Unsightly Mental Blemishes

“Are we murderers or just shriekers? Does it matter? And do we have to notify next-of-kin?”

Beyond the Infinite Two Minutes (2020) explores the possible consequences of having a time vortex between your restaurant and upstairs apartment. Our heroes discover it as a time gap between a television and a television camera, and they use it to explore the future, while reviewing the past. It’s a bit of a mind-bender, and each reacts slightly differently.

And then a pair of murderous cops show up.

Just as a caution, this is Japanese, so ready yourself for captioning. Otherwise, it’s a bit fascinating to see it all play out, and while some may see the ending as a weird copout, for others … think, maybe, of the atmospherics of Flash Gordon.

Keep your mind open.

The Texas Tribune has a story:

A Texas man is suing three women under the wrongful death statute, alleging that they assisted his ex-wife in terminating her pregnancy, the first such case brought since the state’s near-total ban on abortion last summer.

Marcus Silva is represented by Jonathan Mitchell, the former Texas solicitor general and architect of the state’s prohibition on abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, and state Rep. Briscoe Cain, R-Deer Park. The lawsuit is filed in state court in Galveston County, where Silva lives.

Silva alleges that his now ex-wife learned she was pregnant in July 2022, the month after the overturn of Roe v. Wade, and conspired with two friends to illegally obtain abortion-inducing medication and terminate the pregnancy.

To me, this sounds like a First Amendment case. Since the State government passed and enforces the law that allegedly gives this guy some right to sue the women, the government effectively is interfering with the women’s right to free speech.

I’m sure some conservative lawyer will start screaming at the idea that the US Constitution applies in this case.

Lately I’ve been enjoying the complex percussion of Clanadonia:

If you like scene stealing, the old guy does it well.

I see Steve Benen is knocking Rep Jim Jordan’s spankin’ new Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government about:

Rep. Jim Jordan realizes that his Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government isn’t off to a good start. The panel’s first big hearing was an embarrassing display, and it was soon followed by revelations that the FBI “whistleblowers” the Ohio Republican has been touting for months aren’t actually whistleblowers, and their recent behind-the-scenes testimony was literally unbelievable.

The far-right chairman is confronting complaints from disappointed conservatives and headlines about his GOP-led crusade being “a dud.” Jordan has tried to defend the endeavor with excuses that don’t make a lot of sense.

The far-right victimhood routine is a key part of the strategy to keep the herd together for fleecing and power. That sense of victimhood, especially when it’s both existential and true, can prove a strong bulwark for many groups.

But there’s a stronger American tradition that I think the Biden Administration should be using: Laughter. A simple press release should do the trick, especially for such an humorless man like Jordan:

The President and Vice President plan to watch the next meeting of the Subcommittee while eating popcorn, as this may be one of the most entertaining spectacles on C-SPAN these days.

Ridicule: spice liberally over idiots.

No doubt most readers saw the news that Silicon Valley Bank, a top-20 bank, went into receivership on Friday. There’s more news: Signature Bank, a smaller regional bank, has joined it. And worse yet?

In an extraordinary action to restore confidence in America’s banking system, the Biden administration on Sunday guaranteed that customers of the failed Silicon Valley Bank will have access to all their money starting Monday. [CNN/Business]

The little information present on the Signature Bank collapse is in the above article.

So why is this little Christmas gift to Silicon and, yes, Signature bad news? Because this is a misuse of a system that depends on the intelligent use of its parts – not foolhardy use. Much like the foolish mistake of the Clinton Administration in rescuing Long Term Capital Management, and thus encouraging other hedge funds to grow huge and shoot for the moon, this misstep by the Biden Administration essentially insulates customers from the consequences of their own mistakes.

The system functions on the feedback loop of action -> consequence -> learn -> next action. By breaking this critical sequence, we do not learn, we do not grow – we become infantilized.

Yes, yes, I recognize that the Administration is trying to avoid a run on all the banks. Is it worth it? I guess we’ll never really know.

But I fear the consequences of this action may outweigh the immediate punishment of letting dumb people be in charge.

Not done yet, though. All that said, it’s legitimate to speculate that we may be asking too much of the people in charge. After all, 1-2 million years of evolution for surviving on the savanna and other places doesn’t prepare anyone, simple depositor or CFO of Apple, to pick out the right bank for a bank account.

But the fix has to be right in order to avoid unforeseen consequences, and I frankly haven’t the expertise to understand even this:

US taxpayers will not be on the hook for either facility, the regulators said.

So who will be? Maybe other banks?

And how carefully have regulators prepared for these situations?

Vice has the goods:

Same likelihood as this being a pic of a posh, beachside resort, once frequented by Teddy Roosevelt.

Flanked by two of her closest followers, the QAnon Queen of Canada gave a gracious thank you to her followers who—with their hard-earned, real-world cash—funded her most recent venture: so-called “loyalty” money.

“Thank you to those who sent money to help print your loyalty money,” the self-proclaimed queen Romana Didulo said in a Telegram live stream in late January, when she introduced the bills and proudly presented them to her followers. “Everyone, continue to send money so that we can continue to print.”

The bills, which say 100,000 on them referring to an unknown currency, are white and feature her emblem in the middle flanked by two flags. Larger than normal cash, they have the look of a novelty check or board game money. Despite their cheap look, Didulo promised her fans they have interdimensional security devices on them.

And they have their usual victims: the vulnerable.

In chat rooms dedicated to Didulo, her fans celebrated the false hope given to them. One person said that he’s going to attempt to pay his utility bills with the money, and another said she’s excited because they’ve been living in their car and this could get a roof over their heads.

“I am so hopeful that the loyalty money will allow me to purchase a prefab home or one of those tiny homes,” she wrote. “How wonderful that would be for me and many others like me around Canada.”

“I can’t wait to hear when or how I can use this loyalty money for this purpose.”

Pillory:

The pillory is a device made of a wooden or metal framework erected on a post, with holes for securing the head and hands, formerly used for punishment by public humiliation and often further physical abuse. The pillory is related to the stocks. [Wikipedia]

To be subjected is to be pilloried; often used metaphorically. Noted in ““A Huge Threat to Our Republic” – Tucker Rewrites History, Your Brain on Food, and How Will You Spend Your ‘Loyalty Money’? “, JD Sword and Jeff Dellinger, The Morning Heresy:

Tucker Carlson’s effort to rewrite the history of the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot as “”mostly peaceful chaos” is getting pilloried, with even prominent Republican senators like Mitch McConnell disavowing the effort. The Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police called Carlson’s revisionism “offensive and misleading.” McConnell agreed[.]

Personally, I think Carlson has come to the end of his working career. No one in journalism will ever hire him again after this decade long fiasco.

This is fun:

My kingdom for a moratorium on describing single individuals as "diverse."

— Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) March 7, 2023

But I should like to ask for a ban on the adjective ‘amazing.’ Everyone’s fucking amazing. Please stop. Stop stop stop stop. Not everyone can be amazing. It doesn’t work that way.

Ouch! The bowling hand!

Trapeze (1956) is a reminder of another age of movie-making, when the pace of the story was more sedate, strong characters don’t always win, victories are tainted with costs, and virtually no one is content with their role in life. Young Tino Orsini has come to Europe to work with Mike Ribble, specifically, as a circus high flyer, to accomplish the dangerous triple for performance.

But Ribble has been crippled in a circus accident, and has little interest in working with Orsini, as he doesn’t want to endanger anyone else, and so he must be persuaded. Into the mix comes Lola, hungry to advance in her act, up the social ladder, and from tthese three an act is concocted. But the triple remains out of reach. Will one of them master it?

The charm is in the personal tensions and attention to detail: Ribble’s injury, Orsini’s family background as flyers all, Lola’s driving ambition. Indeed, surrounding them are other circus performers with their own agendas, and a circus owner with his own read of the situation. All of this gives this story a frisson of reality. This is no superhero flick, this feels like nitty gritty reality that may, at any moment, drop you from 50 feet up into a net that may, or may not, catch you.

Mesmerizing, if you permit it.

Recommended.

Chandlery:

A chandlery was originally the office in a wealthy medieval household responsible for wax and candles, as well as the room in which the candles were kept. It could be headed by a chandler. The office was subordinated to the kitchen, and only existed as a separate office in larger households.

Whether a separate office or not, the function was naturally an important one, in a time before electric light, and when production of candles was often done privately. It was closely connected with other offices of the household, such as the ewery and the scullery. While this usage is obsolete today, the term can refer to a candle business. The current meaning of “chandler” is a person who sells candles.

By the 18th century, most commercial chandlers dealt in candles, oils, soap, and even paint. As these provided ships’ stores, chandlery came to refer to a shop selling nautical items for ships and boats, although for a time they were called ship-chandleries to distinguish them. Americans used the term chandlery for these ship-chandleries,^[4] but tended to prefer the term chandler’s shop. Both terms are still in use. [Wikipedia]

Noted in this Country House Gent video:

After a few days of food poisoning, I’m sort of functional again, and noticing this:

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed a measure this week loosening child labor protections in the state.

Under the law, the Youth Hiring Act of 2023, children under 16 do not have to obtain permission from the Division of Labor to get a job. They will no longer need to get an employment certificate, which verified their age, described their work and work schedule, and included written consent from a parent or guardian. Sanders signed the bill into law on Tuesday.

Alexa Henning, Sanders’ communication director, said that the permit requirement had placed an “arbitrary burden on parents” who needed government permission for their child to get a job. [NBC News]

Given the recent reports of labor shortages, I suppose this was inevitable. But will those labor shortages override concerns about robots taking away our jobs?

Privity:

1. 1. : a relationship between persons who successively have a legal interest in the same right or property
   2. : an interest in a transaction, contract, or legal action to which one is not a party arising out of a relationship to one of the parties
2. : private or joint knowledge of a private matter
   especially : cognizance implying concurrence [Merriam-Webster]

Noted in “Cybersecurity’s Third Rail: Software Liability,” Jim Dempsey, Lawfare:

Some software companies will likely object. But in urging that responsibility should be placed on those best positioned to reduce risk, the administration is merely applying an old principle to the now-matured software sector. Early in the 20th century, the automobile industry was about where the computer software industry is today. Automobile makers then, as software developers do now, disclaimed liability for any flaws in their products. We sell to dealers, not to consumers, they argued, so end users don’t have the “privity of contract” with us needed to sue. And anyhow, we’re not liable for the tires or the brakes or any of the other components, since we didn’t make those. We just assembled the car.

Perhaps one of the more important anecdotes of the year, from Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute:

Long-time readers may recall my advocacy for this proposed change to the law insofar as software warranties, or lack thereof, go, as reported by Jim Dempsey of UC Berkeley Law School:

Well, they’ve done it. The Biden administration’s new National Cybersecurity Strategy takes on the third rail of cybersecurity policy: software liability. For decades, scholars and litigators have been talking about imposing legal liability on the makers of insecure software. But the objections of manufacturers were too strong, concerns about impeding innovation were too great, and the conceptual difficulties of the issue were just too complex. So today software licenses and user agreements continue to disclaim liability, whether the end user is a consumer or an operator of critical infrastructure. With this new strategy, the administration proposes changing that.

The strategy’s discussion of the issue starts with an incontrovertible point: “[M]arket forces alone have not been enough to drive broad adoption of best practices in cybersecurity and resilience.” Indeed, the strategy goes on to note, market forces often reward those entities that rush to introduce vulnerable products or services into our digital ecosystem. Problems include the shipping of products with insecure default configurations or known vulnerabilities and the integration of third-party software with unvetted or unknown features. End users are left holding the bag, and the entire ecosystem suffers, with U.S. citizens ultimately bearing the cost. [Lawfare]

The analogy drawn to the early days of the auto industry was fascinating as well, as its history of which I was unaware.

Another reason to be happy with the Biden Administration.

The D. Adams style of flying requires that you throw yourself at the ground and miss!

A Kind Of Murder (2016) is a cautionary tale about your hobbies. A hobby that makes you look like you might be a murderer may lead to unfortunate consequences. In this case, the hobby is an obsession with collecting newspaper clippings about mysterious murderers in preparation for writing short stories, the hobby of successful architect Walter Stackhouse. The murder in question? The wife of Marty Kimell, an antique book dealer in town, turns up dead at a long distance route bus stop. Kimell has strenuously denied responsibility, and the case is at a stop.

Then Stackhouse’s wife, the troubled Clara, discovers Stackhouse with a younger woman, Ellie, and that pushes her over the edge. She decides to travel to see her sickly mother, seeking stability.

Via bus.

Her murder, body at the same bus stop as that of Kimell’s wife’s murder, is assigned to the same detective working the case of Kimell’s wife; his discovery that Stackhouse had recently visited Kimell’s shop leaves the two husbands more than a bit jittery.

Toss in a bit of 1950s vibe and police aggression, and the whole structure threatens to come crashing down. Who’s innocent? Who’s guilty? The tension ratchets up as Stackhouse discovers Ellie’s unease at the death of the woman she may have been trying to displace. Could she … ? And what sort of reverberation comes from compressed guilt?

It’s not a classic, but it’s a competent telling of a sordid and cautionary story that will appeal to the crime story fan. Don’t forget the popcorn.

Vocal fry:

The vocal fry register (also known as pulse register, laryngealization, pulse phonation, creaky voice, creak, croak, popcorning, glottal fry, glottal rattle, glottal scrape) is the lowest vocal register and is produced through a loose glottal closure that permits air to bubble through slowly with a popping or rattling sound of a very low frequency. During this phonation, the arytenoid cartilages in the larynx are drawn together, which causes the vocal folds to compress rather tightly and become relatively slack and compact. This process forms a large and irregularly vibrating mass within the vocal folds that produces the characteristic low popping or rattling sound when air passes through the glottal closure. The register (if well controlled) can extend far below the modal voice register, in some cases up to 8 octaves lower, such as in the case of Tim Storms who holds the world record for lowest frequency note ever produced by a human, a G₋₇, which is only 0.189 Hz, inaudible to the human ear. [Wikipedia]

Hmmmm. A cheap shortcut to social prestige, eh? Noted in “Young women are criticized for this vocal tic — but it helps whales survive,” Dino Grandoni, WaPo:

The announcement that insulin supplies for diabetics will not exceed $35/month for those of us on private insurance if supplied by Eli Lilly, followed by NPR’s meditation on suppliers and profits and whatnot, reminded me of an old conspiracy theory, the one that says the pharma industry and medicine in general exists not to cure disease, but to ameliorate it into chronic conditions, and pharma makes its money on the treatments of those chronic conditions. Solutions are strictly forbidden.

I once even heard that one from a very close friend. She was frustrated to crying over the loss of various family members to cancer.

So as I meandered into work this morning, it occurred to me that, assuming you buy into this conspiracy theory, this sort of announcement may actually act as a motivation for Big Pharma to find a cure for diabetes, or rather cures, as I figure there’s separate causes for Type 1 and Type 2, and possibly even multiple variations for each.

Why?

It’s one more chance to make money. If the chances of making lots of money through amelioration are gone, then go for the final big payday.

If you have any inclination for this conspiracy theory, then this is a potential outcome of Eli Lilly’s move, in concert with ACA’s lowering of costs. Even though insurance often negotiates cost reductions.

If you’re into conspiracy theories. I’m not.

Redhead (1934) is one of those light-hearted fluffy flicks from the 1930s, a romantic comedy in which mean old Dad insists the son grow up, and throws a woman at him as incentive.

A woman who beat a murder rap. And may have tried to kill herself.

Dad’s butler, or maybe assistant, who he’s perpetually firing, is detailed to go along and take care of the pair, and has a talent for stealing scenes.

And then the woman falls puzzlingly in love with this immature dude, which sort of throws a wrench in the works, even as Dad actually gets some unexpectedly interesting dialog.

But the sound was bad, the cinematography, or perhaps the print itself, worse, and I was annoyed by the oaf. But this film does have a few moments. And it’s not painfully long. Even as dated as it is, it’s actually sort of fun.

Maybe this print is better.

Erick Erickson expresses a concern that isn’t quite justified:

Barack Obama did not think he could cancel student loan debt. Joe Biden did not think he had the power to either. Nancy Pelosi said the President did not have that power. But here we are.

For all the talk about the Democrats being for democracy and the constitutional order, they were until they were not. They convinced a President who did not think he could do it, to use a law passed to help after 9/11 to outright cancel hundreds of billions of dollars of debt. It was an executive power grab hiding behind COVID as some sort of national emergency.

On first read, it seems reasonable, even when reading the full post. But here’s the problem:

President Biden isn’t the final arbiter when it comes to what powers are granted by the Constitution and law to the Executive.

And that’s important, isn’t it? We split the powers of government between the various branches because that makes for better, if sometimes slower, decision making. Why should Biden retreat at what appears to be a dubious case? If he deems it good for the Nation, and legislative is too bound up in petty power games to pay attention, then an Executive action should at least be attempted.

And if someone objects and files suit, good! Let’s have SCOTUS take a look at it.

Because that’s how the nation functions. Not such that Erickson has forebodings of doom, but such that governments’ checks and balances are exercised.

An apparently recent controversy has come on my radar, and as I daily contemplate sitting down and writing stories that no one, except my Arts Editor – under duress – will read, I can’t help taking an interest:

When it comes to the notorious Rep Santos (R-NY), last week it was revealed that:

This version of Duck Duck Grey Duck has an unsavory side.

The Secret Adversary (1983) is the introduction of Agatha Christie’s Tommy ‘n Tuppence characters. The Great War is over, and Tommy, a British officer who may have seen a bit too much action, has returned home to find the job market is dreadful. Running into childhood buddy Tuppence, they share a similar problem, that being a lack of money. Tuppence persuades Tommy that they should put their time into being private detectives, as the required experience is minimal, and it sounds like, oh, fun!

Advertising in the Times of London, their first contact, a man named Whittington, asks Tuppence’s name, and borrowing from a story Tommy told her, she tells him ‘Jane Finn’. He pales, gives her some hush money, and makes a swift exit. Meanwhile, an old war friend of Tommy’s, now in British Intelligence, comes into contact with Tommy and tells him that ‘Jane Finn’ was an intelligence agent that may have come into custody of a secret treaty during the war, but disappeared in the sinking of the S. S. Lusitania. The treaty, if publicized, would bring down the British government, generally understood to be a bad thing, as the British unions, a powerful force at the time, would have been scandalized by the contents of the treaty.

Into the mix comes two more men. Mr. Brown, at least rumored to exist, appears to be a communist controlling the British unions, maneuvering for power. Julius Hersheimmer claims to be an American multimillionaire and Jane Finn’s cousin, in search of her.

Well, the paths of clues tangle up in restraints, literal, and power, metaphorical, where those in power may not be trustworthy, and those out of power are left wondering just who is who. Eventually, though, comeuppances are handed out in a satisfactory manner, from British Intelligence to the bellboy at the hotel, and isn’t that good?

Despite its generally high quality, I found something off-putting about this story. The actors are competent enough, and the story mostly engrossing, but I think it had to do with the style, which has an abruptness characteristic of the 1970s and 1980s British film genres. A trifle brittle, maybe.

But not a huge disappointment, but a rather nice way to pass a couple of hours. Get the popcorn.

In a fascinating article on a new job category called prompt engineering, having to do with interacting with and, I think, training of various artificial intelligence engines, I ran across this consequence:

But tapping the AI tools’ power through text prompts can also lead to a flood of synthetic pablum. Hundreds of AI-generated e-books are now sold on Amazon, and a sci-fi magazine, Clarkesworld, this month stopped accepting short-story submissions due to a surge in machine-made texts. [WaPo]

This presents a real problem for publishers who’ve gone over fully to the Web for accepting submissions; some may revert to requiring all submissions to be on actual paper – and maybe an accompanying blood sample. I suspect story magazines will have to put themselves into one of three categories:

1. Story markets. These don’t care about authorship; for them, the story is the thing, and its originating entity doesn’t matter.
2. Human originated stories. These markets demand the stories they publish have an immediate author of a human (or more than one). I word it in this way to shutdown the argument that knowledge based AIs are working off human stories, of course. The point here is that a human demonstrating storytelling skills is an important element of the market and, indeed, of the endeavour of being human.
3. AI originated stories. These markets demand AI authorship.

Say “hi” to Torg, your new robot overlord. Your previous overlord, Yarg, has been consigned to the junkheap.

Each may have its devoted fans. I suspect, in terms of reader churn, AI originated stories may be highest, as the AI can write stories tirelessly, good, bad, and indifferent, and wear out readers who can discern good from bad stories, followed closely by story markets, which will get the overflow of the AI originated stories markets, and then, trailing far behind, human originated stories. Why last?

The best of the two authorship groups, head to head, will be humans. Indeed, the AIs may turn out be vulnerable to sabotage, if I’m understanding the article properly. Secondarily, there will be a value placed on the skills displayed, as previously mentioned.

But there’s going to be a time period in which AI authored works will cause a ruckus.

In a report that might delight Andrew Sullivan, who has had a few rants about the news and editorial rooms at The New York Times concerning transgender and other issues related to wokeness, Erik Wemple of the eponymous blog (WaPo) notes:

The New York Times is racked with internal dissent over internal dissent — a development stemming from multiple open letters sent last week to newspaper management taking issue with the paper’s recent coverage of transgender youth. The uproar reflects the pressures of managing coverage of a sensitive topic at a time when media criticism is flourishing everywhere.

“As thinkers, we are disappointed to see the New York Times follow the lead of far-right hate groups in presenting gender diversity as a new controversy warranting new, punitive legislation,” reads one of those open letters, from multiple Times contributors and five employees. The polemic slams the Times for spilling much ink on trans youth even though it has published “no rapt reporting on the thousands of parents who simply love and support their children, or on the hardworking professionals at the New York Times enduring a workplace made hostile by bias.” (GLAAD and other organizations wrote another letter expressing similar objections.)

Note the use of apparent exaggeration as a tactic in attempting to bully Times editorial into toeing the woke line by claiming the Times is a right-wing rag. I don’t have a Times sub, so I cannot speak directly to their reporting – but I can infer from editorial’s response: