Category Archives: Uncategorized

Just a day or two ago I wondered if Deputy AG Rosenstein decided to sacrifice Comey – and his own honor – for a later roll of the dice. I think we’ve just seen the roll, as CNN reports:

David Kris on Lawfare provides a portrait:

I have known Mueller for a long time–he ran the Criminal Division when I joined the Justice Department in 1992 as a brand new lawyer, and years later when I ran the National Security Division at DOJ, I spent many mornings with him when he was FBI Director reviewing the overnight threat intelligence at the FBI’s SIOC. Mueller is experienced, knowledgeable, capable. He is utterly incorruptible. He cannot be intimidated. At this stage in his career, he has nothing to prove, no reputation to burnish, no axe to grind. He is ramrod straight in his integrity, and the DOJ press release notes that he has resigned from his law firm, Wilmer Hale, which represents Jared Kushner and perhaps others in or close to the Trump family, “to avoid any conflicts of interest.”

Sounds like the right man for the job. How long will it take for him to get up to speed? Ann Althouse approves.

Paul Rosenzweig on Lawfare is having anxiety over the rules & ethics of government:

The President’s “decision” to release classified information to the Russians is tragically wrong.  The apparent ease with which members of the intelligence community rush to themselves leak classified information to the press is criminal — there are no two ways about it.  The President’s disclosure to the Russians of classified information (and the subsequent efforts to mitigate the effects of the disclosure) are themselves classified information — almost certainly at the same level of sensitivity as the underlying classified information.  Conservatives, like me, who saw in Edward Snowden a felon cannot now excuse identical conduct simply because the intended end of the disclosure is more condign.  I shudder at the idea that a whole generation of intelligence professionals is now being trained in the norm that “it is OK to leak to the press if the President really sucks.”  That isn’t the rule of law and it isn’t a system we should encourage.  We can (and should) hold the President to account for his exceedingly poor judgment, but we should not brush aside the significant transgression of those who brought us the information.

But I think Paul may be soft-pedaling the situation a trifle. After all, we’re not talking about a President that sucks – we’re talking about a President admitting, if unconscious of the fact, to impeachable offenses, to utterly frivolous behavior in the presence of what we politely call adversaries (no doubt they said much worse of us during the Obama years).

Ethics are a notoriously slippery subject, despite the efforts of many to claim they’re straightforward; indeed, some philosophers spend a great deal of time coming up with ethical dilemmas, and then psychologists expose those dilemmas to test subjects to see how people react when up against a hard case.

As I’m sure many have done before me, it’s relatively straightforward to construct a dilemma in this case – suppose some “classified information” clearly shows the President is committing treason, to the destruction of the country. What is the duty of the intelligence professional who comes across this information and recognizes it for what it is?

To keep it secret?

Or to expose it, at least to Congress, if not others?

If Paul’s answer is the former, with perhaps a caveat that some other part of the system will cover for it, I must answer that I think the government ethics system he’s employing is too primitive to be successful – keeping secret, destructive information secret is a recipe for disaster. Let me suggest this: an ethics system which can be employed against itself to the destruction of the using organization is a flawed system. Furthermore, it suggests that a new ethics system, no doubt based on the former to some extent, is necessary.

I don’t have enough hubris in ten lifetimes to pretend to construct such an ethical system, but I might suggest that this is a very hard problem, much in the tradition of Lawfare, and perhaps the answer is “Yes, the information can be released by the intelligence professional – but if such a release is not subsequently approved by some appropriate delegation of Congress, then the intelligence professional is in legitimate legal peril.”

It sounds enormously unfair, but it’s just a thought in any case.

I generally don’t comment on Mystery Science Theatre 3000 episodes, but tonight we finished watching their coverage of The Day The Earth Froze, and I must say it was amazing – the movie was amazingly awful, amazingly earnest, and their coverage amazingly witty. If you get the chance, this episode might be worth your time.

The GOP guiding principle of team politics has been a subject of mine before, but riding hobby horses, as I tend to do, serves an important purpose in that it permits better evaluation as to whether the horse in question is really worthy of eventual enshrinement in the Horse Hall of Fame.

Or, for those who appreciate more direct prose, continual investigation of a hypothesis is integral to discovering its congruence with reality.

So as we sit in continual wonder at the incompetence erupting from the White House and the House of Representatives (an AHCA that could not be passed, and then was passed in such mutilated form as to cause cries of anguish from sober observers – and celebration from GOP leaders), let’s not forget Senator McConnell, who, according to NBC News, is still confident in the President:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he wishes there was “less drama” coming out of the White House following reports that President Donald Trump revealed classified information during a meeting with Russian officials last week.

In response to questions, McConnell said that he has not lost confidence in the president and that he still trusts him with classified information.

“I think it would be helpful to have less drama emanating from the white house,” McConnell told reporters, not directly responding to the latest controversy flowing out of the executive branch.

This more or less covers the putative leadership of the Party. Remember, McConnell is the same Senator who could not even be persuaded to give a hearing to Judge Garland for his nomination to SCOTUS – against all rhyme, reason, or Senate duty.

For the objective audience, the independents who are paying attention, this really seems like insanity. An obsessive loyalty to the leader of the Party, despite his many missteps and a few Impeachable Offenses. I shan’t detail these here as I’ve mentioned them elsewhere, and the media certainly has more details than I care to provide in a blog.

This is the result of team politics, as I’ve discussed several times before (hobby, meet horse). But at this point we can ask – how many independents are truly attracted to a Party of Insanity? Certainly not I – and I doubt most others are attracted at the present.

Better yet, how many moderate Republicans will continue to stick around as the vortex of madness swirls about them? Last year we saw numerous announcements of Republicans leaving the Party – no doubt, this continues to this day as the madness persists.

So on to the central point to this post – does Karma apply to political parties?

Or, to draw a parallel to Lord of the Rings for fans, remember how Frodo escapes the clutches of the Orcs in Mordor when held captive? It wasn’t the brave, madcap assault of Samwise. No, it was the various orcs killing each other over their differences and greed. Sam just showed up in time to pick up the prize.

J.R.R. was making the point that evil often eats itself because of its very nature. Is that going to be the result of the evil of team politics? A fragmented, ripped up party, perhaps still stumbling about, whining about traitors and apostates (quite literally, given the evangelical element), never realizing that one of its central pillars of organization … is the cause of its doom?

And will the Democrats and other parties see that lesson and do better?

Noted while taking a walk:

It occurs to me today that, if we were smart, we’d have President Obama teach a masters class in being the President. Not just to the Democrats, but to the Republicans as well. We’re not talking policy, but all the operational stuff, like “What is the Department of Energy” material, and just how prepared you’d better be on day 1.

Because right now I don’t see any potential candidates in four years who inspires real confidence. Either side.

Ever wonder about the music of the Pharaohs? Amira Sayed Ahmed reports on Ahfad el-Fara’na in AL Monitor:

Ahfad el-Fara’na (Grandchildren of the Pharaohs) was founded in 2007 to revive, protect and spread the ancient Egyptian musical heritage. The unprecedented initiative, which is part of the National Project for the Revival of Ancient Egyptian Music, was launched by professor Khairy el-Malt, who has been interested in ancient Egyptian music since the 1990s. …

The band was formed after extensive academic research of the instruments and other aspects of the music of pharaonic times. “This project has two aspects: academic and cultural,” Malt added. “On the academic front, we thoroughly studied all the pharaonic instruments discovered worldwide. We began with eight instruments and we have reproduced nearly 21 instruments. We are preparing for more.”

YouTube doesn’t seem to have any impressive recordings, but it does have several audience recordings. Here’s one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGyR6i-K9lY

Courtesy Melissa Breyer on Treehugger.com comes this:

Melissa summarizes:

With 700 species of these marvelous crabs across the planet, California is lucky to call a dozen or so their own. Dwelling in tide pools and kelp forests, the crabs have one tragic flaw. They’re delicious. But on the lucky flip side, they’ve learned the careful art of camouflage by way of attaching bits of finery to specialized Velcro-like hooks on their bodies.

Pusillanimity:

the quality or state of being pusillanimous :  cowardliness [Merriam-Webster]

Noted in “Trump Just Incriminated Himself,” Andrew Sullivan, New York:

All of this is simply unacceptable. An attempt to obstruct justice is an impeachable offense. And Trump has just openly admitted to such a thing. When, one wonders, will the patriots in the Republican Party stand up and confront this? If Clinton had done such a thing, the House would be drawing up articles of impeachment right now. We saw their pusillanimity last spring as this malign buffoon manhandled his way to the nomination. It has not abated.

How you’ll feel after watching this.

Landing in the category of dulldom is The Rift (1990), a dreadful movie about an attempted rescue of a submarine which has suffered some sort of problem. The sister sub is sent down, manned by a rabble of individualists with no real identifying marks, commanded by a US Navy Captain who appears to be a hand puppet. During the descent they run into a monster or two, not to mention the side of an iceberg; having made their way through an incomprehensible tunnel in search of a wandering “black box,” they discover an underground cavern – or, if you like, a lake with a ceiling.

Now the bloodbath begins as evil mutants (are there any other kind?) start picking off the landing party, whoever they are, not to mention a few more crew members within the ship as the biologist fails basic isolation procedures. And, just to make things fun, there’s a traitor!

Undeveloped characters, bad story, awful special effects, and empty of compelling thematic material, this will leave you sick to your stomach if you dare to watch it, just because you’ve wasted two hours of your precious life.

I pity those who made it, who no doubt put in a lot more of their time.

The latest major computer virus crisis, the WannaCry attack, is just making me tired. I realized this while I was driving home from work today, listening to NPR report on the latest developments.

I caught myself thinking that the Internet might be more trouble than it’s worth.

Update your computer. Don’t do this. Don’t do that. Ever get the feeling there’s a basic flaw in how we do everything on the Internet? Surely, I was just a little tired, a little annoyed with some of my coworkers.

But now I’m wondering how many people are being driven away from the Internet by these incidents. Folks who’ve overcome the addictive element of the Internet and have calmly evaluated the aggravations of the Internet vs what good it can bring.

And decide to walk away.

There are always places where people can telecommunicate about making their lives simpler. Getting rid of stuff, not watching so much TV, trying to figure out what’s important.

And when the Internet falls into that bin … another potential customer going offline. No more trolls, no more viruses. Not that the real world lacks in aggravation, but perhaps it’s not so intense. Depending on where you live.

There is a certain allure to the idea, though.

Maybe I am just tired, though. After all, I started in the early 1980s. But I can certainly see other folks frowning over these sorts of things and finally deciding not to return. At least, until they run into that annoying fellow parishioner…

Abdelrahman Youssef explores the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and the straits of one member, Sheikh Fadl al-Mawla, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, in AL Monitor. The last paragraph caught my eye:

Although it remains to be seen if the regime will weigh in publicly on the execution, there are Brotherhood activists who believe the regime could threaten to implement the ruling at any time, sending a political message to the group whenever it might consider supporting any presidential candidate running against Sisi.

They do not play nicely in Egypt. Some friends of ours took a tour of Egypt and said they found it too frightening to want to return.

We’ve seen this before, but it’s still a bit amazing.

Stomp it, kid, stomp it.

Benjamin Wittes on Lawfare is profoundly unhappy with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s letter concerning former FBI Director James Comey:

I was profoundly wrong about Rosenstein.

Rosenstein’s memo in support of Comey’s firing is a shocking document. The more I think about it, the worse it gets. I have tried six ways from Sunday to put an honorable construction on it. But in the end, I just cannot find one. The memo is a press release to justify an unsavory use of presidential power. It is also a profoundly unfair document. And it’s gutless too. Because at the end of the day, the memo greases the wheels for Comey’s removal without ever explicitly urging it—thus allowing its author to claim that he did something less than recommend the firing, while in fact providing the fig leaf for it.

In other words, Rosenstein’s actual role was even less honorable than the one he reportedly objected to the White House’s tagging him with. If the original story that Rosenstein’s recommendation drove the train had been true, after all, that at least would involve his giving his independent judgment. But the truth that Trump told is far worse than the lie Rosenstein insisted the White House correct. Rosenstein was tasked to provide a pretext, and he did just that.

Ben has definite opinions on how those involved in national security should act, their behavioral norms, and why. I think he should be a resource to the Administration, because it’s clear that the President and most of his appointees are not well-versed in how Government differs from the private sector, and how those differences require different ethical sets (and thus the existence of an Office of Ethics, which is apparently ignored).

That said, Ben’s bewilderment (if you read between the lines) over the Deputy AG’s behavior suggests Rosenstein may have chosen to sacrifice his knight (Comey) and stay in the game in order to possibly prevent greater damage at a later time. If he knew Comey was already finished, and that Trump could not be dissuaded, he may have laid down his honor at this time in order to pick it back up at a more effectual moment – perhaps to leak important information.

Who knows – maybe Deputy AG Rosenstein will have the honor of actually placing handcuffs on Trump and his associates. Yeah, it’s a fantasy. Gotta have them from time to time.

Maybe I should just drink this beer and go home.

The Sniper (1952) is an odd near-success of a movie. The problem is not in the performances making up the tale, as the actors are all competent or even more than competent in their parts, in that relaxed fulfilling of roles that many 1950s movies achieved so effortlessly. The technical aspects are also all very good, from staging to cinematography. The characters, although unsuccessful in conveying the feeling that they don’t disappear when the movie stops, do have lives with details, tics, and various motivations, all of which contributes to the feeling of reality necessary to this movie.

The story is mostly good, but the lead character may not be entirely believable to today’s viewer. The eponymous character, Eddie Miller, is torn between his ache to be a normal man, with a wife and a future, and his suspicion, even hatred for women, particularly those of the brunette variety. Add in a definite problem with impulse control, and it all ends in periodic bouts of violence against the women who drive him to anger. He already has a history of violence when we see his first killing, his prowess with a sniper rifle giving us the title of the movie. But he doesn’t take joy in the act, and injures himself in an attempt to stop himself; later, he writes a note for the police to find, begging them to stop him, and this is where I start having problems with the character. Perhaps the criminally insane really do these things, but I find that a little hard to believe. However, I appreciated the nuanced lead character.

But the movie’s greatest failing may be in that it is explicit in its purpose, which is to alert contemporary society to the number of sexually driven criminals embedded in society. This is accomplished through a short, to the point introduction to the movie, and it drains the movie of some of the tension it might otherwise have had, which is unfortunate, despite the good intention.

But contrariwise, it has a very good unstated theme, made apparent in a monologue during the metaphorical crucifixion of the police department. It is to recognize that crime is not isolated incidents, but are often a sequence of lesser crimes leading to greater crimes. An advocacy that “sex crimes” (my Arts Editor suggested “gender crimes” as more accurate) result in immediate removal to a psychological institute for immediate treatment and release only on cure is rejected by the assembled “pillars of the community” because it would result in higher taxes, and By God We Can’t Have That. More abstractly, penny-wise, pound-foolish; or the results of greed are unpredictable and vicious.

The echo in today’s society, particularly with the background of the failure of Kansas despite lowering taxes, is particularly surprising, interesting, and believable.

In the climactic ending, there’s an appreciated lack of frenzied gunfire, and, indeed, a return to the lead’s tortured mental state (I hesitate to call it a conscience), leading to an ending of some delicacy. Indeed, this ending may be more effective at attracting the viewer to a more intellectual discussion of the movie’s themes – and perhaps some hoped for actions.

Interoception:

To generate emotions, it is thought that we first need to interpret our body’s internal state – a process called interoception. So if we see a rabid dog, we feel fear only once we recognise an increase in our heart rate or feel our palms get sweaty. [“Feeling your heartbeat helps read others’ minds,” Helen Thomson, NewScientist (6 May 2017)]

Predatory publishing refers to academic journals charging high fees and offering little or no vetting of the quality of the research published, as noted by Retraction Watch. In this interview with Derek Pyne of Thompson Rivers University, BC, Canada, Retraction Watch not only reveals that the problem may be more widespread than expected, but that the culture at Thompson Rivers University – and, by extension, many others – is not properly sensitive to the idea of quality research.

RW: In a recent Op-Ed in the Ottawa Citizen, you say the administration at the business school was less than enthusiastic about your results. Can you say more about that?

DP: In September of 2015, on my Annual Professional Activities Report (APAR), I included my initial finding that I had found that I was one of a minority of researchers in my department with no publications in predatory journals.  The dean requested, through the department chair, that I remove this from my APAR and resubmit it.  I did this but I don’t think he appreciated my rewording as his official APAR response letter quoted from my original APAR instead.  When I informed him that I had facts to back up my statement, he responded that he did not care about facts.  Things went downhill from there.  For example, later he said that the school had promotion and tenure committees to evaluate people’s research and that he thought it was arrogant of me to second guess them.

RW: You note that universities may be “complicit” in the problem of predatory journals. Can you say more about that, and what we can do to address it?

DP: I see no other reason why universities would ignore the issue when it reaches the extent of a majority of research faculty in a school publishing in predatory journals.  In the op-ed, I discuss possible reasons for this.

I have a couple of suggestions for addressing the issue.  One problem we have is that no one in our Dean’s office has a research background.  I would hope that administers with research backgrounds would place a greater value on honest research.  Moreover, I think they would be in a better position to recognize suspicious publication records.  Thus, the first action I would recommend would be hiring administrators with research backgrounds.

In addition, I found that the issue only got attention after my op-ed was published.  I am not saying that other universities would be unwilling to address the issue before getting to this point.  However, honest faculty have to be willing to stand up for academic integrity.  If internal actions cannot bring change, it is sometimes necessary to go further.  In my view, the job security of tenure is wasted on people who turn a blind eye to such wrong doing.

Thing is, I don’t really think you need people with research backgrounds serving on these committees; you need people committed to quality results. Researchers, as people who may have wittingly or unwittingly published in suspect journals, are not necessarily the best selections, especially as administrative work may not be a good temperamental fit.

I suspect the real trick is root out complacency, and in so doing formulate and implement a process which can then be used and, more importantly, reviewed and revised^[1]. Now you have something that can be tracked, improved, and thereby improve the university. If all you have is a bunch of administrators who are checking off the informal boxes from decades ago – support the researchers, count up the papers published, did any win awards [hey, is anyone evaluating the awards won?!] – then you’re running a risk.

It’s a changing world out there. Used to be, you published one monumental work and you were immortalized, such as Newton. Maybe you paid for it, maybe not. Then there was the era of a few publications, and most of them had good reps – because publishing was hard to start and to continue.

Now it’s the era of anyone with a web site and – maybe – a connection to a printing press can pose as a scholarly journal^[2]. Maybe 50 years ago Universities knew all the journals and which ones were good, because so few were bad. But that is no longer true, researchers are no longer as involved as they once were, and so having a process written down and periodically improving it should just make good sense. If nothing else, you can point at the committee and ask them why they aren’t following the process.

But part of the process should be Improve the Process.

¹If you’re muttering “Watts Humphrey!” good for you!

²As NewScientist‘s Feedback column periodically notes.

The recent launch of a North Korean test missile into the Sea of Japan put Russia on high alert, according to CNN:

Russia responded to North Korea’s test by putting its far eastern air defenses on high alert, according to a report from the RIA-Novosti news agency.

“We cannot fail to understand that the territory of Russia is not only an object for attack but also a place where a missile may fall. In order to protect ourselves from possible incidents, we will keep our air defense systems in the Far East in a state of increased combat readiness,” Viktor Ozerov, head of the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security, is quoted as saying. …
The direction of the missile, so close to Russia, was likely an attempt by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to send a message to both Moscow and Beijing, said Carl Schuster, a Hawaii Pacific University professor and former director of operations at the US Pacific Command’s Joint Intelligence Center.

“It tells Russia, ‘I can touch you too,'” Schuster said.

“It tells China, ‘I don’t care what you think, I’m independent,'” he said.

It seems more than a little odd to be challenging Russia and China at the same time. The Chinese in particular are not known for their tolerance of threats. Is Kim really sending a message to Russia and China, or is this possibly an internal message?

Meanwhile, John Schilling publishes an analysis on 38 North as to whether this is a new type of missile – and how this may reflect North Korean progress in the area of ICBM development:

If North Korea has already conducted a successful test using the engines and other components of the first two stages of the KN-08, it may be closer to an operational ICBM than had been previously estimated. US cities will not be at risk tomorrow, or any time this year. since some tests have to be done with the full-scale system. With only one test of this reduced-scale system Pyongyang is probably some time from even beginning that process. But given this test and the possible North Korean path forward, a closer look will be needed to see how much progress has been made, and what technologies the North may have demonstrated, as will a reassessment of their ICBM program in that new light.

Montana’s First Congressional District Voting History
Data from Ballotpedia

The appointment of Representative Zinke to be Secretary of the Interior has left the sole Montana seat in the House of Representatives open. We can see that it’s been a safe Republican seat since 2000, and Ballotpedia states it has been in GOP hands since 1997. Not since 2000 has a race been in the single digits; the last was a 16 point difference.

And Donald Trump won by 21 points in The Big Sky State. But now? Hard to say. I’ve seen poll results ranging from Democrat Quist leading by 7 points (a dubious self-selecting online poll) to a Democratic poll showing Quist down by 6 points to an even more comfortable lead of 15 points for Republican Gianforte (end of last month, a lot has happened since). With a Libertarian also in the race, voters will have a third option if they’re thoroughly tired of the two major parties.

And in that respect, it’s an interesting dynamic. Quist of the Democrats isn’t a politician. He’s a folk singer. A gamble by the Democrats, I suspect, to get away from any negative connotations Montana voters may connect, rightly or not, with the Democrats. Gianforte of the Republicans is a rich entrepreneur, a figure iconic to the GOP, I suppose, who failed in a previous bid for the governor’s seat.

I suspect it’ll be a close race, with a GOP victory, but I could easily be wrong. Are you a Montana voter, looking for more information? Former Minnesota GOP member Syd Sweitzer has it for you here.

And what happens if the Democrat wins? We come another step closer to impeachment. President Trump’s recent actions with regards to the FBI are worthy of impeachment, as Andrew Sullivan notes in greater detail than I care to muster, but the GOP members in Congress are, by and large, in love with power. So long as they see Trump as a symbol of that power, they won’t move against him – in particular the House. Why? Because Trump’s base is their base, and it’s all about team politics – if you’re seen to betray the team, you will lose the support of the base, and you will lose that power.

But if Democrat Quist wins, now the dynamic begins to change. Trump’s base may be cracking. Not enough to release the wolves in the House, where impeachment begins, but if Trump begins to lose his luster of power in the eyes of the House, then a step has been taken.

But the power of team politics has been stronger – and more damaging to the Republic – than I had thought. This storm of idiocy in the White House should have resulted in Trump’s thorough kicking by the GOP held Congress. Instead, they are an inchoate mass, indulging in extremist legislation and tone-deaf actions.

A win by Quist would be a boot to their collective heads. And perhaps the start of the end of the extremist hold on the GOP, and the beginning of the necessary rebuilding of the GOP by the likes of Senator Lugar, the last of the respectable GOPers.

I don’t expect it, but we need to begin.

Nucleate:

Nucleation is the first step in the formation of either a new thermodynamic phase or a new structure via self-assembly or self-organization. Nucleation is typically defined to be the process that determines how long an observer has to wait before the new phase or self-organized structure appears. Nucleation is often found to be very sensitive to impurities in the system. Because of this, it is often important to distinguish between heterogeneous nucleation and homogeneous nucleation. Heterogeneous nucleation occurs at nucleation sites on surfaces in the system.^[1] Homogeneous nucleation occurs away from a surface. [Wikipedia]

Noted in Dark Matter And The Dinosaurs, Lisa Randall, p 177:

Cosmic rays and supernovae as well as cosmic impacts have been suggested as possible culprits with the potential to be relevant on longer time scales. Cosmic rays can affect cloud cover in several ways. One is by ionizing atoms in the troposphere so that water droplets can nucleate nearby. This influence could enhance cloud formation, which would in turn affect the Earth’s weather. [typos mine]

Perhaps the most important aspect of the Turkish documentary Kedi (2016) has nothing to do with its putative subject, and everything to do with how it connects the people of Istanbul, Turkey, with, well, cat lovers around the world. This documentary takes a snapshot of the lives of several cats living in the streets of city, chronicling how they live, their personalities – and, not incidentally, those who actually care for them. One such is a pastry chef, who states that he and others in the neighborhood actually have running tabs at all the local vets, because they bring in the street cats for care when they’re sick or injured. One of the stars of the film actually spent an entire winter at the vet.

Or another man who pins his continued sanity on his devotion to the street cats. He had a nervous breakdown years ago, which abated when he made it his purpose in life to care for the cats.

For the non-cat lover, this may sound strange, perhaps symptomatic of a mental illness. After all, “crazy cat lady” is not a term of cherished endearment in American society, but rather the mark of a person whose sanity is certainly questionable.

But for those of us who make it a condition of existence that a cat, or even plural cats, be in our lives, these seemingly simple, revealing interviews with men and women living in a society supposedly alien to us really serve to personalize their basic humanity. I easily could see myself sitting down with any of these folks and having an animated chat about these cats, street-wise or house pets, and really connecting. Long time readers of this blog know that I often find material on AL Monitor, but even the cultural pieces AL Monitor purveys don’t match the strong connections Kedi builds.  And the material on politics serves, if anything, to highlight the differences between societies, and sometimes, advertise the hatred of those on the extremes.

The opening interview talks about the alien aspects of cats, how they differ so much from humans, but the interviewee might have gone a little further. While that aspect is certainly one of the attractions of living with cats, it’s also true that another lure is that they sometimes metaphorically stretch themselves toward us. We see cat behaviors which remind us of ourselves, from simple friendliness with long-term acquaintances, to the cold shoulder when a visitor shows up without some accustomed gift or possession (in my case, a pair of kittens I usually brought on visits were omitted, and the delighted host cat abruptly turned away and wouldn’t talk to me upon the realization that his friends were not with me).

That same reaching out, that stretching to cover abysses, is perhaps most what we need these days. We’re surrounded with cries of hatred, from nationalist extremists in the West to religious extremists in the Middle East, using past grievances and imagined ideological reasoning to justify violence against those who they hate. Perhaps they should learn to stretch out their paws to those they don’t understand in an attempt to probe the fundamental humanity present on both sides. And ask if the suspicion and ideology and religion contributing to hatred and war and battles is really all that necessary in a world beset with critical problems.

All that said, this is not a perfect movie. It could have been at least ten minutes shorter, and while I enjoyed the visual aspect, I sensed there was more to be seen, perhaps some hidden, iconic view (with a cat in it) that could have really driven home the reality of Istanbul. But it’s a good, even introspective documentary which reminds us of the requirements of basic humanity, without challenge, without shame or guilt.

Just a celebration of the little carnivores and friends who fulfill a role in human civilization, and should not be forgotten as we “progress.”

Recommended.

Former commercial fisherman Bren Smith suffered an attack of conscience and has given up his occupation in order to … create farms in the ocean. He talks about it with NewScientist (29 April 2017):

What is 3D ocean farming, exactly?

It’s farming that utilises the whole coastal water column, from top to bottom, so a lot is produced in a relatively small area. Thimble Island Ocean Farm, my original farm in Connecticut, goes down to 6 metres, but the 3D ocean farming model can work in anything from 3 to about 25 metres of water. Seaweed, particularly sugar kelp, and mussels are grown on ropes hanging in the water above oyster and clam cages (see diagram). One acre of sea can produce between 10 and 30 tonnes of sea vegetables and 250,000 shellfish every five months. We catch a few fish, too. Nutritionally, ocean plants like seaweeds are just as healthy and often healthier than land-grown foods. And bivalves are a source of lean protein that grows quickly.

What is so good about farming in water?

First off, you don’t have to fight gravity, so all you need is cheap but strong underwater infrastructure. An ocean farm is easily tended from a boat and doesn’t require the expensive inputs needed by most aquaculture and land-based farms. Crucially, we don’t have to feed or water “crops” once we seed them. Being in coastal waters means they often benefit from the nutrient-rich run-off from fertilised land farms. And the farms are visually low impact, with just some buoys visible above the water.

You call your farms “restorative”. Why?

Kelp is among the world’s fastest growing plants, so it could absorb large quantities of carbon from the atmosphere, making it the perfect crop for helping to mitigate climate change. And each oyster can filter 50 gallons of water a day. Many aquatic ecosystems suffer from excessive nitrogen, mostly from fertiliser from industrial farms. Shellfish pull that nitrogen out of the water. And we’re not catching many fish, so vertical farms become artificial reefs, havens for hundreds of species. Finally, the farms are strong yet flexible, helping to protect the coastline from storm surges.

Source: Screen scrape from GreenWave.org.

Remind me not to eat the oysters.

Trying to retain my alleged contrarian attitude, I can’t help noticing he hasn’t really broken his most basic orientation – exploitation of the the resource. Rather than work for, say, protection of a specific area of the ocean from human exploitation, he’s simply found a different way to do it.

And, given our hideous over-population, it’s not surprising. I’m not sure any productive area of the planet can NOT be exploited for human purposes, given the pressures inherent in population and human drives. So I suppose he can justify his work on the theme that a few highly productive areas will permit the balance of the ocean to proceed relatively naturally, in the classic (i.e., humans are not part of the natural order – which is sheer nonsense, but the concept does exist and has some usefulness in the form of expression) sense, with only a little bit of human intrusion.

Although I’d still like to see a concerted effort to remove shipwrecks from the sea.

Bren’s organization is named GreenWave. From their flowchart:

It’s been a busy day, and for maybe the first time in two years my opinion center feels burned out. However, while attending a concert by The Fairlanes with my Arts Editor tonight, it occurred to me there’s another weakness to the team politics position that I’ve harped on a couple of times.

Briefly, and it doesn’t require anything more, team politics is simply voting straight ticket for your Party, regardless of how you feel about any particular candidate. I’ve critiqued this position previously, as you can see if you click here. But as we watch the debacle in Washington continue, I’ve been rather dismayed that its continuance is not reflected in the polls.

I would expect sober citizens, observing the self-indulgent antics of the President, as well as the frantic lying of his support staff, would have stepped away in droves, so an approval rating near 40% is dismaying. But this is also profoundly illustrative of the point I’d like to make.

Think about how difficult questions are answered – through debate, intellectual confrontation, argument, and dissension. That last concept is important, because it embodies a very important corollary – the willingness to take a disagreement right to the end point, to break ranks and walk away.

And team politics forbids that.

The very tactic asserted as highly important by Party leaders takes away an important tool in critiquing and improving Party ideology. If you’re staring at the circus in Washington and wondering just how Representative Ryan and company can pass the AHCA and celebrate it, here’s your answer. There is no criticism they need really fear. Oh, sure, the first try failed, because it was too moderate – the extremists are least susceptible to the Party ideology. But they took a little time to work over the moderates, amended the Bill slightly (let’s not pretend it was improved) to get the extremists on board, warned everyone about Party discipline, and rammed it home while everyone was wavering.

So what are left with? A wee bit of discussion, but the elite of the Party dictate, because the general membership cannot pick and choose. They’re in or they’re out, on their honor.

And so they elected honorless politicians who tell their base what they want to hear – and not the truth. There is no picking and choosing because of incompetency or worse. He made it on the ballot with the ‘R’ following his name, he’ll be voted for.

And the consequences, so far, are that we are the laughingstock of the world.

And what do I fear? That the Democrats will stalk down the same path, the un-American path of unending loyalty to some Party – rather than principle.

The independent voter may be the savior of the United States.

In case you were wondering about the origin of the information that Comey enjoyed wide respect within the FBI, it’s mentioned in today’s Senate hearing. Quinta Jurecic covers it in a live blog on Lawfare, and here’s her encapsulation:

[Senator] Heinrich: Is it true, as White House is saying, the FBI agents no longer supported Comey?

[Acting FBI Director] McCabe: That is not accurate. I worked very closely with Comey and hold him in highest regard; working with him was “greatest honor and privilege of my professional life.” Comey enjoyed broad support within FBI and still does today. Vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep and positive connection with Comey.

It’s fairly dry stuff, but can give a sense of how these hearings go – and what the various intelligence services are not willing to reveal in open session. It’s interesting in that the current Administration has put forth, among other reasons, the suggestion that the FBI employees had lost faith in Comey; this suggests yet another lie from Trump.

Ya gotta wonder how much further this is going to go. It feels like the whole debacle is going to come to a head like some horrid zit, and then explode, covering not just those who voted for Trump, but all the rest of us Americans, in a coating of dishonor and disgust.

BTW, this is interesting. A special election for a state house seat in an Oklahoma district which went for Trump in a big way – +50 points better than Clinton – was just held. It was won by the GOP:

After the votes were counted, Taylor won with 50.48 percent. The Tuesday election was the closest victory in the district since Newell’s first election victory when he garnered 61 percent of the vote. Seminole has been represented by a Republican since that election in 2010.

Another signal of an oncoming disaster? Is Team GOP falling apart – as well it should? Reportedly Senator McConnell will not consider any special investigations of the Trump Administration, as Steve Benen notes:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who’s done as much as anyone to shield Trump from any kind of accountability in the Russia scandal, said, “Today, we’ll no doubt hear calls for a new investigation, which could only serve to impede the current work being done.”

Oh. We’re apparently supposed to believe investigating the scandal would interfere with an investigation of the scandal.

McConnell isn’t alone. The entire Republican leadership in both chambers has decided to endorse Trump’s actions, including House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who broke his silence yesterday afternoon to endorse the White House’s position. …

These are the kind of introspective questions for which GOP leaders simply have no use. Trump is on their “team,” and there’s nothing else they need to know.

This is really an outstanding example of the bankruptcy of team politics, as I’ve noted before. Amazing incompetency and buffoonery, the power-hungry are positively leaping out of the bushes to slake their thirst – and a GOP so mesmerized by their own prizes that they fail to see the oncoming disaster.

Or Senator McConnell has a hand behind his back, fingers crossed. Is he that devious? I doubt it, but I’d love to be proven wrong.