As you may know, I live in Wisconsin and it has been horrible this week. It started off with a storm that dumped around 10 inches of snow, which is way too much. I hate snow and anything more than a couple of inches is pretty terrible. Thankfully, the commute to and from work went well enough for me, but there were and are still so many cars in the ditch.
Making things much worse was the absolute cold. On Wednesday we had a low of -20 and this morning we had a low of -24. To compare and industrial blast freezer has a temp of 20 degrees so you would have been warmer in there than you would have been outside this morning. Plus, the weather was so cold that salt doesn't work to melt snow so all the roads are still covered with ice and snow, despite being plowed repeatedly.
I made it through ok though. I did have to go outside a bit and it was not fun. I was prepared though. Before I went outside I wore three shirts, a heavy hooded sweater and a winter jacket. I also had two pairs of socks, long underwear, a hat and gloves. It was still way too cold out there.
What people might not realize from warmer climates is that it isn't the cold that is the worst thing. It's the wind. We had 20mph winds on Wednesday so even though it was colder today, it felt a lot worse with a -40 degree windchill on Wednesday. Standing in a windbreak at -24 isn't that bad, but if you step out into the wind then things really start to suck.
Thankfully, the polar vortex seems to be over. Tonight we have a low of only -10. That's still really cold but much more normal for winter in Wisconsin. It will warm up over the weekend until it gets to unseasonably warm temperatures. With highs in the upper 40's it will be so warm that I won't know what to do with myself.
I do hope that this is the last of the cold weather for awhile. Though I didn't have any real problems this week, it could have easily been much worse. My car started well and stayed on the road and my heat stayed on. None of those things were guaranteed though, and the winter weather remains one of the major downsides of living in Wisconsin.
Another quick update for a previous story. I had covered the CNN report earlier this week. Back then I cautioned that the report had a very good chance of being false as it came from CNN, which has a horrible relationship with media accuracy. Also, the report relied on anonymous sources which, as always, isn't reliable. If someone isn't willing to put it on the record that what they say is true then you shouldn't believe them unless there is supporting evidence that backs it up. And once again, I didn't listen to my own advice and ended up wasting my time speculating about something that is apparently not going to happen.
With John Podesta commenting directly, this story has a much better chance of being true. Podesta was Clinton's campaign manager (and a scumbag but that's neither here nor there) and has a close relationship with Clinton. He's in the position to know things about her thinking and may have even been directed by Clinton to make the statement.
Of course without a direct statement from Clinton herself, there is a chance that even this story is fake news. Ultimately nobody knows for sure if Clinton is running besides Hillary Clinton herself. She could always change her mind or this could be flak and countermeasures. With Podesta commenting on the record, the chances are much smaller though of this report being false.
I've gone over again and again why Clinton would have been a terrible choice. She already lost to Trump once and probably would do so again. She has no charisma at all and is generally greatly disliked by normal people. And she has been plagued by scandals for years.
It's not like the rest of the Democratic field is that much better. Joe Biden is a creep and has been filmed being extremely touchy-feeling with women and children. He's a prime candidate to get #metoo'ed. Bernie Sanders had his wife's college embezzlement scandal, and Elizabeth Warren lied about her Native American heritage. And Kamalah Harris? Literally slept her way to the top with her affair with former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown. With those being the options, a Hillary Clinton run makes more sense.
I am glad that Hillary Clinton will apparently never be president. Not only do I hate her policies, I hate her as a person. One of the strongest criticisms I have of President Trump is that he has so far failed to keep his campaign promise to "lock her up". Clinton is a bad person who deserves to spend the rest of her life in a prison cell, not the oval office.
This lawsuit wasn’t about me. It was about all of us and what we find acceptable as a society. We need to send a clear message that violence is not the answer - anytime, anywhere.
We can hold different views, whether it’s politics, religion or day to day matters.
My Comment:
Just a quick update to the Rand Paul story. Paul almost died in this attack and I always thought that Rene Boucher got off easy for what he did to Paul. His conviction resulted in a sentence of 30 days, which was an absolute joke. Though he was convicted of a felony, having to spend only a month in jail was a slap in the face. His attack on Rand Paul could have very easily killed him.
A half a million dollar judgement against him seems pretty fair. Paul probably doesn't need the money, but he does deserve some justice for what happened to him. Indeed, he probably deserves more as, once again, he almost died. Half a million probably doesn't make up for the injuries he received but it is something.
I do wonder if Rene Boucher can pay though. He is probably moderatly wealthy but his lawyer fees and prison time could have ate into his funds. That being said, the money is less important to Paul than the message this judgement says. If you attack someone over politics and lawn care you deserve to pay a massive amount of money...
With the culture war in high gear I worry there might be more attacks like this. There was of course the shooting of Steve Scalise, an event where Rand Paul also almost died, and there were several attacks on GOP candidates in the run up to the 2018 midterms. This tells me the trend isn't over and I think it's just a matter of time before someone gets killed...
I haven't been able to find a copy of this report. Usually news articles will either have a direct link to the report or it will be embedded into the article but in this case I couldn't find a thing. From what I understand the report is only three pages long and is more of a summary of the FBI's findings than a detailed report like the one the local police released last summer. If I find it later I will post it here.
This is an extremely unsatisfying end to a frustrating story. It does not make sense that the worst shooting in American history would have no motive to speak of. Though it is possible that there really was no motive to speak of, it is not an answer anyone wants to hear. It would be much more satisfying if there was some kind of 1000 page manifesto found that detailed exactly why Paddock killed 58 people before shooting himself. That is apparently not going to happen now.
Without a clear motive it is very hard to learn anything from Paddock's attack. If the FBI has failed and doesn't really understand why Paddock did what he did it will make it that much harder to find the next Stephen Paddock. Though such an attack is extremely unlikely, we would have a better chance of preventing it if we understood why Paddock did what he did.
So did he do it just because he wanted to be famous and had a death wish? I guess it's possible. It's not like any of the other theories make much sense. The "gun deal gone bad" narrative makes little sense because the weapons he used aren't exactly uncommon and it makes little sense for his buyers to kill him and then kill a bunch of random people. He's also not likely working for ISIS since he didn't seem to have any religious beliefs at all. And his politics seem non-existent, which means he's probably the only person in America that doesn't have strong political opinions.
Without any evidence of motive anything else is mostly speculation. It seems that the FBI's conclusions are gathered from interviews and psychological profiles. This can give us some idea why he did it but is not enough to prove why he did what he did. Without the man's words we might never really know why he did it.
I do have to say how amazing it is that the Mandalay Bay shooting has been memory holed. Though this story has been getting a little coverage, there has been almost no talk about the deadliest attack in American history involving shootings. The Parkland shooting, which was almost inconsequential in comparison in terms of victims, got months of coverage and launched a major gun control push. But the worst mass shooting in American history? Other than the bump stock ban, which was a huge mistake, there hasn't been anything.
It's easy to think that is due to some conspiracy with the government hiding the truth about what happened in Las Vegas. But I think it has much more to do with the fact that nobody could really make political points on Stephen Paddock. He had no political or religious motives so it is impossible to blame anyone for the attack other than the attacker itself...
As you may know I live in the Midwest. More specifically I live in Wisconsin. It's apparently a major news story on a slow news day that it is very cold and terrible in Wisconsin and it will get worse this week. Though it is nice that the national news media is actually paying attention to us for once (and by that I mean Chicago) it isn't nice having to deal with the cold and snow.
We had about 8-10 inches of snow today, which is a lot even for Wisconsin. But that's not the main story. Instead, people are focused on the extreme cold temperatures this week. For my area that means high temps below zero and lows around -15 to -20. It will likely be record breaking low temperature which is always a bad thing.
Generally speaking, as someone who has dealt with Wisconsin winters for the past 35 years, I greatly prefer low temperatures to snow. As long as i don't have to go outside for extended periods of time and as long as the pipes don't freeze I am fine with cold temperatures. I just wear multiple layers, gloves and long underwear and I am fine.
Snow is so much worse though because it makes driving horrible. If the plows come out and do their jobs it isn't too bad but if they don't or can't keep up the roads are a slippery, horrible mess. Plus there is always the problem of shoveling which is a special kind of hell depending on how wet and heavy the snow is. Thankfully, the snow we had is the last we should have for awhile.
Generally speaking though, in Wisconsin we tend to have a couple of weeks like this a year. The actual temperatures are a little cooler than normal but not by much. Indeed, up until this point our winter was extremely mild and almost devoid of snow, which was fine by me. I knew the good times wouldn't last though.
I do always wonder why I stay in Wisconsin though when winter is usually horrible. There are reasons though. Outside of blizzards and the occasional summer tornado (I did have the misfortune to have gone through one of these but thankfully it was an F-0, which is as week as possible) we don't have much in the way of natural disasters. We don't have to worry too much about earthquakes, hurricanes or volcanoes here and even wildfires are pretty much unheard of.
Plus, the state is pretty nice around 8 months of the year and usually only January and February are terrible winter months (though we did have a horrible spring storm last April that ended up giving us two feet of snow). I enjoy the outdoors, like our state gun laws and love how cheap it is to live here. My money goes much farther than it would in California, for example, and I can actually spend my money on things I want.
Still, in the short term, I am going to be pretty miserable the next few days. Though I prefer extreme cold to snow any day of the week, I still don't like either. My only real worry is that my car won't start due to the extreme cold but other than that, I sincerely hope that the next few days go fast...
This doesn't surprise me at all. Hillary Clinton is many things but she is not a person who will throw in the towel, even when she really should. I always thought a 2020 run was in the cards even though she was defeated quite spectacularly in 2016. She just wants it so bad.
That being said, there is a very high chance of this being fake news. For one thing, the original report was on CNN, a news network now famous for getting major stories totally wrong (which is why I didn't link to them directly). Even worse, they cited anonymous sources which are a sure sign of fake news. It's very possible that we will find out in a couple of days that the story is bunk.
On the other hand, it is Hillary Clinton we are talking about. She is a master of media manipulation and I doubt "her" network, CNN, would report this without it being true. Indeed, I am sure that she has some computer tech somewhere who wrote an algorithm which said this was the best way to test the waters.
She would have quite a bit of competition though. Bernie Sanders, her old primary foe, is running as well. And Kamala Harris kicked off her presidential campaign today. And Joe Biden is the front runner in most of the polls. The Democratic field is wide and Clinton is not alone in her ambitions to unseat President Donald Trump.
I don't see Clinton winning though. Indeed, I don't think she would have even been the candidate in 2016 if it wasn't for the interference that the DNC ran for her. She lost in 2016 in a landslide electoral defeat, despite winning the popular vote (supposedly) and I doubt that the DNC will want her to try again.
The 2016 election was Clinton's to lose and she did almost everything in her power to do so. She famously called Trump supporters deplorable and irredeemable, failed to campaign in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and was greatly hurt by the DNC cheating on the Democratic primaries. She also defined by her scandals including the illegal e-mail scheme she had along with her corrupt foundation.
I also wonder who Clinton is supposed to appeal to. The neoliberals can just go with Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren, the economic leftists will go to Bernie and the "woke" racist left will go with someone like Kamala Harris. That doesn't leave a niche for Clinton, and even if there was a place for her, why would they choose someone who has already proven that she can't beat President Trump?
Of course, the best case scenario that I can envision is that the DNC still wants Clinton and will screw over the much wider Democratic field. Doing so would further engage the economic leftist faction of the party and would likely make the racist left furious as well. That would mean that nobody would turn out for her and President Trump would win in a landslide. I would say that even the DNC wouldn't be that stupid and would try to run a candidate that has some kind of appeal, but if that was true they wouldn't have run Clinton in 2016...
The video below shows a Russian TU-22m3 Backfire crashing near the city of Olenegorsk, Russia. Apparently an arctic storm came out of nowhere and greatly hindered the approach of the Backfire. As of Tuesday two of the crew had been killed and two more had been injured but it is unclear what the current status of the crew is. The most recent article I could find was this one from RT.
The video shows the plane on approach and making a hard landing. It bounces off the ground and then the front 1/3rd of the plane snaps off before a huge fiery explosion. The destruction was immense and completely destroyed the aircraft. I have no idea how two people survived this crash as it looked like nobody could have survived it.
The video is only a couple minutes long but the crash starts at 1:10. The rest of the video is just a Russian man talking and I have no idea what he is saying.
Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is set to launch a 2020 presidential bid. Yahoo News. Though he has not officially announced the bid, many news organizations are reporting that he will do so shortly. Sanders ran a contentious campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2016 but was ultimately defeated by Clinton. Sanders has done well in early polling and is one of the more popular politicians in America today.
My Comment:
Hilariously enough, one year ago today I put out a post about Sanders speculating on a 2020 run. Even back then it seemed obvious that Sanders would want another bite at the apple and he seemed like a lock to run in 2020.
That being said, I do want to point out that every report I have seen announcing this has relied on anonymous sources, which of course dramatically increases the chances of this story being fake news. I tend to believe it because everyone thought Sanders was going to run anyways but I would be remiss if I didn't at least mention the fact that media reports based on anonymous sources have had just an awful track record in recent history.
What do I think? I'm no fan of Bernie Sanders. I generally think he is one of the more reasonable voices left in the Democratic Party (which is ironic since he isn't really a Democrat), but that's like saying the guy in the insane asylum who thinks he is Jesus is more sane than the guy that thinks he's an 8 foot giant spider with telepathic powers. It's damning by faint praise when you consider how far the Democratic Party has fallen compared to what it once was. Given the rest of the field that has announced so far I do prefer him to any of the other candidates running on the Democratic ticket.
Why? Listen, I think that Sanders economic policies would be a complete disaster for the United States and probably me personally but that is true for the rest of the candidates as well. But Sanders is more sensible in other areas. Sanders isn't likely to make gun control a priority. By Republican standards, Sanders is a gun grabbing communist but by Democratic standards he's practically a member of the NRA. He's also got a more reasonable, more isolationist, foreign policy. If Sanders is president I don't see any more stupid wars for stupid reasons. I almost expect that the next Democratic president will nuke Russia, either out of revenge for perceived interference in 2016's election or just out of pure racism.
Most importantly though, Sanders isn't part of the "woke" part of the Democratic Party. These are the racist people that drooled at the thought of seeing the Covington Catholic boys getting doxxed, harassed and even assaulted. The intersectional feminist/activist/racist part of the Democratic Party would be an absolute disaster for America if they ever gain power. They openly hate white people, lower class people and even Jewish people now, and are even turning on gay men. Almost any alternative is better then them, up to and including actual Communists and Nazis.
Sanders is, of course, not one of those people. He did try to act "woke" during the primaries but you could see that his heart wasn't in it. Sanders is much more of an old school leftist who sees things in terms of economic class, not intersectionality and oppression. He should be looking at social class but that's true for pretty much everyone in America (I will have a post up about this someday). I can say for certain that if he does become president he will not be after vindictiveness and revenge but will instead be going for "economic justice", which will of course destroy the economy but at least won't be racist. And I also think that if Sanders were to win, he wouldn't try to destroy Donald Trump and his family, just out of spite.
What are Sanders chances? I am not sure. On the one hand he's got a ton of supporters, a good organization built up and near universal name recognition. His supporters love him and even most Republicans give him some measure of respect. I think if he had been the candidate in 2016 instead of Hillary Clinton there was a decent chance of him winning it all, and I think he will be one of the most supported candidates in 2020. If the GOP primary had been decided in 2016 I probably would have voted for him against Hillary Clinton and will likely do so in 2020 assuming Trump doesn't have a primary challenge. I wouldn't vote for him for president but he is a a better choice than everyone else with only Tulsi Gabarrd coming close (her foreign policy is good but she is horrible on gun rights)
That being said the Democratic Party will never take him, even if it means another four years of President Trump. The other two factions in the in the Democratic Party want nothing to do with him. The neoliberal establishment still haven't forgiven him for running against their golden girl, Hillary Clinton and they hate his economic and foreign policy, so much so that they out and out cheated him out of the nomination by all kinds of nefarious means. They also hate him for not being an official member of the establishment and never actually joining the Democratic Party, despite caucusing with them.
But an even bigger threat is the "woke" wing of the party. They hate Bernie Sanders because of the color of his skin and increasingly because of the fact that he is Jewish. They also have tried to smear him as some kind of sexual harasser because some people that worked for his campaign complained of sexual harassment. Though I haven't looked closely at those allegations, it reminds me of the old "BernieBro" slander that tried to paint his supporters as a bunch of rowdy frat boys that like to do nothing but oppress women. As far as the "woke" section of the party is concerned, Sanders is evil.
That leaves the more reasonable people still in the Democratic Party out of luck as it is almost certain that the Democratic Party will not go with him. They will either go with Joe Biden who appeals to the neoliberals and the economic liberals, or they will pick some kind of minority or woman to run to appeal to the "woke" liberals. That leaves Sanders and his supporters out in the rain and I fully expect that the 2020 primaries will be less about deciding who would be the best president and all about keeping Sanders or any other insurgent candidates from winning.
As for me, I am conflicted. I think out of all the candidates running for President, Sanders has the best chance of beating Trump. I obviously don't want that to happen as I think Trump's doing a good job and a Democratic victory could sweep the house and the Senate as well just because of him winning and his supporters coming out in droves.
On the other hand, out of any of the candidates from the Democratic Party, Sanders is the only one that I don't think will destroy the country, either from their policies or due to civil war, if he is elected. He'd be a bad president but he's one that America could easily survive...
Just completed #Pakistan leg of my current trip in the region to advance the peace process. Good meetings. I appreciate their hospitality & resolve to push for Afghan peace. We’re heading in the right direction with more steps by Pakistan coming that will lead to concrete results
— U.S. Special Representative Zalmay Khalilzad (@US4AfghanPeace) January 20, 2019
My Comment:
If true this is very good news. I do have to say that it is the New York Times but for once they actually had named sources that are saying that the negotiations are going well. They used anonymous sources as well, but only as further confirmation of the good news. That makes me think that there is actually something to this.
America has been at war in Afghanistan almost 18 years. Though a military solution is probably possible the American people would not accept what we would have to do to actually defeat the Taliban. It would take hundreds of thousands of troops, much looser rules of engagement and no regard to military and civilian casualties. Even if President Trump was interested in that he would pay a massive political price among the people that voted for him and would anger US allies and the UN.
Without a military solution there are essentially two options. We can either negotiate or just keep the status quo. Nobody wants the status quo as it is expensive in both money and lives. Keeping troops in Afghanistan indefinitely is pointless if they can't win the war and it has become increasingly clear that they cannot with the resources they have. Jim Mattis tried and even a legendary Marine like him failed.
Of course there is another option which is just letting the Taliban take over everything. This would be a betrayal of our Afghan allies who can't stand against the Taliban even with our help. Without us they would lose the war. They are already taking unsustainable casualties and risk losing the entire country. Only US arms, airstrikes and training have kept them afloat this time.
A political solution is probably best for everyone. A formal peace deal would end the war. The Afghan government gets to survive in some fashion which isn't a guarantee at this point. The Taliban gets official control over the land they have. And the US government gets a guarantee that al-Qaeda and ISIS don't take over the country.
If we have any interest in Afghanistan at all it is to prevent it from becoming a base for terror groups. Though the Taliban qualifies they are not international terrorists and are not a threat to the United States. ISIS and al-Qaeda are and though both groups have been dramatically reduced if we can work out an arrangement we can ensure they they don't come back. Remember, the whole reason we went into Afghanistan in the first place was because of 9/11. The Taliban hosted them, yes, but once al-Qaeda was defeated we had little reason to stay.
There are a million and one things that could happen before the deal is reached. That being said withdrawing from Afghanistan would be a major victory for the Trump administration and something that everyone should hope it comes to pass. I sincerely hope that these peace talks are successful.
I am not sure how much longer Maduro will remain in power in Venezuela. There are a few factors that could help him though. The most important one is that he still has support of the military. If he didn't have it he would have likely been removed from power and perhaps even killed. He also can tell his people that his countries problems are due to America. It's a lie but the perception will be there because of America's aggressive foreign policy.
Maduro also probably realizes that President Trump isn't interested in a military conflict with him. Though there has been some saber rattling, military action is not likely at all. Trump isn't a neocon and he isn't going to deploy troops to Venezuela for purposes of regime change. That gives Maduro quite a bit of leeway.
Of course a military conflict is possible. If Maduro does something really stupid, like taking US diplomats hostage or even attacking them physically, he could provoke a conflict. Or if he finally confirms the long rumored conflict between his country and Guyana and actually attacks them in order to save his economy then that too could lead to war. Otherwise, invasion is extremely unlikely.
That being said, Maduro has some major problems. The most obvious is that his people are turning on him. Hundreds of thousands of people are protesting them even though doing so is a crime. The people have nothing to lose and are willing to risk jail to counter him.
And there isn't much Maduro can do to quell the protests. The people are against him so concessions don't matter much. And any major crackdown could lead to sanctions and a huge international backlash. If, for example, he imprisoned Jaun Guaido, it would backfire on him immensely.
Maduro is also surrounded by enemies and has earned the ire of the most powerful country on earth. Their neighbor Brazil has elected Jair Bolsonaro, a dedicated anti-communist who has said that Venezuela needs a new government. And the rest of the governments in the area want him gone as well, if for no other reason than the massive refugee crisis he created due to his socialist policies.
As for me, I would be very happy to see Maduro go. He, along with Hugo Chavez, squandered his countries resources with their socialist programs. Venezuela has among the world's largest oil reserves but instead of reinvesting into the country the two leaders wasted it on social programs that created no value. It will be a good day when Maduro is finally gone.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the first gun rights case since 2010 which challenges New York City's limits on having handguns outside of the home. Reuters. The Justices will review a lower court holding that upheld the restriction on gun rights. In New York people with "premise licences" are only allowed to carry their guns to gun ranges in the city and are not allowed to take their guns to ranges outside of the city or to other homes. This differs from concealed carry licences which are not at issue in this case. The plaintiffs claim that the law is an obvious infringement on their gun rights. The Supreme Court has not taking any gun rights cases since 2010 but it thought that the new makeup of the court, with a solid 5-4 majority, may lead to a victory in this case.
My Comment:
Good news from SCOTUS and overdue as far as I am concerned. As soon as Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed the court should have been taking cases like this right away. The 5-4 conservative majority should mean that they will overturn this case.
It is also very likely by the time the Court hears this case Ruth Bader Ginsburg will no longer be a Justice. Her health is extremely poor and she hasn't been seen in public for a while now. My guess is she will either retire or pass away soon and by the time this case is heard we will have already gone through the replacement hearings and the court will have a 6-3 conservative majority.
Of course you never know how a court is going to rule. I do not entirely trust the conservative justices on the Court. Though Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas and Alito are likely yes votes, I no longer trust John Roberts to do the right thing. Having another conservative justice on the court would be a lot more comforting.
As for the law itself, it seems like an insane restriction on gun ownership. If you have a gun you can only have it in your house or at one of a few approved gun ranges? What happens if you move to another city? What happens if those gun ranges close? And what if you have two houses (rich person problem, but nonetheless)?
It seems very clear that the New York City law is at odds with the US constitution and previous Supreme Court rulings that say individuals have a right to keep and bear arms. But if you are so limited in where you can take your firearm then the right to bear arms essentially doesn't exist. Overturning the law is the right thing to do.
The victory would be rather minor as the New York law doesn't effect many gun owners and there aren't a lot of other gun laws in the country like it. However, it could cause a flood of other gun rights cases that could also result in laws being overturned. It could also turn the tide of state legislators in blue states going totally out of control. If they know their laws will be overturned they may decide it's not worth the effort.
Still, all of this is speculation. It's not a guarantee that the court will overturn the law and a lot can happen between now and when the case is heard in October. It would be a major surprise though if the court ruled the other way. Here is hoping that this is just the first in a long series of terrible laws being overturned.
There have been two basic reactions on the left by the now debunked "Catholic boys from Kentucky harass an American Indian" story. Most people have figured out that they were wrong. Many people have apologized and the media has walked back most of the accusations of racism. This likely has more to due with the inevitable libel lawsuits that appear to be coming than any sense of remorse but it is happening. Even CNN and the Huffington Post backed down.
However, others are either not smart enough or are too angry to think straight and are continuing to double down on the false story. And there are people obviously acting in bad faith as well. Learning nothing from the 2016 election there still appear to be people that are very committed to an obvious lie.
The above picture is from a troll twitter account. It says some horrible things about giving Americans Smallpox. Why Julie Sandmann, the Mother of the boy that was smiling at Nathan Phillips, would want to draw more attention to herself and her family when she is already under death threats and other various forms of harassment is beyond me and it should have given people a major heads up that the twitter account is fake.
Of course it's pretty easy to figure out that the account is fake. It took me about a second to realize it and about a minute of searching on Twitter to prove it is. The Twitter handle #GauchoGaucamole, has been deleted and comes up as not found on Twitter, which is a sure sign it has been banned. Someone, and I haven't been able to figure out who, was able to archive the account and it shows that the person was obviously not Julie Sandmann. The name was Soccer Dad, joined in July 2018 and claimed to be from Londonarry, New Hampshire, which is obviously not Kentucky. The tweets show it's an obvious parody account that switched themes when he figured out he could troll even more people.
Unfortunately people either are way more gullible than I can even believe or the are deliberately lying about Julie Sandmann. I saw the above screenshot on facebook, though I don't want to say more than that (other than it wasn't one of my friends that spread it and it appears that they were taken by the hoax and not acting in bad faith). Unlike the people that attacked the Catholic boys, I don't dox people, even when they are spreading crap like this and especially if they were taken in by fake news.
It IS still crazy that people still fall for any of this. The original story was unbelievable in the first place but millions of people did and felt so strongly in their beliefs that they sent death threats towards the children involved. And now that it has been completely debunked, they still feel the need to double down.
Why? My guess is that deep down inside they figured out that their world view was challenged in a very fundamental and deep way. To them it is more plausible that everyone else is lying or being lied to than to trust their own lying eyes. It's not possible that white, male, Catholic, pro-life, Trump supporters could be anything other than the Devil incarnate and when it becomes clear that they were the victims in this case they have to justify their continued feelings of hate. They cannot admit to themselves that, just maybe, they were the bad guy all along and will do anything they can to avoid having to own up to the fact that they are kind of a crappy person. When they see something like this they decide to not try and verify any of it. This is, of course, why this whole stupid story happened in the first place. Nobody wanted to make sure they had it right before they started spouting off on it and it caused a massive amount of trouble and blew up in the face of a lot of people.
Well, that's my psychology 101 take on it. It could be a lot simpler. Some people don't care if the boys (and their parents) are innocent or not. Lying is fine if you lie about people you hate. Or it could just be that people are just a lot more gullible than I believe and they really can't see an obvious hoax when they see one. The second one is fairly likely as people of every political stripe can fall for fake news. I myself fell for the bogus Jim Webb story that was debunked a few days later by President Trump himself despite the fact that I really should have known better.
I am happy that I spotted this though. One of the reasons I started this blog is to debunk things that are obviously false and I think I did a decent job of it. I encourage people to spread this if they see the above screenshot, there is no reason for the Sandmann family to go through any further disruptions to their lives and debunking this is something that the professional media should have done yesterday...
Native American activist Nathan Phillips and one of the children. Youtube screenshot via Reason.
The national news media stripped the context and lied about the viral video they claim shows white teens harassing a Native American activist. Reason. According to the media, the video shows the boys, who were Catholic school students there for the March For Life, taunting and harassing Nathan Phillips, an activist. More video brings much needed context to the situation. The group of boys were being harassed by the Black Hebrew Israelites, a black nationalist cult, who called them "faggots", "crackers" and "pedophiles". They also called one of the few black students there the n-word and said that white people would kill him and harvest his organs. Nathan Philips then entered the area and walked into the crowd of boys and started beating his drum and chanting. The boys were confused and some joined in with the chants while others expressed that confusion. One boy stood there and stared at Philips and smiled at him. The boys never surrounded Philips, they simply did not get out of his way and even thought he might be on their side.
The black nationalist video of this event can be found below. The incident in question begins at around the 1:10 minutes mark.
My Comment:
I admit to being biased in this case. Truth be told that this situation made me so angry that I had difficulty sleeping today. I knew right away that this story didn't pass the smell test. Why? Because I have seen what actual harassment looks like and it's not a bunch of boys sitting around and smiling at an activist. It's usually people like Antifa or Black Lives matter punching people.
Nobody got punched in this incident and the only people getting harassed were the Catholic boys. The only things the boys did was continue their school chants, sing along with Phillips and not get out of his way. One boy did have a smile on his face but given the ridiculousness of the situation, can you blame him? This is a total non incident and that was obvious even from the original video that stripped away all of the context.
It was also clear from the start that Phillips was an activist who wanted this kind of reaction. I am sure he had media buddies and has done things like this before. From what I understand he has a history of getting into the faces of people in protest and then runs to the media if people get upset with that. It's a classic protester tactic and one that people should be clued into by now. Far from an innocent victim, Phillips was an instigator who wanted media coverage and didn't care if people got hurt.
However, the lie spread across the world before the truth came out and people did not react well to the lie to say the least. These boys are under serious threat now and already their school has threatened to expel them. Blue checkmarks on twitter are out for blood and are trying to identify these boys in order to harass them. This kind of doxxing is obviously illegal, but somehow I doubt people will end up getting arrested for this.
This is, quite frankly, disgusting. These boys did nothing wrong and did nothing to provoke the incident that occurred. They were just participating in political activity that is protected under the 1st amendment, and they weren't even doing that at the time the harassment occurred. They were just waiting for their bus. Indeed, these boys look like they would be pretty fun to hang out with and if they had a flaw it was naively trusting Nathan Phillips to be one of the good guys.
For the sin of chanting along, having a good time, being harassed by activists and racists and, above all, being awkward white teenagers wearing MAGA hats, the media and social media activists have decided that their lives should be destroyed. Everyone understands that if these boys names and faces are out there then they will face the kind of targeted harassment that everyone claims to hate until it is used against their political enemies. These boys will face death threats, angry phone calls, possibly swating, maybe even violence, not to mention possible expulsion and damaged career prospects just so people on social media can satisfy their blood lust. Again, these boys did NOTHING wrong, other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time and having the wrong race, gender and political opinion.
Plus, I have to mention, does nobody care that these are children? It would be one thing if these were adults, assuming they did something wrong, which they didn't. I don't think adults should be treated like this either, but there is an obvious moral difference between harassing fully grown adults who have a good idea what the consequences of their actions could be and harassing children who aren't developed yet and may not understand that you shouldn't engage with protesters at all. These boys had no idea that their lives were about to be ruined and just thought they were having a good time on a school trip. The idea that we should harass and ruin the lives of children for basically no reason other then their race, gender and ideology is just beyond disgusting.
It was maddening to me to see this spread over the past 24 hours. I was working a 12 hour overtime shift so there was very little I could do. But during my downtime I checked my phone and saw someone else post it on Facebook or the video trending on Twitter. Even then I knew that there was going to be more to the video than it was showing and that even in the video there wasn't any bad behavior at all.
But I also knew that trying to counter the misinformation was going to be pointless. People had already made up their minds and even after this new evidence comes out, I doubt anyone will update their beliefs. People are just so consumed with hatred right now that they will not listen to reason (or Reason in this case). I still am posting this anyways, more for my own benefit since I needed to get this off my chest or to explain to people on my side what actually happened, but all in all it was a very depressing thing to watch this happen and know there was nothing I could do to stop it.
Finally, I have to say that I am utterly disgusted by the mainstream media. Just when I thought that they couldn't get any lower than the BuzzFeed Trump story that was quickly debunked or the New York Times Paul Manafort story that was also quickly debunked, they decided to organize the harassment of a bunch of kids based on their race, gender and politics. I have always agreed that the Press was the enemy of the people, and though that even before Trump said it, but this is almost literal enemy action. Something absolutely has to change in this country if this is the way that the press is going to act...
Muller's office released a rare public statement saying ‘‘BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate.’’ However, the story was in the news for many hours before the statement and caused a firestorm of controversy and calls for impeachment.
My Comment:
When I first saw this story early this morning I, after rolling my eyes, thought to myself that it would be debunked before the end of the day. I was correct. It's very clear that this story was completely false if even the Special Counsel has said it was fake news.
There was obvious reason to be skeptical. Obviously, BuzzFeed is not a reputable news organization. Even by the standards of today, they do not follow journalistic standards and do not report information accurately and without bias. They are more of a gossip blog and clickbait farm than an actual news organization.
But even if the outlet was a more reliable one, it was clear that the story had a very good chance of being fake news. Why? Because they relied on unnamed sources and provided no documents or proof of the claim being made. So many stories that have turned out to be false have been based on anonymous sources. If someone isn't willing to go on the record with a story there is a very good chance that it isn't accurate.
There are a couple of things that could have happened here. The first is that BuzzFeed is just incompetent. They may indeed have sources in the FBI but they didn't do the research to follow up on their claims. They could have asked the office of the Special Counsel or the Trump administration if the story was accurate but it seems they didn't even do that.
It's possible that BuzzFeed's sources were mistaken. Many times low ranking people hear gossip and it gets distorted from what the truth is. It's also possible that the sources were out and out lying, which is known to happen. Finally, it is possible that false information was leaked in order to suss out leakers. Had BuzzFeed done even the least bit of fact checking, they could have avoided this. BuzzFeed knows that there is a market for bad news about Trump and wanted to get it out as soon as possible for the ad revenue that would be generated.
The other possibility is that BuzzFeed is just making things up. One of the authors of the report, Jason Leopold, has a long history of plagiarism and false reporting. He has had other reports pulled for lies and some of his stories were totally false. I would not be surprised if he made up this story out of whole cloth.
The problem is that much of the damage has already been done. For the entire day people were calling for Trump's impeachment and becoming even more unhinged than usual. There was, of course, little reaction from those of us on the right, as we have done this dance before, but for the left this was a major overreaction to a false story.
Of course the fact that so many people saw the original story and all the blue checkmarks on Twitter spreading the fake news, means that the story spread far and wide. I doubt that Muller's office statement on the story being fake news will spread as far and as wide. People want it to be true and others don't want to admit they were wrong.
This exact same thing happens to President Trump almost monthly now. Just a little while ago it was the fake news story in the New York Times that said that Paul Manafort colluded with Russia. The New York Times issued a retraction but the damage was done. And then there was the Jim Webb as Secretary of Defense story that even burned right wing outlets like Breitbart. Indeed, though I rightly issued skepticism about the Webb report, I wanted it to be true, so I wrote a post up about it when I probably should have ignored it. The entire news media is like this now.
At this point you should treat every story about President Trump that doesn't come directly from the man himself with some amount of skepticism. Some good advice would be to treat any story about Trump as potentially false. Wait a few days and if the story doesn't fall apart by then, there is a chance that the story is true...
President Donald Trump has canceled a trip by congressional leaders including Nancy Pelosi using military aircraft. Fox News. Pelosi was set to travel to Belgium, Egypt and Afghanistan in a mission to talk to US allies and visit the troops. However, shortly before Pelosi's plane was scheduled to leave her flight was canceled by President Trump. Trump released a letter saying that Pelosi should not leave during the government shutdown and doing so would delay the end of the shutdown by at least a week. Trump said that she could still fly commercial if she wanted. The incident comes after Pelosi canceled President Trump's State of the Union address. Trump's letter to Pelosi can be seen below.
I think President Trump was totally justified in doing this, if for no other reason that Pelosi and the other Democrats on this flight should stay home and work on ending the shutdown. Running out of town while tens of thousands of people are missing paychecks for a week is just wildly irresponsible. Pelosi's goal should be to end the shutdown, preferably by giving President Trump some funding for his wall.
Indeed, the trip itself seems like a major own goal for the Democrats. Their allies in the media have tried to paint this shutdown as President Trump's fact, and given that Trump's approval rating has dipped, it was working. Trying to hop on a plane for a week and refusing to even meet with the President will likely make it so even the media has to admit that Pelosi and the Democrats deserve some blame. Or not, given the fact that we don't even have a media anymore...
Some will likely find this move petty and immature. To those people I would say if it hadn't been provoked they might have a point. However, Nancy Pelosi took the unprecedented step to dis-invite President Trump to the State of the Union, for obvious partisan reasons. Pelosi correctly realized that Trump's speech on the border helped him and her response hurt the Democrats and she doesn't want it to happen again. She also knows that Trump's two previous State of the Union addresses were among the best speeches he has ever given, to the point where even the media admitted he did a good job. Pelosi couldn't have that so she canceled it and blamed the shutdown.
Of course I don't really think that Trump's excuse was entirely truthful. Though the justification of the shutdown is more than adequate I think it was more about Trump giving Pelosi back some of her own medicine. You can say what you want about it but it's clear that Pelosi started it.
I haven't written much about the shutdown, largely because I don't care about it. It doesn't effect me directly and I even like the fact that people are realizing that we probably don't need so many government employees. It does suck that people are without paychecks but if they have done even the most basic of financial planning they should be fine, especially since they will be getting their back pay. Unfortunately, financial planning is a rare skill in the United States and very few people have the three to six months of salary saved up. I personally would be fine for quite some time in the same situation, but that's me.
I do think that the Democrats should just give Trump what he wants. He's only asking for $5.7 billion, which is a rounding error for the federal government. The shutdown has already cost the government way more money than that. And I don't think that the Democrats would pay a price for giving Trump what he wants. Their base will blame Trump, not the Democrats, no matter how much the Democrats deserve it. If they were smarter they could even get something they want out of the deal, but instead they are just stonewalling.
I also think at some point Trump should just declare an emergency to get his funding and pay for the wall that way. Doing so would allow the government to reopen and would also get his wall partially built. It would likely face a legal battle which would delay things but if it went to SCOTUS, he would win and win easily considering the makeup of the court.
On the other hand, I don't really care if the shutdown continues indefinitely. At this point the furloughed federal workers should be looking for new jobs. Sure, some services will be missed but it's a much better deal than giving the Democrats what they want and Trump giving up on his biggest campaign promise. He's got very little to lose and a lot to gain if he stands firm.
Former Mexican President Pena Neito. New York Times.
Former Mexican President Pena Nieto has been accused of accepting an $100 million bribe from Mexican drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera. New York Times. The testimony came from Alex Cifuentes Villa, a Colombian drug lord who worked closely with El Chapo. According to Cifuentes Nieto had originally asked for $250 million, in exchange for calling off the manhunt for Guzman. Guzman negotiated the amount down to $100 million. The president before Nieto, Felipe Calderón, has also been accused of taking bribes from a rival cartel. Cifuentes also testified that Guzmen had bribed the Mexican military to target other cartels and that Mexican police were involved in drug trafficking.
My Comment:
I admit to not following the trial of El Chapo closely. But I couldn't ignore this headline. If the testimony is true than the Mexican government is beyond corrupt and is essentially owned by the Sinaloa Cartel. Apparently it only costs $100 million to own the Mexican government.
That isn't too surprising as Mexico is famously corrupt. It is not shocking to find out that the Mexican government is corrupt from top to bottom. And it is also no surprise to find out that Mexico's two last presidents have been accused of taking bribes.
I supposes I should point out that Cifuentes' testimony might not be true. Both Neito and Calderon have denied the accusations and neither have been convicted of any crime. Right now we only have the testimony of a drug lord that they are guilty, but there is a possibility that Guzman will confirm those accusations. I tend to believe it is true but it would be irresponsible to not point out that the accusation might not be true.
It does make me wonder if Mexico's new president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, aka Almo, will do better than the last two presidents. Almo seems to be a fairly standard leftist/nationalist who at least talks the talk when it comes to serving the people. On the other hand he has asked for a truce between the government and the cartels so it's possible he's just as corrupt. My hope is that he will be less vulnerable to corruption than the rest of Mexico.
I also should point out that Nieto seemed incredibly greedy. He asked for $250 million which is just obscene. It's pretty funny that El Chapo was able to cut that down to $100 million. It's not clear that El Chapo got his monies worth. Pena Nieto was president when El Chapo was arrested and transferred to the United States where he will likely be convicted. If the trial testimony is correct, it's possible that Nieto was taking bribes from other Cartel leaders.
I am worried that El Chapo's bribes extended beyond the Mexican border. And, of course, the Sinaloa Cartel is not the only game in town. I am betting that there are American politicians, all the way up to the highest levels of our country, that are on the Cartel's payrolls. Hopefully, some of that will come out during this trial of El Chapo.
I have said for a long time that the Mexican Drug War has largely been ignored by all sides of the political debate. I always found it very odd that neither side on the debate over the wall ever seems to mention the massive amount of violence that is happening over the border. It would seemingly help both sides of the debate but it is almost never mentioned.
It also doesn't appear that the conditions that are making this outbreak as bad as it is are going to change anytime soon. There are still rebel attacks on aid workers and health workers can't get to many of the infected people. It is also making contact tracing much harder which means it will continue to spread.
There is also a major threat of the outbreak expanding to other countries. People will be fleeing both the violence and the virus will bring the virus with them. Given the long incubation time for the Ebola virus, many of the people who are infected might not even know they are infected.
The good news is that the conditions in the Democratic Republic of Congo would not be the same in other countries. Even the other African countries surrounding Congo are in better shape and would be better able to contact trace, isolate and vaccinate any victims that enter their countries. Western countries would do even better.
And I have to point out that this outbreak could have been much worse. The aid workers are doing whatever they can to isolate, vaccinate and contact trace the people effected by the outbreak. And we can't ignore the victory that developing a vaccine was. Without those two things this outbreak could have already exceeded the 2013-2016 Ebola outbreak that killed 11,000 people...
Hopefully things will be brought under control soon. As bad as things are politically and militarily in Congo, it's likely the virus will burn itself out eventually. Aid workers are helping even if they are being somewhat stymied. And hopefully the Islamist rebels in the region will realize that Ebola is a common enemy that will infect and kill them too if it isn't brought under control. Until then, I will continue to monitor this outbreak.
Burning cars at the site of the terror attack in Nairobi, Kenya. Reuters.
A major terror attack in Nairobi, Kenya has killed 15 people and has been claimed by al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda affiliate. Reuters. The attack occurred at an upscale district and involved gunmen and explosions. In addition to the 11 Kenyans killed in the attack, one American one Spaniard and one Brit were killed as well with two more victims lacking ID. It is unclear what happened to the attackers at this time but the scene has been secured. At least one of the attackers was a suicide bomber. The causality numbers from the attack are expected to rise.
My Comment:
Info on this attack is confused and still coming in. It is possible that the attackers could still be at large and may carry out more attacks or be confronted by police/soldiers. And with so many wounded it's very possible that the death toll could get higher.
The attack was a fairly sophisticated and complex. It involved multiple styles of terrorism including suicide bombing and gunmen. This kind of attack isn't something you can just plan in a day. It takes a long time to gather the weapons and supplies and train the attackers for something like this. This was a well planned, well executed attack.
The target was significant as well. The hotel and office complex attacked by al-Shabaab was an upscale one and one that has a lot of foreign nationals there. Those are prime targets for al-Shabaab because they not only hate westerners and their culture but they also want to target people who support the war against them in Somalia. Two birds with one stone as far as they are concerned.
I am guessing there will likely be an US response to this attack. We have often launched drone strikes against al-Shabaab and I would not be surprised if the Pentagon is looking into options to target any al-Shabaab bases that they know about. Kenya is an ally and at least one of our citizens died in this attack, there will be a response.
Al-Shabaab is one of the more active terror groups right now. There aren't a threat outside of Africa but compared to other terror groups they have pulled off some very serious and now very recent attacks. They have been put under major pressure from the local governments and US airstrikes but they are still able to launch attacks.
Thankfully, there hasn't been too many terror attacks lately. With the destruction of ISIS and core al-Qaeda largely being irrelevant the rate of terror attacks has plummeted. There are less international threats and most Islamic terror groups still in existence and regional threats like al-Shabaab.
Emmanuel Macron has written a 2300 word letter to try and quell the Gilets Jaunes/Yellow Jacket movement that is protesting his rule. Reuters. The letter comes after nine weeks of continues protests that have crippled the French government and shaken the economy. Macron has offered reforms but refuses to change his core economic message and has not backed down on high taxes for the lower classes and tax cuts for the rich. In the letter, Macron asked several questions to the French people and encouraged them to reach out. Here are some of the questions:
- Which taxes do you think we should cut? - What kind of public spending savings do you think we should make a priority? - Are there too many administrative layers? - Should we use referendums more often and who should be able to trigger them?
After public feedback, Macron will give his own conclusions. However it is seen as unlikely that Macron will leave his policies up to referendum.
The full text of Macron's letter can be found here.
My Comment:
Sounds like too little too late for me. If Macron had done this immediately after the Gilets Jaunes showed up and started protesting it might have done something, but now? I don't think anyone will seriously listen to Macron.
Originally the movement was about a gas tax but at this point the movement has gone far beyond just that. It is now more of a rejection of globalism in general. Plus they are furious with Macron himself and his utterly tone deaf reaction to this crisis.
The Gilets Jaunes remain popular and Macron's approval rating is in the toilet. People no longer believe he has the right to rule and want him gone and I don't think there is anything that he can do to regain the trust of the French people. Even if it were possible to give the Gilets Jaunes protesters everything that they want, which doesn't seem possible since there is no agreement even among the protesters as to what they want, I doubt that they would want him to remain in power.
Macron is rapidly running out of options. The way I can see it, he has four options. The first is the give the French people what they want and get rid of the high taxes and pro-rich policies that he has put into place. It's an unlikely solution because Macron's pride is getting in his way and it may be too late. If he did it it might work but it is likely too late and even if he gives up everything people will still want him gone.
The second option is to do nothing. Macron could just hope that eventually the storm would pass but that is what he has been doing and it hasn't worked at all. The anger here is deep and ignoring it is a very dangerous game. Doing so could lead to much worse than just protests and there is a chance that revolution is even in the cards if nothing is done.
Third, Macron could crack down on the protesters. Instead of having riot police just keep they peace he could use mass arrests, crackdowns and banning gathering. What little leaders the movement has could be arrested and he could censor the internet making it much harder to organize.
Doing so would be a massively bad idea. There is a chance that it would work but much more likely would be open rebellion and/or civil war. Remember, most of the wars in this decade started when governments cracked down on protesters. Most of the leaders who did so were removed from power and even killed. And the only one that remains, Bashar al-Assad, rules a ruined country that will take generations to recover.
Finally, Macron could just resign. It's clear he doesn't have the kind of support he needs to rule and will never be able to recover. Indeed, his life may even be in danger. Resigning now is probably the only way for him to save any face at all and would ensure that he would be able to enjoy retirement safely. Again, Macron's pride is likely to ensure that this doesn't happen.
Given that Macron is fairly tone deaf and doesn't seem to do understand how bad his position is, I don't have a whole lot of hope for a peaceful resolution. The anger of the Gilets Jaunes is not going to go away and a letter is not going to change anything...
