No wonder the FBI dragged its feet on Clinton’s emails

The New Neo Posted on by

Two items.

The FBI was slow in examining the evidence that Hillary Clinton’s emails from her server, containing possibly classified material, were found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop:

The DOJ inspector general, Michael Horowitz, is reportedly looking at why McCabe neglected for at least three weeks to look at new emails related to the investigation that were found on former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y)’s laptop during the later months of the 2016 election.

Investigators want to know if McCabe or others at the FBI wanted to avoid coming up with results in that probe until after the 2016 election concluded, the Post reports.

Clinton supporters have long argued that the FBI’s late decision to reopen the former secretary of State’s email investigation swung the election to now-President Trump, while the president’s supporters have argued that FBI officials let Clinton off without charges due to political bias…

McCabe was notified in late September or early October, according to the report. For three weeks, however, little changed in the investigation, which some law enforcement officials told the Post was a sign of the issue nearly dying at McCabe’s desk.

The probe was eventually reopened weeks before Election Day.

This is one of the reasons that McCabe seems to be in trouble these days. Maybe he would have been in trouble anyway had Clinton been elected, although for the opposite thing—investigating her emails at all.

So, why the reluctance? One reason could be that they were sure she’d be elected and didn’t want to be on her enemies list. Another could be that they wanted her to be elected and thought the email evidence would damage her chances. Another is that they’re incompetent.

Or some combination of all of this.

But maybe there was still another reason. Here’s what just came out today in the continuing Strzok/Page text saga:

In new texts between the two released Thursday by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Page wrote that she was to get an Apple iPhone, likely from the FBI’s IT director.

Texted Strzok: “Hot damn. I’m happy to pilot that…we get around our security/monitoring issues?”

Page: “No, he’s proposing that we just stop following them. Apparently the requirement to capture texts came from omb, but we’re the only org (I’m told) who is following that rule. His point is, if no one else is doing it why should we.”

While it is unclear if the iPhones were private or government, the committee raised concerns of a plot to avoid rules to capture official correspondence by using non-government phones.

So, everybody’s doin’ it. Maybe the entire FBI was vulnerable to similar charges.

The left’s alternate reality

The New Neo Posted on by

Made me think of the first paragraph of Hans Christian Andersen’s masterpiece “The Snow Queen“:

…now about a very wicked hobgoblin; he was one of the very worst, for he was a real demon. One day, when he was in a merry mood, he made a looking-glass which had the power of making everything good or beautiful that was reflected in it almost shrink to nothing, while everything that was worthless and bad looked increased in size and worse than ever. The most lovely landscapes appeared like boiled spinach, and the people became hideous, and looked as if they stood on their heads and had no bodies. Their countenances were so distorted that no one could recognize them, and even one freckle on the face appeared to spread over the whole of the nose and mouth. The demon said this was very amusing. When a good or pious thought passed through the mind of any one it was misrepresented in the glass; and then how the demon laughed at his cunning invention. All who went to the demon’s school””for he kept a school””talked everywhere of the wonders they had seen, and declared that people could now, for the first time, see what the world and mankind were really like. They carried the glass about everywhere, till at last there was not a land nor a people who had not been looked at through this distorted mirror. They wanted even to fly with it up to heaven to see the angels, but the higher they flew the more slippery the glass became, and they could scarcely hold it, till at last it slipped from their hands, fell to the earth, and was broken into millions of pieces. But now the looking-glass caused more unhappiness than ever, for some of the fragments were not so large as a grain of sand, and they flew about the world into every country. When one of these tiny atoms flew into a person’s eye, it stuck there unknown to him, and from that moment he saw everything through a distorted medium, or could see only the worst side of what he looked at, for even the smallest fragment retained the same power which had belonged to the whole mirror. Some few persons even got a fragment of the looking-glass in their hearts, and this was very terrible, for their hearts became cold like a lump of ice. A few of the pieces were so large that they could be used as window-panes; it would have been a sad thing to look at our friends through them. Other pieces were made into spectacles; this was dreadful for those who wore them, for they could see nothing either rightly or justly. At all this the wicked demon laughed till his sides shook””it tickled him so to see the mischief he had done. There were still a number of these little fragments of glass floating about in the air, and now you shall hear what happened with one of them.

I first read that story—the real “Snow Queen,” not a bowdlerized cleaned-up cartoon version—when I was about eight, along with a host of other Hans Christian Andersen fairy tales in a book I was given as a gift. Unlike the Grimm tales, they aren’t folklore. They are an artistic creation of Anderson’s, who was a fascinating person I plan to write a post about some day (some day!). They don’t have universally happy endings; some are actually quite dark, as is “The Snow Queen” despite its happy ending.

When I first read it, I immediately recognized something unique in it that spoke to not just the child me but to the adult me that I would become. There was something universal there and more profound than a simple adventure tale with magical elements. That “something” was about the human psyche, love, depression (yes, if you read it you will find that depression is a thread that runs through it) and recovery.

Who knew it was also about politics?

And by the way, having looked at politics from both sides now, I would add that the pieces of glass don’t fall into the minds and hearts of people who are only from one particular side.

The jiu jitsu SOTU speech

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m virtually certain that the Democrats had prepared a unified strategy in advance for reacting to the SITU.

Show unity. Don’t stand. Clap only for the things you must clap for, and do so tepidly. Make it clear you don’t agree with this racist, stupid, senile presidential pretender. Resist the very notion of his standing there and giving this speech as though he deserves to.

Trump surprised them and gave a speech for which they had not prepared, a speech they hadn’t expected: a unity speech, loaded with things they should actually have favored and applauded. Here’s one of the most blatant examples of what I mean, where we have the odd spectacle of a bunch of Republicans cheering a historic reduction in black unemployment and a bunch of Democrats (some of them black) sitting on their hands and refusing to be glad. Note some of them looking at each other for cues as to what they should do:

In his SOTU speech Trump caught them flat-footed by being almost 100% the Happy Warrior. Every time the cameras panned on their unhappy faces, they looked sunk in gloom and bile.

They didn’t seem to be expecting this, although they should have. And they didn’t seem to be able to wing it and come up with a better reaction.

It’s a grave danger to underestimate your opponents. The Democrats have gotten used to underestimating Republicans, and it’s not a mystery why. Republicans have often played into their hands. Trump confounds them for many many reasons, but one of them is that he doesn’t play into their hands and yet they perceive that he does. They keep thinking that he has cooked his own goose (or that they are helping him to cook his own goose) and they seem surprised and puzzled every time the situation manages to boomerang back at them.

If you spend a lot of time hammering home the idea that your opponent is stupid, crazy, and/or senile, then every time he acts smart, sane, and competent it makes you look stupid, crazy, and/or like a lying propagandist. If your opponent gets to show himself to the American people and he’s not as you’ve described, who ends up looking foolish?

It’s highly likely that the Democrats’ base loved that the party hung tough against Trump and his populist celebration of America and its people. But the great middle—what did they think? I can’t help but believe that they felt even more estranged from the Democrats than in November of 2016, when that gulf was responsible for the stunning election of Trump the underdog.

A lot—a lot—can happen between now and November 2018. But I don’t see that the Congressional Democrats helped their own cause last night. They were unable to improvise a response that made more sense to most people. Clapping enthusiastically would have seemed like they were approving of Trump, and they didn’t want to do that. But looking grumpy made them seem like they were disapproving not just of Trump, but of America and the success of ordinary Americans.

[NOTE: How many people watched the speech? Previous figures are here. Perhaps the Democrats are counting on the MSM to spin it for them and create a positive perception of their behavior. But I think that the larger the audience for the speech, the more difficult their task may be, and the Democrats may have caused extra people to tune in to see if the rumored disruptions would occur. And if CBS is tweeting that sit-on-their-hands moment for the Democrats in reaction to the black unemployment figures, that particular sound bite will be likely to reach even some people who didn’t watch the speech and would not otherwise have known.]

Open thread for the SOTU speech

The New Neo Posted on by

Talk amongst yourselves.

I assume it’s going to be a mite rowdy—not here, but there.

“To make America great again for all Americans.” A few Democrats manage to stand up and applaud that sentiment, at least.

A big “togetherness” theme so far.

Nice heads-up for Steve Scalise, who is beaming. He must be mighty glad to be alive.

Now it’s the economy, the economy, the economy, stupid.

(Is it my imagination, or does Trump’s face look a tad less puffy than usual? Is it possible he’s lost a couple of pounds?)

All this togetherness rah-rah talk is making the Democrats look especially curmudgeonly when they don’t stand.

If I was playing the drinking game, I’d say the word to drink on would be “America.”

The Democrats aren’t even standing for the idea of getting Detroit in gear again?

“Americans are dreamers too.”

Justified bragging about ISIS defeat.

These stories of heroes like Bronze Star recipient Justin Peck (I’m not sure I got that name right) are very moving. You can see the strength and determination on his stoic face.

Incredible story of a man named Sung Ho (spelling?) who escaped from North Korea and now helps other escapees.

Now he’s closing with a paean to America and its spirit. Sounds very Reaganesque to me.

I also was struck by the deliberate slowness of Trump’s delivery and articulation in this speech. That’s actually not easy to do; to pace a speech properly. I think he’s gotten quite good at it.

It’s the people who are making America great again.”

I think it was an excellent and thematically unified speech. He has a lot to brag about. The message of unity and Americans working together was almost constant. The failure of the Democrats to react positively to those things made them look mean-spirited. They couldn’t even muster up public approval for issues which would ordinarily by their issues, or at least obviously bipartisan issues.

Do you plan to watch the SOTU speech tonight?

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m going to try, although regular readers of this blog know that I’m not fond of political speeches at all.

This one could be very interesting, though. The Congressional audience reaction could be a big part of the story.

Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told the Democratic contingent to behave:

Pelosi (D-Calif.) delivered the message to the House Democratic Caucus at their weekly private meeting Tuesday morning.

“Let the attention be on his slobbering self,” Pelosi told members, according to two sources in the room. “If you want to walk out, don’t come in.”

I’ve heard Trump described in many pejorative ways. I’ve certainly criticized him myself, too. But “slobbering” isn’t one of the words that usually comes to mind.

The definition:

to let saliva or liquid run from the mouth; slaver; drivel.

to indulge in mawkish sentimentality:

Is she trying to say that Trump actually drools? Like this?

Because really, he’s not been known for sentimentality, mawkish or otherwise.

Root canal reprieve

The New Neo Posted on by

I spent part of the morning at the office of the endodontist. A few months ago, a tooth in my mouth had decided to give me trouble. It hurt when I chewed on it or pressed on it. It hurt when it was cold and it hurt when I ate something hot. It hurt when I walked fast. And sometimes it seemed to hurt just for the fun of it.

After a few weeks of that, it started to hurt less. And then less and less. That was good, but I knew that it was also potentially bad, because I once had a tooth that did that and it was a sign that it was dying.

They tried to save that tooth with a root canal. After ten years the root canal failed, and I ended up with a dental implant there. That dental implant is now having some troubles and I have a dental surgery to fix it scheduled in about ten days.

Dentists tend to love me. I am a gold mine.

But today the news was good. Whatever’s been going on with my tooth, it doesn’t need a root canal. And fortunately, since it (knock wood) barely hurts at all anymore, it may avoid one forever.

Update on the Hawaii nuclear false alarm

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m not sure whether this news makes it better or worse.

I think perhaps worse:

The Hawaii employee who sent out a false alarm earlier this month warning of an incoming missile attack said they misheard a message played during a drill and believed a ballistic missile was actually heading for the state, according to a federal investigation.

This directly contradicts the explanations previously offered by Hawaii officials…

So “Hawaii officials” either lied about it or didn’t even know what had happened. Fancy that.

Or I suppose the feds could be lying about it. But the newer story has the ring of truth to me:

This mistake began when a night-shift supervisor decided to test incoming day-shift workers with a spontaneous drill, the FCC report stated. The supervisor managing the day-shift workers appeared to be aware of the upcoming test but believed it was aimed at the outgoing night-shift workers. As a result, the day-shift manager was not prepared to supervise the morning test, the FCC said.

Following standard procedures, the night-shift supervisor posing as U.S. Pacific Command played a recorded message to the emergency workers warning them of the fake threat. The message included the phrase “Exercise, exercise, exercise,” the FCC report said, but it also had the “This is not a drill” language used for actual missile alerts.

The worker who then sent the emergency alert said they did not hear the “exercise” part of the message. This person, who has not been publicly identified, declined to be interviewed by investigators, but they did provide a written statement, the FCC said.

Perhaps you’ve noticed, as I did, that this WaPo article repeatedly uses the word “they” instead of the more conventional “he” or “she” for the culprit. “They” is plural and gender neutral, and is grammatically incorrect, since only one worker misunderstood and sounded the alarm. Why the weird grammar from the WaPo? Are they (the WaPo writers and/or editors, plural) trying to cover up the fact that it was more than one worker? Or (more likely, I think) are they shielding us from knowledge of the worker’s gender, in order to protect that gender?

I’m not being sexist there. I didn’t originally assume it was a woman. But that’s the only explanation that occurs to me for the strange grammar the WaPo uses in the story. I am critical of the WaPo for many reasons, but they usually exhibit knowledge of the basics of grammar.

As for the substance of the report, it’s not what you’d call reassuring.

Morning shower, evening shower?

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s an article comparing the benefits of morning showers versus evening showers, and why you might choose either (or both).

There are considerations of cleanliness, habit, and wakefulness (it wakes you up in the morning and/or it helps you sleep at night—which seems a bit contradictory to me). But I think I can simplify the whole thing for you: morning people shower in the morning, night people at night.

Now, I haven’t subjected that blanket statement to any empirical scrutiny at all. But as a night person who tends to take night showers unless I’m showering after exercise, and who just about never takes a shower in the morning (unless you define “morning” as after midnight), I think I may be onto something.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio…

The New Neo Posted on by

…than are dreamt of in your philosophy:

From a seam in one of these [ancient Australian] hills, a jumble of ancient, orange-Creamsicle rock spills forth: a deposit called the Apex Chert. Within this rock, viewable only through a microscope, there are tiny tubes. Some look like petroglyphs depicting a tornado; others resemble flattened worms…

Last month, researchers lobbed another salvo in the decades-long debate about the nature of these forms. They are indeed fossil life, and they date to 3.465 billion years ago, according to John Valley, a geochemist at the University of Wisconsin. If Valley and his team are right, the fossils imply that life diversified remarkably early in the planet’s tumultuous youth.

The fossils add to a wave of discoveries that point to a new story of ancient Earth. In the past year, separate teams of researchers have dug up, pulverized and laser-blasted pieces of rock that may contain life dating to 3.7, 3.95 and maybe even 4.28 billion years ago. All of these microfossils””or the chemical evidence associated with them””are hotly debated. But they all cast doubt on the traditional tale.

The entire article is well worth reading.

Our knowledge of the geologic and biologic past has been slowly built up by looking at the clues that are left. That knowledge is necessarily imperfect.

When I think of this sort of thing I often recall how little credence was given to the “continental drift” theory of Wegener in my youth. I even wrote about it for a science report while in junior high school. I liked the idea, but probably because it appealed to my esthetic science more than anything—my observations about the way the continental puzzle pieces seemed to fit together. I certainly was not the only one:

Abraham Ortelius (Ortelius 1596), Theodor Christoph Lilienthal (1756), Alexander von Humboldt (1801 and 1845), Antonio Snider-Pellegrini (Snider-Pellegrini 1858), and others had noted earlier that the shapes of continents on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean (most notably, Africa and South America) seem to fit together…

…[T]he similarity of southern continent geological formations had led Roberto Mantovani to conjecture in 1889 and 1909 that all the continents had once been joined into a supercontinent; Wegener noted the similarity of Mantovani’s and his own maps of the former positions of the southern continents…

Alfred Wegener first presented his hypothesis to the German Geological Society on 6 January 1912.[13] His hypothesis was that the continents had once formed a single landmass, called Pangaea, before breaking apart and drifting to their present locations.

Wegener was the first to use the phrase “continental drift” (1912, 1915) (in German “die Verschiebung der Kontinente” ”“ translated into English in 1922) and formally publish the hypothesis that the continents had somehow “drifted” apart. Although he presented much evidence for continental drift, he was unable to provide a convincing explanation for the physical processes which might have caused this drift. His suggestion that the continents had been pulled apart by the centrifugal pseudoforce (Polflucht) of the Earth’s rotation or by a small component of astronomical precession was rejected, as calculations showed that the force was not sufficient.

He had the right idea, but the wrong mechanism. In the 50s and early 60s, when I was learning about this sort of thing, it was still thought to be silly. Sound familiar? [emphasis mine]:

The British geologist Arthur Holmes championed the theory of continental drift at a time when it was deeply unfashionable. He proposed in 1931 that the Earth’s mantle contained convection cells that dissipated radioactive heat and moved the crust at the surface. His Principles of Physical Geology, ending with a chapter on continental drift, was published in 1944.

David Attenborough, who attended university in the second half of the 1940s, recounted an incident illustrating its lack of acceptance then: “I once asked one of my lecturers why he was not talking to us about continental drift and I was told, sneeringly, that if I could prove there was a force that could move continents, then he might think about it. The idea was moonshine, I was informed.”

Things changed in 1968 with the publication of an article entitled “Seismology and the New Global Tectonics”, based on new seismological evidence.

The science on this sort of thing is never settled. That doesn’t mean scientists are charlatans. It just means that there’s always more to be learned and then integrated into present theories or requiring new theories that incorporate the new facts.