At The Intercept, "national security reporter" Mattathias Schwartz fantasizes about the press conference he thinks Obama should have given in light of alleged Russian interference with the 2016 US Presidential election. I won't subject you to excerpts of his delusion, but suffice it to say that he thinks Obama should have interfered with the election by delaying the Electoral College vote, and do things that Obama has so far been unwilling to do - such as release the intelligence assessments. He also has Obama lecture Trump on a conversation that is purely the figment of his imagination.
Erstwhile, Intercept "Co-founding Editor", Glenn Greenwald puts out an article worth reading entitled "Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence".
It's unfortunate that Mattathias Schwartz doesn't read the The Intercept.
Sunday, December 25, 2016
Saturday, December 24, 2016
The New Obvious Times
Once known for serious journalism, the New York Times dares ask the obvious...
Friday, December 23, 2016
The MSM's role in #faknews
Ace of Spades wonders why the MSM is so guillable when it comes to fake stories about hate crimes perpetrated by Trump supporters, while blinded by actual ones committed against them:
And we're closing in on at least twenty incidences of Socially Conscious Hoax Crimes now. John Sexton runs down some recent ones, including a three revealed as hoaxes just today alone.
Remember the story about swastikas and one "KKK" message being spray-painted on Long Island university buildings? Widely attributed to "Trump's followers." Hoax -- the perp has been arrested, and he's Pakistani. Oh I guess the crime is real enough, and the guy is probably anti-semitic. But it has no relationship to the phantasmal "Trump Voters on Hate Rampage" Narrative.
Remember the black church that was burned down, with "VOTE TRUMP" scrawled nearby in case any one missed the likely motive? Again, a race-based hoax -- the arson was real enough, but the perp was black and a member of the church itself. The "VOTE TRUMP" graffiti was intended to either disguise his hand and his motive, or to play into the media's "Trump's Cycle of Violence" storyline.
And as John Sexton highlights, a Michigan student claimed that Trump supporter tried to yank off her hijab and threatened to set her on fire. The police categorized that "hate crime" as "ethnic intimidation," but they now categorize it as "filing a false police report." They're hiding the woman's identity -- as Glenn Reynolds often notes, the media and politicized law enforcement brass continues treating known hoaxsters as genuine victims, concealing their identity as if they'd actually been raped, threatened or assaulted, even after they are formally charged with filing a false police report.
That's three events in a day -- and I'm not even getting into things that just happened days or a week ago. But the media, pretending to be on a crusade against Fake News, gleefully reports these false claims when they're made and then gets very quiet indeed about publicizing the finding that they were fake news all along.
How can the MSM lead the crusade against #fakenews while being one of the biggest offenders? I don't know, but it does make them seem a bit disingenuous.
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Blahahahahahahaha!!
From NPR:
Trump secured 304 electoral votes — two fewer than he earned in November, according to the Associated Press, which tracked results from capitol to capitol. That was despite a pitched effort by some on the left who wrote letters to Trump electors trying to persuade them to switch their votes or not vote at all and keep Trump short of the 270 needed.
Not only did it not happen, but more electors tried to defect from Hillary Clinton Monday than from Trump, by a count of eight to two. Three Democratic electors in Maine, Minnesota, and Colorado tried to vote for candidates other than Clinton. The electors' votes, however, were disallowed because of state rules binding them to the statewide popular vote winner.
Why Hillary lost, blah, blah, blah.
Much has been said about why Hillary lost the election. Some of it keen and insightful, others just sour grapes from a bunch of sore losers. Let's break it down:
The Podesta emails: The media is a calling it hacking, but the attack was so unsophisticated, my 3 year old niece could have pulled it off. A bad guy (or guys or girls, to be equal opportunistic here) tricked John Podesta's staff into giving them his password (lucky for them no rich prince in Nigeria contacted them). About 99.99% of the emails were the Clinton campaign being jerks to other Democrats, partisan media outlets pandering to them, recipes, and odd references to pizza, If you were anti-Hillary, they were a smoking gun. If you were pro-Hillary, they were benign. Let's call this a wash.
The DNC emails: Things got way juicier here. The DNC successfully rigged the primary for Hillary. First of all, not a surprise. It just confirmed what everyone already knew. If the New York Times published an article on this type of effort at the RNC, it would have been a Pulitzer Prize winning expose. If the DNC didn't want anyone to know what they were up to, they probably shouldn't have done it. How would I feel if the inner workings of the Republican machine were exposed? I would have loved to have known if they were pulling this crap. Which by the way, they totally were. But only much more publicly. My take away here is that Democrats are much easier influenced by their party leadership that Republicans.
Russian Hackers: Most of my liberal friends think that this means the Russians hacked voting machines. This is because if a headline fits their narrative they need not bother with the actual information in it. What is actually alleged is that there is a memo that discusses Russian involvement in accessing the above two email accounts. Can someone please show us this memo? You'll have to forgive me if I don't believe a story that was passed from a Democratic operative to who knows how many other Democratic operatives to a liberal media outlet. We've been there before*. But if Russian hacking is truly an issue, then using a poorly protected server to perform classified State Department business should be a tremendous concern. (*I'm talking about you Dan Rather)
James Comey: Did an active FBI investigation into an active Presidential candidate have an affect? Absolutely. The question is why didn't it have more of an affect? Hillary won the primaries while still under investigation, Who votes for someone in that situation? And it was due to her own poor judgement that she was being investigated in the first place. Every Federal employee who uses a computer, from the Agency Head to the janitorial staff, takes annual training courses in information security and privacy. I just took mine. It is written for the lowest common denominator and explains in very basic detail what you can and can't put in email email, when you should use government systems for communication (always), and how you should handle protected and classified information. Anyone who says they didn't understand or weren't aware of the rules is an idiot or a liar. Perhaps both.
Identity Politics: When you vilify a specific race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, set of values and/or ideology... don't act surprised when they don't vote for you. It makes you look ignorant if you do.
Lack of a message: Hillary's message: America is great. The other guy is a pig. I'll give you four more years of BHO. If there was more to it than that, I would love to hear about it. The problem was that not everyone wanted 4 more years of BHO. The trend of Republican gains in congress, state legislatures and Governorships were an obvious sign of that.
The Electoral College: The goal line in the Presidential election is the EC, not the popular vote. Just like Wimbledon, the World Series, the NCAA Championships and the Stanley Cup, it's a best of series, not a running total of the scores of every game. Instead of focusing on that, Hillary chose to run up the score on the popular vote in spite of overwhelming evidence from people closer to the problem that she was going to lose key states. Would we be having this same debate if Trump had been dumb enough to go for the popular vote at the expense of the EC?
Vetting: Let's be honest here. Hillary rarely faced any serious opposition in any of her political races. It was like watching the Harlem Globetrotters play the poor saps that make up the Washington Generals. They went into every game knowing it was their job to lose and get embarrassed by the Globetrotter's antics. The notable exception was the 2008 Presidential election, and well... she lost. And perhaps the 2016 primaries, where she was still up against the Washington Generals, but one of them nearly pulled off an upset. (FWIW, the Washington Generals record against the Globetrotters is 1 win to 16,000 losses. I am not making that up.) And just like the 2016 election there was a lot of crying, denial and blaming going on after that loss:
Fake news: I get it, there is a bunch of fake news out there. Most of it is perpetrated by the MSM, but we're only concerned about fake news that swings right. As discussed above, it is Democrats that are more easily influenced, To think that a bunch of teenagers in Macedonia swayed an election is preposterous, but we're going to ask a bunch of left wing sources to censor the news anyway. Censorship is censorship, particularly when it is in the hands of people that are actively banning freedom of religion, speech and books. The irony seems to be lost that these are the same tactics employed by China and North Korea. Or perhaps it isn't lost at all.
The Hillary Problem: Fox News sums it up best:
The Podesta emails: The media is a calling it hacking, but the attack was so unsophisticated, my 3 year old niece could have pulled it off. A bad guy (or guys or girls, to be equal opportunistic here) tricked John Podesta's staff into giving them his password (lucky for them no rich prince in Nigeria contacted them). About 99.99% of the emails were the Clinton campaign being jerks to other Democrats, partisan media outlets pandering to them, recipes, and odd references to pizza, If you were anti-Hillary, they were a smoking gun. If you were pro-Hillary, they were benign. Let's call this a wash.
The DNC emails: Things got way juicier here. The DNC successfully rigged the primary for Hillary. First of all, not a surprise. It just confirmed what everyone already knew. If the New York Times published an article on this type of effort at the RNC, it would have been a Pulitzer Prize winning expose. If the DNC didn't want anyone to know what they were up to, they probably shouldn't have done it. How would I feel if the inner workings of the Republican machine were exposed? I would have loved to have known if they were pulling this crap. Which by the way, they totally were. But only much more publicly. My take away here is that Democrats are much easier influenced by their party leadership that Republicans.
Russian Hackers: Most of my liberal friends think that this means the Russians hacked voting machines. This is because if a headline fits their narrative they need not bother with the actual information in it. What is actually alleged is that there is a memo that discusses Russian involvement in accessing the above two email accounts. Can someone please show us this memo? You'll have to forgive me if I don't believe a story that was passed from a Democratic operative to who knows how many other Democratic operatives to a liberal media outlet. We've been there before*. But if Russian hacking is truly an issue, then using a poorly protected server to perform classified State Department business should be a tremendous concern. (*I'm talking about you Dan Rather)
James Comey: Did an active FBI investigation into an active Presidential candidate have an affect? Absolutely. The question is why didn't it have more of an affect? Hillary won the primaries while still under investigation, Who votes for someone in that situation? And it was due to her own poor judgement that she was being investigated in the first place. Every Federal employee who uses a computer, from the Agency Head to the janitorial staff, takes annual training courses in information security and privacy. I just took mine. It is written for the lowest common denominator and explains in very basic detail what you can and can't put in email email, when you should use government systems for communication (always), and how you should handle protected and classified information. Anyone who says they didn't understand or weren't aware of the rules is an idiot or a liar. Perhaps both.
Identity Politics: When you vilify a specific race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, set of values and/or ideology... don't act surprised when they don't vote for you. It makes you look ignorant if you do.
Lack of a message: Hillary's message: America is great. The other guy is a pig. I'll give you four more years of BHO. If there was more to it than that, I would love to hear about it. The problem was that not everyone wanted 4 more years of BHO. The trend of Republican gains in congress, state legislatures and Governorships were an obvious sign of that.
The Electoral College: The goal line in the Presidential election is the EC, not the popular vote. Just like Wimbledon, the World Series, the NCAA Championships and the Stanley Cup, it's a best of series, not a running total of the scores of every game. Instead of focusing on that, Hillary chose to run up the score on the popular vote in spite of overwhelming evidence from people closer to the problem that she was going to lose key states. Would we be having this same debate if Trump had been dumb enough to go for the popular vote at the expense of the EC?
Vetting: Let's be honest here. Hillary rarely faced any serious opposition in any of her political races. It was like watching the Harlem Globetrotters play the poor saps that make up the Washington Generals. They went into every game knowing it was their job to lose and get embarrassed by the Globetrotter's antics. The notable exception was the 2008 Presidential election, and well... she lost. And perhaps the 2016 primaries, where she was still up against the Washington Generals, but one of them nearly pulled off an upset. (FWIW, the Washington Generals record against the Globetrotters is 1 win to 16,000 losses. I am not making that up.) And just like the 2016 election there was a lot of crying, denial and blaming going on after that loss:
Some children in the stands cried after the loss. The [Generals] celebrated by dousing themselves with orange soda instead of champagne. [Harlem Globetrotter Meadowlark] Lemon was furious, saying, "You lost, I didn't lose," but still visited the opposing team’s locker room to congratulate the [Generals]Ethics problems: Let me again refer to the ethics training for dummies I was given. Conflicts of interest are horribly wrong in Government. Perceptions of conflicts of interest are just as wrong. There is way too much information in this area and linking to just one article doesn't even begin to do service to it. Just google Clinton pay to play and reap the benefits. To think someone can see this much evidence and not see it as in issue is horribly naive.
Fake news: I get it, there is a bunch of fake news out there. Most of it is perpetrated by the MSM, but we're only concerned about fake news that swings right. As discussed above, it is Democrats that are more easily influenced, To think that a bunch of teenagers in Macedonia swayed an election is preposterous, but we're going to ask a bunch of left wing sources to censor the news anyway. Censorship is censorship, particularly when it is in the hands of people that are actively banning freedom of religion, speech and books. The irony seems to be lost that these are the same tactics employed by China and North Korea. Or perhaps it isn't lost at all.
The Hillary Problem: Fox News sums it up best:
She is hugely unpopular — nearly 70% of all voters think she is untrustworthy and dishonest. She represents the old way of politics, not really believing in anything other than what can get you elected. That’s why she fights against gays getting married one moment, and the next she’s officiating a gay marriage. Young women are among her biggest detractors... No Democrat, and certainly no independent, is waking up on November 8th excited to run out and vote for Hillary.Just kidding. That was actually Michael Moore. And when you've lost Michael Moore... you've lost middle America.
Great Moments in Liberal Fashion
Purple on purple sweat suit. Nice. I didn't think liberals shopped at Walmart.
Monday, December 19, 2016
Pizzagate Redux
For those of you who think you know what Pizzagate is all about, read this. Most of the claims can be verified with some simple sleuthing:
- The FBI symbols
- The Instagram photos
- The bizarre Podesta emails
- The album covers
- Tony Podesta's fetish artwork
How not to re-enter the Workforce
It's hard to believe that it's been 7 years since I've last posted, but there's so much pansy-assery going on, sometimes you just need to call it out. I don't even know where to start. Let's start with this article at Vox. It starts off sympathetic enough:
I’m 47 and I’m unemployed. I’ve been in and out of work for seven years now. This latest stint without steady work has lasted for almost two years. After submitting what feels like hundreds of applications and going through multiple five-hour interviews only to be rejected, I am plagued every day with the fear that I’ll never find a full-time job again.There are many men out there like me. 9 million prime-age working men in our country are out of work. 7 million of them have stopped looking for work completely.I've been there and it sucks. I was single when it happened to me, and he has a wife and kids. It's demeaning and a feeling of helpless not to be able to take care of them:
Every day I go without a job widens the looming gap of unemployment on my resume. While my family is managing financially due to my wife’s job, the stress of uncertainty has taken its toll. The sense of shame, that I’m not providing my family like I’m supposed to be, continues to deepen.So of course he starts doing everything in his power to find a job - like working on his resume, improving his job skills, going door to door to companies and selling himself... Um, no. He does exactly what you expect someone who writes for the liberal site Vox to do - waste hours on Twitter:
I wake up, crack open my laptop fully intending to spend a day applying for jobs and sending reminder emails. That’s when the distraction starts. I promise myself, just a quick glance at Twitter to see what’s going on in the world, and then I look up and it’s 1:15 in the afternoon. Twitter is my heroin — it’s endless content, and if I’m bored by one tweet, I just go on to the next one... I’ve become incredibly well-read on the election, spending hours tweeting with strangers about esoteric political topics. I’ve started reading books about economic theories to help me better understand my daily news reading.He also waxes poetic about his constant layoffs when he was working. Perhaps it's this lack of focus that is preventing him from holding on to a job. He even bemoans his lack of skills in the current IT environment. But instead of bettering himself with training and books related to his career (which are free at the Library BTDubs), he spends his money on therapy. But this is the kicker:
Sometimes when [my wife] comes home from work, stressed by a bad day at the office, she sees me sitting on my computer in the living room and tells me she’s jealous that I get to stay at home all day. I tell her that she’s the lucky one, waking up and going to an office that needs her, taking home a paycheck for her efforts.... I’ve taken on way more cleaning, cooking, and chore responsibilities since I’ve been not working. I’m not really any good at it.She's subtly telling you to get off your ass and get a job Punchy. But at least he's found the time to do some of the chores in the middle of his Tweeting. What a swell guy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)