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
Monday, January 16. 2023
Over half of the world's shrimp crop is farmed
NEW GOVERNMENT FUNDED “FOOD-PYRAMID” SAYS LUCKY CHARMS ARE HEALTHIER THAN STEAK
Misreading Others' Minds: Asymmetric Insight
Coverage Of Biden & Trump's Mishandled Classified Documents Reveals Media Double Standard. Most everything the media reported last week turned out to be wrong
Democrats fear Biden's classified documents will be his 'Hillary emails moment'
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I am heartbroken to learn that the shrimp I have been eating (which ain't much) is not free range.
Misreading Others' Minds: Asymmetric Insight
That is one of the most common sources of misunderstanding and intransigence between people with opposing views.
Here's an example of asymmetric insight right here:
MSNBC: Releasing January 6 Capitol Footage Is 'Dangerous'
The exercise for the reader is to understand why officials may not want to release all the videos, many of which show escape routes and other security measures. Instead, the Republican committee could view the videos before release to take into account legitimate security concerns while also making sure the public has the fullest possible account of the events of January 6.
Instead, the Republican committee could view the videos before release to take into account legitimate security concerns while also making sure the public has the fullest possible account of the events of January 6.
Instead, since January 6th was over 2 years ago, maybe the Democratic leadership could have made a better effort toward transparency and performed this task while basking in the glow of their majority for the past 2 years. But.... since they didn't: It's not a Republican responsibility to answer for the shortcomings of Democrat's poor choices.
I say release all of it and let the Congressional Professionals, bless their hearts, worry a little more about the safety of their collective hides. I'm betting that the American people will believe that the exonerating evidence that comes to light is going to be worth a little insecurity.
Here's an example of asymmetric insight right here:
Aggie: Instead, since January 6th was over 2 years ago, maybe the Democratic leadership could have made a better effort toward transparency and performed this task while basking in the glow of their majority for the past 2 years.
You are ignoring the possible security concerns.
Aggie: But.... since they didn't: It's not a Republican responsibility to answer for the shortcomings of Democrat's poor choices.
Well, actually. Yes, it is their responsibility.
But I didn't ignore them. I said they were not a priority in the pursuit of governmental transparency, which is a priority as it concerns investigating the January 6th unrest. If this makes the professional Federal working class uncomfortable, then this is an acceptable condition of being, as far as I'm concerned.
Aggie: I said they were not a priority in the pursuit of governmental transparency
You did ignore the security concerns by simply discounting them. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away. By addressing the legitimate concerns of security it should be possible to find a solution that also addresses the importance of transparency.
1. To refuse to pay attention to; disregard.
2. To be ignorant of or not acquainted with.
3. To throw out or reject as false or ungrounded.
Which of these do you suggest applies to de-ranking someone else's subjective priorities?
See also: Ignoramus.
Fun fact: 'Ignore' rhymes with 'Bore'
Aggie: 1. To refuse to pay attention to; disregard.
Aggie: Which of these do you suggest applies to de-ranking someone else's subjective priorities?
You gave security concerns zero weight without providing an argument or reason for having done so. Security issues are a plausible concern. So, by the way, is the problem of bureaucracies using secrecy to hide embarrassing or corrupt behavior. That is also a legitimate concern, one which should be addressed.
This speaks to the issue of asymmetric insight. You discount to nothing the concerns of others without reason, while amplifying your own concerns without reason. Excellent example.
You are once again appallingly incorrect and skewed in your perceptions. I did not disregard anything; I considered the value of Capital security - or rather, the excuse that security video tapes should not be released based on this pretext - and re-valued it, de-ranking it in comparative priority to the priority of transparency in the investigation of January 6th unrest. I did not give them 'zero weight', nor did I assess security concerns as 'implausible' - I gave them a lesser importance. I've said this clearly, twice now. Your inability to comprehend plain English is steering you wrong - or, you're being duplicitous and obtuse.
Aggie: I considered the value of Capital security - or rather, the excuse that security video tapes should not be released based on this pretext - and re-valued it, de-ranking it in comparative priority to the priority of transparency in the investigation of January 6th unrest.
Not sure about your valuation. Are you claiming it is a pretext, and therefore, of no value? Or are you saying it has some limited value?
If the security concern has some value, then shouldn't the solution balance the concerns, even if the security issue is not as important as transparency. So, if a solution can be found that protects security with minimal cost while also providing transparency, then shouldn't that be the preferred solution?
Let's face it - nothing will come of the Biden document story, just like nothing will happen to that son of his.
Coverage Of Biden & Trump's Mishandled Classified Documents Reveals Media Double Standard.
As such, the claim that Trump had roughly 30 times more classified documents than Biden rested on false assumptions. What’s more, nobody is in a position to say whether Trump’s apparent mishandling of classified documents was more of a threat to national security or a violation of the rules than Biden’s because we don’t know what exactly was revealed in the documents.
That is largely correct. This evaluation could change with new evidence.
Another frequently-repeated claim — that Biden’s behavior, in terms of publicly revealing the documents, was exemplary, while Trump’s was mendacious — is also not supported by the evidence.
It turns out that Biden knew about the mishandled documents as early as November 2, 2022, a week before the election, and kept it secret until a news organization asked about it.
But that is false. Biden's team immediately contacted the proper authorities and surrendered the documents. Trump resisted turning over the documents, was subpoenaed for the documents, attested they had surrendered all such documents, then documents were uncovered where the search warrant said they would be found. Biden not notifying the press is irrelevant to this important distinction.
While it’s true that Trump apparently resisted efforts by the federal government to retrieve the documents in question, it’s also because he thought — rightly or wrongly — that he had a right to the documents in question.
Yeah, well a bank robber might claim he stole the money fair and square. It's meaningless drivel. Trump had no right to government property, and he was subpoenaed for documents marked classified.
Whatever the case, what is clear is that Trump has claimed that he declassified the documents, whereas Biden has not claimed such privilege.
There is no evidence that Trump declassified the documents. His attorneys have avoided making that claim in court where there are penalties for making false claims. And the defense is that Trump declassified highly sensitive information? Really? Why? To share with friends? To share with business associates in Russia?
But it doesn't matter. The documents remain government property, and the subpoena was for documents marked classified.
Z: There is no evidence that Trump declassified the documents.
What evidence do you want? There is no procedure or paperwork associated with a president declassifying a document. If he wanted, he can declassify it by simply reading it publicly.
mudbug: There is no procedure or paperwork associated with a president declassifying a document.
Actually, there is a procedure. Without a procedure, no one could know what is or is not classified. No one could be held accountable. Here is an example Memorandum on Declassification.
Also, is the argument really that Trump declassified highly sensitive information?
mudbug: If he wanted, he can declassify it by simply reading it publicly.
Great! Who, what, when, where?
Maniac: Let's face it - nothing will come of the Biden document story, just like nothing will happen to that son of his.
Hunter Biden broke the law. He may enter a plea deal.
Democrats fear Biden's classified documents will be his 'Hillary emails moment'
Sure. With the same legal significance, that is, none. But significant political consequences.
Re Lucky Charms: I can't speak to the nutritional value, if any, of this product but I will say that the package design and advertising reinforces negative ethnic stereotypes about Hibernian-Americans like myself. In a word, we are being oppressed, and suffering injustice by being made figures of fun at breakfast tables across our land. I call on all people of good will to boycott Lucky Charms.
Thanks for listening. I feel better now.
Send Hairless Joe some money!! He (or whatever gender) is in terrible pain! Time to redress this wrong.
"Releasing January 6 Capitol Footage Is 'Dangerous'" to the Democrats who have turned into Nazi son of a bitches.
There is a good reason they don't want transparency on this.. We all know it wasn't an insurrection. It was nothing more than a demonstration by regular everyday citizens protesting a stolen election. The Democrat/Nazi feared that there would be an actual investigation into the stolen election so they desperately needed something to change the subject and capture the national news, They set up the "insurrection trap" and THAT is what the videos and documents will prove. So, yes, Releasing January 6 Capitol Footage Is 'Dangerous' to Nancy Pelosi and her fellow criminal Democrats.
Another example of asymmetric insight. There can't be a legitimate reason to withhold the videos, so they must be Nazis.
Words of the day for the Quibble-DickZ: asymmetric insight.
Terms the Quibble-DickZ apply to almost anything they view differently or can't readily explain with all evidence to the contrary..
In most police departments when a policeman is suspected of doing something wrong or committing a crime he is required to testify under oath. If he refuses to or cannot answer a question (i.e. takes the 5th) he will be terminated. He retains his right to take the 5th under the constitution but not to be a police officer who cannot speak the truth under oath.
This practice should be applied to every government employee and politician at every level. When Christopher Wray was asked under oath if the FBI had prepositioned any FBI agents or assets within the capitol bldg. on Jan 6th wearing MAGA hats he was unable to answer. That is a HUGE red flag. There is only one possible answer which would be a categorical "NO!". Any other answer should result in Mr. Wray going to jail. No employee and no politicians has a right to lie to the citizens or to hide things from the citizens and doing so should result in immediate firing from their position.
It is also important to note too that as soon as that question was asked of Mr. Wray the Democrat in charge of the committee put a stop to the witness having to respond. THAT was illegal interfering in an investigation and it makes you wonder if the Democrats in congress conspired with the FBI to put agents in MAGA paraphernalia into the capitol bldg. to create the impression of crimes being committed.
Obama weaponized the alphabet agencies into political Brown Shirts and the Democrats are the true insurrectionists and have committed treason. And YOU, Zach, are a co-conspirator trying to cover up their crimes and treasons. A Bot, a troll, paid to spread lies and disinformation. The surest sign that any accusation against the left/Democrats is accurate is Zach piping up to deny it. In fact Zach is literally the closest thing we have to transparency in the political landscape of the Democrats. If Zach says it's true than it's a lie. If Zach says it's a lie than it's true. He is a like a weather vane always pointing in the wrong direction.
OneGuy: In most police departments when a policeman is suspected of doing something wrong or committing a crime he is required to testify under oath.
That is correct.
OneGuy: When Christopher Wray was asked under oath if the FBI had prepositioned any FBI agents or assets within the capitol bldg. on Jan 6th wearing MAGA hats he was unable to answer.
The law protects ongoing investigations from disclosure, by law and by practice. This protects innocent people caught up in investigations, protects sources and methods, and possibly classified information. When a prosecutor speaks, it should be in court.
Congress has oversight responsibility of the FBI and with that comes the right to know everything regardless of them using an "investigation" as cover. Everything!! Wray should have been terminated on that same day.
OneGuy: Congress has oversight responsibility of the FBI and with that comes the right to know everything regardless of them using an "investigation" as cover.
A Congressional committee can't override legislation passed by the whole Congress into law. Federal grand jury investigations are protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which is enabled by 28 U.S. Code § 2072.
Did you just pull a grand jury out of thin air? No one is talking about a grand jury. The issue at hand is the actions of the high level leaders and the agents in the FBI. They conspired to commit criminal acts and now they are engaged in a cover-up. There should be a grand jury BUT it should be held to indict those in the FBI and DOJ who have committed crimes and those who have failed to uphold their oath of office.
One Guy: Did you just pull a grand jury out of thin air?
Probably "asymmetric insight".
Asymmetric for sure but I don't think you have any insight.
OneGuy: Did you just pull a grand jury out of thin air?
The investigation of the January 6 riot, which was the topic, was and is being conducted by a federal grand jury, per the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Contempt of the proceedings, such as by violating Rule 6(e) on secrecy, is enforced under 18 U.S. Code § 401.
In regards to "finding" classified documents in the private locations, I think the more important issue is how poorly these documents are controlled.
When the media speaks about classified documents they tell tales about the harms that could result were these protected documents to fall into the wrong hands. But history shows us that these concerns do not trouble our elite.
They are happy to classify documents of any sort that might harm them personally while leaking documents when they harm their political opponents.
Does anybody remember the long prison term served by Sandy Berger? Oh yeah that's right he didn't serve anytime in prison for stealing and destroying documents.
The real issue is that this exposes the Mar-A-Lago "confidential documents" narrative as a fiction created to allow the FBI to raid the house of the leading opposition candidate (i.e., the purported reason Trump was impeached).
But differently, mishandling documents is the so-called limited hangout, not the real high crime.
There is asymmetric insight, and there is wisdom from God and studying history. One does not need to look very deep in to the historical record to see the lies of the left. Their constant hypocrisy is on full display every single hour of the day. So when a person of the left speaks, I naturally am inclined to not believe anything they say. Their words and actions are filled with malice towards humanity. Their philosophy is death and they ride a pale colored horse.
As OneGuy points out, the truth is being reported, so the troll needs to try and deflect. So utterly predictable. And pathetic.
I suspect the borg group is driving the z bot. Having followed some of the information at Vox Day, I have reached the conclusion that z is a paid bot and driven by the group borg.
As the government narrative that underlies Russia, Russia, Russia and Covid, AGW, and censorship collapses, we will see more paid bots surface in order to try and maintain the authoritarian narrative. Enjoy poking the narrative. Its free and entertaining.
I have to agree. More and more of these periodic online trolls are looking like bots to me.
I have no idea if the shrimp I eat are farmed or wild, but if they are farmed, then yay for the advance in technology in fish farming.
So, Chritopher Wray is in Davos attending the WEF. WTF! Why would he be attending the WTF? It is impossible to come up with an answer to that question that makes you feel good about it. Try it. Why is Christopher Wray attending the WTF? Is he going to enforce the great reset?