DShomshak

ATC played clip of Trump sneering that the judge is in Seattle, so what do you expect? As plenty of people have noted, this is all ridiculously unconstitutional. The Trumpies' argument, following Abbot's attempt in Texas, is to claim that undocumented immigrants are an "invading army," whose progeny are one of the exceptions to the 14th Amendment. This requires merely disregard of reality and the meaning of words, so it just might fly with this SCOTUS. And if it doesn't, so what? Andrew Jackson's reaction to the Supreme Court siding with the Cherokee against his expulsion plan, "John Marshall has ruled, now let him enforce it," is probably apocryphal. But the sentiment is true. If enough people in government want something done, no laws can stop them. Dean Shomshak

I will indulge myself with one nerdish quibble about the premise for ST: Picard, in that Romulus' star can't go supernova. To the best of our knowledge, only two kinds of stars can go supernova. First, very massive stars that burn so fast and hot that planets don't have time to form before they go boom. Second, a white dwarf star paired with a red giant star. The white dwarf collects gas shed by the red giant until a critical mass is reached, then boom. Not a good place to find habitable planets, either. When the Romulans' ancestors left Vulcan, they could have picked someplace better to settle. Actually, almost anyplace would be better, since I would think people capable of FTL would be scientifically literate enough to know the system would someday go boom. Without bringing in rubber science, you could get a supernova in a system with a habitable planet if it's a trinary star system: a close pair of red giant and white dwarf, and a remote companion main sequence star with a normal system of planets. Still not a great place to settle if one had any other choices, unless there was some compelling reason such as dilithium deposits or one's starships breaking down. Quick search on Wikipedia and Memory Alpha mentions none of this. Though Memory Alpha mentions apocryphal material using rubber science to explain why, in the J. J. Abrams Star Trek movie, Ambassador Spock says the supernova "threatens the entire galaxy" (which a normal supernova would not). Jeez, writers. It's not hard to get this stuff right. A half hour with an encyclopedia (or Wikipedia) tells everything a layman needs to know about supernovae. Dean Shomshak

Star Trek: Picard Season 1. I think this is the best season of any Star Trek series I have seen yet. Other Trek, old and new, have had good episodes but this was good from start to finish. (Albeit only 10 episodes, making it easier.) Big ideas, high stakes, gripping characters, tragedy and hope. Plus we learn a lot more about the Romulans. The stuff with Seven of Nine probably would mean more to me if I'd watched more of Voyager. Dean Shomshak

My sister, a self-described second wave feminist, says reading about this bill had her fuming at its barely-concealed sexism. The assumption that women are, after all, the weaker sex who can't possibly compete fairly against the biologically male, so let them play in their own powderpuff leagues and take care to keep out the big strong superior men... For some sports, maybe this is a valid concern. For other's not. The bill draws no distinction between, say, tackle football and rhythmic gymnastics. But I suppose sports that emphasize precision rather than raw strength are too "girly" to be real sports. I've never heard of any counterpart concern about transgender boys competing against the biologically male in, say, gymnastics, where the world's greatest all seem to be tiny women with whipcord muscle. Is it fair for bulky males to compete against, say, Simone Biles? That nobody talks about this -- at least I haven't heard it -- is just more proof this is about men controlling women, not about fairness. And while I doubt the bill's sponsors are consciously aware of the prurient possibilities, I suspect that's going on subconsciously. The vagueness in defining what are grounds for suspicion and inquiry are also, I am sure, not a bug but a feature. Keep the girls girly, conforming and obedient to male-defined stereotypes. This isn't about sports: It's about defending the fundamental categories and hierarchies of social tradition! Dean Shomshak

I see the list includes demons from the Goetia. I I've written up several (and from other grimoires) and managed to use some of them in my Champions campaigns. Also some literary demons such as Mephistopheles -- and neither the Marvel version, nor the pulp villain listed on the website. Dean Shomshak

Oh, sure, I think Trump fits best in the Eighth Circle's pit of Evil Counselors. But all the Republicans who knew better but kissed up to him for political favor or expedience have betrayed their constituencies and their oaths of office -- in a moral sense, even if they committed no treason in the legal sense. Dean Shomshak

Story from my frontpage newsfeed tells me the SCOTUS upheld the TiKTok ban. Unanimpous decision: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban (msn.com) I'm not surprised. Or, I'm just a little surprised in that this is a ruling I could see any SCOTUS making on purely constitutional grounds. It seems to me this falls squarely within Congress' constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, and the national security angle seems serious enough to prevent the ban from being an act of caprice. Dean Shomshak Hell freezing over? Or the Ninth Circle -- traitors -- moving especially close to the mortal world? Dean Shomshak

I shared this with my sister. She responded: Dean Shomshak

Trump and some of his most ardent disciples love to revile "Washington Bureaucrats" and want to replace civil servants with political appointees. In short, a return to the 19th century "Spoils System." On Point looks at the spoils system, how it was finally replaced (partly) with career civil servants, and why it was done. https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510053/on-point Dean Shomshak

JWST sees "Little Red Dots" at the dawn of time. What are they? Did the early Universe have measles? https://www.npr.org/2025/01/14/nx-s1-5258907/james-webb-space-telescopes-little-red-dots-come-into-focus Dean Shomshak

NYTimes journalists discuss various aspects of the S3cond Coming of Trump and the waning days of the Biden presidency. I am particularly interested by the thoughts on Greenland. As one reporter says, everything with Trump is a troll... until it isn't. Also Mr Barbaro's speculation as to why Trump has this fixation on taking Greenland, taking back the Panama Canal, and other territorial expansions. Not any sort of strategic calculus: just a return to the Good Old Days when the US took land from other people. It's all about the narrative, a simpleton's vision of power. How do you prove you're strong? Find somebody weaker and beat them up. Pure schoolyard bully. And hey, Vladimir Putin is doing it. I dare speculate that Mr Trump wants to impress his hero. Dean Shomshak

Does it? Let me warn in advance: This gets into political theory and history. No mention of current, real-world politics, except in how they'd likely differ in a Monarchic America, but you can't discuss American political history without touching on fraught topics such as slavery. See David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed, which traces the continuing social impact of four early sources of colonization. One of them was the exodus of South English lesser gentry and aristocrats to Virginia, as the start of Southern plantation culture. The Southern planters considered themselves still very much a hereditary, aristocratic ruling class, deep into the 20th century -- and some of them, perhaps, still today. As Fischer puts it, their contribution to American notions of freedom was hegemonic liberty -- "No one has power over me." (But I can have power over other people... such as my population of slaves. Samuel Johnson had acid remarks about slave-owners complaining about tyranny.) A strong tradition of government service, as part of what it means to be in the ruling class. A less charitable person might suggest one must work in government in order to maintain ownership. So there's one big way the Monarchic States of America would be different: Slavery never ends. With the Southern planter-aristocrats exerting even greater influence under a monarchy, they retain even greater, legally recognized autonomy over their plantations as feudal lords in fact if not in name. The pattern likely spreads to the rest of the nascent America as well, though not unchallenged by the differing political attitudes of the Delaware Valley Quakers, the New England Puritans, and backcountry Borderers. There will be a Constitution, but it won't be our Constitution. Persistence of slavery and a de jure aristocracy creates a far more rigid class structure overall. The result looks more like Latin America. For instance, I've read that in Guatemala most of the land is still owned by Spanish colonial families founded centuries ago, and they still largely keep control of the government. (The UK vitiated its aristocracy and expanded the voting franchise over the centuries -- but the British class structure was/is a class structure, not a caste structure. A race-based slave caste, whose members can never "pass," changes everything.) The Latin American example also suggests the Monarchic States of America will be much poorer than the real America. More emphasis on extraction of natural resources and labor, less entrepreneurship. Aristocrats keep control of big business. The government will be much less stable. Again, see the Latin American history of coups and juntas. Will the Monarchic States of America even survive as one country, or does it split? A Latin American model also suggests a stronger 230th century reaction against the aristocracy. The Monarchic States of America can have Communist insurgencies, bolstered by escaped slaves. Adding that racial/caste dimension can make them even bloodier and more vicious than the Latin American examples, if that's possible. Yes, this is getting to be a very dark alternate history. Now layer the appearance of superbeings, and you have a land without heroes -- only rival death squads loyal to particular insurgent groups or aristocratic factions. Dean Shomshak

"The real objection to the Darwinian theory is that man has not yet evolved from the ape." --Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams of Alastor," in The Dragon-Fly, October 1935 Dean Shomshak

All Things Considered considers economic history of the Gilded Age. Trump cheerleads for tariffs as responsible for rapid economic growth in the 19C US. Economic hi8storians are not so sure. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/02/nx-s1-5246064/trump-points-to-gilded-age-to-push-tariffs-experts-say-its-a-misreading-of-history (Ahem. Also, opening up enormous new natural resources, plus rapid advances in industrial technology, just might have played a greater role in that economic growth than any government policy.) (But it's no surprise to me that Trump would love the Gilded Age. This was the period when business and finance tycoons could show up at parties with their women wearing actual, no kidding *crowns* to flaunt their superior wealth and social status.) Dean Shomshak

Never prostitute yourself unless you're getting paid. Dean Shomshak