The civil war only one side wants

Hey, there's a very impressive tweet thread by one David Neiwert, who has studied the American  "coming civil war" rhetoric that's been ramped up by Wingnuts for the last decade or two.

Now, they have Trump, conspiracy nutter, who is lending them moral support by talking like this:

Democrats have become too EXTREME and TOO DANGEROUS to govern. Republicans believe in the rule of law - not the rule of the mob.

Yeah, sure, says the guy who laughs whenever his mini Nuremberg rallies break into "lock her up" chants. 

As far as I can recall the Republicans have precisely one act of politically inspired nutter shooting to get excited about - the baseball shooting in June 2017.   (Even so, which side of politics is the one that would want to toughen gun restrictions on nutters such as that guy?  Which side is devoted to supporting paranoid wingnuts in being armed to the teeth with military grade weaponry?)    The rest of it is handwringing over noisy protests outside of restaurants, or in front of Congress or the Supreme Court.

Republicans have conveniently become drama queens over the state of civil unrest spurned by their own politics:  race riots in the 1960's could end up with scores of deaths, and massive amounts of destruction.  Even in 1977, I see that the New York City blackout resulted in this:

In all, 1,616 stores were damaged in looting and rioting. A total of 1,037 fires were responded to, including 14 multiple-alarm fires. In the largest mass arrest in city history, 3,776 people were arrested

The state of civil unrest in the US is relatively mild, and it is part of the tribalist authoritarian nuttiness of the Right that they continually are trying to convince themselves that mainstream Democrats are dangerous socialists who will DESTROY the economy, the nation, etc.

It's absurd, and actually dangerous when their most ardent believers are weaponised.  

Update:   A typical example of absurd "reasonable Republican" commentary from Hugh Hewitt in WAPO, alleging that the real problem is incivility:

 Trump is as wearying today as Andrew Jackson must have been in 1829 to the people of both parties who are used to different rules sets. I am one of them. Thus my criticisms of the president are many and detailed. But my fear of the wild-eyed left is far greater than my discomfort with his bull-in-china shop politics.

The left, we saw this week and last, contrasts unfavorably with the president’s hyperbole and occasional cruelty. It is now a snarling, enraged collective scream. To give it power would be to risk fraying even further the common bonds of citizenship.

The fundamental problem for Democrats and the rest of the world:   you're trying to fight idiots.   

The comments following that will be white hot, I bet.

Mice can work it out

There's something charming about a study looking into how mice couples communicate after one of them has been "unfaithful":

The quality of conversations between California mice couples after one partner has been unfaithful can help predict which mouse pairs will successfully produce a litter of mouse pups and which males are good fathers, according to a new study on the evolution of monogamy.

More unimportant pop culture notes

*  All Australian males over the age of 40 have a crush on Julia Zemero, don't they?  (Homer excepted, if I remember correctly.)   Hence I found myself watching the singing competition show All Together Now, which features a panel of "music industry figures" judging the contestants.  (The only big name on which is Ronan Keating, who I admit is a likeable TV presence.)

But as for the rest of the judges - who knew the Australian music business is (if you were to judge it by this show) completely dominated by gay/camp personalities?    It reminded me of the unknown D grade celebrities Britain manages to scrape up from somewhere for shows like "I'm a Celebrity, Get me Out of Here".   In fact, I see this show is a format import from Britain, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

I don't know:  the set is pretty, and the judges are 3/4 ridiculous, and Julia is still funny sometimes.  I might watch it again.

*  My daughter likes a lot of Justin Bieber songs, but thinks he's nuts.  Yes, I like to point out:  he is a living example of having excessive money, especially while young, causing more problems than it solves.  (A point I like to make often to justify my own less than desired income.)  She said the other day that maybe he's a "good boy" again, since he went back to his church.   Seems not to be true. 

*  I liked this short interview with Hard Quiz host Tom Gleeson.  He is funny, and I am happy to understand how they warn guests about his style.

A minor observation

As I wrote below, I was watching that Batman v Superman movie on Friday and noted Holly Hunter was in it.  I saw her in something else recently, but I forget what it was.

I've always liked her, but in these last two appearances, I thought she had a somewhat (I don't know) slurry? issue with her speech which I had never noticed before.  It reminded me very much of what I noticed in Carrie Fisher in the last two Star Wars movies.   It made me think that perhaps it's what an ill fitting partial denture can make a person sound like.  Yet surely they wouldn't have dentures but would go with implants if a tooth needed replacing.

I haven't noticed anyone else saying this about either of these actors, but I find it obvious in both of them (although more pronounced in Fisher).

Am I alone in this? 

When milk was positively dangerous

The Atlantic had a brief extract from a book that has just come out, about food contamination in the 19th century:

We tend to think of our 19th-century forefathers thriving on farm-fresh produce and pasture-raised livestock, happily unaffected by the deceptive food-manufacturing practices of today. In this we are wrong. Milk offers a stunning case in point. By mid-century, the standard, profit-maximizing recipe was a pint of lukewarm water for every quart of milk—after the cream had been skimmed off. To whiten the bluish liquid, dairymen added plaster of paris and chalk, or a dollop of molasses for a creamy gold. To replace the skimmed-off layer of cream, they might add a final flourish of pureed calf brains.

Mmmm..calves brains.

More on this somewhat nauseating topic of just how bad commercial milk was in those days can be found in a much lengthier article in the Smithsonian magazine.  Oddly, calves brains were probably the least of a consumer's reason to worry.  But first, the brains:

But there were other factors besides risky strains of bacteria that made 19th century milk untrustworthy. The worst of these were the many tricks that dairymen used to increase their profits. Far too often, not only in Indiana but nationwide, dairy producers thinned milk with water (sometimes containing a little gelatin), and recolored the resulting bluish-gray liquid with dyes, chalk, or plaster dust.

They also faked the look of rich cream by using a yellowish layer of pureed calf brains. As a historian of the Indiana health department wrote: “People could not be induced to eat brain sandwiches in [a] sufficient amount to use all the brains, and so a new market was devised.”

“Surprisingly enough,’’ he added, “it really did look like cream but it coagulated when poured into hot coffee.”

Gosh.

 

Anyway, the worse thing was the use of formaldehyde:

Finally, if the milk was threatening to sour, dairymen added formaldehyde, an embalming compound long used by funeral parlors, to stop the decomposition, also relying on its slightly sweet taste to improve the flavor. In the late 1890s, formaldehyde was so widely used by the dairy and meat-packing industries that outbreaks of illnesses related to the preservative were routinely described by newspapers as “embalmed meat” or “embalmed milk” scandals.

Indianapolis at the time offered a near-perfect case study in all the dangers of milk in America, one that was unfortunately linked to hundreds of deaths and highlighted not only Hurty’s point about sanitation but the often lethal risks of food and drink before federal safety regulations came into place in 1906.

In late 1900, Hurty’s health department published such a blistering analysis of locally produced milk that The Indianapolis News titled its resulting article “Worms and Moss in Milk.” The finding came from an analysis of a pint bottle handed over by a family alarmed by signs that their milk was “wriggling.” It turned out to be worms, which investigators found had been introduced when a local dairyman thinned the milk with ‘’stagnant water.”....

[a few paras about the horrible bacteriological state of milk at that time go here] 

The heating of a liquid to 120 to 140 degrees Fahrenheit for about 20 minutes to kill pathogenic bacteria was first reported by the French microbiologist Louis Pasteur in the 1850s. But although the process would later be named pasteurization in his honor, Pasteur’s focus was actually on wine. It was more than 20 years later that the German chemist Franz von Soxhlet would propose the same treatment for milk. In 1899, the Harvard microbiologist Theobald Smith — known for his discovery of Salmonella — also argued for this, after showing that pasteurization could kill some of the most stubborn pathogens in milk, such as the bovine tubercle bacillus.

But pasteurization would not become standard procedure in the United States until the 1930s, and even American doctors resisted the idea. The year before Smith announced his discovery, the American Pediatric Society erroneously warned that feeding babies heated milk could lead them to develop scurvy.

Such attitudes encouraged the dairy industry to deal with milk’s bacterial problems simply by dumping formaldehyde into the mix. And although Hurty would later become a passionate advocate of pasteurization, at first he endorsed the idea of chemical preservatives.

In 1896, desperately concerned about diseases linked to pathogens in milk, he even endorsed formaldehyde as a good preservative. The recommended dose of two drops of formalin (a mix of 40 percent formaldehyde and 60 percent water) could preserve a pint of milk for several days. It was a tiny amount, Hurty said, and he thought it might make the product safer.

But the amounts were often far from tiny. Thanks to Hurty, Indiana passed the Pure Food Law in 1899 but the state provided no money for enforcement or testing. So dairymen began increasing the dose of formaldehyde, seeking to keep their product “fresh” for as long as possible. Chemical companies came up with new formaldehyde mixtures with innocuous names such as Iceline or Preservaline. (The latter was said to keep a pint of milk fresh for up to 10 days.) And as the dairy industry increased the amount of preservatives, the milk became more and more toxic.

In the summer of 1900, The Indianapolis News reported on the deaths of three infants in the city’s orphanage due to formaldehyde poisoning. A further investigation indicated that at least 30 children had died two years prior due to use of the preservative, and in 1901, Hurty himself referenced the deaths of more than 400 children due to a combination of formaldehyde, dirt, and bacteria in milk.
Following that outbreak, the state began prosecuting dairymen for using formaldehyde and, at least briefly, reduced the practice. But it wasn’t until Harvey Wiley and his allies helped secure the federal Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906 that the compound was at last banned from the food supply.

It really was a different world back then.

And once again, you have to ask - how the hell do libertarians have the hide to argue that their philosophy works, in practice?

Two unnecessary movie reviews

What's that?  Drunk, rich fratboy became a judge at the Supreme Court after all?   I have brief comments to make about that, but later.

Meantime, perhaps I can't review it fairly, but I did try watching Superman V Batman Batman v Superman (sorry, I care so little about it I got the name around wrong) on free-to-air TV on Friday.

As I tried explaining to my son (who likes Christopher Nolan's Batmen and talks about wanting to see the Joker movie), I can't get engaged with any incarnation of Batman.   There's just a wall of superhero scenario credibility that I can't break through for this character - I find Superman and Wonderwoman more believable despite the silliness of the former's physics and the latter's mythological status.   Apart from not caring for dark angst as a key feature of a superhero character, I reckon Batman's problems in large part revolve around the super-villains:  Lex Luther or even Green Goblin are more credible than a Gotham City full of Batman level ridiculous costumed superheroes.

That said, even starting on the basis that I would not enjoy it, Ben Affleck's Batman seemed particularly bad:  body too chunky, personality too charmless, and the deep, rasping voice in costume particularly over the top.  

Looking at director's Zack Snyder's body of (directorial) work, I can safely say he has a sensibility that in no way appeals to me: dour; in DC world - determined to treat Superman as a God/Jesus stand in; and even cinematography that grates.

Anyway, I fell asleep just as the titular fight scene was set up, and I kept half waking for what seemed an eternity of loud noise and CGI fire and explosions.  My son got bored before it started too, and went off to have a shower.  I woke to see funeral scenes for Superman.  I don't think I missed anything that would change my mind that it was a dud movie:  which is pretty much my reaction to anything featuring Batman.

The second more positive review:

Solo - the first serious commercial flop of the Star Wars universe.

I thought it was OK story and acting wise, but there was clear room for improvement (with emphasis on the word "clear", as you will shortly understand).

It would seem everyone suspects the first directors were likely sacked for not treating the material reverentially enough.  But really, I think it could have benefited from more laughs.   It wasn't without humour, and I liked one big joke near the end in particular, but I still think a few more big laughs would have lightened it up more.

And speaking of light - what was going on with so much murky cinematography?   I know that home LCD TVs can have an issue with low light scenes at the best of times, but I see now that people who saw it at the cinema were posting about how they found it distractingly dim too.  Someone wrote an article about how digital projection in cinemas was not being checked enough, and that's why it looked so dark in so many cinemas.

So, it's not just me - lots of people hated the lighting, and I would guess that it alone accounted for a lot of poor word of mouth.  Who is this cinematographer Bradford Young?  Oh, he's a black, young-ish guy, and he doesn't seem to have done anything else I have seen except Arrival. I wasn't overly impressed with the looks of that movie either - but he clearly seems to like working with fog and mist.

Honestly, they shouldn't have sacked the directors - they should have sacked Young.

Having said that, in CGI terms, when they were bright enough, I thought a lot of the film looked pretty terrific.  But good CGI in certain sequences is not enough to bring in a crowd these days.   (It pretty much used to be - when they first started to be deployed in the late seventies.)

So, more or less worth seeing, and I'm sort of sorry that it seems to have killed the potential for a sequel in the Han Solo story.

The Guardian asks the hard, important question...

Why is the gay leather scene dying? 

(By the way, I've barely skimmed the article, which seems to go into considerable detail about "the scene" in London.)   

It was a lot of cannabis, but still..

While the cannabis industry becomes legal in the US, in South East Asia it is still taken very seriously:

The West Jakarta District Court handed down the death penalty on Tuesday to Rizky Albar, 29, and Rocky Siahaan, 37, for their roles in smuggling 1.3 tons of cannabis to Jakarta from Aceh in December last year.
The verdicts were read in two separate hearings.

"There are no mitigating factors. The defendant is sentenced to death," presiding judge Agus Setiawan said as he read Rizky's verdict, kompas.com reported.

The panel of judges found him guilty of being the right hand of an infamous drug dealer named Iwan — who currently remains at large — in the drug's smuggling scheme.

Should be sunk by his response

Some more comments on the ongoing Kavanaugh matter:

*  while Christine Ford's story was, overall, pretty persuasive, I am a bit skeptical of at least one detail she offered - that she had one beer.   She might be able to explain why she could remember that - perhaps because it was her firm policy, until she was older, to only ever accept one beer at any party, for example.   But given that her drink was before the traumatic event happened, there seems to be no reason to otherwise think why she should be able to remember that detail in particular.  I think it's inconsistent with her otherwise very plausible explanation (much discussed on line by other people who  have experienced something similar in terms of a specific memory burned into the brain arising out of a traumatic incident) as to why she can remember the details of the alleged assault itself so clearly.

*  There has also been some discussion on Right wing sites as to whether her explanation of why the second front door was an issue is accurate - but that may also be a case of something that could have been better explained, but wasn't.

*  I suspect, overall, that there is a mild degree of embellishment in the way she has set out her story.   I don't think, however, that it really detracts from the firmness with which she insists that it was Kavanaugh and his drunk mate both in the room confining and assaulting her.

*  Kavanaugh was really caught in a bind as to how to respond to the claim.   His problem, poorly dealt with in his response, is that plenty of evidence has come out that he was a pretty regular, stumbling, aggro drunk as a young man, and good mates with another heavy drinker - starting before he was of legal drinking age.   That makes it seem extremely likely that he could have suffered alcoholic blackouts on occasion. 

As some have suggested, if his response had been one of disbelief that he could have done it, but begging forgiveness if there is any possibility that his bad, unwise and deeply regretted youthful drinking habits had led him to acting so badly,  might just have got him out of trouble.

But he obviously saw that as a bridge too far - conceding that he might have come close to committing rape, even if drunk.

So instead, he went for the unconvincing denial that there is any way that youthful drinking led to this. What could have been sold as a warning to other young people to stay sober at parties was lost.

His position comes across as more embellished than that of Ford's. 

*  But even worse, his angry response to the Democrats means he sounds as if he is far too hurt by them raising this to ever be able to objectively deal with any matter which is of crucial importance to Democrats - such as with constitutional questions concerning a nutty and possibly incompetent Republican President.

*  So yeah, I think he really did shoot himself in the foot in the way he chose to respond - and while  youthful excess with drinking or other drugs would not normally be a disentitling event, if some women say that it led to some bad sexual behaviour, well, it is a problem (or at least, depending on how you respond).

   

Black holes probably not accounting for dark matter

One theory bouncing around for a long time has been that maybe primordial black holes make up a lot of the universe's dark matter.

However, a new attempt to find evidence for this has drawn a blank:

Based on a statistical analysis of 740 of the brightest supernovas discovered as of 2014, and the fact that none of them appear to be magnified or brightened by hidden black hole "gravitational lenses," the researchers concluded that primordial black holes can make up no more than about 40 percent of the dark matter in the universe. Primordial black holes could only have been created within the first milliseconds of the Big Bang as regions of the universe with a concentrated mass tens or hundreds of times that of the sun collapsed into objects a hundred kilometers across.

The results suggest that none of the universe's dark matter consists of heavy black holes, or any similar object, including massive compact halo objects, so-called MACHOs.

Dark matter is one of astronomy's most embarrassing conundrums: despite comprising 84.5 percent of the matter in the universe, no one can find it. Proposed dark matter candidates span nearly 90 orders of magnitude in mass, from ultralight particles like axions to MACHOs.

Several theorists have proposed scenarios in which there are multiple types of dark matter. But if dark matter consists of several unrelated components, each would require a different explanation for its origin, which makes the models very complex.

Personally, I'm still more inclined to suspect that it's gravity that needs modifying.   

A new theory to be run

An interesting article at Slate:

Conservative Intellectuals Have a New and Absurd Theory for Why Wages Aren’t Rising Faster

A lengthy compilation of bad relationship decisions

I don't visit Reddit much, but I drop in to the popular thread once in a while for mild diversion.

Every now and again, though, there is a thread about personal experiences which is worth reading.  I remember one good one about (I think) readers' worst early work experiences, which featured many Americans talking about working in fast food outlets.  The stories they could tell...

Recently, this one caught my attention for the number of comments and the remarkable warning stories told:

What's the biggest red flag you overlooked because your SO was so hot?

I haven't read it all, of course, but there seem to be a very high number of cases of people regretting having ignored warnings from the family members of the Significant Other not to hook up/date/live with/marry their daughter/son/sister/brother.

Also many stories of their boyfriend/girlfriend initially saying "you know, I'm terrible, you shouldn't get involved with me" and it proving true.

Which reminds me, a girl friend of my own once said the same, inspired by that popular Radiohead song:  if a guy (or women) ever ironically/sardonically says they're a creep,  they are just to be believed.  Don't accept any alternative explanation - they are just trying to play up to some version of "I'm a bad boy, but you might like that about me" or to pander to the (not uncommon) idea that a good relationship can change them.

And I've always thought that sounded like good advice, as the Reddit thread seems to indicate.

Might even add it to my slowly increasing "Rules for Life".

Peter Whiteford on the taxed and "taxed-nots"

He's talking again about the frequently revived argument by Right wing think tanks that there is something wrong with the number of people who get more from the government than what they pay in tax.

Something is wrong here

Recent comments found at Catallaxy, highlighting the reason I am routinely appalled by culture warrior conservative Catholics, and social media in which ridiculous and offensive takes on matters are aired with no consequence, other than giving permission to others to exhibit the same lack of charity and civility, and to hold onto nonsense beliefs (such as no climate change):

Seriously, in what moral universe is there a case for congratulating "those lads"? 

Oral history

I don't know why, but it occurred to me the other day that I didn't know all that much about the history of teeth cleaning.

Yeah, I had read before about chewing sticks as the original teeth cleaning device (still popular in some parts of the world - you can download a Word document paper about them here.) And I remembered I had read before about all types of abrasive stuff that people used to try to remove gunk off their teeth.   But when and where tooth brushes and daily cleaning became popular, I wasn't sure.

A "Fun Science Facts from the Library of Congress" site gives a surprisingly specific year for the invention of something like the modern toothbrush - 1498 in China.  They took a while to catch on, it seems:

The bristles were actually the stiff, coarse hairs taken from the back of a hog's neck and attached to handles made of bone or bamboo.
Boar bristles were used until 1938, when nylon bristles were introduced by Dupont de Nemours. The first nylon toothbrush was called Doctor West's Miracle Toothbrush. Later, Americans were influenced by the disciplined hygiene habits of soldiers from World War II. They became increasingly concerned with the practice of good oral hygiene and quickly adopted the nylon toothbrush.
Some other interesting toothbrush facts:

• The first mass-produced toothbrush was made by William Addis of Clerkenwald, England, around 1780.
• The first American to patent a toothbrush was H. N. Wadsworth, (patent number 18,653,) on Nov. 7, 1857.
• Mass production of toothbrushes began in America around 1885.

Another link from that site credits the French as early adopters:

French dentists were the first Europeans to promote the use of toothbrushes in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.

A New York dental practice's blog claims some pretty low figures for teeth cleaning of any kind in the US at the start of the 20th century:

In the early 1900’s only 7% of American household brushed their teeth or at least had toothpaste in their houses. During World War 1 most of the Army recruits had such poor oral hygiene that the military considered dental disease a national crisis.

A few sites say that the military strongly promoted tooth brushing during World War 2, and this habit (together with nylon toothbrushes, I suppose) meant that daily teeth cleaning finally took off in popularity.

But my favourite website talking about "oral care" is from the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History.  And the part of it which amused me most was this, about the liquid teeth cleaner Sozodont:

During the late nineteenth century, Sozodont was the most successful patent liquid dentifrice , due in great part to its many eye-catching advertisements. Historian Kerry Segrave notes that Sozodont company profits had reached $10 million by 1894. The product contained a high percentage of alcohol—37.15%. In 1897, the financial manager of the Sozodont firm had to testify before Congress to assure the government that consumers were not purchasing the product as a tax-free form of liquor. Sozodont also contained abrasive and acidic ingredients that gradually destroyed tooth enamel.

Heh!  37.15% alcohol!  No wonder this woman looks happy after a good long brush with it:

This product has its own Wikipedia page, but I had never heard of it before.  Given the concern that the medical profession now has that  mouthwashes containing  alcohol promote oral cancers, I can only assume that Sozodont didn't help in that regard, either.

Back to the Smithsonian site, we learn a bit more the failure of libertarianism in consumer products: 

Before new drug and cosmetic regulations were enacted in the late 1930s, consumers had little information about the ingredients and safety of the products they used. Dentists and journalists wrote articles about the need to warn the public of the dangers of many dentifrices. In 1931, the Journal of the American Dental Association reported on the danger of products such as Ex-Cel Tooth Stain Remover, Bleachodent, and Snowy White, which all contained hydrochloric acid. One such product, Tartaroff, was in 1928 famously shown to dissolve 3% of one’s tooth enamel each time it was used.

And thus ends the history lesson, for now...

 

Gangsters and me

I never got around to seeing Scarface until this weekend just gone.

Given that I only saw The Godfather in 2016, and found it lacking, there just might be a bit of a "it's not you, it's me" going on with my reaction to well received mafia/gangster movies.   Because, yeah, I was underwhelmed with this movie too, despite my fondness for a lot of the work of Brian de Palma.

I just thought the story didn't have much dramatic drive.  It was too simple, really, and as such, perhaps I can blame Oliver Stone's script.  But even the direction was uneven - sometimes some swooping crane shots, sometimes some heavy handed zooms into eyes or faces - signs of de Palma thinking about what to do.  But often on the important sequences, it seemed the direction went suddenly static and mundane.  I love the entire shoot out at the train station sequence in The Untouchables - there was nothing thrilling like that in this one.  The one big public shoot out was nothing special, directorially.

As with The Godfather, I didn't hate it:  just didn't really understand why a lot of reviewers thought it was great.   But it's true - I rarely think much of any film that dwells on the lives of gangsters.  For example, I've seen Goodfellas once (at the cinema, I think) and also found it OK, but nothing to get excited about, and I am disinclined to watch it again.    And yet I am enjoying the second season of Fargo.  And I love The Untouchables.  I think I see the pattern here - I can only really like movies featuring criminal families and gangsters if the Good Guys also have a prominent role in the story.  Simplifies my viewing choices, that does...

The empathy question

David Roberts also hits it home in his tweet thread on the matter of conservatives and empathy.  Here's part of it:

He makes a good point.   

However, I think it should also be acknowledged that liberals can take empathy too far:  for example, isn't extreme identity politics a matter of demanding that empathy extends to never questioning the views or actions of someone because you aren't inside their skin?   Or even (in the case of silly cultural appropriation extremists) claiming that authors should empathise with the pain they are causing if they even try to write (ironically, empathetically) from the other's perspective?  

Currently, I think it clear that there is a fashion for too much empathy in the matter of transgender activism;   there sometimes is in response to hedonistic behaviour be it sexual or with drugs.   I think it became politically important in race issues when Labor under Hawke became paralysed with inability to call out some aboriginal activism as fabricated.  In short, a liberal overemphasis on empathy can be a way of arguing against anyone ever being able to make a legitimate moral argument about behaviour.

Like lots of things in life, the deployment of empathy needs to fall within a happy medium - your judgement is going to be way off if you have trouble using it at all, or if you overuse it as a way of denying the very ability to judge.

That's how I see it, anyway...

Colbert on the Kav

Stephen Colbert is so impressive when he mixes his comedy talent with anger.   He rates highly too on days like yesterday.   Wingnuts hate him:

A failed big nuclear promise

Can't say I had heard of it, but seems Peter Thiel (amongst others) blew a couple of million on a nuclear start up that make some wildly inaccurate claims:

Nuclear reactor startup Transatomic Power is shutting down operations, after deciding it doesn’t see a viable path to bringing its molten salt reactor designs to scale. ...

Transatomic’s current work doesn’t include its initial goal of using spent nuclear fuel to power its reactors, however. Dewan and co-founder Mark Massie launched the company in 2011, while they were doctoral candidates at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with the goal of creating a reactor that could use spent fuel rods and thus manage the challenges of safely disposing of this nuclear waste.

This promise helped Transatomic raise $2 million in 2014 from Peter Thiel's Founders Fund, and raise another $2.5 million round in 2015 from Acadia Woods Partners, Founders Fund, and Daniel Aegerter, chairman of the Swiss fund Armada Investment AG.

But in 2016, the company was forced to backtrack on its earlier claims, after an informal review by MIT professors found errors in its calculations. As first reported by MIT Technology Review, these errors included its initial claim that its design could produce "75 times more electricity per ton of mined uranium than a light-water reactor” of typical design — a figure that was downgraded to “more than twice” the usual reactor’s output per unit of uranium in a company report from November 2016.

Quick comments on the Kav

*  Seeing the media reports on waking up this morning, they were all headlining Kavanaugh's angry rejection of Ford's claim - giving the impression that the headline writers thought it was effective.  But looking at the live comments on Twitter, and seeing a bit of him on TV, it was not as effective as angry, white men think it was.   I endorse this tweet:

*  Surely it's obvious that the best thing, electorally, for the Republicans would for Kavanaugh to withdraw voluntarily, and then the Wingnuts can outrage without blaming the GOP Senators, and be motivated to get out to vote to punish the e-vil woman supporting Democrats who persecute good old boys who just reasonably thought that Animal House and Risky Business were guides for life.

*  I saw some GOP Senator, not sure who, insisting that near rape claims must be corroborated to be credible:  yeah, way to explain why a women near raped might not report it at the time, Senator.

*  The absence of the best friend to support Kavanaugh is very telling, and something that could presumably be overcome by referral to the FBI.

*  On ABC Breakfast, the point was being made that by Kavanaugh  getting emotional about his life being ruined by this (maybe he can't coach girl's netball anymore?),  then isn't he also painting a picture that his credibility on women's issues in Supreme Court decisions is also going to be under a permanent cloud?   Seemed a bit of an obvious two edged sword he raised there.

*  I dunno - I have the feeling that Republicans are so obnoxiously set on winning culture wars that they will confirm him - and the vote against them in the midterms is going to be massive.  

*  Of course, over at Sinclair Davidson's Blog for Obnoxious, Ageing, White Men (and the White Women Who Love them),  the assessments of the credibility of Ford are shot through with resentment against women generally.   CL, a fantasist who I like to quote occasionally for his unwitting disclosures that he presents as a lonely ageing Catholic bachelor who could never meet a woman as good as his Mum, and he resents them for it:

Updates:

*  I quite like the sarcasm of the WAPO piece "HOW DARE YOU DO THIS TO BRETT KAVANAUGH". 

*  But I think Jennifer Rubin at WAPO has a measured, sensible take on it:

The shouting didn’t end with his opening statement. He barked at the ranking Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Then the Republicans got into the screaming act, pushing their outside lawyer Rachel Mitchell aside in favor of histrionics from Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and John Cornyn (R-Tex.). If President Trump loved the nasty, male grievance game, the rest of us had reason to wonder if anyone of this temperament — Cornyn, Graham or Kavanaugh — should be in a position of power. If they were women, they would be called “hysterical.”...

Kavanaugh says he was not the attacker. But even if you believe that — despite Ford’s riveting testimony — one can reasonably conclude he is not the right person to sit on the court. His anger toward liberals is palpable, his lack of humility bracing. He has the partisan mindset that opponents are unworthy of respect and kindness.

One has had the sense, since his testimony skated past the truth on his involvement with Charles Pickering and on his awareness that documents he received were purloined, that his heart is that of a conservative partisan, one who tried so very hard to make himself into Supreme Court material. The mentality of a political operative — willing to go on Fox News, ready to inflame passions, disrespectful toward opponents — is still there. A nonpartisan would ask for, if not demand, an FBI investigation and Judge’s appearance. Kavanaugh wants to avoid both at all costs.

Update 2:  I didn't watch the Ford evidence, but Saletan's take on the matter of a witness being open and careful about the gaps in their memory actually works in favour of their credibility is a point well taken.