Monthly Archives: January 2020

Here’s a simulation that stretches the mind:

A massive simulation of the universe is digitally recreating the lives of stars, black holes and galaxies.

Richard Bower at Durham University in the UK and his colleagues have created a computer simulation approximately 1 billion light years across, which models tens of thousands of galaxies.

The team started the simulation on Tuesday and it will run continuously for 50 days across 30,000 computer processors developed by tech firm Intel in both Durham and Paris. It is 30 times larger than a previous simulation the team ran in 2015, which led to predictions about the mergers of supermassive black holes. [NewScientist, 23 November, paywall]

And the granularity?

The simulation studies galaxies by breaking them up into blocks of about 3000 light years. One of the team’s objectives is to try to understand rare objects in the universe, such as very distant galaxies that are invisible to telescopes that gather and focus visible light.

The Universe is a big place, to be sure. Estimates of our home galaxy of the Milky Way top out at a diameter of 250,000 light years, but the thickness of the disk is estimated at 2000 light years. Still, unless they’re using the old British definition of billion to be 10¹², it’s a little hard to see this as harboring billions of galaxies. Or am I doing the math wrong?

In any case, I would have found doing this work fascinating. Between the logistical issues and the physics, it seems like a lot of fun.

And it reminds me of the old hypothesis, to which I have a certain inclination, that we are, ourselves, in and of a computer simulation. This is all getting fractal, isn’t it?

And here’s a picture of M-51, a spiral galaxy like our own, since I cannot show a picture of our own home, from NASA:

Image credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/SAO; Optical: Detlef Hartmann; Infrared: NASA/JPL-Caltech

President Trump continues to stir the cocktail of emotions on which his voters run:

After excluding House Republicans from his defense team, President Donald Trump announced Monday night that eight of them would serve as his personal warriors.

Republican Reps. Doug Collins (Ga.), Mike Johnson (La.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Debbie Lesko (Ariz.), Mark Meadows (N.C.), John Ratcliffe (Texas), Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) and Lee Zeldin (N.Y.) will “serve as part of his team working to combat this hyper-partisan and baseless impeachment,” according to a White House news release Monday.

“Throughout this process, these Members of Congress have provided guidance to the White House team, which was prohibited from participating in the proceedings concocted by Democrats in the House of Representatives,” the release said. [Politico]

With a helping of mendacity, steaming on the side – Trump was invited to participate in the impeachment phase, and turned the opportunity down.

But, back to the point, warrior is an emotional term, connoting sacrifices made for the greater good by the individual, with implications of a particular moral goodness to that composite entity.

The logic is, of course, backwards – there were plenty of Japanese who gave their lives for the greater good of an Imperial Japan, an entity which condoned committing unspeakable atrocities in China, for example – but it, nonetheless, has a strong instinctive appeal, especially for the committed Trump cultist.

Essentially, this role for the Representatives make them into a bulwark against the destruction of the Trump base, and this is necessary because if the public opinion polls take a nose dive from their already-precarious position, the Republican Senators may find the pressure from constituents to find Trump innocent to lessen, and perhaps they would then vote for country over Party.

That’s the fear of Trump and the senior members of his advisors.

I took these hoping to capture the exceptional reflectance of the tree branches, probably enhanced by a layer of ice, but the camera was not up to it. But I still like the bleakness.

NPR:

New information is being reported about the new coronavirus that emerged in China in December and causes respiratory symptoms such as pneumonia — heightening concerns about its potential threat to humans. …

On Monday, Zhong Nanshan, the epidemiologist who leads the committee on the outbreak for China’s National Health Commission, gave a TV interview stating there was evidence of human-to-human transmission.

China’s National Health Commission also confirmed that there has been infection of medical staff.

In combination with the big holiday of the new lunar year, where most people return home to celebrate with families, while some travel out of the country to avoid family, this has the potential to be spread quickly and widely, and if it’s confirmed that it can transfer from person to person and has severe symptoms, this could be a tragic event.

Let’s hope not, but if you don’t like surprises like this, keep an eye on the news.

I just love this Kevin Drum photo – a great composition for us folks with a flaky imagination:

Maybe the robot monster is actually Charlie Brown, about to engage in you-know-what.

The balance of Kevin’s post is here. A fascinating look at the LA Cathedral.

Lawyer George T. Conway III, prominent Trump critic and husband of Trump aide Kellyanne Conway, thinks he knows why President Trump’s legal team for his Senate trial, following impeachment in the House, appears to be a patchwork:

Presented without comment. If you’re at work, use headphones or turn the sound down.

While reading through Steve Benen’s post concerning the Trump Administration’s desire to permit American companies to engage in bribery overseas, it occurred to me that Trump adherents might find his post unconvincing, because he doesn’t address the issue in any sort of depth. First, for background, here’s Steve:

In fact, NBC News’ Richard Engel appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show a couple of years ago and highlighted a 2012 quote from Trump, in which the future president said, in reference to FCPA [Foreign Corrupt Practices Act], “Now, every other country goes into these places, and they do what they have to do. It’s a horrible law and it should be changed. I mean, we’re like the policeman for the world. It’s ridiculous.”

The New York Republican didn’t forget about his opposition to the law after taking office. A new book from the Washington Post’s Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig reports that Trump clashed with then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in early 2017 because the new president wanted to get rid of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. “It’s just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas,” Trump reportedly said at the time.

The same book added that Trump directed Stephen Miller to draft an executive action to repeal the law. (Executive actions cannot simply repeal federal laws, though the president apparently didn’t care.) [Maddowblog]

So let’s talk about how bribery distorts the basics of economic transactions.

First, the use of bribery removes the question of quality from the equation of selling a product, instead substituting the metric, if you will, of the size of the seller’s wallet. If an inferior quality product has a worst case result – it causes the death of a customer – then the blood of that customer is on the hands of both the entity that offered a bribe and the entity that accepted it. If, thank heavens, it does not, the end consumer still must suffer with an inferior product.

Second, the same reasoning as in (1) applies if the briber’s product isn’t really appropriate for the task at hand.

Third, in a corrupt environment, security risks are magnified. Please do not inspect this delivery closely, here’s $10,000. Think about what could be snuck in to the bribed entity’s manufacturing plant. The entire culture of bribery replaces any sense of physical security of the bribed entity with the price tag of those who must be bribed.

Fourth, it has the potential to magnify costs. Simply consider the competitive bidding situation in which the low bid didn’t submit the biggest bribe.

Fifth, crappy inferior products inevitably reflect poorly on those who bribe, and, with enough instances, their country of origin. Does the United States really want to be known for making cheap shit that doesn’t work? The answer had better be Of course not! And, yet, that’s what is at risk here, because the metric isn’t which product is best, but who paid the bribe – rather than exposing it.

Sixth, one bribe leads to another, and they can go up in price.

Seventh, someone in position to take a bribe isn’t necessarily motivated only by money. Maybe he or she is a racist, or doesn’t like your meal choices, or, say, the fact that the salesman offering the bribe has a little golden cross hanging around his neck. Taking focus off the question of price vs quality, one of the most essential equations in all of economics, and replacing it with the arbitrary whims and prejudices of someone in power is an upsetting and unfair way to do business – just like simple bribery, but with factors that are even more difficult to influence.

Eighth? Why, that’s easy. If we repeal the FCPA, what’s to keep that same culture from becoming acceptable RIGHT HERE IN THE UNITED STATES? How many of my readers think it’s perfectly ok to grease the outheld palm in order to get any service at all? Yeah, it’s an awfully small group. Yet, that’s what we’ll face if we decide to repeal the FCPA: A country not based on Law, but on bribes.

This, of course, comes from observed fact that President Trump’s only, not primary but only, metric is money. Money, money, money, screw the national reputation, screw the problems of fixating on money and what other countries might or might not owe us. There’s all that profit we’re not getting because we’re not willing to debase ourselves!

That asinine fixation is a rotten way to run a country, and this issue brings out that fundamental failing into the bright light of day.

Greta Van Susteren suggests that the Presidential debates are testing the wrong things:

Presidential debates are supposed to provide voters with a better understanding of a candidate’s views and how he or she would likely govern. Of course, if you think the job of the president is to make short, snappy decisions without consulting others and without examining all the pros and cons, then the existing debate format probably suits you. If, on the other hand, you think the job of the president is problem-solving, then the debate ought to be exactly that — a problem-solving test.

Smart and successful problem-solving involves considering all the consequences and consulting with others. It is not demonstrated by one’s ability to instantly react to a surprise question with a one-minute answer. After all, no one walks into the Oval Office and says, “Mr. President, you have 60 seconds to address the North Korean nuclear weapons program that has been active for 30 years and has bedeviled the last three presidents for all eight years of their respective terms. The clock starts now.” If we don’t want the Oval Office to operate like Twitter, why do we test our candidates as if it does? [WaPo]

And she’s right, of course. So why did I just shake my head here?

If we want better outcomes in Washington, we must change the vetting process for how our presidents get there.

Because I have no faith that debates change that many minds. There’s very few pundits – and I doubt any that lacked an axe to grind – who thought then-candidate Trump was defeating his opponents, from Rubio to Clinton, in the debates. In particular, Clinton is thought to have simply overwhelmed Trump in their one on ones.

Yet, it was Trump who won the upset in the election.

Of course, there’s a million variables in play here, so how do we tease out the affect of the debates? Beats me. But it seems to me that the campaign rallies, the email campaigns, and the television ads have far more effect than debates that are, for the most part, on subjects on which a very small fraction of the electorate has any sort of expertise; their opinions may be welcome, but they’re not really relevant.

But, if Greta is right, then perhaps by making the debates more relevant in the manner which she suggests, maybe they’ll have some influence.

I just don’t have the faith.

Milliner:

1. a person who designs, makes, or sells hats for women.

Surprisingly specific. Noted in the Feedback column of NewScientist (4 January 2020):

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, for readers who have been led astray on such matters, is not a movie about pigeons. It is a movie about cowboys – that is to say, misogynistic, murdering, rootin’-tootin’ gunmen who meander about the 19th-century American Wild West in search of a credit sequence. It takes them a while to find it, but lordy are you relieved when they do.

It would probably have aged better had it been about pigeons, which is why, to make an abrupt segue, Feedback’s interest was piqued by news out of Las Vegas, Nevada, that a trio of pigeons were wearing cowboy hats.

The story gets more depressing the more you find out. It seems that some ornithological milliner glued the aforementioned hats to the aforementioned pigeons, perhaps to coincide with the National Finals Rodeo taking place in the same state.

Perhaps not quite properly used, but I confess I doubt there’s a word for someone who makes hats for pigeons, or even birds.

Long time readers know that I occasionally comment on the retraction of academic papers, often found through Retraction Watch (link on the right), looking at patterns and wondering about the management of academics and how the often economic rewards of fevered publishing affects the academic disciplines.

This disaster isn’t American, or even of the West. This fascinating WaPo article discusses management, mis- or otherwise, of academics in Russia:

Eight years ago, President Vladimir Putin decreed that Russia must become a leading scientific power. That meant at least five top-100 Russian universities by 2020, and a dramatic increase in the number of global citations of Russian scientific papers.

Now a group at the center of Putin’s aspirations, the Russian Academy of Sciences, has dropped a bombshell into the plans. A commission set up by the academy has led to the retraction of at least 869 Russian scientific articles, mainly for plagiarism. …

What went wrong? Many scientists blame Putin’s 2012 order, which provided greater funding but also led to pressure on scientists to churn out multiple papers a year regardless of quality, amid heavy teaching loads. …

“You have got this Potemkin village where universities try to report as many papers as possible, but nobody really reads those papers,” said Anna Kuleshova, ethics council chairwoman at the Russian Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers, the country’s largest scientific publishing organization.

Margaret Taylor of Lawfare is wondering about the role Chief Justice Roberts will be playing at the trial of Donald J. Trump – and whether he may find a way to permit new evidence to be introduced:

Here’s how this might play out: McConnell would introduce the organizing resolution and seek to pass it with 51 votes. If efforts to amend the resolution are unsuccessful, a Democratic senator would then make a point of order on the basis that 67 votes are required. And it would then be up to Roberts to rule on the point of order—presumably with the advice of the Senate parliamentarian, who will be at his side throughout the trial.

How Roberts handles this issue will likely be the first glimpse of what we can expect from Roberts in the trial going forward. He could rule with vigor—or timidity. Senators could accept the ruling—or any one senator could ask for a formal vote. Alternatively, Roberts could put the vote to members of the Senate without making a ruling or recommendation.

There has been a great deal of speculation on what role Roberts intends to play in the Senate trial. Will he engage actively, like Chief Justice Salmon Chase in the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, or will he largely sit back and let the Senate do as it wishes, like Chief Justice William Rehnquist during Bill Clinton’s trial? Perhaps, thanks to McConnell, we may have an answer to that question as soon as the trial begins.

And Roberts has been riled in the past by President Trump. Will that influence a Roberts ruling on the matter? The trial starts on Tuesday, following the not-insignificant Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal holiday. This could prove very interesting, especially in the light of Professor Dorf’s suggestion that the Chief Justice may be a NeverTrumper.

The lawsuit to force the American government to start pursuing remedies for climate change, known as Juliana v. United States, has hit a roadbump:

A federal appeals court on Friday threw out a 2015 lawsuit by nearly two dozen young people to force the U.S. government to take more aggressive action on climate change, saying that the children did not have legal standing to bring the landmark case.

Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote that the plaintiffs had “made a compelling case that action is needed” to slash the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. But the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled 2 to 1 that the courts were not the place to compel such action.

“We reluctantly conclude, however, that the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large, the latter of which can change the composition of the political branches through the ballot box,” Hurwitz wrote. [WaPo]

I’m not sure I buy this line of reasoning, speaking as a non-lawyer. To my mind, the government is responsible for the safe-being of the citizens, and there appears to be little doubt that climate change is a threat, possibly existential, to the health of the citizens of the United States. It is traditional to bring suit against the government in order to compel it to fulfill its duties; that these two judges don’t see it that way is disturbing.

Suppose the United States suffered a substantial military attack by a national adversary, and yet the Executive refused to defend the country, and Congress refused to declare war, despite imminent disaster. Would a lawsuit seeking to compel action by the government be given the finger, as was Juliana?

If it did, it would prove the experiment in Democracy had failed. I see the dissenting judge has similar thoughts:

… then apparently it’s very important to get the latest security update.

Sources tell KrebsOnSecurity that Microsoft Corp. is slated to release a software update  Tuesday [January 14, 2020] to fix an extraordinarily serious security vulnerability in a core cryptographic component present in all versions of Windows. Those sources say Microsoft has quietly shipped a patch for the bug to branches of the U.S. military and to other high-value customers/targets that manage key Internet infrastructure, and that those organizations have been asked to sign agreements preventing them from disclosing details of the flaw prior to Jan. 14, the first Patch Tuesday of 2020.

According to sources, the vulnerability in question resides in a Windows component known as crypt32.dll, a Windows module that Microsoft says handles “certificate and cryptographic messaging functions in the CryptoAPI.” The Microsoft CryptoAPI provides services that enable developers to secure Windows-based applications using cryptography, and includes functionality for encrypting and decrypting data using digital certificates. [KrebsOnSecurity]

Cryptography is hard to do properly. More information at the link above.

But this dust-up does remind that I don’t often have to get a security update for my hammer.

And so we come to the end of the waiting period, controlled by Speaker Pelosi, between approving the articles of the impeachment of President Trump, finally followed by a party line vote to deliver them, and the actual ritual delivery.

Did the unexpected pause between approval and delivery actually work to the Speaker’s advantage? Since no one likes to take a politician at their word, most commentator’s have disregarded the Speaker’s contention that she wanted to understand how the trial in the Senate would be run, in order to select the ‘managers’ of the trial, and encourage Senate leader McConnell (R-KY) to run a “fair trial,” rather than a quick sham trial. Indeed, most commentator’s are guided by their divination of the Speaker’s “true” intentions.

Chris Cillizza of CNN thinks Pelosi gambled and lost:

But I was a little disturbed. First up, from Aaron Blake’s analysis of the Tuesday Democratic Presidential candidates debate in WaPo:

Ever hear of Evidence Based Medicine? We should have the same standard for government, regardless of who is running it. It’d dump pie-eyed dreamers like anyone who thinks the Laffer Curve has general relevance on their collective asses, for one thing.

And I suspect Democratic candidate, and non-participant in the Tuesday night Democratic Presidential Debate, Andrew Yang would be its flag-bearer, since he appears to understand that many problems will succumb to Big Data analysis. Or at least so I gathered from his appearance last night on The Late Show.

But he doesn’t have the experience or the charisma to win the nomination. I expect he’ll be remembered for injecting interesting and important ideas into the public discourse – or at least trying. Which I know is no great insight, but that, I think, will be his legacy.

Although he did throw his hat in the ring for a Cabinet level position, I noticed. I’m not sure he has the chops for that sort of thing, but we shall see. Given the knuckledraggers who’ve made it into Trump’s Cabinet, I’d say most three-toed sloths could serve and not be considered bottom-rung.

From AL Monitor’s Mid-week Middle East lobbying newsletter:

There seems to be a lot of reporting on Lev Parnas today, for example from Maddowblog:

In early October, the Washington Post reported that Donald Trump “repeatedly involved” Vice President Mike Pence in the Ukraine scheme, including an instance in which the president “instructed Pence not to attend the inauguration of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in May – an event White House officials had pushed to put on the vice president’s calendar – when Ukraine’s new leader was seeking recognition and support from Washington.”

Yesterday, Rachel [Maddow] explored this in more detail with Lev Parnas, a Rudy Giuliani associate involved with executing the Ukraine scheme, and he said he’d communicated to Ukrainian officials that Pence would not attend Zelensky’s inauguration unless he agreed to announce an anti-Biden investigation.

The day after Parnas’ meeting with a top Zelensky aide, Pence’s trip was scrapped.

Parnas also said Vice President Mike Pence’s planned trip to attend Zelenskiy’s inauguration in May was canceled because the Ukrainians did not agree to the demand for an investigation of the Bidens. “Oh, I know 100 percent. It was 100 percent,” he said.

Asked whether Pence was aware of a “quid pro quo” around the visit, Parnas replied by quoting Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, who said during the House impeachment inquiry: “Everybody was in the loop.”

Maddow said her show asked for comment from Pence and had not received a response.

There’s many more such stories out there.

While it’s tempting to take this seriously, and given the corruption of Trump and many of his nominees to posts all the way up to Cabinet level, in all honesty I should like to see some independent confirmations of Parnas’ assertions. Right now it just seems to be his word. Emptywheel (Marcy Wheeler) agrees with me:

In short, for the last 18 months, Parnas has played a key part in creating the right wing echo chamber, one that — particularly because the addled Rudy is a trusted advisor — forms a key part of how Trump understands the world. One way Parnas did that was by recruiting Ukrainians who were, for very crass reasons, willing to tell Trump and the rest of the frothy right what they wanted to hear, even though it was assuredly not true. …

Last night’s interview [with Rachel Maddow] continued that grift, only he moved to spin an echo chamber for the left this time. He emphasized — and Maddow predictably responded — some of the key allegations Democrats most want to be true. Mike Pence is closely involved, Parnas revealed, and while nothing he revealed would amount to impeachable conduct, Democrats immediately latched onto the possibility it would be. Everyone was involved, Parnas confirmed, including Devin Nunes and Bill Barr. It was all about Biden, Parnas almost certainly lied.

Seeing as he’s under indictment, this would be fairly ballsy, but not unheard of. The Democrats and other Trump-despisers would be best advised not to have a collective orgasm over anything Parnas reveals until consilience^[1] is achieved.

¹ Consilience is a term for strong conclusion drawn from independent lines of evidence, usually used in science and historical studies.

We hear little about the third leg of the government triad, the judiciary, so Professor Michael Dorf’s suggestion on Justia that Chief Justice Roberts may be a Never-Trumper is interesting – although he thinks it isn’t significant:

… but I have a hypothesis: In this and other modest ways, Roberts hopes to counterbalance Donald Trump; he may be a closeted never-Trumper. …

At the end of his report, Roberts returns to the Federalist Papers to celebrate but also to warn “we should also remember that justice is not inevitable. We,”—by which he means his judicial colleagues—“should reflect on our duty to judge without fear or favor, deciding each matter with humility, integrity, and dispatch.”

In many contexts, such sentiments would be clichéd. But here too it is fairly easy to read between the lines and see a not-so-veiled critique of the President. Why isn’t justice inevitable? Whom do life-tenured judges have to fear? In our time, the answers to the second question and thus the first are clear: a President who demonizes and seeks to delegitimize all institutions and individuals who invoke laws and norms to block his own venal and fickle will.

But …

First, no one should think that the resistance Roberts offers to Trump indicates any kind of a turn to the left. At best, Roberts leads from within the judiciary a muted version of the never-Trump movement that one sees among principled never-Trump conservatives like George Conway and the other lawyers who comprise the Checks & Balances organization. These brave souls rightly regard Trump as a threat to core democratic values that transcend party. …

Second, the Roberts defense of judicial independence has the capacity to mislead. In truth, there are “Obama judges” and “Trump judges,” not in the crass sense that Trump uses the terms but in the important sense that the party of the President who appoints a judge serves as a pretty good proxy for that judge’s likely ideological lean over the long run. When John Roberts describes the federal judiciary as unaffected by any prior party affiliation, he strikes a blow for the rule of law, but he also tells a not-so-noble lie. …

Third, as I have noted already in this column, the Roberts criticisms of Trump are muted and sometimes barely even perceptible except by extrapolating from hints. Against an opponent like Trump—who lies loudly and generally fights dirty—a Chief Justice who observes the norms of his office and human decency may find himself at a distinct disadvantage in reaching the general public due to the very tools of deceit that the annual report laments.

It’s not usual for the judiciary to actually become part of dirty, nasty fights, and that’s what it take for the Chief Justice to truly express such a sentiment, if he does in fact harbor such sentiments. Nor is it really clear how he would get involved, at least not to me.

So it’s not really worth getting all that excited, except to note that Roberts does appear to be more of an old-fashioned conservative, rather than the new, radical line that merely exists under the name ‘conservative,’ while actually being quite something else.

Michael Bloomberg, age 77, founder and owner of Bloomberg L.P., billionaire with an estimated worth north of $50 billion, former three term mayor of New York City, former Democrat, Independent, Republican, and now a current Democrat, has joined the race for the Democratic nomination for President. He’s late, but with his wealth he’ll be a force to reckon with outside of the far left wing of the Democratic Party.

His positions are, for me, acceptable, as noted from On The Issues: abortion yes, same sex marriage yes, corporate tax reductions no, higher taxes on the wealthy yes, creationism no (his phrase: boggles the mind), education is good yes (hard to think of a Democrat against such a position), closing coal-fired power plants yes, climate change is a huge problem yes, etc. He admits to mistakes and tries to correct them (noted on The Late Show last night). Here’s the On The Issues summation:

It’s unfortunate that he doesn’t like marijuana legalization; his stance on healthcare seems conflicted, but it appears to favor the ACA. In general, no one’s a perfect match, and so far I don’t see any Can’t stomach that positions.

In addition to the above, also in his favor is his experience as the chief executive of New York City, which means he at least understands he has to play nice with others, and you just can’t order people around; some claimed foreign policy experience gained from trying to sell NYC abroad, although whether it’s extensive seems doubtful; and a certain amount of straight-to-the-point responses which voters, even Republicans, may find more appealing than the sometimes neurotic-detailed responses Democratic candidates can deliver. My Arts Editor was favorably impressed by his appearance on The Late Show last night, including the fact he didn’t try to strangle Colbert for interrupting too much.

Additions to the negative side of the ledger are his age, which is quite high. On the other hand, he seems to have taken good care of himself, and probably has the finest of health care, given his wealth.

Which brings me to the most enigmatic point: he’s self-funding and not accepting donations. Trump tried to spin his alleged wealth as a good thing, and a lot of the media fell for it. In time, though, we’ve learned that Trump is all about the money, and not above using his office to steer commerce into his coffers. Will we see the same with Bloomberg? Will his ability to self-fund render him immune to good advice? I’m not sure.

But if he is self-funding, that’ll be a boon for the Democratic Party with Bloomberg as their candidate, assuming self-funding carries through to the general election. That’s a lot of extra cash to spend on close races that the Republicans will strain to match – or go begging at their corporate masters’ feet.

I’m neither advocating nor dismissing Bloomberg. He sounded sharp on the show last night, and he seems concerned that Trump is wrecking the world Bloomberg’s descendants must live in. In turn, reports suggest Trump worries about him, due to his wealth. Whether or not Bloomberg has the gumption to win and then begin the painful transition away from fossil fuels is another question.

But I’m open to listening to him. Being an independent, I only have opinions, not primary votes, but I hope we hear more from him.

This amused me for some reason:

That’s a big ass number, a one with 566 zeros after it. It’s also the staggering number of possible solutions to a remarkable stage in Super Mario Maker 2 by designer ShiroVM, called Longest Passcode Level. (You can play it at LNL-2NL-W6G). It’s not a level about jumping but blindly guessing a passcode with 1,880 numbers. There’s no way to know what the passcode is, except to guess within the 10^566 of feasible combinations. The level holds no clues, and on any given try at cracking it, you’d have a better chance winning the lottery. Far better, honestly. [Vice]

My faith in mad whimsicality has been restored. Or maybe in gestures to life, where sometimes the walls to success are just too bloody high.

Long time readers know that I’ve occasionally talked about edjumacation and how our failure to value it on a societal basis is going to cost us in the long run, whether we blame inefficient schools or legislatures for not picking up the costs. This article on whether education is a good financial investment, published in WaPo, makes me ever more gloomier:

A while back I commented that Pelosi might hold the articles of impeachment for months, grinding it like a cigarette into the skins of the Republican Senators, but she announced this weekend that she plans to send the articles to the Senate this week:

… Pelosi moved to end the three-week standoff, signaling in a letter to colleagues on Friday that she would transmit the articles to the Senate this week, even without any clarity from McConnell on how the trial would be conducted. [WaPo]

Assuming this takes place – and that’s a boulder-like assumption – why did she choose this week for the transmittal? Let’s review the rough timeline of events:

1. Presidents Trump and Zelensky have a phone call on July 25 of 2019 in which, allegedly, Zelensky was pressured, mob-style, to announce that he was opening an investigation into a natural gas producer named Burisma and Democratic nominee hopeful Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, who sat on the board of Burisma for a time. Unsaid, but obvious to any prosecutor who has investigated Mob dealings, was the assurance that if Zelensky did this, then military aid designated to help them fight a Russian invasion would be released. Furthermore, no investigation was necessary – just the announcement. The military aid was later released without the announcement, allegedly at the frenzied insistence of several White House officials. The actual transcript of the call was never released, only a call summary.
2. Speaker Pelosi initiates an impeachment inquiry, triggered by the information provided by an unnamed whistleblower, an investigation into the facts, if you will, into the matter on September 24. During this inquiry Republicans engaged in stunts and rhetoric unsuited to the United States Congress.
3. Skipping minor events exposing Republican hypocrisy, in my view, on December 13, 2019, two articles of impeachment were passed by the House on a near party line vote. Speaker Pelosi delays sending the articles to the Senate for trial.
4. Since then, Senator McConnell has stated on numerous occasions his intention to find Trump innocent.
5. Former National Security Advisor Bolton has said that, if subpoenaed, he would testify at a Senate trial. One can only assume Bolton, along with being an unreformed hawk, is also a drama queen: he ignored a subpoena to testify during the impeachment inquiry, an act of malfeasance worthy of punishment.
6. On January 3rd, President Trump promulgated the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. an action taken, in my view, to seize the narrative from Speaker Pelosi. This has led to tragedy, in the downing of Ukrainian Airlines flight 752 by an Iranian missile fired in error, and in blowback for an Administration unable to muster evidence to support its contention that some sort of attack was imminent and could only be foiled by this assassination.
7. This weekend, Speaker Pelosi announces she’ll send the articles to the Senate.

So is this just Speaker Pelosi making a random decision? It seems unlikely, given her history of strategic & tactical thinking. Rather, it could be one of two things:

1. She’s given Senator McConnell lots and lots of rope, and as he abrogates his responsibilities as a Senator in this matter, his opponent in his re-election run will use that rope to – metaphorically – hang him. While Kentuckians may run conservative, for those that comes with a sense of honor that many will find incompatible with McConnell’s actions. Additionally, Senators Hawley (R-MO) and Graham (R-SC) have foolishly suggested that if the articles are not delivered, they’ll “change the rules” so the impeachment is automatically dismissed. While Hawley is newly elected, Graham faces a re-election run, and his opponent is reportedly running neck and neck with him – but it’s early in this race.
2. By making the announcement, she gets a grip on the narrative. By emphasizing McConnell’s dishonorable statements and actions, once again she is dictating the actions. And she still could decide to withhold the articles until McConnell agrees to run what she views as a fair trial.

The next week should be interesting.