Preventing American Citizens from Voting is the most Anti-American thing our politicians are doing right now

I don't care who you are or what your party affiliation is, if you are not outraged by the fact that our politicians are doing everything in their power to prevent our fellow American Citizens from voting, then you are unquestionably anti-American, anti-democratic, anti-Constitution, and definitely unpatriotic.  Yes, these disgusting voter suppression tactics are clearly targeted at Democratic voters; but they will undoubtedly also affect plenty of Republican voters and prevent them from voting too!  But it just doesn't matter what their party affiliation is, because voting is a fucking Constitutional right—not a privilege, but a right—that every single American citizen has, and that no politician nor government official should ever be allowed to stand in the way of.  (What does the Constitution actually say about voting rights?)



And by the way, the fact that citizens convicted of a crime in 48 states have their voting rights taken away, either temporarily or permanently, is also, I would argue, un-Constitutional and anti-democratic.  Criminal disenfranchisement laws are just plain unjust.  So what if you've been convicted of a crime?  You are still a human being and you are still an American citizen, and therefore you still should be owed the same basic right to a voice as every other American citizen has.  Because the right to vote, along with the right to free speech, is fundamental to the very nature of our democracy.  Because both the right to vote and the right to free speech are fundamentally about having the right to a voice, each citizen having an equal voice, and that that voice cannot and will not be silenced by any governmental force, because doing so is nothing short of antithetical to what a democracy is.

Dear Senators,

You do realize the extreme backlash you will face if you vote to confirm Kavanaugh, right?

You do realize that you are supposed to be representing the American people, and the American people have spoken loudly and clearly that they do not want Kavanaugh, right?

And you do realize that your names will be inscribed into history as being forever attached to what will be historically remembered as the Kavanaugh scandal, don't you?

You do realize the shame that will bring upon your families, now and in the future, don't you?

I mean, surely you must realize these things, right?

And you do realize, you do remember, that there are several other factors that ought to disqualify Kavanaugh from being awarded one of the highest job promotions in the entire nation, right?

Catching up on a bit of yesterday's news...

This is on the topic of the anonymous NYT op-ed piece.
Just a reaction to one particular discussion on a major news broadcasting network:

Why the hell are people talking about loyalty to the president, as in this particular president, as something that is even relevant at all to talk about?!

One of the fundamental principles of our democracy is that any sort of political loyalty, especially to the president, is loyalty to the office, not the person.  Because that is one aspect of what it means to have loyalty to the country, one aspect of what it means to be patriotic.

And another fundamental principle of our democracy is the absolute refusal of despotism, the absolute rejection of absolute authority.  To go against the authority of the president is not just a far cry from treason; it can be the ultimate form of patriotism and loyalty.  (A higher loyalty, perhaps? ...)

Now let me add, just because I know some people will think I am saying something I am definitely not saying:
That does not guarantee it is the right thing to do or the best option in this or that set of circumstances; but sometimes, it will be.  Whether or not something is patriotic has nothing to do with whether or not it is "correct" or the "right" thing or the best option, or whatever.
 

"But, but, but,... Putin says it wasn't Russia!"

I never thought I would be moved to make such a crude and vulgar statement here, but,

Wow, Trump, you are fucking pussy.

For all your talk of strength and being a man, you are the most cowardly coward the world has ever seen.

You are weak.
A crybaby weakling.
A fucking joke.

Sad!

Does this country have the courage to change? Maybe.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Wow.
That's fucking awesome.

still

It is a bit unnerving getting mail from the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security...
Despite that it is regarding something that is not a negative thing.

Yes, I am still going to make a defense of James Comey, despite the recent statements by the FBI regarding their investigation into Comey's actions and decisions.  In fact, nothing they said has changed my view at all; if anything, my view has been reinforced.

-- The past couple of weeks have been chaotic, making it impossible to do any writing.  (Just to be clear, some of that chaos was welcomed.)  Hopefully I can get some done in spite of my current situation for the next several days: caring for my grandmother because she has fairly advanced Alzheimer's.  You have no idea how challenging it is caring for someone with Alzheimer's until you are doing it everyday for at least a month or two; because only then do you experience how much it consumes your day to day life.  I did it pretty much everyday for about ten months straight.  Not by myself, no, because you cannot do it by yourself when the person reaches these more advanced stages and can never be left alone. --

I don't know if Trump has any clue whatsoever about what he is doing with North Korea, but let me just say this:
While it is true that he failed to make a "deal" of any kind with Kim Jong-un, failed to get any real promises out of Kim, failed to get anything out of it at all while giving Kim more than Kim could have ever expected to get from a U.S. president, the humanitarian crisis that is North Korea should take precedence over the politics of interacting with a dictator and his regime who do not deserve legitimacy from political recognition of him as a national leader like any other.  Obviously, no one wants to give Kim what he wants; however, can we really continue telling ourselves that we stand on higher moral ground if we continue to knowingly turn our backs on all of the citizens of North Korea, who are the victims of such appalling human rights' violations, just because not turning our backs on them would require us to find some way to work with a brutal dictator(ship)?  When is enough, enough?

Apologies

My sincerest apologies to anyone who actually reads this blog, that I still have yet to fulfill my promise of writing my defense of Comey, and just posting in general.  I assure you, I have been working on it, when I can.  As you know, I do not here divulge of personal details – and besides, this time there are some federal legal reasons to motivate my usual tight-lippedness – so all I can say is, there has been quite the hustle and bustle in my life the past several weeks.  (Actually, the past several months; or maybe I should just say, most of the past year.)  And I am not one who can usually easily shift mental gears, so it has been a bit of a challenge finding the mental focus to be able to write.  Especially since the many other things swirling about my life are actually somewhat important, and have the tendency to be slightly urgent.  But what tops the cake is that, four days ago, my iMac died – for good this time, as the HD was clicking, so that's that, and I did get 10.5 years out of it, so, it was time, and I am hoping, hoping, a new iMac is plausibly possible soonishly – followed the next day by the onset of a particularly horrendous version of the common cold, which has not yet quite passed. 

But anyway, there is a lot going on for me, but I can make a better effort to post here, and I know that I ought to.  It does pain me that I regularly have so many thoughts, so many things to say, so many things to share, that yet remain confined within the walls of my own mind – my own mind, the only thing I have ever felt that I have to give to the world –

Trump pulls U.S. out of the Iran Deal

Why is Trump suckling off Netanyahu's teat?

John Dean on Trump

John Dean's perspective: Trump has already exceeded everything Nixon did, and is now much more intimately involved in the coverup than Nixon ever was: "Trump is Nixon on steroids and stilts."
Sure, he's a contributor on CNN, but with all due respect, considering the role Dean played in Watergate, what he has to say is certainly worth listening to and taking seriously for consideration.  His authority on the matter is not without some credibility.

Getting to know Jupiter

The fact that we mere humans engaging in and utilizing science(s) can build and send machines to low-Jupiter orbit and continue to communicate with those machines and receive data they collect is most certainly a testament to the epistemic standing and credibility of science(s) as a collection of investigative methods for gaining knowledge and understanding that towers above the epistemic standing and credibility of just about every other method intended for gaining knowledge and understanding.

We had no idea that Jupiter's poles are such complex cyclonic storm systems! https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap180308.html (Note: that's an infrared (composite) image; i.e. not the coloring we would see with our own eyes (or instruments calibrated to the light wavelengths equivalent to our eyes). In other words, read the caption to the image.)

Everything more about the Juno Mission:
https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/juno/main/index.html

It is also worth checking out NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/index.php

And, as a side note, because I can't resist pointing it out:
The generous amounts of openness and transparency with which all of this kind of scientific research is done is more than enough to diffuse the plethora of conspiracy "theories" about anything to do with any of this kind of scientific research and work. And I have to put scare quotes around 'theories' because they don't deserve to be called theories, because they're really just a bunch of hypotheses strung together with a few or more facts that are cleverly misrepresented and misconstrued, while other facts are intentionally ignored. To be called a theory requires meeting some rather rigorous and stringent standards and criteria, which includes, by the way, being open to modification (or even replacement) due to new and well-confirmed findings (data, experimental results, discoveries, etc.).

[trying to get back into the habit of writing and posting]

"But there’s a brand new show for you to watch today So all the Western eyes can look the other way"

Glad to have just learned of this band, Algiers

2020

Okay, I get why tons of people are in favour of Oprah running in 2020…
In the very least, I will say this:
We were extremely concerned about Trump's conflicts of interest. Now, if there's anyone who actually has what you might want to call a powerful business / financial empire – as opposed to someone who merely desperately tries to convince you that he does – it's Oprah.

So, shouldn't we be just a tad bit concerned about Ms. Oprah's conflicts of interest?

Evolution, the fall of U.S. life expectancy, and journalists vs. the government

Ya, it's been far too long since I've written anything. For now, I wanted to share one of my new favourite podcasts, and share episodes from two other podcasts because the topics and discussions are deeply fascinating and important.

This Week in Evolution
Admittedly the topics and discussions are very science-heavy and can get rather technical – these are real and practicing scientists after all – but if you have enough background knowledge to follow it and understand both what they're saying and the implications of it, it's great stuff.
I also appreciate that they talk about scientific practice, i.e., what scientists actually do, what it's like working in this or that lab with a team of other scientists, how scientists collaborate with each other, how they get funding, the process of writing up their findings and getting them published, what fieldwork is like, the kind of equipment they use, their methodologies, and perhaps most importantly, when they get things wrong, when they make mistakes, when things turn out very differently from what they expected, etc., and how they proceed forward from that, what they learn from it, what silver linings they find, what new questions are opened, and so on. And of course, much of that is coming from their own personal experiences as scientists. Getting that "side of the story", so to speak, can be very helpful and eye-opening to the rest of us non-scientists to understand science better. (And I use the word "science" there as a catch-all term to include: scientists, scientific practices, scientific research, experiments and studies, scientific findings, scientific publications, scientific hypotheses, scientific theories, scientific claims, scientific knowledge, the applications of scientific findings and scientific knowledge, etc.)

An episode from Vox's The Weeds: Why is U.S. life expectancy falling? Plus, political elites are biased about what they think the general public thinks; and, why pushing for unpopular policy is bad for democracy.
Very thought-provoking stuff there.

An episode from The Intercept's Intercepted: All the news unfit to print: James Risen on his battles with Bush, Obama, and the New York Times
From the intro:
"James Risen is a legend in the world of investigative and national security journalism. As a reporter for the New York Times, Risen broke some of the most important stories of the post 9/11 era, from the warrantless surveillance against Americans conducted under the Bush-Cheney administration, to black prison sites run by the CIA, to failed covert actions in Iran. Risen has won the Pulitzer and other major journalism awards. But perhaps what he is now most famous for is fighting a battle under both the Bush and Obama administrations as they demanded — under threat of imprisonment —the name of one of Risen’s alleged confidential sources. In the end, Risen prevailed and refused to testify and he was not locked up. But during the course of his case, there were rulings that could have far reaching implications for journalists, particularly in a climate where the president of the United States is characterizing news outlets as enemies of the people, contemplating arresting reporters, and is conducting at least 27 leak investigations. All before the end of his first year in office."

Enjoy!
But more importantly, think!

It's beautiful to watch, isn't it?

Donald Trump, you are going to go down in flames. And while the whole world is watching.

[You love being the center of attention, don't you?]

In the mood of Beckett

Aside from all the other bad, difficult and challenging things, and the madness and depression of my life the past several months, my computer broke down a little over a month ago. Since my situation does not afford me the possibility of even trying to see if it could be fixed, or of getting a new one, I am still without a computer, and expect to be for a little while.

---

Samuel Beckett

what would I do without this world faceless incurious
where to be lasts but an instant where every instant
spills in the void the ignorance of having been
without this wave where in the end
body and shadow together are engulfed
what would I do without this silence where the murmurs die
the pantings the frenzies towards succour towards love
without this sky that soars
above its ballast dust

what would I do what I did yesterday and the day before
peering out of my deadlight looking for another
wandering like me eddying far from all the living
in a convulsive space
among the voices voiceless
that throng my hiddenness

---

my way is in the sand flowing
between the shingle and the dune
the summer rain rains on my life
on me my life harrying fleeing
to its beginning to its end

my peace is there in the receding mist
when I may cease from treading these long shifting thresholds
and live the space of a door
that opens and shuts

Social media

Hearing more and more about this issue/controversy/debate regarding the algorithmic filtration of people's "news feeds" on facebook, the reactions (including feelings) people are having to the gradual realization that their own views and perspectives have been shaped by a filter that they not only had no say in, but never knew about, and then realizing that that is just as true for everyone else on facebook, and then realizing what that means or might mean given the fact that facebook is one of the main places of interaction between people … add to that the similar world of Twitter, the impacts that Twitter is having on people's views and on their lives, and then people's gradual realization of that fact, … :

I have to say, it makes me very grateful that I'm neither on facebook nor on Twitter.
Very grateful.
In fact, a big part of the reason I got off facebook six years ago was precisely because of how much undesirable, unnecessary, and useless influence it was having on me and my day to day life. And avoiding that was a big part of the reason why I never signed up for Twitter.

I've never felt more grateful for being so cut off from what the majority of other people are socially involved in.
But it doesn't make me feel better. Because I am very much aware of the damage it – what the majority of other people are socially involved in – has done, that damage coming in many degrees and in many varieties.

But do not misunderstand me: I am well aware of the good and positive things that have and do come out of facebook and Twitter. Like most things, they're not inherently good or bad; because it all depends on how they're used. But that doesn't make me feel any better either.

The Secret Lives of Bats

I haven't even listened to this podcast yet, but it's about bats, so it's got to be good, right?

Inquiring Minds: Episode 153: Merlin Tuttle: The Secret Lives of Bats
Or, on Soundcloud, if you prefer.

Bats are truly amazing animals, utterly underappreciated by too many people because of dumb myths and just plain falsehoods about them.
No, they're not going to get caught in your hair. The fact of the matter is that bats, especially the small ones, are the best, most skilled and most precise fliers in the entire animal kingdom. (You certainly don't ever worry about birds getting caught in your hair! Why would you think bats would while birds won't?) They're so good and so precise, they'll easily dodge you and whip by you so fast you won't even realize what just happened. I have been in the woods with bats flying around, flying right past me, around me, and even crossing my path right in front of me while I was walking. I've been in the same room(!), more than once, with a bat flying around because it somehow accidentally got inside, and didn't know how to get out; but it sure didn't have a problem flying around and not flying into anything.
Maybe you don't like bats just because you think they're ugly. (You can't think this is ugly, now can you?) I would bet that the ones you'd probably think are ugly are the ones with really weirdly shaped faces. Well, I'd ask you to take a moment to appreciate that those faces evolved as instruments for echolocation, especially for helping the bat focus their calls, and possibly helping to increase the power of the call. A call so powerful, mind you, from such a tiny little thing, that if you could hear it, it would be as loud as a jet engine! So, those little strange faces that a lot of people think are ugly are rather a lovely example of the beauty of evolution.

Oh, and by the way, bats do not have poor vision. They can see quite well, actually; a hell of a lot better than you can in very low light, which is what their eyesight evolved for. So on top of being able to "see" extremely well using their echolocation, they can also see just fine using their pretty acute eyesight.

Finally! A journalist speaks up about the Podesta emails to defend fellow journalists.

I am so glad to see that someone finally wrote about this! It has been frustrating to see so many people making a ridiculous big deal about a journalistic practice that is both fairly common and very effective as a method for getting "the goods" to write great pieces of journalism that we're all grateful for revealing to us the kinds of things that we all want to know about. Those and other journalists don't at all deserve to be lambasted for the kind of behavior revealed by some of the Podesta emails; they're doing their job, and they're doing it well, and at the end of the day, you get to benefit.

WikiLeaks and the Oily Washington Press, by Jack Shafer, senior media writer of Politico
Some noteworthy excerpts – of which the very last line is my favorite:

The toadying behaviors are driven by the power relationship between the news media and an administration or campaign. I would bet that many establishment reporters tiptoed around the Romney people as well, and asked them pretty-please for interviews. It’s a certainty that many of them bowed to George W. Bush when he was in the White House. Not saying it’s right. Just saying it is. […]

The primary reason Washington operators can dictate the terms of engagement with Washington journalists is that the true insiders are few and the journalists are many. […] [L]ong before the invention of email, journalists routinely donned false faces to charm their sources. They pretended to be sympathetic, they feigned interest in their sources and their families, they fawned, they socialized with them, fed their egos and remembered their birthdays. If you were a Washington journalist, you would, too. […]

Lesson learned, maybe Washington journalists will stop over-relying on email and return to the time-honored audio burn-bag that is the telephone to court and seduce and exploit their sources. Meanwhile, over drinks, they will recover soon enough and laugh at your petty ethical concerns.

I would like to draw your attention to a particular phrase the importance of which could very easily be missed. In the second half of the first sentence of the middle excerpt: the true insiders. There is an important reason he uses the word 'true' there.

Flint's Water and Environmental Justice

Scientific American Podcast: Flint's Water and Environmental Justice

Not even 20 minutes long. No excuse not to listen. This stuff is so important, because there are a hell of a lot of other Flints out there.
Digging into the data and the records looks like it is starting to reveal that the socioeconomic and racial discrimination is systemic and pervasive. But is it intentional? That's pretty much impossible to prove. What is probably intentional is the practice of putting money first, making profits, and just not caring about anyone's welfare.

The data and records are starting to show that the building of plants and other industrial facilities that pollute the surrounding environments and neighborhoods occurred after segregation (inequality) had already started to make those neighborhoods populated predominantly by people of color and populated overall by socioeconomically poor people. In other words, the sites for building those facilities were chosen because they were cheap because all the neighbors were people no one would listen to or care about if they complained about the negative impacts on their health and well-being. Which is exactly what has happened when they have complained, time and time again. Furthermore, the presence of those polluting facilities contributed to the trend of segregation, making it worse and more worse over time.

"Healthy" Foods: yeah, they're kind of a marketing "scam"

Original article: http://www.popsci.com/calling-food-healthy-doesnt-really-mean-anything

Calling Food 'Healthy' Doesn't Really Mean Anything
Nutritionists and food policy experts say the word is nothing more than a marketing term
By IAN GRABER-STIEHL OCTOBER 10, 2016

Back in 1994, the FDA decided to regulate a word that began popping up on food packages across the country: healthy. At the time, fat was America’s pariah fuel source and as such, these new “healthy” labels mostly dominated foods that were low in fat, letting foods high in added sugar slip through the cracks as “healthy.” Now, as more and more research shows the health implications of eating too much sugar, the FDA is stuck scrambling to find a work around.

At the end of September, the agency announced that it would begin the process of redefining its official meaning of healthy, and would take into consideration public opinion. However, nutritional and medical experts as well as public health policy specialists say that the real root of the problem may actually be the word itself. They argue that defining healthy should not, and perhaps cannot be done.

In September, a paper published in JAMA revealed that in the 1960s, as research started coming out that linked sugar and fat to a host of health conditions, sugar interest groups began funding and publicizing research that focused only on the latter link. Diet fads came to capitalize on that data, and turned “fat” into a four-letter word.