To my left-wing friends

I have many friends, acquaintances and colleagues who consider themselves left of center.  They range from 'blue dog Democrats', to liberals, to socialists.  I've even been on speaking terms with at least one all-out, proud, unashamed Trotskyist!  Their political views don't stop me being on at least neutral terms with them, and often better than that, because they're fundamentally honest people who truly believe the philosophies and values they proclaim.  I may disagree with their perspective, but it's their right to have it.  As long as they're willing to let me have my own views, and treat them with at least tolerance, if not respect, then I'm willing to do the same to and for them.  The Golden Rule applies in politics as much as it does anywhere else.

However, it's truly appalling to see some of the left-wing, progressive reactions to the election of Donald Trump.  Clearly, to at least some of them, the Golden Rule is something theoretical, deserving only lip service.  It doesn't apply in real life.  "Not my president!" chanted demonstrators in several US cities yesterday.  Well, if that's the case, why should President Obama have been my president?  I could have done as they did, and rejected him utterly . . . yet I was living in his country, where he was elected by the majority of those who bothered to vote in that country's last two elections.  That made him my president, whether I liked it or not.  To pretend otherwise would have made me unworthy to be an American.  If I can put up with a president whose policies I rejected and whose political objectives were abhorrent to me, why can't those who supported him do likewise now that they're in the same situation?  Sauce, goose, gander.  Some assembly required.

I can understand anger, disappointment, and disbelief at Hillary Clinton's failure on the part of those who supported her and/or the liberal, left-wing, progressive agenda she espoused.  (Dave McClure's epic meltdown is a classic example.)  It's their right to have those feelings, and to express them.  However, it's not their right to turn on those of us who rejected her in favor of Donald Trump or anyone else.  If they claim that it is, why should we not do the same when our turn comes around - as it undoubtedly will?  Sauce, goose, gander.  Some assembly required.

In particular, I've yet to hear an honest answer to a simple question from any of my left-wing friends and acquaintances.  It's this.  Given Hillary Clinton's very, very long list of scandals, ethically dubious conduct, and plain downright dishonesty, how can you expect anyone adhering to even the most basic Christian values to vote for her?  She's clearly so morally corrupt that she isn't fit for any public office.  She's so manifestly (or should that be womanifestly?) untrustworthy that if she assured me, in person, that Monday was the day after Sunday, I'd instantly fact-check her against the nearest calendar.  If the calendar agreed with her, I'd probably distrust the calendar, too!

If even one-quarter of that list of scandals is true, I defy anyone to deny that it disqualifies her from elected office . . . yet her supporters appear to dismiss it as irrelevant.  No, it's not irrelevant.  If Mr. Trump's prior conduct makes him ineligible for the Oval Office on ethical or moral grounds, that makes Mrs. Clinton at least ten times less eligible than he is!  How can you not see that?  How can you fail to understand that?  As my left-wing, liberal, progressive blogbuddy Earthbound Misfit put it:

How good a candidate was Clinton? She had more baggage than the Queen Mary 2. Vilified by the Right since the 1980s, Clinton's reputation was of one of the most secretive and untrustworthy politicians since Richard Nixon. Two years before the election, it was clear to the most casual observer that she had more negatives than the Life Magazine photo archive. But no, the party couldn't see that. Led by Debbie Wasserman Schulz, a hardcore Clinton ally, the party did everything possible to ensure that Clinton would not see any competition for the nomination. When a challenger did arise, the party elites did everything possible to hamstring him.

Earthbound Misfit is absolutely right (and her honesty is one of the reasons I respect her, despite our differing views on many issues).  I'd have no problem voting for an honest, moral, ethical Democrat instead of a less honest, less moral, less ethical Republican . . . but there wasn't one on the ticket.  If you don't nominate someone I can honestly, ethically, morally support, don't blame me when I don't do so.

I'd also like to remind some of those most upset over President-elect Trump's victory that those of us who objected to President Obama's policies had to suck them up, whether we liked it or not.  As he said after his first electoral victory, "I won".  He had no compunction about using his victory to ram through his policies.  When Republicans objected, Harry Reid rode roughshod over their resistance.  If Republicans now demonstrate the same attitude and adopt the same tactics, I don't want to hear one single word of complaint from those who supported President Obama and Harry Reid when they did so.  Sauce, goose, gander.  Some assembly required.

What about the press?  I've never in my life seen such naked partisanship among the mainstream media.  Do they now expect us to forget that it happened?  To trust them to bring us the news as it happens, without embellishment, without censorship, without 'interpretation'?  Forget it.  With a very few honorable exceptions, I no longer trust the mainstream media at all.  They have zero credibility - and their post-election conduct is already confirming that.  As Vox cautions:

This ... process of creating a news cycle is presently being utilized in New York and other cities where "anti-Trump protests" are taking place. The purpose is to create the idea that Trump is "unpopular" and he is an "illegitimate, failed President" even before he takes office, and thereby eliminate the traditional honeymoon period enjoyed by a newly inaugurated President and obstruct his initial efforts.

True.  You can see the ongoing bias in the reporting and commentary on those 'protests'.  I won't waste a single cent of my money on the mainstream US media, and I won't trust what they tell me.  I'll use alternative sources to get my news and analyze it.  I know I'm far from alone in that determination.

(I honestly don't know how the media can rebuild public trust.  I don't see it happening unless and until they fire almost every journalist, editor and owner in the business, and start from scratch to build up new teams of ethical, moral, objective, honest people.  If that doesn't happen . . . if they carry on in the same old way with the same old people . . . then they can do unmentionable and anatomically improbable things to themselves, as far as I [and a great many others] are concerned.)

What about the pollsters?  Oh, boy . . . talk about having egg on their faces!  Again, with a very few honorable exceptions, I've lost faith in their prognostications.  From now on, if they tell me that public opinion is for or against anything, my reaction will be to yawn and say, "Oh, yeah?"  Furthermore, I'll support President Trump if he disregards so-called, alleged 'public opinion' in deciding whether or not to proceed with his policy initiatives.  If he builds a wall to keep out illegal aliens, and the opposition screams that he's defying public opinion to do so, my response will be, "No, he isn't - he's defying discredited pollsters."  Big difference.

Finally, I note once more (as I've frequently done in the past) that I'm not a Trump supporter.  I'm neutral towards him.  That won't prevent me from wishing him, very sincerely, every success in the very difficult, demanding, challenging tasks that lie ahead of him, for the sake of this country, my home.  I'll pray for him.

Furthermore, his supporters have won this election. They are to be congratulated on their determination and enthusiasm.  They deserve it.  Therefore, to those liberals and progressives who still regard Trump supporters as their inferiors, or condescend to them, or talk down to them, or regard them with pitying, patronizing superiority . . .  I can only invite them to rearrange the following words into a well-known phrase or saying.

1. Off.
2. Piss.

Peter

Here's a treat for steam train enthusiasts

Reader M. J. sent me the link to this video, showing a very old steam locomotive on the Devil's Nose route to Alausi in Equador.

I found it particularly interesting because the rail line uses the old technique of switchback construction.  The line ascends in one direction across a slope, ending in a set of points, followed by a siding and a buffer.  The line then continues up the slope in the other direction, again ending in points, a siding and a buffer, repeating the process as often as is necessary to climb the slope.  The train goes up one arm, stops on the siding while the points are switched, then goes up the next arm, and so on.   This avoids the necessity to incorporate turns on a slope that has no space (or is too steep) to accommodate them.  It's no longer much used, because modern railway constructors prefer to use tunnels to get through such obstacles.  There are very few places in the world where it can still be seen;  the Devil's Nose is one of them.

There's also an amusing encounter with an even older form of transportation at about the 6 minute mark.  Watch the video in full-screen mode for best results.

I understand this railway line was rebuilt after the video was taken in 2007, and has been modernized.  In some ways, I'm sorry to hear that.  I've covered many thousands of miles on African railways not unlike the one shown above, on less steep slopes, to be sure, but just as rattletrap.  It's something fewer and fewer people will experience as the old steam engines are phased out, and diesels take their place.  I'm glad I had the opportunity to enjoy it - and I did enjoy it.  It was like riding a piece of history.  I can still smell the steam and smoke in my nostrils, swirling into the passenger compartment in choking clouds through the open windows as the train entered a tunnel, and the feel of bits of cinder and ash settling on my face and in my hair.  When you took a bath after getting to your destination, you left a tidemark of ash and grit around the edge of the tub.  Your clothes reeked of smoke for days afterwards, no matter how carefully you washed them.

Peter

Post-election image of the day

Courtesy of Powerline:

Word.

Peter

President-elect Donald J. Trump

Step 1:  To President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid et. al., a great big fat -

You're fired!!!

Step 2:  Remember President Obama's immortal words?  When the GOP protested his policies, soon after his inauguration, he responded bluntly, "I won."  In other words, shut up and live with it.  One trusts President Trump will offer the same response to the bleeding-heart SJW's who will froth at the mouth as he implements the policies he's promised.


Step 3:  When it comes to approving his nominations for office, one trusts President Trump will, if and when necessary, follow the example of Harry Reid and the Democratic Party and ensure that his people aren't blocked by political maneuvering.  What's sauce for the goose, etc., etc.


It's not yet 'morning in America' again.  There's an awful lot of doom and gloom to dispel after eight years of socialist, progressive, liberal social engineering.  However, we can now roll up our sleeves and make a start.  We have a lot of work to do - particularly because the socialists, progressives and liberal social engineers will be doing working just as hard, if not more so, to overturn yesterday's vote in the next two to four years.  We need to uproot as much as possible of their poisonous seed from the garden of America before they can derail the process, and plant as much as possible, as deep as possible, to resist their depredations in future.

I don't know whether or not President Trump will be the right person, or even a good person, to get the job done.  I only know he can't possibly be as criminally disastrous a President as Hillary Clinton would have been.  For that at least, let us give thanks most humbly to Almighty God;  and let us pray for guidance for our President-elect and those he picks to serve in his administration.  Pray, too, that they have the wisdom and humility to seek such guidance, and to follow it.

Let's get to work.

Peter

Two Australian comedians look at the US election . . .

. . . and take the opportunity to poke some equal opportunity abuse at both sides.

Good on yer, mates!

Peter

Let's talk about something more cheerful

All that needs to be said about today's election (and probably a lot that would have been better unsaid) has been said.  Now it's up to the US electorate to cast their ballots and choose the future they want.  May they choose wisely.

For myself, I've spent the last few weeks writing my ass fundamental jujube posterior off.  It's been a very enjoyable experience, albeit tiring, because it's the first time I've really got my writing mojo back since being hit with a series of health problems beginning in June last year.  Two kidney stone procedures and gall bladder surgery took up more than a year, along with recovery time in between them.  That knocked my creative muse for a loop - it doesn't seem to function well when I'm popping pain-killers like they were M&M's.  I simply haven't been able to do very much good work for fifteen months.  I can only thank all my loyal readers for being patient during the drought in my output.  (The Western novel I published earlier this year had been completed [in first draft] before my health problems began.  When Castalia offered me a contract to publish it, all I had to do was refine and polish it, with the very able assistance of my editor, Vox Day.)

As soon as possible after my gall bladder surgery, I began trying to write again.  I've got three books (over)due, and I really wanted to get cracking on them.  The first few weeks were very hard.  After being out of the creative groove for so long, things didn't just fall into place in my mind.  It felt like wading through treacle, trying to put my thoughts on paper (or on a computer screen) once more.  Still, little by little, things began to click.  About two weeks ago, my creative muse finally returned from wherever she'd been hiding.  I've written something like 25,000 words since that time, and edited twice that amount.  The fifth volume of the Maxwell Saga, 'Stoke the Flames Higher', is well on the way to completion. I expect to have it out by early December, God willing.

I'll be producing an e-book edition first.  I'm arranging with Castalia for them to take over my print production, as they can fine-tune it (e.g. series covers with matching spines, etc.) in ways that I've never been able to get right.  They're also going to produce audiobook editions of the Maxwell series, and perhaps others as well.  Print and audio versions of the new book should be available by late January at the latest, with updated editions of the others to follow.

I've then got to produce the third and final volume of the Laredo War Trilogy, 'Knife to the Hilt';  and I've also got the second Western novel in the Ames Archives to produce by the middle of next year.  After that, Maxwell Volume 6 beckons.  I hope you enjoy reading them all as much as I look forward to writing them.

Future projects/proposals include at least one fantasy novel, if not two, either of which may grow into a trilogy or a series;  a space detective trilogy or series set in my Maxwell universe;  and a follow-on trilogy in the Laredo War scenario, extending it into the future to look at some of the long-term consequences of that war and another conflict it spawned.  The Maxwell Saga is plotted out to at least a dozen books, and I've got at least three more, perhaps twice that many, planned for the Ames Archives.  If they all come to fruition, I'm going to be a busy little boy!

Peter

Theodore Roosevelt on tomorrow's election

Yes, I know Theodore Roosevelt is long dead.  Nevertheless, a speech he gave at Carnegie Hall in New York in 1903 contains these words.  They resonate deeply with me.  I think they sum up what tomorrow's election should be all about, but largely is not . . . because we've allowed the truth of his words to leach away into the dust of history.

In the century opening, the play of the infinitely far-reaching forces and tendencies which go to make up our social system bids fair to be even fiercer in its activity than in the century which has just closed. If during this century the men of high and fine moral sense show themselves weaklings; if they possess only that cloistered virtue which shrinks shuddering from contact with the raw facts of actual life; if they dare not go down into the hurly-burly where the men of might contend for the mastery; if they stand aside from the pressure and conflict; then as surely as the sun rises and sets, all of our great material progress, all the multiplication of the physical agencies which tend for our comfort and enjoyment, will go for naught, and our civilization will become a brutal sham and mockery.

If we are to do as I believe we shall and will do, if we are to advance in broad humanity, in kindliness, in the spirit of brotherhood, exactly as we advance in our conquest over the hidden forces of nature, it must be by developing strength in virtue and virtue in strength, by breeding and training men who shall be both good and strong, both gentle and valiant men who scorn wrongdoing, and who at the same time have both the courage and the strength to strive mightily for the right.

I know he speaks of men rather than women, but please excuse that.  He spoke in an age where female emancipation was far from accomplished.  His words apply just as well to both sexes as they do to one.

Ask yourself how his words square with the candidates available for our selection tomorrow.  None of them measure up to them in full;  but some fall so woefully short of those standards that they make a mockery of everything Theodore Roosevelt stood for.  Let's not vote for them, for his sake . . . and our own.

Peter

The best reason to join Gab - because the hard left hates it

A hit piece appeared in Salon over the weekend, calling Gab, the new social media site, a 'Twitter for racists'.  I won't bother repeating its claims here, as they're the same old, same old:  racism and racists are tolerated, extremists abound, blah, blah, blah.  Andrew Torba, co-founder of Gab, promptly released a video response, which you can view here.  He does a good job of debunking some of the more ridiculous claims made about Gab.

I think most of my readers will agree that I'm neither racist nor extremist;  indeed, some of my readers seem to think that I should be more extremist!  That's not about to happen, I'm afraid.  My active faith, and my background as a retired pastor, color my reflections on life, the universe and everything.  I hold strong opinions in some areas, but I try not to beat people over the head with them.

That means I'm feeling right at home on Gab.  It explicitly strives to promote freedom of speech, to the extent that it will not censor its users except in the most severe of circumstances (unlike, for example, Twitter or Facebook, which enforce their in-house versions of 'political correctness').  Instead, Gab gives its members the opportunity to filter their own feeds, according to their own likes and preferences.  One can 'mute' someone with whose opinions one disagrees, or filter out any and all posts on given topics.  Any censorship is thus self-imposed, rather than imposed by someone else.  I much prefer the flexibility that offers.  I take advantage of those tools to filter out any racist or discriminatory posts, and enjoy the rest.

If you've become dissatisfied with Twitter and other short-form social media, I urge you to give Gab a try.  I'm enjoying it.  There's a slideshow tutorial here, and here's a video introduction from its CEO and co-founder, Andrew Torba.

I might add that Gab's other co-founder, Ekrem Büyükkaya, lives in Turkey and is a Kurd.  So much for allegations of racism!  I'm glad to be a member there, and I hope to see you on Gab as well.

Peter

Don't forget 'Operation Fast and Furious'

In all the hoopla over the election, many people have lost sight of the scandal over the ATF's 'Operation Fast and Furious'.  It's worth remembering that this was the brainchild of the current administration, which is also responsible for the carnage it's caused.  Two federal agents, Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata, were murdered with guns involved in the operation, along with literally hundreds of people in Mexico.

The late Brian Terry (L) and Jaime Zapata (R)

Matthew Smith-Meck, a retired Marine officer and a designated whistleblower, was one of those involved in the operation.  He reminds us why it's so important that it never be forgotten.

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

That familiar quote by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle should have been the guiding principle of any and all erstwhile investigations into Operation Fast and Furious that had truth, answers and facts – no matter where they lead – as the ultimate goals. Sadly, deflecting, denying, delaying, degrading and obfuscating seemed to have been the recurring themes however.

Retrospectively analyzing a series of events that, if taken only as isolated occurrences don’t necessarily indicate a larger concern of great import, when evaluated in toto one finds a connected relationship which perhaps evidences systemic and organizational concealment if not complicity.

. . .

The now predictable and constant refrain from DC - whether dealing with the IRS, VA or Fast and Furious – was that a “rogue official” in some “distant office” was somehow responsible for whatever the scandal might be. If that were the case, one would think that “rogue” official would be held accountable and prosecuted for her or his actions. Distressingly, no one has been held accountable and prosecuted for the illegal gun-walking debacle known as Fast and Furious. Quite to the contrary, the “wagons were circled” and the truth seems to have become the casualty.

Agent Brian Terry – and countless others – sacrificed their lives and/or careers in both holding people/agencies accountable and ensuring the truth was made known to the American people. We only hope that those in DC with only their political comforts on the line will live up to the example that Brian Terry has set for us all. Semper Fi, Marine.

There's more at the link.  Important reading, IMHO - and not just during this election season.  Such scandals can occur under any administration, regardless of its political persuasion.

Peter

Doofus Of The Day #933

This fire truck crew earns an instant Doofus award - squared, because they did it twice!  Courtesy of Wirecutter:

Verily, the mind doth boggle . . .




Peter

Comey's latest letter

This afternoon FBI Director Comey doubled down on his earlier whitewash of Hillary Clinton.  His latest letter read, in part:

I write to supplement my October 28, 2016 letter that notified you the FBI would be taking additional investigative steps with respect to former Secretary of State Clinton's use of a personal email server.

Since my letter, the FBI investigative team has been working around the clock to process and review a large volume of emails from a device obtained in connection with an unrelated criminal investigation. During that process, we reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State.

Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.

There's more at the link.

I remind you that words have meanings.  Very specific meanings.  Mr. Comey's letter is clearly very carefully worded indeed, and is as important for what it does not say as what it does.  Let's look at this in greater detail.

In July 2016, Mr. Comey stated that 'Secretary Clinton or her colleagues ... were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.'  There is no doubt about this.  It was more than an error of judgment - it was a wholesale, deliberate disregard for any principles of confidentiality.  It was revealed this weekend that Mrs. Clinton used her maid - a woman with no security clearance whatsoever, not even a failed one! - to print classified information and deliver it to her, possibly including even the top-secret Presidential Daily Brief (PDB).  As Karl Denninger points out:

It is a crime to knowingly, say much less intentionally, give access to classified information to someone who is not cleared to receive and handle it.

. . .

The PDB is one of the most-seriously classified (top secret) documents routinely prepared for the President; it contains up to the minute information relating to various events and activities all over the world.

It is also a crime to allow, through negligence or worse, intentional act, someone who is not cleared to have access to a SCIF.

There is no possible argument that Hillary can raise of "retroactive" classification; that is, material that wasn't classified at the time she handed it, when it comes to the PDB since those are always classified.

That the FBI knew about this months ago, which is now a documented fact, and did not demand that Hillary be charged with myriad federal offenses related to said intentional and knowing conduct that threatened our national security is an outrage.

. . .

It does not matter what James Comey says; we are supposed to be a nation of laws and our Constitutional Republican form of government demands nothing less.  When you declare a willingness to allow someone to violate the law with impunity you, and everyone who allows you in that position of authority to do so stand with them and in direct opposition to the Constitution of the United States.

Again, more at the link.  Mr. Denninger goes so far as to headline his article, 'This Is A Federal Crime. LOCK HER UP AND THE FBI WITH HER.'

I think any reasonable person will agree that Mr. Comey has signally failed in his responsibilities towards the people of the United States.  What's more, he has to be choosing his words very carefully indeed, due to the immense political pressure undoubtedly being exerted on him right now.  If we read between the lines of his latest letter, what can we glean from what he is not saying?  I think there's quite a lot.

For example, Mr. Comey's latest letter refers only to Hillary Clinton in her capacity as 'former Secretary of State' and her handling of classified e-mails.  That's only one of five separate investigations currently under way that involve her.  He says nothing about the FBI's 'very high priority' investigation into the Clinton Foundation;  or that into Anthony Weiner (which necessarily must involve his wife, Huma Abedin, Hillary's closest aide);  into alleged corruption involving the Clinton Foundation;  and into whether Virginia governor (and Clinton confidante) Terry McAuliffe, and Tony Podesta, brother of John Podesta (former head of the Clinton Foundation), broke laws concerning foreign donations.  (It was recently revealed that McAuliffe's PAC helped to secure donations totalling well over half a million dollars to the political campaign of the wife of the FBI official responsible for investigating the Clinton e-mail scandal.)

When you look at everything that's alleged, or already proven, to be involved in all of the above-mentioned investigations (you'll find more details at the links provided), it becomes incontrovertibly clear that Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and the Clinton Foundation are among the most corrupt operations ever to have disgraced the US body politic.  The bosses of the notorious Tammany Hall look like rank amateurs in comparison to the Clintons!  Notably, Mr. Comey says nothing whatsoever in his latest letter concerning any of those investigations.  He confines himself to only one aspect of the FBI's ongoing interest in the Clintons.  I think we can deduce a great deal from what he is not saying.  Surely, if he had been able to exonerate the Clintons from any blame or liability in those other investigations, he'd have done so?  Yet . . . he did not.

I think Mr. Comey knows (but cannot say) that Hillary Clinton, her husband, and all their closest operatives and colleagues, are guilty as sin.  I think he may be trying to point that out in the only way left open to him:  by what he is very carefully, very publicly, not saying.  We know all the active investigations the FBI currently has going on concerning them . . . investigations that were very carefully not referenced in today's letter.  I daresay we can draw our own conclusions from that.

I wish the law enforcement establishment in this country had acted with greater courage, honesty and integrity over the Clinton investigations.  So far, they have not.  It may be that by the time they're willing to do so, it will be too late, and Hillary Clinton will be the President-elect.

One can only hope and pray that we are spared that catastrophe, and that the electorate of the United States will select someone who, despite any number of personal failings and shortcomings, can at least be trusted not to sell this country down the river of her infinite corruption.

We have Wikileaks to thank for providing abundant evidence of that corruption.  One can only hope that Wikileaks will continue to do the FBI's job for it, and show the American public how and why Hillary Clinton is so completely, totally, catastrophically untrustworthy.  (It's telling that the Clinton campaign is already trying to discredit, in advance, any last-minute Wikileaks revelations.)

One can also hope that loyal agents, who are faithful to their oath of office (an oath I also swore), and who are frustrated beyond measure at the political co-option of their agency(ies) by the establishment, will make more information available to the voting public through whatever means are at their disposal, whether or not their agency(ies) approve of that.

Finally, I hope and pray very sincerely that all these things happen in the very short term, and that every available source of information will disseminate them speedily, so that voters can take them into account when casting their ballots on Tuesday.

Peter

Daylight saving time - Stonehenge edition

This made me laugh.  Thanks to the multiple readers who sent me the link.  Click the image for a larger view.

According to the comments on Twitter, the photograph was taken at Avebury rather than the more familiar Stonehenge, but what's a stone circle between friends?




Peter

The perils of a wandering eye

Shakespeare may be spinning in his grave . . . probably because he's rolling with laughter?  The Telegraph reports:

... a recent performance of Shakespeare's King Lear accidentally descended into pantomime after a fake eyeball hit an audience member in the face before landing in her ice cream.

The Old Vic production ... includes a graphic scene where Gloucester, played by Karl Johnson, has his eyes gouged out as a punishment for helping the king escape.

But instead of screaming in horror, some of the crowd were left suppressing laughter as the stray eyeball ended up plopping into a dessert.

After watching the play, audience member Honour Bayes tweeted: "Two seismic things happened tonight - I saw Glenda Jackson's King Lear and got hit in the face by Gloucester's second eye ball".

When asked if she had kept the prop as a souvenir, she added: "I wanted to but after it bounced off my face it fell into my ice cream & as that melted it consumed it - which feels rather apt!"

There's more at the link.

I've heard of (and sampled) many different toppings for ice cream . . . but a fake eyeball has to be one of the weirdest!  (Unless, of course, "the eyes have it"?)




Peter

Seduction by longboat?

I'm amused by the latest theory about the Vikings.

When the Vikings landed at the holy island of Lindisfarne in 793AD it marked the beginning of hundreds of years of terrifying raids, which would earn the Norsemen a fearsome reputation as murderers and pillagers throughout Europe.

But the reason why groups took to the seas in the first place continues to divide historians, with some blaming over-population in Scandinavia, while others seeing it as a preemptive strike against the seemingly unstoppable march of Christianity.

Now a new theory suggests that the Vikings actually had matters of the heart on their minds.

Dr Mark Collard ... believes that changes in society had led to a desperate shortage of marriage partners.

The growth of polygamy and social inequality in the Late Iron Age meant that richer men took many wives, or concubines, causing an in-balance in the male-female sex ratio.

Suddenly young poor men had little chance of securing a wife unless they became rich and well-known quickly, says Prof Collard. And raiding was a shortcut to heroism and treasure, he believes.

. . .

“So raiding was away to build up wealth and power. Men could gain a place in society, and the chance for wives if they took part in raids and proved their masculinity and came back wealthy.”

There's more at the link.

That theory would make Led Zeppelin's 'Immigrant Song' into a love ballad rather than a paean of conquest.  Sorry, I don't buy it.

I think this theory stems largely from our own sex-obsessed culture, where everything is seen through the 'filter' of men and women and the ways in which they come together.  I accept that sex is a driving force in human relationships, but it's not enough, in and of itself, to form and sustain a warlike culture like that of the Vikings.  After all, they traded far into what is today Ukraine and Russia, and formed the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine emperors, and reached Iceland, Greenland and North America, as well as raiding Ireland and Britain. That sort of expansion and outreach can't possibly have been primarily driven by the need for women, wives and wealth.  (Besides, in Iceland and Greenland they'd only have found seals, and I doubt they would have made suitable mates!)

Still, it's entirely possible that such drives were one of the elements that led to the Viking expansion - just not the dominating factor that Prof. Collard suggests, IMHO.

Peter

Why they don't make jokes about Hillary Clinton

Achmed the Dead Terrorist and his buddies enlighten us.

Uh-huh.

Peter

Anonymous' first release of Clinton scandal links

As promised yesterday, Anonymous has released the first part of its link-o-rama concerning various Clinton scandals.  You'll find it here.

It seems to be a bit of a damp squib, with no new information provided.  However, Anonymous notes:

***THIS IS NOT THE ENTIRE THING***

Multiple parts will be posted.

Part II is expected later today or tomorrow.

I've seen no mention of this release in the mainstream media so far.  On the other hand, there have been so many rumors and outright fabrications that they may regard this as more of the same, unless some spectacular new evidence emerges.  I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Peter

So much for those "peaceful" protesters

I'm sure most of my readers are aware of demonstrations in South Dakota against a proposed oil pipeline.  It seems that some of the protesters aren't as 'peaceful' as they make themselves out to be.

As a journalist, I decided it was time for some tough questions. Most of the protesters were from out of state. So how did they square the circle of using vehicles driven by oil to protest an oil pipeline? Their tents were also made of plastic — an oil-based product. Was that not hypocritical, I asked? Some denied this, others complained capitalism made them do it, and others just walked away.

But by the fourth interview the mood turned.

A young man claiming to be “security” came up and grabbed my microphone. I wouldn’t let go. He dragged me across the field — just for asking questions.

But worse was to follow, as my crew and I fled to our car.

When we tried to drive off, we were surrounded by cars and people. Two trucks blocked our way forward, and another pulled up tight behind. We couldn’t move. These weren’t grandmothers burning sage. They were angry, young masked men banging on the windows — threatening to slash our tires, demanding we exit the vehicle. Some warned that if we didn’t get out and hand over our footage then “we can’t control what’s gonna happen next.”

As we tried to call the police, they warned that the cops wouldn’t come onto the campsite — they hadn’t yet after two months of protests. I’m an Irish nationalist who grew up under British rule in Ireland, but according to those attacking my car I was “part of the problem with my settler mentality.”

Then they started shaking the car. That was when it became really scary. We were in the middle of North Dakota with very poor cellphone service and trying to call 911 was proving difficult.

Eventually, the police arrived. Speaking afterwards at a press conference the police lieutenant explained there were just a dozen police against up to 40 attackers. A SWAT team had been alerted, but they were still on their way.

Finally, after six requests on a police loudspeaker and warnings they would be charged with kidnapping, the protesters removed the vehicles blocking our path, opened the gates and allowed us to leave.

Don’t listen to reports that this is some kind of touchy-feely sage-sniffing lovefest. These were thugs who hated journalists asking tough questions.

There's more at the link.

This is the same thing we're seeing with 'Black Lives Matter' protests.  The professionals are taking over, using any and every grievance they can get their hands on and turning it into a far-left-wing, ultra-progressive, Marxist/Leninist/Maoist onslaught against the roots of the society in which we live.  Their version of 'peace' is that everyone agrees with them.  If you don't, if you ask awkward questions and try to bring facts into the discussion, then they become a whole lot less peaceful.

I'd like to see them try that in this part of the world.  (One of them did, some years ago, and ran into Lawdog.  He learned the hard way that things are different here.)




Peter

I'd say they're lucky to be alive

Here's some interesting footage from Syria.  According to this report from Al-Masdar News:

Dramatic footage emerged on Friday of a Russian search-and-rescue mission conducted near Palmyra which saved the lives of two Russian pilots who found their aircraft downed by technical failure and subsequently struck by an ISIS missile.

The Russian Ministry of Defence said all Russian military personnel survived the incident and landed safely at the Khmeimim Airbase in Latakia just hours later.

The incident took place near Huwaysis, a village in eastern Homs located on the frontline between the Syrian Arab Army and ISIS.

There's more at the link.  Here's the video.  Watch it in full-screen mode for best results.

Both helicopters appear to be Mil Mi-24's or Mi-35's (the latter an export version of the Mi-24).  From the sounds on the video, I'd say ISIS used an anti-tank guided missile, or perhaps even an unguided rocket like the Russian RPG series, to hit the helicopter once it was down.

I reckon the crew of the helicopter that was forced down were very, very lucky to have another friendly aircraft close enough to pick them up, before ISIS got its hands on them!

Peter

This should set the political cat among the electoral pigeons!

If Anonymous' claims are correct (and, considering what they've accomplished in the past, there's good reason to take them seriously), this is going to throw a tactical nuclear warhead into the 2016 Presidential election.  You'll find their document here.  In part, it reads:

Until this month, WikiLeaks and Anonymous have worked together in building an efficient, detailed, comprehensive set of documents that would be responsible for the incarceration of Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and 21 individuals ranging from the DNC, FBI, CIA, and Clinton foundation. These documents will show without a doubt, evidence of Treason, Obstruction of Justice, Election Fraud/Manipulation, and Bribery.

This was intended to be the October surprise. But before the release of these documents, we were contacted by a member of the FBI, as well as another from the CIA, and a week later by the NYPD. All with information retaining to something much darker than even we imagined.

Due to the nature of these leaks, we all worked together as efficiently as possible to ensure two objectives.

• That all necessary information would be given to the public in an organized, searchable, manageable way.

• Those who provided us with this information would be able to find safety before these releases were made. (This concern wasn't without warrant.)

The new leaks being released this week will provide documents in the form of emails, pictures, and videos. Within these will be evidence of Bill Clinton, as well as at least 6 other Government officials, taking part in sexual acts with minors. As well as evidence of Human trafficking that also included minors.

We believe these pictures and videos were taken for the purpose of political manipulation. In order to make sure all participants followed through on a previously agreed agenda.

These documents were given to us by an American Government official when he had come to learn that this crime had been covered up by Hilary and her staff through methods including bribery and blackmail. He also told us that due to the restricted access to these documents, they would soon know he was the one who released him to us.

We tried to make arrangements for him to exit the country safely, but he was killed before those arrangements could be carried out. We are still not sure if this is because they became aware of the leak, or if they were scared that he may in the future. In either case, his identity will be made public in this next set of leaks so that he can be honored for the hero that he was.

We will not only be releasing these documents, but we have multiple members of the FBI, CIA, and NYPD who will be publicly verifying their authenticity once their safety is assured.

This hack has not come from Russia or anyone else they may try to blame this on. This is a leak from Americas own Government Officials who fear for their safety had the opposed them directly due to reasons that will be made clear soon.

There's more at the link.

Pass the popcorn, folks!  (A tip o' the hat to Vox, on whose blog I found this.)

Peter

EDITED TO ADD:  And this appears to be the first link-dump.  Part 2 is supposed to be posted soon.

Some amazing developments in 3D printing

We've discussed additive manufacturing, or 3D printing, in these pages on several occasions, most recently last month.  I've since come across two reports illustrating the profound impact this technology is having.

First, GE says that 3D printing has revolutionized the development of a new aircraft turbine engine, which will be used to power the new Cessna Denali light aircraft.

More than one-third of the advanced turboprop engine under development by GE Aviation will be manufactured using 3D printers, the company says.

. . .

As the ATP entered the design phase, GE engineers were testing an “additive demonstrator” of the CT7, the turboshaft engine from which the ATP is derived. The results achieved by the small team of eight engineers stunned chief engineer Mohammed Ehteshami. More than 900 non-rotating engine parts were reduced to just 16, resulting in a 35% weight reduction for the overall engine.

The results were so impressive that GE decided to halt the six-month-old design process, allowing engineers to insert a variety of 3D printed metallic parts.

When the ATP design re-appeared, 35% of the metal parts were intended to be 3D printed. Ehteshami says 855 parts were replaced with 12 made additively, including frames, combustor liners, sumps, exhaust case, bearing housings, stationary components in the flowpath, and heat exchangers.

The changes reduced the overall weight by 5% and improved specific fuel consumption by 1% compared with the original design, he adds.

There's more at the link.

That's pretty amazing from an engineering point of view.  As a general principle, the fewer parts (particularly moving parts), the greater the reliability;  so cutting out so many parts can only be a good thing for owners and users.

The second report concerns additive printing of a facial prosthetic.

Carlito Conceiao, of Sao Paulo, Brazil, was diagnosed with upper maxillary carcinoma in 2008, an aggressive mouth cancer that damaged his throat and destroyed facial tissue. Doctors operated before it spread to his brain but the life-saving surgery left a giant hole in his face.

In order to get rid of the tumor, doctors had to remove Conceiao’s right eye socket and part of his nose.

Dr. Rodrigo Salazar, a Peruvian dentist and specialist in oral rehabilitation, worked on the project for two years. He used a free app, Autodesk 123D Catch, which converts pictures into 3D models, to take 15 photos of Conceiao’s head on his smartphone. After uploading the pictures, he converted them into a virtual model and used a low-cost printer to create the new mold.

The mold was used to create Conceiao’s new prosthesis, which clinical artists volunteered to hand-finish to make it look more natural.

Again, more at the link, including many more photographs. Highly recommended reading for anyone interested in new developments in medicine.

In both cases, it's only the availability of additive manufacturing that allowed such advances.  Who knows where this technology will lead to next, and in what area of science, technology, engineering or medicine?  It seems to advance almost every field in which it's tried.  It may turn out to have an impact similar to the transistor or the microprocessor, by the time we look back at it in fifty years or so.

Peter

A free book for your reading pleasure

Fellow blogger and friend in meatspace and cyberspace, DaddyBear (otherwise known as Tom Rogneby) is about to publish no less than three new novels in his Minivandian series - not all at once, of course!  To whet the appetite of those who haven't read the first volume, 'Tales of the Minivandians', he's offering the Kindle edition free until Sunday.

It was Tom's first published book.  It's a fun read, and I think you'll enjoy it.  When it's free as well, what's not to like?

Peter

No s***, Sherlock!!!

From the late, great Terry Pratchett, courtesy of The Lonely Libertarian:

So what's the morel of the story?




Peter

By the sweat of her . . . brow?

It seems that a Chinese lady (?) has a novel method of buying a house.  The BBC reports:

Given what a the challenge it can be to get on the property ladder in the country, it's probably no surprise that Chinese social media was buzzing with one particular property story last week.

. . .

Xiaoli, a woman from the city of Shenzhen in southern China, asked each of her 20 current boyfriends to buy her a newly launched iPhone 7. She then sold all of the phones to a mobile phone recycling site called Hui Shou Bao for 120,000 Chinese yuan [about US $17,750], and used the money to put down a deposit on a house in the countryside.

Proud Qiaoba wrote in the blog post that when Xiaoli showed her new house to their group of friends, they were all very surprised when she revealed how she had managed to obtain the money for the deposit.

"Everyone in the office is talking about this now," wrote Proud Qiaoba, "Who knows what her boyfriends think now this news has become public."

. . .

Many social media users, like 'small sand is growing', have expressed admiration for Xiaoli.

"I can't even find one boyfriend. She can actually find 20 boyfriends at the same time and even get them to buy her an iPhone 7. Just want to ask her to teach me such skills."

There's more at the link.

Sounds like an enterprising young lady, with tender (or should that be Tinder?) sensibilities.  If she can find the stamina (and the timekeeping skills) to keep no less than twenty boyfriends happy, to the point that they're willing to buy her such expensive gifts, she's clearly got an (or should that be their?) entrepreneurial bent, too!




Peter

How can you trust police if they have criminal records themselves?

The Obama administration is trying to pressure law enforcement agencies to hire officers with criminal records, all in the name of 'community relations'.  Judicial Watch reports:

In a push to hire minority police officers, the Obama administration is asking the nation’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies to forgive drug use, disregard the criminal records of candidates from “underrepresented communities” and lower standards on written and physical exams. It’s part of the administration’s Advancing Diversity in Law Enforcement initiative following a string of officer-involved shootings involving African Americans. Key to the mission is the racial diversification of local law enforcement agencies so that they “better reflect the diversity of the communities they serve.”

To accomplish this, several barriers must be removed ... To eliminate the largest barriers agencies are adopting a “holistic view” of applicants’ skills and strengths by, among other things, ignoring their criminal record.

. . .

To further discourage law enforcement agencies from eliminating candidates with criminal pasts, the report states that “an employer’s use of criminal background information can violate either the intentional or disparate impact provisions of Title VII, depending on how that information is used.” This refers to the section of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The argument here is that a disproportionate number of minorities will be eliminated by criminal background checks. The administration concedes that legal challenges claiming that criminal background check policies have unlawful disparate impacts “have generally not been successful in court.” Credit history checks and psychological evaluations also present “discriminatory employment barriers to women and racial minority applicants,” the report states.

. . .

Besides discounting criminal records and drug use, the administration wants law enforcement agencies to lower standards on written tests because they have “been shown to have an adverse impact on racial minority candidates.”

There's more at the link.

Having worked in a support role in law enforcement for several years, I would agree that there is discrimination in hiring in a number of law enforcement agencies around the country - but it's not what the Administration seems to think.  Rather, it's mostly reverse discrimination, in that unqualified and under-performing minority candidates for promotion are very often promoted ahead of their more deserving peers, in the name of 'undoing historical discrimination' or something like that.  There have been a number of lawsuits about it (such as this one, for example).  Political correctness appears to outweigh basic fairness and equity, all too often.

There's also the issue of public trust in law enforcement agencies and officers.  I have serious misgivings about some of them, as we've seen in these pages in the past.  Nevertheless, I accept that most of the officers I encounter are likely to be honest men and women, who are trying to enforce the law and maintain public order.  However, if some of those officers are going to be given a badge despite their criminal records, how will I know which of them I can trust?  I certainly won't trust a convicted felon to be a good cop.  That's not racist - that's common sense!

This is where the Peelian Principles of policing run head-on into the dichotomy of modern society.  The seventh Principle reads as follows:

To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

How can that be possible for an officer who is also a convicted felon?  In certain inner-city neighborhoods, where the majority of residents have participated in criminal activity to at least some extent and many have been convicted for it, such an officer may, indeed, have more 'street credibility' than one without such a background.  However, the automatic expectation of his former criminal peers will be that he turn a blind eye to their ongoing crimes.  If he doesn't, he'll be regarded as a 'snitch' and dealt with accordingly, regardless of the badge he wears.  Neither he nor his 'homies' are likely to be interested in "duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."  That's not what the hood is all about.  Furthermore, once out of the hood, anyone from that background is going to be regarded with intense suspicion by those who do try to observe and fulfil such duties.  That has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the reality of basic security considerations.  Criminals may try to change their ways, but very few of them succeed.

I don't think these proposals stem from any great interest in law enforcement as such.  I think they're motivated by political correctness, and an inherently left-wing, progressive dislike for and distrust of law enforcement agencies.  I think they'll be disastrous for law and order if they're implemented.

Peter

Quote of the day

Seen on Gab:

GROOOOAAAAANNNN!

(But I still wish I'd thought of it first . . . )




Peter

Follow the money - or, at least, the costs

Fox Business points out the obvious.

Americans are leaving the costliest metro areas for more affordable parts of the country at a faster rate than they are being replaced, according to an analysis of census data, reflecting the impact of housing costs on domestic migration patterns.

Those mostly likely to move from expensive to inexpensive metro areas were at the lower end of the income scale, under the age of 40 and without a bachelor's degree, the analysis by home-tracker Trulia found.

Looking at census migration patterns across the U.S. from 2010 to 2014, Trulia analyzed movement between the 10 most expensive metro areas -- including all of coastal California, New York City and Miami -- and the next 90 priciest metro areas, based on the percentage of income needed to pay a monthly mortgage on a typical home.

The net population flows skewed away from the most expensive markets ... The census data don't specify why a person moves, said Ralph McLaughlin, Trulia's chief economist, but the disproportionate impact on lower-income people suggests housing costs are a pressure point.

. . .

An April report from Trulia researcher Mark Uh found that lower-income households represent a larger share of those moving away from the most expensive markets than their overall population in those markets. For example, those earning less than $60,000 a year make up 27.4% of all households in the San Jose metro area, but they represent nearly half of all households moving away.

Another study this year from California policy group Next 10 and Beacon Economics found that New York state and California had the largest net losses of domestic migrants between 2007 and 2014, and that lower- and middle-income people were more likely to leave.

There's more at the link.

I know this is happening from personal experience, and the experience of my friends and acquaintances.  When Miss D. and I decided, last year, that we wanted to buy our own place and make it a home, rather than just a rented residence, we considered several options.  Moving closer to good friends was one part of our decision to relocate to Texas, but that didn't predicate us living in the town where we now reside.  We would have considered several other towns or cities, but the much lower housing costs here were decisive.  We got about twice the house for our money than we would have been able to buy in Nashville, TN, our previous home;  or, to put it another way, we paid half as much here as we would have there for a house that had almost everything we wanted and needed.

Several fellow writers, bloggers and others have bought new homes over the past year.  A sizable proportion of them have relocated to do so, to take advantage of lower housing costs.  At least two have commented to me that even though they could have earned significantly higher salaries by staying in their former area, the saving in housing costs and other living expenses more than justified accepting a lower salary in order to relocate.

I still maintain the economy's in serious trouble.  The cost of housing is yet another indicator that we're far from out of the woods yet.

Peter

Police in popular US 'entertainment culture'

If you've ever wondered how we arrived at today's widespread demonization of police as being universally racist, sexist, murdering so-and-so's (which is clearly nonsense;  there are certainly some bad apples in the barrel, but by no means all), a five-part series in the Washington Post provides some interesting perspectives.  The series logo is itself intriguing:

The five articles are:

1. How police censorship shaped Hollywood
2. How pop culture’s cops turned on their communities
3. In pop culture, there are no bad police shootings
4. The drug war’s most enthusiastic recruit: Hollywood
5. Blue lives: Pop culture’s minority cops

Click on each title to be taken to the article concerned.  Here's an excerpt from the first one to whet your appetite.

The police story is one of the elemental dramas of American popular culture, the place we face down whatever crimes frighten us most in a given era and grapple with what we want from the cops who are supposed to stop those crimes. “Dragnet’s” Joe Friday bolstered public faith in law and order in the ’50s. “Dirty Harry” Callahan stoked terror and rage about the violent crime wave that began in the ’60s. And John McClane of “Die Hard” awed audiences when he singlehandedly saved a whole office tower from ruthless criminals in the 1980s.

If these were only fantasies, they would still be powerful. But the ideas that popular culture embeds in the public consciousness about policing remain after the story is over. This five-part series examines the evolving relationship between police officers and the communities they are supposed to serve; the way Hollywood shapes our expectations for shootings by police; the entertainment industry’s embrace of a more violent style of policing during the drug war; and the changing composition of police forces in an increasingly diverse society.

Because it is not possible to understand the stories Hollywood tells about the police without looking back at the industry’s own vexed relationship with the law, this series begins by exploring how police pressure, government regulation and censorship helped mold pop culture’s stories about the police.

This is not a straightforward story about how police departments are bad and Hollywood is good, or vice versa. Nor is it a simple morality tale about how creative freedom made it possible for a liberal industry to critique a conservative profession. ... driven by the need for drama and excitement, Hollywood used genres such as action movies and reality shows to glamorize the very ideas about policing that have generated such division in the United States today.

There's more at the link.

This series is particularly interesting for artists, writers and others in the creative professions.  Amongst other projects, I'm working on a novel involving detective and police work (albeit set in the distant future), and I found a lot of food for thought in these articles.  In particular, I had to figure out how many of my own portrayals of police and their work were 'acculturated' to what Hollywood has put out there, rather than the facts and day-to-day humdrum reality of actual law enforcement operations (of which I have some experience in the corrections sphere).  They've certainly helped me to re-evaluate my approach.

Recommended reading.

Peter

If you build it, they will come . . .

. . . although that old saying may be a little near the bone in this case.

A trio of French students has invented boxer shorts that protect testicles from over 99 percent of the rays from smartphones.

"Duoo Hopeful" offers men's boxer shorts that are scientifically proven to keep almost all the phone rays away from the testicles.

And while it's unproven that the electromagnetic fields from mobile phones are dangerous (the International Agency for Research on Cancer says they're "possibly carcinogenic"), these French inventors argue that there's no point risking it.

"We got the idea in school when we saw a study about how electromagnetic waves from smartphones are a danger for men's fertility rates," Antoine Serouille, one of the three inventors, told The Local.

"So we thought about creating a special pocket for a phone, but that just cut out the connectivity, so we switch to protective underwear instead.

"We wanted people to be connected and protected at all times."

. . .

The young entrepreneurs have secured €300,000 in investment through crowd-funding and are producing another 11,000 pairs of the underwear.

There's more at the link.

I think a lot of people, male and female, would agree that underwear can get in the way of connectivity . . . but I don't think they'd mean it quite like this!




Peter

Headline of the day

Sometimes the jokes just write themselves . . .

Australian rescued after weeks in Malaysian jungle had set out to find himself

Unfortunately, he had to rely on others to find him.  A psychological navigation error, perhaps?

(I'm reminded of the classic quip:  "They cured my schizophrenia, but where am I now when I need me?")




Peter

New perspectives on Trump's e-mail server, Comey's bombshell, and Weinergate

It turns out that the Russia-linked e-mail server isn't part of Trump's campaign at all.  Borepatch (who's a computer security professional, BTW) notes:

This is a detailed breakdown of what is known about the server, and it puts an end to any (technically accurate) description of this as a "secret server".  It's a marketing server, for email promotions (i.e. Spam).  Now you may not like Spam, but that's part of the Internet that we live with, and a normal business practice for, well, businesses (like Trump's).

What is interesting is the way you have to do a Clintonian parsing of the allegations and the "confirmation by security experts" ... I'm shocked - shocked! - to find the Clinton campaign and the Press (redundancy alert!) providing sneaky 'we didn't quite lie' stories to smear an opponent.  Who'd have believed it from that group of people?

There's more at the link.  Interesting reading for computer buffs.

One of Borepatch's buddies, a lawyer who knows whereof he speaks, also has some very interesting insights into Comey's letter to Congress last week.  For example:

So, in a fit of irony, Hillary now is crying for full disclosure.  She claims [she] wants Comey to publish the new emails.  Of course, the latest reports are that Clinton hack Loretta Lynch will not allow a warrant to issue as Comey requested, so he certainly cannot publish the emails.  In fact, I believe that is why Comey wrote to congress.  His people doing the Weiner investigation saw enough that it was obvious there was strong evidence that contravened the FBI's prior conclusion in the Clinton email/sever investigation.  They brought it to Comey and he followed protocol by going to Justice to get a warrant to review everything on the laptop. And Lynch would not give it to him.  He was so appalled at the obvious contravention of the rule of law by Lynch for political ends that he did the only thing he could and wrote the letter to Congress in order to let some sunlight disinfect the rot.  The action follows a long line of instances where public servants went public instead of letting people in power block the truth from coming out.

And by the way, there is one way other than having Justice get a warrant to allow the emails to be published.  That would be if their owner, Huma Abedin, allowed it.  Instead of demanding that Comey release the information that Clinton lackey Lynch is blocking, why doesn't Clinton ask her good buddy Huma to release them.  Heck, since they apparently had all kinds of confidential info on them so maybe publication isn't a good idea, she could merely consent to the FBI's review.  Then Lynch's block of the warrant would be irrelevant.

Again, more at the link - and very interesting it is, too.

Finally, the inimitable Mark Steyn has his own unique perspective on what I suppose we'll have to call Weinergate.

Happy Halloweiner, the night when Anthony Weiner's undead penis rises from its grave to bite Hillary's campaign. The stroking dead is apparently impervious to silver bullets or garlic, and unlike vampires it does show up in photographs, on cell phones across the globe.

More at the link.  *Gigglesnort!*

Peter

Mad Mike's new book is out!

Mad Mike (known as Michael Z. Williamson to his more formal admirers, and Crazy Einar [and other things] to less formal fans) is a prolific and very popular author, whose books we've encountered in these pages from time to time.  At his invitation, I've contributed a short story to a forthcoming collection that ranges over a couple of thousand years, set on Earth and in space, as part of his 'Freehold' universe.  Miss D. and I are very pleased to number him among our friends.  We've visited his home, and he's stayed in ours.

Mike's latest book, 'Angeleyes', also set in the Freehold universe, is published today.

The blurb reads:

Angie Kaneshiro never planned to be a spy. She was a veteran of the Freehold Forces of Grainne, and was now a tramp freighter crew-woman who hadn’t set foot on the dirt of a world in ten years. Angie was free, and that was the way she liked it.

Then the war with Earth started. One thing Angie knew was human space. She knew where the UN troops garrisoned, the methods they used to scan and chip their own to control them. Even better, she had a mental map of the access conduits, the dive bars, and the make-out cubbies people used to get around restrictions.

The UN forces may hold most of the stations, the docks, and the jump points, but now the Freehold of Grainne has its own lethal weapon. The Intelligence branch sends a freighter crewed with Blazers, special forces troops. All Angie has to do is lead them through the holes. Responsibility for the explosions and wreckage will be theirs. But war is complicated, and even the most unwilling of heroes can be forged in its crucible.

Mike has an uncanny ability to make you feel part of the action, to see it through the eyes of his protagonist.  I've already ordered my copy of 'Angeleyes', but I don't need to read it before recommending it (as I do all his books).  I'll buy anything he writes, sight unseen.  He's that good.

Peter

"If the facts are against you..."

There's an old maxim among lawyers.  It's probably been around for generations.  I've heard several different versions of it, but the one that's stuck in my mind (from witnessing legal proceedings where it was employed, loudly and vociferously, by defendants' counsel) is this:

• If the facts are against you, argue the law.
• If the law is against you, argue the facts.
• If the facts and the law are against you, attack the character of the witness.

We're seeing precisely that approach play out now in Hillary Clinton's campaign.  Desperate to deflect attention from the renewed investigation into her e-mail shenanigans, she knows she doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the investigation.  She's openly admitted that she was wrong to use a private e-mail server, in defiance of all relevant laws and regulations;  and the ongoing Wikileaks revelations are making the case against her even stronger.  In response, she's "attacking the character of the witness" - or, in this case, her opponent, Donald Trump.

Of course, Mr. Trump has enough skeletons in his own closet that he's eminently 'attackable' in that way.  Morally and ethically speaking, as an individual, there's probably not that much to choose between him and Hillary Clinton.  However, what can be distinguished between them is that he hasn't abused elected office and official powers for his own benefit.  He's used the laws to his advantage wherever possible, just as any entrepreneur or corporation will do - but that's not criminal.  He's certainly never operated a blatantly 'pay-for-play' scheme right out of the Secretary of State's office!

There appear to be two prongs to the Clinton campaign's latest attacks.  The first is to challenge Mr. Trump's tax avoidance methods, portraying them as shady or even outright dishonest.  However, even the New York Times, as staunch a Trump opponent as one could wish, had to admit in its latest muck-racking article about his taxes:

It is unclear who first glimpsed a way for Mr. Trump to dodge a huge tax bill. But the basic maneuver he used was essentially a new twist on a contentious strategy [that] corporations had been using for years to avoid taxes created by canceled debt.

There's more at the link.  Underlined text is my emphasis.

The NYT went on to call Mr. Trump's tax avoidance strategy "legally dubious", and cast all sorts of aspersions about it:  but the fact remains that the IRS accepted it, and did not reject Mr. Trump's arguments, then or later (although the law was later changed to stop further tax avoidance maneuvers of that kind).  As far as the authorities were concerned, he was in the clear.  Insinuations of shady tax tactics are therefore merely attempts to smear Mr. Trump's name and reputation.

(It's like Apple refusing to repatriate over $200 billion that it's holding in cash, overseas.  If it did, that money would be liable to US taxation.  Keeping it out of the IRS's hands isn't criminal, although it may be morally and/or ethically questionable for a US corporation like Apple to do so.  The law allows it to use that 'escape clause', so it's doing so, just like many other Fortune 500 companies, which are keeping more than $2 trillion as far away from the US taxman as they can.  Since the IRS can't tax that money, other US taxpayers [namely, you and I] have to pay higher taxes instead - hence the conundrum.  I, and many others, find this immoral and unethical;  but it's not illegal.  Apple and other big companies can [and do] make large donations to the 're-election campaigns' of our politicians . . . so guess who they favor when it comes to tax legislation?)

The second avenue of attack is to insinuate that Mr. Trump is somehow in bed with Russian interests, from President Putin, to oligarchs, to the Russian Mafia.  Again, this is on very shaky ground as far as the facts are concerned.  From another New York Times article:

Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

. . .

Intelligence officials have said in interviews over the last six weeks that apparent connections between some of Mr. Trump’s aides and Moscow originally compelled them to open a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Republican presidential candidate. Still, they have said that Mr. Trump himself has not become a target. And no evidence has emerged that would link him or anyone else in his business or political circle directly to Russia’s election operations.

Again, more at the link.  Note how despite all its muckraking and insinuations of immoral, unethical and illegal shenanigans, the NYT is forced to acknowledge that there is no direct evidence whatsoever supporting its rumor-mongering.

I love the approach of SF novelist Robert A. Heinlein to this sort of thing.  As he had one of his prime characters, Lazarus Long, point out:

"What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!"

In politics as in everything else, I couldn't agree more.  As we draw near to election day, and the campaigns ratchet up their rhetoric for the final stretch, keep that firmly in mind.  Never mind what the allegations are, never mind the insinuations, never mind the insults . . . what are the facts?  If there are no hard, demonstrable, independently verifiable facts to back up the rumor-mongering, ignore it.  They're lying.

Peter