Rating the Presidents (Part 4)

This is part 4 of my ongoing series where I rate the presidents on multiple criteria. here are the links to previous parts:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3

RELATIONS WITH CONGRESS

Not to be confused with "relations with interns", where Bill Clinton stands alone in the top spot.

Seriously, the key in this category is reaching across the aisle for support when needed, but generally being able to get his initiatives through Congress. The C-SPAN survey winner, Lyndon Johnson, did exactly that with some of the most incredible legislation. Considering his history as a legislator, and former Senate Whip and Minority Leader, he was masterful in getting legislation passed, including the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. In an age when his own party mostly opposed these bills, this was no small feat. 

Johnson gets my vote too.

On the other hand, the C-SPAN survey goes to Andrew Johnson for last place, and I have to agree with that too. When a president is unsuccessful in dealing with his own party in control of Congress, eventually getting impeached by them, that tells you all you need to know.

VISION / SETTING AN AGENDA

When discussing "vision", this is about prioritization. You look at your main goal, and everything else you believe to be true becomes secondary to that goal, even if it means going against things you may believe in order to accomplish your vision.

To me, the textbook president on vision is Ronald Reagan. His initial goal as president was to fix the economy, which was mired in high inflation and unemployment. He lowered taxes and allowed the Federal Reserve's policies to take care of the rest. By the end of his first term, that was fixed.

Next, he set his sights on ending the Cold War. Between increasing defense spending (in spite of having to increase deficit spending which he opposed but knew it had to be done to accomplish his goal), rhetoric (from his "Evil empire" speech below, to his later admonition to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall") , and diplomacy (which culminated in 1987's INF Treaty), Reagan's every action eventually led to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 (with a little help from his successor George H.W. Bush).

The C-SPAN survey picked Abraham Lincoln instead. While Lincoln does deserve some credit, I question whether he forgot the founding principals in his endeavor to hold the Union together. Without the founding principals, doesn't that defeat the purpose? But that is another argument in itself. In summary, I am not saying Lincoln was bad in this category, or even wrong, only that there are still questions surrounding his vision.

At the bottom of the list, the C-SPAN survey picks James Buchanan. The sad thing is Buchanan did have a vision (he believed in spreading the glory that was America to other nearby countries), and in another time his vision might have worked. But in the run-up to the Civil War, he was the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong things.

To me, lack of vision is defined by George W. Bush. He fumbled around in office for a few months before the 9/11 attacks, and then he was off to war. Unfortunately, his plans to introduce democracy in Afghanistan (and later Iraq) were flawed by his "on the cheap" execution. You don't fight a war on a budget, as was evidenced by the need for "the surge" later. Even then, Afghanistan and Iraq are still struggling with the concept of democracy. One can even argue that Bush's actions led to the rise of ISIS.

And let us not forget Bush's miserable handling of the economy. Sure, he fixed the recession left to him by Bill Clinton, only to sign everything Congress sent him, eventually ending with the recession of 2008.

Finally, when Bush got re-elected in 2004, promising to overhaul Social Security with a revised privatized retirement plan for future generations, his vision got derailed under the first sign of political pressure. That is the definition of spineless.

(to be continued)

Trump's budget speech: Today's news for February 28th

Tonight, President Trump will be speaking before a joint session of Congress. Here is what to expect:

Washington Post:

Trump to propose 10 percent spike in defense spending, major cuts to other agencies

President Trump will propose a federal budget that would significantly increase defense-related spending by $54 billion while cutting other federal agencies by the same amount, an administration official said.

The proposal represents a major increase in federal spending related to national security, while other priorities, especially foreign aid, would face massive reductions.

According to the White House, the defense budget would increase by 10 percent. Trump also will request $30 billion in supplementary military spending for fiscal 2017, an administration official said. 

But without providing specifics, the administration said that most other discretionary spending programs would be cut to pay for it. Officials singled out foreign aid, one of the smallest parts of the federal budget, saying it would face “large reductions” in spending.

...The White House did not specify how Trump’s budget would address mandatory spending or taxes, promising that those details would come later. The vast majority of federal spending comes from programs Trump can’t touch with his budget. Social Security costs totaled about $910 billion last year, and Medicare outpaced defense spending with a total cost of $588 billion. Medicaid, interest payments on debt and miscellaneous costs made up an additional $1.2 trillion.

In other words, Trump's budget is moving deck chairs on the federal government's Titanic. Ask yourself one question: Why does a country that spends more on national defense than any country in the world need to spend more?

Further:

New York Times:

Trump and Paul Ryan Head for a Clash Over the Budget, and Ideology

President Trump’s proposal to slash domestic spending in order to preserve the two biggest drains on the federal government — Social Security and Medicare — has set up a battle to determine who now controls the Republican Party’s ideology.

...Mr. Trump’s budget blueprint — which is expected to be central to his address to Congress on Tuesday night — sets up a striking clash with the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan, who has made a career out of pressing difficult truths on federal spending. For years, Mr. Ryan has maintained that to tame the budget deficit without tax increases and prevent draconian cuts to federal programs, Congress must be willing to change, and cut, the programs that spend the most money — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

But Mr. Trump, in a dogged effort to fulfill his campaign promises, has turned that logic on its head in the budget outline he is expected to present to Congress this week. That blueprint would make good on his promise to increase spending on the military and law enforcement by $100 billion over the next 18 months. And it would extract all of the savings he can from the one part of the budget already most squeezed, domestic discretionary spending, potentially decimating programs in education, poverty alleviation, science and health.

When you look at this closely, this is an argument between welfare for competing special interests, and not even all of us. The elderly get the biggest cut of the budget pie. Of course, Trump makes sure the military-industrial complex gets a bigger share of the pie too.

The great irony here is that Democrats find themselves allied with Trump (and the RINOs) in defending Social Security and Medicare spending.

"Politics makes strange bedfellows."--Charles Dudley Warner

In the end, expect the budget to increase so that everyone gets what they want.

Mr. American Taxpayer: BOHICA.

Rating the Presidents (Part 3)

(This is part 3 of my ongoing series where I rate the presidents on multiple criteria. Here is the link to part 1, and here is the link to part 2.)

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

It is difficult not to give Franklin Delano Roosevelt credit for his tremendous work during World War II. He maintained an alliance between the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union. While it was impressive, there are two things to consider: Nazi Germany was being imperialistic, which made maintaining an alliance against them much easier ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend"); secondly, there is significant evidence that FDR secretly pushed the Japanese behind the scenes to attack the United States. Too much of it seems like FDR was trying to lead us into war. C-SPAN's survey may look at that as deft international relations, but isn't peace the ultimate goal of international relations?

While C-SPAN gave FDR the top slot, I have to hand it to Thomas Jefferson. The Louisiana Purchase nearly doubled the size of the United States, without firing a single gun. Adding in the cancellation of America's debt to France, we paid about $7 million for 828,000 square miles of land. When you take that much land without a war, THAT is some serious negotiating skill.

On the other hand, the worst president in my view was Woodrow Wilson. By allowing France to have their way with Germany during the Treaty of Versailles negotiations, he set the stage for World War II. And all he got to show for it was the League of Nations, which eventually failed. Even if you give him credit for the eventual formation of the United Nations, can we honestly say that was worth fighting World War II? This doesn't even touch on how Wilson got us involved in World War I unnecessarily, in my opinion. Wilson's successes in international relations were failures for the world and the United States, in the long run view. That is what history should judge, is it not?

Astoundingly, the C-SPAN survey ranked Wilson at 12th place. Instead, they selected James Buchanan as the worst president. Unless you count the Utah War as a matter of international relations, or the start of the Civil War, and I consider both as domestic issues, nothing of significance happened internationally during Buchanan's administration.

ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS

I have to give my vote to George Washington as the best president for administrative skills. He had a rougher administrative issue than most presidents, since he was the first. However, he managed to hold together the bickering members of the first administration by remaining above their quarrels, yet still managed to guide them in a positive direction. He is a role model in administrative leadership during new ventures.

However, the C-SPAN survey only ranked Washington second, instead choosing Abraham Lincoln as the best. There is one huge problem with that: The C-SPAN survey also chose Andrew Johnson as the worst administrative skills president. If Lincoln was so great, then how do you defend his appointment of Edwin Stanton as Secretary of War? It was Stanton's insubordination which eventually led to Johnson's impeachment (after Johnson tried to replace Stanton). One can argue that Johnson should have done more to keep Stanton in line, but Johnson's options were limited by the Tenure of Office Act (which was used as the basis for Johnson's impeachment). This meant Johnson's impeachment can be directly blamed on Lincoln for appointing Stanton in the first place. Johnson was put in a nearly impossible administrative situation, with a rogue employee whom he couldn't fire.

However, Warren Harding doesn't have that excuse. He appointed too many friends to high posts, and they subsequently betrayed him with scandals. When he died, he was one of the most popular presidents ever. And then all the scandals of his administration came out, and revealed his true flaw. This is why Harding was the worst president for administrative skills.

(to be continued)

"Game over, man!": Today's news for February 27th

Before I start today's news, let it be known there is a story I am not covering: The Academy Awards were presented last night. I have a personal boycott in place since the Academy Awards snubbed the original Star Wars for the best picture award, giving it instead to Woody Allen's awful Annie Hall. 

This is also why I don't listen to Hollywood for political advice.

Now for the  real news...

Fox News:

Actor Bill Paxton dead at 61

Actor Bill Paxton, a prolific and charismatic actor who had memorable roles in such blockbusters as "Apollo 13" and "Titanic," has died. He was 61.

“It is with heavy hearts we share the news that Bill Paxton has passed away due to complications from surgery,” a family representative said in a statement.

For all his roles, the one I most remember Paxton for was his role as Private Hudson in one of the best sequels ever made, Aliens:



Sadly, Paxton's death was not the only celebrity death this past weekend:

CNN:

Judge Joseph Wapner of 'The People's Court' dead at 97

Judge Joseph Wapner, of the popular reality television program "The People's Court," died at age 97 on Sunday at his home in Los Angeles, California, according to his son, Los Angeles County Judge Fred Wapner. He died of natural causes.

The famed judge taped more than 2,000 episodes of "The People's Court" during his 12-year tenure on the program, inspiring decades of similar courtroom shows, including "Judge Judy" and "Judge Joe Brown."

Prior to stardom, Wapner graduated with both his undergraduate degree in 1941 and his law degree in 1948 from the University of Southern California, and served in the US Army as a lieutenant. He was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star for his service in World War II.

The People's Court first aired in 1981, long before the phrase "reality television" was even coined. Wapner's influence on our culture is unquestionable, as he took legal dispute resolution and turned it into non-fictional drama.

On top of that, another member of the greatest generation of World War II has been lost to us.

In other news...

Washington Post:

Big government sneakily gets bigger

In 1960, when John Kennedy was elected president, America’s population was 180 million and it had approximately 1.8 million federal bureaucrats (not counting uniformed military personnel and postal workers). Fifty-seven years later, with seven new Cabinet agencies, and myriad new sub-Cabinet agencies (e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency), and a slew of matters on the federal policy agenda that were virtually absent in 1960 (health insurance, primary and secondary school quality, crime, drug abuse, campaign finance, gun control, occupational safety, etc.), and with a population of 324 million, there are only about 2 million federal bureaucrats.

So, since 1960, federal spending, adjusted for inflation, has quintupled and federal undertakings have multiplied like dandelions, but the federal civilian workforce has expanded only negligibly, to approximately what it was when Dwight Eisenhower was elected in 1952. Does this mean that “big government” is not really big? And that by doing much more with not many more employees it has accomplished prodigies of per-worker productivity? John J. DiIulio Jr., of the University of Pennsylvania and the Brookings Institution, says: Hardly.

In his 2014 book “Bring Back the Bureaucrats,” he argued that because the public is, at least philosophically, against “big government,” government has prudently become stealthy about how it becomes ever bigger. In a new Brookings paper, he demonstrates that government expands by indirection, using three kinds of “administrative proxies” — state and local government, for-profit businesses, and nonprofit organizations.

Since 1960, the number of state and local government employees has tripled to more than 18 million, a growth driven by federal money: Between the early 1960s and early 2010s, the inflation-adjusted value of federal grants for the states increased more than tenfold. For example, the EPA has fewer than 20,000 employees, but 90 percent of EPA programs are completely administered by thousands of state government employees, largely funded by Washington.

Now you know how government grows without actually employing more people.

This leads us to some other issues:

USAWatchdog:

Giant Fiscal Bloodbath Coming Soon-David Stockman

[Former Reagan Administration White House Budget Director David Stockman] drops this bomb and says, “I think what people are missing is this date, March 15th 2017.  That’s the day that this debt ceiling holiday that Obama and Boehner put together right before the last election in October of 2015.  That holiday expires.  The debt ceiling will freeze in at $20 trillion.  It will then be law.  It will be a hard stop.  The Treasury will have roughly $200 billion in cash.  We are burning cash at a $75 billion a month rate.  By summer, they will be out of cash.  Then we will be in the mother of all debt ceiling crises.  Everything will grind to a halt.  I think we will have a government shutdown.  There will not be Obama Care repeal and replace.  There will be no tax cut.  There will be no infrastructure stimulus.  There will be just one giant fiscal bloodbath over a debt ceiling that has to be increased and no one wants to vote for.”

While I have a great deal of respect for Stockman, I also think he over-rates the political potential for the Republicans to increase the debt ceiling. That is one of the few things they can do without incurring the wrath of the Leftist mainstream media, which considers fiscal conservatism a quaint notion from the 19th century.

Regardless, expect much "sturm und drang" prior to the Republicans raising the debt ceiling anyway.

Finally, in other budget-related news...

Associated Press:

What popular tax breaks are at risk if GOP overhauls taxes?

When Republicans say they want to lower taxes and get rid of loopholes to make up the lost revenue, they're talking about eliminating some very popular tax breaks enjoyed by millions of people.

...A look at the biggest tax breaks enjoyed by individuals, along with The Associated Press' assessment of how safe they are as Congress works to overhaul taxes. All estimates are from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper for Congress.

• RETIREMENT SAVINGS...RATING: Safe.
• EMPLOYER-PROVIDED HEALTH INSURANCE...RATING: In danger.
• CAPITAL GAINS AND DIVIDENDS...RATING: Safe, as long as Republicans are in charge.
• EARNED INCOME CREDIT...RATING: Safe, but there could be changes.
• STATE AND LOCAL TAXES...RATING: In danger.
• MORTGAGE INTEREST...RATING: Safe, but it could get a haircut for high-priced homes.
• CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS...RATING: Safe.
• CHILD TAX CREDIT...RATING: Safe. Some proposals would increase it.
• SOCIAL SECURITY AND RAILROAD RETIREMENT...RATING: Safe.
• PROPERTY TAXES...RATING: In danger.

Notice how two of the three deductions labeled as "in danger" involve the deduction of taxes. In other words, expect government theft to no longer be an excuse to limit your theft by government.

Weekly Finale: Knock on Wood

This week's musical finale is dedicated to a classic song: Eddie Floyd and Steve Cropper's 1966 tune Knock on Wood. Check out this old video of Floyd performing the song:


The original has a smooth R&B sound. But then Otis Redding (with Carla Thomas) did a version where they picked up the tempo, and it gained a more rocking sound:


Speaking of rock, David Bowie brought it fully into the rock scene with his 1974 live cover:



But then Amii Stewart made the definitive version of this diamond, polishing it up and putting it in a solid gold setting:

 

The oddest cover of this song goes to the German band Scooter, which changed the lyrics and titled it The Avenger's Back:



Whichever version you prefer, you should get lucky with Knock on Wood.

That is all for this week. May you have a lucky weekend, and I will return next Monday with more blogging.

Rating the Presidents (Part 2)

(This is part 2 of my ongoing series where I rate the presidents on multiple criteria. Here is the link to part 1.)

ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT

The winner for economic management is Warren Harding, although Calvin Coolidge does merit some credit for continuing Harding's policies after Harding died in office

The country was in an economic depression when Harding took office. Harding cut the top tax rate from 73% to 25% (by 1925, 2 years after his death). Unemployment dropped from a high of 12% to an average of 3.3% for the rest of the "Roaring '20's". Harding is the textbook definition of economic success.

Ironically, the C-SPAN survey of historians ranks Harding way down the list at 35th. Calvin Coolidge doesn't fair much better at 22nd. Instead, they ranked George Washington first. Washington does deserve credit for laying the foundation of America's economy, as well as getting our country off to a good start economically.

Who is the worst? C-SPAN and I both agree on Herbert Hoover. His economic blunders included signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, arguably the initial cause of the Great Depression, which he responded to by raising taxes.

MORAL AUTHORITY

This is another area where the C-SPAN survey and I agree: George Washington is clearly first. In the internecine bickering that occurred in the early days of our republic, Washington remained above the fray, as a clear moral authority and steady guiding hand during our country's formative years.

On the other hand, the worst belongs to only one man: Richard Nixon. His paranoia led to the Watergate scandal, which eventually forced him to resign in disgrace. The damage he did to the moral authority of the office of the presidency took a decade to repair.

But the C-SPAN survey took a different route, naming James Buchanan as the worst. However, for all of Buchanan's flaws, I don't see his lack of moral authority matching Nixon.

(to be continued)

Doubling down on stupid: Today's news for February 24th

McClatchy DC:

With new anti-ISIS plan due next week, Pentagon considering U.S. troops in Syria

The top U.S. military officer declined repeatedly on Thursday to rule out committing U.S. ground troops to battle the Islamic State in in Syria, stressing that the Pentagon will present President Donald Trump with “a full range of options” to combat the terror organization.

Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made the comments at a Washington research center as the 30 days that President Donald Trump gave military leaders to develop a strategy to fight the Islamic State are almost up.

“I’m in the business of providing the president with options,” Dunford said several times at the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C. when repeatedly pressed on whether those choices would include conventional ground troops.

It is good to know that doubling down on stupid is an option. We can only hope it is an option that President Trump rejects, since the "War on Terror" has been nothing but a tremendous waste of lives and resources, with nothing to show for it.

Speaking of Trump...

CNN:

FBI refused White House request to knock down recent Trump-Russia stories

The FBI rejected a recent White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump's associates and Russians known to US intelligence during the 2016 presidential campaign, multiple US officials briefed on the matter tell CNN.

But a White House official said late Thursday that the request was only made after the FBI indicated to the White House it did not believe the reporting to be accurate.

White House officials had sought the help of the bureau and other agencies investigating the Russia matter to say that the reports were wrong and that there had been no contacts, the officials said. The reports of the contacts were first published by The New York Times and CNN on February 14.

The direct communications between the White House and the FBI were unusual because of decade-old restrictions on such contacts. Such a request from the White House is a violation of procedures that limit communications with the FBI on pending investigations.

Late Thursday night, White House press secretary Sean Spicer objected to CNN's characterization of the White House request to the FBI.

"We didn't try to knock the story down. We asked them to tell the truth," Spicer said. The FBI declined to comment for this story.

There are two aspects to this story.

First, the White House is being honest here. If the FBI believes the reports are inaccurate, then why aren't they saying that?

Second, the White House did NOT break any laws in contacting the FBI directly, contrary to how the story makes it seem:

The Trump administration's efforts to press Comey run contrary to Justice Department procedure memos issued in 2007 and 2009 that limit direct communications on pending investigations between the White House and the FBI.

All they "violated" was Justice Department procedures established under the previous administration. One can question whether it was ethical, but it was not illegal.

In other news...

Fox News:

Remembering Alan Colmes, a liberal who could laugh

It’s somehow fitting that Alan Colmes got his start in standup comedy, since he needed a strong sense of humor—and equally strong debating skills—to spar with Sean Hannity and other conservatives at Fox News.

The unabashedly liberal commentator, who died this morning at 66 after a brief illness that has not been disclosed, gained national fame as one-half of the “Hannity & Colmes” show that launched when FNC did in 1996. But his roots were in radio, working for such powerhouse stations as WABC and WNBC in New York. Colmes remained a Fox News contributor and Fox radio host after the channel ended the prime-time partnership and made Hannity the solo host just before the start of the Obama administration.

Colmes faced a difficult challenge in his heyday as Fox’s most prominent left-wing voice, doing battle not just with Hannity but with Bill O’Reilly and other hosts. His views were not popular with much of the Fox audience, but liberals sometimes criticized him for not being more forceful against Hannity.

That was actually his charm: Colmes was not an angry liberal. He was soft-spoken and spoke less from the heart and more from the head. In the eternal Left-Right debate, Colmes will be missed.

Rating the Presidents (part 1)

I was reading an article about a C-SPAN survey of historians rating the presidents, and it mentioned a bunch of criteria:

• Public Persuasion
• Crisis Leadership
• Economic Management
• Moral Authority
• International Relations
• Administrative Skills
• Relations with Congress
• Vision / Setting an Agenda
• Pursued Equal Justice For All
• Performance Within Context of Times

I thought it might be an interesting exercise for me to rate the presidents the same way the historians in the article did. However, I will say these are not equal criteria, even though the survey treats them all equally. Can you really rate Bill Clinton fairly against FDR on crisis leadership? And is moral authority equal to crisis leadership in importance?

That said, here are my views on the categories (with how the historian's survey ranked my choice and their number one):

PUBLIC PERSUASION

Few presidents will ever compare with Franklin Delano Roosevelt. His fireside chats are legendary. Even his detractors give him this category, as do I.   

The C-SPAN survey agreed with me, ranking FDR number one.

Who was the worst? I have to say William Henry Harrison. When your inaugural speech leads to your own death a month later, I have to call that a public persuasion failure of epic proportions.

The C-SPAN called James Buchanan the worst, and he certainly deserves it. His inability to keep the union together contributed heavily to the Civil War. 

CRISIS LEADERSHIP

When we think about crisis leadership, FDR comes to mind. While his style was perfect for World War II, his overactive crisis leadership during the Great Depression only served to extend it (some would argue he made it worse). Different crises require different styles.

Obviously, only a few presidents had a legitimate crisis with which to contend. For the sake of comparison, I considered some minor crises too. For that, I have to give Ronald Reagan the credit as the best ever. he took a slow and steady hand on the economic messes left over from the 1970's, while only adding a tax cut to help. By allowing his plan to take hold, and with the help of the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker, he managed to get inflation under control and turn the economy around by the end of his first term.

Reagan escalated the Cold War, but without actually going to war. By doing so, he put significant economic pressure on the Soviet Union, which eventually led to its downfall. But even with his tough talk, he knew the value of strategic retreat, which he displayed in the Lebanese Civil War, by pulling our Marines out after the Beirut barracks bombing.

Reagan was not without flaws, but not when it came to crisis leadership.

The C-SPAN survey only ranked Reagan as 8th best president, with Abraham Lincoln as number one. I consider Lincoln's actions as good only if you believe the federal government should hold most of the power in this country. In fact, by holding most of the power prior to the Civil War, it was the federal government which supported the institution of slavery. No, I consider Lincoln's actions as sadly authoritarian. 

The worst president for crisis leadership easily goes to Woodrow Wilson. His handling of World War I created a huge mess, that eventually led to World War II. If he had stayed out of the war, it is possible it could have ended amicably between the warring parties. Instead, his own desire to create the League of Nations (which failed and led to the equally ineffective United Nations) caused him to negotiate the punitive Treaty of Versailles.

C-SPAN rated Wilson at 11th, which is far too generous. Instead, James Buchanan got last place. Buchanan certainly deserves his scorn. However, I consider a conflict between the states to have been brewing for decades, and Buchanan's worst sin was to ignore it. On the other hand, Wilson took a crisis that didn't have to involve America, and made it worse for both America and inevitably Europe.

(to be continued)    

Where will the transgenders go? Today's news for February 23rd

CNN:

Trump administration withdraws federal protections for transgender students

The Trump administration on Wednesday night withdrew Obama-era protections for transgender students in public schools that let them use bathrooms and facilities corresponding with their gender identity.

The announcement is a significant victory for opponents of the Obama administration's guidelines who believe the federal government never should have gotten involved in the issue.

Civil rights groups, meanwhile, denounced the withdrawal as a politically motivated attack that will endanger transgender children and sow confusion over the federal government's role in enforcing civil rights.

Last May, the departments of Education and Justice issued joint guidance directing schools to let transgender students use facilities that correspond with their gender identity. The "Dear Colleague" letter, addressed to school districts and colleges that receive federal funding, was based on the Obama administration's interpretation of Title IX, the federal law that bans sex discrimination in schools, to include gender identity.

There may come a point in the future where our culture doesn't place so much value in sexual identity. However, in an age where pedophilia is one of our biggest concerns, how do you justify allowing grown men dressed as women into bathrooms with little girls?

If ever you needed a reason why the federal government should not be involved in public education, this issue certainly proves why.

In other news...

Grabien News:

BRZEZINSKI: ‘OUR JOB’ IS TO CONTROL ‘EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE THINK’

Controlling "exactly what people think" is the job of the media, MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski boldly declared Wednesday morning.

While discussing President Trump's entreaties to the American people to remain skeptical of the press, Bzezinski worried that if the economy turns south, Americans may end up trusting him over the media... 

SCARBOROUGH: "Exactly. That is exactly what I hear. What Yamiche said is what I hear from all the Trump supporters that I talk to who were Trump voters and are still Trump supporters. They go, 'Yeah you guys are going crazy. He's doing -- what are you so surprised about? He is doing exactly what he said he is going to do.'"
BRZEZINSKI: "Well, I think that the dangerous, you know, edges here are that he is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job." 

Don't you love it when media people accidentally speak the truth? Or at least what they consider the truth to be?

If ever you wonder how somebody as scary as Trump got elected president, just take a look at this statement, and remember how common this idea is on the Left. A bad president can be controlled (see Obama's 8 years for an example), but a bad ideology cannot.

Speaking of the Left...

Zero Hedge:

Is James O'Keefe About To Smoke CNN? Tells Hannity He's Set To Release 

"Hundreds of Hours" Of Newsroom Footage "Wikileaks Style"

James O'Keefe of Project Veritas is set to unleash holy hell Thursday on #FakeNews network CNN. Well, he didn't exactly say it was CNN, but it was heavily implied. Apparently the network has a mole... 

...Yesterday, O'Keefe was interviewed on Sean Hannity's radio show where he revealed that a major network has been "stung"

O'Keefe: In the next 48 hours, Project Veritas, like Wikileaks, will be releasing hundreds of hours of tape from within the establishment media. Our next target is in fact, the media.
Hannity: How long have you been working on this?
O'Keefe: We've had people on the inside come to us. Just like Julian Assange has people come to him, we've had people, sources come to us and give us information, and we're going to be releasing it "Wikileaks Style" this w

Later in the same interview;

Hannity: Can you give us a hint what organizations are going to be impacted by this?
O'Keefe: It's one that Trump has really been talking about, you can probably use your imagination.
Hannity: So, it's CNN...

Fortunately, CNN gave us the final details:

CNN:

Conservative provocateur targets CNN with secret recordings

O'Keefe said in a telephone interview with CNN on Wednesday that he has "a few hundred hours" of "secretly recorded material" from inside the network. "We're calling it CNN Leaks," he said, drawing inspiration from WikiLeaks' document dumps.

He said "part one" would be published Thursday at about 10 a.m. ET. "This is all legally recorded information," he said, declining to be more specific.

Thus ended the objectivity of this "news" article. the rest is blatant vitriol:

O'Keefe, who uses undercover stings to trap his targets, has a reputation for shady tactics and exaggerated statements.

Some of his so-called exposés have relied on misleading editing techniques. And an incident in 2010 landed him in legal trouble. After he was arrested at Senator Mary Landrieu's office, O'Keefe pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for entering federal property under false pretenses. He was sentenced to three years of probation, plus community service and a fine.

Given his track record, many consider O'Keefe discredited, and not a serious journalist.

In the phone interview on Wednesday, he said that characterization is "very false and very inappropriate."

At least they let him have a few words in his own defense.

O'Keefe has done some unethical things, including his questionable editing on an NPR investigation video. But he has also revealed some things which the Left didn't like, such as illegal practices at ACORN, and unethical practices at Planned Parenthood.

Like any other news source, O'Keefe has to be viewed with a discriminating eye. But when he does things right, his exposés can be eye-opening.

Wednesday wisdom: Richard Bach

"There's no disaster that can't become a blessing, and no blessing that can't become a disaster."--Richard Bach, from Jonathan Livingston Seagull (1970).

A heartwarming tragedy

Every now and then, I run across a news story which reminds me of the classic drama critic's cliche, "I laughed, I cried, it became a part of me." The following Fox News story is such a story:

An Oklahoma mom has decided to give birth to her terminally ill daughter so that she can donate the newborn’s organs.

Keri Young, from Oklahoma City, was devastated to discover that her baby, who she named Eva, would be born without a portion of her brain and skull due to a condition known as anencephaly.

Keri – who learned of the child’s fate during her 20-week ultrasound – is scheduled to give birth to her child on May 7 and will likely only spend a few days with the newborn before she dies.

Her husband, Royce, was in awe of his wife’s heartbreaking choice to carry their baby — all to potentially save another child’s life, though he says he’s not surprised.

“Donating was on Keri’s mind from darn near the second we found out and while the experience of holding and kissing our daughter will be something we cherish forever, the gift(s) she’s got inside that little body of hers is what really matters. Keri saw that almost instantly,” Royce wrote in a Facebook post last week that has since been shared thousands of times.

Life has few tragedies to compare with the loss of one's child. I still remember seeing my grandmother who was in her 80's, at the funeral of her son, my uncle, at his death in his 60's. My grandmother was a woman of such stoicism as I have never seen in a human being, who had given birth 14 times (of which only 10 children survived), who could bake a cake while holding a sleeping baby (without disturbing the baby). She was reduced to weeping like a baby. I can only imagine with horror the mere idea of dying after one or both of my own children.

To be able to do what Keri Young is doing is, on the surface, inconceivable to me. How could someone want to delay the worst thing one may ever experience in their lifetime? Why would someone want to delay the intense grieving period?

And then the beauty, the inherent loveliness of the logic within her decision, hits me like a bullet in the heart. It is "when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade", but writ on a monumental scale of emotion and truth.

The practical side of Keri Young's action is beyond question: If you have a dead or dying infant, why not donate the organs? Why not give another infant the chance to live? It is logical.

But the heartwarming aspect of this is how Keri Young has taken her own tragedy and turned it into hope for someone else, and possibly many others. To deny one's own loss long enough for others to benefit is the epitome of "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Ivanka Trump: Today's news for February 22nd

CNN:

Ivanka Trump steps into role behind her father

On Monday evening, as word spread of yet more anti-Semitic behavior around the nation, it wasn't President Donald Trump who was the first to speak out against the threats to regional Jewish Community Centers — it was his daughter, Ivanka Trump.

Like her dad, however, she used Twitter to remind her followers that the United States is a "nation built on religious tolerance" and that it's important to protect houses of worship.

America is a nation built on the principle of religious tolerance. We must protect our houses of worship & religious centers. #JCC

— Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) February 20, 2017

It isn't unusual for Ivanka, who, along with her husband Jared Kushner, identifies as an Orthodox Jew, to speak out on such a heartfelt issue. But the President's daughter has picked up where she left off on the campaign trail — as the softer, gentler side of her father's gruff demeanor. 

Ivanka is the classy one in the Trump clan. She has a grace and dignity which most first Ladies aspire to, but few quite reach. Arguably, the best example of it was Jackie Kennedy.

Admittedly, Ivanka isn't the First Lady, although she appears as a bigger presence in her father's life than his wife Melania. As the father of a daughter, I can appreciate that aspect of Trump. I love and adore my wife, who is also my best friend, but my daughter holds a special place in my heart that nobody can ever approach. It belongs only to her.

That said, it is sad when the Left attacks her in some kind of guilt by association. Donald is what he is, and going after him makes sense. But to attack Ivanka just seems petty.

And it seems to be backfiring on the Left....

Heatstreet:

Ivanka Trump’s Perfume Soars to No.1 Bestseller on Amazon Despite Boycotts

Ivanka Trump’s signature perfume is a best seller on retail giant Amazon.

Ivanka Trump Eau de Parfum Spray For Women ($34 for a 3.4-ounce bottle) was No. 1 on Amazon’s list of bestselling fragrances and perfume for at least the sixth consecutive day. One reviewer wrote: “I normally buy this at Nordstrom. But now that I heard they will not carry it anymore, I was happy to find it on Amazon.” (Radha Beauty Aromatherapy was at No. 2 on Amazon’s list.) The recent success of Ivanka Trump’s perfume on Amazon, particularly after her products were dropped from other stores, suggests the “resistance economy” to boycott products associated with the family of President Trump can help a brand as well as hurt it.

Interesting things happen when the free market meets political boycotts. Sometimes, the boycotts can backfire on the boycotters.

Speaking of the Trumps, remember the to-do over Donald trump's comments about Sweden?

CNN:

Sweden: Riots erupt in Stockholm neighborhood

Riots broke out in a predominantly immigrant neighborhood of Stockholm Monday night, as residents clashed with police officers and set vehicles on fire, Swedish police say.

Officers were forced to call in reinforcements when a crowd began to gather in the suburb of Rinkeby during the arrest of a suspect, according to a statement from Stockholm police.

Stockholm regional police chief Ulf Johansson said the clashes may have been a result of their "increased pressure on criminals in the area."

The clashes come days after US President Donald Trump suggested that immigrants in Sweden were to blame for an increase in crime across the country.

The Left-biased media doesn't seem to be snickering at Trump's comments today.

By the way, this isn't the first time:

In an emailed statement to CNN, Swedish police said that while riots like those on Monday night are unusual, it is not the first time unrest has broken out in Rinkeby.

In 2013, large scale riots flared for a week in the Swedish capital, with gangs setting fire to schools and a police station.

In defense of the Leftist media, Trump's comment about rising crime in Sweden is blatantly false. But that doesn't mean everything is wonderful there.

Speaking of Trump, how is Russia?

CNN:

Montenegro: Russia involved in attempted coup

Montenegro's chief special prosecutor has told a local TV station authorities believe Russian security services were involved in a plot to kill the country's then-prime minister and overthrow the government last October.

Milivoje Katnic said Montenegro officials have evidence that Russia's Federal Security Service was involved in the failed coup, according to his statements Sunday on Atlas TV. The allegation drew an immediate rebuke and denial from Russian officials.

Katnic said the plot was an attempt to stop Montenegro from joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO.

"Behind these events are nationalist structures from Russia, but we now know that certain Russian state authorities were involved also on a certain level," Katnic said.

Before you say, "Ah ha! This proves Russia could have been trying to steal the American election for Trump!", consider this: Montenegro is a tiny country in the Balkans, with a population of about 620,000 people. And Russia FAILED.

Explain how Russia can fail so badly at Montenegro, but somehow steal the election in a country the size of the United States?

In other news...

New York Magazine:

11 People Went Through JFK Security Without Being Screened

The TSA accidentally let several people waltz through a security checkpoint without being properly screened on Monday morning — and to make matters worse, it took the agency two hours to alert police to the security breach.

Around 6 a.m., 11 passengers walked through a TSA Precheck security checkpoint in Terminal 5 without being checked by a TSA agent. “The screening lane was unmanned, but passengers didn’t know, so they started going through it,” a source told the New York Post.

Three people set off metal detectors, but no one stopped them. “Early reports indicate three passengers did not receive required secondary screening after alarming the walk through metal detector,” the TSA confirmed in a statement. “All personal carry-on bags received required screening. A K9 team was present at the checkpoint at the time of the incident.”

It gets funnier:

Eventually the three people who set off the metal detectors were identified as passengers on a flight bound for San Francisco, and they were screened upon arrival.

Aren't we glad they got screened after the fact? It is a good thing we have the TSA to close the barn door after the horses got out.

Intolerance begets intolerence

A sad side effect of Leftist intolerance is that it makes radical Right intolerance more acceptable.

A Telegraph editorial entitled, "The student Left’s culture of intolerance is creating a new generation of conservatives" makes this case:

Student demands for censorship get a lot of coverage. Spiked Online’s Free Speech University Rankings, now in its third annual edition, argues that there is a “crisis of free speech on campus”.

By analysing the censorious policies and actions that have taken place on British campuses, Spiked concluded that 63.5 per cent of universities actively censor speech and 30.5 per cent stifle speech through excessive regulation. You can barely go a few days without encountering a new op-ed covering censorship on campus.

Maajid Nawaz describes the students demanding censorship as members of the “regressive left”. Milo Yiannopoulos calls them “snowflakes”.

With all of this book-burning and platform-denying madness sweeping up much of the media’s interest in campus culture, the gradual rise of another group of students has gone under-reported. British and American millennials and post-millennials – also known as ‘Gen Z’ – are warming to conservatism.

If it was simply "warming to conservatism", that might be ok. But in a binary culture, where everything is either Left or Right, that leaves room for bleed over from the cultural extremes.

So when the "sane" Left ignores the intolerant Left, that taints the entire progressive/socialist movement as authoritarian. This makes the entire conservative movement, including the intolerant Right, seem at least equal, if not better. When the mainstream media equates the intolerant Right with the entire conservative ideology, while ignoring "the beam in their own eye", which is the willingness to overlook free speech rights within their own ideology, they create a choice between different forms of intolerance.

People on the Left wonder how a sexist like Donald Trump gets elected president. The answer lies in the moral relativism which says it is acceptable to deny freedom of speech in certain circumstances. Neither of these cultural sins should be acceptable, yet the MSM makes them equivalent.

President's Day hangover: Today's news for February 21st

CNN:

'Not My President's Day' protesters rally to oppose Trump

Another week, another series of demonstrations by opponents of President Donald Trump.

Protesters in cities across the country took to the streets on Monday for "Not My President's Day" rallies with a strong anti-Trump message.

Olga Lexell, who was one of about 20 people who helped organize the events in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, said they were intended to show Trump there was widespread opposition to his policies and "ridiculous" executive orders.

"A lot of people are angry because he lost the popular vote and is ruling like somebody who won by a landslide," Lexell said.

Bad news Olga: He won the Electoral College. Whether he won it by a landslide or 1 vote, it is still a win. That means he gets to play president for 4 years. Deal with it.

By the way CNN, where are the statistics here? Usually, when propping up these protests, crowd numbers are given glaring prominence, yet there doesn't seem to be any crowd numbers here at all.

But there is one other good point buried in the story:

Monday's marches, and other similar rallies, do not have a clear and concise policy proposal, but Meyer said they still had a unifying message to the White House: "No"

Translation: This is a public temper tantrum thrown by grown children.

And now for some news that actually matters...

Fox News:

Democratic resignation at FEC opens door for Trump to "drain the swamp"

A Democrat who sits on the Federal Election Commission, says partisan gridlock and dysfunction led her to resign before her term expires. Ann Ravel’s early exit gives President Donald Trump the opportunity to “drain the swamp” and shake up the campaign finance system.

“People from all walks of life should be able to run for office without having to seek out wealthy donors, or be wealthy themselves, to win,” she wrote in a letter, published to Medium.

...Ravel urged Trump to reform the campaign finance system, which she maintains was tainted by so-called dark money.

"I respectfully urge you to prioritize campaign finance reform to remedy the significant problems identified during the last election cycle," the letter said.

Like her Democratic colleagues, she decried the “mistaken jurisprudence of Citizens United,” the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that found political spending is protected free speech.

While the views she expresses have merit, would she actually support them above her own support for the Democratic Party? For example, she probably supports campaign donations from labor unions. Feel free to explain the difference between a labor union and a political action committee. From the perspective of a politician, there is no difference.

Finally, in news of the obvious...

Daily Mail:

Personality CAN change dramatically: You're a completely different person at 14 and 77, according to the longest-ever study into human character

It's good news for awkward teenagers the world over, as it turns out you really do become a completely different person as you get older.

Scientists carried out personality tests on people at the age of 14, and then again more than sixty years later when they were 77 years old.

The team found hardly any relationship between traits people had as adolescents and those in their golden years.

Anyone with a modicum of introspection and more than several decades past their adolescence can tell you this.

Weekly finale: Climax Blues Band

With a long weekend ahead, due to Presidents Day on Monday, i am closing up blogging shop early today. That means an early weekly musical finale!

This week's finale features a 1970's band which should be featured in a Guardians of the Galaxy movie (due to their frequent use of 1970's ear candy). The band in question is a two-hit wonder known as the Climax Blues Band, and the song is their biggest hit, Couldn't Get It Right:



Ironically, this song almost didn't get made. From Wikipedia:

The song was specifically written and produced after the manager of the band, Miles Copeland III, demanded that the band append a radio-friendly song to the track listing. The band at the time had released eight albums and although that had translated into fame, they did not have a great impact on the charts. Copeland suggested a cover version of an Elvis Presley song; this suggestion was ignored, and instead the band came up with an original composition "from absolutely nowhere". It was simply a case of sitting in the studio, conjuring up a rhythm, appending the traditional dual vocals for which Climax Blues Band were known for, and coming up with a couple of hooks. The sudden emergence of the song irritated the producer, as he thought the band had been withholding a hit from him.

In an interview with Songfacts, [bassist] Derek Holt explained that the song was "just a lucky moment in time", and that it is about being on the road in America. The chorus "kept on looking for a sign in the middle of the night" referred to searches for Holiday Inn signs, the sight of which meant that beds had been found for the night. When the band's career first started in America, they used to fly everywhere, in some cases involving up to three flights just to get to one place. Their itineraries meant that getting to any one place was difficult and involved arriving in a town, getting into a car, getting to the gig just in time to perform the sound check, performing the gig, re-entering the car and then looking for a bed. The final few years of the band's life were easier as they switched to using tour buses. This enabled them to leave the gig, enter the bus, get a bed, drive extended distances (in Holt's words, "1,000 miles or whatever") and turn up at the next gig refreshed. The saxophonist Colin Cooper sang the baritone lead on this song, with the bassist Derek Holt, guitarist Pete Haycock and drummer John Cuffley singing harmony.

Sadly, no cover has ever matched the original's musical perfection. From Colin Cooper's perfect baritone (don't attempt this song if you cannot do a baritone, because you will instantly sound second-rate) on down to John Cuffley's perfect percussion, this song is perfect in itself. However, I would be curious to hear a woman singer cover it. Paging Annie Lennox!

That is all for me. I will return on Tuesday, so I hope you get it right this long weekend.

A tale of two stories: Today's news for February 17th

There are two big stories today. 

First, there is the President Trump press conference from yesterday:

Washington Post:

Donald Trump’s combative, grievance-filled news conference, annotated

I will not be quoting from Trump's press conference. (If you want a highlight of some of the things he said, here is a CNN article.) It was over 75 minutes long, so a lot was said.

In spite of the mainstream media's shock over it, this press conference was pretty standard Trump. He is outrageous and defiant. Controversy doesn't cow him in any way.

Michael Goodwin had the best take on this press conference:

New York Post:

Sorry media — this press conference played very different with Trump’s supporters

Amid feverish reports of chaos on his team and with Democrats fantasizing that Russia-gate is another Watergate, Trump took center stage to declare that reports of his demise are just more fake news.

Far from dead, he was positively exuberant. His performance at a marathon press conference was a must-see-tv spectacle as he mixed serious policy talk with stand-up comedy and took repeated pleasure in whacking his favorite pinata, the “dishonest media.”

“Russia is a ruse,” he insisted, before finally saying under questioning he was not aware of anyone on his campaign having contact with Russian officials.

Trump’s detractors immediately panned the show as madness, but they missed the method behind it and proved they still don’t understand his appeal. Facing his first crisis in the Oval Office, he was unbowed in demonstrating his bare-knuckled intention to fight back.

He did it his way. Certainly no other president, and few politicians at any level in any time, would dare put on a show like that.

In front of cameras, and using the assembled press corps as props, he conducted a televised revival meeting to remind his supporters that he is still the man they elected. Ticking off a lengthy list of executive orders and other actions he has taken, he displayed serious fealty to his campaign promises.

Sure, sentences didn’t always end on the same topic they started with, and his claim to have won the election by the largest electoral college margin since Ronald Reagan wasn’t close to true.

Fair points, but so what? Fact-checkers didn’t elect him, nor did voters who were happy with the status quo.

Trump, first, last and always, matches the mood of the discontented. Like them, he is a bull looking for a china shop. That’s his ace in the hole and he played it almost to perfection.

This is what Trump is. If you don't like it, you are in for a rough 4-8 years. On the other hand, if you are looking for someone to shake up Washington, Trump looks pretty darned good right now.

Speaking of Trump, it is not just the American people who have wildly different views of him:

The Hill:

Two new polls find wildly different Trump approval ratings

The Rasmussen Reports and the Pew Research Center released wildly different approval ratings for President Trump on Thursday.

Rasmussen's daily Presidential Tracking Poll found a 55 percent approval rating for Trump among voters. But Pew Research Center only found Trump with 39 percent support — a 16 point-difference between the two polls.

Rasmussen, which has traditionally found results that are more positive for Republicans than other polls, seems to be an outlier among major polls, with Gallup also giving Trump a lower 41 percent approval rating in its most recent weekly average.

Considering how wrong the polls were on the general election, is it any surprise they would get Trump's approval rating wrong?

Finally, on to our second big news story today:

NBC News:

Hundreds of Events Planned for Friday's 'General Strike'

Tens of thousands of people across the United States are expected to skip work and attend rallies and marches Friday as part of a "general strike" to "get our democracy back."

Strike4Democracy, one of the groups organizing the nationwide event, which is called the "#F17 General Strike," said more than 100 public protests are expected. Event pages on Facebook indicate the potential for high participation: Nearly 20,000 people have responded to the page for a New York City march alone.

It will be the second straight day of national protests, following Thursday's "Day Without Immigrants" campaign, which was aimed at making a point about the economic impact immigrants have on the U.S. labor force.

Foreign-born residents of the United States were asked to stay home from work or school — and to refrain from shopping — in rallies and marches in Washington, D.C., Chicago, Denver and many other cities.

You noticed that strike yesterday, right? I missed it too.

So what is today's strike about? Just an excuse to bash Trump. The following cartoon summarizes it best:

(hat tip to Sparta Report for the cartoon)

The problem with binge-watching, or the virtue of slow-watching

I was introduced to the television show The Gilmore Girls last fall, by my step-mother. I found the show's first few episodes to be witty and charming, so I continued watching. I am up to the fourth season now, and still enjoying it.

When I saw my step-mother a few months later, I thanked her for introducing me to the show. She surprised me when she said she had binge-watched the rest of the series (all seven seasons plus the new season on Netflix) after introducing me to it. While she liked the show, it didn't sound like she was enthusiastic about it.

On the other hand, I rarely binge-watch anything on television. The first time I did that was when I got the entire first season of 24 on dvd. Afterwards, I was happily exhausted. But the key there is exhausted. Sitting in one place and watching a show for a day or two is draining. This is why I normally only watch one episode in a sitting, and only two episodes in a day, if that much. To me, binge-watching is seeing 2-3 episodes in one sitting. Instead, I prefer to "slow-watch".

But there is a virtue in slow-watching, especially a long-running series. Over time, if the characters are good and portrayed with depth, I find myself growing fond of them, like family or co-workers I see every day. I would love to share a cup of coffee with Lorelai or Rory Gilmore, or sit in Luke Danes' diner and trade barbs with him. These are good people, who I feel like I know, even though they are nothing more than fictional characters portrayed by actors. Watching them live years over a period of months breeds a familiarity in the mind that watching a movie lacks.

This is not to say that a movie cannot be appreciated like a long-running television series. When we watch beloved movies again and again, the same kind of effect occurs. But I find there is more depth in the relationship between the viewer and the characters from a slow-watched show, and that effect is enhanced by multiple unique memories, as opposed to the single two-hour memory. That is much more like real life, where the people you know and love are etched into your mind from years of uniquely shared memories.

On the other hand, when you binge-watch, you create a movie effect. Even a long-running series becomes nothing more than a very long movie when binge-watched. When you are done with it, it is several days of memories neatly tucked away in your mind, just like the memories of cramming for a history test in high school, both of which have equal emotional context.

America versus the CIA: Today's news for February 16th

Wall Street journal:

Spies Keep Intelligence From Donald Trump on Leak Concerns

U.S. intelligence officials have withheld sensitive intelligence from President Donald Trump because they are concerned it could be leaked or compromised, according to current and former officials familiar with the matter.

The officials’ decision to keep information from Mr. Trump underscores the deep mistrust that has developed between the intelligence community and the president over his team’s contacts with the Russian government, as well as the enmity he has shown toward U.S. spy agencies. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump accused the agencies of leaking information to undermine him.

In some of these cases of withheld information, officials have decided not to show Mr. Trump the sources and methods that the intelligence agencies use to collect information, the current and former officials said. Those sources and methods could include, for instance, the means that an agency uses to spy on a foreign government.

...Intelligence officials have in the past not told a president or members of Congress about the ins and outs of how they ply their trade. At times, they have decided that secrecy is essential for protecting a source, and that all a president needs to know is what that source revealed and what the intelligence community thinks is important about it.

If the president of the United States isn't "good enough" to hear intelligence information, even minutiae, then who is? A bureaucrat who believes they are above the president needs to be fired.

That said, it does seem reasonable the "how they get information" doesn't necessarily need to be revealed unless asked. Do you tell your boss all the details on how you get your job done every day?

Speaking of intelligence...

Newsweek:

U.S. ALLIES CONDUCT INTELLIGENCE OPERATION AGAINST TRUMP STAFF 

AND ASSOCIATES, INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATIONS

As part of intelligence operations being conducted against the United States for the last seven months, at least one Western European ally intercepted a series of communications before the inauguration between advisers associated with President Donald Trump and Russian government officials, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The sources said the interceptions include at least one contact between former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and a Russian official based in the United States. It could not be confirmed whether this involved the telephone call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that has led to Flynn’s resignation, or additional communications. The sources said the intercepted communications are not just limited to telephone calls: The foreign agency is also gathering electronic and human source information on Trump’s overseas business partners, at least some of whom the intelligence services now consider to be agents of their respective governments. These operations are being conducted out of concerns that Russia is seeking to manipulate its relationships with Trump administration officials as part of a long-term plan to destabilize the NATO alliance.

What is troubling here isn't the allegations about Flynn, who we knew was questionable, but rather the fact that allies are spying on us AND they are releasing this information publicly.

Mind you, I am not naive enough to think our allies don't spy on us. I know they do. But it is surprising when they release the information they have obtained publicly. Why would they do so, unless there is something to be gained from it?

I offer you this speculation: Intelligence operations around the world are far too cozy with the global elites. Government bureaucrats, such as intelligence operatives, have a rational self-interested motive in "big government", and global elites have been centralizing more power within the democratic governments over the past few decades. So when a threat like Trump comes along to the status quo, they must be taken down by any means possible. Again, this is only my speculation, but it does explain a lot.  

In other Trump news...

The Moscow Times: 

Buyer's Remorse: Trump's Position on Crimea Angers Russia

The Kremlin had high hopes for U.S. President Donald Trump. He had praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, proposed tag-teaming with Moscow in Syria and even hinted he might recognize Crimea as part of Russia.

Then, on Feb. 14, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer shattered the Kremlin’s American dream.

“President Trump has made it very clear that he expects the Russian government to de-escalate violence in the Ukraine and return Crimea,” Spicer told reporters at a daily press conference.

Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in 2014. The West, in turn, responded by imposing international sanctions on Moscow. Trump appeared to be Russia’s best bet for getting those sanctions lifted.

Naturally, Spicer’s words provoked anger among the Russian authorities. It didn’t help that the Crimea statement came right after Trump forced National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, a Russia sympathizer, to resign for withholding information about his phone conversations with the Russian ambassador.

If Trump is just a shill for Russia, why would he do this? Or is the "Russian shill" story just so much garbage from the Left-leaning mainstream media to try and discredit the new president?

Russia is a primary example of how the MSM gets Trump wrong. They spend too much time analyzing what he says, and not nearly enough watching what he does.

Who are the great female singers alive today?

There was a controversy over the recent Grammy Awards, when singer Adele took home some big awards over Beyoncé. Musician Carlos Santana stoked the fires of the controversy when he said (from Radio.com):

“I think that Adele won because she can sing, sing,” Santana told the Australian Associated Press (via New Zealand Herald).

To make matters worse, he also tried to qualify the difference between Adele’s talent and Beyoncé’s. “With all respect to our sister Beyoncé,” he said, “Beyoncé is very beautiful to look at and it’s more like modeling kind of music—music to model a dress—she’s not a singer, singer, with all respect to her.”

I won't delve into this controversy, except to say Santana was correct.

No, I bring this up to ask: Who are the greatest living lady singers alive today? To be honest, I don't even consider Adele worthy for this list. She is an excellent singer, but there are better out there.

In no particular order, here are my choices:

--TINA TURNER--

Although in retirement, Turner's pipes are legendary, and wholly unique. There is nobody who can sing with the sheer power of Tina Turner.

--ARETHA FRANKLIN--

The "queen of soul" is about to go into retirement, but her musical brilliance will never be forgotten.

--SARAH BRIGHTMAN--

Brightman's voice is extremely versatile, but always beautiful. She is arguably one of the great living sopranos.

--LEANN RIMES--

In spite of her controversial personal life, Rimes remains at the top of country music in terms of singing ability, in my opinion. In fact, I would rate her among the all-time great country singers.

Wednesday wisdom: Thomas Sowell

"When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear."--Thomas Sowell

The ketchup trail: Today's news for February 15th

(hat tip to Gary Larson's The Far Side)

CNN:

Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign

High-level advisers close to then-presidential nominee Donald Trump were in constant communication during the campaign with Russians known to US intelligence, multiple current and former intelligence, law enforcement and administration officials tell CNN.

President-elect Trump and then-President Barack Obama were both briefed on details of the extensive communications between suspected Russian operatives and people associated with the Trump campaign and the Trump business, according to US officials familiar with the matter.

Both the frequency of the communications during early summer and the proximity to Trump of those involved "raised a red flag" with US intelligence and law enforcement, according to these officials. The communications were intercepted during routine intelligence collection targeting Russian officials and other Russian nationals known to US intelligence.

Among several senior Trump advisers regularly communicating with Russian nationals were then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and then-adviser Michael Flynn. 

That sounds all too serious and bad, doesn't it? And then we get to this:

Officials emphasized that communications between campaign staff and representatives of foreign governments are not unusual. However, these communications stood out to investigators due to the frequency and the level of the Trump advisers involved. Investigators have not reached a judgment on the intent of those conversations. 

Wait a minute...this is "not unusual"? The only thing that makes this "unusual" is the level of the advisers?

To the entire mainstream media today, you guys all get the bear for this story:

Come back when you have a real news story.

But now that we have a shark frenzy over the ketchup bottle in the water...

CNN:

Rand Paul on Flynn: 'Makes no sense' to investigate fellow Republicans

Republican Sen. Rand Paul said Tuesday an investigation into the resignation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn would be excessive and it would not make sense to investigate other Republicans.

"I think that might be excessive. It looks like the President has handled the situation, and unless there's some kind of other evidence of malfeasance, this sounds like something that was internal White House politics and it looks like the President's handled it," Paul told the "Kilmeade and Friends" radio show.

Flynn resigned Monday evening amid revelations that he misled Vice President Mike Pence about conversations he had in December with Russia's ambassador to the US about sanctions placed on Russia. Pence had defended Flynn on television and denied he discussed sanctions after initial reports of the conversations.

Paul would have been fine if he had stopped there, but then he rambled into ketchup-filled waters:

"I just don't think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party. We'll never even get started with doing the things we need to do, like repealing Obamacare, if we're spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense."

At least Paul is honest about his partisanship.

In other news of Trump-brand ketchup...

The Hill:

House panel votes against requesting Trump's tax returns

The House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday rejected a Democratic push to ask for President Trump's tax returns.

The amendment, offered by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) to the panel's oversight plan, was voted down on a party-line vote.

Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) sent committee chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) a letter earlier this month asking him to request the returns from Treasury so that the committee could review them in a closed meeting and consider whether they should be made public.

The chairmen of the Ways and Means Committee, Senate Finance Committee and Joint Committee on Taxation can request tax returns from Treasury under federal tax law.

Put aside the partisan aspects of this and consider the broader ramifications: Congress can request the tax returns of ANY person, any time they like. On top of that, there is nothing to stop them from publicizing what is in those tax returns. This is in direct violation of privacy rights.

Here is another reason to consider the income tax as a violation of human rights. But why let human rights get in the way of a good political witch hunt? 

Austin gets the Civil War wrong

Anyone who knows me knows I am a huge fan of former Libertarian presidential candidate Austin Petersen, who generally nails my political views perfectly. Sadly, he dropped the ball in his podcast last night:



In discussing secession and the American Civil War specifically, he made an erroneous point about slavery. He brought up Ron Paul's idea about how England just bought all of their slaves, and no other country in the world ended slavery with a civil war. But Petersen disagreed with Paul, using an example that when a private person is enslaved, we can and should use any means necessary to free them, up to and including lethal force.

The problem is Petersen is making an apples to oranges comparison. Petersen is talking about an individual being denied their civil rights, whereas Ron Paul was talking about institutionalized slavery. There is a world of difference between governments denying civil rights versus individuals doing it, and Petersen should know better.

Another thing that Petersen gets wrong is the Constitution itself was created allowing for institutionalized slavery. The southern states agreed to join the union with the acknowledgement that slavery would be allowed. The northern states could have formed a separate union if they did not like slavery, as opposed to withdrawing their support for it at a later time. In other words, the northern states were complicit in the formation of institutionalized slavery in the United States. In effect, the North broke their contract with the South, and then expected the South to accept new conditions on their contract, without the South's consent.

While slavery was an awful thing, it wasn't considered that at the time of the forming of the nation. When the agreement between the states needed to be changed to end slavery, the worst possible way was to kill off 2% of the American population (620,000 or more Americans) to accomplish this. This is stupidity on a grand scale, and Petersen should be ashamed to defend this. While it is a virtue to be willing to defend human rights, even to the death, there is no virtue in reneging on a contractualized obligation, which is what the Constitution was, and is.

In fact, the most ethical thing the North could have done would have been to secede themselves. They made a bad deal with the South. Instead, the North's ethical high ground was lost with the Civil War's mass murder. Excusing it, as Petersen does, with "Americans are naturally more violent" is absurd. That is like excusing rape with "boys will be boys".

On top of this, it is even more absurd to claim civil rights as a justification for the Civil War, since it took the black population another century to finally get equal human rights, as Jim Crow laws were created making them an underclass. Instead, racism against blacks became institutionalized. The Civil War ended institutionalized slavery, but did nothing for the human rights of the black population. Was it worth killing 620,000 people for a mere "step in the right direction"?

Flynn out: Today's news for February 14th

Associated Press:

Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn resigns

President Donald Trump's embattled national security adviser Michael Flynn resigned late Monday night, following reports that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about his contacts with Russia. His departure upends Trump's senior team after less than one month in office.

In a resignation letter, Flynn said he held numerous calls with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. during the transition and gave "incomplete information" about those discussions to Vice President Mike Pence. The vice president, apparently relying on information from Flynn, initially said the national security adviser had not discussed sanctions with the Russian envoy, though Flynn later conceded the issue may have come up.

The revelations were another destabilizing blow to an administration that has already suffered a major legal defeat, botched the implementation of a signature policy and stumbled through a string of embarrassing public relations missteps.

"Destabilizing blow"? If anything, it is to the administration's credit they got rid of Flynn now before he did even more damage. Unlike the Obama administration, which kept Attorney General Eric Holder through multiple scandals, at least President Trump seems willing to jettison the garbage.

On the bright side, Steve Bannon is still serving on the National Security Council. Sleep easy, America.

In other news...

The Mercury News:

Oroville Dam: Feds and state officials ignored warnings 12 years ago

More than a decade ago, federal and state officials and some of California’s largest water agencies rejected concerns that the massive earthen spillway at Oroville Dam — at risk of collapse Sunday night and prompting the evacuation of 185,000 people — could erode during heavy winter rains and cause a catastrophe.

Three environmental groups — the Friends of the River, the Sierra Club and the South Yuba Citizens League — filed a motion with the federal government on Oct. 17, 2005, as part of Oroville Dam’s relicensing process, urging federal officials to require that the dam’s emergency spillway be armored with concrete, rather than remain as an earthen hillside.

The groups filed the motion with FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. They said that the dam, built and owned by the state of California, and finished in 1968, did not meet modern safety standards because in the event of extreme rain and flooding, fast-rising water would overwhelm the main concrete spillway, then flow down the emergency spillway, and that could cause heavy erosion that would create flooding for communities downstream, but also could cause a failure, known as “loss of crest control.”

FERC rejected that request, however, after the state Department of Water Resources, and the water agencies that would likely have had to pay the bill for the upgrades, said they were unnecessary. Those agencies included the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which provides water to 19 million people in Los Angeles, San Diego and other areas, along with the State Water Contractors, an association of 27 agencies that buy water from the state of California through the State Water Project. The association includes the Metropolitan Water District, Kern County Water Agency, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Alameda County Water District.

Federal officials at the time said that the emergency spillway was designed to handle 350,000 cubic feet per second and the concerns were overblown.

This is what happens when federal and local governments come together to guess wrong. Of course, the idea that the Sierra Club is telling you they want concrete on the spillway instead of natural "earthen hillside" should have been a huge tipoff. When the enviro-nazis care more about safety than nature, that should be a red flag that even a careless government bureaucrat should recognize.

In more "dam" news...

The Mercury News: 

Oroville Dam: Gov. Jerry Brown requests direct federal aid “to save lives”

Holding his first news conference since the threat of flooding at Lake Oroville forced more than 180,000 Californians to evacuate their homes on Sunday, California Gov. Jerry Brown assured citizens that the state was doing everything it could “to make sure we have a safe dam up there and all the other places where we have these kind of potential threats.”

“We live in a world of risk,” Brown said, referencing the collapse of the Bay Bridge after the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. “Stuff happens, and we respond.”

The governor also on Monday sent a letter to the White House requesting direct federal assistance for some 10,000 evacuees from Butte, Sutter and Yuba counties.

What moxie! The state of California is doing everything it can! Rolling up its sleeves, and getting to work on this situation...by calling the federal government for help.

These are the same people who will be leading a potentially seceded California nation? They are so screwed.