Monthly Archives: June 2018

NASA has a new mission coming up to speed called TESS:

NASA’s next planet hunter, the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), is one step closer to searching for new worlds after successfully completing a lunar flyby on May 17. The spacecraft passed about 5,000 miles from the Moon, which provided a gravity assist that helped TESS sail toward its final working orbit.

As part of camera commissioning, the science team snapped a two-second test exposure using one of the four TESS cameras. The image, centered on the southern constellation Centaurus, reveals more than 200,000 stars. The edge of the Coalsack Nebula is in the right upper corner and the bright star Beta Centauri is visible at the lower left edge. TESS is expected to cover more than 400 times as much sky as shown in this image with its four cameras during its initial two-year search for exoplanets. A  science-quality image, also referred to as a “first light” image, is expected to be released in June.

Here’s the test pic:

I’m looking forward to more out of this telescope.

Someone forgot the popcorn.

The weakest facet of Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children (2016) is the thematic material. Let me explain. This is a fantasy film about a special class of people called the Peculiars. They have, much like those in, say, the Heroes TV series, peculiar and varied natural abilities.

In this scenario, a group of Peculiars who desire immortality kidnap a member of a special sort of Peculiar called Ymbrynes, who can control time by ‘looping’ it. Their experimentation goes wrong in a ghastly manner, and the members of the group are transformed into invisible monsters. These monsters, however, discover they can recover normality by eating the eyeballs of other Peculiars – and then use the Ymbrynes to continue their search for immortality.

Typically, Peculiars exhibit their abilities as children or young adults, and to safeguard them from the normal run of humanity, the Ymbrynes will gather a group and construct a time loop around them. Normal people aren’t aware of the loop and cannot enter, but Peculiars who know the exact geographical entry point may enter the loop. While in it, they do not age, and while the loop repeats, apparently on a daily basis, for so long as the Ymbryne who created it is around, the inhabitants of the loop are not constrained to repeat themselves. In effect, they achieve an aging delay.

But if they leave the loop, their years will rapidly catch up with them.

Jake’s grandfather has told him stories about monsters for as long as he can remember, and now, a teenager, he thinks his grandfather’s a bit loopy himself. But when his grandfather is killed outside his home in Florida, and his eyeballs eaten out, Jake nears a mental breakdown. A chance find by a neighbor of an unmailed letter addressed to Jake during the clean out of the house suggests Jake was to be told to visit a small island off the coast of Ireland, to see Miss Peregrine. His parents, in consultation with Jake’s psychologist, agree, and Jake’s father takes him to Ireland.

On the island, they find the home is a ruin, destroyed in World War II by a Luftwaffe bomb. But Jake, led clandestinely by the time loop inhabitants, stumbles into the time loop and is soon meeting Miss Peregrine and her group. But, unbeknownst to Jake, he’s been tracked by one of the wannabe immortals, and soon the time loop is infested with invisible monsters, and Miss Peregrine is taken prisoner.

And what makes Jake a Peculiar?

From here on in it’s a basic action-survival tale. In fact, that’s the entire story, the fight for survival by the innocent, if not precisely innocuous. But there’s a couple of problems.

First, we don’t lose anyone with whom we’ve built an attachment. Such losses are important for driving home the dangers that can arise when doing something morally right in the face of opposition from the self-interested. One our society’s key survival traits is the willingness to give up one’s life for one or people in the group, and by killing off a character who’s engaged in that activity, the deadly seriousness of the business of protecting the group is brought to the fore.

My second problem with the tale is that these sorts of stories need to illuminate problems relevant to the Normals, i.e., the audience, or they will not relate to the story and it will not succeed. Certainly, the fight for survival is relatable, but it’s also old. It’s so old that it’s almost a cliche, and in order to make it appeal to a novelty-oriented audience, it has to bring some new facet to the theme. This story really doesn’t, because having one’s eyeballs consumed may be repellent and gauche, but it doesn’t really reach a more fundamental level of meaning. By contrast, in the Heroes TV series, the main characters may have been immortal, mind-readers, or able to fly, but by making them the Outsiders, their interactions with the normal people as well as each other illuminate themes that are important because they ask questions relevant to audiences of today, from xenophobia to government overreach, conflicting loyalties to the limits of honesty when pursuing government office.

Then there’s the problems with story integrity. The Peculiars in the time loop do not age physically, but they do mentally – or at least one would hope so if they retain their memories. Yet, it’s not clear to me that the Peculiars, outside of Miss Peregrine, are maturing despite their static bodies. That immediately raises questions about the social dynamics of the groups.

It’s a leaky ride into the sunset.

Another story integrity problem has to do with the Normals. While it’s one thing to blame mythical creatures such as poltergeists for some of the activities of the Peculiars, when the invisible monsters wreck an amusement park in search of Peculiars to consume, one would expect more than just a simple police investigation. And what about the sunken cruise liner docked in the port? Shouldn’t that raise an eyebrow? What about the parents of the children?

It’s all very unfortunate, because, technically, it’s a well-made movie. I particularly enjoyed Miss Peregrine’s character, but, outside of Jake’s father, all the characters bring something to the story. The special effects are all in good fun. The problems lie in the story, and thus it’s just a mediocre, if fairly fun and quirky, movie.

As the State Fair is right down the street from us, the annual celebration of old cars is going on right in front of us. Here’s a few pics. We’ll start with this lovely dark maroon showboat:

Next, baby blue:

Then some flash:

More to come….

D-brief‘s Lacy Schley notes an interesting experiment in memory in sea slugs. The researchers trained some sea slugs to react in a certain way to shocks, then …

RNA representation. Source: Wikipedia

The researchers then extracted ribonucleic acid (RNA) — the cellular messenger that carries out the genetic instructions of DNA — from the nervous systems of both the shock and non-shock groups. They took this RNA and injected it into a third set of slugs that hadn’t had to deal with any shocks or taps. Seven of these slugs got the shock group’s RNA, seven got the non-shock-group’s RNA.

Next, the team tapped these RNA-injected slugs on their tails. Those that had received the shock group’s RNA responded almost exactly like the shock group: They recoiled for about 40 seconds.

“It was as though we transferred the memory,” [team lead David] Glanzman said in a press release.

It’s fascinating, but raises the complicated question of kinds of memory. Why? Schley notes Glanzman’s findings are at odds with most theories and suppositions about memory:

Most neuroscientists would agree that memory, particularly long-term memory, is something that lives in the synapse — the gap between neurons. But this study, combined with Glanzman’s previous work, suggests the nucleus, where RNA carries out its DNA transcribing, could be the key to decoding how memories are stored.

There’s an implicit suggestion that all memories work on the same mechanism. But what if they don’t? This memory theory discussion needn’t be an exclusive or situation, but possibly parallel mechanisms.

And, of course, these are growing everywhere except where the Arts Editor designated mushrooms to grow.

For a quick snap that came out amazingly well. They’re hiding under the hollyhocks, which are giving us reason to hope for a stellar ‘hock season. This pair are a little to the east of the above.

Quite pert, I think.

SCOTUS is once again avoiding the big issues in Lucia vs. SEC, where they ruled that the SEC judges are improperly selected, and David Savage in the Los Angeles Times explains the issue that was avoided:

But his case reopened a profound dispute over the chief executive’s power to control and remove officials throughout the U.S. government. Since the late 19th century, Congress has extended civil service protection to the vast number of federal employees. Some top appointees are also protected from firing except for “good cause.” They include Mueller, who under the regulations can be removed by Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein only for “misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest or other good cause.”

Usually, administration lawyers defend federal agencies like the SEC in matters before the high court. But in this case, Trump’s lawyers switched sides and urged the justices to rule against the SEC and say the president has the authority to “remove” all officers of the United States.

“The Constitution gives the president what the framers saw as the traditional means of ensuring accountability: the power to oversee executive officers through removal,” Solicitor Gen. Noel Francisco told the court in February. “The president is accordingly authorized under our constitutional system to remove all principal officers, as well as all ‘inferior officers’ he has appointed.”

Firing at anyone will sounds like a power trip to me – and may unduly influence folks who need to be politically neutral in their jobs.

Continuing coverage of the aftermath of the homicide of Philando Castile, Falcon Heights City Hall reports on the success of its Policing & Inclusion initiative:

The City of Falcon Heights has been recognized with a 2018 City of Excellence Award from the League of Minnesota Cities at the League’s Annual Conference for its “Policing & Inclusion Community Initiative.”

The City was recognized in this year’s “Population 5,000 – 19,999” category.

In the aftermath of the shooting of Philando Castile, an African-American male motorist, the Falcon Heights City Council appointed a Task Force on Inclusion and Policing. A group of 11 residents and non-residents with diverse perspectives set out with a mission to “articulate, affirm and operationalize our values as a community to be an inclusive and welcoming environment for residents and guests of Falcon Heights, with an emphasis on policing values, policies and procedures.”

Beginning in December 2016, the Task Force embarked on 13 regular meetings to create sets of recommendations for inclusion and policing by deliberating with interested residents through five Community Conversations, and consulting with experts in four priority areas (policing, police-community relations, citizen oversight boards, and joint powers authorities). Individual dialogue sessions, attendance at Council meetings, and involvement in community events were other ways the Task Force remained visible and available to the Falcon Heights community.

Recognizing the need for community healing following the tragic shooting, the five Community Conversations consisted primarily of small group circles guided by restorative values fostering deep and self-reflective dialogue. More than 180 people participated in the conversations, and following the conversations participants identified the role they play in injustices and connecting with people in their community as valuable take-aways.

Input from the Community Conversations was considered by the Task Force and included in its final Policing and Inclusion recommendations to the Falcon Heights City Council, which were adopted unanimously.

The City of Falcon Heights reported the “Policing & Inclusion Community Initiative” has improved the quality of its policing, provided an innovative way to handle difficult societal issues such as race, and creatively involved citizens in the decision-making process.

There’s definitely a bittersweet quality to the announcement, but I hope this is more than just city propaganda. Being a relatively small suburb of St. Paul, it’s hard to have much of a real impact, but the symbolism may enhance the overall impact in reducing unconscious American racism. The City employees should regret that they had to do this, but be happy that they did it well enough to win an award.

Steve Benen of Maddowblog notes that the conservative leadership has decided on its message to cover up the fact that it was indulging in sadism when it was separating children from their illegal immigrant parents:

Donald Trump’s family-separation policy has sparked international attention and a swift public backlash, which his Republican Party probably would’ve preferred to avoid less five months before the midterm elections. But as TPM noted, some GOP lawmakers are less concerned than others.

[M]any vulnerable GOP lawmakers are fearing the political ramifications of their inaction in the face of public outrage over the mass separation of migrant children and families.

But Rep. Pete King (R-NY) is not too concerned.

“Americans care more about Americans,” he told TPM.

Similar assessments have been percolating for a while, but the New York Republican crystalized the sentiment in a handy, five-word phrase: “Americans care more about Americans.” …

Update: Conservative media is picking up on a similar message, with one host arguing this morning, “These aren’t our kids.”

My suggestion if you run into someone spouting that as a defense?

“Is that what Jesus would say?”

The moment these families are taken into custody, they become our responsibility, and if we damage them, that’s our responsibility, too. To their credit, the Methodists have reprimanded Attorney General Sessions for his part in this tragic episode; it’s now time for the Evangelical Churches to step up to the plate and destroy this immoral defense.

By the kitchen stoop.

It has a slight Impressionistic feel to it.

From WaPo:

The Senate on Wednesday rejected billions in spending cuts proposed by the Trump administration as two Republicans joined all Democrats in voting no.

The 48-50 vote rebuffed a White House plan to claw back some $15 billion in spending previously approved by Congress — a show of fiscal responsibility that was encouraged by conservative lawmakers outraged over a $1.3 trillion spending bill in March. …

Nevertheless, Wednesday’s outcome was startling because one of the opposing votes came from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who does not normally buck the White House or GOP leadership. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a moderate and one of the Republicans who most frequently side with Democrats, cast the other GOP vote against the cuts.

Burr claimed to be unhappy about cuts to the U.S. Forest Service. In this we see the abnormal amount of power wielded by just a couple of Senators these days, and apparently Senator Flake is also starting to figure out that he has a lot of influence, just so long as he’s willing to say and mean No! But just how big a deal was this bill in and of itself?

Democrats had accused Republicans and the Trump administration of targeting important programs with the rescission cuts, but Republicans countered that most of the money was sitting unspent, in some cases in expired accounts that couldn’t be tapped.

Independent analyses said that since most of the money would not have been spent anyway, the actual spending reduction in the package was closer to $1 billion. That’s a tiny fraction of the federal budget. But in a midterm election year conservative lawmakers saw the rescissions package as a way to show Congress’ commitment to reining in spending at a time of drastically rising deficits and debt.

To my eye, it looks like the Democrats just wanted to say No! to any Republican initiative, and to their surprise got a little help from the other side. While it may seem petty, they have precedent in the six years of Republican obstructionism during the Obama Administration.

More importantly, a statement was made by rejecting this rescission bill. A deal is a deal, and this sort of thing is reneging on it. Not that I’m surprised that Trump would renege on a deal, as that appears to be the story of his life. But I suspect the bill was put together with zero Democratic input, and they were quite right to vote against it in that scenario. Let the third-rater Republicans rot in their little hellhole of broken immigrant families and and tax breaks for the wealthy.

At least according to my Arts Editor.

I just think it looks a bit exotic.

I cannot do better than ‘snowbeast’.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002) revels in one of the oldest and most important themes of Western stories, the importance of blending cultures. The idea of integroup alliances, of intermarriage, and, later of accepting differences as an advantage, rather something to be loathed or disdained, is one of the pillars underlying the strength of Western culture. The idea that everyone has something to contribute, as ‘everyone’ expanded from English white males to slaves, then to females, then the Irish and the Germans, etc etc, is the bedrock of the success of Western culture. Implicit in that concept is the freedom to intermix with other cultures and explore options outside of the older, usually gender-oriented, assigned roles.

This movie recapitulates the history that moved from earlier cultures and their explicit confidence in their own superiority, and how that attitude can make for a rocky existence, and to that of today. Toula is, at age 30, the spinster daughter in a large, extended Greek family, awkward and under-confident. Becoming desperate to do something with her life, she undertakes computer courses (in the 1980s, a big deal) and, with the help of an aunt, strikes out in business in a tourist agency. Encountering success, she becomes a little more confident, but still can’t believe it when a stranger, a schoolteacher named Ian, walks into the tourist agency and starts talking to her, because, to her, he’s gorgeous.

The courtship is fast, but soon they encounter the great rock of culture chauvinism, embodied in her father, Costas. He’s a Greek immigrant who arrived with $8 in his pocket and his wife, and now owns a successful restaurant and heads up a large family – and believes the Greeks are the basis and pinnacle of civilization, with Greek being the mother language. America? It’s primary cultural contribution is Windex.

Now he finds his daughter is dating, is becoming engaged to, a non-Greek!

Needless to say, he grumps, he throws obstacles in the way, he presents alternative suitors to Toula, but Ian and Toula persist, and in the end Costas enfolds Ian, as well as Ian’s family, in his arms, grudgingly convinced that perhaps Ian is worthy of his Greek daughter, and bringing the audience to the climactic wedding and reception.

Perhaps suggesting this recounting of history through the conversion of Costas seems to be a bit much, but the echo of one man’s persuasion as an example of the larger culture’s central pillar of tolerance, unconsciously or not, reminds the audience of the large and serious issues that face cultures which incorporate many ethnicities against the instincts of the human animal – and that those issues can be resolved by good-hearted folks who work together.

Light-hearted, unafraid of poking at stereotypes and suggesting there may be something behind them, and only slightly predictable, this is a lot of fun.

Just a couple of random pics of a cloud.

On the issue of civil assert forfeiture, Ilya Somin notes on The Volokh Conspiracy that SCOTUS may impact the issue in the near future:

Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided to consider Timbs v. Indiana, an important constitutional property rights case. As my co-blogger Eugene Volokh and Reason’s Damon Root explain, the case will address the question of whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies against states, as well as the federal government. If the Supreme Court decides that the Clause does apply against the states, it will also have to consider exactly what kinds of fines qualify as “excessive” and to what extent the Clause applies to asset forfeitures, as well as more conventional fines.

Like Eugene and Damon, I believe the case for “incorporation” of the Clause against the states is extremely strong, and should command widespread agreement on the Court. The other issues are somewhat tougher. But there is still a strong argument for using the Clause to impose significant constraints on at least a wide range of asset forfeitures.

The Bill of Rights was originally intended to restrict only the federal government. But, as leading scholars on both right and left have come to recognize, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to apply the Bill of Rights against the states, as part of their more general effort to curb state governments’ abusive mistreatment of minorities and others, most notably recently freed African-American slaves. As Eugene describes in some detail, the Supreme Court initially refused to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, even after the Fourteenth Amendment. But has gradually ruled that nearly all of the individual rights listed there are in fact incorporated. Multiple lower court decisions have ruled that the Third Amendment – one of the few provisions not yet addressed by the Supreme Court – should be incorporated, as well.

Here’s hoping. Somin seems cautiously optimistic, and at some point notes that Justice Thomas appears to share my view that forfeiture is basically punishment without due process.

But, more importantly, civil asset forfeiture undermines faith in our democracy, as it’s basically arbitrary seizure of property. The damage that does is well out of proportion to any good it may bring the system, and it’s also a temptation to corruption, to boot. Not all tools are good tools.

I happened to run across an interview with Rep. Sanford, who recently lost a primary to a Trumpist, conducted two days after his loss and published in Rolling Stone:

How does the Republican Party pull back from this? Where everything is boiled down to are you for or against Trump?
The Founding Fathers’ admonishment that an educated citizenry was vital to the Republic. The systems that they set up which I’ve come to revere were really built upon the notion of the fallen nature of man. That we weren’t perfect. We oughta debate. Nobody has a lock on wisdom. That’s why I started my talk the other night with humility. We all ought to have the humility to say I don’t know what I don’t know. But I don’t even fully know what I think I know.

And there is such hubris that’s at times emanated out of the administration about “this is the way it is. Or let me demean somebody else as a way of advancing my point.” Or you can fill in all the blanks. But all I know – and this has been seared hard for me, given my implosion in 2009 and its aftermath and the reflection that comes with that, and was doubled down again in a different way with this latest experience – I’ve come to very strongly believe that a humility in one’s perspective is vital to listening to somebody else. And at the end of the day if we’re going to solve solutions in a collective sense, you better be listening pretty closely to that somebody else. We’re not doing that in the American political system right now.

Not listening and presuming you already have all the answers.
Correct.

Do you think the president sets the tone on that?
He does. One ought to have the courage of one’s convictions but one ought to balance that with some degree of humility in the courage of one’s convictions. And that ain’t a selling message right now. That’s just not where the political marketplace is.

My respect for Rep. Sanford has risen considerably based on the material in this interview. He’s clearly a guy who has thought long and hard about the difficulties of governance and epistemology, as one might hope for from a former governor (of South Carolina) as well as Representative – he’s seen governance from both the Executive and Legislative wings. While compromise is often characterized as a way to move forward when the opposition has roughly the same power as you do, it is more productively considered a way to wisdom when attempting to resolve a difficult problem or situation in which there are competing solutions and none are obviously correct. Compromise, evaluate, compromise, evaluate. For the ideologically and religiously driven, both of those words are blasphemy, because ideology and religion are a priori frameworks of belief which presuppose correctness without proof, a correctness which cannot be questioned.

The practical, humble person, on the other hand, acknowledges the possibility of error, not only in application but in the set of principles by which they operate. Compromise becomes a way to incorporate contingent wisdom from other groups, frameworks – what have you.

But such an action constitutes a violation in belief of ideology and religion, and a person to take such an action becomes an apostate in the eyes of the faithful. Vile, hated – and blamed for the failures original to the ideology. Thus do those who benefit from the blind allegiance of the group hold on to power.

Two final thoughts. First, I wonder if Rep. Sanford is exploring an Independent run. It would be illuminating of local politics to see if he could garner a substantial number of votes, and if those would come from the independents or the Republicans.

Second, I couldn’t help but notice a dialog play out in the back of my mind, in which I say to a group of Trump supporters,

No offense, but you are the most politically immature group in America. The Founding Fathers expected better of our citizens, so do hurry up and get better. In the meanwhile, stay out of the way.

There, I feel better for saying it. No doubt the childish antics of Corey Lewandowski contributed to that reaction as well.

Andrew Sullivan recently commented on how difficult it can be to stay “on point” with the Trump Administration, that the constant lying and stripping of context and general blurring of the truth of just about anything can leave the observer tipsy and burned out.

I’ve noticed just in the last day or two that anything the Administration says, whether it’s Trump or one of his minions Cabinet Secretaries, I will dismiss as drivel. I want to just say,

Thanks for your opinion, now will you please go sit in that corner while the adults resolve the situation. No, no, don’t try to tell me what you think, you lie so much that you’ve gone from good, firm meat to just soupy infected flesh that I want nothing to do with.

Every official seems to become infected, with perhaps the exception of Defense Secretary Mattis. It’s frustrating, it’s embarrassing, and it makes me just want to ignore their input, because I simply have started to assume it’ll be deceitful, boastful, ignorant, and biased to play to the Republican base that still adores Trump’s promises of an America of decades ago. Instead of placing truth first, it’s made politics the name of the day.

And there’s a reason most religions and parents make truth a high priority. I’m sure we can all figure out why that might be.

WaPo reports that Apple’s famed App Store is going to show up in the foyer of SCOTUS:

The Supreme Court on Monday announced that it would consider a case that asks whether consumers can sue Apple over the way it manages millions of apps for iPhones and iPads, threatening to expose not only Apple but also its tech industry peers to new antitrust scrutiny.

The new fight in front of the nine justices stems from a lawsuit initiated in California almost seven years ago. Robert Pepper and three other iPhone-owning plaintiffs allege that Apple has “monopolized” the market for iPhone apps because it has total control over the games, utilities and other offerings that appear in its App Store.

Sure, this is just non-specialized reporting, but I thought this was interesting:

The lawsuit could force Apple to rethink the way it manages its App Store, long considered one of the most highly curated platforms in the business. For one thing, Apple generally takes a 30 percent cut of all third-party apps sold through its portal. In the eyes of the plaintiffs, that fee ultimately hurts consumers, because developers pass those added costs on to iPhone and iPad users who purchase the paid apps.

Consumers “don’t like the fact that they’re being forced to buy apps only on the App Store and they’re forced to pay a 30 percent markup,” said Mark Rifkin, a senior partner at Wolf Haldenstein who represents the plaintiffs.

Which makes it sound like just a pre-emptory fee, doesn’t it? Yet my understanding, not being an Apple customer, is that Apple “curates” (to use a word from elsewhere in the same article) the App Store. The phraseology doesn’t acknowledge that Apple is apparently offering a valuable service via this curation, presumably minimizing the impact of malware.

It’ll be interesting to see how this comes out.

On the way home today, while listening to the gabble of outrage over the separation of children from illegal immigrant families, it occurred to me that this can be seen as smoke coming from the real fires, which are the motivations for these families to leave their homes. After all, most people, even Americans, would prefer to at least stay in their own countries; many prefer to stay in the state or city in which they grew up.

The reasons given on the radio involve fleeing from violence and poverty, and that, so far, has been where it stops. So I started wondering, what is causing those problems?

Then I recalled a report I read long, long ago, about how the agricultural sectors of Third World countries can be devastated by the agricultural policies of First World countries. My vague memory went like this: the excess agricultural output of the First World countries must be disposed of – profitably – in some manner. Export is the among the easiest ways to do that. In order to grow the market, the First World governments subsidize the farmers and their exports. Soon, food is flooding the market of some Third World country.

We grow food as a cash crop; our hypothetical victims grow it as a food crop. Soon, because of the subsidies, the native growers are priced out of the market, they lose their shirts and their farms, and now they’re poverty stricken.

And it’s not tractors and all the paraphernalia of modern farming left sitting in their fields – it’s the natives themselves, who worked the fields en masse, who are left with nothing at all. Because they’re not the United States, they lack both the political freedom and the technology of Americans. Finding new jobs or getting training is not easy – or even feasible.

What to do next? There’s nothing available at home, so, like so many Americans before them, honorably or not, they pursue what will help their family survive – moving to the United States.

So how do I prove this assertion? Honestly, I don’t. I don’t have the time, nor the expertise. But I can point. Here’s the numbers on American agricultural exports from the United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service:

Yes, that says $billions down the side there. $140 billion isn’t chicken feed. How about just to Mexico? This is from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture:

I wondered if there was another way to approach the problem, and there is, although it’s somewhat problematical – looking at trends in rural population. This is from Trading Economics:

Certainly one can argue about improved technology and that sort of thing, but I wouldn’t care to try to explain how the rural population of Mexico lost 3 points over 9 years.

The Trump Administration is being excoriated – rightly – over its behavior with regard to immigration, from simply ripping families to pieces to lying with statistics, as WaPo points out in this article^[1]. But this controversy, as important as it is since it illustrates the moral incompetence of this Administration and its allies, conceals the truly important question, which is How much is the United States responsible for these ills that are forcing the law-abiding foreign citizens from their homes and to the United States?

How much of this have we really brought on ourselves through ignorance, arrogance, and adherence to the capitalistic ideology?

I’m not a zealot on either side of the capitalism question. The benefits are unquestionable, but the potential for abuse is also unquestionable, and the tendency to plunge head-long into new ventures can rupture economies and societies which do not have the resources to be flexible in the face of a changing economy.

Not that this is even bad, for the forces of the status quo can result in their own special brand of misery if they repress economic wealth, or slow medical research, or pick your favorite societal good. But we need to be aware that stopping or even slowing the flow of immigrants may be bloody impossible until we understand – and possibly take responsibility for – the causes of the poverty and gangs in the various countries from which desperate immigrants originate.

¹Summary, they’re stripping context and playing the small numbers game. There’s a rant somewhere in here about government being an eternal search for truth, but I’ll not do that for now.

Rock, paper, scissors. Anything beat a pair of locusts?

It strives for nothing more than an evening’s light entertainment, and The Mummy (1999) achieves it and, perhaps, a bit beyond. No doubt inspired by the legendary Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981) in its romantic archaeological facet, it concerns a woman, Evy, and her somewhat dissolute brother, Jonathan, both half-Egyptian, who stumble across some clues as to the lost Egyptian city of Hamunaptra, where the wealth of Egypt was reputedly stored, and the most evil dead buried.

How evil? The illicit lover of the mistress of the Pharaoh, 3000 years ago, was cursed with the mightiest curse, and buried there. But this is a curious curse, for if he’s ever released, his loss becomes his gain: he will become a plague upon mankind.

Evy and Jonathan need a guide, and find one in a man who has gone and returned, O’Connell. They find him literally at the end of his rope, the hangman’s noose strangling him as they bargain for his life. His redemption, for crimes unspecified, binds him to them and to ourselves, for in that bid for redemption we can all see ourselves.

There’s little point in recounting the plot, except to highlight one key difference between this story and Raiders Of The Lost Ark. While both dabble in matters divine and having to do with the afterlife, they are unlike in how the divine comes out. There is no doubt that, in the latter story, the divine remains the undefeated, even unchallenged, champion of reality. The evil faced by Indiana Jones & Co is complete and profound, yet it’s also completely human. When the divine is sufficiently annoyed by evil, it reaches out and squashes it.

But the eponymous antagonist of The Mummy, cursed as he is, has also made the transition from the mundane transgressions of humanity to enter the pantheon of the divine, and even if it’s one of the most uncomfortable transitions one can imagine (think of having your flesh stripped from your still breathing body by scarab beetles), upon his release he begins to assume the status of a God, an evil, crabby God who has missed his woman for 3000 years, and wants another stab at bringing her back from her own version of Hell.

But this transforms the story from scuttling about until the divine reaches down and executes a classic deus ex machina to the more assertive and aggressive Doing battle with a god. In a way, much like Ghostbusters (1984), it’s an announcement that the era of Gods is coming to an end, that human needs and goals are assuming a primacy. But by the same token, the mysterious ways of the Gods, their subtlety, perhaps in our interests, perhaps in pursuit of goals beyond our foggy comprehension, recede into the background. Sometimes mankind’s direct approach to life is less effective than that of the Gods’.

Even if all those Gods are imaginary.

Bah. Sit back and enjoy the movie. Good acting & chemistry between characters, good special effects, all that rot. I’m just having fun, shootin’ the breeze here.

Remember the hubbub about the Wisconsin special elections? Here’s what happened in the first State Senate district, courtesy Vox:

Wisconsin Democrats just picked up a Republican-held state legislature seats in a duo of special elections on Tuesday, serving yet another wake-up call to Republicans in the state.

Democrat Caleb Frostman, the former head of the Door County Economic Development Corp, won northeastern Wisconsin’s First Senate District, which voted for Donald Trump by a whopping 17 points in 2016. Frostman’s seat will be up for reelection again in November.

And the other? From Ballotpedia:

There was also a special election in Wisconsin State Assembly District 42 (AD 42) on June 12.^[5] Republican Jon Plumer defeated Democrat Ann Groves Lloyd and independent candidate Gene Rubinstein. Plumer received 53 percent of the vote to retain the seat for Republicans.

I wonder why Vox didn’t cover that, perhaps comparing the districts to see why they split. Granted, 53% is a majority of the voters, but not a large one. The Democrat won 40% of the vote, and the balance went to the Independent, who does not appear to have played much of a role in this election. A quick eyeballing of the district’s history indicates winning 53% of the vote is less than average, but not the sort of thing to raise the alarms – the last few elections were won by Republican candidates with less than 60% of the vote.

And that, more or less, satisfies my curiosity.

On Lawfare, Chibli Mallat presents an analysis of the leadership situation in Saudi Arabia which is a bit unsettling:

There have been hints of open dissent within the family, and the stakes are existential for [Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (MBS)]. Last November, some of the most prominent members of Saudi high society were confined to house arrest at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Riyadh, including 11 members of the royal family and the most prominent businessmen in the kingdom. Although billed as an anti-corruption crackdown, it certainly looked like the crown prince consolidating his power. Reuters reported at the time that MBS ordered the arrests “when he realized more relatives opposed him becoming king than he had thought.” Eleven other members of the royal family were arrested on Jan. 4.

The young prince is, by all accounts, determined to take over as quickly as possible. His father is 82 and suffers from a mild form of Alzheimer’s. King Salman could change his mind if his unhappy brothers and nephews get his ear. The opposition at large has grown also because of the setbacks of Saudi foreign policy, mostly ascribed to MBS’s impetuous character, in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. His commitment to the glitzy and increasingly elusive 2030 Vision plan has also drawn concern. There was far less money to go around in 2017 and far greater entitlement expected by the ruling family’s proliferating membership, dissenters of all kinds and the population at large. And there is the Arab Spring—the real, nonviolent one on the streets and in social media, which first emerged in preparations for a “Day of Rage” on March 11, 2011, that authorities prevented from being held.

As Saudi Arabia is our most important Arab ally, any sort of upset during a power transfer has to be of concern and is worth watching. And if MBS makes it a violent act, do we wish to remain allied with Saudi Arabia? The move from fossil fuel dependence to renewables would make this question much easier to answer. The current Administration is thus making that more difficult.

Today SCOTUS handed down a decision on the two gerrymandering cases of Wisconsin and Maryland by … avoiding the issue, as CNN notes:

The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped two major cases concerning partisan gerrymandering, allowing controversial district maps to stand and be used in this fall’s midterm elections.

The 9-0 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts in a Wisconsin case is a blow to Democrats who argued the Republican-drawn maps prevented fair and effective representation by diluting voters’ influence and penalizing voters based on their political beliefs.

The Wisconsin case was returned to the lower court, while the Maryland case was turned down because no irreparable harm was shown.

Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy:

Of course, some, both on the left and on the right, have argued that such narrow decisionmaking, or remand or dismissal on procedural grounds, are often a good idea, and that the Supreme Court should indeed often decide as little as possible. And perhaps these were indeed the right answers in these cases. But I just wanted to note that at least so far, a lot of the expected big bangs have fizzled (though of course some of the most-awaited high-profile cases, such as the “travel ban” case and the union agency fee case, still remain to be announced later this week or next).

And recall the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, another case of a big principle and a fizzle of a decision. I wonder if SCOTUS would really rather not become a football in the current political wars. This may be Roberts, conscious of legacy, steering the court down roads with guardrails, rather than forest paths where bears may savage the court’s reputation.

We may see similarly narrow decisions in the near future.

David French on National Review has a mix of good and bad points:

Benisek [the Maryland case] is largely meaningless. Gill [the Wisconsin case], however, is of some consequence. The case — while a “punt” on the merits — does have a clear purpose. It demonstrates once again that there’s no easy judicial path through what is (at its heart) a tangled political morass. When districting is delegated to the political branches of government, it will be — hold on to your hats — thoroughly political. States can choose different ways to district, but when a state chooses the political path, the Supreme Court’s default position should be to defer, absent clear and unequivocal constitutional violations. And, by the way, there is no constitutional right to a legislative composition that matches each party’s share of the vote.

An interesting remark, given fair representation is one of the pillars of our country. It’s probably worth a smack upside the head. However, this is a more cogent, practical point:

Moreover, while there is no doubt packing and cracking in any political districting process, we can’t forget that the American people are in the midst of their own, voluntary gerrymander. The number of “landslide counties” (where one presidential candidate wins by 20 points or more) keeps increasing. People are packing themselves, and this “Big Sort” means that no judicial decision can deliver the sweeping solutions that many activists crave.

So long as we use a geographical system for representation, which I think has more of a basis in political history than in political theory, and the population remains capable of changing its mind, it’s a fair point that looking to the judicial system to “fix” gerrymandering may be a fool’s errand.

Something Deb bought for the front yard.

And this is something called a nine-bark.

It was raining so hard he had to give her mouth to mouth resuscitation.
It was unsuccessful.

It’s the light touch and leisurely, respectful approach which makes Four Weddings And A Funeral (1994) a success. It concerns a small group of Brits, unmarried, and how one of their members, Charles, falls for an American named Carrie at a wedding they attend, as she does for him. After a night of charm and lust, she disappears and he is left confused, for he has never considered himself to be marriage material in view of his failures in the realm of romance. A few months later, Carrie appears at another wedding that the friends also attend, but this time with fiancee in tow. Eventually, Charles and Carrie end up in bed again, which simply confuses the situation the more.

At Carrie’s wedding, though, the group suffers a loss as one of them, Gareth, proclaiming that they should all be in pursuit of spouses, proceeds to collapse and die. The consequent funeral is the pivot of the movie, emphasizing that life is a temporary condition, a condition that must be taken advantage of while it exists. As Charles’ main interest is now married and off the market, he returns to a previous love and, not belaboring the audience with a painful courtship (at least not in the TV version which I witnessed), we are once again in a church, preparing for the inevitable wedding of Charles to an old love.

But when Carrie shows up, haggard and without a husband, the wedding, not to mention Charles’ none-too-stable temperament, is at immediate risk of the consequences of the differential between societal expectations and the inner human need for self-respect.

It’s light and fun, and I enjoyed it, mostly, even if I didn’t quite believe in the chemistry between Charles and Carrie.