Author: ***Dave

And watch out for that coffee table, too.

Kids … er, adults, don't try this at home.

View on Google+

There may be some nuances to this story that are only known or apparent to Australians, but the core message that "You can't build a synagogue here because it might lead to a terrorist attack in the neighborhood" sure sounds like those hypothetical terrorists have already won their point.

A Sydney suburb bans construction of a synagogue because of terrorism fears
Jewish leaders said the decision, “effectively placed in jeopardy the future of Jewish life in Australia.”

View on Google+

At least that's what the ongoing ratings by the American Customer
Satisfaction Index (ACSI), which find that Google+ has the most satisfied users (though, clearly, not the most users) [1].

❝ _As users continue to turn to social media for news and information, customer satisfaction is steady at an ACSI score of 73. Following the launch of new features and a redesign in January, Google+ posts a large gain, up 7% to 81. While Google+ has a smaller, more niche-like customer base than other social
media sites, its users are dedicated and highly satisfied._ ❞

It's absolutely true that Google has been continuing to quietly rework and improve G+ (albeit with wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth from some quarters in the process), and it remains, to my mind, a very solid platform for communities (its strength) or for individual contributors (such as myself) [2].

Google+ has been the butt of attacks since Google originally launched the service in 2011. Some folk (like myself) were deeply peeved at the unnecessary sacrifice of Google Reader to the new platform. Other folk, already invested in Facebook and/or Twitter disdained the tool's ability to dislodge those much larger, already established systems (correctly, if overzealously, so). Folk who have some sort of tribal dislike of Google badmouthed the platform reflexively (Google's efforts to make it the integration point for all its tools weren't handled well, but were, to my mind, a strength, and its disassembly from those services was an error).

And so people have been claiming Google+ a "ghost town" since it went online. Which, frankly, I found and continue to find pretty silly, more partisan attacks than considered judgments. I've found a robust and interesting set of people here, and continue to expand the folk I'm connected with to the point where, frankly, it's hard to keep up with the content. G+ is estimated to have over 100 active million users — that's a fraction of the size of Facebook or Twitter, but not a bad-sized community (I'm also not sure I would characterize it, as the WaPo does, as "very few").

Google has backed down from its attempt to supplant Facebook, either with a specific tool or specific integration model. But while I don't see drawing the "old friends and distant family and high school buddy" contingent from FB over to G+, those are also not the folk that I am as likely to want to converse with on a daily basis, certainly not to discuss politics or religion or pop culture [3].

Again, the rating here by ACSI is on satisfaction, not on numbers. But I think it should make both Google happy (and willing to continue investing in the product), and provide some comfort to G+ users. I plan on being on G+ for quite some time longer.

——

[1] http://marketing.theacsi.org/acton/attachment/5132/f-0057/1/-/-/-/-/ACSI%20E-Business%20Report%202017.pdf
[2] One commenter notes that one reason for the higher satisfactoin is that the folk who don't like the service has left it, while many folk on FB are there because they feel trapped on the only platform where Grandma and Bob from Freshman Year visits. That makes a certain measure of sense, but I don't think it's the entire story by any means.
[3] I maintain a presence on FB, like so many others, because it's the only place that everyone else has a presence, but that's about the extent of my engagement there. I do a bit more natively on Twitter, as it's such an easy microblogging site, but the majority of my work is on G+, mirrored through various feeds to those other platforms and my WordPress blog.

Analysis | The most-loved social network among Americans isn’t the one you think
The very few people still using Google+ really love it

View on Google+

AG Jeff Sessions' passion against legalized pot (recreational or medicinal) is well documented. Folk have been expecting dire, direct against against states which have legalized one or both kinds since he was appointed, but — aside from asking Congress pretty-please to let him spend money against states that have medical marijuana laws — he's been pretty inactive.

But he's been getting some good (if possibly reluctant) advice from his justice department — go slow and make the case before launching any new initiatives. So he's reached out to the governors of states with liberal pot laws (such as Colorado), asking them how they are dealing with "problems" regarding people trying to export legal pot to states where it is not legal, kids illegally getting access to legal pot, and people illegally driving whilst intoxicated.

The clear idea is that if the states can't show that they are stopping all of those problems, then the feds will be justified in stepping in. That might be its own interesting argument — the stats I've seen have indicated while those things are happening, they are not happening in any significant, newsworthy fashion. I've actually read some material showing that youth pot use is down (having lost its Forbidden Fruit status), but I would need to do more research to be able to speak definitively on the matter.

I don't approve of underage drug use, or DWI, or even exporting materials to states where those materials are illegal. The question of when those become a significant enough problem (in numbers or impact) to warrant draconian and undemocratic measures that we know are costly and frequently unjust, is a lot more nuanced, and something I don't expect Mr Sessions to be a particularly neutral party in judging.

Sessions raises “serious questions” about Colorado’s marijuana management in letter to gov
Attorney General Jeff Sessions is questioning the efficacy of marijuana regulatory structures in Colorado in a letter to Gov. John Hickenlooper obtained by The Cannabist.

View on Google+

While I generally find myself in disagreement about most of what George Will says, this op-ed piece on the internecine warfare within the GOP (as exemplified in the Alabama Senate primaries, with a soupçon of Kid Rock thrown in) gives me some small measure of comfort as I read about the similarly self-destructive internecine warfare within the Democratic Party.

Opinion | The GOP has become the party of the grotesque
Look to Alabama’s GOP primary — and Michigan, where Kid Rock might be a contender.

View on Google+

Writing a book (or GMing a game) in the 1930s? This could come in handy. How did one fly from London to Australia, or Paris to Buenos Aires? (Answer: in many short, expensive hops.)

Originally shared by +Jon Salway:

Just found an excellent resource for 1930s games.

Early Intercontinental Air Routes, 1930s
Source: adapted from B. Graham (1995) Geography of Air Transport, Chichester: Wiley. Detailed PDF Map Early Intercontinental Air Routes, 1930s Due to range limitations, the first international air routes were composed of a series of refueling stages. Crossing the comparatively calm and narrow South …

View on Google+

You can still visit the website put together by Clive Finch trying to track down the mysterious "Doctor" (as shown in the first New Who episode, "Rose," in 2005). Fun.

[h/t +Mitch Wagner]

Who is Doctor Who?
Who is Doctor Who?

View on Google+

Not sure if this is excerpts from an interview, or an article by way of bullet points, but some of these will definitely end up on my quotations site (http://wist.info).

Neil Gaiman: ‘There’s no point dressing as a cowboy if it’s just you’ | Life and style | The Guardian

View on Google+

Heh.

Originally shared by +Ray Radlein:

Darick Robertson on Twitter
“Accurate…”

View on Google+

This one's a few years old, but still pertinent — and particularly interesting for not advancing any one viewpoint or "explaination," except that "Middle East stuff is messy across multiple axes."

Be warned that the definition of "Middle East" is very flexible here — maps focus on everything from Afghanistan to North Africa, but the perspectives on things like history, ethnicity, religion, revolutions, colonialism, economies, technology, etc. do make it clearer why simplistic actions in the region are rarely effective (or, at least, rarely lead to simple results).

40 maps that explain the Middle East
These maps are crucial for understanding the region’s history, its present, and some of the most important stories there today.

View on Google+

A cool collection of maps looking at different aspects of how America is a nation of immigrants — and from where.

[h/t +Margie Kleerup]

37 maps that explain how America is a nation of immigrants
It’s impossible to understand the country without knowing who’s been kept out, who’s been let in, and how they’ve been treated once they arrive.

View on Google+

Siegfried Farnon, Country Veterinarian, in All Creatures Great and Small.
Cornelius Fudge, Minster of Magic, in the Harry Potter films.
Winston Churchill, numerous times.

Thank you, sir, for many hours of entertainment.

Obituary: Robert Hardy – BBC News
Much-loved actor who enjoyed a long career on the stage and television.

View on Google+

So someone in the White House has leaked (internal, unpublished) transcripts of the early days conversations between Trump and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto (about tariffs and the Wall), and another with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (about taking in refugees). A few thoughts.

1. Trump went into office (and still is) hugely image-conscious. His biggest quarreling point with Peña Nieto (whom he keeps calling Enrique even though the Mexican President doesn't call him Donald) is over how Mexican intransigence over who will pay for the Wall is making him look bad, so they simply shouldn't discuss the agreement in public. With Turnbull, it's over how letting in thousands of refugees per an earlier agreement with Obama (which didn't actually say that) would make him look "like a dope" after he had just issued his Muslim-ish travel and refugee ban.

He argues other points as well — jobs lost to Mexico, crime on the border, the security issues around those Australian-held refugees (which Turnbull keeps having to correct him on), but it's all, first and foremost, how this will make him look. "This deal will make me look terrible."

The official White House summaries of these calls made them out to be calm and pleasant. They sound anything but. That's not necessarily a sin, and hardly an impeachable offence, but something to remember the next time you hear a similar statement from the White House.

2. A more significant aspect here is that someone actually leaked these. That's big. These aren't Top Secret Plans to Nuclear Wessels or something like that, but it would certainly be a firing offense if the person were caught, and quite likely something they could be indicted for.

It says something about the mood in the White House these days that someone would go to this risk after the (brief) Scaramucci hunt for leakers, and the presumed Kelly crusade again them. Especially since there's nothing specifically awful revealed about the President here, just pettiness and the painful insecurity of our top leader.

For the record, given that it's not what I'd call useful whistle-blowing, I sort of have to disapprove of the leaks. Diplomacy is a dirty game, and the participants need to be able to trust that their conversations are largely private ones. If there's a serious threat that a future conversation might be made public, it will only (a) serve to isolate the US further diplomatically, and/or (b) drive Trump into more no-notes-taken chats with other world leaders, which is also probably not a good thing.

‘This deal will make me look terrible’: Full transcripts of Trump’s calls with Mexico and Australia
The Post has obtained transcripts of President Donald Trump’s talks with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in January.

View on Google+

Because when your whole campaign is based on Terror of the Other, then even people who come here legally are fodder for stereotypes, fear-mongering, and discrimination.

Legal immigration policy is one of those things that isn't quite as clear-cut as to when it's bad and when it's good. Aside from some fringe open borders types, most people agree that there should be some sort of restrictions on numbers and criteria for people to come here legally, as, in fact, there are.

From there, though, the discussion goes a bit wonky. Do legal immigrants push down wages? While you can probably find anecdata to support that proposition, the overall economic judgment is no.

Is America being overwhelmed by People Not Like Us? That's a subjective assessment at best, thinly masked racism at worst (it presupposes that there is a singular "like us" to compare to), but the same accusation has been leveled in every era, and we generally look back on those accusations and roll our eyes at the stupidity.

Does it make sense to encourage people coming here who already speak English? The advantages are obvious (until we get nativists complaining about people using "-our" instead of "-or" and "s" instead of "z"), but the way that tilts the racial and ethnic balance needs to be looked at, too, so that this doesn't become a Poll Tax equivalent.

Family create stability in society, as the Republicans usually argue vociferously. Does that mean it therefore makes since to restrict further who gets a leg up on coming into the US based on family already here? Hard to see that.

And, of course, there's the particularly naked hot button here, preventing legal, unnaturalized immigrants from receiving any sort of federal welfare. The arguments behind that are obvious, to prevent the moral hazard of people coming here just to get on welfare programs. On the other hand, it's unclear that this is significant problem (some numbers might be nice), and, honestly, circumstances change — that great job that you gave up your life to accept here suddenly goes away, and now you're faced with either starving or trying to finance going back home again? Do the people writing this bill think it's that easy to either move here or to leave? There are a thousand stories of that sort that can and will be told, and how they will play vs. the "Poor furriners are coming to take your tax money!" meme will be interesting to see.

Given some of the folk pushing this bill forward, it's not unwarranted to suggest this is not a good faith effort to solve an agreed-upon problem, but a modern Know-Nothing movement out to protect White Christians from Them Folk What Ain't. And for many Americans, it calls to mind where we might be if someone had said "Only wealthy or gainfully employed people who can speak English are preferred to come here" when our own ancestors were "yearning to breathe free." I, for one, would be writing these words, and the face of the nation today, and what would be lacking that we received from poor immigrants who couldn't speak a word of English, would be very different indeed — and not for the better.

Trump Unveils Legislation Limiting Legal Immigration
There has been a huge debate about immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally, but the administration is looking to cut the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country by half.

View on Google+

Because admitting "less qualified" people is clearly wrong because it discriminates against students who are "more qualified," which is why Affirmative Action is (according to a new Trump Administration policy) evil and disciminatory and must be stopped, because only Testing Scores and GPAs and Academic Merit should be involved in colleges choosing whom to admit.

Unless, of course, an applicant's dad drops a huge sack of money on school, and US Senators are arranging personal visits for the family with the Admissions Office. In which case, forget about who's "qualified," get that kid a dorm room!

As Trump takes aim at affirmative action, let’s remember how Jared Kushner got into Harvard
A lot of money, and two US senators, were involved.

View on Google+

No, Donald Trump didn't get a personal phone call from the head of the Boy Scouts thanking him for a powerful speech he'd made at the Jamboree, as he claimed in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. The White House spokesperson admitted that there was no phone call (after the BSA denied it), but that Trump was referring to BSA leaders who had come up after the meeting and talked with him, praising the speech.

Oh, and, no, Donald Trump didn't get a personal phone call from the President of Mexico, thanking him for his border policy, as he also claimed. Instead, the White House spokesperson explained that Trump was referring to an offline chat he had with the Mexican President at the G-20 summit.

But don't call it a lie.

❝ “I wouldn’t say it was a lie. That’s a pretty bold accusation,” Sanders told reporters. “The conversations took place, they just simply didn’t take place over a phone call … he had them in person.” ❞

So … was Trump just confused in his memory about the conversations, and translated the meetings and ad hoc comments into phone calls he'd received? That wouldn't be a lie, just … kind of troubling.

Or did Trump just decide that getting a personal phone call sounded a lot better and more impressive than in-passing conversations, and told the story of those comments that way? In which case … well, yeah, that is, in fact, a couple of lies.

White House admits no phone calls from Boy Scouts or Mexican president
The Boy Scouts denied that the head of the youth organization called President Donald Trump to praise his recent, politically aggressive speech.

View on Google+

No, people. Shutting down or fining news media for "publishing or broadcasting stories that are biased or inaccurate" is not only unconstitutional [1], it's just what tyrants all over the world enjoy doing so as to quash dissent that they label as inaccurate or disrespectful or destructive to government authority and social order.

Just ask Donald's buddy Vladimir.

And while the GOP respondents wear the biggest dunce hats here, there are still way too many of Dems answering that way, too.

(Though it is interesting the percent of Democrats who trust Fox News over Donald Trump is not all that different from the ones who trust outlets like CNN and the WaPo. On the other hand, it's interesting that a thin percentage of Republicans trust Trump more than they do Fox News.)

——

[1] But remember, it's the Republicans who love the Constitution and believe in its literal truth and inviolability. They say so, right on the label.

Originally shared by +The Economist:

Attitudes towards the mainstream media take an unconstitutional turn http://econ.st/2w78FpB

Attitudes towards the mainstream media take an unconstitutional turn
Many Republicans favour shutting down news outlets for bias or inaccurate reporting

View on Google+