“The Great Grift”

“Grifting” is defined as the act of obtaining money or property illicitly, as through some kind of a confidence game or fraudulent scheme. “Grifters” are typically thought of as small-time swindlers, like the Robert Redford character at the beginning of the film The Sting.

So when the Associate Press called its story about the theft that occurred in connection with federal programs designed to provide COVID-19 aid funds “the great grift,” there’s a bit of a disconnect–because the AP reports that the total amount that apparently was swindled from two programs administered by the Small Business Administration, and thereby from U.S. taxpayers, amounts to more than $200 billion. Even by the colossal spending standards of the modern federal government, that’s a lot of money.

According to the inspector general for the SBA, the money came from two COVID-19 programs: the Paycheck Protection program and the COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan program. The inspector general’s investigation concluded that at least 17 percent of all of the funds of these two programs were disbursed to potentially fraudulent actors. The SBA itself contests these figures and contends that the inspector general’s report overestimates the actual amount of the fraud, but the Associated Press has independently reported that fraudsters stole about $280 billion from these two SBA programs and a third program intended to help workers who suddenly became unemployed due to the COVID shutdowns. The AP concludes that another $123 billion was wasted or misspent.

The disagreement over the amount of fraud comes because the SBA points out that the U.S. government doesn’t have a generally accepted system for assessing the impact of fraud on federal spending programs. The SBA inspector general says his report “utilizes investigative casework, prior (inspector general) reporting, and cutting-edge data analysis to identify multiple fraud schemes used to potentially steal over $200 billion from American taxpayers and exploit programs meant to help those in need.”

It’s amazing to think that, in these days of enormous federal budgets, there is no accepted way of assessing how much federal money is procured by fraudsters–and it’s also galling to think that nearly one in five dollars spent by two emergency programs designed to help people and businesses hurt by the COVID pandemic went to swindlers. Congress loves to pass sweeping spending bills and say that its job is done, but the SBA inspector general’s report shows that the devil is in the details. If our legislators were really serious about getting spending under control, they need to do the heavy lifting, and develop mechanisms designed to ensure that federal money actually goes to the intended recipients, not grifters.

The Bugs’ World

Maine, like all rural areas, is a buggy place. Flies, mosquitoes, fleas, ticks, lightning bugs, and other forms of airborne critters like the trees and bugs and shrubs and weeds, and in any woodsy area you’re going to find standing pools of water that are fertile grounds for mosquitoes, too. This means that when humans go outside, particularly at dawn and at dusk, they are venturing into the Insect Happy Hunting Grounds and are likely to get bit.

I’ve gotten my share of bites during this brief visit and have done my share of scratching as a result. Having itchy bug bites reminds me of childhood, when summertime meant that you inevitably got kicked out of the house by your Mom and spent most of your time outside–and, as a result, were a moveable feast for the airborne contingent. When you start working at a desk job and live a mostly interior life, you don’t get nibbled and suffer the itchy welts. Reliving childhood moments of scratching is a consolation–albeit a small one–as I claw away at the latest crop of bite marks.

The news is reporting that there are cases of malaria in Florida and Texas, the first reported cases of locally transmitted malaria since 2003, which is further proof that the mosquitoes are hard at work.

It’s the bugs’ world. We humans just live in it.

The Brick Block

There was a significant development in Blue Hill, Maine, about a year ago: a new bar and cocktail lounge opened. The Brick Block now occupies a spot that once housed a little breakfast food shop, in a historic brick building down by the waterfront.

The opening of a new bar doesn’t seem like that big of a deal, but in this part of coastal Maine there aren’t many of them. And, in particular, places that stay open until the wee hours are rarer than hen’s teeth. The Brick Block serves people who want to wet their whistle until 1 a.m., which is long past closing time for the handful of other adult beverage establishments in the area. According to the bartender at The Brick Block, that makes it the go-to spot for the restaurant bartenders and servers and cooks after their workday is done, and makes for a pretty raucous crowd come the midnight time frame, too.

We visited The Brick Block last night–well before the party crowd rolled in–and in our view it is a very welcome addition to the Blue Hill community. It’s a cozy, quirky spot with a friendly bartender that serves a nice menu of drinks that includes Narragansett, a classic regional beer that I last enjoyed during the summer of 1976. (It still hits the spot.) We chatted up one of the locals as we checked out some of the interesting and humorous bar decorations, like the one below.

A new bar in Blue Hill, that keeps the kind of late-night hours that city folk have come to expect! Blue Hill is now officially a town on the move.

Sunset On Blue Hill Bay

The Maine coastline is rugged and ragged in this “Down East” part of the state. The area is pockmarked with bays and inlets, studded with islands and narrows, almost always bordered with sheer rock face.

We’re staying in a bungalow on one of the fingers of Blue Hill Bay, with a view of the bay and Blue Hill itself in the distance. One of our goals this summer is to one day take the hike up to the top of Blue Hill, but as night falls it is pleasant just to sit on the porch and enjoy the sunset, the pretty scene, and the gentle lapping of the water in the bay against the stony coastline.

Americans Welcome

On our trip to Turkey and Greece this spring, I never caught a whiff of anti-Americanism. To the contrary, everywhere we went–including Corinth, shown above–everyone was extremely friendly and welcoming, and seemed to be glad that Americans were visiting.

CNN has an interesting article pointing out that Europeans like American tourists, and discussing why. The basic “why” is that while certain Americans–those hailing from California or New York City–have a certain exotic air, all Americans share one attractive quality: purchasing power. Americans tourists tend to be well paid and often aren’t penny pinchers on their travels, and they also aren’t shy about tipping according to American standards, which may be more lavish that in some other countries. Add in the fact that many economies in Europe rely significantly on tourism, and that those economies struggled during the COVID lockdown era, and you’ve got a combination that lays out the welcome mat for travelers from across the seas who are willing to spend money.

I’m sure all of the economic factors that CNN mentions are important elements for why European tourism ministries, and European businesses, are so interested in attracting American visitors. I think something more enters into the equation when you get down to the individual level, however. My sense is that Europeans are pleased and proud that Americans want to come visit their countries, are motivated to make sure those visitors enjoy themselves, and are just friendly people, generally. I also think they are a bit curious about what average Americans are really like, having seen so many depictions of Americans on TV and in movies.

If you’re someone who would like to travel but is reluctant to do so because you think Europeans will be snooty or unfriendly, I encourage you to lay those fears aside and book your trip. Whether it is economically motivated or involves other reasons, conditions seem to be ideal for Americans to travel to Europe these days.

Old Boats

In any waterfront area, you’re likely to see an old boat hauled up on the shoreline and just left there. That is certainly true in Maine.

Landlubbers like me are left to wonder: is that boat actually seaworthy? Is the fact that oars have been left in the boat a sign that you could take it out, or do the rusty patches and fact that the boat is on land, rather than in the water, tell you otherwise? It is seemingly impossible to know, because no one who owns waterfront property actually disposes of old boats. They are just left to blend into that immediately identifiable waterfront setting.

To paraphrase General MacArthur: old boats never die, they just become part of a scenic photo opportunity.

Corporate Voting

A town in Delaware is moving forward with a thought-provoking proposal: it has amended its town charter to allow corporations, partnerships, trusts, and other artificial entities that are headquartered in the town to vote in elections. The charter amendment will take effect if both houses of the Delaware legislature approve it.

The town is Seaford, which has about 8,000 residents. The Seaford city council was split on the idea of allowing artificial entities to vote in all elections, but the mayor cast the deciding vote in favor of the charter amendment in April. His rationale was that the business owners “are folks that have fully invested in their community with the money, with their time, with their sweat. We want them to have a voice if they choose to take it,”  Seaford also may hope that affording voting rights will attract new business to the town.

Under the proposal, the artificial entities must register as voters with City Hall and disclose their beneficial owners, so city officials can make sure that business owners who are Seaford residents don’t get to double vote. Since many artificial entities typically are small businesses, where the owner lives nearby and works at the business, the registration requirement might limit the impact of the voting proposal. Non-resident business owners would be allowed to vote, however.

Should absentee businesses be given the right to vote? Common Cause Delaware opposes the Seaford proposal, arguing that it would dilute the voting power of human residents of Seaford. That might happen, because businesses and individuals are likely to have different perspectives on some issues–like raising corporate taxes, increasing the minimum wage, or imposing other employment-related regulations. Businesses also are likely to be more focused on public safety, adequate parking, and prosecuting property crimes like shoplifting.

I’ve never considered the possibility of corporations or partnerships having the ability to vote on candidates and issues in a general election. It will be interesting to see whether the Seaford charter amendment is approved by the Delaware legislature, and if so what kind of impact the change has on the dynamic of elections, and city governance, in Seaford.

A Clear Case Of Line-Cutting

One of the first lessons learned in kindergarten is the value of lines. The teacher used lines to organize the kids in the class and march them out to the playground at recess, or during fire drills. A corollary to that lesson was an important rule: don’t cut into the line. The teachers didn’t like it, your kindergarten classmates quickly adopted the same attitude, and eventually, so did you. As you progressed through the schooling and into life, where waiting in lines is a fundamental part of existence, the “no cuts!” rule remained inviolable.

So why does Clear, the airport identity service, get to freely break this time-honored rule?

This week I was waiting in the TSA precheck line at Concourse B in John Glenn International Airport. The TSA precheck line, which is located next to the Clear line, was about 10 people deep, while there was no one in the Clear line when I arrived. In fact, the Clear agent was trying to recruit people in the TSA line to move into the Clear area, do whatever it takes to use Clear, and move to the front of the line. And sure enough, when somebody did use the Clear line, the Clear agent took them to the TSA officer who was doing the security screening, before the TSA pre-check people who had been patiently waiting in line. In effect, the Clear person cut into the line, violating the long-held rule. I can’t speak for others in the TSA precheck line, but that irritated me.

Sure, the TSA precheck line could itself be viewed as line-jumping, because it is typically shorter than the standard passenger security line. But at least TSA precheck people have taken steps to qualify for precheck status, including going in person to a federal office, providing various elements of personal information, and having a sit-down interview with a federal agent. That, and paying a fee, was what you needed to do to qualify and be put into a different security category. I recognize that Clear also involves some security element, but why should Clear people move through security ahead of TSA precheck people?

The no-cutting rule is a good one. It should be followed in the airport security world.

Mainely Morning

I’m up in Maine for a spell and enjoyed this morning’s view of one of the bays in Blue Hill, Maine. The sun rises early on the far eastern edge of the Eastern time zone–about 4:50 a.m. this time of year–so the day is well started by 6 a.m. The morning air was blissfully cool, there was not a ripple on the mirror-like surface of the water, and this corner of the world was enveloped in an unearthly absence of sound. There was not a car engine, or a boat motor, or a human voice, or a breath of wind ruffling the leaves of the trees to be heard.

Whales And Lobsters, Continued

Last week a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. issued a decision that has been cause for celebration for the Maine lobster industry. What it ultimately means for the North Atlantic right whale, an endangered species, remains to be seen.

I’ve written before about the regulations imposing significant restrictions on the lobster fishing industry that were promulgated by federal agencies to try to protect the right whales, and the resulting concern in coastal Maine that the regulations will make lobster fishing so expensive and difficult that it could mean the end of the lobstering trade–which would be devastating for many communities. The story is a messy one that encompasses agency rulemaking, forecasting the fate of a species, fundamental disagreements about facts and data, and of course politics.

In last week’s federal appellate court ruling, the core question for the court was whether the National Marine Fisheries Service, which licenses fisheries in federal waters, acted properly in preparing a so-called “biological opinion” under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). The court’s ultimate decision was summarized in the second paragraph of the opinion:

“In this case, we decide whether, in a biological opinion, the Service must, or even may, when faced with uncertainty, give the “benefit of the doubt” to an endangered species by
relying upon worst-case scenarios or pessimistic assumptions. We hold it may not. The ESA and the implementing regulations call for an empirical judgment about what is “likely.” The
Service’s role as an expert is undermined, not furthered, when it distorts that scientific judgment by indulging in worst-case scenarios and pessimistic assumptions to benefit a favored side.”

The court found that the ESA contemplated a “scientific judgment” and did not require “‘distorting the decisionmaking process by overemphasizing highly speculative harms’ whenever the available data is wanting.” The court noted that “[b]y the Service’s admission, it relied upon worst-case modeling that is “very likely” wrong, based upon assumptions the Service concededly does not believe are accurate.” The court also observed:

“A presumption also ignores that worst-case scenarios lie on all sides. It is not hard to indulge in one here: ropeless fishing technologies, weak links, inserts, and trawls may not work; permanent fishery closures may be the only solution. The result may be great physical and human capital destroyed, and thousands of jobs lost, with all the degradation that attends such dislocations.”

The upshot is that the National Marine Fisheries Service will have to go back to the drawing board and develop a new “biological opinion”–one untainted by pessimistic assumptions and worst-case scenarios. The Service will also, as part of that process, consider whether the court ruling will affect related regulations. In the meantime, the Maine lobster fishing industry will avoid the worst-case scenario it was facing–at least, for now.

Return Of The Dodo

The Dodo was a large, flightless fowl that once lived on the island of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean. A distant relative of the modern-day pigeon, the Dodo was well-suited to its remote tropical island habitat, its hard beak, large size and inability to fly having developed as a result of millennia of evolution. But when Dutch sailors landed on the island in 1598, they brought with them pigs, monkeys, and rats that outcompeted the Dodo for resources and led to the creature’s speedy extinction. Within a century, the Dodo was no more.

Now a Texas company called Colossal Biosciences is saying that they might be able to bring some form of the Dodo back. Earlier this year, Colossal announced the start of a Dodo De-Extinction Project, aimed at one day reintroducing a living, breathing, “functional” Dodo into the jungles of Mauritius where it once ruled the roost. And the Dodo isn’t the only extinct creature Colossal is trying to resurrect: it’s also working on bringing back, in some functional form, the Woolly Mammoth and the Tasmanian Tiger, two other well-known extinct species.

The key word there is “functional,” because it is impossible–at this point, at least–to precisely recreate extinct species. The idea, instead, is to collect and use DNA to create a “proxy species” close to the actual extinct species that would then fill the same slot on the food chain that was once held by the extinct species. It’s not clear that it will be possible to do that with the Dodo, because there isn’t a well-preserved supply of Dodo DNA, and without such a supply scientists will need to find scraps of Dodo DNA that aren’t degraded and that are sufficient to allow them to recreate the Dodo’s genome.

The follow-up up question, of course, is whether we should even try to resurrect “proxy species” for extinct species. Should we just leave the Dodo to its unlucky fate, and not mess with historical and evolutionary forces? What might the reintroduction of a long-extinct species mean for the species that have since moved into the slots once occupied by the extinct species, and why do we think the extinct species would be better able to survive this time around? Or, do humans have a responsibility to resurrect a once-thriving species that humans helped drive into extinction?

These are interesting, tough questions. The Dodo De-Extinction Project will be worth following in the years ahead.

Sea Yarns

I’ve enjoyed a number of seafaring books over the years, including the Patrick O’Brian Aubrey/Maturin series and the C.S. Forester Horatio Hornblower books. Give me some salt spray, some nautical terms, and a sea battle or two in a historical setting, and I’m a satisfied reader. I’ve just finished the four books (so far) in the Bliven Putnam series, by James L. Haley. If you like sea yarns, the Putnam books also are well worth reading.

The Putnam books apparently were designed to create an American naval character similar to Hornblower and Aubrey, and in the meantime provide some interesting information about the early days of the U.S. Navy. The first book in the series finds young Bliven Putnam, a farmboy from Litchfield, Connecticut, as a midshipman and then a young officer, fighting the Barbary Coast pirates. The later books follow Putnam as he serves on the U.S.S. Constitution and other vessels in the War of 1812, is tasked with showing the American flag in the Pacific, including the Sandwich Islands (now known as Hawaii), and finally being seconded to the newly created Republic of Texas to help prevent the Mexican government from resupplying General Santa Anna from the sea.

The books feature a number of actual historical characters, in the U.S. government, in the U.S. Navy, and in U.S. culture, and they don’t shy away from addressing the challenging issues of those days, such as slavery, religious bigotry, the infection of native populations with STDs, and impressment and mistreatment of common sailors. It also follows Putnam as he progresses in his naval career, in his life, and in his understanding of those issues, and gives interesting, historically based glimpses of the United States during its days as a very young republic, seeking to make a mark on the world stage.

I’ll be keeping an eye out for future additions to the Bliven Putnam series, and for a new set of sea yarns to enjoy.

Art In The Air

Last night as I walked home from the Ohio Theatre I had a chance to take in the “Current” sculpture by Janet Echelman, which is hanging over the intersection of Gay and High Streets in downtown Columbus. It’s the first time I’ve really had a chance to see the sculpture from the street, in all of its lit-up, night-time glory. The photo above is taken from the Gay Street sidewalk just east of the sculpture, and the photo below is taken from the middle of Gay Street west of the sculpture.

I’ve decided the “Current” sculpture is pretty cool. The blue and red night lighting definitely makes a difference, and accentuates the interesting, quasi-geometric lines that support the rest of the sculpture. The lighting gives the piece a kind of whispery, spidery beauty, and shows the powerful interaction of light and structure.

There were a lot of people out in downtown last night at about 10 p.m., and I saw a number of people who were, like me, taking pictures of “Current.” That’s exactly what the urban planners were hoping for when they decided to install this huge piece of artwork over one of Columbus’ main downtown intersections.

The Reminder Series

Last night I went to see a movie at the Ohio Theatre as part of the Columbus Association for the Performing Arts Summer Movie Series. As I sat in the huge theater, listening to the organist play the “Mighty Morgan” that descends into the stage when the film begins, I decided that the CAPA Summer Movie Series should actually be called the Reminder Series, because it brings back what it used to be like to go to the movies.

Towering red velvet curtain. Big screen. Spacious, comfortable seats. A crowded theater, a smell of popcorn in the air, and a sense of anticipation at watching a great movie from Hollywood’s golden era. Last night’s film was the classic Rear Window, one of Alfred Hitchcock’s masterpieces starring Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly. I’ve seen it before, of course, but I enjoyed watching it again. For only $6, the Summer Movie Series is a bargain.

The Summer Movie Series, which has been a mainstay of Columbus summers for more than 50 years, has an impressive line-up of movies for its abbreviated season this year–almost as if it were calculated to make you wonder why Hollywood doesn’t produce movies like these anymore: The Maltese Falcon, Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, Goldfinger, Citizen Kane, The Thin Man, The Lost Boys, To Kill A Mockingbird, The Empire Strikes Back, Do The Right Thing–and that’s just part of the lineup.

In 25 years, will the Summer Movie Series be featuring anything from the current, CGI-dominated crop of limp remakes and predictable superhero movies? Somehow, I doubt it.

Action/Reaction

Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law Of Motion posited that for every action in nature, there is an equal and opposition reaction. In other words, when two bodies interact, they apply force to each other. The Third Law holds that, for example, the force a tennis ball applies to a racket is equal and opposite to the force the racket applies to the ball.

Sir Isaac may have captured physical reality with his Third Law–without the action and reaction he recognized, for example, fish couldn’t swim and birds couldn’t fly–but his Third Law clearly doesn’t apply to the modern social media world. In case you haven’t noticed, a disproportionate amount of what we see presented as news isn’t about the underlying action, but instead is about the reaction. For every story about a particular incident–like a crime, a civic disturbance, a political figure being indicted, or an athlete being suspended–you’ll see far more stories, and memes, and “hot takes,” and all of the other modern ways of reacting to that particular incident, and the range of reactions will be across the board.

In short, the concept of an equal and opposite reaction is out the window, and I doubt that even Sir Isaac and his facility with mathematics (which included his invention of a new form of mathematics, called calculus) could come up with a formula to predict exactly what kinds of reactions a specific incident might generate.

I think the increasing focus on the reaction to the story, rather than the story itself, is a bad thing for two reasons. First, it’s lazy reporting. Actually digging into the underlying facts of an event, to help explain what happened and why, can be hard work, but collecting tweets or putting a third-party commentator on the broadcast to vent about an incident is an easy way to fill space or air time. And second, the focus on reaction clearly encourages overreaction. If you want your tweet to be featured in the inevitable reaction stories, you’ll be tempted to make your reaction as outrageous as possible, and if you’re a commentator, you’ll similarly be motivated to be over the top in your mugging for the camera. The focus on the reaction discourages thoughtful discourse–including waiting until all the facts come in before flying off the handle–in favor of the kind of splintered, superheated dialogue we see these days.

We’d be better off, in my view, if we stopped emphasizing the instant reaction and focused more on making sure we understand the facts and contours of the action.