Category Archives: Uncategorized

BuzzFeed reports on how much attention US Government officials are paying attention to the pronouncements of President Trump when it comes to the recent G7 Summit:

Shortly after leaving the G7 Summit in Canada in June, President Donald Trump tweeted to say he had instructed US officials not to endorse a statement he had agreed to just hours earlier with other world leaders. Trump was displeased with something Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said during the summit’s closing press conference, which the president was following on TV from Air Force One.

But almost two months on, those instructions from Trump have never been acted upon, apparently ignored, two sources who were directly involved in the G7 process told BuzzFeed News.

US inaction means Trump effectively endorsed the final statement after all.

I couldn’t help but wonder if Fox News, reportedly President Trump’s main source of information about the world (and just think about that for a while!), had anything on this. A major search engine showed nothing. A visit to the Fox News website also showed nothing. It’s still a young story, though, isn’t it?

Not really, not generically. Steve Benen has more:

In April, for example, the president announced via Twitter that Russia should “get ready” because he was poised to launch a military offensive in Syria. White House officials found Trump’s declaration “distracting,” and proceeded “as if nothing had happened.”

A couple of months earlier, Trump asked Defense Secretary James Mattis to provide him with military options for Iran. The Pentagon chief reportedly “refused.”

Making matters slightly worse, last summer, the president published missives barring transgender Americans from military service. Soon after, the Joint Chiefs effectively ignored it, leaving the status quo in place.

Steve calls it an “alarming dynamic.” It’s well more than that.

First, it tells the observant so much about the level of incompetency in this Administration. I cannot think of similar stories for any other recent President. The inclination to hire loyal cretins and ignoramuses, as well as ideological fellow-travelers, is reinforced by this reaction by those folks who have spent their careers holding the United States together.

It sets a shocking precedent. OK, I’m not going to faint over it, as an institution as large as the Executive Branch will no doubt contradict the will of the guy at the top both inadvertently and purposefully, not to mention over legal constraints. Until this Administration, though, the purposeful group was definitely the outsiders, the extremists – just think of Col. Oliver North’s deliberate deceptions in the Iran-Contra scandal. (Col. North, USMC (retired), is now a top muckety-muck at the NRA, which is telling.) Now it’s arguably the good guys, those folks grounded in reality, who are deliberately ignoring the President. It quite probable they will get canned if the President ever notices it. It’s conceivable they could end up in court and end up convicted. And while they could be pardoned by a savvy President, it’s still a blot and a strain on honorable members of government who are trying to keep the boat afloat in the midst of a self-inflicted storm. But it’s a horrible precedent, because while we may appreciate the efforts of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others to mitigate the sheer idiocy of the President, what happens tomorrow when someone we think of as competent is ignored?

This cannot come out well.

Third, what does this say about Fox News, assuming they refuse to run the story? Are they patriots under their deceptive skins? Are they just trying to keep him in power by not letting him know his power is even more limited than he’s already discovered? Or are they so confused by the situation that they’re melting down? This, by the way, appeals to my sense that those who are doing evil in the world tend to trip over their own feet and break their necks, eventually.

If this ever comes to the President’s attention, and is really true, it could cause a real shit-storm for those public servants. I’m completely conflicted over there their actions, as short-term they are doing good, but making the long-term a little less secure. Or maybe a lot less secure.

When he wakes up, no one mention both of his legs are gone!

Hands of a Stranger (1962) suffers from a central problem: the theme is a muddled mess. Gifted pianist Vernon, just coming into his own, is involved in a taxi accident, and his hands are mangled beyond repair. His surgeon, however, urged on by Vernon’s agent, performs hand transplants using those of a murder victim.

When Vernon learns, he tries to pick up where he left off, but when his new hands fail him, he flies into violent rages which result in the deaths of various people he knows or associates with the accident, including the young son of the taxi driver, who was blinded in the accident as well. Meanwhile, a police lieutenant is adding up the clues and beginning to wonder about the amazing surgeon and his patient.

Driven to madness, Vernon traps the surgeon and his own sister, threatening to kill them, but the lieutenant arrives just in time to save them from the insane pianist.

There were a lot of good elements to this movie. The acting was generally excellent, and I found the police lieutenant particularly intriguing. Vernon, played by James Stapleton, bore a passing, if distracting, resemblance to current actor Rufus Sewell, although on comparison it didn’t seem that great.

But in the end I was left wondering why had they made this movie. An entry in the horror genre? It didn’t feel like it. A cautionary tale concerning technology? Not really. The pitfalls of becoming famous? But Vernon is quite the humble chap. And what about that last frame of the movie, the message What’s Past Is Prologue? What should I make of that?

In the end, I could only shrug, because the story let the movie down.

And here it is, in case you’re wondering about it.

Rohollah Faghihi  of AL Monitor notes that the ‘young, strict conservative’ movement, previously discussed, has taken over the state broadcaster:

The recent appointments of new managers at Iran’s conservative-dominated state broadcaster may indicate that the organization is about to adopt a more hard-line position. This comes as a number of powerful moderate officials at the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) have been weakened lately.

IRIB has a monopoly over domestic radio and television services, and has more than 50 channels, with the most-viewed channels being Channels 1 through 6.

Conservative Abdulali Ali-Asgari is the current chairman of the state broadcaster, and like his predecessors, is directly appointed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. …

In 2014, a new channel named Ofogh (Horizon) was established, focusing on “the concepts of Islamic Revolution, the Holy Defense [1980-88 Iran-Iraq War] and regional developments.”

The channel is managed by the new generation of hard-liners, who are vehemently against the Reformists and moderates. Since its inception, Ofogh has broadcast various documentaries angled against government policies — including the nuclear negotiations that led to the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and indeed the nuclear deal itself. The channel has some well-known talk shows that appear to mostly pursue the single goal of weakening the conservatives’ political rivals.

The younger generation of hard-liners who control Ofogh are now determined to expand their domain to the entirety of IRIB, and in the process of doing so, eliminating moderates and other members of the entourage of parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, who has been a close ally of Reformist-backed Rouhani in recent years. For a decade, Larijani was the chairman of IRIB; his tenure ended in 2004. While he had adopted hard-line positions during his chairmanship of the state broadcaster, he gradually turned moderate upon leaving the organization.

What better way to enforce the ideology of the conservatives than to take over the state broadcaster? Well, my suspicion is they’ll end up disappointed. True believers rarely attract the masses when the masses have already had recent experience with the true believers, and given how the Iranian citizenry has shifted over the years, it’s quite probable that they’ll quietly ignore these young firebrands, having far more urgent, if mundane concerns at hand.

The 2018 version of the Minnesota Fringe Festival starts today and my Arts Editor and I will be Fringing some of the next 10 or 11 days, and no doubt it’ll impact my normal blogging to some extent. I don’t anticipate posting any reviews to UMB unless we run across something truly extraordinary early enough in its run for my local readers to see it as well.

I think there is a reviewing facility on their web site, but last time I used it people yelled at me for being too mean.

I hope you folks find time to enjoy a show or two as well.

Two days ago I received a response from Senator Klobuchar to my letter concerning the immigrant families experiencing the kidnapping of their children at the hands of the U.S. Government, and I can report she’s 4-square against it.

I recently visited the southern border in Texas, where I spoke with people who had experienced the Administration’s policy firsthand—including a mother fleeing an abusive partner in Honduras who was separated from her 10-year-old son for more than a month. I also heard from religious and humanitarian workers who are dedicating their time to help those seeking refuge in our country.

We must reunite these children with their parents immediately. Our country’s medical professionals – including the American Medical Association and the American Association of Pediatrics – have warned about the consequences of family separation, saying that it can cause irreparable harm to children that lasts their whole lives. I will keep fighting to help these families and I am an original cosponsor of a bill that would prevent this from ever happening again. I have also repeatedly advocated for congressional oversight hearings on this Administration’s immigration policies.

A form letter, I’m sure, but directly addressing my concerns in a firm and forthright manner.

A recent analysis of Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) proposed “Medicare For All” (M4A) by the free enterprise think tank Mercatus has the liberals all a-twitter with excitement. Here’s Kevin Drum:

Here’s some good news. The libertarians at the Mercatus Center did a cost breakdown of Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All plan and concluded that it would save $2 trillion during its first ten years:

Now, as you might guess, this was not the spin the Mercatus folks put on their study. Their headline is “M4A Would Place Unprecedented Strain on the Federal Budget.” This isn’t really true, of course, since M4A would absorb all the costs of our current health care system but would also absorb all the payments we make to support it.

But Mercatus is quite consistent in saying this:

By conservative estimates, this legislation would have the following effects:

• M4A would add approximately $32.6 trillion to federal budget commitments during the first 10 years of its implementation (2022–2031).
• This projected increase in federal healthcare commitments would equal approximately 10.7 percent of GDP in 2022. This amount would rise to nearly 12.7 percent of GDP in 2031 and continue to rise thereafter.

These estimates are conservative because they assume the legislation achieves its sponsors’ goals of dramatically reducing payments to health providers, in addition to substantially reducing drug prices and administrative costs.

And if the legislation fails to reduce payments to health providers? Costs could grow a lot more than projected. Kevin shouldn’t be complacent that Mercatus’ number is less than the projected number.

It’s a nuance worth thinking about, because it leads to more interesting questions, such as whether or not health providers will accept lower payments. That question has more texture to it than you might think. Does the legislation still utilize insurance companies, or is the health insurance industry abolished by this legislation? If not the latter, then does the legislation establish, or propose to establish, a standardized approach to health claims specification? Keep in mind that this one area often consumes one more persons in a doctor’s office, because health insurance claims are just that inconsistent.

Another thought is that a doctor’s office guaranteed a certain amount of business may be willing to accept the legislatively specified discount, much as will suppliers of more tangible objects, also known as the bulk discount.

Speaking of Mercatus, I don’t have time to analyze their result, but I do notice they don’t seem to acknowledge that earlier interventions, which are more likely under M4A, result in lower health care costs. This is another detail simply glossed over. If they calculated for that, it should be well-publicized so that the various interested parties could engage with it, tear it to pieces, and really get a good look at what that might mean for us.

Similarly, questions concerning whether M4A would impact new therapy development are also important. I see Mercatus has a study on how Medicare impacts it, but I can’t read that at the moment.

Perhaps one of the most important results to come out of the upcoming mid-term elections will be the interpretation of the winners & losers as a referendum on President Trump. You’ll note that I’m not saying the President’s policies, because much of his appeal lies in his personality and his promises, kept or unkept. The performance of those Republican candidates who’ve clasped him to their breasts will keep my attention, because these candidates have bought as much into his personality as they have his policies.

So, in this respect, the governorship of the state of Florida is up for grabs this mid-term, and the leader for the Republican nomination, Ron DeSantis, has only assumed this position because of the formal endorsement by President Trump, reportedly because DeSantis became a favorite interview subject of Fox News, where he reportedly praised Trump and his policies.

Now he’s taken the next step, and this is where his venture becomes very interesting, because his new commercial, despite the suggestion that he’s more than a Trump-clone, does absolutely nothing to actually bring him to life as anything other than being a frenzied Trump-lover.

For those who didn’t want to waste those 30 seconds, DeSantis is featured with his small children, teaching them to build a wall, teaching them to read from Trump materials, and the like. It’s quite the unimaginative bleat of the sheep following the leader.

Minus unforeseen disasters for DeSantis, I expect he’ll win the nomination, because the character of the GOP is now “The party of Trump.” But will the Trump-clone play well with the Florida independent voters to which he’ll need to appeal in order to win? Is his imminent nomination the opening Florida’s Democratic Party has been waiting for? Or does the elderly Florida population favor the xenophobic attitudes of President Trump and are ready to elect the guy clinging to Trump’s butt-hairs?^[1]

A little over 90 days left to find out.

¹The saying used to involve “coat-tails,” but it seems discourteous to use such an euphemism in today’s atmosphere of brutal remarks.

Noted in Minneapolis’ Loring Park:

This bird was evidently the lookout for some ducks busying themselves with the algae.

I’ve barely begun a new book, Secular Cycles by Peter Turchin and Sergey A. Nefedov, both Russian with Ph.D.s, I’m not even done with the freakin’ Introduction, but a report from The New York Times rings an interesting bell in conjunction with it:

The Trump administration is considering bypassing Congress to grant a $100 billion tax cut mainly to the wealthy, a legally tenuous maneuver that would cut capital gains taxation and fulfill a long-held ambition of many investors and conservatives.

Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, said in an interview on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit meeting in Argentina this month that his department was studying whether it could use its regulatory powers to allow Americans to account for inflation in determining capital gains tax liabilities. The Treasury Department could change the definition of “cost” for calculating capital gains, allowing taxpayers to adjust the initial value of an asset, such as a home or a share of stock, for inflation when it sells.

“If it can’t get done through a legislation process, we will look at what tools at Treasury we have to do it on our own and we’ll consider that,” Mr. Mnuchin said, emphasizing that he had not concluded whether the Treasury Department had the authority to act alone. “We are studying that internally, and we are also studying the economic costs and the impact on growth.”

Add in the lone piece of legislation to be passed by Congress and signed into law during this term, the tax ‘reform’ bill, which, as predicted by independent economists, has resulted in a windfall for the wealthy. Then add the greediness of investors just prior to the Great Recession, as augmented by a couple of recent articles by Professor Pearlstein referenced here, and it all adds up to a feeding frenzy by those who already have more than enough.

And in Turchin and Nefedov’s book?

Such a happy state (for the elites) cannot continue for long. First, expansion of elite numbers means that the amount of resources per elite capita begins to decline. This process would occur even if the total amount of surplus stayed constant. But, second, as general population grows closer to the carrying capacity, surplus production gradually declines. The combination of these two trends results in an accelerating fall of average elite incomes.

The dynamic processes described above also have a sociopsychological aspect. During the good times the elites become accustomed to, and learn to expect, a high level of consumption (this is the growing extravagance of noble households” of Dobb and Sweezy). An additional elements, as pointed out by Sweezy, is the ever-increasing quantity and variety of goods available to the elites  as a result of urbanization….Modern studies of consumption level expectations suggest that people generally aim at matching (and if possible exceeding) the consumption levels of their parents. …

The deteriorating economic conditions of the elites during the late stagflation phase of the secular cycle do not affect all aristocrats [elites] equally. While the majority are losing ground, a few lineages, by contrast, are able to increase their wealth. The growing economic inequality results from the operation of what some sociologists call the “Matthew effect”… [pp. 10-11]

(All typos mine.) It’ll be fascinating to see how this book applies to our current era, and to make some guesses concerning our current position in the secular cycle and how we might expect our economy to respond to the growing rapacity of the elite part of our society. A key question will be whether their materialistic urges will surge out of control, or if they’ll heed the moralistic requests that the sinking balance of a very rich, if lopsided, society be saved from utter poverty. While carrying capacity was certainly the most important economic measure of the medieval ages, I don’t know if that still applies to today. We’re not yet at mass “soup kitchen” stage, and it’s not clear to me that this’ll happen, unless climate change destroys substantial portions of our arable land.

But it won’t get read fast. Dense prose will slow me down.

Regarding the letters I sent to my various Congress people concerning civil asset forfeiture, I just received a reply from Senator Smith, a delay of maybe a month and a half. Unfortunately, it’s a form letter. Here’s the meatiest paragraph:

To make a more equitable and cost-effective system, we need to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach to justice and confront sentencing disparities, prison overcrowding, and bias in our criminal justice system. Mandatory minimums — which require fixed sentences for specific criminal convictions — have been used too widely and led to mass incarceration, which disproportionately impacts people of color and costs taxpayers billions of dollars. That’s why I am a cosponsor of the Smarter Sentencing Act, a bipartisan bill that would reduce mandatory minimums for some non-violent drug offenses and allow people sentenced under previous, harsher laws the chance to have their sentences revisited. I also support the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, another bipartisan bill that would give judges greater discretion in sentencing, make some of the drug sentencing reforms enacted in recent years retroactive, and support anti-recidivism initiatives. I am also a cosponsor of the End Racial and Religious Profiling Act of 2017 (ERRPA), which would prohibit racial profiling by law enforcement and require trainings and updated procedures to eliminate this practice.

That has little to do with civil asset forfeiture. While I appreciate that she’s active in this area, I’d place far more value on knowing her opinion on the topic I selected, rather than her activities in other, if related, areas.

In fact, it’s more campaign literature than an honest reply.

Which probably won’t stop me from voting for her – or at least not voting at all. But it’s disappointing that she, or her staff, failed to address an important question in today’s justice system, a question which, answered improperly, damages the faith that citizens have in their system being a just system.

A month or so ago Professor Pearlstein of George Mason University published an article in WaPo concerning the ripples in the national financial pond, and now he has another unsettling article out chronicling current corporate greed in WaPo:

Now it is happening again [the rush after poor investments, as seen just prior to the Great Recession], as investors and money managers scramble to buy floating-rate debt — debt offering interest payments that will increase as global interest rates rise, as they are expected to over the next few years. A big new source of floating-rate credit is the market for “leveraged loans” — loans to highly indebted businesses — that are packaged into securities known as “collateralized loan obligations,” or CLOs. Because the market seems to have an insatiable appetite for CLOs, leveraged lending and CLO issuance through the first half of the year are already up 38 percent over last year’s near-record levels. …

Although some sophisticated investors have begun to pull back from the CLO market, they have been replaced by retail investors seeking higher yields who have flocked to mutual funds and exchange-traded funds that specialize in CLO debt.

Which sounds like wretched amateurs chasing the big return with little thought as to the underlying risk. The sheep will be sheared. But where are the regulators who protect investors against deceptive investments?

Although financial regulators have taken passing notice of the increased volume and declining quality of corporate credit, they haven’t done much to discourage it — just the opposite, in fact.

Earlier this year, after complaints from banks and dealmakers reached sympathetic ears in the Trump administration, the newly installed chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Comptroller of the Currency Office declared that previous “guidance” against lending to companies whose debt exceeded six times their annual cash flow should not be taken as a hard and fast rule.

Whether intended or not, however, the market read the regulators’ announcement not only as a green light to the banks to step up their leveraged lending but also as an indication that regulators would be more responsive to industry pressure than during the Obama years.

And that’s the problem. Regulators don’t exist to increase the profits of an industry – or a company. They exist to keep the economy, or more often some sector of the economy, stable and safe, and thereby create an environment in which reasonable profits are possible. When they collude with the industry they are regulating, there’s a vastly increased chance of a disaster born of the greed of the amateur, the inexperienced.

Or even the cautious, wise citizen.

Because our economy has become so large and convoluted, even the most wise financial actor can get their fins caught in the net of blind bad chance, and dragged onto the beach for a good beating and then a meal. The ceaseless plaints again Glass-Steagall, crowned by its repeal and soon followed by the Great Recession, have been replicated by the grousing about the terrible burdens of Dodd-Frank, which have since been lifted somewhat, ironically with the help of one of its authors, retired Representative Barney Frank (D-MA). Will financial disaster once again befall the nation because of ignorance about the role of regulators?

I shouldn’t be surprised.

But I don’t know enough to even guess, either. But when the experts are shaking their heads …

Accounting firm PwC (aka PriceWaterhouseCoopers, for those of us who don’t keep up so well with corporate name changes) doesn’t think the advance of artificial intelligence and robotics means the permanent creation of an unemployed underclass:

Furthermore, other analysis we have done5 suggests that any job losses from automation are likely to be broadly offset in the long run by new jobs created as a result of the larger and wealthier economy made possible by these new technologies. We do not believe, contrary to some predictions, that automation will lead to mass technological unemployment by the 2030s any more than it has done in the decades since the digital revolution began.

Nonetheless, automation will disrupt labour markets and it is interesting to look at the estimates we have produced to get an indication of the relative exposure of existing jobs to automation in different countries, industry sectors, and categories of workers. We summarise the key findings in these three areas in turn below.

Nevertheless, I do believe that AI and robotics have the potential to continue the long term trend of concentrating wealth and power in the (corporate) hands of a few, at least until a transition occurs in which artificial intelligence no longer refers to what are simply correlation engines and begin to refer to actually conscious creatures. At that point we’ll be seeing questions concerning person-hood popping up, as I’ve discussed before, and then it becomes a lot harder to predict what will be happening to the distribution of all that wealth, much less the actual availability of jobs at all ability levels.

You just have to laugh at some of the people – and things – coming out of the wood work.

[tweet https://twitter.com/LeslieCockburn/status/1023701334434959362]

Leslie Cockburn (D-VA) is running for Congress in Virginia’s 5th District, and Riggleman is her opponent. Along with this accusation, he’s also allegedly been seen in the company of white supremacists.

Just remember, entertainment like this doesn’t translate to good governance. We’ve seen that already.

Or flowers.

They tried to trade for DC’s Batman, but when DC asked for Stan Lee’s head, the deal fell through.

It’s tempting to simply label Avengers: Infinity War (2018) as tripe and move on. After all, the only discernible theme in this story appears to be the all-too serious question of over-population (except in this case it’s of the Universe, not just Earth), which the bad guy offers to fix by killing off half the population of the Universe, but it’s not developed in the least. After that, the movie seems to consist of

• Action
• Superheroes piled on superheroes with a few on the side as seasoning
• More action
• Screw character development
• Murder excused by theme
• More meaningless action

Yeah, it’s dull, outside of the occasional pop-culture reference, which is itself meta-associated.

My only caveat is that perhaps this movie thrills the knowledgeable Marvel Universe fanatic. Maybe. And if you happen to be such a fan, go see this movie.

But for the rest of us, it’s a waste of time.

The Civiqs website has some nifty charts, of which I’m lifting snapshots but not providing their full functionality. I think they’re interesting in showing how favorable / unfavorable ratings shift in reaction to events. First, the Republicans:

And the Democrats:

Relatively speaking, the Democrats should be feeling fairly good. Absolutely? Neither party is doing well. Perhaps this is reflective of political parties throughout the history of the United States, but I’d still be a trifle dispirited if I were a member of either party. The evident distaste for political parties suggest that both are doing something wrong.

We’re starting to harvest, just a couple, but it’s nice to be underway.

And then there’s the garage tomato plants…

I ran across more information concerning the decision of Judge Messite to permit the emoluments lawsuit pursued by the Attorneys General of Maryland and D.C. against President Trump to go forth. It boils down to John Mikhail researching the dictionaries available to the authors of the Constitution and using the information to rebut the Department of Justice’s defense of the President’s continuing business links. It’s at the Balkinization blog, as mentioned by WaPo, and here’s a bit from what appears to be the initial blog posting on the subject:

… why the Trump Justice Department’s narrow definition of “emolument” in CREW v. Trump cannot withstand scrutiny.

In its motion to dismiss in CREW et al. v. Trump, the Department of Justice (DOJ) defines the word “emolument” as “profit arising from office or employ.” DOJ claims that this “original understanding” of “emolument” is both grounded in “contemporaneous dictionary definitions” and justifies an “office-and-employment-specific construction” of that term. On this basis, it argues that the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution “do not prohibit any company in which the President has any financial interest from doing business with any foreign, federal, or state instrumentality.”

Unfortunately, DOJ’s historical definition of “emolument” is inaccurate, unrepresentative, and misleading. Particularly because the government may seek to utilize its flawed definition in subsequent court filings, this Article seeks to correct the historical record. It does so based on a comprehensive study of how “emolument” is defined in English language dictionaries published from 1604 to 1806, as well as in common law dictionaries published between 1523 and 1792.

Among other things, the Article demonstrates that every English dictionary definition of “emolument” from 1604 to 1806 relies on one or more of the elements of the broad definition DOJ rejects in its brief: “profit,” “advantage,” “gain,” or “benefit.” Furthermore, over 92% of these dictionaries define “emolument” exclusively in these terms, with no reference to “office” or “employment.” By contrast, DOJ’s preferred definition — “profit arising from office or employ” — appears in less than 8% of these dictionaries. Moreover, even these outlier dictionaries always include “gain, or advantage” in their definitions, a fact obscured by DOJ’s selective quotation of only one part of its favored definition from Barclay (1774). The impression DOJ creates in its brief by contrasting four historical definitions of “emolument” — two broad and two narrow — is, therefore, highly misleading.

Followed by some lovely tables demonstrating, I assume, the fallacy of the DoJ’s position. In some ways, I dislike the Internet, but WaPo suggests that, prior to the Internet, this research would taken years; now it takes weeks. But it’s also an incidental rebuttal of my own position that legal words shouldn’t change their meaning over time, since it appears emoluments has done so. Will legal proceedings become ever more slower as the years pass and we must translate every law from its original wording to contemporary wording?

And will there be a word describing this occupation?

Family reunions never went well for this family. Megalon was shy and hid his face, Godzilla was drunk and combative, and Gaiman showed off his spine ridge to the cousins, with whom he was desperate to sleep. They just giggled and hid in the wainscoting.

Godzilla vs Megalon (1973) might have been better entitled Godzilla & Jet Jaguar vs Megalon & Gaiman, Sans Referee!, or something similarly silly. The movie’s plot is awful: a nuclear test has damaged part of unknown underwater civilization Seatopia (“they’ve even built their own Sun!”). In retaliation, the Seatopians steal the just-developed flying robot Jet Jaguar and use it to release and control their monster, Megalon, who proceeds to stomp on a city or two.

The humans regain control of Jet Jaguar and send him off to Monster Island to summon Godzilla to the war, while the Seatopians summon Gaiman from another dimension. Since Godzilla has to do some traveling to reach the battleground, Jet Jaguar returns to find Megalon and inflates to the monster’s size, but when Gaiman appears and teams up with Megalon, he’s in trouble until Godzilla finally reaches them.

Then the stomping begins.

Yeah, it’s awful. I mostly watched this while making meals or trying to wake up in the mornings. It. Is. Terrible. Nothing to recommend it at all.

It’s always interesting glancing through a blog new to me. Some reveal what I consider psychosis, such as the blog devoted to proving another blog was engaging in Catholic blasphemy for suggesting that the Pope was blaspheming for … now I forget. Some demonstrate the eternal human need to be right with the Boss Upstairs, without ever wondering if he exists. Others are political, and they run around with their eternal prism before their eyes, interpretation guaranteed and rarely surprising.

Even technical blogs can be interesting. Balkinization, which appears to be devoted to legal issues of some sort, had this bit by Rebecca Crootof which surprised me. I just had to sift through the legal pieces:

Once upon a time, missing a payment on your leased car would be the first of a multi-step negotiation between you and a car dealership, bounded by contract law and consumer protection rules, mediated and ultimately enforced by the government. You might have to pay a late fee, or negotiate a loan deferment, but usually a company would not repossess your car until after two or even three consecutive skipped payments. Today, however, car companies are using starter interrupt devices to remotely “boot” cars just days after a payment is missed. This digital repossession creates an obvious risk of injury when an otherwise operational car doesn’t start: as noted in a New York Times article, there have been reports of parents unable to take children to the emergency room, individuals marooned in dangerous neighborhoods, and cars that were disabled while idling in intersections.

This is but one of many examples of how the proliferating Internet of Things(IoT) enables companies to engage in practices that foreseeably cause consumer property damage and physical injury. But how is tort law relevant, given that these actions are authorized by terms of service and other contracts? In this post I’ll elaborate on how IoT devices empower companies at the expense of consumers and how extant law shields industry from liability.

And while the legal issues are of only minor interest, the alienation we’ll experience as the absolute letter of the contract is enforced is the bigger issue.

I’ve seen this already, as I remember from many, many years ago an old friend of mine recounting his experience with the bank and loans. It used to be, he said, that if you were a day or two late on paying the monthly loan installment, no big deal. But then computers came into use, and now if you were a day late, you were charged up the wazoo for it.

He was livid. And he had a right to be. In the name of enforcing the contract to its absolute letter, the bank was disrupting the societal bonds which are so important in keeping societies functioning smoothly.

So now I’m wondering how much more damage the Internet of Things will be doing to those societal bonds, and if we’ll fragment even moreso.

There’s a hoary and slightly shady tradition of submitting for publication of papers of, shall we say, a dubious nature, and Gary Lewis recounts his successful entry into this tradition, in pursuit of the flushing out of predatory journals, on The Conversation:

I had what seemed like rather a good idea a few weeks back. Building on some prominent findings in social psychology, I hypothesised that politicians on the right would wipe their bum with their left hand; and that politicians on the left would wipe with their right hand.

Ludicrous? Yes – absolutely. But for once my goal wasn’t to run a bona fide scientific study. Instead, I wanted to see if any “journal” would publish my ass-wiping “findings”. …

My (fictional) research assistant camped outside the Houses of Parliament and essentially stalked “MPs”. She used a large folder of pictures to identify these politicians’ left vs right leaning tendencies. And when a potential participant was seen on the street, the research assistant walked up alongside the politician, indicated that she was a psychological scientist doing a study, provided a brief consent form, and then asked which hand they wiped their bottom with.

This yielded nine (fictional) participants in total, including “Boris Johnski” and “Teresa Maybe”, although one data point had to be discarded – that of “Nigel F. ‘Arage”. He, rather meanly, told my research assistant to “bog off” when asked the hand-wiping question. And so his data was necessarily excluded from the analysis.

But that didn’t matter – because the data from our sample of eight fully confirmed the theory. Politicians do indeed wipe their asses with the contralateral hand. I could scarcely believe my eyes – but of course the statistics never lie. …

Having submitted the bogus manuscript, I soon got an email informing me that the manuscript was safely received and under review. Just a few days later, I was informed that it was accepted for publication. With a request for US$581.

I told the journal I couldn’t afford any publication fees. So they dropped it to US$99 (for “web hosting charges”). I was tempted – but I’ve learned that you should never accept the first counter offer. So I went for broke. And it turns out that the paper was so groundbreaking that they agreed to publish it for free: “We do understand from you [sic] end. As per your previous conversation, I had a session with financial manager and have decided to provide complete waiver.” It must have been a truly magnificent session with the financial manager.

It’s quite the story, and a sad commentary on the disrespect certain individuals have for the importance of science in today’s society.

A reader can’t stomach the current politicians with regard to our attitudes:

I disagree, strongly. Yes, the letter does what you purport, mostly, and ends in some pretty slimy pro-gun sentiment. But you are extremely far too generous to sitting Congress members. Virtually all but a very few deserve every brickbat this letter delivers. It was not always that way, which is how we survived this long.

Yes, we’ve improved upon the system designed by the Founding Fathers, but we’ve also damaged and diminished it as well. It had faulty design problems from the start (e.g. voting rights distribution, technological changes) which are in desperate need of correction.

It’s the career civil servants, inertia and resting on the system of the past that keeps it going. If we really had to rely on Congress in the past 10 to 20 years in a serious way, we’d be screwed. In fact, we are pretty much in a big fat mess right now, much of it thanks to them.

My problem with the letter is that it doesn’t name names, it doesn’t make credible allegations. The attack is not on the current Congress, which would be far more reasonable, but instead it’s making accusations against the very structure of the institute itself.

Look, our representatives are those that we picked, and if they are not up to snuff, then we need to get a better quality of person to run and then elect them. To some extent, the current state of affairs is the result of a planned attack on those structures by conservative media outlets such as Limbaugh, and have resulted in such noxious, toxic, or pretentious personalities as Hastert, Gingrich, Coleman, DeLay, Jordan, Gohmert, Ryan, McConnell, and a number of others^[1].

But the hidden message of the letter is to permanently disaffect ourselves from Congress as an institution. If you look throughout the history of Congress, they often squabble, their issues are often provincial, and ignorance and ideology often gets in the way of getting things done. But the great advantage they also bring is to blunt the decisive mistake often made by the princes of monarchies and the leaders of autocracies. For all that Congress can be discouraging in any given period, at least its sheer weight means that it doesn’t often destroy the good quickly, but instead so slowly that it can often be stopped before the damage becomes irrepairable.

It is, in my view, almost certainly part of a long term plan to cripple one of the most important institutions in America by making it attractive to the second- and third-rate person, while discouraging the competent and self-sacrificing from running, and defeating them when they do run. Taking advantage of the resentment of those impacted by Federalism, and spreading revised history such as that the Civil War was about States’ rights rather than the poison of slavery, we’re now faced with a core GOP made up of extremists, and independents who are deeply suspicious of the Democrats, who have partly brought it on themselves through a variety of mistakes.

My reader sees a Congress full of dubious personalities, with which I agree, but I see a letter aimed at the institution, not its current occupants.

And, since we’re talking about Congress, I found this report interesting. From The New York Times:

Trying to ease gridlock in Congress, a bipartisan group of frustrated House members is coming forward with a rules overhaul intended to give rank-and-file lawmakers more say.

The proposal, to be formally unveiled Wednesday by the House Problem Solvers Caucus, also seeks to rein in hard-right Republican forces in the chamber that have wielded significant influence over the majority party in recent years. …

The rules proposal was drafted over months of negotiation among the 48 members of the Problem Solvers Caucus, which is equally split between Republicans and Democrats. It would institute new standards for the automatic consideration of legislation with strong bipartisan support. The authors believe the plan, which has the backing of at least 75 percent of the group’s membership, would foster more bipartisanship and incite debate on major issues that are being sidelined by political considerations.

“Due to the House floor being controlled by a select few, most members of Congress are not able to bring their ideas and proposals to the House floor for a fair vote that would allow us to begin solving some of the most contentious issues facing our country today,” said Representative Tom Reed, Republican of New York and a chairman of the group.

The fact that they recognize there are problems and are looking for process solutions must surely count for a few points in their favor. There’s still the problem of team politics, of course, but the threat that their own proposals will not receive any consideration has to be a problem for Republicans (and Democrats!) with little political traction within Congress itself.

¹And no doubt a few Democrats as well, although I’m hesitant to pick any of them as they are often the targets of professional & misleading smear campaigns; the Republicans, on the other hand, distinguished themselves through direct actions as reported by reliable media.

A reader has more information concerning the medical device tax that may be repealed:

That tax was intended to fund ACA premium rebates for low income families and individuals to make their health insurance more affordable. Without that revenue stream, the ACA doesn’t work financially. Nothing more than a repub scheme to cripple the ACA when they lacked the votes to simply repeal it.

Shame on Klobuchar for caving to Medtronic who ships all their profits to Ireland anyway.

No doubt a bit of rock and a hard place for Senator Klobuchar, but at least it demonstrated that the Democrats were willing to differ among themselves when it came to a major piece of legislation – unlike the Republicans, who practice strict ideology and then whine and piss and moan when their unworkable legislation fails to get a single vote from the Democrats. A little compromise might have gotten them a long way, especially 8 years ago.

Remember when then-AG Loretta Lynch happened to run into Bill Clinton at the airport, chatted with him, and this was seized on by the conservative media as some sort of mysterious illicit meeting? Try this one on for size:

SPOTTED — ROBERT MUELLER and DONALD TRUMP JR. both waiting for their flights this morning at the 35X gate at DCA. And yes, there is a photo. Picture of the two waiting at America’s worst gate [Politico]

Here’s the thing: If the Trumpists who are so frantic to protect their blundering leader from were thinking deviously, they’d be proclaiming that Jr. and Mueller were having an illicit meeting (probably in the public loo), and thereby delegtimizing the Mueller probe.

It’d be odd, and somewhat unbelievable for those of us who are actually thinking, but the base would be too relieved to not buy it.

And the United States could assume the status of banana republic.