The Blaze, which for all I know is fake news, reports that The Clinton Globgal Initiative” will close in April 2018.
Why? Well evidently, among other things, the stream of donations stopped after Hillary lost the election. Evidently, Australia stopped giving and Norway reduced their giving. Go. Figure.
Open Thread: The other one is long. . . 🙂
The Clinton Global Initiative is closing due to lack of inventory to exchange for donations.
Bob Koss,
Oh you cynic. 🙂
Bob Koss,
😀
[Edit: big grin smiley face for those whose browsers don’t render that correctly.]
Also, that’s April 2017, not 2018.
P.S. What happens to their stockpile of previous donations which haven’t been distributed?
But this is so mysterious. Surely, the noble philanthropic work of the Initiative is more important than ever, with Trump in the White House and the GOP in control of Congress. Why would all of the donors pull their support at this critical junction, when the world still needs them so. It’s just completely incomprehensible.
…blink…
…blink…
.
I think I’m becoming a hater, just as the liberals have been telling me all these years. I take far too much pleasure in all of this. Oh well! I’ll find a way to live with it I guess.
Mark,
Hate doesn’t have to be involved. Recognizing and objecting to the “Pay for Play” aspect of the Clinton foundation, the “Global Initiative”, and much worse, direct payments (personal income) to the Clintons for “speeches”, often north of $250,000 a pop, plus private jet travel (amounting in total to >$100 million since 2006!), does not involve hate. A big fall in ‘contributions’ following Hillary’s loss is about as surprising as the sun rising tomorrow morning.
.
The Clintons already have their personal fortune, so while the ‘contributions’ and ‘speaking fees’ will for sure fall precipitously, the Clintons will remain extremely wealthy for… ahem… ‘lifelong public servants’. Which brings on a gag reflex even as I write the words. No doubt the Clinton Foundation will continue to exist, just in a much diminished form.
Sort of funny that the Left is whining incessantly about Russia possibly trying to influence election (not a good thing to be sure, but the U.S. has done it — simply an unpleasant element of big boy international politics), and the Global Initiative is clearly revealed to have been a way to influence Clinton if she became President.
JD
Thanks Steve, that’s so. Still, I think it’s a bad sign that I perceptibly enjoy it. Can’t mean anything good with respect to whatever objectivity I can still muster. Other possible downsides occur to me also. As I said though, I’m sure I’ll find a way to stagger on.
Somehow. 🙂
JD,
I’ve found considerable entertainment in that whole spectacle. ‘Russia interfered with our elections!’ Really. How.
.
Somehow nobody wants to discuss the details. The few who have been willing to have demonstrated for me the most amazing grotesque logical contortions to avoid admitting that Wikileaks showed Hillary was up to stuff voters disapproved of.
.
To be clear – I don’t in fact claim Wikileaks made the difference in the election. I have no idea what actual impact (if any) Wikileaks had on the results. Maybe it was the factor. Maybe it was irrelevant. Yet- if one wants to argue that ‘Russia interfered and that resulted in Trump getting elected’, it seems to be pretty tricky to avoid agreeing (one way or the other) that Wikileaks was both truthful and highly damaging towards HRC’s campaign.
.
One longtime liberal friend has ceased all political discussions with me over my pointing this out. :/
mark bofill,
“The few who have been willing to have demonstrated for me the most amazing grotesque logical contortions to avoid admitting that Wikileaks showed Hillary was up to stuff voters disapproved of.”
.
Of course. For the “progressive” left, the ends usually justify the means…. a dirty, corrupt campaign is OK so long as you win.
>P.S. What happens to their stockpile of previous donations which haven’t been distributed?
NO REFUNDS!
Mark Bofill, that goes in two directions. I actually thought that’s what you meant when you wrote it. People who claim Russia’s influence in the election was minor(even if they hacked) can’t simultaneously argue that Wikileaks exhibited wrongdoing by Hillary.
MikeN,
Well, sort of. I’d agree that they can’t simultaneously argue that Wikileaks exhibited wrongdoing by Hillary that made a difference to the voters, which is sort of the same. But not exactly.
.
No, my point was just this:
Even assuming Putin actually did direct the whole hootenanny:
1. If the material is genuine, and
2. If the material mattered to voters
then the issue to me isn’t that Putin caused this stuff to be revealed, the issue is that HRC et al kept it secret. If HRC et al had secrets that mattered to voters and made voters not want to elect her, then HRC et al are the source of the problem. Not the person or people who told us about it, I think that’s just silly.
I mean, seriously. It’s as if [edit: (HRC et al) – strike this, replace with (people arguing that since Russia hacked, Trump is illegitimate)] is arguing this:
I mean, really!
.
[Edit: But it’s not ‘as if’ they are arguing that. The people who make the argument are in fact arguing what amounts to that. It’s just sad.]
Something I’m anticipating this year: I’ve been informed that Science of Doom is looking into the IPCC WGII reports. He hasn’t published much lately due to time constraints in the real world. I think this is an important subject that has not been given sufficient critical analysis by relatively independent parties.
DeWitt,
For sure SOD invested a huge ammount of time evaluating what are essentially IPCC WGI claims. I think even he (she) will be repulsed when he (she) gets into WGII claims. WGIII claims would dive the most calm and rational to insanity… for his(her) sake I hope she/he nevergets into that.
DeWitt, I forget where I first read about it, but WG2 has a big problem in declaring damage:
1) Big damage from global warming comes from large amounts of global warming.
2) Large amount of global warming comes from large CO2 emissions.
3) Large CO2 emissions comes from high economic growth.
4) High economic growth comes from high growth in developing world.
5) High growth in developing world means developing world is better able to adapt.
When she was Secretary of State Clinton traveled the world with her pocketbook open and foreign cash poured into the foundation….It continued when everyone expected her to be president. When she lost the cash stopped coming in….The Pay-to-Play game was over………
Bob Koss,
You nailed that one. Nothing left to sell so….
Marc Boffil,
That seems to be the argument. It’s rarely fleshed out– because those who make it don’t want to admit that the only reason it “worked” (assuming it did) is that voters learned stuff that was the truth, the Dems who it could hurt couldn’t plausibly deny or rebut the claim the stuff was truth, and the argument “out of context” no longer works well given that huge amounts of context is spilled. After this, many of the swayable voters didn’t like the facts that were revealed, didn’t buy any “out of context” and at least some may have changed votes.
That said: We don’t really know how many votes were changed– but to the extent they were it was due to access to true, unclassified information those voters thought relevant.
Was some of the truth also distorted into stuff that was ridiculous? Yes. (Pizzagate.) But, that’s not what really harmed Hillary– and likely took some other Dems with her.
Is it “bad” if other countries interfere with or sway elections. Yes. Of course. But it’s a bit difficult to really be horrified at any “interference” that amounts to revealing true, concealed facts voters thing relevant and doing so in a fairly timely manner that gives voters enough time to consider that information.
The lesson for both parties should be: If your “behind the scenes” stuff is embarrassing, or of a nature that would make voters turn against you, consider not doing that. And learn to protect your servers and keep your people from falling for phishing. The latter is difficult– especially while preserving convenience. (Jim now has to stick a badge into his laptop in addition to using passwords and so on. Obviously, this is inconvenient relative to just firing up his computer and using it– the way I do with my laptop. But it is safer.)
One of our (Canadian) great cultural exports, the ever so witty Mark Steyn, delivered a beauty shortly after the election. He parodied the CGI having a black Friday sale with 25% off an African diarrhea speech by Bill. “so I headed on down” he said, “and ran into a lineup of various third word baddies outside. Are you here for the bargain on speeches by Bill?” I asked. To which they replied “no, you infidel rube, I’m here to get my money back.”
Thanks Lucia, well put. I worried that I wasn’t making any sense. 🙂
.
I find it difficult to find the words to clearly convey the idea that it’s not that I think the hacks showed anything specific – it’s not that HRC did X specifically and that X is immoral or illegal or what have you. Instead, I mean that if one argues that the hack and release of these materials affected the election, one has already accepted implicitly that the voters must have found something objectionable in there somewhere. How was the election affected otherwise? (Rhetorical, my answer – in no other way) After all, HRC didn’t win. The one person / my liberal friend who who would discuss this with me kept getting sidetracked on this, wanting to believe that my point was to smear HRC.
.
So thanks again. I know I don’t always articulate ideas as clearly as I’d like, but the fact that you follow means at least that it’s possible in some cases for people with intelligence and a generous helping of good natured patience to decipher my screed. 🙂
mark bofill: ” I know I don’t always articulate ideas as clearly as I’d like”.
Probably none of us do. I sure don’t. But in comment #157339 you nailed it.
Thanks Mike M. I like concrete examples personally.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443890/clinton-global-initiative-shutdown-influence-peddling-criticism-vindicated
Here it is. Now that there will no longer be any chance of a Clinton in high office, the true purpose of their operation is confirmed.
I’m certain that she realized this would happen and perhaps her running for office was to keep it going as long as possible.
lucia:
I mostly agree with your thoughts here…Clinton is the cause of her own downfall in so many ways:
For example, her idiotic mishandling of the emails (use of a private server, lack of responsible system for backup, her failure to understand how much exposure that gave her), her extreme paranoia that led to her trusting ill-suited advisors, her arrogance that led to her missing warning signs in North-Central US..to mention just a few.
And I’m very comfortable with the statement she should never have been the democratic candidate. Had she even a modicum of decency, she would never have run. But she did and she was the DNC candidate, so we have to start from there: We have a general election where there was interference with the outcome, both domestic and foreign.
My chief concern is the reality that both sides have things to hide here that they’d prefer not go public.
What Russia did, regardless of their motivations, was to turn what was supposed to be an even playing field into one, where one side had an unreasonable advantage, because they took the secrets on just one side and exposed them, in order to bias the outcome.
The same is true for the FBI’s meddling with the elections—yes on one hand, Clinton should never have had a private server, yes it was handled badly (if it’s bad enough to warrant a federal investigate to determine if illegal acts are done, that’s badly), but on the other, again there is an obvious asymmetry in the response of the FBI. Some of this asymmetry is probably due to Giuliani’s connections with the FBI office in NY, which given Giuliani’s relationship to the Trump candidacy should be troubling to people.
I don’t think you are doing this, but it is very dangerous for our democratic institutions to accept either of these types of meddling, simply based on the argument that the subject of the meddling is themselves a flawed individual, with a somewhat checkered past.
Carrick,
Sure. Both sides had things to hide that they’d prefer not to go public. But personally, I think that for both sides, secrets were exposed in order to bias the outcome.
.
It’s strange that I didn’t hear arguments about how dangerous for our democratic institutions it was when the Access Hollywood footage of Trump came out two days before the second Presidential debate. Everybody seemed glad enough to accept that timely information about the candidate, even given the [edit, strike, redundant: resulting] uneven playing field that resulted from that meddling.
.
Go figure.
mark bofill:
So the US media exposing information thru legal means that people would like to keep private is exactly identical in your mind to a foreign power committing acts of espionage in order to influence the outcome of an election?
With respect to such meddling being a threat to our democratic institutions: I don’t know, considering I didn’t put the argument forward in the first place. I’m not sure I even agree with that argument. I will be glad to kick it around and get back to you with a real answer I can stand by. But since you made the argument, what are your thoughts?
BTW – I didn’t know it was established that the Access Hollywood thing came to light through legal means. I’m not sure whether or not that’s in fact so, and I’m also not sure whether or not it matters. I sort of lost track, but I’ll review what’s out there on that. Just a footnote.
Carrick: “So the US media … is exactly identical … to a foreign power”
Of course not. Although meddling by a foreign power and meddling by a biased media are both reprehensible, they are reprehensible for different reasons.
mark bofill: You brought up the specter of media “interference” which you then pretty much conflated with Russian interference, so I think it’s a natural extension of your remarks.
I don’t have a huge amount of time this afternoon, but from my perspective it isn’t very complicated:
The media are part of our democratic system of government. We could readily advance the argument that the media are somewhat caustic to our system, but they have been an enshrined element of our system since about the time of the Bill of Rights (if not before). But mainly, because it’s part of a democratic system, if we want to change it, the mechanism exists for changing their role via a normal, orderly process.
With respect to possible Russian interference, if they did engage in it, it falls under the rubric of espionage, and it’s clearly an hostile act in that case.
With respect to interference by the FBI, similar to Russian interference, it would involve unlawful meddling by a supposedly independent agency within the federal government.
As I see it, the chief danger we face is people being willing to accept “extra-constitutional meddling” because they liked the outcome in this particular case.
And that’s what I have time to say. Laterz.
mark bofill, I lied (one more comment).
You said:
Has *anybody* claimed it wasn’t legal?
Trump was miked up on a bus as part of a guest appearance he was making on a TV show, and when he exited the bus, he was interviewed using the mike that was on him.
[If my understanding is correct, he was miked up shortly before exiting the bus…there was a meeting with a starlet that was video-taped right after he got off the bus. I think getting miked up was part of that filming.]
Clearly this is a circumstance of “no reasonable expectation of privacy”.
Mike M:
I agree, and I do think we need to look at how our “fourth estate” functions, as it exists now without any outside interference.
If they are really supposed to be an independent view and serve a real democratic function, it’s a real problem that most of the media outlets are allied with either the DNC or RNC.
It’s damaging to our institutions, including the media, and counter to our best interests, and not just during elections.
Thanks Carrick.
Carrick,
I understand you don’t have time to chat right now. Truthfully I don’t either. I *do* appreciate the answers you’ve given me and owe you some response of my own. Still, if you don’t mind, it would help me to understand what you’re saying (I think) if you could clarify what you mean by ‘accept’, here:
and here:
Thanks. I’ll be back at some point too with my thoughts on all this.
Carrick,
“The media are part of our democratic system of government.”.
.
Aside from one of many freedoms listed the fitst amendment (freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc.), I don’t actually enounter anything in the constitution which suggests “the media” are part of our democratic system of government, and certainly no more than is freedom of religion or freedom of assembly. Seems to me the media are exactly the opposite: a source of endless critique of government, not part of it. How honest/accurate/constructive that critique is seems to me to vary quite a lot, but the least square trend is discouraging.
The concept of ‘The Fourth Estate’ is self-aggrandizement. The press has no official position in government. The first amendment guarantees the ability to publish free from government restriction. That’s all. They do not have the power to compel anyone to answer their questions. I sometimes think we’d be a lot better off if anyone who has a microphone stuck in their face would say something obscene rather than answer questions. IMO, Sullivan vs NYT was decided incorrectly.
Oscar Wilde
Carrick,
Let’s start back at the beginning.
I don’t understand what you mean here. (1) I don’t understand what the danger you are referring to is, (2) which democratic institutions you are referring to, and (3) I don’t understand what you mean by ‘accept these types of meddling’.
.
So – you are right, and I apologize. Certainly I should not have jumped in and conflated ‘media meddling’ and ‘foreign power meddling’ as if I had some idea what you were talking about, when I don’t.
.
I would appreciate it if you would explain what you meant, at your leisure and convenience of course. Provided you think the topic is interesting enough to pursue.
.
As always, best regards sir.
The other metric to use when evaluating the pay for play game is the going rate of a Clinton speech. I seriously doubt there is $750,000 worth of words anymore.
Carrick,
.
I don’t want you to get the impression I didn’t make an effort to understand this:
I am not trying to be obtuse, but I really have no idea what you are referring to when you speak of an existing mechanism for changing the role of the media in our system. I don’t think the media is actually part of our system of government. The media interacts with our government. Foreign powers like Russia interact with our government, but Russia is not part of our government.
I’m not sure that this is right. Even if it is, it’s not clear to me how this connects to your point. Say we agree for the sake of argument that Russian interference is a hostile act. So what? (real question). That something is a hostile act does not mean that that hostile act is a threat to our democratic institutions, in my view. For example, perhaps Russian warplanes buzzing our warships can be considered a hostile act. Still, I think we may agree that Russian warplanes buzzing American warships does not threaten our democratic institutions. (And in fact, I still don’t really know what we are specifically talking about when we use the term democratic institutions)
Here at last you have spoken a word that makes sense to me. I agree that the FBI should not meddle in elections; I think such practice is obviously a threat to our democracy. I don’t think you need to explain this.
By ‘accept’, do you mean to say that we should consider the election invalid – we should not accept the results, because the election has been ‘tainted’ by this meddling? If not, what exactly do you mean?
I don’t think any of my questions are rhetorical, I mean them all.
.
Thanks again.
Scott Adams argues the Access Hollywood tape got Trump elected, because the messaging changed to ‘Trump assaults women’ from ‘Trump will start a nuclear war’.
Mark and Carrick, The media uses illegally obtained information all the time, often leaked by the intelligence community. That goes back to Watergate and is standard journalism nowadays. Wikileaks is not in my view materially different and merely leveled the playing field. Trump had really little to hide as the dirty linens were all out there.
David,
Thanks. I’m not sure if the Access Hollywood tape leak was legal because nobody seems to know exactly what happened. For example, the account here.
I’m not clear on why the legality or illegality of the tape leak might matter though, so I’m leaving that point alone for the moment, until I understand where Carrick is coming from a little better.
[Edit: This does seem like as good a place as any to note, however, that I don’t see what relationship the question Carrick asked me here:
has to the remark I made:
Even supposing nobody had claimed it wasn’t legal, still it could have come to light by illegal means. Even supposing everyone had claimed it wasn’t legal, it could have in fact to come light by legal means. I didn’t follow Carrick there either. I must be having a bad night.]
Publication of the pentagon papers (illegally obtained) in 1971 preceded (provoked) watergate(1972)?
MikeN: “Scott Adams argues the Access Hollywood tape got Trump elected, because the messaging changed to ‘Trump assaults women’ from ‘Trump will start a nuclear war’.”
.
Not having followed this, I’m a little confused as to who Trump was supposed to start a nuclear war with? The only likely contender seems to be Russia, and the only person likely to start a nuclear war with them was HRC over no fly zones.
“What Russia did, regardless of their motivations, was to turn what was supposed to be an even playing field into one, where one side had an unreasonable advantage, because they took the secrets on just one side and exposed them, in order to bias the outcome.”
–
Fake news. From a Democrat CIA head about to retire?
You should apologise to Russia.
Any Russian with any sense would want the Democrats reelected, not kicked out.
As an astute American you know this is true.
17 different USA intelligence services independently verify that the Russians did it?
Really?
Quite a few KBG duds heading to the Gulag then?
I do not think so.
FBI republicans to Wiki leaks is much more likely.
As if any Russian agency would use a traceable Russian server.
Furthermore standard behaviour if you have a reliable mole and could really prove it why,why why would you blow your cover by exposing that you really knew.
Carrick, I think you are forgetting that the main damage Wiki-leaks did was to confirm already alleged foreign influence: funding “Clinton Inc.” (the CGI). So if the only damage that was done was one foreign government shining a light on other foreign influence that is pretty benign.
.
Angech makes very good points.
1) Before September the main talking point against Trump was that he would start a war with Russia. By November the main message was Trump starting a cozy relationship with buddy Putin.
.
2) Typically in the espionage when success has been achieved in infiltrating the opponents communications that secret is guarded at a minimum until the breach has been plugged. Does anyone know if the DNC or Podesta breaches were known before leaks were published?
DaveJR: “I’m a little confused as to who Trump was supposed to start a nuclear war with?”
.
With someone. Anyone. It need not be rational. Since Trump is a deranged idiot, he might start a nuclear war just because he is in a bad mood. Or just for the hell of it.
/sarc off
mark:
They are part of our “system” in the same sense that citizens are part of the system. Their freedoms are ensconsed in our constitution (via ammendments, constitutional law derived from SCOTUS findings, and legislation, federal, state and local).
We can modify how much freedom they are given by e.g. ammendment or legislation. That’s what I mean by an existing mechanism.
Well, we’re talking about a hostile act intended to modify the outcome of an election. There is no way that acts that potentialy overrule the will of the people isn’t damaging to our democratic processes
Our system has no mechanism for a “redo”, so Trump is our president.
What I meant is whether we should address the potential meddling by Russia or the FBI.
angech: Never let facts get in the way of a good hand-waving argument, right?
Carrick,
Thanks for your response, sincerely. It saves me a great deal of flailing around when you clarify this way and I appreciate it.
.
I’m not sure I have much substantial disagreement with what you are saying. I question only a couple of points really:
Personally, I suspect we are drawing arbitrary lines here that maybe don’t mean much of anything in the end. If we are going to differentiate between foreign actors and domestic actors (I.E., Russia and the media), taking what amount to the same actions and saying the foreign actors are ‘potentially overruling the will of the people’ but the domestic actors are not… That seems dubious to me. I wonder if this isn’t just playing games. Why does the fact that the press is part of our system and Russia is not – why does this alter the mechanics of ‘overruling the will of the people?’ In what way?
.
The other point that I’m not sure I’m with you on is the core idea of ‘overruling the will of the people’ in the first place. Personally I’d be uncomfortable making such a strong claim; influencing isn’t the same thing as overruling in my view. I think you’d look at me strangely if I told you that the warnings on a pack of cigarettes (warnings that are true, one sided information intended to affect my decision process about smoking) overruled my freedom to chose to smoke or not. I think you’d be right to look at me strangely in that case.
.
Once again, I agree that the FBI is a different thing. The FBI is part of our government. Our currently elected and appointed government officials should not be able to use the special powers available to them as government officials to alter the course of our elections.
.
Thanks for taking the time to share your views with me.
Carrick
Agreed. But wrt to FBI, I actually put that in a more general bin which is the executive branch and/or leakers supplying biased information or being biased in application of their power in general. So: the FBI shouldn’t do it. The executive branch shouldn’t do what I might call “wink-wink, nudge-nudge” leaking of stuff they find convenient while withholding other stuff with the presidents approval. The IRS shouldn’t give differential treatment to some groups and so on. All this stuff is very concerning. And I’m not all that much more concerned by events that happen a few weeks before the election than those that go on or went on for years but are seen as “between” elections. (I’m not suggesting I think you think the issues are either/or. I’m just noting what “category” of issues the FBI problem falls in.)
With respect to Russian’s hacking: Obviously, we don’t want any country hacking and doling out preferential information. (We also don’t want protest groups doing it.) How exactly should we handle that given the fact that the case — at least as far as we are told with public info– is circumstantial and murky… I don;t know? To some extent we need the political parties to be aware of issues and set up their security properly. But I have no idea how to do that while retaining people’s right to communicate freely in ways they prefer. ( Someone might way “education”. But I’m pretty sure we’ll never be able to train everyone to not fall for phishing. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if higher level people used to delegating may turn out to be less trainable than mid-level people. )
Dave, it didn’t matter. The point was Team Hillary kept repeating that Trump is dangerous and reckless, and people started seeing his Twitter posts as proof. Voters fill in the detail as to who is nuked.
My Country right or wrong is an important message which I should not be so flippant on. Sometimes bad things have to be done to protect good things.
I find it very hard to compare releasing details of security operations with the concept of people’s right to know for instance.
I think it was wrong because it harmed many more people than it helped.
Hence the divide over HRC/Trump.
Trump supporters welcome the release of information against her and justify it. Personally this should have come about from a more diligent CIA helping prevent it in the first place and a more diligent FBI prosecuting and investigating it when it came to light pre e mails. There should have been no place for hackers, Wikileaks or foreign Governments in the first place.
HRC supporters welcome every attack on Trump despite similar concerns on how and where the material was obtained and released. Are you sure the FBI and CIA acting in the best interests of America did not release some of the dirt on Trump to the Democrats to use and meddle to help enact Clinton. It felt like it.
Carrick your views are quite understandable and reasonable from yours and many similar viewpoints I see expressed.
I do get carried away at times.
It will be interesting to see the final assessment under the new Administration and whether they will still blame Russia.
I will take a gentleman’s bet with anyone that HRC gets a pardon in the next 36 hrs. Reasoning:
1) Dismantling the CGI was the promise she had made to Obama as part of the condition of being his Sec of State. She broke that promise and this news today seems awfully close to the D-Day when a controversial pardon is expected. It may be a subtle apology.
2) Clinton dirt is likely mixed with Obama dirt.
I’ll take that bet.
Bugs, do you think she wants a pardon?
The Access Hollywood tape was obviously a timed release to do maximum damage to Trump by someone who wanted Clinton to win. I’m not even going to bother engaging in any “prove it” arguments here, so don’t bother.
.
The DNC emails were released to help Trump and damage Clinton.
.
They are equivalent in this way, just typical run of the mill exposure of true information for political gain. Yawn, this is not the “end of democracy” or any of this hyperventilating, this is democracy working as usual.
.
The Russians intervening and getting caught (I wonder if they wanted to get caught….) does add an extra dimension of whether they should get punished for being a state actor versus just some Clinton video dirt digger who apparently is alternately a “hero”.
.
The DNC emails were small potatoes in the election results, so at this point it is just more fodder to attempt to delegitimize Trump. The number of external forces that caused Clinton to lose is now on par with the number of causes of the pause in warming, ha ha. Let’s just all declare it’s not HRC’s fault and will she please, please, run again next time!
The DNC wrote those emails, HRC ran a private server, Trump made those comments so in each and every case the root cause goes right back to the candidate themselves. They alone could have prevented these things from being exposed with better judgment so being uptight because they got caught garners little sympathy from me.
.
Russia may need to be sanctioned and the US should see what they can do to harden penetration from state actors in the future, but these actions are independent from pointless election hand wringing.
.
I consider the release of fabricated information a much more serious problem such as Bush’s National Guard memos. The release of true information pales in comparison.
Tom,
That’s pretty much the way I see it too.
.
I’ve got no issue with the idea that maybe the Russians ought to be punished somehow. Maybe they should, maybe not, whatever. Let’s say I’m exactly as interested in that as the Obama administration seemed to be interested in punishing China back when they hacked OPM and stole all of *my* information and the information of millions of other Americans who had or applied for security clearances.
.
But. Spare me the wailing and the gnashing of the teeth and the prophecies of DOOOOM… This is the way the world works. Truth is, foreign affairs have always had an impact on our elections and always will. And yes, as you say – the release of true information is pretty benign IMO on the spectrum of things that can subvert our democracy. In fact, it’s sort of hard for me to take the idea seriously in the first place, that [the release of ] actual true valid information could be a threat to our democracy in the first place.. If I was drinking coffee I’d be snorting it out my nose I think.
.
[Edit: So – I get it that we have classfied information for a reason, and that our national security and national interests depend on secrets being kept. I do get that. I don’t think political candidates dirty laundry belongs in the same category. But let me walk back my coffee snort above a little; I do understand that there are reasons to keep some things secret.]
I bet Hillary will not get a pardon from Obama. (Now I better to go check twitter in case I’m already wrong!)
Talk about snorting out coffee, I see our Nobel Peace Prize winner is using B-2’s to bomb Libya on his last day in office. The US dropped 26,000 bombs last year mostly in Iraq and Syria.
.
I’m guessing they won’t be giving out this prize in anticipation of great things in the future.
But to be fair, maybe that’s the thinking. Maybe some people think Trump is going to be so incompetent compared to what Clinton’s performance would have been that they lump it in their minds under ‘a threat to our national interests and national security’. So – Russian espionage harmed our national interests and national security by these means.
.
I’m not sure I’m impressed by this argument, but it’s something to grab onto I guess while I try to process the hoopla.
,
Tom, Carrick, Lucia, et al, thanks – would not have occurred to me except for your discussion.
Regarding pardoning HRC, some are pushing for it. Not much time left on the clock though.
Tom Scharf:
The Libya bombing is covered here, where it was reported that “[t]he planes flew around the world and back without landing.”
While I wouldn’t disagree that the country has spent, is spending, and will spend, too much on the Pentagon’s toys, I have to say that such a feat does make for a cool toy.
Tom Scharf,
IMO, the Access Hollywood tape was not meant to be released until October. That’s when it would have been most damaging. By releasing it before the first debate it became old news by election day.
DeWitt,
It was released Oct 7th. I would have released it about two weeks before the election, but if falls into the October surprise typical election propaganda. One can make a case that it was “found” Oct 6th but color me very doubtful.
.
What is absolutely hilarious is that the interviewer Billy Bush got fired and Trump got elected President. The wheels of justice work in very strange and mysterious ways.
I think the Access Hollywood tape was meant to be released in Nov, but the Bush clan released it independently. The plan was to bring out the accusers maybe mid Oct, have Trump deny the charges, threaten to sue, etc. Then release the tape after the denials, and Trump is proven guilty.
For all we know, Billy Bush went back to his producers and told them that Trump is a creep. If he had said anything bad on the tape, he would have been quietly fired then as being rude to the guests and unable to take a joke.
Tom Scharf,
OK, make that late October or early November, much closer to Election Day than when it was released.
DeWitt, I think it was released right before the second debate. The first debate ended with HRC playing Machado card, where Trump predictably (foolishly) attacked her as he did the gold star parents. The DNC may have been made aware of the AH tape. If they did then certainly MikeN is correct that the accusers should have been brought out first. Perhaps the leaker of the tape to the press did not know of the plan. It would have been very tight circle. The HRC campaign knew they had been compromised. Remember Wiki Leaks advertised the HRC docs were coming, and the first Podesta doc release was not until the day of the AH tape release.
.
Obama was seen working late in his office on something. Perhaps we will find out what in the morning.
Trump inauguration 3.00 am in morning here. Flying back from Gold Coast and just in time to tape it.
Lucia, you should do a post on the number of initiatives he gets up and through in the first 4 weeks.
Or a list of casualties, if Gavin goes dies Zeke get his job or is he just a scientist?
Ron Graf: “I will take a gentleman’s bet with anyone that HRC gets a pardon in the next 36 hrs.”
Apparently not.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/obama-commutes-330-sentences-most-in-single-day/index.html
Ron, people have pointed to Dan Senor as the leaker of AH tape on behalf of Bushes.
My conclusion is through their actions Bush family got Trump elected and Billy fired.
Curious, what is written on a pardon or commutation? Could Bradley vs Chelsea invalidate?
angech
That would be worth doing. I should also do a temperature comparison by the end of Jan. But…. I’ve been putting up tons of practice Q’s for my students. All are on different topics this spring.
This is because one is a college student, one is high school doing AP physics 2, one is doing “traditional” high school physics, but honors another is doing conceptual. I want to have a bunch that are well organized for each one with the topics each covers — especially those who already show evidence of liking extra practice and actually doing it. 🙂 . (Example: 2nd semester college student: has RC circuits. High School traditional: nope. AP. WRT to “light” they do things in different orders which affects whether I should or should not includes “index of refraction” in problems assigned during “electro magnetic waves”. )
Doubtful. In the first place, Zeke isn’t at NASA. In the second place, presumably you are thinking “go” not “dies”. But if we went it would likely be because climate funding at NASA GISS was greatly reduced. Gavin’s job might “go” too.
Presumably he meant ‘does’ not ‘dies’.
In your RC circuit, try to include an Fo so you can have a calculation
FoI A
MikeN, ++
MikeN,
That wouldn’t be in the curriculum. The only need to know the time constant of a simple RC circuit and limiting behaviors for short time and long time.
Lucia,
Low pass, high pass, or both?
Ready to collect on that bet.
“Ready to collect on that bet.”
.
You won. What Do I owe you? I applaud your guts to take the other side. Many people shun even minimal risk.
-Ron
MikeN (Comment #157563)
“Presumably he meant ‘does’ not ‘dies’.”
Yes, does is correct, I hope Gavin lives another 50 years at least so I can apologize to him when the warming hits.
Why do the letters disappear of the keypads so quickly, happens with every keyboard I have ever used but not with other people. Perhaps my fingertips exude acid.
Fingers crossed Trump does not back step for a few months.
No guts required for the bet. It was odds on.
>MikeN, ++
At least someone got it. Either that or I didn’t get a more sophisticated response.
Trump initial executive action- To all agencies- make Obamacare not suck so much.
Another one,
“prepare to afford the States more flexibility and control to create a more free and open healthcare market,”
angech,
How short do you trim your fingernails?
I have the same problem and was looking at fixes yesterday. The cause was listed several times as fingernails hitting the keys. You can buy sticky labels to put on the keys, make your own using double stick tape or you can use some sort of paint with a fine brush, a white french manicure pen was suggested, and cover it with clear nail polish after it dries. I haven’t tried anything yet.
Angech, I would print out “The quick brown fox jumped over a fence” with spaces between each letter onto some clear labels. In the USA we have Avery brand. Cut each letter out square (cropped right to the edge of printing) and affix. Then cover the entire key with a larger square of clear label.
.
(Or, you can use the problem as an opportunity to practice typing without looking.)
.
Neil deGrasse Tyson has come to conclusion that skeptics need to learn “how and why science works”. He see’s it as a failure of education that people cheery pick what scientists say to fit their own philosophy. (I think Neil forgot to demonstrate how scientists can be assumed never to pick cherries.)
Ron,
There’s no G, S, Y or Z in your sentence. Replace fence with lazy dog, use jumps instead of jumped and use all caps. You probably don’t need Y and Z, but you certainly need G and S. OTOH, it’s probably easier to just hit caps lock and press each letter key in row order. QWERTYUIOPASDFGHJKLZXCVBNM with a standard US keyboard.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #157587)
“angech,How short do you trim your fingernails? ”
Never thought of that, they are long.
I guess if I was Michael Mann or Sou I would not be having keyboard problems for 4 years as their nails must be chewed to the quick.
“a white french manicure pen was suggested, and cover it with clear nail polish after it dries.”
What I might try, next keyboard, is to be proactive and put the nail polish on anyway.
Or cut the nails.
Thanks for the tip.
Letters that have vanished are , e,i,o,a,s,h,l,n,and t,d and c slightly.
DeWitt, you are right, I’d forgetten it, dog gone it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_quick_brown_fox_jumps_over_the_lazy_dog
.
Who you call-n lazy?