Let's begin by talking about the Washington Post story that purportedly revealed that President Trump disclosed "highly classified information" to the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador. Then, we'll address the leaked memo penned by fired FBI Director James Comey that indicated that Trump asked him to back off investigating former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, whom you will recall resigned from his post after it was revealed that he had lied to Vice President Pence regarding communications with Russian leaders. Finally, we'll turn our attention to the appointment of a special counsel to lead the investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
First up, the WaPo story. It asserted that, in a meeting with the two Russian diplomats, Trump disclosed "highly classified information" regarding potential terror threats. That intel was purportedly provided by a U.S. ally with significant knowledge of terror threats, particularly related to ISIS, Syria and Iran.
The WaPo story went on to name the threat disclosed: that terrorists may use laptop computers and tablets carried on board flights to hide bombs that could be detonated in mid-air.
Here's the problem: if WaPo knows the specific threat, how is it "highly classified information?" Moreover, by publishing the story, didn't WaPo itself disclose that information to the world, including the terrorists, any of whom could google the WaPo story and find the threat that we've learned of?
Critical thinking is clearly dead. Because the people who lap this story up like mother's milk don't think about things like that.
Further, what's wrong with a President sharing that information with any other country that might aid in the fight against the spread of terror? (Recall that a Russian jetliner was downed by terrorists in 2015; they might have a vested interest in this.) For that matter, what's wrong with sharing it with all of us? I fly a lot; I'd like to know what threats are in the air, literally.
In fact, the WaPo story rightly noted that no laws were likely broken, as the POTUS has broad powers to disclose information, determining on the fly whether it's classified or not. It would be a different matter entirely if he had told the Russians what our nuclear response times were, as Hillary Clinton did when she announced them to the world during a debate last fall. Of course, that was a non-event in the mainstream media.
Moreover, in March - well before the meeting between Trump and the Russian diplomats - both the US and UK implemented bans on laptops and tablets in carry-on luggage on flights originating from a handful of Middle Eastern and North African airports. So the threat was known to all at that point, or at least to all who pay attention to such things.
The story went on to note that the ally that provided the intel is one that has expressed frustration in the past over the U.S.' handling of intel that country provided.
Again, let's apply that endangered species, critical thinking. One, "in the past" implies that the Obama administration may have played fast and loose with intel that this ally provided. And two, if WaPo knows who the ally is, as its story implies, that casts further doubts on the notion that this information was "highly classified."
But in journalism and partisan politics, if you say it enough times, it starts to feel like the truth.
On to the Comey memo. It was leaked, interestingly enough, after Comey was fired, and was allegedly produced by Comey following a meeting with Trump just after the inauguration. In that meeting, Trump supposedly appealed to Comey to back off the investigation of Flynn (who was fired for lying to the VP about his Russian contacts, not for the content of those communications).
Okay. Have you ever been an employer? If so, you're familiar with the term "disgruntled former employee." As a CEO, I once fired a guy for egregious cause: stealing from the company. He went on to file an arbitration claim against the firm, and to smear the firm's name among its clients.
However, we had him dead to rights, courtesy of incontrovertible evidence that he stupidly left on his computer and in his desk. So he lost his arbitration case. But he did manage to sway a few clients he was close to, that didn't understand the term "disgruntled former employee."
When someone's been fired, it's always prudent to take their allegations against their former employer with a healthy dose of salt, especially if they had every opportunity to disclose those allegations prior to being terminated.
As did Comey. In fact, if he knew, as FBI Director, that Trump had attempted to obstruct justice, and failed to report it, he himself is guilty of a felony. Comey is in a dangerous Catch-22 situation here. He either implicates Trump in an obstruction charge and goes to jail for not disclosing it as soon as he knew of it, or he backs off and admits that he exaggerated the content of the conversation recorded in the memo (which was likely penned after he was fired; after all, he now has time on his hands).
Ah, but those who view Facebook as the font of all truth and knowledge tend to eschew grains of salt. If a fired employee lambastes his former employer, said employer must be guilty as charged.
In defending his decision to fire Comey, Trump called the former FBI Director a "grandstander." The left howled its rage.
So what did Comey do after the memo was leaked? He stated his desire to testify before Congress, not in a closed hearing, as would befit matters of national security, but in a public one. If that's not grandstanding, what is? Sounds to me like an attention-starved disgruntled former employee looking to air his grievances in the court of public opinion. But I have no aversion to salt.
So now Deputy AG Rosenstein, who recommended Comey's termination, has appointed a special counsel, Robert Mueller, to head the Russian investigation. Mueller preceded Comey as FBI Director, appointed by George W. Bush in 2001 and serving through that President's two terms, and two years into President Obama's tenure.
The left smells blood in the water. But it just may be that Rosenstein realizes that this matter has to be put to bed once and for all, and the only way to do it satisfactorily is to appoint a special counsel. (Not prosecutor. Counsel. There's a significant distinction, lost on those who lack the capacity for critical thinking.) No matter; if the special counsel determines that there's no smoking gun, the left will manufacture a conspiracy theory. As an investor, I'd recommend being long tinfoil.
We'll see how it all plays out. In the meantime, since this is the Economic Curmudgeon, after all, let's look at the potential market impact, especially since the Dow sold off by some 370 points today.
Everyone has been drawing parallels to Nixon since Comey was fired, probably because they can't conjure up a defensible Hitler reference.
During the Watergate scandal, the market sold off some 10%. That meets the definition of a correction, nothing more.
If Trump were to be impeached - and I'd place the odds of that at less than 10% at this juncture, notwithstanding the partisan rantings of Chuck Schumer and Maxine Waters - we'd see a similar correction.
But it would be short-lived. We'd then have President Pence, who is more even-keeled than Trump (the understatement of my lifetime), but shares the same pro-business and pro-market positions regarding taxes, regulation, etc. Thus a rebound would ensue, and in the long run, the markets would be fine.
In fact, for the investor, that may be a better scenario. I said a long time ago that a vote for Trump was a vote for Pence, because Trump was likely to do something during his first term to get himself impeached.
Not because he's corrupt - he can't carry Hillary's jockstrap in that regard - but because he's used to functioning as a businessman, where "my way or the highway" rules the day. That doesn't play so well in the political arena, where there are checks and balances.
Now, I don't believe that what's transpired to date will get Trump impeached. But here's the thing: the constant distractions surrounding his presidency impede the policy initiatives that have buoyed the economy and the markets since November 8. (My own portfolio is up well more than the S&P since then. Granted, I'm a better stock-picker than many fund managers, but you still have to give some credit to the anticipation of a return to pro-business policies, after eight years of the opposite.)
There is some debate - most of it partisan - surrounding whether those distractions are self-inflicted or manufactured. For economic purposes, it matters not: regardless their genesis, they impede policy progress, and that is enough to disrupt the markets.
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
Thursday, May 11, 2017
Comeygate
Dear Democrats,
You can NOT feign outrage over the firing of former FBI Director James Comey. He was your villain when, 11 days before the election, he announced that the agency was re-opening its investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails after thousands of them were discovered on Anthony Weiner's laptop.
Der Weiner, as you may recall, is married to top Hillary aide Huma Abedin, who reportedly forwarded said emails to her husband (why would you forward sensitive State Department emails to your spouse?). He also has an infamous inability to keep his namesake in his pants, and was under investigate for sexting with an underage girl.
The emails discovered on his laptop (computer, that is) included the 3,000 or so that Hillary had "inadvertently" deleted and thus was unable to turn over to the FBI, which closed its investigation of her last July.
Comey's announcement that the investigation was being re-opened presumably, according to Democrats, tanked her chances at the White House. As the fable - er, story - goes, that swayed enough people who were planning on voting for her to swing the election in Donald Trump's favor.
Never mind that, nine days later and two days before the election, Comey announced that the investigation of the emails found on Weiner's laptop found nothing to warrant prosecution, which presumably would have swayed those voters back in her favor before the polls opened.
Never mind that on election day, Democrats were swooning over what they believed was an easy win, thus it doesn't seem that many of her supporters were swayed. In fact, her standing in key swing state polls improved in the ten days leading up to the election.
Comey was a pariah among Dems (and Republicans, who believed that back in July he copped out by not recommending prosecution). So much so, that last week, when Comey testified before Congress, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the Democrats' poster children for Post-Election Denial Syndrome (PEDS), grilled him relentlessly, essentially re-prosecuting the election some six months after the votes had been tallied.
Others piled on, from both sides of the aisle, heaping criticism for his handling of the email scandal. Let's just say that he didn't come out smelling like a rose.
So now, dear Democrats, you want to express outrage over the firing of a man you've wanted fired since November. Well, you can't have your cake and eat it, too, no matter how entitled to that you may feel.
So what of this latest round of faux outrage? Well, the prevailing (lack of) wisdom suggests that President Trump fired Comey just as the latter was closing in on some smoking gun linking the former to Russian hackers, whom the Democrats also blame for Hillary's loss.
Never mind that she was a hopelessly flawed candidate. Never mind that everything about her that was uncovered by both the (alleged) Russian hackers and the FBI was undisputed, even by the Dems. (They're just mad she got caught.) Never mind that her campaign strategy sealed the deal for Trump, as she ignored key swing states that he won.
First, let's examine the timing of Comey's firing. Then, we'll look at the justification. After that, we'll consider the apparent reversal from candidate Trump praising Comey to President Trump firing him. Finally, we'll consider Comey's successor.
There is nothing credible to suggest that Comey's FBI was anywhere close to finding some smoking gun linking the Trump campaign to the Russians. Probably because that mythical link does not exist.
However, the firing does follow two things: first, the recent appointment of Comey's boss, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Trump nominated Rosenstein to the role in January.
The Senate finally got around to confirming him on April 25. By a vote of 94-6. If he was going to be such a slam-dunk, why did the Dems put off his confirmation for more than three months? Maybe they were self-medicating for PEDS. More likely, they were smarting over their loss, and wanted to delay key appointments as long as possible. If they'd confirmed Rosenstein back in January, James Comey would likely have been gone then. There goes the timing issue.
So Rosenstein's first order of business was to review the FBI Director's track record. And what he found was a bipolar pattern of "she did it," "no, she didn't," "yes, she did," "no, she didn't" ... All of which took place during an election cycle and raised the specter of FBI meddling, however far-fetched the notion may be. Perception becomes reality, especially in the minds of the delusional.
Rosenstein recommended that Trump fire Comey, and that's exactly what Trump did.
Another thing that immediately preceded Comey's firing was his poor performance in his Congressional testimony last week. After that, I'd lose confidence in the guy, too. When Dianne Feinstein scores points on you, you're not up to the game. That's like Usain Bolt getting smoked by Michael Moore in the 100 meters.
So much for the timing, now for the justification. There's the mis-handling of the email debacle, and the very public announcements of what should probably have been kept under wraps until a definitive conclusion could be reached. There's the poor showing in front of Congress. Again, the cause goes hand-in-hand with the timing. The firing was clearly justified.
Sure, a conspiracy theorist could engage in sufficient conjecture to come up with a nefarious motive. But you could also argue that this whole thing started when the Martians landed at Roswell. No amount of tin-foil speculating can refute the justification for Comey's termination, nor the timing of it.
Next up, Trump's purported reversal of position regarding Comey. Anderson Cooper did his level best to bait Kelly Anne Conway on that matter, at one point asking whether candidate Trump is some fictitious character who longer exists. Stay real, Pony Boy.
So a presidential candidate took a different position after being elected? Pardon me for being jaded by U.S. politics, but that's not exactly ground-breaking. The revered Barack Obama did it. So did every one of his predecessors, going back to George Washington.
Why? Some of it is due to politics, and getting elected. Some of it is due to getting in office and actually having access to real information that isn't available to those of us in the public - other than the savants who know all and see all, thanks to Facebook and Occupy Democrats memes.
And part of it is due to the fact that no executive shows his cards until it's time to play the hand. I know this; I spent 15 years as a CEO. There were people that I knew I was going to have to fire, for good and just cause. But I never telegraphed that to them months in advance. "Hey, Mike, just so you know, I'm going to can you in two months." No, you express confidence in them, all the while documenting the reasons that will justify their termination, which you know is imminent.
Sure, you warn them as their performance deteriorates. And Trump did criticize Comey. No, you don't give them an "Exceeds Expectations" performance rating two months before you fire them for poor performance. That's an invitation for litigation. But Trump didn't do that with Comey.
So you wait until the appropriate time. You may need to keep them around for some reason. You may need to give them one more opportunity to hang themselves - as was the case when Comey testified before Congress last week - before you can say, "See, world? This guy has got to go." Then, every rational person (key word: rational) will understand that the move was necessary. The bottom line is that people who get fired tend to fire themselves, one day at a time.
All of that can be perceived as cruel and dirty. Okay. Business - and politics - can get dirty. But the fact of the matter is, some people need to be fired. It happens. Organizations that refuse to fire underperformers don't thrive. If you don't like it, start your own business. You're not likely to fire yourself. Good luck.
Finally, let's consider Comey's successor. He's a Democrat, and a FOH (Friend of Hillary). Isn't it more likely that he will aggressively pursue any link between the Trump campaign and the nasty ol' Russians than was James Comey, who swung wildly from appearing to be against Hillary, to for her, to against her, to for her, to ... You could hardly call Comey a FOH. Who knows where that man's loyalties lay?
If Trump really removed Comey because Comey was close to finding a smoking gun, wouldn't he have appointed, say, his son-in-law as FBI Director? Someone who would drop the whole Russian thing? No, he appointed a FOH. That speaks volumes - at least to any rational person not suffering from PEDS.
So, dear Democrats, rail if you must. After all, this is just one more manifestation of your condition. Be in denial, feign outrage, gnash your teeth and rend your clothing.
But know this:
Hillary lost. Trump won. And all the angst you can muster will not change that.
You can NOT feign outrage over the firing of former FBI Director James Comey. He was your villain when, 11 days before the election, he announced that the agency was re-opening its investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails after thousands of them were discovered on Anthony Weiner's laptop.
Der Weiner, as you may recall, is married to top Hillary aide Huma Abedin, who reportedly forwarded said emails to her husband (why would you forward sensitive State Department emails to your spouse?). He also has an infamous inability to keep his namesake in his pants, and was under investigate for sexting with an underage girl.
The emails discovered on his laptop (computer, that is) included the 3,000 or so that Hillary had "inadvertently" deleted and thus was unable to turn over to the FBI, which closed its investigation of her last July.
Comey's announcement that the investigation was being re-opened presumably, according to Democrats, tanked her chances at the White House. As the fable - er, story - goes, that swayed enough people who were planning on voting for her to swing the election in Donald Trump's favor.
Never mind that, nine days later and two days before the election, Comey announced that the investigation of the emails found on Weiner's laptop found nothing to warrant prosecution, which presumably would have swayed those voters back in her favor before the polls opened.
Never mind that on election day, Democrats were swooning over what they believed was an easy win, thus it doesn't seem that many of her supporters were swayed. In fact, her standing in key swing state polls improved in the ten days leading up to the election.
Comey was a pariah among Dems (and Republicans, who believed that back in July he copped out by not recommending prosecution). So much so, that last week, when Comey testified before Congress, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the Democrats' poster children for Post-Election Denial Syndrome (PEDS), grilled him relentlessly, essentially re-prosecuting the election some six months after the votes had been tallied.
Others piled on, from both sides of the aisle, heaping criticism for his handling of the email scandal. Let's just say that he didn't come out smelling like a rose.
So now, dear Democrats, you want to express outrage over the firing of a man you've wanted fired since November. Well, you can't have your cake and eat it, too, no matter how entitled to that you may feel.
So what of this latest round of faux outrage? Well, the prevailing (lack of) wisdom suggests that President Trump fired Comey just as the latter was closing in on some smoking gun linking the former to Russian hackers, whom the Democrats also blame for Hillary's loss.
Never mind that she was a hopelessly flawed candidate. Never mind that everything about her that was uncovered by both the (alleged) Russian hackers and the FBI was undisputed, even by the Dems. (They're just mad she got caught.) Never mind that her campaign strategy sealed the deal for Trump, as she ignored key swing states that he won.
First, let's examine the timing of Comey's firing. Then, we'll look at the justification. After that, we'll consider the apparent reversal from candidate Trump praising Comey to President Trump firing him. Finally, we'll consider Comey's successor.
There is nothing credible to suggest that Comey's FBI was anywhere close to finding some smoking gun linking the Trump campaign to the Russians. Probably because that mythical link does not exist.
However, the firing does follow two things: first, the recent appointment of Comey's boss, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Trump nominated Rosenstein to the role in January.
The Senate finally got around to confirming him on April 25. By a vote of 94-6. If he was going to be such a slam-dunk, why did the Dems put off his confirmation for more than three months? Maybe they were self-medicating for PEDS. More likely, they were smarting over their loss, and wanted to delay key appointments as long as possible. If they'd confirmed Rosenstein back in January, James Comey would likely have been gone then. There goes the timing issue.
So Rosenstein's first order of business was to review the FBI Director's track record. And what he found was a bipolar pattern of "she did it," "no, she didn't," "yes, she did," "no, she didn't" ... All of which took place during an election cycle and raised the specter of FBI meddling, however far-fetched the notion may be. Perception becomes reality, especially in the minds of the delusional.
Rosenstein recommended that Trump fire Comey, and that's exactly what Trump did.
Another thing that immediately preceded Comey's firing was his poor performance in his Congressional testimony last week. After that, I'd lose confidence in the guy, too. When Dianne Feinstein scores points on you, you're not up to the game. That's like Usain Bolt getting smoked by Michael Moore in the 100 meters.
So much for the timing, now for the justification. There's the mis-handling of the email debacle, and the very public announcements of what should probably have been kept under wraps until a definitive conclusion could be reached. There's the poor showing in front of Congress. Again, the cause goes hand-in-hand with the timing. The firing was clearly justified.
Sure, a conspiracy theorist could engage in sufficient conjecture to come up with a nefarious motive. But you could also argue that this whole thing started when the Martians landed at Roswell. No amount of tin-foil speculating can refute the justification for Comey's termination, nor the timing of it.
Next up, Trump's purported reversal of position regarding Comey. Anderson Cooper did his level best to bait Kelly Anne Conway on that matter, at one point asking whether candidate Trump is some fictitious character who longer exists. Stay real, Pony Boy.
So a presidential candidate took a different position after being elected? Pardon me for being jaded by U.S. politics, but that's not exactly ground-breaking. The revered Barack Obama did it. So did every one of his predecessors, going back to George Washington.
Why? Some of it is due to politics, and getting elected. Some of it is due to getting in office and actually having access to real information that isn't available to those of us in the public - other than the savants who know all and see all, thanks to Facebook and Occupy Democrats memes.
And part of it is due to the fact that no executive shows his cards until it's time to play the hand. I know this; I spent 15 years as a CEO. There were people that I knew I was going to have to fire, for good and just cause. But I never telegraphed that to them months in advance. "Hey, Mike, just so you know, I'm going to can you in two months." No, you express confidence in them, all the while documenting the reasons that will justify their termination, which you know is imminent.
Sure, you warn them as their performance deteriorates. And Trump did criticize Comey. No, you don't give them an "Exceeds Expectations" performance rating two months before you fire them for poor performance. That's an invitation for litigation. But Trump didn't do that with Comey.
So you wait until the appropriate time. You may need to keep them around for some reason. You may need to give them one more opportunity to hang themselves - as was the case when Comey testified before Congress last week - before you can say, "See, world? This guy has got to go." Then, every rational person (key word: rational) will understand that the move was necessary. The bottom line is that people who get fired tend to fire themselves, one day at a time.
All of that can be perceived as cruel and dirty. Okay. Business - and politics - can get dirty. But the fact of the matter is, some people need to be fired. It happens. Organizations that refuse to fire underperformers don't thrive. If you don't like it, start your own business. You're not likely to fire yourself. Good luck.
Finally, let's consider Comey's successor. He's a Democrat, and a FOH (Friend of Hillary). Isn't it more likely that he will aggressively pursue any link between the Trump campaign and the nasty ol' Russians than was James Comey, who swung wildly from appearing to be against Hillary, to for her, to against her, to for her, to ... You could hardly call Comey a FOH. Who knows where that man's loyalties lay?
If Trump really removed Comey because Comey was close to finding a smoking gun, wouldn't he have appointed, say, his son-in-law as FBI Director? Someone who would drop the whole Russian thing? No, he appointed a FOH. That speaks volumes - at least to any rational person not suffering from PEDS.
So, dear Democrats, rail if you must. After all, this is just one more manifestation of your condition. Be in denial, feign outrage, gnash your teeth and rend your clothing.
But know this:
Hillary lost. Trump won. And all the angst you can muster will not change that.
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
Random Musings from Palm Springs
It's 105 degrees in Palm Springs. But it's a dry heat.
Apparently the heat wherever Hillary Clinton was when she was "interviewed" by Christiane Amanpour wasn't dry, because it seems Hillary might have been suffering from swamp fever. She supposedly took some of the blame for her loss in November, but if you listened to what she actually said, it was hardly an acceptance of responsibility:
"It wasn't a perfect campaign - there is no such thing."
Oh, so your campaign wasn't any worse than any other Presidential candidate's imperfect campaigns have been. So why did you get thumped?
Here are Hillary's top three reasons:
1. FBI Director James Comey's announcement 11 days before the election that the Bureau was re-opening its investigation of her emails (because the FBI found thousands of Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop just prior to Comey's revelation, including those from her first three months as Secretary of State that she had allegedly "lost"). No mention of the fact that two days before the election, Comey announced that those emails had been reviewed, and that they didn't reveal anything substantive that would change his conclusion reached in July that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against her.
If Hillary hadn't "lost" those emails and had just turned everything over to the FBI and cooperated in the investigation to begin with, there would never have been an "October surprise."
2. Russia hacking the DNC's server. No mention of the fact that every email uncovered was true and genuine, including evidence that the Clinton campaign had conspired with the DNC to throw the Democrat primaries in favor of Clinton and against Bernie Sanders, or that Hillary received advance debate questions from the then-DNC Chair.
If Hillary and her cronies hadn't tried to throw the primary, then throw the general election, there would have been nothing to the hacked emails. Maybe they would have been about grandchildren and golf.
3. Misogyny.
Let's look at those points in turn. Hillary claimed in the interview that "a combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off."
Okay, Hillary, so why didn't those people become un-scared off when Comey cleared you two days before the election?
You can't have it both ways. Two days before the election, Comey exonerated you. If people were inclined to vote for you before October 28, then changed their minds because of Comey's announcement that the investigation was being re-opened, they would presumably have changed their minds back two days before the election when he closed that investigation, and they'd have voted for you. But they didn't. There must have been some other reason they didn't.
As for misogyny, America wasn't opposed to electing a woman president. America had elected a black president - twice. America would probably have elected Carly Fiorina over you. Carly Fiorina is a woman. Face it, America just didn't want you.
Hillary stated that if the election had been held on October 27, "I would be your President."
The polls show otherwise.
Her numbers in the key states that Obama won in 2012, but she lost, actually improved between October 28 and November 5, before Comey cleared her. But she still lost. Why?
Because the polls were flawed. Trump supporters didn't want to admit they were voting for Trump for fear of the kind of backlash that we're still seeing to this day. And Hillary failed to campaign in states she took for granted. She lost those states. She turned her back on them, and they turned their backs on her.
She also made a point in the interview of noting that she won the popular vote by three million votes. Congratulations, Madame Secretary. For that, you get a participation trophy and a footnote in history.
Hillary did actually state the reason she lost, though. When asked by Amanpour about being Hillary Clinton, she said, "I can't be anything but who I am."
And that, Ms. Clinton, is precisely why you lost this election (and a previous POTUS bid).
****************************************
Boy, I'm glad my daughter has graduated from college. Because I'm not sure I'd send her now.
A wise friend once described the value of a college education as thus: "College teaches you how to learn."
Not anymore.
Not if learning means learning about ideas and concepts that may disagree with your pre-conceived notions. Not if learning means considering alternate viewpoints and ideals.
America's institutions of higher education used to be laboratories of opposing views, inviting exploration of alternate ways of looking at the world.
Now, they've become little test tubes of socialist thought, where students and professors carry signs in campus protests decrying "fascism," while engaging in the modern-day version of book-burning by protesting against speakers who might espouse opposing views to the point that the speaking engagements have to be cancelled. And they don't even receive a sufficient education to see the irony.
If that's "higher education," no, thank you. I'd rather home-school my kid through college than send him or her to, say, Berkeley. (And I'm damn sure I'd do a better job than those profs could do.)
****************************************
Speaking of James Comey, he testified before Congress today. He comported himself very well. But it's noteworthy that Sen. Dianne Feinstein insisted on spending her allotted time re-prosecuting the election. Hey, Senator, the election is over. Hillary lost. Trump won. Time to move on. Denial is a river in Egypt.
****************************************
"You have a greater chance of being killed by a drunk driver than by a terrorist."
Sheesh. If I had a buck for every time I've heard that statement, I could hire my own mercenary army that would eradicate terrorism within a year.
Statistically speaking, the statement is true. And this, more than anything, speaks to what happens when people who have absolutely no understanding of statistics try to cite them.
Because the statement is also nonsensical.
What's the conclusion? That, because we have a greater chance of being killed by a drunk driver than by a terrorist, we should do nothing about terrorism?
I make a living assessing risk in financial institutions and helping them mitigate those risks. So here's an equivalent statement within that realm:
"You have a greater chance of loss through a data breach than as a result of a branch robbery."
Okay. So financial institutions devote considerable resources to preventing data breaches, including firewalls, threat assessments, penetration testing, and a whole host of other technological defenses about which I don't claim to be an expert.
However, they spend every bit as much - if not more - on branch security, including branch design, video surveillance, alarm systems, cash recyclers, bait money, security guards, training, and more.
In other words, when you're faced with risk, you work to mitigate all of your risks to the best of your ability, not just the risks that have the greatest likelihood. The key is to minimize residual risk: the risk after mitigation efforts are considered.
And when it comes to dying at the hands of a terrorist or dying at the hands of a drunk driver, the residual risk is the same: loss of life.
Apparently the heat wherever Hillary Clinton was when she was "interviewed" by Christiane Amanpour wasn't dry, because it seems Hillary might have been suffering from swamp fever. She supposedly took some of the blame for her loss in November, but if you listened to what she actually said, it was hardly an acceptance of responsibility:
"It wasn't a perfect campaign - there is no such thing."
Oh, so your campaign wasn't any worse than any other Presidential candidate's imperfect campaigns have been. So why did you get thumped?
Here are Hillary's top three reasons:
1. FBI Director James Comey's announcement 11 days before the election that the Bureau was re-opening its investigation of her emails (because the FBI found thousands of Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop just prior to Comey's revelation, including those from her first three months as Secretary of State that she had allegedly "lost"). No mention of the fact that two days before the election, Comey announced that those emails had been reviewed, and that they didn't reveal anything substantive that would change his conclusion reached in July that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against her.
If Hillary hadn't "lost" those emails and had just turned everything over to the FBI and cooperated in the investigation to begin with, there would never have been an "October surprise."
2. Russia hacking the DNC's server. No mention of the fact that every email uncovered was true and genuine, including evidence that the Clinton campaign had conspired with the DNC to throw the Democrat primaries in favor of Clinton and against Bernie Sanders, or that Hillary received advance debate questions from the then-DNC Chair.
If Hillary and her cronies hadn't tried to throw the primary, then throw the general election, there would have been nothing to the hacked emails. Maybe they would have been about grandchildren and golf.
3. Misogyny.
Let's look at those points in turn. Hillary claimed in the interview that "a combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off."
Okay, Hillary, so why didn't those people become un-scared off when Comey cleared you two days before the election?
You can't have it both ways. Two days before the election, Comey exonerated you. If people were inclined to vote for you before October 28, then changed their minds because of Comey's announcement that the investigation was being re-opened, they would presumably have changed their minds back two days before the election when he closed that investigation, and they'd have voted for you. But they didn't. There must have been some other reason they didn't.
As for misogyny, America wasn't opposed to electing a woman president. America had elected a black president - twice. America would probably have elected Carly Fiorina over you. Carly Fiorina is a woman. Face it, America just didn't want you.
Hillary stated that if the election had been held on October 27, "I would be your President."
The polls show otherwise.
Her numbers in the key states that Obama won in 2012, but she lost, actually improved between October 28 and November 5, before Comey cleared her. But she still lost. Why?
Because the polls were flawed. Trump supporters didn't want to admit they were voting for Trump for fear of the kind of backlash that we're still seeing to this day. And Hillary failed to campaign in states she took for granted. She lost those states. She turned her back on them, and they turned their backs on her.
She also made a point in the interview of noting that she won the popular vote by three million votes. Congratulations, Madame Secretary. For that, you get a participation trophy and a footnote in history.
Hillary did actually state the reason she lost, though. When asked by Amanpour about being Hillary Clinton, she said, "I can't be anything but who I am."
And that, Ms. Clinton, is precisely why you lost this election (and a previous POTUS bid).
****************************************
Boy, I'm glad my daughter has graduated from college. Because I'm not sure I'd send her now.
A wise friend once described the value of a college education as thus: "College teaches you how to learn."
Not anymore.
Not if learning means learning about ideas and concepts that may disagree with your pre-conceived notions. Not if learning means considering alternate viewpoints and ideals.
America's institutions of higher education used to be laboratories of opposing views, inviting exploration of alternate ways of looking at the world.
Now, they've become little test tubes of socialist thought, where students and professors carry signs in campus protests decrying "fascism," while engaging in the modern-day version of book-burning by protesting against speakers who might espouse opposing views to the point that the speaking engagements have to be cancelled. And they don't even receive a sufficient education to see the irony.
If that's "higher education," no, thank you. I'd rather home-school my kid through college than send him or her to, say, Berkeley. (And I'm damn sure I'd do a better job than those profs could do.)
****************************************
Speaking of James Comey, he testified before Congress today. He comported himself very well. But it's noteworthy that Sen. Dianne Feinstein insisted on spending her allotted time re-prosecuting the election. Hey, Senator, the election is over. Hillary lost. Trump won. Time to move on. Denial is a river in Egypt.
****************************************
"You have a greater chance of being killed by a drunk driver than by a terrorist."
Sheesh. If I had a buck for every time I've heard that statement, I could hire my own mercenary army that would eradicate terrorism within a year.
Statistically speaking, the statement is true. And this, more than anything, speaks to what happens when people who have absolutely no understanding of statistics try to cite them.
Because the statement is also nonsensical.
What's the conclusion? That, because we have a greater chance of being killed by a drunk driver than by a terrorist, we should do nothing about terrorism?
I make a living assessing risk in financial institutions and helping them mitigate those risks. So here's an equivalent statement within that realm:
"You have a greater chance of loss through a data breach than as a result of a branch robbery."
Okay. So financial institutions devote considerable resources to preventing data breaches, including firewalls, threat assessments, penetration testing, and a whole host of other technological defenses about which I don't claim to be an expert.
However, they spend every bit as much - if not more - on branch security, including branch design, video surveillance, alarm systems, cash recyclers, bait money, security guards, training, and more.
In other words, when you're faced with risk, you work to mitigate all of your risks to the best of your ability, not just the risks that have the greatest likelihood. The key is to minimize residual risk: the risk after mitigation efforts are considered.
And when it comes to dying at the hands of a terrorist or dying at the hands of a drunk driver, the residual risk is the same: loss of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)