Monthly Archives: February 2019

Now that the Russians have their propaganda machine comfortably esconced in the Internet and have no concerns about blowback from President Trump, they’re off and running. NBC News has the report on their first bit of mischief:

The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.

An NBC News analysis of the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is set to make her formal announcement Saturday, has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016.

Several experts who track websites and social media linked to the Kremlin have also seen what they believe may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard.

Since Gabbard announced her intention to run on Jan. 11, there have been at least 20 Gabbard stories on three major Moscow-based English-language websites affiliated with or supportive of the Russian government: RT, the Russian-owned TV outlet; Sputnik News, a radio outlet; and Russia Insider, a blog that experts say closely follows the Kremlin line. The CIA has called RT and Sputnik part of “Russia’s state-run propaganda machine.”

So what should the responsible voter do? S/he could simply try to divine the true intentions of the Russians and vote against them. This could become quite difficult, though, as we get into the He knows that I know that he knows that I know loop.

So my suggestion is that a good list of Russian propaganda web-sites should be made available or otherwise obtained, and then just ignore those sites. Find some good sites, such as mainstream sites that have decades of experience as being solidly American, and use them to gather up information about candidates you may wish to vote for.

Divining the intentions of the Russians is too hard for the average citizen, so just discard tainted information and make your judgments from there.

Now that the Trump Administration is firmly into its third year of operation, the question of continued employment must be intruding on the consciousness of those members of his Cabinet who are not independently wealthy nor addicted to power, which probably excludes Secretaries Mnuchin and Ross. Why? Because a second term for President Trump, while not impossible, certainly seems unlikely given his current approval / disapproval ratings.

Currently on the hot seat appears to be Secretary of State Pompeo, formerly a Representative from Kansas. Let’s have WaPo summarize:

President Trump has dismissed the prospect of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo leaving his post to run for a Senate seat, even as Pompeo has signaled that he is open to the possibility.

In an interview with CBS’s “Face The Nation” slated to air Sunday ahead of the Super Bowl, Trump said Pompeo told him he was not leaving his current position and voiced confidence that he would not bolt to pursue a Senate seat in Kansas.

“I asked him the question the other day. He says he’s absolutely not leaving. I don’t think he’d do that. And he doesn’t want to be lame duck,” said Trump.

The Washington Post reported last month that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) personally courted Pompeo to consider running in a telephone call, according to two people familiar with the conversation. Pompeo later confirmed the discussion.

Why would McConnell and the Kansas GOP want Pompeo, a former Representative from Kansas, to run for the Senate? Because Kansas, once the GOP’s Midwest crown jewel, has suddenly become precarious. The Kansas executive office was lost to the Democrats in 2018, and although a 5 point victory may not seem like much of a gap, the previous GOP victory gap was more than 3 points, leading to the suggestion that 8% of the electorate switched from supporting the Republicans to the Democrats in 2018. Add in the fact that four GOP state legislators recently switched their allegiance to the Democratic Party, and that’s gotta add to the case of nerves that the party leadership should be feeling. And then there’s the minor matter of the rejection by the moderates in the Kansas GOP of some party orthodoxy.

That rejection of ideology, which is that lowering taxes will always lead to prosperity and was revoked by the GOP controlled Kansas legislature after Kansas began to wobble economically speaking, was a signal that the leadership of the GOP, embodied in then-governor and prime mover of the tax reduction Brownback, had become separated from the moderate wing to a degree larger than was tolerable. In other words, they were true believers, rather than hardened empiricists.

But this leads to another observation. The GOP nominee for the governorship was Kris Kobach, who managed to lose in a heavily conservative state. He is also known as an extremist anti-immigrant warrior and a power-monger, as was documented numerous times. An extremist rejected by the Kansas electorate.

And so who is Mike Pompeo? To the right is the estimation from OnTheIssues of his ideological position. This could be interpreted as another right-wing ideologist. That suggests that the Senate seat up for grabs, which is another state-wide seat, much like the governor’s seat, is not a safe seat for a GOP extremist. If Pompeo chooses to leave his Secretary of State post for a run at the Senate, he may find himself unemployed.

And, yet, any reasonable reading of the Presidential tea-leaves of 2020, as premature as it is, suggests President Trump is on a fast track to losing. No matter how much he fulfills his promises to his base, no matter how much he boasts about how well the economy is doing, it’s clear that a majority of the American citizenry disapproves of him and the job he’s doing. Furthermore, it’s difficult to see any upcoming events which would push his negative numbers upside down, while, based on his past performance, it’s quite likely that there’ll be more putrid scandals for him to try cover up and distract from.

And there’s the Special Counsel’s investigation waiting in the background as well. So far, nothing good – for Trump – has come of that.

So Pompeo may be in a bit of a bind as he looks to his future. Of course, he may see nothing but sunlight, either based on non-public information, or the confidence that ideologists often exude because they believe they’re in possession of the truth.

But the Secretary of State may not make it much longer as an official, elected or otherwise.

At least for those who do mind a fall.

The Man Who Lost His Head (2007) is a fairly painless telling of the story of how a village of Maori, who find a carving of the head of a lost leader that is still integral to their lives is now being kept in a British museum, fight to have it repatriated to them. We find the usual themes of enlightenment, romance, and that sort of thing.

But it is a useful, valuable story in that it raises important questions concerning the practices of the great museums of the world, and the objects that they hold in them. For example, on last year’s trip to Chicago’s Field Museum, we ran across a room dedicated to artifacts taken from South Pacific islands where the inhabitants are head hunters. I wonder if those villages still exist, and if these artifacts, now lost to them, are still important to their villages. This is a parallel to the Maori story of this movie, as that carving not only symbolizes that long-gone leader, but actually embodies him. His loss was a tremendous loss to the community, echoing down through the generations.

This comes down to the very different views that different societies can potentially take of their pasts and future and of the very nature of life itself. Westerners struggle between the call of ancient sects from the Judeo-Christian family, and the more objective approaches of science and even agnosticism/atheism. Some ancient artifacts are still forbidden, but others may be freely shown by museums, especially those from alien cultures.

And those alien cultures, such as the Maori, are often not finished with them. Skipping over the varied roles such artifacts, possibly imbued with some sort of agency, may play in culture, we come to a bit of cultural pollution. Much like the Elgin Marbles of Greece, taken from their origins when Greece was vulnerable, these artifacts have, in a moment of emotion I cannot even name, joined the cultural consciousness of the cultures into which they’ve been forcibly imported. Those Elgin Marbles are the iconic example of this fusion, as the British Museum continues to resist repatriation attempts, and while I’m sure their are many excuses, I suspect at the heart will be the question of what will be a British Museum minus this grand example of Greek architectural statuary?

I’ve never liked zoos. The animals, even if they have longer lifetimes than in the wild, are inmates, at best clowns to entertain the humans. I’ve always like museums, as their exhibits are almost always dead or never living, at least by Western civilization standards. But a movie like this makes me wonder if some parts of their collections may still be considered objects with agency by their home cultures, held against their will by the museums.

It makes for an odd world to think that way.

It finally occurred to me to take some pictures of the winter wonderland, as the sidewalks had a delicate layer of frost.

The risers beset with frost.

It didn’t last all that long.

Here’s a puzzle for my frazzled mind:

This summer, the Georgetown Center for the Constitution will again offer its week-long “boot camp” on originalism in theory and practice, open to students from all law schools, as well as to recent law school graduates. The 2019 Summer Seminar will run from May 20-24. It features an all star roster of professors and jurists decribing the cutting edge of originalism theory, as well as how best to utilize it in practice. It includes adherents of different variations of originalism, as well as a critic of originalism. As in past years, we will visit the Supreme Court of the United States.

Students attending the Originalism Summer Seminar will receive a $2,000 award for their participation. The five-day course runs from Sunday evening, May 20 to Friday evening, May 24, 2019. Morning sessions beginning at 8:00 a.m. followed with a daily luncheon and afternoon meetings each day. A reception and dinner will be held on on May 22 and the week concludes with a farewell reception on May 24. The application season closes February 15, 2019.

Students will receive an award for participation? What, these students have to be bribed to hear the presentations? Generally, this runs the other way – you pay for your boot camp, whether it’s academic, avocational, or sports, not get paid. Makes me wonder. I hope those students can bring the proper skepticism to what appears to be a controversial theory & practice.

The smart ones will refuse the payment.

Politico reports that Sarah Huckabee Sanders thinks President Trump was God’s choice:

“I think God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times, and I think that he wanted Donald Trump to become president,” Sanders said during an interview with Christian Broadcast Network News. “And that’s why he’s there, and I think he has done a tremendous job in supporting a lot of the things that people of faith really care about.”

Which reminds me of some words of support President Bush (43, not 41) received that I happened to see on TV back during his campaign – some voter said she thought that God had picked Bush to be President.

That was well before the wars and economic disaster of the Bush Administration befell us, which I suppose humiliated said voter. Or maybe not, they seem fairly immune to self-abnegation. I later opined that if God had picked Bush, he must surely hate America. And, fact is, most Republicans don’t care to mention President Bush in political conversation. Maybe they did finally pick up on the enormity of their position.

Dana Milbank is on the right track:

This makes sense, because Trump has of late been acting as if he draws his authority from the divine right of kings. He’s asserting his absolute power to act without — and often in contravention of — the Democratic House, the Republican Senate, his own intelligence agencies, law enforcement authorities and diplomats, and the will of the American public.

Presidential defenders say the Sanders claim is simply a repetition of the biblical admonition that all temporal leaders are established by God. And conservative evangelicals have reason to be pleased with Trump’s judicial picks and other policies.

Right up until those judges indulge in incompetence or corruption and are ousted, or, worse, actually turn out to be good judges (such as this one) and rule against the corporatists’ and would-be theocrats’ pet positions. Then they’ll proclaim him to have fallen under the influence of Satan. Poor chap.

But I must say, as an agnostic, Sanders’ remark, her belief that she’s reading the mind of the Divine, or at least interpreting it from the “will” of the voters, is illustrative why such people should simply be laughed out of public discourse. Let me illustrate by building on Sanders’ delusion.

I believe that, given the danger our President has put his own nation in through his actions and inactions with regard to national security, environment, and political corruption, God has decided Americans must learn to appropriate judge their own government, and replace it if need be. Therefore, he willed Trump to be President against the popular vote, and is now waiting for all faithful Americans to surge forth and remove him.

Oh, and fix your damn electoral system while you’re at it. For our God believes in Democracy, and that ain’t Democracy you’re doing.

See? It’s easy. When you’re reading the mind of something that has written so many contradictory and obscure things, and he/she/it is not around to correct you, you can make up any old shit and it sounds good.

And then the zealots come popping out, and before we know it there’s a few dozen people burned at the stake and the lawn is a mess. Do you think I’m joking? Go read some English history. Some representative examples, from which the American Founding Fathers no doubt learned, are embedded in this link.

The point is that Sanders is proceeding down a path bereft of rationality. She has some facts, yeah: President Trump, “conservative judges,” policies she likes. But those don’t add up to a hill of beans until she inserts the approval of a Divine creature for which there is no known objective proof. This is doubly a problem because the human species does not share minds nor consciousness, meaning all we can do is imperfectly communicate. What does that mean?

Sanders may be lying. Or perhaps she’s had a brain malfunction and really thinks she’s talking to God. Or maybe it’s all just deduction on her part. No one can be rationally sure, except perhaps a neurologist with a blood test in hand. But while those first two points are obvious and don’t need discussion, that last one needs a bit of buffing and polishing because Sanders’ idea of the divine is necessarily dissimilar from damn near everyone else’s, and that means her deductions, which necessarily come from her assumptions about God’s mind, may not match my readers’, or her confidants, or her political opponents, or herself a week earlier.

Or mine. She sees the Divine picking Trump as the guy who makes the evangelicals happy by doing their will, regardless of how much he lies, cheats, bellows, boasts, mismanages, and misleads.

And I see Trump as the cautionary lesson, the encouragement to pay more attention to governance and less to, well, pick your favorite time-wasting hobby. Like, say, celebrity adoration. Reality TV shows. Or studying the Bible. God wants us to perform better, not have more judges of a particular bent. That’s my opinion, based on a close study of all the objective information about the Divine. (In case my reader is in doubt, that would be a grand total of none.)

And who’s right? This is the nub, so pay attention. Neither one of us is provably right, yet there are people who don’t deal well with such uncertainty, who’d love to fight the good fight without knowing just which side is the good side.

The Founding Fathers had recent instructive examples in the history of religious folks, and that’s why we’re a secular nation. That’s why the Johnson Amendment exists. I don’t care how much it galls any of the religious folk, Christian, Hindi, or what have you, the history of theocracies is poor and getting worse, and that’s because rationality is not part of the discourse.

And, yes, I’m pissed off that Sanders would display her poor judgment and ridiculous deductions in her role as a government spokesman. It’s an embarrassment. This country excels when it’s rational, and falls apart when it’s in the throes of religious sensibility.

Was that a thank you or a curse?

The Ash Lad: In the Hall of the Mountain King (2017; in Norwegian, Askeladden – I Dovregubbens hall) retells a Norwegian fable with a knowing wink and nod. Myth decrees that if ever the Princess of the kingdom reaches her 18th birthday without wedding a suitor, the Troll King under the mountain will awaken and make her his bride, enslaving her and no doubt subjecting her to a variety of undescribed atrocities.

In what becomes a theme for the movie, Princess Kristin, who incidentally and rather purposely has mad knife-throwing skills, also has thoroughly modern sensibilities, not only in not taking the myth seriously, but in also refusing to wed the rather cocky Prince who presents himself as ready to take on the responsibilities of the Kingdom. Exactly why he’s a prince and wasn’t drowned somewhere along the way is not clarified.

In order to escape a potential forced wedding, or any other wedding for that matter, the Princess escapes into the night, and when the King is so informed, he announces that he who returns with the Princess can have her in marriage, along with half the kingdom.

Princess Kristin has some problems controlling her horse during her escape, resulting in the young man destined to be known as the Ash Lad, Espen, being knocked off a bridge and into the river. She ends up wet behind the ears as well, and so they spend the evening drying off before a fire – before an unseen force knocks them apart.

Espen returns home to his two brothers and father, bereft of food, and they go off hunting while he is told off to watch the fire at home, and, before we know it, the house is afire, resulting in the Ash Lad appellation. Their loss of home being the end of the line, they hear from the searching Prince that the discovery of the Princess might save them, and so off go the brothers to find her.

Between forest nymphs and old witch, pond sharks and an exceedingly bad tempered troll king, the brothers find the Princess and return her for the reward they want: home & respect.

The theme of modern sensibilities intruding shows up in the treatment by the characters of the world around them. For example, the evil Prince observes that “… there are many accidents during the Royal hunt,” suggesting the Princess can be killed easily enough if she interferes with the Prince’s reign.

But hero Espen, a young man who is brave enough, but loses focus and wanders off too easily, is, well, it’s surprising he made it to adulthood. His brothers, competent at accomplishing tasks, are impatient with his behaviors, and it’s a strangely modern sensibility in a story concerning the ravages that occur when myths are defied.

And that’s one pissed-off troll king. A small mountain with a prodigious nose, trees growing out of him, and a temper to dismay even the great & heroic Prince, the troll is the shadow around the corner, the vengeance upon those whose reach exceeds their grasp, a temper to dismay even the evil Prince and his minions, the creature in violation of all norms of behavior and even of existence; that sunlight destroys him speaks to an allegory concerning how shining a light on boastfulness and arrogance will bring evil fates down upon those holding such attitudes.

In a word, he’s cool. I wish he’d had some dialog.

The dubbing I thought was excellent, although my Arts Editor disagrees, and the movie never drags. The theme that differences are not necessarily bad is at war with older themes concerning the importance of orthodoxy, and perhaps those latter lose in this movie. But it’s a fun movie, if you’re in the mood for it, so give it a go if you like fairy tales from other countries.

What say you and I dump this case and go get married, instead?

The Kennel Murder Case (1933) is a formulaic whodunit in which the dogs play only a nominal part, apportioned between the categories of romance, a quick-witted free-lance detective, slow-witted cops, and humor. Unfortunately, little time is given to actually get to know the characters, with the exception of the victim, who, it turns out, is thoroughly unlikable, leading to a veritable cavalcade of suspects parading throughout his residence. This made it hard to keep track of all the suspects, even though they had nicely thought out motives. We really didn’t care that much about them, I fear.

The print itself, viewed through Amazon Prime, was damaged and/or the film was overexposed from the get-go, and the audio was a trifle messed up as well. The romance was more or less a zero (“Really? Him??”), but the comedy left me with some gentle laughs.

But, in the end, this was something of a disappointment, just suitable for viewing while keeping my sickly Arts Editor company.

Back in 2016 I criticized Obama and the Democrats over their use of the term common sense. For me, anytime a politician advertises their solution to some problem as being common-sense, red flags are raised and that politician’s assertions should be examined with vigor and enthusiasm.

Today, newly elected Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) used that term so many times in a WaPo op-ed piece that I think my blood pressure went up ten points. It’s not that I’m against compromise, but that he misrepresents positions consistently, and hides behind common sense as if it’s an invincible barrier. In fact, it reminds me of some of the emails I’ve dissected on the blog that come from the conservative email lifeblood – they may seem reasonable, but once you start thinking for yourself, you realize this is just sophisticated bullshit. Shall we take a look? All the bolding in the quotes are my additions to remind you that Senator Scott is attempting to hide public nakedness by hiding behind the bush of common sense.

One year ago, I called on Congress to make a simple deal on immigration requiring both Republicans and Democrats to do two things — compromise and respect the wishes of the American people. This deal is so logical and so easy, even politicians in Washington should be able to grasp it. But, as the events of the past few weeks have shown, they cannot.

Democrats would have to agree with the American people that our border needs to be secure, and that we need some kind of physical barriers to secure it. It’s not complicated; it’s common sense.

Or … it’s a lie. From a recent WaPo/ABC News poll:

For every goal imputed to the wall, researchers have shown it would have little to no effect. The public doesn’t agree with Senator Scott, they agree that a wall is a waste of money. Back to the good Senator:

Republicans would have to agree with the American people that “dreamers,” kids who grew up here after being brought to the United States by their parents, must be welcomed into our society. Again, it’s common sense.

In the biz, this is known as a softball, because it’s easy to hit while not revealing anything about the folks in question. Of course, Dreamers shouldn’t be deported, because that would be cruel. Nearly no one disputes that. But the Republicans have a legitimate concern when it comes to Dreamers: if you legitimize this generation of Dreamers, what’s to keep more illegal immigrants from arriving with babes in arms and continue the drama onwards? It’s a serious question that requires far more debate than it’s received. I like the idea of figuring out what’s gone wrong in those nations from which immigrants are coming and trying to fix it, even if it means curtailing our exports to those countries. I’ve yet to see another one, and this one has the added positive that President Trump himself came up with it, as he noted in a speech to the United Nations. But does Senator Scott mention that?

Senator Scott is now trying to take advantage of that bush he’s hiding behind:

Hate is bad that way; it clouds your judgment. As former senator Alan Simpson said at the funeral for former president George H.W. Bush, “Hatred corrodes the container it’s carried in.” That’s the predicament that Democratic leaders find themselves in now. They hate President Trump so much that they cannot behave in a rational manner.

Of course, Senator Scott has no time for trying to understand the motivations of the Democrats. He’s trying to weave a story of how the Democrats are haters, and will behave irrationally because of that hatred. In fact, this article is not a missive concerning border security, that is merely a grandma’s cape he’s draped over it. This is actually the next blow in the 2020 election, wherein the Republicans will be attempting to paint the Democrats as irrational and untrustworthy.

As long time readers of this blog know, whenever the extremist/Trumpist wing of the Republicans attacks the Democrats, it’s always worth asking if the Republicans are simply projecting, attempting to divert attention from the exact same characteristic in the Republican extremists’ ranks.

In this case, the reigning example of political irrationality would be, you guessed it, President Trump.

But let’s continue mining this artful little article. Senator Scott would like to have us believe the Hispanics are in favor of the wall:

Florida is home to nearly 21 million people, more than 4 million of whom are Hispanic. They want fairness for these dreamers. But guess what else they want: a secure border. That’s right, and it’s not something you hear on the news, but it is true: Hispanics want border security.

In a post-election survey of 1,014 Hispanic voters in Florida, my campaign asked this question: Thinking about our nation’s immigration laws, do you think we need stricter or looser enforcement of these laws?

Sixty-nine percent of the respondents said we need stricter enforcement of our immigration laws, while only 29 percent preferred looser enforcement. Hispanic Americans want our borders secured.

Securing our borders with a physical barrier is not a partisan issue, it’s a common-sense issue.

And, having committed some more gross intellectual errors, Scott is hiding behind the bush again. But, at this point in the article, we’ve learned to read carefully and not skim. (You’re not skimming this blog post, are you?) Here’s what I see as errors.

First, he’s conflating a goal with a process. Stricter enforcement? Fair enough, that’s a reasonable goal. This does not imply a wall. We’ve already seen multiple researchers find that a wall would be a waste of money. Why, then, would this Hispanic population want a wall, if it’s not going to work? The poll Scott’s carefully quoting isn’t, from his own words, asking about a wall, but about stricter enforcement.

Second, he’s conflating border security with immigration laws. By most accounts, illegal immigrants arrive at ports of entry with tourist visas, and simply don’t leave when those visas expire. The wall is going to help how with this or with immigration laws in general? Let’s be clear: If there’s any effect at all, it’ll be minimal and certainly not worth either the $5.7 billion Trump wants to start the wall, nor the $25 billion he estimated to finish it, nor the $50 billion that experts say it would cost to construct the proposed wall. And then there’s the environmental issues, maintenance issues, and etc. etc.

And, third, there’s the simple intellectual dishonesty behind those couple of paragraphs. The wall, border security, and immigration law and enforcement are separate topics; indeed, they’re not even in the same category. A wall is part of border security, which in turn is a small part of immigration law and enforcement of same. Walls are simple and easy to understand, yes? But …

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.  –H. L. Mencken

In fact, I should thank Senator Scott for this article, because, as a political independent, for me it’s really crystalized the Wall as an icon for duplicity, irrationality, dishonesty, and confusion on the part of President Trump and the Republicans. Every time I see or hear anything about the wall, there’s at least one thing from those four categories present: the American populace wants it (the majority do not), it’s already being built (neither the GOP-controlled 115th Congress nor the 116 Congress, not GOP-controlled, have designated any dollars for a new wall), it’ll keep out illegal drugs (no), it’ll keep out illegal immigrants (no, and in fact the lessening of that flow of illegal immigrants may be having a negative impact on our economy), most of them are rapists (crime rates are thought to be lower than for native born Americans), they’re mostly gang members (no), the caravans would be stopped by the wall (the caravans go to the ports of entry and apply for asylum, for the most part), and add your favorite lie here. If it goes up, it may be the most shameful monument to President Trump ever built.

And now we return to Senator Scott’s op-ed, already in progress, to see the real point of his writing:

There is only one thing standing in the way of this common-sense solution for America: irrational and clouded thinking motivated by hate from Democratic leaders in Washington.

Dishonest? Sure. Senator Scott fails to represent the true reasons the Democrats, and most Americans, are against the wall. If he were interested in a good solution, he’d understand their reasoning as well as his own, represent it fairly, and then rebut it or find a good compromise position. Instead, he wants to spread the myth that the Democrats are irrational. To say that his compromise is common-sense is a failure of the intellect, and condemns his as shallow, short-sighted, and politically motivated.

Bu it doesn’t matter which party is involved, when someone starts throwing around the phrase common sense when it comes to political matters, it’s a fair bet that they’re either vastly inexperienced or entirely duplicitous. I leave it to my reader to decide which category into which Senator Scott belongs. But remember it for the future, and apply it liberally, especially when dealing with someone from your own side. Honestly telling them they’re full of crap will improve the party, not ruin it, no matter what the adherents spout to the contrary.

Oracle recently won a Federal court ruling concerning Java APIs in litigation with Google, and Ars Technica reports that Google is taking this right to SCOTUS. Why?

An application programming interface is the glue that holds complex software systems together. Until 2014, it was widely assumed that no one could use copyright law to restrict APIs’ use—a view that promoted software interoperability.

Then, in 2014, a court known as the Federal Circuit Appeals Court issued a bombshell ruling taking the opposite view. Oracle had sued Google, arguing that Google had violated Oracle’s copyright by re-implementing APIs from the Java programming language. The case has been working its way through the courts ever since, with the Federal Circuit issuing a second controversial ruling in 2018. On Thursday, Google asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit’s controversial ruling.

I had to dig around in this article and the previous one, to be sure of what’s going on here, but that second paragraph above is accurate, even if other parts of the articles obscured the issue: Oracle is suing Google for replacing Java “libraries” with their own versions, alleging that the signatures are copyrighted and may not be used in this way without Oracle’s permission. In most programming languages of any sophistication, code is chopped into pieces for easy reuse, such as “get the current time” or “calculate the tangent of x.”. As an analogy, think of meringue, which can be made in several forms, and is used in innumerable recipes. It is, in and of itself, a piece of no particular use (OK, some would disagree, but you’re just sick, sick, sick!), but in combination with other pieces, enables a delicious dessert^[1].

These “pieces” of code have what is called a “signature,” implicit or explicit, associated with them, and that signature defines how to use, call, or invoke (all meaning the same) that code. For some programmers, an “API” is both the signature and the code that implements that calculation of a tangent. (Our analogy to recipes breaks down at that point, so don’t go looking for help there.)

For other programmers, though, that signature is separate from the implementing code. You find this in languages that believe in “type checking,” which, in this regard, means double-checking that the invocation of the piece of code is correct. It’s also important in languages supporting polymorphism, which means (among other things) various pieces of code with the same name, as the decision concerning which one to invoke during execution of the code is dependent on some other factor; the signature enables the proper invocation of whichever piece of code is chosen. So it is in Java.

Now, these pieces of code are usually collected into libraries of one sort or another, and some of these libraries are dynamically linked to the programs using them – which, in English, means the library is not physically bundled with the program, but instead exists as a separate file. And here’s where Oracle is screaming bloody murder – Google has apparently been replacing Oracle (formerly Sun Microsystems, the developer of Java, until they were bought by Oracle) supplied Java libraries with Google-written libraries.

So, if Oracle ultimately prevails, what does it mean?

“The Federal Circuit’s approach will upend the longstanding expectation of software developers that they are free to use existing software interfaces to build new computer programs,” Google wrote in its Thursday petition to the Supreme Court.

James Grimmelmann, a copyright scholar at Cornell University and former software developer, agrees with that. “The Federal Circuit’s decision threatens the continued vitality of software innovation,” he told Ars.

If APIs can be restricted by copyright, then every significant computer program could have legal landmines lurking inside of it. Grimmelmann warns that API copyrights could easily give rise to API trolls: companies that acquire the copyright to old software, then sue companies that built their software using what they assumed were open standards. API copyrights could also hamper interoperability between software platforms, as companies are forced to build their software using deliberately incompatible standards to avoid legal headaches.

It’s rather fascinating. I’ve been off working in a company-proprietary language for the last twenty years, which means I’ve not been exposed to certain industry-practices for quite a while, and thus I have little feel for how often these Java, and other language, libraries are being replaced by other suppliers^[2].

Let’s assume it’s a lot. And that Oracle wins. What’s next? Does Oracle sue the pants off everyone, not just Google? Do other library suppliers also sue?

Is it litigation central?

Well, it’s a corporate knock-down drag-out, so I suppose it’s going to depend on who has the best lobbyists in the House of Representatives, and who has bought the most Republican Senators in the Senate, because if the software industry comes to a grinding halt, some will start screaming for legal relief, and we’ll have the fun of watching a pack of lawyers-turned-legislators trying to understand the difference between a signature and the code described by that signature, and how the latter should be copyrighted, but not the signature.

Because I can’t see the shebang being excluded from the copyright laws. That’s not fair to the corporations who’ve paid for a lot of this code to be written.

Perhaps Oracle wins – and everyone walks as far away as possible from Oracle. There is definitely an inter-corporate social culture out there, and it’s possible that Oracle might find itself socially excluded, as it were. However, given that they supply the most successful database program ever as well as Java, one of the most successful languages around, it seems unlikely.

Maybe Oracle licenses companies to supply replacement libraries? Perhaps you have to exhibit a certain amount of technical competence in order to win that license? Could be a net gain for the industry?

Personally, having seen, second-hand, the Court furrow its collective brow over the measurement of gerrymandering, sorting out signatures vs code should be quite the circus for them. Google may not be looking forward to this appeal, as it may not work out for them.

¹ At this juncture, my Arts Editor is in the midst of a gagging fit. She hates meringue. That’s probably the reason I haven’t made a good lemon meringue pie in years.

² I tried Java out for two weeks when it came out. I went in excited, I came out appalled. It was just C++ in a pretty dress, and C++ was a mess. I suppose I belong in the same club as the guy who proclaimed “X Windows sucks and will be gone in two years.” (X Windows is the equivalent of the visual interface most of my readers use everyday when running Windows). Well, he was half-right – X Windows continues to trundle along, but, having programmed in it, it sucked at the time. I felt the same about Java and C++.

Actually seen in California, via WaPo:

Drakes Beach and its access road from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard are temporarily closed to all vehicle, foot and bicycle traffic due to elephant seal activity in the area.

Apparently chasing them off is a problem, as they’ve entrenched during the shutdown. But …

Source: Wikipedia

For the humans of Drakes Beach, it might not be a total surrender. Dell’Osso said staff members are exploring the possibility of offering guided tours of the Drakes Beach elephant seal colony. A similar program happens at Año Nuevo State Park. Visitors who want to see the seals at that park are encouraged to bring a warm jacket, water and sturdy walking shoes.

Perhaps this is part of the Nature push-back. Human evicted from this beach, come help us occupy it now…. Next up: Manhattan Island!

Remember my concerns over American abrogation of the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) and how it might affect international relations (link here, mitigation here)? This is all based on the premise that international relations do not happen in a vacuum, the opposite of which, on the face of it, is risible. But the recent meltdown of Venezuela under the watch of President Maduro, his continuance in office, and the recent decision by the Trump Administration to support Juan Guaido, President of the National Assembly, as the President of Venezuela without recourse to Venezuelan legalities, has suspicious leaders wondering if they’ll be next on the chopping block. Semih Idiz in AL Monitor reports on one of them, erstwhile Trump-buddy Turkish President Erdogan:

Developments in Venezuela are reverberating in Turkey, especially after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan threw his weight behind the country’s embattled President Nicolas Maduro.

Erdogan feels honor bound to do so, of course. Maduro was among the first international leaders to contact him even though the two hadn’t met before and offer support against the failed coup attempt in Turkey in July 2016. …

The fear in government circles and among the religious and nationalist supporters of Erdogan is clearly that Washington — with support from other Western democracies — could do to Turkey in the future what they are trying to do to Venezuela today.

Those who believe this are also angry with Turkish commentators who stress the mistake of standing up for Maduro and his authoritarian regime.

They are particularly furious with those who stress that the international opposition to Maduro comes mostly from the democratic world, while authoritarian countries like Russia and China are the only ones joining Turkey in supporting him.

And there’s lots more of an interesting nature at the link, but this is illustrative of how the world watches the United States, and everyone else with enough heft to interfere in other nations’ domestic affairs. I know little about the Venezuelan leader Maduro, and only a bit more about a situation in which an oil-rich country appears to have mismanaged itself into a real corner.

Erdogan I’ve watched a bit more. He appears to be attempting to transform Turkey from a secular country into an official Muslim country as a way to shore up his power base and accumulate more power personally, which according to reports is starting to corrupt the Muslims, even as they reach out for that power. I’d not weep if he were to be swept from power legally.

And I emphasize legally. Respect for the law, even in the face of suspected illegalities by authorities in the law enforcement hierarchy is important because otherwise we have the gored ox phenomenon: it may have been your opponent’s ox who was gored in today’s rioting, but next year it might be your’s.

But the moral of this particular post is that the world is watching America’s every international move in order to divine what it may do tomorrow, and our fidelity to international legal norms – or lack thereof – will have an impact on our international relations with countries which are not directly involved in those actions.

Meretricious:

1. Apparently attractive but having no real value.
   ‘meretricious souvenirs for the tourist trade’
2. archaic Relating to or characteristic of a prostitute. [Oxford Dictionaries]

Popped into my head as cool-sounding but of unknown definition, although just by sound it seems denigrative.