A flash of light lasting about a tenth of a second on 10 December was the first hint that it might actually work, as a helium plasma was injected into the Wendelstein device and heated to 1 million °C, using an unprecedented microwave equivalent of 2000 kitchen ovens.
from “Nuclear fusion: Can the stellarator unleash the power?”, by David Hambling (in NewScientist, 30 January 2016, paywall)
My visuals are awesome. Your mileage may vary.
Tonight we finished watching THE RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE (1943), a movie covering the return of Armand Tesla, a vampire of Romanian extraction who is temporarily destroyed through the traditional stake through the heart during World War I. In World War II, however, incompetent Nazi bombers accidentally hit the cemetery in which he’s buried, and when the caretakers find Armand’s body with a stake through the heart, they quite helpfully withdraw the stake and rebury the body.
Chaos then slowly ensues.
The cinematography is actually quite clear and well done. Bela Lugosi, in all his Eastern European beauty, makes for a wonderfully evil vampire, tall and singular; a surprise was the appearance of the Renfield-analog as, of all things, an apparent werewolf, although the moon has no credited (nor creditable) role in this particular movie. His evil is apparent when his hirsuteness is out of control, so we breath easily when he’s well-shaven.
Sadly, the female roles are less distinctive and forceful, despite the heroic attempts of Lady Jane Aimsley (Frieda Inescort) to transition from passive female to emphatic harridan. The men’s roles overwhelm all, and so the movie seems off-balance.
And, like many movies, the characters seem plot-driven, rather than the plot seeming character-driven. This makes for a movie that slowly becomes more and more predictable, until, as your fingers rub the belly of the kitty in your lap, you want to cry out, “No, don’t say ‘Yes, master!’ Say, ‘I’ve been waiting for you, I think you’d go well with some olive oil and mushrooms!’ Anything but what the plot calls for!” But the characters were not that self-conscious, even with the championship level mustache of one of the cemetery caretakers.
I was pleased to note the ending included a standard pointer to one of the better definitions of good and evil, with, in this case, emphasis on the latter: evil tends to eat itself, and thus never makes it to dessert. Nevermind the Nazi role in the ending, but that of our uber-henchman, the big R. His realization of his relegation to unnamed late minion is emblematic of evil and how it should be treated.
But, in the end, it’s a blunt enough movie that it should only be watched when fighting off a head cold.
With the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia comes a bit of a minefield for the various interested parties.
“This is a tremendous blow to conservatism. It’s a tremendous blow, frankly, to our country,” Trump added before laying out a strategy for the situation. “It’s called delay, delay, delay.”
Similar pronouncements came from Rubio, Cruz, and Bush. This, of course, is part and parcel with the general GOP strategy ever since President Obama took office – just say NO. But is it wise?
The independents hold the power of choosing the next President, and the passing of Scalia guarantees yet another legitimates reason for the GOP’s methods to be put on display. This is where the electorate has the opportunity to gather more information when it comes to the nature and desirability of the GOP as holding the Presidency – or even the Senate.
It would have been much more interesting if one of the major candidates had come out calling for a moderate response, suggesting that a centrist nominee might be acceptable. That might have left the Democrats in a small quandary – although, frankly, President Obama’s history suggests the GOP has small realistic hope of tying his hands in any intellectual contest.
If the GOP continues this course, Obama may in fact choose to nominate a centrist – and leave the GOP with the unfortunate choice of rejecting a truly acceptable nominee, or breaking their word and stunning their base. The former choice leaves them with the substantive appearance of lacking seriousness about the governance of the most powerful nation on earth – because the SCOTUS should be fully populated in order to properly decide cases. Now, if their demographic base was expanding, or showing signs of possibly expanding, they could pursue this course – but it’s not, as discussed here last year. Their base is slowly dying off, or becoming disaffected and leaving.
And if – as seems likely – we have a President Clinton or Sanders next year, what will the GOP do then? Especially if they still control the Senate? Say NO for 4 more years? The situation begs a response from the inimitable Mark Twain, sadly gone all these years.
All of this may be wrong, of course, as the propaganda machines of both sides wind into action. It’ll be interesting to see how this all spins out.
Just a thought: if there is a God, I would not wish to be favored by him. For most folks, this expression would mean an eternal advantage over our Earthly rivals. Indeed, quite often you’ll hear how anything is justified for those favored by God.
But to me, it would mean this: a higher standard. An expectation that one’s behavior will meet the higher standard.
So … just sayin’, here … if the USA were favored by God, and we failed to meet the higher standard … say, by actually engaging in torture (as admitted to by the CIA) … our fall from grace would be far worse than for some brutal regime for which expectations were rather low. In my view.
For those eternally caught up in the struggle of the moment, I can see how the favor of God might be attractive. Ah, the idea that, for reasons far from clear (we’ll steer clear of inherently unflattering psychological studies for the nonce), God will let us get away with anything, is insanely great.
But with favor comes standards, expectations – and punishment on failure.
I’m agnostic, so I don’t have to worry about this. Much.
But if I were any brand of theist, I’d be really concerned.
Just a little addition to this thread covering the extreme statements leaping from the mouths of GOP candidates, as Steve Benen notes about an increasingly desperate Marco Rubio:
The Florida senator later added that he won’t stop talking about how Obama is hurting the country.“One of the things I’m criticized for is saying the truth, and I’ll continue to say this: Barack Obama is undermining this country. He is hurting this country. He is doing serious damage to this country in a way that I believe is part of a plan to weaken America on the global stage. This is the truth,” Rubio said on Fox.
For any adult looking at reality, it obviously is not the truth, but let’s not brush past the specifics of this pitch too quickly. Rubio believes he sees a secret plan, hatched by the president of the United States, “to weaken America” deliberately.
In other words, Rubio’s comeback plan involves telling voters that President Obama is somehow guilty of treason.
Indeed, consider this exchange yesterday between Alex Conant, Rubio’s communications director, and CNN’s Chris Cuomo.
CUOMO: So [Marco Rubio] really believes that President Obama is intentionally trying to destroy the country?CONANT: Absolutely. And I – and I – all – all evidence points – all evidence confirms that. He –CUOMO: That he’s intentionally trying to destroy the country?CONANT: Absolutely.
Rubio needs to stand out, because it’s clear, after the Saturday debate debacle and its consequences in New Hampshire, that the prize is slipping through his fingers. But this isn’t some picayune state house speakership, this is the Presidency and he’s learning there’s far more than talking points and style. But he doesn’t want to commit, and nothing – nothing – is beyond the pale for him.
But, unfortunately, someone else has already taken possession of the Anti-Christ meme (thanks to Right Wing Watch), so he had to settle for accusations of treason. If, through some miracle, he still wins the nomination, those headlines will be taken out, dusted off, and paraded in front of the independent voters – along with the facts.
It seems like a loser’s strategy to me.
I’d given up trying to profile the candidates as they entered the race because, well, it both exhausting and mystifying – in most cases, who are these people and why should I vote for these accomplishment-devoid folks?
But, as Steve Benen @ MaddowBlog noted today, Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City, billionaire, former member of both political parties, now an independent … take a breath … is considering a run for the Presidency. Bloomberg holds an MBA as well as an Electrical Engineering degree (so there’s a bit of an appeal for me, although I know some engineers are, well, crazy) from Johns Hopkins. With the mayoral experience and not knowing much about him, I thought I’d take a look at his biography.
Based on the information found on Ballotpedia and On The Issues, his membership in the GOP (2001–2007) is a bit mystifying. Here’s the traditional chart from On The Issues:
From the standard political quiz, I disagree concerning Iran (he apparently may want to interfere, although the quote is ambiguous) and privatizing Social Security (“To reduce the deficit we must cut entitlements“), and who knows on the questions on which his view is unknown.
Since he’s a billionaire, we can hope he’d be personally incorruptible, but whether or not his Administration would be is an unrelated question. As a mayor of the largest American city, his executive experience is undeniable; however, the fact that he apparently switched from the Democratic party to the Republican party in order to have a better chance to win, and then outspent his Democratic rival in the resulting general election by 5-1 ($73 million of his own money, and then he spent even more on the election 4 years later – although that’s without figuring inflation) does leave me wondering about his motivations. Muddying the waters further, Bloomberg’s third term was obtained only after he lobbied to have the law changed limiting New York mayors to two consecutive terms. He claimed he wanted to lead the effort to address the financial crisis then afflicting the nation (2009).
Based purely on the limited knowledge I skimmed from Ballotpedia and On the Issues, I’d say I find him an attractive candidate, but with the caveats noted before. However, this year the GOP does not appear to have a surviving candidate who I’d consider competent and ready to fill the Executive, although I admit I haven’t looked at Kasich. On the Democratic side, though, we have two very strong, very committed candidates for whom I would feel comfortable voting. Benen observes:
The only people cheering Bloomberg on are Republican officials and insiders, not because they see a great national leader, but because they see him as a candidate who would help split the center-left and make it that much easier for the GOP to control the White House and Congress in 2017 and 2018.
And, based on what my light review of his career and positions indicates, I’d have to agree; his membership in the GOP was undoubtedly a matter of convenience, not of conviction. Perhaps that statement might be the most important. Certainly Presidential wannabes are ambitious, and so I’m probably a little out of line in being worried about his motivations. But there it is. I’m just a little worried about his motivations.
If you’re a young woman, or an old teenage girl, and wondering about the rules of dating, my friend Libby has written up a helpful collection of guidelines when dating her sons.
6. Become proficient at at least one video game, sport or some other “guy” thing.
It’ll blow his socks off and make you the most fascinating creature he’s ever met.
7. Don’t keep him on the string while you keep your eye out for someone better.
He deserves a girl who wants to be with him because he’s a great guy. And don’t sleep with his friends, chances are he will forgive them faster than he will forgive you. Being drunk is no excuse for acting like a slut, seriously.
My cousin Scott Chamberlain, steward of Mask of the Flower Prince, has written a lovely review of Sibelius’ Kullervo. How do I know it’s well written and captivating? Because at the end, he had me panting to go see it. It seemed a lovely Valentine’s Day gift for my wife.
Too bad the last Minnesota Orchestra performance of it was the day before I read about it.
Continuing the saga of human rights in the, uh, person of Naruto the macaque, US District Judge Orrick has declined to grant rights to the photo, and damages custody, to the animal rights organization PETA. From Ars Technica:
A federal judge on Wednesday said that a monkey that swiped a British nature photographer’s camera during an Indonesian jungle shoot and snapped selfies cannot own the intellectual property rights to those handful of pictures. …
“I’m not the person to weigh into this,” Orrick said from the bench in San Francisco federal court. “This is an issue for Congress and the president. If they think animals should have the right of copyright they’re free, I think, under the Constitution, to do that.”
The US Copyright Office previously ruled that the owner of the camera does not own the rights to the picture, despite his assertion that his actions led to the creation of the picture – even if he did not personally take the picture. Assuming any and all appeals also fail, I suppose this leaves the picture void of the intellectual attribute of ownership, or, in other words, it’s now in the public domain.
To this software engineer, it’s a bit of a ticklish point. A remote camera? Sure, copyright to the guy who hit the remote button. (But what if it wasn’t him, even though he owned the equipment and planned to hit the button, but his neice, say, hit it to take the key picture?) How about someone who puts a camera where a critter might hit the button on the hopes that a good one’s selected? Still a copyright for them?
The joyous insanity of inflicting human intellectual structures on creatures that are not human.
And we’ll let NewScientist‘s Feedback column (23 January 2016) have the final comment:
So now we know – although a room of monkeys chained to typewriters may eventually produce the collected works of Shakespeare, the furry little bards will never see a penny in royalties.
Takes all the fun out of stochastic processes, doesn’t it? OK, now I’m starting to think about an artificial intelligence choosing to hit the button as a serendipitous moment … an extension of previous discussion.
NewScientist (23 January 2016) echoes recent, better known controversies in their One Per Cent column:
A study from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, finds that websites show men ads for higher paying jobs than those women see.
Very puzzling, so I tracked down a rather more detailed publication, the CMU News. Sadly, they’re bollixed as well:
The study of Google ads, using a CMU-developed tool called AdFisher that runs experiments with simulated user profiles, established that the gender discrimination was real, said Anupam Datta, associate professor of computer science and of electrical and computer engineering. Still unknown, he emphasized, is who or what is responsible. Was it the preference of advertisers? Or was it the unintended consequence of machine learning algorithms that drive online recommendation engines?
An interesting detail:
To study the impact of gender, researchers used AdFisher to create 1,000 simulated users — half designated male, half female — and had them visit 100 top employment sites. When AdFisher then reviewed the ads that were shown to the simulated users, the site most strongly associated with the male profiles was a career coaching service for executive positions paying more than $200,000.
“The male users were shown the high-paying job ads about 1,800 times, compared to female users who saw those ads about 300 times,” said Amit Datta, a Ph.D. student in electrical and computer engineering. By comparison, the ads most associated with female profiles were for a generic job posting service and an auto dealer.
Notice they aren’t saying the same jobs are being shown at a lower salary, they simply didn’t show the ads as often. If we are willing to associate frequency with probability of attracting the attention of qualified candidates, then this all just seems like madness: why cut out the smarter half of the species?
And then there’s the larger context:
“This just came out of the blue,” Datta said of the gender discrimination finding, which was part of a larger study of the operation of Google’s Ad Settings Web page, formerly known as Ad Preferences. The finding underscores the importance of using tools such as AdFisher to monitor the online ad ecosystem.
I find something quite amusing about subjecting a commercial operation’s secret algorithms to study, almost as if it were a new, natural species. It makes you wonder if a bunch of computer scientists, even with Ph.D.s, are really the proper researchers. Perhaps some biologists should be doing the study.
Finally, returning to NewScientist’s One Per Cent column, was this additional tidbit:
In 2013, Harvard researchers noticed that searches for African American names prompted more ads offering to check for arrest records.
A few nights ago we happened across A NIGHT TO REMEMBER (1942), a Loretta Young comedy. A young couple, he a successful murder mystery novelist, move into a New York City apartment in preparation for his next book – only to encounter dead bodies and a mystery in real life. A plot with twists, a police department with character (and Sydney Toler, of Charlie Chan fame), and some good dialogue and character interactions is burdened with some minor plot and character holes and a foil which becomes a Z, but has the recompense of Loretta’s eyes used to maximum effect. It’s fun.
In reference to the whitehouse.gov petition I started a week ago, we are now up to a grand total of … 15.
In 3 weeks or so I’ll be celebrating the least successful petition on whitehouse.gov, I suspect. Maybe my Arts Editor will make a celebratory poster.
Jeb Bush, one of the remaining contenders for the GOP Presidential nomination, has had a notoriously unsuccessful campaign, despite having the most success – by far – of the GOP pack of candidates, as documented in this New York Times article, which shows that he and his allied groups having raised $155 million, while his closest challenger in this category, Senator Cruz, is at $89.9 million. (An interesting substory is that Cruz has outraised Bush in terms of personal fundraising, while Bush’s allied groups have crushed Cruz’s allied groups. However, there are too many unknown variables to really be worth pursuing in this post.)
As my Arts Editor and I discussed the post on Senator’s Cruz campaign strategy, it occurred to me there’s a partial explanation for Jeb’s futility in Cruz’s success – so far. But let’s start with former President Bush – who supported him?
One memorable group was the evangelicals. Remember the lady who was convinced that God had picked George to be President, and said so in a TV interview?
So how important are the evangelicals in the GOP? According to this Gallup poll, quite:
And how did Jeb’s brother do with the evangelicals? They loved him, as this article, “The Real Reasons Evangelicals Love Bush,” from Christianity Today illustrates:
Yet while some evangelicals have soured on Bush, polls show the vast majority of evangelicals love him. Why?
It’s often said that they like him because he’s “one of them” and uses religious language, and that’s true–but only scratches the surface. Two new books and a new film on Bush and faith help us to see the real roots of his appeal. All three are campaign-style hagiographies but give a window into the spiritual sources of the Bush-evangelical connection: persecution, transformation, calling, and clarity.
So when Cruz swept in with an explicitly faith-based approach to the campaign, Jeb was deprived of a major group’s support enjoyed by his brother – a good 1/3 of the GOP may have ignored him in favor of the more familiar Cruz. (Similarly, former Senator Rick Santorum lost out in the same way. He won Iowa – barely – in 2012 by his popularity amongst the highly conservative and the evangelicals, while this year he polled 1% – and has since dropped out of the race, throwing his support to … Senator Cruz.)
As a former governor, Jeb comes under suspicion from many in the GOP, and as the support of many large contributors became known, he’s spattered with the mud of being part of the establishment and a possible puppet of Big Money. Recall that governmental experience is now considered a negative by the GOP these days; Jeb has it in spades.
Jeb’s bad luck comes in not realizing that the GOP is changing – but it’s not moving towards the mainstream, as one might expect from a pendulum swing, but rather ever more extreme as the moderates continue to move away from the GOP, and those who used to be too extreme for the GOP now find it more and more congenial. Whether this is a result of a takeover of the GOP, or just an unconscious slide caused by the neverending cause of purity, I’m not entirely sure, but we seem to be seeing the end of the “wait your turn” queue in GOP nomination politics, the queue that gave us Bush I, Bob Dole, Bush II, and Romney.
Brash, untried newbies such as Rubio and Cruz are butting in ahead of Bush III, Perry, Santorum, and they’ve done so by appealing to the sensibilities (if I may be so rash as to use such a word) of the newer members of the GOP – such a litany is unnecessary to repeat here, as many other commentators have pointed it out.
The winner of the GOP nomination is not clear, but the Presidential race may boil down to experience – Sanders and Clinton have it by the shovelful – vs novelty – either a businessman with zero experience, or an untried, unaccomplished Senator are the three (3) favorites in Trump, Cruz, and Rubio. In crude terms, is America still a meritocracy (which requires the voters be knowledgeable, in the truest sense of the word)? Or will we revert to tribalism, voting for the person who’s part of our group and enunciates our own prejudices with impunity?
The first primary is over, and a few barnacles have finally shaken loose (Santorum, Huckabee, Rand Paul, O’Malley) and been lost to the deep. No doubt the commentary has been quite prolix, with the fallout eliciting joy in some quarters, consternation in others.
I haven’t bothered to read the commentaries, so I don’t know if anyone has had any similar thoughts on the matter of the Cruz campaign overall. Let’s take a few facts and put them together:
In Senator Cruz we have a man who’s managed to get his name and, well, reputation onto the national scene, first through winning his seat, and then engaging in conduct well outside the mainstream for a Senator. He doesn’t appear to work on bills, and I’ve never seen a report of him reaching across the aisle; the mainstream, seasoned political reporter finds his conduct mystifying, repellent, and certainly opaque.
But to the conservative mind of a certain bent, they may see a Senator, but without the attributes associated with abhorrency: compromise, participation, even acknowledgement of the traditions of government. Without dirtying his hands, in those eyes, he’s managed to become a major player on the stage. He has displayed his qualifications, which have nothing to do with honest achievement, but rather with a purity of spirit and commitment to the values referenced by these memes.1 Essentially, he has managed to place himself in the middle of national politics without playing the game by its normal rules, and not only in the middle, but in what, at this juncture, appears to be a commanding position.
I have to wonder how long Ted Cruz has been planning this strategy.
And then there’s the ultimate goal. Is he such an arrogant man that he believes the Presidency is within his grasp, that he can achieve that goal? But why? Simply because it’s there? Or are there higher goals in place?
“I’m a Christian first, American second, conservative third and Republican fourth[.]”
Rumor has it that his father is a Dominionist, so one naturally wonders about the son. But does he really think he can unite the conservatives? Libertarians are not necessarily religious, and sometimes view religion with great suspicion; there’s little to keep them from voting Democrat if they can’t stomach the conservative candidate. Trump conservatives are reportedly new to politics; if their man doesn’t win the nomination, we may hear no more from them, even on Voting Day. Or he may be positioning himself for a long term leadership position in the conservative party.
Or we could simply take him at his word: a rock solid belief that his religious convictions are right; that religious freedoms are under attack; that God is calling him to be a leader in this mold. Having the glaring examples of theocracies staring at us in other countries, as well as European history, I cannot help but shiver at such a mindset; I do hope that Americans remember their history.
1Since we would typically come to such conclusions through judging his works, of which he has none, it is appropriate to insert the word alleged somewhere in that sentence.
My correspondent is a better reader than I concerning Flint:
First sentence of the last paragraph of the Wikipedia article you cited says: “An emergency manager, formerly emergency financial manager, is an official appointed by the Governor to take control of a local government under a financial emergency.”
I also ran across this tidbit:
Local governments were required to pay the emergency manager.
As if the financial stress were not great enough.
A reader’s reply regarding Flint:
Sounds like there are several, ah, different views on who was really responsible for the decision. But I believe, and feel free to correct, that all of the emergency managers were appointed by the governor.
According to Wikipedia:
When the Referendum petitions were approved by the Michigan State Board of Canvassers on August 8, 2012 under orders from the Michigan Supreme Court, PA 4 was suspended and the previous version, PA 72, was reinstated.[2] All current EM except for Michael Brown in Flint were reappointed as EFM by the Local Emergency Financial Assistance Loan Board. Brown was previously a Flint City employee in the past five years and was not eligible under PA 72 to be an EFM.[3] The Sugar Law Center filed to challenge PA 4 and PA 72. PA 4 was repealed by Michigan voters in the 2012 general election,[4] and the Michigan Legislature subsequently passed Public Act 436 of 2012 to replace the revived Public Act 72.[5]
Whether or not all of them were appointed through this board is unclear from that article, and I’m a little late in the evening to pursue this further. The board’s composition?
The Local Emergency Financial Assistance Loan Board (ELB) is ex officio formed board consisting of the State Treasurer of Michigan, director of licensing and regulatory affairs and the Director of Technology, Management and Budget as members or their respective designees.[27] The Board selects the emergency manager and chooses between the emergency manager’s cost cutting plan and the local unit board’s alternative plan.[5] The ELB approves all major financial decisions over $10,000 while a municipality is under emergency management, including transfers of publicly owned assets.
No doubt the governor has some influence.
Treehugger‘s Derek Markham reports on France’s latest roadway accessory: solar panels on the road surface:
… the new Wattway system doesn’t replace the road itself or require removal of road surfaces, but instead is designed to be glued onto the top of existing pavement. The Wattway system is also built in layers of materials “that ensure resistance and tire grip,” and is just 7 mm thick, which is radically different from that other design that uses thick glass panels (and which is also claimed to include LED lights and ‘smart’ technology, which increases the complexity and cost of the moose-friendly solar tiles).
While the techie part of me thinks this is cool, the engineering part is giving serious thought to the chronic maintenance costs these things may face…
A reader comments on Flint:
I just read the details of the actual cause of the lead poisoning in Flint. It’s a bit more subtle than most people would have gleaned from the popular press, but just as damning nonetheless.
It turns out the water from the river is more corrosive in just the wrong way so as to leach/dissolve the layers of minerals which have been deposited over the many years on the inside of the old pipes used in the water system. Those pipes were made of lead, a very common thing at the time. With an interior coating of things like manganese, iron or other salts which occur naturally in most water, those pipes are perfectly safe (they were not when first installed, of course, but we did not know better at the time).
Apparently the “cheaper” river water was a bad choice versus the more “expensive” lake water they had been using. The decision was made under a series of state-appointed city managers who were all about Republican-driven cost savings. The decision was made more than a year ago, or thereabouts. The problem was discovered by a third party 5 to 6 months ago (who knows when the water utility people spotted it — they’ve probably been threatened to silence). But the Republican leadership, from city appointees up to the governor himself were all busy denying and covering it up.
There’s no simple solution now. It’ll take years to naturally re-coat the interior of those pipes. Digging them up and replacing them is horrendously expensive. They’ve switched back to lake water, which stops the problem from getting worse, but the damage is already done. They may have saved a few dollars on the front end but they’ve lost millions on the back. Typical stupid right-wing planning.
Or at least, quarterly thinking – that is, gotta keep the shareholders happy each quarter. Governor Snyder has a background in the private sector, according to Wikipedia:
From 2005 to 2007, Snyder served as the chairman of the board of Gateway, Inc., based in Irvine, California. Prior to his election as governor, he was chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and co-founder of Ardesta LLC, a venture capital firm based out of Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Which is merely an observation, not a real accusation. Still, the executive office must set the tone, to some extent, throughout the executive arm – especially when the governor is in his second term.
That said, here are the backgrounds of the relevant Flint Emergency Managers:
Darnell Earley: City Administrator and Municipal Administrator, with a Masters of same from Westsern Michigan University. He’s named in a class action lawsuit, but claims it wasn’t his decision; a while ago he claimed it was not foreseeable. I don’t know if that’s still his assertion.
Michael Brown: His career appears to be in various city administration positions. He preceded Earley.
So those two appear to have respectable careers in city administration. Ed Kurtz is harder to track down. In his support, The Daily Beast reports,
In a civil deposition not reported until now, Ambrose testified under oath that emergency manager Kurtz considered a proposal to use the Flint River, discussed the option with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and then rejected it.
In 2014, Ambrose was deposed in a civil lawsuit brought by retired Flint municipal workers against the state over severe cuts to their health care benefits. Attorney Alec Gibbs questioned Ambrose about the water decision (a year before Flint learned it was being poisoned). …
Howard Croft, the former director of public works for Flint who resigned in November 2015, asserted more than four months ago in a videotaped interview with the ACLU of Michigan that the decision to use the dangerously corrosive river came directly from the Snyder administration.
In the interview, Croft said that the decision to use the river was a financial one, with a review that “went up through the state.”“All the way to the governor’s office?” the ACLU of Michigan asked him.
“All the way to the governor’s office,” Croft replied.
It’s a pity that abandoned houses tend to degrade over time (as reported by The Detroit News). Otherwise, I’d suggest the government of Michigan, as the responsible party, buy all the foreclosed, abandoned properties in the Detroit metro area and give them to the residents of Flint. Everyone moves, and Flint becomes a ghost town, a monument to mismanagement by the Snyder administration.
So far, I have not heard the base cause of mistaken decision making. I’m speculating someone didn’t want to spend the money, which would be attributable to the intrusion of private sector thinking into the public sector – but that awaits the discernment of facts.
[Updated to add a missing word – 7/30/16]
We finished up A Close Call for Boston Blackie (1946) in the last couple of days, part of a series of movies involving the title character (played by Chester Morris), a reformed thief, one of which I’ve reviewed recently. (Before you wonder, no, we don’t have the series, our DVR picks these up at random.)
The previous review indicated a mundane, fluffy bit of entertainment, and, indeed, as Boston and The Runt wave farewell to their cop friends in front of the building housing Boston’s apartment, an assault on a woman takes place across the street. Zounds! In broad daylight, no less! Their dash to the rescue is not soon enough to catch the arch-fiends, but the lady turns out to be an old flame of Boston’s, Gerry. She’s unhurt, unlike my teeth, which are beginning to itch already – they’re allergic to predictability. It’s a bit early, but it is a B-Class movie from the ’40s, right?
But my teeth gain some surcease when Boston and the Runt escort Gerry to Boston’s apartment and they hear a baby squalling – in the apartment. Without asking how she gained access to his apartment, Gerry reveals the baby is her’s, by her inmate husband, and she secreted him with Boston because the hubby has been paroled and she’s terrified of him. At some point the police are called.
And then, yep, hubby shows up in a towering rage and a handgun held on all of them. Will Boston play the hero? Isn’t it, er, a bit early in the movie to bring together a resolution?
And the door opens a trifle and someone else shoots the husband. Whoa. The teeth are much happier. Gerry flips out and dumps the baby on Boston and the Runt; the Runt takes the baby and legs it out the window as the police come in, wondering what’s going on with gun shots. Eventually, they find the hubby in the closet. Lacking a missing suspect, Boston is the default selection.
Still with me?
This is where it really gets interesting. In a side scene, we learn that the baby isn’t even Gerry’s, but rather the son of criminal, who, with his partner, is going to extort money from the father of the hubby under the guise that the baby is his grandson.
Meanwhile, down at the police station, the cops try to shake information out of Boston, who’ll barely own up to his own hair. Finally, the assistant to the detective, forever portrayed as an idiot, is left in charge of our eponymous hero, all the while protesting he should be practicing his wrestling moves for the police wrestling competition. Alone, Boston offers to help him practice, and once again my dental work is in distress.
Briefly.
The cop executes a simple throw, bringing Boston to the floor, who laughs and says he’s impressed, but says he’d like to try again. Then Boston throws the cop to the floor (rather clumsily, but the cop is rather larger than Boston), and the cop is knocked cold. Boston laughs, and exits stage right, pulling on coat.
I shrug. Right?
And then the cop, the idiot who catches on to double meaning word play 30 seconds after everyone else, pops an eye open, laughs, and also exits stage right.
Now that’s interesting. Because it’s unexpected.
There are more twists, but I will say the writers, or whoever was in charge, failed to take advantage of these surprises to any real advantage. It is, after all, a B class movie. (But then, so was Casablanca, yet it’s a classic.) The cinematography is undistinguished, the pacing basically the same throughout, the acting competent. But the story at least kept my interest – as each scene unfolded, I asked myself, what will surprise me here? And they did. An unexpected choice. A twist showing a new motivation. Wait, who’s this character? Oh .. that actually makes sense.
Unlike the latter half of the latest Star Wars installment.
I shan’t go on to any more detail of this movie, but I will say that this reminded me, or, better, clarified for me, a certain nature of story telling. The clash of two individuals, determined and resourceful, over something, is one of the most important parts of storytelling. Too often we don’t see resourceful characters; these colorless dudes are called spear-carriers, doomed to carry messages to real people, and then die with a knife in the back. And showing the resourcefulness in a subplot may be even more important than the main plot, because it shows they have lives, they have thoughts and dreams, they have common decency (“Save the cat!“) – or not. All those things that make us believe they are close approximations to real people – and that the choices they make, and the consequences thereof, may have application in our own lives.
The editors at NewScientist have picked a curious incident around which to enunciate some worries over the killer robots previously discussed in this thread, From their leader (16 January 2016, no paywall):
Called COTSbot, it is one of the world’s most advanced autonomous weapons systems, capable of selecting targets and using lethal force without any human involvement (see “Can this starfish-killing robot save the Great Barrier Reef?“).
A starfish-killing robot may not sound like an internationally significant development, but releasing it on to the reef would cross a Rubicon. COTSbot amply demonstrates that we now have the technology to build robots that can select their own targets and autonomously decide whether to kill them. The potential applications in human affairs – from warfare to law enforcement – are obvious.
As an event which can legitimately bring into focus the idea the issues of killer robots need to be confronted – yes. Unfortunately, the particulars of the situation do not lend themselves to a detailed analysis. The issues of killer robots are numerous, but one of the most salient is proper selection of target, or, on the flip side, the deaths of non-targets – i.e., people who are not fighting. It’s not likely that a COTSbot will run rampant in Sydney, and the natural setting is hardly a war zone. Given the breathlessness of other news outlets reporting on COTsbot, it’s not easy to suggest that COTSbot should be retired before it ever enters the fight against out of control starfish.
And that obvious argument makes it a little difficult to use this as a stepping stone to the real issues of killer robots. Will folks really take it seriously? A quick search of the web didn’t reveal anyone else expressing similar concerns. I worry, a little, that some potential participants, who perhaps are not employing their strongest cognitive resources, will look at this, transport these arguments into the actual killer robot discussion, as ill-fitting as they may be, and conclude there’s little to worry about.
So this might be a bit of the boy who shouted the wolf was eating the starfish – and everyone stared at the boy and wondered about his sanity.
In contrast to more positive recent reports on the world wide coal situation, Michael LePage continues to beat the drum of worry in NewScientist (16 January 2016, no paywall). He references an expert:
In fact, while coal use is falling in most rich countries, cheaper prices worldwide have prompted a remarkable coal renaissance, says economist Ottmar Edenhofer of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change in Berlin, Germany. If just a third of the planned coal power stations are built, we will burn through the remaining carbon budget for 2 °C of warming.
This correlates with this morning’s MPR Kerri Miller show, where a surge in sales of SUVs and trucks is attributed to the precipitous fall in gasoline prices, as is a drop in sales of electric vehicles, and is quite logical, of course: lower prices makes fuel consumption less of an element in selecting what the next new vehicle should be.
So what to do about these planned coal-fired plants? Well, seeing as they are still in the planning stages, we could attempt to spike the artillery before it fires: send the message that by the time these plants are built, the coal will be expensive, or worse, unavailable.
How can we do that? I suggest banning the export of coal from the United States. The United States is not the leading exporter of coal, according to the World Coal Association, but occupies the #4 spot, behind Indonesia, Australia, and Russia. However, as the most influential nation in the world, a dramatic gesture of this sort – even with loopholes for special situations and that sort of thing – would certainly bring the issue to the attention of other governments. While we won’t influence Russia, we can certainly influence Australia, who recently replaced a Prime Minister who blew with the wind with a new Prime Minister who is working towards a solution to climate change, and possibly Indonesia.
To this end, I have started a whitehouse.gov petition. If climate change concerns you, I hope you’ll sign it – and spread the word.
We slurped up ONE MYSTERIOUS NIGHT (1944) last night, an installment in the old Boston Blackie series. The lead, performed by Chester Morris, has an adequate charisma and patter; his partner, “The Runt”, is rather less well used. The police are adequate but not marvelous, as are the various supporting roles.
The plot is rather light and fluffy; when one character bites the dust, it carefully never lets us see his sister, as this would require adding a bit of gravity to an otherwise cotton candy like movie, and we all know what happens when cotton candy is asked to support anything more than helium.
And the dialogue never quite achieves the patter of, say, THE THIN MAN. Workmanlike, it rumbles and stutters along with hardly an ear for the ebb and flow one might look for.
So. An adequate, sometimes slightly, every so slightly intriguing movie. Good for a rainy, tired afternoon.
