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.