"There lies the main difference between childish imaginings and imaginative literature."

 

From Ursula LeGuin's No Time To Spare, a book of essays that chews on topics from old age to writing.  In "It Doesn't Have to Be the Way It Is"(June 2022) she muses about what liberties storytellers can take with reality before losing their readers.  

"The fantastic tale may suspend the laws of physics - carpets fly; cats fade into invisibility, leaving only a smile - and of probability - the younger of three brothers wins the bride, the infant in the box cast upon the waters survives unharmed - but it carries its revolt against reality no further.  Mathematical order is unquestioned.  Two and one make three, in Koschei's castle and Alice's Wonderland (especially in Wonderland), Euclid's geometry - or possibly Riemann's - somebody's geometry, anyhow - governs the layout.  Otherwise incoherence would invade and paralyze the narrative.  

There lies the main difference between childish imaginings and imaginative literature.  The chid "telling a story" roams about among the imaginary and the half-understood without knowing the difference, content with the sound of language and the pure play of fantasy with no particular end, and that's the charm of it.  But fantasies, whether folktales or sophisticated literature, are stories in the adult,  demanding sense.  They can ignore certain laws of physics but not of causality.  They start here and go there (or back here), and though the mode of travel may be unusual and here and there may be wildly exotic and unfamiliar places, yet they must have both a location on the map of that world and a relationship to the map of our world.  If not, the hearer or reader of the tale will be set adrift in a sea of inconsequential inconsistencies, or, worse yet, left drowning in the shallow puddle of the author's wishful thinking."

I don't know how many of you, reading this, were spurred to think about how childish Trump's stories are.  What's charming in children's stories definitely doesn't age well when told by adults.  

And what does this tell us by Trump's audience?  

"The hearer . . . of the tale will be set adrift in a sea of inconsequential inconsistencies, or worse yet, left drowning in the shallow puddle of the author's wishful thinking."

To be fair, LeGuin does distinguish between oral and written story telling.   In the previous essay, "The Narrative Gift as a Moral Conundrum" (May 2022) she writes:

"Storytelling is clearly a gift, a talent, a specific ability.  Some people just don't have it - they rush or drone, jumble the order of events, skip essentials, dwell on inessentials, and the muff the climax.  Don't we all have a relative who we pray won't launch into a joke or a bit of family history because the history will bore us and the joke will bomb?  But we may also have a relative who can take the stupidest, nothingest little event and make it into what copywriters call a gut-wrenchingly brilliant thriller and laugh riot."

While Trump does have a presence, I'm not sure he fits this description of story teller either.  It's more like he embodies the misery of his followers and allows them to act out their frustrations and blame their problems on anyone but themselves.  Trump was, up to a point, the successful version, or their own angry selves.  

 

Trust, Draft 4, And Tulips

 Ida Partenza has been hired by Andrew Bevel in Hernan Diaz' Trust to write down his autobiography as he dictates.  But she's also supposed to put it in order, clean it up, and embellish where necessary.  At their second session, when she gives Bevel what she's written, he's not satisfied.  

"You do take faithful notes.  The facts are, in essence, there.  A few things ought to be emended.  We'll get to that.  The problem is that this doesn't reflect me."

She's not sure what to do.  She decides to read autobiographies of some great men to see what they 'sound' like. 

"If Bevel's own voice, transcribed without embellishment or modification, was not enough, I would make a new one for him out of all those other voices. . . Because thanks to my wild and uncompromisingly disorganized approach, the books started to merge into one another.  What was individual about each man - Carnegie's self serving sanctimoniousness, Grant's essential decency, Ford's matter-of-fact pragmatism, Coolidge's rhetorical thrift and so on - yielded what I thought at the time, they all had in common:  they all believed, without any sort of doubt that they deserved to be heard, that their words ought to be heard, that the narratives of their faultless lives must be heard.  They all had the same unwavering certainty my father had.  And I understood this was the certainty that Bevel wants on the page."

We probably have a few too many politicians like this.  

My book club's next book

The discussion of how to organize the anecdotes Bevel's was telling her also reminded me of the chapter I'd read yesterday in John McPhee's Draft No. 4: On the Writing Process where he discusses the difficulties he's had starting out on long articles about individuals.   

"To prepare a profile of an individual, the reporting endeavor looks something like this:

 

           o

   o               o 

o         x          o

   o               o

           o

 

"The x is the person you are principally going to talk to, spend tie with, observe, and write about.  The o's  represent peripheral interviews with people who can shed light on the life and career of x - her friends, or his mother, old teachers, teammates, colleagues, employees, enemies, anybody at all, the more the better.  Cumulatively, the o's provide triangulation - a way of checking facts one against another, and of eliminating apocrypha." 

I miss not writing more posts like this.  We've had three young sisters staying with us this week.  They grew up in Alaska and moved out of state about five years ago and this has been their first trip back.  What fun we've had.  

I'm almost up to 200 km for this summer's biking.  And enjoying all the green stuff that's pushing out of the earth.  

By the way, Trust, is one of two fiction Pulitzer Prize winners this year.  The other one, Barbara Kingsolver's Deadly Copperfield is the book club's August pick.  

Harbor Walk And A South African Lawyer

Yesterday I took a walk down to the harbor here on Bainbridge Island.  

 And on my way back I did a double take when I saw this fairly mature palm tree.  Don't see a lot of them as far north as Seattle.  But All About Palm Trees tells there are some:

Palm Trees In Washington

 

There are specific varieties of cold hardy palm trees that can survive zones 8 and 9 of Washington state. Here are palm trees that can live in Washington: 

 

California Fan Palm Tree – Zones 8b - 11 (15 to 20 F) 

Canary Island Date Palm Tree – Zones 8b - 11 (15 to 20 F) 

Chinese Fan Palm Tree – Zones 8a – 11 (10 to 15 F) 

True Date Palm Tree – Zones 8b - 11 (15 to 20 F) 

European Fan Palm Tree – Zones 7b – 11 (5 to 10 F) 

Mexican Fan Palm Tree – Zones 8b - 11 (15 to 20 F) 

Queen Palm Tree – Zones 8b - 11 (15 to 20 F) 

Saw Palmetto Palm Tree – Zones 7a - 11 (0 to 5 F) 

But none of these quite look like the one in the picture.

And the South African lawyer.

My book club met tonight to discuss The Promise by Damon Galgut.  It won the 2021 Booker Prize. There were interesting things about it, but each of the  four parts involved a death and a funeral starting before Independence and then continuing afterward.  No one's life seemed to improve.  But there were a number of sentences with great imagery.  So I just wanted to share two:

"She's not so far advanced in matters of the spirit not to recognize the sound of a rare opportunity clearing its throat."

"The lawyer has amplified over the years, in harmony with her burgeoning practice.  Consumed two husbands along the way and still lazily digesting then. like a python in hibernation."

" . . .it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair"

This book was published in November 26, 1859.  It takes place from 1775 through 1793 in Paris and London.   Dickens wrote about a period that began 85 years earlier and ended 67 years earlier.  He himself wasn't born until 1812, nineteen years after the end of the time he wrote about.  

Today, that would be like writing about the period between 1936 and 1954.  There are folks alive today who were alive in that period who could be consulted.  

Looking ahead, it would be like a writer in the year 2093 writing about events between 2008 and 2026.  How much of today's social media posts and videos will be available to that writer?

A Tale Of Two Cities  begins with this single sentence paragraph.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness,  it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on being received for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

 

It does seem to describe the times we're living in.  

And many of us might see similarities between the inside cover illustration and January 6, 2021.

It's still less than a year since that infamous day. But quickly it will be further and further behind us.    Most of us see it as a day of infamy when Donald Trump hoped to overthrow the election and install himself permanently in the White House. A troublingly noisy and large minority see it as a day when patriots tried to overthrow a democratic election.  I'm hoping it's the worst Trump legacy, but I worry there will be more and worse.  

How many years will it take for historians to give the verdict?  And how long will that verdict stick?

"

I'm Punting Here, But Edward Snowden Is A Smarter And Better Writer Than I

I'm working on posts related to COVID and our mayor, and on redistricting, but it takes time to post something that's got something in it that everyone hasn't already heard. 

So when I read a Tweet by Edward Snowden - "On banking, bitcoin, and the future of money: a response to a governor of the Federal Reserve, Christopher J. Waller" - and then read the Substack article it was linked to, I knew I had something I could share while I continued working on (at least thinking about) my own posts.  

So, who is Waller?  Snowden tells us:

"Waller, an economist and a last-minute Trump appointee to the Fed, will serve his term until January 2030."

Waller was talking about whether the US government should create its own cryptocurrency in response to Bitcoin and other such currencies.  Snowden points out that China and a few other nations have already done this.  China, because it's a great way to keep track of how individuals are moving money around.  And government controlled cryptocurrency's biggest problem for Snowden, if I understand him, is the surveillance aspect of cryptocurrency.  

I'm impressed with how well Snowden writes.  He gets so much content into relatively few well chosen and organized words.  And he's really smart.  With a wicked understated sense of humor.  I don't understand everything he says, but with the endorsements of heroes like Daniel Ellsberg, I think what Snowden writes is worth paying attention to.  And his writing is just fun to read, even on a highly technical subject I don't know that much about.  But computers and surveillance are two subjects that Snowden is an expert on.  

There's even a history of money

For thousands of years priors to the advent of CBDCs, money—the conceptual unit of account that we represent with the generally physical, tangible objects we call currency—has been chiefly embodied in the form of coins struck from precious metals. The adjective “precious”—referring to the fundamental limit on availability established by what a massive pain in the ass it was to find and dig up the intrinsically scarce commodity out of the ground—was important, because, well, everyone cheats: the buyer in the marketplace shaves down his metal coin and saves up the scraps, the seller in the marketplace weighs the metal coin on dishonest scales, and the minter of the coin, who is usually the regent, or the State, dilutes the preciosity of the coin’s metal with lesser materials, to say nothing of other methods.

At the very least, this is an early warning for me (well others might say rather late) to pay more attention to cryptocurrency and what it might mean for the future of money.  And the ability of governments to monitor how people spend their money.  

So I'm strongly recommending the article.  Here's the link again.  Meanwhile, here are some quotes from the article.  

“Intermediation,” and its opposite “disintermediation,” constitute the heart of the matter, and it’s notable how reliant Waller’s speech is on these terms, whose origins can be found not in capitalist policy but, ironically, in Marxist critique. What they mean is: who or what stands between your money and your intentions for it.

This “crypto”—whose very technology was primarily created in order to correct the centralization that now threatens it—was, generally is, and should be constitutionally unconcerned with who possesses it and uses it for what. To traditional banks, however, not to mention to states with sovereign currencies, this is unacceptable: These upstart crypto-competitors represent an epochal disruption, promising the possibility of storing and moving verifiable value independent of State approval, and so placing their users beyond the reach of Rome. Opposition to such free trade is all-too-often concealed beneath a veneer of paternalistic concern, with the State claiming that in the absence of its own loving intermediation, the market will inevitably devolve into unlawful gambling dens and fleshpots rife with tax fraud, drug deals, and gun-running.  

 

Traditional financial services, of course, being the very face and definition of “intermediation”—services that seek to extract for themselves a piece of our every exchange. 

I think about how credit cards and Amazon make money simply by getting a percent of everything we buy, adding their own tax to everything consumers buy or businesses sell.  

I risk few readers by asserting that the commercial banking sector is not, as Waller avers, the solution, but is in fact the problem—a parasitic and utterly inefficient industry that has preyed upon its customers with an impunity backstopped by regular bail-outs from the Fed, thanks to the dubious fiction that it is “too big too fail.” 

Ultimately, Snowden says he agrees with Waller's conclusion that the US should not create its own crypto currency, but for a different reason.  

"And yet I admit that I still find his remarks compelling—chiefly because I reject his rationale, but concur with his conclusions.

It’s Waller’s opinion, as well as my own, that the United States does not need to develop its own CBDC. Yet while Waller believes that the US doesn’t need a CBDC because of its already robust commercial banking sector, I believe that the US doesn’t need a CBDC despite the banks, whose activities are, to my mind, almost all better and more equitably accomplished these days by the robust, diverse, and sustainable ecosystem of non-State cryptocurrencies (translation: regular crypto). " 

One key point that hasn't gotten into this post yet is surveillance 

I think I'm pushing the ethical limits on the amount I can quote from someone. Really, this is only fraction of what he wrote and I'm hoping that through his quotes I can entice you to click the link to his article.  Consider this post a trailer for his article. 

All The King's Men - Setting The Atmosphere For The Story Of A Popular Corrupt Politician

The first chapter of Robert Penn Warren's classic political novel about Louisiana's Huey Long is 72 pages.  It's richly descriptive, setting the scene in 1920s rural Louisiana.  For those who are checking their screens every minute or two, the pace and detail require a mental adjustment.  It felt like landing in a foreign country  and having to slow my mind's pace and recalibrate to different cultural meanings.

"Then we saw the house.
It was set on a little rise, a biggish box of a house, two-story, rectangular, gray, and unpainted, with a tin roof, unpainted too and giving off blazes under the sun for it was new and the rust hadn't bitten down into it yet, and a big chimney at each end.  We pulled up to the gate.  The house was set up close to the road, with a good hog-wire fence around the not very big yard, and with some crepe myrtles in bloom the color of raspberry ice cream and looking cool in the heat in the corner of the yard and one live oak, nothing to brag on and dying on one side, in front of the house, and a couple of magnolias off to one side with rustiy-looking tinny leaves.  There wasn't much grass in the yard, and a half dozen hens wallowed and fluffed and cuck-cucked in the dust under the magnolia trees.  A big white hairy dog like a collie or a shepherd was lying on the front porch, a little one-story front porch that looked stuck on the bo of the house, like an afterthought.

"It looked like those farmhouses you ride by in the country in the middle of the afternoon, with the chickens under the trees and the dog asleep, and you know the only person in the house is the woman who has finished washing up the dishes and has swept the kitchen and has gone upstairs to lie down for half an hour and has pulled off her dress and kicked off her shoes and is lying there on her back on the bed in the shadowy room with her eyes closed and a strand of her hair still matted down on her forehead with the perspiration.  She listens to the flies cruising around the room, then she listens to your motor getting big out on the road, then it shrinks off into the distance and she listens to the flies.  That was the kind of house it was." (p. 33)  

The cinematographer who makes the movie has everything spelled out for her.

A Hemingway might have written:

"They approached a house with trees in front."

But Warren still has a couple more paragraphs before they get into the house.  It makes me think of Clifford Geertz'  "thick description" as he describes how anthropologists uncover layers and layers  as they go from objectively documenting objects and actions to gaining insight to their meaning.

Warren knows this country and he's giving us a tour that will help us understand the characters - major and minor - and why they act as they do.

The house is Willie Stark's pappy's house.  They stop there and then Willie and the narrator, Jack Burden, go off into the night on some business.

"Way off from the road a barn would stick up out of the mist like a house sticking out of the rising water when the river breaks the levee.  Close to the road a cow would stand knee-deep in a mist, with horns damp enough to have a pearly shine in the starlight, and would look at the black blur we were as we went whirling into the blazing corridor of lights which we could never quite get into for it would be always splitting the dark just in front of us.  The cow would stand there knee-deep in the mist and look at the black blur and the blaze and then, not turning its head, at the place where the black blur and blaze had been, with the remote, massive, unvindictive indifference of God-Almighty or Fate or me, if I were standing their knee-deep in the mist, and the blur and the blaze whizzed past and withered on off between the fields and the patches of woods.
But I wasn't standing there in the field, in the dark, with the mist turning slowly around my knees and the ticking no-noise of the night inside my head.  I was in the car, headed back to Burden's Landing, which was named for the people from whom I got my name, and which was the place where I had been born and raised." (p. 55)

This was a time when people didn't have televisions.  Maybe radios.  Books.  Lots of time to sit around and talk with others.  

This first chapter introduces us to the key characters and to the country they live in.   As Jack and Willie arrive in Jack's home town, they are going to visit a judge who was like a second father to Jack.  Willie's not happy with the judge who has just endorsed a candidate Willie isn't backing.  We see in this encounter not only Willie squeezing the judge for a changes endorsement, but even more ruthlessly, how he uses Jack to help him humiliate Jack's old mentor.

It's late at night when Willie (aka The Boss) gets Jack to show him where Judge Irwin's house is and then pushes Jack to get them in.

"'Park out here,' the Boss said.  And then to me, "There's a light.  The bugger ain't in bed.  You go on and knock on the door and tell him I want to see him."
'Suppose he won't open up?'
'He will,' the Boss said, 'But if he won't you make him.  What the hell do I pay your for!'
I got out of the car and went in the gate and started up the shell walk under the black trees.  Then I heard the Boss coming after me.  We went up the walk with him just behind me, and up the gallery steps.
The Boss stood to one side, and I pulled open the screen and knocked on the door.  I knocked again; then looking in through the glass by the door I saw a door open off the hall -where the library was, I remembered - then a side light come on in the hall.  He was coming to the door.  I could see him through the glass while he fumbled with the lock.
'Yes?' he asked.
'Good evening, Judge,' I said.
He stood there blinking into the dark outside, trying to make out my face.
'It's Jack Burden,' I said.
'Well, well, Jack - well I'll be jiggered.'  And he put out his hand.  'Come in.' He even looked glad to see me. . . "

The next ten pages verbally film the interaction between the Boss, Jack, and Judge Irwin.  It's a cold, cunning, chilling encounter that probably isn't unlike some of the interactions between Trump's henchmen and his prey.  Though even the Boss has a lot more class than Trump.

All that foreshadowing was getting us to this meeting at the end the first chapter.  I'll give more details of that encounter tomorrow.

The Man Who Bought Alaska Checking Some Claims

As occasionally happens, this post began with one destination in mind and ended up somewhere else.  I'll make this Part I and do a second post to cover my original intention - some historical references that give a little more perspective on our present day situation.

[Actually, it's ending up with yet a different ending.  I'm putting the sentences of the second revision in [brackets] so you'll know what was in the original post and the revised post.  The original post was really just going to be quotes putting today's politics into some context.  And that's still coming.]


I read Mike Dunham's The Man Who Bought Alaska on the plane down here.  It was a gift for a friend who couldn't find it in LA.  He also wanted The Man Who Sold Alaska but Title Wave didn't have it.

Alaskans probably can figure out that it's about William Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State.  It's just over 100 pages and written at about a high school level (intended reader level, not writing level.)  So a lot of things were mentioned about Seward, but there wasn't much back up other than a bibliography in the back.

But I learned a lot in a short time about someone important to Alaska.  It also highlights Alaska's first governor - the military man first put in charge of the state after it was purchased from Russia.  His name was Jef Davis.

Some things I learned about Seward.  Again these are things that Dunham claims.

• As Governor of New York he started the practice of giving books to prisoners.
• As Secretary of State he initiated the transatlantic telegraph cable because he was frustrated by how long it took to communicate with Europe.*
• He initiated the cross continent railroad system.**  
• The plot to assassinate Lincoln include assassinating Vice President Johnson AND Secretary of State Seward.  And a knife wielding intruder, according to Dunhan, did gain access and did stab Seward several times.  Johnson's assassin, Dunham tells us, chickened out.  (A Smithsonian story confirms that Johnson and Seward were targets.  And also Grant.)

[The second revision comes because when I tried to find quotes to support my characterizations of what Dunham wrote, I couldn't.  I had marked page numbers for some quotes (and I have those), but I also thought these actions were also noteworthy.  I did find the assertion about the books to prisoners, and that doesn't seem totally unreasonable.  I was more concerned about the transatlantic telegraph wire and the transcontinental railroad.  The best I could find on a quick perusal (I gave the book to a friend and I didn't have much time to check carefully when we met again) were much more limited than I remember.  Like he played an important role in . . .   So, I'll keep this post in as a lesson on the need to actually check and document what you're asserting and point out that I couldn't do that here.]

*These seemed like outlandish claims.  When I googled who initiated the Transatlantic Telegraph Cable, I got the name Cyrus West Field.  When I added William Seward to the search terms I got a CIA Library document that said, in part:

"Seward had first discussed the new transatlantic cable with the parent company, the New York, Newfoundland, and London Telegraph Company, at a celebration in New York on 29 August 1866 honoring President Andrew Johnson. At the conclusion of the evening's festivities, one of the directors of the company, Mr. Wilson G. Hunt, asked Seward why the federal government did not use the new Atlantic cable. It was a question that would eventually lead to a $32,000 claim against the State Department. Seward told Hunt that the tariff was too costly and that 'the Government of the United States was not rich enough to use the telegraph.'"2

**About the Railroad, Wikipedia says:

In 1852, Judah was chief engineer for the newly formed Sacramento Valley Railroad, the first railroad built west of the Mississippi River.  .   .
In 1856, Judah wrote a 13,000-word proposal in support of a Pacific railroad and distributed it to Cabinet secretaries, congressmen and other influential people. In September 1859, Judah was chosen to be the accredited lobbyist for the Pacific Railroad Convention, which indeed approved his plan to survey, finance and engineer the road. Judah returned to Washington in December 1859. He had a lobbying office in the United States Capitol, received an audience with President James Buchanan, and represented the Convention before Congress.[30] . . .
In February 1860, Iowa Representative Samuel Curtis introduced a bill to fund the railroad. It passed the House but died when it could not be reconciled with the Senate version due to opposition from southern states who wanted a southern route near the 42nd parallel.[30] Curtis tried and failed again in 1861. After the southern states seceded from the Union, the House of Representatives approved the bill on May 6, 1862, and the Senate on June 20. Lincoln signed the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 into law on July 1."

There's no mention of Seward.  Now, Seward may have persuaded Lincoln to sign the bill, but Dunham's claim gave Seward a much greater responsibility for the creation of the Transcontinental Railroad.
This is a very different slant than what Dunham offered.  [And, it seems I can't actually find the words in Dunham's book that made believe he'd made such claims.  So when I wrote the title - Checking Some Claims - I meant I was going to check whether the claims were accurate.  But it turns out Checking Some Claims means checking whether he actually made such claims.  And I couldn't find that he did.]

"All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent. Never before in our history has the House of Representatives-under the control of either political party- taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue." [UPDATED]

[UPDATE Oct 9:  Here's a Lawfare analysis that's more informed than my comments were, but comes to the same conclusions.]


Here are the second and third paragraphs of an eight page  letter Donald Trump's counsel sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and to three House Committee Chairs (Eliot L. Engel Chairman
House Foreign Affairs Committee, Adam B. Schiff Chairman House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Elijah E. Cummings Chairman House Committee on Oversight and Reform).

"For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent. Never before in our history has the House of Representatives-under the control of either political party- taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue.
Put simply, you seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the American people of thePresident they have freely chosen. ManyDemocratsnowapparently view impeachment not only as a means to undo the democratic results of the last election, but as a strategy to influence the next election, which is barely more than a year away. As one member of Congress explained, he is "concerned that if we don't impeach the President, he will get reelected." 1 Your highly partisan and unconstitutional effort threatens grave and lasting damage to our democratic institutions, to our system of free elections, and to the American people."

Let's hope that Trump retains this attorney as one of his top legal defenders as things drag down into the chaos ahead.  As Kellyann Conway's husband George tweeted about this letter:

It’s hard to count the number of ways that this letter is, constitutionally and legally, garbage. https://t.co/OIrf1awCHX

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) October 8, 2019

There are so many outrageous claims in these two paragraphs, it's overwhelming.  First, the House impeachment is to determine if there should be an indictment.  It's sort of like a grand jury that is closed to the public and only the prosecutor presents information.  The 'court' part doesn't happen until an impeachment is accepted by the Senate for trial.  So all this about violating civil rights is nonsense.

"violates every past precedent" - truly an amazing claim.  Every one of them, so he doesn't have to list them or show how they are violated  I wonder how many past precedents there are.  Hundreds?  Thousands?  Just name a few, ok?

Overturning the 2016 election claims - Well, yes, if a president is eventually convicted in the Senate, it has the effect of ending that president's tenure in office.  Just like when a criminal is convicted and sentenced to prison, it ends the criminal's right to freedom.  But the problem began with the criminal behavior, not the conviction.  His argument would mean that a president could never be impeached.

And let's remember that Hillary Clinton had about 3 million more votes than did Trump in 2016, so let's cool it with the crocodile tears.

So, I'm guessing this is just part of Trump's long time standard operating procedure - Attack, Counterattack, and Never Apologize.  It's the bullies' creed - make it so hard and so expensive that most people give up and let you have your way.  It's how Trump has gotten away with so much shit.  (Sorry, there's no really polite word.)

One point of this letter is to waste time, possibly intimidate some members of Congress, and to drag out the handing over of any documents to Congress.

But this letter is really for Trump's supporters who will eat up every accusation and start filling FB and Twitter with quotes that show Trump as the victim of Democratic abuse.  And the hypocrisy of Abuser In Chief accusing others of his modus operandi?  Well, bashing Democrats and keeping them from trampling on their values and destroying their way of life appear to be the things Trump's hard-core supporters like best.  From Jane Coaston at Vox:

"Trump stands accused by his enemies of, in essence, fighting dirty. But to conservatives who sincerely believe themselves to be under assault from an increasingly left-wing movement that itself fights dirty, that’s more a feature than a bug."  (emphasis added)

One more thing.  Here's Trump's legal counsel's signature on page 8 of the letter:

It's about 10 lines high!  John Hancock would be impressed.  I'd love to have a scientific graphologist do some analysis of this signature.  I'm guessing this suggests confidence, maybe the kind you get when you live in a bubble where everyone agrees with you.

Two Excellent ADN Letters To The Editor - One On Climate Change, One On Ambler Road

In this time of strong partisan divide, of fake news, and intentional distortion of facts, and even creation of totally fabricated stories, I'd like to share two excellent letters from today's Anchorage Daily News(ADN).  But I also recognize that in this age I probably need to explain why I rate them so highly.  I'll do that later. But first I'll let you look at the letters yourselves.  Well, I'm only excerpting them, you can see the complete letters at the links.*

First, from Kendra Zamzow** of Chickaloon:

"Climate Change is not an environmental issue.
It’s a real estate issue when people leave behind homes destroyed or at risk from fire and coastal erosion. It’s a public health issue when saltwater seeps into drinking water wells as seas rise. It’s a public health crisis when heat kills hundreds or thousands of people.
It’s a public works issue when major cities like Miami run pumps to de-flood city streets and sidewalks.
It’s an infrastructure issue when railroads collapse and roads melt. It’s an agricultural issue when sustained flooding prevents crops from being planted. It’s a ranching issue when drought forces cattlemen to kill their herds. It’s a national security risk when military bases repeatedly flood, leaving planes and equipment stranded.
It’s an immigration issue when crops fail and farmers move, seeking land or work. It’s a defense issue when water tables drop, disrupting livelihoods and driving conflict. It’s a food resources issue when warm ocean waters drive algal blooms that cause shellfish to be poisonous .  . ."

Second, from Rachael Gaedeke of Anchorage:

[*It turns out the second letter is not yet posted online in the ADN.  I'll offer you part of it and will put up a link when the whole letter is available.]  It talks about the hearings to take testimony on the Ambler Road, being proposed into roadless land for the benefit of a private mining project. The letter was written by Raechel Gaedeke:

"When I read through the DEIS, it was sadly apparent that no one had thought to address the negative social impact of this proposed 211-mile road. . .
"Study after study has shown that when mines are built, the communities closest suffer from increased rates of alcoholism, increased rates of domestic violence and increased rates of sexual assault.  The villages in proximity to this propose road and this potential mine(s) do not have the resources to support the influx of miners, truckers and "man camps" that will follow.  I greatly fear for the women and children in every village that comes close to the proposed Ambler Road. . .
"I strongly urge BLM to address the following questions:
1.  How will you ensure the safety of the women and children living in the communities within proximity to this proposed road and the mine(s) that will follow?
2.  What security measures will be taken to ensure that alcohol or drugs will not be bootlegged into the communities via this road either by truckers employed by the mine(s) or potential poachers?
5.  What security measures will you take to keep poachers off the road . . .
6.  How will you prevent the potential for sex trafficking on this road via truckers, poachers, etc. into the mine(s) or the man camps or the villages?
7.  When More police officers  and Village Public Safety Officers are needed, who will pay?
8.  How will you research and document and mitigate the potential for negative social impact on the indigenous people in the region of the proposed mine . . ." 

So, what makes these good letters?

1. They broaden the scope of the issues.  The climate change one moves the discussion from simply 'record temperatures' or 'more intense storms and fires' to all the many ways a warming climate is going to affect people.  These things are already affecting many people, but the scope will get greater and greater.  This is not somebody else's problem.  It's a human problem.  The Ambler Road letter moves the discussion from narrow physical environmental impacts of the road to the social impacts of this sort of large scale remote development tends to bring with it.
2. These letters are sensational.  The issues they raise are well documented.  
3. I can't spot any factual fabrications or distortions.  
4. They pack a lot of information into relatively few words, though the Ambler Road letter is a little repetitive in its list of questions, though what I'm calling repetitive points seem to focus on a slightly different aspect.
5. The language of each letter is clear and easy to understand.  It's strong, but focuses on issues and does not attack individuals or categories of individuals.  (That last sentence should go without saying, but nowadays needs to be said more and more.)

I realize those who emotionally deny climate change will be unhappy with the first letter and call it alarmist.  The nearly 70% of US residents who think it's real and are worried about climate warming will learn more about the many likely impacts. (If they want to do something to help slow down climate change they can check out the Citizens Climate Lobby website.)

And those financially in favor of the Ambler Road, really are responsible for answering the questions raised.  Can they prevent these likely externalities of their project?  If not, should the State of Alaska allow a project that is likely to add to Alaska's high level of sexual violence to a large extent fueled by drugs and alcohol, and to increase sex trafficking?

So I thank these two letter writers for their strong and articulate letters raising important issues for Alaskans (and all US residents) to consider.  And I thank the ADN for publishing them.


**I didn't know anything about Zamzow when I read the letter in the hardcopy paper today (Yes, it's still coming.)  But there's a brief biographical blurb in the online version, which helps explain why the author wrote such a powerful letter:

"Kendra Zamzow, a resident of Chickaloon, is an environmental chemist and the Alaska representative for the Center for Science in Public Participation. She has a doctorate in environmental chemistry from the University of Nevada, Reno and a bachelor's degree in molecular and cellular biology from Humboldt State University, California."

What's The Difference Between a Memoirs and a Memoir? And an Autobiography? But That's Just The Hook. There's Also Kimani. [Updated]

I follow  Kimani Okearah @theKimansta on Twitter.  He's a photographer for the Sacramento Kings.  Well, that's not exactly right.  He's a photographer for Vox News and he covers the Kings for them.  I follow a number of folks who experience life differently than I do just to keep tabs on worlds I don't know well.  Mostly there's basketball in his Tweets, but also stuff on race, and health, and things I'm not really sure what they are about.  But there's something sweet and decent about him. I've grown to like him.

It turns out one thing we have in common is an interest in film.  He's working on a documentary.  It's called 30 Year Memoirs of a Crack Baby.  He's the crack baby and he has, among other congenital health issues, a seriously problematic large intestine.

But as I read the title I wondered, why is it memoirs instead of memoir?  So I googled.

[UPDATE 8/15/19:  Kathy in KY commented that the boxes for Memoir and Autobiography had the same texts.  (I've corrected that.)  But then that leaves this post without a distinction between memoir and memoirs.  So here's one from the blog Memoir Mind  that seems to make sense:

"Writing about one's whole life is writing one's memoirs, plural. It's more akin to autobiography, in which you tell all about what happened, often with intense detail, the personal version of the kind of research a biographer would do if they were writing a life about you. Memoirs tend to be more informal than autobiography, but still have that life-encompassing feel. Most of the people who write them are well-known - that's how and why others would buy an entire book about their entire life, or multiple books about their entire life.
Memoir, on the other hand, the currently hot trend in writing and the topic of this blog, is focused on a particular time in one's life, or a theme or thread."

And, back to the original post, below is the bigger picture with the corrected illustration.]

The Author Learning Center explains the difference between a memoir, autobiography, and a biography.    And if you look closely in their summary of a memoir, the second bullet offers a brief note on the difference.

Text comes from The Author Learning Center 

Kimani is asking for a lot of money on GoFundMe, but films cost a lot to make.  He's an expert on the topic.  And since it's a memoirs, it will be a "1st person POV" and less "formal and objective" than a memoir. [And since it's a memoirs, it will be about his whole life, not just one time, theme, or thread.]

I'd urge you to go to his GoFundMe page.  Read it.  And if you weren't born to crack addicts and taken from your parents at 6 months and put into foster home and kicked out of that home as soon as you turned 18, you're probably had a lot more 'privileges' than Kimani has had.  So you could share some of your privilege by checking out his site.

And making a donation.  It doesn't have to be a lot.  $5 would do, but if you're going to go to all the trouble, you might consider making a larger contribution.

He hasn't had a contribution for a couple of days.  I think it's because people would rather look away.  But please, overcome that urge, and give him five minutes.  And when the movie is showing (at the Anchorage International Film Festival I hope), you'll know that you helped make it possible.

I'm not putting up his picture.  I want you to imagine what he looks like.  And then go check how well you conjured up his image.  I'm going to check how many people linked from this page to his GoFundMe page.    Yes, I can do that (and so all other websites.)

Learning How Tom Clancy Novels Keeping Coming Even Though He Died In 2013

The notice said that the author of the Tom Clancy thriller series was speaking at UAA.  I knew vaguely that this was a best selling author and I even thought I'd read one of the books, but it was hazy and I didn't have time to look it up before I went.  If there's a famous author coming to talk and I can ask questions - and more importantly, I can fit it on my schedule - I try to do it.

That's where my head was when I got to the UAA bookstore.

Marc Cameron started talking.  The talk was basically about writing and publishing - very little
about his books and their characters. As he spoke my mind twisted and turned.  Here was an author telling us about how he wrote books that have a dead author's name in giant letters on the cover and his name, much smaller on the bottom.

Teachers:  He mentioned two teachers who changed his life, making him believe he could be an author. One short story was totally marked up in red ink and had a C- (I think that's what he said), but at the very end, said, "I think this is publishable."  Another teacher - in theater - told him he moved like he had a broomstick up his butt, and this scarred him for life he said.  He still won't get up on the dance floor.

Blurbs - He mentioned one author who, when thanked by an author for whom he'd written a book jacket blurb, said, "I either read 'em or blurb 'em, but not both."   And Cameron said most of his blurbs credited to him were written by the publisher.  I guess that makes sense for someone who writes books that have another author's name.  When asked about the evolution of the Tom Clancy series, he likened it to movies - how many James Bonds have there been with different actors playing Bond?

Writing methods - He has a plan for the whole book and knows how it will end before he starts.  He usually has four or five different plots going and he has to map out how they intersect. Every chapter ends with a major unresolved issue that requires the reader to go to the next one to find out what happens.  The publishers pick the titles based on marketing strategies.  He keeps some of the original author's style - like offering esoteric explanations about items used by the characters - but not the way Clancy did.  Nowadays, he said, we have Google, so readers can easily look things up.  He tries to write the best he can, but he's telling suspenseful stories, not writing art.  Though he sometimes slips in something more 'artful' which may or may not be cut by the editors.

Money - He talked about authors getting something like 8% of the price of each book.  So he has a decent cash flow - given advances, hard back, second publications, paperback editions - but that if he stops writing, that will slowly dry up.  He'd mentioned that the estate of Tom Clancy owns the rights and decide who carries on the series.  When asked if that meant his royalties were less, he said he gets paid a flat fee to write those books.

I found myself reevaluating my stereotypes of 'hack' writers.  Cameron, in answering a question, told an anecdote about Ken Follett who was host for a literary award dinner.  The well known author award recipient said something about not thinking about the reader when he wrote,  and Follett was reported to have said, "That's why you win awards and I'm rich."


The sense I got of Cameron was that

• He wanted to write from an early age.  He mentioned reading Where the Red Ferns Grow and also noting that his teacher loved it too and that it moved her to tears.  He wanted to be able to affect people like that.
• For Cameron, writing is a job.  He likes the writing and being able to have a portable office and the idea that people buy his books and are somehow affected by them.
• He is a story teller, writing stories that pump people with adrenaline, that take them out of their daily and less satisfying lives.  And he has to compete with video games and Netflix binging.  
• He likes that he can earn a good living this way.  

It was good for me to hear him talk.  It's clear he works very hard.  He may be more like a factory worker producing formulaic books than a writer of literature, but he's good at what he does and serves his audience what they want.  And he's totally honest about what he does.  And I've been reminded of one of my unwarranted prejudices and am correcting it.  I may even read one of his books.  If you check the Wikipedia link I put on his name above, you can get a list of his books.  

Sometime during the talk, I realized that the Tom Clancy book I'd read was The Hunt For Red October, a book written by Tom Clancy.   

Upon what meat do these, our legislative potentates, feed? " An Analysis Of A Letter To The Editor

Go ahead and read this letter to the editor that was in the Anchorage Daily News the other day:

The Letter

THE LAST OF A DYING BREED
Upon what meat do these, our legislative potentates, feed? The constant whining, wailing and caterwauling politicians of both stripes, lining up like pigs at the feeding trough of public spending, have gorged themselves for years.
Since Tom Fink, I’d given up all hope of ever seeing another fiscal conservative. To make actual cuts of real substance — ’twas a consummation devoutly to be wished. To take on the biggest governmental fraud, public indoctrination of our youth masquerading as education, requires a strength of courage that was thought never to be seen again.
So-called public education, for approximately 140 years, has produced decade after decade of declining test scores, rewarded in the following decades by increased funding. In the private sector, such a business model would have been diagnosed and terminated 135 years ago as an unmitigated failure. The answer is not more funding, but the fraud’s replacement with charter, private and religious schools that educate.
— Ed Wassell
Anchorage

How to review it?

I feel I need to respond. But who should my audience be?  I should respond to the ADN, but my response is way too long.  Then who?  My first impulse was to respond to people who might be taken in by these words, to help them see between the lines, or below the surface as some might say.  That would be easy to do.

But the real challenge is to address myself directly to the author.  But how?  A human being wrote this, and my intent is not to belittle him, but to try to engage in conversation about what he wrote.  Does he really believe this?  So I thought about how a graded my graduate students' papers.  I had to stay strictly objective.  My point was to help them improve, not to make the drop out of the class.

So let's see what I can do.  Line by line.  

"Upon what meat do these, our legislative potentates, feed?"

Mr. Wassell, I think you'd acknowledge this is not how most people speak today.  I even googled "Upon what meat do these potentates feed?"  I got several close citations.

"Upon what meat do these men feed that we should be their slaves, that they should not pay the same taxes that other people pay?"

This comes from a book called State Republican Legislative Souvenir, 1897, and Political History of Michigan  and recounts a debate over getting railroads to pay their fair share of taxes.  It's not that different from Alaskans asking that the oil industry pay its fair share of taxes.

Here's another example I found:

"Upon what meat do these men feed that they are grown so great?"

This was a harangue against school boards that fought against  teachers unionizing.  It appeared in a 1919 article in "The Public:  A Journal of Democracy.  (p. 396)

So, Mr Wassell what is it about late 19th/early 29th century rhetoric that you feel is so relevant for the opening of your letter?  How does it add to the readers' understanding of the issues you appear to discuss?  I ask in all seriousness.  Perhaps that's how you talk.  Or you want to be a little more poetic than we hear today.  Perhaps you want to impress people with your erudition.  Or perhaps it's a time you would feel more comfortable.  You don't tell us, so I have to guess.

Let's move on.

"The constant whining, wailing and caterwauling politicians of both stripes, lining up like pigs at the feeding trough of public spending, have gorged themselves for years."

The phrase 'legislative potentates' in the first sentence was the only hint of judgment on your part.

Merriam Webster tells us that potentate means:

" RULER, SOVEREIGN
broadly : one who wields great power or sway"

But you're applying it not to sovereigns or rulers, but mere legislators who have to struggle with other legislators.  They really don't have anything near a potentates' power.  But you convey that they are all powerful.   

Then this second sentence slides into anti-government liturgy, like repeating verses of the Bible that everyone takes as a natural truth.  At least members of that political religion.  But it is simply empty rhetoric that attacks the honor of all politicians.  Without any factual evidence.  As though all politicians are equally venal and none are in Juneau because they believe in the serving the public.  It's typical anti-government clichés.  Perhaps you are surrounded like people who talk in those kinds of phrases, but to many of your readers, I'm sure this language will be jarring and hurt your credibility.  

And you seem to condemn both 'potentates' and 'legislators.'  So if you disapprove of authoritarian rulers and you think democratically elected legislators are all hacks, what do you believe in?  I guess no government at all.  Let the natural state of humankind work things out?  Is that what you're saying?  If that's what you believe, why not just say you are opposed to government altogether?   

OK, on to the next sentence.  

"Since Tom Fink, I’d given up all hope of ever seeing another fiscal conservative. To make actual cuts of real substance — ’twas a consummation devoutly to be wished."

Conservapedia tells us:

"Fiscal conservatism is a political position (primarily in the United States) that calls for lower levels of public spending, lower taxes and lower government debt. It is a variety of conservatism concerned with economic rather than social issues. Fiscal conservatives oppose unnecessary government expenditures, deficits, and government debt. They take the perspective of the present and future taxpayers, and worry about the possible burden on them. They support balanced budgets. This should be contrasted with those who believe that lower taxation will stimulate industrial development, even though it causes higher deficits."

But it also says:

"Fiscal conservatism may also support limited periods of higher taxes in order to lower the public debt."

I'm not sure why you thought it useful to lift a phrase from Hamlet's To Be Or Not To Be speech.  This time you're reaching back, not 100 years for your style, but 400 years.  What do you mean by this?  Hamlet was referring to death.  And you seem to be referring to cutting the budget.  I guess that's a form of death.  At one time, people might recognize the line, but today I doubt very many would know where it comes from, so it might be helpful to give Will some credit here.

OK, next sentence.

"To take on the biggest governmental fraud, public indoctrination of our youth masquerading as education, requires a strength of courage that was thought never to be seen again."

Again, rather flowery language, but that's a stylistic issue I won't quibble with other than to ask you what purpose you think it serves here?  But embedded in this sentence is another mantra of the anti-government, anti-public school movement.   Here are a couple of examples of this wording Google found for me:

From the Montana Standard

" the socialist liberal progressive, politically correct liberal idiot-logical indoctrination camps that masquerade as public schools inculcating our youth instead of instructing them on what they need to know to be productive and responsible citizens."

A bit over the top I'd say.

From the New American:

"Global citizenship education is also a frequent topic in the report and all throughout the UN's global indoctrination efforts masquerading as education."

Can't you make your point using your own words?

Let's move on.

"So-called public education, for approximately 140 years, has produced decade after decade of declining test scores, rewarded in the following decades by increased funding."

Finally, there is something factual we can actually debate.  By factual, I don't mean it's actually true, but rather it talks in terms of facts that we can look up.  And so I did.  It's not easy to find such statistics.  Here's 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Report, but I don't see anything on testing.  Here's a history of standardized testing.  It's hard to tease out anything like your numbers.   OK, you'll probably say these are liberal and biased reports.  So please give me your statistics - but make sure they are objective and not conservative biased stats.

School testing was just an idea a few people  had 140 years or so ago.  The idea was to test kids to see how much they learned.  But it took a while for such testing to be implemented. Then there was a huge market for tests. But there were no national tests where schools were tested on a regular basis using the same test with scores traced and monitored until very recently.  So, the idea that scores declined decade after decade for 140 years has absolutely no basis in fact.

And if such declining test scores did exist over that time period, I think it would say more about the inaccuracy of the tests than the abilities of the students.  This was a time when the United States became the leading nation in the world, built on ingenuity, scientific discoveries, inventions, industrial technology.  Countless great Americans graduated from public high schools -
Jonas Salk, Steve Jobs, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Google co-founder Larry Page, Spike Lee, Youtube CEO Susan Wojcicki, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Warren Buffet, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Elvis Presley, and Bob Dylan - just to name a few.

There certainly are problems with public schools. But there are also problems with private schools.  And private schools have the luxury of expelling students who don't fit in well.  Public schools can't do that.  So they have all the more labor intensive (and costly)  students - from behavior problems, cognitive problems, etc.  .

Your claim of 140 years of decade by decade declines in test scores is hard to swallow.  You would be much more persuasive if you included some data to support your claim.  I doubt it exists.


Moving on to the next sentence.

" In the private sector, such a business model would have been diagnosed and terminated 135 years ago as an unmitigated failure."

First, businesses live or die based on making money, not test scores.  Businesses can be run very sloppily and make money in the right place and right time.  And they can be run well, but suffer from a bad economy - what I expect will happen to many businesses in Alaska if Dunleavy's budget were to pass.  Public schools are not businesses, because many of their students simply could not afford to go to school if they had to pay.

Second, the sentence is seems contradictory.  You just said that schools have had declining test scores 'decade after decade" for 140 years.  So, 135 years ago - had there actually been any testing - it would still be five years before the first decade was up.  So, even in your fantasy scenario, nothing would have been closed down.  I point that out because I think it's reflective of the lack of rigorous thinking throughout the letter.  Nearly all the sentences are cliché filled opinion.  There's nothing of substance there.  So the conclusion in your last sentence doesn't really follow from what you've written up to that point.

"The answer is not more funding, but the fraud’s replacement with charter, private and religious schools that educate."

I don't follow how you got to this conclusion.  You've offered us fact-free tirades against public schools.  You've not given us any data that shows - for educating all kids in the US - private schools are any better.  Yet that's your conclusion.

In addition, early on you talked about indoctrination.  While there are many good religious private schools in the United States, the very reason most people send their kids to private religious schools is to 'indoctrinate' them in the values and beliefs of that religion.  For example, here's the mission statement from Holy Rosary Academy:

"Holy Rosary Academy seeks to complete what the attentive parent has begun by forming students in faith, reason, and virtue through a classical education in the Roman Catholic Tradition."

Public schools indoctrinate kids in belief in the greatness of the United States.  Good public schools expose kids to many different ideas and ways of seeing the world.

Closing

This post could go on and on.  But I think I've made my key points.  And I'm afraid I've failed to do it in a way that might cause Mr. Wassell to even pause a bit.

After I wrote a first draft,  I couldn't help wondering who had written this letter for ADN readers, so I  googled and learned a bit that helps explain where some of this comes from.  I'm not certain it's the same Ed Wassell, but it seems likely.

Here's the key thing - in terms of understanding this letter - I found out.  An Ed Wassell from Anchorage got an award from the Acton Institute:

 "Best thing Going: “What you do is still far and away one of the best things going for Catholic Education in the United States.” Ed Wassell, Executive Director, Holy Rosary Academy, Anchorage, AK. 4-time honoree."

There are several other links to Ed Wassell being involved with Catholic affairs in Anchorage, but the school link probably tells us a lot.

What will happen if public school funding is drastically cut?  Class sizes will get much bigger, teachers will get overworked, and parents who can afford it will start looking for private schools.  And I would be surprised if Dunleavy didn't push, next go around, to use public money to give parents vouchers to private schools, even private religious schools, which I understand to be unconstitutional in Alaska.

I also found a video of a Holy Rosary teacher who won a national award as teacher of the week.  [Video is at the bottom of the page on the right]  She sounds like a great teacher.  What I found striking is that they showed her in her fourth grade class.  There were nine students.  Imagine what public school teachers could do with classes that size.

One last note.  Tom Fink, who Wassell mentions in the letter, is the chair of the board at Holy Rosary Academy.

There's nothing wrong with Mr. Wassell's involvement with Holy Rosary Academy, though it would be nice if he had disclosed that in the letter.  And would still like to hear Mr. Wassell's explanation for the somewhat old fashioned way of writing.

Let me also note that Jesuit schools have a reputation for teaching rigorous thinking skills, so this is not a condemnation of Catholic schools. Though victims of sexual abuse at Catholic schools will be less forgiving of their failures.    I have less confidence in the thinking skills students get in Evangelical schools, particularly those that deny evolution and teach traditional roles for males and females and believe that homosexuality is a sin.  But that is straying a bit.

INTERN DIES 8 TIMES - Why Everyone Should Be Familiar With Strunk & White's Elements Of Style

Here's the story headline in the Anchorage Daily News* (ADN) this morning  that got my attention here:

For my blind readers whose equipment can't read words in images, the headline is:

"DEPUTIES SHOT LION THAT KILLED INTERN AT WILDLIFE CENTER 8 TIMES"

"Lion that killed intern at wildlife center 8 times" - That's one tough intern.


Elements Of Style is one of the most used books on English writing style.  It may be a bit outdated here and there, but its succinct list of rules of grammar and style make it a great way to keep your prose concise and understandable.  It's available free as a PDF on line.  From page 36:

"20. Keep related words together.
The position of the words in a sentence is the principal means of showing their relationship. Confusion and ambiguity result when words are badly placed. The writer must, therefore, bring together the words and groups of words that are related in thought and keep apart those that are not so related."

They then give lots of examples, but this one is as good as any of them why this is important.


So how do we make it clear that the deputies shot the lion eight times, not that the lion killed the intern eight times?   Here's what other headline writers wrote:

Deputies shot lion eight times after it killed intern

Deputies fired 8 gunshots to subdue lion after fatal attack at NC wildlife center


Other papers, like the Miami Herald and the Chicago Tribune used the misleading headline the ADN used.


*I often can't find links to stories like this one that the ADN has rounded up from other sources, that's why I put in the screenshot.

I'd also note that in the 1979 Introduction is this advice on BREAKING rules:

"It is an old observation," he wrote, "that the best writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric. When they do so, however, the reader will usually find in the sentence some compensating merit, attained at the cost of the violation. Unless he is certain of doing as well, he will probably do best to follow the rules."

Waiting For The Shoe To Drop: "[Trump's defense] so far is not recognizable to an attorney as any sort of legal defense at all"

I got this email teaser this morning. It's for a book that keeps Trump's lies alive.  (Sure, it's worth someone checking out just to see if there's anything there that can help understand all this, but one person can buy one copy and tell us about it.)

I'm wondering why they are featuring a book by apologists for the president.  I guess that's part of 'being fair' and offering 'both' sides to every argument. I learned long ago - sometimes there is only one right side and the other side is wrong.

Another book came out last week that I started reading.  I'm only into the first chapter, but this book promises to paint in a lot of the missing background to the indictments and other news bits occasionally escaping the Mueller investigation.

The title of Seth Abramson's new book Proof of Collusion:  How Trump Betrayed America  tells us Abramson's conclusion.   But that doesn't necessarily mean the book is biased or hype.  After all a book titled  Charles Manson: Proof of Murder wouldn't be questioned.

As I've written and rewritten this post, I've cut out some quotes that I surely need to share with you, so I'll just drop them in here. I also need something interesting in the title.

"[My work here is made easier] by the almost historic absence  . . . of any exculpatory evidence suggesting the president of the United States did not conspire with our enemies to violate federal law." 

"...the defense he and his team have mounted so far is not recognizable to an attorney as any sort of legal defense at all"

I wonder if the quote about the lack of a legal defense simply reflects Trump's disregard for any rules or laws that confine him and that he believes that he can win this politically.  Or perhaps those pursuing various policies and appointments hope simply to gain as much as they can from him before he crashes.

Now, to the book.

Introduction: A Theory Of The Case 

After pages of background and context, Abramson offers us this:

"In the case of the ongoing Trump-Russia probe, the only plausible theory of the case that coordinates with all the existing evidence is that Donald Trump and a core group of ten to twenty aides, associates, and allies conspired with a hostile foreign power to sell that power control over American's foreign policy in exchange for financial reward and - eventually - covert election assistance.  This theory doesn't contend that anyone in the president's sphere participated in any hacking or even knew about Russia's cyber-intrusions in advance;  it doesn't allege that the conspiracy many members of the Trump team were involved in was finely wrought, as opposed to chaotic, amateurish, and quickly capable of producing a mountain of incriminating evidence;  it doesn't require that all elements of its grand narrative take place in private, as indeed many of them occurred in the plain sight of millions of Americans;  and it doesn't allege that any of the actions involved rose to the level of statutory treason - a federal criminal statue that applies only if America is in a declared state of war.  What this theory of the case  does do is explain decades of suspicious behavior by Donald Trump, his family, and his closest associates, behavior that suggests that these bad actors expected and received a massive financial reward for taking policy positions friendly to the Kremlin and adverse to the interests of the United States.  The theory further maintains that once Trump had sufficient knowledge of Russian crimes to be legally responsible for not aiding and abetting them with promises of policies unilaterally beneficial to the Kremlin - a point Trump reached on August 17, 2016, a the very latests - any additional actions taken to advance Russian interests were criminal."
 

Chapter 1 is in three parts.

1.  The summary - About half a page and it begins like this:

"After fifteen years of financial failures in Russia - failures born not  of a lack of desire to succeed, but a lack of access to the people in Russia who make wealth creation possible - the Trumps discover that the key to making a fortune in real estate in Russia is greasing the skids with influential Russian officials.1  [I've left the footnote in and linked it, because Abramson tacks a source on most every claim.  That doesn't make it true, of course.  Someone else could have made it up.  There are three in this short summary]

2.  The Facts - Eleven pages of specific history, that covers Trump's failed attempts to do business in Russia, how his US businesses were funded by Russian mobsters when banks would no longer take the risk, and how things got better for Trump in Moscow after the Miss Universe contest in 2002 where the Trump picked winner was the girlfriend of a 'Russian gangster' and the object of Putin's 'secret admiration.' (At the bottom of the last page of facts is footnote 92.)

3.  Annotated History - 18 more pages (ending at footnote 193) of excerpts from the fact section, where Abramson expands on the meaning of those facts.



Abramson is like the Vin Scully of the Mueller investigation, giving color and background to the Trump-Russia investigations and other related questionable acts. When (I'm going with when, not if) the Mueller investigation starts becoming public, I suspect Proof of Collusion will be the  program used by many to figure out who all the players are.

So far in the book there's a lot of circumstantial evidence.  A lot of people whose spheres of influence overlap the worlds of Trump and of Putin.  This format results in a fair amount of repetition, but there is so much information, that's repetition is helpful.  And going back to the summary for this post was also helpful - being reminded what Abramson thinks is important.  I'd note that I had intended to focus on Chapter 1, but then the "Theory of the Case" seemed important too.  As an indication of how much is here, I'd forgotten that at the end of the Introduction, Abramson offers us a theory.  And so, I spent unnecessary time trying to reconstruct what his theory was from the first seven pages of the introduction.  His actual theory of the case only shows up on the last two pages.  But the exercise gives me more insight.

And I'd remind everyone that Abramson is not some flake writer simply gathering all the details that others have produced and organizing them.  He's got unique qualifications which you can see  at his wikipedia page.  He's got an interesting educational background.  For starters:

"Abramson is a graduate of Dartmouth College (1998), Harvard Law School (2001), the Iowa Writers' Workshop (2009), and the doctoral program in English at University of Wisconsin-Madison (2010; 2016).[1]"

You can read the Introduction (The Theory of the Case) and Chapter 1 here.