January 4, 2018

Still skeptical of the claims being made in Wolff's book but...

...it certainly throws a lot of fuel on the fire of the notion that no one in the Trump camp had any ability to run a presidential campaign and that someone else was.

Who do you suppose that could have been?

January 3, 2018

One wonders if it's possible to assure Kim that Trump can't actually launch nukes on his own.

I'd like to be assured of that too -- if it's true. I know there are several schools of thought on this subject.

January 1, 2018

Christianity Today: "The Biggest Loser in the Alabama Election"

An article from December 12.

No matter the outcome of today’s special election in Alabama for a coveted US Senate seat, there is already one loser: Christian faith. When it comes to either matters of life and death or personal commitments of the human heart, no one will believe a word we say, perhaps for a generation. Christianity’s integrity is severely tarnished.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/december-web-only/roy-moore-doug-jones-alabama-editorial.html

An interesting read, not because of what's in it, but what's not. You see, by driving thoughtful, decent people away from evangelical churches, the Evangelicals, by their stated beliefs, are likely condemning a tremendous number of people to eternal damnation by depriving them of their opportunity to hear the message that they need Jesus as their personal saviour.

Also, Evangelicals emphasize that every believer has a personal relationship with God and that prayer for comfort and guidance should be a part of every born-again person's life.

Neither of these things is mentioned in the article. It's like they can't even be bothered to pretend to believe their own theology.

December 29, 2017

Just put my late wife's book on sale through Amazon.

It's a book she wrote after her younger brother died, trying to make sense of it all. It's about growing up disabled, adventures in the early world of online interactions, relationships, tragedy, and recovery.

It's "Gone to Sorrow", by Susan Crouch. If you look it up in Amazon you can read the first few chapters for free. I'm too close to the events in the book to be objective about it, but I've been told by other people that it's a very enjoyable book.

December 19, 2017

Remember the lead-crime hypothesis? Is there a lead-Trump link?

And if you chart the rise and fall of atmospheric lead caused by the rise and fall of leaded gasoline consumption, you get a pretty simple upside-down U: Lead emissions from tailpipes rose steadily from the early ’40s through the early ’70s, nearly quadrupling over that period. Then, as unleaded gasoline began to replace leaded gasoline, emissions plummeted.
Gasoline lead may explain as much as 90 percent of the rise and fall of violent crime over the past half century.

Intriguingly, violent crime rates followed the same upside-down U pattern. The only thing different was the time period: Crime rates rose dramatically in the ’60s through the ’80s, and then began dropping steadily starting in the early ’90s. The two curves looked eerily identical, but were offset by about 20 years.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health/

Duncan Black over at www.eschatonblog.com brought this up a while back. Antisocial behavior that becomes bad enough results in crimes that show up as arrests and convictions, but there are lots of antisocial behaviors that don't show up in crime statistics. Black speculated that much of what we see in politics these days springs from the same impairments in impulse control, empathy, and anger management that supposedly drove the crime wave. The main difference being that street thugs tend to be a lot younger than Senators, so the effect would show up later.

Otherwise there's not that much difference. A street thug jacks your car. A Rethug jacks your country.

December 13, 2017

AL Sec of State is choosing his words very carefully.

Almost sounds like he's testifying in court. Good move on his part, I'd say.

December 13, 2017

I've had all I can takes!

And I can't takes no Moore!!!

December 13, 2017

Well, that's one lawless bastard down... nt

December 2, 2017

A possible endgame.

Let's suppose that Mueller ends up in the possession of an undeniable smoking gun: an irrefutably authentic record of a conversation between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump where Trump promises to sell out the interests of the United States to Putin in exchange for Putin's forgiveness of Trump's massive debts and a promise to never reveal the kompromat that Putin holds.

When the Joint Chiefs of Staff realize the evidence is not only true beyond a doubt, but also will become public to a worldwide audience, they go to congressional leaders with the following dilemma: military officers swear:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." The Oath of Office (for officers): "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.

Two problems: What do you do if you can't both defend the Constitution and follow the orders of the President? And, military officers are not bound by orders that are illegal, but can any order from a President who is actively functioning as an agent of a foreign power be legal? Wouldn't that mean that, for all practical purposes, there is no president?

Wouldn't Congress be compelled to remove Trump at that point, or stand by and watch a military coup?

November 29, 2017

Did you ever wonder how secure Trump's Twitter feed is?

I mean, Twitter is a social media company. I don't know that they ever made provisions to "harden" their service to the point it can be reliably used by the POTUS to make major announcements. That's no dig against them -- it's not their job. But -- imagine a 3:00 a.m. Trump tweet that threatens to ignite a major war. We couldn't even know for sure it's him.