Unsightly Mental Blemishes

On PrawfsBlog Will Baude discusses the ethics of a practice often used by those going to the Supreme Court – the use of lawyer ghost-writers:

Rumor has it that when a victorious party is trying to convince the Supreme Court not to grant cert. in their case, they will sometimes hire experienced specialists in Supreme Court practice to write the brief in opposition, but then keep their names off the papers, so it looks as if the case remains unexceptional from the respondent’s point of view.

But I’m going to stop right here. When I’m refereeing a fencing bout, I don’t keep in mind who’s fencing – or at least I try not to. I’m simply trying to decide which anonymous fencer has scored each touch according to the rules of fencing.

Similarly, should not SCOTUS be deciding its cases on its merits, including whether or not to accept the case, and not on the identity of the representatives of various parties to the case? Granted, we’re all human – but don’t they at least pay lip-service to this ideal?

Shunpiking:

Shunpiking is the act of deliberately avoiding roads that require payment of a fee or toll to travel on them, usually by traveling on alternate “free” roads which bypass the toll road. The term comes from the word shun, meaning “to avoid”, and pike, a term referring to turnpikes, which is another name for toll roads.^[1] People who often avoid toll roads sometimes call themselves shunpikers. Historically, certain paths around tollbooths came to be so well-known they were called “shun-pikes”.^[2]

Shunpiking has also come to mean an avoidance of major highways (regardless of tolls) in preference for bucolic and scenic interludes along lightly traveled country roads. [Wikipedia]

Encountered in conversation yesterday with my Arts Editor.

And who brought the beer?

The animated movie Igor (2008) breaks up on the rocks of its own plot twist. The primary export of the country of Malaria are the products of its independent Evil Scientists. The class of people known as Igors, complete with humps, are relegated to the jobs of Evil Scientist Assistants.  When an Igor proves inefficient, it is sent to the recycling center to be chopped up for reuse.

We follow an above-average, ambitious but humble Igor who has discovered how to create life. After a couple of his early secretive efforts turn out well, his Evil Scientist accidentally kills himself.  Igor uses the opportunity to go for the big time – creating an immense monster which will defeat all the other Evil Scientist creations at the annual competition, and elevating Igor out of his class rank and into the Evil Scientist rank.

One problem. His monster’s Evil Bone fails to activate, and the subsequent brain wash accidentally results in the creation of… an actress. Who wouldn’t hurt a fly.

The movie hurtles onward, ending in the predictable erasure of the Evil Scientist class and Malaria’s only export (evil), as Igor learns that Evil Scientist status is not really what he wants.

As a plot twist, it’s nice in isolation. The problem is that as a society-wide practice, it’s highly unstable. The practice of assassination appears to be common, and quite honestly this doesn’t lead to a stable, prosperous society. Now, perhaps in a fantasy-parody, it shouldn’t matter. Maybe that’s what the movie creators thought, and proceeded onwards. But the problem is that movies are taken more seriously – even comedies – when the mind perceives that lessons can be learned and new insights gained, and this can only happen in a context which is perceived as realistic in some sense.

And the lessons learned by Igor all go against the culture-wide training of creating and exporting evil. True, we do gain a depiction of evil self-destructing, but as Igor falls in love with his creation, it really brings an inadvertent question to the fore:

How does this society produce babies? If everyone’s suspicious of everyone else, well, what then?  Is it some sort of ritualized rape culture, perhaps reminiscent of that portrayed in Jack Vance’s The Face, in which married couples individually go into their planet’s desert at night, purely to kidnap and ever so politely rape the teenagers of their population?

The more connected the plot mechanism is to the surrounding society, the more leverage it gains; we see the opposite in this story, because the society is really dissolving into an inchoate collection of madness in the back of our minds. As we see the relevance to ourselves retreat, the movie comes more and more to depend on the wry word play of the characters, main and supporting, and it’s not quite up to this gargantuan task, despite some spirited efforts which had my Arts Editor and I groaning (“What, do you think this is the first time I’ve gnawed my legs off?”).

It gets off to a promising start, but the rocks upon which this movie founders is also the foundation on which it is built – if I may mix my metaphors. And that just doesn’t work out.

David Kamper critiques the current incentives of researchers in The Michigan Daily:

Problems have been developing within the world science community, especially in the United States, for the past fifty years. These issues have stemmed from environments at universities and research institutions where the cutthroat settings incentivizes flashy results to improve career opportunities. Additionally, the science publication system has turned into a system remarkably similar to that of Wall Street, where high ranking journals have scientists by the throat, often consolidating the wealth of their organizations and using the science for financial gain, not to benefit the human condition. It is within these confines that science today operates. Science should be about its content and aid to the public, not its monetary impetus.

The observation “… remarkably similar to that of Wall Street …” should send chills up the spines of serious folks everywhere. Science should not be motivated by money, because that pollutes the methods of science. It is impossible to isolate the methods of science from the incursion of incentives – of goals – foreign to science. If the institutions of science are merely focused on making money, then how do the procedures of science which makes it uniquely valuable hope to survive without corruption?

Perhaps a re-examination of science, it’s ideal goals and supporting processes, should be executed, and then that would give ammunition for reforming the institutions which are currently suboptimal. If society thinks science is valuable, then it must be ready to support it in the manner in which it operates optimally – and that doesn’t mean how it makes the most money. If we value scientists who produce reliable research, then our incentives should reflect that; and those scientists who gather mentions on Retraction Watch should be considered the bottom of the dung heap. Other important processes include replication of other studies, peer reviews, removal of journals which do not employ “gold standard” processes, and others.

These processes and incentives have been in place, but I worry that they are slowly being twisted as the private sector mindset invades the educational sector which often supports scientific research. Just being a fan, I don’t have any direct experience with the general education of wannabe scientists – and the private sector values are often pervasive to the point where other sectors’ values are not recognized or known, unless the student happens to come from a family steeped in the tradition.

My reader replies concerning state-based single payer health systems:

It’s all about political will in this case. There’s really no shortage of money, considering how much we waste/spend in other ways. So I believe I’m correct when I say will/way.

I’m also of the mind that the cost, for example, in California would double the state budget. Recall that the point is not just simply cover everyone at today’s exorbitant, extractive insurance rates but rather provide a reasonable base level health care at a more reasonable cost — as well as drive down the cost of delivering health care in general. And note that Medicare has a much lower operating overhead than any private insurance company out there. And I’d never claim Medicare as being a model of efficiency.

There should be significant “cost savings” — money spent in other ways — by providing such universal coverage. They may not materialize in the first 6, 12 or 18 months, and getting to point where they start becoming significant will be a challenge to a state’s revenue/spending balance. But I’m fairly sure that on the whole, covering everyone through single payer will be significantly than what’s spent on health insurance and health care today.

I assume the missing word in the last sentence is “… be significantly less than …”, and I hope that such coverage would be less than the inefficient private market. As one example, lighter use of emergency rooms because folks are getting regular medical checkups would ease the financial burdens which we were having to shoulder prior to the implementation of the ACA.

Unfortunately, as my reader and I share at least some of the same views, it tends to be a monoculture. I am aware of the free market concerns brought up by opponents, as well as concerns which are not as immediate, such as questions of how a single payer system would affect the development of new drugs. It’s a legitimate concern, although in the current market, the worries about development of new anti-bacterials as well as the manufacture of snake anti-venom suggests certain failure as well. But, having dropped my readings in libertarianism several years ago, I don’t know what sort of objections are being raised these days.

I never want this in my nightmares. Unless I AM the monster.

The Angry Red Planet^[1] (1959, aka Invasion of Mars and Journey to Planet Four) concerns the first, disastrous trip to Mars. Mission Control has detected the presumed-lost exploration ship, now in orbit around Earth, and returns it to home base via remote control. Within the rocket they discover the remnants of the crew, and, through flashbacks, one of the survivors offers the story of the trip: the easy flight to Mars, the successful landing, and then the descent into disaster – the eerie feelings, a spectre at the porthole, the wildlife which they kill, and then in turn kills them.

And then the final warning from the masters of Mars to the inhabitants of Earth.

I might also add the boring stereotypes of characters, with the exception of the strong female scientist, wretchedly sexist dialog, the mixture of good and bad science, and, finally, the lack of thematic material, rendering the movie dull on an intellectual and emotional level.

But not all is awful about this flick. The special effects, which I would guess is the stuff of legend within the B-list movie cult, is more than adequate in the case of external views of the rocket (we speculated that it’s simply video of the rockets of the 1950s, played forward and backward), and the scenes on Mars, while perhaps not entirely realistic, were so outré as to excite comparison to avant-garde efforts. Apparently consisting of overexposed film that has been tinted red, the combination of scarlet tone (denoting danger) on landscape and various hideous monsters leaves this audience member wondering if he’s wandered into a painting by Salvadore Dali^[2].

Emblematic of the overall impact of this movie, however, is the lone weapon deployed by the explorers, which, while employed like a laser gun, emits no palpable energy, nor has it gravitas, either metaphorical or physical. Frankly, it looked like it weighed as much an empty toilet paper roll, and its owner’s affection for it is rather creepy.

And so goes this movie. Some interesting flash, but at its core – rotten.

¹This movie seems familiar, but I was unable to discover a previous review.

²With apologies to Emil Ferris.

Seen on a menu for Carol’s restaurant in Blaine, MN:

With and au jus.

Of course, “with au jus” is one of the most common restaurant errors, as au jus translates to with juice. But Carol’s goes one better, as the and should be an.

A cavalcade of errors. Good thing they make good, comfortable food.

Nonplus:

a state of bafflement or perplexity : quandary
… reducing the young man to a nonplus … — Leigh Hunt
… appear to be at a nonplus … — George Borrow
[Merriam-Webster]

Talked about it yesterday with my Arts Editor as one of my mystery words. A mystery no longer. Sorry, dear, there is a present tense.

The conversation of a state-based single payer health system continues:

Congruent with reality was a clever and accurate turn of phrase. However, when I read her article, I paired it with what I know, about what’s going on, and how people behave. It’s not some vast conspiracy on the part of the 1%. But just as with corporations, the sum total of many small decisions result in a general trend towards greed, towards consolidating power, towards amoral and unethical choices, towards grinding the poor underfoot. I happen to think she’s very much — but not solely — right.

Yes. Sometimes I wonder if these individuals who continually are looking to make more money, or consolidate power, might fall into the OCD category of mental illness. Not all of them, of course, but at least some of them. I mean, I’m not impressed with Bill Gates or Sheldon Adelson or George Soros or Warren Buffet – not for their money.

As for state-level single payer, sure, there’s lots of hurdles. I can’t speak for California, not knowing the complexities of their laws. But where there is a will, there is a way. Minnesota could do it alone, perhaps, but a state with 5.5 million people is pretty small potatoes to swim against that current. Clearly any state is NOT going to simply pay for it out of current revenues (hence the example of California that Kevin Drum is really bogus). But if a state said “we cover everyone at a very modest *means-tested* rate” and increased general taxes (income, primarily, but perhaps sales and excise) to do so, it might work.

While I appreciate the impulse of … where there is a will, there is a way, literally it’s not true, and it’s worth recognizing that some dreams are out of reach – and maybe this is one of them.

And I disagree that Kevin’s example is bogus. If you have to double the state budget, as Kevin suggests, that implies a hefty tax jump. A really hefty tax jump. And while I think it’s a proven case that taxes, to a certain point, enhance the economy, there’s also a point where they’re a drag.

If just one state did it successfully, the rest would become dominoes and the Feds would be helpless to stop it.

And turn that around. If one state tried and failed, would that not provide ammunition to the forces opposed to single payer? That would worry me.

I’d like to use the example of the ACA to prove that getting people better care reduces the cost of medical care per capita, and then evolve towards single payer.

As I feared, the left side of the political spectrum is “learning” from the right wing extremists in the GOP who’ve begun labeling  “reasonable” Republicans such as Paul Ryan as RINOs (Republicans in Name Only, in case you’re new to UMB – see the link to Speaker Ryan for more info on both). In reality, it’s a regression to primitive tribalism, wherein each member must demonstrate their loyalty to the tribe through extreme adherence to some arbitrary tenet, or be ejected at high velocity from the safety of the tribe. And who’s the victim?

Kevin Drum!

The single biggest proponent of SB562, California’s single-payer health care bill, is the California Nurses Association. But here’s something I didn’t know until yesterday: the CNA is aggressively using support for SB562 as a litmus test for being a true progressive. The bill is basically unpassable, but it’s being used as a way of whipping up the Bernie wing of the Democratic Party against traitors who fail to support it.

Apparently this applies even to B-list bloggers. I got an email today from Chuck Idelson, communications director for CNA’s umbrella organization, National Nurses United. Here’s how it ended:

Having seen two years of your hatred for Bernie Sanders, it’s not surprising you would be equally hostile to ideas he champions like single payer, but it would be nice if you were a little more honest with your readers, or maybe you can recommend the name of your magazine be changed from Mother Jones – who actually fought for working people – to Milton Friedman, which would better reflect your class sympathies.

I’m not sure what Kevin feels for Bernie – I can’t say I clearly remember Kevin even mentioning Bernie, although I’m sure he has. But I suspect this has more to do with Kevin’s off-hand analysis of the future of SB562, as I just happened to cite in this post. It wasn’t even the bill itself in question, but rather the environment in which it existed, which was existentially hostile.

But the real problem here is the rise of some of the worst elements of politics to the top in the Democrats. For all the finger pointing, neither the left nor the right can claim to be lily-white in family, what with the right being saddled with the National Socialists, while the left has the bloody spectre of Stalin, Mao, and full-throated Communism looking over their shoulder. Neither association is entirely fair to either side, but there they are, and they do serve an important function:

The VoteMatch graphic for Senator Amy Klobuchar.

They illuminate the fact that not all behavioral characteristics belong to one side or the other of the political spectrum. Neither side is pacifist; neither side is inherently violent. We all knows this, really, but it’s worth sitting back and contemplating it. Indeed, it might make sense to construct a two dimensional chart, much like the one used by On The Issues (example to the left), but measuring the tendency to use violence to enforce their political views. That would give us “gentle” Republicans and Democrats in opposite corners, and National Socialists and Soviet Communists in the other corners.

I rather suspect Kevin’s interlocutor would end up in a less than desirable corner. Perhaps they’d even be offended.

It might also serve to provide a platform to refute the latest laughable remarks from the National Rifle Association (thanks to Vox for the transcription):

They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler. They use their movie stars and singers and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. And then they use their ex-president to endorse “the resistance.”

All to make them march. Make them protest. Make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia. To smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law-abiding — until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness.

And when that happens, they’ll use it as an excuse for their outrage. The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth.

I’m the National Rifle Association of America. And I’m freedom’s safest place.

The clenched fist of truth? Perhaps the NRA is transforming into another half-baked militia outfit – a sad ending for a once honorable organization.

The long time reader will have no doubt long connected this post to one of my bugaboos, which I only just realized was connected – team politics. Enforcement of team discipline is an important facet, and that’s the essence of this clumsy bit of mail to Kevin. It’s an isolated bit of evidence of something that may come true for the rest of the Democratic rabble – no more critiques and creativity, either get in line or out the door with you!

And that’ll really kill good politics in America.

So long as they’re not mobile you’re not in trouble.

And some potted plants.

One of the perennial debate questions among scholars of American government, pundits, and anti-government elements is the extent to which the power of the American President, relative to Congress and the Judiciary, has grown. It’s a serious question, and in my mind breaks into two parts:

1. The legal limitations, which are far more fluid than one might think. In some respects, the limitations are being discovered as Presidents choose to undertake certain actions. For example, was President Obama’s order to strike Libya without prior Congressional approval legal? Of course, in the minds of the hysterics and ideologues, this can get a little out of control. For example, this quote from Mark Levin: “When Obama is not in full Marxist mode, he’s in full Mussolini mode.”
2. The second part boils down to pure politics. How much influence on Congress does the President have? This is a volatile measure, affected not only by the parties controlling Congress and the Executive, but even their tempers of the time. The Republicans since 2000 are a far different, less responsible breed than those of the 1970s. But a President can exert a measure of control over Congress, depending on his influence.

This all came to mind while scanning Steve Benen’s commentary concerning Trump’s desire to privatize many of the functions of the FAA.

Circling back to our previous coverage, yesterday’s developments didn’t come as too big of a surprise. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who chairs the relevant Senate committee, specifically warned the White House that the privatization idea was unlikely to go anywhere. Perhaps Trump thought by throwing his weight behind the proposal, it’d create some momentum for the presidential priority.

It didn’t. The president’s political capital doesn’t really exist in any meaningful sense.

Political capital is another way of describing influence. While politicians are often vilified for lying, in many cases constituents are the victims of the lies, or the predictions that didn’t come out, or the promises which turned out to be unviable. My point is that politicians, good politicians, don’t lie to each other as much.

But Trump? He lies and he lies and he lies. To everyone.

And this has consequences when it comes to influence. Influence is effective when people know that when you say you’re going to do something, you’re going to do it. Even failing, at least you swung at it. But if you’re known as a liar, then you end up on the Disregard List. When Trump changes one position for another because of something he’s seen on TV – on Fox News, no less – then his erstwhile allies, nevermind his enemies, realize that he’s not worth a shit in a fight. He may punch back hard, as he claims, but when it’s 450 lawmakers against one weak President, I don’t care what lies come spewing out of his Twitter account, he will lose. Especially when the Judiciary is unhappy with him.

And, surely, for those Mark Levins and others who worry about the power of the Presidency, this must be a relief, if they’re honest people. Because this makes President Trump one of the weakest Presidents since, oh, Harding? I suppose it’s hard to say. But between his poor international leadership skills and his waning influence at home, which is now mainly made up of what’s left of those who voted for him and are still enraptured by his style, he has little true political influence.

And, given the strong persona he projected during the campaign, this would greatly upset those supporters, if they could only sit down and think about it.

Noticed in our alley, again. Maybe I’m the only one who thinks these are interesting.

My Arts Editor doesn’t much care for pictures of trash.

Graph of a non-linear system.
Source: NROC

Ever heard of the butterfly effect, when a miniscule change in an input to an algorithm results in monstrous changes to the outputs? This is an example of a non-linear system. WaPo’s Wonkblog has a report on two recent studies of Seattle’s raising of its minimum wage to $15/hour, and how those two studies came to different conclusions:

When Seattle officials voted three years ago to incrementally boost the city’s minimum wage up to $15 an hour, they’d hoped to improve the lives of low-income workers. Yet according to a major new study that could force economists to reassess past research on the issue, the hike has had the opposite effect.

The city is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They’ve cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found.

The costs to low-wage workers in Seattle outweighed the benefits by a ratio of three to one, according to the study, conducted by a group of economists at the University of Washington who were commissioned by the city. The study, published as a working paper Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, has not yet been peer reviewed.

While on the other hand …

“I think they underestimate hugely the wage gains, and they overestimate hugely the employment loss,” said Michael Reich, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley who was part of a group that published its own study of the minimum wage in Seattle last week.

Reich’s study uses more conventional methods in research on the minimum wage, relying on a publicly available federal survey. His group’s data did not allow the researchers to distinguish between high- and low-wage workers at a given firm, but they were able to separate large firms’ locations in Seattle from those outside the city.

Their results from the University of California accorded with past research. The minimum wage increased wages for workers in the restaurant industry, without reducing employment overall — in contrast to the findings from the University of Washington.

Past research (Card & Krueger, 1994, with replications) had suggested that raising the minimum wage brought more benefits than costs for the average worker, just to round out the background.

The balance of the entry discusses, with a lot of hand waving, the differences in methodology and how that may have caused the two studies to come to divergent results. I shan’t go over them, as I don’t really have the qualifications. What interests me is two things.

First, the entire question of minimum wage and raising it strikes me as an instance of a non-linear system. In one situation, some small factor of value X may make raising the minimum wage a non-sequitur – such factors as the mix of businesses, the schooling available to the working poor. And then there’s the measurements themselves, just to gum up the works.

Secondly, there’s the politics. Ideologues are notoriously blunt objects, willing to bash themselves bloody to remain true to their principles. Non-linear systems, though, rarely behave how the ideologues want them to behave, for ideologues are unsubtle people. But that won’t stop them, and they’re the ones in power these days, at least on the GOP side of things. We can look forward to a lot of banner waving and proclamations of victory in the light of this study – with little reference to the more important academic battle (properly, critique) waged on this paper. Indeed, in the unhappy chance that it ends up on Retraction Watch, would the ideologues who celebrated it acknowledge the failure of their paper?

No.

And that’s how you know ideologues are not your friends.

Update: a mention of this paper has already surfaced on WCCO TV, last night. I don’t see the story on their website, but it’s a poor website.

Is it as blue as ours’?

Almost eye-searing.

A reader sends a link in response to the commentary on the GOP’s Senatorial efforts. From that article, “The Real Reason The Elites Keep Killing Single-Payer,” Caitlin Johnstone on Medium:

This isn’t about money, this is about power. The wealthiest of the wealthy in America haven’t been doing everything they can to stave off universal healthcare and economic justice in order to save a few million dollars. They haven’t been fighting to keep you poor because they are money hoarders and they can’t bare to part with a single penny from their trove. It’s so much more sinister than that: the goal isn’t to keep you from making the plutocrats a little less wealthy, the goal is to keep you from having any wealth of your own.

Power is intrinsically relative: it only exists in relation to the amount of power that other people have or don’t have. If we all have the same amount of government power, then none of us has any power over the other. If, however, I can figure out a way to manipulate the system into giving me 25 percent more governmental power than anyone else, power has now entered into the equation, and I have an edge over everyone else that I can use to my advantage. But that edge only exists due to the fact that you’re all 25 percent less powerful than I am. If you all become five percent more powerful, my power is instantly diminished by that much, in the same way a schoolyard bully would no longer enjoy the same amount of dominance if everyone at school suddenly grew five percent bigger and stronger.

Here’s where I’m going with all this: the ruling elites have set up a system where wealth equals power. In order for them to rule, in order for them to enjoy the power of kings, they necessarily need to keep the general public from wealth. Not so that they can have a little more money for themselves in case they want to buy a few extra private jets or whatever, but because their power is built upon your lack of power. By keeping you from having a few thousand extra dollars of spending money throughout the year, they guarantee that you and your fellow citizens won’t pool that extra money toward challenging their power in the wealth-equals-power paradigm that they’ve set up for themselves.

I found myself mumbling, Gosh, I’d be happier with a recording saying just that by Sheldon Adelson. And that was really the problem with that article – where’s the proof? It marks a lot of boxes, it’s congruent with a lot of what we observe happening – but it’s all circumstantial evidence. It ascribes a singularity of purpose to a perhaps diverse group of people. Does Warren Buffet fit into this group? Is Bill Gates good buds with Sheldon Adelson? (Maybe they are.)

It all fits – but it’s not really conclusive. It tastes slightly of conspiracy theory.

As the start of the article, she condemns California State Speaker Rendon for killing a bill providing for single-payer health, claiming this politician, claiming to be a progressive, has been bought by the oligarchs. But Kevin Drum sails in with a load of facts to really spoil the party. Here’s a couple:

Prop 98. Like it or not, California has a school funding law put in place years ago by Proposition 98. It’s insanely complicated, but basically requires that 40 percent of the state budget go to K-12 schools. Using round numbers, if the state budget is $100 billion, school spending has to be at least $40 billion. If state spending goes up to $300 billion, school spending has to be at least $120 billion. Aside from being ridiculous, it also leaves only $120 billion for the health care bill. Oops.

As far as I know, there is no tricky way to get around this. It would have to be dealt with by a ballot initiative. That’s obviously not going to happen in this legislative session.

Waivers. This is the issue nobody pays attention to, but is probably the most important of all. To implement single-payer, California would need $200 billion in new funding plus $200 billion in federal money that currently goes to Medicare, Medicaid, veterans health care, and so forth. Without federal waivers to give California access to that money, the plan can’t go anywhere. As Duke University researcher David Anderson puts it, “If there aren’t waivers, this plan is vaporware.” What do you think are the odds that the Trump administration will grant all those waivers? Zero is a pretty good guess.

Along the same lines, Michael Hiltzik points out that self-funded health care plans are governed exclusively by federal law. That means California would need an exemption from the law. What do you think are the odds that a Republican Congress will grant that exemption? Zero again?

And there’s more. Perhaps Rendon is really just preserving political capital. In any case, assuming Kevin has his facts in a row, I think Caitlin didn’t investigate this subject deeply enough. And it spoils her article more. It really makes me wonder.

Oligarchy:

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning ‘few’, and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning ‘to rule or to command’)^[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people might be distinguished by nobility, wealth, family ties, education or corporate, religious or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term. [Wikipedia]

Noted in “The Real Reason The Elites Keep Killing Single-Payer,” Caitlin Johnstone, Medium:

If you say that America is an oligarchy (and it certainly is, which we’ll get to in a second), you’re not merely saying that there is too much money in US politics or that the wealthy have an unfair amount of power in America. Per definition, you are saying that a small class of elites rule over you and your nation, like a king rules over his kingdom.

An interesting article, incidentally.

A bit of a camera hog – stayed posed for me for a good two minutes, and on a windy day, no less.

Benjamin Wittes wants to find out if the FBI really did hate former Director Comey, as the Trump Administration has claimed – or loved him:

… a thought occurred to me: this is a factual dispute with a large body of objective evidence behind it. When you decapitate an organization like the FBI, managers have to tell their staffs, after all. They do this, I imagine, by writing an email to their staffs. In an organization “in turmoil,” one run by a “nut job,” in whom the rank and file have “lost confidence,” one might expect such an email to have a celebratory flavor, to talk about how the long national nightmare is over, say, or how there’s a great opportunity to restore sanity to the organziation. On the other hand, when a beloved leader is removed by a President in what is seen as an attack on the institution, one might expect an email with a very different tone. The FBI has lots of managers who will have had to send emails to their staffs.

What’s more, like many institutions, the FBI does regular employee surveys that ask employees across the institution about their views of, among other things, its senior leadership. The bureau has been running these surveys for years, so we might expect data from them to reflect on the question of whether confidence in the leadership on the part of the rank and file is increasing or decreasing over time. I suspect these surveys also give employees the chance to comment on things. It would be really interesting to see employee comments, positive and negative, about Director Comey.

So I submitted a series of FOIA requests for this material.

Gotta love it. Probably not meaningful in the greater scheme of things, but will fill out the story nicely. And perhaps boost Comey’s ego.

balaclavas:

A balaclava, also known as a balaclava helmet or ski mask, is a form of cloth headgear designed to expose only part of the face. Depending on style and how it is worn, only the eyes, mouth and nose, or just the front of the face are unprotected. Versions with a full face opening may be rolled into a hat to cover the crown of the head or folded down as a collar around the neck.

The name comes from their use at the Battle of Balaclava during the Crimean War, referring to a town near Sevastopol in Crimea. [Wikipedia]

Noted in this CNN news report about violence in Venezuela:

Before the attack began, a man who identified himself as Perez appeared in a video online saying an operation was underway to seize democracy back from Venezuela’s “criminal government.” Flanked by a group of armed men in military fatigues and balaclavas, Perez claimed to be speaking on behalf of a coalition of military, police officers and civil officials.

The Petya ransomware is upping the ante over its predecessors. Not only do you risk losing your data, you may end up replacing chunks of hardware, as Lawfare reports:

… and this virus is much more vicious.  It overwrites the master reboot record, so you can’t even reload a clean operating system!

Ouch!

A Turkey Vulture with a Turtle Shell.

Jim Henson’s The Dark Crystal (1982) melds the steadfast costume and stage creativity of Henson’s company with a story that is fairly and drearily predictable – for the seasoned story junkie. Jen is the last Gelfling, a species of humanoid form and big ears. As an orphan, he’s been raised by the slow moving and large nature wizards, living in a village. The wizards, driven from their castle ages ago by the monstrous Skeksis, number only ten, and have raised Jen since he was found after the massacre of his people.

Jen’s personal friend and mentor, the greatest of the wizards, instructs Jen to find Aughra, who has a shard of the Dark Crystal, and to use that shard to repair the Dark Crystal residing in the castle before the Grand Conjunction of the three suns of the sky occurs.  Jen’s mentor, bent with age, then dies and rapidly disintegrates, leaving Jen with obscure directions. In parallel, the Emperor of the Skeksis also dies, leading to a succession fight and the exile of the loser. Jen leaves on his quest, and as he does so, the new Emperor catches a glimpse of him through the magic of the Dark Crystal. As the Gelflings are prophesied to destroy the Skeksis, a certain disconcertment runs rampant through the Skeksis community, numbering nine after the demise of the Emperor. The personal guard of the Skeksis is assigned to dispatch Jen.

Jen reaches Aughra’s keep; she is a cryptic creature with a delightful attitude and not enough to do in this movie. As the Skeksis personal guard breaches her defenses, Jen escapes with Shard in hand and Aughra is taken prisoner.

As Jen proceeds toward the castle to complete his repair job, he encounters yet another surviving Gelfling, Kira. Getting to know each other through a mind meld, they agree to work as a team, and they stop at a local village of Podlings, akin to those who saved Kira from the massacre. Midway through their nightly feast, the Skeksis minions attack, but when all seems lost for the Gelflings, the exiled Skeksis appears to call off the guard and permit the escape of the Gelflings.

The Gelflings proceed on their way and reach the castle, even as the nature wizards leave their home for the castle. Various adventures ensue as the Gelflings find their way into the castle, endure a trap from the exiled Skeksis, and find their way to the Dark Crystal. The nature wizards arrive just in time to take advantage of the restoration of the crystal, returning to their former selves as they absorb the Skeksis and take the blame for breaking the Dark Crystal.  All is restored to what it should be.

The delight of the movie is the costumes and puppetry. The Skeksis are a work of art in terms of visual presentation, each a personalized version of a man melded to a foul-tempered vulture. There are too many to recognize each as an individual, but their collective insane rapaciousness certainly marks them as the antagonists. Jen and Kira exhibit more range of personality, if not as intense as the Skeksis, as somewhat painfully naive creatures with unexpected (and far too convenient) powers. The guards are adequately horrifying; the forest creatures are fun. The Podlings are full blown Muppets.

From the moment the nature wizards’ leader and the Skeksis Emperor die in concert, the story is somewhat predictable – at least, for the experienced audience member. For the younger set, though, there’ll be a certain delight in this story, the novel creatures and the basic lesson of Never give up having the usual charm and attraction.

But it’s difficult to say the story is compelling. We watched more for the creature novelty than for the resolution of the story, which we had guessed early on. But more importantly is the lack of interesting thematic material, which is made particularly insipid by the restoration of all to what it should be by the restored creatures at the end. A story like this is better terminated by acknowledging and bearing up under the sacrifices made, with either the faith that all will be better because of it – or even the proof of same. The restoration saps the story of this important lesson.

If you have kids, show them the movie. But you may be disappointed if you’re watching it for its themes. Enjoy the Skeksis, instead.

William Hitchcock reviews “Curtain of Lies: The Battle over Truth in Stalinist Eastern Europe,” by Melissa Feinberg on Lawfare. A book concerning the propaganda facet of the Cold War, William finds the contrast between the inhabitants of Eastern Europe and their search for the truth, and today’s relative disregard for the truth in the search for intellectual & emotional comfort, disconcerting:

And here lies a crucial difference between Feinberg’s period and our own. In the Stalinist era, millions of captive peoples fought hard to sustain the idea that facts and truth existed beyond a world of state propaganda. Eyes and ears, honed by years of practice, learned to differentiate the base falsehoods in the media from plausible truths. Yet in our own era, when Americans are free to say, and read, and believe whatever we wish, millions of us choose to adhere to obvious untruths. From the grassy knoll to the faked moon landing, from Vince Foster to Pizzagate, outlandish conspiracy theories, none of them manufactured by state organs, have nonetheless been canonized as truth across much of the land. Eastern Europeans in the Stalin age yearned for truth and took risks to seek it out. Many people today prefer to hide behind our own curtain of lies.

It’s a little ironic that the winner of the Cold War, the self-proclaimed bastion of truth and goodness, is falling victim to political propaganda – and both sides of the political divide will claim that the other side is the trusting neophyte, of course. But will either side take an honest gander at the other side? While the left certainly earns the disdain of the right through its shitty attitudes, I suspect the right is the guilty party, based on the work of conservative Bruce Bartlett. Go read it, if you haven’t already.

The more comfortable life has become, the more we can indulge in fantasies that satisfy our biases. Only when a bias can become a life or death question will it be excised by the lazy. Even the energetic must work hard to remove them.

The chatter of late has been the fate of the GOP Senate’s health bill, which Senate President is reportedly determined to pass before July 4. Even as I type this, the Congressional Budget Office has released its scoring. Via CNN/Money:

The Senate Republican health care bill would leave 22 million fewer Americans with health insurance by 2026 than under Obamacare, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Monday.

The highly anticipated score answers key questions about the impact of the Senate’s controversial legislation made public last Thursday. The analysis also offers clarity to wavering Senate Republicans on whether to vote for the bill later this week.

The CBO also found the bill would reduce deficits by $321 billion over the next decade.

What are its chances? Steve Benen:

To be sure, every time a Senate Republican raises “concerns,” it should be taken with a grain of salt. Different members have different motivations, and many GOP lawmakers hope to extract some concessions ahead of Thursday’s vote. Don’t assume that every senator who sounds skeptical now intends to follow through with a “no” vote later this week.

That said, the chatter reflects an unsettled landscape, and even the most optimistic voices in Republican politics don’t yet believe there are 51 votes for the bill.

Nate Silver:

On [Maine Senator] Collins: Maine has not expanded Medicaid under LePage, but it has a ballot initiative to do so this November, which will probably pass.

Also, Collins is considering running for governor in 2018. And Maine is a poor state. McConnellcare is not going to be popular there.

Kevin Drum:

Do not believe any prattle about Mitch McConnell “being OK with a loss.” Or about “moderate Republicans” who will vote against it. Or about conservatives who are “revolting.” Or about “desperate attempts” to hold the Republican caucus together.

Next week the CBO will release its score of the bill. They will confirm that it doesn’t increase the deficit. The Senate will debate for a day or two; pass a few minor amendments; and then pass the bill. The vote will be 51-50, with Vice President Pence breaking the tie.

If Paul Ryan is smart, he will simply bring up the Senate bill for a vote and be done with it. It will pass because everyone will understand that this is their only chance. Either vote yes, or else give up on repealing Obamacare and give Democrats a big win.

And the GOP is allergic to giving the Democrats any big wins. Julian Zelizer on CNN takes a different tack:

President Trump, who has never been particularly invested in health care policy, will be happy to drop that issue so he can go on to deregulating and cutting taxes — issues nearer and dearer to his heart. According to the New York Times, McConnell also is much more interested in tackling taxes than dealing with healthcare.

Ironically, as in 1983 with Social Security, this could create an opportunity for Trump and the GOP to strengthen the Affordable Care Act, eventually allowing them to take credit for the program if it works better.

President Trump and the GOP can say they tried to repeal Obamacare and blame obstructionist Democrats for the loss. This could be their theme on Twitter for weeks.

Everything will become a bit clearer when the Senate takes its vote. Who knows? Maybe this has been Sen. McConnell’s real play from the start — let the bill die of its own weight so that Republicans can finally start to govern.

Ezra Klein on Vox already has a handy chart showing the results of the AHCA, compared to the already operational ACA:

For those paying attention, it’s a wonder that it even comes up for a vote. Me? I’m guessing a 50-50 split in the voting, forcing VP Pence to vote for it, which he may regret come 2020. Or even 2018.