Monthly Archives: January 2023

Sonification:

Sonification is the use of non-speech audio to convey information or perceptualize data. Auditory perception has advantages in temporal, spatial, amplitude, and frequency resolution that open possibilities as an alternative or complement to visualization techniques.

For example, the rate of clicking of a Geiger counter conveys the level of radiation in the immediate vicinity of the device. [Wikipedia]

Noted in “How sounds from space are revealing otherwise hidden cosmic phenomena,” Ajay Peter Manuel, NewScientist (28 December 2022, paywall):

It wasn’t until the 1960s that astronomers began listening to their data on purpose. And it was Donald Gurnett at the University of Iowa who pioneered the technique. When data came back from the Voyager 1 mission as it flew past Io, a moon of Jupiter, in 1979, Gurnett listened to the signals and identified low-frequency radio waves. In the 1980s, Gurnett and his colleagues used sonification to identify problems affecting the Voyager 2 mission as it traversed the rings of Saturn. When they converted signals from the craft’s radio and plasma wave science instrument into an audio representation, they heard sounds that they described as “resembling a hailstorm”. This led to the discovery that electromagnetically charged micrometeoroids the size of grains of dust were bombarding the probe.

Ears as highly sensitive sensory analyzers. BONUS: An example from the article, sourced on YouTube:

Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare thinks not, but cannot guarantee it:

This fact pattern, in which the president’s counsels on their own initiative identify and arrange for the return of classified material, is not obviously consistent with criminal misuse of that classified material—much less by the president himself. So depending on what investigators find, there may be scant evidence that a crime took place at all.

Right now, all we really know is that a relatively small amount of classified material from the Obama era has been found where it wasn’t supposed to be on three occasions and in three locations associated with the period between Biden’s vice presidency and his presidency.

It has to be investigated, to be sure. This kind of mishandling of classified material always triggers a referral to the Justice Department. And it has to be investigated by a special counsel. The regulations are pretty clear about that. But that does not mean it is likely to blossom as a criminal case. Indeed, it’s a most unpromising criminal case.

An unfortunate coincidence, perhaps. I’ve even speculated that the docs were planted, although how that could be accomplished escapes me.

So I’ll be watching and waiting, while ignoring propaganda from both sides.

Leadership is easy when the stream of events contains nothing of an adverse nature. It’s only when hard decisions come tumbling down the river, and the river gets out of its banks and threatens to wash away all held dear, does good leadership really come to the fore.

I’d say the town is washing away as GOP leadership – a word to be put in quotes by those of us with a quaint disposition – has failed to look beyond its nose when it comes to new Rep George Santos (R-NY):

McCarthy told reporters on Thursday that Santos has “a long way to go to earn trust” and that concerns could be investigated by the House Ethics Committee, but emphasized that Santos is a part of the House GOP conference.

“The voters of his district have elected him. He is seated. He is part of the Republican conference,” he said at a news conference on Capitol Hill.

The controversy surrounding Santos is presenting an early test of McCarthy’s leadership as speaker and has created a major issue for the new GOP majority.

Majority Leader Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, echoed McCarthy, saying, “Obviously, you know, we’re finding out more, but we also recognize that he was elected by his constituents.”

House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, a New York Republican who endorsed Santos in his race, would not call on the embattled freshman to resign on Thursday.

“It will play itself out,” she told CNN. “He’s a duly elected member of Congress. There have been members of Congress on the Democrat side who have faced investigations before.” [CNN/Politics]

Trying to focus on the facts about Rep Santos results in this.

These excuses are quite rank, easily disassembled by anyone willing to take a moment and think about them. This is not leadership. Leadership would recognize that Santos, a very bad apple whose depths may not yet be plumbed, should be expelled, and acted quickly to stanch the bleeding.

What are the consequences of ignoring the problem? McCarthy’s told every corrupt-politico wannabe that he’ll tolerate their presence in the House of Representatives’ GOP caucus. He’s told every voter who’ll pay attention that the GOP is loaded with scalawags and grasping power mongers, who are unworthy of any elective office.

He’s told his caucus that his leadership skills are non-existent.

And the caucus may be listening. At least eight GOP Reps (here and here) have expressed their dismay that Santos is in the House, and under the colors of the Republican Party. Most or all of them want him gone.

McCarthy & his leadership group are off to a very poor start. McCarthy was stripped and manhandled by the far-right extremists, and then here on his very first challenge, he’s refused to take decisive action.

That action would have been to move to expel Santos from the House. Yes, Santos managed to get himself elected by a GOP that failed to do its gatekeeper job, but McCarthy’s message would be We forthrightly cleaned up our mistake, and voters would have appreciated that.

Instead, he’ll be a festering, maggoty wound on the side of the Republican elephant, and when the special election does come around, chances are that the Democrats will easily take the seat. Indeed, this could be a problem for all swing-district Republicans, and those expressing disapproval may be trying to immunize their re-election efforts.

But McCarthy’s off to such a rocky start that I foresee withdrawing my labeling of Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) as the worst Speaker in the modern era, and moving that label to McCarthy.

Long-time readers may recall the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Succinctly, those States subscribing to the Compact dedicate their Electoral College votes to the Presidential Candidate who garners the most votes, nation-wide, each Presidential election cycle. This would prevent the perceived injustice of a victory in the popular vote obviated by a loss in the Electoral College, as happened to candidates Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. Paul Hogarth on Daily Kos has an update:

We are already 72% [of the winning 270 electoral votes] of the way there—with 15 states and the District of Columbia having passed a law joining the Compact, which totals 195 electoral votes. And in Colorado, after the governor and state legislature joined the Compact in 2019, it even survived a referendum challenge at the ballot box.

Getting from 195 to 270 electoral votes will not be easy, as we already got the “low-hanging fruit” of large blue states like California, New York, and Illinois. But the Compact has already picked up battleground states like Colorado and New Mexico, and in recent years, the Compact came very close to passing in Nevada (where it passed both houses of the legislature), Maine, and Virginia.

After the 2022 midterms, Democrats have a trifecta in Minnesota and Michigan—so in 2023, these two states will be top priorities for the Compact. We also now have a Democratic majority in the Pennsylvania state House, and are likely just one more election cycle away from picking up the legislature in Arizona.

It’s interesting that he thinks the Arizona legislature will fall to the Democrats in 2024.

This was written during the 15 elections for Speaker of the House, and then I forgot to publish it. Oversights happen.

Jennifer Rubin of WaPo thinks the House GOP is nuts, and not because of the ongoing fiasco of the electing anyone to the Speaker’s chair:

The OCE [Office of Congressional Ethics], which Democrats created in 2008, was designed as an independent office with the power to investigate ethics violations among House members. (The OCE, however, can only conduct preliminary investigations and make recommendations, leaving it to the House Ethics Committee to decide whether to investigate further and enact punishment.)

Ever since the office’s conception, Republicans seeking to avoid independent scrutiny have attempted to dismantle it. So it should come as no surprise that while they cannot agree on a speaker, Republicans have apparently agreed to introduce rules changes that would hamper the OCE’s ability to do its job, including imposing term limits on its board and severely restricting its ability to hire new staff.

Yeah, that’d be the corpse of the GOP there.

When someone is a third-rater, and finds themselves in a prestigious and powerful position such as being a member of the US House of Representatives, the first thing to do is put in place safeguards against detection.

Once detection is mitigated, then taking corrupt advantage of your position can begin.

We saw this with former President Trump as he fired or otherwise muzzled a number of inspectors throughout the Executive Branch; it’s no surprise that the House, temporary home to a number of highly questionable, if deeply self-righteous, individuals with allegiances to Trump and his corrupt methods, will be seeing similar actions taking place.

After all, this is the end-phase of the GOP. Already in the process of ripping itself apart, opportunists are rampant in the Party machinery. I expect we’ll be witness to quite a lot of corruption in the next two years. Unless the corruption actually takes the GOP out of power, which, given the small GOP advantage in the chamber, could certainly happen.

The FTX debacle is apparently scrambling some brains:

Collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX says it has recovered more than $5 billion worth of cash and crypto assets it may be able to sell to help repay customers and investors, an attorney for the company told a Delaware bankruptcy court on Wednesday.

Company advisers have identified a significant amount of crypto that it will be more difficult to sell without depressing the market price of those digital tokens, FTX attorney Andrew Dietderich said. The company is also trying to sell off other “nonstrategic investments” made by FTX that have a book value of $4.6 billion, he said. [WaPo]

I do hope the judge rules the “crypto assets” are worthless. That’s how I’d view it.

Now-Rep George Santos (R-NY), of ethical scandals fame, is refusing to fold under the pressure:

“He deceived voters,” Cairo said. “His lies were not mere fibs. He disgraced the House of Representatives … He’s not welcome here at Republican headquarters.”

Moments after the news broke, Santos, who was in Washington at the time, refused to resign.

“I will not,” he told reporters on Capitol Hill when asked if he will step down. He refused to answer additional questions as he went into an elevator.

The top Republicans in the House – Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Majority Leader Steve Scalise and Majority Whip Tom Emmer – did not answer questions from CNN about Santos and the Nassau County GOP’s calls for his resignation.

A source close to House GOP leadership said the calls from the county GOP will not have any bearing on their decision regarding Santos’s political future. [CNN/Politics]

Santos will be a continual embarrassment for the House GOP, but they do not dare expel him. Why?

Because it’d be an acknowledgment that there are, indeed, ethical lines in the sand.

And the Democrats would then know where to push any subsequent GOP scandals – right over that line.

Representative George Devolder-Santos, NY-CD3, currently

That’s why I quoted the House GOP leadership source, because I think it indicates they’ll be sticking their poo-covered fingers in their ears. After all, their current advantage in the House is only ten, when they had forecast something in the fifties a few months before the election. If Santos resigns, the advantage is nine – and if the Democrats win the special election, it’s down to eight. This effectively means the number of votes they can lose to out of sorts extremists actively working against them goes from 4 to 3, assuming all Democrats are present and voting en bloc.

But the more moderate Republicans are those that are thinking more than a week ahead, and they have already begun to press Santos to resign. While McCarthy would not agree, that’s the best result the GOP can hope for, as it doesn’t result in a goal for which Democrats can try to push the next Republican ethics scandal, but kicks out someone who puts out a vibe best described as pathetic and power-hungry. Pathetic Republicans will not attract enough votes to retain control of the House in 2024, and they’re already in trouble after the collapse of the GOP leadership during the Speaker elections.

But does Santos realize how pathetic he’ll look if credible evidence of campaign finance laws infringement emerges, if his misrepresentations concerning schooling, personal finances, religious position, and who knows what else continues to dominate headlines? In politics, winning elections is not the end-all, be-all. Truth be told, it’s barely the first step. Bungling the second step is a fool’s move.

Posit:

to suggest something as a basic fact or principle from which a further idea is formed or developed: … [Cambridge Dictionary]

Noted in “The T. rex may have been a lot smarter than you thought,” Dino Grandoni, WaPo:

[Johns Hopkins University evolutionary biologist] Balanoff said she would like to see future research with updated fossil measurements. She also called the notion of the T. rex forming cultures a “really fascinating idea” but added, “I don’t know that we’re quite there yet in being able to make this prediction.”

“That being said, I welcome the positing of big ideas to drive science forward,” Balanoff said.

One of our gutters is leaking, so we’re catching the water in a bucket. Here’s a little bit of what we found when we dumped it.

Not the best clarity, but a fight at night adds to the terror.

In horror movies featuring exotic monsters, their cult followings are often built despite their failures at traditional story-telling, rather than because of. Most or all of the Godzilla movies fall into this category (cardboard cutouts running around frantically), as do those of genre classic The Blob (1958) (cardboard cutout teenagers running around aimlessly), Destination Inner Space (1966) (why is the Technicolor lizard from the stars killing everyone else indiscriminately?), the Gamera franchise (sometimes there’s almost a good plot about this rocket-ass giant turtle and its attachment to human children), and quite a number of other movies reviewed on this blog.

King Kong (1933), however, falls into the sparsely populated alternative category of Damn, that was good! where it finds one of its relatively few fellow high achievers is Pacific Rim (2013). The progenitor of the eponymous franchise, none of the King Kong remakes and sequels, at least that I’ve viewed, match the original for excellence in story-telling. In this original, each major character has an explanatory backstory, from the movie-maker out to make the best movie he can, to the village chief trying to safeguard his village from a monster that isn’t on the island to safeguard the village, but to eat it, and desperate Claire and her new-found seaman beau. This results in a story, lurid as it might be, that makes real sense and brings a sense of urgency to it, rather than the peals of laughter that so many of the genre tend to generate.

Becoming a late night snack.

Are there complaints? Certainly, the special effects can be criticized, as Kong was a big challenge for the special effects masters of the day. But they achieve a certain creepy sexual effect that makes for quite a result: it forces at least the lustful male portion of the audience to ask themselves if they are as repulsive as Kong. Or do they?

And the science has its cracks. Why is a sauropod, of which there have never been any carnivorous varieties found, eating that guy out of the tree? But it’s still a terrifying scene, if the audience will buy into that mistake. In general, the mistakes are minor and in service to the plot. Moreover, the acting and sets are more than adequate, and the pacing is not at all lackadaisical.

There are certainly moral questions being asked and, perhaps, answered, in Kong’s escape after the reporters have been assured he can’t escape, his kidnapping of his love interest, Claire, and the scaling of the Empire State Building, and his eventual extermination. But there’s no dwelling on them, no ballpeen hammers between the eyes to make the audience irritable, to lure them from their ephemeral, yet real, bond with the film into sordid reality. The questions are presented but don’t become fetid clumps of monkey dung.

Recommended.

One word of warning: Find a good print. We watched a version on Amazon Prime that was virtually spotless; no doubt it was restored. It improves the experience we each individually remember from years ago immeasurably.

The pit of Santos continues to deepen:

A member of George Santos’ political team had a plan to raise money for the Republican congressman’s campaign: Impersonate the chief of staff of now House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

Wealthy donors received calls and emails from a man who said he was Dan Meyer, McCarthy’s chief of staff, during the 2020 and 2022 election cycles, according to people familiar with the matter. His name was actually Sam Miele, and he worked for Santos raising money for his campaign, according to one GOP donor who contributed to Santos’ campaign. This financier and some others in this story declined to be named in order to speak freely about private discussions.

The impersonation of the top House Republican’s chief of staff adds to an emerging picture of a winning congressional campaign propelled by fabrications and questionable tactics. Santos now finds himself in the sights of investigators and in danger of losing his political career even after he’s been sworn into office. In raising money for his campaign, Santos fed donors the same falsehoods he gave voters, campaign fundraisers and others say. [CNBC]

Ethical? Nope.

Will McCarthy do anything about it? Expediency will outweigh outrage when the GOP’s House advantage is so slim.

But flattering donors with someone claiming to be SOON TO BE SPEAKER McCarthy’s chief of staff is not surprising, and nor that it worked. It might work on Democratic donors as well.

Still, where there’s smoke there’s fire, and between moderate Republicans mortified by the tactics, and anti-gay GOP activists, Santos may end up being pushed out before the depths of his electoral immorality is fully plumbed.

Which would be a pity.

A work by Vince Guaraldi Trio. Guaraldi also did the music for most of the Peanuts television specials. This is something else, though.

There is nothing I can write here that would be odder than this movie.

Men & Chicken (2015; Danish: Mænd og Høns) is the story of five men in search of their father, a man who was indiscriminate in his mates … and didn’t mate with them.

The two eldest, Elias and Gabriel, were sent away as babies, and don’t learn of their biological heritage until their adoptive parents are dead. So, between bouts of semi-public masturbation, they discover that their father is now located on a small, Danish island named Ork, and set out for it.

Their introduction to the island is sadly tragic, as Gabriel is run over by the local mayor and his daughter, leaving him an invalid, but they make it to the institution where their father lives.

And finding him, while fending off their three brothers, who appear to idiot savants – feel free to emphasize your favorite word of that pair as is your wont, or even want – is an adventure in dominance behaviors in and of itself.

But it all circles around and around and around the question that will afflict American audiences, if not Danish audiences: Why make this movie? Is this a Danish peculiarity, or someone’s perverted pet project of little pertinence nor perspicacity?

Acted with great competence, I’m still puzzling over it.

Pass the chicken.

Trepid:

(adjective) timid by nature or revealing timidity [Vocabulary.com]

Hah! I’ve not actually ever seen this word in writing anywhere that I can recall. While I was watching our elder cat, Mayhem, now in his twentieth year, contemplate a leap down from a counter, it occurred to me that he should be showing more trepidation. The adjective intrepid flashed to mind, followed by the question, What is the root of trepidation?

Example: It was a trepid koala, even for its kind, terrified of the shaking leaves that formed its tenuous diet.

For those readers remembering cryptocurrency platform Celsius, here’s a bit of a shock:

More than half a million people who deposited money with collapsed crypto lender Celsius Network have been dealt a major blow to their hopes of recovering their funds, with the judge in the company’s bankruptcy case ruling that the money belongs to Celsius and not to the depositors.

The judge, Martin Glenn, found that Celsius’s terms of use — the lengthy contracts that many websites publish but few consumers read — meant “the cryptocurrency assets became Celsius’s property.” …

The bankruptcy ruling focused specifically on whether Celsius as part of the restructuring can now sell $18 million in so-called stablecoins, a type of virtual currency, to help stay solvent. But its implications are much larger. By ruling that the money in the accounts wasn’t really owned by the 600,000 account holders, the court has basically said they are now just unsecured creditors. And “there simply will not be enough value available to repay” them, Glenn wrote. [WaPo]

And if Celsius worded their agreement in such a way, so will have some of their competitors and brethren. And when this news becomes rampant, will cryptocurrency users and investors rush to read their agreements, and then withdraw from these platforms in one mad rush?

Will we be seeing comparable collapses all across the industry?

I’m guessing the crypto platforms at risk saw Celsius and FTX collapse and are working hard to keep up and plug the holes by modifying their agreements, restraining their urges of greed in preference to those of survival. But one or two may not get it done in time, depending on how quickly the news spreads.

And they may join Celsius in the trashbin of history.

Newt Gingrich (R-GA), former Speaker, former Representative, and quitter, is considered in some quarters to be the grandfather of the modern GOP. If he is, it appears that he’s lost control of the grandkids:

Newt Gingrich called every anti-Kevin McCarthy Republican, “a blackmailing idiot.” pic.twitter.com/zYDOT3sFkp

— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) January 4, 2023

And perhaps even more telling is Rep Boebert (R-CO) telling off her former idol, Donald J. Trump:

“Even having my favorite president call us and tell us we need to knock this off, I think it actually needs to be reversed,” Boebert said as she nominated Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., ahead of the fifth round of voting. “The president needs to tell Kevin McCarthy that sir, you do not have the votes, and it’s time to withdraw.” [MSN]

At that time …

McCarthy needs 218 Republican votes to become Speaker, however, he remains stuck at 201 votes after the fifth round of voting. Twenty House Republicans voted for Donalds.

And since then, today, McCarthy has flipped 15 votes back to himself. How? I believe I saw one report that said it was by having the former President call each of those Representative-elects to exert pressure, and not through further concessions.

I suspect those were threatening calls and not nice ones. McCarthy had been serving up entirely too much frosting and not nearly enough baseball bats.

But it’s also telling that the peak of the rebel population has been a mere twenty, less than ten percent of the GOP caucus, and they are effective only due to the failure of the GOP to fulfill the optimistic predictions of their leaders. Unless potential joiners are laying low for strategic reasons, no one wants to join them. In truth, these rebels are few and unpersuasive. It’ll be interesting, in a year and a half, to see how many of them make it out of primaries, and then how many persuade independents that they deserve another term. I know extremist conservative commentators want me to believe this is a great victory, but I remain unconvinced.

The game isn’t over just yet, but I expect some time tomorrow we’ll come to the end of this little drama. The trick for the audience is to not let antipathy for the rebels cloud one’s judgment of the extracted concessions. There may have been some justifiable complaints, such as permitting huge bills be voted on just after introduction, that will be remedied. It’s worth keeping an open mind.

Searching for clues at the local hop. Possibly while hopped up. Later, they were hopping mad.

Murder at the Gallop (1963) is a bit unusual. It’s a movie derived from an Agatha Christie novel that switches the lead detective from the famed Hercule Poirot to the nearly as famed Miss Marple, and it incorporates a more broad form of humor than do most, or all, of Christie’s works. I often think Christie is hiding just a bit of a grin as she sticks it to the target British stereotypes du jour, but this work takes advantage of several opportunities to go for the guffaws.

And, for all that, it is a successful show on its own terms. Marple is, possibly, a bit more aggressive than she often is in other shows, but enjoyably so, and the evil-doer is just one of a cast of reproachable and reprobates. Said cast are potential heirs to the fortune of their brother, who fell down the stairs to Marple’s witnessing. But what does he have that’s so valuable? My Arts Editor actually cringed when we examined the art due to be transferred. And, so, we’re off and running!

Throw in excellent acting, admirable cinematography, a nice plot, and quirky characters, and it makes for a lovely hour and a half or more of light detecting.

Erick Erickson wants to convince his audience that the media is out to mislead the world:

From Fox News to CNN to MSNBC, the major talking heads and anchors are back in the pre-Trump era of attacking the conservatives, claiming it is all nihilism, theater, and ego, and not actually honestly articulating the issue with fairness to the conservatives.

The bottom line is actually very easy to understand despite the pro-McCarthy and Establishment GOP spin. This is about ending Kevin McCarthy’s Speakership. Some things really are that simple.

Sure, there are some rule changes the conservatives want too. You know, we didn’t use to rush into debt ceiling and government shutdown crises. Now, leadership lets the crises fester till they can rush through sight-unseen, multi-thousand-page pieces of legislation.

The conservatives want to end that and go back to regular order, which was done until about fifteen years ago.

Then there’s this anonymous Republican member of the House:

House Republican Member of Congress goes off against @GOPLeader McCarthy’s GOP detractors: pic.twitter.com/ZtdnBeltcp

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 3, 2023

Without considering history, it’s hard to say who’s closer to the truth; hidden agendas are easy to imagine. However, while we can’t say much for the anonymous Republican themselves, it’s not hard to see that their description of what has been called, by Republicans themselves, the Taliban-19, is far more congruent than Erickson’s description.

I find this mismatch in presentations from two people claiming to be conservative quite interesting. It provokes good questions.

Just like this web.

From CNN:

A 41-year-old California man was placed under arrest Tuesday on multiple charges after he allegedly intended to drive off a cliff on the Pacific Coast Highway with three passengers in the car, authorities said.

All four occupants of the Tesla survived the crash on Monday after the car plunged between 250 and 300 feet below the road it was on and into a rocky beach area known as Devil’s Slide, about 20 miles south from San Francisco, according to the California Highway Patrol. …

They were all taken to a local hospital with serious injuries, the highway patrol said Tuesday. The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office previously said in a social media post that the children were “unharmed.”

Congrats to the Tesla safety engineers!

Regardless of the results of the Speaker of the House election today, the far-right extremists who cannot stomach Rep Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who is himself a far-right extremist, are lighting the path forward for the Republican Party.

It’s right into an abyss.

Fly away! Get off my back!

But, in the meantime, how is this going to play out? This is a classic example of a Party pulling itself apart, as power hungry ideological extremists claw for power. Right now a faction of convenience, called the Freedom Caucus, has McCarthy by the neck, wringing concessions out of him in his moment of weakness.

OK, so he’s had years of weakness, but you get my point.

But this breakup of the Party will be delayed, because the base of the Freedom Caucus’ power is, of course, their positions in Congress. If they choose to leave the Republican Party, how can they guarantee they’ll continue in their positions.

They can’t. If presented with two conservative candidates, district voters may choose the other one, the one with (R) after their name on the ballot.

So watch for the Republican Party to continue to lurch along, parts rattling loudly and smoke coming out where it shouldn’t. Can the Democrats take advantage? We’ll have to wait and see.

Bibelot:

a small object of curiosity, beauty, or rarity. [Dictionary.com]

Somehow, that one’s evaded my notice for decades. Yes, yes, I know there is, or was, a store chain named the same. I thought it was just a proper name. Noted in “The newly relevant relationship between Trump and ‘Sunset Blvd.’,” Karen Heller, WaPo:

Unfortunately, all of the pigments were poisonous. The hospital commented that this was the third dead actor brought to them in a monster costume last week.

Destination Inner Space (1966), a science-fiction / horror film concerning an ocean floor research station, features human frailties, inner turmoil, some ladies who, while holding doctorates, don’t really add to the plot, a cute little seeding (no, not “seedy”) alien spaceship, and an alien that looks like a successful art project.

And that’s all you really need to know.

But if you insist:

The potential outcomes of tomorrow’s struggle over the seat of the Speaker of the US House of Representatives are numerous, and many pundits are enumerating and commenting on them. Here’s Steve Benen:

Aside from the palace intrigue, why should folks care about this?

Because the public needs a functioning House — and ideally, a majority party capable of governing. If the GOP struggles to elect a speaker, it would represent a new level of Republican chaos.

Brendan Buck, a consultant who previously worked for Republican Speakers Paul Ryan and John Boehner, wrote in The New York Times today, “If Republicans are unable to muster the votes for a speaker, it will make very clear from the outset they cannot be counted on to fulfill the body’s basic responsibilities.”

Let’s say McCarthy comes up short tomorrow. Then what?

That would be the first ballot, making a second ballot necessary. If no one secures a majority on the second ballot, either, then there’d be a third, and so on.

McCarthy has said he intends to keep trying, as long as it takes, but no one can say with confidence how long his own allies will remain behind him. It seems likely that at some point, if McCarthy’s GOP opponents won’t budge, rank-and-file Republicans will start taking alternative solutions more seriously.

It sounds like serious chaos. Elsewhere, Benen notes that the core of the McCarthy opposition wants a single Rep “motion to vacate” capability, i.e. no confidence vote, and McCarthy has offered a compromise of a five Rep requirement. Given the GOP repugnance of compromise, it seems unlikely to be accepted.

And it raises the question of how often it would exercised, too. Interestingly, National Review does not seem to be addressing the potential chaos at the moment, so on to Erick Erickson:

Congress will convene this week and in so convening, I must remind everyone again that here in 2023 there still is no good reason to put Kevin McCarthy in the Speaker’s chair. The response has been, “Who is the alternative?” Well, there are at least 218 better choices. Note that this number means I’m excluding people like George Santos and Marjorie Taylor Greene. From Jim Jordan to Steve Scalise to Jim Banks to Chip Roy to literally just about any other Republican, there are better options than McCarthy.

For those who say, “Well, they’re all supporting McCarthy,” I would respond by saying that’s for the first vote.

What I suspect will happen is that McCarthy will rely on Democrats to get the votes, which is actually appropriate and fitting. An opportunist with no principles relying on Democrats, not conservatives, to win the Speaker’s chair highlights McCarthy’s opportunism.

Given Erickson’s long history of being wrong, on the side of extremism, and his suggestion that Rep Jordan (R-OH), a flaming lunatic, is substantially better than McCarthy, I’m not thinking he’s right. I cannot see why Democrats would vote for McCarthy, given that this is an opportunity to show American independents that portions of the Republicans, such as Jordan, Rep Biggs (R-AZ), etc, are really just power-mad nutcases.

They’re so bad that they bring dishonor and infamy down on their districts, in case the point isn’t clear.

But let’s step back and ask who all this crap benefits. Got your guess in place? If it’s not one of our national adversaries, such as Putin or Xi, then you’re not thinking big enough. For those who love decisive, strong decision-makers, regardless of wisdom, of consensus, of humility, they’ll believe this chaos illustrates the foolishness of democracy.

To my mind, though, it illustrates the foolishness of humanity, especially if tomorrow is a maelstrom of madness, of moral pygmies chasing after power.

I would not be surprised if, twenty or thirty years from now, forensic financial experts discover efforts by the aforementioned national adversaries to influence some of those opposing McCarthy today. Not that there’s much to admire in McCarthy, mind you, but paralyzing the armory of democracy requires chaos and not a smooth transfer of power.

Curated:

carefully chosen and thoughtfully organized or presented [Merriam-Webster]

Note its lack of synchrony with the related curator:

a person who oversees or manages a place (such as a museum or zoo) that offers exhibits

Certainly, one might add a modifier to curator, but to do so is to draw attention to the abnormality of applying such a word to the modifier, amplifying the dubiousness of suggesting the item is worthy of a word carrying a relatively high amount of prestige, which it has not previously earned.

Keeping in mind that museums and zoos are generally considered to be establishments of high respectability, although personally I hold the admittedly minority view that zoos are offensive, this leads to the observation that the initiating word of this post, curated, is being appropriated by less esteemed institutions. An example is a local cinema cum restaurant, ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE: WOODBURY, under the subsection Location Features:

Vetted Well, an attached lounge featuring a curated craft cocktail menu, and an array of local and regional craft beers

In other words, Our booze is served as entertaining cocktails selected by our bartender. Please get sloshed to enhance our profitability.

Another example arrived in email, and originates with The Motley Fool:

Curated content that shares the top stories most relevant to your services.

As Random content … would hardly be sensible, the selection of Curated reveals itself as little more than a desperate grasp after a higher level of respectability, an attempt to impress the reader with the effort that may have been put forth. As I have not yet inspected this new web site, I cannot comment on whether this is an improvement on earlier iterations, or more resembles an office notice I encountered thirty years ago and now quote, to the best of my memory:

In order to improve service to our patients, this office will be closing.

Instead of walking to the doctor’s office, I had to drive for ten to fifteen minutes. I was not amused.

So, color me annoyed with the use of curated in Internet discourse. A curator in a museum? Great. A curator in a grocery store. No.

And, for those unfamiliar with this sort of discourse, permit me to summarize: No! Unless you work for a museum, do not use curated! It’s deceptive and annoying!