Category Archives: Uncategorized

In Egypt, Amira Sayed Ahmed reports in AL Monitor on the grounds a government with an explicit religious association must traverse, which makes our occasional tippy-toes through religious controversy looking quite easy:

The bill would restrict the issuance of public edicts or fatwas to clerics and researchers affiliated with only four entities: Al-Azhar, the Ministry of Religious Endowments, Dar al-Ifta (official entity charged with issuing edicts) and Majma al-Buhuth al-Islamiya (Islamic Research Academy). Clerics should get permission from one of these entities before issuing any public fatwa on TV.

According to the bill, preachers and professors of Al-Azhar University could perform their tasks of preaching to people without being obliged to get permission, since preaching is not considered a public fatwa. But if they wanted to issue a certain public fatwa, they should first obtain a license from one of the four entities.

This step came as part of Al-Azhar’s efforts to reform religious discourse and curb the torrent of the so-called fatwa chaos that flooded media outlets, inciting extremism and fanatical thinking. The draft law was approved one day before Al-Azhar University President Ahmed Hosni labeled Islamic researcher Islam al-Beheiry an apostate. Hosni apologized and resigned May 5.

“A fatwa is a huge responsibility and it has certain requirements, no question. The issuance of a fatwa should be exclusively limited to specialists since these edicts may lead to crucial consequences. I highly welcome this bill,” parliament member Amna Nosseir told Al-Monitor.

Which leads to the question, does the government control the religion – or does the religion control the government? While the answer may appear to be the former, it could be the latter, as a single sect may be trying to restrict other sects from using fatwas – legal opinions on issues pertaining to Islamic law – which can lead to unfortunate consequences. This is rooted in the believers’ certainty of the righteousness of their beliefs.

Incorporating such strains into our own government would bode very poorly for a peaceful, prosperous future. Not every sect can be right – but none willing to assert the rightness of Dominionism will be willing to back down in the face of anything less than terminal violence.

Which, as the Founders noted, is an excellent reason to keep the United States secular.

Tom Mechler, the chairman of the Texas GOP, has resigned for personal reasons. His counterpart in the Texas Democratic Party is lamenting the event, according to The Texas Tribute:

Of an iris, that is.

Kind of an hairy tongue, no? Gotta like the blue in the background, though. Totally inadvertent.

Yeah, it’s hairy.

A shot sort of down the gullet.

Lawfare‘s Quinta Jurecic comments on the compromises faced by government lawyers and others and ends up with categories, one good, one not so good:

Following Weber, we might define two categories of moral compromise presented by political service: first, compromises that are difficult, painful, and even tragic, but from which one emerges with one’s moral sense and one’s sense of self basically intact. But there are also compromises that are so inherently degrading that there is no coming away from them intact. (Luban makes a similar point in his use of Avishai Margalit’s distinction between “bad compromises” and “rotten compromises.”)

The first kind of compromise is hard, and it’s also inherent in government service. People go into government, after all, because they believe in things, and the bureaucracies they serve in do not always reach, from their points of view, the right answers. Think of the Obama administration officials who believed the President should do more to close Guantanamo or the Bush administration officials who believed sincerely in the tough actions the administration took even as it started to back off of them.

The second kind of compromise, however, is corrupting. This second case is exactly what concerns both Luban and Eliot Cohen, in his Atlantic essay: it’s the result of having lost the keenness of one’s moral sense, in having made the ugly choice to begin with, and it breeds further path-dependencies. Once one has made one degrading compromise, after all, it’s easy to slip toward others. And it also destroys the person’s ability to function as a figure worthy of others’ trust in one’ honorable service and efforts to mitigate harm—which may be the very reason that the official accepted an appointment in the first place. I suspect both the public and those within government will be much more hesitant now to trust Rosenstein and McMaster to serve as guardians of their respective institutions going forward.

And the intuitive psychological responses to your hierarchical superiors has to play into this drama. After all, that’s how we’re built, even if we like to think we’re rational creatures. Quinta’s insights should probably be required reading for any lawyer considering government service – and who prides themselves on their ethical behavior:

I suspect that Rosenstein and McMaster’s behavior has rattled so many of us because it has served as a reminder that the distinction between painful and indefensible compromises can easily become confused, however anguished one feels. More specifically, it suggests that the specific pressures of the Trump administration push in the direction of turning difficult compromises into the sort of compromises that can destroy a person. Jack made a similar point, noting the President’s “mendacity, norm-breaking, and impetuousness,” along with his apparent demands for personal loyalty over integrity and institutional legitimacy. It is entirely possible that a person could go into the Trump administration with open eyes, prepared to make difficult and painful choices for the sake of mitigating harm, and instead be pushed toward degradation.

Like it says…

Rick Hasen on Election Law Blog notes SCOTUS passing on an opportunity with regards to limits on donations to political parties:

If my count is correct, this is Jim Bopp’s fourth attempt to get the Court to hear a soft money case to overturn one of the two main pillars of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law (the Court overturned the other in Citizens United.) In one of those earlier attempts, Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas dissented from the Court’s refusal to hear the case.  And the Chief Justice has said that he feels an obligation to take appeals that come up through three judge courts. And we know that Justice Gorsuch expressed skepticism of campaign finance laws when he was a Tenth Circuit judge.

So what explains the Court refusing to take a case which could have been used to further deregulate campaign financing, by extending the narrow views of corruption and strong reading of the First Amendment that the Supreme Court put forward in Citizens United and McCutcheon? And why did it take only one Court conference to reach this conclusion, when the Court has been taking so long with many other cases (in part as J. Gorsuch got up to speed on the Court’s cases)?

This suggests to me that the Court has really no appetite to get back into this area right now—perhaps they want to save their capital in ruling on other high profile cases coming down the line. Perhaps there was something about Bopp’s petition that made the Court believe the issue of overturning the Supreme Court’s decision in McConnell v. FEC (upholding the soft money ban) not properly presented to it.

Along with the commentary on SCOTUS, the societal impact:

On the other hand, we now have a situation where political parties (especially state and local political parties, the subject of Bopp’s petition) are limited in what they can do, while Super PACs and non-disclosing 501c4s can operate without limit, and in the case of c4s, without adequate disclosure. This further weakens the political parties, which many political scientists and election law scholars leads to further polarization and political dysfunction.

Shark Dentistry: Does It Have A Future?

This is a Public Service Announcement.

DO not, I repeat NOT, attempt to do shots each time someone dies in Avalanche Sharks (2014), you will wind up at the ER with alcohol poisoning – or possibly choking, in a most serious manner, on the alcohol as you gasp with laughter at each attack.

ADDITIONALLY, if you are deathly allergic to thoughts of misanthropy, do not attempt to view this movie. Once we had ascertained there was no themes, no acting, no sympathetic characters (ok, there was one or two, but I wanted to keep the rhythms of the sentence going), the most nebulous of story-tellling, and wretched special-effects, we began cheering the sharks on, pumping our fists at each successful attack. If you have a sore shoulder, you should also view this movie only with great caution.

YOU may be prone to nightmares after watching this movie, but only because you’ll want those two hours back. Desperately.

Preponderance:

the fact or quality of being preponderant; superiority in weight, power, numbers, etc.:
The preponderance of votes is against the proposal. [Dictionary.com]

Noted in many places, for example, “The Scope of the Mueller Probe: Will the Public Learn What Was Uncovered?” Andrew Kent, Lawfare:

The Department of Justice takes the position that “organized criminal activity” is a very broad term that “includes ‘any criminal activity collectively undertaken.’” The statute provides that the federal judge overseeing the special grand jury will make the report public if certain conditions are satisfied, including that the report is “supported by the preponderance of the evidence” revealed during the special grand jury investigation.

Personally, for such a strong term, it sounds awfully wishywashy.

The inexplicable behavior of Attorney General Sessions with regard to marijuana is noted here in The Washington Times (April 13, 2017):

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday said he’s “surprised” Americans aren’t overwhelmingly embracing his widely reported stance against marijuana, all the while recent polling reveals a majority of voters do in fact support legal pot.

Mr. Sessions briefly weighed in on marijuana legalization during a wide-ranging discussion held Tuesday at Luke Air Force Base near Phoenix, AZCentral reported.

“When they nominated me for attorney general, you would have thought the biggest issue in America was when I said, ‘I don’t think America’s going to be a better place if they sell marijuana at every corner grocery store,’ ” Mr. Sessions told attendees.

“[People] didn’t like that; I’m surprised they didn’t like that,” he added.

Indeed, 57 percent Americans favor legalizing marijuana, according to results of a government-sponsored opinion poll published last month, establishing a historic high point with respect to public support for pot.

His remarkable interest in restricting marijuana may face another obstacle – a health facet of interest to everyone over, say, age 45. NewScientist (13 May 2017, but this is from the online, altered article) reports:

[Andreas Zimmer‘s team at the University of Bonn] gave young (2-month-old), middle-aged (12-month-old) and elderly (18-month-old) mice a steady dose of THC. The amount they received was too small to give them psychoactive effects.

After a month, the team tested the mice’s ability to perform cognitive tasks, such as finding their way around mazes, or recognising other individuals.

In the control groups, which received no THC, the young mice performed far better than the middle-aged and elderly mice. But the middle-aged and elderly mice who had been given THC performed as well as the young mice in the control group.

Further studies showed that THC boosted the number of connections between brain cells in the hippocampus, which is involved in memory formation. “It’s a quite striking finding,” says Zimmer.

But THC seemed to have the opposite effect in young mice: when they were given THC, their performance in some tasks declined.

Young people also perform worse in learning and memory tests in the hours and days after smoking cannabis, but a joint delivers far higher doses than the mice received. Claims that heavy marijuana use can permanently impair cognition are disputed.

Human results are anecdotal. But if humans react like mice – which is never guaranteed – the anti-marijuana campaigners may find themselves swept out to sea, never to be relevant again. I don’t know any middle-aged person who’s happy with their brain performance, and if restoration of some capability is as simple as a mouth spray (proposed) or toking up once a month, there will be little patience with the failing cries of those opposed – particularly if their objections continue to be falsified or are inarticulate.

And if you’re a mouse and you’re reading this article, well, you’re just golden.

I fell behind on the Iranian election, and as I understand it, President Rouhani used the third and final debate to unleash a violent attack upon his conservative opponent, Raisi. But this examination of Rouhani’s response to a question regarding banking shows the Reformists work together, keeping in mind Hashemi-Taba is a Reformist, like Rouhani. From Iran’s PressTV:

Rouhani, the third candidate at the podium, used his four-minute time to express his plans to solve the problems in the country’s banking system. He said Iran’s banking system needs fundamental reforms. The incumbent president added that his administration has managed to double the capital of state-run banks to get more active in the economic sector.

The presidential candidates took turns to express their views on Rouhani’s remarks with Jahangiri saying the previous administration had brought about the depletion of bank resources. He added that the 11th administration is implementing the development plan for banks to help them become active in production. Raeisi said the 11th administration blames its predecessor for all of the problems. Raeisi added that the current administration has left the country in limbo for four years. Hashemi-Taba said the banking problems were handed down to the 11th administration by its predecessor. Qalibaf said the administration of President Rouhani has failed in properly supervising and managing banks and added that liquidity has tripled under the present administration. Aqa-Mirsalim said the banking system is currently based on usury, adding that the 11th administration is required to be more serious in dealing with the banking problems.

Notice how Hashemi-Taba reinforces Rouhani’s assertion while breaking the momentum of the hard-liners.

Golnaz Esfandiari provides a live blog of the event on RadioFreeEurope / RadioLiberty: .

19:3912.5.2017  Rohani attacks Raisi, says he doesn’t seem to be informed about legal issues despite being a judge. You’re a judge, you make such gratuitous accusations?

A Letter To The Evangelical Community

For the evangelical voter, a statement from another evangelical to the effect that God has picked this or that man (usually) to be President can be a powerful announcement. An endorsement from a representative of the most powerful being in – or outside of – the Universe is powerful stuff.  As documented in National Review in the case of President Bush during his 2004 campaign:

After 9/11, the sense that God had chosen Bush certainly increased among his supporters, and perhaps in him. “I think that God picked the right man at the right time for the right purpose,” said popular Christian broadcaster Janet Parshall. Others began to find their own evidence. General William Boykin got in trouble in part because of his comment that God must have put Bush in the White House, since the voters didn’t: “Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. He’s in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.”

I have a vivid memory of a TV interview with a voter who stated that she felt God had picked Bush for the Presidency.

I will now note, not as a matter of snark, disdain, loathing, nor contempt, but as a simple fact, (one worthy of consideration by those who wish to consider themselves thoughtful, and therefore worthy of being an American citizen and intellectual inheritor of the mantle of Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, etc.) that, today, the Bush Administration is not mentioned as a Golden Era, nor as a Blessed Administration; in fact, it is scarcely mentioned at all by its ideological successors. President Bush does not appear to be sought out for his wisdom or experience – and, in fact, his most noteworthy comment lately reported was a succinct statement on the Trump Inauguration, suggesting it was “… some weird shit.” For the serious voter, liberal or conservative, this descent from near-ecstasy to disdain & obscurity, instigated by the conservatives for their own living ex-President, should be a sobering question to be considered for its lessons.

But let me tell you what many of us outside of the evangelical community saw from this particular Administration – two long, expensive wars which killed hundreds of thousands of non-combatants; the botching of opportunities to win hearts and minds in a vital part of the world with those wars; the descent into country-wide dishonor when we began a government-sanctioned torture system, an activity disavowed by our wiser ancestors, regardless of its efficacy (which was, according to the CIA report, zero); wars in which our own military forces were dissipated, men and women killed and injured, thus damaging their families and, for those who worry about material resources, resulting in huge future costs as the injured must receive lifelong care; the horrific revelation that the Iraq War was initiated under false pretenses, as the Iraqis had no WMDs, and our key leaders knew it; and, insult to injury, the Great Recession, brought on by the GOP-led Congress promoting their GOP business ideology, that Government should have little role to play in business regulation.

My fellow Americans in the Evangelical community, the paragraph above describes judgments that are poor, bad, and outright evil.  They came from the Administration of a man selected by the Evangelical community, and, regardless of his personal responsibility for any action during that period, he must take responsibility, as he was responsible for placing in his government those who perpetrated those actions. This man, thought to be picked by God, damaged and dishonored the nation.

That’s what those of us outside the Evangelical community saw.

Before I come to the subject of methods, let me briefly cover the previous subject again, the process of selecting a President, but now, I’ll frame it in a different context – the most recent Presidential election. Rather than indulge in discussion, I shall illustrate with example. First, Glenn Beck, as quoted via Mediaite:

I have said that I believe he’s given us the opportunity to unite behind Ted Cruz. I believe that Ted is a man of God. I do believe that if we study, pray, and seek God’s inspiration, he will touch our hearts. We will see the truth about the two candidates: Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. And he will inspire us on the truth … I have seen this man’s life. I have watched this man. I have prayed about this man. I have prayed about it by myself, out loud, in quiet, with my family, with my staff, and I happen to believe that Ted Cruz actually was anointed for this time. Would there not be someone that was in the pool that might have the right qualifications for God? Is he that disinterested in all of us? Or is it perhaps possible that just like in the Bible, people were raised from birth for a specific time? Are we that inconsequential, Dr. Kidd? Are we really not that important enough for him to raise someone up, at this critical juncture?

And, next, Pat Robertson, via Snopes News Service:

You know, you read the Bible, and there was a point in there where God told Jeremiah, he said, “Tell them to take the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar,” and they didn’t want to do it, and you read the second Psalm which says, “Why do the nations rage, and imagine a vain thing,” and they revolt against the Lord and his anointed. I think, somehow, the Lord’s plan is being put in place for America and these people are not only revolting against Trump, they’re revolting against what God’s plan is for America. These other people have been trying to destroy America. These left-wingers and so-called progressives are trying to destroy the country that we love and take away the freedoms they love. They want collectivism. They want socialism. What we’re looking at is free markets and freedom from this terrible, overarching bureaucracy. They want to fight as much as they can but I think the good news is the Bible says, “He that sits in the heavens will laugh them to scorn,” and I think that Trump’s got something on his side that’s a lot more powerful than the media.

Two icons of the Evangelical community, claiming direct communications with the Supreme Being, come to radically different conclusions. If one were to focus only on results, however, this would not be a problem. Reasonable people reach different conclusions, based on differing assumptions about data and processes. But the key word here is reasonable.

And this leads me to my next subject, methods, the crux of this letter. By this, my friends, I mean how we evaluate our candidates. Let me tell you that, outside of the Evangelical community, methods are various and sometimes mystifying, as they range from detailed data-driven analysis which somehow disregards the character of the candidate, to a simple shrug and the statement, “I guess I’m a died-in-the-wool Republican voter.” No one method is perfect, but some are better than others – and most admit to discussion and refinement.

Now – and I truly am not digressing, if you’ll give me a moment of patience – the National Review article cited earlier states:

But many evangelical Christians believe they are despised, misunderstood, and discriminated against by journalists, Hollywood, elites, and almost anyone not in their pack.

Regardless of the applicability of these adjectives, then (2004) or now, I shall add one more adjective as it applies to those outside the Evangelical community – dismayed. Many would say they are dismayed over the election results; dismayed by who was picked by the Evangelical community. But I will dispute that and suggest that this dismay should be redirected at a more apropos source.

The selection methods, themselves.

When Glenn Beck asserts that he believes Ted Cruz has been anointed for the Presidency, this is not on any rational grounds. When Pat Robertson says he believes Trump is God’s intended leader, and those opposed to him are in revolt against God, this has no rational basis.

These assertions are considered privileged communications from God.

And this is the crux. A respected member of the Evangelical community claims to know the mind of God – in this case, who God has sent to lead the United States.  Then this man’s choice, without question, is broadcast to the rest of the group as the selection of God. There is no verification. God doesn’t write it on the side of a mountain. How do we know this is really God’s pick, and not just a self-interested selection by that same Evangelical?

And as wonderful and mysterious as these proclamations of holy selection may seem to those on the inside, for those of us outside your community, they fill us with dread and despair. Not, as you might think, at the power or mystery of God, but dread and despair at the folly of man.  Because we remember. We remember the disastrous Bush Administration. And the turmoil and deceit of the Nixon years.  And the economic free-fall caused by Reagan’s policies. And – we notice how quickly and completely you forget. For those of us of a historical bent, we remember your predecessors, the repeated predictions of the end of the world, the hysteria, the abandonment of responsibilities in expectation of the coming of God. All for naught.

And all of this was based on the words of those who claim private knowledge, straight from God.

But perhaps these are familiar arguments. Let me take this one step further, in a logical yet visceral manner. In this post, I explored my reasons for supporting the secular nature of the United States. Its relevant facet, a short history of the monarchs of Britain in the time directly preceding the American Revolution, may be summarized thusly:

Many of those English monarchs, acting on their religious certainty, burned their opponents at the stake.

Take a moment. Remove the intellectual knowledge of the process of this torture from the forefront of your mind. Imagine, instead, being that victim. Feel their emotion, elicited by the knowledge that someone else’s religious belief has doomed you to an agonizing death. Feel the helplessness of the victim, knowing they had no argument against the authorities, because the mandate condemning them was immune to reason or argument.  The other side always bolstered its argument by the simple invocations of God’s Will and God’s Ways Are Mysterious, followed by the Admonition, the Rack, the Chain, and the Flame.

* * *

I hope, then, that the dismay outside the Evangelical community at the selection and subsequent performance of Donald Trump for the Presidency should be of no surprise. It’s widely recognized that the Evangelical community played an important, even pivotal part in bring the Presidency within his grasp.

But allow me to convey to the Evangelical community the perceptions of Donald Trump by those not dependent upon the Word of God.

Bully.

Casual breaker of contracts.

Boastful.

Willfully ignorant.

Deceiver.

A facile promiser, by which I mean someone who would give a promise regardless of how it impacts past, present, or future promises, but merely to gain the support of the person for Trump’s agenda.

All these came from the campaign. The decision of the Evangelical community to back such a man, of whom all these descriptions are objective (that is, provable through a little research into history, and not merely hateful insults), were painfully dismaying to the balance of the electorate who perceived him in this way. These Evangelical methods are impervious to reason and argument, and only vulnerable to an opposing communique from God, again impervious to reason and argument.  This leaves us to wonder why our fellow Americans, inheritors of the mantle of reason, as it came down from our Founding Fathers such as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and many other distinguished gentlemen, in opposition to the forces of religious communication and absolute power in the personae of the English monarchs who slew and destroyed in answer to their religious impulses, have chosen such a doubtful approach to the fulfilling of their duties as Americans in the selection of their leaders, both Presidential and Congressional.

Since the new Administration and Congress have taken their seats, the performances of both Donald Trump and most, but not all, of the GOP members of Congress, where most Evangelical votes went, have done nothing to quell the disquiet in America. Such words and phrases as incompetent, White Supremacist, extremist, insular, repressive, authoritarian and other negative sentiments have been hurled with great appropriateness at the current government, and by a large segment of the electorate. The proof is in the polls.

The current numbers are unprecedented in their dismal assessment of a President, especially one just getting under way. This is not unreasoning hatred or a rush to judgment, my friends, but rather the sober evaluation of a President whose tangible actions have been a source of dismay, embarrassment and concern for those who love this country.

And yet, his approval rating, at about 38% in this Gallup poll, is still too high in my opinion.

My original motivation in writing this post was to deconstruct a piece of mail that had crossed my desk recently, and, as I like to finish what I start, if perhaps after a long delay, I hope to ask your indulgence in a little more analysis. In this case, I shall copy the mail and intersperse my comments, all fairly spare and referential to my earlier points.

My Fellow Americans…..

“Only through faith in God may a man carrying responsibility find repose” Gen Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1944

A reasonable sentiment, giving cover to the unfortunate sentiments to follow. I also did not find a secular source attributing this quote to Eisenhower, although perhaps I didn’t try hard enough.

Understand the weight of this image. This soldier lost both arms, both arms. The feeling of a handshake is lost to him. Donald Trump realized this and touched his face so he can, at least for a moment in time, feel the human connection!!!

It’s a lovely thought, it really is. However, the writer is naive (or quite deceptive, but I prefer to think the best of my fellow Americans), for it’s a well-established American political tradition to set up photo-ops such as this. It’s an inspirational image, but it does not prove Mr. Trump had that thought in his head; he could have easily been instructed to do so by aides, as so many politicians before him have been instructed in specific actions to gain the sympathy of the public. No doubt Clinton did so as well.

This is what I see when I think of Trump’s motives. He gave up the billionaire lifestyle to be insulted, dragged through the proverbial political mud, and lied about on a daily basis.

All this to save this country and people he loves.

Which presupposes it needed saving. Objective metrics suggest that, while serious challenges exist, we had done well under the leadership of the previous Administration in climbing out of the catastrophe of the Bush Administration.

He’s not perfect. None of us are. However, I believe our Lord has answered our prayers and placed him where he is.

This is an interesting statement, since it references Trump’s obvious and painful failures. Worse yet, for the American who is not part of the Evangelical community, this statement is appalling, because it suggests God has taken a dark view of the United States and, through the Evangelical community, inflicted upon America a leader of many vices, few if any virtues, whose actions do not speak to the requirements of the Nation as a whole – but to his own peculiar set of perceptions of reality (which are better addressed elsewhere). Is this really the desire of the Evangelical community?

PLEASE LOOK AT THIS PICTURE ONE MORE TIME!!!

An appeal to visceral emotion, rather than mature, sober evaluation and judgment.

To my fellow Americans and friends in the Evangelical community, thank you for your patience, consideration, and understanding.  At present, the rest of the country is greatly dismayed by your choice for President of the United States.  It is my hope that we may be able come together to correct the current situation, then move forward into a time of greater integrity, intelligence and informed reason.

logosyllabic:

The two khipus comprise 487 pendants cords, dyed 14 colors and made from six animal fibers, including alpaca, llama and vizcacha—a rabbit-looking rodent. Combinations of color, fiber and twist direction create 95 distinct symbols, a number that’s within the range of logosyllabic writing systems, or those with signs for full words and phonetic sounds. [“Untangling the Ancient Inca Code of Strings,” Bridget Alex, D-brief]

The lupine came up to take their bows:

My Arts Editor is magnificent in her efforts!

One of Kevin Drum’s readers points him at an analysis of the decline in drunk driving back in the ’90s:

There are several takeaways from this:

• During the 80s and early 90s, drunk driving decreased significantly.
• By the mid-90s, the level of drunk driving flattened out and has been flat ever since.
• The effect of laws on drunk driving has been pretty modest. That’s the red band in the chart. Stricter laws are responsible for only a small fraction of the total decline.

There’s potentially some good news here. Grant concludes that the biggest effect by far has been from social forces, namely the increased stigma associated with drunk driving. If you discount demographics, which we have no control over, social stigma accounts for about half the drop in drunk driving. This suggests that what we need isn’t so much stricter laws, but a revitalized campaign to even further stigmatize drunk driving. I’m on board with that.

His conclusion’s implications are in themselves interesting. After all, aren’t laws, to some extent, simply our social consciences encoded into law? The fact that we separate law from social forces in such a way indicates the disconnect we have in the backs of our minds between our government and ourselves.

I suppose we could take this a step further and see that disconnect as a result of our basically selfish selves.  A lot of law is about curtailing our selfishness in the interests of the greater good – taxes for government services, vehicle velocity limits (because our time is valuable, for those of us in a hurry but not seeking the adrenaline rush of driving like a nutcase), even laws stating that you will adhere to the contracts you sign, as breaking them is often out of some selfish design.

Asthenosphere:

About 100 kilometres below Earth’s surface lies the asthenosphere, a zone of relatively free-flowing rock held between two horizontal layers of stiffer rock. Iceland’s plume, they say, injects hot, runny rock into this layer that then spreads out horizontally into fingers. Other plumes don’t form such tendrils, says White, because the rock within them is not sufficiently hot and runny, or injected with enough force (Earth and Planetary Science Letters, doi.org/b6h9). [“Strange mantle plume under Iceland helps keep Scotland afloat,” Colin Barras, NewScientist (6 May 2017)]

With Trump on his way to the MidEast, Netanyahu no longer awaits his coming with glee – but, in Ben Caspit’s opinion, dread.

Bennett learned something from Netanyahu in the last 2015 elections when the prime minister gobbled up a significant part of Bennett’s electorate in the final days leading up to the vote. Now Bennett is the one eating away at him on the right, drawing clear lines to distinguish himself from Netanyahu by putting indirect pressure on Trump.

In any other circumstance, Netanyahu would back away from the pied piper that is Bennett. The problem is that he is facing Trump, the orange-haired man that no one in the world wants to upset. This includes Netanyahu, who doesn’t want to end up like former FBI Director James Comey.

This sense of awe, not to mention abject fear of Trump, has left Netanyahu paralyzed. He is like a deer in the headlights, utterly unable to move. Bennett’s announcement was the electric shock that jolted Netanyahu into action and forced him to release his statement on moving the embassy to Jerusalem benefiting peace.

The drama is also playing out behind the curtains. Tillerson’s remarks implied that the Americans were expecting help from Netanyahu. In recent conversations between the concerned parties, the possibility was raised that Israel would either hint at or quietly acquiesce to reports that there are serious security consequences to moving the embassy. Doing so would allow Trump to climb down off his high horse. While Netanyahu did not explicitly confirm that he would agree to such a gesture, he did give it consideration.

The idea was shelved, however, on May 14. Netanyahu’s breaking point had been reached: He prefers the calculated disappointment of the US administration over the continued cannibalization of his right-wing voter base by Bennett. How will the Americans respond? It looks like we’ll find out in the coming days.

Zvi Bar’el in Israel’s Haaretz suggests a possible earthquake on the relations front:

A silence fell on Arab media outlets after publication of a report about the Gulf States’ plan for partial normalization with Israel. No official response by Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States or Qatar was heard. The regular pundits preferred to deal with other matters, as if they had neither heard nor seen the scoop in the Wall Street Journal. The usual government spokespeople in Israel were also apparently struck by a condition affecting the vocal chords.

When similar reports emerged in the past, official spokesmen, Arab and Israeli alike, would quickly issue a denial. But this time there were no denials either. That suggests that there is a solid foundation to the principles of the proposal – at least between Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the United States.

On Tuesday, the last details were apparently hammered out between the U.A.E.’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, and U.S. President Donald Trump in their meeting in Washington after Trump’s earlier meeting with Mohammed bin Salman, the 31-year-old son of the Saudi king and the de facto ruler of the kingdom.

The three anchors of the new agreement rest on the granting of permits to Israeli businesses to open branches in the Gulf States, for Israeli aircraft to fly through U.A.E. airspace, and for the installation of direct telephone lines between the two countries. This is still not the full normalization that was promised in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative or its detailed ratification at the Arab summit in April in Jordan.

The Times Of Israel is on a similar tact:

“The Arabs clearly want to engage Trump in the region, to have him be an active player against Iranian encroachment,” he said.

“So they have chosen a very upbeat approach and Abbas is clearly joining that kind of Arab bandwagon.”

Egypt and Jordan have reached out to Abbas since his White House invitation, which also reassured his Palestinian supporters that his Fatah movement still has powerful international friends.

If Arab governments want to work with Washington, and more covertly with Israel, to counter Iran and the Islamic State, they may engage with efforts to break the logjam in the peace process.

“But between having an upbeat tone and having a grand breakthrough — there’s a distance between those two ideas.” Makovsky admitted.

Hussein Ibish, a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute and longtime expert in the peace process, agreed the Washington visit had boosted Abbas’ confidence.

“It’s a remarkable turnaround for him. It’s a lifesaver. It’s a shot of adrenaline to an ailing patient,” he told AFP, adding that Trump had put the “Palestinian issue” back on the table.

A normalization of relations would certainly irritate the author of this piece in the Tehran Times:

Notwithstanding what was said about Muslims during the election campaign, though, Trump is warming up to certain leaders in the region. Government-to-government interactions have been cordial and there are a number of ongoing economic negotiations between the U.S. and countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. Moreover, the improved cooperation between Israel, certain Arab states and the U.S. against Iran has added to the regional political complications.

The fear amongst many in the Middle East is that such cooperation will normalize relations with Israel despite its continued violations of human rights and military occupation of Palestine. This is an important issue that Trump’s meeting with Arab leaders in Riyadh needs to address. What’s more, the U.S. president should also explain how Arab and Muslim leaders are expected to respond to the anti-Muslim rhetoric in America. How can they address Trump’s support for right-wing politicians in Europe who have heightened anti Muslim sentiments across the continent? Trump’s presidential campaign utilized a number of anti-Muslim stances, so his visit to Saudi Arabia presents an opportunity for him to rebuild the trust that has been shattered.

I don’t have any particular expectations of this trip, but suppose he did put together some sort of landmark deal – would that be good enough to negate his disasters at home?

There’s nothing intrinsically to wrong in a primary challenge to a sitting incumbent, even within the GOP – so far. But when the reason given is “insufficient loyalty to the President,” then an odor begins to arise. Roll Call reports:

“When Representative Roby came out against Trump I had so many people come to me,” he said.

On this thread, Sami Grover on Treehugger.com notes a report from Climate Action Tracker indicating China and India – the latter earlier had been reported planning to build many coal power plants – are pulling more than their share of the decarbonisation load:

China and India are actually years ahead of their climate commitments.

Those, at least, are the findings from Climate Action Tracker which suggest that scaling back of coal consumption in both countries is likely to be enough to ‘cancel out’ the expected slowing down of progress by the United States under President Trump. India, for example, had pledged to lower the emissions intensity by 33 to 35 percent by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. The new analysis suggests they will leap past that mark to a 42 to 45 percent cut in emissions intensity by 2030.

Bill Hare of Climate Analytics described the significance of these findings:

“Five years ago, the idea of either China or India stopping—or even slowing—coal use was considered an insurmountable hurdle, as coal-fired power plants were thought by many to be necessary to satisfy the energy demands of these countries. Recent observations show they are now on the way toward overcoming this challenge.”

While China may not be so surprising, given the nature of their political system, India is a raucous democracy, where in any group of N people you’ll find N+1 opinions (an observation from the book Being Indian, by Pavan Varma – very interesting, I must add), at least.

On the other hand, such predictions are only that – predictions. We’ll see how they pan out over the next few years. But it’s good to see things may be looking up.

Deponent:

An individual who, under oath or affirmation, gives out-of-court testimony in a deposition. A deponent is someone who gives evidence or acts as a witness. The testimony of a deponent is written and carries the deponent’s signature. [The Free Dictionary]

Noted in “How It Was Done: The Problem Is Not Only That Trump Fired Comey, But How He Did It,” Bob Bauer, Lawfare:

The problem overall may be that Mr. Trump cannot help but see the legal process as he did when a businessman for so many years. He was a client, a deponent, a defendant and a plaintiff. The law and legal system were factors in the business environment; they were component parts of the machinery with he had to be familiar in order to successfully pursue his private goals. His view of the law is, it seems, coldly practical: only the results appear to count.

I also think this is the most important paragraph of the piece, because it illustrates one of the reasons Trump is not qualified for the position – he has no concept of a theoretical understanding of his position. His experience is inapplicable.

One of the reasons we no longer run down our prey and gather berries and have short, disease-ridden lifetimes – for the most part – is the development of farming and supporting industry, and that has resulted in pollution which damages the well-being of ourselves and the other animals on this planet. But here’s an interesting detail, from NewScientist (6 May 2017):

Mark Miller at the University of Edinburgh, UK, and his team got volunteers to breathe air filled with harmless gold nanoparticles. Within 15 minutes the gold began to show up in the volunteers’ blood – and could still be found in blood and urine three months later.

The researchers then repeated the experiment on people who were due to undergo surgery. They found that nanoparticles accumulated in the fatty plaques inside arteries that can cause heart attacks and strokes (ACS Nano, doi.org/b6gm).

Perhaps nanoparticles found in pollutants contribute to the inflammation often thought to be vital to the growth of plaques in arteries. Still, this is not to condemn the industry, just the pollution. That can be cleaned up if we have the political will to make it happen.

Yep, it’s time to dip into the old mailbag again. This time I’m not so much het up by the use and misuse of, in this case, the aphorisms of our past, so much as inspired to a more sober simile. But first, one of the hoary old aphorisms from the mildly offending mail:

1) In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm,  and three or more is a congress!
— John Adams

In passing I note the effort to whip up some anti-government sentiment. But perhaps this one is more apropos to what I have in mind:

4) I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle!
–Winston Churchill

The implication being that taxes are bad. But, as long time readers know, the counter-example is Kansas, where their storied tax-cut has lead to a shambles in the State budget, their Laffer Curve more of a Laffer Cliff.

Source: Warbird Daily/Ty Brown

Remains of an engine from a B-17 crash site.

But his led me to consider, in light of these thoughts, contributing my own poor simile.

A nation is like an aeroplane; the failure to properly fund and manage any part of it is like ripping a wing off. We all know what happens after that.

Mr. Churchill made many mistakes in his life, one of which was the Gallipoli Campaign, so his words should be subject to examination – not beatification. Government has its part to play, and without properly funding and managing it, the nation can spin out of control, environment destroyed, unethical unbound by the judiciary, and a prudent use of resources unknown. None of these are hypotheticals, but are grounded in the realities our forefathers knew so well – generally, because they had their faces ground into each one. Our task is to realize that it’s all about the bell curve, discovering the most propitious point on the taxation curve, where greater than or less than results in poorer results for society at large, as I wrote about here. Simply being anti-taxation, or anti-government, is childish.

And, having been there, I can say that.

So Roger Ailes, conservative, founder of Fox News, and bad newsman, has died. I see the hyperbole has begun, as CNN notes with the straightest of faces:

Sean Hannity, a prime time host and longtime face of the network, said on Twitter: “Today America lost one of its great patriotic warriors.”

No, Sean. That’s the sort of thing you say when General Eisenhower died. A professional propagandist isn’t a patriot. He’s just a bad newsman.

defease:

Defeasance (or defeazance) (French: défaire, to undo), in law, an instrument which defeats the force or operation of some other deed or estate; as distinguished from condition, that which in the same deed is called a condition is a defeasance in another deed.

Noted in “Defend Norms Don’t Violate Them“, Paul Rosenzweig, Lawfare:

Again, I shudder at the prospect of presidential subordinates who learn from this behavior that it is OK to unilaterally defease the President of his prerogatives if it is for a good cause.

In the context of the definition, Paul’s usage makes me uneasy.

Just amazing what some critters will do.