Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for the West as it commits suicide.

James Burnham

If a foreign government had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightfully consider it an act of war.

Glenn T. Seaborg, National Commission on Education, 1983

Microsoft has a big slough of updates, and they affected different computers differently for some reason. My laptops seem to have done most of it in their sleep, but Eugene, my main system, never warned me he needed an update. He was slower that usual and Firefox, which has memory leaks and periodically needs resetting was particularly slow; I decided to reset everything, so I closed all applications; when I went to reset I noticed that one option, not usually there, was “upgrade and reset”. That worked, but it warned me this was going to take a while.

I went to Grasshopper, a USUS 15” laptop, to look at the mail, and of course to check if it needed upgrading. Upgrade it did not need – then – and everything worked fine. Checked mail, some important needing immediate answers. The 15” screen is only barely large enough for me to work with; Grasshopper does not have a big screen attached, and I didn’t think Eugene’s upgrade would take all that long, so I answered my agent’s message and a couple of others, and noticed that Eugene was still trundling. No time estimate of how long this would take was displayed, and I sure wasn’t going to interrupt anything. It trundled on, and I decided I’d go to the back room and make sure Swan, a big desktop in the back room, was also updated if needed. Turned out he had updated himself overnight, and came up with the “Everything is exactly” message Microsoft usually gives when it has updated things, and which is often not quite correct. There was also an update to Firefox, but this was no problem and restored last night’s session just fine.

Firefox wanted a reset after I opened it: no explanation, but I did that, and up it came with the proper saved session, and of course a window asking me to donate money. I closed that. I pay my dues to Firefox (what I consider my dues, anyway). Firefox worked fine.

So did Outlook. When I closed everything on Swan for a reset, it would not close Outlook: there were two unsent messages, did I want to send them first. Looked at them in the outbox, and both were forwards of old emails I received a while ago and had not acted on: I do that, forwarding to myself, as a reminder sometimes. Probably not the best system, but it’s what I do. Decided they weren’t really important and tried to delete them. Would not delete. Tried to look at them. Would not open. Told Outlook to close, and got the message about unsent messages, and told it to close anyway, which it did. Had some trouble closing other stuff, called up program manager, and nuked everything that was still open. Reset. Came up promptly, not even the “everything is where you left it” message. Looked in the power menu, and no “upgrade and reset” option; only reset. Opened Outlook and the two messages I could neither delete nor open were gone, and later discovered they had been sent, received, and placed in the right folders on all the machines. All’s well with Swan, who seems completely normal and healthy.

So Swan was all right; back to Eugene. He had stopped trundling and was open in Windows, and now wanted my password. No problems there, but then more delays: “don’t turn off” message, and more trundling. Finally up he came. There was an open Microsoft Edge – what they used to call Explorer – window proclaiming my good fortune at the marvels that came with the update. I figured I could look at those another time.

Firefox works fine, Outlook works fine and has the messages that were “stuck” in Swan, and the new revised Windows and Edge work quite well. No problems at all. Office has a number of revisions, one making it easier for several simultaneously to edit the same document, meaning that Steve, Larry, and I can all work on the book when we feel like it. Agent hated the “Cthulhu” title, and I don’t blame her; the new working title is Starborn and Godsons, which will remind readers of  

Anyway it’s my turn to take a pass; previously if two of us tried to work through the Internet on the same copy at once, things could get a little irritating, at least for me; this new version of Office seems to make that easier. I’ve noticed no other significant differences, but we’ll see.

An Obama Decree Continues to Make Public Schools Lawless

By Jason L. Riley

To improve education, allow teachers to administer discipline regardless of race.

In 2012 the Education Department released a national study showing that black students are suspended from school at a higher rate than whites, and the findings fueled a predictable debate over whether school discipline policies are racist. Two years later, the department sent a letter to school districts warning them to do something about the disparity—in effect, to stop suspending so many disruptive black students or risk becoming the subject of a federal civil-rights investigation—and the results have been just as predictable.

The title alone of a new report on the fallout, “School Discipline Reform and Disorder,” might tell you all you need to know. The author, Max Eden of the Manhattan Institute, notes that 27 states and more than 50 of the country’s largest school districts have moved to reduce suspensions in recent years, often to the dismay of those on the front lines. A Chicago teacher said her school became “lawless” after the new discipline policy was implemented. A teacher in Oklahoma City said “we were told that referrals would not require suspension unless there was blood.” A Buffalo teacher who was kicked in the head by a student said his charges are well aware of the new policy. “The kids walk around and say ‘We can’t get suspended—we don’t care what you say.’ ”

If a foreign government had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightfully consider it an act of war.

Glenn T. Seaborg, National Commission on Education, 1983

That was in 1983. Things are not improving, and the Obama decree makes it all worse. Presumably President Trump could cancel that executive order, if someone would tell him about it; perhaps this article will do that.

Space Aliens & Talking Monkeys.

Read the whole thing:

<http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=9885>

R

A wiretapping Morton’s Fork, via Lew Rockwell’s site

I was already wondering how there could have been any competent U.S.

investigation of Trump’s links to Russia unless it was thorough enough to use wiretapping on Trump’s resources, if only to confirm that there was nothing to tap. Any such investigation’s methods and remit must have been known or should have been known to Obama on the principle of “the buck stops here”, and so authorized by him on the same principle however indirectly. Now I find Patrick Buchanan thinking along similar lines at https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/03/patrick-j-buchanan/backfire-left:-

‘How could DNI Director Clapper and CIA Director Morell say that no connection had been established between Trump’s campaign and the Russians, without there having been an investigation? And how could such an investigation be conclusive in exonerating Trump’s associates — without some use of electronic surveillance? … were Attorney General Loretta Lynch, White House aides or President Obama made aware of any such surveillance? Did any give the go-ahead to surveil the Trump associates? Comey would neither confirm nor deny that they did.

So, if Obama were aware of an investigation into the Trump campaign, using intel sources and methods, Trump would not be entirely wrong in his claims, and Obama would have some ‘splainin’ to do… Indeed, if there was no surveillance of Trump of any kind, where did all these [media] stories come from, which their reporters attributed to “intelligence sources”?’

Martin Armstrong touches on this at

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/03/martin-armstrong/ny-times-first-reported-trump-wiretapped

as well.

Yours sincerely,

P.M.Lawrence

We still need to know: how did Sallie Yates know what General Flynn told the Vice president about his phone call from the Trump Tower to the Russian Ambassador? There was some source of information about Candidate Trump and his staff that very likely came from a wiretap of Trump Tower; how did Obama people get it?

Why President Trump Believes his phone was tapped during the campaign.

Subject: REDUX: NSA Surveillance on Trump

Two days ago, I saw details that allegedly came from an NSA database.

This was allegedly submitted to Infowars by a former commander of the Cold Case Posse. Having no way to verify the data, I didn’t think it was time to say anything to you about it. I realize I’m more forward leaning, but this is a serious matter and I wanted to exercise measures of discretion and discrimination. However, that time has past and now:

<.>

House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes said Wednesday that the U.S.

intelligence community collected multiple conversations involving members of Donald Trump’s transition team after he won the election last year.

After making his disclosure at the Capitol, Nunes headed to the White House to brief the president on what he had learned. Trump then told reporters gathered for an unrelated event that “I somewhat do” feel vindicated by the latest development. “I very much appreciate the fact that they found what they found.”

</>

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-22/nunes-says-trump-team-communications-caught-in-u-s-surveillance

SURPRISE! The FBI is NOT cooperating!

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

https://news.grabien.com/story-nunes-fbi-not-cooperating-our-investigation-trump-camp-surve

Comey is now J. Edgar Hoover?

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-22/comey-is-now-the-most-powerful-person-in-washington

And if you want the original data offered by Infowars, which covers surveillance on Trump and Alex Jones:

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

https://www.infowars.com/nsa-documents-prove-surveillance-on-donald-trump-and-alex-jones/

And let’s not forget, the FBI is now probing far-right media sites to see if they’re involved in this conspiracy to prove that NSA was in fact spying on Trump when FBI would prefer you to think they were not… Comey don’t play that!

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Most Respectfully,

Joshua Jordan, KSC

Percussa Resurgo

The FBI is by charter supposed to have a monopoly on counter intelligence in the United States and the Caribbean. This means wiretaps and other surveillance of various foreign nationals, including officials of both friendly and potentially hostile nations.  They also monitor calls to the foreign nationals’ home countries, and when possible, decode coded diplomatic cables. Often foreign diplomats and agents mention American citizens.

Under the FISA rules, when American citizens are named in these transmissions even in conversations between foreigners, the citizen’s name is to be redacted from any documents conveying this information to anyone else. It is a felony to do otherwise.  It is now known that during the Trump campaign, many Trump officials were in such reports, even including then Candidate Trump himself.

Much of this was leaked. That included conversations between Trump and a foreigner who was under surveillance. Candidate Trump’s name was leaked.  The leak is a felony, possibly by an FBI official, who gave it to someone he should not have given it to. The actual leaker may have been a civilian or relative of a careless FBI official; eventually  someone then leaked it to the press, or to the Democratic Party operatives, or both. Note that this was a felony.

Leakers in the Democrat Hq. told Mr. Trump’s people. Mr. Trump concluded – with pretty good reason – that he was wiretapped.

Possibly he was not, but details of his telephone conversations with people under surveillance did get out, leading Mr. Trump to conclude his phone was tapped; and since these leaks circulated freely in the Obama White House, the inference that his phone was tapped by agents of Mr. Obama is very strong; and since Mr. Obama presumably could have ordered that stopped and it was not stopped, it may have been rash for Mr. Trump to say that Mr. Obama tapped his telephone during the campaign, but it is certainly understandable.

The actual leakers to the Obama White House may very well not be FBI agents; but the ultimate source of the leaks must be the FBI because by law and charter they are responsible for all counterintelligence operations in the US and Caribbean. A few FBI agents are given the authority to name a US citizen named in a surveillance of a foreigner when there is a national security threat, but that would have to be reported and approved by their superiors, or a high Justice Department official.  We do not know the names of those authorized to approve this release, but we can assume they include the Attorney General and immediate subordinates.

We do not know whether the FBI Director is privy to the names of Americans in those surveillance reports. Perhaps he is. In any case, there is some question whether the Director should now be involved in the investigation of those leaks.

In any event, I  believe this is why President Trump believed that his tapped by President Obama.

Condemned to repeat

Dear Doctor Pournelle,

Forty years ago this month, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, after a long and vicious campaign by elements of the British ‘Deep State:, called it quits. This article, from the thirtieth anniversary of Wilson’s resignation, details how a plot by rogue elements of the intelligence services destabilized his government and led to the resignation of an elected leader.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/mar/15/comment.labour1

“As Peter Wright confirmed in his book Spycatcher, Wilson was the victim of a protracted, illegal campaign of destabilisation by a rogue element in the security services. Prompted by CIA fears that Wilson was a Soviet agent – put in place after the KGB had, the spooks believed, poisoned Hugh Gaitskell, the previous Labour leader – these MI5 men burgled the homes of the prime minister’s aides, bugged their phones and spread black, anti-Wilson propaganda throughout the media. They tried to pin all kinds of nonsense on him: that his devoted political secretary, Marcia Williams, posed a threat to national security; that he was a closet IRA sympathiser”

Santayana certainly had a point, eh?

Of course, it can’t happen here…

Petronius

re. Military Suicide

Dear Jerry,

“The entire linked article is worth reading, particularly the two sections on national suicide (Political Suicide and Foreign Policy Suicide). Note I am recommending this for reading and contemplation, and perhaps discussion.”

This piece by ‘The Saker’ is certainly entertaining polemics.  And already holding many of the same views about the ultimate outcome of these trends, I can say I largely ‘agree’.  But the discussion is always in the details, right?  I could entertain myself and perhaps others by an informed quibbling of details of the AH-1 vs. AH-64, or the potential tactical situation up in the Cheorwon Valley.  Just to take two examples of first hand experience.  But this seems not very useful now.

Although nominally written from a conservative-nationalist ‘American’ vantage I think  ‘The Saker ultimately offers just another belt-way centric view. 

The difficulty in discussing such an article lies here where ‘The Saker’ writes:

“I could list many more types of suicides including an economic suicide, a social suicide, an educational suicide, a cultural suicide and, of course, a moral suicide.”

In other words, the totality of what’s going on ‘domestically’ in Flyover Country.  The Saker seems not to have much intimate contact with this region and therefore doesn’t discuss it.  His expressed view reminds me of mid-19th Century European and American maps of Africa.  The continental outlines were precisely charted but the interior south of the Sahara was merely marked with pictures of elephants, lions, grassy savannas and jungles.

From the standpoint of Flyover Country the national security complex dysfunctions identified by The Saker are indeed true.  But perhaps they aren’t ‘dysfunctions’ at all from the standpoint of the ‘Anglo-Zionist elites’ who The Saker rightly diagnoses here:

“but the ultimate unmasking of the viciously evil true face of that 1% must be credited to Hillary with her truly historical confession in which she openly declared that those who oppose her were a “basket of deplorables”. We already knew, thanks to Victoria Nuland, what the AngloZionist leaders thought of the people of Europe, now we know what they think of the people of the USA: exactly the same thing.” 

This also I heartily endorse and agree with.  It could have formed the basis for an informed discussion of “economic suicide, a social suicide, an educational suicide, a cultural suicide and, of course, a moral suicide.”  Viewed in perspective, these Anglo-Zionist elites appear to regard themselves as much at war with Flyover Country as with Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.  Probably far more so.  Its difficult to imagine real ‘regime change’ emanating from the four external sources, although the Anglo-Zionist elites clearly fear Putin’s Russia in this regard.  Its not difficult at all to imagine it emerging from western Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and potentially Minnesota in the near future.

Stripped of the threadbare moral cant the political, social and economic policies these alienated elites impose on the rest of the USA are intentionally hostile.

I think the real ‘suicide’ whose results are swiftly manifesting themselves consists of the dichotomy of perpetually waging internal social, political and economic war on the very sources one relies on for troops, an industrial base, weapons and the ‘strength’ to conduct external policy.

In my opinion those readers who seek to identify their real enemies might find some clarity of thought in these passages, which you’ve recommended in the past:

 

Then out spake brave Horatius,

The Captain of the Gate:

“To every man upon this earth

Death cometh soon or late.

And how can man die better

Than facing fearful odds,

For the ashes of his fathers,

And the temples of his gods?

-From Thomas Babington Macaulay’s Lays of Ancient Rome

 

I do not see that Russia, Iran or North Korea offer any threat at all to me and mine.  About China I have grave doubts.  Enough to want to keep my ICBMs, nuclear bombers and Pacific Fleet on DEFCON 2 fully cocked on ready alert.  But about the Anglo-Zionist Empire I have no doubts;  it is the irredeemable and incorrigible enemy who threatens ‘the ashes of my fathers and the temples of my gods’.

Best Wishes,

Mark

Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.

Monday, March 6, 2017

We are a nation of assimilated immigrants.

Immigration without assimilation is invasion.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana

The cold I thought I was well on the way to recovery from has continued. No drastic symptoms, but a dread of getting up and not much incentive to work. I managed Friday with story conferences and lunch with Larry and St eve – the hard science novel about interstellar colonization under slower that light conditions continues nicely, beautifully in fact – and Saturday we got to the barber shop for me and hair dresser for Roberta. Exhausting, and Sunday more so, with getting to church and then lunch out afterwards; but again rather exhausting. But we managed it, again with not enough energy left to do any real work. But I am coming up for air, and I’m in that stage where I know I’m recovering and surprised at how long it takes.

I learned from friends at church that this isn’t rare, and I’m doing better than they did. The average recovery time for people younger than me has been five weeks; I’m in the third week, and I’ll be over it soon if not soon enough. It does linger. On the plus side, it rained yesterday – we can use the water – and it’s a beautiful day today. And I did have enough energy yesterday to get most of the bills paid, and do other chores.

I have been reluctant to get to work because the “telephone tapping” imbroglio is so thoroughly complex; worse, there’s damned little solid data. Most of what we know comes from leaks whose source is pretty carefully – often legally – hidden, and the only confirmation has to be inferences.

Let me start with an assumption: Mr. Trump may be crazy, but he’s crazy like a fox. He seldom does stupid things, and very little without reason. I didn’t always assume this, but the campaign convinced me: yes, he had luck, but he was always a step ahead of most of the analysts including his own advisors. My assumption is supported because I know for a fact that it is shared by a number of people I know quite well and have for a long time; even when they don’t know what Mr. Trump is doing, they assume he actually has a purpose, and they are usually correct, and have been many times. To assume that President Trump is an emotionally driven maniac unable to control himself has been the unmaking of more than one of his opponents, and is often precisely what he wants them to believe at various stages of an operation; and if one pays close attention it is demonstrably untrue. His address to the Congress with all its emotional appeals and side shows was masterful; it is likely that it will be studied for years by students of political science.

A second assumption is that Mr. Trump employs his own means of testing leaked information. He has said as much, and there is no reason not to believe it.

That said, let us look at the telephoning tapping story.

It all really rests on this claim: that in June, 2016 and possibly earlier, a FISA court received and denied a request to tap Trump Tower phone, in particular that of Donald Trump himself. This was said to be in regard to an investigation of Russian interference in American affairs. The denial was unusual: it was one of about a dozen requests denied out of tens of thousands of such requests granted in its 33 years of existence.

[FISA Court Has Rejected .03 Percent Of All Government Surveillance …

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request

Jun 10, 2013 – FISA Court Has Rejected .03 Percent Of All Government … But the FISC has declined just 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance requests made by the … about just how much judicial oversight is actually being provided.]

There is no way to confirm or deny much of this, because FISA is, by law, not only very secret, but has to be very careful in allowing intelligence agencies access to American citizen affairs. For one open source on this incident, see the BBC reportage: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427 . It’s long, very complicated, and doesn’t tell the full story; and has no confirming sources. It can’t, really, and whatever evidence the warrant request gave would itself be both classified and also protected from publication by law.

Then came the Convention and Mr. Trump became the nominee.

In October, another warrant request was brought to FISA; it is not at all clear who made the application; there are reports that Sally Yates, the Obama holdover who became Acting Attorney General until she was fired for non-cooperation by President Trump, was involved. This warrant application did not name Mr. – then Nominated Candidate – Trump, but it did name some of his immediate associates; this warrant was granted. Once again there is little public evidence to confirm this, and by law there can’t be.

These two warrant applications were leaked, and reported in some news media, but generally were ignored.

On 12 January, 2017, President Obama ordered the NSA to share mush electronically gathered data among the 17 (or more) intelligence agencies; this to include data hitherto denied circulation because it released personal data of American citizens who may have been involved in communications with foreign nationals; such information; by law, is supposed to be destroyed upon. realization that it is not relevant to the purposes stated in the warrant. [The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 4^th Amendment; for more, look up Writs of Assistance]

This will inevitably increase the probability of leaks, and particularly applies to telephone taps. It was not at the time much noticed, but we may assume it is well known in the White House now.

Then came the Flynn affair, in which Sally Yates warned then President Obama that General Flynn might be blackmailed because he had said that the sanctions on Russia had not been discussed with the Russian Ambassador in their December telephone conversation, and gave the President evidence from a phone tap showing that the sanctions had been discussed. Of course it would be astonishing if the Russian Ambassador had not brought up the sanctions when talking to the National Security Advisor designate. The full transcript was not released – I do not know whether President Trump has seen it to this day – but the subject was, he was told, talked about. This was considered serious; by some, very serious: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-flynn-affair-could-bring-down-trumps-presidency_us_58a33429e4b0cd37efcfed84

Details of Flynn’s conversation with the Russian Ambassador were later leaked to the Washington Post. It is not clear what agency leaked them, but it is a rock solid fact that they were leaked, and that a private citizen’s conversation was recorded by an American agency and those details were leaked to the press.    It was thus very clear that phones were tapped. President Trump then presumably ordered his staff to find out who tapped whom, and who ordered it done; but this is presumption, since I have no evidence, nor do I know what, if anything, they found out.

Finally, Director of Intelligence Clapper has testified that he should be aware of all FISA warrants – he did not say of rejected applications, but of warrants issued – and he is not aware of any concerning Trump Tower, where, according to Newt Gingrich, General Flynn made the intercepted (tapped) telephone calls to the Russian Ambassador.  It is possible but, given the efficiency of the Russian security services, it may be unlikely that the tap was on the Russian Embassy telephone; but that, of course, is possible.  The assumption seems to be that the tap was on a Trump Tower telephone.

Another summary:

One is a report in the BBC from January, which the White House cited as a source. The BBC reported:

Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the FISA court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.

Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.

Neither Mr. Trump nor his associates are named in the FISA order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities — in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offense.

A lawyer — outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case — told me that three of Mr. Trump’s associates were the subject of the inquiry. “But it’s clear this is about Trump,” he said.

Finally, there was a report in the Guardian, which reported on the supposed June FISA request but could not confirm the October one. (The White House did not cite the Guardian.)

The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (FISA) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The FISA court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.

The Breitbart summary, which president Trump almost certainly read, said:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/

[snip] 1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the existence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media. [snip]

Most of the new media and “fact checking” sites conclude that one or more agencies tapped some phones, but “there is no evidence” that President Obama ordered it done. Perhaps so: given the secrecy we will probably never know. But it is hard to believe that President Obama did not know of a an application to FISA for a warrant to tap Trump Tower phones, even in June when it was not certain that Mr. Trump would be candidate Trump, and it is even more certain that the White House would be informed of FISA applications concerning a major party candidate.

Whether President Trump had more evidence not available to us when he made his ungracious tweets I can’t say. It does appear possible to likely that the Obama Administration might have been using intelligence agencies and leaks as a campaign tool. The community organizer recruited demonstrations have been infuriating and frustrating, but if that is the worst stress President Trump experiences in his Presidency he –  and we – should all thank God Almighty.

And see

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/05/trump-ends-innuendo-game-dealing/

cognitive dissonance, persuasion,

Dr. Pournelle,
According to the NR, the Trump+Russians=illegitimate election argument has collapsed: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445522/russian-election-hacking-fbi-not-investigating-trump-campaign, but I believe the author may have missed the point: The “fact” that a foreign power has intruded into U.S. politics and influenced the system is firmly established in the minds of Democrat party voters. It will come up again in public discussion and in the press, even if the allegations are withdrawn. Scott Adams references the use of what used to be called yellow journalism’s “addiction” to rage in
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157904840851/dopamine-puppets , which will continue to fuel the fire long after the question has died.
Strange how the comparisons to nazism on the part of either political party fail to notice any apparent reference to Goebbels? IMO, both sides (as well as the Trump side, which is apparently not the official Republican position) have learned quite a lot from the propaganda ministry, as well as Stalin’s Pravda.
With hope for you and Roberta’s continuing recovery,
-d

It wasn’t much of an argument to begin with.

Sweden

Do you remember the outrage over Trump’s comments about Islamic Radicalism causing problems “just like in Sweden?” Remember how the Swedish government screamed foul? Their “Integration Minister” claimed there were no problems.

She comes clean: Sweden’s Integration Minister admits lying when she claimed rape rate was “going down”

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/03/swedens-integration-minister-admits-lying-when-she-claimed-rape-rate-was-going-down

Sweden is in deep deep denial while it is in the middle of an existential crisis.

This is why we MUST judicially throttle all immigration, particularly illegal immigration.

{^_^}

The cyber war against NK missiles

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-missile-program-sabotage.html?_r=0

The Russian ambassador is *not* the rezident.

Anyone who knows anything about espionage – obviously the lügenpresse don’t fall into that category – knows that the idea that the Russian ambassador is the rezident is utter nonsense.

Something else that has gone unmentioned is the obvious contradiction between the proposition that Trump is somehow in thrall to Putin, while at the same time Trump is pushing for a massive remediation and expansion of our military capabilities and hardware, including new nuclear weapons – which have the property of increasing the Russian strategic threat evaluation of the United States.

Indeed, were Trump in thrall to Putin, he would more likely be aping the rhetoric of the Union of Confused Scientists and the (Soviet-inspired, -funded, and -controlled) Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and World Council of Churches.

One may safely assume that retired Podpolkovnik Putin, Pervoye Glavnoye Upravleniye of the Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti is familiar with the activities of those front organizations, and how his former employer directed same.

—————————————

Roland Dobbins

Giraldi: Did Sessions Do Anything Wrong?

<http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/did-sessions-do-anything-wrong/>

—–

As I believe the entire narrative seeking to portray the Trump victory as some kind of Manchurian-candidate scheme concocted by the Kremlin is complete nonsense, I tend to believe Sessions was answering honestly, after interpreting the question in a certain fashion. His spokesman has described the exchange as: “He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign—not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee.”

. . .

What is particularly disturbing about the attack on Sessions is the hypocrisy evidenced by congressmen like Charles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, who are demanding that the attorney general resign because they claim he committed perjury. Answering questions in such a way as to avoid saying too much is a fine art in Washington — a skill that both Schumer and Pelosi have themselves also developed — but it does not amount to perjury. Sessions’s answer to Franken is not completely clear, but it is not an out-and-out lie. In that respect the attack on Sessions is like the attack on Flynn, basically a way of getting at and weakening President Donald Trump by opportunistically discrediting his high-level appointments.

—————————————

Roland Dobbins

I fear the media doesn’t know the territory.

California Releases Cellphone Radiation Exposure Fact Sheet Draft < CBS San Francisco

Jerry

Thought you might find this interesting:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/03/02/cellphone-radiation-exposure-fact-sheet-draft-released-by-california-health-officials/

Ed

And your conclusion, Doctor, is?

I can’t stop laughing

I went through my Twitter feed this morning and I saw a tweet that still makes me laugh. I didn’t click on the article yet because I want to savor it. The headline says, “Vietnam Veteran Given Cease and Desist Letter by Senators Office and Ordered not to Contact”!

HAHAHHAHAHAHA

Only a motivated veteran and his mouth could strike such fear into the heart of a coward! Never in my life have I see a US citizen issued a cease and desist letter, ordering him to stand down from exercising his — if I’m not mistaken — Constitutionally protected right to petition his government for redress of grievances through the system of representative democracy by contacting his elected representatives in the bicameral legislature we call “Congress”, which so far as I can tell is meant to be an antonym of “progress”. And with the way our “Congress” operates, perhaps we can be grateful the Forefathers did not bless us with a “Progress”.

In any case,I just can’t bring myself to click this article yet because I want to spend the rest of the day imagining the horrible and vicious things this man must have said to get a cease and desist letter from a Senator’s office. I just can’t stop laughing.

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Most Respectfully,

Joshua Jordan, KSC

Percussa Resurgo

I haven’t looked either. Let me know.

NEW in Q-MAG.org: huge spike in earth magnetic field recorded in 8th cent. B.C.

http://www.q-mag.org/

More than 2,500 years ago in the ancient Near East, the Earth’s geomagnetic field was going gangbusters. During the late eighth century B.C., a new study finds, the magnetic field that surrounds the planet was temporarily 2.5 times stronger than it is today…

http://www.q-mag.org/

Albert de Grazia

I’d appreciate comment on this; I’m low on time.

The Rise of the Machines

Jerry,

Harvesting coconuts is a dangerous and labor intensive process.  Now there is a robot to do this job:

http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/students-have-built-a-coconutharvesting-robot

Best,

Rodger

But think of all the jobs lost!

Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.

Tuesday, February 14, 2017 

With a reprint of the part of yesterdays entry that was misformatted.

The howling continues; now Mr. Trump’s Secretary of Labor candidate is being hounded by Senator Warren among others, largely because he opposes raising the Federal Minimum Wage.

Andy Puzder’s Grilling

Will the White House let bogus charges beat its Labor nominee?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/andy-puzders-grilling-1487031994

President Trump’s early troubles are starting to affect his ability to govern—to wit, Democrats think they have a shot at defeating his nominee for Labor Secretary, Andy Puzder. The White House had better get all hands on deck lest it lose a nominee who knows the damage that the Obama labor agenda did to workers. [snip]

Some of the Republican elites are getting nervous. The media hates us! We had better grow, compromise, reach across the aisles – as if the Democrats did anything like that for the past eight years. Yes, Mr. Trump is a populist, a pragmatist, inexperienced in the ways of the Washington elite, choosing people who he believes can get the job done.and willing to replace them if he thinks they can’t; while the old country club establishment Republicans are concerned because that is not popular with the Washington elites. It is not the way things are done. Doesn’t Trump know that?

There will be war to the knife, obstruction opposition, on anything Mr. Trump does now, and some of the judiciary will seize this opportunity to grab as much political power as possible. Mr. Trump has made the concession of writing his executive orders again; the judicial power group smells blood in the water; the Constitutional Crisis continues. Next phase will be the White House Siege Mentality. The media drum beat continues.

FREE TRADE

Currency Manipulation Is a Real Problem

What’s the point of free-trade deals if governments can wipe out the benefits with monetary maneuvers?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/currency-manipulation-is-a-real-problem-1487031

By

Judy Shelton

Feb. 13, 2017 7:16 p.m. ET

142 COMMENTS

Passionate defenders of the “global rules-based trading system” should be wary of thinking their views are more informed than President Trump’s. He has been branded a protectionist and thus many conclude he is incapable of exercising world leadership. Meanwhile, those who embrace the virtues of global free trade disregard the fact that the “rules” are not working for many American workers and companies.

Certainly the rules regarding international exchange-rate arrangements are not working. Monetary integrity was the key to making Bretton Woods institutions work when they were created after World War II to prevent future breakdowns in world order due to trade. The international monetary system, devised in 1944, was based on fixed exchange rates linked to a gold-convertible dollar.

No such system exists today. And no real leader can aspire to champion both the logic and the morality of free trade without confronting the practice that undermines both: currency manipulation. [snip]

The problem with free trade is that most free trade agreements aren’t really free trade agreements. Ricardo’s analysis was done in an era of sound money. It makes assumptions about the stability of trade agreements that are simply untrue when the value of money can be changed by fiat; a point once made long ago, but seems to have been forgotten by most economists now. There is no monetary integrity now; US dollars can be printed and loaned at zero or even negative interest (provided you have the proper connections). Mr. Obama’s Treasury Secretary placed Japan on a monitoring list; smaller countries manipulate the value of their currency to ameliorate their debt; and so on. It is all very complex, and few understand it all. Bretton Woods is gone. There is no sound money. Without it, can there be free trade? There can certainly be trade deals; Mr. Trump ran on among other things the notion that the ones we have been making have not been very good.

For those interested, there is also

Free Trade and How the Soybean Helped Make America Great

Farmers like me see promise in the new president but peril in his protectionism.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/free-trade-and-how-the-soybean-helped-make-america-great-1487030858

By

Blake Hurst

Feb. 13, 2017 7:07 p.m. ET

34 COMMENTS

Tarkio, Mo.

The soybean is an American success story, a remarkable crop with a proud history. But the vibrant international market for soybeans may become a victim of President Trump’s approach to trade. This would be a shame, given how strongly American farmers have supported Mr. Trump.

Rich in protein, the soybean has improved millions of people’s diets all around the globe. There were 1.8 million acres of the crop in the U.S. in 1924, and soybean farming has grown massively over the years, with nearly 84 million acres planted across the country in 2016. Our farm had no soybeans in the early 1960s, but today the crop makes up half our acreage.

In my rural county in northwest Missouri, home to plenty of soybean farmers, Mr. Trump received about 75% of the vote. We were drawn to policies like his “two for one” executive order, which requires the removal of two regulations every time a new one is written. The vocal and at times vulgar protests against him have only solidified his support here.

But unease is growing in the more fertile parts of the hinterlands. As his trade policy comes into focus, it’s starting to scare the heck out of farmers. [snip]

The trade dilemma continues.

Rare earths are just the tip of the iceberg

It’s really a much bigger problem.

US military systems have a significant Chinese or Taiwan content. Even some of the “American made” parts are actually counterfeit Chinese manufactured parts inserted into US side supply chains.

It is simply not possible for the US to prosecute a war of any length without Chinese support.

For what it’s worth, the military is aware of this problem. For example, see

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/17358-obama-pentagon-waived-ban-on-chinese-parts-in-u-s-weapons

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-18155293

and note that these are not new stories.

The problem has been getting Congress interested in the problem.

++PLS

When we wrote the space plan for Reagan’s transition team (log ago, in 1980), one problem with the strategic defense advocates was that they were separated into warring groups; Teller’s people, Max Hunter’s Gang of Four, General Meyer and the Marshall group’s Homing Overlay, others; one of the accomplishments of those meetings in Larry Niven’s home (then in Tarzana) was the “Treaty of Tarzana” which got all the groups to agree that without space access none of the Strategic Defense systems would work very well. Mr. Reagan adopted SDI, and later made his speech to Congress that Senator Ted Kennedy immediately labeled as Star Wars. And over time the Cold War ended.

A primary concern here is that it takes massive amounts of energy to reclaim many of the rare components…

http://en.nagoya-u.ac.jp/research/activities/news/2017/02/what-happened-to-the-sun-over-7000-years-ago.html

For some reason this doesn’t preview properly, so here’s the header and brief blurb:

“February 7, 2017 PRESS RELEASE

“What Happened to the Sun over 7,000 Years Ago? Analysis of tree rings reveals highly abnormal solar activity in the mid-Holocene

“An international team led by researchers at Nagoya University, along with US and Swiss colleagues, has identified a new type of solar event and dated it to the year 5480 BC…”

Here’s the original paper, but I don’t have a membership. Jim, perchance do you?

http://www.pnas.org/content/114/5/881

Large 14C excursion in 5480 BC indicates an abnormal sun … http://www.pnas.org National Academy of Sciences … Special collections highlighting noteworthy articles. Colloquium Papers; Commentaries; Core Concepts; Cozzarelli Prize

And here is a Wikipedia article about the climate of the Holocene:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

Holocene climatic optimum – Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years BP. This event has also been known by many other names …

~Stephanie Osborn, “The Interstellar Woman of Mystery”

http://www.Stephanie-Osborn.com

Award-winning author of the Division One, Gentleman Aegis, and Displaced Detective series

Finally looking at this.

1. I can’t access the paper without paying the fee.

2.  Note that this is more or less in the middle of the Holocene Climate Optimum. Reading the Wikipedia article made me wonder a bit about prehistoric SUVs…

3. Given the location in the midst of the Holocene Climate Optimum, the easy assumption is that the sun was more active and the suggested hypothesis of a series of what might be called Super Carringtons caused the 14C anomaly.  The inverse situation of a much weaker solar cycle resulting in a magnetic anomaly which permitted a significant increase in cosmic radiation on the earth seems less likely. Not cited is the possibility of an intense extra-solar event, but that possibility cannot be discounted, though such an event should have left a properly dated fossil remnant (e.g something like the Crab nebula) which one would expect to have been observed, unless it was a very intense event at 10s of thousands of light years.  If I had to compare the three hypothesis, I would expect a Super-Carrington first, a extra-solar event second, and an anomalous weakening of the solar magnetic field as least likely.

J

That’s kind of my point. The most probable explanation IS a Carrington-level superflare. Now, mind, the recent data is starting to indicate that such superflares tend to occur in the ‘walls’ of extended minima, either during the descent down to, or the rise up from. And they are able to specifically date this event via tree rings to 5480BC, or about 7500BP as it’s sometimes called.

And that smacks it into the graph in the Wikipedia article at the point where it rises up to the maximum positive excursion.

I would love to get my hands on other solar data for that time frame and later. I know it exists, I just have to dig it up.

~Stephanie Osborn, “The Interstellar Woman of Mystery”

http://www.Stephanie-Osborn.com

I wonder what a good student of legends would make of this: that’s a time when writing was just being invented, 7500 years before present; did anything survive in legendary accounts?

Dear Jerry:

Thanks for posting my e-mail about Henry Bauer’s blog post about scientific consensus.

About 3/4 of the way down the page at

https://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/rebellion-and-growth/

I notice my signature and the link I provided to Amazon for Henry’s book got dropped. Do you prefer not having links to Amazon? I provided it as a convenience, especially because Amazon always has reviews from other readers. I’m not trying to push Henry’s book. In fact I think it is currently greatly over-priced by his publisher. It was only $21 when I bought it a few years ago. At $35 the cost is prohibitive for the casual amateur that I am.

Best regards,

–Harry M.

Last night the formatting got out of control, and some of the material got printed funny and some was just left out. I tried redoing it several times, but my attempts just made it worse. Rather than fool with it, I am reprinting the last part of last night’s exposition here. Apologies. Most of you have seen most all this before.

I give up. The formatting is always bad.  I will paste in the missing lines. Here they are:

For a sweeping survey of the failures of science policy in our age of dogmatism, I recommend Professor Bauer’s book “Dogmatism in Science and Medicine”

I have no idea what the formatting problem was, and I don’t particularly want to know; I just hope it never happens again, cutting lines from quoted material and putting half the post up as if it were a block quote.  It seems all right now.

Scientific consensus wrong about most great advances.

Dear Jerry:
Dr. Henry Bauer, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry and Dean Emeritus of the College of Arts & Sciences at Virginia Tech, writes about the failures of scientific consensus and the dangers that presents for public policy.
From
https://scimedskeptic.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/508/
Science: A Danger for Public Policy?!
Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/02/08
…
The contemporary scientific consensus has in fact been wrong about many, perhaps even most of the greatest advances in science: Planck and quantums, Wegener and drifting continents, Mendel and quantitative genetic heredity; the scientific consensus and 1976 Nobel Prize for discovering the viral cause of mad-cow diseases was wrong; that stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria had been pooh-poohed by the mainstream consensus for some two decades before adherents of the consensus were willing to examine the evidence and then award a Nobel Prize in 2005.
Historical instances of a mistaken scientific consensus being have seemingly not affected major public policies in catastrophic ways, although one possible precedent for such unhappy influence may be the consensus that supported the eugenics movement around the 1920s, resulting in enforced sterilization of tens of thousands of people in the USA as recently as the latter half of the 20^th century.
Nowadays, though, the influence of science is so pervasive that the danger has become quite tangible that major public policies might be based on a scientific consensus that is at best doubtfully valid and at worst demonstrably wrong.
…
The history of science is unequivocal: Contemporary scientific consensuses have been wrong on some of the most significant issues.
…
In absence of an impartial comparative analysis, public discourse and public actions are determined by ideology and not by evidence. “Liberals” assert that the mainstream consensus on global warming equals “science” and anyone who properly respects the environment is supposed to accept this scientific consensus. On the other side, many “conservatives” beg to differ, as when Senator Inhofe flourishes a snowball. One doubts that most proponents of either side could give an accurate summary of the pertinent evidence. That is not a very good way to discuss or to make public policy.

Scarce Resources and Money 

Dear Doctor Pournelle,

Sometimes I just cannot help myself. I occasionally read something from one of your correspondent’s put forth as “Deep Thought” and it is just so “Can’t see the forest for the trees” that I laugh out loud. I suspect you often are well aware of the unintentional irony, but let it stand without comment. Res ipsa loquitur.

The most recent example is Mr. Alan E Johnson statement that he just cannot accept the allocation of scarce resources, in this case health care, by how much money one has.

One of the few things I know about economics is that you don’t need an “economy” in the strictest sense if you have enough of everything for everyone that needs it. “Economics” is the art/science of allocating scarce resources, and let’s face the Ugly Truth: Nearly Everything On Earth IS A Scarce Resource, at least in the sense that there is not enough for everyone to have as much as they would like to have of almost anything. I think “air” is the only exception requiring that “almost”, and once we start living in pressurized habitats in outer space, we must perforce add it into the equation.

“Money”, aside from it’s great utility as a means of exchange, is a rational tool for allocating resources in all but the most strictly controlled economies. Once you throw out money, you open the door to Government Permits as a means of allocating those scarce resources (i.e.

“Everything”). The Left believes that government is Wise, Beneficial and Much Better at doing things for us than we as individuals can ever be at anything,, and most especially at allocating those scarce things. It is the basic concept of Socialism.

It is increasingly common, apparently thanks to our public schools indoctrination of their students, to hear/read of people acting as if “Common Sense Equals Socialist Thought”. It’s important to point this out from time to time, when someone goes on a bit too much about the Emperor’s Fine New Suit of Clothes!

Petronius

Yes, I sometimes do.  Discovered!  

Snowden on a Stick

It looks like Trump might get a gift from Putin; not a superbowl ring but Snowden:

<.>

U.S. intelligence has collected information that Russia is considering turning over Edward Snowden as a “gift” to President Donald Trump — who has called the NSA leaker a “spy” and a “traitor” who deserves to be executed.

That’s according to a senior U.S. official who has analyzed a series of highly sensitive intelligence reports detailing Russian deliberations and who says a Snowden handover is one of various ploys to “curry favor” with Trump. A second source in the intelligence community confirms the intelligence about the Russian conversations and notes it has been gathered since the inauguration.

</>

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russia-eyes-sending-snowden-u-s-gift-trump-official-n718921

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Most Respectfully,

Joshua Jordan, KSC

Percussa Resurgo

The Spy Revolt Against Trump Begins – Observer

http://observer.com/2017/02/donald-trump-administration-mike-flynn-russian-embassy/amp/

I find the above very troubling. And consistent with what I know about IC corporate culture.

Francis

I have of course seen mainstream press attacks on Flynn, whom I do not know. The problem is that the media and press attacks anything Trump does with little regard to importance and not much more to truth. I cannot see the wolf but I hear so many shouts of his coming… I have had little involvement with the company since the 80’s, and know few involved since General Graham died. I do know enough to know things are often not as they seem, and those who say they know are often sincere in their beliefs, but wrong.

[Tuesday: The papers say that General Flynn has resigned. I expect others.]

The AI Threat Isn’t Skynet. It’s the End of the Middle Class | WIRED

I think they underestimate the danger. I believe it could be the start of the end of the species. As a species we are not wired to survive a life with no goals, no accomplishments, etc.

We need to get to Mars, the Moon and the asteroid belts ASAP.

We need a survivor contingent of the species out there living the hard life and continuing our existence.

https://www.wired.com/2017/02/ai-threat-isnt-skynet-end-middle-class/?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits

John Harlow

We need to learn to live in space. Moon Base First.

Teachers Unions 

Jerry,
If Franklin Delano Roosevelt could oppose public-service unions as “organizing against the People,” I don’t see why Republicans approving an education secretary favoring non-public-school choice is unacceptable to Democrats — other than Democrats being in thrall to their donor base controlled by SEIU, that is
By the way, I’ve been enjoying Chaos Manor. Am I becoming more conservative in my old age or are you becoming more anarchistic in yours?
I am a bad anarchist, though. I voted for Trump.
I’m still waiting to add your endorsement of Alongside Night — the Movie to your 1979 endorsement of Alongside Night — The Novel.
Be well,
Neil

Teachers Unions are a conspiracy to rob the taxpayers of benefits of school taxes and thus preserve real education to those who can afford private education.

That mean, stupid, ignorant, lying, fascist, racist, misogynist, traitorous, Nazi Trump

Hello Jerry,

You noted this:

“President Trump is now experiencing that: not only is everything he does mistaken and wrong, it is worse: foolish at best, and more likely just plain evil and mean.”

as an accurate description of the media wide characterization of Trump.

I think it would be instructive for someone to look up the network that sponsored Trump’s long run TV shows, see how he was described by his employers at the time he was on TV and the commercials they ran urging viewers to watch him, and contrast that with how that same network, its subsidiaries, and its employees have characterized him since he began his run for the presidency and subsequent to his election. 

You would think that after paying him for several years to host a popular program on their network they would have noticed, and commented on, his now so obvious (to them) faults, but no, his universally odious traits only manifested themselves when he became a leading Republican candidate for president, finally blooming into an existential threat to humanity at large AFTER his election.

It would seem that as a group they are EXTREMELY poor judges of character OR that they are willing to say or do anything to advance a particular political agenda and/or destroy political opponents.  Neither case provides a strong argument that their pronouncements about the character of a political opponent should be viewed as credible.

Bob Ludwick  

Turnabout is fair play?

Dear Jerry –
In the case of the suit against the Trump travel ban, an obvious question was, “What standing does Washington state have to allow it to bring suit? How can it claim injury?”
The answer given is that the state economy is damaged by the dislocations which the ban produce, and so the state has been injured and has standing to sue.
I find this a most entertaining argument, since it turns the “interstate commerce” argument right around and aims it at the Feds. Since the Federal government has argued, for instance, that growing pot in one’s back yard for personal use means that the grower does not buy in the (illegal) market, and thus affects the interstate economy in marijuana, it seems perfectly reasonable for the state of Washington to claim that its economy is being damaged by the effects on individuals within its borders. Sauce for the goose, etc.
Granted, I don’t think either argument should be allowed to stand, but if the principle is going to be established it certainly seems that it should do so fairly.
Regards,
Jim Martin

The one thing certain is that the law does not much deal in fair play or easy comprehension.  Perhaps it should. Perhaps we need a new Twelve Tables.

Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

If Republicans want to force through massive tax cuts, we will fight them tooth and nail.

Senator Elizabeth Warren

If a foreign government had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightfully consider it an act of war.

Glenn T. Seaborg, National Commission on Education, 1983

Immigration without assimilation is invasion.

Suggestion of the day.

SUGGESTIONS for our new president:
1. Put a list of the 100 things Trump hopes to accomplish on a site labeled “Trump’s 100 goals” and update it regularly to show what he has accomplished.
2. Put a list of what Obama promised to do when he was elected and describe what he did for each item.
Emma L. Cate

It is very likely the first item has been done and is waiting for inauguration; the second may not have been thought of, and coupling them is a good idea. Thanks.

On another thought would be to tax money that is held off shore by American corporations at 10% and use the money for funding for infrastructure or debt reduction. See what happens when you retire, you have soo much time just to think of stuff. ;^)

Tim Bolgeo

Coupling the two might make the tax cut more palatable to Democrats (although presumably not to Ms. Warren); we do have infrastructure problems. Alas, the Trillion spent on stimulus since the 2008 collapse didn’t go to infrastructure improvements; indeed, from here at least, it’s hard to tell who did get all that money. It’s gone and I don’t know where. I make no doubt the incoming administration could keep better track of it; but writing into law some allocations of the new taxes would make sense.

Suggestions for incoming government

I think ADA is here to stay. I expect you have experienced the more beneficial aspects of ADA because of your reduced mobility. ADA works very well when dealing with new construction; we adjusted and now it is ingrained in the design. Where it drains us is when dealing with existing structures. Places that can be retrofitted economically have been completed. So exempt existing structures from ADA compliance.

Greg Brewer

I like that. ADA has its good points but a federal rule protecting the rights of drunks against being fired for being drunk on duty seems a bit extreme; but altering ADA is not simple and will not happen quickly. This could be implemented quickly, and would have an immediate economic effect without being a drastic change in ADA.

I have often pointed out that free trade does promote economic growth: we have the numbers. We also have the remains of our industrial centers, and the rust belt, where once we had thriving industries; we have people who have left the work force and are not officially unemployed – yet they are unemployable and unwillingly on welfare, absorbing tax money paid by those who are employed.

I asked my friend Dr. David Friedman if he had any suggestions for the incoming President. As always, he was forthcoming:

Unfortunately, the best advice I could give he can’t follow, politically speaking. That’s to declare unilateral free trade, the policy of Britain in the 19th century and Hong Kong in the 20th. That would not only be good for the country and set a good example for the world, it would eliminate the current practice of using free trade negotiations to pressure other countries to adopt policies popular with American voters in exchange for the agreement.

Beyond that, most of it is obvious. Support vouchers in D.C.. Get the education bureaucracy to stop pressuring universities to use a civil standard of proof in sexual accusation cases. Permit interstate health insurance sales.

One piece of advice which he might or might not listen to … . A brain drain is a problem when you are the country it is draining out of. It’s a good thing when you are the country it is draining into. If a hundred thousand or so of the smartest people in India and China migrate to the U.S. that is a good thing both in the short run and the long run. In the short run it means we have more smart computer people, more competent physicians. In the long run it means that the average intelligence of the population goes up, even if not by very much.

David

We also have:

Free Trade

I wouldn’t be surprised if all these free trade deals did lead to more rapid economic growth, when measured on a global scale. But the benefits were not so evenly distributed, both among competing countries, and among the workers in our country. Clearly, the damage to blue collar factory workers was considerable. The changes produced by globalization happened too rapidly, relative to the ability of many people to make adjustments to their careers.
Unfortunately, history does not allow do-overs. Even if renewed tariffs or renegotiated trade agreements does shift the balance back toward the US, you know perfectly well that only a fraction of the jobs that left will be coming back, due to automation. And part of the cost of leveling the field for US workers could well be overall slower growth globally. Whether or not the US could escape the impact of a further global slowdown isn’t clear to me.
I will also point to recent article in the New York Times which discusses a little mentioned trend, namely that global trade has been flat, or declining recently:
Craig
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/upshot/a-little-noticed-fact-about-trade-its-no-longer-rising.html

I do remind you: increased productivity leads to a higher paid work force, but a more productive work force produces more goods with fewer workers: that is, increased productivity per worker makes your nation more competitive as compared to other nations, but increased productivity does not automatically lead to new jobs: without economic growth it has the opposite effect.  Increased productivity – robots – can lead to new jobs, but generally that is in new firms. Regulations that discourage startups mean fewer new firms, and in a time of growing capability of robots – increased productivity per human worker – those regulations generally guarantee first unemployment, then what Mrs. Clinton called the deplorables.

Free trade and automobiles and the Iron Law

Jerry,

I’m currently a retired union member, and I was one for most of my working life since I got my first job at GM in 1968, right out of High School. 

Speaking from my personal experience of five years (68-73) working at GM, the union (UAW) killed the American auto industry. No one in the entire factory ever worked more than about 70% or 80% of the day. The final hour & a half or two hours of every shift were spent hanging around, reading, BSing, playing cards, drinking coffee and complaining about Japanese cars. When I first started, I tried to work all day. My co-workers sabotaged my equipment, put parts into bins instead of onto the conveyor lines to slow me down and physically threatened me. The UAW supported and defended these actions.

I gave up – I knew I wasn’t going to work there long — I was going to college at the same time — so I just did my quota each day and spent the rest of the shift studying.

My brother is 15 years younger than I.  He also worked for GM and the same dysfunction was also apparent to him.

Management might have been out of touch too, but the unions played their role as well.

Praying for Roberta,

Best,

Tom Locker

Bottom-up view of US auto industry

Dr. Pournelle:
Having a two-generation intimacy with the auto industry, I can vouch for the effectiveness of Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy in Detroit, although my second-hand experience was in Cleveland.
My father worked at the Ford engine assembly plant for 30 years and my brother for two while he saved money for college. There was an inverse relationship between the ascendency of the United Auto Workers union and the quality of US automobiles.
When my father started at Ford in the early ’50s, the balance of power between Ford management and the UAW favored management. As the US became richer and more cars sold, Ford’s goal transitioned from producing quality cars at a profit to producing a profit for the least investment.
Along with this, the UAW’s goal changed from protecting its members to enriching and protecting itself. Union feather-bedding grew to nearly unsustainable proportions, both in union management and on the factory floor. Union management was populated by people who’d never set foot on a factory floor, while nearly illiterate line workers filled the ranks of the hourly workers, workers with an entitlement attitude.
My father, who worked in maintenance, told stories of equipment going offline because of parts pilferage and workers finding out-of-the-way places to drink, gamble, or sleep.
My brother’s job was to break down engines that were inoperative and send the parts back through the assembly line; about one in five from his experience in the ’70s. He told stories of missing valves, pistons installed incorrectly, and hamburger wrappers and other trash found inside cylinders.
All the while, wages and benefits skyrocketed as the UAW became de facto management. He told stories of engines with missing parts because female line workers were put into positions where they did not have the strength to install parts, so they just didn’t. Incompetent employees were unfire-able, instead reassigned to less-and-less demanding positions.
Lay-offs were obsolete. Unneeded employees were put in “employee banks” where they were supposed to show up for “work” and sit in employee lounges on the off chance they might be again be needed. Guess how many actually showed up. Those actually laid off were paid 75-percent of their base pay not to work.
My family did benefit from the rising wage and benefits tide, moving from the lower middle class to the upper middle class, but the joke was that when my father died and his retirement benefits ceased the average cost of a Ford dropped $3.
It’s little wonder that better, less expensive, higher-mileage offshore cars brought an end to Detroit.
Pete Nofel

Electoral College

In the aftermath of Mr. Trump winning the Presidential election despite having lost the popular vote, there has been a lot written and said lately about States Rights, Federalism, and the structure of the electoral college. While not a deep student of history, I have at least a basic understanding of how the system we have in place came to be. I have an appreciation of how the system was intended to provide protection for the interests of smaller states, and thus gives them some advantages, such as equal representation in the Senate, and extra weight in the electoral college. (The extra weight they have in the House of Representatives seems an aberration of changes made in the early 20th century, and not the handiwork of the founding fathers.)
What occurs to me as I watch this debate play out is that just because something was once historically relevant and important, doesn’t mean it is always remains relevant or important. This was driven home to me recently, reading an essay in National Review in which the author suggested that the popular vote shouldn’t be as relevant as the electoral college, and offered this observation:
Do we want a president who wins by running up the score in one or two states, or do we want a president who wins by garnering narrower victories in a wide array of states?
This was jarring and somewhat bizarre question, because, in terms of my political identity, I have never ever thought of myself primarily as a Resident of the The State of XX, where XX is the code that terminates my address. I have always thought of myself of as an American. The state that I live in just happened to be a side effect of other more important decisions that I have made in my life, or that my parent made. I was born in Wisconsin, and since have lived in Ohio, Missouri, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Minnesota, and then again Ohio. At no point have I ever felt a strong political affiliation or association to any one of those states. Thinking about my news viewing habits, I am far more knowledgeable about what is happening nationally, than I am about local and state developments. I watch mostly national news, read mostly national newspapers. Perhaps this is because the longest I’ve ever lived in any one state was 14 years, and many times my periods of residence have been much shorter.
Perhaps if I had been born in 1750, in the one of the original states, spent my whole life that state, fought in their militia as part of the Revolutionary War, and paid attention mostly to Local and State politics, I would have a different feeling about the importance of States Rights. But that hasn’t been my life. Nor has it been the life of most of my family or colleagues.
So the idea that it should matter to me that a candidate was “running up the score” in another state just seems foreign and bizarre. At a visceral level, I find it hard to accept that a vote cast in California, or New York, or Texas should matter less than a vote cast in Wyoming, or Montana, or the District of Columbia, just because it might have mattered in 1776.
It seems an inevitable consequence of a highly mobile society that people will come to expect that basic rights, and the value of their vote, should remain constant as they move around the country. In particular, as mobility homogenizes the nature of the country, as every state become ethnically and politically more diverse, organizing the electoral college around state geography seems to be more and more antiquated. The big divides these days are not so much defined by state geography as by the divide between rural and urban. So, despite the historical usefulness of the electoral college, it does seem that outcomes like this will eventually have a negative effect on public perception of the legitimacy of the outcome.
Craig

the Electoral College

Dear Dr. Pournelle:
I have encountered people saying that the Electoral College ought to be abolished. Obviously the votes to do it aren’t there. But practicalities aside, the usual argument for doing so seems to be that the Electoral College sometimes produces results different from the outcome of a nationwide popular vote; and this seems to be taken as self-evidently unacceptable.
Really? The United States is a federal state, not a unitary one. In a unitary state, the population votes as a whole (if voting is allowed, of course). But a federal state is made up of subunits, and those subunits have to have some separate influence on political decisions, or they’re no more than a facade. So the claim that not following the nationwide popular vote seems to be equivalent to the claim that federal states are always unacceptable, and only unitary states are legitimate. Do the people saying this really want to claim that every federal state on Earth is illegitimate? It seems a bit arrogant to prescribe that every state must have the same structure, no matter what its founders proposed or its people consented to.

William H. Stoddard

Precisely.

I was born in the Depression (1933) in Louisiana ad we moved to Tennessee when I was a very early age. My Tennessee grade schools had a year of state history as well as a year of national history, and I certainly thought of myself as a Tennesseean as well as American.

There would have been no United States save for the Connecticut Compromise that gave the smaller states some means of resisting the majority votes; just as debate on the electoral college is moot since ¾ of the states will never voluntarily ratify any such amendment. We’ll amplify this subject later, but does it not occur to you that the big problem is we have given the Congress too much to do? Too much power over our personal lives? Made us in our personal lives subject to one (national) rule to fit all, when there are many different and defensible opinions about what are good laws and what are mere opportunities for bureaucrats to mess about in our affairs?

Mr. Trump has often pointed out that Roe v Wade imposed a national rule on abortion, but if that ruling were overturned, the subject would be the responsibility of the States; meaning that local majorities would govern a matter on which there seems to no overwhelming agreement? The result would be different laws in different states; precisely as intended by the Convention of 1787 which did not grant Congress any power over abortion whatever. (Or over a very great many subjects which are now controlled by the Federal Government, making it easier for lobbyists: they only have to give money to 100 Senators and 435 Representatives, not importune 50 different state legislatures. I invite you to contemplate this.)

The War of Northern Aggression

(To distinguish from current calls for repetition of the late unpleasantness…)

Jerry,

As you know, the Civil War was fought for many reasons. Slavery was one, but states rights, and protests of tariffs and taxes on southern agriculture that benefited the industrializing north were among the reasons. The latter part gets forgotten.

I’ve grown up with the Stars and Bars all of my life, and have seen it as a symbol of states rights and defiance against federal overreach, not of racism. Of course, other people will differ in their interpretation of any symbol (just as the swastika started as an Indian subcontinent peace symbol – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika).

Coming from southern Kentucky, I also had relatives who fought on both sides of the “late unpleasantness” (my great-great-grandfather apparently crossed into Tennessee and fought as a Confederate, and one of his brothers died in a Union prisoner of war camp; at least one of their uncles supported the Union); as appropriate, I tend to decorate their grave markers with the Confederate battle flag.

Jim

Tariff very much so. A tropic we will discuss another time.

Dear Jerry Pournelle:
Anthropologists distinguish between ‘honor culture’ and ‘dignity culture’. In honor culture, there are superior persons with honor, and inferior persons without; one must earn the privilege of being treated with respect. In dignity culture, respect is a right, had equally by all; it denies that there are superior or inferior persons. Honor cultures tend to exist in places without prosperity or reliable rule of law; dignity cultures tend to exist in places with those blessings.
Therefore dignity culture denies that there  are superior and inferior persons; yet considered as a culture, it is manifestly superior to honor culture! And conversely, honor culture demands that all under it must earn the privilege of being treated with respect, but when compared to dignity culture, and if you go by results, then it has clearly not earned that respect!
There is a chicken-and-egg problem here; are honor cultures that way because they’re too poor to afford a working rule of law, or do they lack effective rule of law because they’re that way? Does dignity come from prosperity, or does prosperity come from dignity? I suspect that the flow of causation is to some extent circular.
This also involves a fallacy of composition. Characteristics of the individual are not necessarily characteristics of the society.
– paradoctor

I will publish this with comments, but I do not concede your “therefore” that the second paragraph is proven by the first. 

Query: is an army company an honor or a dignity community?

The Dignity/Honor Paradox

I’m not sure. Ask an anthropologist. Within the company, it’s all for one and one for all; that’s dignity. But rank does have its privileges; and the company’s purpose is to rudely defend the honor of the nation. So equality and inequality intertwine; the altruism of individuals supports the egotism of the collective.
Maybe I was too judgmental about entire ways of life. But where would you rather live: Sweden or Pakistan?

I grant that the ‘therefore’ between paragraphs 1 and 2 is incomplete; the causation probably also flows in the reverse direction. Folk in lands without law or wealth must defend their honor; and honor culture in turn ensures that the land acquires neither law nor wealth. (This is a memetic/cultural variant of the Iron Law of Bureaucracy: cultural memes have a vested interest in the evils that make them necessary.)
And conversely: does innovation and prosperity support a culture of inherent worth, or does a culture of inherent worth support innovation and prosperity?
Like many paradoxes, the Dignity/Honor Paradox can be darkly comic. Consider the spectacle of the Limousine Liberal, who preaches equality and thus attains superiority. Now consider his dark shadow, the Deplorable, who preaches the existence of inferior persons, and proves it by his example.

I will do this as a dialog, but I do not accept that dignity and honor are mutually exclusive or collectively exhaustive. Of course I would rather live in Sweden, and would have even in the days of Gustav Adolphus.  Of course my ancestors left to go defend Normandy for the French.

Perhaps ‘dignity’ is not the exact term. “Principle” may be closer, or “self-worth”. “Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me”; not an honor-culture concept. And just as honor culture sins by pride, self-worth culture sins by vanity.
I agree that opposite concepts can coexist in societies and even individuals. Honor is emotional, dignity is intellectual; and emotion and intellect often coexist at cross-purposes in individuals – and even societies.

Mexico’s Diplomatic Network

You have this quotation you like to use, “immigration without assimilation is invasion”. Through that lens:

<.>

Mexico has 50 consulates in the United States, the largest diplomatic network deployed by any single country in any other worldwide.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, there were 11.6 million Mexican immigrants in the United States in 2014. Of those, 5.8 million were undocumented, according to the Pew Research Center.

There are also more than 23 million U.S.-born people of Mexican origin, most of whom could be eligible for dual citizenship under Mexican law.

</>

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/mexican-government-launches-plan-to-protect-immigrants/ar-AAknOmR?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

A diplomatic network of 50 locations that services 11.6 million of its citizens and potentially 23 million more dual citizens? This is significant.

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ Most Respectfully,

Joshua Jordan, KSC

Percussa Resurgo

The current immediate policy is to deport all the illegal aliens convicted of felonies, and to do so as soon as possible. Since there are up to two million of these this will be complex and expensive. It will also cause a fair amount of internal stress and disaffection, but there is an overwhelming popular agreement that it should be done – extending well into the American-Latino communities who are the victims of many of the crimes that got these people convicted in the first place. What will be done with “status offenders” – those whose only known crime is being here without papers – particularly those who were brought here well before age of consent – will be subject to considerable discussion and I suspect negotiation, and won’t happen immediately anyway.

I repeat, voting without citizenship is a federal crime, and how much of that actually happened will influence the debate on status offenders.

The Media’s Mea Culpa

The NYT’s soul searching would be rather more believable if they had a soul.

Cordially,

John

NYT “rededication”

The thing about the NYT “rededication” is that after going powder puff easy on Obama for eight years and pushing Hillary and trashing Trump, they will “rededicate” and trash Trump for four or eight years. They’re not apologizing, they’re laying groundwork in the guise of being almost an “apology”.
J

Porkypine’s Analysis:

(MK 2 revised version) (long) Porkypine on Brexit Effect & Vote-Manufacturing

(Rewritten, as I noticed a pattern in the iffy states after sending the

original.)

Jerry,

Indulge me while I start this off with a bit of bragging on election predictions I made privately to you the night before. They’re also useful background for what follows, but yes, I’m enjoying myself for a moment here.

“If the current RCP state-by-state poll averages are dead-on, Clinton wins tomorrow, 272-266. In the national polls, her lead has crept back up to 3%. I’m deeply suspicious of that number, as it includes a whole bunch of recent-days 4, 5, 6, 7% leads from polls that had her up by double digits two weeks ago. But, it doesn’t matter if it’s 3% or (my

guesstimate) 1-2%, other than for her odds of winning the popular vote while (one hopes) losing the election.” (I was too conservative – Clinton’s latest popular vote lead is 0.6%.)

I went on to describe the amount of “Brexit Effect” (under-polled Trump

voters) needed for him to win as being around 1% if there were no surprises whatsoever, but multiple points if any losses in the nominally closest states caused him to need some of the less close ones – Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, etc.

Yeah, I wimped out and put his overall odds of getting enough Brexit Effect at 60:40 against. But I called the course the win actually took pretty closely – there was 0.9% Brexit Effect in RCP’s “Battleground States” overall, with 3.1% in Pennsylvania and 3.7% in Michigan enough to overcome the anti-Brexit surprise losses in New Hampshire and Nevada.

(I’ll freely admit that Wisconsin also coming in at Brexit 7.5% just gobsmacked me. Do NOT mess with Scott Walker.)

Cheating!

All that said, let me bring up one earlier prediction I also made to

you: That the election would hinge on how much Trump’s Brexit Effect might exceed the Dem “margin of cheating” – that typical 1-2% edge in close elections they hold in states where they have major vote-manufacturing operations. Places where it can look close, till the late tallies from Chicago or Philadelphia come in with just enough graveyard votes for a D win.

My view, FWIW, is that this goes on in a LOT more places than Chicago and Philadelphia these days. Any place local law enforcement turns a blind eye (IE Dem-controlled urban enclaves) there are dead people voting, illegals voting, busloads of people from the next state over voting, collected loads of mail-in ballots marked straight D, voting machines mysteriously tallying D votes for R button pushes… There’s a reason DOJ has been rabidly anti-citizenship proof for registering and anti-ID requirement for voting for the last eight years. (Try that on Customs or the TSA.)

Ah, but can I prove it? Well, I was watching the numbers pretty closely this year for other reasons, but I had that in mind too.

Clue #1: The final RCP national average showed 2.7% Brexit Effect. The ten best-polled battleground states (nobody really expected Minnesota or Missouri to flip) averaged 0.9% Brexit effect, only one-third as much.

Say WHAT?!

Now, states vary. (That’s a major reason for having them.) But you’d think that a sample of ten states out of the fifty, as “battlegrounds”

by definition right across the middle of the political spectrum, polled intensively by most of the same national pollsters, really ought to come in reasonably close to the overall national poll average.

But we see almost two points less Brexit Effect in the core battlegrounds than nationally. Both sides were campaigning all-out there, which should roughly even out. Even with the huge effective sample sizes, I’d not be surprised by a point of slop. But two points?

What else might account for near two points of pro-Dem difference in the most closely-contested states? Hmmmmm.

Not proof yet, no. But indicative.

Diving deeper into the numbers, there’s more.

A given number for Brexit Effect is actually the difference between two

numbers: How much Trump exceeded his final RCP poll average, minus how much Clinton exceeded hers. Tabulating those numbers separately, by state, gets interesting.

Nationally, Trump’s final RCP poll average was 42.2%, his (latest) national vote total 47.1%, so he beat his final polls by 4.9%.

Clinton’s final national poll average was 45.5% (a 3.3% poll lead) and her latest vote total 47.7% (an 0.6% popular vote lead) so she beat her final polls by 2.2%.

Keep that national ratio in mind: Trump beat his final polls by 4.9%, while Clinton beat hers by 2.2%. (The difference is our 2.7% national Brexit Effect.) Call it a ratio of a bit over 2:1, magnitude roughly 5% to 2%. Again, you’d expect the closely-polled middle 20% of contested states to at least be close to this, with some individual state variations. You’d expect.

What you actually get is this:

(TBPb is % Trump Beat his Polls by, CBPb is % Clinton Beat her Polls by, states are listed in Brexit-Total order,and a fixed-width font makes it all come out readable.)

Brxt TBPb CBPb

MI 3.7 5.6 1.9

PA 3.1 4.5 1.4

NC 2.8 4.0 1.2

FL 1.1 2.5 1.4

GA 0.9 2.1 1.2

NH 0.4 4.6 4.2

AZ 0.1 3.2 3.1

VA 0.1 2.7 2.6

CO 0.0 4.0 4.0

NV -3.2 -0.3 2.9

Again assuming about a point of slop, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina all look reasonable in light of the national numbers. Brexit totals are all close to the average, Beat-Polls ratios all somewhat over 2:1, Beat-Polls magnitudes all within a point or so of 5% to 2%.

(Regarding PA, turnout in Philly was not outrageous – looks like the Philly machine may have assumed it wasn’t really needed. Ditto Detroit.)

Florida and Georgia both come in at Beat-Polls ratio a bit under 2:1, with magnitudes also a little low, and Brexit totals quite low – I’d guess some possible Broward County/Fulton County effect.

Arizona, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Virginia, now, there’s something quite odd going on. All show roughly equal Trump and Clinton Beat-Polls-by totals. Where’d the extra point or two of Clinton votes come from? Maybe peculiar local demographics. Maybe not.

Some thoughts:

– Clintonista Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe restored voting rights to

60,000 felons right before the election, over 1.5% of the total voting.

– Colorado has universal vote-by-mail, lax controls over who can collect and return ballots, and a largely Dem-ruled metro area around Denver. CO looked to be in play late, so local Dems had reason to make sure it wasn’t.

– Half of Arizona – Maricopa County – has on-request mail-in ballots, a now-Dem controlled city (Phoenix) at its core, a one-day judge-imposed window when bulk collection of mailings wasn’t a felony, and an all-levels Dem effort to beat Sheriff Arpaio (successful.) Arizona as a whole still went for Trump, but don’t count on that lasting on current trend. There was also (premature) talk of AZ being in play, and optimistic local Dems were apparently trying hard to tip it this time.

– New Hampshire has easy absentee ballots, was a crucial state in the

270-268 Trump narrow-win scenario (his only obviously plausible path to winning as of Tuesday morning) and also hosted a close Senate race.

Given those, I wouldn’t rule out a significant Dem vote-manufacturing project in NH even if it does seem out of character.

As for Nevada’s results, all I can say is it looks as if something deeply wrong happened in metro Las Vegas last Tuesday. Harry Reid may be soon finally gone, but his legacy lives. Nevada was, FWIW, also a crucial state in the Trump 270-268 narrow-win scenario, and also had a close Senate race.

Conclusion

Widespread fraud proven? No. But far too probable, by the numbers and the circumstances, to be ignored.

I’d say that merely stopping DOJ’s current war against states trying to ensure their elections are kosher – this DOJ notoriously opposes proof of citizenship to register and proof of identity to vote – isn’t enough.

I’d really like to see a post-cleanup DOJ protecting the rest of our voting rights by actively going after local vote-fraud operations in Federal elections. (This may take a thorough purge of the pro-fraud ideologues currently running that part of DOJ.)

Given that some of these probable fraud efforts may have been done in a last-second rush, I’d think New Hampshire and Colorado – both states only became close late – might be fruitful grounds for investigation.

And given the sheer egregiousness of the results, Nevada might also.

Porkypine

Afterthought: No campaign has unlimited resources. OH and NC Clinton’s campaign apparently just conceded. Organized cheating in FL, NV, and NH makes sense as attacks on the most vulnerable parts of Trump’s narrow path to 270. CO and VA would have been insurance against his taking the most obvious alternatives. And GA and AZ were just an attempt (delusional, it turns out) at spiking the ball, running up her totals.

Trump meanwhile punched deep into their rear and took PA, MI, WI, and almost MN. Looks like they never really believed any of those places were actually at risk. If they’d gone all-out in PA and MI instead of digressing to AZ and GA… Hmm. WI gives Trump the 270 win anyway, 10 EV countering loss of NH’s 4 and NV’s 6. They’d have had to have the imagination to go all-out in WI as well.

No surprise – it looks like Clinton was done in by complacency and lack of imagination.

Thank you. This warrants study.

It is important to investigate voter fraud involving illegal – undocumented – aliens because that really is an act of invasion and it is a federal crime. I suspect some of the places where it was widespread (if it happened) would not affect the electoral college vote, but will affect the narrative about “we won the popular vote” – whish is about the only consolation Democrats have from the train-wrecks for them that were the last two elections. Governorships, statehouse, mayors, even dogcatcher elections…

Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.