Category Archives: Uncategorized

Regarding the Bryant Lake Bowl video a reader writes:

I have a high-end camera drone and can only imagine the flight skills it took to pull that one-shot off. Impressed.

And it appeared they crashed the drone at the end as well.

Manaakitanga (Māori):

While New Zealand hasn’t always been great at recognizing or celebrating our indigenous Māori culture, campaigning by Māori advocates has helped to ensure that Māori culture is now well-incorporated into society. Manaakitanga is one of many customs of the Māori people that are now taught in New Zealand schools. It holds that others have importance equal to, and even greater than, one’s own.

Manaakitanga is about understanding the power of the collective. It derives from the Māori term “mana,” which is the spiritual life force and energy that every living thing possesses. When you honor the mana of others, your own mana will increase through the respect you have earned. When you acknowledge these connections, you understand that your freedom as an individual is only as strong as your place in the community. [“The indigenous custom behind New Zealand’s strong covid-19 response,” Matthew Milner and Richard Ngata, WaPo]

Which is a lovely way of expressing my thought, Responsibilities Before Rights. Much better, really.

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) is big. $1.9 trillion big. Think too hard about it and it’s scary. And that’s what the Republicans are banking on:

This time, Republicans were gambling that voters would become disillusioned with the scope and price of the plan, as well as the partisan process that yielded it, and punish Democrats accordingly.

“This isn’t a rescue bill. It isn’t a relief bill,” said Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader. “It’s a laundry list of left-wing priorities that predate the pandemic and do not meet the needs of American families.” [I thought Senate Minority leader Senator McConnell (KY-R) said this, not McCarthy.]

They were also pointing to an increase in the deficit — which the Treasury Department reported on Wednesday had soared by 68 percent to $1 trillion in just the past five months — arguing that the package would add to an already crushing debt burden.

Top Republicans also sought preemptively to deny Democrats credit for any economic improvement that might follow the measure’s enactment.

“The American people are going to see an American comeback this year,” Mr. McCarthy said, “but it won’t be because of this liberal bill.” [The New York Times]

The Republicans are prognosticating, so let’s ask the obvious question: what’s their history in the field of prognostication on financial bills?

How about, say, that 2017 Tax Reform bill? Advertised by the Republicans then in charge of the Federal government to be a prime example of the Laffer Curve in action, it reduced corporate taxation levels, banking on the companies using the money suddenly not sent to the government to expand their operations and ignite a quickly growing economy, replenishing lost government revenues from the fizz of a quickly expanding economy.

Critics pointed out that the Laffer Curve history is one long failure, predicting that most of the money would be sent to shareholders in the form of dividends.

So what happened?

Here’s the GDP, in percentage terms, since 2000 for context, from the St. Louis Fed:

It’s hard to see any fizz there; those last two data points are reflective of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, but between 2017 and 2020 there’s no evidence of Republican-forecast gains, while Democratic and independent economists noted their forecasts were coming true.

And the deficit? Again, as a percentage gain or loss.

Unsurprising, isn’t it? The deficit was taking off before 2020, just as forecast by non-Republicans.

So let’s apply this lesson to our evaluation of the claims of such Republican leaders as McCarthy, Senate GOP Leader McConnell, opportunist Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), head-shaker Senator Rick Scott (R-FL), and all future Republican claims that the ARP is either a disaster or irrelevant.

Because they have a vested, even existential interest, in its failure. But their history of financial prognostications are not only bad, they have been disastrously bad.

Let’s keep an eye out for third-party evaluations, instead.

And not pay any attention to this crew.

Erick Erickson is frantic to keep the conservatives on, or above, the moral level of the left, because that’s what keeps the chins of the conservatives up.

Secularism is, in fact, a religion. It has sacraments like support for abortion rights. It has tithing in which secular adherents give money to various political and social causes. It has liturgies in the new speak of wokeness. It has theological tracts and church services as rally and protest and Episcopal mass. It has even spurred the rise of terrorist zealots and the new censorious social justice warriors I have taken to calling Woke-O Haram.

Secularism has various denominations. Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton, both purported religious pastors who have embraced secular causes, were famous in the 1980s and 1990s for pressuring corporate America to pay indulgences to their various social justice causes, most often aligned with race issues. If a corporation did not pay, it could expect calls for boycotts and protest from the secular religious adherents.

In secularism there is no concept of grace, which remains a uniquely Christian concept of giving people that which they do not deserve. Likewise, secularism’s eschatology, or study of the end times, tends to be bleak. You die, the worms eat your body, and Simba sings about the Circle of Life until the sun explodes, everything incinerates, and the universe goes dark.

And there’s more, but that’s enough. It’s easy enough to note that …

• “Woke” remains an intensely controversial ideology which appears to be incompatible, and in my opinion inferior, to the liberalism which has carried Western Civ to arguably advanced heights of civilization, and “woke” has been clutched at prematurely by many out of guilt, lack of thought, or desire for power by many.
• “theological tracts and church services as rally and protest …” ignores the fact that the former is invocations of a Divinity unproven, while the latter are a tactic addressing specific societal problems.
• The corporate “indulgences,” a loaded theological term used to indulge^[1] in ad hominem attacks, are hardly that; any donations that occurred were often carefully calculated by the approving C-Suite executives to enhance the corporation’s concrete future.
• And, of course, in Erickson’s own right wing ideology, the equivalent to grace, by his definition, is welfare.

And the rest of his argument is equally dubious. But it really comes down to this:

On the one side, all of the institutions are based on an unknown Divinity which is only thought to exist. The writings attributed to it come from the hands of men & women; that they are thought to be the mere instruments of that Divinity, or inspired by it, is private knowledge, knowledge only known to the happy recipient – or invented by them. One can build up all the logical structures one wants, but if the foundation, the assumptions, upon which structures are built are unstable, then so is the logic.

On the other hand, secularism, the lack of religious influence over public affairs^[2], can be conducted rationally. Long-time readers know that I believe that humans can be rational, but are not by nature rational. This means, yes, mass murderers can be religious or not. But a properly rational polity, which has a clear understanding of its goals, and why those goals contribute to both short-term and long-term survival, is in my view not the equivalent of a religious sect because its adherents, properly thoughtful, should also be lacking in that arrogance that comes naturally to the cult adherent.

And that means, very importantly, that course corrections can be enacted bloodlessly.

In Erickson’s post, he references Luther, the Catholic monk outraged by the practice of selling indulgences, who arguably is the progenitor of multiple long and bloody wars between his Protestants and their predecessor Catholics. It’s appalling how often change in religious institutions involves a large amount of blood; and, worse, it’s over inarguable points of religious tenets. Why inarguable? Because it’s based on private knowedge: God told me, I must be right and you can’t challenge me. It’s based on inscrutable writings: It’s God’s finger writing that, you have to believe. Implicit in such confrontations is power, wherein those holding it invoke the status quo, those wanting it claiming those who have it are blasphemers, apostates, or worse.

And it’s never based on rationality.

And, of course, irreligious violence is also famous. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot: their names are legion for their mass murders. Of course, if you don’t hold human life sacred, then they’re not so bad. Perhaps that applies to the Crusaders out to massacre the Muslims who held the sacred lands, too.

I, personally, care not to live in lands ruled by the like of either group.

But I see little rationality in the theocrats. Excuses found in religious literature for crimes large and small are found all over, such as Erickson’s own claim that Christian theology made Trump into God’s tool; all such claims inarguable but with your favorite of weapon of whatever period we’re talking.

But secular rationality grounded in the study of reality, the clear eyed understanding of history and how humanity works (and I fear I’ll part ways with a large party of atheists at this point), and societal goals grounded in justice … put these three together, along with a big dose of humility, and it’s clear that secularism can not be the equivalent of a religious sect. I don’t doubt that a secularism driven by unhinged passions and a dearth of historical sense – or just simple lust for power – will be driven down to the level of a sect, such as that which Erickson inhabits so joyfully.

But I think that Erickson’s not making a reasoned argument, but instead trying to stir the passions of his fellow cult members, because in passion comes a cessation of thinking. Right now, the conservative movement, powered by the evangelicals, is demonstrating a profound contempt for democracy: the insurrection, the refusal of the Senate GOP to convict Trump, the mass GOP refusal to vote for legislation to help the American voter, Democrat and Republican, and now the attempts to disenfranchise voters under the guise of suppressing voter fraud that does not appear to have existed in the first place.

It’s quite a jerky line Erickson has to balance on. It appears he’s still on the part where he has to convince his fellow conservative that they’re morally superior to those bad lefties. The “woke” are an easy target, but if the left, after appropriate discussion and debate, dump them by the side of the road, he’ll have a helluva harder time of it.

Can Erickson drag his democracy haters back into the fold of democracy? He’s got a couple of years to try.

¹ –Ahem!- Forgive the word play, if you will.

² Roughly speaking, of course.

For those readers who remember my mention of prominent Southern Baptist Beth Moore, it’s no longer Southern, just Baptist:

For conservative evangelical critics of former president Donald Trump, the past few years have been painful and isolating. But this week things got personal in a new way, with a dramatic announcement by celebrity Bible teacher Beth Moore that she no longer considers herself a Southern Baptist.

Moore, a joke-cracking Texan, runs a $15 million ministry that is wildly popular among conservative Christian women. She has for several years been raising concerns about what she sees as hypocrisy in evangelicalism. On Tuesday, she went further, ending her affiliation with the Southern Baptists and parting ways with the denomination’s publishing arm that distributed her Bible teaching.

While the Southern Baptist Convention has been losing members for years, it remains the country’s largest Protestant group, and Moore’s exit has fueled chaos for the denomination which has debated women’s roles in recent years. [WaPo]

It’s one thing when a few nondescript members of a religious organization leave it. It’s quite another when a celebrity for whom that membership led to celebrity and influence leaves the organization.

And in disgust, too.

Whether this will have a long term impact on the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is something we’ll see, or not see, in the near future. The moral repugnance inherent in her move is certainly important, but whether or not that will move people out of the SBC is not yet apparent. No doubt the SBC pastors will be throwing mud to cover up the failings of the SBC, like this guy:

Tom Buck, a Southern Baptist pastor from Texas who is part of a much more conservative wing of the denomination, in a blog post Wednesday suggested Moore’s departure should have been prompted by the denomination or by [her long-time publisher] Lifeway for what he called her “theologically unsound” teachings.

Notice that his plaint is about her purity. We’ll be seeing a lot of that if SBC begins to fragment.

Conspirituality:

Conspirituality, …, was coined by researcher Charlotte Ward. She describes conspirituality as “a rapidly growing web movement expressing an ideology fueled by political disillusionment and the popularity of alternative worldviews.” There is no official indoctrination video, no book to read; the hundreds of thousands of people who embrace these New Age-like beliefs find them on YouTube vlogs like [Lorie] Ladd’s, as well as Instagram and Facebook. Recently, conspiritualists have begun to overlap with the far-right conspiracy theory QAnon. [“Why some New Age influencers believe Trump is a ‘lightworker‘,” Nicole Karlis, Salon]

Yes, properly vague. The article inspires no confidence in members of the movement, either.

What else could it be? Minneapolis’ Bryant Lake Bow drone shot:

Back to this thread, Universal Basic Income had another small, limited but real-world experiment recently completed, with positive results:

Residents of Stockton, Calif., who received $500 a month from a first-of-its-kind guaranteed-income program were more likely to find full-time jobs, be happy and stay healthy, according to a year-long study published Wednesday.

Supporters of universal income programs — which provide regular, unconditional payments from the government to people — say the findings should dispel common criticisms of the idea, such as that money with no strings attached will become a disincentive for people to work or will encourage them to spend it on drugs and alcohol.

Recipients of the monthly payments were twice as likely to gain full-time employment than others, according to data analysis by a pair of independent researchers, Stacia West of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville and Amy Castro Baker of the University of Pennsylvania. Most of the money distributed was spent on food or other essentials. Tobacco or alcohol made up less than 1 percent of tracked purchases. [WaPo]

Limited, yes – but encouraging, at least for the left. For conservatives, it’s a small, but potentially important, strike against the ideological pillar that people will waste what’s given to them.

This piece by Tim Miller is just the latest bit of evidence of the importance of experience:

But as he is poised to sign into law a massive, legacy-defining COVID relief package that will, among other things, fund the vaccine surge that will ensure every desiring adult will be jabbed by May, well ahead of the pace he inherited. I feel compelled to point out that we got here thanks to luck that Joe Biden made for himself, and for all of us.

In November of 2017 Joe Biden did an interview with Peter Hamby of Snapchat and Vanity Fairduring which he laid out what a campaign that he didn’t exactly want to run would be premised on. Hamby summed up the Biden message as one about how “a certain set of ideals tether us together as Americans, and that above all else, character counts.”

This was…not the prevailing view about the state of the country or the path to victory among the other Democratic candidates, strategists, or left wing pundits. Biden was derided for his obliviousness and naivete when he would bang on about bipartisanship. He was underestimated and in every interview I gave about the Democratic Primary his campaign was compared to my former boss, Jeb!

Yet, when he launched his campaign he was undeterred, calling the unity doubters out explicitly saying, “I know some of the smart folks say Democrats don’t want to hear about unity. The angrier a candidate can be, the better chance they have to win the nomination. I don’t believe it. I really don’t. I believe Democrats want to unify this nation.”

It turns out Biden was right and almost everyone else was wrong.

Since, well, just about the time Biden won the South Carolina primary, I’ve felt like I’m watching a professional running rings around the amateurs. Biden’s tactics for each goal he attains are not always obvious, but it’s clear that he’s at least two steps, and sometimes more, ahead of everyone else, from conservative critics to old Senate colleagues to possibly even his old friend, President Obama.

And, unlike Miller and his colleagues, I don’t think this is at all up to luck. I think this is experience and faith in the American character at work here. He’s nearly 80 years old, almost 60 years of public service, and that counts for more than something. That’s marinating in how the political struggle goes, whether working in a polite and even friendly manner with the “other side”, or dealing with political neophytes such as Hawley and Cruz – and I do mean they are neophytes, because those two, along with all the other politicos of their generation or younger, grew up in an environment where compromise with the other side, where actual governing, is no longer taught, at least by the Republican Party.

They are, in effect, cripples when it comes to actual governance. They know how to win a seat in Congress in the environment of five years ago, but they know nothing about the important responsibilities of being a Member of Congress. And when their next election comes up with an electorate who saw them associated with an Insurrection, failed as it was, will they even win reelection?

When Biden first threw his hat in the ring, I applauded, but expressed concerns about his age. With age can come experience, but can also come stultification, even petrification. President Biden appears to have managed to escape the latter two, while collecting the former.

The Republicans may be in for a rough, rough four years, as the smilin’, happy warrior, Joe Biden, teaches them what it really means to be American. Because they don’t seem to know about that.

And I think that’s what this guy sees:

Jeremiah Johnson, the self-described prophet who faced backlash from fellow evangelical Christians after publicly apologizing for prophesying former President Donald Trump would be reelected president, is ending Jeremiah Johnson Ministries. …

His new website outlines plans for a ministry called The Altar Global.

Instead of offering what Johnson called “prophetic commentary” on current events, The Altar Global will “help prepare the Bride of Christ for the return of our glorious Bridegroom King Jesus,” according to the website.

That includes a one-year intensive program called The Altar School of Ministry, based in Concord, North Carolina, where Johnson and others will train students “on the lifestyle of an end-time messenger and the return of the Lord.” It also includes local and national conferences, monthly Zoom calls with supporters and books and other resources. [RNS]

And if you think I went all that way just for the punnage, you just might be right.

If you’re not an avid fan of C-SPAN, the non-profit cable network that carries much of the public hearings and business of the Federal government, then you may not know about their potential big new attractions in the Senate.

Real filibusters.

“He made me filibuster this!” shouted a very young Jimmy Stewart.

Once upon a time, the Senate had real filibusters, which Hollywood dramatized in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (1939). Politicians actually had to take the floor and declaim for hours on end, hoping the legislation they were delaying would lose support, either as a result of their arguments, or from sheer ennui. Meanwhile, if sixty or more Senators responded positively to a cloture motion, then the filibuster was ended and the voting began, no matter how the Senator felt about it.

Then, more than a few years back, the Senate adopted a new rule which stated that any Senator could notify whoever was running the Senate that day that they sufficiently hated a piece of legislation that they refused to let that legislation come to a vote unless, of course, a cloture motion voided their notification.

And all the effort went out of filibustering. It made it into a video game. And not only no effort, but the Senator didn’t even have to open their yap. Sit back, put their feet up on their desk, take a nap, secure in the knowledge that the legislation would never get its vote.

If my reader is unfamiliar with how the Senate has conducted itself in recent years, especially under GOP and sometime-Senate Majority leader Senator Mitch “No!” McConnell (R-KY), but suspects this could bring the Senate to a grinding halt, they’d be right. In the last twenty years, passing legislation in the Senate has required trickery (the “reconciliation process”, which is exempt from the rule and involves budgets and anything else that sneaks past the Parliamentarian) or the invocation of the Ghost of George Washington, and the latter is making less and less impression upon Republicans.

But now one of the Democrats who opposes changing the rules, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), is showing signs of changing his mind:

Sen. Joe Manchin said Sunday he is open to altering the Senate filibuster to make it more “painful” for the minority party to wield, while reiterating his opposition to ending the procedural hurdle altogether.

“The filibuster should be painful, it really should be painful and we’ve made it more comfortable over the years,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Maybe it has to be more painful.”

Manchin (D-W.Va.) has previously supported efforts to require senators to filibuster by talking on the chamber floor in order to hold up a bill, an idea he raised on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“If you want to make it a little bit more painful, make him stand there and talk,” Manchin said. “I’m willing to look at any way we can, but I’m not willing to take away the involvement of the minority.”  [Politico]

While everyone is excited about what’s right in front of their nose, I’m wondering what sort of effects this will have beyond the obvious.

1. Retirements. Filibustering can take quite a toll on a physical body. A surprising five Republican Senators are already planning to retire in 2022. Will other older members, such as Senators Kennedy, McConnell, and Grassley, finding filibustering to be tougher than putting feet up on the desk and snoozing, decide that they can’t meet the new demand? And how about the older Democrats? Will we see some movement among them?
2. Campaigns. This could provide damaging material to competing candidates, not only in that a filibustering candidate can literally be seen to be dedicated to deep-sixing an important and popular piece of legislation – nothing like a visual to rile people up – but who knows what will come out of their mouth? I know when I get tired I’ll occasionally say something I regret. Is this going to become an important part of campaigning?

I must admit, I’m rather hoping that we return to the old form of filibustering, because Senators should be willing to put their political and personal lives on the line if they really dislike some piece of legislation.

And not merely because the legislation was proposed by the opposition.

The passing of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 by the US Senate over the weekend, and the probable passing of it by the House and subsequent signing by President Biden, brings to the fore the actions of Republicans in response to this bill.

In the House, it passed its initial test with no House Republican support; in the Senate, no Republican voted for it. It now returns to the House to approve the changes made by the Senate.

We can call the Republicans’ actions intransigence, provincialism, belief in their own propaganda, even fear, whether it be political or personal.

But, to me, this is a version of purity.

For Republicans, each of their actions are measured against a metric of faithfulness to the Republican creed, and that creed includes assertions of the evils of Democrats, of socialism, expertise; the importance of knowing that God is behind your every move so long as those moves are blessed by God – or, more importantly, its representatives on Earth, namely the leading, attention-hungry clerics. An important corollary of that last is the evil of compromise, as Barry Goldwater noted more than 50 years ago.

So motivations will be various, but I think will fall into the four categories above. And the result?

The base, as it slowly deflates from demographics and defections, may love it.

But everyone else is watching. We’re in the middle of a national crisis, and every single Republican dug in their heels and shrieked No!

So this is the Big Bet: Will the Biden plan work? The Republicans, whether Senator McConnell and Rep McCarthy, the Republican Congressional leaders, understand it or not, have harnessed their Party’s future not to a Republican horse, but to a Democratic horse. Rather than using their positions to try to get a Republican plan to work, they’ll be using their positions to attempt the opposite with the Democratic plan.

And, if they succeed, a lot of American citizens, voting citizens, will get hurt.

So even their big bet, if they win it, will be bitter wine.

But this is what their amateurism, their unseriousness, has led to. They now have to rely on their ability to lie and distract, on Fox News, OANN, and Newsmax to distract and lie for them, and for President Trump to get out and do what he does best – lie for them.

All while Trump hates on them and insists on purifying the Party to his own liking.

Like most theological and ideological purity schemes, there’s little actual substance beyond the dislike for the experts who come up with conclusions inconsistent with their ideology, their frantic need for power, and their mad, mad theology, and that lack of substance, that lack of honesty, in the end results in disaster. Or, as I noted years and years ago, someday the Republican Party will have all of three members – and two of them will be on probation for impurity.

That dagger called a RINO has much more work to do, I suspect. The only question is whether it’ll be Trump, the clerics, or someone else.

Soliton:

1. (physics, mathematics) A self-reinforcing pulse or travelling wave caused by any non-linear effect (found in many physical systems).
   Synonyms: carrier wave (obsolete), solitary wave, wave of translation [Wiktionary]

Noted in “The US Army is building the most powerful laser weapon in the world,” David Hambling, NewScientist (27 February 2021, paywall):

Normal lasers are ineffective over long distances because the beam spreads out, but ultrashort pulses can be shaped into self-focusing light pulses called solitons that turn the air itself into a lens, continually refocusing the pulse.

Such a weapon would produce dramatic effects. The rapid temperature rise from the ultrashort pulse would vaporise the surface of a target rather than melting it, a technique used industrially to drill precise holes through metal. The resulting rapid expansion of gas can also produce a powerful blast wave.

A handy characteristic. I wonder how such systems change over time. There’s no such thing as endless energy.

For long time readers of what was once called the blogosphere, the name Frederik deBoer may be familiar. After a couple years break as a blogger, he’s back, revealing his struggle with mental illness. I found this bit concerning lithium particularly interesting:

Other side effects are drug-dependent. For me, lithium is the basis of everything. It is the foundation of my treatment. A mood stabilizer, it is one of the most reliable and widely-prescribed psychiatric medications in the world. The pills flatten you out, trimming off the emotional highs and lows that can, for many, cause so much wreckage in their lives. An element of the periodic table, lithium cannot be patented and is thus available fairly cheaply at almost any pharmacy. The emotion-moderating effects are apparent after 3-4 weeks and those benefits make it easier to stay on the pill. Not only is the clinical evidence of its efficacy in patients clear, multiple studies have found that places with higher natural levels of lithium in the drinking water have lower rates of violent crime and suicide. This came as little surprise to me. When you have experienced bipolar mania, the shaking delirious heart-racing paranoiac acceleration of everything you are, lithium’s steady and reliable presence is as comforting as a drug can get.

I haven’t examined his links, so I don’t know if the studies he cites attempt to compensate for culture – itself undoubtedly influenced by lithium – in a credible way. But it does remind me of Kevin Drum’s notes on lead in the environment, and how its presence and cessation correlate with falling levels of crime.

Whether there’s anything practical to be drawn from the lithium studies is not immediately obvious to me. If the effects were dramatic, I’d expect evolution to weed out the particularly vulnerable.

But it is a fascinating clue that the old mind-body dualism argument is really not viable.

My Arts Editor, due to an injury, has been watching a great deal of YouTubes involving sewing, but this doesn’t come from her, but rather an old friend who I hardly ever get to see anymore:

I’ve always liked orange. This is the creation of Teuta Matoshi of Bosovo. More here.

[H/T MCI]

“The Dragon” was played by Pope Pius XII in an uncredited role, or so the backstage rumor mill had it.

The Golden Coach (1952) is one of those whimsical productions which indulge in sundry bits of unlikely occurrences in order to make a point, and whether you like it or not depends on your taste in drama.

A troupe of the commedia dell’arte type is commissioned to travel from its home in Italy to Peru, to perform for the local colonists. Their dreams of performing in a city where the streets are paved in gold go up in dust, when not only the cold reality of colonial Peru means the gold is being drained away by the colonial governors, but productions such as there’s are expected to perform for free, and depend on the largesse of the local colonial administration to cover their costs.

Fortunately for them, the local administrator, the Viceroy, takes a liking for the leading lady of the troupe, Camilla, a woman who wears her emotions on her sleeve, has lost the leash for same, possesses a hot temper, and pursues a wide variety of, ah, interests. Through the Viceroy’s support, they can continue to perform, if only to earn enough for passage back to their homes. Meanwhile, Camilla finds, besides the Viceroy, two other men of surpassing interest: the gracious Don Antonio, who came over on their ship, and the local champion bullfighter, Ramon, an intensely popular man whose enthusiasm for the work of the troupe also contributes much to its success.

And what of the eponymous golden coach? The Viceroy ordered it from Spain, and it was also on the ship. He wishes to use it to impress other Administrators, the Dons under his jurisdiction, and, well, it’s useful for impressing Camilla as well, now that he’s met her.

But there is a war brewing. and Don Antonio leaves to fight; soon enough, the war impacts the Viceroy, whose financial acumen is already lamentable. But with Camilla still to win, even as he presses his unwilling Dons to contribute more in taxes, he gifts the golden coach to her.

As well as to another woman.

Soon enough, the Viceroy’s position is threatened, as he can be stripped of his post by the nobility, the Dons, if the local Bishop agrees that the Viceroy has become unsuitable to the job. What is to be done? What of Don Antonio, back from the war and world-weary, and the impetuous Ramon? Will the Bishop sign on to the removal of the Viceroy?

And will Camilla, dismayed at the sudden timidity of her wooer, ever respect him again?

It’s all a bit silly, but not in that way where you wonder why you bothered; it’s a professional production, and in English, rather than the expected Italian or Spanish. If you need something to take the weight of the world off your shoulders, this may be a good tonic.

I know CPAC was last weekend, but I can’t help but be fascinated on a hint of what appears to be an attempt to rip the conservative movement apart. From LifeSiteNews:

A spirited discussion during a breakout session at CPAC today brought out into the open what many religious Americans have been saying the past several years, namely, that the conservative movement is compromising on social issues in order to win over gay and pro-LGBT voters.

Pro-life activist Abby Johnson lit the fuse Saturday with remarks she gave during a panel conversation on Christianity that also featured former Trump legal advisor Jenna Ellis. Johnson’s comments resulted in a twenty minute, sometimes combative, back and forth between herself, other panelists, and audience members.

“They haven’t had one keynote speaker stand up there and talk about the attack on traditional marriage,” Johnson thundered. “And they can’t. Because some of their sponsors are gay conservatives.”

Johnson, who has previously spoken on CPAC’s main stage, said she was referring to the influence of groups like Log Cabin Republicans and Atheists for Liberty, which had booths at the conference.

“Transgenderism is running rampant through CPAC and we’re not talking about traditional families, we’re not talking about traditional marriage …. because we have compromised to this false sense of diversity.” …

And here’s the giveaway, the tell of someone who’s desperate for power:

“We have a problem with the conservative movement … we don’t hear enough of [the word of God] from the main stage,” she said. “I think gun rights, election integrity is important … but we need to hear more about God from the largest conservative conference in the United States.”

Rather than support the organization’s bid to increase its influence, she’d rather take the next step in the accumulation of political power. Because this is all about political power, because that’s what CPAC is all about. Like many zealots, it doesn’t seem reasonable to her that her grab for power will be just like Jello squeezing, with much of it running away, but that’s what will happen. Especially those who think she’s committing blasphemy.

Which, by the way, this appears to be most perilous, trying to use her religious mania to accumulate power in the world. Not that there’s anything new in that, but I did have to laugh at this:

She also criticized a golden statue of President Trump that was wheeled into the conference. Attendees could be heard praising the statue as “awesome” as it made its way through the convention floor.

Good for her for spitting into the wind. Too bad she’s not self-aware enough to know she’s treading on equally God-forsaken – literally! – ground herself.

But all of this speaks to an ongoing fracturing of the conservative movement. I wonder how long it’ll take for the Mormons to get run out of the movement, despite being more authentic than the purifiers.

The size of the March 4th “Inauguration” crowd:

Trump's inauguration crowd today. @seanspicer pic.twitter.com/lcYEDeXVGi

— Cheri Jacobus (@CheriJacobus) March 5, 2021

Trying to make that into the biggest inauguration crowd ever might be unkind to the Photoshoppers. Still, keep an eye out for Don, Jr., appearing half a dozen times throughout the crowd. That’ll be your clue to fakery.

Excuse me: Fake News.

Ersatz:

Ersatz is a German word literally meaning substitute or replacement.^[2] Although it is used as an adjective in English, it is a noun in German. In German orthography noun phrases formed are usually represented as a single word, forming compound nouns such as Ersatzteile (“spare parts”) or Ersatzspieler (“substitute player”). While ersatz in English generally means that the substitution is of unsatisfactory or inferior quality compared with the “real thing”, in German, there is no such implication: e.g., Ersatzteile ‘spare parts’ is a technical expression without any implication about quality, whereas Kaffeeersatz ‘coffee substitute‘ is not made from coffee beans, and is thus inferior. [Wikipedia]

Noted in “Fact check: Images of alleged giant human skeletons are altered,” Reuters:

Followers of this conspiracy contend not only that “the trees we see now are small ersatz versions of giant, 20-mile-high trees that used to exist on earth in ancient times,” as related in a Quartz article here , but also that giants who once roamed the earth were the ones who cut them down.

I was not aware of the exact connotations of ersatz. There’s a pun in this somewhere, but I’m too crabby to dig it out. Oh, there’s one in that, too.

Take my keyboard away from me. Or my sense of humor.

Maybe someone should tell these folks there were monstrous dogs that roamed the earth, and they formed the Rocky Mountains in a process that is not for the delicate. And then they chased down and ate Paul Bunyan. The ravaged skeleton can be seen here.

Attack of the kewpie dolls, eh?

Does the idea of turning Cthulhu into a minion and calling it – unknowingly – Spot deeply amuse you or fill you with disgust?

If the former, then Howard Lovecraft and the Frozen Kingdom (2016) might be a suitable night’s entertainment.

But don’t go into this expecting to be impressed. This effort, while entertaining in parts, suffers from second-rate animation, such as a lack of tracks when traversing snow fields, poor artistic choices (I agree with my Artistic Editor), minions of the antagonist being radically underwhelming and vaguely amusing when they should have served to put Howard in mortal peril, and some plot holes that needed cleaning up.

The result, while it has its moments and made me laugh a couple of times, is generally a bit disappointing. There’s a sense that it could have been quite a bit more, but the makers didn’t quite see how much better it could have been.

And they didn’t put Cthulhu in a tutu. Very disappointing.

A reader remarks on the GOP members of Congress in response to Senator Tuberville’s pursuit of the title The Clown of the Senate:

There is no shortage of idiots in Congress. How so many graduated law school and passed the Bar is a mystery.

Indeed. And although the dis-esteemed Tuberville does not have academic achievements beyond being a football coach, Senator Sasse (R-NE) is a former University president. Senator Hawley (R-MO) is a former University professor. Senator Cassidy (R-LA) is an MD.

It leaves me wondering: did these people benefit from ‘legacies’, did they buy their honors, or are the institutions actually in such bad shape that people like Hawley and Rep Gaetz (R-FL) (Florida State U Law School) can get through?

Or is there a disconnect between academic achievement and provincialism? Does the former not erase the latter?

I see Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) is unwilling to concede the race for the title of Clown Of The Senate. Here he’s seen trying to present a critique of the Covid-19 relief bill (American Rescue Plan):

why are they like this pic.twitter.com/QGYOQrJX1l

— Elizabeth Pancotti (@ENPancotti) March 3, 2021

Yes, that does say “Thickness of a $1 bill: ...”, followed by a bunch of math.

Because, heaven knows, this is a relevant metric when evaluating a proposed piece of legislation. Especially legislation designed to bring relief to a large proportion of America suffering due to a national emergency.

Of Wisconsin, you ding-bat.

It’s another example of ideology over competency, and how that damages the nation. Do better next time, Wisconsin. Johnson’s beyond help, I fear.

The legendary Bruce Schneier doesn’t see much happiness for the customers of the software industry unless government steps in:

The only way to force companies to provide safety and security features for customers and users is with government intervention. Companies need to pay the true costs of their insecurities, through a combination of laws, regulations, and legal liability. Governments routinely legislate safety — pollution standards, automobile seat belts, lead-free gasoline, food service regulations. We need to do the same with cybersecurity: the federal government should set minimum security standards for software and software development.

In today’s underregulated markets, it’s just too easy for software companies like SolarWinds to save money by skimping on security and to hope for the best. That’s a rational decision in today’s free-market world, and the only way to change that is to change the economic incentives.

Which aligns with my long-held view that software should always have a substantial warranty on it, and that the old “this software is not warranted for any particular use” was a scam and should have been made illegal. If we’re going to run a capitalist economy, then it’s necessary that costs of insecurity flow to the responsible party where possible – and while out ‘n out malefactors are not always found and prosecuted, and often can’t pay the piper, the companies selling insecure software can pay for it.

And, because they want bigger profits, they have a motivation to fix their damn software. No surprise here, right?

The question is how far are we going to have to go to create secure software, because products are delivered on the shoulders of other products: operating systems, compilers, software libraries proprietary and free, and all vulnerable to insecurities. As I’ve mentioned before, we need a software equivalent to Underwriters Laboratories (UL), which tests consumer hardware, such as can openers, for safety issues.

On the other hand, it strikes me that I may be pushing the UL analogy too far. After all, UL works on assuring bad designs don’t make it out into the world, while the software problem involves malevolent outside forces attempting to take advantage of mistakes in software design.

There is a difference, and it may affect how we should approach the problem. For example, perhaps these same companies should be permitted to sue the people taking advantage of software flaws, and, if successful, perhaps attach some percent of their incomes for the rest of their lives.

That might get their attention.

In any case, motivation of those producing the software is the key here. As Schneier points out, there’s currently little motivation for producing secure software; time to market and gimmick gimmick gimmick are the leading lights of the software producers. This has to change.

From last night’s Colbert, it’s John Batiste: