Tuesday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Tuesday, February 2. 2016

Will the EPA Cause a Zika Pandemic?

What are you buying when you buy toothpaste?

Government science:

Scientists should have known in 1980 that the recommendation to cut fat was unsound. Large clinical trials at the time did not support the theory, according to a systematic review published last year in the cardiology journal Open Heart. "It seem incomprehensible that dietary advice was introduced for 220 million Americans," the authors wrote, "given the contrary results."

This Taxpayer-Funded University Is LITERALLY Building A Segregated Dorm

She? Ze? They? What’s In a Gender Pronoun

VDH: California of the Dark Ages

Guardian Declares Discussion of Immigration Off Limits

On a daily basis, I receive emails from associates in the UK and Europe that speak of the sheer madness of allowing refugees in the millions to pour into Europe.

Mead:

The European elite’s reckless disregard for the very real limits on the Continent’s political and psychological ability to receive migrants, and the shortsightedness of arrogant policymakers who charged on without an understanding of public sentiment, is going to cost Europe—and migrants—dear.

The U.S. is also heading for this kind of reckoning: Immigration and refugee policy have become detached from public sentiment and the backlash is gathering force. In both the U.S. and the EU, there is a rising sentiment in public opinion that elites are deliberately and consciously taking steps that will change the demographic and cultural balance of the countries they oversee. This is the kind of soil in which poisonous plants grow well, and one can watch them growing on both sides of the Atlantic.

European Pathology Hasn’t Changed

The European Union, which generates constant peace-and-love propaganda, is a complete and utter fraud. Nobody in the Eurocracy is actually elected by voters. European voters are completely helpless, and national parliaments are constantly yielding power to the appointed bureaucracy in Brussels. All EU propaganda consists of barefaced lies. This is a mass psychiatric problem -- self-delusion being the biggest sign of neurosis.

As Feds Plan to Cut Border Monitoring, Texas Officials Ask Why

Poll: 25% of federal employees would consider quitting if Trump becomes president

Were her last name anything other than Clinton, Hillary would be indicted today.

Want to know why voters are so mad? Mia Love has the answer: Glenn Reynolds

Rubio's Surge Is a Triumph for Trumpism

Hillary Clinton Caught in ANOTHER BIG LIE 24 Hours Before Iowa Caucus!

The Clintons’ political legacy of dishonesty

Why Is The Mainstream Press Still Coddling Clinton?

Britain’s Muslim Population Soars Past 3 Million, Several Parts Of London Are Close To 50% Islamic…

Germany's Migrant Deportation Plan: "Political Charade"

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:29 | Comments (50) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Well, the multinational megacorps and transnational elites would sell your rights and sovereignty down the river for a buck, as avidly as they would sell their own mothers. Just to elaborate, the nationalist, transnationalist battle seems to be manifest in this election cycle, a variation on K Street vrs Main St, in the guise of Bernie and the Donald (I know, I know, a paradox and a mystgery.).
Multinational megacorps and industries, that have worldwide supply chains and a worldwide consumer base, walk to the beat of a different agenda, along with their media and political minions. At best they see everyday Americans as quaint, parochial, and archaic; at worst, they see American sovereignty and rights as an obstruction to “International Commerce Uber Alles”. Even, if they are American in origin, it is an accident of birth; they shouldn’t be counted on to be empathetic to Americans or loyal to American values. They have and will try to foist accommodation to alien laws, mass migration, ecological damage, ……
Everything has tradeoffs, and much of this is inevitable and understandable as technology ripples through our world, just as it did after the spike was driven at Promontory Point. However, people need to understand that “International Capitalism” is not necessarily compatible with American sovereignty.

#1 Exasperated on 2016-02-02 08:23 (Reply)

Of course, we should always look to the National Review for the latest in epidemiology.

QUOTE:

Will the EPA Cause a Zika Pandemic?

The historical problem with DDT was that its widespread application in agriculture led to the evolution of DDT-resistant vectors (not to mention damage to humans and wildlife). That meant that DDT was losing its effectiveness. DDT is still used in many countries, but only for vector control, along with other methods of vector control, which helps limit the development of resistance, as well as exposure to humans and wildlife. The use of DDT is being considered to control Zika vectors, but more modern methods may be more effective.

#2 Zachriel on 2016-02-02 09:21 (Reply)

More revisionist history, with lots of important sounding words filled with sound and fury.

#2.1 DrTorch on 2016-02-02 09:35 (Reply)

Davidson & Jackson, Insecticide Resistance in Mosquitoes, Nature 1961.

Hemingway et al., The molecular basis of insecticide resistance in mosquitoes, Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 2004.

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-02 09:44 (Reply)

I was just reading about this last night, as several people on my facebook feed shared headlines such as "GMO Mosquitos may have caused Zika".
I sat down to double check my presumptions:
a) the sterile insect technique releases only males ✓
b) the mosquitos that bite are female ✓
c) Zika is still known to be spread by mosquito bites ✓
d) the GMO sterile mosquito releases were in areas with the highest level of mosquito borne disease ✓
e) zika has appeared pretty much only in places that had other MB diseases such as dengue fever ✓
f zika was known before GMO mosquitos were invented ✓

This reminded me of the DDT malaria controversy. I had read Silent Spring long before becoming interested in third-world public health. I've gradually come to conclude that much of what I thought to be true was not. I thought I should check my presumptions on DDT as well, which were basically along the lines of "banning DDT caused more deaths than Hitler".
What I found was that, while the number of deaths due to the restrictions on use of DDT and global propaganda against its use is disputed, the fact of unnecessary deaths is not. It may be as few as high tens-of-thousands of people. It is also indisputable that DDT was (and is) used indiscriminately and this overuse and incorrect use has high environmental costs. Where DDT is appropriate, the uptake sometimes does not achieve the necessary density of households because of unscientific rumors about its purported effects on human health.
Those who advocate its use for mosquito control in malaria areas also advocate testing the local mosquitos for resistance before deciding what to apply. Even where "resistance" has developed, it can still be effective because of its repellant effect, and frankly all of the alternative pesticides (such as permethrin) have a similar problem. Even the sterile insect control methods end up with mosquitos flooding back after treatment ends.

#2.1.1.1 Douglas2 on 2016-02-02 10:33 (Reply)

Douglas2: Where DDT is appropriate, the uptake sometimes does not achieve the necessary density of households because of unscientific rumors about its purported effects on human health.

Some good information there.

Indoor residual spraying can be very effective at reducing the incidence of malaria carried by endophilic vectors (those that rest after feeding). However, as you point out, it requires a high density of households to apply it, usually more than 80%. Poverty and misinformation have been barriers to this control method. However, recent success in South Africa has revived interest in the method.

#2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-02 10:49 (Reply)

Thank you for squashing that conspiracy theory with such succinct precision.

I forget, what was the purpose of releasing MORE mosquitoes in an area already infested with the nasty little buggers, making life even more miserable and impossible to sleep without mosquito nets. (that natives used as fishing equipment instead).

#2.1.1.1.2 fjord on 2016-02-02 13:10 (Reply)

I do think it's an interesting question - why shrunken head with Zika now? Zero Hedge had an interesting overlay of where the GMO mosquitoes were released for control of dengue fever vs the shrunken heads - maps overlap the same area. Only male mosquitoes with defective genes (most offspring die, not all - before sexual maturity) were released. Only females bite for blood (needed for egg production). The release happened mid 2015 - after Zika had been in Brazil and around the time of the 2015 Zika outbreak. Shrunken heads were observed in large numbers going back to October 2015. NYT had an article indicating that researchers were looking at past outbreaks to see why shrunken heads weren't reported in outbreaks going back to '47. The theory is perhaps lack of immunity is the cause, also perhaps past outbreaks weren't large enough for a statistical uptick to be noticed. There is no explanation or mechanism given for why GMO survivors of the defective self destruct genetics would some how alter Zika to produce shrunken heads, gillian barre or other nervous system disorders. Virus are used to insert DNA, perhaps the theory is the reverse happened? I thought it all sounded like a nearly plausible enough plot for Scifi horror. Maybe the next Mission Impossible? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-29/zika-outbreak-epicenter-same-area-genetically-modified-mosquitoes-released-2015

#2.1.1.1.2.1 Karen on 2016-02-02 14:59 (Reply)

We know that the Zika virus spread to Brazil from humans that were infected in (and travelled from) French Polynesia, and that French Polynesia has also had an increase in microcephaly cases along with their own Zika outbreak.
The "areas overlap" only in the sense that if you make a map scale small enough and an map pointer big enough, you can get the pointer to overlap distant places. The first reported Zika cases in places like Camacari were some 450km distant from the places with GMO mosquito trials like Juazeiro, even if they were in the same "state"; and the range of the mosquitos in question are measured in hundreds of meters, not hundreds of km. 450km is similar to the distance from LA to Las Vegas, or NYC to Portland ME. The distance from the releases of GMO mosquitos in Brazil to the microcephaly cases in French Polynesia is even greater.
The ignorance exhibited in the article is aptly displayed by the line Brazil has now called in 200,000 soldiers to somehow help combat the virus’ spread. In efforts to control mosquito-borne disease in urban areas, step 1 is to eliminate pools of stagnant water, for which you need to send out people to hunt down abandoned tires and buckets, clogged gutters and scuppers, etc., – we should not need to explain to a science reporter the utility of 200000 troops in such a task.

It is a sad fact that people who are passionate in their belief will sometimes lie to you, which is why efforts such as the "Proof: Using Facts to Deceive" series of articles/lessons at http://graphpaperdiaries.com/ are so important in teaching how not to be fooled.

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1 Douglas2 on 2016-02-02 17:02 (Reply)

Your not helping my scifi plot development. Maybe it's B movie time with giant mutant mosquitos.

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Karen on 2016-02-02 20:38 (Reply)

It is already a bit reminiscent of The Bourne Legacy; with poor agent OX513A knowing that he will perish if he doesn't get his daily dose of chems a.k.a. tetracycline....

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Douglas2 on 2016-02-02 21:32 (Reply)

But that wasn't the historical problem w/ DDT.

Words have meaning, and while yours don't have much truth, they do mean something.

#2.1.1.2 DrTorch on 2016-02-02 14:33 (Reply)

DrTorch: But that wasn't the historical problem w/ DDT.

We purposefully provided a citation about resistance from before the publication of Silent Spring. Thought that should have been sufficient to clue you in.

Silent Spring (1962): Much of what we do know has been learned through hard experience in the antimalarial campaigns carried out by the World Health Organization. As soon as dieldrin was substituted for DDT in malaria-control work (because the malaria mosquitoes had become resistant to DDT), cases of poisoning among the spraymen began to occur. {emphasis added}

#2.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-02 15:56 (Reply)

I wonder if you have any idea how little impact your ideas have once you've been caught enough times in mis-citations, evasions, and meaningless jargon you couldn't elucidate when challenged? You're wasting your time now; shouldn't you move on to people who aren't onto you yet?

#2.1.1.2.1.1 Texan99 on 2016-02-02 16:52 (Reply)

Texan99: I wonder if you have any idea how little impact ...

Handwaving doesn't constitute an argument.

You will notice we responded substantively to the question concerning the historical problem with DDT. The evolution of resistance in insects meant larger and larger quantities of insecticide were required, much of it dispersed widely over agricultural areas.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-02 17:33 (Reply)

The DDT hysteria promoted by Rachel Carson in her book Silent Spring was based on no scientific evidence. The thinning eggshells story was not based on fact...look it up. Because of that hysteria, we are still faced with deaths from malaria (especially children) worldwide. Shame on those who knowingly continue the DDT falsehood.

#2.2 rocdoctom on 2016-02-02 15:01 (Reply)

QUOTE:

How To Fix The Problem Of Government Consensus Science ... the government should entirely get out of the business of meddling in the diet of the American people.

It's doubtful Americans will support abandoning the study of health as a function of government.

QUOTE:

the op-ed describes how our government in 1980 issued dietary guidelines promoting a low-fat diet to then 220 million Americans

The link between saturated fats and heart disease is well-supported. See Li et al., Saturated Fats Compared With Unsaturated Fats and Sources of Carbohydrates in Relation to Risk of Coronary Heart Disease, Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2015.

Li et al. not only confirms many earlier studies showing the link between saturated fats and heart disease, but also explains why some studies failed to find the link. If you cut saturated fats, but substitute calories from other detrimental sources, then there is no benefit. However, if you substitute unsaturated fats and whole grains as new calorie sources, then you do receive the benefit.

#3 Zachriel on 2016-02-02 09:26 (Reply)

"The link between saturated fats and heart disease is well-supported."

But not accurately or in context. The link between saturated fats and heart disease is not dissimilar to the link between peanut butter and anaphylaxis and death. Should we all stop eating peanut butter? Would the general health of the nation improve if we ate less peanut butter and ate more hummus? Most intelligent people would say of course not some people are allergic to peanut butter and their body cannot handle it but for everyone not harmed by peanut butter it is actually good for you.

The same situation exists for saturated fats. That is, there are some people with a genetic predisposition to heart disease and diet for them can make their health condition worse or possibly better. A clinical trial of 100,000 people might just find a small statistical tendency for saturated fats to 'cause' premature heart attacks or aggravate existing heart disease. Should we all give up saturated fats and eat only olive oil? Most intelligent people would say of course not, some people are allergic to (or negatively affected by them) and their body cannot handle it but for everyone not harmed by saturated fats it is actually good for you.

#3.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-02-03 21:34 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: But not accurately ...

Statistically significant, consistent with previous studies, and shows why some studies didn't find the correlation.

GoneWithTheWind: or in context

It's a statistical finding. Some people can probably eat saturated fats without ill effect.

GoneWithTheWind: A clinical trial of 100,000 people might just find a small statistical tendency for saturated fats to 'cause' premature heart attacks or aggravate existing heart disease.

The study showed a significant correlation, but didn't show causation. Other studies, have shown causation, and studies of cultures with traditional diets low in saturated fats, show that the effect can be widespread in the population.

Generally, it's reasonable to recommend that people eat a healthy diet, low in saturated fats, low in processed carbohydrates.

#3.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-04 09:55 (Reply)

"Generally, it's reasonable to recommend that people eat a healthy diet, low in saturated fats, low in processed carbohydrates."

It is about as reasonable as telling a child to not cross their eyes because they might get stuck like that. Saturated fats are actually good for you unless you happen to be one of those who has a genetic problem requiring a restricted diet.

"processed carbohydrates"!!! Really!!! You are afraid of processed carbohydrates? Why? I suppose you are in mortal fear of GMO food too. Maybe you refuse to eat anything but 'organic' vegetables and free run chicken too. This is pure gobbledygook. Do you REALLY believe processed carbs are going to harm you. Do you eat your potatoes raw or do you 'process' them first? For your birthday do you eat the raw wheat and other ingredients or a cake? Seriously you are really afraid of processed foods? I know big food is scary and surely they are trying to poison us all and little green men fly in flying saucers.

#3.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-02-04 20:02 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The Clintons’ political legacy of dishonesty

Rubio, Cruz, and Bush lie. It's all Clinton's fault!

#4 Zachriel on 2016-02-02 09:40 (Reply)

There are liars and there are liars. Nobody, but nobody lies as well or as often as the Clintons. Just taking Hillary: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/

And they don't even get into being named after Sir Edmund Hillary, that a "vast right wing conspiracy" was responsible for the allegations of Bills's sexual improprieties, she was under sniper fire in Bosnia, that her Ambassador Chris Stevens was her good friend but he didn't even have Hillary's email address, that she didn't tell the parents of those killed in Benghazi (and the world) that a film maker was responsible for the attack, that she didn't have classified material on her email server, that, with respect to her email server, she didn't do anything that hadn't been done before by others, and on and on...

#4.1 mudbug on 2016-02-02 10:09 (Reply)

mudbug: There are liars and there are liars. Nobody, but nobody lies as well or as often as the Clintons. Just taking Hillary: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/

Keeping in mind that Politifact will tend to report on contested statements, here's Clinton's complete Politifact file, along with a few comparisons:

Clinton (29% false, 1% pants on fire),
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

Cruz's file (67% false, 7% pants on fire)
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/

Trump (77% false, 20% pants on fire)
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Rubio (41% false, 3% pants on fire)
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/marco-rubio/

Sanders (30% false, 0% pants on fire)
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

Can you spell "cherry picking"? Based on your own citation, does it appear that Clinton is more or less honest than other leading politicians in the presidential race?

#4.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-02 10:37 (Reply)

You are the one who is cherry picking. Your argument rests on one citation that is limited in scope and ignores all other evidence. Your original post does not address the points made in the original article nor does it address the other instances I mentioned.

The mere fact that she can say with a straight faced that she really didn't think much about her decision to use her own email server rather than using the secure State Department servers shows real skill (or practice). It is absurd on it's face.

#4.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-02-02 10:49 (Reply)

mudbug: Your argument rests on one citation that is limited in scope and ignores all other evidence.

YOU cited Politifact, but only those portions of their file that supported your claim, while ignoring those parts of the file which contradicted your claim. That's called cherry-picking.

Did you attempt an answer to the question? Based on your own citation, does it appear that Clinton is more or less honest than other leading politicians in the presidential race?

The rest of your list is more of the same.

mudbug: And they don't even get into being named after Sir Edmund Hillary [/b]

Your next item on the list is something that probably relates to something Clinton was told by her mother to encourage her.

mudbug: [i]that a "vast right wing conspiracy" was responsible for the allegations of Bills's sexual improprieties

While Bill Clinton's sexual improprieties are his own, that there were millions of dollars spent by the political right on trying to dig up dirt is a matter of record. Turns out that nobody cares.

mudbug: she was under sniper fire in Bosnia,

Per your citation, pants on fire. However, there's no doubt there was a danger involved in the trip, and the aircraft did make avoidance maneuvers on approach. She was probably told to make haste on the ground, but apparently didn't.

mudbug: that her Ambassador Chris Stevens was her good friend but he didn't even have Hillary's email address

Why would he? His communications would go through State.

mudbug: that she didn't tell the parents of those killed in Benghazi (and the world) that a film maker was responsible for the attack,

Disputed, even among the parents.

mudbug: that she didn't have classified material on her email server,

The contents of Wikileaks are still classified, even though anyone can read them. Like most secrets in the U.S. government, the only ones kept in the dark are the American public.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dOgdBDW3a38/ToCdj0IFMPI/AAAAAAAAAsA/nkSQi0vRAKQ/s1600/Look_Martha.gif

At least some of the secrets are apparently that the U.S. is conducting drone attacks.

There's a process in place, and considering how many false reports there have been, we may want to wait for the facts.

#4.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-02 11:07 (Reply)

Sigh... I googled "Clinton lies and picked the first link. It is a list of lies - nothing more or less.

QUOTE:

mudbug: And they don't even get into being named after Sir Edmund Hillary [/b]

Your next item on the list is something that probably relates to something Clinton was told by her mother to encourage her.

I guess it runs in the family then.

QUOTE:

mudbug: [i]that a "vast right wing conspiracy" was responsible for the allegations of Bills's sexual improprieties

While Bill Clinton's sexual improprieties are his own, that there were millions of dollars spent by the political right on trying to dig up dirt is a matter of record. Turns out that nobody cares.

Are you saying that the Clintons never utilize opposition research? The fact that someone does opposition research does not erase the fact that she was saying that the rumors about Monica were part of a conspiracy.

QUOTE:

mudbug: she was under sniper fire in Bosnia,

Per your citation, pants on fire. However, there's no doubt there was a danger involved in the trip, and the aircraft did make avoidance maneuvers on approach. She was probably told to make haste on the ground, but apparently didn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZHO1vo762c

QUOTE:

mudbug: that her Ambassador Chris Stevens was her good friend but he didn't even have Hillary's email address

Why would he? His communications would go through State.

Some way to treat a "good friend". So I guess he wasn't as good a friend as Sid Blumenthal.

QUOTE:

mudbug: that she didn't tell the parents of those killed in Benghazi (and the world) that a film maker was responsible for the attack,

Disputed, even among the parents.

At least one of the parents made contemporaneous notes which would be admissible in a court of law. Hillary and everybody associated with the White House repeated the lie that the attack was not coordinated but caused by a video. Sorry, I'd take the under on Hillary telling the truth. Of course I remember many people on the left saying that Cindy Shehan had the "ultimate moral authority" when lambasting Bush because her son was killed. I guess that's no longer operative.

QUOTE:

mudbug: that she didn't have classified material on her email server,

The contents of Wikileaks are still classified, even though anyone can read them. Like most secrets in the U.S. government, the only ones kept in the dark are the American public.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dOgdBDW3a38/ToCdj0IFMPI/AAAAAAAAAsA/nkSQi0vRAKQ/s1600/Look_Martha.gif

Even if it was as innocuous as you suggest, she had classified information on her server. Her only defense is that she was too stupid to realize it. But what's worse is that the Intelligence Agency IC says there were emails that were above 'Top Secret' classification. Even the State Department says there were emails that are so sensitive that they can't be released in any form. You'll have to try harder to ignore this one.

#4.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-02-02 11:41 (Reply)

mudbug: Are you saying that the Clintons never utilize opposition research?

Of course they did. The dirty tricks associated with the Nixon campaigns convinced the Clintons that Democrats had to be prepared for similar attacks in the future. This included opposition research, as well as rapid response to attacks and dirty tricks.

mudbug: The fact that someone does opposition research does not erase the fact that she was saying that the rumors about Monica were part of a conspiracy.

It started with Paula Jones, which has been shown to be a put-up job. Then it was coopted by the Whitewater investigation.

mudbug: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZHO1vo762c

Pants on fire, per Politifact. Based on your own citation, does it appear that Clinton is more or less honest than other leading politicians in the presidential race? (See #12.)

mudbug: Some way to treat a "good friend".

Have no idea why you would consider whether Stevens had Hillary's email to be an issue.

mudbug: At least one of the parents made contemporaneous notes which would be admissible in a court of law.

His story has changed over time, and other families dispute his version of events. The reason you don't know this is because you limit your sources to the right wing echochamber.

mudbug: Hillary and everybody associated with the White House repeated the lie that the attack was not coordinated but caused by a video.

The video caused outbreaks of violence against U.S. outposts, and they were trying to tamp down that violence. There was some confusion in the next few days as both threads of the story were interwoven.

mudbug: Even if it was as innocuous as you suggest, she had classified information on her server.

People with security clearances talk about drone attacks on the Sunday talk shows. It's vacuous to consider such conversations to be a criminal act.

mudbug: But what's worse is that the Intelligence Agency IC says there were emails that were above 'Top Secret' classification.

There's nothing above Top Secret.

And nothing you've shown as breaking the law. Of course, we don't have access to all the facts. There's a process for making those decisions.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-02 16:23 (Reply)

QUOTE:

mudbug: The fact that someone does opposition research does not erase the fact that she was saying that the rumors about Monica were part of a conspiracy.

It started with Paula Jones, which has been shown to be a put-up job. Then it was coopted by the Whitewater investigation.

I don't know about the Jones accusation being a put up job but it's immaterial. The accusations about Monica Lewinsky was the subject of Hillary's quote. There was no conspiracy about that. There was a conspiracy to keep it quiet and to keep other women from coming forward - spearheaded by Dame Hillary and Betsy Wright.

QUOTE:

...does it appear that Clinton is more or less honest than other leading politicians in the presidential race? (See #12.)

I thought that was plain by my answer - much less honest than other politicians leading or not.

QUOTE:

mudbug: Some way to treat a "good friend".

Have no idea why you would consider whether Stevens had Hillary's email to be an issue.

Hillary said "Chris" was a good friend. It seems to me that a "good friend" would be able to email his good friend. I hope you treat your good friends better than Hillary.

QUOTE:

mudbug: At least one of the parents made contemporaneous notes which would be admissible in a court of law.

His story has changed over time, and other families dispute his version of events. The reason you don't know this is because you limit your sources to the right wing echochamber.

Some stories have not changed. You discount them because that because to believe a liar, you have to disbelieve everyone else. Where is the absolute moral authority of the mother of a dead soldier?

QUOTE:

mudbug: Hillary and everybody associated with the White House repeated the lie that the attack was not coordinated but caused by a video.

The video caused outbreaks of violence against U.S. outposts, and they were trying to tamp down that violence. There was some confusion in the next few days as both threads of the story were interwoven.

There was no confusion in Hillary's private statements to the Egyptian Prime Minister and her daughter, Chelsea. She knew it was a terrorist attack. There was no confusion in the statements to the public. It was caused by an Internet video. In neither case did was confusion admitted. She lied to grieving parents.

QUOTE:

mudbug: Even if it was as innocuous as you suggest, she had classified information on her server.

People with security clearances talk about drone attacks on the Sunday talk shows. It's vacuous to consider such conversations to be a criminal act.

Ok, the subject is whether Hillary is honest. She said there there was NO classified information on her server and that she knew how the classification system worked. There was classified information on her server and not just one or two but hundreds of emails were classified. She lied. Some, according to the Inspector General were classified higher than "Top Secret". The State Department has verified that some emails are too sensitive to be released in any form. I've already said that. You accuse me of listening only to the "right wing echo chamber" but you apparently choose to be willfully ignorant because you refuse to believe either the Inspector General or the State Department.

QUOTE:

mudbug: But what's worse is that the Intelligence Agency IC says there were emails that were above 'Top Secret' classification.

There's nothing above Top Secret.

In a strict sense, that's true, but there are programs that require additional clearance to have knowledge about.

QUOTE:

And nothing you've shown as breaking the law. Of course, we don't have access to all the facts. There's a process for making those decisions.

The issue wasn't that she broke the law, the issue was whether she was honest.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-02-02 17:15 (Reply)

mudbug: I don't know about the Jones accusation being a put up job but it's immaterial.

It was the work of Richard Mellon Scaife. Jones's lawsuit was eventually thrown out. Of course it's material. Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky were about as far apart as anything could be, but the right-wing effort was the same, hence the self-serving statement about the right-wing conspiracy.

mudbug: I thought that was plain by my answer - much less honest than other politicians leading or not.

Not according to your citation. See #12.

mudbug: It seems to me that a "good friend" would be able to email his good friend.

It doesn't work that way in the real world, especially among the highly connected. Now you're just being silly.

mudbug: There was no confusion in Hillary's private statements to the Egyptian Prime Minister and her daughter, Chelsea. She knew it was a terrorist attack. There was no confusion in the statements to the public. It was caused by an Internet video. In neither case did was confusion admitted. She lied to grieving parents.

You're all over the place, so it's not possible to respond to every allegation. Basically, you're throwing spaghetti to see what sticks.

mudbug: Some, according to the Inspector General were classified higher than "Top Secret".

There's no higher classification than Top Secret.

mudbug: I've already said that. You accuse me of listening only to the "right wing echo chamber" but you apparently choose to be willfully ignorant because you refuse to believe either the Inspector General or the State Department.

We're willing to look at the evidence. If Clinton broke the law, she should be held to account.

mudbug: The issue wasn't that she broke the law, the issue was whether she was honest.

Yes, this thread concerns the article which argues "Rubio, Cruz, and Bush lie. It's all Clinton's fault!" Per your own citation, she's a politician.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-03 10:39 (Reply)

Politifact: Hillary Clinton gave conflicting accounts about Benghazi
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/11/ben-carson/ben-carson-says-hillary-clinton-gave-conflicting-a/

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-02-03 10:54 (Reply)

Re: This Taxpayer-Funded University Is LITERALLY Building A Segregated Dorm

Martin Luther King shouldn't have wasted his breath fighting segregation. Apparently, that simple rube didn't realize that blacks actually do learn better when they don't sit (or live) next to white kids. The evidence is the creativity shown by the name of the new black-only dorm: "Scholistic [sic] House Of Leaders who are African Amercian [sic] Researchers and Scholars".

The same sort of genius was on display in New Orleans several years ago (before Katrina). The name "George Washington High School" had to be changed since, after all, George Washington owned slaves. The solution was to rename it "George Washington Carver High School". This showed great economy - of cost, since "Carver" was only needed to be added where the original name was, but of thought too, since George Washington Carver was named after George Washington. Now the school was named after a person who was named after a slave owner. That makes all the difference!

#5 mudbug on 2016-02-02 09:47 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Why Is The Mainstream Press Still Coddling Clinton?

Obviously because she has already been convicted of Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster's murder, defending a child rapist, Clinton Foundation, Saul Alinsky, looting the White House, Filegate, Chinagate, besties with a Muslim operative, IRS gestapo, treason in Benghazi, sharing emails with al Qaeda, etc.

#6 Zachriel on 2016-02-02 09:51 (Reply)

Just taking the Chinese Funny money scandal (I supposed you're referring to that as "Chinagate"). The press made very little effort to look into this. Tom Brokaw was on "Imus in the Morning" during that time and wonder whether that scandal would have an effect on the election. Don Imus replied that he didn't think so since if the public watched his network news show, they wouldn't even know about it since he never reported it - which he hadn't.

#6.1 mudbug on 2016-02-02 10:25 (Reply)

mudbug: Just taking the Chinese Funny money scandal (I supposed you're referring to that as "Chinagate").

It's also called the 1996 U.S. campaign finance controversy. The Clinton legal defense fund received money from Yah-Lin "Charlie" Trie. It refused some of it, and ordered an investigation of the rest. Trie was eventually convicted under U.S. law.

The point is that there are laws that govern campaign contributions. While the press certainly has a role to play, it doesn't substitute for the legal process. Yet, here we are, twenty years later, still wondering when Clinton will go to jail for China-gate.

#6.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-02 10:43 (Reply)

Don't put me in that camp. I have absolutely NO expectation that any Clinton will EVER be prosecuted for ANYTHING - even if it could be shown that her email server was just a way to secretly leak secrets to people (and governments). Speaking of which, we already know that she shared classified information with Sid (Vicious) Blumenthal and her lawyer.

#6.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-02-02 11:10 (Reply)

mudbug: I have absolutely NO expectation that any Clinton will EVER be prosecuted for ANYTHING - even if it could be shown that her email server was just a way to secretly leak secrets to people (and governments).

Just curious. Why wouldn't career law enforcement move towards prosecution? Why wouldn't a Republican administration allow a prosecution?

mudbug: Speaking of which, we already know that she shared classified information with Sid (Vicious) Blumenthal and her lawyer.

We do? There are reports that Blumenthal relayed what was classified information to Clinton. Maybe he told her there was a drone strike somewhere. That's got to be classified. Sort of like Abu Ghraib. Absolutely no one knew what was going on inside that prison — other than Iraqi parents, of course, and everybody else but the American public.

#6.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-02 11:17 (Reply)

I have some faith that the FBI might recommend that she be prosecuted, Comey had a reputation for being honest, but I have not faith that AG Lynch will prosecute and it appears that subsequent administrations shy away from prosecuting members of the previous administration. My hope is that that will change, but I'm not holding my breath.

Clinton and Blumenthal shared classified information. The source of the information is not public so it could have come from Blumenthal. Her lawyer had a thumb drive containing emails from her server. He has no security clearance and there will be no prosecution of him for his possession, nor will there be of the person who gave it to him. To the point of this thread, there is no curiosity in the press about this.

#6.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-02-02 11:51 (Reply)

mudbug: Why wouldn't career law enforcement move towards prosecution? Why wouldn't a Republican administration allow a prosecution?

mudbug: I have some faith that the FBI might recommend that she be prosecuted ...

You didn't really answer question. You've accused Clinton of a decades-long pattern of criminal activity, yet she wasn't prosecuted during a Republican Administration. Why didn't a Republican administration allow a prosecution for past offenses. Why wouldn't a future Republican administration allow for a future prosecution?

mudbug: {Clinton's} lawyer had a thumb drive containing emails from her server. He has no security clearance ...

David Kendall had a top secret security clearance.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-02 15:48 (Reply)

"David Kendall had a top secret security clearance."

1. Having a clearance does not automatically make it "legal" for Kendall to hold classified material on a private thumb drive - any more than Hillary Clinton's clearances made it "legal" for her to hold classified material on her private Internet server.

2. And what kind of clearance? You can have a top secret clearance and still not be authorized to see many compartments.

You're out of your depth here.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 JJM on 2016-02-03 10:18 (Reply)

JJM: 1. Having a clearance does not automatically make it "legal" for Kendall to hold classified material on a private thumb drive - any more than Hillary Clinton's clearances made it "legal" for her to hold classified material on her private Internet server.

That is correct, but it's doubtful it's a chargeable offense.

JJM: 2. And what kind of clearance? You can have a top secret clearance and still not be authorized to see many compartments.

That is correct, but it's doubtful it's a chargeable offense.

Without more specific information, there's no way to know. Keep in mind that it is a U.S. secret about drone attacks.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dOgdBDW3a38/ToCdj0IFMPI/AAAAAAAAAsA/nkSQi0vRAKQ/s1600/Look_Martha.gif

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-03 10:43 (Reply)

English class was a long time ago. Is 'you morons' considered a pronoun?

#7 SteveS on 2016-02-02 11:11 (Reply)

Hey, I grew up being babysat by the Stooges on the after-school Boobtube too! Love them to this very day.

#7.1 Jim on 2016-02-02 13:32 (Reply)

Want to know why voters are so mad? Mia Love has the answer: Glenn Reynolds
That Glenn Reynolds guy must be really infuriating.

#8 Douglas2 on 2016-02-02 11:58 (Reply)

"She? Ze? They? What’s In a Gender Pronoun"

I hereby call for the ban of all instruction in Spanish, French, any gendered language or language that historically had an elite and common dialect.

Also, the official and only acceptable language in the US shall be the non-gendered, egalitarian English.

Someone slip this into the quinoa of some Ivy college so we can watch the fun as they rage against, well, themselves.

#9 JK Brown on 2016-02-02 12:05 (Reply)

I have maintained for sometime now that Mrs. Clinton will not be indicted because:
1) She is a Liberal
2) She is a Democrat
3) She is a Clinton
That seems to work for some, but not all Liberals, ie, Bill Cosby vs. Bill Clinton.

#10 oolioo (Link) on 2016-02-02 12:39 (Reply)

Bill Cosby is certainly a 'liberal' but he made many of the left mad when he argued for the role of fathers, for example. There's an argument to be made that if he hadn't have waded into that end of the pool, he would be defended by some very popular (powerful?) personalities. After all, Whoopie Goldberg defended Roman Polanski by saying it wasn't "rape rape" (we all hope our daughters are only raped rather than rape raped, right?).

#10.1 mudbug on 2016-02-02 12:48 (Reply)

Re: This Taxpayer-Funded University Is LITERALLY Building A Segregated Dorm

I read the article and could not believe what I was reading. Sadly, it must be true because no one could possibly make it up. When I was in University the simple answer to graduating was STUDY.

#11 rocdoctom on 2016-02-02 15:08 (Reply)

QUOTE:

It could be that for any number of reasons, the Clintons were not prosecuted. There might not be enough evidence that would be beyond a reasonable doubt in a high profile, highly political trial. It might be that it is the game politicians play where both sides overlook things the other does for use down the road (either in the blackmail category or the I'll help you if you help me category), it might be that they didn't have the stomach for the sh*t storm that a trial would bring about, it might be because it was or would be thought to be more destructive of the political fabric (e.g. Nixon not contesting his election with Kennedy). Who knows. Maybe they just LOOK really guilty and they're really all sweetness and light. I don't know.

QUOTE:

mudbug: {Clinton's} lawyer had a thumb drive containing emails from her server. He has no security clearance ...

David Kendall had a top secret security clearance.

I stand corrected, but did he have a need to know? And since he had them, why didn't he just give the drive to the State Department instead of having this ridiculous dance about printing out thousands of the emails which could not be searched and would not have email header information?

#12 mudbug on 2016-02-02 17:28 (Reply)

Sorry, this should have been a reply to message #6.1.1.1.1.1.1

#12.1 mudbug on 2016-02-02 17:31 (Reply)

mudbug: It could be that for any number of reasons, the Clintons were not prosecuted.

Thank you for the direct reply.

#12.2 Zachriel on 2016-02-02 17:34 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, February 2. 2016

Tuesday morning links