Moons can come in all manner of configurations, too. Two of Saturn’s – Janus and Epimetheus – almost share an orbit. But it could get weirder than that. “In principle, you could have crazy things like rings of moons around planets, like Saturn’s rings but moons instead of tiny little particles,” says Sean Raymond at the University of Bordeaux in France. Along with Juna Kollmeier at Carnegie Observatories in California, Raymond has even postulated that, under the right conditions, moons could have their own moons. These are called moonmoons. [“Why we’re finally on the cusp of finding exomoons around other planets,” Jonathan O’Callaghan, NewScientist (2 Mar 2024, paywall)]
Whoever put this poster together did not pay attention to the names. My apologies to Mr. Rush and, in fact, to everyone.
After watching Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) for the umpteenth time, I wondered what negative statement I could make about a flick that is, quite honestly, a very well-made movie of a light-hearted story. After all, what’s not to like about a band of pirates who’ve incurred a divine curse when they bloodily steal a load of Aztec gold originally used to bribe Spanish explorer Cortés? The curse of the gold descends upon them, and, well, there’s little point in detailing the curse. The course of the tale is the attempt of former pirate Captain Jack Sparrow, who was not cursed by the Aztec gods since he had been deposed by his second-in-command, now-Captain Barbarossa, prior to the conquest of the gold, to regain control of the ship in question, the Black Pearl.
But it’s within this framework I find some dissatisfaction. Unlike some recent tales, such as Ghostbusters (1984), no one in this tale even thinks to question the power and judgment of the pantheon, whether it be the heathen Aztec Gods or those of the Christian pantheon; the punishments afflicted, just or not, must merely be suffered and remedied; but there is no appeals to mercy, justice, or questions concerning the legitimacy of the Gods, regardless of origin.
The boundaries are never transgressed as they are in Ghostbusters. Perhaps in the sequels of Pirates the subject arises, but I confess I never much cared for those stories; it was too much about harvesting the audience’s coin, and not enough about saying something of interest.
And so there is my element of unhappiness. I freely confess that an exploration of the topic by the story’s characters might have destroyed an otherwise finely told tale, but, still, there it is. Captain Barbarossa and his crew may have been victimized by the restless Gods, but don’t challenge the very Gods themselves, eh?
No doubt because they bring order to the Universe, some will say. Undoubtedly, quite a cruel order, but you take what you can get from the Gods, eh?
All that said, Pirates is a lovely way to spend a couple of hours if you like cleverness. Recommended.
When it comes to the perks of being the official nominee of a major political party, one of the lesser known advantages are security briefings on events around the world so that the eventual winner of the Presidential Election can hit the ground running. This is not legally mandated, but it is a tradition.
But with Trump’s exceedingly dubious record in handling such secrets, so dubious that he has, in fact, been indicted, will the Biden Administration continue this tradition? Politicoreports:
U.S. intelligence officials are planning to brief Donald Trump on national security matters if he secures the GOP nomination this summer — despite concerns about his handling of classified information.
The decision would be in keeping with a tradition that dates back to 1952, but it would mark the first time an administration has volunteered to share classified information with a candidate who is facing criminal charges related to the mishandling of classified documents.
The problem, however, is that this is an exceedingly dangerous idea. …
For one thing, Trump has spent years carelessly and recklessly sharing sensitive national security information — including with foreign adversaries — for reasons that no one has ever fully explained. It’s happened enough times that I was able to put together a Top 10 list on the subject.
For another, we’re talking about someone who is quite literally being prosecuted, right now, for allegedly taking classified documents from the White House, storing them in a bathroom, on stage in a ballroom, and in his personal office at his glorified country club, defying a subpoena demanding their return, taking steps to obstruct the process, and lying about all of this.
What Benen doesn’t consider, though, is the possibility that this is a trap. Trump gets some key information, and the FBI intercept a communication containing the information … to Vladimir Putin.
Or he’s given false information, and then the CIA’s information monitoring array is sensitized to that information. If a national adversary suddenly is referencing such as information as verified, rather than false, then the jig is up.
So the Biden Administration may take advantage of this tradition to trap Trump, discredit him in the eyes of independents, and leave him in the dust.
I don’t actually credit the Democrats with this much daring, but it’s certainly a possibility.
A major factor behind the skyrocketing demand is the rapid innovation in artificial intelligence, which is driving the construction of large warehouses of computing infrastructure that require exponentially more power than traditional data centers. AI is also part of a huge scale-up of cloud computing. Tech firms like Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta and Microsoft are scouring the nation for sites for new data centers, and many lesser-known firms are also on the hunt.
The proliferation of crypto-mining, in which currencies like bitcoin are transacted and minted, is also driving data center growth. It is all putting new pressures on an overtaxed grid — the network of transmission lines and power stations that move electricity around the country. Bottlenecks are mounting, leaving both new generators of energy, particularly clean energy, and large consumers facing growing wait times for hookups.
Bitcoin could face being cutoff from energy completely, which should be of deep concern to anyone with serious scratch in the cryptocurrency. Or, if energy prices soar as they would in a marketplace, miners will go out of business rather than lose money, again leaving Bitcoin out of luck.
Of course, miners could try their hand at generating energy. Libertarian theory holds that someone will find that revolutionary technology which will solve the problem and, coincidentally, save everyone else’s bacon as well.
Maybe it’ll happen.
But this comes along:
Companies are increasingly turning to such off-the-grid experiments as their frustration with the logjam in the nation’s traditional electricity network mounts. Microsoft and Google are among the firms hoping that energy-intensive industrial operations can ultimately be powered by small nuclear plants on-site, with Microsoft even putting AI to work trying to streamline the burdensome process of getting plants approved. Microsoft has also inked a deal to buy power from a company trying to develop zero-emissions fusion power. But going off the grid brings its own big regulatory and land acquisition challenges. The type of nuclear plants envisioned, for example, are not yet even operational in the United States. Fusion power does not yet exist.
Which left me wondering: How long before Microsoft, in association with data miners, propose building a Dyson Sphere? In case my reader is unaware, here’s the definition of a Dyson Sphere:
A Dyson sphere is a hypothetical megastructure that encompasses a star and captures a large percentage of its solar power output. The concept is a thought experiment that attempts to imagine how a spacefaring civilization would meet its energy requirements once those requirements exceed what can be generated from the home planet’s resources alone. Because only a tiny fraction of a star’s energy emissions reaches the surface of any orbiting planet, building structures encircling a star would enable a civilization to harvest far more energy. [Wikipedia]
Yesterday’s mad fantasy thought experiment is tomorrow’s reality? It’s happened before.
From the University of New Hampshire Survey Center[1]:
Biden, Trump Running Away With Primary Races in Vermont 2/22/2024 …
Less than two weeks away from the primary on Super Tuesday, former President Donald Trump holds a 30 percentage point lead over former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley among likely Republican Primary voters in Vermont.
And, indeed, Biden did end up dominating in Vermont on Super Tuesday. But how about Trump?
As of around 11:05 p.m., in Vermont, with 93% of expected votes reporting, Trump has 46% of the vote and Haley has 50%. The state marked a rare bright spot for Haley on Super Tuesday, where heading into early Wednesday morning, Vermont marked the only state she took. [ABC News]
The Chicago Daily Tribune fails the accuracy test. No Pulitzer for you.
I’m not aware of any incidents which would explain a 35 point swing in a poll over a two week period in the Trump-Haley race. Other polls followed by subsequent overperformances by Trump adversaries, both directly and indirectly, have been documented in primaries and special elections ever since the 2020 Presidential Election, although the Democratic debacle in Virginia in the 2021 elections does function as a counterexample. And then there’s the reports of underattendance at Trump rallies, his erratic behavior, various ongoing court cases and ludicrous claims, and the generally low quality of those politicos attracted to him.
So is Trump’s poll performance misleadingly strong? Tweedledee5 on Daily Kossure thinks so:
And the kicker here? In an alarming recurring pattern, the Super Tuesday polling showed a huge systematic error favoring Trump, while his actual margin over Haley turned out to be much lower across the Super Tuesday states. Bringing that up because it’s raising questions about something weird going on to account for these huge differences between what pollsters seem to be finding, and what actual votes are showing, with the polls showing a consistent and very large systematic error, in form of a high (and very false) level of support for Trump that isn’t actually there when the votes are counted. Similar to the way Democratic candidates (and ballot initiatives) have been way overperforming what the polls seem to say. Of course, NYT/Siena being one of the worst since the 2022 mid-terms—with its bullshit prediction of a huge “red wave” in Nov. 2022 (one of the worst misses by any poll in years, in any election) and downplaying abortion, which turned out to be one of the two top issues for voters then, but it’s not the only one. As we’ll see below.
Is polling more and more difficult because the older generation, favoring Trump, will answer polls, while the younger, Biden-inclined[2] generation isn’t even reached by the pollsters? Which is funny, yes, since following the 2016 shocker, a favorite explanation for poll failures, which weren’t all that large, was that Trump supporters were lying to the pollsters.
Meanwhile, I’ve been saying all along that Biden’s margin of victory will increase, not decrease. Lately, it’s crept into my mind, like that mink into the rodent nest, that he might even pick up another entire State. Obviously, this is contingent on an absence of disasters, and improved messaging on the part of the Biden campaign.
That may be what is needed to kick off the sorely needed Reformation of the Republican Party.
1Rated a 2.6/3 by FiveThirtyEight as I write this.
2 The idea that the younger generations will vote for the oldest candidate in history may strike some as funny, but has an odd tie-in to this post.
A person under religious vows who generally does not leave his or her habitation. An anchorite lives enclosed in a room or cell, usually in very confined conditions. This kind of asceticism preceded organized monasticism. Simeon the Stylite, who lived on top of a pillar, was an anchorite. Julian of Norwich, an English mystic and anchoress, lived in a cell attached to her parish church in Norwich. See Hermit, Hermitess. [The Episcopal Church]
As [Crypt author Alice] Roberts explores the Middle Ages, she tackles the killing of Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket, the sinking of the Mary Rose and the practice of walling oneself off inside a church to become an anchorite – in one story, a woman who may well have had syphilis walls herself off in a church in York. In her retelling, Roberts draws on a host of sources: not just the bones themselves, but historical documents, ethnography and anything else that is relevant.
A fascinating reminder that the tension between communalism vs. individualism, the latter of which is often taken to an extreme in American culture, can see human behaviors that are considered outré in one culture be common and significant in another.
The State of the Union speech for 2024 was last night, not blocked by frantic Republican zealots, and, no, I didn’t listen to it. I spaced on it, I confess.
It sounds like I missed a fun time.
A CNN/Politicsreport had at least one point that stood out for me, though:
“When you get to be my age, certain things become clearer than ever,” Biden said in his speech, to some laughs.
He went on: “The issue facing our nation isn’t how old we are, it’s how old our ideas are,” adding later we “can’t lead with ancient ideas.”
Counterfactually, both democracy and theocracy are also very old ideas. I bring them up as exemplars of opposites when it comes to the common weal and efficacy, and by so doing I disqualify Biden’s entire suggestion that old ideas are bad, and by implication new ideas are good.
Rather, all ideas, even that of democracy, should be subjected to intellectually rigorous debates and discussions. The purpose of such claims as [we] can’t lead with ancient ideas is to bypass long discussions, especially those that are influenced by opinions not changeable through rational discussion, such as are inherent to theocracies.
But it remains true that discussion is better than the improper dismissal of ideas for irrelevant reasons, as that can lead to embitterment and violence. Best to discard ideas for specific reasons, such as theocracy being based on ideas about a divinity that may not even exist, as it doesn’t speak to us; or autocracy, another ancient governmental form, being subject to the whims of possible madmen who may claim themselves anointed by the divine, but rule through the power of arms.
Debate engenders inclusion, peacefulness, and prosperity. However, it doesn’t satisfy the needs of pathological specimens who lust for power.
The rightward lean of the Republicans continues with this RINO hunter:
State Sen. Andre Jacque on Monday announced he is running for Congress, setting up a primary race for the northeastern Wisconsin House seat left open by the impending retirement of Rep. Mike Gallagher. …
[Jacque] said one of his first priorities in Congress would be “restraining the administrative state” and suggested he’d also take aim at environmental, social and corporate governance programs, known as ESG. Asked by a listener whether he changed his opposition to vaccine mandates after his serious bout with COVID in 2021, Jacque said he had not and suggested he led the charge to “stop the persecution that we have seen from the left as a result of COVID.”
Jacque also pointed to his state-level races against Republicans he described as not conservative enough. He claimed his email used to be “wiRINOhunter” — using the acronym for Republican In Name Only. [milwaukee journal sentinel]
Doesn’t learn from experience with regards to COVID, and calls himself a RINO hunter, because he’s convinced purity and zealotry triumphs over humility and thoughtfulness.
And it’s a red district, meaning he has little reason to modify positions and to, well, think a bit.
This is the near future of the Republican Party. Lara Trump, candidate to be chair of the Republican National Committee, has proclaimed there will be purity tests for the Republicans. The Party will continue to shrink and lose influence.
I hope it’s confined only to expulsions, meaning I’m worried about intra-party violence with this crowd.
[Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA)]: Because of that, we want to stop him from actually delivering the state of the union.
That being a couple of deliverables, including a proposed budget, which have yet to be delivered. Notably, the House would reject them if delivered, no doubt with a vitriolic turn of phrase as well. Such is the quality of Republican members of Congress these days.
But Rep Scott Perry (R-PA) was notably more blunt on the matter a week or so ago:
Conservative Rep. Scott Perry suggested that House Republicans rescind President Joe Biden’s State of the Union invitation for March 7 over immigration and border policies.
“We need to use every single point of leverage,” Perry said on Fox Business’ “Mornings with Maria.” “He comes at the invitation of Congress, and Republicans are in control of the House. There’s no reason that we need to invite him to get more propaganda.”
Perry, the former head of the House Freedom Caucus, claimed allowing Biden to deliver the address would merely allow the president to “actually blame the American people for the crisis he’s caused.” [Politico]
Here’s the thing: this speech is coming, whether it’s delivered in the Capitol to a joint session, or in the White House – or Scranton, PA.
But the actions of Congressional Republicans can make Biden’s “propaganda,” which I read as Facts Republicans don’t like, as even more bright than usual by retracting the invitation. Right now it’s just a normal State of the Union (SOTU) speech, but a speech in Scranton, or in Atlanta, or in Tallahassee, billed as the SOTU speech, with a carefully controlled audience, would draw not only even more media attention, but the public’s attention as well.
It doesn’t matter what Rep Perry thinks of Biden’s report on the state of the union; his own extremist positions, from which he judges Biden’s words as “propaganda,” is really quite irrelevant. But the actions of his colleagues in being petty?
Comments Off on The Smaller Issue May Be The Bigger Issue
A couple of issues came to resolution today, both of which may be preludes to important events. But which is bigger?
The resolution attracting attention is that of the reversal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s affirmation that Mr. Trump should be excluded from the primary ballot. CNN, for example, put it in big letters:
And I suppose I’d have to admit that it is historic. Then again, Mr. Trump’s inferior behavior and outre campaign and governing tactics do tend to result in new legal questions. Historic is a marker on the trail, not a judgment on history.
But it’s certainly not one thing: the fix was not in. The fix may be in at the level of Congress, but not at SCOTUS. Sure, some folks will mumble it is, determined to be bitter. But the most important fact of the matter?
It’s an unanimous decision on the most important point.
The liberal wing agreed with the conservative wing on this one. That, to me, says that it’s not controversial, it may even be obvious in hindsight.
And Mr Trump didn’t buy himself a win.
The way I read the various interpretations, not being a lawyer myself, might be best summarized by KeithDB on Daily Kos:
The Supreme Court reverses the Colorado Supreme Court holding that states may NOT disqualify individuals for federal office. States may do so for state offices, but not federal offices. To disqualify federal candidates Congress must pass some sort of enabling legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
There’s no opinion on the question of whether an insurrection occurred, and if it’s Mr. Trump’s responsibility. This is an important omission, in my opinion. In fact, the longer I look at summaries, the more I wonder how many folks will remember this decision in five years. It was a wild swing at a pitch out of the strike zone.
So what else happened today? And I’m not referencing Nikki Haley’s victory in the Washington, DC, GOP primary, which is thought to be an expected outlier.
No, this is something closer to home. In fact, it’s right in the heart of Mr. Trump:
Now this is interesting. In my experience, CFOs know where most, even all the bodies are buried, how the books are cooked, and who likes what cookies. They know how to tear financial records apart to find their secrets.
And this guy, Allen Weisselberg, has been caught with his hand in the financial cookie jar:
Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg admitted on Monday to testifying falsely to the New York attorney general about his knowledge of the size of Donald Trump’s apartment triplex and how the value of that apartment was inflated on Trump’s financial statements for years based on the incorrect square footage.
Weisselberg was charged with five counts of perjury, but under a deal with prosecutors, he agreed to plead guilty to two felony counts relating to testimony he gave during a 2020 deposition with the attorney general’s office. Weisselberg admitted to testifying falsely at the attorney general’s civil fraud trial against Trump last fall, though that is not among the charges to which he pleaded guilty.
And I suspect that the number of crimes to which Mr. Weisselberg may admit knowledge could be well-nigh endless. This is a big red flag for both federal and state prosecutors, waving lusciously in the air: this way to Mr. Trump’s heart!
This may move slowly, of course, as financial crimes are not speedily researched and digested naturally, but Mr. Weisselberg confession has to be making Mr. Trump’s skin crawl.
This leaves me uneasy – or someone just ran away with my foot. FromAL-Monitor:
The United Arab Emirates’ International Holding Company announced on Tuesday it appointed an AI-powered observer to its board, becoming the latest company to include an AI entity in its leadership and furthering the Gulf state’s ambitions in the sector.
The Abu Dhabi-based investment company, also known as IHC, said it appointed an “AI Board Observer” known as “Aiden Insight.” The observer will perform data analysis, risk assessment, compliance monitoring and other tasks in support of the company. Aiden will attend IHC board meetings as an observer but will not have voting privileges. Aiden is powered by the Emirati AI firm G42 in collaboration with US tech giant Microsoft, IHC said in a statement.
This is from behind a paywall, and as I have chosen not to pay, that’s all I got.
So what is going on here? A member of the board? Unless someone’s withholding information, no AI exhibits self-interest or self-awareness – and so no conscious thought by this board member. A stunt? A necessary legalism? Wikipedia has nothing on it; on the other hand, other Arab news outlets do mention it.
This is all so weird. I rather doubt I’m really this far out of touch, but maybe so.
Republican “worry” over the Federal deficit has been the project of decade upon decade upon decade, with little to show for it except Republicans exacerbating the deficit while “tax and spend liberals” clean up the Republicans’ toxic scat, whether it be bad laws or bigger deficits.
This all came to mind while reading Professor’s latest missive. This was the trigger:
As soon as Mike Johnson (R-LA) became House speaker, he called for a “debt commission” to address the growing budget deficit. This struck fear into the hearts of those eager to protect Social Security and Medicare, because when Johnson chaired the far-right Republican Study Committee in 2020, it called for cutting those popular programs by raising the age of eligibility, lowering cost-of-living adjustments, and reducing benefits for retirees whose annual income is higher than $85,000. Lawmakers don’t want to take on such unpopular proposals, so setting up a commission might be a [Republican] workaround.
And what strikes me is that while these proposals are worthy of discussion – personally, my opinion is that age of eligibility has to be on the table, as life expectancy has been advancing, COLA changes, at least downwards, should be out of the question, and setting an upper income limit will foster restiveness in retirees who “invested” in Social Security and are not getting anticipated benefits – there are easier, equally viable approaches to the problem. And, of course, this commission may be a Trojan horse for drastic changes to, or even expungement of, such social net programs.
So, as the post’s title says, what would responsible politicians be doing in Johnson’s position, if they were honestly convinced the deficit and debt should be reduced, would simply note that reducing taxes did nothing for the economy, and do the following:
Raise taxes.
Close tax loopholes.
Don’t go nuts with spending without concomitant raising of taxes.
Businesses do like taxes, in moderation. The Kansas taxation debacle proved that. And neither deficit nor debt need be immediately eliminated, so taxes need not be too high.
And then there’s the alternative. Stipulating to the abolition of these social net programs, then what might happen? Drawing a parallel, there is currently a homeless encampment in Minneapolis that went up in flames a couple of days ago.
So how about this: an encampment of elderly people? Homeless because of the loss of all income, even Social Security? They won’t even need it going up in flames in order to horrify independents.
And it’ll be just like the times before Social Security.
If you find yourself talking to a Republican, ask them why they cling to their anti-tax tenets in the face of the Federal debt and deficit. Point out that the Laffer Curve is a bust.
a muscle that is controlled by the action of an antagonist with which it is paired
a chemical substance capable of combining with a specific receptor on a cell and initiating the same reaction or activity typically produced by the binding endogenous substance dopaminergic agonists [Merriam-Webster]
Previous studies have found that chimpanzees may engage in agonistic teasing, or harassment, to reinforce their hierarchical positions. But when the right balance of enjoyment and aggression is struck, teasing can also be a form of play and amusement, says Isabelle Laumer at the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior in Germany.
When life imitates comedy, eh? Of what does this remind you?
On the one hand, Republicans maintain that they support the continued use of IVF, calling it both pro-family and pro-life. But on the other hand, many in the GOP agree with the central premise of the ruling that found that frozen embryos are children with equal rights, a contradictory position that now has them on the defensive on an issue that is supported by over 80% of Americans, including a majority of Republicans.
“That’s really at the crux of the ethics of it,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) told reporters on Tuesday. “How do our laws recognize the dignity of human life but also understand that the procedure that it enables is a life-creating procedure?” [HuffPo]
For me, it’s this:
They’re inching their feet down the runway, aren’t they? Every potential for human life must not only be recognized, but fulfilled as well. Which, in turn, suggests the entities that are suspending IVF in Alabama for legal reasons may be violating future law by not fulfilling every request for a viable embryo.
Yes, it’s a foray into the ridiculous.
This, of course, is if we, as a society, attempt to read the mind & moral code & intentions of a creature that, frankly, may not exist. This is the elephant in the room that is stepping on us.
Think that’s a joke? Try taking it seriously, instead. The statement that all life is sacred, which I’ll be the first to grant has certain practical benefits for society, comes from a religious tenet for which there is little to no objective proof that a possibly non-existent divinity endorses.
Rather than being dragged around by the dog’s nipped tail, it would benefit us greatly to recognize a core truth of our society: We, as a secular society, define the rules. No, we’re not Judeo-Christian, no matter how much some of us – not them, dammit, but some of us, and please stop being so fucking divisive – yell it, so we need not be subject to the rules of the Torah, the Bible, the Quran, or any other arbitrary religion’s rules.
Say it with me: We Define The Rules Of Our Society. Then think about that.
What does it imply? I’m sure it was on the minds of the Founding Fathers, and lead to the Establishment Clause, and I suspect if I had a better memory I could quote letter and verse from the TheFederalist Papers. The implications of living in a society where causative chains are rife is of such a magnitude I don’t even know how to summarize the summary.
So let’s constrain this discussion to how it applies to IVF. Are embryos really human? They neither think, talk, nor often even survive to transform into fetuses, and thence to humans. It’s worth even asking if infants are human?
And I bring this up not to be thorough, but to make a point: if we decide an infant is not human, that doesn’t endanger infants. We have plenty of laws to protect them, don’t we?
And if we don’t, we can make them. <- THIS IS A POINT. PAY ATTENTION.
If we make the rules, rather than guess what they might be, then we can say that Infants and Humans are protected by law, and Embryos and Fetuses are not. Or we can say they’re partially protected, such as to say that, absent congenital fatal defect, only a contributor of genetic material may order its destruction. Or only the one who’ll be on the hook to carry it to term.
Or whatever, after sober, reasonable, and secular discussion, seems to benefit society, individually and as a whole, the most.
And not the damn silliness of a buffoon in black robes donning a metaphorical God-mask to declare what he thinks his God would say, if he’d only open his damn mouth and say it.
Ironically, Senator Rubio (R-FL) touches on the core of the problem we face when melding legal systems, which are basically fantastical creatures, with the ugly realities of biological reproduction:
“No one has IVF to destroy life, they have IVF to create life,” he added. “Unfortunately, you have to create multiple embryos, and some of those are not used, then you’re now in a quandary.”
Yes, so long as we try to drag a possibly non-existent divinity into the question, we won’t have happy answers. We need to take on this responsibility for ourselves: Will abortion damage society? Will destroying embryos damage society? Etc. I’m not here to answer these questions in this post; I’m here to say these are the bulls in the china shop that we keep ignoring in favor of the potentially non-existent’s rules, and we’d better start working on lassoing them, or they’re going to destroy the china shop.
Comments Off on Don’t Let That Replacement Forget His Walker
It’s one thing to get jailhouse testimony, as dubious as that can be; it’s far worse when everyone else who was expected to finger the target instead says, No, he didn’t do that.
So how can you take this seriously?
New jailhouse testimony from a former Biden family business associate details at least two calls between Hunter Biden and his father, then the vice president, about lucrative business deals with China and Russia.
One of the calls puts Mr. Biden in contact with a Russian oligarch and former mayor of Moscow.
Jason Galanis, sentenced to more than 11 years for securities fraud, is the fourth former business associate to put President Biden in the center of Hunter Biden’s enormously profitable business deals as lawmakers investigate him on charges that he helped his family carry out an influence-peddling scheme. [The Washington Times]
Even The Washington Times, a known conservative news source, mentions Galanis is in jail, an implicit warning that he may be the sort to say anything to get out.
It’s rather like sending out the 70 year old quarterback replacement in the middle of an NFL game. Don’t forget to send his walker out with him. Rep and Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) really, really should know better; the fact that he doesn’t suggests he holds his position in Washington only because the citizens of his District in Ohio can’t stand the chap.
“Yes, I want to perpetuate the heating pad thing with the next twelve cats.”
Ouch. I wonder if it’s going to be twelve cats at once, or if we’re going to be stringing them out.
For those who are wondering, Mr. Mayhem, all twenty years of him, is still with us, still deaf and blind. Every day is an adventure for all of us. Yesterday, he snuck out and ended up across the street, which is fortunately a quiet street. We were all confused, from us searching frantically to Peeper muttering about how he hadn’t gotten himself lost permanently.
He’s invoking, even commanding, God to deliver the goods. Or so I’d tell Steve Benen.
Benen is appalled, even flabbergasted, that Mr. Trump is trying to get the black community’s vote:
It’s also a timely reminder that Trump apparently can’t help himself. There were plenty of ways in which the former president could’ve tried to make a compelling pitch to Black voters, but he apparently settled on his most ridiculous option.
Perhaps in response to this:
Declared during his speech, “The lights are so bright in my eyes that I can’t see too many people out there. But I can only see the Black ones. I can’t see any white ones, you see? That’s how far I’ve come. That’s how far I’ve come. That’s a long — that’s a long way, isn’t it? Ah, we’ve come a long way together.”
But long-term readers should remember Chad Bauman’s comments on then-President Trump:
Those who lay claim to victory actualize it, while those who admit defeat find themselves hopelessly entrenched in it.
As the former President grew up in a prosperity theology church, the name it and claim it theology should be familiar to him and everyone who studies him, and is certainly something Mr. Trump frequently attempts, as anyone paying attention to his pronouncements concerning his opponents will recognize, whether it’s concerning tangible or intangible things. I include in these pronouncement those concerning the black community, hoping to gain their votes despite his long-running enmity to the black community.
I think attempts to understand and predict Mr. Trump’s behavior while disregarding his religious background are fairly unwise.
Republicans in Wisconsin, a heavily gerrymandered State, agreed to legislative maps drawn by Governor Tony Evers (D-WI) over the weekend:
Wisconsin Republicans lost their more than decade-long grip on control of the state Legislature Monday after Democratic Gov. Tony Evers signed into law new electoral maps that reshape down-ballot races in this battleground state.
So what’s going on? Here’s the official Republican pronouncement, same link:
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, said Republicans chose to pass Evers’ maps because they were “the most Republican-leaning maps out of all the Democrat-gerrymandered maps” being considered by the court.
“We sent him those maps, not because they are fair, but because the people of Wisconsin deserve certainty in state government,” Vos said in a statement. “This fall Republicans will prove that we can win on any maps because we have the better policy ideas for the State of Wisconsin.”
Yeah, maybe. In part, sure.
But here’s what he won’t say: The Wisconsin Republicans have been an unattractive crew for at least a decade. Most recently, their behavior concerning the 2020 Election was loud, shameful, and quite ridiculous. In fact, they reminded the independents that they’ve become the Party of fourth-raters.
And now it’s time to comb their hair and tie their ties. They’ve realized that they need to win votes, once again, and the way to do that does not include a ludicrously futile stop at a Wisconsin Supreme Court that will, without a doubt, rule against them. They’ve spent a lot of time being ludicrous and futile, and they realize it has to stop.
Can they get that train to stop? I don’t know. The conservatives have been mostly chased out of the Party at this point, so the lunatics with big mouths and arrogant beliefs don’t have much to keep them away from microphones. But Vos, as House Speaker, will give it a shot.
I expect that the Wisconsin Legislator will be sporting a new look next year, this time, and a few anti-abortionists who think they’re in safe districts right now won’t be in office next year.
Posobiec[UMB-1], who was also one of the originators of the Taylor Swift conspiracy theory that never happened, welcomed people to CPAC by claiming January 6th was just the start of overthrowing the country’s democracy, and his statement was met with an “amen” from Steve Bannon.
Do you want to radicalize people against the GOP? That’s a good start.
CPAC has always had some freak elements involved. But those elements were inside the tiny conference rooms a few floors away from the main stage and now are on or near the main stage.
Erickson has a few more references, then this:
Too many conservative institutions have given up as their leadership dies off or retires. The organizations are being placed in the hands of the grifters who kissed geriatric butt long enough to make it seem they meant it. And we’re left now with a rudderless movement that excels at spooking senior citizens out of their cash while remaining deficient in promoting ideas for the sake of those ideas.
And for those of us who were not brought up in the movement, or moved out of it young, and given it more than a moment’s thought, the multitude of Jimmy Bakkers, Falwells, LaPierres, LaRouches, Hams, McCarthys, Smirnovs, Comers, Jordans, the bizarre antics and claims and abuses[2] of leadership conservatives at the aforementioned CPAC, the formerly respectable NRA[3], Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute, Republican Party, Southern Baptist Convention and many of its constituent and related churches, the Catholic Church, the Prophetic Movement, and oh so many more, all serve to make us rather unsurprised at the moral dissolution, the moral turpitude, emerging from the shadows into the light, one hand eternally up, one hand eternally out.
The best grifters don’t pick your pocket. The best grifters make you feel good about you giving them money. They construct the social prestige that their victims want, and sell them that prestige for top dollar. I give money to that prophet down in Kansas City, doesn’t that make me part of something important?
And the conservatives are seemingly constructed to be grifted. A strong belief in God must excite a grifter, as it implies a belief in something for which objective evidence seemingly doesn’t exist – my apologies to my religious readers, but that’s the elephant in the room.
Do not whisper of seeing God in the fields, in some horrid consequence for the unbeliever, hiding in the folds of rumored infinite power and full of plans to explain the unexpected death of your relative, I say. Show me a thirty foot tall talking creature performing miracles that can partake in a discussion, that can be measured. The former is the lair of the mad prayer with hairy ears, as Robert Heinlein observed, the grifter with little real social utility, who constructs their social position purely out of the stuff of imagination; the latter, at least, can be the starting point of a real discussion.
Not that non-conservatives are perfect, as the lefty attraction to the anti-vaxxer position proves. But Erickson should not be surprised at his political adversaries’ laughter, or sighs of boredom, or however they express their grief that these Americans, and many more, culminating in the name Trump, have such a hold over a large enough section of America to actually imperil the nation.
… by claiming January 6th was just the start of overthrowing the country’s democracy, and his statement was met with an “amen” from Steve Bannon.
The naked lust for power by the grifters doesn’t get much more brazen than that.
2 OK, the abuses are not usually bizarre: various forms of sexual abuse, cheating on spouses, embezzlement, the list is long, but not usually that odd.
3 The National Rifle Association, which has ever more absolutist competitors to their right, who cannot stand the thought that anyone, no matter their criminal inclinations or inability to comprehend the importance of the personal integrity of anyone other than themselves, is not armed to the teeth. Such is the lure of social prestige.
An unconscious indictment of the “strong leader” paradigm of leadership, from Mark Sumner on Daily Kos:
As the self-immolation over the border deal showed, it’s not enough for Republicans to just swear fealty to Trump. They have to surrender all ideas of independent agency. They don’t just have no platform, they’re not allowed to have ideas. Even candidates who have made a show of endorsing Trump and enjoyed his favor in the past can find themselves the target of some of that boundless retribution if they cross an invisible line.
At least some of the pro-Trump sentiment is a reaction to the deliberations and general slowness of government; there’s a belief that if only we had a strong leader with the right ideals at heart, we’d quickly get everything under control!
Which makes the above observation so interesting. Mr. Trump has managed, through his needy narcissism and bad judgment, managed to give the Democrats an opportunity to turn the immigration issue into a pro-Democratic Party issue.
In fact, while “strong leaders” can often initially have some success, in the end they tend to destroy themselves and their nations. Think of Hitler and the Russian offensive, which effectively destroyed Nazi Germany, or Mussolini and the Ethiopian campaign, or any of a number of monarchs. There have, of course, been a few successful strong leaders, such as Batu Khan, riding on superior military technology, but they’re rare and whether it was their judgment or the military superiority they appropriated is a point for discussion.
But a democracy, for all that it can be slow, has the advantage of discussion, a multitude of voices contributing ideas, critiques, their thought and ideas contributing to a better view of the problem. Doubt it? What has performed better than the strong man nations? Democracies. As hard as they can be to compare, I think democracies always stand a better chance.
So the incompetent, the self-impressed, the bombastic, all with claims to a non-existent throne – let them become inhabitants of the vat of failed personalities of history.
Comments Off on Wing E Is Reserved For Pre-Born Criminal Children
Long-time readers are aware of my argument, in reductio ad absurdum, against fetuses being persons. It comes down to, if fetuses are persons, and mothers can die from pregnancy through various conditions, then it’s undeniable that the fetus must be responsible, since the incident does occur and responsibility is the essence of personhood.
But I must admit that I hadn’t quite thought it through when it comes to prisons, as this article on the plumb-foolishness of the Alabama Supreme Court just inspired in me.
The Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday that frozen embryos are people and someone can be held liable for destroying them, a decision that reproductive rights advocates say could imperil in vitro fertilization (IVF) and affect the hundreds of thousands of patients who depend on treatments like it each year.
The first-of-its-kind ruling comes as at least 11 states have broadly defined personhood as beginning at fertilization in their state laws, according to reproductive rights group Pregnancy Justice, and states nationwide mull additional abortion and reproductive restrictions, elevating the issue ahead of the 2024 elections. Federally, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this term whether to limit access to an abortion drug, the first time the high court will rule on the subject since it overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
And the common-sense consequence? Prison. But, of course, the life of the fetus must be preserved, even if it’s taken the life of the mother, and this is presumably a preemie baby, possibly extraordinaire’, and so each prison that wishes to offer facilities to house such criminals will have to equip themselves for preemie babies, and all that goes along with that.
Goodness. I wonder if the guards will need special training.
Well. Have the carrot and prove the point? Or wait for someone to match it?
When it comes to Supreme Court reform, John Oliver is tired of just talking about term limits and ethics codes. Instead, the late-night talk show host said he’s taking a page out of the playbook used by the rich and powerful, who the comedian said routinely lavish gifts on public servants to curry favor.
“If we’re going to keep the bar of accountability this low, perhaps it’s time to exploit that low bar the same way billionaires have successfully done for decades,” Oliver said on Sunday’s episode of HBO’s “Last Week Tonight,” before announcing the offer he had for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: $1 million per year if he steps down from his post immediately.
Oliver is also throwing in a brand new, $2.4 million motor coach that’s outfitted with a king-size bed, four televisions and a fireplace — a potential deal sweetener for Thomas, who has come under fire for receiving significant gifts and favors from a network of wealthy friends and patrons. [WaPo]
It’s sort of the way of capitalism, isn’t it? But it’s confusion of one sector of society with another: money in the legal system, used to buy favorable outcomes, is generally labeled corruption when it heaves into public view, isn’t it?
I’m sure no one on the right will suggest seriously that Thomas take the … it isn’t a bribe, is it? Well, anyways. Maybe Warren Buffet can step into the breach and battle side by side with Thomas to offer even more.
