Sunday, June 25, 2023

The Unbearable Lightness Of The Bourgeoisie

Middle class people finding out the criminal justice system they do admire on TeeVee for keeping them safe does not discriminate based on race, color, or creed, or income. Although former Presidents are treated better than run of the mill suspects. Still, the mills of justice grind exceeding find when you are caught in them.

And they think that very unjust, indeed. And every graduate of Matlock law school thinks he/she is a seasoned criminal lawyer ready to file motions at the drop of a hat. Without the first clue what a “motion” is.

Engineering Issues

It’s the lawyer in me, but I don’t see convincing four people to take the risk because you’ll be the fifth, to be very redeeming. That’s more a solid argument for why this never should have happened.

I haven’t read the op-ed, but the first question is: why not test this thing without people, first? Lower it, if possible, to depth and raise it up. Surely that kind of test is essential before loading it with people and heading for the bottom? I don’t know anything about structural engineering but it seems clear to me you don’t test the untested design with paying guests. But is that what happened?

This is, so far, the most cogent analysis I’ve read.
Most, if not all, submersibles and submarines operating at depth have a pressure vessel made of a single metallic material with high yield strength. This is typically steel for relatively shallow depths (roughly less than 300m), or titanium for deeper depths. 
A titanium or thick steel pressure vessel is usually a spherical shape that can withstand the crushing pressures you might expect at 3,800m – the depth at which the Titanic wreck lies. 
The Titan, however, was different. It’s pressure vessel was made of a combination of titanium and composite carbon fibre. This is somewhat unusual from a structural engineering perspective since, in a deep diving context, titanium and carbon fibre are materials with vastly different properties. 
Titanium is elastic and can adapt to an extended range of stresses without any measurable permanent strain remaining after the return to atmospheric pressure. It shrinks to adjust to pressure forces, and re-expands as these forces are alleviated. A carbon-fibre composite, on the other hand, is much stiffer and does not have the same kind of elasticity. We can only speculate about what happened with the combination of these two technologies, which do not dynamically behave the same way under pressure. 
But what we can say almost certainly is that there would have been some kind of loss of integrity due to the differences between these materials. A composite material could potential suffer from “delamination”, which leads to a separation of the layers of reinforcement.

If that much can be known theoretically, shouldn’t such a new design be throughly tested before being put into use? Or is that too much interference with innovation?

📺

I’m on my second “smart” TV (first was a victim of a lightning strike), and unlike my “smart” phone, the 📺 has neither a microphone nor a camera in it, so I don’t know how it’s supposed to spy on me.

It does come on by itself if I punch the AppleTV remote. I don’t think trying to connect my phone to it would cause the TV to start up.

Maybe I need a psychotic break to understand these things. 🤷🏻‍♂️ 

In other weird political news:
I had no idea it was this bad: I’m pretty sure, if there are any “Kennedy Democrats” left, this not why they call themselves that.

I Still Feel That Way About The ‘70’s And ‘80’s

The '60's I could understand remembering fondly. After that? Nope.

Over And Over And Over And…

1) The PRA doesn’t apply to this case because it involves agency records, not Presidential ones.

2) Trump thinks (it seems) that if you put something in his hands, it is now his personal property forever.

3) Trump says now he mixed papers with his personal property, and that’s why he didn’t return it on demand. Except his lawyers, acting as his agents (i.e., on his behalf) said they’d given up everything. Which he knew was a lie, many times over. He still doesn’t have a defense, IOW. He keeps trying to invent one. It’s not working.

4) And the PRA still doesn’t apply; and it doesn’t exonerate him from violating the Espionage Act.

5) Tom Fitton is still a terrible lawyer. Especially since he’s not a lawyer.

6)
Let me just say (again) the “Clinton socks case” (nobody calls it that but Trump) was a FOIA case. It was a mandamus action to force NARA to force Clinton to turn over tapes he made for a book to NARA, so Judicial Watch could FOIA the tapes from the government (i.e., NARA).

Judicial Watch lost. The tapes were deemed “personal,” not Presidential, and so were exempt from turnover to NARA.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP’S CASE, WHERE ALL THE RECORDS ARE AGENCY RECORDS, ALSO EXEMPT FROM PRA.

People who say “read the Clinton socks case,” haven’t. Or they didn’t understand it. It’s an opinion written for lawyers, not for an op-ed page.

Because, If It’s Not In The Headlines, Is It Real?

Is this still a distraction from Hunter Biden?

“Evangelical Christians” Are Neither

"Evangelical” is a word transliterated from koine Greek, it means/meant “messenger of the good news.” What good news do “evangelical Christians” bring?

Historically they style themselves on John the Evangelizer, the voice crying in the wilderness. All we know of John’s preaching is from Luke’s gospel, and it sounds like pretty harsh stuff.
John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 
8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 
9 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” 
10 “What should we do then?” the crowd asked. 
11 John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.” 
12 Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?” 
13 “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them. 
14 Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”
Does that sound even vaguely like the teaching of any evangelical “leader” you know? Or like Donald Trump, except as the target of John’s sermon?

And “Christian” carries responsibility for moral teachings and moral example, as well as putting the needs of others ahead of the needs of one’s self.  That teaching is fundamental to the gospels, even though it is more honored in the breach than in the keeping. Which is as much honor to it as most “evangelical Christian leaders” give it.

So I have no qualms about pointing out they are neither evangelical, nor Christian, nor leaders. And they have no one but themselves to blame.

There Is An Old Adage…

... about not getting into a fight with the guy who buys ink by the gallon. The technology has changed, but the spirit of that adage remains the same.
Alito had sent his response to us, we’d have asked some more questions. For example, Alito wrote that Supreme Court justices “commonly interpreted” the requirement to disclose gifts as not applying to “accommodations and transportation for social events.” We would have asked whether he meant to say it was common practice for justices to accept free vacations and private jet flights without disclosing them. 
We also would have asked Alito more about his interpretation of the Watergate-era disclosure law that requires justices and many other federal officials to publicly report most gifts. The statute has a narrow “personal hospitality” exemption that allows federal officials to avoid disclosing “food, lodging, or entertainment” provided by a host on his own property. Seven ethics law experts, including former government ethics lawyers from both Republican and Democratic administrations, have told ProPublica that the exemption does not apply to private jet flights — and never has. Such flights, they said, are clearly not forms of food, lodging or entertainment. We had already combed through judicial disclosures, so we knew that several federal judges have disclosed gifts of private jet flights. 
We might also have sent Alito some of the contemporaneous stories about Singer’s dispute with Argentina that were readily available online. Given Alito’s previous ties to the Journal’s editorial page — he granted it an exclusive interview this year complaining about negative coverage of the court — it’s probable that the stories we sent him would have included the page’s 2013 piece titled “Deadbeats Down South” that approvingly noted that “a subsidiary of Paul Singer’s Elliott Management” was holding out for a better deal from Argentina. We would have asked how his office checks for conflicts and whether he is concerned it didn’t catch Singer’s widely publicized connection to the case.
The whole thing pretty much screws Alito right into the ground.
And the readership of our story has been robust: 2 million page views and counting. It’s possible that Alito has won the argument with the audience he cares the most about. But it seems equally plausible that he drew even more attention to the very story he was trying to knock down.
The final note is on the practice of asking for a response before a story is written, a practice Alito tried to turn against Pro Publica:
Nevertheless, following our practice, we asked the Journal editorial page, Alito and McCabe for comment before this column appeared. We did not immediately hear back from them.

This is the way. 

Gott Mit Uns

He’s really not fit for public office.

Rules Of Law

I’ve mentioned before my one experience defending a criminal case.* The client was a convicted felon who was pulled over (IIRC; this was over 30 years ago) for a traffic violation (speeding?). The police found a shotgun in the package tray. He was arrested and charged in federal court with illegal possession of a firearm.  We had no defense for him. We entered a guilty plea even as he protested he wasn’t in “possession” of the hunt, because it wasn’t his. I don’t think the car was his, either. He’d borrowed it from a friend. The gun belonged to a friend; that’s why he thought he wasn’t guilty. He didn’t own the gun, so he didn’t “possess” it.

Except the law defined that the crime on the basis (again, if I remember the statute correctly), “possession, custody, or control.” I remember researching the legal definitions of those words. Not in Black’s, but in the case law.  The facts of our case almost perfectly fit the definitions of both “custody” and “control.” He was the only person in the car, so he had custody of the shotgun, and control of it, even though it wasn’t within arm’s reach.

He never understood that. He left the courtroom after the judge pronounced him guilty (it was a 10 minute bench trial), insisting he was innocent. He couldn’t understand why no one else saw it that way.

Trump is doing the same thing. He will, unless he has a better defense than this, suffer the same fate. There are 37 counts against him. All it takes is one. 

He’s repeating what Tom Fitton has told him. He’s going to be disappointed (at least) when his lawyers refuse to raise this “defense” in court.  He’s going to go to jail insisting he had a right to take the documents.

He’ll never understand how wrong he is.
It does seem like a minimal qualification.

*The DOJ will preclude this defense pre-trial. If Cannon won’t bar it, the DOJ will be able to appeal the ruling. For that reason I don’t think Cannon would allow it.

Saturday, June 24, 2023

Imago Christi

Eh…not so much.

Betcha Didn’t See That Coming! 🌲

The funniest part is that in the last 24 hours so many pundits went out on so many limbs…

And then reality chopped the tree down.

🌳 

🤦🏻‍♂️

Did she sleep through the last quarter of the 20th century?

I mean, she was born in ‘74. Can she really be that clueless?

Waiting For Trump To Declare He Knew This Would Happen

The Death Of Expertise

"We don't know what it means, as the previous speakers have said. I think there are two entirely contradictory forces right now acting on Putin. On one hand, there is some sort of deal, whether that means he has to give Prigozhin some of what he wants, which is probably more autonomy, more backup, less dependence on the Ministry of Defense, which is who has been struggling with for the last couple of weeks," they said.

I don’t think you need to have written a biography of Putin to advance that conjecture. 

And this:
So he needs to crack down on the people who supported Prigozhin, on Prigozhin himself and people who have encountered Prigozhin's forces in places that they have made it to in the last 24 hours. For, example, a large city in southern Russia, the seat of the southern military command in Russia, where, as they're packing up to leave, according to .. reporting from there, people are applauding and saying thank you."
Would mean more if it were coming from members of the Politburo. The insurrection here didn’t last nearly as long, but at least we have sympathizers in Congress.

By golly!

🎈When Life Was Mud-luscious And Puddlewonderful

And then came the wee goat-footed balloonman.

Is everybody in the GOP running for the Boomer vote?

🎈 

Meanwhile… 🤷🏻‍♂️

Yevgeny Prigozhin said his Wagner mercenary group had agreed to stand down its coup attempt and would return to Ukraine to avoid what he described as inevitable bloodshed. 
In a voice memo posted to social media on Saturday evening, Prigozhin said: 
"We set off on June 23 on our march for justice. In 24 hours we moved 200km to Moscow. During that time we didn’t spill a single drop of blood of our fighters. Right now the moment has come when blood could be spilled. Therefore, understanding all the responsibility for the fact that Russian blood will be spilled on one side, we are turning our convoy around and going back to our basecamps, according to the plan." 
The Kremlin did not immediately confirm it had agreed to let Prigozhin’s forces retreat.
What other conclusion is possible?

I Realize I Sound Like Another Idiot “Expert” On Twitter…

The character of the Russian state didn’t change after the Tsar. It didn’t change after Russia re-emerged from the U.S.S.R. Culture has a way of being metaphorically genetic, and virtually unchangeable.

OCICBW, since this is far outside my area of…let’s call it knowledge.

May You Live In Interesting Times

Especially in times like these.

Chaos Is The New Black

I had no idea how much Putin and Trump had in common.
“Mr. Putin’s tolerance of Mr. Prigozhin’s outbursts this year may have served his political purposes, but it prompted officials stunned by Mr. Prigozhin’s verbal attacks on Russia’s top brass to conclude that he enjoyed the president’s tacit support, analysts said. It also further emboldened Mr. Prigozhin," he wrote before adding, "The confusion over Mr. Putin’s personal views only came to an end Saturday morning, when the president delivered a five-minute address to the nation describing Mr. Prigozhin — without naming him — as a traitor and vowing to quell the uprising the paramilitary leader had started. But the damage had already been done."
Putin liked chaos. He thought it let him maintain order. Now it seems chaos is coming to claim its due.