Category Archives: Uncategorized

In the 60 Seconds column of NewScientist (), they mention a new millipede with …

… 14 legs, 200 poison glands and four penises …

ZooKeys has the academic article, in case you’re interested. Here’s some of the commentary:

Source: ZooKeys

A Dorsal view of head, antennae and rings 1–5 of I. tobini sp. n. (scale bar 300 µm) B the same of I.plenipes (scale bar 300 µm) C Lateral (right) view of head and rings 1–5 of I. tobini sp. n. (scale bar 300 µm) D the same of I. plenipes (scale bar 300 µm). Illacme tobini sp. n.: E anterolateral (right) view of head and first leg pair (scale bar 100 µm) F lateral (left) view of head and first leg pair, antennae broken off at base (scale bar 100 µm). (Catalog #s: I. tobini sp. n. MPE00735, I. plenipes SPC000932.)

John Delury has a startling report on the general foreign policy discussion of what to do with North Korea on 38 North:

The Hawks

The most remarkable new feature in the North Korea policy debate is serious contemplation of military force as the only viable option left. Such calls to arms are couched in guarded terms: no one advocates an imminent attack on the Yongbyon nuclear complex, and none dare call this approach for what it would most likely be: the start of a second Korean War. Instead, national security figures such as Mike Mullen,James Stavridis and Victor Cha suggest that a “surgical” or “pre-emptive” strike almost certainly must take place before Kim Jong Un perfects the capability to hit the US homeland with a nuclear missile. During the Obama years, military options were off the table because of the cost that Seoul would have to pay for a strike on Pyongyang. AsPresident Obama put it to Charlie Rose, “we could obviously destroy North Korea with our arsenals but … they are right next door to our vital ally, the Republic of Korea.” But with the South Korean government indulging in extremely bellicose rhetoric, integrated into recent US-ROK joint military exercises, that restraint seems to be vanishing before our eyes.

How might Beijing react to a US pre-emptive or surgical strike on the North? The question is often evaded, perhaps because the answer makes a military solution considerably less attractive. North Korea is, after all, China’s only defense treaty ally in the world, and is obligated to “immediately render military and other assistance by all means at its disposal” to defend Pyongyang if attacked. Their 1961 treaty is often overlooked or trivialized—occasionally by Chinese academics themselves. But the agreement remains in force, underscoring North Korea’s unique place in Chinese foreign relations. To mark the 55th anniversary of the treaty’s signing in July, Kim Jong Un sent Xi Jinping a friendly note praising the pact as a “firm legal foundation” for the bilateral relationship.

And then there are the “boas”, who prefer stronger sanctions, and a great deal more pressure on China. If China could be persuaded to pull the rug out from underneath North Korea, then the boas believe Kim Jong Un would see reason and give up nuclear weapons development. John delivers summary paragraphs, written before the U.S. election, and perhaps assuming Clinton would be the victor, rather than Trump:

Fighting for engagement and negotiation with North Korea in the US foreign policy debate is an uphill battle. But proponents of engagement have one trump card: when Washington engages, the China factor becomes an asset in dealing with North Korea, rather than a liability or roadblock. Beijing, after all, is steadfast in its strategy of engaging Pyongyang, and it is perpetually looking for US openness to negotiation. China’s security policy toward North Korea is unwavering: the goal is denuclearization, the preconditions are peace and stability, and the method is dialogue. If the next US president adopts an engagement strategy, Xi Jinping’s government would likely step up its own work to achieve short-term breakthroughs and long-term solutions. Paradoxically, Washington’s best chance of getting China to apply constructive pressure on its errant neighbor is through a major US initiative to negotiate with Kim Jong Un.

Beijing does not think any amount of sanctions and pressure, including the use of military force, will change Pyongyang’s behavior in the way Washington wants. The firm policy of the Chinese government, supported by most foreign policy experts (though not necessarily the ones most quoted by US and South Korean media), is that only dialogue and negotiation can moderate North Korea’s behavior, and that the best hope for long-term progress lies in the untapped potential of North Korea’s economic transformation and regional integration. Many South Koreans, including the leading candidates to become the next ROK president, would seem to agree.

I’ve heard little more than Trump might be willing to talk to Kim Jong Un, with little detail. How this plays out will be very interesting.

Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes advocate for the retention of FBI Director James Comey on Lawfare:

Whatever you think of Comey’s judgment or conduct during the campaign, his actions have unequivocally demonstrated political independence from his political bosses, as he has in the past. And that is exactly what we will need from the FBI in the coming years.

Throughout his career, Comey has stood up to the political leadership of both parties. During the Bush administration, he offered to resign over questions of law and principle. If the last few weeks demonstrate anything, it is that we can trust him to speak his mind irrespective of the political consequences; in fact, the harshest charge against him is that he cannot be trusted to not speak his mind, even when it might behoove him and when doing so might undermine the fondest wishes of those in power.

If you believe, as we do, that this country has elected as President a dangerous man, one with authoritarian tendencies, having a principled FBI Director willing to stand up to those in power and speak his mind irrespective of political costs is critical.

No doubt many would reject this conclusion, even the reasoning, although getting the final evaluation finished is a point in his favor. But what of the report of Russian contacts with the Trump campaign, despite the denials of Trump? Should they have also been disclosed? That troubles me.

A friend points me, approvingly, at an article by Naomi Klein for Reader Supported News asserting Neoliberalism is at fault for the election results:

hey will blame James Comey and the FBI. They will blame voter suppression and racism. They will blame Bernie or bust and misogyny. They will blame third parties and independent candidates. They will blame the corporate media for giving him the platform, social media for being a bullhorn, and WikiLeaks for airing the laundry.

But this leaves out the force most responsible for creating the nightmare in which we now find ourselves wide awake: neoliberalism. That worldview – fully embodied by Hillary Clinton and her machine – is no match for Trump-style extremism. The decision to run one against the other is what sealed our fate. If we learn nothing else, can we please learn from that mistake?

Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than their precarious present.

Unfortunately, just reading her prose tells me she’s hyperbolic and, therefore, wrong. “Sealed our fate“? What bullshit – we all already know Clinton lost by a hair. As Steve Benen points out, if the trivial number of voters who went for Stein and Johnson had voted for Clinton, Trump would have lost.

My conclusion is that she has something against neoliberalism and is willing to use this election result as a tool in attacking it – because Klein’s desperate need to assert the election was a foregone conclusion when it obviously wasn’t is a clear signal that her logic chain is so weak a bird could break it.

Just to put the sharp point of the pencil forward, I didn’t bother reading more than the above paragraphs. Her communications style is so poor, she’s so desperate to assert an insight, she should turn in her pen and pad and go flip french fries. Regardless of whether she’s right or wrong. Given her bright, shiny axe to grind, I can’t possibly trust her arguments. Nor am I able to judge them independently, as I’m a lowly software engineer without the time to analyze what she has to say. Isn’t this pathetic – she may have a point, but right from the get-go all I can say is that’s a knife in her hand, everyone back off.

I wonder what the record is for the number of lawsuits faced by a President or President-elect, because our Donald is facing his first, coming up November 28th. According to WaPo, Trump is looking to delay it:

Attorneys for President-elect Donald Trump went to court Thursday to ask that a civil fraud suit against Trump scheduled to begin in less than three weeks be delayed, a reminder of the unusual complications facing Trump as he shifts from businessman to commander in chief.

Trump’s attorneys said he will be too busy with the presidential transition to participate in the Nov. 28 trial involving his defunct real estate seminar program, Trump University. They asked that the trial be postponed until February or March, after he has taken office. …

[Judge] Curiel proposed potentially having Trump testify by video to make the trial easier on him, but also urged that he settle with former students suing over the real estate seminars.

And I urge those former students to settle with our future President. I suggest a good rate would be 2 or even 3 times the damage they’ve suffered.

Just to make it clear to our Donald that fucking people over is not acceptable. He needs to be bopped on the nose occasionally. If they can get more, good for them.

Leslie Knope writes one on Vox. It’s a little long, so I’ll quote the part that amused me, rather than the other part that inspired me:

When I was in fourth grade, my teacher Mrs. Kolphner taught us a social studies lesson. The 17 students in our class were introduced to two fictional candidates: a smart if slightly bookish-looking cartoon tortoise named Greenie, and a cool-looking jaguar named Speedy. Rick Dissellio read a speech from Speedy, in which he promised that, if elected, he would end school early, have extra recess, and provide endless lunches of chocolate pizzandy (a local Pawnee delicacy at the time: deep fried pizza where the crust was candy bars). Then I read a speech from Greenie, who promised to go slow and steady, think about the problems of our school, and try her best to solve them in a way that would benefit the most people. Then Mrs. Kolphner had us vote on who should be class president.

I think you know where this is going.

Except you don’t, because before we voted, Greg Laresque asked if he could nominate a third candidate, and Mrs. Kolphner said “Sure! The essence of democracy is that everyone—” and Greg cut her off and said, “I nominate a T. rex named Dr. Farts who wears sunglasses and plays the saxophone, and his plan is to fart as much as possible and eat all the teachers,” and everyone laughed, and before Mrs. Kolphner could blink, Dr. Farts the T. rex had been elected president of Pawnee Elementary School in a 1984 Reagan-esque landslide, with my one vote for Greenie the Tortoise playing the role of “Minnesota.”

After class, I was inconsolable. Once the other kids left, Mrs. Kolphner came over and put her arm around me. She told me I had done a great job advocating for Greenie the Tortoise. Through tears I remember saying, “How good, exactly?” and she said, “Very, very good,” and I said, “Good enough to—?” and she sighed and went to her desk to get one of the silver stars she gave out to kids who did a good job on something. And as I tearfully added it to my Silver Star Diary, she asked me what upset me the most.

“Greenie was the better candidate,” I said. “Greenie should have won.”

She nodded.

“I suppose that was the point of the lesson,” I said.

“Oh, no,” she said. “The point of the lesson is: People are unpredictable, and democracy is insane.”

In the epilogue, Leslie suggests donations to several organizations. I will be looking into doing so with our emergency charity budget.

The movie Berserk! (1967), starring Joan Crawford, starts off well, as Gaspar the Great, the high wire act of the Rivers Circus, is unexpectedly hung when his wire snaps and wraps around his neck in front of the audience. The atmosphere of the circus is meticulously recreated, from the elephants to the acts to the labor gang, and soon we feel as part of the family, understanding Rivers (Crawford) to be the dictatorial parent, and the others as anything from lovers to enemies.

Then a new high wire act moves in, starring the Great Hawkins, not only into the circus, but into Rivers’ arms – but it’s an icy (and rather unbelievable) embrace, as Rivers is old enough to be the new act’s mother. But audiences flock to the circus, the circus in which the macabre accident occurred, as they often do, and Rivers is pleased.

Then another death, and another, and the police become an avid part of the audience. For a while the movie remains intriguing, even if we are wrestling with the supposed affair between Rivers and Hawkins, as there’s little else hitting a false note. But as we approach the end, a new character arrives: Rivers’ teenage daughter, unmentioned, rebellious about being sent off to school, and unexpected. Could we have yet another victim, just to needle Rivers about enjoying the receipts generated by the deaths of her employees?

No.

The daughter is the bloody KILLER.

So the audience is treated entirely unfairly. No attempt is made to explain how the murders were accomplished. The motivation? To get her mother out of the circus culture.

It’s like someone put a knife into the center of the painting of Mona Lisa and ripped it right out. OK, maybe not old Mona, but some rather good painting – because it’s a glaring, painful flaw in what was otherwise an enjoyable murder mystery.

See it if you adore Joan Crawford (who’s frankly rather scary) then see this, otherwise you’ll just be disappointed.

Steve Benen on MaddowBlog notes one consequence of the SCOTUS blockade:

Going forward, Americans should understand that rewarding radicalism produces more radicalism. Senate Republicans abandoned the constitutional process, institutional norms, and democratic traditions, rejecting a duly elected president’s high-court nominee – without so much as a hearing – because of his party affiliation. And because that gambit worked, and voters rewarded the scheme, the message for policymakers is, “Go ahead and pursue similarly radical plans. The public doesn’t care. There are no consequences for misbehavior.”

And this is an important result, although I’m not convinced the GOP is going to actually hang together all that much longer. In engineering terms, they’re beginning to look like a positive feedback process, and, if so, their immensely good luck a couple of days ago will be followed by some sort of total catastrophe that will rip the party apart. No inside information here, just observing the outer behaviors, and thinking about how the former inhabitants of the fever-swamps will attack the more moderate members of the GOP.

But there is another result, not necessarily an alternative but parallel. Assuming (and I use that word with a creepy-crawly feeling going right up my spine) Trump nominates someone of far-right tendencies to replace the late Justice Scalia, the opposition, if it so chooses, could apply the label Illegitimate Justice to him or her, and through repetition make it stick.

So let’s consider the temperament of jurists. How many would want that label, perhaps helpfully abbreviated IJ, pursuing them throughout history? Each decision a SCOTUS judge renders is history making, so smart candidates are going to have a finely tuned sense of the idea that they’ll have a big legacy.

Will they want to be known as the IJ of Trump?

Not the smart ones. They’ll decline the nomination. (The patriotic ones will publicly state they do not wish to be the IJ.) Along with concerns about Trump nominating a judge whose chief work will be creating socially conservative law from the bench, I’m also worried that she or he will be a second-rater. Someone, like Trump, who’s hungry for the position, thinking it’ll prove their superiority.

And can’t reason their way out of a paper bag. Or worse, is a bigot whose influence will create racial tensions.

That’s another worry to add to the list.

Some tools are for the California water problem are man-made – and some come from Nature. In NewScientist (22 October 2016, paywall) MacGregor Campbell reports on using Nature’s engineers to solve the complex problems of water in California – beavers:

In 2010, local landowner Betsy Stapleton got in touch with [NOAA researcher Michael] Pollock after reading about some of his research. Pollock was interested in something called beaver dam analogues. Typically consisting of a line of posts set across a stream bed and interwoven with willow and cottonwood branches, these faux dams slow water down and widen out a stream to form a pond. The goal? To attract beavers. Putting one up is like prepping beaver real estate for sale.

In Sugar Creek, much to Stapleton’s delight, the faux dams worked. As she wades through soft muck into surprisingly pristine pond water, she points out evidence of beavers all around. Sticks with chew marks are strewn across the pond bottom. A scent-mound of dried mud stands guard telling interlopers that the pond is spoken for. Vegetation has been stuffed into both dam analogues. “They like to plug every little hole,” says Stapleton.

Of course, there are no guarantees.

[Jimmy Taylor, a wildlife biologist with the US Department of Agriculture] and his students recently trapped and relocated 38 nuisance beavers near the Oregon coast. Sixteen weeks later, more than half had died, many eaten by mountain lions. The dams they built were ephemeral and washed away in the higher winter flows.

Still, phenomenon like this are very encouraging:

USGS / Tanya Dewey University of Michigan Museum of Zoology

Then, in the early 1990s, came an accidental experiment. Fish and game officers in Elko, Nevada, were working with ranchers to restore two dried-up stream basins that cattle had obliterated. To recreate a habitat for cutthroat trout, they put fences up – fish on one side, cows on the other. Willow, a favourite beaver food and building material, took root. By 2003, a colony had moved in and begun damming the streams. Before long, the dry creek beds had sprouted into verdant wetlands, which attracted other animals too.

It was never the officers’ intention to lure beavers to Elko, but the events proved that under the right conditions and with very little money, beavers could completely transform an ecosystem.

That same process is now at play at Sugar Creek. The adjacent, undammed creeks are dry in the summer. When they do flow, in autumn and winter, the water moves fast, washing all the dust and nutrients they pick up out to sea. Come summer, it’s just dry gravel again.

At Sugar Creek, on the other hand, the water gets stuck. Beneath it isn’t just rock but rich soil too. NOAA hydrologist Brian Cluer points out sand and fine dirt that has come from further upstream. In the still waters of the ponds, it settles. Grasses, reeds and other plants take root in the stuff, locking it and its moisture in place. With time, a thick base of rich, moist soil builds up, helping to raise the water table.

Cluer says that all this has a huge knock-on effect. The water seeps down into the ground, recharging underground aquifers. That matters because California is depleting its groundwater at an alarming rate. It is now tapping into “fossil” water that has been underground for tens of thousands of years. Farmland is sinking as aquifers collapse. This is the price you pay for an intensive water management system predicated on drained wetlands and artificial channels, says Cluer.

Perhaps a useful way to think about this is that beavers helped shape the world we evolved to thrive in, so returning them to that environment, in which they are so powerful, should not – but does – surprise us when the result is, once again, a positive for the humans in the environment.

So – put the beavers in an environment where they can thrive, step back and let them do their thing. I think this is quite attractive. Hopefully, beaver pelts are not as alluring as they used to be, which resulted in the beavers in California nearly driven into extinction. Leave them alone and start restoring a critical resource.

Given Trump’s comments about the Iranian nuclear deal, it’s not surprising that speculation has gone through the roof on its future, as reported by Julian Pecquet of AL Monitor:

Lawmakers have introduced a rash of Iran sanctions bills ahead of the election, both to score points with voters back home and to put political pressure on the Obama administration not to go too far with sanctions relief. [Tyler Cullis, a policy associate with the National Iranian American Council (NIAC),] said he now expects the incoming, Republican-controlled Congress to introduce less extreme legislation that may not blatantly violate the deal but could irretrievably harm it.

The pro-Israel lobby AIPAC “will thread that needle,” Cullis predicted. “And then you’re going to have a bill that’s going to be very tough for Democrats to vote against.”

Theoretically, the defeat of deal foes Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., helps provide Democrats with a firewall to defeat problematic Iran bills (most bills need 60 votes to pass, and the Republicans will have 52 Senate seats if they win a Dec. 9 run-off in Louisiana). On the flip side, deal opponent Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is taking over as minority leader, adding to advocates’ distress.

“I think you’re going to see a much more measured approach from Republicans to knock a hole in it,” Cullis said. “And if a bill like that passes, it’s certainly the case that a President Trump will not spurn it, and he will sign it. It will cause immense damage to the sustainability of the nuclear deal.”

That bill would grant various authorities for sanction building to the President. Cullis’ thoughts on that matter?

“A Trump administration will be less reluctant to utilize those authorities,” Cullis said. “It’s a strange thing to say, but I think Donald Trump will be one of the more sane voices in a Trump Cabinet.”

Which is a reminder that the GOP is quite the chaotic entity at the moment, as they RINO-ize themselves further and further to the right – but the one Republican they can’t push out will be Trump.

While predicting Trump is a chump’s game, it’s not impossible that he’ll be more reasonable, in the end, than many members of his Cabinet – early speculation has former NYC Mayor Guiliani (who I think is in early stage dementia) and John Bolton (former UN Ambassador under Bush II), a lawyer and (ahem) diplomat who apparently never understood the Roosevelt dictum that begins “Speak softly …”, and (tellingly) is a commentator at Fox News, as members of the Cabinet. And a bizarre rumor that Palin, the master of incomprehensibility, might also make up a veritable Clown Cabinet. Anyone remember that idiot James Watt? Running a department based on your religious beliefs, rather than scientific evidence, was simply irresponsible – he should have been kicked out on his nose. Palin may do the same thing.

And then there’s the Congressional members themselves, with the usual spectrum of sanity.

Will the GOP put us back in danger by tearing up the agreement and reasserting sanctions? Do they seriously believe the rest of the world would back us?

Do they even care?

Susan Hennessey of Lawfare reflects on the duty of national security workers:

I am also as sure today as I was yesterday that the men and women of NSA are decent, law abiding, and honorable. I wish them continued strength, courage, and judgment in the days and years ahead. And I hope that President Trump comes to recognize the gravity of his task, the many lives that now depend on his even judgment, the ways in which he will shape the world.

This morning I couldn’t help but reflect on that day when Deputy Director Inglis administered my oath of office. The character of people like Inglis both reflects the institution that elevated him and also sets the culture for the next generation. I won’t name current officials out of deference for the non-partisan nature of their work, though plenty of examples of true integrity come to mind. We need people like that issuing the NSA oath, and not craven political hacks all too happy to step into powerful roles abandoned by principled people.

This is why I think it is the duty of rational, reasonable experts to serve their country in a Trump administration, even at the political level, if asked. If he will accept it, Trump must have wise and informed counsel. Americans will be served by principled individuals in government defending our Constitution and role in the world. Those who stay home to satisfy ideals of personal integrity will not make our world safer.

Saturn’s North Pole is changing colors, according to Phys.org:

The first nuclear device lost at sea may have been found, as reported in ScienceAlert:

Wikimedia Commons

The bomb in question belonged to US Air Force flight 44–92075, which originally was meant to simulate a bombing run over California on 13 February 1950 before landing in Texas.

And while the United States has suffered a shock to its system and a grievous blow to its reputation, let’s not forget Turkey, another country backsliding into strong-man politics. Now President Erdogan wants to control the universities, public and private, as reported by Mustafa Akyol on AL Monitor:

Two major changes have now been introduced. First, the intra-university elections at state universities are a thing of the past. The president will simply appoint whomever he wants, without a feedback mechanism involving academics. Second, and more stunning, the president will appoint the rectors of private universities. The latter’s boards of trustees will only be able to make suggestions to the YOK, which will defer the final decision to the president.

Underfit river:

A misfit stream is a river that is either too large or too small to have eroded the valley or cave passage in which it flows. This term is also used for a stream or river with meanders that obviously are not proportional in size to the meanders of the valley or meander scars cut into its valley walls. If the misfit stream is too large for either its valley or meanders, it is known as an overfit stream. If the misfit stream is too small for either its valley or meanders, it is known as an underfit stream. [Wikipedia]

We ran across this term on a tourist sign on Minnesota highway 169, southwest of Jordan, IIRC:

It occurs to me that Trump has made a few promises that will be dangerous to follow up on.

Such as, “Lock her up!”

If, on Inauguration Day, he does take action to lock her up, a huge chunk of the electorate will be completely disgusted with him.

And if he doesn’t, some of his most zealous supporters will become disaffected.

Just how much charm does he have? Can he finesse these supporters? Or will his Secret Service providers be rather busy for the next four years?

Konga (1961) features a chimpanzee that is artificially mutated into a highlands gorilla, and then again to something the size of King Kong. The chimp was brought out of the jungle by a British biology researcher who hungers for the fame that goes with a major discovery, and the chimp is his research subject, once the carnivorous plants have been exhausted.

Yeah, in case you wondered, it’s a slapdash, the hell with science, shambling wreck of a movie; in fact, it swarms with problems. There’s this student that tries to strangle the researcher, and yet isn’t in therapy for anger management. Worse yet, the middle-aged research assistant is so in love with the researcher that she disregards his several murders; only when he chases after a young student with lust in his eyes does she finally break free of his … invisible … charms. The researcher himself takes offense so easily I’m surprised he doesn’t slit his own throat when he looks in a mirror and doesn’t admire himself. While the chimp really is a chimp, the gorilla is clearly just a guy in a gorilla suit, and when he mutates the second time into the faux King Kong, the special effects are terribly awful. The story might have been interesting, but the characters do nothing and do not engage in a whit of interesting thought. Hell, we don’t even get to know if the carnivorous plant that has its, er, teeth in the blond student (let’s see, her boyfriend had his neck snapped by the gorilla, her professor has sexually assaulted her – or at least tried – and now she’s stumbled into a nest of carnivorous plants – as you can see, it’s not been a tip-top day for her) … where was I? Oh, yes – we never find out if she survives the attack from the carnivorous vegetation, or if her piercing shrieks were not enough to cause the protein-craving prepubescent pod-person to grow pedals and skedaddle out of what soon became an EasyBake oven.

About the only good thing is a bit of jazz on a student’s radio, despite Michael Gough’s efforts to bring the researcher’s character to life. Sadly, I think that would be the subject of yet another horror movie.

Don’t go near this monkey.

Here we the three pictures worth seeing from our recent vacation. I like the last one best.

While I suggested finger pointing inside the Democratic Party would be a bad move, finger pointing from the outside is another matter. David French of National Review points to an interesting statistic:

Here’s the thing that I got really and truly wrong, the thing that I missed completely. I had no idea that the Democratic party was so thoroughly alienating it’s own voters. Hillary is will likely end up with almost 10 million fewer votes than Obama in 2008. She’ll end up with almost six million fewer votes than Obama in 2012. Those voters didn’t move to the GOP. People just stayed home. Given our growing population and the enormous media interest in this campaign, those numbers are simply astounding. The Democrats alienated roughly 14 percent of their 2008 voting base.

Yes, I know those numbers will change ever-so-slightly as the remaining one percent of outstanding votes trickles in, but while I knew that the Democratic party had internal problems, I had no idea of the extent of those problems. While I knew that Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate, I had no idea how bad. It turns out that the GOP is more functional and united than the Democrats. I clearly had my problems with the degree of GOP unity (I was aghast at the lockstep support for a man I believed to be morally, temperamentally, and ideologically unfit), that unity was a fact, and it gave Trump enough of a base to win.

It seems obvious enough, given the numbers, so David probably has this right. What were the factors behind this alienation?

It’s hard to count the number of people of a general liberal leaning within my circle of friends and acquaintances who, nevertheless, showed little enthusiasm for Hillary. It’s not entirely clear to me the source of this distaste. Despite GOP rhetoric, she has served very honorably, in my view, as the Senator from New York, and as Secretary of State. Mistakes? Sure – but, outside of the subject of a following point, honest. Mistakes are inevitable, and if made in small quantities, are tolerable. Working in government can be difficult at the rarified levels she performed in.

But she’s also been the target of GOP attacks for a very long time now, and I have to wonder how many folks have succumbed to the “where there’s smoke there’s fire” syndrome – although in my view she’s probably one of the best vetted and cleanest candidates to come along.

But the one source of mud that clung may have been this year’s primary, with DNC Chair and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz reportedly favoring Clinton in the primary, as discussed a while ago. Was there collusion or merely a vile indiscretion by Schultz? I know it made me very uneasy, and it really ticked off some Bernie supporters, despite Bernie’s best efforts on behalf of Clinton. I have to wonder how many Bernie supporters stayed home, dismayed by the appearance – true or not – of corruption in the leadership of the Democratic Party.

And then the nearly incomprehensible email controversy … and so we’re left with a President-elect who may lose interest part way through and resign, a free world aghast at our decision, and a national legislature that remains in GOP hands. To argue that this was a change election seems wrong, given the number of incumbents who continued in their seats, and the fact that the Senate remains GOP. What was it really? Just an anti-Clinton rally? Would Bernie Sanders have done better? What-ifs, the source of heart-burn…

It did occur to me that there’s a very apropos name for the Trump voters, though: Marks. Remember The Sting? They are all marks for the consummate con man, Donald J. Trump. Will he serve the nation, or only himself? Given how much he verifiably LIED during the campaign, his future behavior is unpredictable, and that is a disaster for companies, allies, and citizens.

The only ones who’ll benefit? Enemies.

And Donald J. Trump.

On FB I shared a “we’re going to miss you, President Obama” post, which attracted some attention. One reader:

Speak for yourself.

Which I do, with vigor and facts. See below. Another:

We want to thank your for doubling the national debt, putting an immense burden on the future of the country and our children. What do you have to show for it, nothing beneficial.

I think this is immensely unfair and lazy, which surprises me in this reader. Where to start?

Debt? I will remind the reader that Congress holds the purse-strings, not the President, and while the President could certainly veto the spending and tax bills, there are certain compromises that must be reached in order to move government forward – Congress is explicitly in charge of finances. Additionally, entitlements are out of the reach of the President. If we want to fix the national debt, it could have been done sixteen years ago, but the GOP acted like a bunch of drunken sailors on leave for the first time in a year: the entire debt could have been tackled and no doubt taken care of. Instead, the GOP threw a party to enrich themselves and their patrons, and then chose to fight two wars without raising the taxes to pay for them.

Revere the memory of Eisenhower, who saw this coming: the military industrial complex.

It will take two to tango, Congress and now President-elect Trump. If they want to start working on the debt, the first thing they need to do is take a good, hard stare at Kansas. Slashing taxes is not a magic wand that fixes everything, as they’ve proved; and, as the Great Recession proved, slashing regulation has its own set of pitfalls. But positive steps? Consider raising taxes. Consider cutting those areas that have become bloated – unlike Obama, I advocate cutting the military. It’s a big, fat target. While painful in the short term as some weapons programs would be cut, impacting specific Congressional districts, most economists will tell you that military spending is not as productive as other spending, private or public. We need a good Defense Dept, it’s true; right now we have waaaay too much of a Defense Dept. If, as Trump advocated on the campaign trail, we “rebuild” an already robust military force, we’ll still be deeply, deeply in debt in eight years. Like two or three times more than now. That, after all, was the lesson of the oughts, now wasn’t it? A deeply irresponsible GOP that has fine marketers working for it (after all, someone has to spin their irresponsible ways) and nothing else.

But the reader claims nothing beneficial comes of the doubling in debt. It’s a vague claim, since it requires connecting programs to spending. Or perhaps it does not; perhaps we should simply note the end of the Great Recession; steady economic growth ever since, including the lowering of unemployment beyond even Mitt Romney’s projections for his own plans; the first stab at universal healthcare, the ACA, which eliminates the horrible pre-existing condition clause, gets more sick people to doctors on a pro-active basis (MUCH cheaper than emergency room care), thus removing stress from the health system; the killing of Osama bin Laden and Colonel Gadhaffi; the destruction of ISIL (not finished, yet), the Iran nuclear deal (and if you think it was bad, go read what the Iranians think of it – they hate it – they danced with the Great Satan and now many Iranians wish they hadn’t, and if that’s not a reason to rejoice in the deal, then you are not using reason – you’re just using arbitrary, unreasonable hatred of Obama); etc – including the important element of a steady, calm temperament.

The reader had best take care about reading Obama’s legacy through partisan spectacles, because a whole lot of inconvenient facts can be dumped right on top of him. My expectation? In twenty to thirty years, objective historians will put Obama in the top ten of Presidents. Partisans will hate it, but I think it’s true – his track record is quite impressive, especially given a GOP that has forgotten its duty to back the President on foreign policy. Despite every obstacle thrown in front of him by a spiteful, unreasoning GOP controlled Congress for the last 6 years, he’s executed effective policies that have improved the economy, our security, and our collective health.

And now, just to disprove charges of hagiography (besides military spending, as I suspect the reader agrees with Obama on increasing military spending, which strikes me as bat-shit insane), I’ll stick out a hand and suggest a subject the reader might pursue in which Obama could be justifiably criticized: North Korea. I’m sure we can find common ground here, although I would start out with one common-sense observation: North Korea is a hard, hard topic in foreign policy. While we may agree that he could have done better, I would not be so juvenile as to suggest he blundered or did it on purpose. Sometimes your adversaries find ways to do better than you like.

Wondering if we’ll be returning to the club of countries that torture prisoners? On Lawfare, Robert Chesney points out this will be more difficult than most imagine:

For now, though, I want to highlight a critical but often-overlooked point about what I view as the most important feature of EO 13491:  Section 3(b)’s prohibition on the use of any interrogation method, by any agent of the U.S. government whether military, CIA, or otherwise, that is not among those methods listed in Army Field Manual 2-22.3. Waterboarding and other so-called Enhanced Interrogation Techniques are not part of the Field Manual, and section 3(b) has thus long been understood as a central instrument for barring CIA from using such methods (DOD already was subject to this same obligation via the McCain Amendment in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005).  By revoking EO 13491, then, some have assumed that the door would be opened not just a resumption of CIA interrogation in general but also to the use of the EITs (or worse). [Note: I am not suggesting CIA itself has any interest whatsoever in having such a role or authority, and I should emphasize that any such development would have to come about as a result of presidential directive expressly authorizing–and, indeed, compelling–the agency to follow such a course.]

But this overlooks a critical point:  In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Congress and the Obama Administration converted the Field Manual compliance rule from a mere executive order into a statutory obligation, and thus placed it beyond the discretion of future presidents.

It was remarkable to me at the time that this did not get more attention.  It certainly matters now.  That said, the statute is by no means a complete obstacle to revival of the EITs.

Not that a President Trump necessarily wants to re-authorize torture – I firmly believe that no one, perhaps including himself, really knows how he feels on most issues. His willingness to lie – as well documented by the media – makes predicting Trump’s future moves impossible.

At least this would slow him down.

How did America, the “Shining City upon a Hill”† manage to elect a thin-skinned, sexist, racist cretin as a president?  It just seems crazy — until one begins to analyze the depths of despair some large segments of American society have experienced over the past few decades.  And realize how far a desperate people will go.

American journalist and author Glenn Greenwald describes the large reasons why Clinton and the Democratic Party failed to prevail over Trump in his essay in The Intercept today (Nov. 9).  Titled “Democrats, Trump, and the Ongoing, Dangerous Refusal to Learn the Lesson of Brexit” it outlines three major points last night’s election results illustrate.  They are:

1. Democrats have already begun flailing around trying to blame anyone and everyone they can find — everyone except themselves — for last night’s crushing defeat of their party.
2. That racism, misogyny, and xenophobia are pervasive in all sectors of America is indisputable from even a casual glance at its history, both distant and recent.
3. Over the last six decades, and particularly over the last 15 years of the endless war on terror, both political parties have joined to construct a frightening and unprecedentedly invasive and destructive system of authoritarian power, accompanied by the unbridled authority vested in the executive branch to use it.

While the entire article is worth reading, the reasons why Democrats blame everyone but themselves (#1 above) and what needs to change most interests me here.  As Greenwald write in July about Brexit, so is true here (emphasis mine):

Instead of acknowledging and addressing the fundamental flaws within themselves, [elites] are devoting their energies to demonizing the victims of their corruption, all in order to delegitimize those grievances and thus relieve themselves of responsibility to meaningfully address them. That reaction only serves to bolster, if not vindicate, the animating perceptions that these elite institutions are hopelessly self-interested, toxic, and destructive and thus cannot be reformed but rather must be destroyed. That, in turn, only ensures there will be many more Brexits, and Trumps, in our collective future.

The elites in this case are the economic elite (the 1%, in both parties), the political elite and the most influential members of the press (journalists).  They collectively caused or ignored or denigrated the plight of many Americans who would go on to vote for Trump.  Greenwald again:

The indisputable fact is that prevailing institutions of authority in the West, for decades, have relentlessly and with complete indifference stomped on the economic welfare and social security of hundreds of millions of people. While elite circles gorged themselves on globalism, free trade, Wall Street casino gambling, and endless wars (wars that enriched the perpetrators and sent the poorest and most marginalized to bear all their burdens), they completely ignored the victims of their gluttony, except when those victims piped up a bit too much — when they caused a ruckus — and were then scornfully condemned as troglodytes who were the deserved losers in the glorious, global game of meritocracy.

That message was heard loud and clear. The institutions and elite factions that have spent years mocking, maligning, and pillaging large portions of the population — all while compiling their own long record of failure and corruption and destruction — are now shocked that their dictates and decrees go unheeded. But human beings are not going to follow and obey the exact people they most blame for their suffering. They’re going to do exactly the opposite: purposely defy them and try to impose punishment in retaliation. Their instruments for retaliation are Brexit and Trump. Those are their agents, dispatched on a mission of destruction: aimed at a system and culture they regard — not without reason — as rife with corruption and, above all else, contempt for them and their welfare.

That dam was eventually going to burst.  And it did, in this election where against odds and expectations and prognostications and common decency, they elected Trump.

This oppressive system absolutely needs destruction.  But who could do it?  Who could clean up the mess?  Surely there are decent men and women out there who can see it and could do something about it, if they were President.  Except.  In this country, in this day, only the most connected, most egotistical and most wealthy have any chance at all at winning such an election.

Trump was, in a perverse way, just the right man for the job.  He was wealthy enough and ego-driven enough, and had enough fame, that he could get elected and upset the apple cart.  Will he, not through good intentions and moral character, but rather via outraged supporters and simple chaos be enough to provoke the needed change?  Can he cause the Democratic Party or even the Republican Party to throw off their institutional, elitist self-serving policies and behaviors?

Let’s hope so.

†From the 1630 sermon “A Model of Christian Charity” preached by Puritan John Winthrop while still aboard the ship Arbella with future Massachusetts Bay colonists.

Photo credit:  @nodigio on Flickr, CC by attribution.

Metabolist Movement:

CC BY 2.0 Wikipedia

Kisho Kurokawa’s Nagakin Capsule Tower has been under threat of demolition for a decade now. The icon of the metabolist movement was also an important model for tiny living, with so much crammed into such a small space. It was an innovative example of plug-in architecture, where each apartment module could be removed and upgraded. [Lloyd Alter on Treehugger.com]

From Wikipedia:

The icon of Metabolism, Kurokawa’s Nakagin Capsule Tower was erected in the Ginza district of Tōkyō in 1972 and completed in just 30 days.^[51] Prefabricated in Shiga Prefecture in a factory that normally built shipping containers, it is constructed of 140 capsules plugged into two cores that are 11 and 13 stories in height. The capsules contained the latest gadgets of the day and were built to house small offices and pieds-à-terre for Tōkyō salarymen.^[52]

The capsules are constructed of light steel welded trusses covered with steel sheeting mounted onto the reinforced concrete cores. The capsules are 2.5 metres wide and four metres long with a 1.3 metre diameter window at one end. The units originally contained a bed, storage cabinets, a bathroom, a colour television set, clock, refrigerator and air conditioner, although optional extras such as a stereo were available. Although the capsules were designed with mass production in mind there was never a demand for them.^[52]Nobuo Abe, was a senior manager, managing one of the design divisions on the construction of the Nakagin Capsule Tower.

Sorry about the formatting of this post.

Continuing this thread, the guardian is reporting that Australian unions are acknowledging the end of coal as a common fossil fuel, and are now advocating for a “just transition”:

Australian unions have thrown their weight behind a transition away from coal-generated electricity, calling for a new statutory authority to manage a “just transition”, supporting workers and communities that rely on fossil fuel-related jobs.

A policy discussion paper written by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) said a planned closure of coal power stations – along with both a jobs and energy plan for the country – would “create a more prosperous and diversified economy”.

It called for an independent statutory body, Energy Transition Australia (ETA), to be created inside the environment and energy portfolio, which would be responsible for managing an orderly move to a clean energy economy.

I think this is an important step in that it’s important not to just toss people aside, now that their industry has been identified as a negative rather than a positive. There’s nothing dishonorable about paying money to recompense those engaged in these businesses, whether as workers, management, or owners – because at one time these businesses were crucial to our growth and survival. Blame begins when knowledge becomes available – it does not extend back before then.

(h/t Treehugger.com)