Yearly Archives: 2019

From Gizmodo’s article on the presence of plague out in the Rocky Mountains:

The Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge was forced to undergo a temporary closure as a “precautionary measure” last month while it worked to address the issue affecting colonies of black-tailed prairie dogs and endangered black-footed ferrets dependent on them for shelter and food, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service said Saturday.

And all I can imagine are prairie dogs offering the ferrets crumpets and tea.

George Will wants to burnish his old-line conservative credentials by taking down a few liberal candidates for President, but I think he may have stumbled in his rush to nail Senator Warren:

Warren, a policy polymath, has a plan for everything, including for taxing speech that annoys her. The pesky First Amendment (in 2014, 54 Democratic senators voted to amend it to empower Congress to regulate spending that disseminates political speech about Congress) says “Congress shall make no law” abridging the right of the people “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” One name for such petitioning is lobbying. Warren proposes steep taxes (up to 75 percent) on “excessive” lobbying expenditures, as though the amendment says Congress can forbid “excessive” petitioning. Lobbyists are unpopular, and her entire agenda depends on what the amendment was written to prevent: arousing majority passions against an unpopular minority (the wealthy).

I’m certainly not a legal scholar, so perhaps there’s a ruling already in place against me, but a little old-fashioned common-sense will tell us that this is a bit of sleight of hand. When we talk about the people petitioning the government, we need to keep in mind that this is supposed to be an equally distributed right.

Now, let’s be a little nuanced here. I don’t think I’ll disagree^[1] with the assertion that groups of people may come together to petition the government as a group. But characterizing these groups is important: they feel they have a grievance, they come together to address that grievance, and that’s the function of the group.

Most lobbyists, however, are corporate, and that, in fact, is the key differentiator. First, the members of a corporation did not come together to address a common grievance with the government, but to engage in private sector activities. Second, because of the first, those employees may not agree with their company’s lobbyists’ goals, particularly when those goals have to do with politics, and that is almost certainly part of every lobbyist effort. Objections to this statement are easily refuted through references to the fact that, no, information concerning corporate activities is not immediately, or even ever, available to the employees, and for most employees, quitting out of principle is not a practical option. Not when there are mouths to feed at home.

And, third, and most important, corporate lobbyists have, by definition, corporate money behind them, and that pushes the already-faux corporate citizens‘ voices well above those of their fellow … citizens. If common citizens cannot find the time or resources to make that trip to Washington, but are limited to their local constituents’ meetings – if those meetings are even being held, which some politicians haven’t been doing of late – will they be heard? Or will the lobbyists’ voices, more insistently brought to the fore by spokesmen replete with the resources to stay on the job all year long, have disproportionately more influence?

Not because of the quality of their argument, or the smoothness of their rhetoric, but simply because they have the staying power that money can buy, they have the megaphones upon megaphones that dollars can bring them.

And it makes for a very unfair “right.”

Now, whether Warren has the right solution to the disparity, I can’t say. The problem of unforeseen consequences could raise its ugly head, and it’s possible that this will exacerbate the problem of Very Rich Corporations dominating and even destroying the merely Rich Corporation, as the former will be able to get the rich government contracts simply by outstaying their smaller rivals.

And, perhaps, we should really point the finger at the members of Congress who have proven to be vulnerable to lobbying. Although how anyone would approach that problem, given the difficulty of the public detecting such undue vulnerabilities, is a tough question.

But I think Will, in partisan pursuit of points, makes light of a real problem, and accepts the ridiculous assertion that corporations are somehow citizens which should have their voices heard even more strongly than real people.

And I think that’s a damn shame.

¹ Although it’s the sort of subject that deserves a re-think from time to time.

A reader responds to Steve Webb’s rant concerning the construction industry:

Hmm. I wonder a bit about his numbers, e.g. a bookcase that weighs 500kg or 1102 pounds, more than half a ton. I’ve never seen a bookcase that heavy.

Seems to me that depends on how big and fancy a bookcase you want.

Another question I had was: how long do those wooden exteriors last compared to brick? Longevity and maintenance are worth something. My Chaska brick home was built in 1883; it’s still standing with the original bricks on the exterior. If it had had wooden siding instead, how many times would that siding have had to be replaced, and at what carbon cost?

Sure. It’s the old question about up-front costs vs continuing costs. I don’t know, but I suspect the siding on the original part of my 1938 home is original.

An interesting question: when it comes time to replace it, should the discarded siding be buried? Or is it not worth the effort?

My current house has concrete walls and a steel roof, both of which should last longer than the alternatives. But is it long enough to offset the higher initial carbon cost? Versus wooden framing, and wooden (cedar shake) shingles (asphalt shingles are probably horrible on the carbon scale, but I’m too lazy to research it right now).

How about how much my personal safety against things like all but direct hits by an F-5 tornado? How much carbon is that worth?

What’s the risk of being hit by a F-5 tornado at your location? Virtually zero. But that does bring up a related topic: when is it appropriate for each family to have their own refuge, and when is it appropriate to have a shared refuge, which should reduce costs, both financial and ecological? Given our current inclination to own our homes on big lots, rather than living in apartment buildings, it’s probably the former.

In general, I think I agree with what he’s getting at. The construction industry is in general a horrible polluter and waster of energy. But if they were not, almost nobody could afford a home. Even that nice wooden building picture above cost a rather large fortune. Nice wood is expensive. Large beams are expensive. Designing like that is expensive. It’s a tough problem to solve.

Very. It’s reminiscent of the palm oil debacle, it’s not the activity, it’s the scale.

Some fall colors to take your mind off the melt-down in our political system:

I should have gotten a close-up as well.

As we enter Fall, headed for Winter and sub-zero temperatures here in Minnesota, I was struck by this description of the heat in areas such as the Middle East nation of Qatar, and how the US Air Force responds to it:

The U.S. Air Force calls very hot days “black flag days” and limits exposure of troops stationed at al-Udeid Air Base. Personnel conducting patrols or aircraft maintenance work for 20 minutes, then rest for 40 minutes and drink two bottles of water an hour. People doing heavy work in the fire department or aircraft repair may work for only 10 minutes at a time, followed by 50 minutes of rest, according to a spokesman for the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing. [WaPo]

Not a situation in much will get done. And when it’s like that in, say, Oklahoma?

For the last two and a half years, we’ve been watching President Trump display incompetence and, allegedly, break multiple laws; I’ll dispense with the less tangible observations.

Most of these have been domestic in nature, or, for those that had international repercussions, they were obscured by Trump’s refusal to share the experiences with relevant White House officials, such as his meetings with Putin, or they were mostly about Trump: Emoluments, allegations of corruption, such as the recent contretemps in Ukraine, etc.

Which is all to say, the Republicans would utter a few words of distress, but do no more.

But the decision to withdraw troops from the border area of Syria and Turkey is a signal event for the Republicans. For those readers unfamiliar with the region (and I’m no expert), the Kurds are an ethnic minority who are mostly concentrated in the area where Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq share borders. For decades, or even centuries, they’ve advocated, sometimes violently, for the re-creation of Kurdistan, carved out from the territories of the aforementioned countries. Those countries take exception to such a potential loss of territory, and Turkey, at least, has labeled the political wings of the Kurds terrorist organizations; the current crop of Turkish leaders seem to have curried hatred of the Kurds as part of their ruling strategy.

In that context, the stabilization of the Syrian / Turkish border included American troops to keep the Kurds, who provide valuable military services, as allies while containing the ambitions of the current Syrian government, which has recently survived a civilian revolt. Our sudden and unexpected withdrawal has left the Kurds, both military and civilians, in the roughly 20 mile strip of land within Syria on the Turkish border, at the mercy of the Turks.

And Turkish President Erdogan has little mercy for the Kurds, who provide a distraction from his economic mismanagement woes at home.

The rest of the world – which is to say, the all-important ruling classes – has seen this Republican President abandon an ally in the field. Obviously, the United States’ immense military and resources makes the Americans an attractive ally, but if you can’t trust them then it’s unwise to cut them the sort of deals which lead to prosperity, because losing the backing of an ally at a key moment is disastrous.

So now – regardless of the announcement that the Turks have agreed to a cease-fire, because they have doubtless achieved their objectives and can throw a bone to Pence, the negotiator, and Trump – the Republicans have to decide:

Do they take their international responsibilities seriously enough to vote to get rid of Trump in an impeachment?

If they don’t, then every other nation in the world will know that whenever the Republicans are in charge, they are not to be trusted. Rather than favorable trade terms, unfavorable. Don’t back them in military conflicts. View their links to the Russians with suspicion.

It’s a great pity that the person who was the closest to being a conscience for the Republicans has passed away. Senator McCain (R-AZ) certainly had one of the finest understandings of foreign relations and the dynamics inherent in same of the current generation of Congressional members on either side of the aisle, and he would be leading the charge to remove the President in the face of this outright betrayal of our allies. McCain would have taken Trump’s irrelevant statement that the Kurds “are no angels” and jammed it right up his ass.

Do the Republicans realize this? They might. When the House offered a resolution to rebuke the Administration over the matter, it passed.

The House on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution condemning President Donald Trump‘s decision to end U.S. military support of Kurdish forces in Syria.

The measure received bipartisan support with a 354-60 vote. All those who voted against were Republicans. [UPI]

However, the Senate Republicans may not have the opportunity to display their displeasure, due to the meddling of one Senator Rand Paul (R-KY):

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blocked an effort to bring a House-passed resolution formally breaking with President Trump’s Syria strategy up for a vote.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) tried to get consent Thursday to bring up the resolution, arguing that “we’re in real trouble.” …

Paul, a libertarian-leaning GOP senator, objected to Schumer’s request for a vote, arguing that he was trying to sidestep the Constitution.

“He should come to the floor and say that we are ready to declare war. We are ready to authorize force, and we are going to stick our troops in the middle of this messy, messy, five-sided civil war where we would be ostensibly opposed to the Turkish government that has made an incursion,” Paul argued. [The Hill]

A resolution to rebuke the President is just that. Paul is projecting possible consequences on what is essentially a motion to tell the President to stop being an impulsive idiot. Paul has a history of trying to meddle in foreign relations, and, like most libertarian thought on the matter, it’s ill-advised.

For the moment, the Republicans are teetering on the knife’s edge. This is the moment in which they should display leadership by defying the Trump base and voting, at least, to rebuke him. If the base complains, they should be told why the rebuke was necessary, and if an opportunity to remove Trump comes up, they should vote for it as well.

Otherwise, we can only assume their taste for holding power is stronger than their loyalty to the nation.

Those who voted against the House resolution will face hard questions in 2020. Will they still have a shield to hide behind in the person of President Trump? Or will he have been impeached and convicted, and be in hiding from other prosecutions?

Only time will tell.

A sad loss for the nation today as Representative Cummings (D-MD) has passed away from unannounced causes. I have not followed his career, but his standing as a long time civil rights leader and his reputation as a man of integrity and determination are well-known. Voices which clearly spell out the moral failings and requirements of today are one of the most important elements of the public conversation, and his has been stilled.

I’ve never been much for celebrity, I’ve not put up posters of movie stars and whatnot, with the exception of a couple of posters my uncle gave me 45 years ago. I just regard the whole thing as suspicious – why do they want to be celebrities, anyways? I can understand the drive for excellence, of course, and the importance of society pointing at the excellent as role models. But when they strut about, chase the cameras, and etc, it just gets to be too much.

Better to glorify Stephen Hawking.

But this article on the use of celebrity culture to deprive the baby boomers of their wealth justifies my admittedly suspicious ways. Take it away, Craig Silverman of BuzzFeed.news (itself an uncomfortable link to celebrity):

Since 2015, Ads Inc. has made money — lots of it — by executing one of the internet’s most persistent, lucrative, and sophisticated scams: the subscription trap. The subscription trap works by tricking people into buying what they think is a single free trial of a celebrity-endorsed product. Although the customers would receive the product — which in most cases was not made by Ads Inc. itself — in reality, the celebrity has nothing to do with the offer. And in purchasing the free trial, the customer unwittingly commits to a pricey monthly subscription designed to be hard to cancel.

Yep, it’s a classic. And I have to say, the last 70 years has been a concerted, if uncoordinated, plan to train those legions of consumers into buying eagerly into celebrity culture.

“This is clearly a massive worldwide problem,” said Steve Baker, who spent two decades investigating scams at the FTC and now runs the Baker Fraud Report, a website that reports on consumer fraud. Last December, he published a detailed report on subscription traps for the Better Business Bureau, which found that most people are charged roughly $100 by the time they’ve figured out what had happened.

“There are millions of victims of this, certainly,” he told BuzzFeed News.

The Ads Inc. employee said its victims often have one thing in common: age.

“There is one demo that this workflow is targeted towards, and that’s baby boomers,” they said. “You run this toward anyone else, and it’s a disaster. But you do this fake news shit with a trial offer scam and you send it to somebody that’s not that savvy [and it works].”

So if you’re not a boomer, maybe you’re not infected with that celebrity meme. The thing is, it’s such a silly scam, you have to wonder if the victims’ minds are even turning over anymore:

You don’t know Ads Inc., but you may have seen one of its ads on Facebook: a tabloid-style image that claims a celebrity has been caught saying or doing something scandalous that puts their career or life in jeopardy. The ad leads to a webpage that mimics a media brand such as TMZ, Fox News, or People magazine. But it’s all fake: the “news” article, the website, and the additional claim that this star has, for example, discovered an amazing new skin cream that you can try for a small fee. The fake celebrity scandal hinted at in the ad is the hook that gets people to click so they can be pitched on what appears to be a no-risk, free product trial for a small price, such as $4.99.

And it never occurred to the victims to wonder how their favorite C&W singer or football player discovered this new product or principle or whatever?

It’s just dumb.

Here’s the real hitch in this Old West town:

Prior to these revelations, Ads Inc.’s public image has been that of a digital marketing firm led by a charismatic twentysomething with tight connections in San Diego GOP politics. “Ads Inc. is a rebel alliance of hustlers and doers on a mission to disrupt the lifestyle industry with our advanced approach to product creation and marketing,” states the company’s LinkedIn page, which boasts that it’s “one of the fastest-growing advertising agencies in California.”

Burke presented himself as the archetype of a successful, young tech industry CEO. His social media posts showed him and his statuesque girlfriend boarding helicopters, private planes, and first-class cabins to party in Las Vegas, tour Japan, and safari in Africa, where Burke would eventually invest in Ol Malo, a ranch, game sanctuary, and lodge in Kenya, hoping to turn it into an “entrepreneur playground.”

Another Republican. It’s disappointing. But unsurprising. After all, who rode the lying dreams train into the White House on the backs of the boomers? That’s right.

Just another data point indicating boomers are easily taken in.

Benny Hill in an early role?

While The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes (1935) gets off to a good enough start, pulling Holmes out of retirement due to a secret communique from an associate of arch-nemesis Professor Moriarty and the mysterious death of a man at Birlstone Castle, once Holmes has it half figured out, it goes to pieces. The long reminiscence of the dead man’s wife is far too detailed and knows too much for a man who had reputedly told her that his past was not her business.

Add in the fact that the attraction between them is not apparent, and Professor Moriarty’s connection to the entire matter is barely visible and not compelling, and this story became a disappointment, reinforced by the poor production values, or at least the quality of this print.

If you’re a Holmes completist, you may wish to see this, but otherwise it’s a bit of a slog for no great return at the end.

The Louisiana election results are in, and this gives me the opportunity to contrast two reports. The first is from a DLCC (Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee) mailing:

Last night, Democrats won in multiple Louisiana legislative districts that went for Trump in 2016, including one district where Trump won by over 43 points.

But the elections are nowhere near over. Dozens of other Democrats in toss-up districts had impressive results that are taking them to runoff elections on November 16.

An upbeat report, it seems. Here’s The Hill’s report:

Louisiana voters took a significant step to the right on Saturday, as Republicans notched wins up and down the ballot, giving their party an outside chance of sweeping to power just ahead of a crucial redistricting cycle that could cement their control of the state for years to come.

Amid record turnout for what is usually a sleepy off-year, irregular election, Louisiana Republicans locked up enough seats in the state Senate to amount to a super majority. The party came within seven seats of winning a super majority in the state House, too, with eight runoff elections to come in November.

Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) easily led the field of candidates running for the state’s top office, but he did not win a majority of the vote, which would have allowed him to avoid the Nov. 16 runoff.

Instead, his two leading opponents — businessman Eddie Rispone (R) and Rep. Ralph Abraham (R) — captured a combined 52 percent of the vote. That gives Rispone, who finished about 4 percentage points ahead of Abraham, a path to win the runoff.

The lesson here is to be careful of mono-sourcing your news.

These results should raise some questions for the Democrats. Is the Louisiana result due to endogenous or exogenous reasons? Was Trump really influential? Towards the latter question, prior to the election Edwards was polling 48%, and achieved 47%, well within the margin of error, so perhaps he had little influence.

The Hill’s report does have one clue in it:

Edwards grabbed about 91 percent of the African American vote, according to Couvillon’s estimates, a solid and necessary performance for any Democrat who hopes to win statewide office in a conservative Southern state.

But worryingly for the Democratic incumbent, African Americans made up a smaller percentage of the overall electorate than they have in past elections.

That suggests Edwards is not inspiring the black community to vote, although it’s hardly dispositive.

Once again, we’ve seen the fourth movie in a series, and once again I’m impressed with the quality. Toy Story 4 (2019) features the same amazing animation, acting, and imagination that has been present throughout this series. And it continues the tradition of telling a story which touches on the heart of the human condition, in this case the question of what to do when one’s purpose in life disappears.

Our continual hero, Sheriff Woody, and most of his companion toys have moved on to a new family and a new child to help raise, Bonnie. Unlike Andy, who considered Woody to be his best friend, Bonnie likes to create her toys, and when she creates Forky from a discarded plastic fork and some trash, it’s up to Woody to train Forky for toy-hood.

In fact, for the heavy responsibility of being Bonnie’s favorite.

During the training, they encounter the long missing Bo Peep, who had been a toy of Andy’s sister, and given away years earlier. Woody discovers his affection for Bo is undiminished, even as he learns that she is not only a Lost Toy, supposedly a horror for any toy, but she revels in it.

But lurking in the small town Bonnie’s family is visiting is the Antique Store, the home of the eerie Gabby Gabby, a doll full of dark purposes and manic drive, assisted by several Charlie McCarthy dolls. And she wants? Something of Woody’s, and she’ll do anything to get it – including holding Forky hostage.

In Woody, we see the relentless drive to do right, even in the face of the high cost of doing so, and how that can work out against all the odds. More importantly, we also watch as Woody realizes that in order to grow and mature, one must learn to accept that sometimes you are not the center of someone else’s existence, and that transitions, as painful as they may be, are a necessity of life.

Some new characters, and a new purpose in life, finish the lesson.

Strongly recommended.

So it looks like the United States military forces are being pushed towards becoming a mercenary outfit, if President Trump has anything to do with it. From a WhiteHouse.gov transcript of a traditional Trump helicopter press conference:

Q    Mr. President, why are you sending more troops to Saudi Arabia when you just said it’s a mistake to be in the Middle East?

THE PRESIDENT:  So we’re sending more troops to Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia is a very good ally, from the standpoint that we get along with them very well — a very important player in the Middle East.  The relationship has been very good.  And they buy hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of merchandise from us, not only military equipment.  In military equipment, about $110 billion.  It’s millions of jobs.

Now, with that being said, we are sending troops and other things to the Middle East to help Saudi Arabia.  But are you ready?  Saudi Arabia, at my request, has agreed to pay us for everything we’re doing.  That’s a first.

But Saudi Arabia — and other countries, too, now — but Saudi Arabia has agreed to pay us for everything we’re doing to help them.  And we appreciate that.

It really makes me wonder what Trump would do if Iran began bidding for American military services. Would he abandon the Saudis if the price were right?

No doubt some readers wonder why we send military aid without financial compensation to other nations. The reason is that the system of international diplomacy doesn’t operate on a financial basis, nor can it; the goals of diplomacy are not facilitated by the transactional nature of the financial system. Why? A financial system is not about national existential questions, it’s about facilitating economic activity. It doesn’t foster analysis, or institutional memory.

And those two latter elements, among others, are critical elements of international diplomacy. Understanding what another nation’s ruling class intends to do – to you -requires institutional memory and analysis. Making wise decisions which increase your country’s prosperity by discouraging or, worse, defeating, an adversary’s armies and, thus, ambitions is the role of government.

On the other hand, sending your army off at the beckon of a pocketbook may increase accounts temporary, and they may not be used against you, but it may deprive you of needed troops elsewhere.

But that’s just the surface layer. A mercenary player in international diplomacy may think they’re taking advantage of international tensions to reap a windfall, but they’re assuming a static situation. Their clients soon become aware of the chaos caused by mercenaries who are allies in one conflict, enemies in the next, and always collecting intelligence on their own clients.

This is not a stable situation, and soon the mercenaries are dispatched. If they’re lucky, they’re boycotted; the unfortunate mercenary armies are massacred. Allegiance to national interests remains the gold standard, even today; the blue helmets of the United Nations are not considered to be an elite fighting force.

And the reputation of the mercenary army’s homeland? Besmirched. Funny word, isn’t it? It means a lower level of trust, less influence in the world.

President Trump has proven to be a very limited man. He’s a real estate developer of mediocre ability, who moved on to television stardom as the guy whose primary talent was his catchphrase: You’re fired! Not electrifying credentials for holding the top job in the United States, and he’s proving it. His emphasis on money puts his limits up in neon: I’ll do anything for a bit of cash.

United States parents, for all President Trump tells us he hates foreign wars, don’t believe him, it’s not true.

He hates not being paid like a mercenary for a foreign war.

It’s not nearly the same thing.

Relax, he’s just in town to get the groceries.

If you’re a fan of movie monsters, you should be seeing Earth Vs The Spider (1958), for, well, Mr. Eponymous. When a man fails to return from a shopping trip, his daughter and her boyfriend go searching for him. In a cave not far from his wrecked truck, they find clues: skeletons, a sucked-dry corpse, a spider web reminiscent of those climbing ropes often seen slung over the sides of ships, and one big ol’ spider that likes to scream and make dinners out of people.

Making it back to town in one piece, they tell the skeptical town sheriff, who, with a few townspeople, including the local exterminators and a scientist, visit the cave and soon have an encounter the spider. One dead sheriff’s deputy later, the spider’s dead and en route to the museum for examination by the scientist, and all’s well.

Until the spider wakes up and lays waste to the town.

While the plot is a little creaky and the characters are made strictly from cardboard, there are some good elements. For example, the early rock band earned a nod of approval from my Arts Editor, and when the spider is awakened by their music, they’re a bit of a hoot as they make their escape. But more importantly, the cave cinematography, actually performed at Carlsbad Caverns, is tremendous, although I’m not sure about this ‘luminescent algae‘ to which they refer.

But exceeding the cinematography is the spider itself. This is a real, live spider, creeping around in all its hairy splendor, the microphotography, if you will, spliced almost flawlessly into the rest of the film. The exception to the generally excellent monster depiction is the final scene, where it appears they couldn’t get the spider to creep down a wall properly, so they replaced it with a very disappointing spider-dummy. But, overall, the spider is a lot of fun and is not ridiculous, unlike some monsters we’ve seen munching on hapless victims.

Whether or not the monster and the caves make up for the mediocre plot is up to the viewer. Enjoy!

And the Israeli right, initially so happy to have President Trump elected, are now finding out what it’s like to singe their fingertips as President Trump impulsively follows his instincts, as Ben Caspit reports in AL Monitor:

It took Netanyahu three long days to release his feeble condemnation of the Turkish attack [on the Syrian Kurds]. They were three very difficult days, as befits the difficult process of waking up about President Donald Trump. The president’s surprising announcement that the United States would immediately withdraw from Syria, followed by the no less sudden Turkish invasion of the Kurdish region, dealt the death blow to Israel’s hopes and expectations regarding its northern front.

“We’ve been left all alone now,” a high-ranking defense official admitted to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. “The strategic balance of power is shifting right before our eyes. The bad guys won, and the good guys are abandoning us. Now, Israel is left almost on its own to deal with the powerful Turkish-Russian-Iranian axis.” …

Israel is finally waking up, and it is a painful process. It took no time at all for Trump, once deemed a fervent lover of Zion if not the Messiah himself, to be recast as someone who is distancing himself from Israel. It is sadly amusing to listen to the Likud’s spokespersons cringe and talk in circles when asked about the sudden American withdrawal from Syria, the abandonment of the Kurds and the president’s desperate efforts to court Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

Perhaps a trifle of schadenfreude on Caspit’s part, but quite understandable. It’s also not surprising to see his description of Likud apologists as speaking in circles, because the intersection between reality and ideologies inconsistent with reality often leads to nonsense, an intellectual stutter and collapse as the mind seeks to reconcile two fundamentally incompatible concepts. We’ve seen this from our own band of extremists of late with regards to President Trump’s solicitation for assistance from the Chinese in finding dirt on the Biden family:

Too tired to brush the snow from his shoulders. Found the chicks, yet?

Republican national strategist Rick Wilson wrote a classic description of President Trump in The Daily Beast a few days back that I missed. It starts off with a bang of a title:

Trump Is Going to Burn Down Everything and Everyone, and Republicans, That Means You

And continues onwards:

Donald Trump’s Oval Office performance-art masterpiece Wednesday was one for the ages, a pity-party, stompy-foot screech session by President Snowflake von Pissypants, the most put-upon man ever to hold the highest office in the land. If you watched his nationally televised press conference, Trump’s shrill, eye-popping hissy fit scanned like the end of a long, coke-fueled bender where the itchy, frenzied paranoia is dry-humping the last ragged gasps of the earlier party-powder fun.

Between calling Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) a panoply of Trumpish insults (and for the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee to be held for treason), engaging in his usual hatred of the press, talking about Mike Pompeo’s intimate undergarments, and quite obviously scaring the shit out of Finnish President Sauli Niinisto—who looked like he was the very unwilling star of an ISIS hostage video—Trump spent the day rapidly decompensating, and it was a hideous spectacle. All the Maximum Leader pronunciamentos won’t change the reality that Donald John Trump, 45th president of the United States, has lost his shit.

It’s really worth a full read, too, regardless of political persuasion, given Wilson’s status as a Republican insider:

In private, Republicans are in the deepest despair of the Trump era. They’ve got that hang-dog, dick-in-the-dirt fatalism of men destined to die in a meaningless battle in a pointless war. They’ve abandoned all pretense of recapturing the House, their political fortunes in the states are crashing and burning, and the stock-market bubble they kept up as a shield against the downsides of Trump—“but muh 401(k)!”—is popping.

You want to know why so few Republicans have held town-hall meetings since early 2017? Because Trump is the cancer they deny is consuming them from the inside out. They see the political grave markers of 42 of their GOP House colleagues—and several hundred down-ballot Republicans—booted from office since 2017 and know that outside of the deepest red enclaves, they’re salesmen for a brand no one is buying.

It’s a reminder of the essential bankruptcy of the Trump “ideology,” isn’t it? Faced with a probably hopeless situation brought on by Trump’s impulsiveness and amateurism, and the general Republican inadequate understanding of ethics and morals, they appear to be caving in frustration.

Oh, sure, they continue to deploy Trumpian tactics in defense: spreading lies about Representative Schiff and various Senators who may become the next Democratic nominee for a Presidential slot that’s looking increasingly like a lost cause for the Republicans, the classic projection attack for which Trump has become famous (“No, you’re the Russian puppet!” he viciously spat at Clinton at one debate).

But, much like a human being faced with a repeat infection, the electorate is becoming less and less vulnerable to the crazy assertions, no matter how authoritatively pressed by Trump and his proxies, and we’re learning to check the facts ourselves, or to wait for the professional fact-checkers to make a determination.

Oh, sure, not all of a us. Politics is a messy business, and some folks are swayed by preconceptions, emotions, and desperate wishes – but most of us are catching on. And that will be the death of the Trumpian ideology, because that’s all it really was: lie your way to the top. Deny, deny, deny.

American media has come to realize that facts and truth are more important than politeness and hurt feelings, and that’s a good thing for all of us, regardless of who’s doing the lying, or who’s doing the listening.

Oh, and read the rest of the Wilson article. I loved it.

In view of this

It’s worth looking at these brave pansies:

I see the aforementioned Ambassador Sondland is, in apparent violation of Administration directives, planning to answer the subpoena to appear before House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform committees to give a deposition, after having first declined same. While he cannot deliver documents without State Department permission, he will still testify.

Or so his lawyers say. Their statement is decidedly odd:

“Notwithstanding the State Department’s current direction to not testify, Ambassador Sondland will honor the Committees’ subpoena, and he looks forward to testifying on Thursday,” Sondland’s lawyers said in a statement. “Ambassador Sondland has at all times acted with integrity and in the interests of the United States. He has no agenda apart from answering the Committees’ questions fully and truthfully.” [WaPo]

We have to be assured he has no agenda? On the other hand, Lewandowski’s testimony was full of it, so maybe they have a point.

So what does this change of heart mean?

1. He’s there to say “I decline to answer…” a lot. But why? Everyone else is declining to appear, so why have Sondland appear but say nothing?
2. To say there was no threat, no quid pro quo, nothing of an impeachable nature in Trump’s actions with regard to Ukraine. Sondland is generally considered to be an ally of President Trump, as he received the Ambassadorship as a prize for making a big donation, which is not an unusual practice in any Administration, so he might make this sort of deposition falsely, out of loyalty. But then he’s running the risk of being caught lying to Congress, which could land him time in prison. Why take the chance?
3. That Sondland is considered an ally mostly refers to history; he may have lost his fondness as he became familiar with Trump and his methods. So maybe Sondland plans to spill the beans. Sondland probably doesn’t need the money, so if he’s fired, he won’t care.

My money, which is a very small wager, is on #2. Whether it’s true or not, if he testifies otherwise, he’ll enter the criminal part of the scandal.

And if he requests immunity? My oh my!

From a promotional mailing from the University of Minnesota to alumnae:

Regenerative Thinking Lecture
Tuesday, Oct. 22
Adopting a regenerative way of thinking can reestablish the indelible bonds that connect everyone and everything on the planet. We can and must create places and lifestyles that are better for people and the planet, and they will be better than what we settle for now.

So, if they’re indelible bonds, why do we need to reestablish them? Or did someone change definitions on me?

And this from a major University, no less. For shame.

Not all corporations come from the Big, Evil Corporation Factory:

On Wednesday, Axios published a list of the entities spending the most money on Facebook ads on both sides of the impeachment debate. …

“Folks, this is reporter Danforth Twiggler, and we’re here three months in the future, January 4th of 2020. As you all know, former President Trump was just convicted in his impeachment trial, and we’ve been fortunate to snag an interview with Republican Senator Clutching F. Power of >crackle-fade-out<!”

“Senator, thank you for speaking with us.  Senator Power, what factor, in the trial that ended yesterday in the conviction of President Trump, made you decide to vote against him?”

“Thank you for having me, Dan. Dan, for me, it began with the corruption evidenced in his ‘Ukraine call’, his crass use of the Oval Office to enrich himself, and ended with the evidence of his obeying the orders from the Russian state. He may have claimed that Russia was our friend, but we knew better!”

“So Representative Pelosi and her team were effective in their prosecutorial role?”

“>cough< I felt the evidence spoke for itself.”

“Thank you, sir. So the revelations of his payoffs to his paramours to keep them quiet during the campaign didn’t bother you?”

“Well, Dan, naturally, as a proud Evangelist, I was of course disgusted by his behavior, but he was doing God’s work with the judiciary -”

“You then agree with Pastor Jeffress, Ralph Reed, and others that Trump should have been given a free pass since he was touched by God?”

“Well, no, he was done with his work -”

“And God just throws away his tools when he’s done with him? Very interesting. I would not care to work for God. But going back to his attempts to buy the silence of his paramours, we knew about these virtually by the time he was taking office, and yet you didn’t comment on this criminal behavior -”

“I, I didn’t believe it was all that important -”

“Then there was the ten reports of obstruction in the Mueller Report -”

“What obstruction? I, I never read the damn, errrr, darn thing anyway!”

“And why not, Senator Power?”

“God would never permit his chosen tool to, to, and that report was therefore blasphemy!”

“And, yet, here we are. Senator, the President, excuse me, former President is widely seen as having displayed evidence of his miscreancy early in his tenure. I speak, of course, of such incidents as his unrecorded interviews with President Putin, his revelations of highly classified materials in public, and his infelicities in the selection of his Cabinet secretaries, and, oh, just his general incompetency. Given all this, if he had been impeached and convicted much earlier in his tenure, isn’t it true that the United States would have had a much more quiet and productive period?”

“Not at all, the judiciary -”

“Even with Vice President -”

“THE JUDGES! For they will wield the sword to redeem us -”

“So, Senator, you admit that you put your own self-interest ahead of the Nation’s -”

“They’re the same!”

“Thank you, Senator, for explaining your Party’s reluctance to to remove the worst President in modern memory. Tell me, sir, is it true that you were fired from your last three jobs for gross incompetency before you became a cleric and started a megachurch in – ah, he just stalked away, folks, I suppose discussing competency is just over the line. This is …”

With apologies to the late Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), and I suspect the reporter was from the Center for Inquiry, a freethinker organization that spends a lot of time safeguarding the secular nature of our government, when it can.

My point, of course, is that most of the Republicans in Congress have wedded themselves to Trump, and to vote for impeachment or conviction would, in effect, be a vote to do the same to themselves and their badly broken ideology or religious convictions.

So, despite the happy words of some pundits, I don’t see it happening.

Having watched just a little bit of the news coverage of the events surrounding the Trump campaign rally tonight in Minneapolis, MN, I was struck by how the need to express disagreement with Trump and his policies seems to be fulfilled by anger and violence.

It’s minor violence, it’s true, but it’s worth remembering that analysis of the typical Trump supporter has included conclusions that there’s a fear of societal change, and that the political opposition will indulge in violence. The first, of course, is true, as people try to change society to be more in tune with justice, but the second need not be necessary – and I feel those who threw objects at departing attendees and the police really played into the hands of the right-wing extremist leaders. In their missives to their followers, they emphasize the violent dangers of the left, fallacious as they are, and the left did nothing to falsify those charges.

Yet, I do sympathize with the protesters. Trump is glaringly obviously incompetent, an amateur who is doing tremendous damage to the reputation and tangible quality of the country. He has no concept of how ethics in government employees, such as himself, should work; he has, instead, imported his own bankrupt moral system in which he constantly seeks personal advancement into the Oval Office. He may even be a Russian asset. He’s become the emblem of how bad a President should not be. That our fellow Americans can embrace a liar, cheat, bungling fool, who is so bad that he doesn’t even recognize it, is infuriating.

But I fear tonight’s violence will only reinforce the Trumpist base’s decision to support the man.

Here’s what I would have savored seeing: a good-natured, old-fashioned shaming through laughter. When Trump came in, and when he left, all the protesters should have pointed a finger and laughed. When the attendees came out, seeking only to get in their vehicles and drive away, rather than yelling and screaming and throwing rocks at their cars, a good old-fashioned laughing might have been more effective. Perhaps call them suckers, just to get their attention, but nothing worse. Assail them with gales of laughter. Violence hardens attitudes, it persuades only the timid, and frightened, and that’s not a big piece of the Trumpist base.

A psychologist could address this more effectively, but the driving emotional need for Trump is respect, or admiration, for himself. As I understand it, he’s always yearned for it, and never quite gotten it from the creamy elite of New York City.

But if a bunch of Minnesota yahoos had just pointed and laughed at him and his followers, not only would his followers feel less physically threatened, while wondering what they’ve missed, but perhaps Trump himself would have taken a real hit.

They’re not yelling and screaming, they’re just laughing at me. Just laughing and pointing, practically crying they’re laughing so hard. They have no respect.

And would he continue to go on? Hard to say. But it would have been more respectful of our shared bond as Americans, legal or not, than this night of hatred and, well, stupidity.

A missed opportunity.

If you haven’t read about the shift in public sentiment concerning the Impeachment Inquiry into the conduct of President, this might brighten or darken your day:

I don’t read much Facebook, but even that little bit yields up the classic What About The Democrats! argument, and I’ve had it.

Look, whatabout-ism doesn’t work with me. We’re not measuring Trump against the lies of the Democrats, the Socialists, or for that matter the Nazis.

We’re measuring him against the Constitution.

That’s the only measuring stick that matters anymore^[1].

And he’s coming up short.

¹ Sure, we could talk about Obama and the Constitution, but, guess what? The Republicans had 6 years of dominance of Congress and never tried to impeach him. The actions of the Republicans tell us a lot more about Obama and, for that matter, H. “turns out she’s clean as a whistle, thanks to Rep Trey Gowdy, et al” Clinton, than does their rhetoric or their brazen apologists.