Monday morning links

What's Wrong with Latin America?

Nice article, but why does everyone tiptoe around two widespread Latin American social pathologies, wife-beating and that whole casa chica thing?

#1 Mike Anderson (Link) on 2023-06-12 09:30 (Reply)

If they are lucky, our children and grandchildren will live in a kind of Brazil-Mexico. If they are unlucky, they will live in Zimbabwe.

#1.1 bob sykes (Link) on 2023-06-12 10:07 (Reply)

I grew up inundated with the US-is-to-blame-for-Latin-America-Socialiism-will-save-it narrative. Family friends were friends with Camilo Torres, the Colombian Guerilla-Priest.

My time in Latin America as first a tourist, and then working in the oil field, changed my mind. The wealthy landowners' centuries-long monopoly on investment capital crippled Latin America's economy. I observed socialism in action. Government-owned telephone companies were a disaster. For example, in Argentina you had to pay $1500 (probably $10,000 now) to get a landline installed- and wait a year to get it. With the exception of pre-Chavista PDVSA in Venezuela, government-owned oil companies, such as YPF in Argentina, were also a disaster.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, Latin America discarded Socialism for the most part. Cuba, the outstanding exception, has increased milk production from 1961 to 2021 by about 10% (350k to 384 k metric tons)- compared with Latin America's more than quintupling milk production during this period from 18.6 million metric tons to 86.4 million metric tons. Venezuela's Chavista Socialism succeeded in killing the petroleum milk cow, from 3 million BOPD to less than 1 million BOPD).

In general, government control has led to stagnation.

But some things Latin America has done right: fertility rate has gone from 6.0 or so in the 1960s to about 2.0 today. Infant Mortality is way down.

In general, government attempts to control the economy

#1.2 Gringo on 2023-06-12 14:21 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Thoughts On The Federal Trump Indictment: It's Shockingly Weak . . . So by the clear words of this statute the ex-President is absolutely entitled to have “access” to the “Presidential records” generated during his own term

The president has access to presidential records from the National Archives, not from his private stash in the bathroom at his private resort.

QUOTE:

Other than 18 USC Section 793(e), all the other “crimes” pleaded in this indictment are the usual FBI/Justice Department litany of process crimes — “lying” to the investigators, hiding things, saying things had been turned over when they had not, etc.

In other words, crimes. (Try "'lying' to the investigators, hiding things, saying things had been turned over when they had not, etc." in response to a court-ordered subpoena sometime.)

#2 Zachriel on 2023-06-12 09:58 (Reply)

We have precedent in the case of Hillary’s classified emails on her illicit server that was supposed to have been in a bathroom in her house (or was it in the bathroom of the of Platte River Networks?) which was managed by people without security clearances

Hiding things? I guess destroying subpoenaed information and devices is different from hiding things, right?

#2.1 mudbug on 2023-06-12 11:46 (Reply)

Newly declassified documents show Hillary's server was compromised, emails forwarded to Chinese email account.

redstate.com 2019/08/15

read all the links especially those from the Epoch Times. It was the IC inspector general that found the links for the FBI. There were 5 known state hackers, including Germany and South Korea. Everyone got the server information except the US pubic.

China hacked clintons email server congressman confirms.
theepochtimes.com june 27,2019 updated july 4,2019

Comey ... a sophisticated foreign actor would leave no evidence.

#2.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-06-12 13:53 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Newly declassified documents show Hillary's server was compromised, emails forwarded to Chinese email account.

Don't see anything there but allegation and assumption, and all of that from four years ago. Can you point to hard evidence?

#2.1.2 Zachriel on 2023-06-12 15:21 (Reply)

What I see is everyone ignoring it as best they can just like Barr and the FBI have been sitting on the Biden Ukraine grift for years. Run out the time clock and then claim "ancient" history. Nobody will investigate, just ruminate. Oh, where is the Hunter gun indictment?

#2.1.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-06-12 16:49 (Reply)

Z: Can you point to hard evidence?

indyjonesouthere: Hunter! Her emails!

So, no.

#2.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-06-12 16:53 (Reply)

They pretend to investigate and they pretend they don't have enough evidence. They could easily have charged Hillary's server personnel as none had government clearances but they had access to the server contents. Even the Pakistani brothers who ran the democratic house server had no clearances but had access to any classified info for which their house members had access.

#2.1.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-06-12 22:12 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: They could easily have charged Hillary's server personnel as none had government clearances but they had access to the server contents.

No, they couldn’t have convicted the subcontractors on that basis. Email, even on government accounts, is not meant for classified information. The vast majority of the emails involved did not include classified information, while none of the classified information that was therein was properly marked. Consequently, there was no evidence of the scienter and bad faith needed for a conviction.

#2.1.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-06-12 22:41 (Reply)

Email isn't meant for classified info but there sure is classified info in the emails. And deleting the emails was intentional destruction of evidence. A proper prosecutor can convert that fact into leverage against the contractor. You will notice that is never done in the russia, russia, russia scam. What does the Barr/Durham show you other than they suggest no actions and not policy changes. Typical for the uniparty participants.

#2.1.2.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-06-13 13:35 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Email isn't meant for classified info but there sure is classified info in the emails.

Sure. It's a persistent problem for the government.

indyjonesouthere: And deleting the emails was intentional destruction of evidence. A proper prosecutor can convert that fact into leverage against the contractor.

That's what they did. They forced him to testify.

#2.1.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-06-13 14:41 (Reply)

mudbug: We have precedent in the case of Hillary’s classified emails on her illicit server that was supposed to have been in a bathroom in her house (or was it in the bathroom of the of Platte River Networks?) which was managed by people without security clearances

Sure, but email isn't meant for classified information. The evidence indicates that classified information leaked into emails, which is a very common problem for the government. Because there was no provable intent to house classified information on the server, there was no prosecutable case.

mudbug: I guess destroying subpoenaed information and devices is different from hiding things, right?

Clinton's server, run under subcontract by Platte River Networks, was supposed to automatically delete emails after 60 days, a common enough security policy as to have its own a simple setting. When subpoenaed, Clinton's office instructed the subcontractor running the server to retain documents. An IT technician, Paul Combetta, who was aware of the subpoena, had forgotten to set up the email server for automatic deletion. He attempted to cover his mistake with a blanket erasure. That was illegal, but the evidence was that he did so on his own volition.

#2.2 Zachriel on 2023-06-12 12:00 (Reply)

Death of the professions ... Can anyone be surprised that education and medicine are at the forefront? Government funds the consumption of both. You are taxed to death to fund both but they are always ready to tell you that you need not consume the government product and you can go to the private markets. End both government products or provide vouchers only for both and we will find the provider of OUR choice.

#3 indyjonesouthere on 2023-06-12 10:04 (Reply)

Why did the government dump the records in the parking lot. Whose records are they?

Sunday Talks-The Encapsulation 2023/06/11
theconservativetreehouse

#4 indyjonesouthere on 2023-06-12 10:21 (Reply)

I loved the pizza story. In a country where you can buy kidney pie they think pizza is bad, LOL! I especially like the reasoning that because 10% of children are overweight we feel justified in denying food to the other 90%, WTF! Little Eichmanns in charge. What's next? How about masks mandates but with a twist, the masks lock in place and prevent the consumption of food. For your own good of course. The masks could be unlocked once a day for POC and once a week for all white potential supremacists.

#5 OneGuy on 2023-06-12 10:27 (Reply)

In the UK, keep kids away from pizza.

Well, Papa John's pizza at any rate. I kinda have to wonder if there's another brand of pizza they're not quite so concerned about. And if that particular brand has made some payments to certain high-level bureaucrats.

#5.1 Jerryskids on 2023-06-12 12:41 (Reply)

"I kinda have to wonder if there's another brand of pizza they're not quite so concerned about."

It's probably this one, which is a bit more upscale in the UK:

https://www.pizzaexpress.com/

Mind you, their pizzas are very good indeed.

#5.1.1 JJM on 2023-06-12 14:42 (Reply)

"The Federal Trump Indictment"

Supposedly Trump talked about a report that was created expressly for him at his request and the report was classified. I can't recall any other former president discussing things that happened during their term in office, can you? (sarc). But seriously does any rational person actually think that Trump is some kind of spy or traitor? Outspoken and without a filter yes! But an enemy of the state???

You remember that picture where Biden was holding a classified folder in a way that allowed it to be read? Download the picture, expand it and rotate it upside down and you could read it. Do you remember the DOJ indicting Biden for that? Yeah, me neither.

#6 Anon on 2023-06-12 10:34 (Reply)

Anon: But seriously does any rational person actually think that Trump is some kind of spy or traitor?

Trump was not indicted for spying or treason, but of unlawful retention of defense information and of conspiracy to obstruct.

Anon: You remember that picture where Biden was holding a classified folder in a way that allowed it to be read? Download the picture, expand it and rotate it upside down and you could read it. Do you remember the DOJ indicting Biden for that? Yeah, me neither.

If you are referring to this, the contents were not revealed. If exposed, it would only be criminal if there was intent. Even then, as president, he has the general power to reveal secrets—subject to laws against bribery or treason, of course.

#6.1 Zachriel on 2023-06-12 11:20 (Reply)

(The vice-president also has classification authority.)

#6.1.1 Zachriel on 2023-06-12 11:22 (Reply)

The president is the only person who has sole authority to declassify documents by his own independent decision. This authority can be implemented by his actions and/or verbal indication, i.e. if he shows them to someone not authorized to see them that is in fact his active act of declassifying the documents. The act of taking classified documents with him as he left office is de facto declassification of those documents.

Under our constitution and our beliefs in the constitution this case should not go to a trial until after it is reviewed by the Supreme Court. The risk is that we devolve into a banana republic where every president has his DOJ indict the previous president or anyone running for the office of president. Let the Supremes decide if: 1 Trump did anything different than past presidents. 2 That all future presidents should be punished after the fact for things they did when they had the full right to do them.

The DOJ should be investigated. Merrick Garland is the most corrupt AG in history (even considering the low bar that Erick Holder and Loretta Lynch set. And the lawyers under him are clearly using their power in an unlawful manner and should themselves face trial, and NOT in DC where the jury pool is tainted..

#6.1.1.1 Anon on 2023-06-12 12:27 (Reply)

Anon: The president is the only person who has sole authority to declassify documents by his own independent decision.

That is incorrect. Executive Order 13526 grants classification authority to the Vice President, including Top Secret classification.

Anon: This authority can be implemented by his actions and/or verbal indication, i.e. if he shows them to someone not authorized to see them that is in fact his active act of declassifying the documents.

That is incorrect. For instance, providing intelligence information to an ally doesn't declassify the information. Otherwise, no one could ever share information, which kinda defeats the purpose.

Anon: The act of taking classified documents with him as he left office is de facto declassification of those documents.

That is incorrect. That is, unless you think the nuclear codes are declassified because he took them to Mar-a-Lago.

Anon: Under our constitution and our beliefs in the constitution this case should not go to a trial until after it is reviewed by the Supreme Court.

That is incorrect. Under the U.S. Constitution, the matter only goes to the Supreme Court when a case with specific legal issues is brought before it. That may yet happen, but there's a process involved.

Anon: Let the Supremes decide if: 1 Trump did anything different than past presidents.

That's not a defense under the law. Two boys try to rob a train. One has short legs and gets caught. The other has long legs and gets away. The former is locked up with ne'er-do-wells and begins a life of crime. The latter becomes a priest intent on doing good. How is that fair?

#6.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2023-06-12 12:38 (Reply)

And the tens of thousands of classified documents on Hillarie's server which all the experts agreed had been hacked by the Chinese and Russians and perhaps a few thousand random hackers. THEN she destroyed the evidence in a huge conspiracy and covered it up.

#6.2 Anon on 2023-06-12 11:47 (Reply)

Anon: And the tens of thousands of classified documents on Hillarie's server

There were no classified documents, though there were about 2,000 emails containing classified information.

Anon: which all the experts agreed had been hacked by the Chinese and Russians and perhaps a few thousand random hackers.

There's no evidence that Clinton's server was hacked. However, it can't be ruled out either.

#6.2.1 Zachriel on 2023-06-12 12:03 (Reply)

"There were no classified documents"

Prove it! Show us what was on her server. Oh! You can't because she bleached it.

"There's no evidence that Clinton's server was hacked"

And why is there no evidence? Because she destroyed it, an act commonly referred to as obstruction.

There is no evidence that the DNC server was hacked. Why? Because they refused to make it available to the FBI technicians to verify that claim.

#6.2.1.1 Anon on 2023-06-12 15:47 (Reply)

Anon: Prove it!

You said, "And the tens of thousands of classified documents on Hillarie's server." That claim was unsupported. Our claim is supported by the FBI investigation that recovered most of the missing emails, which were on government servers.

Anon: And why is there no evidence?

You said, "which all the experts agreed had been hacked by the Chinese and Russians and perhaps a few thousand random hackers." All experts do not agree. That claim was false.

#6.2.1.2 Zachriel on 2023-06-12 16:41 (Reply)

Sunday talks, Bill Barr goes all-in to support anti Trump campaign. theconservativetreehouse 2023/06/11

It was NARA that dumped the docs in the white house parking lot. Why is everyone pretending not to know the difference between classified docs and docs containing classification markings?

#7 indyjonesouthere on 2023-06-12 10:35 (Reply)

" I’m a forty-year-old male Swiftie. No, I’m not ashamed. Taylor Swift is the finest tune crafter of the last generation — maybe even the last two"

He and Swift have something in common: they both sit down to urinate.

#8 Maniac on 2023-06-12 11:02 (Reply)

'What's Wrong with Latin America?'

The same thing that's wrong with Africa.

#9 Maniac on 2023-06-12 11:10 (Reply)

I don't think it's a secret that the way to establish a long-term career for a female pop singer is to court a following with two groups: middle-aged women and gay men. Judy Garland, Barbara Streisand, Celine Dion, and now Swift and Britney Spears have all used this approach.

#10 Another Guy Named Dan on 2023-06-12 11:12 (Reply)

Another Guy Named Dan: I don't think it's a secret that the way to establish a long-term career for a female pop singer is to court a following with two groups: middle-aged women and gay men. Judy Garland, Barbara Streisand, Celine Dion, and now Swift and Britney Spears have all used this approach.

Popular artists tend to retain their fans over time, so as they become middle aged, their middle-aged fans follow along. The Rolling Stones are old and have a lot of old fans. As for the LGBT+ community, they often enjoy artists who flirt with gender roles, which is very common in the theater, and especially remember artists who have stood up for LGBT+ rights.

For instance, Barbra Streisand's career started in the gay nightclub, "The Lion" in Greenwich Village, later writing, “We’re all unique and beautiful in our own way and entitled to love and be loved by whomever we choose."

#10.1 Zachriel on 2023-06-12 11:37 (Reply)

The Rolling Stones are neither pop, female, nor, despite the protestations of Mick's adherents, a single singer. Different rules apply.

#10.1.1 Another Guy named Dan on 2023-06-12 13:29 (Reply)

Nonetheless, they generally don't court middle-aged women. They court women their own age, then they age together. As for the LGBT+ community, remember that until recently, admitting you were gay or got along with gays could be a career ender in many cases. Even today, transgender people are often subject to vilification.

#10.1.2 Zachriel on 2023-06-12 15:35 (Reply)

“We’re all unique and beautiful in our own way and entitled to love and be loved by whomever we choose."

Ackchyually, no one is entitled to be loved by whomever they choose.

#10.1.3 eeyore on 2023-06-12 15:43 (Reply)

eeyore: Ackchyually, no one is entitled to be loved by whomever they choose.

It's clear from context, she is referring to mutual relationships.

#10.1.4 Zachriel on 2023-06-12 16:42 (Reply)

My goodness, another day of Full Court Press. The case must be really weak.

#11 Aggie on 2023-06-12 12:50 (Reply)

It is beyond weak. It's a closed casket service with unidentifiable remains.

#11.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-06-12 15:05 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: It is beyond weak. It's a closed casket service with unidentifiable remains.

If so, then Trump can move for the charges to be dismissed, and the request would be granted if the charges are "beyond weak."

#11.2 Zachriel on 2023-06-12 15:37 (Reply)

It's lawfare. Notice it keeps the "big guy" 5 million grift off the front page and the uniparty is helpful in ignoring any talk of impeachment. It also keeps Hunters 5 million Ukraine grift off the pages and still no gun indictment.

#11.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-06-12 17:00 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: It's lawfare.

Sounds like special pleading. In any case, the judge is a Trump appointee, as is much of the appeals court.

#11.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-06-12 17:19 (Reply)

More lame excuses.
More ChatGPT.
It's not fooling anyone.
Boring.

#11.2.2.1 Zachinoff (Link) on 2023-06-12 17:21 (Reply)

What charges were levied against the technician and how big were the fines? This was Clintons server and she was legally responsible for its operation as she dodged having a government server.

#11.2.2.2 indyjonesouthere on 2023-06-12 22:21 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: What charges were levied against the technician and how big were the fines?

The technician invoked the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. To get him to testify (possibly against officials in the Clinton camp), the government gave him immunity, contingent upon his telling the truth. He admitted that he had erased the emails from the server to cover up his previous administrative mistake, even though he was aware of the subpoena.

indyjonesouthere: This was Clintons server and she was legally responsible for its operation as she dodged having a government server.

Clinton was administratively responsible, just not criminally so. The government could not show intent, and the evidence indicated that the classified information inadvertently leaked into the emails. For instance, there was an email discussion concerning a New York Times report about drone strikes in a friendly foreign country. This was classified—even though it was in the New York Times—so the U.S. government could maintain deniability and not embarrass the foreign government involved.

#11.2.2.3 Zachriel on 2023-06-12 22:58 (Reply)

You admit that NOTHING happened to the tech. He destroyed evidence and nothing was done to him. No jail, No fines. Nothing done by prosecutors to leverage their known evidence to acquire further evidence. That is intentional sloppiness. Now observe what they did to Trump and Trump supporters with any evidence and even the fake dossier evidence. It is nothing but lawfare on the prosecution side. Protect your own and destroy Trump.

#11.2.2.3.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-06-13 13:43 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: You admit that NOTHING happened to the tech.

They forced him to testify. They needed to know if there was a conspiracy of higher-ups. That's standard procedure in investigations. You work with the underlings to get to the bosses. Only, in this case, he acted independently for his own purposes.

#11.2.2.3.2 Zachriel on 2023-06-13 14:44 (Reply)

"If so, then Trump can move for the charges to be dismissed, and the request would be granted if the charges are "beyond weak."

Ackchyually, that does not logically follow at all.

#12 eeyore on 2023-06-12 15:49 (Reply)

Do you think that an executive order could grants classification authority to the Vice President?

Do you think that an executive order could grants classification authority to the ex President?

"providing intelligence information to an ally doesn't declassify the information"

That was not the point. Obama was the president who declared that by showing classified material to someone not authorized to see it in fact declassified it. He also said the act of taking classified material with him when he left office automatically declassified them.

I liked your long leg Obama and Biden analogy. Maybe Biden will use that when he goes to court.

#13 Anon on 2023-06-12 15:54 (Reply)

Anon: Do you think that an executive order could grants classification authority to the Vice President?

Yes, as cited above.

QUOTE:

The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and the Vice President;

(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President; . . .

Anon: Do you think that an executive order could grants classification authority to the ex President?

The current executive order does not, but a new executive order could be made that could do that. (The former president does have limited access to classified information under the current executive order.)

Anon: Obama was the president who declared that by showing classified material to someone not authorized to see it in fact declassified it. He also said the act of taking classified material with him when he left office automatically declassified them.

You might want to provide a citation for each of those two points.

#13.1 Zachriel on 2023-06-12 16:51 (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, June 12. 2023

Monday morning links