Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Things I Don’t Know About Our Government would fill volumes and volumes. This article by Jennifer Rubin I found fascinating – and brightened my mood:

Yeah, no humor in that post title. Politico reports on Senator Johnson’s (R-WI) latest fiasco:

But an interim report, issued by Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) less than six weeks before the presidential election and released publicly on Wednesday, is largely a compilation of previously public information — some of it rehashed anew by witnesses who already testified during the House’s impeachment inquiry last year — as well as news articles and strongly worded insinuations with little evidence to back them up. [Politico]

It’s a little surprising that Senator Grassley also signed on to that mess – he at least used to have a good reputation. On the other hand, his hurried rubber-stamping of Trump’s judicial nominees in the first two years of Trump’s term were hardly a dignified, exacting approach to the matter.

But it’s the work primarily of Wisconsin’s Senator Johnson, who really seems to have put his foot into a pothole here. No new information? No investigators scoring authentic data from Ukraine?

Not even new fake information?

I don’t bring up that last point as a rhetorical flourish, but to make salient a common refrain concerning the GOP: they’re a bunch of third-raters. If Johnson was better, he’d have at least made up some fake information.

If he was a competent and honorable Senator, he would have simply said he didn’t find anything new. But, no, he has to paddle around the Swamp of Trump and skim off the skin that’s formed on it.

I cannot imagine what Wisconsin voters were thinking when they reelected him back in 2016.

Having grown up in a mildly secular household, I don’t have any really weird religious stories to tell, and – probably therefore – I have a morbid curiosity about those who did. Like this pseudonymous story on HuffPost:

Senator Graham (R-SC) has definitely lead one of the most potholed of tenures in the US Senate, transitioning from a respected voice on foreign affairs with a proven ability to work across the aisle, to, well, a Master of Hypocrisy. Let The New York Times sum it up:

When Senator Lindsey Graham joined a Republican blockade of President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee in 2016, he went out of his way to frame his position that a confirmation to the court should never be allowed in an election year as principled, apolitical and utterly permanent.

“I want you to use my words against me,” Mr. Graham said then, swearing that he would hold the same stance even if it meant denying a future Republican president the chance to confirm his chosen nominee.

But less than 24 hours after that hypothetical became a reality with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, Mr. Graham, now the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, made a complete and brazen reversal. He promised that he would push forward immediately to confirm President Trump’s pick — seemingly unbothered by the obvious conflict between his position four years ago and his stance now.

“I am certain if the shoe were on the other foot,” Mr. Graham wrote Monday to Democrats on the judiciary panel, “you would do the same.”

Here, barring an unknown existential threat to Graham or his family, we are seeing a fallacious moral equivalency being drawn: Graham would like to believe, and have all observers believe, that the Democrats are no better than himself; that they, too, would be unable to resist temptation.

However, without any evidence on offer, it’s a doubtful proposition. While a SCOTUS seat is no doubt tempting, too often it’s been a Siren, not a pot of gold, as seen in recent conservative disappointments in judgments by Roberts and Gorsuch. But the real duty of Senators is not to obtain, for their Party, possession of such a seat; it is to investigate and analyze the nominee, and either confirm or reject the nominated person, based on perceived neutrality, experience, temperament, and other factors that Senators perceive as important.

It’s a big old pothole in Graham’s public morality, especially when combined with his recent Earl Landgrebe nomination.

But wait, there’s another one! (So much for his suspension!)

Senator Graham is hoping, through this misdirection, that his audience will forget that this isn’t a contest to see how equal everyone’s morality might be.

It’s a measurement: Is Senator Graham’s morality, his ethics if you prefer, up to the gig, to the bar implicit in his distinguished position? Senator Graham said he wouldn’t vote for any nominee in the final year of a Presidential term, and now he’s reversed himself. His Justice Kavanaugh-related excuse for the about face has been found to be riddled with holes, as Steve Benen notes:

I went back and found the exact date of the senator’s “hold the tape” comments: it was at a forum held on Oct. 3, 2018. That wouldn’t be especially notable, except Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee was on Sept. 27, 2018. The Republican-led panel advanced Kavanaugh’s nomination a day later, on Sept. 28, 2018.

And so with that observation, Graham finds a third pothole in his ethics. It’s amazing he’s ever able to earn anyone’s respect.

In fact, that leads me on to suggest that perhaps Senator Graham needs a little social shaming. I suggest those Democratic Senators who received his letter form a little singing group, and come up with a memorable ditty that they can sing to him during the hearings. Maybe something along these lines:

Oh, there goes the ragged Senator Graham,
    And his ethics, flayed by power's Mayhem,
Drag behind him like fried Ramen.
    He spins and he poses,
And spits thornless roses,
    All while smiling like a caiman.

Or maybe they can come up with something of their own, because, frankly, that was awful.

And then everyone should point and laugh at Graham whenever he’s encountered. There should always be a cost when someone is caught playing the victim, when they are the abuser.

A mass nomination. First, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC):

“There is a clear choice on the future of the Supreme Court between the well-qualified and conservative jurist President Trump will nominate and I will support, and the liberal activist Joe Biden will nominate and Cal Cunningham will support, who will legislate radical, left-wing policies from the bench,” Tillis’s statement reads. [13 News]

Given the quality of some of the nominees, Senator Tillis is foolish in his haste to stand behind the President. But, then, that is the point of the Earl Landgrebe nominees, isn’t it?

And then there’s Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), chairman of the Judiciary Committee:

“We’re going to have a process that you’ll be proud of,” Graham promised. “The nominee will be supported by every Republican in the Judiciary Committee and we have the votes to confirm the justice on the floor of the senate before the election. And that’s what’s coming.” [TPM]

Note how Graham has placed all but two of the Republican Senators into Earl Landgrebe contention, those exceptions being Murkowski and Collins, who’ve already declared opposition.

J.R.R. Tolkien’s vision of Sauron.

In their frantic rush to please their master, Sauron President Trump, the Republicans have ceded to the Democrats the title American Conservatives. A conservative is someone who places great value in preserving the institutions and traditions of the past. It is not the Democrats who have been running roughshod over the valued institutions of the past, the procedures which were in place to assure orderly and just governance. For those who wish to raise a finger in objection, it is the Republicans who forced the Democrats to use the nuclear option in order to pass Judiciary nominations, or be faced by the judicial chaos caused by empty seats.

Remember the Republicans disregard of procedures when formulating the failed replacement of the ACA, and the successfully passed (but unsuccessful) Tax Reform of 2017, as the House, under the incompetent leadership of Speaker Ryan (R-WI), could not even fulfill its duties in formulating competent bills; both were deliberately left to the Senate to rewrite. Failing to respect and honor the traditions of Congress is a key indicator of their moral collapse.

Since then, we’ve seen little but miserable obeisance from the Republican Party and GOP Senators. Their latest advance is proactive miserable obeisance, as they bizarrely permit the tail of the dog, President Trump, wag them with all the vigor of a Roman Emperor disposing of a useless pack of Senators. Their duty, now foresaken? To vet the nominee, make sure he or she is qualified, both in terms of experience and temperament, and not be a howling, temperamental scalawag.

This is simply another example of the failure of the GOP.

And, if you’re wondering, yes, I hate sounding like some sort of ideologue. I’m a goddamn independent, and I am furious that the GOP has become a hollowed out skeleton of what it once was. I want more than one viable choice, but as the Democrats have become the conservatives and the liberals at the same time, that’s no longer viable.

I was feeling fairly grumpy today until I saw this reelection ad from appointed incumbent Senator Kelly Loeffler (R-GA):

Someone in her campaign has a sense of humor. I can’t help but be saddened that proclaiming a 100% TrumpScore (and it’s true as of this writing) is considered a positive, but today the idea of principled Republican Senators actually existing is a bit of a mind-boggler.

The makeup dude had a hard time of it. Here, I think he used one of those house painter brushes with synthetic fibers, rather than an artist’s brush made from hairs pulled from her own head. Pity, that.

Aniara (2018) is a reminder that humanity is not a rational animal, but an animal capable of rationality when there’s reason for it. The Aniara is a Swedish interplanetary passenger liner of the future, shuttling between an environmentally degraded Earth and the arid, barely-ready-for-mankind Mars. Among the thousands of passengers and hundreds of crew, we follow Isagel, an entertainment officer, who is responsible for operating and caring for the Mimarobe, a telepathic entertainment system that rationalizes what it reads from its clients and relays it back to them, turning their dreams into something they can almost touch.

But those dreams start becoming nightmares when Aniara is struck by space debris early on her latest voyage from Earth to Mars. Her out of control propulsion system takes her off-course; her damaged fuel is lost; and her communications system is gone. Pressure begins to build on all aboard as Aniara drifts further and further away from the home of humanity. The crew can at least be busy, but the passengers, ah, they are a problem. In fact, they are too big a problem, and soon their nightmares give the Mimarobe, sentient or not, some real troubles.

And when Mimarobe burns out, not only are the passengers half way to panic, it leaves Isagel out of a job, as well as out of favor – she had warned the Captain of the problem, and he had not supplied her with help. Who gets the blame? Not the Captain, who appears to be entering his own cozy psychosis.

Aniara, the story, consequently becomes an exploration of the various ways people explore irrationality, from violence to religious manias, from empty careers to empty gestures, from the construction and deconstruction of power structures to the sad depressions that grip non-narcissists when they perceive their lives to have no future, no relevance, and no purpose. There are starts and stops, as momentary hopes erupt and then fade away, but they seem to be lessons that are not learned, but mere fragrances on the wind of life. Fragrances from the burned out corpses of hopes.

But, in this story, rationality isn’t a way of life, it’s a tool. And it’s seen as a tool that is no longer useful when there’s no chance of rejoining humanity. In a way, this story is the observation that it’s hard for the involuntarily separated to retain their rationality, which may be an echo of those criminals, semi-criminals, and merely criminally unfortunate who were shipped from England to Australia in the late 18th century, who reportedly indulged in days of mass irrationality – perhaps in mourning at their permanent loss, in almost all cases, of their homeland and families.

The people of the Aniara could have concentrated on turning their ship into a colony ship, but they do not: their intimate desire of stasis, for their old life, emblematic in the very popular Mimarobe, is their fatal flaw. Its eventual malfunction foreshadows their ultimate, dismal fate. Not as individuals, but as a society.

And perhaps that’s a story for today.

Trump must be setting records in providing campaign material to his rival.

I’m Joe Biden and I approve this message. pic.twitter.com/TuRZXPE5xK

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 20, 2020

But Trump does have a purpose in this message. He’s threatening his cultists that the Great Leader will disappear if they don’t get him back into office. This is part and parcel with his general messaging meant to bind sympathetic listeners to his cause, all the way back to his claim that his followers would keep following him even if Trump shot somebody in broad daylight. That little tidbit set the bar for entering the cult, requiring aspiring members to discard normal public morality in favor of thinking the Great Leader be permitted to do anything he likes.

It’s a despicable psychology that has worked, time and again, mostly in religious cults.

This is surprising:

Sudden deaths are often assumed to be caused by a failing heart. But about 17 per cent of deaths assumed to be caused by cardiac arrest may actually have resulted from drug overdose, according to a study in San Francisco. [NewScientist]

This despite there being no drug paraphernalia or other evidence of drug use to suggest that a post-mortem is in order. What to make of this?

The finding also questions the accuracy of other health statistics, says [Zian Tseng at the University of California, San Francisco, who headed the team that performed the autopsies]. “Without post-mortem confirmation, all causes of death on death certificates are just educated guesses,” he says. “Therefore, all aggregate mortality data reported by the CDC [and other health organisations] on cancer mortality, heart disease mortality, etc. should be taken with a grain of salt.”

Which puts health researchers in a harsh position. After all, autopsies are an expensive business, and unless robots can be trained to do them, they’ll remain expensive.

It suggests a lot of estimates may have to be redone, with big error bars.

Right up front, I’ve gotta say that I’m not inclined to pay much attention to the dramas induced by the passing of Justice Ginsburg. It’s not that they’re not important, but that it’ll be painfully predictable, and I’m quite tired of the topic of abortion, abused as it has been by the right wing. And then there are wretched partisan articles by folks like Hugh Hewitt, who cannot be bothered with embarrassing facts while putting forth the case that the Republicans should not be encumbered by anything like principles. (Just read the comment chain for effective rejoinders.)

Plus, we’re in the garden-cleaning season here.

All that said, as I speculated Friday, Senator Collins (R-ME), who is not doing well in her reelection bid, has decided to roll the dice and declared she will not vote for any nominee. Given her relative disloyalty to President Trump, she may see this a win-win decision for her.

If this is seen as a gesture of reconciliation by the independents and Democrats of Maine, she may pick up just enough support to win the election. The Maine Republicans, she may be gambling, already aware of her disenchantment (if, indeed, she was ever enchanted), will still turn out in the same numbers; the key, as ever, are the independents. Her goal is to attract them over her less experienced opponent, Sara Gideon.

And if she loses? She goes out with her head high, her last major decision made indisputably on principle. For political folks, legacy is often everything.

The same article also confirms that Senator Murkowski (R-AL) will not vote to confirm any nominee. Again, there may be strategic threads to this decision, as Murkowski’s previous term was won as a write-in candidate, beating both the Democrat and the duly nominated Republican. I know little of Alaskan politics, except that it’s notoriously independent of partisan expectations. I suspect Murkowski is calculating that principle is more important than a partisan victory, and if she has word that more Senators don’t want any part of this shitshow, she may have decided to get out front and lead, not prance lamely in the wake.

Articles I have read suggest that only three Republican Senators need to vote with the Democratic caucus in order to block any nomination, but this article suggests four will need to adhere to principle. I have high hopes for Senator Romney (R-UT), and I’ve also seen notes that say Senator Gardner (R-CO), who is trailing in his reelection campaign, had said, prior to RBG’s passing, that he would vote against any nominee.

We’ll see if these men can follow the lead of the women and be principled, rather than grasping.

While the concepts of evolution were abstracted from observations of changes in biological phenotypes through geographical and chronological space, the concepts involved with biological evolution, such as winners survive and losers disappear, are as applicable to other spaces in which entities find themselves in competition, such as political systems.

This came to mind while reading the latest Sullivan noir analysis of today’s American society:

And the reason this dystopian scenario is so credible is not just the fault of these political actors. It’s ours too — thanks to the impact of social media. I think we’ve under-estimated just how deep the psychological damage has been in the Trump era — rewiring the minds of everyone, including your faithful correspondent, in ways that make democratic discourse harder and harder and harder to model. The new Netflix documentary, The Social Dilemma, is, for that reason, a true must-watch. It doesn’t say anything shockingly new, but it persuasively weaves together a whole bunch of points to reveal just how deeply and thoroughly fucked we are. Seriously, take a look.

The doc effectively shows how the information system necessary for democratic deliberation has, in effect, been jerry-rigged in the last decade to prevent any reasoning at all. It’s all about the feels, and the irrationality, and the moment, which is why Trump is so perfectly attuned to his time. And what’s smart about the documentary is that it shows no evil genius behind this unspooling, no sinister plot deliberately to destroy our system of government. One of the more basic motives in American life — making money — is all you now need, the documentary shows, to detonate American democracy at its foundation.

For Facebook and Google and Instagram and Twitter, the business goal quickly became maximizing and monetizing human attention via addictive dopamine hits. Attention, they meticulously found, is correlated with emotional intensity, outrage, shock and provocation. Give artificial intelligence this simple knowledge about what distracts and compels humans, let the algorithms do their work, and the profits snowball. The cumulative effect — and it’s always in the same incendiary direction — is mass detachment from reality, and immersion in tribal fever.

There is nothing that guarantees or sanctifies the American political system and, therefore, American society. Despite the cries of the false prophets, to drive home the point, God has never come down and printed on a rock, America will always survive, nor, for that matter, America is perfect.

But that belief in our invincibility is what drives too many of us. Here we are, in a mad struggle to impose ideologies from both ends of the spectrum, as if they had been literally handed down from on high.

And that is a small, but significant, part of the problem: that we know. That we know what God thinks, that we know how to reorder society because of some leftist text, that we know because Alex Jones^[1] huffed and grunted out a message that confirms what QAnon seems to be saying, because Trump contradicts himself and reality and we know that must really mean something.

Enough! Enough!

Our hubris, our arrogance, makes us think we know how to run society a priori, and that absolutism is part of what forces people to join our political cults simply out of self-defense. The other side is out to take away certain rights – and the veracity of each of those claims that rights will be taken away doesn’t matter – and therefore everyone who values those rights has to join the other cult.

I’m angry, I’m upset, all over what I think is the result of a number of people greedily vying for power. That’s a subject for another post, because my brain is starting to freeze up. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at the contretemps ordinary Americans find themselves in. I think Professor Turchin would say that since we lost our last avowed existential enemy, the Soviet Union, and therefore the overriding reason to stick together (asabiya, to use his terminology), we were doomed to see all the unleashed egos and hubris from both ends of the political spectrum collide in an awful melee. The arrival of the Web appears to have exacerbated the event. And – in a topic for another post – I suspect compartmentalization, which is a fancy word for saying I’m not responsible for anything outside my bailiwick! has its part of the blame to bear as well.

Will American society survive the Web? I don’t know. Stay tuned – but don’t drink the Kool-Aid.

¹ Alex Jones of the horrific show and web site InfoWars.

Trump in 2016:

Trump in 2020:

.@GOP We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 19, 2020

Why does blatant hypocrisy matter?

Because it makes people that you’d like to trust deeply unpredictable. If you say, but I know I’ll always know what he truly will do, factions happen. You’re in the good faction one day, then this hypocrite does something you can’t possibly stomach, and now guess what – you were wrong, and now he’s going to take care of you.

In bad cases, he may rub you out.

Hypocrisy is all about trust. Trump and McConnell’s breathtaking hypocrisy should see them deported to Russia.

My Arts Editor loved their playing. I’m wondering if the five kids are actually one. But who wants to check? The mystery is enchanting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCAFfX_va_I

… about individual decisions and autonomy. Soap-box occupant Erick Erickson, who annoys me with email that he thinks will entice recipients into sending him money, manages to play to his fringe-right audience, if not to truth:

Every time Americans turn inward against each other, it is because of the Supreme Court. From Dred Scott to Roe v. Wade and a variety of points in between, the flaw of our constitutional republic is letting an oligarchy of five black-robed masters impose the morality of Harvard Yard on 350 million of their fellow citizens.

The Civil War was caused by SCOTUS? The Civil Rights movement? Creationism? Abortion?

SCOTUS may become involved, but don’t mistake them for a motivating force. The motivations are various, but indisputable: loving wealth over justice, racial hatreds, religious manias, broken intellectual arguments. SCOTUS may get involved, but it’s inevitably at the tail end of the story, not the start. To blame SCOTUS for divisiveness is to play to an audience preconception, not to honestly interpret history.

We are here, at this moment particularly, because of something too few want to say out loud. One of those oligarchs decided to gamble with her own life, impervious to calls for removal, so that she could try to shape the balance of the United States Supreme Court.

There are so many things wrong with this broken paragraph that I’m not even sure where to start. Oligarchs? Few, if any, of the Justices are extensive landowners or chieftains of industry. Was Ruth Bader-Ginsburg (RBG) a doddering fool, no longer competent to evaluate the legal arguments presented? Not that I heard, not a whisper. Just how was RBG reshaping the balance of power of SCOTUS, when all that can happen is that she is, at best for Democrats, be replaced by another “liberal justice”?

And did RBG really gamble her life by staying on the Court?

Really?

How was she risking her life? She wouldn’t get pancreatic cancer if she retired? What, has there been an advance in oncology that slipped by me?

This dark and brooding paragraph, which seeks to inflict blame for the chaos that seems incipient on liberals, is based wholly on a series of falsehoods for which, quite frankly, Erickson should be ashamed – or seen for the unblushing partisan that he is.

She could have left while Obama was still there. But no, Ruth Bader Ginsburg decided to hang on through a pancreatic cancer fight hoping to use herself as a rallying cry for the left to mobilize in November and shape the election.

Now, thanks to her pride, we’re going to get more riots.

Uh huh. Sure. But hang on, let me just say one name: Merrick Garland.

Given the unrestrained hypocrisy of Senator McConnell, I could easily see McConnell refusing to review, much less vote on, any replacement for RBG. Sure, Obama had two justices confirmed – but Kagan, the second, was confirmed in 2010, when Democrats dominated the Senate with 57 members. In the next Senate, Democrats barely had a majority at 51 – and Democrats can be fractious, especially if they’re, at least in part, consulting their consciences.

So, if I were to continue this intellectually and morally flawed line of reasoning, RBG might have been able to resign with hopes of being replaced by a liberal through 2013.

But why?

According to Erickson, to satisfy the political requirements of a political party.

This, from a defender of the right wing, the shrine of individual rights. I don’t need to go on; it’s simply a hypocritical stance.

But Erickson wants to avoid the moral taint that has come to plague the entire Republican Party. He (and if he wishes to dispute it, he’ll have to disown his insane remark about Trump Derangement Syndrome) and the Republican Party support President Trump, a man documented as the veritable Father of Lies, with 20,000+ lies in less than 4 years. This is how they’ll all be known to history: power-hungry hypocritical liars, pushing anti-science and anti-rational ideologies on a nation that could ill-afford them.

Therefore, he’ll throw the blame on a dead woman who can no longer defend herself. A woman who certainly should have the right to decide when she’ll retire.

A woman who may have wanted to believe that the Republican Party was still the home of honorable people.

So, yeah, this was the morning’s entertainment: an immediate attempt to throw the blame for the irresponsibilities of the Republican Party onto the shoulders of a woman who served her nation to the best of her very considerable capabilities for decades. That’s her reward.

But that’s how a true politico rolls these days. Any bullshit to make the other side look bad. It’s too bad; Erickson has done better in the past.

An early version of a TARDIS, as it’s a lot roomier inside than out. I kept waiting for an Olympic size swimming pool to show up.

Non-Stop New York  (1937) is an odd, comedic, tension movie that comes off a little flat – although some of that is the quality of the print. Jennie Carr, aspiring British dancer, is in New York for a stab at her dream job. The night of the closing of the Broadway show she’s working in she runs into charming young lawyer Billy Cooper, who invites her to his place for a meal.

When she discovers a homeless man is taking advantage of the food, she chases him out, and then gets chased out herself by other men crowding into Cooper’s apartment. The next day, as she’s leaving for home on a passenger liner, she learns of Cooper’s murder and the arrest of the homeless man, named Abel.

Appalled, she tries to persuade the Captain of the liner of the situation, but when it comes out that her baggage contains stolen jewelry, she ends up with her own problems: stuck in a British prison for six months. Meanwhile, despite world wide appeals – no, really! – no one can find the mysterious woman Abel claims could clear him, and he is sentenced to the electric chair.

The killers are waiting for Jennie to get out of prison. They don’t need her dead, just discouraged, but her moral sense comes to her rescue and she manages a visit to Scotland Yard, which, unfortunately, is fairly disbelieving. Then there’s nothing for it but to find a way onto the Non-Stop New York, a literal flying boat, complete with outside balconies for the more adventurous flyer.

Well, the killer is waiting to take the closest thing to a witness down, but Scotland Yard is there, too, and soon we have a fake General of Paraguay, a con-man, and Jennie frantically circling the plane, all trying to survive.

Too bad about that prodigious young musician and his interest in muffling his sax with part of a … parachute.

There are some interesting elements here, but they don’t come together because we don’t really develop an empathy for the characters. Perhaps the most charismatic character meets a swift end; some characters who suffer death are barely accorded the honor of cardboard; Jennie is a little too chittie-chatty without being interesting, and, indeed, her slightly amoral mother could have gotten more screen-time to the benefit of the story.

Still, it wasn’t the worst thing in the world, even if the plane had me hooting with laughter.

Georectification:

[Archaeologist Peter] Gavette explains that a great deal of work is now being done to georectify old maps and aerial imagery on top of new maps to see if changes over time might be identified. Georectification is a process by which images, including aerial and satellite photographs, geophysics data, or scanned maps, are coordinated in order to determine the exact location of structures or landscape features. The technique is especially helpful for visualizing how places change over time, particularly when building remains are absent or overgrown, or when the topography of an area itself has shifted due to human intervention or natural events. “We’re lucky to have a wealth of cartography for the island because of its military history, so we are able to look at it through multiple layers and levels,” Gavette says. [“Letter from Alcatraz,” Matthew Brunwasser, Archaeology (September/October 2020), p. 6 of the link]

The death of Justice Ginsburg makes me sad and troubled, not only for her family, but because now we may have some more national misery. Between the frantic emotional requirements of a President desperate to swing a comeback, and the master hypocrite, Senator McConnell (R-KY), already promising the Senate will hold hearings on any nominee sent to it, it does not promise to be a pleasant time leading up to the elections.

Or, possibly, miserable even after, even if Biden wins.

Let’s give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Let’s assume he has a whit of self-discipline. So what are the forces in play here?

There’s the open SCOTUS seat, obviously.

And there’s the election, with the Trump cult and fellow travelers who cannot convince themselves that Trump is worse than anyone who carries a Democratic Party card, the doubtful and the dubious.

How does Trump play the game?

Does he rush a nominee to the Senate in order to avoid a probable, but not guaranteed, lame duck session to put his nominee in SCOTUS?

Or does he hold off? Maybe he even hints that there’ll be no nominee if he doesn’t win the election? That should electrify his cult, and even draw some moderate Republicans back. Notice that, of course, if RBG had survived until late January, the result would have been the same – but, regardless, the game dynamic has changed.

The real question, of course, is what that might do to the independents who hold the power in this election, and who’ve been leaning – steeply, in many cases – towards Biden. Many, possibly most, are so disgusted with Trump that nothing will induce them to vote for him. This is especially true in 2016 Trump voters who’ve since rued that decision. They’ll never come back. Their disgust with Trump, and themselves, won’t permit mind-changing.

But there are several moves possible here. How about the Senate confirmation vote on Election Day? Wouldn’t that be exciting?

And there are down-ballot considerations. Senator Collins (R-ME) enraged the Democrats of Maine by voting to confirm then-nominee Kavanaugh. Could she consider a vote against a Trump nominee as a chance at redemption and reelection? She currently trails her challenger, Sara Gideon, and is doubtless feeling the pressure.

But Collins already has a record of deficient loyalty to Trump (TrumpScore: 67%); this game is harder to play for more loyal incumbents who are in trouble, such as Loeffler and Perdue of Georgia, Tillis of North Carolina, and Graham of South Carolina, where the Trump base would be enraged, or appointee McSally of Arizona, who practically licks Trump’s toes (i.e., a TrumpScore of 94%). They have less room to maneuver, but if a flawed nominee is sent their way, they may be tempted to vote against, in an effort to appear responsible and worthy of reelection.

Yes, in a nauseating way, the future weeks could be very interesting. Putin is no doubt reveling in our foolishness. May the US Army remain on guard.

This is why I expect President Trump to make his way to Switzerland before Jan 21st rolls around and he becomes vulnerable to being … arrested:

Unlike the federal court system, which often allows prisoners to remain free during the appeals process, state courts tend to waste no time in carrying out punishment. After someone is sentenced in New York City, their next stop is Rikers Island. Once there, as Trump awaited transfer to a state prison, the man who’d treated the presidency like a piggy bank would receive yet another handout at the public expense: a toothbrush and toothpaste, bedding, a towel, and a green plastic cup. [“The People v. Donald J. Trump,” Jeff Wise, New York Intelligencer]

Only a great arrogance would restrain him from pulling a Marc Rich. And he may have that arrogance. But that might turn out to be one of his greatest mistakes. It can be hard to be charismatic from a prison cell. So it’ll be Switzerland for him.

And then he’ll harangue his cult from afar. Beating him in November won’t shut him up, I fear. We’ll just have to learn to ignore him and his cult members.

Rest in Peace, Justice Ginsburg. You’ll never be forgotten.

I gotta agree with this guy Friedman:

"The people I like the best are the people that are less successful because it makes you feel so powerful. I always say it. Never go out with a successful person."

This guy is so broken inside.pic.twitter.com/fWFtcxu9yW

— Brandon Friedman (@BFriedmanDC) September 18, 2020

Trump is all about satisfying his primitive emotional desires, the more primitive the better.

This makes my head spin.

It’s been reported that Attorney General Barr would like to put someone in the pokey for sedition, and so I  have an idea for him:

A heavily criticized recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last month about who should be tested for the coronavirus was not written by C.D.C. scientists and was posted to the agency’s website despite their serious objections, according to several people familiar with the matter as well as internal documents obtained by The New York Times.

The guidance said it was not necessary to test people without symptoms of Covid-19 even if they had been exposed to the virus. It came at a time when public health experts were pushing for more testing rather than less, and administration officials told The Times that the document was a C.D.C. product and had been revised with input from the agency’s director, Dr. Robert Redfield.

But officials told The Times this week that the Department of Health and Human Services did the rewriting and then “dropped” it into the C.D.C.’s public website, flouting the agency’s strict scientific review process. [The New York Times]

Perhaps I’m naive, but it seems to me that deliberately distributing false, dangerous medical advice while holding an influential government position in order to further political ambitions should be considered sedition. It weakens the citizenry, making them vulnerable to foreign powers.

At best, it’s dereliction of duty.

Have at it, AG Barr. Protesting to be treated equally is hardly sedition; indeed, it’s encouraging the United States and its constituents states and municipalities to follow its own rules. I recognize this may be hard, as everyone appears to be washing their hands of it – if you’ll forgive the medical humor – and chasing after your ideological allies is always a painful business, but I’m sure we have full confidence that you’ll charge on ahead, full of that old Justice Is Blind To Ideology fever.

Ummmm … ummmm … AG Barr? AG Barr? Are you there?

Either it’s leering, or it’s really regretting signing with that talent agency.

Godzilla vs. Hedorah (1971; aka Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster, as I saw it, in the theater, on its original release), is an execrable addition to the Godzilla mythos. The primary conceit, not to mention the message, which is driven in with a nail set, is a monster, perhaps originating from outer space, that feeds on smog and pollution, and is composed of minerals that can combine and change form when the opportunity arises: Hedorah.

Godzilla has martial arts!

After demonstrating some rather ugly ways to kill people, the local humans try to destroy it using a pair of monstrous electrodes, luring the giant, leering sludge pile between them and meaning to hit it with the output of a power station, but during a tussle with Godzilla, the circuit is cut. Fortunately, a slightly acid-burned Godzilla is able to use the electrodes to convert his chronically bad breath into electricity of the right frequency and help destroy ol’ Smoggy.

This could have been a romantic date, if ol’ Godzy hadn’t tried to set fire to Smoggy right off the bat!

Throw in a scientist who lost an eye to the walking vomit-pile and babbles science-nonsense; his son, who has a telepathic connection to our favorite guardian of Earth; a rather unique approach to making Godzilla fly; and some 1970s-style, LSD-influenced digressions, which are probably unique to the mythos, and this one was painful to watch. The models were nice, I must say, but as usual, the characters are flatter than a chunk of cardboard, and the dialog is even worse.

Give this one a miss unless you’re a completist. If you’re a completist, this one may require alcohol.

On Religion Dispatches, Chrissy Stroop remarks on an underhanded rhetorical trick currently in use by evangelical leaders:

In any case, whether in more or less secular or overtly religious form, the rhetorical trick of grasping moral authority by claiming to be outside of or ‘above’ politics—as if any such thing were possible with respect to social issues and their accompanying human conflicts—works depressingly well for America’s right-wingers, who understand that many Americans will accept the claim. Further, in both its secular and religious incarnations, this type of rhetorical power play serves to uphold white supremacism.

To my mind, both secular politics and religion exist, in large part, to guide the conduct of those who they can reach. As religious texts are always open to varying interpretation – as attested to by dozens of wars – and, more importantly, often function as Rorschach tests, it seems only natural to equate the two in terms of category. The primary difference between regular politics and that of religion is that the latter is making the claim – specious in my view – that their reading of the divine texts means that they have the divinity in their corner. This leads to mad fanaticism, followed by blood and burning at the stake.

And, folks, I do not exaggerate.

Now, this isn’t to say secular politicians can’t be rigid in their ideologies. They come in just about any stripe you can name, too. People do love their cults. But, in this, again these two occupants of this category are roughly equivalent: rigidity very often corresponds to a greed for power and prestige. The thirst for importance envelopes many people. President, pastor, priest – they can all love power, and put forth ridiculous assertions in hopes of creating that power.

Given all this, Stroop’s following remark is quite disappointing.

While I am inclined to agree with Megan Goodwin’s claim that religion has “always been politics, full stop,” unfortunately, many otherwise savvy journalists and commentators forget that “the personal is political” when it comes to religion. They seem to sign on to a tacit agreement that anything Christians label “religious belief” shouldn’t be examined or criticized, regardless of the impact powerful conservative Christians’ politics have on those who don’t share conservative Christian beliefs. This is often accompanied by the nonsensical positing of a clear division between religion and politics that allows conservative Christians’ claims to be above politics to go essentially unchallenged, thus reinforcing the (white Protestant inflected) Christian supremacism that pervades American society.

Those journalists need to get up on their hind legs and show some grit. There are no Pulitzer Prizes for groveling to your interview subjects.

It’s the duty of journalists to uncover the unseemly side of all things, and religion is simply full of it.