Monday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Monday, November 19. 2018

Photo: The new way of microwaving a turkey via Ace

Something to be thankful for: The real cost of a 2018 Thanksgiving dinner is lowest since 2010 and 26% lower than 1986

The Problem with Scientific Credit - Our algorithm said a courtesy driver should have won the Nobel Prize.

The Orchard at the End of Paradise

Male Gym Teacher Punished For Refusing To Oversee Middle School Girl Get Undressed In Boys' Locker Room

Twitter Suspends Feminist For Saying "Men Aren't Women Tho"

JP Morgan and Goldman are on a collision course for billion-dollar deals far from New York

The Vatican’s grievous blow to Americans’ faith

The UK: Boys left to fail at school because attempts to help them earn wrath of feminists

The UK: High School Bans Expensive Coats To ‘Poverty-Proof’ The School

The Political Rebellion against the ruling class Gathers Momentum

Charlie Kirk: Democrats come out the big losers in Florida’s election mess

How successful have the Democrats been in propagating the Russia myth?

Maria Bartiromo: The Media Has Been Loudspeaker for Russian Collusion When There Wasn’t Any

French Protests Against Macron’s New Gas Tax Turn Deadly

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:56 | Comments (38) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Rebellion I think the ZeroHedge article does capture the underlying cause of Trumpism. The Political/Media/Academia Complex sold out to the Globalists and the Financialists for their own gain and at the expense of working America. I think we are long overdue for an honest discussion of the trade offs. Of course, consumers benefit, but at what cost? It is very hard for startups to get traction against the massive economies of scale presented by Multinationals.
For Multinationals to thrive and succeed, there has to be a high degree of standardization and a legal and financial infrastructure accountable to all the participants. A lot of this is inevitable and it parallels what happened in the US with the coming of the railroad which leveled the interstate playing field. Couple that with the International aspect of our news, media, and entertainment. Lest we forget there are Americans who live all over the world and many foreign citizens living in and owning property in the US. Indeed there are many families who have kin in many different countries.

#1 Exasperated on 2018-11-19 09:12 (Reply)

QUOTE:

How successful have the Democrats been in propagating the Russia myth? There is no evidence–I repeat, none–that Russia “tampered with vote tallies.”

People seem to be conflating interfering with the election (true) and tampering with the vote tallies (false).

QUOTE:

I am not aware of any plausible theory on which a foreign power could tamper with vote tallies.

That is incorrect. There are a number of vulnerabilities in the U.S. balloting system.

--
Meanwhile, from the same poll, Economist/YouGov find that

• 44% of Americans (mostly Republicans) deny that Russia hacked the email of Democrats in order to increase the chance that Donald Trump would win the Presidential
election, contrary to the conclusions of U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies;
• 41% of Americans (mostly Republicans) deny that Russia created and spread fake news stories, contrary to the conclusions of U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies, and private social networking companies;
• 46% of Americans (mostly Republicans) believe that millions of illegal votes were cast in the election, contrary to the evidence found by a number of investigations; and
• 42% of Americans (mostly Republicans) think that Soros is funding the immigrant caravan, because every right-wing conspiracy theory needs a Jew at its root.

#2 Zachriel on 2018-11-19 09:33 (Reply)

Every nation attempts to interfere with the election of every other in one way or another. Legality is the only issue.

Poll results are not indicators of truth. We don't know a thing about what the Russians wanted to happen in the 2016 election. Poll questions of that design, by including more than one premise in the question, are dishonest; leading the witness, as it were. The same happened in the other political direction in this poll as well, and is no better.

Russia did create fake news stories, bizarre ones that were ambiguous in what they were trying to accomplish, that were not seen by many people. Easy to see why people disregard those.

"Millions of votes" is likely overblown, but the percentage of immigrants not eligible who voted, according to interview, extrapolated over the number of ineligible immigrants nationwide, is a large number. It is hard to prove any vote was false, but not so hard to get at the information in other ways. Not many speeders and shoplifters get caught, but these things clearly happen.

Soros funds many liberal groups which in turn fund other endeavors. Thus even in the normal course of events, even if Soros doesn't know it, some of the money is likely tied to those organisations. Also, it provides easy cover if he does know it. When one sends that much money that many places, it ends up in even more places very easily. No conspiracy needed, but plenty of cover for a conspiracy as well.

As for the accusation that the root of all right wing theories, including this one about Soros, is anti-Semitism, is simply ridiculous. Most people didn't even know Soros was Jewish until this latest PR campaign by Democrats to paint their opponents as bigots. Yet those same people were opposed to Soros's pronouncements and funding of liberal causes before they knew it. That was a vile, bigoted accusation on your part. You got carried away with yourself perhaps.

Once again - if liberals can't resort to painting all opponents - now, even some of their own - as bigots, they have few arguments left.

#2.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2018-11-19 11:06 (Reply)

Assistant Village Idiot: Every nation attempts to interfere with the election of every other in one way or another. Legality is the only issue.

Russia illegally attempted to undermine the U.S. election, by hacking and releasing Clinton's emails for maximum political impact, and through a campaign of disinformation targeted and amplified by social media.

Assistant Village Idiot: Poll results are not indicators of truth.

That's rather the point.

Assistant Village Idiot: We don't know a thing about what the Russians wanted to happen in the 2016 election.

Of course we do. Russian state media was very clear that they wanted to damage Clinton and to help Trump. There are reports that Russian agents was celebratory that their efforts worked when Trump won.

Assistant Village Idiot: Russia did create fake news stories, bizarre ones that were ambiguous in what they were trying to accomplish, that were not seen by many people.

That, again, is rather the point. Social media allows ads to be targeted just to those likely to be influenced, and those who may make a difference in the election due to the peculiarities of the U.S. electoral system.

Assistant Village Idiot: "Millions of votes" is likely overblown, but the percentage of immigrants not eligible who voted, according to interview, extrapolated over the number of ineligible immigrants nationwide, is a large number.

Numerous investigations have determined that the number of illegal votes is a very small percentage of the total number of votes. Voter suppression is by far the larger factor.

Assistant Village Idiot: Not many speeders and shoplifters get caught, but these things clearly happen.

Speeders and shoplifters are often caught, and there are a number of valid methodologies for determining their overall numbers.

Assistant Village Idiot: Soros funds many liberal groups which in turn fund other endeavors.

True.

Assistant Village Idiot: No conspiracy needed, but plenty of cover for a conspiracy as well.

You need more than "well, it could be so" to constitute evidence. Even if Soros did indirectly fund a food bank that provides sustenance to the poor, some of whom are part of the caravan, that hardly justifies the conspiratorial aspersions.

Assistant Village Idiot: Most people didn't even know Soros was Jewish until this latest PR campaign by Democrats to paint their opponents as bigots.

"A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat!"

That Soros is Jewish has been part of the conspiratorial noise for decades. Conspiracy theories fester in the underbelly of the alt-right, then burst onto the scene as if by immaculate conception.

Assistant Village Idiot: Once again - if liberals can't resort to painting all opponents - now, even some of their own - as bigots, they have few arguments left.

Think about it, Assistant Village Idiot. You just defended an unevidenced conspiracy theory that combines anti-immigrant fervor with the specter of a devious agent controlling world events for nefarious purposes.

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-11-19 11:44 (Reply)

I enjoy using the kiddiezz own comments to destroy their own narrative.

Russia illegally attempted to undermine the U.S. election, by hacking and releasing Clinton's emails for maximum political impact, and through a campaign of disinformation targeted and amplified by social media.

Then:
You need more than "well, it could be so" to constitute evidence.

"Comedy gold, Jerry" 😀

#2.1.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2018-11-19 12:25 (Reply)

Yes., maybe 100K of 'Russian' ads somehow overwhelmed the 1B+ spent by the DNC. That's 1/10 of 1 percent of the DNC budget. Talk about conspiracy belief.

There seems to be some confusion between the DNC email hack and the Clinton illegal mismanagement. The DNC hack proved that the DNC was corrupt in its process and was illegally trying to destroy Sanders. If that corruption wasn't there, it would have been a non issue. It didn't help that the DNC refused to allow the FBI timely access to their servers

Regardless of whether Hillary was hacked or not, the very fact that she had her server wiped after an investigation had begun is a FELONY. Seriously, business executives and IT folks go to prison for doing that. I work in IT and I know that is one thing you DON'T do,

Hillary and the Democrats made damned easy targets through their own action.

#2.1.1.2 Jay on 2018-11-19 12:34 (Reply)

Typo that's 1/100 of 1 percent

#2.1.1.2.1 Jay on 2018-11-19 12:40 (Reply)

Jay: Yes., maybe 100K of 'Russian' ads somehow overwhelmed the 1B+ spent by the DNC.

The Russians spent $millions employing an army of trolls to amplify their messages, mostly for free. And they stole $millions worth of voter demographic information from the DNC.

#2.1.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2018-11-19 15:29 (Reply)

Citation, please.

#2.1.1.2.2.1 Sam L. on 2018-11-19 18:31 (Reply)

Good luck with that.

#2.1.1.2.2.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2018-11-19 18:40 (Reply)

Sam L: Citation, please.

A link was provided.

#2.1.1.2.2.1.2 Zachriel on 2018-11-20 09:09 (Reply)

Nice try AVI. However, you are trying to have a rational conversation with irrational, warped minds, that have bought into Marxist thought hook line a sinker. Plus they are paid to post left wing propaganda. You might as well be talking to a brick wall.

#2.1.2 B. Hammer on 2018-11-19 12:10 (Reply)

I actually do talk to brick walls. Well, I talk to whatever is around when I am walking. When I used to smoke, my sons would look out the window and say "Yeah, there's Pops arguing with liberals again."

#2.1.2.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2018-11-19 14:22 (Reply)

The Russians AND the Chinese regularly "tamper" with our politics. They didn't just start in 2016. They do it in subtle ways and rather stupid ways too. They do it with bots on the internet (like Zach, perhaps). They do it with planted stories that the compliant/stupid MSM eats up and pukes out.

But more to the point; Mueller has exposed no evidence of it AND has only chosen to prosecute a few Republicans on trumped up process crimes. This is a fishing expedition, a witch trial, it would make Lenin proud. Mueller himself has committed crimes and abused his office throughout his career. Investigate Mueller and Hillary and Comey and Obama and his cabinet. THAT is where the criminals and colluders are.

#3 Anon on 2018-11-19 10:36 (Reply)

Anon: The Russians AND the Chinese regularly "tamper" with our politics.

True, and still illegal. However, the internet has amplified their capabilities. Russia has been using cyberwarfare to undermine open democracies in Europe, including nascent democracies with weak institutions. They even shut off the lights in Kiev in an attempt to destabilize the Ukrainian government.

Anon: like Zach, perhaps

Our opinions are our own, and freely given. You're welcome.

Anon: Mueller has exposed no evidence of it

Of Russian interference? That's well established. Of collusion? The investigation continues, and we simply don't know what Mueller has uncovered, but we do know that many people within the Trump campaign had contacts with Russian agents — then lied about it.

Anon: AND has only chosen to prosecute a few Republicans on trumped up process crimes.

Trump's campaign manager and deputy to the campaign manager pleaded guilty to financial crimes related to hiding corrupt Russian money.

#3.1 Zachriel on 2018-11-19 11:14 (Reply)

A full 22.6% of Democrats said it was "very likely." Another 28.2% called it "somewhat likely."

That is: More than half of Democrats, according to a neutral survey (University of Ohio/Scripps Howard), said they believed Bush was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/04/more-than-half-of-democrats-believed-bush-knew-035224

#3.1.1 Christopher B on 2018-11-19 11:42 (Reply)

Chrisopher B (poll question): "How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?"

Another good example of conflation. The Bush Administration was warned such an attack was impending, but took no action, not even holding a meeting of national security principals until two days before the 9-11 attack. Then they went to war with Iraq, even though they knew the Iraqis were not behind the 9-11 attack. Nonetheless, people were factually wrong to answer in the affirmative.

Notably, the author opines: "I'm still not sure this represents actual belief, as opposed to a kind of trash talk about a president you hate."

#3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-11-19 11:51 (Reply)

The Bush Administration was warned such an attack was impending, but took no action, not even holding a meeting of national security principals until two days before the 9-11 attack.

A reasonable person would call that assessment "Monday morning quarterbacking", kiddiez..

#3.1.1.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2018-11-19 12:32 (Reply)

To be more precise, the Bush administration was warned that OBL was wanting to attack the US - with no actual method or time frame given.

Kind of hard to stop a threat when you don't have anything more to go on than 'Hey, he wants to attack the US.'

#3.1.1.1.2 JLawson on 2018-11-19 12:43 (Reply)

I don't think you know what the word "impending" means. Or if you meant that, you should know that it is simply untrue.

#3.1.1.1.3 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2018-11-19 14:25 (Reply)

JLawson: To be more precise, the Bush administration was warned that OBL was wanting to attack the US - with no actual method or time frame given.

The brief, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" included information about patterns of behavior consistent with a hijacking. The brief was provided to President Bush 36 days before the 9-11 attack. The U.S. was aware that a hijacked plane could be used for a missile attack.

Assistant Village Idiot: I don't think you know what the word "impending" means.

impending, being soon to appear or take place.

The 9-11 attacks occurred 36 days after the brief was provided to President Bush.

#3.1.1.1.4 Zachriel on 2018-11-19 15:38 (Reply)

Ergo, Bush knew and could've stopped it BUT he didn't because he wanted to go to war with Iraq.
Is that what y'all are tap dancing around, kiddiez?
GTFO. 😉

#3.1.1.1.4.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2018-11-19 18:53 (Reply)

In other words, nothing definite. No names, no dates, no flight numbers, nothing beyond 'they might do this, or they might not'.

There's roughly 85,000 flights PER DAY in the US. Over a 36 day timeframe, that's over 3 MILLION flights.

"The U.S. was aware that a hijacked plane could be used for a missile attack."

Duh. To THAT date, no US commercial aircraft had been hijacked and flown into buildings intentionally.

Instead, it was usually to take some political protester to the People's Paradise of Cuba. The dominant operational paradigm was to COOPERATE with the hijacker. And it worked - the passengers were usually safe, the plane was usually returned.

Now, cooperating with a hijacker is a possible death sentence.

The problem with black swan events is that in hindsight, you can see how they might have been avoided. But hindsight is always 20-20.

#3.1.1.1.4.2 JLawson on 2018-11-20 08:36 (Reply)

JLawson: In other words, nothing definite.

No. The brief failed to provide a postal address. If they had, they could have sent a letter and asked for the expected date of the attack.

JLawson: To THAT date, no US commercial aircraft had been hijacked and flown into buildings intentionally.

No, but the U.S. was aware of such a possibility.

In any case, not sure what you are arguing. The Clinton Administration made a point of informing the incoming Bush Administration of the threat. A brief titled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" was personally provided to Bush. They could have taken stronger action, but didn't. In the public, this led to conspiracy theories that the Bush Administration was complicit somehow. The survey question also may have roped in some people who thought the Bush Administration was grossly negligent.

#3.1.1.1.4.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-11-20 09:16 (Reply)

Z wrote that "The Bush Administration was warned such an attack was impending, but took no action"

That is incorrect.

Ironically enough, Trump said essentially the same thing in Oct 2015.

Politifact decided to check it out and noted....

Brian Finlay, president of the Stimson Center, a defense policy think tank, said the Aug. 6 article contained no specific information that would have "prevented the tragedy of that day."

Further, politifact concludes: Trump claims that the CIA told the Bush administration that a domestic terror attack was coming. The report assembled over a span of three years after Sept. 11, 2001, found no specific alert. The potential for a domestic attack was discussed in early August, but it was mentioned only in broad terms and was not brought back up. Investigative reports in the years since found that the CIA warnings emphasized possible targets overseas.

Tenet told investigators that as late as Sept. 10 he did not talk about a domestic attack with the president.

There’s no support that Bush and top White House officials had, as Trump said, "advanced notice" of an attack on New York City or any other place in America.

We rate this claim False.

#3.1.1.1.4.2.1.1 Hank_M on 2018-11-20 09:56 (Reply)

Zachriel: The Bush Administration was warned such an attack was impending, but took no action

Hank_M: That is incorrect.

We agree that was an overstatement. Bush took office in January 2001. The brief was provided in August. The first meeting of the principals on the issue took place on September 9. The Bush Administration was warned such an attack was impending, and could have and should have taken stronger action. That doesn't mean they were complicit by any means. They were blinded by other concerns. Even after the attack, they were blinded by their hatred of Saddam. The result was the implosion of Iraq, and years of violent conflict.

Hank_M: Brian Finlay, president of the Stimson Center, a defense policy think tank, said the Aug. 6 article contained no specific information that would have "prevented the tragedy of that day."

There's no way to know. However, it is certainly possible that the conspiracy could have been disrupted if the Bush Administration had "shaken the tree".

Hank_M: There’s no support that Bush and top White House officials had, as Trump said, "advanced notice" of an attack on New York City or any other place in America.

That is correct. They had only general warnings, warnings against which they failed to take concerted actions.

#3.1.1.1.4.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-11-20 10:20 (Reply)

Maybe Mueller can look into this while he is out fishing.

#3.1.1.1.4.2.1.1.1.1 Anon on 2018-11-20 10:34 (Reply)

Anon: Maybe Mueller can look into this while he is out fishing.

There was a comprehensive Congressional investigation, which found a number of systemic and specific problems with the U.S. response to the threat.

There was no allegation of criminal behavior found, if that is what you mean; rather anopsia before the attack, and hubris in the reaction.

#3.1.1.1.4.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-11-20 10:59 (Reply)

They were not blinded by other concerns. You provide good evidence of that by changing the subject in the next sentence, to what you believe was being blinded after 9-11. If you had better evidence about beforehand, you would have used that.

They did not have sufficient information to act. Pretending otherwise by post hoc analysis is unreasonable. It shows disregard for the truth in favor of "but what can I make look like the truth." You are not a simple partisan with a different POV. You apply standards differently.

#3.1.1.1.4.2.1.1.1.2 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2018-11-20 11:31 (Reply)

Assistant Village Idiot: They were not blinded by other concerns.

They were concerned about Iraq, among other things. That they didn't even have a meeting of the principals on the problem until eight months into administration, even as the previous administration made clear that the threat was significant, is evidence they didn't treat the problem with the attention it required.

Assistant Village Idiot: They did not have sufficient information to act.

It's called "shaking the tree". They had evidence a hijacking may be involved. They knew or should have known that planes could be used as missiles. They needed to put everyone on notice to be looking out for anything that might be relevant, such a report of a suspicious person taking flying lessons. Whether this would have worked or not can never be known, but what can be known is that not concentrating resources on the problem was disastrous.

Assistant Village Idiot: It shows disregard for the truth in favor of "but what can I make look like the truth." You are not a simple partisan with a different POV. You apply standards differently.

It shows disregard for the truth in favor of "but what can I make look like the truth." You are not a simple partisan with a different POV. You apply standards differently.

Notably, this is only tangential to the topic of the survey. That people thought the Bush Administration was negligent may explain at least some of the responses to the survey question.

#3.1.1.1.4.2.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-11-20 11:58 (Reply)

"The Bush Administration was warned such an attack was impending"

All of you already admitted that the first time you stated that, it was an "overstatement". Then you repeat it again.

The funniest part of this is that you and Trump agree that Bush was warned about an "impending" attack.

Politifact demonstrated otherwise.

You're both wrong.

#3.1.1.1.4.2.1.1.1.3 Hank_M on 2018-11-20 12:28 (Reply)

It wasn't an "overstatement" but instead an outright lie.
Something the kiddiez are prone to do. 😉

#3.1.1.1.4.2.1.1.1.3.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2018-11-20 14:27 (Reply)

Hank_M: All of you already admitted that the first time you stated that, it was an "overstatement".

The overstatement concerned whether the Bush Administration "took no action", which was clear from the restatement immediately following.

Hank_M: The funniest part of this is that you and Trump agree that Bush was warned about an "impending" attack.

Trump suggested that Bush was provided specifics, which is not the case. However, "The system was blinking red."

#3.1.1.1.4.2.1.1.1.3.2 Zachriel on 2018-11-20 17:42 (Reply)

You're arguing they KNEW enough to stop the attack and didn't STOP it for whatever reason.

I'm pointing out the vagueness of the threat. You seem to see it as definitive.

"They knew or should have known that planes could be used as missiles." Despite them NOT being used as such before. The concept of suicidal hijackers was simply not on the radar.

"The Clinton Administration made a point of informing the incoming Bush Administration of the threat. A brief titled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" was personally provided to Bush." Yes, and as YOU verified there was insufficient information to actually narrow down the threat.

Why do I think that if the hijackers HAD been caught beforehand, you'd be arguing that they actually had no intention to kill themselves? Such a thing would be unthinkable!

#3.1.1.1.4.2.1.2 JLawson on 2018-11-20 13:24 (Reply)

JLawson: You're arguing they KNEW enough to stop the attack and didn't STOP it for whatever reason.

Not for "whatever reason", but by not taking the threat as seriously as they should have, and being distracted both before and after the attack by Saddam.

JLawson: I'm pointing out the vagueness of the threat. You seem to see it as definitive.

The threat was not definite, but bits of intelligence were available to possibly disrupt the conspiracy.

JLawson: Despite them NOT being used as such before. The concept of suicidal hijackers was simply not on the radar.

Yes, that was a major failure. There was more than sufficient intelligence that planes could be used as missiles.

JLawson: Why do I think that if the hijackers HAD been caught beforehand, you'd be arguing that they actually had no intention to kill themselves? Such a thing would be unthinkable!

Which shows your own misconceptions. Some people are willing to die for their cause. Suicide attacks are not new, e.g. Kamikaze pilots used planes as missiles.

#3.1.1.1.4.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-11-20 17:51 (Reply)

re Something to be thankful for: The real cost of a 2018 Thanksgiving dinner is lowest since 2010 and 26% lower than 1986

That's very true if you are a food buyer. If you are a seller . . . not so much.

#4 feeblemind on 2018-11-19 11:12 (Reply)

The sellers had to lower their prices for the buyers to pay less.

#4.1 FRP on 2018-11-19 11:29 (Reply)

I think what happened is that the cost to the grocery stores and thus the price to consumers is statistically lower because the inflation hasn't caught up in that industry. In other words the price of a turkey and fixins may well have gone up but not as much as inflation in general.

#4.1.1 Anon on 2018-11-20 10:37 (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

Monday, November 19. 2018

Monday morning links