Unsightly Mental Blemishes

In view of the GOP‘s violent reaction against the JCPOA (aka the Iran nuclear deal), the apparent close ties between Russia and Iran must be making them doubly uncomfortable, since about half the party seems to think Russia’s completely harmless and is even eligible to interfere in our elections. From Rohollah Faghihi in AL Monitor:

Rouhani first met with Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev. Following the meeting, Rouhani said, “There is no doubt that cooperation between [our] two countries positively impacts stability and security in the region and in the world.” Medvedev described the Iranian president’s visit as a significant step in the development of relations and said it can aid the development of deeper bilateral ties.

On March 28, Rouhani received an honorary degree from Moscow State University and addressed professors and students at a ceremony. “Resolving the issues of today’s world requires cooperation among scientists and governments,” Rouhani said, adding, “The decline of the West’s dominance and the end of the monopoly on wealth is a historic opportunity to build a new world.”

Noting that “there should be a global consensus to root out extremism and violence,” Iran’s president emphasized, “Islamophobia, racism and takfiri [jihadi] ideas have common roots.”

Note how he combines the roots of Islamophobia with takfiri. While the GOP might want to just shrug it off, it may make an impression on those outside of the GOP’s roost.

Also on March 28, Rouhani and Putin held “important” and “intensive” negotiations about regional and global issues as well as about the bilateral relationship. Referring to the 515 years of diplomatic ties between Tehran and Moscow, Putin said, “Iran is a good neighbor and a stable and reliable partner.”

On his part, Rouhani said, “The cooperation between Tehran and Moscow is not targeted at a third country.” He added, “Iran and Russia’s relations are being conducted to enhance stability in the region, and the main intention of the two countries is to strengthen regional peace and tranquility.”

In another year, a less incompetent and controversial Administration, this might get more attention. And it should. The Trump’s Administration’s ties to Russia has now made it an inadvertent, and probably exceptionally reluctant, ally of Iran. It may also put Trump on notice that Putin will not be pleased if he messes with Iran – and the general suspicion is that Putin has something on Trump.

On Lawfare Seamus Hughes and Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens overview the sociology of American jihadi recruitment:

Hussain was always happy to advise potential jihadis on matters large and small. In one case, he provided an Ohio man, Munir Abdulkader, with the address of a U.S. military officer, and suggested that he be killed. Abdulkader relied on Hussain to provide material details. “Make sure the soldier was in Iraq or Afghanistan,” one text stated. “Do you know his work schedule? When he home etc?” said another. Abdulkader went further in his requests: “How do you make Molotov? You have a link? And what’s the knife to use? Sharpest?” He gave Hussain a play-by-play of his surveillance of targets and the supposed ease of purchasing a AK-47. At each step, Hussain was online and encouraging. Abdulkader was arrested shortly after that, having plotted part of his attack with an accomplice who was an FBI informant.

Heavy reliance on IS virtual entrepreneurs’ knowledge and connections is not unique to Abdulkader. Jihadist propaganda has been easily accessible through various online platforms over the last decade, and has played a role in radicalizing Americans. Now, with the advent of numerous social media applications (many of which use encryption technology), a would-be recruit can access real-time support and be given a stronger sense that he is part of the wider movement. This online support therefore sustains and encourages the recruit’s continued participation in the Islamic State.

In the past, American jihadis also sought religious justification and validation for their intended actions from recognized extremist leaders. Now, they can receive this from foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq, who have reached “rock-star” status due to their presence in the Caliphate. Their communications with these virtual entrepreneurs has in many cases been seen to provide them with the affirmation they think they need. The deaths of figures like Junaid Hussain may help stem the number of homegrown attacks and plots, but the experience of the last three years points to an emerging online approach that is likely here to stay.

In other words, a role model accepted with their only requirement being success. Sure, it doesn’t hurt that they’re fighting “for God” – but in any heavily hierarchical environment, it’s easier to recruit someone young to fight for a cause, because they lack prestige. Add in the human brain’s tendency to not mature until the late 20s, and you might as well shoot fish in a barrel.

Ironically, I suspect Trump’s xenophobes will just exacerbate the problem by denying potential jihadis a place in society, as well as a ladder of success, through the promotion of racism. There really is a point to an open, tolerant society – but sometimes I wonder if we all get it.

The lead in Igby Goes Down (2002) is the youngest son of a wealthy New York City couple. He has an older brother (“young fascist”), a father (now residing in a “befuddlement home”), a godfather (“D.H., who is amazing. His mind functions only to make money. He thinks he has everything he could possibly want, so he walks around acting the way he thinks a happy and content man should act. He’s a parody.”), and Mimi (“Why do I call my mother Mimi? Because ‘Medea‘ was already taken.”).

And this is the story of how a boy who witnessed his father’s permanent breakdown handles the pressures of conformity and exacting expectations: by becoming a nihilistic, occasionally funny, contrarian. Repelled by learning, as it only seems to lead to fulfilling Mimi’s expectations, he bounces from incident to incident, occasionally getting laid (gah!), eventually reaching the level of drug dealer.

And then Mimi, ill with breast cancer, announces she wants her sons to kill her.

A sometimes mystifying film, it seems to be a condemnation of the underside of high society, the schemes, the constant pressure to achieve in order to thrive in a society of perhaps dubious value – the single minded pursuit of wealth, and how it can break people in more than one way.

And whether you want to be part of that.

At least he’s not alone.

The initial post on this thread mentioned Representative Chaffetz’ submission of a bill that would authorize the government to sell of public lands, and the public reaction that caused him to withdraw it. Well, Walter Einenkel on The Daily Kos is reporting that, under the cover of fog, Chaffetz is trying again:

Rep. Chaffetz told the public he was “withdrawing” his bill on February 2. Eight days later the bill was referred to a subcommittee. Here’s a refresher on H.R. 621:

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell certain Federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified as suitable for disposal, and for other purposes.

And here’s the early spin, right in Section 1:

(a) Short Title.—This Act may be cited as the “Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2017”.

There’s only one thing “excessive” in our government these days and it’s politicians like Rep. Chaffetz.

It appears Representative Chaffetz is quite the weasel. It appears it might be time to contact your Representative and let them know what you think of this bill.

On Lawfare Andrew Kent discusses the various legal maneuvering involved in General Flynn’s offer of immunized testimony. I found this devious bit interesting:

The immunity statute grants only “use immunity.” An immunized witness before Congress does not get blanket immunity for the entire transaction about which he or she testifies. Rather, no testimony under the court order granting congressionally-requested immunity, “or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony,” “may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.”

Why seek such apparently limited use immunity from Congress? In practice, use immunity can turn into full transactional immunity. It turns out that it can be devilishly difficult for prosecutors in a later criminal case to prove that no evidence they are presenting was “directly or indirectly derived” from immunized testimony before Congress.

The prosecutions of Oliver North and John Poindexter for Iran-Contra crimes fell apart in just this way. Both were granted use immunity by a select congressional committee investigating Iran-Contra, and the public testimony under the immunity grants was televised. In the later criminal prosecutions, the D.C. Circuit ruled that protecting the defendants’ Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination essentially required the prosecution to affirmatively demonstrate that none of its witnesses were in any way affected by that testimony. This proved impossible.

Witnesses can compound the problems for prosecutors by ranging widely in their immunized congressional testimony. If Flynn were immunized by Congress, it would be for testimony about Russia. But a friendly House committee member, say Chairman Nunes, might lead him to talk about his potentially illegal work for Turkey, thereby extending the immunity in practice to that topic.

An unwillingness to take responsibility for bad behavior? Or another Ollie North “I know what’s good for this country!” attitude? Or is this just hypotheticals and General Flynn really wants to dump the dirt on Trump?

Here’s a poke. I swear there’s a pig in there somewhere.

I was hoping she’d end up with just her feet kicking weakly after this crash into a sand pile.

In The House on Telegraph Hill (1951) we have a powerful, subtle plot: A young woman, Viktoria, survives the concentration camp at Belsen, but neither her family nor her best friend at the camp were so lucky. Knowing that her friend has a child, sent to America before Poland was invaded to live with her husband’s family, and now kept by a wealthy branch of the family, Viktoria assumes her friend’s identity during the confusion of repatriation. She travels to America, becomes Karin, tracks down her new family, and soon enough she finds herself married to the man who is the guardian of the now 9 year old boy.

But something is wrong. Her new husband, another member of the family, seems more interested in the fortune inherited by the child; the child’s nanny, Margaret, clashes with her, and yet her motivations are obscure. Is the nanny a lover of her husband? A gold-digger? Neither seems to fit And over everything looms Aunt Sophia, the matriarch of the family, who passed away five years ago, leaving all to the child.

The discovery of an explosion-riddled shed in the backyard enhances the mystery. And then she loses control of her car when the brakes fail, on the hilly streets of San Francisco.

For all the views and family life, important information is doled out grudgingly. So much as Karin is confused and suspicious of her husband and the nanny, as Viktoria she suffers a double dose of survivor’s guilt, feeling she has stolen her friend’s identity.

It all winds up in one frightening night of dead phones, dreadful glances, obscure information … and orange juice.

A strong plot is enhanced by fine acting, adequate dialog, and beautiful views of San Francisco. Especially through the floor of the shed.

Recommended.

I realized yesterday that this will lead to a new class of epitaphs:

John Doe
His password killed him

A terribly sad thought.

Cumbrous:

cumbersome [Merriam-Webster]

Another definition called it a “literary synonym for cumbersome”, which makes some sense in that cumbersome is, itself, a cumbersome word, yet literary fiction yearns for grace. Seen in “The Secret of Hollywood’s Oldest Restaurant? Don’t Change Anything,” Michael Callahan, Los Angeles Magazine:

It seemed as if the restaurant were expecting Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn for dinner: Calf’s liver, Welsh rarebit, sweetbreads, and lamb kidney with bacon were (and continue to be) mainstays. And there is that virtual ocean of beef—Flintstonian porterhouses and bone-in rib eyes, filet mignons in varying sizes, New York steaks and Manhattan steaks and ground beef steaks, all prepared in plain view on the seething Musso grill. From 1922 until 1976, the kitchen was the domain of Jean Rue Sr., a bantam Frenchman whose ego belied his size and who was the driving force behind the cumbrous cuisine. Status was conferred not only by having an assigned booth but bartenders who knew exactly how you liked your drink and chefs who would custom-make your dinner. Years after her husband’s death, Barbara Sinatra would still come to Musso’s to order “sand dabs à la Sinatra” (read: nice and crispy).

I’d drive this.

Source: Electrek

The body is a reproduction of the Shelby Cobra, and the engine? Tesla electric. Unfortunately, it’s a one-off.

Anyone in Detroit paying attention?

More here.

Blogging – at least for me – is in many ways a manner of talking to myself. It’s more discrete than physically muttering to myself in public, as most folks don’t really appreciate the potential facial mannerisms that might accompany such activity. But it also makes no claim to worldly originality. In this post, I talk about a concept of which I’ve never run across in all my reading, but since I don’t do any specialty reading in genetics nor anthropology, I can only say that, on consideration, surely this has been brought up – and possibly roundly dismissed – by many, many scientists much better trained than I.

But I enjoy the act of creative thinking, and the blog provides a place to talk to myself on such topics. I’ve refrained from using the blog for fiction writing, as that’s a messier endeavour than I wish exposed publicly. But this sort of thing – original only in the sense that I came up with it without consciously having read about it – makes it fun for me. I hope you enjoy it as well.

I’ve continued to think about some of the issues I raised and/or sidestepped on this rumination on President Washington’s farewell address, which was mainly concerned with Washington’s exhortation for Americans to attend to their religions. It occurred to me this morning that there’s a rough – perhaps very rough – correspondence between institutions such as various religious sects, as well as, say, Masonic lodges, or even theories of reality, and any other entities concerned with advocated behavior – and genes.

Genes, in modern biological theory, are the carriers, both alone and in combination, for many of our phenotypic (physical) characteristics, from our gross physical formation to the subtle manner in which our brains function. They pass on to our offspring, modified by our mate’s genetic pool, and are also vulnerable to disturbance by the environment, primarily by radiation, but also through some chemicals, as well as even viral intrusion. All these areas are matters of active research.

A gene may have various types, known as alleles, and for my purposes, they can be considered to be in competition with each other. That is, if a gene contributes some feature to the general organism which is important to survival, and a particular allele improves that feature’s performance in the environment the organism commonly finds itself, particularly when it comes to reproduction, then that allele may become dominant within the general population; it’s allele frequency becomes higher, much higher, than its’ competitors’. Contrariwise, an allele which contributes to an inferior feature will have a very low allele frequency, and appear infrequently as a recessive allele, or due to external environmental factors interfering with the genetic reproduction.

As a final point, some alleles simultaneously have negative and positive features in their phenotypic end-point. Perhaps most famous is the allele which contributes to sickle-cell anemia, a blood disorder. Its positive feature? It’s protective against malaria, a parasite.

So let’s draw a rough equivalence between an institution, which might be a religious sect or some other institution advocating a set of behaviors, and a gene. For our purpose, an institution advocates some set of behaviors, both overtly (that is, publicly) and covertly; the two may actually conflict. Additionally, the institution may perform work. As its members join and leave/die, it may be said to reproduce in situ, surviving within the greater organism of society, contributing to the survival of that society through the behaviors and works of its members.

The correspondence between genetics and societal institutions, while rough, is not that rough. Genes may contribute to more than one feature. Similarly, an institution commonly advocates more than one behavior, and may do work as well.

But, for me, the correspondence to alleles is also reasonable and often seen. The societal equivalent? I see a societal gene as a particular type of institution, and the alleles are the various attempts to fill that institution. One example might be medical theories of reality. The dominant allele would be mainstream medicine, its measure of success being the cessation of many illnesses, the abolition of smallpox; the subordinate, inferior alleles would be the various competitors, such as chiropractic, homeopathy, and others of even more dubious merit; an up and coming allele would be evidence-based medicine.

But perhaps of more interest is the overt institutions for moral & ethical behavior. Overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, of a religious nature, the various sects of society compete with each other in the area of teaching and perpetuating various moral theories. The high probability that much of the theory is propounded based on myths and imagination has little impact on the success or failure of these alleles, because, as mentioned in the post on Washington’s farewell address, the question is efficacy, not truthfulness.

Our fidelity to moral behavior is often a dictate of our collaborative success, but only if the morality taught results in effective behavior – society & its members survive and prosper. In a sense, a naive approach would suggest that society is a monstrous calculating machine for calculating the most effective morality.

A more seasoned approach would suggest drawing a parallel to the gene causing sickle cell anemia – the behaviors may be effective to greater or lesser extents, but its origins in unverifiable myths, imaginings, and no doubt outright lies, leaves the adherents vulnerable to unscrupulous sect leaders – and with a temperament to trust them when their response should be “Wait, what?” The calculation of effective behaviors vs personal vulnerabilities becomes non-trivial.

So why is this all interesting to me? Mathematicians (I’m not one) can be quite excited when working on isomorphisms. An isomorphism, if I recall the informal definition from Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (Hofstadter), is a mapping from one domain of values, and a similar mapping back. The excitement comes from realizing that a problem for which no solution is known in one domain may be translated to the other domain, where a solution exists, and the result can be translated back. In similar, if strictly illicit fashion, I’ve roughly shaped an isomorphism between societal facets, if you will, and genes; between societal institutions and the alleles they represent. From that work, we may speculate, given what we know about genes, about how society has evolved: the nature of institutions and, despite insistent nattering on about the eternity of this or that sect, how malleable it has been – and how that has contributed to its survival.

In turn, using lessons derived from the speculations and follow-on research confirming those speculations, we might predict future behaviors of these societal alleles and genes – and replacement institutions which have a more rational basis.

*The visual aspect of this post composed by my Arts Editor. Thank you, dear.

This morning our house suffered an intrusion of monstrous proportion, and a ravishment did occur.

The poor fish will be traumatized forever.

Quotidian:

Of or occurring every day; daily.
‘the car sped noisily off through the quotidian traffic’ [Oxford Living Dictionaries]

Seen in a book review, “How we lost the world-changing power of useless knowledge,” Simon Ings, NewScientist (18 March 2017):

At a time when academia is once again under pressure to account for itself, the Princeton University Press reprint of Flexner’s essay is timely. Its preface, however, is another matter. Written by current institute director Robbert Dijkgraaf, it exposes our utterly instrumental times. For example, he employs junk metrics such as “more than half of all economic growth comes from innovation”. What for Flexner was a rather sardonic nod to the bottom line, has become for Dijkgraaf the entire argument – as though “pure research” simply meant “long-term investment”, and civic support came not from existential confidence and intellectual curiosity, but from scientists “sharing the latest discoveries and personal stories”. So much for escaping quotidian demands.

Steve Benen on Maddowblog has a retort to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’ desire to introduce vouchers throughout the United States, which ricochets by my own interpretation of the problem:

OK, so maybe DeVos’ vision is overly myopic. But so what? Why not treat education and transportation as comparable service commodities?

The answer is that the two have very little in common. If you want to turn to taxis and ridesharing to get to where you’re going, you pay a fare. It’s a business venture that relies on profit. If you want to turn to a school to educate you child or children, it’s a very different model, at least if you rely on the public-education system, which doesn’t even try to turn a profit because the kids don’t pay tuition.

Even private schools operate in fundamentally different ways. Imagine, before you could take advantage of a ridesharing service, you had to pass an entrance exam. Or had to profess certain religious beliefs. Or faced discrimination based on your sexual orientation. That would be absurd, of course, with Uber or Lyft, but in private education, parochial schools have operated this way for decades.

So he skips by the fundamental problem of processes optimized to make money, rather than educate kids.

But an alternative approach to a riposte is also opened up by the entire tenor of the post. There is an unspoken question of benefit – that is, why should someone get educated? Why, to benefit them – but they should pay for it. That’s the unseen bone in the creature of this debate. (I’ll skip trying to make a carapace work.)

But this common libertarian skips entirely over the other entity that benefits from education – society. As a society, we benefit only insofar as the members of society contribute to society – and it’s common knowledge that higher education results in far, far greater contributions to society, in most cases, far out of proportion to the cost.

Let’s conduct a thought experiment: let’s become a society of deliberate simpletons. A high school diploma might be the ambition of the deviant, the non-conformist; the rest of us trot about, doing menial labor over the day and then trudging home at night to pray to God for his guardianship and deliverance.

Is there any doubt whatsoever that within two generations we’d be a subjugated people, our resources stripped, perhaps our best people removed as well – even voluntarily in disgust at what we’ve become? In case you wish to dispute, calling upon God’s wrath as our shield, let me introduce an element of doubt to you by reminding you of an old Army aphorism: God fights on the side with the biggest artillery.

Using this result, I think it’s entirely probable that the entity that benefits most from consistent and excellent education is society. What benefits the student, intellectually, will also benefit society – and the farther our students go in their education, the greater benefit to both parties. Indeed a highly educated person in a sea of mediocrity may have great prestige, but the accomplishments may be small compared to the same person embedded in a society of similarly educated and enthusiastic people, as the well-known network effect results in laddering of effort. If you are doubtful, consider why Silicon Valley exists.

I’ve explored the theoretical foundations of the problems of the private sector running educational institutions, and the recent collapse of various private educational institutions¹ such as Corinthian Colleges and several other institutions, noted on this blog, as well as various other problems such as the collapse of tenure systems at such institutions, bolster the legitimacy of such analyses. Since we should demand excellence in our education, both theoretical and initial real-world results strongly suggest that the traditional, conservative approach to education appears to work best – and we should use it. To the extent that any student does not attain minimal standards due to failure to extend both opportunity and motivation, society suffers. This single argument, in its fullness, should be adequate to the case for public schools as the dominant form of education.

The fact that society pays for public schools, and via taxes, is completely rational & proper in that society benefits most from it. Anyone familiar with the private sector should find this result unambiguously normal, proper, and moral. The fact that society as a whole and in its parts benefits from the higher education of its members suggests that the taxation should fall on nearly everyone’s shoulders, in one form or another. The bare minimum education should be entirely free, as it generally is now; whether this should apply for college-level education is a debate of some complexity, involving such factors as resource scarcity, facility costs (particle accelerators aren’t cheap, for example), and others that, quite frankly, I don’t care to think about just at the moment.

But in the end, neither DeVos nor Benen are completely properly characterizing the debate. Understanding the full benefits, and upon whom they fall, is important in assessing how to deliver a good education.

¹I do not include Trump University, as it appears to have been either a trade school or a simple scam from the get-go.

The guy on the left gets better dialog.

Having just finished watching Day of the Animals (1977), I’m a little speechless because it’s actually fairly hard to find anything good to say about this dogged bear of a story. We start off with a cautionary message concerning the hole in the ozone layer and how something might happen if we don’t fix it, and then off we go with a dude hiker group. Dropped off in the mountains by helicopter, they plan to hike back to civilization, sans weapons and only a little food, living off the land as they go.

But this time the land is fighting back, as they find mysteriously abandoned camping sites and forest land that seems changed. Eventually, the animals attack, and the bodies begin to stack up. A boy’s radio works intermittently, so they learn that the areas about 5000 feet in altitude are being abandoned because of frantic animal attacks. Then the group falls apart, some wanting to continue on, some to retreat to a known area. More bodies drop.

Soon you need a scorecard to figure out who’s left and who’s kibble. Little of it is memorable, but Leslie Nielsen trying to bear hug a, errr, bear did catch one’s imagination.

But with flat characters (the actors had little chance with this script), cliched dialog, bad sound, and video choices possibly influenced by the background introduction, but still very irritating, about the only constant source of pleasure were the wildlife shots. That, and guessing who’s the next to go down under a pile of pissed off fur & feathers.

Don’t waste your time on this one.

Ectoparasites:

Parasites that live on the outside of the host, either on the skin or the outgrowths of the skin, are called ectoparasites (e.g. lice, fleas, and some mites). [Wikipedia]

Found in a book review, “How did the zebra get its stripes?” Matthew Cobb, NewScientist (18 March 2017):

Caro lists dozens of theories, most of which boil down to five common factors: camouflage (protection from predators); warning coloration (zebras can bite); communication (social behaviours); temperature regulation (stripes may help resist the heat); and ectoparasites (biting flies might not like stripes).

Continuing to examine the final address of President Washington, we come across this passage:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

For an agnostic such as myself, this might be considered to be a problematic passage. However, as science has clarified over the years, humanity may be capable of rational thought, but is not then necessarily a rational species. By this I mean that over the millenia, mankind has survived, not because of rationality, but because the species has found behavior patterns which permitted it to survive. Now, I suspect that one could prove that those behavior patterns are, or at least were, rational in that the behavior permitted the survival of humanity – but only in the context that the behavior developed. As contexts change, however, a behavior with positive survival results may see those results become negative; survival value, as with morality (and on another day I might argue they are congruent), is eternally subjective – if I may indulge in clashing metaphors.

But patterns are important, because they may be followed without thought, and by doing so, precious time may be saved. Whether it’s measured in millisecond reaction times or in months, an ingrained reaction permits the deployment of precious time on other issues for which no good patterns are you available, at least so long as the patterns keep you alive.

The entire structure of morality is a large and, for many, highly intimidating problem, difficult to resolve, especially when one is scrabbling for existence. Religion provides a convenient and fairly well-proven set of prescriptions for behavior, hanging off of the hand of an entity with the power – and demonstrated bad temper – to blast transgressors. By fairly well proven, I mean that most sects have been around long enough to have a proven evolutionary track-record of survival characteristics. Furthermore, the communal characteristics usually found in such are salubrious to what was then considered the American enterprise. Ideals of honesty and fair-dealing are antithetical to the powers that were in England at the time; a reaction towards the other end of the spectrum is both understandable and, in my opinion, an important part of a settled, peaceful society.

On reflection, I realize that President Washington never mentions theology, that well-spring of religious evil. He is entirely practical in his call for adherence to religion; nor does he name one, thus avoiding the foolishness of warring sects. Whether or not he realizes it, he spares the population, much of it ill-equipped intellectually or chronologically, the daunting task of building a morality, using convenient moralities to instill attitudes in the citizenry conducive to a peaceful nation, as they, in their damaged ways, boost honesty, peace, generosity, caring for the poor, and several more such public ventures. Much like the behavior patterns developed millenia ago, they have had a proven value, and presumably will continue to do so, even if they come entangled with problematic behaviors and, more often, vulnerabilities, as demonstrated by today’s predatory televangelist community.

As perhaps a final point, distinguished by the today’s general opportunistic rejection of learning and science, and in my argument’s favor, President Washington has the following advisement following directly upon his religious advice:

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

His encouragement of the public betterment through education is an inadvertent rebuke to those who confine themselves to prayer when it comes to hard decisions; a rebuke to those who seek only entertainment and turn their faces from the public business¹; a rebuke, in short, to those who prefer theology over knowledge of the world.

¹In a truly odd juxtaposition, President Washington would be in the position of reprimanding rocker Alice Cooper, who famously once said,

I am extremely non-political. I go out of my way to be non-political. I’m probably the biggest moderate you know. When John Lennon and Harry Nilsson used to argue politics, I was sitting right in the middle of them, and I was the guy who was going ‘I don’t care.’ When my parents would start talking politics, I would go in my room and put on The Rolling Stones or The Who on as long as I could to avoid politics. And I still feel that way. [Rolling Stone]

And I will fail.

Joel Brenner and David Clark remark on cybersecurity standards on Lawfare:

Liability for unsafe devices and tax incentives for qualified investment that increases security also need attention. We have no binding standards for the manufacture and use of insecure hardware and software, even for critical infrastructure. A private accreditation bureau, the “UL,” certifies that the cord on your toaster is safe, but there is no comparable body to certify that the controls being sold to a pipeline operator are safe and suitable for that use. Insurance carriers should support this effort. It was insurers, after all, who created the model. “UL,” or Underwriters’ Laboratory, began in 1894 to reduce fire insurance claims resulting from newfangled and often faulty electric devices.

(Bold mine.) Underwriter’s Software Labs (USL). It would require some work, but the damage costs it would save would dwarf the effort. Software components treated as things with a specific purpose – we could finally begin reversing the damage done by those software disclaimers that their software had no specific use and thus no warranty applied.

That always pissed me off, and while the software industry has no doubt grown, rather like a cancer, over the decades because it didn’t need to spend the time to ensure the software really worked, its reliability has been atrocious.

At best.

I envision customers specifying the required reliability and security ratings of their software, and then being able to shop for their components based on the ratings assigned to the components by USL. Devil would be in the details, though.

Herbaria:

More than 100 North American herbaria — research collections of dried and labeled plants — have been lost since 1997, according to a 2015 report in Nature. The number of curators at several major museums has declined significantly in the same period. When the Field Museum in Chicago fell into debt several years ago, it slashed millions of dollars from its research budget. In 2013, the Brooklyn Botanic Garden laid off several researchers, suspended its science program and donated its 330,000-specimen herbarium elsewhere. [The Washington Post]

On WorldPress.org, Teri Schure reports on an impending problem in the United States’ rural areas – a lack of medical personnel, brought on by GOP xenophobia:

Thousands of J-1 visa applicants come to the United States to attend medical school, but many of those students will now be turned away, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC).

In the past, once these students completed their medical residency, as physicians they could either return to their home country for two years before being eligible to re-enter the U.S. through a different immigration pathway, such as an H-1B worker visa, or they could apply for a Conrad 30 J-1 Visa Waiver. This would allow them to extend their stay in the U.S. as long as they would commit to serving in rural and underserved areas for three years.

In the last 15 years, the Conrad 30 J-1 Waiver has funneled 15,000 foreign physicians into underserved communities, according to the AAMC.

Thousands of foreign doctors in a variety of specialties have in the past flocked to clinics and hospitals in the Mississippi Delta region, Appalachia, the Great Plains, and many other places shunned by American physicians for their own personal and/or professional reasons.

While the press was obsessing over Trumpisms, the government quietly passed a bill to dramatically slow down the premium processing for an H-1B visa.  Foreign physicians who are desperately needed in places like Montana where nine counties do not have a single doctor will be sidelined indefinitely, unable to provide badly needed medical treatment to hundreds of thousands of rural Americans.

While jobless physicians outside of the U.S. wait to see what our government will decide to do about H-1B visas, facilities in places like Alabama, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Ohio, Kansas, North Dakota, and Montana, will remain in desperate need of doctors.

So, we’re a wonderful country – but we won’t even let valuable folks in, much less desperate immigrants. Unfortunately, a worker is not a worker is not a worker – that is, we’re all different sizes of screw, and most of us can’t fill other holes. So cutting down on immigration isn’t going to necessarily help with the more desperate workers, and will have a double impact of eliminating workers who do qualify for valuable positions – such as doctor. Teri’s article claims nearly 28% of our medical doctors are immigrants.

Rocker Alice Cooper works his way manfully through Monster Dog (1984), but his co-stars are not as fortunate, struggling with unfortunate dialog and roles which, ultimately, overwhelm them. Vince is leading his band and manager to his hometown to make a rock and roll video. Upon arrival, they run into a roadblock and learn some locals have been killed and dismembered by wild dogs. They continue on to his childhood home, greeted by a banner erected by the home’s caretaker – but the caretaker is missing.

A couple of nightmares short of a dozen, the next day they begin to film the video, but midway through one of the actors wanders off in her wedding dress, and Vince leaves to track her down. In his absence, a group of evil looking guys show up and take the balance of the group hostage, telling a lurid story of Vince’s father being a werewolf. Then the story wanders off inchoately across the landscape, leaving the various actors to pursue it by foot, car, and gaping wound.

Between gunfire, enthusiastic large dogs, keepers of the house of the dead, and something lurking in the bushes, they have a good try at inducing horror in the audience, but they may be achieving the less desirable horror, the horror that someone paid to make this monster.

It’s a dog, folks.

Steve Benen on Maddowblog has a report on the GOP and science:

And the White House reported today that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is nearly empty, and Team Trump hasn’t made much of an effort to fill its vacancies.

Vinton Cerf, a Google vice president and one of the chief architects of the Internet, told the New York Times, “The impression this leaves is that Trump isn’t interested in science and that scientific matters are a low priority at the White House.”

And while that’s dispiriting, I fear Cerf may be understating matters. If the president and other Republican leaders were indifferent towards science, that would be dispiriting. My concern, however, is that GOP leaders are overtly hostile towards science, evidence, and scientific scholarship in general.

Traditionally, the GOP has been the party of business, but I think we’re seeing a split developing. I’m not sure when it started, but we certain have seen evidence of it over the last couple of years when the GOP tried to pass “religious freedoms” legislation (see here for then-Governor Mike Pence’s personal debacle) which basically gave a pass to bigotry so long as the bigots were religious zealots. The strong objections of several businesses and the movement of business activity out of those states appeared to honestly surprise the GOP in those states – as if they spent too much time talking to extremist right wing religious groups and not enough to businesses.

Reports such as the above indicate to me that the GOP no longer deeply communicates with business, because business, love it or hate it, has to deal with reality, and science is the study of reality. In fact, it appears the GOP is no longer made up of solid businessmen. While the business community may be slow to develop a backlash over the antics of Trump and the GOP, partly because not all businesses care about government-funded science – until a natural disaster rolls over them and they realize they should have been warned and/or the government should have fixed it before it happened – other businesses do depend vitally on the government to perform the basic science. The fact that businesses depend on that basic science research doesn’t mean business should do it, for both public policy (we prefer basic knowledge to be freely available) and business (the unpredictability of results makes basic research an undesirable business avenue, if they can at all avoid it) reasons. But if the flow of basic research slows to a crawl, some large companies which have been responsible as driving forces supporting American superiority will begin to sound the alarm bell – and point at the GOP as the responsible entity.

Or they’re all just petulant children. It fits as well.

Evolution is not only bloody in claw and tooth, to mutilate an old saying, but deceitful as well. NewScientist (18 March 2017) reports on just how far some beetles will go for a steady supply of food:

IT’S quite a ploy. Rove beetles blend seamlessly into army ant societies, but instead of helping out, they devour the young of their unsuspecting companions.

The deceit is so successful that it has evolved independently in at least 12 parasitic rove beetle species – a phenomenon called convergent evolution. In each case, the beetles’ entire body shape has evolved to resemble the army ants they prey on, and they smell and act like the ants too. They even go marching on raids with them. …

[Joseph Parker at Columbia University] says the finding challenges arguments by palaeontologist and author Stephen Jay Gould and others that different creatures would evolve if the evolutionary clock was restarted from scratch.

Instead, it suggests that evolution may take similar and predictable paths whenever a certain scenario arises. In this case, distantly related beetles first prey on army ants directly, but later evolve to sneak into the army itself (Current Biology, doi.org/b2vj).

If evolution is less vulnerable to stochastic processes than supposed, as Professor Parker suggests, it may also mean that, given a symbol and operation set more or less isomorphic to the relevant realities, it may be possible to calculate to some surprising level of precision the path evolution will take for some given set of starting species. I’m not enough of a logician to guess whether or not mathematics provides enough power to do the job.

And not a clue as to how many computer cycles it would take. But it sounds like a fascinating project – I wonder how many PhDs and doctoral students are working on this question right at this moment.