Category Archives: Uncategorized

It may not be entirely fair, but I’m going to tack this post onto this thread. Sometimes you have to wonder whether people are thinking for themselves. Look at this report from today on CNN:

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence dissuaded a female supporter Tuesday from starting a revolution in the wake of a Hillary Clinton victory in a passionate exchange here in Iowa during a town hall.

The woman, who identified herself as Rhonda, expressed concern about voter fraud in the upcoming elections saying that she was scared of the outcomes.

“Our lives depend on this election. Our kids’ futures depend on this election and I will tell you just for me, and I don’t want this to happen but I will tell you for me personally if Hillary Clinton gets in, I myself, I’m ready for a revolution because we can’t have her in,” she said emotionally.

Pence shook his head a little, saying: “Don’t say that.”

He added: “There’s a revolution coming on November 8. I promise you.”

She pressed him: “What are we going to do to safeguard our votes? Because we’ve seen how the Democratic Party is just crooked, crooked, crooked.”

Crooked, crooked, crooked. They’re so damn crooked that they control Congress by … negative amounts. That’s right, lady, negative amounts.

Don’t understand?

The GOP controls Congress. Not paying attention, lady? At the start of the current Congress, the GOP held 54 Senate seats, the Democrats held 44, and there were 2 Independent Senators. In the House, the GOP started with a 247 majority, vs the Democrats 188. I see that as of Sept 6 of this year, the Democrats have lost two more seats, and the GOP has lost one as well – presumably these are seats open due to death or resignation. I’m too irritated to go find out.

Don’t like my sarcasm, lady? Let’s try the 113th Congress. Your assertion does slightly better as the Democrats in the Senate began with a 53 seat majority, 2 for the Independent, and 45 for the GOP; however, in the house, the GOP remained in control, 233-200. For those of us paying the least little amount of attention, the GOP actually increased its control of the House in the last elections over this one. Man, those Democrats are crooked.

Lady, if you’re offended by my sarcasm, let me remind you that I’m an INDEPENDENT. This CRAPPY reasoning you’re exhibiting is offensive, it is dangerous to your State, and it is dangerous to the country.

Finally, in the 112th Congress, do we finally find the Democrats firmly in control, 56-42-2 in the Senate, 255-179 House. Did the disaster happen during that Congress? No, but a lot of whining was heard.

So you can go back further. Honestly, when the GOP is in control we seem to be having more problems than when the Democrats in control.

I see later in the report that Steve King, a very conservative radio talk-show host, was also present. Lady, stop licking the spoon of talk radio and get out and do some independent research. (In case you’re wondering, watching Fox News is not independent research. Here, read this piece on noted conservative Bruce Bartlett and why he hates Fox News.) Since you are, most honorably, concerned about votes, I suggest you research the subject of recent gerrymandering litigation.

I suspect you’ll find the GOP is the most guilty of this illicit activity. In case you’re not familiar with the term, gerrymandering refers to the drawing of districts in order to minimize the impact of one group of voters, and maximize the impact of another group of voters. If my guess is correct, that the GOP is the most likely to be gerrymandering districts (as they control most of the States as well), then, if you’re honest, you’ll apologize for your comments and rue the day you ever listened to conservative talk radio.

It’s not conservative.

In the second debate, Trump’s promise to to imprison Clinton if he wins, perhaps more than any other exchange during the debate, has excited comment and condemnation among the media and blogs (or at least the few that I read). Benjamin Wittes on Lawfare, a practicing lawyer and expert in international law, examines the implications from a legal & norms perspective – and it’s not encouraging:

Yet Trump’s comments induced horror among many commentators—and rightly so. The reason? His promise tramples on a number of cherished norms in the relationship between the Justice Department and the White House and in the conduct of the Justice Department itself. These norms restrict presidential and departmental behavior far more than the bare bones strictures of the Constitution. They are part of our constitutional fabric and rooted in important constitutional values. But our mode of enforcing them is not legal. It is political. It is a matter of our deepest expectations of the presidency and the Justice Department.

One of these norms is that the Justice Department doesn’t use the criminal enforcement powers of the federal government to go after the administration’s political opponents. This is the idea of impartial justice. But don’t kid yourself. The Constitution does not require impartial justice. The president has enormous discretion—which, put more crudely, means that we expect him to discriminate. One possible basis for this discrimination is how much he likes or dislikes you. Most people have committed crimes if you look hard enough to find them. What prevents administrations from focusing on the crimes of their opponents, rather than the most serious crimes committed by whomever, is nothing more than the institutional expectations we have of the executive branch—and it has of itself. These expectations sound less in law than they do in decency and civic virtue. What Trump is promising here is precisely war on that decency and civic virtue. …

Another norm Trump’s promises assault is the notion that while the Justice Department is part of the administration and the President is thus entitled to set policy priorities for it, the White House does not involve itself in or direct specific law enforcement operations or decisions. People don’t believe this, but it really is true; it’s a norm that guides the Justice Department across administrations of both parties. The President rightly decides whether drug enforcement or terrorism or child pornography or guns or financial crimes are enforcement priorities on which he thinks it important to focus. But when it comes to investigating or indicting someone, the White House generally makes a point of not getting involved—even in the highest-stakes cases.

This is a really good piece that illuminates some of the structure of government that most of us know nothing of.

Now, can you imagine Trump winning? Surviving impeachment proceedings for four years and then running again – and proceeding to subject to investigation and possible imprisonment his strongest political opponents – even possibly within the GOP? One might argue that his interest might be depleted before he even reaches the end of his first term, but once he achieves the Presidency, there’s still the question of who was the best President ever.

And that argument is really specious. For 200+ years we’ve never gone down this rabbit hole, a hole that we’ve seen destroy the entire political systems of other nations. One of our oldest slogans is “We’d better hang together or we’ll all hang apart”, and a President Trump, by attacking his enemies with the strongest tools at his disposal, something we’ve never done, would drive us apart. (See this post on the GOP’s future for more on the politics of division.) This is just as important as his attitude towards women.

Is it any surprise the GOP establishment is abandoning him? The real surprise is that the base, the everyday Americans who think he’s cool, haven’t finally started leaving him as well. His avid lust for power should be repulsive, and his numbers should be falling precipitously.

And perhaps they will in the next few days.

And I can’t imagine this guy’s part of the GOP future.  You do have to wonder what is going on in Maine when a clown like Governor LePage is making statements like these, courtesy Steve Benen on MaddowBlog:

LePage starts by saying he wants Trump “to show some authoritarian power,” which is obviously antithetical to our system of government at the most basic of levels. The governor then endorses “the rule of law,” which pretty directly contradicts the call for “authoritarian power” he mentioned just seconds earlier.

Then, note how the governor, moment[s] after calling for a chief executive to show “authoritarian power,” complains that President Obama operates independently too much, which in turn has pushed the United States towards “anarchy.”

Based on a lot of other statements he’s made, you have to seriously wonder if he can follow a logical line of reasoning. He seems to be the epitome of “Feel, don’t think.”

In WaPo Sarah Kaplan reports on the work explaining the impossible ghosts of the forests – albino redwoods:

Redwoods can also clone themselves, further complicating scientists’ understanding of them. Vast rings of related plants communicate via their roots, and during the hard months of winter and early spring, they’ll distribute nutrients evenly among themselves. Scientists have spilled dye onto trees at one end of a grove and traced it through the root network all the way to the other side. …

This collaboration lasts only until summer comes. Then every tree, sprout and branch must fend for itself. Those that can’t photosynthesize enough sugar are cut off from the shared root system and discarded during what’s known as the autumn “needle drop.” …

But [biologist Zane] Moore looks down as he explains how albino redwoods take advantage of their shared root system by siphoning off sugars produced by their healthy neighbors. “A lot of people thought they were parasites,” he said. “They even called them ‘vampire trees.’ ” …

Moore sought help from his fellow redwood fans up and down the California coast, soliciting clippings from both albino trees and their healthy hosts.

He found that the albino needles were saturated with what should have been a deadly cocktail of cadmium, copper and nickel. On average, white needles contained twice as many parts per million of these noxious heavy metals as their green counterparts; some had enough metals to kill them ten times over. Moore thinks faulty stomata — the pores through which plants exhale water — are responsible: plants that lose liquid faster must also drink more, meaning that the albino trees have twice as much metal-laden water running through their systems.

“It seems like the albino trees are just sucking these heavy metals up out of the soil,” Moore said. “They’re basically poisoning themselves.”

So they load up on nutrients from other trees in exchange for uptake of poisonous materials from the soil through which the redwoods’ roots intertwine. Analogous to mycoremediation.

Wow. I wonder if redwoods should be considered a single organism or a collection of organisms.

(h/t Melissa Breyer @ Treehugger.com)

A little ragged color to finish out the fall….

I received this video in my email:

http://www.carbontv.com/cams/carbontv-eagle-cam/bigfoot-sighting-on-live-eagle-cam/

If you don’t want to watch it, it shows an extremely blurry biped on an EagleCam in Michigan. Which convinces me, using an impeccable chain of reasoning, that when Bigfoot shows up in a Chicago taxi, he’ll be blurry and out of focus.

Much as when famed cryptozoologist Gary Larson captured an image of Nessie in a taxi.

The gold standard is an indisputable body, living or dead. Everything else is just titillating hoaxes.

Steve Benen gives an overview of the chaos that is the GOP:

On a related note, there’s never been a more important time to appreciate just how little loyalty Trump has towards the Republican Party as an institution. He has no real history with the party, no real future with the GOP, and no dependence on the party for any kind of support after Election Day (assuming he loses). Trump is focused entirely on Trump – which creates a dynamic in which his aides talk openly about undermining down-ballot Republican candidates, and Trump himself throws off his “shackles” and goes after his party’s House Speaker publicly.

Trump is creating an intra-party crisis, and if it does lasting harm to Republicans, he doesn’t care since he has no debts, commitments, or loyalties to the GOP itself.

Note how Trump is a private sector mentality at work – the world is his to conquer, and the rules are not iron-clad, but merely part of the calculation of the cost of any particular maneuver. In the private sector, there are laws, but one merely threatens to go to court and the opposition folds; occasionally a judge must be faced, but it’s only money to be lost – not prestige, not power. In a sense, he’s the GOP in ten years, the last vestiges of public sector decency banished.

In the public sector there are fewer laws, but more rules & traditions – and, if he’s truly the power-hungry narcissist, the latter mean very little.

But they are important, even critical, in the public sector. Government, especially in the United States, is a cooperative venture, an attempt to do the very difficult by using many talents and inputs. As such, it’s an ugly, inefficient venture, occasionally enraging, sometimes corrupt (but usually self-correcting).

This is why you hear that Justices Ginsburg & Scalia were actually close friends, despite their ideological differences; or you discover the late Senators Helms and Wellstone, two very different men, shared a bond, as explained by Helms on the occasion of Wellstone’s death:

“Despite the marked contrast between Paul’s and my views on matters of government and politics, he was my friend and I was his,” Helms said. “He unfailingly represented his views eloquently and emphatically. Paul Wellstone was a courageous defender of his beliefs.”

No doubt there are many other similar examples. Whether the cordiality is natural or forced, it serves a very important purpose: to oil the gears of a machine that does not and cannot run very well. The good politicians have known that for most of the history of the United States. It serves at least two purposes; to enable the building of coalitions between dissimilar factions; and to permit a civil government to continue to operate.

It is signal that they fecklessly accuse the Democrats of their very own failures without the least apparent embarrassment. Senator Helms, for all of his unfortunate policies, would have blushed and disowned many of them. It is also important to note that, with a few exceptions, the mud simply slides off. Indeed, the Clintons have been investigated so many times that they are not slick, but rather clean as a whistle.

Hopefully, we’ll not have to suffer through another GOP Presidency before the inevitable reformation, or destruction, of the GOP occurs; the last GOP Presidency was disastrous for both us and for people a world away. A President Trump would, no doubt, attempt to indulge in a number of illegal actions, and then try to hide behind government immunity when they backfired. we’d be witness to the sad spectacle of an impeachment, or, worse, watch the GOP tear itself apart over whether or not to impeach – and I do believe they lack the leadership to actually impeach a sitting President Trump, no matter how repulsive might be his offenses.

If we’re fortunate, this election will lead to either the dissolution of the GOP and its replacement by a party that realizes how important it is to govern seriously, or a reformation of the GOP that accomplishes the same goals. Either will need to once again exclude the power-hungry, those who have no training in politics, and those who fail to understand the importance of doubt in the realm of governance and, indeed, simply being an adult. We did not evolve to govern large nations, but rather small groups, so having such immense certainty in a world of nuclear weapons is the height of hubris.

¹As observed by no less an authority than Senator Barry Goldwater (R).

Much like The Tingler, the makers of The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues (1955) do not fixate on the monster of the day, but attempt to use it as a pivot to more important matters. Unfortunately, the monster is not critical to the tale, and so this tension-free movie, while fairly logical, does little to excite horror, sympathy, or even mystification. The problem appears to have to do with motivations , in that these are either cloudy or disappointingly cliched. The chief scientist is concealing something, but for what reason is never really made clear; his assistant, who is attempting to sell the secret to an unnamed third party, might as well have been nicknamed A Boy and His Speargun; the daughter is distressingly predictable and mundane, nary a surprise to spring. We’re told, in a most sterile manner, that the secretary hates the scientist because her only son died in service to the scientist, but outside of a persistent glare, there’s little to convince us that she hates him – why work for him? The cops are cops, and the odd bruising on the sultry, traitorous blonde’s thigh are never acknowledged nor explained.

Additionally, there’s bad story-telling. The victims, from the young couple in the boat to the freighter crew, might as well have neon signs over their heads – the cops may not know who’s doing the killing, but the makers of this movie seemed to think that tension is not good for the audience’s health – so we know who did what when.

Where is the emotional engagement, the puzzlement, the red herrings, the terror at difficult decisions?

Oh, maybe 10,000 leagues further down.

Don’t bother with this snoozer.

Yesterday my Arts Editor and I attended the opening of an exhibition called Unknown Fabergé at The Museum of Russian Art. On display is just about everything except that for which Fabergé is best known – the famous eggs (although a video demonstrating the hidden wonders of several eggs is available to watch). Instead, we learn that, much like Louis Comfort Tiffany, the Fabergé workshop had a wide collection of artifacts for sale.

This item, possibly my favorite, is a three inch tall sedan chair done in precise, painstaking detail. This is the sort of thing I love: technically difficult detail which contributes artistically to the whole. The artifacts range from cigarette cases and door bells, clever picture frames, several quite lovely clocks (I admit to lusting after a triangular red specimen), to this tiny sedan chair, roughly life size in this picture.

The display is not perfect. Some of the signs are not as well-lit as they might be, and several were placed at a height of three feet, making reading difficult. I understand that a sign may not be affixed to a glass panel, but some other solution would have been better.

But this is a quibble. Those who love Fabergé, or just miniature detail work, should know this exhibit may not reappear for another 30 years in this area, so make your plans to visit TMORA before February 26, 2017, and enjoy yourself.

Here’s the Politico fact-check of debate #2. I find this hilarious in contrast with the many serious lies told by Clinton’s opponent:

Clinton’s falsehoods

1. “[Trump] never apologizes for anything to anyone.” — Clinton

Early on Saturday morning, after the publication of a 2005 tape where he’s heard making vulgar sexual comments about women, Trump did make a statement of apology: “I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize.” Clinton, however, went on to highlight other campaign controversies for which the Republican nominee has not apologized, including his criticism of Gold Star parents Khizr and Ghazala Khan, and his comments that federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel would treat Trump unfairly by virtue of Curiel’s Mexican heritage.

Another country weighs in on the American Presidential elections. Pro-government Turks perceive Trump as more friendly towards Turkish ambitions, while Clinton is suspected of being a Gulenist – Fethullah Gulen, currently based in Pennsylvania, stands accused of coordinating the recent failed coup attempt. So reports Riada Ašimović Akyol in AL Monitor:

… the pro-government media seems to be a bit more sympathetic toward Donald Trump, while anti-government media is siding with Hillary Clinton. This may sound quite surprising, for Turkey’s pro-government media is also pro-Islamic, and Trump is known for this unfriendly tone toward Muslims. But for Turks, their own political drama is more important than everything else. The July 15 attempted military coup was a breaking point in a myriad of ways. Clinton’s and Trump’s reactions to this traumatic event and Fethullah Gulen’s possible extradition shaped public opinion in Turkey. That’s when things took a clear turn, as the pro-government media, which previously criticized Trump for his “banning Muslims” stances, shifted toward him thanks to his clear support for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Things got much more complicated for Clinton, who was seen as a supporter of the Gulen movement, which the government blames for the attempted coup.

Why is Clinton disliked?

[Mahmut] Ovur also elaborated on all the arguments that are common among government supporters who hold grudges against Clinton. He described Clinton as a “woman representative” of familiar American foreign policy, one that aims for creation of microstates and supports “controlled chaos politics” in important regions in the world. Ovur acknowledged Trump’s exclusivist or even racist narratives, but passed over them while praising Trump’s promises of taking into account existing states and practicing politics that prioritizes stability. Kayahan Uygur from Gunes newspaper shared very similar views, adding that Trump’s racism is exaggerated, and he is not scared of Islam. Even then, continued Uygur, Clinton — who is “war-instigating and in pursuit of tension” — is not less racist than Trump, considering her political record and President Barack Obama’s well-known foreign policy. Furthermore, the widespread belief among the conservative camp that the CIA took part in the coup gained major sympathy from Justice and Development Party (AKP) followers. Thus, finishes Uygur, “If Trump is better for our country, we cannot stay impartial.”

It’s not unexpected that people and government will follow their perceived interests, and here we see that even a perceived hostility in a candidate towards their religion will not deter those who believe they have solid, tangible evidence of friendliness to the country in one candidate, and hostility in another.

And the Swiss Chard begins to succumb to Fall….

Tonight’s second Presidential debate of the 2016 campaign takes place against a backdrop of Republican uproar over the recent revelations of not only Trump’s coarse attitudes towards women, but, as Steven Benen says,

In effect, Donald Trump’s top campaign surrogate told a national television audience this morning, “Yes, the Republican presidential candidate boasted about committing sexual assault, but we have no idea whether or not he was telling the truth.” [bold mine]

Will there be a debate tonight? As a town hall style debate, will the questions be affected by the uproar? Will Trump simply quit before, during, or after – or suffer a nervous breakdown? Or accuse Clinton of committing indecencies as well? For those who sometimes consider politics to be entertainment, this may be be a supreme moment.

This will be a live-blog, so if you’re checking in during the debate, refresh this post. Comments? Use the mail link on the right, as always.

7:33 – anyone not watching the debate is a curmudgeon or has no sense of high drama.

7:38 – And before the fun begins, CNN reports Trump has trotted out some women who accuse Bill of poor behavior:

Trump holds surprise event with Clinton accusers

Donald Trump held a surprise news conference before the debate with four women — three who have accused Bill Clinton of improper behavior and one who criticizes Hillary Clinton for defending a man she says victimized her.

The women were Paula Jones, who has accused Bill Clinton of propositioning her and exposing himself; Juanita Broaddrick, who claims Clinton sexually assaulted her; Kathy Shelton, who says Hillary Clinton defended a man who victimized her; and Kathleen Willey, who claims Bill Clinton groped her.

All four are expected to be in the audience tonight.

More on Bill Clinton’s history is here:  http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/bill-clinton-history-2016-election/ … and more on the Shelton case is here:  http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/05/26/hillary-clinton-1975-sex-assault-case-investigation-kaye-pkg-ac.cnn …

As for Broaddrick, who Trump has retweeted several times this weekend as he attempts to deflect his own scandal, when subpoenaed in relation to the Paula Jones case, Broaddrick filed an affidavit denying she was assaulted. She later changed her story. Ken Starr’s team thoroughly investigated her claim and noted in his exhaustive Whitewater Report that Broaddrick had changed her story.

Fireworks already. My Arts Editor thinks Hillary …

… should simply state that when she married Bill, it was “… ’til death do us part,” something which Trump obviously doesn’t understand.

And then maybe smile sweetly at Donald.

8:00 – ‘Prepare to be slimed’ – AE.

8:02 – Is Bill in the town hall, along with the accusers?

8:05 – No shaking of hands this time. Social ettiquette?

8:09 – Clinton responds to the role model question with a clear, easily understandable response about bringing everyone agree. Trump agrees with Clinton, “with everything she said.” Now an attack on ACA, Iran deal – sounds like a lie about the money. Harps on trade deficit – but is that a big deal? Way beyond the role model question, though – not an easy question.

8:12 – Now Anderson gets to bring up the elephant in the room. Trump compares it to ISIS, etc, as a way to trivialize it. It ignores the fact that attitudes count. Trump is basically running from the question by diverting to ISIS and immigration.

8:14 – Clinton drags the conversation back to the question. She is thoughtful, while the split screen shows Trump carefully not interrupting. Good for both of them. “We are great because we are good”, it’s not a bad slogan – it gets causation right.

8:16 – Trump’s strategy is to ignore the controversy and try to accuse Clinton of failure. “Words, words, words.”

8:19 – Now Trump has great respect for everyone. And Bill is the worst in the history of American politics? He’s naive. Now he’s making unsuppor ted accusations – and the audience applauds. Sad.

8:20 – Clinton responds by ignoring the accusations. Probably wise. It’s not entirely true that Donald has never apologized – even if it’s grudging. Now the mud is being slung with vigor. Who will this benefit more? Pence in 4 years? Trump doubles down. Boring.

8:24 – Up comes the Schulz scandal, which sounds awful but may not be. “I hate to say it” what is he trying to say? Clinton is laughing at him – literally. What does he mean by “acid-washing” emails?? Did she throw her hard drive into an acid bath?

8:26 – the audience cheers again?

8:28 – Now an interrupt – and the moderators permit it. I notice the number of deleted emails keeps going up? Clinton says, “Not true, not true.” Hahahaha diversion diversion diversion!

8:31 – a good ACA question, so now we’re off to the problem of growing healtcare premiums. She has plans, which she doesn’t describe, but notes the ACA has good effects for everyone – “save what works” about the ACA.

8:33 – Donald, many countries don’t have health insurance, so his comment is silly. Accuses ACA of enforcing monopolies. Now we get HUUUGE promises. How foolish are we to buy his promises without plans?

8:35 – Clinton asked to clarify her husband’s comment about “crazy.” She’s forced on defense.

8:37 – Trump wants to condemn the whole thing. He wants to retreat to the free market – which was failing before, so why think it’ll work this time? Block grants – a traditional GOP approach.

8:41 – A question about Islamophobia. AE wants to report Trump right now, as he says Muslims should be reporting problems – as if they’re responsible for it. Muslims won’t vote for him. Back to this meaningless whine about “radical muslim terrorists”. But Trump has gotten over his jitters and is smooth at the moment. Clinton responds with her own plans, and notes current allies do not want to work with Trump.

8:46 – Moderator repeats Trump’s quote about Muslims. Moderator wants a specific answer, and Trump calls it extreme vetting. Trump insists on scaring the electorate about refugees that are not checked. Clinton reminds us that we welcome refugees, then begins to mention Russia, which will be a future theme, I suspect. Rejects banning refugees based on religion, mentions ‘religious tests’ – against our principles, but no doubt makes sense to those who center their lives on religion. Puts the knife in about Iraq and Trump.

8:47 – I wonder if Sanders regrets saying Clinton has bad judgment. Trump’s mentioned it 3 times.

8:50 – Private positions vs public positions. Clinton mentions Lincoln, and that Lincoln was using a strategy. Now a transition to Russian hackers, so she can’t stick to the questions either. More and more …. tax returns. Ieieie.

8:52 – Donald knows nothing about Russia. God, now we’re back to the post office in D.C., whatever that is. Now he pays millions of dollars in taxes – but still no returns.

8:55 – A question about making the wealthy pay their share. Donald pivots it into an attack as if a lone Senator could change the tax code. Nor could the President, either. Taxes, low taxes vs high taxes. Now he’s babbling – GDP of 7%? Maybe he just dropped a word.

8:57 – Hillary is tired of saying he’s lying. She presents her plan – it’s specific, something to be evaluated. Do you trust Big Promises, or specific plans? Now she hangs the zero taxes thing on his neck.

9:00 – How does he know other billionaires use these legal loopholes?

9:01 – She’s created and pushed a healthcare plan, Donald. She doesn’t do things? Clinton now cites her achievements. Donald has nothing but words, words, words. (Yes, he said “words, words, words.”).

9:02 – Trump is desperate to call her a failure. He’s an iconic bully and sexist, isn’t he?

9:06 – Syria – Clinton states the situation – avoiding the question? But it’s a hard question, needs context. Blames Russia for some of the problem. A clean answer so far … although Russia’s getting hit. Now she cites her accomplishments and dances around Trump.

9:07 – Russia is new in nuclear, America is old and tired? WHAT? Does have ANY IDEA? None. Clinton is laughing.

9:11 – Moderator reminds Trump that Pence wants to open war against Syria. Trump repudiates openly. My oh my. Trump wants to tell the Generals how to run a war. This is an idiot. The moderator yells at him. He is openly populist, while in the meantime ISIS is falling back under the current strategy. He’s just scaring people.

9:13 – Clinton responds directly to the question, but the moderator wants more, so she gives it. Trump tries to rattle her by interrupting. She seems coherent to me. Trump is trying to look superior as specific plans come forth. He thinks she should shut up on some bizarre idea that we need to keep everything secret.

9:17 – back to domestic. Inner cities. Does Donald have any clue on how hollow he sounds when he accuses her of doing nothing, only talking, when that’s all he’s EVER done? Never having served, and a horrible private record. This let’s her cite her accomplishments again. Still, both candidates have to say that, yes, they will be devoted to all citizens. Ouch, “The Trump Effect”!

9:19 – Moderator asks for clarification on “deplorables”. She gives a general answer, stating that she wants to unite us. Donald is off on a scare run again, high crime and “she has hate in her heart.”

9:21 – Trump refuses to answer the question about discipline, but wants to bring up the failed (8 investigations that found NOTHING) Benghazi tragedy. Now Clinton says Trump doesn’t have the discipline. Accomplishments again.

9:23 – Trump can’t resist interrupting with another lie about economic growth.

9:28 – Clinton says expected things about SCOTUS. Trump wants Scalia II, is staying with a safe answer. Claims he’s self-funding his campaign, now slips in intimation of corruption of Clinton, where she may not get a chance to retort. She fails to retort to the corruption problem.

9:33 – Fossil fuels question, Trump wants to safeguard an industry that is poisoning the atmosphere. Oh, Clean Coal will make everything gold plated again, will it? This guy’s so dumb. Now he’s naming states that are suffering – also battleground states. Clinton returns the mud slinging, accuses China of dumping steel and Trump is buying it. Now talks about energy independence, and mentions her plan and climate change – thank goodness. Says she has a plan to revitalize coal country.

9:35 – hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Question of the night – what does each respect in the other. Clinton respects Donald’s children. Really? From what little I’ve read they sound like idiots. Trump thanks her. He respects that she never quits, never gives up, she fights hard.

Did they shake hands at the end? Apparently they did.

Jane Chong on Lawfare tries to use two myths about Trump to explain his stubborn popularity:

Let’s start with the more familiar first myth: that Trump tells it straight. Perversely, Trump’s inability to control his tongue or his tweets has helped foster the illusion that does not shrink from the truth, however inconvenient or politically incorrect that truth. Never mind that, according to every fact-checker out there, his dishonesty is off the charts. He is willing to say legally and morally unjustifiable things, the thinking goes, but that just attests to his honesty; only a candid candidate unafraid of prevailing social and political mores would give voice to such positions.

The second, lesser-memed myth, that Trump will do what it takes, works much the same way. His eagerness to blame America’s security problems on supposed outsiders, from Mexicans to Muslims, and to propose impracticable, unlawful, morally unconscionable security “solutions”—from rounding up the children of undocumented immigrants to doing “a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding”—appeals to voters who believe this behavior suggests not a chemical imbalance or blatant disregard for the Constitution but courage. The very extremity of these ideas ostensibly reflects his willingness to make the hard choices that must be made to protect America.

And a willingness to blame the Other, rather than ourselves. From a food export policy that tends to ruin our neighbors’ farms to a corporate culture which fails to return the loyalty of workers to corporate interests, a lot of our pain is self-inflicted – if not always obvious. It reflects the American myth that we’re the select of God, and the simple minded belief that this makes us mistake-proof – when the real problem is that, if there is a God and he’s elevated the United States, well, think about it. Elevated.

It makes for a long way to fall when you disappoint.

Vincent Price is as smooth as ever in The Tingler (1959), a wickedly convoluted tale containing an original idea about the source of screams – and death – in the highly frightened. The movie teems with characters who are not what they seem to be, from a mad scientist to his wife to the grey little theater owner. Heck, as the projectionist struggles for his life in his 20 seconds of screen time, I expected to discover some startling new facet to the plot – and about him.

But the writer was wise enough to realize his original idea was not the true center of the story, but rather a pivot on which to tell a real story – or two – about dysfunctional families. For those possessed of precise minds, this tale may enmadden, for vagueness and ambiguity command this landscape – is the long hours of the scientist to blame for his family, or his wife’s vulgar narcissism? The opening scene signals this long, long theme, as Vincent is berated – in a friendly fashion – by an attractive young woman. His lover, daughter, friend, what? All those guesses sets a tone that dominates as more and more surprises unfold – the uncertainty of perception, a good pairing with a mad scientist.

Eventually, amidst all the human monsters we make the acquaintance of the promised monster, and for those conditioned by current visual standards of Hollywood, there will be disappointment in the rubber thing pursuing its prey. This is a false disappointment. The relatively crude depiction of the monster serves to remind us that the most apparent monsters are often the most impotent, and the most insidious are those we never even notice.

Until they merge into one.

The movie isn’t perfect, of course. There’s a plot hole in that it seems everyone knows what is meant by The Tingler, and unless I missed something, or a scene was cut, it doesn’t make sense – unless it’s a reference relevant to the 1950s, but not to now. And the insertion of scenes from a silent movie at certain points seemed a little longish and nonsensical; I never really connected them to our movie, unless it’s a movie-within-a-movie analogy of some sort.

But the acting was very good, staging good, script excellent, dialog passable…

Recommended.

We were out for a walk and saw this tree, briefly illuminated by the setting sun..

And this is one of our coleus…

For the last few months I’ve been grinding my teeth (along with, I’m sure, most of America) every time a politician “apologizes,” and the latest example of Mr. Trump’s exceptional crassness has put me over the top. You know this devious apology form:

If I’ve offended anyone, I apologize.

If you take this apart, this really means nothing. Apologies, as our mothers and fathers taught us, are about acknowledging a mistake, making clear that your offense is your fault, and that you will do better in the future. If I’ve offended anyone, I apologize. In the final analysis of this limp phrase, it’s a disavowal of responsibility for the impact of one’s behavior, and, in fact, shifting the blame from the person committing the offense to the person who has been offended.

The victim becomes the perpetrator in an honest reading of this despicable sentence.

Worse yet, for those who approve of the offensive behavior, it becomes a signal that it’s really OK. Just weasel-word your way out of it if you’re caught. Here’s the code-phrase.

With all this in mind, all these politicians need to be reminded of how a real adult apologizes. Remember your parents’ voices as you recite this with me:

My behavior was offensive and not appropriate for our society. This is my responsibility, and I apologize for offending my fellow Americans; further, I promise that I will do better in the future.

And then you do better in the future. That’s being American.

Modify as needed for the situation, but keep the central spirit of recognizing a mistake, taking responsibility, and promising to do better in the future. It treats the offended as a fellow human, recognizes we can all make mistakes, and appeals to the traditional American narrative of redemption.

But redemption only comes to those who really follow through on their promise.

As summarized by Science Magazine, life on Earth subsists in one of two ways: conversion of light via photosynthesis into an energy form which can be stored as a hydrocarbon, which can then be used later via oxidation, OR by simple theft – i.e., eating other organisms and stealing their stored energy in the process.

Now we have a report of a third way – using radiation:

Source: NASA

[Desulforudis audaxviator] takes a third path: It draws its energy from the radioactivity of uranium in the rock in the mine. The radiation from decaying uranium nuclei breaks apart sulfur and water molecules in the stone, producing molecular fragments such as sulfate and hydrogen peroxide that are excited with internal energy. The microbe then takes in these molecules, siphons off their energy, and spits them back out. Most of the energy produced from this process powers the bacterium’s reproduction and internal processes, but a portion of it also goes to repairing damage from the radiation.

I think it’s important to note that this is not a direct interaction with radiation, but rather taking advantage of a result of radiation – in a sense, the molecular fragments, fraught with internal energy, are the primary actors, and the process which produces them – radiation – is primarily important only in that it produces these fragments, although there is a secondary importance in that it can damage Desulforudis audaxviator in the process.

The Science article goes on to note that cosmic rays could take the place of uranium-based radiation on the surface of a planet dissimilar to Earth, thus giving organisms on those planets a shot at life, and this is exciting for exobiologists. I think it also gives exobiologists another way to consider how life might find ways to survive – thus leading to new tests as we explore Mars, Europa, and other potential harbors of life.

Reporters Without Borders maintains a list of “Enemies of the Internet,” and the United States occupies a spot on that list, which I suppose should be unsurprising in the wake of the Snowden disclosures:

In June 2013, computer specialist Edward Snowden disclosed the extent of the surveillance practices of the U.S. and British intelligence services. Snowden, who worked for a government sub-contractor and had access to confidential documents, later exposed more targeted surveillance, focusing on the telecommunications of world leaders and diplomats of allied countries.  Activists, governments and international bodies have taken issue with the Obama administration, as the newspapers The Guardian and The Washington Post have revealed the extent of the surveillance. The main player in this vast surveillance operation is the highly secretive National Security Agency (NSA) which, in the light of Snowden’s revelations, has come to symbolize the abuses by the world’s intelligence agencies. Against this background, those involved in reporting on security issues have found their sources under increasing pressure.   

The U.S. edition of The Guardian is still able to publish information from Edward Snowden, while the British edition is not, but the country of the First Amendment has undermined confidence in the Internet and its own standards of security. U.S. surveillance practices and decryption activities are a direct threat to investigative journalists, especially those who work with sensitive sources for whom confidentiality is paramount and who are already under pressure.

They go on to detail the role of the NSA, Snowden, FISA, and other items (my favorite name: The Five Eyes Alliance). Naturally, RWB looks at events from its own perspective, with its own priorities, which for journalists includes confidential sources – which the United States officially often hates. So I suppose it’s no surprise that we’re on a list that includes unsavory countries such as North Korea, Cuba, and Russia.

Nothing amazing, just some pictures.

Charlie Dunlap on Lawfare reviews Rosa Brooks’ How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything: Tales From the Pentagon:

Though subtitled “Tales from the Pentagon,” this book is not some sort of mindless “tell-all” by a former government official. Instead it’s a thoughtful analysis of national security in a capacious sense, as seen by a former journalist turned Georgetown law professor turned Pentagon official turned defense thinker. How Everything Became Waris one of those rare books in which there is no part not worth reading; moreover, it addresses an astonishing number of issues for a volume of this length. You’ll learn about such diverse security issues as piracy, military detention, our strategic deafness about Africa, stability operations, drones, covert operations, cyber, nonlethal weapons, the militarization of foreign policy, and much more.

The wide range of topics in the How Everything Became War is perhaps less for its own sake than to point to the interconnections between them, and also to show the structure of national security decision-making on a day-to-day basis and the many offices of government and officials—far beyond simply the Department of Defense and a handful of intelligence agencies—involved in making them. These are weighty topics, but the book proceeds in a deceptively easy narrative tone, revealing Rosa’s skill’s as a journalist. It opens, for example, with an account of sitting in an “anonymous Pentagon conference room … listening as briefers from the military’s Special Operations command went over plans for an impending strike against a terrorist operative.”

I’ve put it on my Christmas list.

A reader responds regarding our own terrorists:

Far too sophisticated a discussion for typical law-and-order types, or everyone should have a gun types, etc. etc. In fact, it’s a very good argument for extremely strict gun control — it’s much harder for a lone wolf to cause mayhem if he can’t acquire an arsenal of guns.

Sadly, that’s not necessarily true. Guns are the sexy way to do it – but driving a vehicle into a crowd can produce breathtaking casualties as well.

From the mailbag comes this dubious suggestion:

Why didn’t we think of this? A lot cheaper as well as you can tell who is guilty and who is innocent as for as their presence at a riot that gets out of hand.

Don’t you just love it?

The Israelis have done it again
This should be standard riot control equipment for all law enforcement agencies.
Great idea? Watch the video link at the bottom.

Forget the wall; just put sprayers all along the southern border with sensors.

Might have saved lots of store fronts in Baltimore and Ferguson……….

The U.S. needs to get some of this for the looters in any out of control demonstrations.

Israelis crowd control method…..
NOW WE ARE TALKING….BRILLIANT

Skunk spray! Leave it to the Israelis to come up with this ingenious crowd control method! For those who want less violent means used in handling protests, this seems to be the perfect fit. This is a riot control weapon that really works. It’s a non-toxic, non-lethal, but very effective. The Palestinians want it banned because it makes them feel degraded. I wonder how long the aroma lasts on a demonstrator. Looks like these guys may be eating outside for a while rather than around the family dinner table. Great stuff; the Israeli biomedical engineers have done it again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4_XZE3r3oU&authuser=0

Here’s the problem I have with using this against Americans.

They’re Americans.

This makes some sense for what is basically two countries with low-level hostility toward each other, even if Israel officially doesn’t really like the idea of a two state solution. Harmless but foul – if they’re not your citizens. I can see arguments for and against.

But the author of this email is advocating this as a way to break up American protests, and protests happen for a reason. The author of this email doesn’t see a protest as a legitimate form of communication with governments that sometimes need a good slap upside the head; for this writer, all protests are just an irritant, the protesters illegitimate. Well, sorry, but protests are a very important part of the political scene, and if they irritate you, maybe that’s the point. Maybe it’s good for you.

And the reference to looters – as if this happens every day of the week in America. No, it doesn’t, and it’s huge news when it does every few years. Is the writer advocating equipping every police force in the country with this equipment for events that so very rarely happen?

At what ruinous cost?

Is this guy an idiot?