Author Archives: Hue White

Paul Rosenzweig of Lawfare is excited by a Wired Magazine article by Nathan Bruschi concerning a proposal for Cyber Bonds. Here’s Nathan:

Catastrophe bonds solve this problem [of catastrophes such as hurricanes] by securitizing the risk and passing it on to a wide pool of investors. The bonds pay handsome coupons to investors in seasons when natural disasters don’t happen, and liquidate the investment principal to pay for damages in seasons when they do.

A similar framework for Cyber Bonds would have three parts. First, each country would identify which companies and infrastructure are systemically important to the economy, and compel those entities to buy standardized cyber insurance policies. These companies would pay premiums into a national insurance pool from which damage claims for cyber attacks would be drawn. Second, each country would then securitize its insurance pool on the private market, creating country-specific Cyber Bonds. Third, at the next round of international cyber security talks, each country would agree to buy an untradable basket of each others’ Cyber Bonds and hold them in their sovereign wealth funds that pay out pensions and stabilize government spending. (The equivalent for the US would be the Social Security Trust Fund.) Each basket would comprise Cyber Bonds from every country of the world and be weighted toward each country’s unique historical adversaries. Excess Cyber Bonds and investment-grade variants would be made available for investors to buy and trade on the secondary markets.

Much like a mortgage-backed security, each Cyber Bond would pay out a fraction of the total income generated by the pool of insurance contracts and lose principal in case of insolvency.

Basically, as the article explains, all the countries interested in security from cyber attacks would sign a treaty obligating them to buy the cyber bonds of their historical enemies. When an attack occurs, not only would the country suffering the attack feel pain, but so would the alleged enemies, because they would not receive their dividends, and might be in danger of losing their investment capital: basically, if country A cyber-attacks country B, not only would A not get the dividends they would normally receive, but their own investment capital would be lost to their enemy.

It has a certain poetry to it, a certain balance to the system that will hold a lot of attraction for the technical community.

But there’s a lot to wonder about here. There’s the verification that an attack has occurred, that the damages to be recompensed are such and such, etc. Then there’s the strategic question: just how much does it take to make a country hesitant to initiate an attack? Here’s Nathan:

This system would change the calculus for countries like Russia, whose cyber operations currently operate largely unchecked. Before launching an attack against a foreign company, Vladimir Putin would have to worry about erasing billions of dollars from his own country’s pension funds, possibly leading to riots in the streets.

That’s a lot of money – if you can persuade them to put it up. However, Nathan explains that once the Cyber Bonds are active, then there’s an incentive to be part of the treaty – because otherwise your cyber assets are operating without a net. It also assumes the supremacy of the financial principle, which I think is a result of the capitalist system; what about those folks who do not treat financial motivation as a primary influence, but rather secondary, tertiary, or even worse? Not everyone shares the same value system – just ask the North Koreans. For example, if a leader’s prestige underlies his position, and his prestige is tied to a successful cyber attack, that attack may happen regardless of the cost to the Cyber Bonds held by that country.

But what makes me most nervous (given that I’m a simple software engineer and have little knowledge of international efforts of most any kind) was this toss-off statement:

Securitized insurance began with catastrophe bonds engineered in the wake of Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Hurricanes, like cyber attacks, are expensive to insure conventionally given that claims are not independent and often catastrophic.

I worry that an incident basically uninfluenceable by humanity is not the equivalent of an incident that is the result of the machinations of the human mind. One has no motivations, the other is the essential result of motivations, good or ill. How will these differences affect the proposed mechanism? I think those differences would have to be elucidated and their impact on the mechanism better understood. In essence, I worry about the unintended consequence.

Based on a single remark from a former employee, conservatives were up in arms concerning Facebook a couple of weeks ago, as the former employee had claimed there was bias against the conservative agenda at Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, invited leading conservative figures to a meeting on the matter. Glenn Beck, noted far-right commentator, was one of those figures, and had this reaction:

I sat there looking around and heard things like:

1) Facebook has a very liberal workforce. Has Facebook considered diversity in their hiring practice? The country is 2% Mormon. Maybe Facebook’s company should better reflect that reality.

2) Maybe Facebook should consider a six-month training program to help their biased and liberal workforce understand and respect conservative opinions and values.

3) We need to see strong and specific steps to right this wrong.

It was like affirmative action for conservatives. When did conservatives start demanding quotas AND diversity training AND less people from Ivy League Colleges.

I sat there, looking around the room at ‘our side’ wondering, ‘Who are we?’ Who am I? I want to be very clear — I am not referring to every person in the room. There were probably 25–30 people and a number of them, I believe, felt like I did. But the overall tenor, to me, felt like the Salem Witch Trial: ‘Facebook, you must admit that you are screwing us, because if not, it proves you are screwing us.’

As if the political party and movement which is arguably the dominant political force in the USA is entitled to special privileges. Gotta wonder how the Green Party feels about that. Beck continues:

Mark Zuckerberg really impressed me with his manner, his ability to manage the room, his thoughtfulness, his directness, and what seemed to be his earnest desire to ‘connect the world’. I asked him if Facebook, now or in the future, would be an open platform for the sharing of all ideas or a curator of content? When I asked this question I told him I support his right to pick either direction. They are a private-owned company with investors who can decide what is right for them. They can decide what is right based on profits or based on interests or on principles or on social justice. I hope that they want to be open, but I will fight for their right to be who they want to be even if I do not like their decision. Without hesitation, with clarity and boldness, Mark said there is only one Facebook and one path forward: ‘We are an open platform.’

And at this time I will admit Mr. Zuckerberg is my superior in business sense. By the end of that meeting, had I been there, I would have been helplessly laughing on the floor.

A terribly unfair way of putting it, of course, but the Lawfare folks do appear to be a little flustered at the thought of a Trump Presidency.  Here’s Paul Rosenzweig’s comment on the matter:

The United Arab Emirates, a small nation with big ideas, is now considering building a mountain. Why? To encourage precipitation. de zeen magazine notes:

Mountains are a major factor in rainfall as they force warm, moist air to rise and cool, and thus create clouds.

Increasing the number of clouds provides more options for seeding – a process where chemicals such as silver iodide or potassium iodide are added to clouds in the form of ice crystals, boosting rainfall.

No location has yet been set for the mountain, as the NCAR team is exploring various options.

“Building a mountain is not a simple thing,” Bruintjes told the website. “We are still busy finalising assimilation, so we are doing a spread of all kinds of heights, widths and locations.”

UAE’s The National’s Jonathan Gornall scores some quick comments from the British Meteorological Office:

“Without having looked into it, I can see there is an element of logic to the idea,” says Alex Burkill, a meteorologist at the British Meteorological Office.

Mountains do create rain, Mr Burkill says, because of what meteorologists call the “orographic effect”.

“In simple terms, as moist air meets the mountain it is forced to lift,” he says. “As it does, there is a drop in pressure and temperature, which condenses the moisture and forms clouds. And if there is enough water content, you will get rain.”

But as Newton’s Third Law tells us, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction – and one that is something any mountain designer would have to take very seriously into consideration.

Orographic rainfall is all very well, Mr Burkill says, but “it is also worth highlighting the Fohn effect”. When the moisture has been condensed out of the air by a mountain, the air is much drier as it descends the far side, creating hot, arid conditions – something the UAE really doesn’t need more of. In Colorado, heat differentials of up to 30°C have been recorded.

Which brings up a point of immediate concern: what will this change in weather patterns cause in terms of the weather in other locations? Much like the Ethiopian dam that will affect Egypt’s Nile River, if a “river in the sky” is diverted and drained, who will find themselves high and dry?

Gulf News Weather points out there’s no official plans in the works, merely the gathering of data:

But no UAE official or agency has confirmed the existence of any concrete plan to geoengineer a mountain.

Five years after Holland nixed the idea to build an artificial €200 billion (Dh837.76 billion) mountain as cost-prohibitive, American atmospheric scientists have confirmed that they are now simply gathering data on the atmospheric effects a similar mountain in the dry deserts of the UAE could yield.

But this doesn’t stop Jamais Cascio to voice his concerns in the pages of NewScientist (21 May 2016, paywall):

This could affect other countries on the Arabian peninsula, the Middle East in general, even eastern Africa. Rainfall changes in already precarious environments wouldn’t go unnoticed, and may spark conflict in an unstable area.

Even if the UAE builds a mountain, the larger climate problem remains. What’s more, oil-rich nations in the region face a double-whammy: temperatures reaching levels beyond those human civilisation can handle, alongside the imminent end of the fossil-fuel economy.

This could be a last gasp attempt by the UAE to stave off unbearable heat by cashing in on the fact that oil is, for now, still in demand around the world.

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1939), surely one of the most poorly titled films in the series, this time includes Ida Lupino as the damsel in distress (one father, one brother murdered – as it turns out, purely as a diversion, which is adding a very salty insult to the rather ghastly emotional injury), as well as Rathbone and Bruce in their usual roles. Add in the subtle, disconcerting psychopath Professor Moriarty, who gets in a couple of snappy lines with Holmes (who returns fire with gusto), and the movie, despite its horrid audio qualities, becomes quite engaging. The mysterious death of the brother (although I guessed it immediately, my Arts Editor was mystified), the marvelous little picture designed to baffle Holmes, it all more or less comes together. I don’t recall this from the Doyle stories, nor does Wikipedia mention the literary source, so perhaps the screenwriter, Edwin Blum, came up with this nicely convoluted puzzler on his own. In any case, it can be recommended to those who do not mind stories not from the canon.

Splitting off from the thread concerning the Iran nuclear deal, I see that Rohollah Faghihi, in a piece to AL Monitor, has covered the recent elections to Iran’s Assembly of Experts and draws some conclusions:

The man who was on the verge of being eliminated in the recent Assembly of Experts election has been elected as the chairman of the clerical body. Conservative Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati won the May 24 vote with the backing of 51 of the assembly’s 89 members. …

After Jannati’s win in the chairmanship vote, the conservatives — shocked by the moderates’ victory in the Feb. 26 election — were revived and their media outlets and newspapers sought to portray the development as a big loss for the moderates and Rafsanjani, whose list was branded as “British” by the hard-liners ahead of the Feb. 26 election. …

A reader differs on motivations concerning opposition to UBI in Switzerland:

I’m not sure about money for children, either. But UBI is really just tax credits and other various social nets in another form. With the right math, it ought to mostly balance out and in general be more efficient to administer. So that’s who’s really opposed to it in government: all those functionaries who carry on the tax and existing social benefit programs. They might lose their jobs!

But presumably the functionaries implement government policy without influencing it; a naive notion, I know, but that’s how it should work and perhaps even does work.

On this Memorial Day I was dismayed to encounter this bit of email, which I’ll abridge:

Our European arrogance in alphabetical order  1. The American Cemetery at Aisne-Marne , France … A total of 2289

And then lists a number of other cemeteries holding American dead from the two World Wars (and, if you’re interested in a resource on these remote American military cemeteries, the American Battle Monuments Commission appears to be a handy site, and possibly the source of the pictures and information in the offensive email). Now let us examine the balance of this email:

Apologize to no one. Remind those of our sacrifice and don’t  confuse arrogance with leadership. The count is 104,366 dead, brave Americans.

First, what does “don’t confuse arrogance with leadership” mean? When the complaint from our allies is “America is arrogant and doesn’t listen to advice & reason”, then it’s worth considering the possibility that we (that is, those in government positions, for which the citizenry does need to take responsibility, and thus “we” is appropriate) are, indeed, being arrogant. “Arrogant” is a word worth examining, too, as the definition at Merriam-Webster is

“Having or showing the insulting attitude of people who believe that they are better, smarter, or more important than other people.”

These are the attitudes that lead to inadvertent self-destruction, and when someone tells you that you’re arrogant, it’s worth taking a moment to evaluate the complaint. As the balance of the email, still to come, suggests the current Administration is not arrogant enough, the time period in question certainly includes the previous Administration, and without a doubt the arrogance of the Bush/Cheney Administration in starting the Iraq War over falsified evidence, the Administration’s betrayal of intelligence agents who refused to confirm those falsehoods, and many other blunders unworthy of American government can be seen as an object lesson of arrogant government officials leading our nation into disaster, offensive and damaging to those who’ve chosen to ally themselves with us.

Second, where is it written that gratitude must be eternal, and that it requires obeisance from those who are grateful? World War I ended nearly 100 years ago, and there is no one left with personal memories of it, neither the idiots who started it, nor those who ended it and seeded World War II from the first’s carnage. Those who participated in World War II are fast passing away. Ideologies have come and gone, empires grown and receded, and new countries grown from the remnants of old countries. When does gratitude stop? And to whom is it owed? The brave troops who put their lives on the line to drive out those we opposed? Or to a government 50 years later, 100 years later, that endorsed false intelligence information in order to start a war, and then used that war and another as cover for indulging in the evils of torture and conquest?

Third, the implication at this point is that we sent our troops out of the goodness of our hearts. False! We entered each war on the calculation that the alternative would be worse. President Wilson & Congress brought America into World War I when Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare and offered to help Mexico regain territories lost to the United States in previous wars. President Roosevelt & Congress finally entered World War II following the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, although Roosevelt had been finding ways to aid Britain when they stood alone against the Nazis of Germany. In neither case did we fight a war to save an innocent country, but because we evaluated that having our country invaded, in the first, or dealing with a victorious Axis, in the second, was a poor scenario. The best argument to be made here is that World War I was a result of the foolishness of the leadership of many countries in Europe, but ultimately, that’s an irrelevancy.

Fourth, the American populace really didn’t want to enter either war. Wilson won re-election, in part, on the strength of the slogan “he kept us out of war”, before he took us in. American Isolationism before the attack on Pearl Harbor is well-known, as Americans still remembered the horror of World War I.

And now for the balance of this email:

And we have to watch an American elected leader who apologizes to Europe and the Middle East that our country is“arrogant”! HOW MANY FRENCH, DUTCH, ITALIANS, BELGIANS AND BRITS ARE BURIED ON OUR SOIL… AFTER DEFENDING US AGAINST OUR ENEMIES?

While we’ve already seen that gratitude wears thin when the target of the gratitude is a conceited fool, I cannot help but remember my history:

Lafayette, we are here! – Lt. Colonel Charles E. Stanton, US Army

So we recalled the assistance of the French at the difficult birth of America, wherein thousands of French troops and sailors were committed to our assistance against the British. Whether they lie in graves in American soil, or British or French soil, or in the watery deep, it is undeniable that at our moment of need the French rode to our rescue. And, given the horrible toll of the wars of the 18th century, we can be sure that many thousands of French died. Did they do this out of the goodness of their hearts? No. As the Americans more than 100 years later, they judged with their own interests first, in this case that having an independent nation across the Atlantic might give them leverage against their enemies, the British, and they took action. And, yet, it is right and proper to reflect on our oldest ally, the French, in their history of sometimes military foolishness, of great gifts to America, in the recent damage they’ve absorbed, on today, our Memorial Day.

As for the others, their cemeteries exist as well, and they fought by our sides in those great wars, whether British, Russian, Filipino, Free French, or many others who recognized the evil they fought. We fought as allies, as equals, and to treat them as children that had to be rescued because of their foolishness is patronizing and wrong.

Simply put, we can put forward an argument that we came to their rescue, if I may use so dubious an assertion, only after refusing to join the wars in question at an earlier date. Our casualties might have been much lower had we, collectively, realized the threat and acted against it when it became apparent. (Some of us did, it might be argued, in the American volunteer Abraham Lincoln Regiment that joined the Spanish Civil War, although I am so unfamiliar with this conflict that it’s not clear there was a positive side, as neither the Communists infiltrating the Republicans, nor the Nationalists, really turned out to be good role models.) In defense of the actions of the Americans of the time, intelligence was difficult, communication was often not instantaneous, and even the generals on the ground often did not understand how war was changing. I do not condemn, I merely observe missed opportunities in retrospect, and mourn those lost as a consequence.

Which brings us to the question of apologies. When we do NOT have allies, what are we? When those whose intellectual & moral background is the same as ours disagrees so violently with us that they do not wish to stand with us, what does that say about us? When fully analyzed, the arrogance of Bush & Cheney and the Congress they outright controlled led us to disaster in war, as well as in commerce. We will not be successful in our future ambitions without allies. And thus, if we must apologize, if we must act reasonably rather than as some spoiled brat who cannot take a piece of advice without calling it offensive, then so be it. If that’s what acting as an adult is, then so be it. We build bridges to our allies, we look to the future of having friends to help us when we stumble, and we move onward.

And to the balance of this arrogant missive:

WE DON’T ASK FOR PRAISE… BUT WE HAVE ABSOULUTELY NO NEED TO APOLOGIZE! Americans, forward it! Non-patriotic, delete it!

On this Memorial Day, when we remember those who died in the line of duty, I ask that Americans forward my thoughts onward, and dispense with the small-mindedness exemplified by messages like the one embedded here. I don’t really know what motivates this rage against those who have stood with us. We must recognize the errors that we have made and must be humble enough to admit them. No one lives alone in this world, and we all need to give and receive help from those around us. We are grateful for the sacrifice of those Americans, and French, and British, and Chinese, and Russians, and myriad others who have given their tomorrows so that we may have our todays. Enough said.

Due to technical issues, the image in this blog post in the quoted email is not the same as that found in the email, but is very similar and is taken from the American Battle Monuments Commission’s site here.

My reader replies regarding energy storage and efficient use:

We’re a fairly long way from being able to generate enough power at our current consumption rate, so I’m assuming a relatively equivalent effort towards improving storage over that same time should get us close. Or (and) we could learn to be more frugal with our energy. The house I’m building will use about 10% of that used by a conventional house, for instance. There’s a huge amount of waste going on. All we need is the political will — which probably requires a cultural change as well.

Or much higher energy prices, at least those from central sources.

It’s Alive! (1969) is, I fear, dead on arrival. Featuring stilted dialog, overwrought acting, a flashback sequence devoid of dialog and encumbered with awful music and the occasional deliberately blurry scene (the whole flashback cost me a significant portion of my lifetime), a protagonist with no sympathetic characteristics (and, in fact, I initially had him tagged as the antagonist), and a monster so absolutely awful that it’s worse than the skeleton monster in the deliberately bad (and recommended) The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra (2001). Add in a plot hole involving how the hostage of the antagonist can easily sneak into the cage of some recent prisoners, yet they cannot follow her out (what?), and this movie is only worth alcohol and laughter.

Yet, to be fair, the true antagonist of the movie, a farmer and exhibit owner (where did he get the monkey in the middle of New York?), is actually not bad. From his predilection for sadism, both emotional and physical, across his ever so slightly misshapen face, to, finally, his absolutely wretched hair, he is both evil – and believably evil. He’s no Christopher Lee or Bela Lugosi, and sometimes his acting gets away from him, yet this was a character I’d really rather not run into in a dark alley.

Oh, but the killing of the first protagonist … oh oh oh … so awful.

As a software engineer, I find this remark from Paul Rosenzweig at Lawfare incredibly dispiriting:

A case in point is this report from The Register.  Readers may recall that a month ago, reports surfaced of a theft of more than $81 million from the Bangladeshi central bank.  And it seems that but for a small error, the theives might have gotten away with more than $1 billion.  The attack itself came in through the SWIFT system — the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommuncation, headquartered in Belgium. We were assured, however, that there were no vulnerabilities in the SWIFT system itself.  According to SWIFT the hack must have started in the local banks.

Perhaps so.  But today we learn that SWIFT itself has failed to take even the most basic security steps to protect its network.  Two-factor authentication is the simple system where when you log in, you use a password but then you also have to present a second factor to authenticate yourself.  Usually this is some sort of random pin.  Or it can be an approval from your mobile device.  Everyone uses it these days — its how we log in to Google mail and its also how we log in to post on Lawfare.

Apparently, however, SWIFT was not so swift.  Only now, after the Bangladeshi attack (and others on banks in the Phillipines and Vietnam) will the bank move to expand its use of two-factor authentication.

Viscerally, I just want to get rid of them. Yes, take your pick between SWIFT and computers. Getting rid of either would take care of the problem.

Surely SWIFT had availed itself of the services of any of a number of a security-focused corporations? This sounds like the sort of thing where someone is very publicly fired.

The Moccasin Plant.

My Arts Editor tells me I did well.

And comes up with some lovely compositions… here’s the entryway. The Haralson apple tree was bountiful last year; this is its vacation year.

Purple centers on white line part of one of the paths…

Our neglected orange azalea is in the foreground, with the purple iris providing a delicate counter punch. We’ve learned that azaleas prefer acidic soil and have begun offering it acid enhancers.

Against the Western Wall beat the Clematis, not yet in bloom, while between them and ourselves stand the Golden Irises, a slender redoubt against transgression.

Meanwhile, a band of chives stalks innocently by…

And, out front, the ferns preen proudly, giving their all in advance of the inevitable summer burn-off. Delicate Virginia bluebells purse their pretty mouths for the hurried kiss of the pollinators, a mere moment to propagate before they return to dust, hoping for another resurrection in eleven months.

It turns all purple.

Tonight my Arts Editor and I finished watching The Italian Job (1969), starring Michael Caine and Noel Coward. Briefly, this is about a newly released British criminal who wishes to hijack a shipment of gold in the city of Turin, Italy. We follow along as he runs into the Italian Mob and his own men in their attempts to get the gold; and, once acquired, they run into the age-old conundrum of how one holds onto the slippery stuff – so we are left with a cliff-hanger.

While I’m aware this film has a rabid following, I fear I was somewhat less than enamoured of it. It is the idiosyncratic Brit film of oddball quirks, such as the crime boss Mr. Bridger (Coward) who directs the operations of the syndicate from within a prison, where all the guards treat him like royalty – and he has a fetish for the Queen. Several other characters exhibit a certain Joie de vivre, which serves the film well. And, honestly, I love quirks. But parts of the film lead down dead-ends, such as Caine’s girlfriend, suddenly ejected from the caper (and the film) for no particular reason, never to be seen again. Or why does this gold go through Turin on a predictable schedule?  Or … hey, why the gold? (Maybe I missed that part.)

There are striking scenes, of course. As owner of a modern MiniCooper, the three classic MiniCoopers were, of course, attention grabbers, and when each is induced to plunge down a mountain-side, this was viewed with true sadness, even if it did serve a worth plot-driven reason. And the Italian Mob scene, with gunmen blanketing the side of a hill, was quite a vista. But the Italian Mob turns out to be punchless, for all their glamour, and another dead-end for the heedless viewer to wander down and then spin around.

So, in the end, while there was some pleasure … it does not blow the doors off.

We were tramping about in the garden, and I love these colors.

On Treehugger.com Katherine Martinko covers the evolving controversy over healthy food in the UK:

The debate about dietary fat has reached a crescendo in the United Kingdom, where a new paper has been released by a group called the Public Health Collaboration. The paper, titled, “Healthy Eating Guidelines & Weight Loss Advice for the United Kingdom,” is not an official study, but rather a campaign document drafted by people from mixed backgrounds – dieticians, cardiologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, GPs, and athletes.

This Public Health Collaboration (PHC) group takes issue with the official government-supported stance on what good nutrition should be. Their paper challenges three main points that are encapsulated in the UK’s Eatwell Guide…

I see this entry impacting this thread of mine because of the infusion of the private sector into public health, as Katherine notes:

Journalist Nina Teicholz is another supporter of saturated fats, as explained in her hugely controversial yet fascinating book, “The Big Fat Surprise.” Teicholz argues that saturated fat has been unfairly vilified for decades by a world that is fraught with poor science, loads of industry money, political clout, and bloated egos pushing for specific results that always feature the demonization of fat.

In the phenomenon of cheap, easily accessible publishing we see the conundrum of understanding which advice is in conformance with facts and what conceals an agenda. Add into the mix the simple fact that we’re talking about a difficult subject, and I think many folks are bewildered by a government study that is now under active attack as being incorrect from an independent group.

The problem of conflicting goals is brought to the fore in this instance. The government is supposed to give good advice, but in those countries with capitalist economic systems, we often hear accusations of corruption by corporate entities pursuing profit; what is interesting is that often those with the accusations have their own agenda of replacing capitalism, without highlighting the possibility that their favorite replacement may also have conflicting goals – and may, like its capitalist cousin, also attempt to corrupt the government entity.

But back to the point at hand, how does the public know the independent group also has no hidden agenda? Public Health Collaboration has the requisite web page that explains what it’s doing – but how do we know it’s truthful, how do we know their “solutions-based reports” (I’d be more reassured by “scientific study summaries”) have merit? I have no interest in demeaning this organization; this is a problem in general. Will there be an attempt to measure how their recommendations pan out? And not in the sense of how they influence the UK public, but whether or not a scientific study of the impact of their recommendations on some group of people has a substantial impact on their health? And how do you do that in general?

Can you see Peeper?

The Swiss are considering the idea of UBI, reports Bloomberg Markets:

The country will vote June 5 on whether the government should introduce an unconditional basic income to replace various welfare benefits. Although the initiators of the plan haven’t stipulated how large the payout should be, they’ve suggested the sum of 2,500 francs ($2,500) for an adult and a quarter of that for a child.

It sounds good, but — two things. It would barely get you over the poverty line, typically defined as 60 percent of the national median disposable income, in what’s one of the world’s most expensive countries. More importantly, it’s probably not going to happen anyway. …

The proposal is opposed by the government, which says the stipend would mean higher taxes, create disincentives to work and cause a skills shortage. The economy is already hamstrung by the franc’s strength, with businesses warning they’ll move production to less pricey locations to reduce costs.

And reportedly 60% of the Swiss public oppose it. It’s interesting that the government opposes it because it might create a disincentive to work; I have to wonder how much of that assertion comes from the pessimistic view of humanity brought to the table by the Calvinists, who originated in Switzerland. To my mind, it may not be a view in accordance with reality, since the viewpoint is from a reality that is far out of date, or it may vary from country to country. Zero Hedge reports that the campaign is driven by concerns about robots:

The main argument of the supporters of this initiative is that it would support the people that will, or already do, lose their jobs to automation and technological progress; a defensive move against “the rise of the robots” as they put it. They also claim that such a measure will give people the opportunity to grow, to learn and to pursue skills or professional goals that are now rendered prohibitive by their current meaningless and mundane jobs, that they are forced into in order to simply pay their bills. “What would you do if your income were taken care of?” asked the pro-UBI campaign in Geneva, with a poster that officially made it into the Guinness Book of Records as the world’s largest.

However, the robots are also in favor of UBI as reported on the blog for Basic Income 2016:

Over at Lawfare Benjamin Wittes not only continues to express his dismay at the imminent Trump nomination, but channels the dismay of some fairly important people:

I’m talking, of course, about the men and women who make up our professional national security bureaucracy.

Normally, such people are studiously apolitical. They’re public servants, after all, and they accept that they—as career officials—serve the institutions for which they work irrespective of whether the political leadership is Republican or Democratic. Some of them have opinions which they’ll share if asked. Some of them make a point—a discipline, you might say—of not having opinions.

That is in normal times.

I have not sure I have ever seen this cadre of professionals more unsettled than they are, as a group, today. It is not uncommon to hear people asking themselves whether they could continue in their current roles under Trump. It is not uncommon to hear people ruminate about whether the right course would be to resign or to stay and act as a check—which translates roughly to being an obstructionist of some sort or another. These are the murmurings that General Michael Hayden was channeling when he declared of Trump’s plans to target terrorists’ families: “If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.”

A Trump presidency would raise these issues not just for the military, but for the Justice Department, for the State Department, and particularly for the intelligence community, which wields a set of powers that are incredibly dangerous in the wrong hands. Nobody knows this better than the men and women who administer those powers and are daily bound by the constraints imposed to prevents abuses of them. How will those people react when they, like Graham, are faced with Kagan’s choice of getting right with the leader or getting run over?

Mr. Wittes doesn’t pursue the follow-on question: if Trump is elected President, what is the future of the national security apparatus post-Trump, 4 or 8 years later? If this group of key workers choose to leave their posts, who then fills them? What if the neo-conservatives responsible for the Iraq war and other follies then become the occupiers of such positions? Will we see more fiascoes, reminiscent of the Bush II administration?

What if, instead, they chose to dig in their heels and disobey illegal orders? They’d be sacrificing their careers for the protection of the nation, in my eyes. Whether disobeying an allegedly illegal order would damage their employment prospects is an interesting question, and if the answer, in their eyes, is Yes, then how do they handle? As Wittes notes, Senator Graham has already begun to back down, and he’s one of the more outspoken critics of Trump; what does someone without the public profile do?

An interesting series of questions which I hope we never have to answer.

With a little dianthus in the foreground.