The Daily Parker

Welcome to an extra stop on the Brews and Choos project.

Brewery: Olkd Stove Brewinig, 1901 Western Ave., Seattle
Train line: Sound Transit, University St
Time from Chicago: about 4 hours by air
Distance from station: 400 m

Except for picking the coldest weekend in years to visit Seattle, I enjoyed the Pike Place Market a lot. At its north end I found the Old Stone Brewing Co., with a view of the Puget Sound that would have knocked my socks off if doing so wouldn't immediately have led to frostbite. Even being inside a place with "Stove" in its name didn't help as Seattle buildings generally don't approach insulation the same way Chicago buildings do. Nice views, though.

Still, spending $18 and 90 minutes in the place kept me warm and got me an extra 75 pages through the excellent polemic I'm reading, Cory Doctorow's The Lost Cause. (I should finish it today on the plane.)

They have two brewer's-choice flight options plus a DIY option. I didn't feel like having 6 beers s I chose 5 from their long list and sipped. From left to right: the Old Stove Pilsner (4.2%, 35 IBU), the Streaker Citra pale (5.7%, 30 IBU), their flagship Two Pronged Crown IPA (6.66%, 53 IBU), the No One Knows hazy IPA (6.2%, 25 IBU), and the Dark Passage American stout (7%, 46 IBU). All tasted great, and I'd drink any of them if presented. I liked the No One Knows the best. The stout was less stout and more dry than anticipated, but still good enough to finish the 100 mL sample.

Next time I'm in Seattle, I'll choose a warm, dry day to sit outside this place with a full pint. Possibly my friend's dog, too.

Beer garden? Yes, looking over Puget Sound!
Dogs OK? Outside only
Televisions? Two, avoidable, but only showing 1950s through 1970s beer commercials
Serves food? Full pub menu
Would hang out with a book? Yes
Would hang out with friends? Yes
Would go back? Yes

My five-and-a-half-hour-delayed flight got to Seattle in the usual amount of time, but the door-to-door duration—my house to my friend's house—set a new record for domestic travel: 15 hours and 20 minutes. That's the longest travel duration for any flying trip since I had a long connection going from Chicago to London two years ago and longer than any domestic trip I can recall.

But at the end of the voyage, Hazel was very glad to see me:

My friend has an all-day meeting that neither of us is particularly happy about, but I have her car and a comfortable seat at a quiet coffee shop in the Belltown area of downtown Seattle:

I said hi to this guy, too:

I haven't yet figured out what to do with the next couple of hours. I've never seen the top of this thing, though:

There's a non-zero chance I might do a Brews & Choos review after lunch, too. Stay tuned.

Welp. My 10:00 flight has become a 3:00 flight:

But at least when I get on board the plane, I'll have a good seat:

Obviously if they had predicted the delay more accurately, I'd have slept longer, left later, and probably not dropped Cassie off with my friends until this morning. She seems to be settling in just fine, though:

Hooray for air travel in January. My guess is that if the original crew had flown on to Seattle, they'd have timed out. So they probably moved my plane's crew to a shorter flight, and the next available crew that won't time out can't get to O'Hare until 2pm or so. These things happen when a winter storm hits Chicago.

In fact, if memory serves, it happened 13 years ago yesterday. Maybe I need to reconsider flying mid-January?

I have enough travel experience to know that a winter storm doesn't totally shut down O'Hare. I mean, isn't it pretty?

It does, however, cause some disruptions:

But knowing that my flight has a 2+ hour delay means I can take a leisurely bus trip for $3.25 (including transfer), which is way better than a $60 Lyft that would take almost as long. The bus got up to 20 km/h at one point! Look at us zoom through Lincoln Square:

And along the route, a little bit of good news from the airline!

So only two hours after leaving home, I finally got through security and sat down in the lounge with a view sure to warm the heart of any frequent air traveler:

I also have to hand it to the ground crews. They have a conga line of plows pushing the snow into the snow-melter-thingy right below where I'm sitting.

American reports that my plane has left Dallas, so I've only got about 90 minutes to chill, get more coffee, and watch a cool dozen snowplows in a row clearing runway 10C so planes can keep landing. And NWS says this crap will end before noon. I might actually get to Seattle before dinner!

Updates as events warrant.

We knew this was coming eventually:

URGENT - WINTER WEATHER MESSAGE
National Weather Service Chicago IL
243 PM CST Thu Jan 11 2024

ILZ006-103-104-120445-
/O.CON.KLOT.WS.W.0002.240112T0900Z-240113T1800Z/
Lake IL-Northern Cook-Central Cook-
Including the cities of Waukegan, Buffalo Grove, Mundelein,
Gurnee, Evanston, Des Plaines, Schaumburg, Palatine, Northbrook,
Chicago, Cicero, Oak Lawn, Oak Park, and La Grange
243 PM CST Thu Jan 11 2024

...WINTER STORM WARNING IN EFFECT FROM 3 AM FRIDAY TO NOON CST
SATURDAY...

* WHAT...Heavy snow, strong winds, and dangerous travel
  conditions expected. Total snow accumulations in excess of 8
  inches and wind gusts up to 45 mph expected, with the highest
  snow accumulations away from Lake Michigan.

* WHERE...Lake IL, Northern Cook, and Central Cook Counties.

* WHEN...From 3 AM Friday to noon CST Saturday.

* IMPACTS...Travel could be very difficult to impossible. Areas
  of blowing snow could significantly reduce visibility. The
  hazardous conditions could impact the morning or evening
  commute.

* ADDITIONAL DETAILS...Snow will mix with rain near Lake Michigan
  and limit snow accumulations after mid Friday morning.
  Elsewhere, snow rates may exceed 1 inch per hour at times.
  Westerly wind gusts up to 45 mph are expected primarily Friday
  evening and may lead to areas of blowing snow and very low
  visibility.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

If you must travel, keep an extra flashlight, food, and water in
your vehicle in case of an emergency.

I fully expect American Airlines will have an extra flashlight and water, but I'm never sure about the extra food.

The flight is scheduled to leave at 10 am. I estimate less than a 50% chance that we'll actually board the plane before then, let alone leave within that hour. But I have had pleasant surprises before.

Julia Ioffe interviews David Scheffer, a lawyer and professor who served as Bill Clinton's ambassador-at-large for war crimes, to provide some clarity around South Africa's suit against Israel in the International Court of Justice:

South Africa is alleging the entire corpus of the Genocide Convention and its application, namely that Israel has failed to prevent genocide against Gaza and that it is committing genocide against Gaza. It is a very fulsome application. South Africa is not asking the I.C.J. to make a finding of a failure to prevent, or a commission of, genocide. They are asking the I.C.J. to direct Israel through what are called provisional measures to do what is necessary to prevent and not commit genocide in Gaza, to take those measures while the I.C.J., over a much longer period of time, considers the merits of South Africa’s allegations. For a commission of genocide, one needs to establish that both the genocidal act has occurred and that it has occurred with the specific intent to destroy all or part of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group. The dolus specialis, we call it—the specific intent to do that. That’s why, particularly on a merits stage, it takes time to put those two together: the genocidal acts, and the mens rea of the specific intent.

The application disgorges an enormous amount of publicly available information about what has happened in Gaza. We all know that it’s a humanitarian catastrophe of some dimension in Gaza right now. I don’t want to diminish the importance of that. But nowhere in South Africa’s application is there any recognition that there is a war taking place. This is not a genocide like Rwanda or of the Rohingya or the Yazidis in recent times, where these were just authoritarian regimes that went after populations that were not attacking them.

But this is a war. There is an act of self-defense by Israel. Now, that does not mean that Israel has clean hands on absolutely everything it’s done, absolutely not.

I think genocide is a very powerful word. You get everyone’s attention. South Africa could just as easily say, “We clearly think atrocity crimes are occurring now in Gaza. We’re not prepared yet to say whether it’s genocide or not.” But they did make a determination: They want to call it genocide. And they’re free to do so. I don’t blame them. 

But in the court of law as well as in the court of public opinion, I think it’s very important that we not embrace that word in this particular conflict until there’s a better understanding of what is occurring in terms of warfare and of the humanitarian plight of the Palestinian people. 

At the same time, as I have pointed out, Hamas could stop it all tomorrow by surrendering. Hamas has the power to prevent genocide. It has had the power to prevent genocide even after it, itself, probably committed genocide on October 7th. It had the power, after October 7th, to subject none of the Palestinian population to what South Africa describes as genocide. Hamas had the power and it did not use that power. Hamas has no right to fight on. It has no right of self-defense. And furthermore, by virtue of the fact that it continues to fight, it brings an enormous amount of suffering and destruction upon the Palestinian people, all of which it could stop by simply surrendering.

The last paragraph I quoted is particularly important. For all the online outrage I see about Israel's military campaign against Hamas, I don't see many Palestine supporters recognizing that Hamas started this, and Hamas can end it.

Because really, October 7th and what happened afterwards comes down to Hamas wanting to destroy Israel. People seem to forget that.

Netanyahu has to go, soon, along with all the right-wing crazies propping up his government. But so does Hamas.

When you don't pay your attorneys, and then you don't pay the attorneys you had to hire because the first set of attorneys sued you for payment, you start to look like an absolute ganif to the legal community. Maybe that's why the XPOTUS could only find the kind of attorney who would advance a legal theory that surprised just about everyone in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday:

In a hearing before the D.C. Circuit Court, the former president’s lawyers argued that he should be immune from criminal prosecution for his role in the attempt to steal the 2020 presidential election. This argument has an obvious flaw: It implies that the president is above the law. Such a blunt rejection of the Constitution and the basic concept of American democracy is too much even for Trump to assert—publicly, at least—so his lawyers have proposed a theory. They say that he can’t be criminally prosecuted unless he is first impeached and convicted by Congress.

This argument is no less dangerous, as a hypothetical asked in court demonstrated in chilling terms. Judge Florence Pan asked Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, if “a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival” could be criminally prosecuted. Sauer tried to hem and haw his way through an answer but ultimately stated that such a president couldn’t be prosecuted unless he was first impeached, convicted, and removed by Congress.

In effect, Trump has realized that, just as none of his voters would desert him over murdering a man on Fifth Avenue, nothing he could do would be so bad that congressional Republicans would abandon him. He doesn’t need a majority, either. Under the argument his lawyers made in court today, all Trump needs is 34 Republicans who will vote not to convict, and that’s sufficient to guarantee he can act with impunity.

Yes, but what about that little logical flaw, the one that Judge Florence Pan saw immediately? Doesn't the argument admit something at odds with the XPOTUS's claim of absolute immunity? Well, yes, actually:

[Pan] pointed out that this would mean presidents can be criminally prosecuted under certain circumstances. In other words, Trump does not have absolute immunity.

“Doesn’t that narrow the issues before us to…‘can a president be prosecuted without first being impeached and convicted?’” Pan said. “All of your other arguments seem to fall away.”

“Once you concede that there’s not this absolute immunity, that the judiciary can hear criminal prosecutions under any circumstances—you’re saying there’s one specific circumstance—then that means that there isn’t this absolute immunity that you claim.”

Pan also noted that Trump appeared to be trying to have it both ways. During his second impeachment trial, Trump and some of his Republican allies argued that the Senate shouldn’t convict him because he would face criminal prosecution later. But now, he claims he shouldn’t have to face prosecution, either.

I guess you don't have to represent yourself in court to have a fool for a lawyer. (He was going to do that, too, before the judge told him he'd go to jail for contempt if he speechified.) Then again, John Sauer has a fool for a client, so...

Looking out my 30th-floor office window this afternoon doesn't cheer me. It's gray and snowy, but too warm for accumulation, so it just felt like rain when I sprinted across the street to get my burrito bowl for lunch.

I do have a boring deployment coming up in about an hour, requiring only that I show the business what we've built and then click "Run pipeline" twice. As a reward for getting ahead on development, I have time to read some of these absolutely horrifying news stories:

• Jennifer Rubin wants to know why the House Democrats damning report about the XPOTUS's corruption didn't get more traction. "History tells us that authoritarians traditionally use power for personal gain, leading to a culture of personal corruption."
• Michelle Goldberg lauds President Biden's efforts to "jolt us out of learned helplessness" regarding the XPOTUS. "[T]he best reason to vote for Biden is to stave off the calamity of an encore Trump administration, in which a lawless would-be dictator, proclaiming his own immunity from prosecution and lionizing the violent mob that tried to keep him in power, enacts an orgy of retribution against small-d democrats."
• It's official: 2023 was the warmest year on the planet since we started keeping records. (It was also the 5th warmest year ever in Illinois.)
• James Fallows (of course) has the best run-down of what happened on Alaska Airlines 1282 over the weekend when a door plug blew out at 16,000 feet.

Finally, Cranky Flier examines American Airlines' European operations and singles out its heavy dependence on Heathrow as a key reason why its fares trans-Atlantic are lower than other US carriers. Since I am using one of those really low fares to visit Germany next month, I'm OK with American keeping their fares low.

Welcome to stop #95 on the Brews and Choos project.

Brewery: Revolution Brewery & Taproom, 3340 N. Kezie Ave., Chicago
Train line: CTA Blue Line, Belmont
Time from Chicago: 18 minutes
Distance from station: 700 m

Revolution's main brewing facility and taproom is the granddaddy of independent Chicago breweries. I've already reviewed their brewpub (about 2½ km from the taproom), and longtime readers know I like their beer a lot. So this Brews & Choos stop was more about checking in at an old favorite than trying new beers.

I had a Hazy Hero IPA (7.3%), one of my favorites and one of their best-sellers, and I think the same one I had when I reviewed the brewpub. My friend, however, ordered the Ryeway to Heaven barrel-aged rye wine (15%) along with one of their less-deadly beers. Wow. I would love to try that again, but only in small doses. So much flavor!

I only have one complaint, that the area around Belmont and Kedzie isn't really fun to walk through. The taproom is only a ten-minute walk from the Belmont Blue Line stop, though, so unless you're buying cases of beer, you don't need to drive there.

Beer garden? No
Dogs OK? No
Televisions? None
Serves food? Snack menu
Would hang out with a book? Maybe
Would hang out with friends? Yes
Would go back? Yes

Billionaire Bill Ackerman lobbied Harvard's board hard to get president Claudine Gay fired last month, harping on her plagiarism as a key reason she wasn't fit for the job. Business Insider then published two stories alleging what looks like even worse plagiarism by Neri Oxman—Ackerman's wife. So Ackerman did what any self-deceiving, childish, hypocritical billionaire would do: he leaned on the paper's publisher. Because of course he did:

At one point, Ackman wrote that a Harvard student who committed “much less” plagiarism than Claudine Gay would be forced out of the university. Gay resigned from the presidency last week.

But when Business Insider raised plagiarism concerns about his wife’s work, Ackman excoriated the publication, accusing it of unethical journalism, promising to review its writers’ work and predicting that it would “go bankrupt and be liquidated.” In one social media post, he implied that Business Insider’s investigations editor (whom he called “a known anti-Zionist”) may have been “willing to lead this attack” because Oxman is Israeli.

Neither Ackman nor Oxman, whose companies didn’t respond to requests for comment, have pointed to any factual errors in the articles.

Still, Ackman’s complaints seemed to get the attention of Axel Springer, the German media giant that owns Business Insider. On Sunday, the company released an unusual statement saying it would “review the processes” that led up to the articles’ publication, while acknowledging that the stories were not factually wrong.

While Ackman hasn’t raised factual issues with the articles, he has claimed that the outlet didn’t give him and his wife enough time to comment on the second story, about Wikipedia plagiarism, with a space of roughly two hours on late Friday afternoon between when his spokesman was asked for comment and when the story was published. But Ackman first went public with the Wikipedia allegations roughly an hour before the story was published by posting on social media about the impending article, which may have affected Business Insider’s publication schedule.

Cryptocurrency researcher (the good kind) and Wikipedia mega-editor Molly White the Tweet in question apart line by line:

What is it with these guys? I have to wonder if kvetching about how unfairly the world treats you is a prerequisite for amassing a huge fortune. They do tend to project a lot, don't they, these billionaires?

Part of me finds this sort of thing hilarious, another part finds it sad, and yet I have to remember that these whiny babies have a lot of money and the power that goes with it. Not being able to take criticism, especially when one is a public figure and one continually inserts oneself into public discourse, seems like weakness to me. Maybe that's why they get so agitated: deep down, they know the truth backing up their critics.