Leaving Aside the Illegality…

…as in this fairly clear restriction that's a century and a half old…

• …the Orange Menace — or, more probably, some ineligible for the death penalty insiders — has determined to mobilize the National Guard, turning them from civilians to soldiers, to patrol for crime in DC without adequately determining their objective. Since I can't stop him/them from doing so, in the best traditions of military strategy all I can do is suggest an appropriate target for those patrols — a part of DC with rampant crime that the local authorities have shown neither capability nor interest in controlling. The initial target for an appropriately surgical strike against rampant crime is actually quite close to the White House, thereby presenting a cognizable threat and further justifying use of national-security assets in protecting against it: The stretch of US Highway 29 between 9th Street and 21st Street.

  K Street.

  Some offender-profiling efforts are probably appropriate. Channeling Jessica Williams for a moment, from a classic Daily Show piece that is mysteriously not available for free/easy streaming, profiling should extend to

  [P]eople you suspect of being white-collar criminals. You know, walking around in tailored suits, slicked-back hair, always needing sunscreen if you know what I'm saying.… Look, I know this isn't comfortable, but if you don't want to be associated with white-collar crime, maybe you shouldn't dress that way.… [I]t is a hard fact that white-collar crime is disproportionately committed by people who fit a certain profile. So if you are, say, [a] white, Upper East Side billionaire with ties to the financial community like Michael Bloomberg, you've just got to accept being roughed up by the police every once in a while.

  Further, such targeting would arguably evade the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act, as it's hard to envision a greater threat to public order than influence-peddling and bribery (however mischaracterized as "lobbying," "public relations," and/or "petitioning the legislature or executive") a few hundred meters from the seat of government. It would certainly be more excusable than use of military assets to prosecute the entirely-civilian-law-enforcement War on Drugs, and probably more effective too (even when being undermined by other military "mission priorities" with all too similar policy rationales).

• Unfortunately, the US is far from the only source of such problems, chafing at process restrictions on doing what… a certain element… is utterly convinced is not just advisable, but a policy imperative. Sadly, this unsigned editorial at The Guardian is far too genteel in responding to attacks on the European convention on human rights — a convention that goes not nearly far enough, set against the backdrop of not just occasional but default governmental conduct across the continent not so very long ago. Orwell was right: The object of power is power. Attacks on the ECHR Over There, and parallel attacks on "civil rights" Over Here, are not about the merits of policies that are being "impaired," but about restrictions on might equalling right.
• Maybe we'd all be better off if we just relied only on science to set policy. Or maybe not, given that the same sort of people are also trying to influence "science" — or, at least, publishing about it. The courts certainly haven't done anything about it (citations to parallel US difficulties too numerous for a blawg entry, very much starting at the top).
• At that, neither Europe nor the US is as enthusiastic about things as the PRC.

  At least, not quite yet.

Imperfections

Things are slowly returning to normal in the Sharknest, which reflects a rather disturbing linguistic slippage of "normal."

• Professor Sarat muses on the propriety of jail terms, using as examples two… apparent sociopaths. Professor Sarat is well known for his opposition to the death penalty — an opposition that I share because, having been inside the machinery short of and including death, I will not tinker with the machinery of death — which is all well and good. This short piece, however, fails to acknowledge two brontosaurii in the room, both of which are busy trampling the greenery (and leaving herbivore droppings everywhere).

  First, and perhaps most obvious, the purple and orange-striped beast: If not prison, what? Does that alternative do a better job with "punishment" than does prison, is it equally (or more) administrable, and is it equally (or more) ethically acceptable in a context of imperfect human imposition of punishment? (That the death penalty fails all three of these inquiries is not coincidental.) This is the argumentation problem underlying most attacks on public institutions: There's seldom equally-rigorous consideration of potential substitutes — not even when the substitute is "we don't need it at all!" Life and policy and society are not binary Oxford-style debates…

  Second, a bit better camouflaged, the mottled green-and-grey-and-brown beast: What is the objective of imposing adverse consequences upon those convicted of criminal offenses (leaving aside, for the moment, those guilty but not convicted or pardoned for no good reason)? If that objective is not uniform, how do we tailor what we do without undermining "adverse consequences for getting convicted of criminal offenses," especially when we've got imperfect humans involved in the "convictions"? (Don't even think about proposing hallucinating "artifical intelligence" as an alternative…) Whether under the classic "four distinct purposes" model underlying "modern" criminal jurisprudence or another rubric, the individual psychology of the offender inevitably would destroy uniformity, even coherence — and that's no way to win a struggle.

• In an entirely expected result of the initial hearing, the Army demonstrated that it cannot be trusted with aviation anywhere near civilian aircraft. Even moreso when Army aviation standards and culture are such that they can't tell when they are near civilian aircraft.

  This is, in part, a problem with training methods. "Local area familiarization" should largely be handled through intense simulator sessions, especially when that interfaces with "daily life that isn't about the Army." That will not eliminate the need for at least some actual flights, but it should vastly reduce them — to the point at which they can be scheduled and routed to avoid "daily life" or, as in this instance, "needless death." The incentives for doing so, however, are minimized by both historical and cultural pressures, especially within the Army aviation community. (BTW, don't think the Marines, the Air Force, and the Navy are off the hook here — just ask any resident of the southern end of Whidbey Island, including the orcas, about that! Their pressures are different in detail and extent, albeit not in kind.)

• On this blawg, my few persistent readers have probably noticed over time that I try to apply scientific standards where they fit. (They don't fit in evaluating individual works in the arts…) But what are they? Is a free spirit of inquiry enough, or does it require something more? Do standards require adjustment, or is the problem not with the standards imposed on science but the standards imposed on scientists and their careers? Can I write a bunch of obvious rhetorical questions?
• It's not limited to "the sciences," either. History professors have similar problems, reinforced by watching government officials fall off the edge of the world (which is nonetheless round — eppur si muove, figli di puttana) based on fundamentally inaccurate and dishonest data collection (that doesn't even meet any need of the organization collecting the data).

Eminences Grís

These fat bangers are well past the expiration dates on their labels.

• It's always amusing (and almost always disheartening) to watch thinly-disguised partisan-but-self-interested cheerleading, especially regarding elections more than a year out, from the perspective of the "opposition" party. Right now, that amusement is primarily concerning the Jackasses (although locally it concerns the Heffalumps) — especially the refusal to engage with fundamental factors, instead focusing on minutiae. It's fascinating to see "analysis" of Mamdani's primary victory and successful candidates' obsession with "image" that won't engage with the primary problem both parties have: The widespread near-senility of party gatekeepers and candidates. Unless and until the party mechanisms agree that "retirement age means from elective office, too," we're going to have these problems — and that's not happening any time soon, as internal advancement to "gatekeeper" status, not to mention "party consensus candidate" status, is almost entirely by seniority. (And I'm saying this as well within that "retirement age" demographic.)

  Militaries are frequently, and rightly, criticized for being prepared to fight the last war, and for selecting leadership from those successful in the war before that. Even out here in a state so blue it looks like a continuation of the ocean on a map, our "senior senator" is in her sixth term, is about a decade older than I am, and shows no sign whatsoever of stepping aside (which would require generation-skipping!). But nobody is making Castro-going-on-forever jokes about incumbents. Yet.

• This is also reflected within the arts community, especially regarding public access to the arts. Whether based on distribution of copies (even of "newer" acceptable forms of works) or nineteenth-century perspectives on "copying" applied to actually faithful (probable) copies, it's almost entirely being shaped by people too old to be innovative creators who can support themselves (let alone families). Even worse, most of those who control the arts aren't qualified to engage in them — often not even as amateurs and dilletantes.

  Lurking in the background remains the usual problem: cui bono? Certainly not anyone working in areas not already considered "mainstream" — and the demographics of that particular list of "nontraditional" means of trying to profit in the arts are cringeworthy at best. Nor, at the margins, are parallel problems that ignore "age".

…And It Was Still Hot

Hot for PNW, anyway, both today and two years ago. Right, Max?

🦉

How [Not] to Share

So, one obvious conceptual flaw in SharePoint has been exploited? Color me surprised (a particularly repulsive variant of chartreuse)…

I have uninstalled and blocked SharePoint on every machine I've had since it was first distributed. At a fundamental level, the SharePoint concept is inconsistent with the concept of "confidential data," and its very existence — very much like the use of the body of e-mails for privileged information — makes a mockery by trusting others whom the person responsible for securing information doesn't know. Effective information security is not an automated afterthought to the convenience of providing "me, too!" comments on badly-conceived marketing documents passed across an organization and to outside "consultants." Even that, however, is better conceived than SharePoint and similar "collaborative editing" systems that also, simultaneously, undermine both declarations concerning the marketing emperor's new clothes and taking responsibility for changes — that is, they foster not collaboration but groupthink. (Lest you think this is an anti-M$ rant, I do the same with all other "collaborative commenting" and "silent document-sharing" systems, such as with PDFs.)

Any resemblance of the preceding to any of the following is somewhat less than coincidental:

• The traditional process of providing law-firm partners commenting ability (even with pen on paper!) on every associate's "preliminary" and "early-draft" work, without regard to either "actual knowledge of context" or "need to know"
• Blanket access to anything by administrative assistants
• The success rate of individuals in recognizing what elements of documents that they are asked to comment upon but are not directly concerned with their daily duties are confidential, even to the minimal extent of "proprietary business information"
• AI Chelsea Manning

Worse, all of that concerns "confidential information." It does not reach the concept of EEFIs (essential elements of friendly information), such as a sudden increase in communications between a corporation and a law firm (or even department thereof) specializing in mergers and acquisitions… or white-collar-crime defense… These are just the easy-to-see examples, too; and the less said about healthcare information, or enablement of ICE raids, the better. The irony that this particular system failure is (more) exploitable when an organization uses its own SharePoint server rather than a "cloud-based system" should cause everyone to question the very concept, but that isn't part of the conversation at all.

"Security, privacy, and respect for others' security and privacy" are inherently not efficient. Get over it — reject the purportedly neutral "efficiency is always good" meme — and pay the f*ck attention, instead of relying upon some programmer who knows nothing of your actual business (or personal concerns) to do it for you.

•  •  •

Meanwhile, Life continues to get in the way of everything. I'm afraid that Life doesn't make for "efficient sharing," either. So, no further comments about how having a "controlling shareholder individual or small group" for a company with First Amendment issues makes Mr Colbert's impending deplatforming inevitable, beyond my expression of just as much surprise as I did above concerning SharePoint. At least not today.

Not Irascible

Instead, permanently irasced. Fortunately for those of my three regular readers who have sensitive dispositions, Life has gotten in the way of blawgging of late. There are only so many times one can point out that all officers of the United States (including both the military and everyone else) take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Not to support and defend one's personal interests, or tribal allegiances, or self-righteous moral doctrines — the Constitution. A document that had embedded in it both a self-awareness of possible error and an inherent, limited, and direct mechanism for change (which is one of its two fundamental innovations — most others, however radical in substance, are mere more-extreme examples from late-eighteenth-century systems).¹ A document that proclaims itself as less than perfection, a mere guide toward creating a "more perfect"² union.

OK, then. On to the rather unappetizing platter of sausages — a platter that epitomizes "you really, really wouldn't want to have seen these sausages being made."

• The Grauniad yet again wonders about the Problem of the Dishonest Memoir, which sounds like — but isn't — Sherlock Holmes fanfic. Maybe the problem isn't with the books, but with the selection process for them (and the marketing process thereafter). As a thought experiment, it would be worth comparing the reality games played in Richard Powers' Galatea 2.2 with those in James Frey's A Million Little Pieces, and pondering that one author successfully used the form of the memoir to comment on reality and evolution of a single soul, while one… did not. Then reverse the marketing categories plastered onto the books…
• That may be too much heavy thinking for a July heat wave in the Northern Hemisphere. How about the much simpler "eat the rich"? It's not like there are no examples, all in very poor taste, ranging from housing bubbles to succession crises IRL and even "meritocracy" as the emperor's new clothes. Or maybe we could just consider "entitlement as practiced by the fictional rich," either in the present tense or a century in the past (as carefully elided by Disney in a "classic period" animation involving lots and lots of puppies).
• That last aside leads into this month's episode #2716 of musicians are getting ripped off by the distribution system at least as much as audience-victims of TicketBastard while questioning whether there has ever been a middle class of musicians earning their living from music — or whether that would be a good thing in the first place. The irony that both of those links go through "begging walls" may be a bit much for a hot Monday afternoon, though.

---

1. What this says about the intellectual dishonesty of slavish adherence to a vision of "original public meaning" is for another time. At that time, we'll consider things like "who is the public," "what nature of evidence is there of the 'public meaning,'" "must, or even should, clearly technical contexts always use 'public meaning' as their touchstone, as in the word 'judg[]ment,'" and perhaps most egregiously "does the 'public' of 'who is the public' form a union-set with the sources of evidence of 'public meaning.'" But what would I know about that, after struggling with the disjunctures within Beilstein as both German and the underlying knowledge of chemistry evolved over a century, or after dealing directly with [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted] with their overt temporal shifts in meaning in my first profession?
2. Perhaps examining the use of the word "perfect" in mathematics, and particularly the mathematics of the late eighteenth century as well known to (among others) Franklin, Jefferson, and Samuel Adams, might be valuable virtually impossible given the utter lack of basic mathematical and scientific literacy (past the "rocks for jocks" general education courses) endemic in the legal and political communities. Except, that is, among some economists and MBAs who have fun manipulating the numbers to support their preconceived notions, supremely confident that no one who they might otherwise respect will challenge either the numbers… or the data-gathering methods. It would also require thinking about "boundary conditions" — something that advocates of "original public meaning" try desperately to evade.

The Finger

Since the actual date that should be ascribed to the Declaration of Independence remains a bit uncertain — the date the Continental Congress approved it (02 or 03 July), the date it was sent to England, the date it was lost in England, the date that the second copy sent to England was actually received by the King (mid-October!) — I just choose to sort-of celebrate giving the King the finger. Probably one of the many fingers that will be blown off of hands during "casual" fireworks displays on Friday, which should be good and ripe by October. With some slight reformatting:

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

• He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
• He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
• He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
• He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
• He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
• He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
• He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
• He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
• He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
• He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
• He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
• For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;
• For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States;
• For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world;
• For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent;
• For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury;
• For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences;
• For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies;
• For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments;
• For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
• He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
• He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
• He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
• He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
• He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Source: National Archives

•  •  •

Any consideration of contemporary "imperial/unitary executive" shenanigans (not limited to the current Administration) is left as an exercise for the student — in light of the collateral pledged in the very last clause, which has nothing whatsoever to do with inherited wealth and/or getting rich through "managing" other people's money.

Not on Safari

I can neither confirm nor deny that there's an elephant in the room, nor whether I've noticed (or fed?) any crocodiles near the waterhole.

• I long wondered if Motel 6 left the light on for you to keep cockroaches out of sight, but it looks like the new ownership forgot to leave the light on in its own boardroom. Don't get me started on Kars for Kids (carefully choosing an unmistakeable homonymative after the hyperformalist trademark frenzy that was possible only due to the 19th-century economic concepts underlying trademark law) — or the utterly-misnamed "legitimate theater." Rather distressingly, the entertainment industry is structured on a by-design bait-and-switch, exacerbated when it's hired out for side gigs by the advertising industry — so all of this is entirely predictable.
• Speaking of cockroaches running from the lights, it's not a new problem in NoVa.
• Don't ignore this important message from our sponsors: Leaving aside that QR codes are themselves built on a bait-and-switch system designed to make users not pay attention to what they're doing, the actual use of "you don't really need to know who the sponsor actually is" just feeds the egos of exactly the wrong segment of undesireables (I say that as a not-recovering hacker from the solder-it-yourself era). Just ignore the secondaries…
• Speaking of undesireables, it's all about whose desire is being suppressed, and how, and why. We'll just ignore how actual undesireables speak out; pondering the irony of reducing a complex argument to a t-shirt slogan worn by a less-well-known part of a less-regarded sport is too much for Monday morning, though — even in the abstract or through disfavored language.
• No elephants are being shot here or otherwise harmed in the production of this blawg entry. Not even rabid bull elephants rampaging around the waterhole damaging the entire ecosystem and not incidentally making their own future prospects even more bleak. Just legislators not fully and enthusiastically participating in theocracy. But they matter no more than lawyers defrauding everyone for decades to popular acclaim. Neither does that kind of lawyer's real clientbase, not even Over There.

No Generalissimos

I'm afraid the "song of the day" is not… approving of the day's scheduled events. I've been in military parades before; you, sirrah, are not fit to shine the shoes of a real generalissimo, like Pinochet, Videla, Franco, or even Ioannidis. Even all of those jerks actually served, for some value of that, instead of misappropriating a military in which they had evaded service for their own highly theatrical gratification (not to mention damage to the capital's roads and other infrastructure).

I would go farther than merely "No Kings" (or "No Generalissimos"): Hereditary rule — whether by formally holding office like a Bush, or a Daley, or a Kennedy, or a Saltonstall, or a Roosevelt (a relative of whom laid essential groundwork that made Thursday's nightmare almost inevitable in kind, if not in detail) — is fundamentally inconsistent with, and usually directly opposed to, supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. But this is not your father's totalitarianism… is it?

We're a nation of immigrants. That the influx of immigrants of today doesn't look or speak like the immigrants of your parents' time, or their parents' time, or some grandcestor's time, only means that the world has evolved in its predilictions to seek opportunities Over Here. Curiously, nobody seems to be asking Dr Nygren about the flood — the invasion — of immigrants on these shores. Oh, wait, we're not supposed to acknowledge the hypocrisy of largely white, largely Northwest European, almost entirely christian "forefathers" in public; if we did, we'd end up with a soul of/on ICE. The only US Army unit that really, truly belongs in this military parade is the 442d Regimental Combat Team, perhaps with a flyover by the 332d Fighter Group. Oh, wait, that's probably far too old school…

So tell me, Comrade: Who do you suspect will be missing from the reviewing stand next year?

The City Is for Burning

Once every generation:

1933 — Griffith Park
1965 — Watts
1992 — Rodney King
2025 — January wildfires… and now this

What that says about the arsonist in chief and fomenting insurrection — again — is not supposed to be a necessary part of the conversation in a true democracy. Is it? Maybe a well-known former resident of an internment camp already understands the current situation all too well.

• How about something cheerier, like music? (That look on your face says "You've got to be kidding me.") How about some real patriotism from pop stars, who did not dodge the draft? Sometimes I do have upbeat stories on the music segment of the entertainment industry! But you don't actually come here for the cheeriness, so I'll return to normal grouchiness pondering Corruption at the Top: The Next Generation, all the while speculating about how bad things must really be if that source is criticizing management. Nor is it really any better across the Pond.
• Well, how about the rising gaming industry? Surely there's some extravagent claim to be made that will entertain us! Just consider that he probably never would have been able to work on games like Othello, Lear, Macbeth, The Tempest, or The Winter's Tale (that last with its definitely-made-for-gaming "Exit — pursued by a bear"), because he was 40 or older and — notwithstanding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act — old fogeys of 40 and up have real trouble getting interviews (let alone actual jobs) in gaming. Any grey hairs had better be from a bottle…
• At least the House of Lords is showing some understanding of the natural-person-creator's needs and perspective on "exceptions" for AI use of copyrighted material. Not at all by coincidence, the charge is being led in the House of Lords by an actual, active, natural-person creator — something we haven't had in Congress for quite some time. Now if we'll just get everyone, or even anyone who actually has a voice in the matter, to understand and accept that "machine learning" on a Von Neumann-architecture computer doesn't resemble "human learning" except by coincidence, we could have a real conversation. Which, in the current environment, would turn into a war on social media rather rapidly.

The Moon in June

…being what I'd like to show current-Administration buffoons. They wouldn't look, though — that sounds too much like science. Oh, you thought I meant the other "moon"?

• About a month back, the Chicago Tribune demonstrated its conscious ignorance of history. It probably wasn't the reporter, who actually works for AP. There's actually only one word — ok, one acronym — that you really need to know to understand air-traffic control problems in the US: PATCO. The same complaints and problems from the 1970s have resurfaced now — overstressed controllers (and not nearly enough of them), unreliable and out-of-date equipment and communications, purported military training exercises planned without regard to, well, reality that impair traffic control (perhaps inevitable when groundpounders fly, especially off-base; a little interservice rivalry never hurt anyone, right?), a management attitude that the lowly employees don' know nuthin'…
• How 'bout a little more of that interservice rivalry? Perhaps pointed at this Administration's pretty-much-universal mishandling of military personnel, or maybe at just SecDef? I'd refer those undereducated blithering idiots to historical studies of which I'm aware bearing directly on "the meaning of 'warfighting' in conflicts without rigidly-defined front lines," but (a) that would mean they'd have to actually read them and (b) letting them handle that material would just create more opportunities for mishandling of classified information (notwithstanding that some of that material is at minimum overclassified). That last parenthetical reflects reinforcement of "civilian" ignorance and, thus, the classification itself causes grave damage to national security that can be specifically identified, but that's for another time… and might well itself be classified.

  Perhaps part of the problem is that those "warfighters" — like SecDef wants to portray himself — don't have a clue about what it takes to fight a war above company/single-vessel/single-flight level. Or to train for it, get to the battlefield, sustain operations for longer than a couple of gaming sessions, plan for all of the above, train for all of the above… The American Way of War is now, and has been since the late 19th century, to pin the opponent in place, degrade the opponent's logistics while building up friendly in-theater forces, and then overcome our own generally below-average top leadership with well-trained and well-motivated working-class cannon fodder deployed forces. It hasn't ever been about being a superior first-person-shooter player… especially considering that in the real world, you don't get a new life by restarting the game.

• Let's ponder something a little easier than "effective civilian control of the military by means other than Stalinist purges leading to Russian Roulette." Perhaps we could just ponder what constitutes antisemitism, or if we can't agree on that appropriate responses thereto. That latter failyuah to communicate reflects a more-fundamental failure: Not understanding that "Never Again!" means everyone; it means always. Objecting to what's going on in Gaza need not be "antisemitic" — maybe it's just "antiatrocity." (We just don't need to get into the technicalities — legal, sociopolitical, linguistic, propagandistic — among "genocide," "genecidal acts," "unlawful selection of targets for military force," or any of the other buzzwords; "atrocity" will do just fine, focusing on the act more than the rationale.) That some who are objecting to what's happening in Gaza really are, or at least are really expressing in the mode of, the antisemitic, doesn't mean everyone who objects is; "one," "some," even "most" is not all… and making that error is the very foundation of European antisemitism.
• It was bad enough when McCarthy et al. went after "the arts" with their witchhunts seeking to identify any of the fifty-seven card carrying communists in the Department of Defense. Now they're going after those who would respond (within the decade) to Sputnik (an undoubted Commie achievement!). Of course, this latter is perhaps inevitable when virtually no member of this Administration has even been in a laboratory in decades (and even that was probably a freshman-level survey course). Even history professors right across the river from disreputable, uncooperative private colleges like Hahvahd understand that. That said, one must wonder if there's a history of rejections from (various parts of) Hahvahd somehow at issue…
• Next it'll be the humanities faculties. Then, probably at "less prestigious" institutions that don't study "popular" fiction on the grounds that if the great unwashed like it, it must be easy and therefore unworthy, we'll see many of the mistakes in this screed — from which I dissent, and align myself with Voltaire (and, ultimately, Tolkein — however much I disagree with some aspects) and against John Crowe Ransom. The content revealed by "close reading" of the text while ignoring its context is somewhere between merely ignorant and actively misleading.

Where Stolen Roses Grow

Fortunately, this Memorial Day I'm not annoyed by the vegetarian crawling out of the marinade; fish don't crawl, because they'd just flop around on the kitchen floor. Unfortunately, that's given me some extra time, as a veteran of a time of increasing internal divisions and dishonesty about their sources, to fear somewhat for the Union.

It's worth remembering that in the aftermath of the nearly-ultimate Othering¹ that's most prominent in US history — and, perhaps inevitably, descended into partisanship and excuses and greed, and has been thoroughly twisted since to the point that almosts no conversation can take place without self-contradiction — Memorial Day originated to celebrate deaths among Union soldiers, whether POWs or in the field (without yet acknowledging Andersonville for, well, Reasons). The difficulty at this time is a slight — ever so slight, given yet more inconvenient precedents — target shift both backward to religion and sideways to place of birth (notwithstanding that statue in the harbor and the nearby island). No, that doesn't make it "better."

And for all that, the US is still at least somewhat better than just about everywhere else (even Canada; just consider the word "Francophone" for a moment); that we even have an argument about "sanctuary cities" demonstrates that we're not all nutcases. Which, frankly, should embarrass and shame everyone. I don't think the US is to the point of truly working toward a "more perfect Union" quite yet, but at least in our critical document (and lawful object of allegiance) we admitted that we had work to do. Still to do.

Conscious acceptance of that would be the real memorial, whether to those Union soldiers, or all American military casualties, or more generally those who fought for it despite — not because of — "assimilation" and cramped visions of "America First".

---

1. The Ultimate being actual extermination, or at least attempted actual extermination, with obvious historical exemplars (and that's just Europe, just rationalized-in-the-moment by religion). Whether you believe the trailer or the prologue to the first episode, Murderbot is right: Humans are assholes/idiots.