Yearly Archives: 2019

Relating to this semi-dormant thread, the operational basis of any election is the tabulation and interpretation of the votes, as anyone who remembers the hanging chad incident in the Presidential Election of 2000 knows. When that function is fulfilled by computers, then it’s a necessity that those machines be functioning properly, being neither flawed nor maliciously designed.

That said, this report out of Pennsylvania for local elections held in 2019 should be disheartening for advocates of these election machines:

A couple of minutes after polls closed in Easton, Pennsylvania on Election Day, the chairwoman of the county Republicans, Lee Snover, realized something had gone horribly wrong.

When vote totals began to come in for the Northampton County judge’s race, it was obvious there was a problem. The Democratic candidate, Abe Kassis, only had 164 votes out of 55,000 ballots across 100 precincts. In an area where you can vote for a straight party ticket, it was near a “statistical impossibility”, according to the New York Times.

When paper backup ballots were recounted, they showed Kassis winning narrowly, 26,142 to 25,137, over his opponent, the Republican Victor Scomillio. Snover said at about 9:30PM on November 5, her “anxiety began to pick up”.

“I’m coming down there and you better let me in,” she told someone at the election office after eventually getting through to them on the phone.

Matthew Munsey, the chairman of the Northampton County Democrats who helped with the paper ballot recount said: “People were questioning, and even I questioned, that if some of the numbers are wrong, how do we know that there aren’t mistakes with anything else?” [SGT Report]

Munsey certainly has the right question to ask, doesn’t he? How do we know when a black-box^[1] process is not functioning properly when the data is not known before hand? Put this question in your brain-box and shake violently: suppose your election machine can be influenced via a WiFi connection so that when it’s being tested, it works properly (that is, it reflects in its tabulations the data – votes – that was input), but when it’s time to count the real vote, you don’t know the inputs, so how do you know the output is right?

Well, there are ways by detecting patterns in the output. This has attracted the attention of statisticians such as Dr. Clarkson, which I’ve noted before. But this requires deep analysis and access to raw data, which some government entities will not permit – as Dr. Clarkson discovered in the case of Kansas.

Here’s the depressing side of this news:

Katina Granger, a spokeswoman for Election Systems & Software, the manufacturer of the machines said: “We also need to focus on the outcome, which is that voter-verified paper ballots provided fair, accurate and legal election results, as indicated by the county’s official results reporting and successful postelection risk-limiting audit. The election was legal and fair.”

No, we don’t need to focus on the outcome, Granger. We need to focus on what went wrong, in particular Munsey’s concern. This is not a sane remark, it’s the remark of someone trying to not get sued, not lose market share – or even the elimination of the entire market.

I reiterate the point I made years ago in this thread – Ban election machines. Count by hand. Mistakes may be made, there might even be cheating – but humans are additive, computers are multipliers. Which do you want cheating? That we use them at all shows we do not take election seriously; that we get election machines from private vendors who refuse to allow the source code and machines to be proctored suggests that we’re actively addle-pated when it comes to understanding the basic philosophy of any governmental system.

The uplifting side of the news? Look at who detected and reported the apparently bad number – the chairperson of the local Republican Party on behalf of the Democratic candidate, who eventually won. It’s good to see that some people take very seriously their responsibilities as citizens and put their ideological concerns in the back seat, where they belong.

¹ “Black-box” refers to some process of which the implementation details are unavailable to the testers. “Black box” testing simply means feeding data into the process and checking the output is what you expect, while “white box” testing is aware of the details of the implementation, presumably in order to test that the details are working as expected. That is, sometimes an improperly implementation will still output proper results. The error may not be in the results, but in the speed at which the results are calculated, which may not be apparent in the test scenario used by the testing personnel.

It’s been interesting – in that morbidly interesting way that we’ll watch a truck full of people get hit by a train, meaning I’m virtually peeking between my fingers in horror – watching the formerly respectable Senator Graham (R-SC) self-destruct. It dates just about at the same time as the Trump Administration took the reins of government, since prior to the election Graham had been rather direct in his evaluations of Trump’s competency to be President. Here’s an example:

Donald Trump is not a conservative Republican. He's an opportunist. He's not fit to be President of the United States.

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) February 17, 2016

There are more. Since Trump’s victory, Graham has more than earned the appellation ‘Lickspittle,’ between his violent defenses of Trump and his frequent golf outings with the President. I think it’s even better than ‘Moscow Mitch McConnell’. In fact, I’m surprised the above tweet hasn’t been deleted and replaced with some butt kissing.

One can only wonder – morbidly, of course – what sort of pressure was brought to bear on Senator Graham to turn tail in such a public and irresponsible manner. There might be direct pressure, such as “South Carolina will get nothing unless you play ball with the President!” Or it might be concerns about his own re-election in 2020, as ABC News 4 pointed out earlier this year:

Regarding U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, his approval rating among Republicans has continued to rise, it now stands at 74% in the Winthrop Poll. Only 25% of Democrats polled support Graham.

“Graham’s approval has benefited from his defense of, and alignment with, President Trump. While Graham’s numbers used to lag those of other Republicans among GOP identifiers, since he has taken up the President’s banner on most every issue, his approval among Republicans in South Carolina has steadily risen,” Huffmon said.

But that was then, this is now. Meet Jaime Harrison, the Democratic opponent for Graham in the 2020 election. He has degrees from Yale and Georgetown (j.d.), has worked within the South Carolina Democratic Party as chairman, and he’s challenging a sitting Senator. How’s he doing?

From Change Research:

It’s worth asking about the historical accuracy of a polling firm I’ve never heard of before, and FiveThirtyEight accords Change Research a grade of ‘C’, so the race may not be as close as it appears. But this statement in the text accompanying the poll results was interesting:

• Senator Lindsey Graham’s favorability is exceptionally low among Independent voters and in hypothetical general election match-ups. He looks extremely vulnerable against Democratic contender Jaime Harrison.

• While South Carolina does not support impeaching President Trump, a majority of voters would like Senator Graham to approach the impeachment inquiry with an open mind, rather than leap to the president’s defense before hearing evidence.

With that said – the latter point is exactly what I’d hope to hear from American citizens in this situation – is Senator Lindsay out in front, leading the way in running a fair and penetrating trial of President Trump?

Apparently the pressure is too much for him.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Saturday that he’s made up his mind that President Trump should be acquitted, dismissed the notion that he has to be a “fair juror” and said he doesn’t see the need for a formal trial in the Senate.

Graham, a staunch defender of the president, made the comments overseas during an interview with CNN International at the Doha Forum in Qatar.

“I think impeachment is going to end quickly in the Senate. I would prefer it to end as quickly as possible,” Graham said. “Use the record that was assembled in the House to pass impeachment articles as your trial record.”

Asked whether it was appropriate for him to share those thoughts given his purported role as a juror in a Senate trial, Graham replied, “Well, I must think so because I’m doing it.”

“I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here,” he added.

I find it a bit boggling that a Senator who is soon to take an oath …

I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of , now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.

… is so flippant about not honoring it. It’s as if taking care of Trump’s fragile ego and volcanic temper is more important than honoring Senate rules and his own oath.

And it’ll make for a great campaign commercial for Harrison, won’t it? Just play the clip of him making the statements, then him taking the oath, and then ask the viewer if they really want to vote for a man who takes oaths so casually, and then suggest Senator Harrison, regardless of who is on trial, would never do that.

While the brethren of the Republican Party won’t care, the independents will listen and think about it. Graham may not politically survive the 2020 election.

Self-destruction in all its forms. Let me spread these fingers a little wider.

From WaPo, which transcribed a CNN interview with failed 2016 GOP Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina:

Speaking on an episode of CNN’s “Boss Files,” the former Hewlett-Packard executive told host Poppy Harlow that she is not certain whether Trump should be removed from office “this close to an election.”

“But I think the conduct is impeachable,” Fiorina continued. “And what I regret is that the principles that are being debated in this impeachment trial — separation of powers, abuse of power, obstruction of Congress — those principles are not as immediate or intense as partisanship or peoples’ belief that the politics that I care about impact me personally.” …

Fiorina was critical of the Republican Party of 2019, saying it seems to be “all about pledging fealty to Donald Trump no matter what.” She said her message to Republicans is that holding onto a job is “not the most important thing.”

“In this country, we don’t pledge allegiance to a party or to a president,” she said. “In this country, principles matter. And in particular, the principle that we have coequal branches of government and that no one is above the law and that it is Congress’s duty to oversee and to investigate the executive branch is a vital principle.”

I have no idea if Fiorina’s word carries any weight in today’s Republican Party, but at least it’s encouraging to see another member of the Party disrespecting Trump – even if she admits voting for him – and reminding her fellow party members concerning the importance of principles.

From a Motley Fool email:

Morgan Housel^[1]: A lot of what goes on in investing is related to politics, particularly the triggers of recessions and bear markets and whatnot. So if you are an investor who says, “I’m not into politics. I’m just an investor, I don’t pay attention to politics,” I think that’s fine, and it’s fine if you’re willing to put up with recessions and bear markets, which is a great attitude — but the fact is that politics plays a big role in investing. If you’re just looking at investing through the lens of finance, there’s all these other forces that have a big impact on it. And if you’re ignoring that, then you’re probably going to have an experience that is vastly different from what you expect.

If you get trapped within your own field and ignore everything else that makes a difference, it’s hard to move ahead. It’s a special kind of stupid. [July 28, 2019]

It’s easy enough to observe the politics motivating tariffs, both international and domestic, and how they move markets and industries. Indeed, yesterday’s announcement from the White House and from China that a deal is nearing completion is a result of politics – from the trade war motivating it to the need of Trump to pacify his agricultural base, who were reportedly in a near panic over the summer. Will they forget the lessons of Trump? Can he continue to squall about their “patriotic sacrifices” with success?

But there’s another, deeper reason for markets to remain jumpy, and that’s the infiltration of the private sector into the public sector. As much as I’d like to believe that companies running into the simple realities of the market will behave in a rational manner, it’s difficult in the face of evidence of some companies steadfastly denying scientific evidence that doesn’t happen to suit their business models. For example, the epic tobacco lobby war with the science and government concerning the evidence that tobacco use leads to a substantially increased risk of lung cancer. Studies of how industries “capture” their regulatory agencies engenders further distrust. These incidents come from prioritizing profits, or even corporate survival, over societal health, and that in turn denigrates the worth and meaning of the word ‘truth.’

Last I noticed, the lie count for President Trump was up over 13,000, making him the “bigly bestest mostest” Presidential liar ever, without even a close competitor. In fact, I doubt there’s an American politician who can compete with him – ever. Further, his distaste for expertise, and his claims to being an expert at damn near everything, are an infection for which the Republican Party has no internal cure: ambitious people need only sign on to Trump’s predilections in order to advance up the ladder; their election campaigns need not consult with scientists or anyone else but political consultants: simply throw out the lie that will please the audience. The only cure will have to come from voters exhausted by the mendacity of winning Republican candidates, and then only discovered while and after the winner has been in office. Research former Governor Bevin (R-KY) for an example.

The consequence of Trump running for and winning the Presidency, rather than losing and having the GOP collapse in a metaphorical nuclear blaze, as Bruce Bartlett thought would happen, is quite consequential for the markets. To an extent, we can recognize the character flaws^[2] which drive our political leaders, but their actions, taken out of self-interest rather than public disinterest, are more difficult to predict. We can know that such characters tend to be driven by short-term goals rather than long-term goals, which makes it that much more difficult for the long-term investor to select proper investments. The result of the immense public debt Trump is building are difficult to predict, as economics is such a mix of causal chains coming from mass psychology and the subtleties of the market. For example, when Quantitative Easing was used to rescue certain financial institutions during the Great Recession, inflation was on the lips of many amateur economists, but it never happened.

But we can guess that negative consequences in the mid-term are not out of bounds. Trump cries out for re-election, and he’ll do anything he can to get there, damn the consequences. Fortunately, his own selection at the Fed, Jerome Powell, is independent of formal influence, and so there’s some widely respected discipline there. But he cannot control Trump’s trade wars, lack of discipline, and his lack of respect for expertise and science.

And, so, as Trump and the Republicans continue to believe in their false economic ideologies and chase their short-term goals, the investing community will continue to face a difficult challenge.

¹ I seem to remember reading somewhat that Housel has since left TMF.

² I use flaw only because I cannot think of a more descriptive noun at the moment.

Part of an occasional series examining President Trump’s progress against Candidate Trump’s promises.

The promise: Candidate Trump promises to nominate conservative judges to the Federal judiciary:

President Trump stood by his promise to nominate strong constitutionalists in the mold of the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia. [Trump’s Campaign Website]

Results So Far: Undoubtedly, by the numbers, President Trump has kept Candidate Trump’s promise. He’s met or exceeded the bar set by previous Administrations.

The careful reader will, of course, wonder about the number of open seats to be filled and growth in the number of seats. I’ve not attempted to adjust this chart as the gaps in the judiciary have been a long-standing problem and probably not affected the number of nominees Administrations can submit to the Senate.

Of course, Trump promised to fill the judiciary with conservative jurists, and this is far more difficult to directly measure, and, again, I’ve chosen not to do so. I will note, however, that it’s often a tricky thing to find jurists whose allegiance is to ideology rather than country & Constitution.

The Bigger Picture: Beyond the measurements already noted, we must remember we’re not talking about filling sacks with grain; jurists must be competent and honorable, and while the latter question is, again, difficult to measure, in the former there is a metric available, rough as it may be. The American Bar Association (ABA) rates most judicial nominees. The ABA has their process documented here, but Ballotpedia’s explanation seems more cogent:

The ABA’s standing committee on the federal judiciary issues ratings for every Article III judicial nominee commissioned to a life term on a federal court. The committee is made up of 15 members: two from the Ninth Circuit, one from each of the other federal circuits, and the chair of the committee. The president of the ABA appoints all members to staggered three-year terms. No member can serve more than two terms.

The committee focuses on three areas

• Integrity. The nominee’s character and general reputation in the legal community, as well as the nominee’s industry and diligence.
• Professional competence. Encompasses qualities such as intellectual capacity, judgment, writing and analytical abilities, knowledge of the law, and breadth of professional experience.
• Judicial temperament. The nominee’s compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under the law.^[2]

An initial investigation is performed by a committee member from the nominee’s circuit, including an examination of the nominee’s personal data (collected by the U.S. Justice Department), legal writings, confidential interviews with people the nominee has worked with, and an interview with the candidate.

The evaluator then prepares a report for the committee, including one of the following rating recommendations:^[8]

• Well Qualified. The nominee must be at the top of the legal profession in his or her legal community; possess outstanding legal ability; breadth of experience; the highest reputation for integrity; and demonstrate the capacity for sound judicial temperament.

• Qualified. The nominee satisfies the committee’s very high standards with respect to integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament, and the committee believes that the nominee is qualified to satisfactorily perform all of the duties and responsibilities required of a federal judge.

• Not Qualified. The nominee does not meet the committee’s standards with respect to one or more of its evaluation criteria—integrity, professional competence or judicial temperament.^[2]

If the evaluator intends to recommend a “not qualified” rating, the committee chair appoints a second evaluator to conduct another review, which may include additional interviews with colleagues and another interview with the candidate. The committee then reviews the report (or two reports, if a second investigation was conducted). Each member votes on a rating, with the majority determining the committee’s official rating. A tiebreaker vote goes to the committee chair.

The rating may also be accompanied by the designation of “a majority” (eight to nine votes), a “substantial majority” (10 to 13 votes), or “unanimous.”

While perhaps not as objective as assessing a chemical reaction, there’s a methodical, group approach, and so it makes some sense to evaluate various Administrations’ nominees. The following chart does so by aggregating Administrations’ choices and ABA ratings.

That’s a bit complex; the 2019 data is also incomplete, as a number of nominees have not yet been voted on. As an additional note, the 2016 success data is, in fact, correct: none of Obama’s 2016 nominees were confirmed, as Senator McConnell (R-KY) declared a moratorium on approving nominees (several from years prior, however, were approve); the jump in confirmations of Trump nominees by McConnell’s Judiciary Committees, chaired successively by Senators Grassley (R-IA) and Graham (R-SC), constitutes nearly all the important business the Senate has passed, with the exception of the 2017 tax reform bill.

Let’s move to a chart which simplifies and turns it all into percentages.

In terms of percentages, it appears that President Trump is not out of line with his predecessors in terms of quality, although his number of unrated nominees, some of which have not yet been confirmed or rejected, can be disquieting.

But one must keep in mind that word, percentages. It removes scale from a situation wherein scale is important. That is, President Trump is exceeding his predecessors in sheer numbers of nominees and confirmations, as the second chart showed. Combine that with an even average number of Not Qualified candidates who are confirmed, and we’re seeing a judiciary being slowly infiltrated by persons who may be appealing ideologues, but incompetent judges. This should be disquieting to any American citizen. Certainly it has Amy Kuo Hammerman in St. Louis worried in the matter of now-Judge Pitlyk:

Pitlyk earned a unanimous “not qualified” rating from the nonpartisan American Bar Association. Specifically, the bar association noted an absence of her having “any trial or even real litigation experience.” Pitlyk has never tried a case as lead or co-counsel, whether civil or criminal. She has never examined a witness. She has not argued any motion in a state or federal trial court. She has never picked a jury. She has never participated at any stage of a criminal matter. Pitlyk graduated from law school 11 years ago.

She not only lacks basic qualifications for a lifetime seat on the federal court, she also is far from independent regarding our constitutionally guaranteed rights. Indeed, in her relatively short career, Pitlyk has demonstrated that she is one of the most extreme opponents of reproductive freedom ever nominated to be a federal judge. Pitlyk opposes in-vitro fertilization and surrogacy, has fought for the right to discriminate against people for using birth control or becoming pregnant outside of marriage, and has used a divorce proceeding to argue that frozen embryos should have legal rights themselves.

Obviously, Hammerman has a position she’s defending, but the facts of Pitlyk’s experience are very concerning to any American citizen, regardless of political leaning. And, as our charts show, Pitlyk isn’t the only nominee desperately short of the experience that will make for an effective, neutral, and fair judge.

Conservative readers should stop and consider the advantages of having effective, competent judges, over ideologues who may find themselves being overruled quite often. A future research project might be on precisely that subject.

Sources

All ABA ratings information starts here, and implicitly includes all nominations, confirmed or not. Information on successful confirmation of Bush nominees is here, Obama here, and Trump here. Specialty courts such as the International Court of Trade and the Immigration Courts are not part of this discussion.

Seigniorage:

Seigniorage is the difference between the face value of money, such as a $10 bill, and the cost to produce it. In other words, the economic cost of producing a currency within a given economy or country.

If the seigniorage is positive, the government will make an economic profit; while a negative seigniorage will result in an economic loss. [Investopedia]

Noted in “US Mint Cost To Make Penny and Nickel Declines in FY 2013,” Michael Zielinski, Coin Update:

Despite the losses generated by the cent and nickel, the US Mint has generated positive seigniorage across all circulating denominations for each of the years. This is the result of the gains from the higher denominations, which are produced for less than their face values, more than offsetting the losses from the lower denominations.

When it comes to climate change, attention should be fixated on amelioration and adaptation, since we seem to be too self-centered to make the sacrifices necessary for following generations to live comfortably. Some of the sources of adaptation may be a little surprising. For instance, in “The Threat of Climate Change,” Tamara Jager Stewart, American Archaeology (winter ♦ 2019-2020, print only, excerpt here), Rachel Loehman, a former archaeologist, current research landscape ecologist, and head of ArcBurn, which is part of the United States Geological Survey, points out the obvious thing about the past that would never otherwise occur to a culture mostly fixated on the present:

“Archaeology has huge relevance in discussions of ongoing climate impacts and management strategies, because we can provide context for human adaptations to changing environments and critical information on long-term ecosystem responses to human activities…” [AA, p 23]

Image source: SDO/HMI via SpaceWeather

The history of humanity is all about change, from abstract topics such as philosophy and religion, to the concrete such as improvements in medical treatments, sudden volcanic eruptions, crop successes, failures, and changes. Even what seems to be the most unchanging physical phenomenon of all, that ball of burning plasma we call the Sun, changes all the time as it bubbles along. Right at the moment, we’re at what’s called a solar minima, meaning no sunspots are visible.

Press a meteorologist about the best weather forecasting methodology, and they’ll eventually say Same weather as yesterday. But the weather changes, and so does everything else, and humanity has had to adapt to it. It makes a lot of sense to attempt to assess, understand, and abstract the various ad hoc strategies we’ve developed to deal with change.

And so I find that one of my less relevant hobbies, reading about archaeology, has great relevance to what’s happening right now, if only we can learn and distill the lessons our ancestors have to inadvertently teach us. It seems that our addiction to wealth – great wealth – cannot be broken, so in the near future, barring some unforeseen technological breakthrough, we’ll be needing adaptation strategies.

Speaking of change, that same issue of American Archaeology has another article, “Investigating The Vacant Quarter,” David Malakoff (again, print-only, although actually the web site provides excerpts), which is about investigations into the possibility that an essentially fertile and productive piece of North America was abandoned at roughly the same time. Oh, hey, look – that excerpt contains a description of the hypothesis!

In 1978, archaeologist Stephen Williams was touring ancient settlement sites around the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers when an intriguing “notion came to me,” he later recalled. Williams, a Harvard University professor who had worked in the Central and Southeastern United States for decades, knew that the archaeological evidence showed that many of the sites had hosted thriving communities, some with thousands of people, during the Mississippian Period, which lasted from roughly A. D. 800 to 1550. Some featured the huge earthen ceremonial mounds that were a hallmark of Mississippian peoples. But Williams was also aware of a growing number of studies suggesting that people had abandoned many of the sites at roughly the same time, beginning in the mid-1400s. And when he sketched a map of the abandoned settlements, he realized they formed a vast area that he called the “Vacant Quarter,” which covered some 50,000 square miles across eight states. It included some of the region’s largest and most studied Mississippian sites, including Cahokia in western Illinois and the Angel Mounds in Indiana, and also lesser-known sites far to the south in Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi.

I found the article fascinating, not only for the various hypotheses which could explain the apparent abandonment, from disease to environmental to conflict to religion, and I cannot wait to hear what Williams’ successors discover and deduce, but also because, as I realized while writing this post, science, which means knowledge, isn’t just about static knowledge, such as the number of protons in the nucleus of an element, but also knowledge of the dynamics, such as how hydrogen converts to helium in the Sun, or how a human group reacts to an infringement on their territory by another human group, which is in turn driven by the hunger induced by poor agricultural practices, which in turn comes about because of a transition from nomadic to agricultural societies, which in turn …

My point? The only constant is change. I don’t want to turn this into a political screed, but failing to understand that simple rule seems to drive the current conservative movement.

Back to vacation reading!

Pipet:

n., v. –pet•ted, -pet•ting. n.
1. a slender graduated tube for measuring liquids or transferring them from one container to another.
v.t.
2. to measure or transfer with a pipette. [The Free Dictionary]

I thought pipet was a typo! Noted in “The Paquimé Enigma,” Elizabeth Lunday, American Archaeology (winter ♦ 2019-20, print only), picture caption:

A researcher pipets a small amount of liquid in preparation for quantifying the amount of DNA in a samples taken from human remains found in the Casas Grandes region.

American Archaeology is a magazine put out by The Archaeological Conservancy, a private, non-profit organization dedicated to conserving American archaeological resources. Subscriptions to American Archaeology require you be a member of The Archaeological Conservancy. I’ve been with them, and enjoying their magazine, for years. Here’s where you donate.

Earlier today we got around to watching last night’s The Late Show, with the featured guest being Rep and Intel Committee Adam Schiff (D-CA), and I must say he came off quite well. Not flashy like Beto or Buttigieg, but then he’s not running for President; he’s trying to impeach a President. In describing the Articles of Impeachment, and the evidence that backs them, he was quiet, methodical, quick on the uptake, and seemed to have a sense of humor. I appreciated what appears to be his sense of duty towards the country, and his final message to his Republican colleagues was really quite crushing, in my opinion, although I doubt that Gohmert, Gaetz, Jordan, and all that pack really understand his point. They’re too busy being on the Republican team to conceive that their first duty is to the country, the Constitution, and require their honest evaluation of the President, regardless of his supposed status as leader of the Republicans.

Here’s a video of the first section of the interview.

And, yes, I am aware of the pitfalls of casual evaluation.

The period between the end of an election and the beginning of the term for which the election applies is beginning to look like the mythical nights of the full moon. Last year, when Tony Evers (D-WI) won the Wisconsin governorship, the Republican-dominated state legislature swiftly stripped the governor of certain key powers before he took office. This also happened to North Carolina governor-elect Roy Cooper (D-NC) in 2016.

But now at least one governor is having his revenge. Outgoing Governor Matt Bevins (R-KY) has, as one of his last acts of single-term governorship, decided to issue some pardons:

The family of a man pardoned by Gov. Matt Bevin for a homicide and other crimes in a fatal 2014 Knox County home invasion raised $21,500 at a political fundraiser last year to retire debt from Bevin’s 2015 gubernatorial campaign.

The brother and sister-in-law of offender Patrick Brian Baker also gave $4,000 to Bevin’s campaign on the day of the fundraiser, according to the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance database.

A photo of Bevin attending the July 26, 2018, fundraiser at the home of Eric and Kathryn Baker in Corbin was published six days later in a local paper, the News Journal.

Commonwealth’s Attorney Jackie Steele, who prosecuted Patrick Baker and other defendants for the 2014 death of Donald Mills, told The Courier Journal on Wednesday it would be an “understatement to say I am aggrieved” by Bevin’s pardon.

Steele identified Patrick Baker as the brother of Eric Baker, who hosted the Bevin fundraiser at his Corbin home.

The Friday order was one of 428 pardons and commutations Bevin issued since his narrow loss in November to Democrat Andy Beshear, who was sworn into office Tuesday.

The beneficiaries include one offender convicted of raping a child, another who hired a hit man to kill his business partner and a third who killed his parents. [Courier-Journal]

It’s quite the impressive list. Bevin, of course, gave reasons for these pardons, but the Journal interviews relevant judges and prosecutors, and, well, damn it looks like at least the Bakers bribed their family member to freedom.

Bevin, it must be remembered, hasn’t exactly been an outstanding governor since winning in a minor upset back in 2015, and in fact has been the subject of a cartoon series on that theme by Aaron Smith; the most salient that I’ve noticed is his refusal to responsible use the Medicaid expansion. He’s managed to say a number of loopy things, but, of course – or at President Trump, Bevin’s buddy, has taught us – actions speak louder than words. So these pardons must tell us something about Bevin’s mind, and Republican minds.

Perhaps it’s money talks.

I must admit I don’t know a great deal about AG William Barr, but I’ve seen him on a couple of videos and been impressed simply by his manner. He gives the impression of methodical thought and intelligence.

However, former AG Holder analyzed a recent speech he gave and points out a number of intellectual misinterpretations which trouble Holder, and I find troubling as well. Here’s his analysis in WaPo:

Last month, at a Federalist Society event, the attorney general delivered an ode to essentially unbridled executive power, dismissing the authority of the legislative and judicial branches — and the checks and balances at the heart of America’s constitutional order. As others have pointed out, Barr’s argument rests on a flawed view of U.S. history. To me, his attempts to vilify the president’s critics sounded more like the tactics of an unscrupulous criminal defense lawyer than a U.S. attorney general.

When, in the same speech, Barr accused “the other side” of “the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law,” he exposed himself as a partisan actor, not an impartial law enforcement official. Even more troubling — and telling — was a later (and little-noticed) section of his remarks, in which Barr made the outlandish suggestion that Congress cannot entrust anyone but the president himself to execute the law.

Which may sound initially plausible, but such a viewpoint collapses once the implicit, but ridiculous, assumption that the President is incorruptible is identified and removed. It then becomes inevitable that law enforcement cannot be vested in a single person, because a corrupt person will not investigate – and impeach – themselves. Not only does it make the concept ludicrous, it also brings into sharp focus the term limit, enforced by law, on the Director of the FBI, after the salutary tenure of the initial FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, and his dubious practices. While the term limit on Presidents was not created for the same reason, it incidentally serves the same purpose.

In Barr’s view, sharing executive power with anyone “beyond the control of the president” (emphasis mine), presumably including a semi-independent Cabinet member, “contravenes the Framers’ clear intent to vest that power in a single person.” This is a stunning declaration not merely of ideology but of loyalty: to the president and his interests. It is also revealing of Barr’s own intent: to serve not at a careful remove from politics, as his office demands, but as an instrument of politics — under the direct “control” of President Trump.

And may betray a person who looks to others for direction, a person of the hierarchy, as it were. That is not an appropriate personality for the head of the Department of Justice.

Sadly, this was the only movie role Fred ever got. He died ten years later in a Hollywood back alley, drunk on nectar and decaying flesh.

Monster From Green Hell (1958) gets off to a fair start, as two biologists experimenting with putting life into outer space lose track of one rocket load full of wasps. Fairly lackadaisically, they wait six months to start looking for their lost vessel, motivated by reports out of Africa indicating something is upsetting the wildlife.

We then get a fairly nice tramp through the wilds of Africa, dealing with the weather and hostile natives, and it’s not too badly done, even in black and white. Eventually, nearly dead but still heavily armed, they win through to the area where a local European doctor has made it his life’s work to minister to the natives, only to find that he’s gone down before the monster in an area known as Green Hell.

Sadly, things slowly go downhill as the special effects are not up to the task of showing how the monsters are destroyed. The actors do their best, but while the cinematography up to this point was rather good for the era, it falls apart when faced with monsters, volcanoes, and hand grenades.

But it’s all good, because there really wasn’t enough conflict to make it worth the money to do good special effects. This script needed a couple of more drafts. While the first half of the movie is rather pleasant, the second is disappointing.

It appears the era of the electric plane is off and running:

From Harbour Air

This morning a small Canadian regional airline made history on a quiet stretch of the Fraser River in Richmond, B.C., just south of Vancouver, when its top executive took the controls of a classic Burrard Beaver floatplane retrofitted with a new electric motor, and lifted off to the cheers of an assembled crowd of media and well-wishers.

Harbour Air founder and CEO Greg McDougall completed the five minute test flight without burning a drop of fossil fuel. In doing so, he moved a big step closer towards realizing his long-time vision of creating the world’s first all-electric airline.

“That was just like flying a Beaver but a Beaver on electric steroids.” McDougall told a crowd of reporters immediately following the flight. “It was such a great performance we had no way of knowing how it would perform until we flew it, and it was amazing.”[Canada’s National Observer]

I think it’s great they retrofitted an old pillar of the flight community, rather than going through the entire rigamarole of designing and manufacturing a brand new – and expensive – airplane. I was complaining to a friend just the other day that, if the United States really considered that we face an emergency when it comes to climate change, we wouldn’t have gone the Tesla route – instead, we’d have researched, designed, and built electric-motor drop-ins for the most popular makes and models of cars, and then trained the car mechanics to perform those drop-ins.

Instead, I suppose we still supply the fossil fuel industry with subsidies. Oh, yes, we do, to the tune of billions of dollars.

Back to the plane, I also found this tidbit from CEO Roei Ganzarsk of the supplier of the batteries, Magnix, even more exciting than this first flight:

For the airlines operating those planes, like Harbour Air, the technology has advantages beyond the carbon footprint. “The operating cost per flight hour will be anywhere between 50% to 80% lower,” says Ganzarski. Flying a traditional nine-passenger plane for an hour costs around $1,200, he says, but a plane retrofitted with an electric system costs around $400 an hour; a plane designed from scratch to be electric costs around $200. The savings come both from the cost of fuel and the fact that electric motors are simpler and therefore require less maintenance. [Fast Company]

That’s the sort of numbers that makes airline executives positively wet their pants. The airlines may begin to peel away from the fossil fuel industry by financing further battery research as they think about the profit enhancements that could come with technology like this. Even if it shortens flight routes, it could be a game changer.

A reader comments on the anti-abortion bill introduced in Ohio:

Imputing personhood to a fertilized egg on theological grounds is a recent (20th century) invention by those with political and power aspirations. Historically, churches had no such belief or policy.

Nor have I seen much in my readings until the 19th century; the suggestion that abortion has been an ongoing practice for centuries has been an ongoing thread, but the information’s sources are not something I’ve ever evaluated, so I hesitate to use it. I’ve seen on the Web claims that the there’s no biblical basis for an anti-abortion stance, but it’s clear those are pro-choice sources and so, again, I hesitate to use them, and I don’t have time to read the Bible in search of the claims myself. Nor am I much interested in them, anyways.

Steve Benen conveniently summarizes GOP reaction to the release of the report generated by the investigation of the FBI investigation of the Trump Campaign as conducted by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz:

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham appeared on Fox News, for example, and said the Horowitz report pointing to “a government trying to overthrow a president,” which is the opposite of what the Horowitz report actually said. RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel argued that the inspector general’s findings proved that the FBI “spied on” the Trump campaign, which again, is the opposite of what the Horowitz report actually said.

Similarly, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said his takeaway from the inspector general’s findings was that partisans in the Justice Department “spied on a political opponent,” which is the opposite of what the Horowitz report actually said. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who happens to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, went so far as to describe the FBI’s investigation into the Russia scandal as a “criminal enterprise,” which in no way reflects what the Horowitz report actually said.

I skipped over President Trump’s commentary. In case you missed Benen’s opinion in the above, here it is:

We’re left with a dynamic in which Republican leaders, en masse, have examined our reality, found it politically inconvenient, and replaced it with an alternate reality they find more satisfying.

I haven’t read the Horowitz report yet. Perhaps I shall during my Christmas vacation. Perhaps I won’t. Why? Because I’ve found that in the few spot checks I’ve had time to perform, such as with the Mueller Report, the GOP and conservative media has a far, far worse performance in interpreting the reports and events than do the mainstream, traditional media sources.

That’s not to say the traditional sources are always right, but if you don’t have time to read these sometimes huge reports, it’s best to go with the organizations with the best track record, and who will print corrections and retractions when necessary. Democratic sources, in this case, I’d consider to be directed towards their partisans and not towards serious observers.

But my real point here is this: Aren’t the GOP leaders who persist in misinterpreting and spinning the various results getting farther and farther out on that spindly limb called

M E N D A C I T Y

and when it breaks they’ll discover they were hanging over a cliff’s edge called

R E G R E T S ?

With each lie, spin, and manipulation, conservative (or what passes for conservatism these days) becomes less and plausible, believable, and trustable. Perhaps the GOP leadership should consider the future of its movement, if it even believes this is an ideology rather than a cover for raking in the dollars, and maybe put out the word:

B E   T R U T H F U L .

Same, of course, goes for Democrats – but it may not sting so much for them.

But can they? Or are is the GOP so caught up in winning – fighting the internecine war, as Professor Turchin might put it – that they see no value in simple truth? That’s my bet. McConnell and his fellows will throttle any efforts to make Trump pay for his rampant mendacity, they’ll celebrate their immediate victories – and if anyone ever lays out for the base, in convincing detail, how they were scammed, the current GOP leadership may never recover their effectiveness or reputations.

So earnestly not-blonde.

Tess of the D’Urbervilles: A Pure Woman Faithfully Presented, by Thomas Hardy (1891), roiled British society because Tess, a young woman, is raped and stalked by a man who she may be destined to marry. She eventually kills him and goes to the gallows for it. She was not portrayed as a temptress or in any way liable for what befalls her; instead, Hardy places the blame implicitly on British society. The resultant backlash discouraged Hardy from writing another novel.

Pitfall (1948), despite its setting in an American city after World War II, evoked similar thoughts for me. This involves primarily four characters.

John Forbes is an insurance company executive, overseeing the attempted recovery of stolen property for which the company has already paid out. By auctioning it off, they can hope to cover part of their losses. He’s good at his job – and bored. And, yes, there’s a Mrs. Forbes and little boy Forbes.

MacDonald is a former cop and an independent detective who works for Forbes’ company, tracking property and people.

Bill Smiley, now in prison, had been embezzling from his employer in order to buy gifts for his girlfriend.

Mona Stevens is Smiley’s girlfriend – or, perhaps, former girlfriend.

Forbes has dispatched MacDonald to find Stevens on the theory that she may still have recoverable property, and MacDonald succeeds. Forbes pays Stevens a visit, and she is cooperative; she had not realized Smiley was embezzling to buy her favors, and she is sickened. But, over the course of two days, her sadness and vulnerability charm the married Forbes into a brief affair, which they both regret and mean to put behind them.

But MacDonald is enraged by the tryst. Mac has gone beyond smitten with Stevens and is now in the land of creepy stalker. Mac tries to take the direct, fist to the stomach approach with Forbes, but discovers a granite rock lives at the center of the ambling, laid back Forbes.

But Mac is devious. He contacts the jailed boyfriend, Smiley, and baits him into a rage over Forbes. When Smiley’s probation date comes up, Mac hands him a gun and an address, and after a brief stopover with the horrified Stevens, he’s off to visit Forbes.

But Forbes, forewarned by Stevens, gets the drop on Smiley and kills him; the police descend upon him.

Meanwhile, Mac invades Stevens’ apartment and announces plans for their shared vacation, no doubt to be followed by a marriage, when he’s finally convinced her of his charms. As he’s packing for her, though, she produces a gun and severely injures him.

How does it all end up? Forbes, about to set the record straight with the police, is informed by Mrs. Forbes that he’ll do no such thing. Betrayed, she’s nearly ready to dump him, but their young son takes precedence over her outrage at Forbes’ behavior. He needs a father, and she considers his record to be spot-free, up to now. He feeds a story to the cops portraying Smiley as being completely at fault, perhaps wanting nothing more than revenge for all of his gifts being retracted by the insurance company, in the person of Forbes. Forbes suffers nothing more than guilt.

And Stevens? Whether or not Mac dies from his wounds, she’s doomed to jail and societal contempt. Shooting a former cop? A man paying attention to her?

She had no way out.

It’s a well done story, and the necessary-but-squirmable scenes were blessedly short and to the point. Technically competent and with well-drawn characters, it’s not a bad way to spend an hour or so.

I’d been surprised at the vehemence of Representative Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) probable opponent in the 2020 elections, Daniella Stella, who is reported to have lost her Twitter account permanently due to this:

Twitter permanently banned Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Republican opponent on Friday after she accused the Minnesota congresswoman of treason and wrote on the platform that Omar should be hanged.

Danielle Stella, a candidate hoping to challenge Omar for her Minnesota seat in the 2020 election, tweeted earlier this week, “If it is proven @IlhanMN passed sensitive info to Iran, she should be tried for #treason and hanged.”

The post that followed included a crude drawing of a body hanging from gallows with a link to a right-wing website on her belief that Omar should be hanged if a conspiracy that Omar provided sensitive intelligence to Qatar and Iran were true. [NBC News]

And then she’s all sweetness and light and reasonable when she gets bounced:

“Breathe, think this through, logically. To clarify, I said, ‘If it is proven ____ passed sensitive info to Iran, she should be tried for #treason and hanged,’ Stella wrote on Facebook, leaving a blank space where Omar’s Twitter handle had been. “Treason is the only thing mentioned in the constitution for the death penalty, punishable by hanging or firing squad. I believe all involved should be thoroughly investigated. I did not threaten anyone.”

Mmmmmmm. Never mind the picture of the gallows, eh? Still, unless she was really taking a deep drag of the conspiracy toke, it didn’t entirely make sense.

Then I decided to read Lawfare’s take on the strategy behind the writing of the Schiff report, aka the House Intel’s report on its investigation of Trump for the purposes of impeachment. This is important:

It might seem strange that the Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee wouldn’t take the opportunity to definitively rebut all these conspiracy theories. But doing so is a complicated proposition. One of [the two authors of this article,  Jurecic and Schulz] has written about the “cycle of distraction” created by House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member (then Chairman) Devin Nunes’s efforts to raise questions over alleged abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process in the context of the Russia investigation. What was true then is true now: Nunes and his colleagues’ arguments are more about generating distrust and confusion than they are about exonerating the president or proving wrongdoing by his enemies. Focusing on debunking a specific claim risks playing into this dynamic by giving the falsehood additional attention that prolongs its lifespan in the news cycle.

What’s more, a debunking can also add to the confusion it seeks to clear: In order to explain why the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory is false, one needs to explain CrowdStrike, the Russian (not Ukrainian) national origin of the company’s co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch. One also needs to explain the nature of a physical versus a cloud-based server. And by the end of this process, the conversation has moved far from the core story about the president’s abuses of power in Ukraine. For House Democrats, there’s a risk that the long-winded explanation necessary to debunk the nonsense could lead members of the public to tune out impeachment because it’s “too complicated.”

There are other risks, too. Research suggests that the more a claim is repeated, the more likely people are to believe it, even in the context of a debunking.

Which brings it all together: Republican Stella, whether on her own initiative or on orders from on high, is just injecting a meme into the media ocean while playing li’l miss innocent.

It’s not exactly an honorable approach to campaigning, and the fact that Omar’s seat is considered quite safe should be an inducement for Stella to be more circumspect, not less – although during the Republican primary for the Jeff Sessions’ Senatorial seats one of the eventually failed Republican candidates, Rep Mo Brooks, was accused of being a Pelosi ally and a supporter of the Islamic State.

Restrained in their rhetoric, they are not.

My inclination, if I was on Twitter, would be to take Stella’s Tweet, change all the occurrences of Omar to Stella, and repost it. If she squawks, ask her why her ass is burning when she proclaimed such innocence before.

And then maybe extend it to other far-right GOPers. Just for giggles.

Or at least everyone should have known. In The New York Times Magazine is former InfoWars staffer Josh Owens:

[InfoWars host Alex] Jones told us to file a story that accused the police of harassment, lending credence to the theory that this community contained dangerous, potential terrorists. I knew this wasn’t the case according to the information we had. We all did. Days before, we spoke to the sheriff and the mayor of Deposit, N.Y., a nearby municipality. They both told us the people in Islamberg were kind, generous neighbors who welcomed the surrounding community into their homes, even celebrating holidays together.

The information did not meet our expectations, so we made it up, preying on the vulnerable and feeding the prejudices and fears of Jones’s audience. We ignored certain facts, fabricated others and took situations out of context to fit our narrative, posting headlines like:

Drone Investigates Islamic Training Center

Shariah Law Zones Confirmed in America

Infowars Reporters Stalked by Terrorism Task Force

Report: Obama’s Terror Cells in the U.S.

The Rumors Are True: Shariah Law Is Here!

It’s an fascinating article, and it’s also interesting in that Jones’ lawyer, in a divorce proceeding battle over kids, claimed the Jones persona and information site was nothing more than “entertainment.” Owens article puts a real dent in that assertion; it also suggests InfoWars is an early pioneer in the dubious, but pervasive, weaponizing of information in the digital age. For us old-timers, that would be propaganda, a practice best advanced by the Soviet Union and its successor, Russia.

If you were an audience for Jones and his InfoWars and took it at all seriously, well, welcome to the club, for I daresay that all of us, consumers and producers, have occasionally swallowed weaponized information – lies, half-lies, removal of context, other manipulations, etc – without realizing it. Some information sources try to catch, correct, and notify their audience of the mistakes made. Mainline media is best known for this. Others, like InfoWars, don’t consider standard journalistic practices, seeing this as all about making an ideological case, regardless of reality – or just making money.

How do your sources stack up?

 Snottites:

Fewer studies have investigated microbial communities growing on the walls of sulfidic caves. Among these, most of the studies investigated the geomicrobiology of snottites, which are extremely acidic biofilms clinging to overhanging gypsum cave walls or ceilings. [“Geomicrobiology of a seawater-influenced active sulfuric acid cave,” Ilenia M. D’Angeli and Daniele Ghezzi, PLoS One]

Noted in “Why the hunt for alien life is under way far beneath Earth’s surface,” Donna Lu, NewScientist (16 November 2019, paywall):

On the day I join them, [Heidi] Aronson’s mission is to collect clear, teardrop-shaped secretions that hang from the walls and ceilings of the cave. Geologists call these snottites, and their resemblance to the dripping tip of a runny nose is uncanny. Because the snottites are full of bacteria and extremely acidic, Aronson hopes they will contain the sulphur producers.

Yep, that’s four WotD entries from one magazine article.

If you believe, as I do, that what roils America’s closest ally, Great Britain, should be of interest to Americans, then you may want to scope out Andrew Sullivan’s latest in his Intelligencer column. He dispenses with his usual tripartite diary entry to write an in-depth investigation into Britain’s current Prime Minister and one of Sullivan’s successors as President of the Oxford Union, the eponymous university’s legendary debating society, Boris Johnson, and it’s quite an interesting piece. At this point, he’s discussing the most recent polling as Britain approaches a new election, as Johnson promises Brexit will occur after the election:

So far, the gamble appears to be paying off. A huge poll of over 100,000 Brits by YouGov last month, using the same methods that had rightly predicted a hung Parliament in 2017, showed a possible Tory majority of 68 seats. In the poll, the Tories held on to their traditional base in the South but made striking gains in the North, turning long-held Labour seats into Tory ones overnight. It is the same dynamic that saw the Democrats lose the Rust Belt swing states in 2016. The poll shows Labour at 32 percent with the Lib Dems at 14, while the Tories have 43 percent support and the Brexit Party has collapsed to 3 percent. Boris’s strategy destroyed both the former U.K.
Independence Party and then the Brexit Party — the two parties of the far right. Divide and conquer was how Thatcher won three times in a row in parliamentary seats despite never having majority support in the country as a whole. If Boris wins, it will be by the same strategy.

Jeremy Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn is the current leader of the Labour Party, the rival of Johnson’s Conservative Party. His positions include nationalizing various industries; Sullivan has previously reported that anti-Semitic rumors have followed Corbyn around. To my eye, he appears to be a firm believer in returning to a Golden Age which was only golden for those in charge. If he leads Labour into an abyss of public disapproval, he may be out on his ass.

Sullivan’s outlook on Johnson has certainly picked up over the last few months, going from “second-class mind” to a grudging admiration, but then Sullivan’s often able to see both sides of a coin at once – a capability only rarely seen in ideologues and even pundits.

But I remain concerned that this may weaken Europe as a whole with regards to Russian ambitions. Brexit may be necessary for the Brits to assess where they want to be in regards to their big neighbor across the Channel – in a few years, we may see a re-entry on terms deeply informed by their first wedding to, and divorce from, Europe. But how far will Russian ambitions advance in the meantime, especially with a Russia-friendly Trump still in the Oval Office?

Just about a year ago I ranted about a cashless food court at our local, and, might I irrelevantly add, quite vibrant mall. Well, I win.

There’s a sign at the entrance prominently noting they accept cash now – I should have grabbed a pic. They also changed their name to the far more Minnesota-nice-like Potluck, and – I think – now use independent vendors, rather than a single vendor operating multiple counters. Here’s an article on what was planned at the time they temporarily closed; on our walk-through yesterday we saw a Grand Ol’ Creamery counter (presumably associated with the eponymous store on Grand Ave in St. Paul), and counters selling specialty hummus, Nordic waffles, burgers, lobster, and a bar. And some place that slips my mind.

Arts Editor: Beautiful pen & ink work.

Gahan Wilson: Born Dead, Still Weird (2013) is a documentary look into the origins, outlook, and production of the famed and recently passed cartoonist. If you’re a cartoonist or a fan, it’s certainly interesting, as Wilson comes off like several friends of my own: a gentleman with a distinctive and, in some ways, child-like take on life around him. He takes a moment to explain where some of his ideas come from: how adults look to children.

We are also shown how a cartoonist gets published, including a cattle-call (not their terminology) at The New Yorker (I think – my apologies if my memory slipped), the weekly cartoonist’s lunch, and that sort of thing.

And the fan interviews are fun as well, from his publishers at Playboy and other magazines, to a very young Stephen Colbert, to composer/performer Randy Newman, to Wilson’s various colleagues, as they let the audience in on the reactions of allied professionals to the man’s work. I was disappointed that Gary Larson didn’t show up, but perhaps he’s not a fan. The connection between Larson and Wilson in terms of shared themes and outlook appears to be obvious.

If Wilson and his work interest you, and you haven’t seen this, scurry right out and see this. I’m not a particular fan, but, post-viewing, some nascent urges to put together a cartoon series from years ago came surging back up.

I’m busy stamping them to death. Again.

What happens when water, dish soap, and dry ice are mixed together:

My Arts Editor was far too amused.

Subject line of email:

Let [name blurred out] know you are thinking of him on his birthday today!

Yeah, people thinking of me can leave me a little worried.

Or even better, as it appears in my gmail account:

Let [name blurred out] know you are thinking

Like a lead-in to a horror movie. Not a good horror movie, maybe, but still…