Commentary on the DJT immunity case

Various sources are talking about their analyses of the slow decision the USSC made to hear DJT's crackpot immunity claims. Ruth Marcus opines for the WaPo (not behind paywall): 

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Donald Trump’s audacious claim of presidential immunity from prosecution — with oral argument a leisurely seven weeks off — all but guarantees one of two terrible outcomes. Either the former president’s trial on charges of attempting to subvert the 2020 election, a trial that was supposed to start next week, will now not take place until after the 2024 election, or it will be held in the final months before Election Day. The justices are not entirely responsible for this mess, but they have just made a bad situation far worse than it needed to be.

My beef isn’t with the court’s decision to hear the case — it’s with the outrageously lethargic timing. It would have been far better for the court to have taken up the issue back in December, when special counsel Jack Smith urged the justices to leapfrog the federal appeals court. Now, two and a half months have gone by. It took the justices two weeks after Trump sought their intervention to announce that they would hear the case. Worse, they set oral argument for the week of April 22, a delay that means a decision could easily take until May or even linger until the term finishes at the end of June.

Worst of all, especially given this timetable, the justices could have allowed trial preparations to go forward while the case was briefed, argued and decided. That would have prevented Trump from accomplishing what has been his aim all along: to use the immunity claim as a ploy to delay his trial until after the election.

Instead, the court engaged in a weird procedural dodge. It didn’t do what Trump’s lawyers had asked and grant a stay of the appeals court ruling against him. Instead, it issued an unusual order to the appeals court that ends up having the same effect — without having to satisfy the stringent standards that are supposed to apply when a stay is sought.

That analysis fits with the criticism that the court for pulled off a partisan move to protect DJT by delaying. Marcus makes the point that, after dithering for weeks, the USSC side-stepped the usual process for granting a stay. The court’s action here looks like partisan USSC moral rot to protect DJT.

Science: Regarding the origin of life on Earth

The WaPo writes (not behind paywall) about another step in the quest to understand how life evolved out of non-life on Earth. This is an interesting discovery of the spontaneous creation of an important complex molecule (pantetheine) that scientists did not believe would exist if life had not evolved. 

The new lab experiment focused on the origins of another primary metabolite: coenzyme A, which sits at the heart of metabolism across all domains of life (as one of its many functions). For instance, the compound plays a vital role in releasing energy from carbohydrates, fats and proteins in organisms that require oxygen, but it also serves metabolic functions in lifeforms that don’t need oxygen, like many bacteria.

Specifically, Powner and his team were looking to re-create a particular fragment of the coenzyme A molecule called pantetheine. Pantetheine is the functional arm of coenzyme A, often getting transferred and enabling other chemical reactions in our body to occur. This limb is called a co-factor and acts as an “on” switch — without it, the coenzyme would be unusable.

CoA (coenzyme A)

“All of our metabolic processes rely on a small subset of these co-factors,” said biologist Aaron Goldman, who was not involved in the study. “This has led researchers to argue that these co-factors, themselves, may have predated larger, more complex enzymes during the origin and early evolution of life.”

Some researchers, Goldman said, have proposed that early lifeforms could have used pantetheine to store energy before the evolution of the larger, more complex energy currency that cells use today.

If this is the case, the mystery stood: Where did pantetheine come from?

The compound is such an odd duckling that scientists previously proposed it was too intricate to make from basic molecules. Others have tried to create pantetheine and failed, thinking that it wasn’t even present at life’s origins. Many scientists thought biology would have created a simple version of it, which would have evolved to become more complicated over time — like building a shack and later turning it into a mansion.

The team took to the lab. They focused on primarily using materials that could have been abundant on early Earth, like hydrogen cyanide and water. The first few steps of the reaction each took about a day, but the final step lasted 60 days, which was the longest reaction that Powner’s lab has ever done. The team finally shut off the reaction “partly because we got bored,” he said. But the result was a lot of pantetheine.

Pantetheine

The experts did not think this could

form without life to create it

The experts were wrong

I see this as a major advance in explaining how life could arise on Earth from non-life. It took time. After just 60 days of waiting and finally getting impatient, the scientists stopped the experiment. They looked and found spontaneous synthesis of the complex molecule pantetheine from simple building blocks and water. 60 days is nothing. Think in terms of 600 million years. 

I can now much more clearly envision how life arose from non-life on Earth. Stable climate, lots of water and millions of years for chemical reactions. This is more evidence suggesting that is how life arose here. Not from God, but from chemistry under the right conditions for a heck of a long time.

Just passing along some neuroscience, FWIW

Article link.

Dendrites are the traffic lights of our nervous system. If an action potential is significant enough, it can be passed on to other nerves, which can block or pass on the message.

This is the logical underpinnings of our brain – ripples of voltage that can be communicated collectively in two forms: either an AND message (if x and y are triggered, the message is passed on); or an OR message (if x or y is triggered, the message is passed on).

In addition to the logical AND and OR-type functions, these individual neurons could act as 'exclusive' OR (XOR) intersections, which only permit a signal when another signal is graded in a particular fashion.

"Traditionally, the XOR operation has been thought to require a network solution," the researchers wrote.

Exactly how this new logic tool squeezed into a single nerve cell translates into higher functions is a question for future researchers to answer.

 Now I don't know what all this means exactly, but it sounds important. 👍

Vicious satire about DJT, the TTPK and the border “crisis”

This video was posted in a recent comment here. I went back and forth about whether to post it alone or at all. On the one hand it treats rank and file (R&F) TTKP voters with demeaning, brutal insults, e.g., racist, ignorant, gullible, stupid, disinformed. On the other hand, it directly calls out and nails the brutal, insulting, bad faith, cynical rhetoric that DJT and his elite TTKP defenders, supporters and enablers operate with to trap the minds of the loyal R&F. 

TTKP: Trump Tyranny & Kleptocracy Party, formerly the Republican Party

One thing is clear from this vicious screed. This video, more than anything I have seen so far, makes clear (at least to me) that there is a huge gulf in understanding between most of the TTKP R&F and the elites who run it in “bad faith.” That is what tipped me to post this. The end of the speech, is a chant of exactly what is on the elite’s minds and what really motivates them to embrace authoritarianism: 

WEALTH & POWER!!  WEALTH & POWER!! WEALTH & POWER!!  

I assume that most of the TTKP R&F, maybe about 75%, have been deceived, manipulated and betrayed by dark free speech the corrupt authoritarian elites constantly spew. That is where the gulf in mindsets lies. Those elites have used decades of cynical, divisive dark free speech to prey on the innate base instincts that most people have but had kept in check before kleptocratic authoritarianism rose to take control of the TTKP and its mendacious (morally rotted), authoritarian messaging Leviathan.

Radical right lies about immigration

A major false argument that TTKP politicians and the American authoritarian radical right propaganda Leviathan, e.gf., Faux News, constantly assert is that immigrants cause crime. The messages are (1) we are not safe in our homes or on the streets, and to dehumanize the culprits, (2) filthy, savage (non-White, non-European) immigrants are to blame. This will be a major issue in the Nov. 2024 elections. If DJT wins, this will be one of the issues necessary to put him back in the White House. The WaPo writes (not behind a paywall):

Never mind that violent crime rates, especially for homicide in large cities, have fallen sharply during Biden’s presidency, after a surge during the pandemic. Trump, as he often did during his presidency, is using anecdotal evidence to make an emotional case against undocumented immigrants.

Trump is drawing on a long history of anti-immigrant rhetoric.

A 2020 study, published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, analyzed 200,000 congressional speeches and 5,000 presidential communications on immigration since 1880, when a wave of Chinese immigrants led to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 that barred Chinese laborers. When lawmakers spoke about immigration, their speeches were twice as likely as their speeches on other topics to mention words related to crime.

Moreover, the study found “stark differences” in how lawmakers discussed European and non-European groups, with “more implicitly dehumanizing metaphors” used to describe Chinese, Mexicans and other non-Europeans. “There is also a striking similarity in the use of explicit frames, with a greater emphasis on ‘crime,’ ‘labor,’ and ‘legality’ for the non-Europeans and less on ‘family,’ ‘contributions,’ ‘victims,’ and ‘culture,’” the study said.

Since the late 1970s, the study found a significant shift in the way Republicans talk about immigration; it is now as negative as it was in the 1920s, an era of strict immigration quotas. As for Trump, he was the first president whose immigration language was more negative than that of the average member of his own party.

But here’s the rub: There is little evidence that immigrants — or even undocumented immigrants — cause more crime. Still, there is enough ambiguity in the data — or so little hard data — that it’s difficult to point to conclusive findings that would change opinions.

There is strong evidence that all immigrants — in the United States legally or otherwise — are more law-abiding than native-born American citizens. Most immigrants are motivated to do well in their new country, especially if they bring skills that can enhance local economies, and so there is little incentive to break the law.

So when the TTKP falsely claims immigrants cause lots of crime, rest assured they are lying and slandering as usual. We will hear this slanderous lie over and over and over before the elections. Afterwards, the volume of the lie will quiet down a lot.

TTKP: the Trump Tyranny & Kleptocracy Party, formerly the Republican Party

A Western rationale for supporting the Ukraine war

A deeply troubling article the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft published gets right to the point: 

Ukraine’s tragedies: A ‘good deal’ for some war supporters

It’s a cynical calculus for many in the West: Keep pumping money into the conflict as long as Ukrainians are the ones dying

For a conflict discussed in starkly moralistic terms, the ways the Ukraine war is talked about by its most enthusiastic Western supporters can be remarkably cynical about the human carnage involved.

“Aiding Ukraine, giving the money to Ukraine is the cheapest possible way for the U.S. to enhance its security,” Zanny Minton Beddoes, editor-in-chief of the Economist, recently told the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart. “The fighting is being done by the Ukrainians, they’re the people who are being killed.”

This view is not unique to Beddoes. It’s been widely expressed by those most in favor of an open-ended, prolonged war and most against the kind of peace negotiations that would shorten it.

“Four months into this thing, I like the structural path we're on here. As long as we help Ukraine with the weapons they need and the economic support, they will fight to the last person,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) early into the war, accidentally voicing what the war’s critics have often said about the war — that the U.S. will fight it “to the last Ukrainian.” Later, Graham called it the “best money we’ve ever spent.”

“It is a relatively modest amount that we are contributing without being asked to risk life and limb,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told the Associated Press last year. “The Ukrainians are willing to fight the fight for us if the West will give them the provisions. It’s a pretty good deal.”

“I call that a bargain,” North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum has said about the war funding, pointing to the damage Ukrainian forces had inflicted on the Russian military.

“No Americans are getting killed in Ukraine. We’re rebuilding our industrial base. The Ukrainians are destroying the army of one of our biggest rivals. I have a hard time finding anything wrong with that,” U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) remarked.

Americans “should be satisfied that we’re getting our money’s worth on our Ukraine investment,” wrote Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), because “for less than 3 percent of our nation’s military budget, we’ve enabled Ukraine to degrade Russia’s military strength by half,” and “all without a single American service woman or man injured or lost.”

But politicians aren’t the only armchair warriors who look at the enormous death and destruction suffered by Ukraine by prolonging the war as akin to a brilliant business decision. Hawkish think tanks have made similar arguments.

“When viewed from a bang-per-buck perspective, U.S. and Western support for Ukraine is an incredibly cost-effective investment,” Timothy Garten Ashe wrote for the weapons maker-funded Center for European Policy Analysis. “Support for Ukraine remains a bargain for American national security,” wrote Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Europe and Eurasia Peter Rough. “For about 5 percent of total U.S. defense spending over the past 20 months, Ukraine has badly degraded Russia, one of the United States’ top adversaries, without shedding a single drop of American blood.”  

And major U.S. newspapers have likewise published similar perspectives. “We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future,” former top George W. Bush officials Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates celebrated in the pages of the Washington Post.

“For all the aid we’ve given Ukraine, we are the true beneficiaries in the relationship, and they the true benefactors,” wrote Bret Stephens at the New York Times, pointing to the fact that NATO is paying in only money, while “Ukrainians are counting their costs in lives and limbs lost.”

Q: Are the assessments by elites that the war is a good deal for us because Russia weakens, Ukrainians die and we don’t the mark of responsible statecraft, brutal cynicism, or something else?