Bumblers: the story changes…again

The New Neo Posted on by

Early reports that the Boston bombs were set off by cell phones turn out to have been mistaken, and they are now thought to have been triggered by “line of sight” controllers from remote control cars.

Why might that be important? Well, this does not conform to the type of mechanism described in the article in “Inspire” that was widely thought to have been their online instruction manual.

Many other mysteries persist. For example, to whom was Tamerlane talking on his cell phone a few seconds before the blast? Unless I have the wrong idea about how cell phone records work, it seems to me that the authorities should already know the phone number (and approximate location?) of this person. Was it perhaps a third bomber? It’s possible, because no photos have surfaced that show either brother using a “line of sight” controller.

And what about the power of the explosives themselves? It would not have been easy for the Tsarnaevs to have obtained sufficient explosive material without help, a fair amount of money, and/or the ability to mill their own powder and a place to practice. All of these things point to the possibility of their having had assistance or at least confederates.

I’ve noticed that around the blogosphere there’s a fairly prevalent attitude that the Tsarnaev brothers were incompetent bumblers. Yes, they made quite a few errors after the bombings, errors that resulted in their capture. But they avoided making the biggest error of all (from their point of view, anyway): blowing themselves up before they even got to plant their deadly packages. They also avoided the second biggest error: making a dud bomb.

Doesn’t sound so very bumbling to me, by the usual standards. It puts me in mind of the first WTC bombing, which killed “only” six people and injured about a thousand, but in which the perps were considered almost comical by many people because of the way they were caught:

While combing through the rubble in the underground parking area, a bomb technician located some internal component fragments from the vehicle that delivered the bomb. A vehicle identification number (VIN), found on a piece from an axle, gave investigators crucial information that led them to a Ryder truck rental outlet in Jersey City. Investigators determined that the vehicle had been rented by Mohammad Salameh, one of Yousef’s co-conspirators. Salameh had reported the van stolen, and when he returned on March 4, 1993, to get his deposit back, authorities arrested him.

It sounds almost like a comedy routine, except there was nothing even remotely funny about the larger picture or about the 2001 re-do that was not bumbling at all. Quite a few people believe that had the 1993 bomb been placed slightly differently, the tower would have fallen back then (see this).

But those who have their reasons for trying to make us believe that we overreact to terrorism (i.e., the left) would like the narrative to be that most terrorists—except Bin Laden, whom the brave Obama killed—are idiots who are mostly good for a laugh, whether they manage to murder and maim people or not.

Audrey Ferguson has committed…

The New Neo Posted on by

…what I can only assume (and hope) is a rather unique form of Medicaid fraud—taking ambulances instead of cabs:

Investigators say Ferguson was faking illness, just to get a free ride to downtown Charleston.

Officials say just about every time she asked to be taken to a hospital.

“She’ll have a vague medical complaint, for instance abdominal pain,” said Dorchester County EMS Director Doug Warren. “She has medical complaints that are legitimate, and so until she’s been evaluated and determined not to be sick we have to assume she is.”

Soon medics saw a disturbing pattern and got suspicious.

Ferguson apparently never even went into the hospital to get treated.

Instead she told hospital officials she was okay and left.

So, why did it take over 100 rides and seven years for authorities to piece this together and arrest her? Surely there should have been a way to flag it:

According to the incident report, Ferguson said she didn’t have a car and this was the only way she had to get around and Medicaid paid for it anyway. It was part of her benefits.

And all of those ambulance trips taken by Ferguson?

Each one costs $425, plus mileage.

But it was part of her benefits.

Does Charleston not have a public transportation system, by the way? Seems to me it does. But no doubt it’s less convenient than an ambulance.

Election symmetry

The New Neo Posted on by

It turns out that in 2008 Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s names were placed on the Indiana presidential primary ballot through fraudulent petition signatures:

Former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic party Chairman Butch Morgan Jr. was found guilty of felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud and forgery, and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe was found guilty of felony forgery counts and falsely making a petition, after being accused of faking petitions that enabled Obama, then an Illinois Senator, to get on the presidential primary ballot for his first run for the White House…

[I]f revelations about any forgeries were raised during the election, the petitions could have been challenged during the contest. A candidate who did not qualify with enough legitimate signatures at the time, could have been bounced from the ballot.

The case raise questions about whether in 2008, then candidate Obama actually submitted enough legitimate signatures to have legally qualified for the primary ballot.

“I think had they been challenged successfully, he probably would not have been on the ballot,” Levco told Fox News.

The sad thing is that, at this point, there’s really nothing surprising about these revelations—and probably nothing unique, either.

But the thing that came to mind for me is symmetry. You may recall (because I never tire of talking about it) that Obama got his political start in 1995-1996 by disqualifying the petition signatures of his former political mentor, Alice Palmer, as well as everyone else challenging him on the primary ballot (see also this post of mine for more information; unfortunately the lengthy 2007 Chicago Tribune article that described it in detail has disappeared from the net). Seems to me back then Obama knew just how this stuff worked, and I have a hunch that he’s retained the information.

[ADDENDUM: Several readers have kindly supplied me with the URL that gives the new location of that old Trib article about what Obama did to Alice Palmer. Here it is.]

Myths about electric cars

The New Neo Posted on by

Chris Paine is pretty sanguine about the future of electric cars. In this WaPo article he lists 5 myths about them and explains why using them is easier and the outlook is better than people think.

I don’t have the tech knowledge to say whether he’s right or wrong (I’ll leave that up to those of you who do, because I’m curious to know). But I do think he’s left out a sixth myth. I am convinced that a certain not-insignificant percentage of people believe that electric cars don’t have any environmental effects at all—that they run on magic or they run on air, and that electricity comes out of the wall socket in some mystical process that doesn’t need to be considered in the equation.

This guy…

The New Neo Posted on by

…just noticed that Obama has a hubris problem?

And he thinks it’s only a second-term phenomenon? Where has he been, on planet Xenon?

Then again, maybe he’s just warning Obama that it’s getting more noticeable; even the riffraff can tell. Or maybe Obama’s habit of almost constantly treating the press with contempt has finally pissed them off. Especially since Obama is increasingly seen as losing the sequester battle.

Dzhokhar “cooperative”?

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m in agreement with Ace on this [emphasis in original];

Meanwhile, Powerline asks if there’s a cover-up in the administration messaging on all this. It’s a question that immediately struck me — remember when Gozar was still in the hospital and barely conscious and the administration put out the word he was “cooperative”?

Two things: How cooperative can you be when you’re sedated, and further, how do you know if someone is being cooperative (honest) or lying? Given that you have not yet had a chance to check any of his claims out?

For example, one of Gozar’s first claims, I believe, was “We acted alone.” Word goes out to the media: He’s “cooperating.”

Um, how do you know he’s cooperating before you’ve conducted a thorough investigation? How do you know that’s not just a cover story to protect the rest of the cell?

Is this not the most obvious question ever posed? Don’t people in terrorist cells typically lie about other members, yet uncaptured, who may or may not be in the cell?

Let’s just say that the Obama Administration has shown a strong preference for tidy narratives that avoid any Al Qaeda complications. They like neat little “Move on, nothing to see here” narratives, narratives which do not include any additional requirements of the Administration and thus nothing more to fail at.

They like easy solutions…But this administration really deserves no trust at all on its statements about terrorism. They’ve lied too many times, and always with the same motive: To spare themselves criticism or the demands of a public for action.

I was struck by that word “cooperative” as well, when I first read it. My thought was, “How naive are the authorities? Why would they believe a word this man said?”

One answer I came up with was that they are just that naive. Another is that they are putting out the information for a reason, and one possible reason is that they want the public to believe the story, as Ace says, in order to protect themselves in some way. Still another is that they want someone in particular to believe they are that naive—for example, a co-conspirator who will be put off his guard and step into some sort of trap.

I think it’s more likely to be either numbers one or two than number three, though.

Breaking news: Jonathan Chait still hates Bush, and thinks he’s a dummy-head

The New Neo Posted on by

Boy, is this article not news.

Jonathan Chait seems to be miffed at the recent surge of positive re-evaluation of the George Bush presidency, and of George Bush as a man. And why not? Chait went on record back in 2003 as one of the most virulent (and at least the most honest) of Bush-haters in an MSM loaded with them.

And lest you think that my saying he “hates” Bush is an exaggeration, I’m merely quoting Chait himself:

I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it. I think his policies rank him among the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I’m tempted to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too. I hate the inequitable way he has come to his economic and political achievements and his utter lack of humility (disguised behind transparently false modesty) at having done so. His favorite answer to the question of nepotism–“I inherited half my father’s friends and all his enemies”–conveys the laughable implication that his birth bestowed more disadvantage than advantage. He reminds me of a certain type I knew in high school–the kid who was given a fancy sports car for his sixteenth birthday and believed that he had somehow earned it. I hate the way he walks–shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks–blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudopopulist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing– a way to establish one’s social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.

And that’s just the first paragraph.

Nevertheless Chait is, of course, a fine example of a person eminently qualified to evaluate Bush’s legacy in a completely objective and reasoned manner.

Today

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve got an unusually busy day today. I plan to do some more extensive posting later in the day, but for now, I highly recommend this tale told by the Boston bombers’ carjacking victim.

It clears up quite a few mysteries, including how it could be that the bombers were so stupid as to both leave the car at once and provide the victim a golden opportunity to escape. Short answer: they didn’t. Actually, only one of them left the car, because a cash payment in the office was required in order to buy the gas, and the other remained in the vehicle with the victim but was distracted for just a brief moment. That was all the quick-thinking victim needed to make a getaway.

It’s extremely fortunate for all of us that he succeeded, and lived to tell his tale. For most of the hair-raising night, he certainly didn’t think he’d ever have a chance to do so.

Wonder why you’ve been reading so much about George W. Bush lately?

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s because the Bush Library is about to open. The dedication ceremony is today:

The bullhorn Bush used to address rescue workers in New York in September 2001, a twisted steel beam from the World Trade Center and the pistol Saddam Hussein carried when he was pulled from a spider hole in Iraq are among the artifacts on exhibit. A standard attraction at presidential museums ”” a replica of the Oval Office ”” also will be on display.

But two other presidential libraries within a few hours’ drive ”” Lyndon B. Johnson’s in Austin and George H.W. Bush’s in College Station ”” also have Oval Office reproductions, suggesting another challenge that the Bush center’s management could face: presidential library glut.

I’m not so keen on presidential libraries, although I did enjoy LBJ’s house in Austin. Mt. Vernon and FDR’s home at Hyde Park are wonderful, too, but the unsurpassed pearl of them all is Monticello.

I guess I’m not so big on the libraries; much prefer the homes. And I absolutely hated the MSM’s monument to its own wonderfulness, the Newseum.

Respect

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, call me ignorant, but until the other day I hadn’t realized that Otis Redding wrote Aretha Franklin’s anthem “Respect.”

And he sang it, too.

Differently…

…than she did:

Aretha’s version was a sister act, although I don’t know whether those are her sisters on the video:

Re-arranged by Arif Mardin and Franklin, the song was delivered from a female’s point of view and produced a gospel-styled version with Franklin using her gospel vocals over the lyrics. The call and response vocals were arranged by Aretha and her little sister Carolyn, who sung in the background on the song alongside her older sister Erma. Franklin added in the ad-lib, “R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me, R-E-S-P-E-C-T, take care, TCB”. In response her sisters shouted “sock it to me” repeatedly.

And when I read that I realized that I’ve written about Erma before, in another one of these “compare and contrast” posts of which I’m so very fond. “Piece of My Heart” was the topic. Here’s Erma, singing the original:

And then there’s Carolyn, my least favorite of the three Franklin sister singers. But she’s no slouch, either; the competition is rather steep:

But whoever the women are who sing backup in that Aretha “Respect” video, Franklin sisters or no, I have to say I very much admire their hip action. Fluid, understated by today’s standards, and all in all absolutely perfect (I call your attention most particularly to minute 1:10 and after).

Public on legal immigration: too much

The New Neo Posted on by

A majority says it should be reduced.

The poll was taken right after the capture of the Boston bomber—legal immigrant, and US citizen of less than a year’s duration. The first anniversary of his becoming a citizen will occur on September 11, 2013.

The results represent a spike:

A just-released Fox News poll finds 55 percent of voters think fewer legal immigrants should be accepted into the U.S. That’s up from 43 percent in 2010.

Quite a jump, isn’t it? My hunch is that the figure will go down again, at least somewhat, as the recency of the Boston bombing fades. And even if it doesn’t, don’t look to see legal immigration reduced, especially under this administration. The idea of fewer legal immigrants may be popular with the people, but it doesn’t seem to be all that popular with politicians of either party.

What hath codes wrought?

The New Neo Posted on by

A doctor describes how billing codes have changed the medical profession:

Hospitals’ reimbursements for their Medicare-patient treatments were based on another coding system: the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG). Each diagnostic code is assigned a specific monetary value, and the hospital is paid based on one or a combination of diagnostic codes used to describe the reason for a patient’s hospitalization. If, say, the diagnosis is pneumonia, then the hospital is given a flat amount for that diagnosis, regardless of the amount of equipment, staffing, and days used to treat a particular patient.

As a result, the hospital is incentivized to attach as many adjunct diagnostic codes as possible to try to increase the Medicare payday. It is common for hospital coders to contact the attending physicians and try to coax them into adding a few more diagnoses into the hospital record.

Medicare has used these two price-setting systems (RBRVS for doctors, DRG for hospitals) to maintain its price control system for more than 20 years. Doctors and their advocacy associations cooperated, trading their professional latitude for the lure of maintaining monopoly control of the ICD and CPT codes that determine their payday.

It goes on…and on. And expect a lot more of the same sort of gaming with Obamacare, only at an even more convoluted level.