The First Debate is in the Can!

It wasn’t easy to avoid turning on the TV this morning to watch the fallout from last night. But now, the chores are done, workout finished and I can sit and discuss people, points and performance in the debate marathon last night.

Before critiquing the candidates, I have a few words for Fox News. Between the clear animus for Trump and the ham-handed start to the debate, I have to say that the overall performance by the host network. Kelly and Wallace demonstrated a clear animus toward Trump and Wallace’s handling of Trump was evident throughout the evening. Baer remained a gentleman as always. This is not to say that I felt sorry for Trump. He knew it was coming and still seemed to have not prepared for the setups.

Also, the opening moments were painful. They awkwardly bring out the candidates while announcing their names, then banter a bit while the candidates stand there with their faces hanging out. Then they read the rules and re-announce the candidates. Bad performance.

The take-away:

No one candidate had a real meltdown in either debate. It is my contention that as a party, Republicans vindicated themselves well and that is always a good thing. With what I a told is the largest debate audience in history, the country got to see what adults (mostly) look like in contested discourse.

I will also say, feigning no modesty whatsoever, the candidates validated the principal points set out in my book. Sadly, while one point was demonstrated by one candidate (Trump: get loud, lean in) another would be another (Fiorina: think twice about what you are going to say and then say it). The one standout, putting most of the principal points in play was Rubio. He was a joy to watch.

Trump: I expected to see Trump’s boardroom face last night. Contentious would have been fine, and he was that. But he looked like he was facing an impromptu press conference, not a debate he had weeks to prepare for. He gave Wallace a well-deserved slap on the bankruptcy question and the childish I-didn’t-get-enough follow up. But overall he was flailing.  If you were looking for hard evidence that Trump is not a Dem shill, a fly in the ointment, you were sadly disappointed. He has yet to prove that he is anything more than loud.  

Prediction: Slight drop in the polls.

Bush: Bush really hurt himself last night. As I have said, he is too business-as-usual and risk averse to really mix it up. If Fox had the kind of turnout that most early primary debates have, Bush would have come through without much damage. Bush also has a tell. In a previous post, I talked about Jay Carney’s tell; how he curls his lip and tilts his head when he is lying. When Bush is facing the least challenge, his shoulders go up to his ears. It might not indicate lying, but it belies confidence in himself and in hos own message. To see it all you have to do is turn on a camera or ask a slightly challenging question. W did it occasionally, but Jeb can’t control it. He will look bad before any Democrat if he can’t get it in check.

Prediction: Up to five points lost in the polls.

Huckabee: The surprise of the night. For the second time in as three weeks he came across as completely composed. That he had little to loose and a whole primary season ahead of him, he has positioned himself well. He won’t peak from this. But he show real staying power. For the record, he is also a business-as-usual politician in his social Security blather. Even when facing a candidate who says they have no interest in taking grandma’s SS check from her (Christie), Huck uses a Obama-like straw argument that the other want to take grandma’a SS check away from her.

Prediction: A few points up. (Perhaps at Bush’s expense)

Fiorina: Factually assertive and poised. She still needs to ratchet up the sparks several notches. Still, an impressive performance.

Prediction: Despite doing so well, position will remain static to maybe a point or two up.

Kasich: Good resume on display. Looked like he was suffering spasms while taking the first question. Whoever comes out on top among Dems, the only thing they’ll have to go on in the election is socialism, emotionalism and/or outright bullshit. But it will be delivered with real flourish. Kasich lacks fire I his belly and his delivery to stand against that. Bush shares that problem.

Prediction: Flat or down in the polls.

Rubio: Star of the late debate. Hard without being mean. Loud without shouting. Prepared and confident. 100% in the moment. He looked great. Now he must follow up. If he doesn’t become the distraction for the next several weeks, he will loose this bump quickly.

Prediction: Big bump and probably improved cashflow.

Carson: Also a standout performance. And a BIG finish. He is very likable and very bright. The clear winner in the “be yourself” category.

Prediction: A bump up in the polls.

Cruz: Good command of the facts. Well-prepared. the thing that troubled me was that standing next to the others he came off as an actor, playing the role of a politician. He was a slightly effete and snooty caricature of himself. Overall good, but a little creepy.

Prediction: flat to a small bump up

Jindal: another good resume. He was in the moment and appeared to enjoy the experience. Best of the governors performances, if not as forceful. Like Fiorina, needs to get much more demonstrative.

Prediction: Up a few points, likely taking a share from Christie, Bush and Walker.

Walker: Bush lite. Excellent pun if I do say so myself. He won’t loose followers based on last night, but he certainly didn’t gain any. Like most of the marginal performances, If other candidates pull big percentages in the polls, Walker stands to come out looking very bad in the polls. Damn shame. He is an excellent governor.

Graham: This man is not in to become president. He is in to make a case for war. So be it. But taking an abortion question and turning into an ISIS issue was so ham-handed that it hurt his primary mission.

Prediction: He will remain near the bottom.

Perry:  Strong in the Happy Hour Debate. He’ll take some of the few points Pataki, Graham and Gilmore might share. No headlines from his performance.

Prediction: Flatline.

Santorum: Howdy dootie.

Prediction: Flatline.

Remaining candidates and Graham need to go home.

Things to remember:  The polls are a bit skewed right now. As Hume pointed out on Wednesday, the bigs are polling likely primary voters. Being at 25 points, especially this early, doesn’t translate into big numbers among all likely voters. And there is such a thing as peaking too early. If Trump doesn’t bring a real game soon he’ll slide to the middle of the pack.

My new book is available here.

Obama and Iran Share Hostages for Mutual Ends

While Boehner and McConnell Continue to Play With Themselves.

This was too important to tack onto an older post as an update.

So, do you want to know how to spot a nasty political whore? See who votes to support Obama's efforts to get a nuke for Iran. For the truly slow, that has been the point of all the phony negotiations. The idea was to slow-walk this thing, to thwart Congress and Israel and make sure the religious nut bags in Iran were close enough to obtaining a nuclear weapon that the theater could be abandoned and a "deal" inked.

With the announcement of the "agreement" that Iran won't honor beyond tomorrow morning we got a surprise. Barry Obama, front man for the Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett, agreed to not only lift sanctions associated with the nuke talks, but to also lift the long-existing arms embargo against the Iran. That makes sense. He is more considerate of Iran's military than he is of ours.

Here's Obama's Ace in the Hole.

Everyone was mystified that throughout "negotiations", or even before, that Barry didn't insist that the religious nut bags release all Americans being held in Iran. But that too, was never a goal of the administration.  And again, they were not real negotiations.

The idea was to arrive at this point and send a bogus agreement for Congress to chew on. In short order, as opposition builds, Obama will announce that congressional support of the nuke deal is the only hope of ever getting the Americans out of Iran. This will happen despite the fact that you now know it, that this post is out there and that the whole world will see the naked support and allegiance Obama holds to Iran.

Jarret/Obama need to keep those Americans on ice in Evin prison to ensure they could collect up enough swanky political whores to, at least, get this "agreement" past a veto.

My new book is available here.

An excerpt from "Republican Relaunch" (tentative title)

Did you know the EPA packs heat? Oh, yeah. Nice stuff, too.  SIG Sauer; stainless steel, no less. I own five weapons. I can’t afford stainless steel.[1]

WTF?!?!

The EPA is a policy arm of the government. What jackass gave them police authority? How can it possibly be justified?

Let’s suppose the EPA decided the drainage ditch in your backyard was a protected navigable waterway. I’m not half kidding on this one, they do this kind of monkey shit all the time. Once established, they can site you for any one of dozens of things you might do to or near this waterway. Let’s suppose further that you build a 10’ x 12’ storage shed you bought at Lowe’s and plop it near this critical body of H2O. Should Big Brother find out about this, and find regulation against it, the fun would begin.

You would be cited, of course, and told to get the offending shed away from the drainage ditch. If you refuse, then the fines and arrests come into play. There was a time when the EPA would have to notify the Justice Department to assist in assaulting your property and tearing down your shed and dragging you into court. Now it seems they have the guns and police powers to do it themselves. Brilliant. What a time saver!

Along with police powers, these people now have to power to make laws. They say they are just expounding on proper law, debated and legislated. But as we have seen, through new “regulations” supported nowhere in existing law, they are dictating law. We also know they have the blessing of an authoritarian regime to do it. “I can’t wait for Congress…” and all that jazz.

One of my favorites is that CO2 is now, by totalitarian fiat, a pollutant; a toxin; fucking poison! Who knew?

I was shocked to hear this. I immediately wrote my congressman (He’s the good one. It’s all the others that are ass hats.) and demanded that a warrant be sworn out on every single American.  I have it on good faith that several times a minute every single one of these damnable Americans is spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And they do it all day long, even at night when they sleep.  They have absolutely no regard for their planet. Bastards!

It should be easy to catch them. The NSA has all their phone and computer records. They can pull every phone conversation they are having, find out their movements, who they are talking to, and arrest them.

Taking it an important step further, do you have any idea how many tons of CO2 is being expelled by 9 billion people everyday? Oh yeah! The whole world is doing it. The trees have absorbed so much of the poison they’re turning green!

We can’t arrest the whole world. So Valerie Jarrett should order Barry to bomb every last one of them into dust. And he can start with those Lithuanians. Thick as thieves, those Lithuanians.

The only thing more stupid than the last four paragraphs is the CO2 declaration it is making fun of.

But I’ll tell you something even more stupid and truly frightening. The person now at the head of an organization with fiat power and guns is a liberal, environmentalist doctrinaire, and a propagandist and GW/CC alarmist of the first order and totally beneath our trust.[2] I speak of Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator.

Reduce the EPA to a monitoring group and give them four initials.[3] All the states have their own version of the EPA.  Many simply lift environmental law directly from the federal government and make it their own. Call the new activity something like Environmental Policy Monitoring Group (EPMG), responsible to the states for assisting them in maintaining a safe clean environment and settling environmental disputes among the states.

But for Christ’s sake, take away their police power, rescind all of their fiat pronouncements of the last 7 years and take away their GUNS! Nobody wants some sunken-chested Occupy Wall Street type carrying a gun.  He’ll probably just shoot himself in the foot – or someone else’s foot.

---

[1] 10--U.S. EPA Firearms Purchase - SIG Sauer P229 22 Aug 2011

[2] EPA Chief: ‘Climate Deniers’ Aren’t Normal Human Beings -Michael Bastasch – Daily Caller, 23 June 15

[3]People outside the beltway probably won’t know this, but federal activities are always trying to find ways to justify three-letter acronyms for their little empires.  The NATIONAL IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY (NIMA) got a boost in prestige when it became the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA). I remembering thinking that very thing when driving by their headquarters shortly after the change; “Well, they’re moving up in the world.”

My New Campaign!

My New Banner

This is the symbol I am using for my Be Kind To Social Whiners campaign.  Like it?  It's rather flashy I admit. But I wanted to draw special attention to the plight of those who feel the need to whine incessantly.  It must be such a headache to be them.

It is fortuitous the I happened to choose this banner, because whiners and pisspots all over the country are blowing aneurisms right now over an image very similar to this one.

As it turns out, there are people in this country who have used that symbol in honor of soldiers who fought and died for the Confederacy during a war that took place only three generations ago. (Yes, it's been only three. Two of my great, great grandfather fought for the Union. I'm a Philly boy.)

Sadly, they are now told that no matter who their relatives are, or what warriors they admire, they can no longer use this symbol in their honor.

There are others who have walked under this other banner to show that they are mouth-breathing racists.  These Billybobs would say the stupidest things.  They were intentionally hurtful in the things they said. It was almost as bad as listening to a Malik Shabazz speech. Fortunately for the scutmouth Malik, he has the freedom to say the things he says; First Amendment and all.

Not so for the Civil War buffs and the Billybobs.  They have been told they must stop using their symbol.  There is pressure on Gettysburg to help us un-write history by getting rid of that flag. That must be in honor of George Orwell.  TV networks are trying to get us to un-remember hit shows that had that same symbol painted on a car.  There are certain TV shows I'd like to un-remember, but it's more than passing strange that we are being told to, don't you think?

Anyway, it's all a weird coincidence that the two symbols are so similar. I don't anticipate any problem having MY symbol at the top of MY campaign. But in the event someone does take umbrage, I can only say that as far as I know, I have the right to express myself as I see fit in this country.  I hope that allays your concerns. If it doesn't and you feel the need to whine and cry about my symbol, then you can go F#%& yourself.

Just a Quick Update

In my upcoming book, I will explain why we want libs to harp on Trump and how we (conservatives) benefit!  Keep an eye out for the announcement.  Enjoy your update.

They'll Always Do Exactly as They Wish

Despite a law just passed by Congress, a judge has anointed himself as the Grand Ayatollah of the NSA and declared that the government can continue to collect all your phone and internet data. So my opening paragraph, here was correct.  I usually am.

Aren't You Glad We Gave Up Control of Domains?

China Has announced a new policy to make networks "controllable". These guys are almost as paranoid as our own government.

And look, they are even going to help ICANN in the event of an emergency! Those darn Chinese are so damn sweet, aren't they?

It's Not Like We're Going To Open an Embassy!!! Geez!

After establishing ties with his communist betters in Havana, and saying that we were not going to open an embassy in Cuba, Comrade Obama announced that we are opening an embassy in Cuba. An unidentified aparaticik in the US regime was heard to say, "Ooooh!  You meant that Cuba.  Well, then yeah…"

The Merchant Muhammad, Pieces of the Middle East Be Upon Him, Was Counting On Barry.

After blowing past three pretend deadlines while ensuring Iran can get a nuke, the White House is so confident of success that they only set the next phony deadline at one week.  Imams are already passing out the party hats and balloons. Jarrett front man, Obama, is hoping to go down in Islamic history as the guy who brung 'em the bomb. Congrats, Valerie and Barry, on doing whatever the fuck you want while McConnell and Boehner stand by and play with themselves!

Complete Corruption

Just what, I wonder, do the character assassins have on Chief Justice John Roberts.  What twisted perversion did he get busted engaging in?  What bribe did they catch him taking?  What drug was he taped ingesting?

He once again, stepped into the well (see Obama's Top 50 What?! in this blogspot) and changed the administration's argument, rewrote the Obamacare law and then found his version of the law constitutional.

The first time, I figured he was just trying to create a co-presidency for himself.  But this new argument, in concert with the submissive Kennedy, goes against the very fabric of that which is John Roberts.

Well, no secret is safe.  Mark my words.  It will come out.  There is something extremely creepy about this guy. Unbelievably sad.

Canard of the Week: Charity

If you believe the results of polls, early voting and paperless ballots, one must conclude that at least half of the people in this country love to be lied to.

Starting with an April 24, 2015 NYT article by award winning Clinton apologist Paul Krugman where he uses "alleged"a lot with the word "scandal".  Further, Krugman concludes that there was never anything to the  Clinton scandals of the 90s and 08 when BJ Bill's wife was lying her way through a failed WH run.

You'd think a guy as smart as Krugman thinks he is would remember that "alleged" is more associated with crimes or things to be proven, which could include events behind a scandal.  But scandals are scandals.  There is no such thing as an alleged scandal. They exist because people are talking about events surrounding a person or persons. In the case of the Clintons, they had lots and lots of scandals associated with them because they are scandalous people and the underlying allegations are almost always true. 

The most famous, of course was the blue dress.  It only surfaced because of the many women whose lives were ruined by the Clintons for speaking the truth about BJ Bill's dalliances, only one happened to have physical proof.  Others had witnesses and corroborating evidence.  Several ( completely disassociated) women described Bill's inadequate and somewhat odd appendage in identical terms.  A few of those with no knowledge of the others existence spoke of the Clinton method of lip-biting and inept groping, along with a completely narcissistic departure, in almost carbon-copy likeness. Check with Hitchens on this point; no wide-eyed conservative, he. The lives of most of those women were destroyed by the Clinton machine and accomplices in the press.

But evidence and witnesses, naked character assassination; those things are complex.  The lapdog press didn't want to get into all that.  Neither did congress.  They wanted so much for this thing to just go away.  But Monica had the man juice on the dress!  Well, damn.  Now the press had to rewrite the whole narrative about how Bill was being picked on by a right-wing conspiracy to how you could only prove he did it once and she only gave him blow jobs so that's not so bad, is it?
I've been struck by how many people fans and detractors alike look at "I did not have sex with that woman" and "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is," and come away wide-eyed saying, "You gotta hand it to him, he (Clinton) is a genius at this game."  More on that in a bit.

But there were other much worse, more complex "scandals" surrounding both Clinton and the woman who is, at least on paper, his wife.  The female Clinton was not alleged to have 1200 illegally obtained FBI files in the White House residence. She had them.  When she says herself that they were in her possession, it is no longer an allegation.  The most serious thing that Chuck Colson went to jail for was being in possession of ONE FBI record.  But one day (after years of behind-the-scenes negotiations  with the FBI and promises made to key Justice department slugs) Bill's old lady looked down on her coffee table and exclaimed, "Oops, here they are, those silly FBI files!"  And all was forgiven.  It was all a silly mix up how those files went from the possession of the FBI to her house.

Not only did the press obediently let go off the story IMMEDIATELY, half of this country appreciated that their shrill and nasty queen lied to them so they could continue to act like they believed her and her husband.  Not to do so may have tugged at too many threads, thus causing them to actually question their own beliefs.  So yes, by all means, lie.  Politicians should lie, the press should lie.  It makes for a happier populace to just swallow the lies and bend our knees to our Royals.

Hilary has fleeced charity and civic groups for up to $200,000 for speaking fees.  Now that's generosity in itself as her speeches read like elementary school book reports.

These are the creatures that control the Clinton Foundation and a number of shell companies that protect it.  It is fun to watch the MSM apologize for this "charity" organization.  They speak of the complexities involved with sending friends and political allies on around-the-world junkets to collect evidence to advance global warming propaganda.  As if they couldn't bring those people in those parts of the world here for a "Clinton Initiative" wingding and get the "evidence" straight from the horse's mouth.  Or better yet, video conference! It's no surprise that a foundation worth hundreds of millions growing has actually given away a few tens of millions.  The rest has gone to washing cash back and forth between shell companies and keeping the Clintons in the lush comfort they have come to enjoy so much.

Anyway, the RICO trial starts in January.  Such kindness warms the heart.

As to the genius of it all - there is none.  They get away with this stuff because too many of us measure Clinton callousness against our own stupidity, making the naked lies appear to be brilliant. If a handful of people with position and balls wanted to, they could tear this diabolical duo to pieces in no time.  What those people fear is what the Clinton machine mighty dig up on them.

Warping History for Ego and Political Gain.

If I believed in any type of spirit world, I would have to conclude that George Orwell was the greatest prophet of all time. There is so little left of his 1984 world left unrealized.

Like all big news stories, throngs of Americans want so badly to insert themselves into the narrative, as if they were integral to the reality.  Last week a racist nut bag killed nine people in a church in South Carolina.  Within days, the nine were forgotten.  Real follow-up about the nut bag is forgotten.

The story has undergone mitosis and spawned deformed meanings at the hands of uninvited participants.  We now here that racism still exists in this country.  To that one can only say, well, no shit!  But Hilary, the most obnoxious of interlopers says that institutionalized racism is still a problem, and says it in context of the nut bag killing people.

This is, of course, total bullshit. In a country where the largest and most racist employer (the federal government) has strict quotas and point rigging in favor of minority hiring, where private companies no longer care who you are so long as you enhance their bottom line, where public figures are easily ruined for the least missteps on the subject of race, you can no longer honestly say that racism is institutionalized.  You are free to lie about it in order to inspire hatred between races for your own political gain.  That's what Bill Clinton's sex partner from the early 1970s was trying to do in order to take advantage of the nine dead people.

But there is also another malformed message.  We are trying to un-write history. Historical events that offend our fragile sensibilities are now to be expunged from visibility.  Flags, we are told, must be eliminated. And it is being done by people who know almost nothing of the "history" they are trying to erase.*  We want to tear down monuments that represent our past, good and bad, that are a part of our national conversation, and de-memorialize historical figures.  Where there is a statue of a historical figure that doesn't represent everyone (little secret: no memorial does or ever will) tear it down.  Only keep memorials to people who never offended anyone. This will accomplish what?…forgetting that bad stuff?  Well, what better way to see that very history repeated?

Hell, if you want to un-write the positive contributions of slave-holders, why not just un-write slavery?  No one in this country can say they experienced it.  So why should we ever acknowledge its existence.  It's bad, so let's just get rid of it.

FDR was a four-term president.  He was popular at the time. More so than even Robert E. Lee.  He also exacerbated and prolonged the Great Depression much the same way our present wing nut has done. Save your breath, I won't say the two are equal.  FDR was a much better president.

But FDR was also a fan of eugenics, not unusual at the time, but still a dangerous and ethically corrupt concept.  He was incredibly arrogant and as much a dictator as he could get away with being.  If you don't believe me, read The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes. He was the king of dividing and subdividing the population for political exploitation. He was also in the top tier of the hated 1%.  We should definitely put him on the list of people to un-remember.

And JFK; total whore monger. The name of that airport has got to change.

You see where I am going with this.  No one alive has experienced slavery so to say you are traumatized by its mention, you're lying.  You are just trying to make a splash; maybe stroke your own ego. But we are a nation with a history. This attempt to make some of it go away sets an insane precedent that no thinking person would want to see.  Read 1984 by the great prophet, himself.

What's more, we are once again becoming that which we say we reject. Who doesn't remember our reaction when the mouth-breathing sons of pigs (Taliban and ISIS) blew up ancient statues and destroyed countless artifacts because they didn't represent their stupid religion?  Why, dear reader, isn't that justification to destroy images of the past?  I mean, this is religion we are talking about.  That's supposed to be the most important of all things in this life.  Now, I grant you, the muslim religion is a concoction lifted from several earlier man-made constructs, as all religions are. But we are told that there is nothing more sacrosanct than the way one worships and the precepts they keep.  Shouldn't we celebrate the way the sons of pigs proudly showed their devotion to allah with this childish vandalism writ large? This is spirit world stuff here!  Waaaay more important than the worldly tribulations endured by people 150 years ago.  C'mon!  Get some perspective!

Or should we say that the world would do better to clean up its modern day act by taking the lessons of history rather than trying to make history go away.

*

For the benefit of the ignorant:  This is the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.  Thousands fought and died honorably under it.  Less than 1% of those people were slave owners.  They fought valiantly in a losing cause.

This is the flag of the Confederate States of America as of 1863.  This is the emblem of a society that among other things wanted to preserve slavery. Coincidentally, it was also in 1863 that ending slavery became an official part of the Union Army's pursuits. Before that the war was being fought to prevent the destruction of the established political system. In the long view of history (there's that word again) I would contend that the war probably didn't need to be fought.  But the politicians at the time were pretty darn serious about keeping the lion's share of trade in the north.  Can't have those dirt scratchin' southerners setting up foreign trade and competing with the North now. …And, oh yeah, that slavery thing is bad too.

So if you want to hate a part of our history so badly that you want the symbols un-remembered by all the other proles, at least get it straight what the hell it is you hate.

Canard of the Week: A Little Privacy in Exchange for Security.

Let me give you my down and dirty regarding the government collecting anything it wants electronically.  Yes, I did say anything it wants.  There are no legitimate controls in place.  One would hope that NSA domestic spying is dead, but let's not assume anything.

We use this information to stop terrorism.  Urm, uh, Yeah.

• The government has been vacuuming up your electronic data like my wife vacuums up my breakfast crumbs, for years.  I'm a very sloppy eater.  According to the FBI this has never led to a major breakthrough in a case to solve or prevent terrorism.
• The Civil Liberties Oversight Committee has stated that there appear to be no instances where an attack has been thwarted by the use of mass data collection (probably true)…
• …and that there have been no instances of abuse of the system.  This one is not true. There were cases of the very agents responsible for the collection and storage of the data using it to spy on their girlfriends and wives.  It is also too narrowly defined.  It doesn't allow for patterns of abuse that would make the existence of this data a moral hazard.

Last year, the Obama administration through its drooling guard dog, Eric Holder used a similar program, far older than the NSA data mining program with greater safeguards, to illegally dig into the private life of James Rosen who was running a story uncomplimentary to the American Emperor.  To do this, they named Rosen as an un-indicted co-conspirator.  The NSA's program needs only the approval of the rubber stamp FISA court to dig into anything it wants.

In any case the system is not designed to do any of the things listed above so it is no surprise that it hasn't been of much value to date.

Why It Can't Work as Sold:

Imagine you are an intelligence analyst responsible for gathering intel on Godammistan, an ancient sand pile in the armpit of the world whose government and other "bad actors" have it in for the United States.  You have a pile of information on the country and dossiers on the government and powerful citizens.  But you want to "spot patterns".  So you tell your agents to get you every word ever written about the country, about every citizen, about every street corner, every pet, etc.  The more successful your agents are, the less successful you will be as an analyst. The reason is that you have burdened yourself with too much information.  From it you will not be able to produce a decent recipe for egg nog.  Good intel is knowing what you don't need more than what you need.

Our government will have you believe that they are collecting everyone's metadata so they can spot patterns and foil attacks on the homeland.  The problem is that such a mountain of data cannot be used for that purpose and they know it.  Its ONLY usefulness is to be stored for LATER use. They don't need to keep such a gargantuan database to spot patterns.  It is too much information.  The assumptions needed to program a search in such a sea of data would be outlandish and unrealistic; worthless.  So would be the product.

Another reason they don't need the metadata is that is already exists.  For all that data to be useful, the analyst first needs a name or a number that is already suspicious.  This can be presented to a phone company or service provider. And voila (that's French for TA-DAAAA!) you have everything you need on your subject.

If there is a pattern of requests, even under warrant, that seems spurious or capricious, the provider will start to understandably balk and fight the requests.  ATT has.  This is because they have competitors that customers can go to if a provider seems to fast and loose with information and because of a fear of lawsuits.  In the case of ATT there is even talk about something called…let me think…the 4th amendment.  It's in some kind of constitution thingie.

Government employees have only their jobs and pensions to think about. They will dig up anything they are told to dig up.  A warrant from a FISA court protects no one. 

One warrant sent to Verizon asked them for everything they had on all their customers. What kind of a bullshit warrant is that?  Verizon, of course, asked for a tad more specificity.

But, you say, what if the information requested is time-sensitive?  The existing law already allows for post facto warrants.  Get the request in, get your info and cover everyone's ass with a warrant later.  

This is fishy too, but you can at least leave the government out of the spy-on-every-American business and still know they can access the stuff they need when they need it.  And we should require real specificity in these requests.  Besides, if I wanted a minute data point or an email based solely on a name or phone number, I damn sure would't ask a govvie to get it.  Cheese ages faster.  I'd ask a professional at a private company.

Is it Google's job to protect my interests?  No.  But it is in their best interest to not look like an extension of the FISA court lap dogs.  It is the governments job to protect us, you might argue.  Why not exchange a little privacy in the face of grave danger?

Kaffee:  Grave danger?

Jessup:  Is there any other kind?

God, I love that movie!

Two reasons:  It does not provide the protection and the system will not be used in that way anyway.  The system has only one value.  

How Mass Metadata Will Work as Designed:

Let's go back to Holder and his circus stunt warrant against Rosen.  To compel a real judge to grant his warrant, he had to LIE and say the Rosen was a target of a criminal investigation.  His excuse was that everyone does it and that he was going to correct the record later.  He then tore into every aspect of Rosen's life that technology would allow.  But he is just a slimy, corrupt cog in a larger machine that has in recent years slouched into a norm of corruption.  

When you find yourself at odds with these unethical creatures, do you think for one minute that they won't use the data collected to pick you apart?  Do you really believe that every GS-9 clerk in DC or Fort Meade is another Snowden, ready to trade his career, and life as he knows it, to save you from harassment or character assassination?  If so, I will put you in for the Naive Dupe of the Decade Award now.  Of course the data will be teased out one way or another.  I trust Verizon more than Mary Punchkey in the NSA records department. 

But it's only "metadata" like the kind of information you find on the outside of a piece of mail.  It's not like they are listening to our phone calls*.  Well, it's a bit more specific than that.  As Charles Cooke says in his 29 May 15 National Review article:

"They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret. 

"They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don’t know what was discussed. 

"They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it was having a campaign against gun legislation, and then called your senators and congressional representatives immediately after. But the content of those calls remains safe from government intrusion. 

"They know you called a gynecologist, spoke for a half hour, and then called the local Planned Parenthood’s number later that day. But nobody knows what you spoke about."

In my case they may know that I subscribed to a dating site called "Middle-aged Leather Queers" and exchanged 42 emails with a guy named DungeonPete.  But they cannot, from that, determine my shoe size.

And again, FISA is not a real court set up to protect your rights. It is a sham to provide a paper trail for the government official hacking into your life.  But I suspect that when we finally see someone caught with their hands in the cookie jar, we'll find they had been swimming in files without even a FISA warrant.  Sort of like Bill Clinton's wife and the hundreds of FBI files she had hidden and then "found" in the White House residence.  Try a stunt like that in your residence and see how quickly you find yourself trading cigarettes for "favors" in poorly decorated surroundings. 

So Rand Paul is on the right track.  He is pounding away at this issue.  He is trying to make it as difficult as possible for the government to continue the practice of mass data collection.  His detractors say that his argument is invalid because he is running for president and this is meant to bolster his numbers.  That is not a valid argument.  He is running for president, and a stunt this may very well be, but that doesn't validate or invalidate Paul's argument.  And he's been standing up for these kinds of things for years.  The fact is, political stunt or not, he is the loudest voice standing against the government prick who will one day tear your life apart because you're for gay marriage or reject global warming.

* A note about phone calls.  In the course of this debate, TV talking heads have said repeatedly that, "It is only metadata.  It's not like they are listening to our phone calls." (commentator smirks). That is half true. Under the Patriot Act there is no provision for warrantless wiretap of just anyone.  But the NSA has been listening to phone calls for decades.  Mostly these are calls between government officials, ours and theirs, members of the military, etc.  But they can listen to anyone they wish. So can any phone repair guy checking a line or looking for good stories for happy hour.  Both are true.

Uncle Sam Wants Gutless, Witless Yes Men!

This year marked the second commencement address at a military academy during which the Muslim-in-chief wasted the time of all present and insulted the hard work of graduates, not to mention set back the concept of national defense immeasurable by telling the future offices of the Unites States Coast Guard that the greatest threat to our security is climate change.  What a world-class moron!  This while what is left of Iraq sinks into the dark age grasp of Obama's Iranian or ISIS allies.  He doesn't seem to actually care which one wins.  As far as this administration is concerned, nut bag Muslim domination is nut bag Muslim domination.  It's a win for Obama either way.

Yep. We Know All This. So?

I love being right!  I really do.  I don't pretend not to be smug at times like this.  The part I don't like is that every day we have times like this.

I kicked off the idea here, but I let two moves in 6 months derail the process.   But I'm  all settled in now, so stand by.

Did you read this last election night?  Either way, check out the updated link.

Is the Bikini the Burkha of Western Culture?

In the civilized West, Americans are hands down the most prudish about the silliest things.  It seems hard to believe, but we are so squeamish about the female breast it's almost embarrassing to any critical thinker.  Fortunately, there is the uncivilized world where women are beaten by sons of pigs for showing their ankles.  So by comparison we're still pretty forward-thinking.

I just read the article about Elle magazine and the picture of a model breast feeding that was pulled off the cover.  Pathetic.

The last time public breastfeeding raised its natural and benign head, I guess around January, I was on my morning commute, listening to my favorite morning talking heads, Brian Wilson and Larry O'Connor in DC.  When the subject was raised these two otherwise worldly guys took a position that surprised me.  Still, they did poke a bit of fun at the visceral reaction such a simple and correct activity sparked in some of the listeners.

But then Larry, who is usually the edgier of the two said that while it might be okay to breastfeed outside the house, he suggested the mother find a discreet place to "do it".  That was silly enough.  Then he said, "I mean have a little modesty."

Modesty?  Really? Are we all the delicate?  Is the fact that a child needs food a secret?  Is the source of the proper food an object of immodesty?  Well, come to think of it, in this twisted world it actually is.  Think about that.  How twisted is our sense of imagery?  How odd are we in a world where the UFC is among the most highly rated sporting events, that a woman holding their child to her nipple should evoke the least reaction in all but the most stupid and backward among us.  Meanwhile, porn is still the most streamed online entertainment.  50 Shades, the Movie, sold out in record numbers in Mississippi and Alabama to mostly married, "Christian" women.

During that morning radio segment, a caller asked why women couldn't go to the rest room if they - get this - thought they had to do that kind of thing.  Thought they had to?!  I'll check the statistics and get back to you, but the actual feeding part is probably important for the baby.  And using your breast is not only considered the healthiest but also an economically sound idea.

Soldiers blown into vapor?   Sure!

I just watched Saving Private Ryan on commercial TV.  The carnage depicted is both a cinematic achievement and gruesome.  Can you imagine the uproar, if they had a segment with the troops having a weekend pass before D-Day and one of them has realistic looking sex with his British girlfriend?  Oh, the do-gooders, most of whom would watch the rest of the movie and just say that such is life, would be apoplectic that Ed Burns might have played with a woman's tits and might have been shown humping.  The director's cut of Apocalypse Now had the sex scenes that had been deleted from the original because they were too racy for a movie about a half crazy soldier being sent into the jungle to kill a fellow officer.  There were beheadings, a brutal animal sacrifice and death in all sorts of entertaining forms.  But nudity?  Gasp! We are at the point, as a society, that the human body and in this case, sex would have been off-putting.  The carnage? Meh…

Anyway, all his got me thinking.  What is our fascination with the female breast?  And why the phony revulsion?  And yes, it is phony.  Guys love boobies, so do lesbians and even most gay men and straight women can appreciate a firm knocker.  And I believe the answer is a simple one.  It is the denial of the thing that makes it an object of lust and fascination.  The moralist, especially the religious moralist will tell you it is the other way 'round.  They are wrong, of course.  The simple fact is that long term exposure to a thing renders it mundane and hiding it, while ironically enhancing it as women often do, makes it a more valued commodity.

When put in those terms, the whole hide-the-tits thing becomes wrong on so many levels.  First, it is clearly a dark ages prohibition and a loony double standard.  Why can a man walk down the beach without a covering his chest and a woman cannot?  Who legitimately gets to enforce that one? This especially when many men work so hard to make theirs the object of desire and admiration and others are so out of shape that they have bigger, baggier boobs than many women. It is because the milk they may sometimes contain is to feed offspring, which is a markedly female attribute.  When man discovered private property near the beginning of our agricultural development, the woman was added to that property.  That thing that feeds my young is not going to be the purview of competing males.  Thus, put a top on, bitch!

Some are finally saying, "Stop the silliness"

Did you know that it is legal for a woman to walk topless in Washington DC?  I wouldn't recommend it considering the nature of some to the scum that populate the city.  And I don't mean just the politicians. Having been taught the boob is an object of sexual desire and an exposed boob makes the owner fair game, they may grope you.  But every August, women take part in an annual demonstration for the right be as uncovered as men can be, and topless they do march.  Brace yourself!  There are boobies behind this link!

We tell ourselves that we make women cover more of their bodies out of respect for women.  Right.  And Muslims bury their women in blankets for, according to them, the same reason.  You don't really buy that when Habib says it.  Why do you pretend to buy the notion here?

The answer is simple peer pressure.  Your church buddies will label your wife a hussy and you weak if she shows a goodly portion of boobie.  Your friends will secretly ogle your wife and envy you and then say that's disgraceful.  The golf buddies, because of our dark ages prohibitions, would be fascinated and therefore a threat to your property.  If you are a woman, you may have a man with the insecurities listed above, as well as being around a lot of women afraid for whatever reason to bear their own chests. They will therefore berate the woman who would.

We pass this social silliness to our offspring and teach them to be ashamed of their bodies, telling them that god wants them to be or that society expects them to be.

Enough about pretending to be afraid of boobs.  Let's return to the woman who breastfeeds her kid.  We'll say she's in a Pizza Hut. It's time to feed the kid.  How many of you ever saw a woman stand, remove her shirt and bra and hold the kid up in the middle of the room to feed?  None of you, that's right, very good.  The fact is she will raise her shirt enough to let the little tyke get to the nipple, manipulate her boob just a bit to keep from giving the kid brain damage from a lack of oxygen, and some will even take the extra step of laying a small towel or cloth diaper across knowing that there might be a cry baby around waiting for a chance to be a loud, self-righteous cry baby.

She is hurting no one.  She is providing critical nutrients to her child.  If you are one of the cry babies I mention here, do the world a favor.  The next time you see a woman breast feeding her kid in a restaurant, grab your Big Mac and fries, go in the rest room and eat there.

For the rest of us; it is time to demystify the boob. Unless you are prepared to admit that you are deep down, as backward as the old school Muslim, let women dress by the same standard we apply to men; at work, at the gym, on the beach, wherever.  I could go on with suggestions about quitting the prohibitions on the male or female body in ads and TV shows, but you get the idea already.