I recommend listening to the video while you read this. (I realize that Coltrane isn't a mass consumption product, but some of my readers must know this music.)
"Coltrane was one of the first tenor players to switch from the old plastic, black mouthpieces that made Coleman Hawkins famous to the silver metal ones. The old plastic ones were bigger and usually produced a heavy vibrato sound, whereas the new metal ones were smaller and elicited a more narrow tone.
The space for air to come into the horn is smaller (like the trumpet), and the trap of metal mouthpieces is to produce a “cold,” or modern, sound. JC chose to use a No. 5 reed (the wooden piece under the mouthpiece that vibrates), to counteract that problem; No. 5s are very hard pieces of wood.
That forced John to dig deeper into his abdomen for more air, but it produced a warmer sound. Hard work, but he was reaching for something new.
It turned into a simply gorgeous sound, full of empathy, passion and every emotion in the human condition — from the rage over four girls killed in the bombing of a church in a song called “Alabama” to the gentle feeling of photosynthesis in “After the Rain.”
Coltrane is so in my blood. Every time I go outside after a storm, I “hear” that melody."
He acknowledges other occupations also take their toll. He mentions Sandy Koufax's elbow and offered this tribute to construction workers. But in the end, he thinks it's worth it.
You know what, though? It’s all worth it. If you have to contort muscles to produce whatever you’re working on, so be it. That’s why high-rise buildings should have a plaque outside on the wall listing all the workers who built those skyscrapers … all of them.
And hopefully readers of this will have a new understanding and respect for the toll musicians pay for the love of their craft.
I've often wondered if the toll many Olympic athletes have to pay, or the children in China who are identified early and plucked out of their families to train to become perfect gymnasts or dancers, is worth it. Yes, virtuosity is thrilling both for the performer and the audience, but is it worth giving up so much that encompasses being human? I suspect the answer is different for different people. We give up some things and gain others. Many people have developed no skill at all and still live lives of pain, so why not go for it? Or would we be better off in balance with nature and follow the Greeks' advice on the golden mean? I think true artists push themselves in their pursuits of perfection. It's what they have to do.
In any case, think about the people who built that skyscraper, who sewed your pants, worked on your microwave and your cell phone. And enjoy the music, since it cost the musicians a great deal.
Trump apparently took his testosterone supplement today as demonstrated in this video from Politico where he shoves his way to the front of the photo op at NATO. Or is he just jealous of the attention Montana House candidate Gainforte got for knocking down a reporter?
During his visit to NATO headquarters, Trump moves in front of Montenegro Prime Minister Dusko Markovic to be in front of the group pic.twitter.com/kYDfshnVrp
He also went on to repeat his demands that all NATO members pay their 2% dues.
I realize that Trump gloms on to simplistic notions like this, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us have to accept his limited grasp of things.
I did some checking on the NATO formula in February of this year in response to a reader comment and it seems appropriate to repost the gist of it again today. The whole post includes a comment by a reader who says he was career army including as staff to National Security Council. This isn't a comprehensive study, but it does raise questions that Trump's simplistic 2% mantra misses.
"NATO - Basically they all say it’s more complicated than those numbers say:1. There are different NATO budgets. One is related to NATO non-military costs and each member pays according to a formula based on its GDP. In that area, countries are paying pretty much according to the formula. 2. The Congressional Research Service says the US gets plenty of benefits from NATO
“DOD has noted that the United States has benefitted from NATO infrastructure support for several military operations, including the 1986 air strike on Libya, Desert Storm, Provide Comfort, Deny Flight, peacekeeping activities in the Balkans, as well as military operations in Afghanistan and training in Iraq. Finally, the Pentagon notes that U.S. companies have been successful in bidding on NSIP [NATO Security Investment Program] contracts.”
3. When it comes to military contribution, the calculations include the total military expenditures for each country. Most of the NATO countries only have troops related to Europe and NATO. The calculation for the US includes all military spending world wide. It’s true that some of those forces can be brought in, if needed, to deploy in Europe. But it’s also true that the US troops in Europe are not solely to support NATO. They can if needed, but they also support US military missions in other places - like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc. So the calculations of those expenses, which make the US contribution look huge (less than your $700 million figure, but more than your 20% figure), are misleading because those expenses are for much, much more than defense of NATO. "
There are several posts I should have done (and still should do) on the impact of Netflix on my movie viewing. Succinctly - we've spent a lot less time watching movies in theaters, but we've seen movies and tv shows that offer a much wider view of life, both in the US and beyond, than one normally gets at the cinema.
But I just want to mention a couple Netflix offerings here. Season 1 of Aziz Ansari's Master of None was a disappointment. It portrays the life of a Muslim Indian-American. The topics were good, but it just didn't have the crispness and bite I've come to expect on good Netflix series.
But this second season has a much different tone and I'd like to strongly suggest two episodes:
Season 2 - Episode 6: New York, I Love You
We barely see the main character. Instead we see glimpses of life in New York from the perspective of people who are outside the normal white, straight, able-bodied mainstream as they deal with life's obstacles because of being the outside the 'norm.' It's light, it's well done, and it has an important message for those of us who generally have a 'normal' pass.
Season 2 - Episode 8: Thanksgiving
Screenshot from Netflix
If you only want to watch one of these episodes, watch this one. Aziz, in this series, has several close, old friends. Denise is a black lesbian and up until this episode we didn't know why she was in Dev's (Aziz's character) circle.
This episode corrects that and fills us in on who she is. It covers a number of Thanksgiving dinners from the early 1990's (the second one is dated 1995, and I would guess Dev was about 8 or 9 in the first one) until the present. Dev was over because his family didn't really celebrate Thanksgiving, so Denise's mother invited him over for every Thanksgiving. We watch the two kids grow up together, including Denise coming out to Dev, and then her mom. And how that first Thanksgiving after she comes out is very awkward and how over the years the family becomes comfortable with her orientation and even her girlfriend. It's a wonderful show that takes on its own unique structure - compared to the the other episodes (except episode 2) which more or less follow a typical sitcom story arc. A very insightful episode.
Screenshot from Netflix
Hasan Minhaj - Homecoming King
Netflix filmed Daily Show correspondent, Hasan Minhaj's comedy show, at his performance in Davis, California, where he was born and raised. The audience is very supportive. Basically, he talks about how he became a comedian and all the bumps along the way as the US born son of Indian immigrants living in a mostly white area. There's a lot of humor and understanding to help us understand the anger he felt because of the way he was treated because he wasn't white. Again, insightful, and something white Americans should watch.
Is it a coincidence that Netflix has these two shows (Minhaj is just a single show, not a series) starring Muslim Indian-Amricans? (I'd love to track that down, but a quick online search didn't find the answer and if I'm going to get anything up today, that will have to be left for someone else.)
I also have to mention Midnight Diner - Tokyo Stories. This is a gem of a show with short, poignant episodes that give us glimpses into the lives of ordinary folks in Tokyo who work late and stop at the Midnight Diner on the way home. Each episode tells the story of a different person. As it tells their stories, it also reminds us that people are people everywhere - they just dress and speak differently, but under all the cultural camouflage, they're just human beings with the same kinds of needs and dreams and foibles of humans everywhere. This is such a charming show and each episode just takes 20 minutes or so. And the music is good.
Of course, you have to subscribe to Netflix, or know someone who does, to watch these. I resisted long enough and only joined so I could show my mom a movie, which turned out not to be on Netflix. But there were other good movies she enjoyed. And at about $9 per month (for online only, including dvd's is a little more), it's less than the price of one person at most theaters for one viewing. (Yes, I know, Anchorage's great Bear Tooth theater is less.)
There are lots and lots of interesting movies on Netflix, including many international films and television shows that give you a very different view of the world.
I went to Saturday afternoon's town hall with Senator Dan Sullivan. He's the only one of our three
congressional delegates who was willing to meet with the public like this in Anchorage during this recess period. And I want to thank him.
I ended up recording most of the town hall. But my computer rebelled when i tried to load all the video to iMovie. I negotiated with my laptop and it allowed me this 9 minute bit of video from Sullivan's report that preceded the Q & A.
I think this video does a reasonable job of portraying how Sullivan and the audience interacted. The majority were clearly opposed to what Sullivan stands for. Most of the questions were about health care - the first person asking if Sullivan knew how much it cost to have a baby in Anchorage and that pregnancy was defined as a pre-existing condition by the new House ACA replacement bill. The green and red pieces of paper people held up to show their approval or disapproval of what was being said, were predominantly not with Sullivan.
These were people who were very concerned about health care and strongly opposed to how the Republicans want to deal with ACA. They were boisterous, but for the most part respectful. The shouting and occasional chanting (particularly 'single payer, single payer') did not feel like disrespect as much as people wanting to be heard. They wanted him to listen to them as much, if not more, than they wanted to listen to him. The only person I thought sounded clearly disrespectful was someone near me who several times shouted out for people to 'shut up.'
I thought Sullivan came across as sincere and likable as a person, and he didn't have to hold this town hall, he also came across as someone with firm beliefs and people weren't going to change his mind on key things. In some cases it seems key terms meant one thing to the audience and something else to Sullivan. More exchange might have cleared that up. And the audience's use of their red and green cards did seem to get his attention. Several times he said things like, "I know I'm going to see lots of red cards when I say this. . ." Like many in today's polarized political map, liberals as well as conservatives, I just don't think he gets to hear in depth from people who don't agree with him. He mostly hangs out with people who do, or whose differences are even further to the right. It might be easier to have eight of these people from the town hall get to spend several hours talking to Sullivan over dinner rather than in this giant room.
This was in the Bartlett High School auditorium which Leslie at the Anchorage School District told me has a capacity of 628 people. (East High is 693 and West is 1918) I'd guess it was 70-80% full, maybe more. I took this picture (well, it's two pictures merged) about ten minutes before it started.
You can judge the audience's respectfulness yourself on the video. You can also check my impression that Sullivan tended toward generalities and platitudes and when he does use numbers they sound like they come from talking points to prove his position.
For instance, his answer to people calling for 'single payer' was 'no, because one size doesn't fit all." And thus, the states should run their own programs, not the feds. These answers don't inspire confidence of his understanding of all sides of the issue.
Or he argues that "we've had a flat economy, literally, for nearly 15 years."
Well, here's a chart of GDP growth (click on it to enlarge and focus). Flat? Maybe if you average all the years, but it sure looks like there are a lot of ups and downs. We can see things hovered around 4% when Clinton was president, then dropped precipitously when Bush came in. And Bush left Obama with a huge hole to fill. There's a nearly 5% increase from 2009 to 2010. He also doesn't mention how Obama was never given a chance to prove his policies because Congress stonewalled him after 2010.
That chart and others on GDP growth don't support his claim that the GDP didn't hit 3% in the last 15 years. The only sources that suggest that ("Barack Obama Will Be The Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Growth") came from sites like Zerohedge about which Wikipedia says:
The Wikipedia entry goes on to say it was founded by a Bulgarian-born hedge-fund trader who was barred for insider trading and that the site is registered in Bulgaria.
And then he talks about the US's $20 trillion debt as if it were the approaching apocalypse. Yet this Business Insider article suggests it's not such a big deal. I'd need to do more homework on this, but I'm inclined to be skeptical about the ominous importance Sullivan puts on this. Is this a reason to cut the government or and excuse to cut it? And if the debt is so horrendous, why aren't Republicans considering ways to increase our revenues other than cutting taxes ('to stimulate the economy"). And why does Sullivan then tout the highway bill that spends $500 million + $50 million more each year for five years? That will just add to the deficit.
To Sullivan's credit, when people challenged his claim that the US had the highest corporate taxes in the developed world, he backed off and admitted that because of various deductions and loopholes, corporations don't actually pay that rate. But if he knew that, why did he make the misleading statement in the first place? This article confirms that the effective corporate tax rate is much lower..
I don't have time to fact check the whole town hall - I'm having way too much trouble even getting the video of the whole thing on my computer - but these few items that jumped out at me as squishy and proved to be so suggest other facts he cited are likely either questionable or misleading also.
You can listen to this part of the town hall. The questions - which I don't have on here - got more boisterous and many people seemed to be much more up on the facts than was Sullivan.
Here's my attempted transcript of the audio. I just cannot figure out what exactly he said in some parts. If you can, let me know in the comments.
Transcript
"I wanted to update on what’s going on. As you know it’s a chaotic time right now. The three areas that I want to talk about, that I focused on a lot, and I think most Alaskans want us to focus on
Economy
National security and defense
And assisting people who need help [This part is not on the video - he talks mainly about sexual assault and rape victims..]
CROWD: Health Care!
First, growing the economy. Right now, we’re in recession in Alaska. For me that’s the number one thing we can be focused on. Right now, in the US, we’ve had a flat economy literally for almost 15 years. That’s not good.
Crowd rumbling and red cards up.
So what I’ve been trying to do is focus on growing the US economy. Critical. Your ??? has not hit 3% GDP growth in almost 15 years. That’s a problem. Everyone in here, I’d hope, believes we need strong growth and that’s a important. If we’re growing, some of our bigger challenges we have in the state, we have in the country, we can tackle. If we’re growing at 1%, 1.5% we’ll have hard times with almost everything. Let me give you one example that I know nobody is going to ask me, but it’s a huge issue I’m focused on. Right now we have a $20 trillion debt. 20 trillion. ??? I have kids, ??all of you have kids, grandkids, if we don’t start growing the economy, on that issue we’re going to be the first generation that have left our kids and grandkids in much worse shape. $20 trillion we’ve got to focus on.
Crowd noise
C’mon guys, listen. Let’s try to keep, let me make my statement ????? and if you want to ask questions ?????
Let me tell you what we’re trying to do to grow the economy.
First, we just past, last year, a five year long term highway bill. That’s going to bring hundreds of millions, $500 million, each year it goes up about $50 million, $500, $550, $600, $650 over the next five years. That’s really important for the state, ??? bi-partisan President Obama signed it
The other thing we’ve been on is rolling back what I think are onerous regulations on the economy.
Crowd noisy.
Hey, come on. Don’t be the first group that doesn’t show respect.
In the Congress we’ve used the Congressional Review Act to roll back previously issued regulations.
Lots of crowd noise
And in my ???? focus on that. And I think this goes to growing the economy - very important
Another area we’re focused on is fisheries. Right now I chair the Subcommittee [on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Coast Guard] fisheries for the US. We’ve just passed out of committee a Coast Guard bill that has a lot of important stuff in it for Alaska. We also passed out of committee,, these are all very bi-partisan, Save our Seas Act with Sen. Whitehouse on ocean debris, ocean plastics to make sure we’ll be able to clean up our oceans. We had really good success getting federal land to Alaska, very important issue, not huge amounts, even this town Anchorage10 acres to Anchorage just been sitting there, for years, Senators for Alaska have been trying to get it for decades,
these are things I think all grow the economy. It’s very important we should diversify the economy. No doubt?? telecom, tourism, ??? economy, aviation. But I will say this. I’m sure I will get some red cards on this I flatly believe it is bad for the state and bad for the country this movement you see in Washington, in the country, some parts of Alaska, to “keep it in the ground.” I’m sure most Alaskans agree with me on that.
Crowd noises
I’m sure some of you won’t agree with me on that.
Let me go to the next two - strong military, strong national defense.
When you pick up the paper there’s a lot of national security challenges - North Korea, Iran, Russia, ‘
Crowd noises
You guys crack me up.
Laughter
I’d like to say right now…. one of the things for our state I think is important is that it is being recognized more and more in Washington that Alaska constitutes what I’d say are three pillars of America’s military power. We’re the cornerstone of missile defense and that’s really important right now, given North Korean threat, the increasing Iran threat, if one of these rogue nations [?shoots a missile ???]….. anywhere in America, it could be Alaska, it could be New York, LA, it’s our men and women in uniform in Alaska that are charged with the capability to track that, shoot it down. You should all be proud of that.
I’ve got a bill that I plan to introduce next week that would actually make our missile defense even more robust. Very bi-partisan, most Democrats and Republicans recognize that we have to do more on missile defense. Kim Jong-un is gonna have a missile in the next couple of years, an intercontinental ballistic, nuclear missile, that could hit, ???a city in the ?? range to the United States. That’s a serious thing. We need to do more to protect the homeland. That’s all based here and is something you should be very proud of.
The second pillar is we’re the hub of air combat power. With the F-22s here at JBER, F-35’s coming to Eilson with a whole ‘nother amount of aircraft that we have throughout the state and the training we have here. We have more aircraft and assets to protect our nation’s interest in the Pacific and the Arctic than any place in the world and that’s gonna increase and that’s important.
And finally, we’re platform for expeditionary forces because of our strategic location to be able to deploy anywhere on a moment’s notice. In Fairbanks, that’s the first Stryker Brigade, it’s the many men and women in the reserves, and Army National Guard, and it’s called the 425 here, based at JBER and I’ll tell you one of the things I worked harder on than anything in my first year in the Senate. When I got into office, the previous administration said they were going to get rid of those 5000 men and women who constitute the only airborne brigade team in the entire Asia Pacific and the entire Arctic. And we fought that. Tooth and nail. And they’re here and they’re great men and women and we should all be proud of them. A final note on our military authority story? ….. there’s no where in the world, and I’m not saying this because I’m your senator, that has a stronger support for their military, than the communities in Alaska."
As for questions, well, if you wanted to ask one you wrote your name on a piece of white paper, maybe 2 inches by 1/2 inch. These all went into a huge jar. You can see from the picture that the odds of being called were pretty low.
The Boreal Herbal: Wild Food and Medicine Plants of the Northhas renewed my commitment to take advantage of the free, no effort crops growing in my back yard. Dandelions are the most productive such crop. So while the dandelions are still young and fresh, I've been incorporating some into my daily meals. Here's from breakfast yesterday.
The Alaska Press Club tweeted a link to 99% Invisible's show about Gene Chance and the Alaska earthquake of 1964. For good reason. This is a great show. Partly, of course, because it's about one of the most important events in our state history. But it's also a story about the power of radio.
I'd note that while this show is focused on Anchorage, but the earthquake was centered 75 miles away and most of the deaths were due to tsunamis that followed. Accounts I find online vary and don't identify Anchorage deaths which were low because no tsunamis hit Anchorage.
The quake took 131 lives and caused $350-500 million in property damage (One hundred twenty-two of the deaths were attributed to the tsunami.) The area of the damage zone (50,000 square miles) and the duration of the quake (3 to 4 minutes) were extraordinary.
(You might also note that NOAA says it lasted 3-4 minutes while the 99% Invisible story says 5 minutes.)
"The number of deaths from the earthquake totalled 131; 115 in Alaska and 16 in Oregon and California. The death toll was extrememly small for a quake of this magnitude due to low population density, the time of day and the fact that it was a holiday, and the type of material used to construct many buildings (wood)."
I searched the blog and there seems to be only one post that uses the word 'phlegm.' I mention only in passing and when on to other topics.
"My body is mostly back to normal, but there are still insurgents hiding, taking advantage of any weak points they can find. Fortunately for you, the Film Festival kept me too busy to do a post on phlegm."
Well, the film festival is in December, so this time phlegm gets its own post - in terms of its bodily functions as well as its spelling peculiarity.
"Mucus-producing tissue lines the mouth, nose, sinuses, throat, lungs, and gastrointestinal tract. Mucus acts as a protective blanket over these surfaces, preventing the tissue underneath from drying out. "You have to keep them moist, otherwise they'll get dry and crack, and you'll have a chink in the armor," says Neil L. Kao, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine.
Mucus also acts as a sort of flypaper, trapping unwanted substances like bacteria and dust before they can get into the body -- particularly the sensitive airways. "You want to keep that environment, which is a sterile environment," free of gunk, says Johns. "Mucus is kind of sticky and thick. It's got viscosity to it that will trap things."
But mucus is more than just sticky goo. It also contains antibodies that help the body recognize invaders like bacteria and viruses, enzymes that kill the invaders it traps, protein to make the mucus gooey and stringy and very inhospitable, and a variety of cells, among other things."
In some ways, mucus is like government, we don't notice what it's doing for us most of the time. We only pay attention when something's wrong:
"Even when you're healthy, your body is a mucus-making machine, churning out about 1 to 1.5 liters of the stuff every day. Most of that mucus trickles down your throat and you don't even notice it."
There's a lot more at the link, particularly about when mucus becomes phlegm. An alternative site is My Sinus Story which basically tells the same story but with what seems like a bit more detail.
And about spelling. When I googled for words with silent 'g' I got a list 18 words that included words that started with 'gn' (i.e. gnat, gnash, etc.) and those that had 'gn' elsewhere (align, benign). So I asked for words with silent g before m. I got a website dedicated to Silent Letters in the English Language.
"When ‘g’ is before ‘m’ in the same syllable, it is generally silent. Some of the words are: There are 514 Words that contain ‘gm’. However ‘g’ is silent in the following words, only: apothegm(n), diaphragm(n), epiphragm(n), paradigm(n), phlegm(n), phlegmy(adj)."
I would note that while I have found the various forms of my phlegm this week to be interesting, I also feel there's enough of an ick factor that I took no pictures and thus offer you none. But we should be able to confront all aspects of our body as something of interest to study, don't you think?
It's pretty short and easy to read. There are ten sections, not more than four paragraphs each. You can read it yourself - courtesy of Cornell University Law School.
28 CFR Part 600 - GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.
§ 600.2 Alternatives available to the Attorney General.When matters are brought to the attention of the Attorney General that might warrant consideration of appointment of a Special Counsel, the Attorney General may:
(a) Appoint a Special Counsel;
(b) Direct that an initial investigation, consisting of such factual inquiry or legal research as the Attorney General deems appropriate, be conducted in order to better inform the decision; or
(c) Conclude that under the circumstances of the matter, the public interest would not be served by removing the investigation from the normal processes of the Department, and that the appropriate component of the Department should handle the matter. If the Attorney General reaches this conclusion, he or she may direct that appropriate steps be taken to mitigate any conflicts of interest, such as recusal of particular officials.
§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.
(b) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues. A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a “confidential employee” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C).
§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.
(b)Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.
(c)Civil and administrative jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or other governmental action outside the criminal justice system might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to take any necessary action. A Special Counsel shall not have civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted such jurisdiction by the Attorney General.
§ 600.5 Staff.A Special Counsel may request the assignment of appropriate Department employees to assist the Special Counsel. The Department shall gather and provide the Special Counsel with the names and resumes of appropriate personnel available for detail. The Special Counsel may also request the detail of specific employees, and the office for which the designated employee works shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate the request. The Special Counsel shall assign the duties and supervise the work of such employees while they are assigned to the Special Counsel. If necessary, the Special Counsel may request that additional personnel be hired or assigned from outside the Department. All personnel in the Department shall cooperate to the fullest extent possible with the Special Counsel.
§ 600.6 Powers and authority.Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities.
§ 600.7 Conduct and accountability.(a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.
(b) The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued. In conducting that review, the Attorney General will give great weight to the views of the Special Counsel. If the Attorney General concludes that a proposed action by a Special Counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General shall notify Congress as specified in § 600.9(a)(3).
(c) The Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the Department of Justice. Inquiries into such matters shall be handled through the appropriate office of the Department upon the approval of the Attorney General.
(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.
§ 600.8 Notification and reports by the Special Counsel.(a)Budget.
(1) A Special Counsel shall be provided all appropriate resources by the Department of Justice. Within the first 60 days of his or her appointment, the Special Counsel shall develop a proposed budget for the current fiscal year with the assistance of the Justice Management Division for the Attorney General's review and approval. Based on the proposal, the Attorney General shall establish a budget for the operations of the Special Counsel. The budget shall include a request for assignment of personnel, with a description of the qualifications needed.
(2) Thereafter, 90 days before the beginning of each fiscal year, the Special Counsel shall report to the Attorney General the status of the investigation, and provide a budget request for the following year. The Attorney General shall determine whether the investigation should continue and, if so, establish the budget for the next year.
(b)Notification of significant events. The Special Counsel shall notify the Attorney General of events in the course of his or her investigation in conformity with the Departmental guidelines with respect to Urgent Reports.
(c)Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.
§ 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.
(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action -
(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;
(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and
(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.
(b) The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be tolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative or privacy concerns require confidentiality. At such time as confidentiality is no longer needed, the notification will be provided.
(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.
§ 600.10 No creation of rights.
The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal, or administrative.
"When a White House is confronted with a negative news story, officials face a difficult challenge if the story is largely correct. A common PR technique is to deny things that are not in the story or to make sweeping declarations while ignoring the specifics." (emphasis added)
Kessler goes on to interpret different answers McMaster gave and what it actually means. For example, here's the first quote:
What McMaster said:
“'What I’m saying is really the premise of that article is false, that in any way the president had a conversation that was inappropriate or that resulted in any kind of lapse in national security.'
What Kessler says it means:
Now McMaster says the “premise” of the article is false. In other words, it made the president look bad, not that it was wrong."
Kessler is using McMaster to generalize about how to obfuscate when the telling the truth isn't allowed. You can read all the examples at the Washington Post. This is a good lesson on interpreting those hired to defend the indefensible.
Part 2: For a different take on this, more of a defense of McMaster, listen to NPR, where Retired Lt. Col. John Nagl talks to host Rachel Martin about McMaster whom Nagl says he knows well from working together in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This interview itself is an interesting exercise as Nagl argues that McMaster is
in an impossible position
defending the indefensible
lending his credibility to the president
not telling the whole truth, but not lying either
tarnishing his reputation only because the fate of the world could depend on it
Below is the audio, and below that I wrote out a rough transcript of the interview. But first a few comments.
Kessler, in the beginning of this post, parsed McMaster's words. I think it's also important to do the same with Nagl's words about McMaster and Nagl's intent in this interview.
On a general level - what is Nagl's purpose here?
to defend McMaster? In general, or to a defend a personal friend's reputation?
to give the general listeners background so they can better understand McMaster?
to say McMaster knows Trump is lying, and is only defending Trump in a way that allows astute listeners, like reporter Kessler above, to see that he isn't really defending the president, but in order to stay in the administration to keep it from doing anything even worse?
I'll raise more specific questions down below. Here's the audio from NPR and below it my rough transcript. [Now that this is finished, I see that NPR has the transcript up there too.]
Host Rachel Martin gives background and a bit of audio from HR McMaster responding to questions from the media. Then she introduces retired Lt. Col. John Nagl, who has known McMaster for a long time. She asks him:
Q: What do you hear Gen. McMaster trying to do in his public explanations of the president’s actions?
A: HR is in an absolutely impossible situation. and many of us, his friends were concerned that something like this was going to happen when he took this job working for this administration.
He is a man of extraordinary integrity and honor and he’s got a president who has clearly done damage to the United States and to our relationships with our allies around the globe, and meanwhile he’s walking a very fine line around the truth, parsing his words very carefully when he makes statements defending what the president did.
Q: Parsing his words. Do you think he’s telling the whole truth when he’s defending the president’s actions?
A: I’ve been thinking about this a lot and I’m reminded of an early class in West Point honor code. HR took that same class. One of the scenarios the discussed is, what happens if you’ve been invited to a dinner and the dinner was horrible, and the hostess asks, “How did you enjoy dinner?” What we’re taught to say at that point is, “I really enjoyed being here and the company I was in.”
That’s what I think HR is doing right now. I think he is not answering the question he was asked and I think that he is doing so, knowing, absolutely in full cognizance of the fact that he is not telling the whole truth, but he’s being very careful not to tell lies.
Q: Although the stakes obviously are so much higher than those of insulting a hostess of a dinner party.
A: The stakes, at this point, and in particular with the Comey revelations that came out last night, literally the fate of the earth could be in HR McMaster’s hands at this point. The administration is clearly in free fall and HR McMaster is exactly the man the nation needs to have at the center of things at the White House to hold to hold all the pieces together
Q: So because you know him so well, you think that’s the calculation he made, that it’s better to be there and have to obfuscate from time to time?
A: I obviously think he’s in an absolutely impossible position. The president expects him to defend the indefensible. Nobody else in the administration has the credibility that HR has, and the president is using HR’s credibility in order to try to buttress himself. HR can’t be completely comfortable with that. His friends and I believe that it’s worth HR giving up some of his well earned reputation for integrity. He can be a little tarnished around the edges, we can get the Pope to give him an absolution, because, literally, the fate of the world could depend on his love of country, his judgment, his intelligence, his service in the White House at this absolutely critical time. [emphasis added]
The crux of this, as I see it, is Nagl's statements about the fate of the world. It's the only justification he gives for McMaster 'tarnishing his reputation' by 'defending the indefensible.'
"the fate of the world could depend on his love of country, his judgment, his intelligence, his service in the White House at this absolutely critical time."
But interviewer Rachel Martin never asks Nagl what it is that McMaster can do in the White House that could change the fate of the world. She never asks him how he can "hold all the pieces together."
Does Nagl think McMaster can talk Trump into being more reasonable?
That he can stop him from doing terrible things? If so, like what? And how would he stop him?
Does he think it's important to have someone like McMaster there simply as a witness?
And how does lending the president his credibility help the country?
And while Martin does say that the stakes are much higher than not insulting a dinner hostess, she doesn't pursue whether that lesson is appropriate here.
Not insulting the dinner hostess involves not hurting one person's feelings. It's simple human courtesy between two people that has no bigger world consequences.
But obfuscating to the American public about a US president revealing classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador, is NOT about simple human courtesies. It is, as Nagl says, defending the indefensible.
One last question is: Why did NPR do this interview? I guess I have the same questions for NPR as the ones I raised above for Nagl.
The interview does add to my knowledge of McMaster, but why didn't Martin ask those critical, and to me obvious, questions about how exactly can McMaster help shape the fate of the world positively by being in the administration and dissembling to the press as Nagl acknowledges he did?
She didn't ask whether, perhaps, McMaster is overestimating his own abilities to 'hold the pieces together.'
According to The Nation, the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society has sent out 24 orders already and will send out 107 more as soon as they can and that they expect the url's to be blocked.
"Earlier, authorities gave Facebook until late yesterday morning to make the web pages inaccessible in Thailand while threatening legal action. However, none of the URLs were blocked after the deadline passed.
The 131 web addresses in question were deemed to have content insulting to the monarchy, threatening national security, depicting pornography or being involved in fraud.
With more than 40 million users, Thailand is among the world’s most active countries on Facebook."
Insulting the king has always been a serious offense in Thailand, though with the old king now gone and his son the new king, I imagine this will be a more difficult thing to enforce because the new king has offered through his wild living, plenty of things to criticize.
I found the following to be seriously inappropriate on Facebook's part:
"In response, Facebook requested an official English version of the court orders before it proceeded with blocking the addresses in Thailand."
Can you imagine a Thai company telling a US government agency that they can't comply until they get official orders in Thai? Facebook needs to hire some Thai lawyers completely fluent in English.
The article quoted Facebook's official policy:
“When governments believe that something on the Internet violates their laws, they may contact companies like Facebook and ask us to restrict access to that content. When we receive such a request, we review it to determine if it puts us on notice of unlawful content. “If we determine that it does, then we make it unavailable in the relevant country or territory and notify people who try to access it why it is restricted,” a Facebook spokesperson said.
However, it appears that Thailand doesn't have a lot of power to act on its orders.
"Meanwhile, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha admitted yesterday that his government did not have the authority to suspend Facebook’s operations in Thailand following its refusal to immediately block the URLs. . . 'All we can do is ask for cooperation from foreign countries, the private sector and Internet service providers,” the premier said. 'It’s because we have no better options.'
