Author Archives: Hue White

A little ragged color to finish out the fall….

I received this video in my email:

http://www.carbontv.com/cams/carbontv-eagle-cam/bigfoot-sighting-on-live-eagle-cam/

If you don’t want to watch it, it shows an extremely blurry biped on an EagleCam in Michigan. Which convinces me, using an impeccable chain of reasoning, that when Bigfoot shows up in a Chicago taxi, he’ll be blurry and out of focus.

Much as when famed cryptozoologist Gary Larson captured an image of Nessie in a taxi.

The gold standard is an indisputable body, living or dead. Everything else is just titillating hoaxes.

Steve Benen gives an overview of the chaos that is the GOP:

On a related note, there’s never been a more important time to appreciate just how little loyalty Trump has towards the Republican Party as an institution. He has no real history with the party, no real future with the GOP, and no dependence on the party for any kind of support after Election Day (assuming he loses). Trump is focused entirely on Trump – which creates a dynamic in which his aides talk openly about undermining down-ballot Republican candidates, and Trump himself throws off his “shackles” and goes after his party’s House Speaker publicly.

Trump is creating an intra-party crisis, and if it does lasting harm to Republicans, he doesn’t care since he has no debts, commitments, or loyalties to the GOP itself.

Note how Trump is a private sector mentality at work – the world is his to conquer, and the rules are not iron-clad, but merely part of the calculation of the cost of any particular maneuver. In the private sector, there are laws, but one merely threatens to go to court and the opposition folds; occasionally a judge must be faced, but it’s only money to be lost – not prestige, not power. In a sense, he’s the GOP in ten years, the last vestiges of public sector decency banished.

In the public sector there are fewer laws, but more rules & traditions – and, if he’s truly the power-hungry narcissist, the latter mean very little.

But they are important, even critical, in the public sector. Government, especially in the United States, is a cooperative venture, an attempt to do the very difficult by using many talents and inputs. As such, it’s an ugly, inefficient venture, occasionally enraging, sometimes corrupt (but usually self-correcting).

This is why you hear that Justices Ginsburg & Scalia were actually close friends, despite their ideological differences; or you discover the late Senators Helms and Wellstone, two very different men, shared a bond, as explained by Helms on the occasion of Wellstone’s death:

“Despite the marked contrast between Paul’s and my views on matters of government and politics, he was my friend and I was his,” Helms said. “He unfailingly represented his views eloquently and emphatically. Paul Wellstone was a courageous defender of his beliefs.”

No doubt there are many other similar examples. Whether the cordiality is natural or forced, it serves a very important purpose: to oil the gears of a machine that does not and cannot run very well. The good politicians have known that for most of the history of the United States. It serves at least two purposes; to enable the building of coalitions between dissimilar factions; and to permit a civil government to continue to operate.

It is signal that they fecklessly accuse the Democrats of their very own failures without the least apparent embarrassment. Senator Helms, for all of his unfortunate policies, would have blushed and disowned many of them. It is also important to note that, with a few exceptions, the mud simply slides off. Indeed, the Clintons have been investigated so many times that they are not slick, but rather clean as a whistle.

Hopefully, we’ll not have to suffer through another GOP Presidency before the inevitable reformation, or destruction, of the GOP occurs; the last GOP Presidency was disastrous for both us and for people a world away. A President Trump would, no doubt, attempt to indulge in a number of illegal actions, and then try to hide behind government immunity when they backfired. we’d be witness to the sad spectacle of an impeachment, or, worse, watch the GOP tear itself apart over whether or not to impeach – and I do believe they lack the leadership to actually impeach a sitting President Trump, no matter how repulsive might be his offenses.

If we’re fortunate, this election will lead to either the dissolution of the GOP and its replacement by a party that realizes how important it is to govern seriously, or a reformation of the GOP that accomplishes the same goals. Either will need to once again exclude the power-hungry, those who have no training in politics, and those who fail to understand the importance of doubt in the realm of governance and, indeed, simply being an adult. We did not evolve to govern large nations, but rather small groups, so having such immense certainty in a world of nuclear weapons is the height of hubris.

¹As observed by no less an authority than Senator Barry Goldwater (R).

Much like The Tingler, the makers of The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues (1955) do not fixate on the monster of the day, but attempt to use it as a pivot to more important matters. Unfortunately, the monster is not critical to the tale, and so this tension-free movie, while fairly logical, does little to excite horror, sympathy, or even mystification. The problem appears to have to do with motivations , in that these are either cloudy or disappointingly cliched. The chief scientist is concealing something, but for what reason is never really made clear; his assistant, who is attempting to sell the secret to an unnamed third party, might as well have been nicknamed A Boy and His Speargun; the daughter is distressingly predictable and mundane, nary a surprise to spring. We’re told, in a most sterile manner, that the secretary hates the scientist because her only son died in service to the scientist, but outside of a persistent glare, there’s little to convince us that she hates him – why work for him? The cops are cops, and the odd bruising on the sultry, traitorous blonde’s thigh are never acknowledged nor explained.

Additionally, there’s bad story-telling. The victims, from the young couple in the boat to the freighter crew, might as well have neon signs over their heads – the cops may not know who’s doing the killing, but the makers of this movie seemed to think that tension is not good for the audience’s health – so we know who did what when.

Where is the emotional engagement, the puzzlement, the red herrings, the terror at difficult decisions?

Oh, maybe 10,000 leagues further down.

Don’t bother with this snoozer.

Yesterday my Arts Editor and I attended the opening of an exhibition called Unknown Fabergé at The Museum of Russian Art. On display is just about everything except that for which Fabergé is best known – the famous eggs (although a video demonstrating the hidden wonders of several eggs is available to watch). Instead, we learn that, much like Louis Comfort Tiffany, the Fabergé workshop had a wide collection of artifacts for sale.

This item, possibly my favorite, is a three inch tall sedan chair done in precise, painstaking detail. This is the sort of thing I love: technically difficult detail which contributes artistically to the whole. The artifacts range from cigarette cases and door bells, clever picture frames, several quite lovely clocks (I admit to lusting after a triangular red specimen), to this tiny sedan chair, roughly life size in this picture.

The display is not perfect. Some of the signs are not as well-lit as they might be, and several were placed at a height of three feet, making reading difficult. I understand that a sign may not be affixed to a glass panel, but some other solution would have been better.

But this is a quibble. Those who love Fabergé, or just miniature detail work, should know this exhibit may not reappear for another 30 years in this area, so make your plans to visit TMORA before February 26, 2017, and enjoy yourself.

Here’s the Politico fact-check of debate #2. I find this hilarious in contrast with the many serious lies told by Clinton’s opponent:

Clinton’s falsehoods

1. “[Trump] never apologizes for anything to anyone.” — Clinton

Early on Saturday morning, after the publication of a 2005 tape where he’s heard making vulgar sexual comments about women, Trump did make a statement of apology: “I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize.” Clinton, however, went on to highlight other campaign controversies for which the Republican nominee has not apologized, including his criticism of Gold Star parents Khizr and Ghazala Khan, and his comments that federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel would treat Trump unfairly by virtue of Curiel’s Mexican heritage.

Another country weighs in on the American Presidential elections. Pro-government Turks perceive Trump as more friendly towards Turkish ambitions, while Clinton is suspected of being a Gulenist – Fethullah Gulen, currently based in Pennsylvania, stands accused of coordinating the recent failed coup attempt. So reports Riada Ašimović Akyol in AL Monitor:

… the pro-government media seems to be a bit more sympathetic toward Donald Trump, while anti-government media is siding with Hillary Clinton. This may sound quite surprising, for Turkey’s pro-government media is also pro-Islamic, and Trump is known for this unfriendly tone toward Muslims. But for Turks, their own political drama is more important than everything else. The July 15 attempted military coup was a breaking point in a myriad of ways. Clinton’s and Trump’s reactions to this traumatic event and Fethullah Gulen’s possible extradition shaped public opinion in Turkey. That’s when things took a clear turn, as the pro-government media, which previously criticized Trump for his “banning Muslims” stances, shifted toward him thanks to his clear support for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Things got much more complicated for Clinton, who was seen as a supporter of the Gulen movement, which the government blames for the attempted coup.

Why is Clinton disliked?

[Mahmut] Ovur also elaborated on all the arguments that are common among government supporters who hold grudges against Clinton. He described Clinton as a “woman representative” of familiar American foreign policy, one that aims for creation of microstates and supports “controlled chaos politics” in important regions in the world. Ovur acknowledged Trump’s exclusivist or even racist narratives, but passed over them while praising Trump’s promises of taking into account existing states and practicing politics that prioritizes stability. Kayahan Uygur from Gunes newspaper shared very similar views, adding that Trump’s racism is exaggerated, and he is not scared of Islam. Even then, continued Uygur, Clinton — who is “war-instigating and in pursuit of tension” — is not less racist than Trump, considering her political record and President Barack Obama’s well-known foreign policy. Furthermore, the widespread belief among the conservative camp that the CIA took part in the coup gained major sympathy from Justice and Development Party (AKP) followers. Thus, finishes Uygur, “If Trump is better for our country, we cannot stay impartial.”

It’s not unexpected that people and government will follow their perceived interests, and here we see that even a perceived hostility in a candidate towards their religion will not deter those who believe they have solid, tangible evidence of friendliness to the country in one candidate, and hostility in another.

And the Swiss Chard begins to succumb to Fall….

Tonight’s second Presidential debate of the 2016 campaign takes place against a backdrop of Republican uproar over the recent revelations of not only Trump’s coarse attitudes towards women, but, as Steven Benen says,

In effect, Donald Trump’s top campaign surrogate told a national television audience this morning, “Yes, the Republican presidential candidate boasted about committing sexual assault, but we have no idea whether or not he was telling the truth.” [bold mine]

Will there be a debate tonight? As a town hall style debate, will the questions be affected by the uproar? Will Trump simply quit before, during, or after – or suffer a nervous breakdown? Or accuse Clinton of committing indecencies as well? For those who sometimes consider politics to be entertainment, this may be be a supreme moment.

This will be a live-blog, so if you’re checking in during the debate, refresh this post. Comments? Use the mail link on the right, as always.

7:33 – anyone not watching the debate is a curmudgeon or has no sense of high drama.

7:38 – And before the fun begins, CNN reports Trump has trotted out some women who accuse Bill of poor behavior:

Trump holds surprise event with Clinton accusers

Donald Trump held a surprise news conference before the debate with four women — three who have accused Bill Clinton of improper behavior and one who criticizes Hillary Clinton for defending a man she says victimized her.

The women were Paula Jones, who has accused Bill Clinton of propositioning her and exposing himself; Juanita Broaddrick, who claims Clinton sexually assaulted her; Kathy Shelton, who says Hillary Clinton defended a man who victimized her; and Kathleen Willey, who claims Bill Clinton groped her.

All four are expected to be in the audience tonight.

More on Bill Clinton’s history is here:  http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/bill-clinton-history-2016-election/ … and more on the Shelton case is here:  http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/05/26/hillary-clinton-1975-sex-assault-case-investigation-kaye-pkg-ac.cnn …

As for Broaddrick, who Trump has retweeted several times this weekend as he attempts to deflect his own scandal, when subpoenaed in relation to the Paula Jones case, Broaddrick filed an affidavit denying she was assaulted. She later changed her story. Ken Starr’s team thoroughly investigated her claim and noted in his exhaustive Whitewater Report that Broaddrick had changed her story.

Fireworks already. My Arts Editor thinks Hillary …

… should simply state that when she married Bill, it was “… ’til death do us part,” something which Trump obviously doesn’t understand.

And then maybe smile sweetly at Donald.

8:00 – ‘Prepare to be slimed’ – AE.

8:02 – Is Bill in the town hall, along with the accusers?

8:05 – No shaking of hands this time. Social ettiquette?

8:09 – Clinton responds to the role model question with a clear, easily understandable response about bringing everyone agree. Trump agrees with Clinton, “with everything she said.” Now an attack on ACA, Iran deal – sounds like a lie about the money. Harps on trade deficit – but is that a big deal? Way beyond the role model question, though – not an easy question.

8:12 – Now Anderson gets to bring up the elephant in the room. Trump compares it to ISIS, etc, as a way to trivialize it. It ignores the fact that attitudes count. Trump is basically running from the question by diverting to ISIS and immigration.

8:14 – Clinton drags the conversation back to the question. She is thoughtful, while the split screen shows Trump carefully not interrupting. Good for both of them. “We are great because we are good”, it’s not a bad slogan – it gets causation right.

8:16 – Trump’s strategy is to ignore the controversy and try to accuse Clinton of failure. “Words, words, words.”

8:19 – Now Trump has great respect for everyone. And Bill is the worst in the history of American politics? He’s naive. Now he’s making unsuppor ted accusations – and the audience applauds. Sad.

8:20 – Clinton responds by ignoring the accusations. Probably wise. It’s not entirely true that Donald has never apologized – even if it’s grudging. Now the mud is being slung with vigor. Who will this benefit more? Pence in 4 years? Trump doubles down. Boring.

8:24 – Up comes the Schulz scandal, which sounds awful but may not be. “I hate to say it” what is he trying to say? Clinton is laughing at him – literally. What does he mean by “acid-washing” emails?? Did she throw her hard drive into an acid bath?

8:26 – the audience cheers again?

8:28 – Now an interrupt – and the moderators permit it. I notice the number of deleted emails keeps going up? Clinton says, “Not true, not true.” Hahahaha diversion diversion diversion!

8:31 – a good ACA question, so now we’re off to the problem of growing healtcare premiums. She has plans, which she doesn’t describe, but notes the ACA has good effects for everyone – “save what works” about the ACA.

8:33 – Donald, many countries don’t have health insurance, so his comment is silly. Accuses ACA of enforcing monopolies. Now we get HUUUGE promises. How foolish are we to buy his promises without plans?

8:35 – Clinton asked to clarify her husband’s comment about “crazy.” She’s forced on defense.

8:37 – Trump wants to condemn the whole thing. He wants to retreat to the free market – which was failing before, so why think it’ll work this time? Block grants – a traditional GOP approach.

8:41 – A question about Islamophobia. AE wants to report Trump right now, as he says Muslims should be reporting problems – as if they’re responsible for it. Muslims won’t vote for him. Back to this meaningless whine about “radical muslim terrorists”. But Trump has gotten over his jitters and is smooth at the moment. Clinton responds with her own plans, and notes current allies do not want to work with Trump.

8:46 – Moderator repeats Trump’s quote about Muslims. Moderator wants a specific answer, and Trump calls it extreme vetting. Trump insists on scaring the electorate about refugees that are not checked. Clinton reminds us that we welcome refugees, then begins to mention Russia, which will be a future theme, I suspect. Rejects banning refugees based on religion, mentions ‘religious tests’ – against our principles, but no doubt makes sense to those who center their lives on religion. Puts the knife in about Iraq and Trump.

8:47 – I wonder if Sanders regrets saying Clinton has bad judgment. Trump’s mentioned it 3 times.

8:50 – Private positions vs public positions. Clinton mentions Lincoln, and that Lincoln was using a strategy. Now a transition to Russian hackers, so she can’t stick to the questions either. More and more …. tax returns. Ieieie.

8:52 – Donald knows nothing about Russia. God, now we’re back to the post office in D.C., whatever that is. Now he pays millions of dollars in taxes – but still no returns.

8:55 – A question about making the wealthy pay their share. Donald pivots it into an attack as if a lone Senator could change the tax code. Nor could the President, either. Taxes, low taxes vs high taxes. Now he’s babbling – GDP of 7%? Maybe he just dropped a word.

8:57 – Hillary is tired of saying he’s lying. She presents her plan – it’s specific, something to be evaluated. Do you trust Big Promises, or specific plans? Now she hangs the zero taxes thing on his neck.

9:00 – How does he know other billionaires use these legal loopholes?

9:01 – She’s created and pushed a healthcare plan, Donald. She doesn’t do things? Clinton now cites her achievements. Donald has nothing but words, words, words. (Yes, he said “words, words, words.”).

9:02 – Trump is desperate to call her a failure. He’s an iconic bully and sexist, isn’t he?

9:06 – Syria – Clinton states the situation – avoiding the question? But it’s a hard question, needs context. Blames Russia for some of the problem. A clean answer so far … although Russia’s getting hit. Now she cites her accomplishments and dances around Trump.

9:07 – Russia is new in nuclear, America is old and tired? WHAT? Does have ANY IDEA? None. Clinton is laughing.

9:11 – Moderator reminds Trump that Pence wants to open war against Syria. Trump repudiates openly. My oh my. Trump wants to tell the Generals how to run a war. This is an idiot. The moderator yells at him. He is openly populist, while in the meantime ISIS is falling back under the current strategy. He’s just scaring people.

9:13 – Clinton responds directly to the question, but the moderator wants more, so she gives it. Trump tries to rattle her by interrupting. She seems coherent to me. Trump is trying to look superior as specific plans come forth. He thinks she should shut up on some bizarre idea that we need to keep everything secret.

9:17 – back to domestic. Inner cities. Does Donald have any clue on how hollow he sounds when he accuses her of doing nothing, only talking, when that’s all he’s EVER done? Never having served, and a horrible private record. This let’s her cite her accomplishments again. Still, both candidates have to say that, yes, they will be devoted to all citizens. Ouch, “The Trump Effect”!

9:19 – Moderator asks for clarification on “deplorables”. She gives a general answer, stating that she wants to unite us. Donald is off on a scare run again, high crime and “she has hate in her heart.”

9:21 – Trump refuses to answer the question about discipline, but wants to bring up the failed (8 investigations that found NOTHING) Benghazi tragedy. Now Clinton says Trump doesn’t have the discipline. Accomplishments again.

9:23 – Trump can’t resist interrupting with another lie about economic growth.

9:28 – Clinton says expected things about SCOTUS. Trump wants Scalia II, is staying with a safe answer. Claims he’s self-funding his campaign, now slips in intimation of corruption of Clinton, where she may not get a chance to retort. She fails to retort to the corruption problem.

9:33 – Fossil fuels question, Trump wants to safeguard an industry that is poisoning the atmosphere. Oh, Clean Coal will make everything gold plated again, will it? This guy’s so dumb. Now he’s naming states that are suffering – also battleground states. Clinton returns the mud slinging, accuses China of dumping steel and Trump is buying it. Now talks about energy independence, and mentions her plan and climate change – thank goodness. Says she has a plan to revitalize coal country.

9:35 – hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Question of the night – what does each respect in the other. Clinton respects Donald’s children. Really? From what little I’ve read they sound like idiots. Trump thanks her. He respects that she never quits, never gives up, she fights hard.

Did they shake hands at the end? Apparently they did.

Jane Chong on Lawfare tries to use two myths about Trump to explain his stubborn popularity:

Let’s start with the more familiar first myth: that Trump tells it straight. Perversely, Trump’s inability to control his tongue or his tweets has helped foster the illusion that does not shrink from the truth, however inconvenient or politically incorrect that truth. Never mind that, according to every fact-checker out there, his dishonesty is off the charts. He is willing to say legally and morally unjustifiable things, the thinking goes, but that just attests to his honesty; only a candid candidate unafraid of prevailing social and political mores would give voice to such positions.

The second, lesser-memed myth, that Trump will do what it takes, works much the same way. His eagerness to blame America’s security problems on supposed outsiders, from Mexicans to Muslims, and to propose impracticable, unlawful, morally unconscionable security “solutions”—from rounding up the children of undocumented immigrants to doing “a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding”—appeals to voters who believe this behavior suggests not a chemical imbalance or blatant disregard for the Constitution but courage. The very extremity of these ideas ostensibly reflects his willingness to make the hard choices that must be made to protect America.

And a willingness to blame the Other, rather than ourselves. From a food export policy that tends to ruin our neighbors’ farms to a corporate culture which fails to return the loyalty of workers to corporate interests, a lot of our pain is self-inflicted – if not always obvious. It reflects the American myth that we’re the select of God, and the simple minded belief that this makes us mistake-proof – when the real problem is that, if there is a God and he’s elevated the United States, well, think about it. Elevated.

It makes for a long way to fall when you disappoint.

Vincent Price is as smooth as ever in The Tingler (1959), a wickedly convoluted tale containing an original idea about the source of screams – and death – in the highly frightened. The movie teems with characters who are not what they seem to be, from a mad scientist to his wife to the grey little theater owner. Heck, as the projectionist struggles for his life in his 20 seconds of screen time, I expected to discover some startling new facet to the plot – and about him.

But the writer was wise enough to realize his original idea was not the true center of the story, but rather a pivot on which to tell a real story – or two – about dysfunctional families. For those possessed of precise minds, this tale may enmadden, for vagueness and ambiguity command this landscape – is the long hours of the scientist to blame for his family, or his wife’s vulgar narcissism? The opening scene signals this long, long theme, as Vincent is berated – in a friendly fashion – by an attractive young woman. His lover, daughter, friend, what? All those guesses sets a tone that dominates as more and more surprises unfold – the uncertainty of perception, a good pairing with a mad scientist.

Eventually, amidst all the human monsters we make the acquaintance of the promised monster, and for those conditioned by current visual standards of Hollywood, there will be disappointment in the rubber thing pursuing its prey. This is a false disappointment. The relatively crude depiction of the monster serves to remind us that the most apparent monsters are often the most impotent, and the most insidious are those we never even notice.

Until they merge into one.

The movie isn’t perfect, of course. There’s a plot hole in that it seems everyone knows what is meant by The Tingler, and unless I missed something, or a scene was cut, it doesn’t make sense – unless it’s a reference relevant to the 1950s, but not to now. And the insertion of scenes from a silent movie at certain points seemed a little longish and nonsensical; I never really connected them to our movie, unless it’s a movie-within-a-movie analogy of some sort.

But the acting was very good, staging good, script excellent, dialog passable…

Recommended.

We were out for a walk and saw this tree, briefly illuminated by the setting sun..

And this is one of our coleus…

For the last few months I’ve been grinding my teeth (along with, I’m sure, most of America) every time a politician “apologizes,” and the latest example of Mr. Trump’s exceptional crassness has put me over the top. You know this devious apology form:

If I’ve offended anyone, I apologize.

If you take this apart, this really means nothing. Apologies, as our mothers and fathers taught us, are about acknowledging a mistake, making clear that your offense is your fault, and that you will do better in the future. If I’ve offended anyone, I apologize. In the final analysis of this limp phrase, it’s a disavowal of responsibility for the impact of one’s behavior, and, in fact, shifting the blame from the person committing the offense to the person who has been offended.

The victim becomes the perpetrator in an honest reading of this despicable sentence.

Worse yet, for those who approve of the offensive behavior, it becomes a signal that it’s really OK. Just weasel-word your way out of it if you’re caught. Here’s the code-phrase.

With all this in mind, all these politicians need to be reminded of how a real adult apologizes. Remember your parents’ voices as you recite this with me:

My behavior was offensive and not appropriate for our society. This is my responsibility, and I apologize for offending my fellow Americans; further, I promise that I will do better in the future.

And then you do better in the future. That’s being American.

Modify as needed for the situation, but keep the central spirit of recognizing a mistake, taking responsibility, and promising to do better in the future. It treats the offended as a fellow human, recognizes we can all make mistakes, and appeals to the traditional American narrative of redemption.

But redemption only comes to those who really follow through on their promise.

As summarized by Science Magazine, life on Earth subsists in one of two ways: conversion of light via photosynthesis into an energy form which can be stored as a hydrocarbon, which can then be used later via oxidation, OR by simple theft – i.e., eating other organisms and stealing their stored energy in the process.

Now we have a report of a third way – using radiation:

Source: NASA

[Desulforudis audaxviator] takes a third path: It draws its energy from the radioactivity of uranium in the rock in the mine. The radiation from decaying uranium nuclei breaks apart sulfur and water molecules in the stone, producing molecular fragments such as sulfate and hydrogen peroxide that are excited with internal energy. The microbe then takes in these molecules, siphons off their energy, and spits them back out. Most of the energy produced from this process powers the bacterium’s reproduction and internal processes, but a portion of it also goes to repairing damage from the radiation.

I think it’s important to note that this is not a direct interaction with radiation, but rather taking advantage of a result of radiation – in a sense, the molecular fragments, fraught with internal energy, are the primary actors, and the process which produces them – radiation – is primarily important only in that it produces these fragments, although there is a secondary importance in that it can damage Desulforudis audaxviator in the process.

The Science article goes on to note that cosmic rays could take the place of uranium-based radiation on the surface of a planet dissimilar to Earth, thus giving organisms on those planets a shot at life, and this is exciting for exobiologists. I think it also gives exobiologists another way to consider how life might find ways to survive – thus leading to new tests as we explore Mars, Europa, and other potential harbors of life.

Reporters Without Borders maintains a list of “Enemies of the Internet,” and the United States occupies a spot on that list, which I suppose should be unsurprising in the wake of the Snowden disclosures:

In June 2013, computer specialist Edward Snowden disclosed the extent of the surveillance practices of the U.S. and British intelligence services. Snowden, who worked for a government sub-contractor and had access to confidential documents, later exposed more targeted surveillance, focusing on the telecommunications of world leaders and diplomats of allied countries.  Activists, governments and international bodies have taken issue with the Obama administration, as the newspapers The Guardian and The Washington Post have revealed the extent of the surveillance. The main player in this vast surveillance operation is the highly secretive National Security Agency (NSA) which, in the light of Snowden’s revelations, has come to symbolize the abuses by the world’s intelligence agencies. Against this background, those involved in reporting on security issues have found their sources under increasing pressure.   

The U.S. edition of The Guardian is still able to publish information from Edward Snowden, while the British edition is not, but the country of the First Amendment has undermined confidence in the Internet and its own standards of security. U.S. surveillance practices and decryption activities are a direct threat to investigative journalists, especially those who work with sensitive sources for whom confidentiality is paramount and who are already under pressure.

They go on to detail the role of the NSA, Snowden, FISA, and other items (my favorite name: The Five Eyes Alliance). Naturally, RWB looks at events from its own perspective, with its own priorities, which for journalists includes confidential sources – which the United States officially often hates. So I suppose it’s no surprise that we’re on a list that includes unsavory countries such as North Korea, Cuba, and Russia.

Nothing amazing, just some pictures.

Charlie Dunlap on Lawfare reviews Rosa Brooks’ How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything: Tales From the Pentagon:

Though subtitled “Tales from the Pentagon,” this book is not some sort of mindless “tell-all” by a former government official. Instead it’s a thoughtful analysis of national security in a capacious sense, as seen by a former journalist turned Georgetown law professor turned Pentagon official turned defense thinker. How Everything Became Waris one of those rare books in which there is no part not worth reading; moreover, it addresses an astonishing number of issues for a volume of this length. You’ll learn about such diverse security issues as piracy, military detention, our strategic deafness about Africa, stability operations, drones, covert operations, cyber, nonlethal weapons, the militarization of foreign policy, and much more.

The wide range of topics in the How Everything Became War is perhaps less for its own sake than to point to the interconnections between them, and also to show the structure of national security decision-making on a day-to-day basis and the many offices of government and officials—far beyond simply the Department of Defense and a handful of intelligence agencies—involved in making them. These are weighty topics, but the book proceeds in a deceptively easy narrative tone, revealing Rosa’s skill’s as a journalist. It opens, for example, with an account of sitting in an “anonymous Pentagon conference room … listening as briefers from the military’s Special Operations command went over plans for an impending strike against a terrorist operative.”

I’ve put it on my Christmas list.

A reader responds regarding our own terrorists:

Far too sophisticated a discussion for typical law-and-order types, or everyone should have a gun types, etc. etc. In fact, it’s a very good argument for extremely strict gun control — it’s much harder for a lone wolf to cause mayhem if he can’t acquire an arsenal of guns.

Sadly, that’s not necessarily true. Guns are the sexy way to do it – but driving a vehicle into a crowd can produce breathtaking casualties as well.

From the mailbag comes this dubious suggestion:

Why didn’t we think of this? A lot cheaper as well as you can tell who is guilty and who is innocent as for as their presence at a riot that gets out of hand.

Don’t you just love it?

The Israelis have done it again
This should be standard riot control equipment for all law enforcement agencies.
Great idea? Watch the video link at the bottom.

Forget the wall; just put sprayers all along the southern border with sensors.

Might have saved lots of store fronts in Baltimore and Ferguson……….

The U.S. needs to get some of this for the looters in any out of control demonstrations.

Israelis crowd control method…..
NOW WE ARE TALKING….BRILLIANT

Skunk spray! Leave it to the Israelis to come up with this ingenious crowd control method! For those who want less violent means used in handling protests, this seems to be the perfect fit. This is a riot control weapon that really works. It’s a non-toxic, non-lethal, but very effective. The Palestinians want it banned because it makes them feel degraded. I wonder how long the aroma lasts on a demonstrator. Looks like these guys may be eating outside for a while rather than around the family dinner table. Great stuff; the Israeli biomedical engineers have done it again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4_XZE3r3oU&authuser=0

Here’s the problem I have with using this against Americans.

They’re Americans.

This makes some sense for what is basically two countries with low-level hostility toward each other, even if Israel officially doesn’t really like the idea of a two state solution. Harmless but foul – if they’re not your citizens. I can see arguments for and against.

But the author of this email is advocating this as a way to break up American protests, and protests happen for a reason. The author of this email doesn’t see a protest as a legitimate form of communication with governments that sometimes need a good slap upside the head; for this writer, all protests are just an irritant, the protesters illegitimate. Well, sorry, but protests are a very important part of the political scene, and if they irritate you, maybe that’s the point. Maybe it’s good for you.

And the reference to looters – as if this happens every day of the week in America. No, it doesn’t, and it’s huge news when it does every few years. Is the writer advocating equipping every police force in the country with this equipment for events that so very rarely happen?

At what ruinous cost?

Is this guy an idiot?

The Beast with a Million Eyes (1955, aka The Unseen) features a cast that must initially share major acting time with members of the animal kingdom: a dog named Duke, a cow named Sarah, and a flock various birds, all of which are puppets for an invading intelligence that has its eyes on a bigger prize. Yet, reflective of the plot, they attack and kill humans, which leaves us confused because, as we learn later, this malevolent intelligence is looking for hosts that it can truly use to continue its existence.

So why kill an unsuspecting human just because he’s massaging your udders?

Between sadly oscillating female characters, a guilt-ridden father, a very young Dick Sargent as a somewhat aimless law officer, a voiceless man who makes for a fine ambiguity, and the aforementioned representatives from the animal kingdom, it’s a cast with only a little to recommend it, and the animals are soon knocked off by the humans (presumably they lacked membership in SAG-AFTRA). The plot kept us occupied for some time, but the characters are somewhat random at times, and at others they’re being stampeded by forces beyond their ken, while the dialogue is pedestrian. On the plus side, however, the art during the opening credits was actually rather fascinating, reminding our Arts Editor of the work of the famous surrealist Salvador Dali; the night scenes are well shot; the acting was competent; and there are absolutely no extended death scenes, leaving us to infer and imagine, rather than removing that intellectual pleasure through gouts of bloody gore.

The climactic scene no doubt was trying to convey something to us, but we were unable to understand what appeared to be a muddled point concerning love, eagles, and potentially possessed rodent (which was swiftly eaten by the eagle).

In case you’re interested, here’s a YouTube video of the opening of the movie. The good art starts at about the 51 second mark.

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94taCuipmhI

The falls and paths of Gooseberry Falls were gentle and soothing, scattered with weathered trees and their fallen kin.

My Favorite.

Hey, all. While messing about with iNaturalist I ran across a feature which permits connecting a website to iNaturalist in order to show your latest observations, so I added it to UMB. You’ll find them on the right hand side somewhere – I may move them around a bit. Maybe nobody will care, but it was fun. Enjoy!

NewsOK reports that Oklahoma Governor Fallin’s response to depression in the Oklahoma oil industry is … to pray it gets better.

A statewide prayer initiative focusing on the oil fields and beleaguered energy industry will culminate Oct. 13 with an annual breakfast in downtown Oklahoma City.

The Rev. Tom Beddow of Ada, coordinator of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma’s Oil Patch Chaplains ministry, said he would like to see similar gatherings around the state as people pray for individuals affected by current economic woes, with the energy industry at the center.

“The oil field is hurting right now,” he said.

“We’re asking churches all over Oklahoma to open their doors, put on a pot of coffee and pray for the oil field, and not only for the oil field but the state, because the economy of our state is so connected to the oil field.”

Hubbard, with Oilfield Christian Fellowship- Oklahoma City, agreed.

“We have a saying: The oil field trickles down to everyone,” he said.

Hubbard said Gov. Mary Fallin has proclaimed Oct. 13 as Oilfield Prayer Day to raise awareness about the initiative.

I can’t help but think that perhaps they should be working on diversifying their economic base, not praying that, somehow, their major industry will magically get better. The time to work on that is now. Scout Finch with The Daily Kos points out that some have done very well with the industry – perhaps too well:

The “oil field trickles down to everyone.” Well, Oklahoma’s wealthiest person is Harold Hamm, an oil billionaire with a nearly $15 billion fortune, most of it from shale oil fracking. Yes, the same oil extraction method responsible for at least 90% of the earthquakes in Oklahoma. Maybe Oklahoma could raise his taxes and encourage him to trickle a little bit more down to the oil field workers? Or how about George Kaiser? Forbes Magazine pegs his net worth at nearly $10 billion.

Scott Chamberlain continues covering the FWSO fiasco with an epic takedown of a statement by FWSO management:

… one of these is first among equals: artistic development.  Art is the reason the group exists.  A group isn’t simply raising money, it’s raising money for the art. It isn’t just trying to “right size” the staff, but to build a staff appropriate to do the art.  And so forth. If a group doesn’t keep the art central to its thoughts and actions, why do any of it?

And so looking at Mr. Nurdin’s four pillars, I admit I shudder.  Note that his list starts with “generous benefactors.” In both placement (first on the list) and wording, this is completely wrong.  Perhaps “benefactor” is a non-weighted regionalism in Texas, but to me the word implies a level of ownership. It implies a dominant and submissive role, where a benefactor is a guardian angel with all the resources and power, and the beneficiary is a passive supplicant hoping for favor.  Like the relationship between Miss Havisham and Pip in Charles Dickens’s Great Expectations.

For this exact reason, I bristled at the similar views expressed by Karen Cohn, the former board chair of the San Diego Opera.  In particular, I was dismayed by her claim that the board “provided” opera to the city.  My response to her works well in Fort Worth, too:

The wording here deeply disturbs me, implying a clear sense of ownership and entitlement… you state that you provided the Opera to the public. You most certainly did not do so, nor should you have. This was not a private enterprise. You were a key source of support to the Opera so that it could fulfill its mission, but you were hardly the only source of support. Does board giving eclipse ticket sales? Does board giving surpass non-board giving? Board giving without these additional sources of support would not begin to be enough to keep the Opera running, so I find it odd that you feel you were “providing” the Opera to the community.

I figure the FWSO management should tell Scott to put up or shut up – and then hire him as Chairman of the Board, or Executive Director, or whatever position is best fit for cleaning house.