This is the T-shirt that @dennisrodman was wearing when he left Pyongyang this morning. "Ambassador Rodman. I come in peace."
I'm told that the three Americans who are still being held in North Korea are *not* on the plane with Rodman. Efforts to free them continue
(note - this time Kim Jong-un chose not to personally meet with Rodman)
U.K. Grenfell Tower Fire:
May hightails it to her car as protesters shout "coward/shame on you"
From New Republic:
Theresa May’s handling of the London fire is hastening her demise.
She reportedly met with emergency crews during a Thursday visit to Grenfell Tower, but not survivors. She also blocked media access during the visit—for “security reasons,” according to her defense minister. On Friday morning, May was holed up in St. Clement’s Church as a crowd gathered outside demanding that she answer questions about the fire. Under tight police escort, May managed to leave the church. The BBC is now reporting that she will meet with survivors tomorrow.
Theresa May’s new chief of staff was one of a series of housing ministers who “sat on” a report warning high-rise blocks like Grenfell Tower were vulnerable to fire for four years.
And the Labour MP who chairs the group said ministers had “sat on” the recommendations for almost four years.
Gavin Barwell, who was housing minister until losing his seat in last week’s election, promised to review part B of the Building Regulations 2010, which relate to fire safety, but the review never materialised.
Libertarian,Megan McArdle in Bloomberg article:
Unfortunately, “other peoples’ money” has a way of ultimately coming out of our own pockets. If it costs more to build buildings, then rents will rise. People will be forced to live in smaller spaces, perhaps farther away. Some of them, in fact, may be forced to commute by automobile, and then die in a car accident. We don’t see those costs in the same way as we see a fire’s victims; we will never know the name of the guy who was killed in a car accident because he had to live far from work because rents rose because regulators required sprinkler systems.
Taking seriously the fact that safety regulations come at a cost, which may exceed their benefit. Such calculations have to be made, no matter how horrified the tut-tutting after the fact.
When it comes to many regulations, it is best to leave such calculations of benefit and cost to the market, rather than the government. People can make their own assessments of the risks, and the price they’re willing to pay to allay them, rather than substituting the judgment of some politician or bureaucrat who will not receive the benefit or pay the cost.
Every dollar it spends on installing sprinkler systems cannot be spent on the health service, or national defense, or pollution control. Would more lives be saved by those measures or by sprinkler systems in public housing?
Rebuttal From Matt Bruenig:
McArdle argues that fireproofing will increase unit building costs and the negative effect this has is that people have to live farther away and commute for longer periods of time. But if this is true, then it is true of fireproofing in general. The Kensington mansions that have substantial fireproofing also have the exact same detrimental effect on rents. And so if it can be determined that those effects are so negative that fireproofing is net harmful, then fireproofing should be banned. Allowing an owner of a Kensington mansion to fireproof their home is to allow the owner to literally kill other people.
As David Lammy noted: “If you want to build these buildings, then let them at least be as good as the luxury penthouses that are also being built.” The equivalence between the two with respect to fireproofing is key here. If you think the fireproofing is worth it, then it should be available across the board. If not, then it should be unavailable across the board. This is especially true if you believe, as McArdle does, that the installation of fireproofing has negative externalities because of its effects on rents. It is (arguably) one thing to hurt yourself by wastefully fireproofing; it is another to kill other people by doing so.
The upshot of her ultimate policy preference is precisely that: the rich will generally be safe from fire, but the poor will not.
Collision in Japan:
US Navy destroyer,USS Fitzgerald and a Japanese container ship of Japan in a section of the sea between the country's two biggest container ports. The container ship has a 29,000 ton displacement to the 8,315 ton US warship. The container ship was carrying 1,080 containers.
The collision happened sometime between 1:30 and 2:30 am.
7 Americans still missing. It is unclear if they might be in a space (2 berthing spaces and other areas) within the ship that was damaged and flooded. Search and rescue efforts at the collision site are still ongoing.
International maritime rules for collision avoidance do not define right of way for any one vessel, but provide common standards for signaling between ships, as well as regulations on posting lookouts.
According to the International Regulations of Preventing Collisions at Sea (ColReg)c.
Speculation on my TL:
Based on location, it could have been just a moment or two of distraction. Looks like Fitz was crossing the merchant's bow, starboard side.
Rules of the Road would give merchant right of way if it was a crossing situation. "Red"(port)"stop, green "(starboard)" go." But not sure