Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Kiribati is Low But Not as low as Whale Shit at the Bottom of the Ocean

It is possible to cause a huge (short term possibly reversed) increase in carbon capture by algae by dumping iron sulfate in the ocean. On the other hand, uh, well, maybe it won’t work and you will just get a few tons of fish (not many tons of carbon containing detritus on the bottom of the ocean.

Now the general principal seems to be that, so long as there isn’t proof beyond reasonable doubt that a proposal will work, to stick to the tried and true and first do no harm but rather wait until the tundra melts, methane is released, and the climate is irreversibly altered.

This makes no sense. Conservatism may make sense if the choice is between the current state (which is not ideal) and gambling on something new. It makes no sense if one is careening towards a precipice, as we are.

There is an, as usual, interesting post at Vox.com.   Kelsey Piper discusses the unfortunate fact that rogues might attempt to fight climate change without scientific proof that ocean fertilization works and without international regulation of ocean fertilization. Personally, I think the near certainty of climate catastrophe if we stick to the current approach is a more serious problem.

The current approach is international negotiations to reach non binding agreements which from which Donald Trump withdraws the second largest carbon emitter.

In contrast, the dangerous rogue approach is something allowed by current non law, conducted by Native Canadians which had the side effect of a record salmon harvest.

I want to address two questions. First should we dump Iron Sulfate in the open ocean. I think the answer to this question is obviously yes. I have read no argument with any trace of possible validity against it. I might add that it works better if mixed with silicate and seeded with marine diatoms. But in any case, I have seen no argument anywhere that there is a non negligible risk of undesirable side effects.

Yet the official response, such as it is, is to condemn the efforts and seize everything that can be seized.

I attempt to understand what the hell is going on after the jump.

But before that I note:

What happens when some individual or country wants to go big in the battle against climate change without buy-in from their neighbors? Could a country unilaterally pursue climate solutions that, unlike ocean iron dumping, pose substantial risks?

Note the insanity. In a post on ocean dumping of iron sulfate, Piper says the real issue isn’t any possible bad effects of ocean dumping, but the fact that someone might do something else which is bad some time. But note also that even a tiny country which has authority over a lot of ocean could unilaterally dump iron sulfate. The country doesn’t need a lot of land area. The country doesn’t need high altitude. The country’s average elevation might be two meters above sea level.

Why doesn’t Kiribati dump all the iron sulfate they can buy in the huge expanse of ocean around their tiny soon to be drowned atolls ? What do they have to lose ? Who is going to stop them ? The side effect would be more fish around Kirbati. The policy would make sense even if oceans weren’t rising.

OK so what’s the problem ?

Comments (17) | |

Trump Claims Obstruction of Justice is an Official Duty of the White House

Trump Claims Obstruction of Justice is an Official Duty of the White House

Tierney Sneed reports on Trump’s latest obstruction of justice:

The Justice Department on Monday issued a legal opinion claiming that Congress could not compel former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify about special counsel Robert Mueller’s report. The opinion was released not long after reports that the White House was planning to instruct McGahn to not comply with a House subpoena that he testify at a Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday.

The legal opinion can be found here and states in part:

Congress may not constitutionally compel the President’s senior advisors to testify about their official duties … This testimonial immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers and derives from the President’s independence from Congress.

What an incredibly arrogant canard! McGahn is being asked to testify to Congress about what is clearly obstruction of justice – a crime. How is that an official duty of the White House? Oh wait – the Trump White House is nothing but a den of organized crime so maybe he sees committing crimes as one of his official duties!

Comments (11) | |

Justice Stevens Shoots At Gun Decision

Justice Stevens Shoots At Gun Decision

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, now 99 years old, has written a book, The Making of a Justice: My First 94 Years. Apparently he considers the  District of Columbia versus Heller decision to be the worst of all those that was made during his time on the Supreme Court, that one on  a 5-4 vote.  That decision upended the interpretations of the Second Amendment that had been in place since the amendment was adopted, with Stevens noting that in fact this longstanding interpretation reflected gun laws from even the colonial era.  That interpretation allowed for gun control legislation for civilians as it was always assumed that the opening phrase about “maintaining a militia” (by state governments) meant that the second phrase about “the right to bear arms shall  not be ingfringed” only applied to those in the military.  The Heller decision undid that, making the right to bear arms disconnected from the business about militias and essentially absolute.

Clearly Stevens feels guilty about what has happened since then, most clearly the epidemic of mass murders with high-powered weapons that were actually banned for civilian use for a decade after 1994, during when such mass murders happened at a lower rate than before or after.  That law was allowed to lapse, when instead the US should have extended it and followed a policy more like what Australia did by buying up outstanding such weapons, which was followed by a dramatic decline in gun-related homicides.   As it is, the US now has a far higher rate of per capita gun ownership than any other nation, more than twice as many as Serbia, the nation with the next highest such rate.

Comments (1) | |

What if Trump does not leave If He Loses in 2020?

There is a number of comments and commentary about the 2020 election and what if Trump refuses to leave. I put up a few and also a good article from Vox.

– A comment (ken_lov) stolen from another site I frequent and read from time to time:

“From time to time on other websites I’ve outlined a scenario where the Supreme Court agrees with Trump that the 2020 election was irreparably tainted by fraud and interference from abroad, and consequently issues an injunction ordering the electoral college not to meet. The constitution provides no guidance about what should happen in such a situation. Trump would therefore be free to act more or less as he saw fit, especially if Republicans had a majority in at least one chamber of Congress and resolved that he was the lawful president.

It’s disappointing how many liberals refuse to take this seriously, based on nothing more than faith in American institutions. I would have thought the last 19 years should have shaken that faith beyond repair. It’s terrifying that the survival of constitutional government may depend on Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s ability to live another 18 months.”

The comment does raise unanswered questions in how a nation would react to Trump defiance and a right-leaning SCOTUS might decide. The issue is whether the left as Ken_lov suggests takes this scenario seriously. Pelosi has already commented on the topic. Perhaps, we have answers or know better?

Vox’s Aaron Rupar:

Trump joked about serving “10 or 14 years” during his rally in Panama City Beach, Florida, on Thursday. It wasn’t the first time he said something like that during a speech.

Trump: “This was an illegal coup attempt on the President of the United States.” Dan Bongino on @foxandfriends True!

Trump: “The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary – but also at many polling places – SAD”

Trump: “This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!”

The ground work appears to have been laid by Trump.

– Pelosi: “We have to inoculate against that, we have to be prepared for that,” Citing her concern as a reason Democrats should strive to “own the center left and own the mainstream” during their 2020 campaigns. And forgo the Green Deal and Medicare-For-All.

“If we win by four seats, by a thousand votes each, he’s not going to respect the election. He would poison the public mind. He would challenge each of the races; he would say you can’t seat these people. … We had to win. Imagine if we hadn’t won — oh, don’t even imagine. So, as we go forward, we have to have the same approach.”

Are we too naïve and trusting?

Comments (15) | |

Nailed it!

Nailed it!

Three weeks ago I wrote No, the Meuller report ***DID NOT*** “find no collusion!” in which I lambasted and parsed Barr’s conclusory snippet of the Mueller report, to wit, that “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

I pointed out that:

 … the bracketed [T] in Barr’s quote of Mueller is doing a lot of work. Because it means that there was a first part of the sentence that was omitted. Put that together with the fact the Mueller’s quote then specifically references that “the investigation did not establish …” and there is compelling evidence that the first part of the actual sentence was a qualifier. …. Almost certainly the first part of the sentence is something like “Although…’” “Since …’” or “Despite …” followed by “the investigation…”,  or a formulation like “The grand jury’s work is incomplete, and so the investigation …”

(Emphasis added)

Now that we have (most of) the actual Mueller report, we know that the complete sentence reads:

Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

(Emphasis added)

Exactly as I thought, and said. The first part of the sentence Barr quoted severely qualified the portion he chose to highlight.

Comments (12) | |

The Extreme Limits of Human Dishonesty and Stupidity

This is a follow up on my post on joy and sorrow. I feel great joy at having found the ultimate abyss of idiocy, but I fear Monday, October 30, 2017 Mysterious Ways

The competition for worst possible argument was provoked by the fact that former White House counsel Don McGahn told Mueller’s team that (sadly) current President Donald Trump twice told him to get Mueller fired and then told him to deny that “fake news” when it was reported.

Rudolf Giuliani attempted to surpass his previous accomplishments in dishonesty and idiocy by quibbling about an immaterial difference in wording

“I would ask, which of the three versions is McGahn standing by?” Giuliani told CNN’s Jake Tapper in response to McGahn’s lawyer’s statement, before listing several versions of the story.

[skip]

For example, while The New York Times used the word “fire” in its January 2018 report on the initial conversations between Trump and McGahn, McGahn himself did not use that word in interviews with Mueller’s team. Yet, Giuliani implied to Tapper that McGahn had used the word, citing the page number of Mueller’s report on which the New York Times article is described and saying: “The first version that he says is, ‘The President told me to fire him because he’s upset about conflicts of interest, and I told him I’d resign.’”

But there’s no such quote credited to McGahn in the redacted Mueller report.

It is impressive idiocy to base one’s case on the inconsistency between saying “Mueller has conflicts and can’t be the Special Counsel.” and “‘The President told me to fire him because he’s upset about conflicts of interest,” but it is truly outstanding idiocy to notice the difference in wording between McGahn’s testimony and a New York Times paraphrase of a leak.

One might expect that Giuliani’s denouncing someone for an immaterial difference between the words Giuliani put in his mouth and the words which actually came out of it would stand as the nadir of dishonest idiocy forever, or at least one day.

I put the following words in Kellyanne Conway’s mouth “hold my beer”.

She argued that we can tell that McGahn committed perjury for no compelling reason because

Don McGahn is an honorable attorney who stayed on the job 18 months after this alleged incident took place, and that if he were being asked to obstruct justice or violate the Constitution, or commit a crime, help to commit a crime by the President of the United States, he wouldn’t have stayed,”

Yes she said we know he is a felon who broke the law for no good reason, because we know he is honorable.

I really can’t even imagine dishonest idiocy which could top that, so I guess I will have to wait at least a day for Trump to outdo his minions.

Comments (4) | |

That One Sentence

That One Sentence

On March 25, Matt Taibbi wrote in Rolling Stone:

On Sunday, Attorney General William Barr sent a letter to Congress, summarizing the findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. The most telling section, quoted directly from Mueller’s report, read:

[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

That one sentence should end a roughly 33-month national ordeal (the first Russiagate stories date back to July 2016) in which the public was encouraged, both by officials and the press, to believe Donald Trump was a compromised foreign agent.

“That one sentence” unexpurgated:

Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through the Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Comments (19) | |

What Is The “Collusion Delusion”?

What Is The “Collusion Delusion”?

The Trump crowd has long claimed that there was “no collusion, ” repeatedly in many venues.  Somehow the MSM picked up on this screed, and so it is out there that indeed that the Mueller Report  declared that there was “no collusion,” a phrase that somehow Trump himself long put out there for his followers long before the Mueller Report came out.

But, in fact up front in the Mueller Report they made it clear that they were not  investigating “collusion.” They only briefly discussed the term, but the bottom line was that there exists no legal definition of this term. The final point in the report was that “collusion” is not even a “term of art” in the  legal system  Therefore, they simply ignored thereafter in the inquiry.

Bottom line is that there is massive evidence for collusion, that legally undefined form of half-baked cooperation that never got the level of coordination and conspiracy.  They were massively colluding, but never ccould get it together to engage in an organized mutually benefiicial operation to influence the election.  They were too incompetent to put  it together, although they made great efforts to do so, The obvious example was the meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016. The Russsians wanted certain Putin-related cronies exempted from the Magnitsy law, while the Trump people wanted more dirt on HRC than the Russians were willing to give then, although soon after they delivered the goods.

Barkley Rosser

Comments (1) | |

What Mueller Wrote about Obstruction

Josh Marshall explains it very well here. Mueller definitely did not write that he did not find proof without reasonable doubt that the President is a criminal.

I want to explain it in a way which is not so good, in fact bad, basically malicious, too petty to be evil.

Mueller clearly wrote that he accepted DOJ policy that he could not ask a grand jury to indict Trump *while Trump is President*
He added that he would not write that he would have sought an indictment except for that policy, because it would be unfair to accuse Trump yet not have a trial where Trump could present a defence, confront accusers and subpoena witnesses.

This means he clearly wrote that no matter how strong the evidence, a priori he had decided neither to seek an indictment nor to write that he would have done so except for the policy of not indicting serving presidents.

But Mueller didn’t stop there. He wrote that he wouldn’t write that Trump is clearly guilty of obstruction of justice. Then he noted that there are things he could, in principle, write which happen to be inconsistent with the assertion that Trump is clearly guilty. Finally he noted that he can’t honestly write any of them.

So he wrote to this effect “I won’t say that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the President is a criminal. I won’t say anything which contradicts the assertion (which I won’t make) that there is proof beyond doubt that the President is a crminal, because all such statements are false. All statements which contradict the assertion that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the President is a criminal are inconsistent with the available evidence. I stress again that I have not written that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the President is a criminal. Wink Wink. Nudge.”

Trump better hope that a majority of people can’t handle simple logic. I think he does hope that. I think he is right to hope that. But Mueller really made it very clear that he believes he has found proof beyond reasonable doubt that the President is a criminal and also he isn’t going to write that he found proof beyond reasonable doubt that the President is a criminal.

I’m not a prosecutor and I can write that the Mueller report clearly contains proof beyond reasonable doubt that the President is a criminal.

But Mueller didn’t (quite) write that.

Comments (28) | |

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

After Peter Dorman’s latest post this seems appropriate to follow up.  Very recently I was at a talk where somebody spoke on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.  A theme of the talk was how few Americans know about this UN Convention while most reasonably well informed people in virtually the entire rest of the world know about it.  A first version of it was passed  by the UN in 1959.  A second round was in 1989.  I do not know what the US’s position was on the first round, but on the second round, while the US signed it in 1995, it was never ratified by the Senate and never has been.  Right wing Christian types claimed it took away rights of parents over their children, although any reasonable examination of it shows that is nonsense.  Up until 2015, Sudan and Somalia also were with the US in not ratifying it, but then both of them did so, leaving the US to be the only nation on earth (or at least in the UN) not ratifying it.

Unsurprisingly there may be more reasons now why the current Senate will not raritify it as it looks like US behavior on our southern border is in open violation of parts of the Convention.  It has 42 articles, and the fact that so many nations have accepted it is a sign of how really uncontroversial it should be.  There is no reasonable reason to oppose any of the 42 articles.  Anyway, I shall simply note a few that are now especially unfortunate now given recent US conduct. (these are the simpler versions for children):

Comments (0) | |