Hacked By XwoLfTn
Long life for Tunisia
long life to Palestine
Hacked By XwoLfTn
Long life for Tunisia
long life to Palestine
Oh, this is rich! In a Washington Post op-ed Thursday, “Democrats shouldn’t rob voters of chance to replace Scalia” (18 February 2016), Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley were so solicitous of the voting rights of the American people as it regards the replacement for the late Antonin Scalia. “Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.”
Okay, I’m not a senator, let alone the majority leader or the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, but I’ve known for years that my vote for a president included, among many other things, my choice of who would nominate a new Supreme Court justice if a vacancy arose, and that, barring his own death, resignation, or conviction following impeachment, that the president I was helping elect that day would serve a term starting at noon on the 20th day of January of the following year, and would continue for four years.
If I Were King, I think I’d see what could be done about teaching the basics of our governmental system in the schools. All of them. Just to make sure that future political leaders would have a basic understanding of how things worked, instead of understanding nothing while developing rare expertise in defeating or sidestepping the laws. It’s worth a shot, even if too late for those that are already in office.
When Antonin Scalia left us last weekend, I had mixed thoughts. I rarely, if ever, agreed with his opinions, but I did enjoy reading them. Perhaps not on the level of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr or Robert H. Jackson, but the man could argue well. But he won’t be writing any more opinions, and though I understand that some decisions that have not been announced have been decided based on his participation, there are a lot of cases to decide between now and the end of June that will be decided by eight justices. It’s important that his seat not remain empty for too long.
Even if a new justice were to be nominated and confirmed in the next 100 days, which is not far from the historical norm, the replacement wouldn’t be sworn in until the last week of May and I don’t think a new justice would actually be voting on cases that had already been heard before he joined the court. Best case, we’re looking for a new justice to be ready for the next term in October.
The witlings in charge of the Senate have announced that they won’t even consider a nomination until after the next president is sworn in. Now whoever is elected in November will certainly have a candidate in mind by the inauguration, so it’s quite possible that the next justice would be nominated on 20 January 2017, at which point the Senate Judiciary Committee would start hearings and all the fun would begin. A hundred days later would be the end of April, by which point the bulk of the cases in the next term would have been argued. In effect, the court would be operating with an empty seat for very nearly two terms.
The old white men in charge of the Senate don’t want no black man choosing the next justice, they’ve dissed him every way they could think of and they’re just loving the chance to do it again. They have no logic behind their arguments, there never has been any “unwritten law” about not making judicial nominations during election years. But then nobody thought their arguments had anything to do with their decision. If anything, they should be worried about the lifestyles and the coronary fitness of Alito, Roberts, and Thomas. (It certainly was inconsiderate of Justice Scalia to die at this particular moment, don’t you think? Of course, even Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz are bright enough not to actually say that!) They don’t like Obama, they can’t wait for him to go away, and they’re going to ramp up their already-legendary obstructionist tactics.
If I Were King, of course the parliament would be involved, that “advise and consent” process in our constitution is a fine and valuable thing. But I’m not, and all thinking persons are going to need to put the heat on their senators this spring, because a big bunch of them want to take their ball and go home, a sorry bunch of spoiled children.
Note: Delays continued, apparently. This post was drafted in March of 2015, it’s now mid-February of 2016 before something else came along to inspire me to get back to work.
Last September I called my doctor’s office to ask about getting a flu shot. I was told that they no longer gave them, that I should just go to the pharmacy instead, but that I should wait because a reformulated vaccine would be available in October. But that was a time during which radiation had sent my brain somewhere else, and I thought no more about it until this past Sunday when a scratchy throat and sore eyes suggested that perhaps I should have been paying more attention last fall.
I think I have a good excuse. The national news tells me, however, that there are a great many people who skip vaccinations for their children without having any such excuse. I can think of numerous words to describe these people, moronic and selfish come to mind.
It seems that in 1998 one Andrew Wakefield wrote a story in the Lancet, a British medical Journal, in which he discussed several cases of children in whom autism first became apparent immediately after receiving the mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine. Many of the recent news stories have mentioned this article, calling it either “discredited” or “debunked” – which I consider appalling.
In science, and we certainly hope that medicine is a subset thereof, an investigator or experimenter observes physical events, conjures up a hypothesis to explain those events, and then devises an experiment or plan of research that will prove or disprove his hypothesis. It has long been noted that it is easy for the experimenter to see the results he seeks even when no clear indication actually exists in the data. This was demonstrated last March by the Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization 2 (BICEP2) project, a group of astronomers seeking signs of the gravity waves left echoing through the universe from the first microseconds following the big bang. They may have, in fact, seen some such result, but it’s also quite possible that what they saw was the result of cosmic dust and this has been modeled by others and additional work is planned. That’s what “discredited” means. The case of the Wakefield article is nothing like this at all.
Wakefield had a history of attacking vaccination programs, he had a business plan laid out to take it advantage of public fears about the MMR vaccine,and his work was funded by private tort lawyers who would have been able to generate significant fees as a result of any public concern generated. The article suggested that the 12 cases he found were the random result of vaccination, when in fact they had been very carefully chosen. In short, the article was not discredited, it was fraudulent from the start. Wakefield lied. Most of Wakefield’s co-authors asked that their names be removed from the article almost immediately, and after a distressingly long interval, the Lancet formally retracted the entire article. On top of that, the British medical establishment withdrew Wakefield’s credentials as a physician.
Wakefield has subsequently moved to the US where he can stir the pot as the head of his own foundation, and seems to have found favor with some idiots who are willing to help spread his bogus word. I’m sure he continues to present himself as a doctor, but he has never had the privilege of practicing medicine in the US. His history of prevarication probably means that he never will, but the nonsense he has spewed about vaccinations continues to damage the public.
If I were King, journalists who insisted on referring to his articles as discredited rather than fraudulent would be called to the throne room for a good talking to, and “Dr” Wakefield would be banished.
It has been far too long since my last entry here. When I started radiation therapy I was told that fatigue would be the most likely side effect. I’m not sure that’s a good term for what I experienced. As expected, I was tired. As some resources warned, sleep did not seem to relieve the exhaustion. Several months afterwards it seems that someone put my brain in a radiation-proof box for safekeeping, it certainly wasn’t available to me.
I was unable to continue reading serious material at the rate that I had maintained during chemo, and completely unable to bear down and capsulize the experience. I got nasty notes from the library about books I had read completely – long overdue. Even though the last several volumes I read made sense, I found myself unable to actually write so much as a coherent paragraph on any of them. Perhaps later. For now they seem too distant.
There is one book review coming up shortly, I’ve started Steven Brill’s America’s Bitter Pill, his magnum opus about the genesis of Obamacare. It starts with him laying in the hospital the night before open-heart surgery, giving him a good perspective on the problems. My last year gives me some similar insights, I trust, so I’ll have no problem getting through this volume, and I’ll certainly have a few things to say about it.
By Thanksgiving Day the fog had mostly lifted and though I could not return to the blog, I was able to revive the Quotes of the Day web server and restart the daily mailings. Other than a two-day absence in December caused by weather-induced power failure, I have mailed the quotes every day since. I don’t believe there has ever been such a consistent stream in the 15 years of the project. For now, I intend to focus on that rather than making a major push here, although I will be back to making cranky observations on the news. Please don’t expect any serious literary efforts soon.
If my year battling cancer is of interest to you, Lord knows there’s no reason why it should, I do have most of it written up here. It should probably suffice that in early December I had an extensive set of CT scans which revealed no metastatic disease, and after Christmas I had a colonoscopy that showed no signs of cancer at the site of resection. So thank God and onward!
Waiting until the last minute as is my normal pattern, I have finally posted a comment to the Federal Communications Commission regarding Proceeding 14-28 titled “Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet”. Today is the deadline but I assume that everyone that actually has concerns about this topic knows that and is either suffering from procrastination like I have been or has already filed their comment, so this isn’t necessarily a call for you to get cracking and get your comment in too. On the other hand, if you haven’t yet planned to do this, you should: FCC Send Us Your Comments page
For the record, although my comments will appear on the FCC’s site in a day or so, here’s what I had to say:
Much of my life depends directly on an open and free-flowing internet. A part of this is that on a very small scale I am a web developer and hosting service. This represents a significant portion of my work and my income. In addition to that, I get virtually all of my news online. The vast majority of my communications come in and go out through the medium of e-mail. Although telephone calls to my immediate area are carried over copper pairs provided by Whidbey telecom, my local telco, most of my calls travel over the Internet using VOIP. I don’t watch television, I don’t subscribe to a dead trees newspaper, and the physical mail that comes to my post office box represents a tiny fraction of the incoming information to this household.
It is crucial for me, and I believe for the future of American society, that the Internet continues to serve all of its users, both publishers and consumers as well as merchants and customers, with scrupulous fairness in terms of transmission capacity and speed.
The business model that has made the Internet what it is today is relatively simple. On one side are the consumer facing ISPs who provide transmission to and from their customers, frequently local, who connect via telephone line, cable services, wireless or cellular connection, and doubtless a few creative niche alternatives that I’m forgetting at the moment. On the other side are the publishers of content, essentially anyone with a website, who either develop their own data centers and connections to the broader network or rent facilities from commercial hosts. Between these two sides exists what we call “the cloud”, the backbone carriers and all of the various interconnections and telco hotels that connect the consumer-facing ISPs on the one hand with the publishers on the other, both of whom charge their respective customers for their services, both of whom pay their upstream providers for connections to the cloud.
There has been one addition to this pattern, probably starting with the founding of Akamai in 1998, and that is what’s called the Content Delivery Network. This allows any publisher with a website hosted on a single server to engage the services of a CDN with globally dispersed proxies to speed up the experience of a user in Portland Oregon, for example, when browsing pages of a site located in Miami Florida or London England. Functionally this is an augmentation of the existing cloud. Clients of a CDN are using that system so that their sites appear to be nearby to users regardless of their physical location. Although the acceleration offered by a CDN directly benefits only the users of that system, by taking significant traffic off of the primary backbone providers every web browser in a specific location will tend to see content loading more quickly even on other sites. It’s hard to see this development as anything but positive.
Does such a system create a fast lane and a slow lane for Internet users? I believe the answer to that is clearly negative.
To take the question one step further, will the recent proposals from ISPs like Comcast to publishers like Netflix, in which those publishers pay a premium to those ISPs for faster delivery, create the dreaded two speed Internet? I have no direct knowledge of the mechanism by which this faster delivery will be accomplished, my assumption is that what is being offered is additional bandwidth across the cloud supplementing the current backbone providers. If this is the case, when Netflix pays extra to deliver their content more rapidly to Comcast data centers, all Comcast customers will benefit and no one will be relegated to the dreaded slow lane.
However, this is true only insofar as the ISPs continue to provide the same level of bandwidth between their data centers and the cloud that they were providing before the special service to those high-volume publishers was implemented. If Comcast and and Netflix contract to add a half gigabit per second of direct connectivity between Netflix and a specific Comcast data center, and Comcast maintains their existing cloud connections unchanged, no slow lane is created. In fact, customers viewing other sites will see an improvement in performance during those parts of the day when video traffic from Netflix is highest. However, if Comcast turns around and reduces their existing connections by the same half gigabit per second, customers viewing other content will see no immediate change in performance but over time, with growth in network volumes, their experience will begin to suffer.
Therefore the existence of these additional service contracts between publishers and ISPs has the potential to benefit the public, but only insofar as those ISPs do not reduce their current pattern of connections to the cloud which all their users will be exploiting in common. Whether ensuring that such contracts actually enhance network services requires a redefinition of the Commission’s structural approach to regulating Internet service providers or not is best left to the attorneys, I have no preference either way as long as the result of those contracts is an improvement for all users.
There is one question that has come up in the past that must not be forgotten: any attempt that an ISP might make to prioritize one type of traffic over another or to favor the traffic from one source over another, once that traffic has reached its data centers, must always be prohibited. This must apply regardless of the reason, whether an ISP simply doesn’t like BitTorrent, disapproves the politics of certain sites, or wants to block VOIP traffic to protect their own telephone business is irrelevant, there must be no favoritism shown by an ISP for one packet over another once that packet arrives at the datacenter.
If I Were King, net neutrality would be the law of the land with or without my comments.
American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America
Viking Penguin, 2011, 322 pp plus backmatter
In 1991 Joel Garreau, then national news editor for the Washington Post, wrote The Nine Nations of North America. He was attempting to create a system that would help organize the efforts of his reporters when he realized that the news could not be organized geographically along state lines. Instead he defined areas of common social values and trends, only one of which (Quebec) actually followed political boundaries. Colin Woodard saw the organization of North America through a very similar lens, but did not want to create only a snapshot of the current social reality as Garreau had done. Woodard describes the beginnings of each of his eleven “nations”, the personalities and politics that controlled their early days, and the migrations from each.
Woodard’s map has some surprises, he calls New England “Yankeedom” and shows it covering not only the states we normally describe with that term, but also Canada’s Maritime provinces as well as much of Minnesota, all of Wisconsin and Michigan, not to mention Chicago. The Hispanic-influenced region he calls “El Norte” includes Southern California and large parts of Texas but also all or most of several states in northern Mexico which he suggests would be eager to leave Mexico to join an independent nation based on his lines on the map. Like Garreau, Woodard considers Miami to be the capital of a nation that includes all of the Caribbean islands along with most of Central America and the northern coast of South America. Sadly, because this nation is mostly outside of the US he identifies it and then chooses not to cover it.
“Tidewater” is his name for coastal Virginia, North Carolina, and Maryland, the original home of a number of America’s leading thinkers in the early days. In contrast to that, he asserts that those who formed the basis of the “Deep South” came not from Europe like the other settlers but from the plantations of the Caribbean, and that the social structure, most particularly relating to slavery, was entirely different from that of Tidewater. “Greater Appalachia” was formed later in the western parts of Tidewater states, largely by those who had come “from the war-torn borderlands of northern Britain” who sparsely settled an inland area with fiercely-loyal clans and no government.
Woodard speaks with great admiration for what he calls “New Netherlands”, the smallest of his defined areas comprising metropolitan New York City. He discusses the anti-feudal politics of the Netherlands that he says grew out of the reality of individual land owners recovering land from the sea, and that a small polity like the Netherlands had become an aggressive international trade center and the needs of serving an international market had cured it of all the religious and nationalist biases that were so strong in every other area he discusses. Last week we celebrated the 350th anniversary of New York City, starting with the point at which the British Navy occupied New Amsterdam. Rather than attempt a military resistance, the Dutch burghers quickly sought a peaceable surrender. The British recognized the economic value of the community and though they insisted on naming it after the Duke of York they allowed the unique freedoms of the city to be maintained. New York City clearly maintains much of this character to this day, despite the fact that descendents of those burghers no longer represent a significant part of the populace.
By contrast, the nation he calls “Yankeedom” was not oriented towards freedom of the individual, but was committed to communities of like-minded, and like-worshiping, persons. Woodard shows that much of this character is preserved in communities as far west as North Dakota, although the Western areas populated by Yankee migration do seem to have lost all of early Boston’s religious intolerance.
By a delightful fluke it happened that I was reading American Nations at the same time I read James MacGregor Burns’ Fire and Light, a history of the Enlightenment. As much of the political and social development of the original colonies was a reflection of intellectual ferment of the Enlightenment, some of the parallels enlightened me more than perhaps reading either alone would have. I’ll cover that title in a few days.
I greatly enjoyed reading The Nine Nations several years ago and was delighted to see the same concept developed further by Woodard. Although the boundaries defined in the two books are different in detail, that largely reflects the time frames dealt with. Garreau was focused on newsworthy activities during the ’80s and ’90s rather than the origins of regional differences, Woodard’s historical approach naturally led him to focus on the original areas of influence. I don’t think you need to have read The Nine Nations to appreciate the eleven nations, although I certainly commend both titles.
American politics is currently facing significant demographic changes, as old white people like me are dying off, the young continue to insist on thinking differently than their parents and grandparents, and immigrants from Asia and Latin America continue to bring different values along with their exciting culinary contributions. The immediate changes we are facing on this front, potentially delayed one or more presidential election cycles due to low participation on the part of some of the most rapidly growing cohorts, is largely unrelated to the sectional histories Woodard provides, but the processes of change that he limns here provide valuable background to anyone trying to make sense of America’s direction at the start of the third millennium.
Tibetan Peach Pie: A True Account of an Imaginative Life
Harper Collins, 27 May 2014, 363pp
Right on the back cover it says, “this is not an autobiography”. Robbins goes on to claim that the book is not a memoir either. This is either total nonsense or irrelevant, the compelling text takes us from Robbins youth in Appalachian North Carolina, where his mother dubbed him Tommy Rotten, through 41 vignettes leading to his current comfortable life at La Conner, Washington at the ripe old age of 82. He doesn’t actually describe his life as comfortable, I infer this from a recent New York Times story about his residential compound (the link to which I can’t currently find).
In the early chapters he does a good job of showing us that he earned that sobriquet. For example, at seven Tommy and a friend named Johnny robbed a bank. Armed with cap pistols the two marched into the Northwestern State Bank in Blowing Rock, and demanded “a lot of money”. A quick thinking bank employee hurled several contact-sensitive firecrackers against a wall and the two boys, thinking they were under fire from bank guards, fled the scene. No charges were filed, the town was amused — excepting only the boys’ parents.
Robbins details the range of events he was part of, the places he lived and traveled, and the women he shared his life with. I’m sure there were numerous dark and hard times, but we are spared those. What he gives us is a collection of the stories he has told to those women, which he claims they insisted he should publish. The women had good sense on this point, through all these unpredictable events we share a reflection of the author’s embarrassment, as he generously chose to include anecdotes that don’t necessarily reflect well on his judgment and life skills.
The stories feel real. I could relate to quite a few of them myself. The text is witty and literate, the reader is amused but not left rolling on the floor gasping for breath. The only downside for the reader is if that reader is also a writer — the mastery of storytelling demonstrated is bound to lead to envy. Where I might struggle to craft an apt and surprising metaphor every week, and then cherish and overuse it, Robbins thinks nothing of piling on with multiple displays of superior wordcraft in a single paragraph.
In most autobiographies and memoirs there really isn’t any point other than making the reader feel good about the author, and perhaps to understand the forces that propelled him through life. Tibetan Peach Pie may or may not help us understand Tom Robbins, but you can’t help feeling good after reading it. I can’t call this book important but it was certainly enjoyable and I think I can recommend it to anyone. With the possible exception of the very young who might be inspired to emulate the antics of “Tommy Rotten”.
In news stories over the last few days there have been frequent mentions of the Obama administration weighing airstrikes on Islamic State units and facilities in Syria. Should we go there? No, absolutely not.
This is partially a linguistic question, complicated by the administration’s continued references to “ISIL”, one of the two common transliterations of the latest terrorist menace.
But this isn’t a geography question unless your maps are more than a few weeks old. Through a swath of what was recently eastern Syria and western Iraq ISIL (or ISIS if you prefer) has founded a new state. The Islamic State (IS) is the germ of what ISIL hopes will be a renewed caliphate, intended to govern the entire Islamic world once they’ve managed to kill all the annoying Shiites, Alawites, Sufis, Yazidis, Jews, and Christians in their way.
If I Were King, I would stipulate the existence of this new state and order air support for those troops that are fighting ISIL in both the territory they’ve conquered as well as in Iraqi territory where ISIL intends to extend its domain. For now, the area under ISIL control is neither Syria nor Iraq and is fair game, assuming the obvious security implications for every western state. We don’t need Bashar al-Assad’s permission to attack an enemy state on their own territory, even if Assad still thinks of said territory as part of his benighted country.
23 September 2014 – UPDATE: United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-moon agrees. While the Obama administration has provided several legal justifications for attacking ISIL inside the nominal borders of Syria, Mr Ban’s statement, if not a ringing endorsement of the attacks, clearly recognized my argument above in that those attacks took place “in areas no longer under the effective control of that government”.