Monthly Archives: May 2019

Steve Benen notes that President Trump doesn’t seem to be sticking to the script when it comes to Iran, contradicting NSA Bolton and Senator Graham (R-SC):

Act III features Donald Trump contradicting his allies. When a reporter asked the president yesterday afternoon where things stand with Iran, the president replied:

“We have no indication that anything has happened or will happen. But if it does, it will be met, obviously, with great force. We’ll have no choice.”

The key part of that answer, of course, was the presidential assertion that U.S. officials “have no indication that anything has happened or will happen.” That was a far cry from Lindsey Graham’s assertion, made just hours earlier after hearing from John Bolton, “It is clear that over the last several weeks Iran has attacked pipelines and ships of other nations and created threat streams against American interests in Iraq.”

The only real conclusion to draw is that President Trump is a demented old man who can’t keep up a good lie. Why the Republicans continue to rally around him is the real continuing mystery.

To my thesis that populist movements are a magnet for the power and wealth hungry:

Turns out Russian collusion isn’t a “witch hunt hoax” after all. At least not in Austria.

The country’s government collapsed on Saturday after Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said he was pulling the plug on his ruling coalition after just 17 months in office.

We’re all here to audition for the same part.

There’s Always A Woman (1938) presents a murder mystery as a race between a man and his wife. Ex Assistant District Attorney Bill Reardon is giving up on the private detective racket, much to his wife Sally’s dismay. Moments after he walks out the door of his office to beg for his old job back, a client walks in on Sally, who represents herself as an employee, ready to take on the new job from the lady in expensive pearls who’s worrying about her husband’s predilections in relation to an old girlfriend.

Soon enough, there’s a body, and it’s up the Reardons, individually, to solve the case. Several twists to the narrative lead us down the paths of passion and avarice, from a particularly well done police interrogation scene to the penthouse of the wealthy and desperate, from getting sloshed while on a very public stakeout to arranging for one’s spouse to be photographed half-naked.

But for all the fun, there’s an undercurrent of domestic violence running through this flick which left us a little uncomfortable. True, no actual swings occur, but, at least in this respect, the film has not aged well. If you’re capable of ignoring that undercurrent, this is all in good fun, with some snappy dialog and a smack upside the head for the cops, but if you can’t, you might want to give this a skip.

This wouldn’t happen to be your glass slipper, would it?

When it comes to The Late Edwina Black (1951), a good idea, proven by its later use by Alfred Hitchcock in an award-winning film, has its promise ruined by a poor script. As the film opens, we learn Mrs. Black has died, informed of the long-anticipated tragedy by her long time nurse, Ellen, who uses the moment to lash out at Mr. Black’s secretary, Elizabeth, for some obscure offense. Gregory Black, Edwina’s husband, is informed as well, to which he responds with a subdued sense of doom.

Quickly, we learn that Gregory and Elizabeth have been carrying on during the illness of Edwina, much to grievance of Ellen. But their plan to leave on a vacation together, during which they’ll marry, is soon foiled when Inspector Martin of the police shows up: Edwina’s corpse is full of arsenic, and he’s suspicious of the lot of them.

Soon enough, everyone is sniping at everyone, their suspicions mutual and emotionally devastating; even the Inspector gets a few delicious shots in. All of this is the lead up to the second poisoning, that of Elizabeth, who ends up collapsed in bed. But the big reveal is on its way, and we’re wondering not whether there’s a big vacation coming, but if the would-be lovers can even stand the sight of each other, regardless of their relationship to guilt. Did he? Did she? Will they? What are these remarks about last night and passion and all that sort of thing in a movie of this age, anyways?

While the tension could have been delicious, the role of Elizabeth is ridiculously sloppy. She’s emotional, suspicious, vulnerable, accusatory, passionate, and nearly dead from poison – and that’s all in a sixty second span. The result is not sympathy, but a feeling of disgust in the audience. Gregory’s actions are also questionable, as we never get any sense of his emotional relationship to his ex-wife.

The problem with a plot such as this is that the characters must be strictly believable. The plot must withhold information from the audience, while keeping the apparent character reactions believable, and that’s no mean feat. This story doesn’t really achieve it, and while I appreciated the climax, the rough climb up the mountain more or less ruined it for me.

But as a predecessor to Hitchcock’s masterpiece, which shall remain nameless, it’s still interesting to see the difference between this flawed effort and Hitchcock’s more successful result.

For a few days, the apple trees are beautiful.

Oh, yes, we did have to hire some guards. They claim they’ve found invading shrimp in the garden.

Megan McArdle in the pages of WaPo argued a couple of days ago that Roe v Wade should never have been even on the SCOTUS docket:

But by the 1970s, the court was, one suspects, a little drunk on the moral and legal triumph of those earlier cases. The justices were now going well beyond the words in the law books and into the unwritten law of what used to be called “enlightened opinion.” In 1972, they abolished the death penalty in all 50 states, even though the Constitution clearly contemplates government-administered capital punishment.

The following year, the justices gave the country a new right to abortion. The right is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, but had apparently been lurking there undetected for the better part of two centuries before the justices finally coaxed it into the open. From this era dates the solemn invocations of “settled law” issued by “the highest court in the land.” …

The benefit of going the judicial route is that you can occasionally achieve outcomes you could never obtain through legislatures; that is how America, a center-right nation, got one of the most liberal abortion regimes in the world. The problem with going the judicial route is that it short-circuits public debate and forces the opposition to take radical action — like, say, a decades-long project to fill the courts with right-leaning judges — to amend that “settled law.”

And I thought, Well, maybe. She ascribes directly to Roe v Wade the attempted packing of various courts with conservatives, the absolutist decisions on gun rights, and much other conservative legal activity to that decision. However, it seems to me that the conservative side of the political spectrum simply was waiting for something to seize on in order to build a coherent voting bloc, and abortion was simply one of the many subjects. Absolutist positions on when something is human, on gun rights, on anything that could be subjected to a religionist analysis. Roe v Wade was a public search for justice within a system that didn’t really acknowledge the realities of women and child-bearing, and McArdle’s arguments didn’t really convince me.

Then, also in WaPo, Professor Carliss Chatman indulged in the time honored and important exercise of pushing an initial assertion to its logical – and absurd – consequences. This particular conclusion caught my eye:

When states define natural personhood with the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade, they are inadvertently creating a system with two-tiered fetal citizenship. This is because Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey create a federal floor for access to the right to choose — a rule that some ability to abort a fetus exists in the United States. If these cases are overturned, that eliminates only the federal right to abortion access. Overturning Roe would not prohibit a state from continuing to allow access. In a post-Roe world, in states like New York that ensure the right to choose through their constitutions and statutes, citizenship will begin at birth. In states that move the line to define life as beginning as early as conception, personhood and citizenship will begin as soon as a woman knows she is pregnant.

Trying to define citizenship and personhood based on the laws of each state creates some far-fetched and even ridiculous scenarios. If we follow that logic, we’ll tie our Constitution into a knot no court can untangle.

And, although Professor Chatman doesn’t mention it, this becomes a complete refutation of McArdle’s contentions, because without Roe v Wade we run the exact risk Chatman describes. This is not a local issue, as Federal benefits generally apply nation-wide (with some exceptions). Or, as Chatman succinctly puts it, we’ll tie our Constitution into a knot no court can untangle.

And it’s why, if & when SCOTUS gets the test case the anti-Roe supporters so generally want, it should be rejected. Not 5-4, with Roberts providing the surprise vote for rejection. It should be 9-0, with Thomas scolding the anti-Roe supporters for endangering the nation.

And read Chatman’s article. It’s fun.

We recently finished binge-watching the five and a half seasons of the television series Grimm (2011-2017), a series crossing the genres of crime-fighting and fantasy, the latter embodied, though not defined, in the mythical creatures borrowed from the Grimm mythos, and seasoned with a sometimes subtle sense of word play and humor. To the latter, the very first episode introduces us to the concept of a creature called a Grimm, and includes an encounter with a creature called … wait for it … a Grim Reaper.

Yeah, we were hooked fairly fast. Good actors, good stories that often use their exotic foundations to work on current issues, and a sense of fun. Midway through, my Arts Editor and I looked at each other and said It’s crack cocaine. And then watched the next episode.

I write all this to both recommend the series, if you have room in your mind for structured fantasy that nevertheless acknowledges there’s more out there than written down in the series’ story books, and to explain the lack of Belated Movie Reviews of late.

Enjoy!

CNN is reporting on a new call for impeachment of both Trump and AG Barr:

Michigan GOP Rep. Justin Amash said Saturday he had concluded President Donald Trump committed “impeachable conduct” and accused Attorney General William Barr of intentionally misleading the public.

Amash’s comments recommending Congress pursue obstruction of justice charges against Trump were the first instance of a sitting Republican in Congress calling for Trump’s impeachment.

Despite being a founding member of the Freedom Caucus, Amash appears to have a handle on how our form of government should work:

“Our system of checks and balances relies on each branch’s jealously guarding its powers and upholding its duties under our Constitution,” Amash tweeted. “When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law — the foundation of liberty — crumbles.”

The call of a single Republican Representative for impeachment is not enough to impress me that the GOP is all set to give Trump the heave-ho and then reform itself. The fact of the matter is that too many groups are getting what they want from Trump, and therefore will ignore what would be normally unacceptable. This ranges from the Evangelicals trading their souls for anti-abortion SCOTUS justices to all-fire conservatives getting any lawyer with a conservative credential nominated to the bench, regardless of their true qualities, or even, inexplicably, the chance they’ll rule against the conservative doctrine, all while Trump pushes other awful policies, such as the tariff wars.

The unsuppressable revulsion of a single Republican Rep just doesn’t do it.

If he’s followed by a dozen more, then the game may be changing. I don’t expect it to happen, but that’s what it would take.

My guess is that the Michigan GOP and the national GOP will expel him, and he’ll become an Independent, since I don’t see a Tea Party member joining up with the Democrats.

But at least he can sleep a little easier at night.

He’s not entirely pleased with the weather.

However, if you sit completely still, he may not notice and eat you.

(Courtesy Arts Editor)

The chair of the Senate Intel Committee, Richard Burr (R-NC), upset his own party several days ago by having a subpoena served on Donald Trump, Jr., as reported by Axios:

The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed Donald Trump Jr. to answer questions about his previous testimony before Senate investigators in relation to the Russia investigation, sources with direct knowledge told Axios.

Why it matters: It’s the first congressional subpoena — that we know about — of one of President Trump’s children. The subpoena sets up a fight that’s unprecedented in the Trump era: A Republican committee chair pit against the Republican president’s eldest son.

Facially, this is the sort of activity that I’d expect a mature legislator and chair of an Intel committee to undertake: pursue information concerning questions validly raised about the last Presidential election. As readers who are paying attention are aware, this is not something the Republican Party favors, as most of them, with a few exceptions, have circled the wagons around the President and his many scandals.

But is there something under the surface? I have no inside information concerning Burr or the committee, but I can imagine this is simply a head-feint by the Senator, trying to bring a shred of legitimacy to a Party which has notably lost such claims over the last ten years – or twenty, if one goes back to the beginning of the Bush Presidency. But what then to make of the advice of Senate Judiciary Chairperson Lindsey Graham (R-SC)?

The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee encouraged Donald Trump Jr. to invoke his right against self-incrimination and refuse to answer questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee if he complies with the panel’s subpoena for a second closed-door interview.

“You just show up and plead the Fifth and it’s over with,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters Monday, adding that Trump Jr.’s lawyer would “have to be an idiot” to let him testify again.

“This whole thing is nuts,” Graham continued. “To me, it’s over.”

Graham’s comments, which come just a day after he said on Fox News that Trump Jr. should ignore the summons, could serve as a temporary off-ramp in the standoff between the Intelligence Committee, led by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and GOP senators either aligned with the president or up for reelection in 2020. It is also a remarkable display of one Republican Senate panel chairman undercutting another’s work by dispensing free legal advice to a witness in an ongoing investigation — and reflects a greater GOP divide about whether the Senate should hold Trump Jr. in contempt if he continues to flout the Intelligence Committee’s subpoena. [WaPo]

Frankly, speaking as a non-lawyer, this is the advice of an idiot. The moment Trump, Jr. “pleads the Fifth,” he’s signaling that, yes, some sort of scandal and corruption did occur, and it’s the responsibility of the committee to then continue the questioning and the investigation. Graham’s advice would work against Graham’s putative goal, which is to signal that the entire investigation into the Trump Campaign is over.

Of course, Senator Graham has been notable for his story arc in the Trump political era, from expressing loathing for candidate Trump, to becoming his apparent water-boy in the Senate, reportedly because his entire purpose is to get re-elected – and without a solid pro-Trump record, he might be in trouble. But his support has been nearly comedic in its expression, screaming threats at the House of Representatives of what he might do as the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee if they follow through on their plan to investigate the President (they did), ending with this rather ridiculous advice to Trump, Jr.

Is he overacting to get the crowd’s attention? Remember the lesson of Representative Roby (R-AL), who nearly lost her seat because of her disdain concerning Trump’s morals, despite having a near perfect record of legislative loyalty to Trump? I have to wonder if Graham decided it was safer if he acted like a lunatic than a sane human being. It doesn’t look good on his record, but it may guarantee him re-election next year.

But this advice to Trump, Jr., could be a subtle attack on the Trump family by Graham, giving bad advice under the smoke-screen of loyalty to the President. I don’t actually think Graham is this daring, but it’s not an impossible maneuver on his part.

Yep, Burr’s action in issuing the subpoena could lead to some unexpected drama in the coming days or weeks.

Ever think about just how much it costs to send visuals across the Internet? NewScientist (11 May 2019) has a report that startled me:

Huge amounts of energy are needed to power the servers and networks that let YouTube viewers watch more than one billion hours of video every day.

Based on estimates of the electric energy used to provide YouTube videos globally in 2016, a team at the University of Bristol calculated that the firm’s carbon footprint is around 10 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year, roughly the same as Luxembourg or Zimbabwe.

A single design change – letting users listen to audio on YouTube with an inactive screen – could reduce its carbon footprint by between 100 to 500 thousand tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year. This reduction is roughly equivalent to the annual carbon footprint of 30,000 UK homes.

I’m still surprised at the thought of measuring computer usage for its impact on climate change, but it’s certainly a valid consideration. Seeing that a lot of YouTube is is strictly for entertainment – and passive entertainment at that – it sort of speaks to how much local entertainment has been superseded by global entertainment.

Incidentally, I’ve been listening to Chic’s Good Times today in an attempt to chase Colbert’s theme song out of my head. I bought the LP back in the vinyl days, but never got the CD.

From NBC News comes surprising news:

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn told investigators that people linked to the Trump administration and Congress reached out to him in an effort to interfere in the Russia probe, according to newly unredacted court papers filed Thursday.

The court filing from special counsel Robert Mueller is believed to mark the first public acknowledgement that a person connected to Capitol Hill was suspected of engaging in an attempt to impede the investigation into Russian election interference.

“The defendant informed the government of multiple instances, both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could’ve affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation,” says the newly revealed section of a sentencing memo originally filed in December. …

Prosecutors did not identify any of the people who reached out to Flynn, but said the special counsel’s office was in some instances “unaware of the outreach until being alerted to it by the defendant.”

No other details were provided in the filing, but the Mueller report noted that President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer left a voicemail message for Flynn in late November 2017 that addressed the possibility of him cooperating with the government.

A fascinating development, as this would be interference.

But who, in Congress, is involved?

All the smart money will be on one or more GOP members, and an extremist; it would be extremely outré for the malefactor (for that’s the best descriptor of such a person) to be a Democrat, or linked to that side.

But the really interesting point is how this is engendering a feel of an evil spider in Washington, where the legs are made up of various elected officials, or at least their staff, while the body is in the White House, frantically holding off the enemies. It’s really beginning to paint the GOP as a corrupt, power hungry, unprincipled party, a collection point for second-raters and brittle ideological zealots.

Not that the Democrats don’t have a few of them as well.

But for precisely that reason, that unflattering picture of a party uninterested in the rules of a democratic society, we can expect this to be a long, drawn out process. Removing pus from a wound often will be. And the strategies of those who’ve created this organization of those who have a will-to-power have been organized, varied, and effective – as evidenced by the situation we find ourselves in. We may find some of them are beyond the reach of the law.

And the deciders, to borrow President Bush’s unfortunate choice of word, is not a single person, or even a small group. It’s the citizens of the United States, an overly busy mob of people who, too often, know very little about the activities in Washington, who get their information from news services who have their own agendas, left or right, and are afflicted with sophisticated persuaders, as it were, to ensure they view the world in a way salubrious to the persuaders’ interests.

True, the judiciary still exists as a final backstop. Under attack from within and without, overworked and under-respected (at least by the right), it lurches along, and so far has proven to be a thorn in the paw of the spider^[1] in our government.

And, for those of us who feel particularly desperate, there is the tendency of evil to rip itself to pieces as its constituents pursue their self-interested passions to the detriment of the goal of the leader. Will that be enough? I doubt it.

The people will need to put an end to this. They must continue to educate themselves.

¹ A mixed metaphor is something that often follows a mixed cocktail.

There’s a certain emotional dissonance in realizing that President Trump is actually the moderate in his administration when it comes to Iran, as WaPo is basically saying:

The Trump administration has been on high alert in response to what military and intelligence officials have deemed specific and credible threats from Iran against U.S. personnel in the Middle East.

But President Trump is frustrated with some of his top advisers, who he thinks could rush the United States into a military confrontation with Iran and shatter his long-standing pledge to withdraw from costly foreign wars, according to several U.S. officials. Trump prefers a diplomatic approach to resolving tensions and wants to speak directly with Iran’s leaders. …

rump grew angry last week and over the weekend about what he sees as warlike planning that is getting ahead of his own thinking, said a senior administration official with knowledge of conversations Trump had regarding national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

“They are getting way out ahead of themselves, and Trump is annoyed,” the official said. “There was a scramble for Bolton and Pompeo and others to get on the same page.”

With Trump’s re-election chances desperately dependent on keeping his base together, the key to this is his promises to stay out of bloodily unnecessary wars, unlike his Republican predecessor President Bush, whose reputation since leaving office has been quite tarnished by the ongoing results of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In that, I can agree with Trump.

But in his recently hired National Security Advisor John Bolton, he has a guy who’s strongly interested in how well a full-out war with Iran would go. He’s condemned just about all diplomatic maneuvers attempted with Iran.

Nor is his lead diplomat, Secretary Mike Pompeo, a particularly well-qualified person to be in that position. A former Representative, he was a businessman in the heart of Kansas prior to his political career. I don’t think a hard driving businessman is a good fit for the position.

So President Trump discovers he has to stand in the stirrups and hold his hand-picked horses back from plunging him into the abyss of ugly, bloody war. He threw the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) foolishly into the trash, and now looks like a hapless would-be leader who’s been sidelined by the adults.

And now he’s operating under one more disadvantage: all of his adversaries know that, despite his selections of Bolton and Pompeo, Trump himself is reluctant to engage in any sort of actual war. It’s as if he’s playing the black pieces in chess, and has ceded his first move. Not only do his foreign adversaries, such as Iran, know this, but so do his advisors. Might we see some hyperbole from them in an effort to force a war they desire? They know that Trump also doesn’t pay attention to intelligence briefings. He’s vulnerable.

I sympathize with his inclinations, but, like any amateur who shouldn’t be in his position, he’s operating on gut instinct and, to be honest, is in danger of a major failure because of it. Even if he stays out of war, adversaries will take advantage of his incompetence and unwillingness to learn.

It will be a tough ride for the reputation of the United States until he’s replaced.

The ferns have suddenly jumped to attention:

I don’t think they were even out of the ground last week this time.

An oldie but a goodie, always applicable when the munitions providers and ideological zealots are beating the drums:

The Virginia Bluebells this morning:

Pedagogy:

1. the function or work of a teacher; teaching.
2. the art or science of teaching; education; instructional methods. [Dictionary.com]

Noted in “1913: The year Bemidji became ‘Normal’: State selects city for teacher training school over Cass Lake, Thief River Falls,” Sue Bruns, The Bemidji Pioneer:

Normal School refers to a two-year teacher training institution for high school graduates that focused on teaching norms of curriculum and pedagogy. In 1921, the normal schools became four-year State Teachers Colleges.

Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex, a psychiatrist research blog, gets entertainingly agitated about research on a gene named 5-HTTLPR, which was originally pronounced to be the key part of the genetics behind depression:

In 1996, some researchers discovered that depressed people often had an unusual version of the serotonin transporter gene 5-HTTLPR. The study became a psychiatric sensation, getting thousands of citations and sparking dozens of replication attempts (page 3 here lists 46).

Since then, genetics has advanced a long ways, and now studies trying to replicate the 5-HTTLPR effect have been failing, due to a better understanding of how to apply statistics to genetics. This all leads up to this description of the research on 5-HTTLPR:

First, what bothers me isn’t just that people said 5-HTTLPR mattered and it didn’t. It’s that we built whole imaginary edifices, whole castles in the air on top of this idea of 5-HTTLPR mattering. We “figured out” how 5-HTTLPR exerted its effects, what parts of the brain it was active in, what sorts of things it interacted with, how its effects were enhanced or suppressed by the effects of other imaginary depression genes. This isn’t just an explorer coming back from the Orient and claiming there are unicorns there. It’s the explorer describing the life cycle of unicorns, what unicorns eat, all the different subspecies of unicorn, which cuts of unicorn meat are tastiest, and a blow-by-blow account of a wrestling match between unicorns and Bigfoot.

And the first thing that pops to mind? Research on the nature of God. So many conclusions about a creature for which there’s no evidence.

Ah, well, I’m just tired and feeling a bit snitty. My thanks to Mr. Alexander for his condemnation of hundreds of studies. I have no idea if he’s right, but he’s certainly fun.

Kevin Drum remarks on ‘excise taxes’ (aka tariffs), the hypocrisy of ‘no-new-taxes crusader’ Grover Norquist, and a new study:

… tariffs are just taxes, and nearly the entire burden of tariffs is paid by consumers in the form of higher prices. So why aren’t Republicans yelling about this? Why isn’t Grover Norquist threatening to primary anyone who supports higher tariffs? Why are Republicans so amenable to this particular tax increase?

Then I came home and was looking around at some related material and happened to come across this:

Of course! A tariff on yachts or private jets would be progressive, but Trump’s tariffs are on food, steel, aluminum, consumer electronics, and so forth. That means they’re regressive: they hurt the poor more than the rich.

It’s easy enough to say this is actually unsurprising, given the class behaviors outlined in Turchin’s Secular Cycles, particularly during the disintegrative phase. First, the upper classes enrich themselves at the expense of the lower classes. Then, as upper class (and wannabe) population continues to stretch resource availability, they fall to fighting amongst themselves. In fact, I wonder if we’re seeing a little bit of that in the conflict between Trump and the House of Representatives, because when I say “Trump,” I must include the elected Republicans in Congress, as they are, just about to a man/woman, supporting Trump as if his personal failures are of no danger to the nation.

But this does prompt reflection on human nature. What brings us to this place where the well-being of the lower classes is disdained, even loathed, by the very “cream” of society? After all, the Republicans in Congress have tried very hard to get rid of affordable healthcare, reduced taxes on the rich in ways that had little to no impact on the middle class on downwards. Are they seen as potential competitors that must be suppressed at every turn? Or is it more subtle than that?

It does suggest that humanity can fragment along lines other than ethnicity and religion. I suppose it comes as no great surprise, given the frequency with which we hear the old phrase class warfare. The thing about Secular Cycles is that it was mostly descriptive, with some causal material thrown in; Turchin’s War and Peace and War appears, from what little I’ve read of it, to have more explanatory material in terms of human psychology.

Prelate:

A bishop or other high ecclesiastical dignitary. [Oxford Dictionaries]

Noted in “When the Vatican faces a major sex-abuse scandal, he’s the man the pope sends in“, Chico Harlan, WaPo:

He points to past papal quotes as guiding wisdom for handling the crisis. He chides the church gently, prescribing reforms for handling complaints, urging prelates to listen more openly to victims. He speaks about the importance of transparency and encourages church officials to cooperate with civil authorities, but his own investigations are fully in-house, and not even summaries of his findings are made public.

At the end of World War II, the Soviet Union grabbed some of the Kuril Islands from Japan, and neither the Soviets nor their heirs, the Russians, have returned them. Now, no doubt as part of the Russian offensive to regain influence in the world, they may be offering them up to Japan. However, as WaPo notes, this may lead to some problems:

Japan has long claimed that Russia illegally occupies Kunashir and a handful of other nearby islands on the southern end of the Kuril archipelago, which threads the sea between mainland Russia and northern Japan. Seen from Kunashir, the snow-sheathed mountains of northern Japan tower on the horizon, but there’s no regular passenger service to connect the two worlds.

A recent flurry of talks between Tokyo and Moscow has brought speculation that the Kremlin may be willing to hand some of the islands, seized by the Red Army in the closing days of World War II, back to Japan.

Such a move could help Putin win closer ties with one of the United States’ most important allies. Russian nationalists have staged demonstrations across the country insisting that Putin must not give up an inch of Russian land.

But in the Kurils themselves, the debate highlights more existential questions. What does it mean to live in Russia? What would happen if your home suddenly turned Japanese?

And is this really, as the plaque next to a tank by the beach insists, “primordial Russian soil”?

It’s not clear sailing for Russia, which think is a fascinating counterpoint to the far-right conservatives in our own neck of the world. That is, both are willing to ignore painful historical facts in order to pursue nationalist agendas. In some ways, it connects both countries, doesn’t it? We both have our loonies.

Remember Fox News‘ Andrew Napolitano and his unexpected bout of honest evaluation? A few days ago he let loose another blast, this time on Attorney General William Barr:

Fox analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano on Wednesday let loose on Attorney General Bill Barr and his handling of the Russia probe in a fiery Fox News op-ed.

“It is clear that Barr’s four-page letter, about which Mueller complained to Barr and some of Mueller’s team complained to the media, was a foolish attempt to sanitize the Mueller report,” Napolitano wrote. “It was misleading, disingenuous and deceptive.”

“Also, because Barr knew that all or nearly all of the Mueller report would soon enter the public domain, it was dumb and insulting,” he continued.

The judge also addressed the attorney general denying to the House Appropriations Committee that he knew of any criticisms from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team about his characterization of Mueller’s findings, which later turned out to be untrue.

“Was Barr’s testimony before Congress deceptive?” Napolitano asked. “In a word: Yes.” [TPM]

If you’re a Fox News viewer, this has to be a little confusing. After all, Mr. Napolitano plays for the conservative team, so this can’t make much sense in the era of the political cult.

I’ll be interested – fascinated – to see if the former Judge continues with his discordant tune.

Senolytics:

A lot of the smart money is on a class of drugs called senolytics, which seek out and destroy worn-out cells that build up as we age. These cells have suffered some sort of irreversible damage and entered a state called senescence where they hit the emergency stop, hunker down and await destruction.

This process probably evolved to stop cells from becoming cancerous. But it eventually backfires. “Senescent cells are normally cleared out, but that goes wrong during ageing and they accumulate and cause tissue damage,” says Partridge. The cells are like zombies: beyond repair, yet undead and causing havoc. They pump out a range of inflammatory proteins that are a major cause of inflammaging. “Senescent calls are very bad for you,” says Lynne Cox, a biochemist at the University of Oxford. “They destroy the tissues around them.”  [“Anti-ageing drugs are coming that could keep you healthier for longer,” Graham Lawton, NewScientist (27 April 2019, paywall)]

A delightful romp through the Milky Way:

(h/t JN)