Author Archives: Hue White

In an op-ed column for WaPo, attorney and former SCOTUS law clerk Gregory Diskant opines on the role of the Senate in confirming new Justices:

Our system prides itself on its checks and balances, but there seems to be no balance to the Senate’s refusal to perform its constitutional duty.

The Constitution glories in its ambiguities, however, and it is possible to read its language to deny the Senate the right to pocket veto the president’s nominations. Start with the appointments clause of the Constitution. It provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” Note that the president has two powers: the power to “nominate” and the separate power to “appoint.” In between the nomination and the appointment, the president must seek the “Advice and Consent of the Senate.” What does that mean, and what happens when the Senate does nothing?

In most respects, the meaning of the “Advice and Consent” clause is obvious. The Senate can always grant or withhold consent by voting on the nominee. The narrower question, starkly presented by the Garland nomination, is what to make of things when the Senate simply fails to perform its constitutional duty.

It is altogether proper to view a decision by the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. As the Supreme Court has said, “ ‘No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right,’ or a right of any other sort, ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’ ”

If the Senate fails to act in a timely manner,

Presumably the Senate would then bring suit challenging the appointment. This should not be viewed as a constitutional crisis but rather as a healthy dispute between the president and the Senate about the meaning of the Constitution. This kind of thing has happened before. In 1932, the Supreme Court ruled that the Senate did not have the power to rescind a confirmation vote after the nominee had already taken office. More recently, the court determined that recess appointments by the president were no longer proper because the Senate no longer took recesses.

A fascinating way to break the shame logjam of the Senate. Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy (hosted by WaPo), while liking Justice Garland, disagrees:

UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky argues that the Senate has a duty to vote on Supreme Court nominations because the Appointment Clause states that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States” (emphasis added), and the word “shall” implies a mandatory duty. But “shall” seems to apply only to the actions of the president, not to what the Senate might do. Otherwise, as Michael Ramsey points out, it would have to be interpreted as indicating that the Senate “‘shall give advice and consent,’ and no one thinks the Senate ‘shall’ consent.” And if “shall” does not create a duty to consent, it also does not include a duty to offer “advice,” since the “shall” that might refer to both is exactly the same. If such a duty to hold a vote does exist, it would mean that the Senate has repeatedly violated on the hundreds of occasions when it chose not to hold a vote on the nominations of judges and other presidential appointees covered by the clause (such as ambassadors and consuls, for example).

Dan Abrams of LawNewz also believes this is a fallacious approach, and then commits his own mistake:

There is also no doubt that it would spur intense outrage by the American electorate. As evidenced by the rising popularity of presidential Republican nominee, Donald Trump, U.S. citizens are weary of the Washington D.C. establishment, and their supposed propensity for skirting the will of the American people. An appointment without the ‘advice and consent’ of the U.S. Senate, would surely be looked at as nothing short of a blow to the separation of powers. Republicans are already critical of Obama for his extensive use of executive orders (which have, of course, been used by Presidents on both sides of the political aisle). This would only add more fuel to the fire.

But, according to Gallup, Trump’s not all that popular outside of the constricted confines of the GOP base:

That said, such a maneuver would embitter an already embittered, and embattled, right wing, and while the ideologues would rail against the President, those who can think for themselves would realize that the Senate merely had to convene and vote Merrick down.

Paul Mirengoff of PowerLine wonders about the Senate suing over this event:

What would likely happen if Obama acts as Diskant suggests? Diskant says the Senate would sue to remove Garland from the Court. That’s a certainty. However, if the suit dragged on into 2017 and Democrats won control of the Senate, that body might well withdraw the suit.

If the Supreme Court decided the suit, with Garland recused, the result might be a 4-4 vote. It’s possible, however, that one or more liberal Justices would balk at writing rules for how the Senate must treat judicial (and other) nominees. They might also be reluctant to undermine the public’s confidence in the Court’s legitimacy by approving of a power play as naked on the one Diskant has in mind, particularly since the Justices can be pretty confident that a new Justice will be confirmed early in 2017.

It’s possible that Chief Justice Roberts, who seems particularly sensitive to issues of judicial overreach and public perception of the Court, might refuse to permit Garland to sit. This seems unlikely, though.

Mirengoff forgets Chief Justice Roberts voting to uphold the ACA at a critical moment. I think Roberts is a wildcard who might well relish having an active court engaging with the issues of its own existence.

National Review’s Ed Whelan has little use for this gambit, but I have to wonder if he’s confusing tradition with correctness:

Throughout American history, the Senate has frequently—surely, thousands of times—exercised its power over nominations by declining to act on them. (The same Appointments Clause applies equally to Supreme Court nominations and other nominations, so any constitutional argument about what that clause means must apply to all nominations.) That’s been true of judicial nominations generally and also of Supreme Court nominations. As law professor Larry Tribe once put it, “The Senate has ways of blocking Supreme Court nominations other than by straightforward rejection in a confirmation vote.” To illustrate the point, he cited an instance in which the Senate “killed” a nomination “by simply refusing to act upon it.”

Sure, they’ve just sat on many nominations – and what damage has that done to the nation? How has it contributed to the notorious backlog of cases? I think Ed’s point is counterproductive and should lead to more discussion about Senate intractability when it comes to Federal judges being confirmed – or denied. Just sitting on them is intolerable.

Jonathan Adler at kwotable, after rejecting the legal arguments, notes:

Finally, let me note that Ilya and I are hardly the only ones to reject Diskant’s position. The article has prompted derision and scorn from quite a few informed observers across the political spectrum. On the right, Ed Whelan assailed the op-ed’s “gobsmacking stupidity” on NRO’s Bench Memos. On the left, Ian Millhiser of the Center for American Progress tweeted: “I want Democrats to gain a majority on the Supreme Court more than I love life itself. But this argument is dumb.” Other commentators were equally unimpressed with Diskant’s “bad argument,” including professors Christopher Walker, Eric Segall, and our own Orin Kerr.

And, while the approach seems untenable in the end, I cannot help but remember this bit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqGOEmrrtO0

All they have to do is hold the hearing and vote down Justice Merrick’s nomination, and that would be it – none of this reputation-rending uproar. Instead, they listened to this mook and we’re all tangled up, rather than at least making progress on discovering a mutually agreeable Justice.

Which is the entire point of the matter. It almost makes you wish we had professional rulers, rather than this pack of raging amateurs.

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.  Mark Twain

Another reader responds to a hypothesized link between tuition support reduction for higher education and the current generation’s lack of interest in driving and owning cars.

Oh it’s Unintended Consequences, all right. Unforeseen implies people making policies tried to consider things carefully, but usually they did not.

There’s a number of things leading to Millennials not driving as much. Big college debut [sic] might well be one of them. However, I disagree somewhat with those who claim the tuition and commensurate debt increases are because states have reduced investment. They may have, but there are other large drivers, including the following.

One big expense for universities is for personnel, of all sorts. And compensation for those people includes health insurance, and health insurance is eating our entire economy alive.

It makes sense that the UofM’s president would claim it’s the lack of funds from the state, since he’s part of one of the other drivers: the huge increase in administrative staff numbers and payrolls over the past 4 decades. Classic case of misdirection to hide one’s own sins.

That’s somewhat unfair to President Kaler on a personal level unless you can prove that he’s aware of the alleged rise in staff numbers and is deliberately not mentioning it. My observation over the years is that it’s a rare person who’s aware of all these factors and can identify and manage them properly. Frankly, how a certain person can be the apex of organizations of this size and responsibility and somehow be effective in all areas boggles me. On the other hand, President Obama has done a damn good job. It’s gotta be the people you hire… like it says in the manuals.

But as far as the general allegation goes, it’s apparently true. In 2011 the Washington Monthly‘s Benjamin Ginsberg covered the topic:

Between 1975 and 2005, total spending by American higher educational institutions, stated in constant dollars, tripled, to more than $325 billion per year. Over the same period, the faculty-to-student ratio has remained fairly constant, at approximately fifteen or sixteen students per instructor. One thing that has changed, dramatically, is the administrator-per-student ratio. In 1975, colleges employed one administrator for every eighty-four students and one professional staffer—admissions officers, information technology specialists, and the like—for every fifty students. By 2005, the administrator-to-student ratio had dropped to one administrator for every sixty-eight students while the ratio of professional staffers had dropped to one for every twenty-one students.

The balance of the article is quite interesting, if scathing. I wonder if the author has an ax to grind. HuffPost has a more recent article, and I’ll quote the interesting part, even if it’s a little off-topic:

“There’s just a mind-boggling amount of money per student that’s being spent on administration,” said Andrew Gillen, a senior researcher at the institutes. “It raises a question of priorities.”

Universities have added these administrators and professional employees even as they’ve substantially shifted classroom teaching duties from full-time faculty to less-expensive part-time adjunct faculty and teaching assistants, the figures show.

Another is government guaranteed student loans which have resulted in all kinds of “educational” organizations marketing and hard selling their wares to students. They all know that once the student gets the loan and pays their tuition, they’re in the money, no matter what the student does after that point. There have been a number of recent articles about how this inflates the cost across the spectrum.

I’ve posted on this topic before, here.  Relevant quote (it was a big post):

I have a related, simple (and no doubt simplistic) view – it’s all simple economics.  The seats available are the goods to be bought; the dollars students can bring to bear is the money.  It’s well known that printing more money results in inflation, which is the increase in price of the goods.  In the college scenario, the Federal aid is the equivalent of printing money, as now the students can bring more money to bear on buying access to education.  The institutes notice that the market will bear a price increase, and so boost prices; after all, alumni and governments are currently dicey sources of revenue, and those hard science majors need expensive gear.

Who’s screwed?  Anyone who can’t get a grant or a loan.  Which means buying access means dancing to the tune of the grant and loan providers; the alternative is, what?

So get rid of the loan programs and, after a lot of hollering, prices will come down – those seats must be filled. In all fairness, I do recall debating this on Facebook (not on my timeline, but someone else’s), and someone who works at a college claimed it wouldn’t work, but whether he (or she) knew what they were talking about is hard to say. But to continue, since prices would come down, funds to pay administrators would begin to disappear – and with them, the administrators themselves.

Back to our reader:

Related to the above, schools of higher education are wasting, er, spending more money on marketing and providing amenities designed to attract students, because even state schools like the UofM are big profit machines. None give a damn about the student debt; they just want their money.

But back to the unintended consequences of fewer people driving amongst the younger generations. I’d say that’s because they’re not as stupid as their forebears, in some ways. The whole sprawling mess of suburbs, exurbs and more highways per capita than every before is part of a radical 50 to 60 year experiment in a new but faulty way of building towns — conveniently ignoring thousands of years of civilization which learned to do it otherwise, in a more resilient and organic manner. Numerous federal policies have driven this, from FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac mortgages, to interest deductions on income tax, to federal spending on interstates and grants to states for more spending on highways, the transfer of general funds to the highway fund, since gasoline and similar road taxes have never paid enough to cover the bill, to zoning which prohibits effective land use, to constant subsidies to suburbs and exurbs for infrastructure, and on and on. I suggest reading Strong Towns to get a clue as how fragile and unsustainable that building model really is. (You know I’m a car guy, and even I see the writing on the wall — and see the increase in traffic, urban area and deteriorating roads all of which make driving less pleasant and more expensive.)

I have learned to be extremely skeptical of claims of the perfection of our forebears, so I’m very dubious about this claim of how we used to know how to build towns and now we don’t – the general case of attributing wisdom to earlier generations is such a widespread fallacy I believe the Skeptics community has even coined a term for it, which I do not recall offhand. In this case, those earlier geniuses never contended with the sheer population numbers, the densities, and the requirements of today. Nor did they have access to the technologies of today, for that matter.

That said, your policy complaints resonate. We’re trying to solve a difficult problem in a society predicated on individualism, and it’s just simply a hard nut to crack. Some policies are certainly counter-productive, and those mentioned certainly fall into the list of common complaints I’ve heard over the years. Our reader concludes,

I thought I had some more ideas, but I’ve run out of gas (no pun intended). Tying reduced car ownership to crushing college debt is something new I haven’t seen before, and it may well be one of the major causative factors. But it’s not the only one. Truly, though, the current and recent past of a huge automobile industry is past its peak. I’ve read that the recent (2014-2015) surge in car ownership is because of another cheap money bubble like the housing bubble — only this time it’s with cheap, poorly vetted automobile loans. Ugh.

Nor would I claim it’s the only one. Perhaps it’s not even the primary cause. But I hadn’t heard about poorly vetted car loans; indeed, I had heard it was because of cheap fuel. I wonder if the amount of money tied up in car loans is roughly the same size as the bad house mortgages that caused the last recession…

From the May/June 2016 issue of Archaeology (page 12, not currently online, but will update when it’s available) comes the word psychopomp.

Researchers believe that shelled reptiles had symbolic roles as psychopomps, or guiding spirits, in the afterlife [for the inhabitants of the village of Kavuşan Höyük].

UPDATE: Here’s the link.

The post concerning a hypothesized link between withdrawal of higher education funding by the state 30-40 years ago and a waning of interest in driving and owning cars today by the younger generations has elicited this comment:

This has never been a mystery to me. All this malarkey about demographics and different attitudes towards transportation dances around the obvious reality; millennials are avoiding cars because of budgetary pressures from other climbing costs – housing, education, health care.

Hourly car rental programs are spreading. That’s a leading indicator that things and services Americans were once able to afford independently are now priced such that they must be shared. The “sharing economy” exposes a declining standard of living.

Certainly, with such services as zipcar, car2go, and even Uber, it appears that way. However, I have not run across any research (yet) regarding the backgrounds of the users of these services. Are they people who are backsliding, economically speaking, or are they people who could not afford a car now, or ten years ago, or ten years in the future, but now can share in the, virtually speaking, ownership of one? And what of those who can use the dollars saved by on-demand rental to buy something else? I think the reader’s argument needs further bolstering.

But by addressing the reader’s assertion, I’m permitting an exclusive primacy claim to the economic motivation of the folks buying, or not buying, cars, and I’m not actually prepared to do that. In other words, economic motivation may not matter to some folks. For example, the ecologically concerned consumer may look at the impact owning a vehicle has on the environment and choose not to own a vehicle, but rather rent only when really necessary – ride a bike, walk, or take public transit. I know these people, I read their blog entries and news articles, I hear their proposals for increasing the economic costs of owning vehicles as a way to help the environment.

And there are other motivations. For some, it’s simply a matter of convenience: cars take time that can be devoted to more important matters. If public transit or rental is inexpensive and convenient, why own a car? If you’re living in a big city and they’re starting to talk about restricting, or even banning, cars in the city proper, then why own a car?

Therefore, I cannot share my reader’s confidence in his assertion until supporting data is provided.

I did go looking for prices of cars in constant dollars over time, but the question is complicated by the fact that the base car of 50 years ago is a far different beast from today’s base car: much less safe, more materials used (i.e., heavier), inefficient. I had to question the value of the comparison.

On Lawfare, Daniel Severson covers as a news item (vs. an opinion piece) recent French political activity occurring in reaction to recent terrorist events:

On March 30, President François Hollande announced that he was abandoning a constitutional amendment that would have enshrined state of emergency powers and stripped French citizenship from convicted terrorists.

Just days after the November 13 attacks in Paris, President Hollande promised to amend the constitution in a speech to Congress assembled at Versailles. The speech met with applause from across the political spectrum, but political divisions have since dealt a blow to Hollande’s project.

As Le Monde reports, the controversy over the amendment sprang less from constitutionalizing the state of emergency than from the proposal to strip convicted terrorists of citizenship. The original version announced by the government on December 23 would have allowed the government to strip only dual nationals who are convicted of terrorism of their French citizenship.

Hollande defended the provision as a signal that French citizenship entails a commitment to fundamental democratic values [bold added]. But opponents on the left worried about creating two classes of French citizens and alienating French Muslims.

The bolded text initially won my approval as an important political statement. However, upon contemplation, it seems to me that terrorists do not hold French citizenship to have any value, as they are actually seeking to disrupt the French, or indeed any democratic state, as a perceived enemy of their preferred system of government; and for those who are not terrorists, it is an obvious statement.

As to whether immigrants understand the importance of understanding and conforming to societal norms, surely there are more direct and legible approaches than this.

Due to a couple of minor illnesses (head colds), and then the terminal illness of Mischief, this project has been on hiatus for a couple of months. With the passing of Mischief, I hope to have some free time to return to work on it, which, to recap, is the implementation of a validating XML parser for Mythryl using recursive descent techniques. A possible barrier is that we still have Mischief’s brother Mayhem, who was tightly bonded with his sister and is now seeking extended lap time with the two of us.

I am self-aware enough to ask myself why I’m working on this project, since, after all, there appears to be very little interest in the language, and its main proponent, developer, and janitorial staff, Cynbe ru Taren, has lung cancer (further discussed here) and thus cannot devote as much time as he might like to it. It appears to be a dead-end language in the otherwise promising field of functional languages.

I mentioned this conundrum to my wife, and her answer was, of course, supportive. Paraphrased: “It makes you think in a different away about programming problems, and stretching the mind is always a good thing.”

And I do like tilting at the occasional passing windmill. (How many mobile windmills have you run across?)

We saw Deadpool (2016) at the local drive-in last night. Coming in at a comfortable 1:48:xx, this movie makes a claim to be the king of snark, and all aspects must be observed, from credits to snappy asides to the audience to (according to official reviews) references to past movies performed by the stars. As I greatly appreciate well turned snark, I found this portion of the movie to be right up to snuff.

(Random, sleep-deprived-fueled thought: the snappy aside to the audience is known as “breaking the fourth wall” in circles inhabited by critics and writers. The movie attempts some sort of unusual use of this technique that I didn’t really catch. I am suddenly wondering if any dramatic production has ever attempted a different variant: two characters “break the wall” – to two different audiences. Perhaps one speaks to the camera and one speaks slightly off-kilter, visually speaking, to the same camera…. Think of a multiverse. A technique to be used for a specific reason.)

This movie is, to use my Arts Editor’s observation, virtually “plot-free”. Oh, there’s a plot, a goal for Deadpool, a man who has acquired super-powers through human machinations, and now seeks revenge on his savior (he comes to his skill in snark through perfectly normal procedures) while saving his girl. But the theme of the movie? Off the top of my head, I couldn’t name it. Nothing to really chew on. This movie is all about style as embodied in the snark, the restraint-free profanity, and the violence that is eternally rained down on both the bad guys and on Deadpool.

If & when the owners of this franchise choose to make a sequel, I believe using the same approach would be a mistake. They will need to find an interesting theme and explore it using Deadpool’s unique capabilities and viewpoint on life, or audiences will simply react with “been there, done that.” In the end, despite the delight it brings, snark is the medium … not the message.

The iconic rock opera Tommy (1975) recently came across my TV screen. Avante-garde during the era of avante-garde (at least as I recall), it explores the world of Tommy (Roger Daltrey), the son of a missing World War II hero, who loses his faculties after his mother’s new husband apparently attacks the returned hero with a lamp, killing him.

Or maybe not, as the new husband, played by Oliver Reed, suffers no consequences, legal or marital; his wife, played by the illustrious Ann-Margaret, appears to accept him and his occasional violence. The exact nature of the incident, like much of the rest of the film, is speculative at best. We see Tommy as the pinball wizard who beats Elton John in a competition, and subsequently recovers his faculties, much to the relief of his long-suffering mother. From thereon he leads a spiritual revival centering around pinball machines and the outcasts of society: cripples and motorcycle gangs, apparently. In the climactic final scene, his mother and step-father are apparently murdered as he sings lyrics of no artistic merit, so bereft they are of metaphor, simile, or indeed anything but straightforward direction (a literature teacher might shake their fist at the screen and yell, “Show! Don’t tell!”). This is in direct contrast to the movie itself, where every scene is quite striking, if also mystifying to one degree or another, and may serve as a metaphor for something else; but it’s difficult to say just what. As I say, it’s avant-garde, experimental, and like much such work, incomprehensible.

All that said, it did strike me that Ann-Margaret shows real acting chops in this flick, and of course Oliver Reed is Oliver Reed. Roger Daltrey is certainly an attractive dude, and he can act OK, but his singing was undistinguished at best, and he was burdened with bad lyrics. The music itself drones on and on, and it’s a little difficult to believe Peter Townshend was nominated for an Oscar for that work.

My Arts Editor’s Review of Tommy: WTF?

The aphorism concerning Unintended Consequences is both well-worn and a little inaccurate; it would be better worded as Unforeseen Consequences, perhaps implying a bit of laziness on the part of those initiating the activity causing them, and we’ll not explore the more frightening Unforeseeable Consequences, a dig at certain folks’ omniscience.

So recently a few trends have come up and lately I connected the dots. This is not, of course, science, for which I have neither time nor funds to dedicate, but merely a speculative connection of events, and how the consequences have come around to affect a national industry. I shall lay the activities in chronological order.

We start with college tuition, which in the 1970s averaged around $10K in 2015 dollars according to the College Board web site:

By 2015, tuition was $32.5K, a jump of 200% in constant dollars. This was caused by, to quote University of Minnesota President Eric Kaler, at least with reference to his institution, but no doubt applicable in general,

… disinvestment in the University of Minnesota by the state. Our state appropriation was cut dramatically and those dollars were replaced with increased tuition dollars. ^{[also discussed here.]}

This Treasury Department blog posting supports Kaler’s contention: state and local support of has declined over the years.

The level of state funding per student at four-year, public colleges has also declined. In 1986, four-year, public institutions received approximately $10,726 in state support per full-time equivalent student. By 2009, state funding had declined to $8,655 per student. Historically, private schools have depended heavily on tuition and endowments while public institutions are primarily funded by state and local funds as well as tuition. However, state funding for public higher education has declined steadily as a share of the revenue of these institutions since the 1980s. Figure 11 shows that state and local funds to four-year, public schools have declined from almost 60 percent of revenue in the late 1980s to slightly below 40 percent in recent years.

Notes: Based on data from IPEDS and the Delta Cost Project. Total revenue decreased in recent years in part due to falling endowments. As a result, even though government support became less generous during this period, it increased slightly as a proportion of total revenues. The right panel is measured in 2011 dollars. Source: Treasury.gov

And concomitant student debt. While the numbers are not always entirely clear, Daniel A. Austin provides a summary in the Santa Clara Law Review:

The amount of debt per student and the percentage of students borrowing for education have both expanded dramatically in recent decades. In 1989–90, students graduating from public four-year colleges averaged $8200 in debt, while average debt at private colleges was $10,600.34 In 1999 and 2000, the amounts increased to $15,100 and $16,500, respectively. But over the decade, 2000–02 through 2010–11, federal loans per full-time undergraduate student shot up at an average rate of 5% a year after adjusting for inflation, for a total increase of 57% for the decade.36 As of 2010, 55% of students at public four-year colleges had borrowed for education, with an average debt of $22,000.37 Of students earning bachelor’s degrees at private nonprofit institutions, about 66% had borrowed for their education, and the typical debt load was $28,100. Averaging all four-year nonprofit schools, the mean debt per student in 2010 was $25,250.39 A typical undergraduate student received $4907 in federal loans in 2010–11, while the average graduate student received $16,423 in federal loans during the same period. For graduates obtaining professional degrees, the borrowing rate was much higher, with some 79% having obtained loans for school as of 2007–08. The plight of law school graduates, with an average debt load of $98,500 at graduation in 2010, has been well-noted in the press. And none of the numbers cited here include private loans, which are more difficult to track. ^{[references removed by me.]}

At a recent lunch, some colleagues and I were noodling about recent generations and their behavior. One, whose son recently left the Army, was somewhat distraught that not even his son’s service had focused him on what his father considered important: family and a house. Another colleague was puzzled by their disdain for that rampart of the American Dream:

The car.

Now, I don’t share his attachment to vehicles; despite owning two vehicles nearly all of my adult life, I agree with my late father’s characterization: they’re moving money pits. But those who are just coming of an age where they can drive are staying away in droves from cars, as The Atlantic’s CityLab explores:

The ongoing discussion about Millennial driving trends is not about whether they’re declining, but why. It’s clear to all that young people are driving less today than they did in the past. But the reasons for these shifts in car use are what remain locked in seemingly endless debate.

Two theories lead the charge. The first is that demographic or economic factors are primarily to blame. Since so many Millennials are out of work or delaying the start of family life, they have less daily need to drive. That certainly makes sense. The second idea suggests that young people fundamentally have a different attitude toward cars than previous generations did at that age, instead preferring to live in the city longer and travel by multiple alternative modes. That’s also a logical conclusion, if a bit harder to quantify.

But to me, this ignores the greater context. What role is educational debt, existing and projected, playing in a simple decision: Can I afford to buy a vehicle which then requires fuel, maintenance, insurance, and potentially repairs? If you are looking at going to college and potentially accumulating in excess of $100,000 or even $200,000, then why buy a vehicle? As public transit continues to improve, and cities become less and less friendly to cars, the idea that a vehicle is part of your identity becomes increasingly risible.

This lets me quote an article which makes me laugh, written by Lloyd Alter for Mother Nature Network:

At a New Year’s Eve party, I was talking to a business exec running a tech company located in a suburban office building. He was complaining about the number of times he would interview a person who would say he wasn’t crazy about taking the subway and then a bus all the way out to the ‘burbs every day. The exec got increasingly frustrated and at one point responded “So get a car! That’s what grown-ups do when they get jobs!” The candidate responded that he didn’t know how to drive, didn’t have a license, and would keep looking for a job that allowed him to use a bike or transit. This scenario has played out more than once, so the company is now looking for new office space downtown.

And, finally, to the last point in this chain, also pointed to by Lloyd Alter, although now he’s simply pointing at a report:

Got $850 to spare? Then you can buy a study from Standard & Poors called Economic Research: Millennials Are Creating Unsafe Conditions On U.S. Roads–But Not In The Way You Might Think. It blames young people for the upcoming collapse of American infrastructure. As Richard Masoner of Cyclicious aptly puts it, “roads are becoming more dangerous because you crazy Millennials don’t drive as much.” And apparently when you do drive, you buy smaller cars that use less gas. According to S&P, “This, in turn, has curbed revenues from the federal gasoline tax, the primary source of funding for the Federal Highway Trust Fund, which is the backbone of the country’s surface transportation infrastructure.” It gets worse; those millennials just might crash the entire economy! The Chief Economist of S&P is quoted in Denver Business Journal:

This drop in funds available to construct and repair the country’s infrastructure could, in our view, weigh on growth prospects for U.S. GDP, as well as states’ economies, and, in some cases, where states and municipalities choose to replace the lost federal funds with locally derived revenues, could hurt credit quality.

So kids, to save America as we know it, get rid of your bikes and your apartments, get out there and buy big heavy gas guzzlers! Move to the ‘burbs! Drive ’til you qualify! That’ll do it.

I think it’s feasible to hypothesize that the movement to reduce state support of higher education 30-40 years ago, which was founded on the idea that students should pay for their education, since they’re the beneficiaries, may actually be leading to the impending (20+ years in the future) collapse of the car industry. And while the car industry does contribute to climate change, they also provide jobs; as cars go electric, their contributions to climate change lessen. But the big picture here is how refusing to support higher education students, by making those new adults who, in many cases, have not had the opportunity to accumulate the funds necessary for their higher education because, you know, they’re new adults, leads to Unforeseen Consequences with a degree of negativity; or, how a failure to understand that edjumucation is important can lead to the degradation of a national institution.

NewScientist (26 March 2016) covers some more of Pluto’s grandeur:

Pluto’s bedrock is water ice, a substance as hard as granite at Pluto’s surface temperature of -240 °C. On the north-western flank of Sputnik Planum this ice-rock forms the jumbled peaks of the al-Idrisi range.

These kilometre-high mountains are possibly floating on denser nitrogen ice below – or may once have floated, only to become beached. “It looks like you took a surface, cracked it up, and shoved the pieces up into the corner of Sputnik Planum,” says Umurhan. What could have done that is a mystery.

Four more wondrous photos and topics covered by NewScientist here.

The fallout from the Iran deal continues in Iran, and, as reported by AL Monitor, even there the Trumpster is well-known. Question is, are the Iranians performing an elaborate dance – or do their hardliners really agree with Donald and, for that matter, Senator Cruz?

“The wisest plan of crazy [Donald] Trump is tearing up the nuclear deal,” Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the hard-line Kayhan newspaper, told Fars News Agency when asked about the Republican front-runner’s opposition to the nuclear deal. Shariatmadari called the nuclear deal a “golden document” for the United States but insisted that for Iran it has caused nothing but “damages, humiliation and deception.” Instead of making proclamations, Shariatmadari invited the administration to show one achievement of the nuclear deal.

While the director general for political affairs of the Foreign Ministry, Hamid Baeidinejad, responded that Shariatmadari’s comments were surprising, it was Reformist Arman Daily that compared Shariatmadari to Trump, who is sometimes simply referred to as “crazy Trump” in Iranian media. In the front-page story titled “What Shariatmadari and Trump have in common,” Arman Daily wrote that Trump’s opposition to the nuclear deal has made “domestic critics happy,” and that Shariatmadari “once again become one voice with American extremists.”

In another AL Monitor article, Rohollah Faghihi explains how each takes advantage of the other:

The manner in which Shariatmadari and Trump are publicly sharing an objective or view, particularly as representatives of fiercely opposed political factions, may astound many in Iran and the United States. Yet the reality is that these two factions in effect play complementary roles for each other, as they give one another excuses to advance their respective domestic agendas.

For instance, on May 7, 2015, amid the intense negotiations leading up to the JCPOA, the US Senate approved a bill that established congressional review of any nuclear deal as part of the six world powers’ negotiations with Iran. Five days later, on May 12, 2015, hard-liners in Iran seized the opportunity to obstruct the negotiations on their end — negotiations that they altogether considered as a trump card for President Hassan Rouhani in the then-upcoming Feb. 26 parliamentary and Assembly of Experts elections. Thus, they introduced a bill to stop the nuclear negotiations. However, parliament Speaker Ali Larijani stepped in to stop the measure.

In an interview with Al-Monitor, Mahdi Motaharnia, a political science professor at Islamic Azad University, said, “Radicalism in any country has one single identity. Hard-liners all over the world seek a tenacious situation in order to take advantage of it to their own benefit. This is why you see Donald Trump as a hard-liner in the US, and Hossein Shariatmadari as one of the mouthpieces of hard-liners in Iran’s conservative camp who have convergence against the JCPOA.”

Do Cruz and Trump revel in the approving rhetoric of the Iranian hardliners? It seems unlikely. Trump may not know there is such a thing, seeing them as a single entity; Cruz just doesn’t care. But for those who are professionally charged with resolving difficult diplomatic problems, this is no doubt a classic situation.

Reposting from Facebook:

Today was the last day for Mischief, our little black princess. At the age of 12 years, 8 months, the cancer in her lungs claimed her and she was put to sleep by our local vet, who took very good care of her and us today. She seemed to be pain-free as she left, our voices in her ears, but I fear the lack of oxygen had dulled her intellect today. Yesterday she staggered to her feet and gave me a very good ankle bump, so I think she was still cognitively intact then.

I know people are dying all around, even a few friends, or relatives of friends, but the pain of losing this kitty is still sharp, a kitty who very nearly never did anything wrong, who missed her step-mom when she died (an elderly tortie), who loved her brother and was always ready with an ankle bump for us, who accepted Deb very quickly, and was simply beautiful for us every day of the year. She even understood the towel could be used for elimination in the last few weeks and used it meticulously.

Goodbye, Mischief. We will miss you dearly.

Mischief is the cat on the right.

(Updated 8/26/2016 for missing picture)

For decades the right of American society has denounced the judicial system, including SCOTUS, for decisions that go against its desires. Their resultant strategy has been to attempt to load SCOTUS, and to some extent the lower courts, with sympathetic jurists, which has not been an entirely successful, or unsuccessful, strategy. The recent contretemps since the death of Justice Scalia is merely the latest battle in this war to win the Law to their side.

But this is not an isolated phenomenon. In Israel, of all places, the Law, in the persons of the Supreme Court, is under attack from the right, as reported by Ben Caspit of AL Monitor:

Though the Israeli right has long called for placing a limit on the power of the Supreme Court and allowing the country’s elected officials to rule, never before have these calls been so vociferous and so dangerous. This was evident in an impassioned clash that erupted during the opening session of the Israeli Bar Association’s annual conference in Eilat on April 4.

Raising the banner of revolt was Israel’s young Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, Naftali Bennett’s partner in the leadership of HaBayit HaYehudi. In her inaugural speech to the conference, Shaked focused on the Supreme Court decision March 27 that led to the delay of the deal that Israel signed with the firms operating Israel’s offshore gas fields, including the large US corporation Noble Energy (for distribution of resources and benefits).

“A judicial body that has no responsibility for filling the [country’s] coffers is the one that allows itself to empty them,” she said. “This is yet another example of [the court] exerting its authority, but bearing no responsibility for it. The court has once again become a place for adjudication of purely political and macroeconomic questions.” Surprisingly, Shaked’s speech received thunderous applause from the hundreds of lawyers and top Israeli legal figures who were present in the hall.

Mr. Caspit notes how the Knesset has been attempting to limit the powers of the Supreme Court, and then surveys the Israeli political landscape, concluding:

Many think that Smotrich is the very personification of the kind of Jewish extremism that thrives and flourishes on the hills of Judea and Samaria. He is the fulfillment of what philosopher and professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz raged about prophetically in 1982, when he warned against the rise of a new race of “Judeo-Nazis.” The problem is that in the past, people like Smotrich had to hide and keep their opinions to themselves. Now, however, they feel confident enough to express their opinions loud and proud. They can even serve as legislators in the Israeli Knesset.

Which is distressingly similar to characterizations of some Trump supporters as white supremacists. But to return to the thread, the Kansas legislature is also tired of decisions rendered by its own Supreme Court. From The Wichita Eagle:

Stung by court decisions on school finance and death penalty cases, lawmakers are working toward creating a specific list of impeachable offenses, including “attempting to subvert fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power” and “attempting to usurp the power of the legislative or executive branch of government.”

At present, the only guideline for an impeachable offense is the Constitution’s provision for “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The Senate bill specifies some, but not all, crimes that could qualify. It advanced on a voice vote, with a roll-call vote set for Tuesday morning. SB 439 would also apply to constitutional officers of the executive branch, such as the governor or attorney general.

Exactly why the Legislature believes it may neuter another branch of government has the authority to compel favorable decisions from the courts is not clear. I should think that only a referendum modifying the State’s Constitution could succeed in imposing these changes.

But it’s a great way to assassinate your enemies.

Oh, heck, he probably already knows.

(h/t Benjamin Wittes @ LawFare)

Lawfare‘s Paul Rosenzweig reports on an epic cyber breach and data release of Turkey’s data:

Yesterday, someone (no credit claimed yet — though note the suggestion that the hackers are American) posted online what appears to be the personal information of EVERY Turkish citizen — all 49+ million of them.

From the hacker’s note on their efforts:

Lesson to learn for Turkey:

• Bit shifting isn’t encryption.
• Index your database. We had to fix your sloppy DB work.
• Putting a hardcoded password on the UI hardly does anything for security.
• Do something about Erdogan! He is destroying your country beyond recognition.

Lessons for the US? We really shouldn’t elect Trump, that guy sounds like he knows even less about running a country than Erdogan does.

Suggests they may be a rather liberal, or possibly libertarian, lot. Christopher Miller on Mashable points out that Turkey’s population is somewhat larger than 49 million – closer to 79 million. Regardless, it’s a big breach and will cause heartburn for some. Hopefully, they’ll be an object lesson for everyone else.

On LinkedIn Enrique Dans has been busy condemning one of the great economic drivers of the 20th century (if you’ll forgive the pun) in an article entitled “Cities without cars: no longer science fiction”:

As rumors abound about Uber creating fleets of driverless Teslas or Mercedes (since denied), how close are we to creating truly car-free cities: have we finally begun to realize that as a species we made a huge mistake over the last century by turning our lives and economies over to the automobile?

Are we about to embrace a world in which we stop owning cars — surely one of the dumbest things to spend money on — and start using more logical alternatives that will allow us to rethink our urban spaces? Will this happen within five years, ten, or fifty?

It’s always somewhat discouraging to see a monocular view of a problem. Can’t we look at it a little differently? Perhaps even dig in a little bit further? For example, did we make a huge mistake by using cars instead of horses, or are the horses greatly relieved? What’s the real genesis of the problem of cars – the fact that they exist, or the fact there’s so many of them? If the latter is your answer, perhaps the next logical step is to ask if we made a terrible mistake when we embraced pro-natalist policies to the point where the mothers are worn out and the ecology is strained just by our search for food?

Or our embrace of individualism in the States, rather than a more communal approach to life? And while communal approaches are more prone to damage individuals if & when corruption sets in amongst those in charge, is this something we should have tolerated in the name of ensuring a higher likelihood of survival?

In the end, perhaps my complaint here is merely on style points: he begins his argument with a blanket condemnation. There is little nuance, and that lack of nuance suggests he has not thought very deeply on the topic, as if he’s going to paint over some rust without ever asking if the rust is caused by a leak in the roof that is weakening the foundation and about to lead to disaster. So I find I cannot even read an article on an otherwise timely, fascinating topic, without squirming and wondering just how deeply he thought about it.

And time is limited.

As noted earlier, Mississippi was considering its own “religious liberties” law, and, for those of us keeping score, that has now passed, according to Steve Benen:

As the MSNBC report noted, the new state law, set to go into effect in July, “prevents government agencies from taking action against state employees, individuals, organizations and private associations that deny services based on religious objections – usually interpreted to mean religious objections to same-sex marriage, transgender rights and even extramarital sexual relationships.”

NPR clarifies the new law:

The law is not a broad religious-protections law, such as many recent controversial state laws. As we reported last week, the Mississippi legislation protects only three beliefs or convictions: that marriage is between a man and a woman, that sex is “properly reserved to such a marriage,” and that words like “male” and “female” are “objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at birth.”

The law protects, among other things, state employees who refuse to license marriages, religious organizations who fire or discipline employees and individuals who decline to provide counseling or some medical services based on those oppositions.

On the corporate front NPR reports there is unrest:

LGBT advocates in Mississippi had been calling for Bryant, a Republican, to veto the legislation, as had members of the business community such as the Mississippi Manufacturers Association, Nissan North American and Tyson Foods.

The Family Research Council described business opposition to the measure as “economic blackmail” and celebrated Bryant’s signature. “No person should be punished by the government with crippling fines, or face disqualification for simply believing what President Obama believed just a few years ago, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman,” FRC President Tony Perkins said in a statement.

Evidently Mr. Perkins doesn’t believe in growth and evolution. Unfortunately, that part of the remark comes off as superficially sophisticated, but is really an admission of a certain rigidity of viewpoint, not to mention the implied argument is completely irrelevant.

In a secular nation such as ours, religions must accept curbs on their behaviors or we risk returning to the colonial, even pre-colonial days where ‘religious bigotry’ didn’t just mean someone calling you names, but you being burned at the stake. We are one nation, and whether or not you believe ‘under God’ should be appended to that statement, there is no doubt that laws such as this one are a direct contradiction in that they permit, they socially legitimize hatred of those elements of our society who are a little bit different – but are hurting no one, and in fact contribute substantially.

Stay tuned as we wait to see who else cannot stand their fellow law-abiding, good hearted Americans.

Peter Boyle played varied roles, from the father on Everybody Loves Raymond to the monster in Young Frankenstein, but one of his earliest roles was as a super-aggressive mobster in Crazy Joe (1975). From his early years as part of a hit man squad to his final reach for power and position, Peter’s Joe knows nothing but straight-ahead ambition. Sometimes his mouth does his thinking for him as Joe’s resentment and anger boil over in front of his boss, and it all comes in like a high, hard fastball from Peter. He disregards the traditions and rules of the mob, he attempts to rub out his ailing boss, and finally he pushes his associates over the edge. He’s betrayed to the police.

In the can, his brother brings him various classics: Camus, Tolstoy, and others unmentioned, and as the years pass, he reads and learns. When the race riots come to his prison (the movie appears to be set in the 1950s), he is instrumental in negotiating modifications to prison protocols in return for peace. So is he a good man?

No!

Limitless ambition uses all the tools available, regardless of their imputed moral qualities, and from the negotiations he gains the friendship of the leader of the race riots, and thus access to his resources when they are free from jail. Joe is immediate and ruthless in his use of them, cutting a swath through the mobster families, and achieving a temporary position in the city, before, in perhaps the weakest scene in the movie, he’s rubbed out as he inexplicably celebrates his birthday in another mob family’s territory.

And yet, the inexplicability points to the film’s devotion to realism; not the overwrought hyper-realism of today, but the realism where no one bursts into song, or a happy ending is a requirement. Mobsters with both good and bad qualities live, execute their trade, and sometimes die. The traditional burial alive in concrete constitutes one scene, but it’s not the horrific, run for the bathrooms sort of scene, but a cold depiction of what the mob families could do. This may not be Casino, but for the era, it’s plenty horrid. And the inexplicability of having our lead die where any sane man wouldn’t have gone?

Crazy Joe is based on a real person, Crazy Joe Gallo. A diagnosed schizophrenic, it’s easy to think he might have thought himself safe, to have made one more mental error, and finally paid the price for it, and the film is prepared to go there, to prefer realism over the charm of a story. In fact, Joe Gallo did die in a restaurant in another mob’s territory.

All that said, the movie could have been better. Pacing is flat. Peter and the script do not allow us to see his inner dialog to any great degree, with the exception of a heroic effort to save children from a burning building; it’s as if what you see is what Joe was, through and through. It’s difficult to empathize with hoodlums, thieves, murderers, and worse, and little can be done for it, so to some extent this is, in a certain sense, a documentary for those folks who don’t know about the dark underside of everyday history. Crazy Joe existed, and while the movie brings him to life, it’s worth reading the link, above; he was a fascinating character, who moved from the bottom of the ladder to socializing with high society after a movie (not this one) was made based on himself. But read it after viewing the movie, as it’s quite interesting to see just how many elements and events in his life actually made it into the movie, albeit in slightly altered form, including an entire Italian-American Civil Rights League that I’d never heard of.

But it does take some persistence to make it to the end.

This is just cool.

… you would have read recently about an unusual group of warthogs. In a national park in Uganda, the warthogs have developed a very friendly relationship with local mongooses. The warthogs treat the mongooses like their own personal spa. In return, the mongooses get to eat their fill of delicious ticks.

On the Inkfish blog at Discovermagazine.com.

A bit of GOP partisan humor happened across my virtual desk this morning, and I’m feeling that engineer’s urge to…  improve it. Let’s see what I can do! To be fair, I’ll quote the entire missive, in italics, so we can see where the anonymous author did well, and where they missed an opportunity, I’ll cross out the mistake and put in a suggested replacement, in bold and not in italics. I’ve included links to provide proper documentation of the improvements, because, well, I’m an engineer.

Democrat[ic] Convention Schedule
Monday, July 25, 2016
11:15 AM

Free lunch, medical marijuana, and bus ride to the Convention.
Forms distributed for Food Stamp Medicaid enrollment sponsored by special guest Governor Matthew Bevin (R-KY).
1:30 PM

Group Voter Registration for Illegal Immigrants.everyone, managed by the Society of Arizona Election Officials
3:15 PM

Address on “Being the Real You”
Rachel Dolezal, former Head of the Seattle NAACP and
Caitlyn Jenner, assisted by Donald Trump
(which Donald will show up TBD)
4:30 PM

“How to Bank $200 Million as a
Public Servant and Claim to be Broke”
Hillary Clinton
4:45 PM

How to spend $130 Million to buy the Presidency become a Public Servant
and not make it to the Nominating Convention
Jeb Bush
4:50 PM

How to have a successful career
without ever having a job, and
still avoid paying taxes!
A Seminar Moderated by Al Sharpton (pastor, host of “Keepin’ it real with Al Sharpton“) and the Reverend Jesse Jackson (civil rights leader, informal diplomat, radio host) on the performance of Mark Driscoll in this role
5:00 PM

Why Billionaires Should Never Pay Taxes!
A Lesson In Civic Responsibility
Rex Sinquefield (R-MO)
5:10 PM

Medals of Freedom presentation to
Army deserter Bo Bergdahl
for serving with Honor and Distinction (special live video from his prison cell while he awaits court-martial by the Obama Administration)
National Security Advisor Susan Rice Stephen Colbert
5:30 PM

Supreme Court Justice seat presentation to Harriet Myers
special guest George W. Bush
5:45 PM

Invitation-only Autograph Session
Souvenir photographs of Hillary and
Chelsea Clinton, and conservative political commentator Bill O’Reilly dodging Sniper Fire in Bosnia
6:30 PM

General vote on praising Baltimore rioters Trump supporters
and on using the terminology
“Alternative Shoppers” instead of “Looters Corporate Welfare Queens”
7:30 PM

Breakout session with Bill Clinton
for women on avoiding the upcoming draft regarding his ongoing support of nominative determinism when pardoning  millionaire Marc Rich
8:30 PM

The White House “Semantics Committee” Meeting.
General vote on re-branding “Muslim Terrorism” as
“Random Acts of Islamic Over-Exuberance”, and how our playful spanking has remanded them to their nannies.
9:00 PM

“Liberal Bias in Media“ How we can make it work for you!
Tutorial sponsored by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS,
the Washington Post and the New York Times, for Fox News viewers who’ve not been able to keep up with all those damn liberals
with Guest Speakers Brian Williams and Bruce Bartlett
9:15 PM

Tribute Film to the Brave Freedom Fighters Innocent detainees
still incarcerated at GITMO
Michael Moore Lawrence B. Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell
9:45 PM

Personal Finance Seminar –
“Businesses Don’t Create Jobs”
Hillary Clinton
11:00 PM

Short film, “Setting Up Your Own Illegal
Email Server While Serving in A
Cabinet Post and How to Pretend
It’s No Big Deal”
Hosted by Hillary Clinton, followed by Senator Mitch McConnell’s feature length presentation of “Shirking Congressional Duties and Besmirching the Dignity of the Office”, written and directed by TBA
11:30 PM

Official Nomination of Hillary
Bill Maher and Chris Matthews

Late Addition! New time slot opened up for the homeless Republican National Convention!

Due to scheduling conflicts, one event only!

Official Nomination of Donald Trump or Ted Cruz
John Kasich, Best Man
Marco Rubio, Flower Boy
Joyfully hosted by Hillary and Bernie

Gene Wilder. Madeleine Kahn. Marty Feldman. A can’t-go-wrong combination of legends, right? But The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes’ Smarter Brother (1975), starring these three and Dom DeLuise, goes horribly wrong. Wilder stars as Sigerson Holmes, Feldman as the traditional sidekick, and Kahn plays a theatrical hussy who happens to be a congenital liar unless she’s sexually excited.

It’s wacky farce from beginning to end – but it failed to catch our sympathy, to engage our intellects as satirical farce must. Is it poorly made? Or is it just dated and beyond our understanding? The sad part is that the cast is there, and some elements are there. Feldman is a great comedic character actor. But consider the interrogation scene. This scene should have been hilarious: Wilder needs to know the identity of Kahn’s character’s father, and must use foreplay to entice it out of her. But rather than howling with laughter, we found our teeth itching. Thinking about it, it’s clear that the only plot-driven purpose of the scene is for Wilder to extract critical information from Kahn; perhaps it would have been funnier if Kahn had been slyly – in the vein of the Avenger’s Black Widow, whose own interrogation scene in The Avengers was really something to savor – extracting information from Wilder as well. The implied complexity engages the intellect and would have opened the way to more clever humor – upon which the best farce is built.

Compare it to another satire, The Cheap Detective, with Kahn and Peter Falk. This was much more successful, and I suspect it’s because there’s so much more going on between the lines. Ladies with multiple ploys and identities, witty plays on Hammett tropes, it has its lurches – but it’s affectionately remembered and I’ve watched it several times, picking out new implications every time. I doubt I’d pick out much new if I were to view The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes’ Smarter Brother again.

Oh, and I may have lied. We don’t know it’s a wacky farce from beginning to end – because we didn’t make it to the end. It was that bad.

A reader addresses energy consumption:

I don’t have the numbers at hand, but my sense is that we waste a huge amount of energy heating and cooling homes and buildings, and on transportation. I’m building a Passive House. It’ll use roughly one-tenth of what a new code-built home uses for energy per square foot. Think of the huge amount of energy that goes into making disposed-of plastic bottles and packaging, each year. I think a rigorous survey of energy usage would show gross inefficiencies just about everywhere.

Your mention of packaging disposal reminds me of the European Union and some vague memories I have of the EU’s approach to this problem. I found a possibly out of date answer here:

Unlike the US, where the Federal government has an advisory role in matters relating to nonhazardous solid wastes and the states have a patchwork of disposal laws, the EU has taken a more direct and active role in regulating the disposal of packaging wastes.

The EU packaging directive implements extended producer responsibility principles, which place the burden for mitigating post-consumer impacts of packaging waste on manufacturers. This is done by imposing a surcharge or fee on specified products, requiring manufacturers to participate in product recycling or material recovery programs, or both. …

National legislation and regulations implemented pursuant to the Directive also were to impose packaging design, composition, and manufacturing requirements limiting packaging volume and weight to the minimum amount necessary to maintain an adequate level of safety and hygiene for the packaged product and the consumer.

Likewise, packaging was to be designed to permit its reuse or recycling or to decrease its environmental impact when disposed while minimizing the presence of noxious and other hazardous substances as a constituent or component of the package.

National implementation of the Directive varies, but packaging manufacturers generally have borne the costs of implementation and compliance.

EuroStat has coverage through 2012:

In 2012, 156.8 kg of packaging waste was generated per inhabitant in the EU-28. This quantity varied between 45.0 kg per inhabitant in Bulgaria and 206.2 kg per inhabitant in Germany (Figure 10). Figure 1 shows that paper and cardboard, glass, plastics, wood and metals are, in that order, the most common types of packaging waste in the EU Member States. All other materials represent less than 0.5 % of the total volume of packaging waste generated.

Packaging waste in my book is an externality, and the EU seems to treat it that way by making it the responsibility of the manufacturer to cover the cost of recycling it. How about the United States? Ignoring significant questions concerning methodology, categorization, and completeness, this EPA report from, happily, 2012 says the following:

The breakdown of MSW [Municipal Solid Waste] generated in 2012 by product category is shown in Figure 8. Containers and packaging made up the largest portion of MSW generated: 30 percent, or over 75 million tons.

With a population of 314 million, this suggests about 478 lbs of packaging waste per capita, or 216 kg. Recall that the EU figure is 156.8 kg. Of course, direct comparisons ignore questions of affluence and other factors not related to the EU Packaging Directive, so one must be cautious or ask a scientist in the field to estimate the true influence of the Directive on the waste stream. And then there’s the question of whether the mass per capita is a good proxy for energy usage for packaging, or is there possibly an inverse correlation between energy use and packaging mass? And, if so, is it worth the extra energy to reduce the waste stream?

With regard to analyzing energy usage, Greener Package reports this is already in process with regard to packaging:

In response to climate change pressure, leading retailers and consumer packaged goods companies are placing more emphasis on their supply chain to manage carbon. Wal-Mart, Procter & Gamble, Unilever, and many other companies have established formal plans to query their respective supply chain partners on energy consumption and associated carbon emissions and, in some instances, use those results as a metric for purchasing decisions. So to stay competitive, packaging organizations are wise to more deeply analyze their energy usage, develop a sustainability strategy, and implement optimization activities.

Speaking of the “landscape of fear“, I found this bit from Scientific American fascinating:

Florida’s Everglades are home to lots of large wading birds, like egrets and herons. But the ‘Glades also have lots of raccoons and possums. The birds’ nests are an all-you-can-eat buffet. And when an invasion occurs,

[Lucas Nell:] “sometimes thousands of birds will abandon their nests, and just leave, and there’s littered remains of dead chicks and eggs that have been eaten.”

In order to seek protection from their furry foes, birds actually prefer to build their nests in plots of swamp with a resident alligator.

So the birds, who do fall victim to their alligator from time to time, prefer to hatch and raise their chicks near a vicious predator, which will also lunch on those same chicks. What does this do to the concept of landscape of fear? Should it be considered overridden by the deterrent the alligator provides to the little league predators? And you have to love the closing thought:

I liken it less to a bodyguard situation, more like keeping some psychopathic murderer in your yard, to keep out cat burglars.

When The Gamma People (1955) came across our screen, my Arts Editor and I didn’t know what to expect. To our burning, frightened eyes were revealed: vile attacks on innocent journalists; packs of rampaging children; grotesque carnivals; and mad scientists. What fun! But is this a progenitor film? Consider:

It takes place in a fictional European country named Gudavia, numbering amongst its inhabitants a Colonel Koerner, whose bearing and activities might be best employed in the movie The Mouse That Roared, or, stepped up a trifle, grouped with the antagonists of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang; if neither of these movies have passed your optic nerve, then think of bumbling, narcissistic fools occupying high places with low faces, in countries that never existed …

We encountered a group of men, and possibly women, with horrible, frozen faces and unreasoning motivation for destruction, controlled by a whistle.  I thought we might be seeing the predecessors to zombies, those speedsters from Zombieland, not the slow, inevitable creatures from the original Night of the Living Dead; not being a scholar of zombies, I cannot say how the cladistics work out…

Upon command, a group of children attacked a man with little mercy, upon which my Arts Editor remarked, “Oh!  Reminds me of Star Trek.  He must be a Grup!”

And yet another Star Trek reference: the grotesque masks worn at the carnival brought to mind the horrible video visage seen in The Man Trap.  Since this film predates the original Trek, I can only assume that the costumes were mothballed after the movie was released and later resurrected to be used as props in other productions.

All the comparison was just for fun; we were confused from the beginning, in the collision of farce with mad scientist, zombies and packs of feral children, rounded out by a gruff American journalist, and his slick, somewhat swishy British colleague who stumble into this circus of a country.

And for all of it, it’s not badly acted. In particular, Michael Caridia as Hugo, the obnoxious, Nietzsche-like boy who undergoes conversion to, well, humanity, actually pulls off the entire ridiculous role rather well. And the British journalist was played by Leslie Phillips, who went on to provide the voice for the Sorting Hat in the Harry Potter series. So we can see there is some talent here.

Unfortunately for this film, in the end the actors’ talent was eclipsed by the unfocused randomness of the plot.  All in all, a merry little romp that I can’t quite recommend.