Monthly Archives: March 2024

When it comes to the perks of being the official nominee of a major political party, one of the lesser known advantages are security briefings on events around the world so that the eventual winner of the Presidential Election can hit the ground running. This is not legally mandated, but it is a tradition.

But with Trump’s exceedingly dubious record in handling such secrets, so dubious that he has, in fact, been indicted, will the Biden Administration continue this tradition? Politico reports:

U.S. intelligence officials are planning to brief Donald Trump on national security matters if he secures the GOP nomination this summer — despite concerns about his handling of classified information.

The decision would be in keeping with a tradition that dates back to 1952, but it would mark the first time an administration has volunteered to share classified information with a candidate who is facing criminal charges related to the mishandling of classified documents.

Steve Benen is upset:

The problem, however, is that this is an exceedingly dangerous idea. …

For one thing, Trump has spent years carelessly and recklessly sharing sensitive national security information — including with foreign adversaries — for reasons that no one has ever fully explained. It’s happened enough times that I was able to put together a Top 10 list on the subject.

For another, we’re talking about someone who is quite literally being prosecuted, right now, for allegedly taking classified documents from the White House, storing them in a bathroom, on stage in a ballroom, and in his personal office at his glorified country club, defying a subpoena demanding their return, taking steps to obstruct the process, and lying about all of this.

What Benen doesn’t consider, though, is the possibility that this is a trap. Trump gets some key information, and the FBI intercept a communication containing the information … to Vladimir Putin.

Or he’s given false information, and then the CIA’s information monitoring array is sensitized to that information. If a national adversary suddenly is referencing such as information as verified, rather than false, then the jig is up.

So the Biden Administration may take advantage of this tradition to trap Trump, discredit him in the eyes of independents, and leave him in the dust.

I don’t actually credit the Democrats with this much daring, but it’s certainly a possibility.

Resuming this thread, I think first we’ll first see how Bitcoin is doing.

Source: CoinMarketCap

Yes, much better than last time I looked in on them, when it was around $30K/coin in June of last year. I’ll repeat myself:

… which I don’t take to mean anything in particular, except volatility is not a desirable characteristic of a currency.

But its future? Seeing as Bitcoin remains a voracious consumer of energy, unlike some of its more sane competition, this report from WaPo should be causing concern:

A major factor behind the skyrocketing demand is the rapid innovation in artificial intelligence, which is driving the construction of large warehouses of computing infrastructure that require exponentially more power than traditional data centers. AI is also part of a huge scale-up of cloud computing. Tech firms like Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta and Microsoft are scouring the nation for sites for new data centers, and many lesser-known firms are also on the hunt.

The proliferation of crypto-mining, in which currencies like bitcoin are transacted and minted, is also driving data center growth. It is all putting new pressures on an overtaxed grid — the network of transmission lines and power stations that move electricity around the country. Bottlenecks are mounting, leaving both new generators of energy, particularly clean energy, and large consumers facing growing wait times for hookups.

Bitcoin could face being cutoff from energy completely, which should be of deep concern to anyone with serious scratch in the cryptocurrency. Or, if energy prices soar as they would in a marketplace, miners will go out of business rather than lose money, again leaving Bitcoin out of luck.

Of course, miners could try their hand at generating energy. Libertarian theory holds that someone will find that revolutionary technology which will solve the problem and, coincidentally, save everyone else’s bacon as well.

Maybe it’ll happen.

But this comes along:

Companies are increasingly turning to such off-the-grid experiments as their frustration with the logjam in the nation’s traditional electricity network mounts. Microsoft and Google are among the firms hoping that energy-intensive industrial operations can ultimately be powered by small nuclear plants on-site, with Microsoft even putting AI to work trying to streamline the burdensome process of getting plants approved. Microsoft has also inked a deal to buy power from a company trying to develop zero-emissions fusion power. But going off the grid brings its own big regulatory and land acquisition challenges. The type of nuclear plants envisioned, for example, are not yet even operational in the United States. Fusion power does not yet exist.

Which left me wondering: How long before Microsoft, in association with data miners, propose building a Dyson Sphere? In case my reader is unaware, here’s the definition of a Dyson Sphere:

A Dyson sphere is a hypothetical megastructure that encompasses a star and captures a large percentage of its solar power output. The concept is a thought experiment that attempts to imagine how a spacefaring civilization would meet its energy requirements once those requirements exceed what can be generated from the home planet’s resources alone. Because only a tiny fraction of a star’s energy emissions reaches the surface of any orbiting planet, building structures encircling a star would enable a civilization to harvest far more energy. [Wikipedia]

Yesterday’s mad fantasy thought experiment is tomorrow’s reality? It’s happened before.

From the University of New Hampshire Survey Center^[1]:

Biden, Trump Running Away With Primary Races in Vermont 2/22/2024 …

Less than two weeks away from the primary on Super Tuesday, former President Donald Trump holds a 30 percentage point lead over former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley among likely Republican Primary voters in Vermont.

And, indeed, Biden did end up dominating in Vermont on Super Tuesday. But how about Trump?

As of around 11:05 p.m., in Vermont, with 93% of expected votes reporting, Trump has 46% of the vote and Haley has 50%. The state marked a rare bright spot for Haley on Super Tuesday, where heading into early Wednesday morning, Vermont marked the only state she took. [ABC News]

The Chicago Daily Tribune fails the accuracy test. No Pulitzer for you.

I’m not aware of any incidents which would explain a 35 point swing in a poll over a two week period in the Trump-Haley race. Other polls followed by subsequent overperformances by Trump adversaries, both directly and indirectly, have been documented in primaries and special elections ever since the 2020 Presidential Election, although the Democratic debacle in Virginia in the 2021 elections does function as a counterexample. And then there’s the reports of underattendance at Trump rallies, his erratic behavior, various ongoing court cases and ludicrous claims, and the generally low quality of those politicos attracted to him.

So is Trump’s poll performance misleadingly strong? Tweedledee5 on Daily Kos sure thinks so:

¹ Rated a 2.6/3 by FiveThirtyEight as I write this.

² The idea that the younger generations will vote for the oldest candidate in history may strike some as funny, but has an odd tie-in to this post.

Just because I find myself often bringing them up for another listen:

Anchorite:

A person under religious vows who generally does not leave his or her habitation. An anchorite lives enclosed in a room or cell, usually in very confined conditions. This kind of asceticism preceded organized monasticism. Simeon the Stylite, who lived on top of a pillar, was an anchorite. Julian of Norwich, an English mystic and anchoress, lived in a cell attached to her parish church in Norwich. See Hermit, Hermitess. [The Episcopal Church]

Noted in “Crypt review: Alice Roberts on murder and mayhem in the Middle Ages,” Michael Marshall, NewScientist (2 March 2024, paywall):

As [Crypt author Alice] Roberts explores the Middle Ages, she tackles the killing of Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket, the sinking of the Mary Rose and the practice of walling oneself off inside a church to become an anchorite – in one story, a woman who may well have had syphilis walls herself off in a church in York. In her retelling, Roberts draws on a host of sources: not just the bones themselves, but historical documents, ethnography and anything else that is relevant.

A fascinating reminder that the tension between communalism vs. individualism, the latter of which is often taken to an extreme in American culture, can see human behaviors that are considered outré in one culture be common and significant in another.

The State of the Union speech for 2024 was last night, not blocked by frantic Republican zealots, and, no, I didn’t listen to it. I spaced on it, I confess.

It sounds like I missed a fun time.

A CNN/Politics report had at least one point that stood out for me, though:

“When you get to be my age, certain things become clearer than ever,” Biden said in his speech, to some laughs.

He went on: “The issue facing our nation isn’t how old we are, it’s how old our ideas are,” adding later we “can’t lead with ancient ideas.”

Counterfactually, both democracy and theocracy are also very old ideas. I bring them up as exemplars of opposites when it comes to the common weal and efficacy, and by so doing I disqualify Biden’s entire suggestion that old ideas are bad, and by implication new ideas are good.

Rather, all ideas, even that of democracy, should be subjected to intellectually rigorous debates and discussions. The purpose of such claims as [we] can’t lead with ancient ideas is to bypass long discussions, especially those that are influenced by opinions not changeable through rational discussion, such as are inherent to theocracies.

But it remains true that discussion is better than the improper dismissal of ideas for irrelevant reasons, as that can lead to embitterment and violence. Best to discard ideas for specific reasons, such as theocracy being based on ideas about a divinity that may not even exist, as it doesn’t speak to us; or autocracy, another ancient governmental form, being subject to the whims of possible madmen who may claim themselves anointed by the divine, but rule through the power of arms.

Debate engenders inclusion, peacefulness, and prosperity. However, it doesn’t satisfy the needs of pathological specimens who lust for power.

To which I say, tough shit.

The rightward lean of the Republicans continues with this RINO hunter:

State Sen. Andre Jacque on Monday announced he is running for Congress, setting up a primary race for the northeastern Wisconsin House seat left open by the impending retirement of Rep. Mike Gallagher. …

[Jacque] said one of his first priorities in Congress would be “restraining the administrative state” and suggested he’d also take aim at environmental, social and corporate governance programs, known as ESG. Asked by a listener whether he changed his opposition to vaccine mandates after his serious bout with COVID in 2021, Jacque said he had not and suggested he led the charge to “stop the persecution that we have seen from the left as a result of COVID.”

Jacque also pointed to his state-level races against Republicans he described as not conservative enough. He claimed his email used to be “wiRINOhunter” — using the acronym for Republican In Name Only. [milwaukee journal sentinel]

Doesn’t learn from experience with regards to COVID, and calls himself a RINO hunter, because he’s convinced purity and zealotry triumphs over humility and thoughtfulness.

And it’s a red district, meaning he has little reason to modify positions and to, well, think a bit.

This is the near future of the Republican Party. Lara Trump, candidate to be chair of the Republican National Committee, has proclaimed there will be purity tests for the Republicans. The Party will continue to shrink and lose influence.

I hope it’s confined only to expulsions, meaning I’m worried about intra-party violence with this crowd.

Republicans once again display a failure to think:

Ernst: Because of that, we want to stop him from actually delivering the state of the union. pic.twitter.com/7mVhb10brp

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 4, 2024

[Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA)]: Because of that, we want to stop him from actually delivering the state of the union.

That being a couple of deliverables, including a proposed budget, which have yet to be delivered. Notably, the House would reject them if delivered, no doubt with a vitriolic turn of phrase as well. Such is the quality of Republican members of Congress these days.

But Rep Scott Perry (R-PA) was notably more blunt on the matter a week or so ago:

Conservative Rep. Scott Perry suggested that House Republicans rescind President Joe Biden’s State of the Union invitation for March 7 over immigration and border policies.

“We need to use every single point of leverage,” Perry said on Fox Business’ “Mornings with Maria.” “He comes at the invitation of Congress, and Republicans are in control of the House. There’s no reason that we need to invite him to get more propaganda.”

Perry, the former head of the House Freedom Caucus, claimed allowing Biden to deliver the address would merely allow the president to “actually blame the American people for the crisis he’s caused.” [Politico]

Here’s the thing: this speech is coming, whether it’s delivered in the Capitol to a joint session, or in the White House – or Scranton, PA.

But the actions of Congressional Republicans can make Biden’s “propaganda,” which I read as Facts Republicans don’t like, as even more bright than usual by retracting the invitation. Right now it’s just a normal State of the Union (SOTU) speech, but a speech in Scranton, or in Atlanta, or in Tallahassee, billed as the SOTU speech, with a carefully controlled audience, would draw not only even more media attention, but the public’s attention as well.

It doesn’t matter what Rep Perry thinks of Biden’s report on the state of the union; his own extremist positions, from which he judges Biden’s words as “propaganda,” is really quite irrelevant. But the actions of his colleagues in being petty?

Priceless for Democratic strategists.

A couple of issues came to resolution today, both of which may be preludes to important events. But which is bigger?

The resolution attracting attention is that of the reversal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s affirmation that Mr. Trump should be excluded from the primary ballot. CNN, for example, put it in big letters:

Takeaways from Trump’s historic Supreme Court win

And I suppose I’d have to admit that it is historic. Then again, Mr. Trump’s inferior behavior and outre campaign and governing tactics do tend to result in new legal questions. Historic is a marker on the trail, not a judgment on history.

But it’s certainly not one thing: the fix was not in. The fix may be in at the level of Congress, but not at SCOTUS. Sure, some folks will mumble it is, determined to be bitter. But the most important fact of the matter?

It’s an unanimous decision on the most important point.

The liberal wing agreed with the conservative wing on this one. That, to me, says that it’s not controversial, it may even be obvious in hindsight.

And Mr Trump didn’t buy himself a win.

The way I read the various interpretations, not being a lawyer myself, might be best summarized by KeithDB on Daily Kos:

The Supreme Court reverses the Colorado Supreme Court holding that states may NOT disqualify individuals for federal office. States may do so for state offices, but not federal offices. To disqualify federal candidates Congress must pass some sort of enabling legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.

There’s no opinion on the question of whether an insurrection occurred, and if it’s Mr. Trump’s responsibility. This is an important omission, in my opinion. In fact, the longer I look at summaries, the more I wonder how many folks will remember this decision in five years. It was a wild swing at a pitch out of the strike zone.

So what else happened today? And I’m not referencing Nikki Haley’s victory in the Washington, DC, GOP primary, which is thought to be an expected outlier.

No, this is something closer to home. In fact, it’s right in the heart of Mr. Trump:

Ex-Trump Org. CFO pleads guilty to perjury charges

Now this is interesting. In my experience, CFOs know where most, even all the bodies are buried, how the books are cooked, and who likes what cookies. They know how to tear financial records apart to find their secrets.

And this guy, Allen Weisselberg, has been caught with his hand in the financial cookie jar:

Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg admitted on Monday to testifying falsely to the New York attorney general about his knowledge of the size of Donald Trump’s apartment triplex and how the value of that apartment was inflated on Trump’s financial statements for years based on the incorrect square footage.

Weisselberg was charged with five counts of perjury, but under a deal with prosecutors, he agreed to plead guilty to two felony counts relating to testimony he gave during a 2020 deposition with the attorney general’s office. Weisselberg admitted to testifying falsely at the attorney general’s civil fraud trial against Trump last fall, though that is not among the charges to which he pleaded guilty.

And I suspect that the number of crimes to which Mr. Weisselberg may admit knowledge could be well-nigh endless. This is a big red flag for both federal and state prosecutors, waving lusciously in the air: this way to Mr. Trump’s heart!

This may move slowly, of course, as financial crimes are not speedily researched and digested naturally, but Mr. Weisselberg confession has to be making Mr. Trump’s skin crawl.

This leaves me uneasy – or someone just ran away with my foot. From AL-Monitor:

The United Arab Emirates’ International Holding Company announced on Tuesday it appointed an AI-powered observer to its board, becoming the latest company to include an AI entity in its leadership and furthering the Gulf state’s ambitions in the sector.

The Abu Dhabi-based investment company, also known as IHC, said it appointed an “AI Board Observer” known as “Aiden Insight.” The observer will perform data analysis, risk assessment, compliance monitoring and other tasks in support of the company. Aiden will attend IHC board meetings as an observer but will not have voting privileges. Aiden is powered by the Emirati AI firm G42 in collaboration with US tech giant Microsoft, IHC said in a statement.

This is from behind a paywall, and as I have chosen not to pay, that’s all I got.

So what is going on here? A member of the board? Unless someone’s withholding information, no AI exhibits self-interest or self-awareness – and so no conscious thought by this board member. A stunt? A necessary legalism? Wikipedia has nothing on it; on the other hand, other Arab news outlets do mention it.

This is all so weird. I rather doubt I’m really this far out of touch, but maybe so.

Republican “worry” over the Federal deficit has been the project of decade upon decade upon decade, with little to show for it except Republicans exacerbating the deficit while “tax and spend liberals” clean up the Republicans’ toxic scat, whether it be bad laws or bigger deficits.

This all came to mind while reading Professor’s latest missive. This was the trigger:

As soon as Mike Johnson (R-LA) became House speaker, he called for a “debt commission” to address the growing budget deficit. This struck fear into the hearts of those eager to protect Social Security and Medicare, because when Johnson chaired the far-right Republican Study Committee in 2020, it called for cutting those popular programs by raising the age of eligibility, lowering cost-of-living adjustments, and reducing benefits for retirees whose annual income is higher than $85,000. Lawmakers don’t want to take on such unpopular proposals, so setting up a commission might be a [Republican] workaround.

And what strikes me is that while these proposals are worthy of discussion – personally, my opinion is that age of eligibility has to be on the table, as life expectancy has been advancing, COLA changes, at least downwards, should be out of the question, and setting an upper income limit will foster restiveness in retirees who “invested” in Social Security and are not getting anticipated benefits – there are easier, equally viable approaches to the problem. And, of course, this commission may be a Trojan horse for drastic changes to, or even expungement of, such social net programs.

So, as the post’s title says, what would responsible politicians be doing in Johnson’s position, if they were honestly convinced the deficit and debt should be reduced, would simply note that reducing taxes did nothing for the economy, and do the following:

1. Raise taxes.
2. Close tax loopholes.
3. Don’t go nuts with spending without concomitant raising of taxes.

Businesses do like taxes, in moderation. The Kansas taxation debacle proved that. And neither deficit nor debt need be immediately eliminated, so taxes need not be too high.

And then there’s the alternative. Stipulating to the abolition of these social net programs, then what might happen? Drawing a parallel, there is currently a homeless encampment in Minneapolis that went up in flames a couple of days ago.

So how about this: an encampment of elderly people? Homeless because of the loss of all income, even Social Security? They won’t even need it going up in flames in order to horrify independents.

And it’ll be just like the times before Social Security.

If you find yourself talking to a Republican, ask them why they cling to their anti-tax tenets in the face of the Federal debt and deficit. Point out that the Laffer Curve is a bust.

Have fun.

Agonist:

1. one that is engaged in a struggle
2. [from antagonist]
   1. a muscle that is controlled by the action of an antagonist with which it is paired
   2. a chemical substance capable of combining with a specific receptor on a cell and initiating the same reaction or activity typically produced by the binding endogenous substance
      dopaminergic agonists [Merriam-Webster]

Noted in “Great apes like teasing each other – which may be the origin of humour,” Chen Ly, NewScientist (14 February 2024, paywall):

Previous studies have found that chimpanzees may engage in agonistic teasing, or harassment, to reinforce their hierarchical positions. But when the right balance of enjoyment and aggression is struck, teasing can also be a form of play and amusement, says Isabelle Laumer at the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior in Germany.