Category Archives: Uncategorized

Lucas Aguirre of Argentina does some interesting computer art, which reminds me of dreams sometimes:

His blog is here, his Facebook page is here. Some commentary is here on Artnome.

Erick Erickson has an interesting observation to explain former President Trump’s popularity with the base:

“If you elect us, we will repeal Obamacare,” Republicans claimed in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. Each victory brought a goalpost shift. Ultimately, the GOP never got rid of Obamacare. The same happened with Planned Parenthood. Despite Republican control, reconciliation processes that bypass the filibuster, and Republican presidents, Planned Parenthood funding remained.

Republicans are used to the kabuki theater their politicians engage in. The stylized performance, boastfulness on the campaign stage, and campaign ads and mail pieces inevitably lead to impressive speeches and theater in Congress before the inevitable and foreordained failure to keep promises. The epilogue is excuse making and blame.

Republican voters fell for it repeatedly and ultimately both caught on and empowered one man to burn it all down. Donald Trump, in 2016, got elected and did force through some changes to Obamacare and then, by executive order, finally took on Planned Parenthood. The enduring loyalty the Republican base has for Donald Trump can best be understood as Trump kept his core promise — to fight back and gut the Republican established [sic] that both denied its own existence and perfected ritualistic kabuki theater always designed to impress and always designed to fail.

I do remember speculation from twenty years ago that the Republicans were stringing single-issue voters along with constant promises concerning their issues of concern, chiefly abortion. It’s worth noting that Erickson is silent on another issue that animated the conservative base: gun control. The current lax laws, regulations, and Constitutional interpretations certainly would contaminate his thesis if he were to permit his reader to think about them.

And, if he did, then he’d be back to admitting that his fellow travelers have lost their way, having fallen in love – sort of – with a chronic practicioner of mendacity. This he’s come perilously close to doing several times, and I don’t read much of his material.

But his observation is an interesting factor in this soap opera we call American Politics.

I’m a little more skeptical of his prediction, though:

Democrats are engaged in the kabuki theater of foreordained defeat right now. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and President Joe Biden are promising to bring HR1, the Democrats’ progressive largesse of a voting reform package, for a vote. The filibuster is in the way so they are pledging to scrap that too. …

Ask yourself one question — do Democrats want federal taxpayer dollars funding the campaign of QAnon sympathetic Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene? HR1 would require federal dollars subsidize political campaigns. Do you really think Democrats who vilify Greene at every opportunity want to fund her campaign? HR1, written largely by progressive activists, is a grab back of many unworkable and publicly unpopular proposals. But progressive activists love them all.

Look, I’m not privy to Democratic plans, and while I’m an interested observer of Senate politics, I really am a bit clueless when it comes to questions that are mystifying even professional observers, such as the almost forced naivete of Senators Manchin (D-WV) and Sinema (D-AZ) when it comes to the results of the current phone-it-in-filibuster, much less the abolition of the traditional majority wins rules of the Senate, as designed by the Founding Fathers.

And I’ve noticed that Democratic propaganda can get a little hysterical as well.

But in evaluating Erickson’s claim, I know a few things:

• Erickson tends to get a lot of predictions wrong;
• He forgets that Greene’s district is, by last measurement, deep red, and probably still is despite the January 6 insurrection and Greene’s absurd antics since her election, so giving her money is a no-op in great scheme of national politics;
• The particular provision he frantically points at could easily be a negotiations sacrifice;
• He’s once again forgetfully – maybe – morally equating the Democratic political machine with the Republican machine, omitting the observable fact that the latter is lead by Mr. Mendacity and has such dubious fourth-raters as Gaetz, Greene, Boebert, Gohmert, Gosar, Hunter, Collins, Bachmann, McConnell, Ryan, and many others as either current members of Congress, or felonious alumni. While the Democrats doubtless have a few malcontents in Congress as well, they’re neither as numerous, it appears, more discrete – or they change parties when they must, like this chap.

So I’m a little doubtful that the Democrats are leading their base on. It could be true. But I think the Democratic base is not nearly as well trained to swallow rank nonsense as the Republicans.

And this made me hoot with laughter:

Democrats will inevitably have hell to pay from their base as Republicans did. The difference between them and Republicans is Trump was actually far closer to mainstream America than the far left. That gives the GOP one more advantage moving forward even if the press and Democrats cannot admit it.

It’s one of those irrelevant remarks that is both false and insulting to the American electorate. The Great Liar has little relation to the voter in the trenches.

Ashlar:

Much of the Inca’s work on Machu Picchu, though impressive, is inconspicuous. Ken has estimated that 60 percent of the construction is underground. But what first strikes the visitor is the exquisite stonework of the city’s most elegant buildings. Without mortar, using a technique called ashlar, the Inca fit finely carved granite stones together with such precision that a piece of paper cannot be inserted between them. Bingham called one side of the Temple of the Sun, a long stretch of perfectly spaced rectangular rocks, “the most beautiful wall in South America.” [“How The Inca Built Machu Picchu“, Cody Cottier, Discover (May 18, 2021)

An example:

Source: Wikipedia

A bit of guilty schadenfreude on my part, I fear:

When another boat began circling their vessel in a lake on Memorial Day weekend, a group from Washington assumed they were trying to signal support for their gay pride flags.

But then someone on the other boat flipped a middle finger and yelled something about “gays” and “flags,” a passenger on the boat said. So the group started recording in case the situation escalated.

It did — but not how they might have expected.

Moments later, the other boat burst into flames, forcing its passengers to jump into the lake — and leaving the victims to become rescuers as they filmed a moment that turned into a viral video this week. [WaPo]

Sadly, I fear the Divine’s attempt at a teachable moment was a flop:

“The passengers were quite rude, shouting over us, ignoring my [inquiries] about their well being when on the 911 call and smoking a Vape pen on our boat without even so much as asking if they could; several passengers of our boat have asthma,” Robbie told The Post.

Eventually, police arrived to extinguish the flames. The rescued boaters left to jump on a friend’s vessel without saying thank you, Robbie said.

Haters with no class, I fear.

When I was young, I thought term limits were a good idea.

I’ve since changed my mind. For years now I’ve suggested that losing accumulated experience for no particular reason other than length of tenure seemed like a waste of hard-won skills and talents. If a member of Congress is unworthy, then the voters should recognize that and kick them out. That is the job of the voters, after all, and term limits is a usurpation of the voters’ rights.

I say this as a lead-in to this reporting:

Norm Ornstein, a political scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, says term limits might bring in younger senators — but also politicians less interested in legislating and more interested in advancing themselves. That means the real power effectively ends up in the hands of staffers and lobbyists.

He points to California, which enacted state legislature term limits in 1990 and in 2012 modified them to create a lifetime maximum of 12 years.

“The whole idea was to channel ambition in a different way: If you’re only there for a limited period of time, you’re going to be more focused on doing the right thing,” he says. “The reality is exactly the opposite: What ends up happening is you channel ambition in exactly the wrong way. There is less interest in institutional preservation or maintenance. Why would you do something that benefits an institution that you’re going to be leaving? You want to do something that has a big splash now so that you can use it to move to your next job.”

Ornstein is concerned about the loss of institutional memory and relationships (especially in the Senate) if members would be limited to two terms. Critics of term limits point to Ted Kennedy, who served 46 years and did most of his important legislation during his last terms. Or they cite Bob Dole and Joe Biden, who did significant work throughout very long careers. [WaPo]

I might also note that in a term-limit world, there is less motivation to become better at your job, since it’ll be disappearing soon enough. If we want a really amateur Congress, then term limits is the way to go. Then, for the conservative reader, the ‘deep state’ becomes ever more important.

Those purple irises are having their three or four days in the sun. Fortunately, sometimes they choose to swing with the orange azalea.

For those who wondered, in the race to replace former Rep Deb Haaland (D-NM) after her move to Secretary of Interior, the winner is Melanie Stansbury (D-NM).

On Tuesday, Democratic state Rep. Melanie Stansbury easily defeated Republican state Sen. Mark Moores by 25 percentage points in a special House election in New Mexico for Interior Secretary Deb Haaland’s old seat. [FiveThirtyEight]

This suggests that the observed thesis of her opponent, Mark Moores (R-NM), that Stansbury backed weakening law enforcement & punishment, aka fear-mongering, did not prove effective. Still, it’s worth considering the alternative hypothesis that independents are not willing to trust Republicans regardless of their opponents, but as FiveThirtyEight points out that this is the fourth special election of the cycle, and that, if anything, traditional margins are exaggerated in both directions, it’s probably more wishful thinking. The New Mexico district is heavily Democratic and voted hat way. The Republican tactic didn’t work in a Democratic district. It tends to say fear-mongering is ineffective, at least in New Mexico’s liberal districts, but generalizing to competitive districts nation-wide is probably premature.

Rep Peter Meijer (R-MI) over the weekend:

And then there are those who take this sacrifice for granted, waxing patriotic while salivating for civil war. Claiming they need to destroy the Republic in order to save it in the ultimate betrayal of oaths sworn. Those treacherous snakes can go straight to hell. (2/3)

— Rep. Peter Meijer (@RepMeijer) May 31, 2021

I can only hope the ears of Greene, Gohmert, and a few others caught fire.

Nature is reporting on he long term results of a scientific hoax tool:

Nonsensical research papers generated by a computer program are still popping up in the scientific literature many years after the problem was first seen, a study has revealed¹. Some publishers have told Nature they will take down the papers, which could result in more than 200 retractions.

The issue began in 2005, when three PhD students created paper-generating software called SCIgen for “maximum amusement”, and to show that some conferences would accept meaningless papers. The program cobbles together words to generate research articles with random titles, text and charts, easily spotted as gibberish by a human reader. It is free to download, and anyone can use it.

By 2012, computer scientist Cyril Labbé had found 85 fake SCIgen papers in conferences published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE); he went on to find more than 120 fake SCIgen papers published by the IEEE and by Springer². It was unclear who had generated the papers or why. The articles were subsequently retracted — or sometimes deleted — and Labbé released a website allowing anyone to upload a manuscript and check whether it seems to be a SCIgen invention. Springer also sponsored a PhD project to help spot SCIgen papers, which resulted in free software called SciDetect. (Springer is now part of Springer Nature; Nature’s news team is editorially independent of its publisher.)

Sometimes it seems like the world is collapsing into chaos, doesn’t it? And why does it have to center on my field?

… the researchers identified 243 nonsense articles created entirely or partly by SCIgen, they report in a study published on 26 May1. These articles, published between 2008 and 2020, appeared in various journals, conference proceedings and preprint sites, and were mostly in the computer-science field. Some appeared in open-access journals; others were paywalled. Forty-six of them had already been retracted or deleted from the websites where they were first published.

Maybe humans shouldn’t be allowed to do anything that requires being responsibility.

It occurred to me today that to apply the adjective amazing to anything a Divinity allegedly does is a gross misunderstanding of what it means to be Divine.

That is, nothing a Divinity does is amazing.

Because, for a God, that amazing thing is everyday.

So Divinities are not amazing.

Over the weekend, the Democratic contingent in the Texas Legislature used a last resort measure to abort more restrictions on voting by the GOP:

Texas Democrats on Sunday night used every parliamentary tool at their disposal to effectively kill a bill that would add new restrictions to elections in the state, ultimately staging a walkout to prevent a vote from being held before a midnight deadline. [NBC News]

How bad are the restrictions? Steve Benen thinks they’re fairly awful:

Republicans in the Lone Star State went to great lengths to craft a bill, negotiated in secret, that attacked the franchise in a multifaceted way, making it more difficult to cast absentee ballots, while curtailing early voting, banning drive-through voting, empowering partisan poll watchers, and even discouraging Texans from transporting voters to polling places. The common thread tying together nearly all of these provisions was an unsubtle attempt to make it harder for Black and Latino voters to participate in their own democracy.

What’s more, Republicans also included provisions to make it easier for state judges to overturn election results, inviting future electoral crises. For all intents and purposes, the proposal was designed to move Texas away from democracy itself.

Without having read proposed legislation myself – and perhaps gotten a law degree and a degree in philosophy – it’s hard for me to say if they’re awful or just bad. However, in view of the circumstantial evidence of

1. no evidence of systemic fraud;
2. a GOP full of doubtful characters;
3. a GOP which didn’t even bother to craft an agenda for the 2020 elections – they literally took the 2016 version and stamped 2020 on it, from what I’ve read;
4. a GOP committed to its own infallibility, meaning modifying its policies is now considered anathema

I’m inclined to believe these are the actions of a Party that, not knowing how to appeal to an increasingly skeptical electorate, and convinced that its political tenets are holy and good – and, in some ways, that’s a literal belief, not an analogy – is becoming frantic to shape the rules to favor it and its agenda, rather than sell its agenda to the voters – and modify it as necessary.

I wouldn’t take the assertions of such pundits as Erick Erickson that the Democrats are engaged in hypocrisy too seriously, as he wishes to see this somehow equated to a filibuster. But let’s stipulated to it. Then we realize that when in the midst of a game in which the rules are not changing, one does not put aside a tool or rule just because it may be repugnant in another arena or context. Crippling oneself is not a virtue.

Finally, I found King Governor Abbot’s (R-TX) reaction a trifle autocratic:

Democrats vowed to continue to fight a Texas bill that would add restrictions on voting as Republican Gov. Greg Abbott threatened to cut off funding for the Legislature if they do so.

“I will veto Article 10 of the budget passed by the legislature. Article 10 funds the legislative branch,” Abbott tweeted Monday. “No pay for those who abandon their responsibilities. Stay tuned.” [NBC News]

While fans of hardball politics may argue that the Emperor Abbot is perfectly within his rights to call a special session and threaten the pay of the legislators, they forget that legislatures are not paid to kow-tow to the Governor; they are paid to exercise their best judgment. Financial coercion is a corrupt approach to politics. The Democrats chose to pay the cost of terminating the Legislative session prematurely, meaning certain of their legislation was not given final votes, in order to abort voting restrictions that they consider beyond the pale.

Abbot and his cronies didn’t get what they wanted? Tough shit, buds. The Democrats played the game by the rules and the GOP should just swallow the rocks they were handed. Calling a Special Session is just as pathetic as Trump whining, without evidence, that the election was stolen from him.

Punishing legislators for doing their jobs is corruption.

In a quiet corner of St. Paul is this Civil War memorial, and these are the four sides close up:

A few more shots:

More at Historic Twin Cities.

Naturalistic fallacy:

But, as that letter to Asa Gray shows, Darwin was not the kind to equate the natural and the good; he saw a wasp’s painfully slow execution of a caterpillar as a product of natural selection yet still thought it was a bad thing. (Letting nature prescribe your values—inferring “ought” from “is”—is so famously fallacious that it has a name: the naturalistic fallacy. Darwin’s friend and loudest defender, Thomas Huxley, argued forcefully, in a lecture that was later published as the book Evolution and Ethics, that nature is too cruel to serve as our moral guide.) [“The Truth about Darwin,” Nonzero Newsletter]

From macrotrends comes the China population and population growth rates, both past and projected:

For those of us concerned about the damage population growth does to the environment, this is at least somewhat encouraging. However, for those official who have other responsibilities, though, this is discouraging – or disastrous. However, this graph does not show demographic data that prompted this policy change:

Happy Memorial Day, folks.

It reflects who considers the Middle East to be important to their national interests.

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a member of this guy’s species before.

A lovely link between us and them.

Lord Love A Duck (1966) is a virtually impenetrable satire, according to sources, of California teen culture of the late 1950s and early 1960s. As such, it is a quintessential example of a dated story, a story that depends, to the N^th degree, on the particulars and sensibilities of its era and location; for those of us with no connection to that cultural milieu, it becomes a near-random collection of decisions by characters who bear just enough resemblance to the people of today to leave us reckoning them mad.

Or actors.

And, by the way, Mollymauk.

Ya gotta shake your head at this proposed law:

Members of the PA legislature today voted to fine women who miscarry and force them to fill out this form. This is traumatizing for women experiencing incredible loss. Unbelievable. pic.twitter.com/AAnB79MGy5

— Val Arkoosh (@ValArkooshPA) May 25, 2021

If you’re evangelical, all you can say is that the PA Legislature is punishing women for God’s Decision. Which hardly sounds faithful to me.

Maybe the PA GOP should try talking to someone else besides themselves.

Surmise:

• a thought or idea based on scanty evidence : CONJECTURE
• to form a notion of from scanty evidence : IMAGINE, INFER [Merriam-Webster]

Learn something new everyday. I thought it meant deduction, but no. Noted in “The Wyoming Death Ship: Truth Be Told,” Joe Nickell, Skeptical Inquirer (May/June 2021):

Various words and phrases in the three accounts seem unconvincing as the language of simple outdoorsmen (though not for Gaddis, whose use of the phrase “the vasty deep” shows he knew his Shakespeare [see Henry IV, Part I, act 3, scene 1]). Consider Webber’s “to give vent to,” “assumed the shape of,” “the apparition,” “standing in a circle of close formation,” “covered with hoar-frost which glittered in the rays of the afternoon sun,” and “the Spectral Ship of Death”; Wilson’s “while gazing out upon the swiftly running water,” “the man whom,” “without a sign of animation,” “frost-laden sailcloth,” “what I surmised,” “the frightfully scarred face,” “my supposition is that”; and Heibe’s (as related by Gaddis) “the vapory vessel,” “a scene of horror on the phantom deck,” and so on.

I love the title of the article, and the picture that accompanies it at the link is nice, too.

The field goal attempt is good. The score is now Old Gods, 125, Hebrides Islanders, 2. The referee will be decapitated at end of the game for acknowledging the safety suffered by the Old Gods at the end of the first quarter.
The Old Gods will be penalized for playing an American game on Scottish soil.

The Wicker Man (1973) is a story about the dangers of religion, particularly those that clash. Policeman Neil Howie has to travel to Summerisle, located in the Hebrides, to follow up an investigation of a reported missing young girl. His arrival happens to coincide with an ancient ritual celebrating the Old, or Celtic, Gods, and Howie, a Christian with some strong beliefs of his own, is outraged to discover the islanders are following the Old Gods. Naked children perform rituals, adults are copulating in the fields, and all manner of old-fashioned Christian wickedness seems to be occurring. Even Howie’s position as a policeman seems to draw more amusement than respect.

And that investigation? It’s not going so well. Did the girl exist? Does she now? Is she now in trouble?

Feeling both frustrated at an investigation which runs into dead-ends and jokes at every turn, and a little fraught from the earthiness on display, Howie finally meets with Lord Summerisle in order to arrange an exhumation of a certain grave, a procedure which yields nothing but a dead rabbit. Angry at what he considers a crude joke, Howie learns of the upcoming ritual celebration wherein the islands wear full costumes for the celebration, and becomes certain, from certain remarks he overhears, that the missing girl will appear at the ritual.

And be sacrificed.

And so Howie goes down the rabbit hole, assaulting an islander and taking the man’s costume. Once he’s reached the ritual location, he’s right: little Rowan appears.

She’s not in trouble.

She’s just playing a role.

And Howie finds that, yes, there is a sacrifice to be made.

And the Wicker Man? He’ll be presiding.

It’s Howie’s stiff-necked belief that he’s superior to the islanders because of his Christianity that leads him to disaster. But the islanders themselves have a problem. They had turned back to the Old Gods long before when they had observed their Christian leaders could do nothing to save their crops, and had in fact left in a panic. A sacrifice to the Old Gods that fateful fall, and the next season the crops succeeded.

But now, decades later, the crops had failed; rather than sacrifice one of their own, Howie would fill the role. But Howie has one other important contribution: His shout to Lord Summerisle that he’ll be next when the crops fail again. And Summerisle’s rebuttal No he won’t! is, really, quite impotent.

They might. That is, sacrifice Lord Summerisle.

The Gods, Christian or otherwise, don’t walk among them, demonstrating their power and reassuring the islanders. The islanders can shout into the maelstrom invocations of power, they can try to bribe those inchoate powers which supposedly imbue all with life, with their mad little gifts.

But, in the end, chaos is chaos. Howie may win out, or Summerisle will dominate. But that only speaks to the limitations of humanity, the happenstance that is part of Nature.

And so the movie ends: dark with humanity’s failed vision, so failed that the islanders don’t even realize it. There are no winners, all are losers. All praise Whoever. Because such powers are egotists ….

Effective and surprising, it’s a neat little horror movie, appealing to honest motives and running into humanity’s inherent limitations. The inner animals emerge, to reveal their recognition that to survive, sometimes one must stop at nothing.

And that’s something to gnaw on.

Or something, at least.

I hope readers like close ups.

For those of us who remember the advent of a plethora, a plague even, of malicious websites using the trademark name Viagra illegally to lure the unwary to their financial woes, and don’t know why we’re not still awash in such horrors, Nicholas Weaver of UC-Berkley has a short history:

At the time, it looked almost impossible for foreign law enforcement to combat these operations. These criminals were clearly outside the reach of U.S. law and were sheltered by a Russian government that viewed cybercrime as a profit center as long as the impacts weren’t localized. But the research group I was then a member of showed Pfizer how to eliminate the Viagra spam problem.  …

… Although they drop-shipped products from international locations, they still needed to process credit card payments, and at the time almost all the gangs used just three banks. This revelation, which was highlighted in a New York Times story, resulted in the closure of the gangs’ bank accounts within days of the story. This was the beginning of the end for the spam Viagra industry. One of the major gang operators posted portions of our paper on a Russian cybercrime forum the next day, ending his rant with a gripe that translated to “F***ing scientists, always at it again” and a picture of a mushroom cloud.

Subsequently, any spammer who dared use the “Viagra” trademark would quickly find their ability to accept credit cards irrevocably compromised as someone would perform a test purchase to find the receiving bank and then Pfizer would send the receiving bank a nastygram. In less than a year, the Viagra spam business effectively died, with one Russian cybercriminal remarking, “F***ing Visa is burning us with napalm.” If the criminals’ ability to process payments can be disrupted, so can their ability to operate.

As a society, we also saw the effectiveness of payment interdiction in the first major ransomware epidemic back in 2012 and 2013. Various ransomwares proliferated, including one purporting to involve the FBI. Some of these previous-generation ransomwares would accept either Bitcoin or Green Dot MoneyPaks and targeted retail victims by trying to extort a couple hundred dollars. Fortunately this scheme never metastasized, because Bitcoin was grossly inconvenient (and now can’t even work for small transactions, with each costing nearly $59 as of April 2020). Meanwhile, Green Dot cleaned up its act considerably in response to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and congressional pressure to remedy its role in these criminal efforts. [Lawfare]

And this he connects to the recent use of ransomware and identifies Bitcoin as the financial vector:

Now, a new threat has emerged—“big-game ransomware.” These operations target companies instead of individuals, in an attempt to extort millions rather than hundreds of dollars at a time. The revenues are large enough that some gangs can even specialize and develop zero-day vulnerabilities for specialized software. Even the cryptocurrency community has noted that ransomware is a Bitcoin problem. Multimillion-dollar ransoms, paid in Bitcoin, now seem to be commonplace.

This strongly suggests that the best way to deal with this new era of big-game ransomware will involve not just securing computer systems (after all, you can’t patch against a zero-day vulnerability) or prosecuting (since Russia clearly doesn’t care to either extradite or prosecute these criminals). It will also require disrupting the one payment channel capable of moving millions at a time outside of money laundering laws: Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Currently, there are various methods that can degrade, disrupt or destroy the cryptocurrency space.

“Bitcoin problem.” By the validity of the very nature of that phrase, there is a certain repudiation of one of the foundational piers of Bitcoin, isn’t there? That foundation would be the anti government control of currency. Right now, Bitcoin and its cousins are more or less algorithmically controlled, from generation to ownership, while being geographically insensitive. Only those without Internet access cannot use it, theoretically, although the Chinese will, or are, attempting to limit its use. Servers can exist anywhere and thus appear to be outside of government regulation.

So will this invalidate Bitcoin? As a currency, its popularity is a function of the number and legitimacy of the entities willing to use it for exchanging ownership and consumption of assets; if consumers refuse to use it, or corporations refuse to accept it, it loses value. Consumers can be encouraged or discouraged, as in China, and so can the companies. Without physical destruction of the servers, governments can still cripple it by refusing to permit its use by legit entities.

Although, if they take that tact, what is is to be done if a ransomware incident occurs and the maleficient still demand a Bitcoin ransom? I could see a cyberwar develop in which the goal is to revive the cryptocurrencies themselves. And I could see such a war being successful for those trying to revive the cryptocurrencies, at least so long as Russia remains an adversary with little interest in regulation. The difference between the Viagra incident and the ransomware problem is that the short hairs of the victims are in the grasp of the criminals in the latter scenario, rather than the former, if you’ll permit the my exceedingly crass word play. The Viagra sites were a passive opportunity, and if a consumer chose not to visit then they were safe.

Ransomware is inflicted on its victims and must either be deactivated by the actor or solved by the victim – the latter being very expensive and often a very doubtful exercise, while the former is more or less guaranteed to work – for a price. Weaver draws an analogy with a weakness that he doesn’t address.

Which all leads back to the conclusion that a dependence on computers, monoculture or not, may not be the wise investment that they appear to be. That may be a horrific and contentious conclusion, but it’s one to which I would pay some sober attention.

USA Today seems to have something of an intellectual mess on its hands, as it published a letter from high-schooler Chelsea Mitchell concerning running against transgender athletes – and then edited it to ideological, rather than editorial, requirements. It’s unfortunately behind an expensive paywall, so I can’t verify Limbaugh-replacement Erick Erickson’s statement of facts in the matter:

Last week, Chelsea Mitchell wrote an op-ed in USA Today about the impact to her, as the fastest girl in Connecticut, when biological males were allowed to compete as girls.

One of the things Mitchell wrote was this:

The CIAC allows biological males to compete in girls’ and women’s sports. As a result, two males began racing in girls’ track in 2017. In the 2017, 2018, and 2019 seasons alone, these males took 15 women’s state track championship titles (titles held in 2016 by nine different girls) and more than 85 opportunities to participate in higher level competitions that belonged to female track athletes.

That’s because males have massive physical advantages. Their bodies are simply bigger and stronger on average than female bodies. It’s obvious to every single girl on the track.

…

USA Today has now edited Mitchell’s piece to remove the word “male” with an editor’s note that the use of the word is “hurtful language.”

Mitchell, of course, was talking about biology and the biological differences between the sexes.

And more than just that, according to Erickson.

A quick survey of the web shows this is mostly a conservative issue, but progressive (or at least so I’d think) site Outsports has coverage:

In a fashion befitting the sponsor of the lawsuit — the Alliance Defending Freedom — Mitchell proceeded to mix in the “transphobe’s playbook” I described in a previous Outsports article. In the race Mitchell cited, she lost to two other high school girls, Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood. Both Miller and Yearwood are transgender. Mitchell is cisgender. Mitchell beat both of them to win the state title at 55 meters in 2020.

Throughout the opinion piece she referred to transgender girls and women as “males,” “a male body,” “male runners” and “biological males.” Weaponized misgendering is the first play in the playbook: Immediately sell the point that transgender women are not women.

In every filing by the ADF on this particular case, they engaged in consistent misgendering. They went as far as to try to have the judge in the lawsuit removed because he would not allow the ADF’s lawyers to misgender Miller and Yearwood in court.

Also consider this sentence in Mitchell’s piece: “I am unlikely to succeed, because I’m a woman.” That’s the underlying, and comically false, idea that anti-trans groups also sell: The concept that cisgender women are too inept to compete successfully in sport.

The sport of victimhood is alive and well in the United States. There may be articles that properly address the real and serious questions of cis- vs trans- competition out there, but at least Outsports thinks the question is already settled – and they’re into full cultural warfare mode.

But regardless of whether the word “male” is a hurtful word or just a statement of fact, USA Today should have a commitment to faithfully transmitting the opinions of op-ed writers when they choose to publish them. Words are the primary mode of communications for a newspaper, followed by pictures; one hopes that the authors choose their words with care, hoping to convey the subtle nuances of their thoughts, and thus their precise positions, on the issue at hand. Changing them retroactively, unilaterally or even with permission, distorts those positions and betrays the author.

And the ruination of the code of ethics of editorial publishing.