, Reich cites profound differences, “reflecting more than 100 million years of evolution and adaptation.” On race, he is both agnostic about what we will eventually find out with respect to the scale of genetic differences, and also insistent that genetic differences do exist: “You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work.” Which means to say that the differences could be (and actually are) substantial.

This will lead to subtle variations in human brains, and thereby differences in intelligence tests, which will affect social and economic outcomes in the aggregate in a multiracial, capitalist, post-industrial society. The danger in actively suppressing and stigmatizing this inconvenient truth, he maintains, is that a responsible treatment of these genetic influences will be siloed in the academic field of genetics, will be rendered too toxic for public debate, and will thereby only leak out to people in the outside world via the worst kind of racists and bigots who will distort these truths to their own ends. If you don’t establish a reasonable forum for debate on this, Reich argues, if you don’t establish the principle is that we do not have to be afraid of any of this, it will be monopolized by truly unreasonable and indeed dangerous racists. And those racists will have the added prestige for their followers of revealing forbidden knowledge. And so there are two arguments against the suppression of this truth and the stigmatization of its defenders: that it’s intellectually dishonest and politically counterproductive.

Which is to say, adhering to the politically comforting may lead to untenable positions in the future – even disaster.

It was an interesting essay on the state of intelligence, and there’s a lot more to it. Perhaps we should simply dispense with the practice of measuring IQ, as it doesn’t seem to necessarily correlate with success in life, only with whether or not you can join the Mensa club.