Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Tuesday, December 4. 2018

Tuesday morning links

Image via Pirate 


The War On Advent - Death, judgment, Heaven, and Hell


 UC Berkeley settles landmark free speech lawsuit, will pay $70,000 to conservative group


 UMass: Qualified faculty candidates must be 'appropriately diverse'


How college campus bureaucracy makes ‘snowflakes’


A site keeps tack of hoax hate crimes (h/t reader) 


AVI:  Justice, and Other Words


Understanding the Data: The American Working-Class and the Economy


63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs Compared to 35% of native households


35% of native households get welfare money? That sounds crazy, but maybe it includes Medicaid 


 Rutgers Profs Outraged After Illegal Arrested for DUI, 'Reckless Endangerment'


 Mueller's Perjury Traps


 The Only Good Republican Is A Dead Republican


People in the White House listen to Scott Adams re China's Fenanyl (pod) 


 EU Mulls Making Criticism Of Migration Policy A Criminal Offense


Brilliant solution 



Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:30 | Comments (28) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Re: 63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs Compared to 35% of native households

That study analysis is from an anti-immigration group so maybe take it with a grain of salt, but welfare is for the poor and immigrants tend to be poor - which correlates to education. There's certainly an argument to be made that we should accept more well-educated, wealthier immigrants and fewer poor and poorly-educated immigrants but that sort of ignores the fact that if you're well-educated and have a good job and a good life in a foreign country, why would you want to emigrate?

But aside from that, I've always said the primary beneficiaries of welfare programs are the well-paid paper-shufflers administering the welfare programs. If you include a fair number of people getting government paychecks in the class of welfare recipients, that 35% jumps a good bit and they aren't receiving a measly few hundred dollars a month. And don't get me started on the number of people benefitting from government subsidies and tax and regulation carve-outs - the primary purpose of the Food Stamp program wasn't to feed poor people, it was to increase farm incomes. The biggest welfare queens in the country are the Fanjuls and ADM and ConAgra.
#1 Jerryskids on 2018-12-04 08:04 (Reply)
...if you're well-educated and have a good job and a good life in a foreign country, why would you want to emigrate?

Because you can almost always do better economically in America than practically any other country. If I recall correctly, even an WEIRD country like Sweden ranks down around some of our most impoverished states for median income.
#1.1 Christopher B on 2018-12-04 08:48 (Reply)
Bird Dog: 35% of native households get welfare money? That sounds crazy, but maybe it includes Medicaid

According to the link, no single program determines the disparity. Of note, many families have citizen children or have lived and worked in the U.S. for many years. The most likely element is lower educational attainment, meaning lower workplace earnings.
#1.2 Zachriel on 2018-12-04 09:44 (Reply)
In my area, 60% of the public school kids qualify for free or reduced price meals. Located in flyover country, in a city with unemployment at 3% (or less), you would not normally assume that would the case.

With the low threshold for aid and the many different types of aid, it isn't surprising to me that 35% of native households qualify.
#2 rdb on 2018-12-04 09:13 (Reply)
Same here, an extremely high percentage of local school kids get lunch assistance. It's not so much a question of joblessness or low-paying jobs as drugs and parental absence. The local social workers concentrate on intervening with "moms" who have no concept of making a meal or even packing a lunch. As usual, don't even mention "dads." The kids simply lack a functioning adult in the house: they'd be thrilled to have a desperately poor but psychically competent one.
#2.1 Texan99 on 2018-12-04 10:26 (Reply)
QUOTE:
A site keeps tack of hoax hate crimes

Hoaxes undoubtedly occur. It's doubtful the site can be considered comprehensive. They list 345 incidents since the 1980s. If we assume that older data is less complete, we might just sample the previous year, with 10 incidents in the U.S. For comparison, 7000 hate crimes were reported to the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program in 2017. Not every law enforcement agency reports hate crimes, but it gives an idea of the difference in scale.
#3 Zachriel on 2018-12-04 09:53 (Reply)
QUOTE:
Mueller's Perjury Traps

There is a surefire way to avoid a "perjury trap": Tell the truth.

QUOTE:
If any of Trump’s answers to Mueller’s questions include even one of the same lies as Manafort, it would not only be perjury but the "high crime" the incoming Democratic House majority will use to initiate Articles of Impeachment.

If Trump lied under oath about something substantive to the investigation, it would constitute felony perjury and obstruction. If he coordinated that lie with a convicted criminal, it would constitute criminal conspiracy.

QUOTE:
That’s how Mueller got General Michael Flynn, who related a conversation he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that differed from the recordings Mueller had of the meeting.

Lying to the FBI conducting an investigation of Russian interference about your meetings with Russian agents is a crime.

QUOTE:
He told investigators that a conversation about Russia with suspected CIA spy Joseph Mifsud, an academic and Russia expert, happened before he was associated with the Trump campaign.

Papadopoulos lied about several important matters. The lies allowed time for the Russian agent to disappear, and avoid being questioned by the FBI.

QUOTE:
It’s what he’s trying to do to Jerome Corsi also, a septuagenarian who couldn’t remember forwarding an email.

The allegation is that Corsi lied about having foreknowledge of the WikiLeaks hack of the Chair of the Clinton Campaign, and of the schedule for its release. Recently, he claimed "divine intervention" for his precise foreknowledge.

Why is it important to prosecute people who lie to the FBI? It should be obvious, but questioning witnesses is an important part of understanding what happened, whether any crimes were committed, and who may have been criminally involved. Lying impedes the investigation.
#4 Zachriel on 2018-12-04 10:11 (Reply)
"Tell the truth" they say. That statement betrays your ignorance, or your duplicity. Everyone knows that you don't talk to the police. Just don't. I believe most here are familiar with this video. www.youtube.com/watch?=i8z7NC5sgik Even an innocent comment can be used against you. In this, the police are not your friends.
#4.1 Dave on 2018-12-04 11:43 (Reply)
Dave: "Tell the truth" they say. That statement betrays your ignorance, or your duplicity. Everyone knows that you don't talk to the police.

It's better to remain silent than to lie. Of course, you could possibly be subpoenaed.

In real life, of course, most people will talk to the police. Crime victims and witnesses report what they see every day.
#4.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-04 15:16 (Reply)
QUOTE:
Why is it important to prosecute people who lie to the FBI?


Ahem, cough.. cough... Hillary.

BWAHAHAAA.. stop it, kiddiez... you're killing me. 😂
#4.2 Zzzatemypuppy on 2018-12-04 13:35 (Reply)
Now, now ... Hillary has yet to be indicted, so we mustn't for a second question a single one of her actions or engage in conjecture regarding her motives.
#4.2.1 Bill Carson on 2018-12-04 14:22 (Reply)
Bill Carson: Hillary has yet to be indicted, so we mustn't for a second question a single one of her actions or engage in conjecture regarding her motives.

Of course you can question Clinton's actions and motives. However, it is reasonable to point out that she has been repeatedly investigated, and no kiddie porn rings have yet to be uncovered.
#4.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-04 15:19 (Reply)
So Hillary has been honest with the FBI in regard to kiddie porn rings?!?
#4.2.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2018-12-04 15:44 (Reply)
Pizzagate conspiracy theory
#4.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-04 15:49 (Reply)
Hillary mishandled classified information, lied about it, and was let off the hook by those "investigating" her. Luckily those didn't keep her from being President, eh?!?
#4.2.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2018-12-04 15:55 (Reply)
Bill Carson: Hillary mishandled classified information, lied about it, and was let off the hook by those "investigating" her. Luckily those didn't keep her from being President, eh?!?

Thank you for being specific. Clinton was found to have mishandled classified information. There was insufficient evidence to conclude she lied to law enforcement, or that she was aware that classified information was being sent through email.
#4.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-04 17:07 (Reply)
QUOTE:
However, it is reasonable to point out that she has been repeatedly investigated ...

It's infinitely more reasonable to point out that the only way Hillary could have been less thoroughly investigated regarding her mishandling of classified material ("Pizzagate" is, even for you, a particularly dumb red herring) is if she were to have conducted the investigation herself.
#4.2.1.1.2 Bill Carson on 2018-12-04 16:02 (Reply)
Bill Carson: It's infinitely more reasonable to point out that the only way Hillary could have been less thoroughly investigated regarding her mishandling of classified material ... is if she were to have conducted the investigation herself.

Clinton's handling of email was thoroughly investigated by the FBI. They found insufficient evidence to support a criminal charge, which was pretty obvious from the publicly available information.
#4.2.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-04 17:10 (Reply)
What metrics are you using to gauge the thoroughness of the FBI's investigation? No indictment? At the very minimum Clinton was guilty of mishandling classified information, as intent doesn't matter - contrary to Comey's incorrect assertion to the contrary. Then again, he was fired, wasn't he?
#4.2.1.1.2.1.1 Bill Carson on 2018-12-04 18:12 (Reply)
Bill Carson: What metrics are you using to gauge the thoroughness of the FBI's investigation?

The FBI investigation spanned a year, involved 80+ witnesses, computer forensics, and a 500 page IG report, which found missteps, but concluded "We found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations; rather, we determined that they were based on the prosecutors’ assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice."

Bill Carson: At the very minimum Clinton was guilty of mishandling classified information, as intent doesn't matter -

That is incorrect. As the Supreme Court said in Gorin vs. United States, "elements of scienter and bad faith which must be present" for the law to be constitutional. If Clinton didn't know classified information was contained in her emails, then she can't be held criminally responsible. However, she would still be subject to administrative review.

Bill Carson: Then again, he was fired, wasn't he?

Trump said it was something about "this Russia thing".
#4.2.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-05 10:23 (Reply)
QUOTE:
The FBI investigation spanned a year, involved 80+ witnesses, computer forensics, and a 500 page IG report, which found missteps, but concluded "We found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations; rather, we determined that they were based on the prosecutors’ assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice."

A metric you left out. Here's another. With folks like these two (along with others with similar political leanings and low regard for honesty) investigating Hillary, how can one be confident regarding the legitimacy of the FBI's findings?

QUOTE:
As the Supreme Court said in Gorin vs. United States, "elements of scienter and bad faith which must be present" for the law to be constitutional. If Clinton didn't know classified information was contained in her emails, then she can't be held criminally responsible. However, she would still be subject to administrative review.

I'm talking about an apple (mishandling classified information) and you're talking about an orange (espionage). And while I can't say for sure that Hillary didn't commit espionage, I think it's quite clear that she was grossly negligent in her handling of classified material (see link above where fired-from-the-FBI-cretin Peter Strzok fails to remember how this negligence was glossed over by the "honest broker" FBI), and for this she should have been prosecuted, lost her security clearance, etc. Again, intent has nothing to do with it. Here's what I'm talking about:

QUOTE:
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed ...

And Hillary Clinton, history's most qualified Presidential candidate didn't know that she was handling classified material on a non-secure computer network? While Secretary of State of the United States of America? She's either a retard or a criminal - pick your poison. Well, in any event, she is not my President, nor anyone else's.
#4.2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2018-12-05 11:56 (Reply)
P.S. And not knowing that classified material is in fact classified (or at least erring on the side of caution) is the very definition of gross negligence. Yes, Virginia, incompetence qualifies as gross negligence. History's most qualified Presidential candidate, my ass.
#4.2.1.1.2.1.1.1.2 Bill Carson on 2018-12-05 12:11 (Reply)
Bill Carson: A metric you left out. Here's another. With folks like these two (along with others with similar political leanings and low regard for honesty) investigating Hillary, how can one be confident regarding the legitimacy of the FBI's findings?

Because the independent Inspector General looked at the results of the investigation and found no reason to doubt the final conclusions. And the conclusions comport with the law.

Bill Carson: I'm talking about an apple (mishandling classified information) and you're talking about an orange (espionage).

Which law? Oh, gee whiz ...

Bill Carson: (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed ...

That's the Espionage Act. And the Supreme Court says conviction requires "elements of scienter and bad faith which must be present". She can't be held criminally responsible unless you can show she knew the information was reasonably classified as "relating to the national defense". If she knew, then she could be charged under the gross negligence standard, but the evidence was lacking to make such a case.

Bill Carson: And Hillary Clinton, history's most qualified Presidential candidate didn't know that she was handling classified material on a non-secure computer network?

Prosecutors can only charge for what they reasonably think they can prove in a court of law.
#4.2.1.1.2.1.1.1.3 Zachriel on 2018-12-05 12:16 (Reply)
QUOTE:
Which law? Oh, gee whiz ...

Apple vs. orange. Again.

QUOTE:
If she knew, then she could be charged under the gross negligence standard

Her job title required that she know, you daft bugger!

Grab yourself a dictionary and see what the differences between "gross negligence" and "bad faith" are. And not knowing is negligence. The nice thing in all of this is, Hillary can still be tried for what she's done. Odds of that gotta be at least as good as those of hanging a "collusion" rap on Trump, no?!?
#4.2.1.1.2.1.1.1.3.1 Bill Carson on 2018-12-05 12:43 (Reply)
Bill Carson: Her job title required that she know

That would under administrative review.

Per the Supreme Court the Espionage Act requires "scienter and bad faith". Prosecutors would have to show that Clinton knew in fact that the information was "relating to national defense". She used the secure intranet system for the vast majority of classified communications, and there was no motive to have classified information on her email. It's not unusual for some classified information to migrate into email. It's a constant problem within the government. There's no criminal case to be made.
#4.2.1.1.2.1.1.1.3.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-05 12:52 (Reply)
re EU Mulls Making Criticism Of Migration Policy A Criminal Offense

Nothing new here:

Swedish Law Criminalizes Anti-immigration Internet Speech
https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/18116-new-swedish-law-criminalizes-anti-immigration-internet-speech
#5 feeblemind on 2018-12-04 12:03 (Reply)
College snowflakes: There's money in enabling snowflakes.

Rutgers: Enabling illegals for xxx years...

EU: Criticizing illegal immigration IST VERBOTEN.

UCBerkeley: $70K a mere pittance. What is that? 1.2 students' tuition?
#6 Sam L. on 2018-12-04 12:36 (Reply)
that sort of ignores the fact that if you're well-educated and have a good job and a good life in a foreign country, why would you want to emigrate?

Already answered but I know a German plumber whose wife was a midwife, both solid middle class, who waited years for their number to come up in the lottery for a visa. They had 60,000 Euros in savings to start a business in Tucson AZ. He said there was no way he could have his own business in Germany.
#7 Mike K (Link) on 2018-12-04 13:29 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your 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.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.