Category Archives: Uncategorized

This is upsetting:

For nearly 50 years, a statistical omission tantamount to data falsification sat undiscovered in a critical study at the heart of regulating one of the most controversial and widely used pesticides in America.

Chlorpyrifos, an insecticide created in the late 1960s by the Dow Chemical Co., has been linked to serious health problems, especially in children. It has been the subject of many lawsuits and banned in Europe and California. The EPA itself nearly banned the chemical, but in 2017 the Trump administration backtracked and rejected EPA’s own recommendation to take chlorpyrifos off the market. The EPA plans to reconsider the chemical’s use by 2022. [University of Washington]

What happened?

Lianne Sheppard, a professor of biostatistics and environmental health in the UW School of Public Health and the study’s lead author, explained that the 1972 “Coulston study” established erroneously how much of the chemical a human could be exposed to before adverse effects showed up in a body’s chemistry.

When Sheppard re-ran the study data using the same longhand statistical analysis as the original, she discovered that key data used in two other level-of-exposure tests in the same study had been left out of the central exposure question — inexplicably. Consequently, the safe exposure limit, called the “no observed adverse effect level,” that the EPA used was wrong.

But – inexplicably – no why. Worse yet:

Why the 1972 Coulston study was not thoroughly examined even as the maturing EPA began reviewing these kinds of studies more rigorously through its inaugural 2006 Human Studies Review Board is a mystery, said co-author Richard Fenske, emeritus professor in the UW School of Public Health’s Department of Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences.

But when the EPA formally set out to review human-subject studies like the Coulston study, the maker of chlorpyrifos (Dow) specifically removed the study from that process, said Fenske, who was a member of that initial review board.

Which appears to be appalling, at least to me. While the initial error can be understood as a blunder – even if it’s inexplicable – the second incident appears to be a deliberate attempt to shield profits from damage by scientific scrutiny. This is – or should be – considered a severe ethical lapse.

If in fact the removal from the human-subject review process was deliberately to shield those profits, someone should end up in the pokey.

I know that in the local area last night’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert was overrun by the coverage of the riots in Minneapolis, but it’s worth catching his monologue. It’s basically a call to the barricades.

I saw an early report on the background of the shooter this morning and decided to wait for confirmation – and here it is:

A 17-year-old has been arrested in connection with a fatal shooting in Kenosha, Wisconsin, at a protest sparked by the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man.

The suspect, Kyle Rittenhouse, of Antioch, Illinois, was taken into custody Wednesday and is being held in the Lake County Judicial System pending an extradition hearing to transfer custody to Wisconsin, the Village of Antioch Police Department said in a Facebook post.

Authorities in Kenosha County had issued an arrest warrant for him earlier Wednesday on a charge of first-degree intentional homicide, the department said. The Kenosha Police Department has not commented on the arrest. [NBC News]

The Guardian critically notes:

Before the shooting, the presence of white armed men at the Black Lives Matter protests in Kenosha on Tuesday night prompted criticism from protesters – and some support from law enforcement.

In a widely circulating video from Tuesday night, Kenosha police can be heard thanking and tossing bottled water from an armored vehicle to what appear to be armed civilians walking the streets.

“We appreciate you being here,” an officer is heard saying over a loudspeaker.

But David Best, the county sheriff, told media outlets after the shooting that people patrolling the streets in Kenosha were a “like a vigilante group”, and said that the shooting was evidence of why suggestions to deputize citizens to help law enforcement contain the unrest in the city had been a bad idea.

Not “like”. They are a vigilante group. I don’t know if Sheriff Best is responsible for Kenosha, but this is the fault of a law enforcement agency that collectively doesn’t understand that it is responsible, along with any governmental group deputized by an authorized leader, for the proper management of the situation.

Civilians are untrained and, worse, unscreened. While a slightly older version of Rittenhouse might have been able to worm his way into law enforcement, there would be a better chance of being caught out as a rabid racist, of even being caught in some minor crime first.

There’s 0% chance of catching an unscreened civilian with evil intentions.

A properly law enforcement agency would have taken one look at that war weapon and taken it away Rittenhouse, along with all the rest, and justified it as a threat to the public safety.

The police just had their fingers burned, and BLM has suffered a tragic loss – people protesting for justice, gunned down by some damn kid who ingested inferior, discredited ideas.

I’d never heard of a rattleback.

Oscitancy:

1. the state of being drowsy, lazy, or inattentive
2. the act of yawning [Collins Dictionary]

From reader CJ, who remarks, of course:

I’m experiencing a lot of that this morning. 🥱

Another Trump orbiter breaks away and speaks to the dangers.

The people who know Donald Trump best are sounding the alarm: our country cannot survive four more years of a Trump presidency.

In our latest ad, a former member of his inner circle & "fixer" — @MichaelCohen212 — has a dire warning for us all. #RNC2020 pic.twitter.com/suPUODOdwz

— American Bridge 21st Century (@American_Bridge) August 24, 2020

It’s one thing when a Democrat warns of the Trump dangers, or even a former Administration employee. But when a Trump Organization employee speaks against him, well, it’s important that any undecided independent see this video. Spread the word!

Enjoy!

WaPo’s Jennifer Rubin is furious at the RNC appearances of former UN Ambassador and Governor Nikki Haley (R-SC) and Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), and for good reason. But, in this summary, I think she’s missed a bet:

Again, Scott was not forced to appear. Nevertheless, he came to praise a president who tries to scare White suburbanites with the prospect of Blacks moving into their neighborhoods; does not say the name Breonna Taylor or comment on the shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wis.; refers to majority-Black nations as “shithole countries,” calls Mexican immigrants “criminals” and “rapists”; encourages China to build detention camps for Uighurs; and betrayed his country by seeking to extort an ally in a war against Russia. What does it say about Scott that he would defend an overt racist and admirer of dictators? It says he either is blinded by the right-wing propaganda machine or, just like Trump, is willing to look Americans in the eye and lie. This, too, is unworthy of praise.

Or both Haley and Scott are ambitious. It’s no great surprise, as reaching the offices that they have requires a fair amount of ambition. But it’s worth noting that neither could switch parties, as the Democrats would have nothing to do with them. And the recently announced conservative alternatives are, at the moment, nebulous. I suspect both calculated that the current GOP is more likely to survive, and if they want to advance further, it’s their best bet.

Decency and morals be damned.

Go read Bug Jack Barron by Norman Spinrad. The pointers will be obvious.

And they’ll point right at YouKnowWho as the real child-trafficker using kids to make immortality treatments. Not all those head feints we’ve had so far. Still not sure?

Really?

The clues are all right there.

Amazing that he can say he doesn’t know anything about QAnon.

Or maybe this was all sarcasm. Only you will know.

Somedays you just need some innocent laughter.

More here.

I must be getting bored with the willfully blind who continue to swirl about in Trump’s wake, and really bored with continually seeing the same message in the tea leaves about the vast incompetency of those same Trump followers.

Astute readers may have noticed I didn’t live blog the DNC, and am not blogging the RNC. I’ve watched neither. I’m not a political animal; I blog about politics as part of being an American adult who occasionally takes his civic duties seriously, not because I particularly enjoy it.

But a lurid fantasy or two makes the debacle pass faster – take that as you will – and so, in response to concerns raised by Trump’s frantic claims that this will be the most rigged election ever, I present this.

The date? January 1st, 2021.

The context? Most or all of the states have completed tabulations, and Biden, by all counts, has comfortably won the day.

The setting? The Oval Office.

Donald J. Trump is vengefully typing a Tweet, designed to stir up his supporters, suggesting once again the election is rigged and he will not vacate the highest Office in the land come Inauguration Day.

The phone on his desk – the official Presidential phone – rings.

He stares at it. It’s not that it’s unusual for it to ring, but the news of late has not been good. Fewer sycophants have been calling to slather him in compliments and good wishes. He vaguely wonders if they have come to disbelieve in his eventual victory, achieved against all odds, by … the plans are vague in his mind. He’s not in the mood for more bad news, but it’s persistent.

It rings again. And again.

Fine. It doesn’t look good to hide from bad news.

“Hello, this is the President!” Best to project confidence.

“Hello, Mr. President. This is the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” Trump was unsure of which one of the chiefs of service it might be. It was a manly, gravelly voice, the sort of voice with which he associated a chiseled, possibly scarred face, hard eyes. And a good nickname. A nickname’s a brand, a brand sells, and selling brings money, sweet sweet green. He pulled himself out of the old day dream.

“Oh, hello, er, sirs. Is there a problem? Something in Syria, maybe?” His pulse quickened. Flames world wide would be –

“We hope not, sir, but we thought that we should remind you of a little known fact.”

“Oh?”

“Yes, sir. By the fact that we call you ‘sir,’ Mr. President, makes you a de facto member of the military.”

“Well, yes, of course.” The President puffed his chest out. They remembered his time at a military school. He felt vaguely proud, but also –

“And we felt it incumbent to remind you, sir, that places you under military discipline.”

“Eh? What?”

“To wit, sir, your commanding officer is the electorate of the United States of America. If, sir, you have not properly vacated the Office Of the President of the United States by the time of the Inauguration of your successor, three weeks hence, we will be forced to find you insubordinate to the lawful orders of the electorate.”

“WHAT?”

The gravelly voice paused – for effect, the reality show star President absently noted – and then continued.

“A court-martial will be convened on charges of treason, a capital offense, and you will be so tried.” The phone clicked.

President Trump stared at his now-dead handset, replaced it in its cradle, and placed his head on the desk.

The cavalcade continues, according to CNN/Politics:

More than two dozen former Republican lawmakers announced Monday they are endorsing Joe Biden for president.

Former Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona and former Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania are among those throwing their support behind the Democratic presidential nominee through “Republicans for Biden,” and the endorsements come on the morning of the first day of the Republican National Convention.

Biden has repeatedly emphasized Republican support as he looks to build a broad coalition in his campaign against President Donald Trump.

And does this worry the Republicans?

While the endorsements offer a symbolic boost to Biden as he seeks to win over persuadable voters, Trump is still overwhelmingly popular among Republicans, a point made by Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh, who dismissed the significance of the endorsements.

“Joe Biden has been a failure in the Washington Swamp for a half century, so no one should be surprised when Swamp creatures gather to protect one of their own,” Murtaugh said. “President Trump has unprecedented support — over 95 percent — among real Republican voters and is also making strong inroads in Biden’s core Democrat constituencies, like Black Americans, Latinos, and union members. President Trump’s record of success for all Americans will carry him to victory in November.”

Which, given the toxicity of the Trump Swamp that’s taken the place of the Swamp which Trump claimed to drain, is nothing more than sour grapes. It’s also reflective of the speed with which the Republican Party is headed over the cliff of right wing extremism, because many – if not all – of these former lawmakers contributed to the GOP culture which has led to these contretemps: team politics, no concept on governance, no morals, and an absurd clinging to a past that never existed.

But under the bus they go anyways. Notice how they were all RINOed – another symptom of the fatal illness of the Republicans.

Meanwhile, here’s FiveThirtyEight’s latest summary of polls concerning Trump’s Approval and Disapproval numbers:

13+ points divergence, and after a couple of weeks of tightening up, it may be growing again. My concerns about the overall health of the American polity is in inverse correlation to the size of that abyss.

But we’ll see what the RNC does for it. My suspicion is that the Republicans are still in their epistemic bubble, unable to see how everyone else sees them, and they’ll come out with a presentation which doesn’t appeal to most voters. The real question will be, will their presentation be sufficiently repellent to sink Trump, and the other Republican candidates, even further in the polls.

Jake Hulina on Arms Control Wonk cites a few instances of how North Korea continues international trade despite sanctions, such as this one:

Despite the efforts of Cambodia and Fiji, North Korean vessels have continued to exploit their flags by manipulating their Automatic Identification System (AIS) transponders – devices designed for improving navigational safety. AIS transponders transmit a series of unique vessel identifiers among other physical and geographic characteristics. Of these unique identifiers, the Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI) number – specifically the first three digits – is used to convey a vessel’s national affiliation. By altering this number, a vessel can claim any number of national affiliations without the knowledge or authorization of the countries affected. North Korean MMSI manipulation not only enables vessels to conceal illicit trade, but may also lead to reputational harm for the exploited states as it implicates them in activities they had no part in. …

From at least 15 November 2019 until at least 11 February 2020, a cargo vessel using a Fijian MMSI number to transmit under the name A LI can be observed in AIS data operating off the coast of China. Beyond the immediate red flag that Fiji does not officially operate any international cargo vessels, there are several signs the vessel may be involved in illicit activity. The vessel’s AIS was disabled when it appeared to be headed in the direction of North Korean territorial waters, suggesting potential trade with North Korea. In addition, the IMO number – a supposedly unique identifier assigned to a vessel’s physical structure – transmitted by the A LI is assigned to an Indian tugboat.

Moreover, A LI’s transmitted length of 146 meters matches with that of YON PUNG 3, a North Korean vessel. In addition, YON PUNG 3’s IMO number (8314881) is almost identical to the transmitted IMO of A LI (8814881). The close relation between these two IMO numbers is telling; North Korea frequently alters existing IMO numbers to create false vessel identities.

AIS data, while initially supplied for one limited application, appears to be processed for many other applications these days. I haven’t been able to track down any application using this data to identify potentially fraudulent use of AIS, but it’s almost certainly out there. Hulina cites IHS Markit for the source of his information, which appears to be an interesting information supply business, but I didn’t find anything on this subject on a quick scan.

I’m a sucker for good maps.

Why Sturgis was a really terrible idea:
This visualization was created using anonymized cell phone location data records from the rally, showing where those devices were active leading up to, during, and after the event.
The rally has already been linked to multiple Covid cases. pic.twitter.com/0RG3M9XJPJ

— Decoherence (@DecoherenceWave) August 22, 2020

And that one’s a beauty in all of its dire promise.

I wonder if the various State governments that have to deal with the results of the Sturgis motorcycle rally can sue Sturgis for governmental negligence.

[h/t whoever had this on their FB feed – CT, probably]

I like it.

IHS Markit has a publicly available report on the impact of the derecho that hit Iowa a couple of weeks ago here. It sounds a trifle grim.

Biblioclasty:

Book burning is the ritual destruction by fire of books or other written materials, usually carried out in a public context. The burning of books represents an element of censorship and usually proceeds from a cultural, religious, or political opposition to the materials in question. [Wikipedia]

But apparently not always. Noted in “The Ege Manuscript Leaf Portfolios,” Greta Smith and Fred Porcheddu, Denison Library:

In the late 1940s, longtime Cleveland resident and art historian Otto F. Ege selected fifty medieval manuscripts from his personal collection and removed several dozen individual pages from each one. He mounted each leaf onto a large paper mat using tape hinges, and added a descriptive label to the mat. He then put one leaf from each of the fifty component manuscripts into a durable portfolio box; each of the resulting boxed sets thus contained a different leaf from each of the fifty original manuscripts. Forty boxes containing fifty leaves each were made in this way, and were offered for sale to university and public libraries around North America.

Sample page.

This was an extraordinary thing to do. For centuries, the act of biblioclasty (literally, “book-breaking”) has been reviled–in most people’s minds there exists an urge to protect books, especially old ones, and to view cutting pieces out of them as nearly acute a crime as burning them outright. But Ege’s impulse was actually a largely altruistic one. He had devoted his career to teaching book arts such as decoration, typography, and layout design to the general public, and he believed that the transformative beauty of medieval book decoration could inspire bookmakers today to greater heights of creativity. He authored dozens of articles on this subject in art education journals, and loaned materials to public book exhibits regularly. His “Fifty Original Leaves from Medieval Manuscripts” portfolios were part of his longstanding commitment to populist art education in North America.

If you happen to know of one these portfolios in private hands, Denison University may want to know. See the above link.

How about some poker Friday night, Fred?

King Kong vs Godzilla (1962) is a cheerfully awful entry into the Godzilla and King Kong mythologies. It’s populated with a positively silly plot unworthy of detailing; a King Kong who shoots electrical current out of his hands and has, shall we say, British teeth; mostly awful special effects, with the minor exception of a really effective giant octopus; and acting unable to cover for all of its shortcomings – the island native girls dancing to keep the big ape quiet was a trifle disturbing.

The best part may have been the end, which didn’t actually try to be definitive. Godzilla just disappears, while King Kong heads for home.

Blech.

… rain must fall.

On The Volokh Conspiracy, Professor Ilya Somin analyzes the Democratic proposal for growing the federal judiciary to handle the growing caseload:

The good news about the Democratic platform is that it does not endorse any plan to pack the Supreme Court. That includes not only straightforward increases in the number of justices, but also such workarounds as “rotation” of justices (advocated by Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primaries). …

Things are less clear when it comes to the lower federal courts. Here, the Democratic Platform says the following:

Since 1990, the United States has grown by one-third, the number of cases in federal district courts has increased by 38 percent, federal circuit court filings have risen by 40 percent, and federal cases involving a felony defendant are up 60 percent, but we have not expanded the federal judiciary to reflect this reality in nearly 30 years. Democrats will commit to creating new federal district and circuit judgeships consistent with recommendations from the Judicial Conference.

Conservative activist Carrie Severino and my co-blogger Randy Barnett denounce this as court-packing. By contrast, prominent left-wing legal commentator Ian Millheiser sees it as a “timid” plan that “will do little to counter the GOP’s grip on the federal bench.” …

If the Democrats really are serious about limiting themselves to politically neutral adjustments to deal with rising case loads, they can address that problem in ways that more clearly avoid court-packing. One would be to institute the new judgeships on a staggered schedule over time. For example, one-third of the new judgeships recommended by the Judicial Conference could be instituted immediately (say in 2021 or 2022), one-third in 2025 (after an intervening presidential election), and one-third in 2027 (after an additional intervening congressional election). That would ensure that many of the new judgeships will take effect only at a time when we cannot currently predict who will be in power.

I think this would actually be counterproductive. Imagine each Presidential election cycle, where both sides know that a victory let’s them appoint a pack of new judges. If the Republicans continue to be single issue voters who make the judiciary their ticket, well, it’ll just make for frenzied election seasons.

I think the Democrats should instead take the high road. Pass the necessary legislation, with or without Republican support, and then nominate and confirm – or not – quality judges.

Not ideologically preferred judges.

And get their qualifications out there for Republicans to chew on. When the predictably hysterical right wing commentators lose their minds and label them all socialists, point out that they’re not. As part of the overall campaign strategy, put out commercials comparing the pundits’ hysteria with the actual facts of the judges.

Let the hysteria strangle itself.

And face it: a percentage of the population will stubbornly close off its brain to rational argument, to the idea of chasing down facts, in preference to believing their favorite opinion-leader, whether their name is Coulter, Hannity, or Limbaugh. You can’t win them, so don’t try.

But for those are doubtful, these commercials may be persuasive.

UMB will be getting its first theme upgrade since we opened up 5+ years ago. Any visible changes may or may not be intended. Let me know of any serious problems.

Elie Mystal, justice correspondent for The Nation, is frustrated with Democrats and their tactics:

I literally do not know how the Democrats got through an entire section on immigration [Wednesday] night without mentioning the Muslim ban, or the 5-4 Supreme Court decision to uphold it. I do not know how they talked about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, highlighted people who have been denied access to the program, and yet did not mention that the court’s decision to allow the program to continue hangs by a thread or that the Trump administration has indicated that it will violate court orders anyway. The omissions are insulting, not just to the Muslims who have been banned or the Dreamers who have been terrorized, but also to the thousands of lawyers and good people who fight the administration and descend on airports and border crossings to defend what rights immigrants still have left.

Without having watched much of the DNC, I suppose it’s frivolous of me to respond, but quite honestly, I don’t think presenting the problems of not “controlling” the federal judiciary really fit in with the Democrat’s approach to this election. I believe the Democrats have the same mind as do I: this isn’t an election to defeat the Republicans, say 51-49%.

That won’t do.

The Republican Party, or the corrupt zombie that’s zig-zagging across the landscape wearing its old clothing, needs to be so badly crushed that it can no longer be taken seriously in its current form.

And citing judicial concerns can easily lead into complexities not suited to a virtual national conference. Worse yet, it implies a rough equality of moral standing which does not exist. By excluding judicial issues, and by reference the entire immoral “single issue” citizen, they avoid inculcating that poison into the intellectual blood stream of the viewers, who might have had a very strong negative reaction to it.

The pivot of the Democrats isn’t “how bad is the judiciary going to become if we lose.” That’s negative. They need to shine a light on how good things will be if the Democrats are put in charge, in place of the immoral and corrupt Republicans.

This is a new situation, and I think the Democrats have taken proper advantage of it.

Republicans have legions of single-issue voters who cast their ballots purely because of the Supreme Court, because that’s what those voters have been told to do. They have been told for a generation that the way to get the things they want—whether those things are homophobia, sexism, white-minority rule in a soon-to-be majority-minority country, or the simple joys of shooting black people who run past your house—is to gain absolute control of the courts. To the extent that Democrats have fewer voters who are willing to hold their noses and vote because of the courts, it is because Democrats never put in the work of explaining how their policy goals require liberal judges to uphold them.

And those Republican single issue voters are the precise voters to blame for the current shithole we find ourselves in, for reasons I refuse to repeat yet again. I, for one, cannot countenance Mystal’s implicit call for the Democrats to develop single issue voters as well. Shall we be overwhelmed for grossly corrupt and incompetent legislators from both parties?

With the infusion of young energy into the Democratic Party, now is exactly the time when the work should be done to explain how control of all three branches is necessary to achieve progressive aims. When I talk to young people, a lot of times the only cases they’ve heard of are Roe v. Wade and Citizens United. Too many people don’t know that D.C. v. Heller created, for the first time, a personal right to gun ownership for self-defense and must be overturned to have any meaningful weapons ban. Too many people don’t know that the conservatives’ attempt to rewrite “Chevron Deference” is their way to attack any environmental regulation ever passed again. Too many people don’t know that “codifying Roe v. Wade” is useless when the name of the game is reimagining Planned Parenthood v. Casey to make abortions functionally unobtainable even if the right to have one still technically exists.

Sure. But the DNC was not the place for it. These sorts of things need education through the media and through dedicated class time. How you do this, I don’t know, but then I’m just a slacker, out of date software engineer.

First rule of engineering: Please, oh please, don’t make things worse by fixing the problem.

Last year that behind the garage tomato plants were spectacular. This year?

Mediocre.

We still expect some good pickings, but the last couple of years it’s been as if the garage was to be overwhelmed. This year, not so much.

Ted Bundy: Charming, but …

I think this election will be unlike any that I’ve personally experienced, either at local or national levels. Previous elections were about ideology, policies, and sometimes competency: the meat of what I consider good governance. A country needs honorable politicians who pursue policies which encourage the public’s goods: peace & prosperity.

But this election is less about those things and more about the more basic facet of governance:

Morality.

Basic morality – honesty, integrity, fidelity, sobriety, humility – is the issue of this election, unlike any other in my lifetime. This is both an individual and collective mandate:

Individually, which candidates, incumbent or otherwise, have acted in accordance with basic morality? Who have taken their duty to country with all due seriousness, and who have permitted their loyalty to entities other than country influence their behaviors to the detriment of the public?

Collectively, which entities, by which I mean parties and their allied groups, have encouraged behaviors in accordance to basic morality, and which have not? Which entities seem to be made up of high-minded individuals, and which seem to be led by power-hungry people who happily abandon basic morality if it brings them gain?

People who have read my blog know my vote will be straight-line Democratic, not because I agree with all of their views or view all of those candidates positively, as I do not make the mistake of demanding purity, but because, as an independent voter, I recognize the Republicans, both local and national, have become terribly disconnected from basic morality. For the first time I won’t be giving consideration to their positions; in my estimation, the current leadership of the Republicans, or the Party of Trump, as they style themselves, has become hopelessly incompetent, at best, and must be expunged.

Yes, there’s nothing new in the above, so if you read this blog, you know my stance. But over the last couple of weeks it’s been increasingly clear that this election is a different animal, an election concerning morality rather than policy, about the behaviors of the candidates – not their policies. It seemed necessary to recognize and enunciate this difference.

That is, if you’re planning to vote Republican – it’s no longer a question of what do you know that I don’t?

It’s what’s wrong with you?