This post will be unusually short (for me). I read that the FBI background investigation update on Brett Kavanaugh was to cover current credible allegations. I figured that was the Christine Ford allegation of attempted rape. There have been two other major allegations, and potentially other minor ones.
The Ramirez allegation was that Kavanaugh exposed himself to the young woman at a college party. She was unsure of whether it was actually Brett Kavanaugh and two anti-Trump newspapers (the New Yorker and New York Times) both said they could not find anybody that could corroborate her story. To me, that's not credible.
The Swetnick allegation was that Kavanaugh was present and/or participated in multiple gang rapes at parties as well as spiking punch to get potential victims drunk. Swetnick was a college student who reportedly attended these high school parties at least 10 times. Including one instance where she alleges she was the gang rape victim. Again no corroboration. Why would a college woman attend high school parties where gang rapes are taking place, multiple times? Again, I don't find the allegation credible.
Yet media reports this morning state that the FBI has already tried to contact Ramirez and Swetnick to inquire about their allegations. Maybe when they get details, they will find them not credible and discontinue their inquiries.
On the other hand, this potentially opens the investigation up to all non-curricular activities of Brett Kavanaugh in high school and college. And potential interviews with anybody that knew Brett Kavanaugh or attended any party or non-school functions. That is a ridiculously broad investigation and would require a ridiculous amount of resources to do it right.
Its like a Russian collusion investigation into the 2016 presidential election turning into decade old tax evasion and money laundering investigations involving Ukraine. Unlimited.
I cannot believe the republicans in the Senate expected an unlimited investigation, even if it is supposed to last only 7 days.
Saturday, September 29, 2018
Kavanaugh Nightmare Continued - BI
I thought the saga of dragging Brett Kavanaugh through the mud was about over. Yesterday morning, Senator Flake had said he was going to vote yes for confirmation. Then came his confrontation in an elevator, shown on national media, with a woman berating him for his position. A little time later his position became he would vote to move the nomination out of committee but would only vote for Kavanaugh if the FBI did a background investigation on current credible charges against Kavanaugh. Apparently he and Senator Murkowski went to Mitch McConnell and pointed out he wouldn't get his 50 votes without an FBI investigation.
Almost immediately, it was announced that President Trump was directing the FBI to do a limited, supplemental background investigation (BI) into current credible allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. He limited the investigation to 7 days. So we have another week for democrats to come up with another valid reason for not voting on Brett Kavanaugh.
What follows is purely my own thoughts and conjecture about what has happened and what will happen.
First, I want to address Jeff Flake and his potential motivation. In the past, he's been rabidly anti-Trump. There is no doubt he wants to stick it to the President. That would mean a no vote on Kavanaugh. On the other hand, people say good things about him personally, so I assume he does not want to hurt somebody he doesn't have a grudge against, such as Brett Kavanaugh. So I figure he's torn. I don't believe for a minute that he trusts Christine Ford's identification of Kavanaugh as her attacker. Before the viral elevator video, he didn't have an excuse to vote for delay. Then he did, and he took it. He's leaving the Senate, so his electorate and voters don't matter. Only his own conscience.
Senators Murkowski (R), Collins (R), Manchen (D), Donnelly (D), Heitkamp (D) and McCaskill (D) are in different situations. Let's take the democrats first.
These folks are in states that went big time for Trump and they are up for re-election in a few weeks. They have, by voting history, a big preference for going along with the democratic majority. So presumably, they want to vote no. I suspect they don't want to hurt Brett Kavanaugh and his family either, but they don't want him on the Supreme Court. On the other hand, they have to be evaluating the potential effect of this confirmation on their election chances. I suspect, they will only vote yes if they assess their electorate as likelier than not voting them out if they vote no. They are happy for any delay in making this decision.
Senator Murkowski and Senator Collins are obviously female and registered republicans (for those who don't follow politics) and tend to jump the fence and vote for liberal social causes. You never know how they are going to vote. Neither has a really solid republican base in their states. And both tend to vote for feminist issues. Somehow, Brett Kavanaugh is considered anti-abortion and women, though his record is contrary to that media position. Their party allegiance is less than that of their counterpart democrats, that I just mentioned. But I believe they want to vote yes for Kavanaugh. On the other hand, they worry about their reputation with their women voters. A delay gives them more time to assess their options, and it potentially could provide a stronger case for Kavanaugh and a better argument for voting yes.
So, if no additional negative information were to come out in the next 7 days, Kavanaugh would likely get confirmed. If there is any additional credible allegations or information, either from the FBI or via the media, his chances get worse and worse.
For example, yesterday I said their was no statute of limitations in Maryland for attempted rape. Today, I learned in 1982 there was. Attempted rape was a misdemeanor with a 1 year statute of limitation. Brett Kavanaugh couldn't be charged, or at least tried, for any assault in 1982. But the Montgomery County Chief of Police and State Prosecutor said they would be willing to investigate if anyone filed criminal charges. They are democrats and wouldn't be restricted to any 7-day limit. Since there would be no trial and no discovery, their investigation wouldn't have to reveal any information suggesting the innocence of Brett Kavanaugh. I suspect the anti-Trump lawyers for Christine Ford will try to get her to file charges.
Then there is the FBI background investigation. I've undergone background investigations about every five years for my previous security clearances. Since I've had nothing bad on my record, they have been routine. You fill out a long, very long questionnaire about your history and potentially bad events. You get interviewed by an investigator. And they ask questions of your neighbors, friends and others identified in your history.
I can only presume what they would do with a criminal allegation where a charge was never filed. I would presume they would interview the accuser and anyone he/she identified as being involved or having knowledge of the alleged crime. I would further assume they would investigate, to the extent resources allowed, the motivation and credibility of the accuser and witnesses. In most background investigations, the interviews are conducted by agents in the respective localities involved and I believe their reports are aggregated and assessed as a package. You don't have one detective like you do on TV that makes it their life ending motivation to bring a criminal to justice.
On the other hand, I suspect the FBI will not make this a typical background investigation. They will assign more resources than normal and the process and reports will get more scrutiny. I suspect they will still not have subpoena power to force anyone to talk or produce non-public records. However, anyone that does communicate with the FBI or their agents will be under penalty of perjury, just as they were with the Judiciary Committee's investigators.
But if Christine Ford and/or her lawyers don't want to provide information, such as polygraph records or therapy notes, the FBI won't have that information. If Christine Ford and/or her lawyers have any concern about an in-depth forensic discussion, they will not make her available for further interviews. If she does an interview, I would expect her lawyers to be present and for her to have further memory lapses about anything having to do with polygraphs, therapy, or assault details that could be disproved.
But I could be wrong on that. During Friday's hearing, it appeared Christine Ford's team had limited the committee's access to information, attempted to mislead the committee, and crafted the event to avoid any serious questioning. I don't think the FBI will get access to any additional information from Ford or her attorneys. They may be able to talk to people she's discussed the event with (from 2012 to today), but that is hearsay and those folks would have their own credibility issues. My guess is the FBI won't try to talk to anyone but the therapists and the polygrapher, and I think both will decline based on confidentiality claims.
The FBI will likely talk to the other people Ms. Ford identified as being at the party. They've already made on-the-record statements on penalty of perjury, so it is unlikely they can do more than elaborate. Ms. Ford's female friend could say how she never knew of Ms. Ford lying about anything, something like that.
One thing I do not know is how much investigator personal opinion on the credibility of an interviewee is allowed by the FBI. My guess, personal opinion is allowed on the 302's. I'm sure they prefer to have evidence of lying or dissembling when the agent questions credibility, but my guess is they allow opinion and expect the people evaluating the 302's to assign their own level of trust in the agent's opinion. With recent evidence of FBI prejudice against Trump and for Clinton, this throws a lot of uncertainty into what those 302's will say.
By the way, Privacy Laws are going to theoretically prevent any release of information in the background investigation to the public. I'm assuming the whole package will be transmitted to the Judiciary Committee, but like with Ms. Ford's letter in the previous package, they may black out key information. And like with Ms. Ford's letter that requested confidentiality, I'm guessing any negative findings will be leaked to the press, with everyone declaring they didn't do it.
My best guess is that the FBI will report an inability to access additional information on Ms. Ford's accusation and cannot therefore assess her credibility with any confidence. They may highlight the relative friendships of the witnesses and highlight any probable memory losses due to medical issues over the years. One would expect, with unbiased agents, and the previous difficulties encountered by committee investigators, that the FBI supplemental BI will be unable to confirm that a crime was committed and cannot add any significant additional information on the allegation.
But I don't think that is the only event that will appear in the media over the next week. Montgomery County in Maryland may open an investigation if Ms. Ford's lawyers can convince her to file charges. The media will be doing their best to find additional people (with corroborating witnesses) that will make additional allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. Do you think that the anti-Trump resistance cannot come up with two progressives willing to make an allegation for money? It can take some time to find people associated in some way with Brett Kavanaugh. But the delays in confirmation are continuing, and that time is increasing.
As you've seen, statements by just about everyone that knows Brett Kavanaugh that he's not the kind of person to treat anyone badly and statements that refute charges and even the actual get together are not enough to get him a vote. All there has to be is an allegation of misconduct, and they put off the voting. Further, they drag Brett Kavanaugh's reputation through the mud in the media.
This is wrong. Our society cannot continue in this fashion.
Almost immediately, it was announced that President Trump was directing the FBI to do a limited, supplemental background investigation (BI) into current credible allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. He limited the investigation to 7 days. So we have another week for democrats to come up with another valid reason for not voting on Brett Kavanaugh.
What follows is purely my own thoughts and conjecture about what has happened and what will happen.
First, I want to address Jeff Flake and his potential motivation. In the past, he's been rabidly anti-Trump. There is no doubt he wants to stick it to the President. That would mean a no vote on Kavanaugh. On the other hand, people say good things about him personally, so I assume he does not want to hurt somebody he doesn't have a grudge against, such as Brett Kavanaugh. So I figure he's torn. I don't believe for a minute that he trusts Christine Ford's identification of Kavanaugh as her attacker. Before the viral elevator video, he didn't have an excuse to vote for delay. Then he did, and he took it. He's leaving the Senate, so his electorate and voters don't matter. Only his own conscience.
Senators Murkowski (R), Collins (R), Manchen (D), Donnelly (D), Heitkamp (D) and McCaskill (D) are in different situations. Let's take the democrats first.
These folks are in states that went big time for Trump and they are up for re-election in a few weeks. They have, by voting history, a big preference for going along with the democratic majority. So presumably, they want to vote no. I suspect they don't want to hurt Brett Kavanaugh and his family either, but they don't want him on the Supreme Court. On the other hand, they have to be evaluating the potential effect of this confirmation on their election chances. I suspect, they will only vote yes if they assess their electorate as likelier than not voting them out if they vote no. They are happy for any delay in making this decision.
Senator Murkowski and Senator Collins are obviously female and registered republicans (for those who don't follow politics) and tend to jump the fence and vote for liberal social causes. You never know how they are going to vote. Neither has a really solid republican base in their states. And both tend to vote for feminist issues. Somehow, Brett Kavanaugh is considered anti-abortion and women, though his record is contrary to that media position. Their party allegiance is less than that of their counterpart democrats, that I just mentioned. But I believe they want to vote yes for Kavanaugh. On the other hand, they worry about their reputation with their women voters. A delay gives them more time to assess their options, and it potentially could provide a stronger case for Kavanaugh and a better argument for voting yes.
So, if no additional negative information were to come out in the next 7 days, Kavanaugh would likely get confirmed. If there is any additional credible allegations or information, either from the FBI or via the media, his chances get worse and worse.
For example, yesterday I said their was no statute of limitations in Maryland for attempted rape. Today, I learned in 1982 there was. Attempted rape was a misdemeanor with a 1 year statute of limitation. Brett Kavanaugh couldn't be charged, or at least tried, for any assault in 1982. But the Montgomery County Chief of Police and State Prosecutor said they would be willing to investigate if anyone filed criminal charges. They are democrats and wouldn't be restricted to any 7-day limit. Since there would be no trial and no discovery, their investigation wouldn't have to reveal any information suggesting the innocence of Brett Kavanaugh. I suspect the anti-Trump lawyers for Christine Ford will try to get her to file charges.
Then there is the FBI background investigation. I've undergone background investigations about every five years for my previous security clearances. Since I've had nothing bad on my record, they have been routine. You fill out a long, very long questionnaire about your history and potentially bad events. You get interviewed by an investigator. And they ask questions of your neighbors, friends and others identified in your history.
I can only presume what they would do with a criminal allegation where a charge was never filed. I would presume they would interview the accuser and anyone he/she identified as being involved or having knowledge of the alleged crime. I would further assume they would investigate, to the extent resources allowed, the motivation and credibility of the accuser and witnesses. In most background investigations, the interviews are conducted by agents in the respective localities involved and I believe their reports are aggregated and assessed as a package. You don't have one detective like you do on TV that makes it their life ending motivation to bring a criminal to justice.
On the other hand, I suspect the FBI will not make this a typical background investigation. They will assign more resources than normal and the process and reports will get more scrutiny. I suspect they will still not have subpoena power to force anyone to talk or produce non-public records. However, anyone that does communicate with the FBI or their agents will be under penalty of perjury, just as they were with the Judiciary Committee's investigators.
But if Christine Ford and/or her lawyers don't want to provide information, such as polygraph records or therapy notes, the FBI won't have that information. If Christine Ford and/or her lawyers have any concern about an in-depth forensic discussion, they will not make her available for further interviews. If she does an interview, I would expect her lawyers to be present and for her to have further memory lapses about anything having to do with polygraphs, therapy, or assault details that could be disproved.
But I could be wrong on that. During Friday's hearing, it appeared Christine Ford's team had limited the committee's access to information, attempted to mislead the committee, and crafted the event to avoid any serious questioning. I don't think the FBI will get access to any additional information from Ford or her attorneys. They may be able to talk to people she's discussed the event with (from 2012 to today), but that is hearsay and those folks would have their own credibility issues. My guess is the FBI won't try to talk to anyone but the therapists and the polygrapher, and I think both will decline based on confidentiality claims.
The FBI will likely talk to the other people Ms. Ford identified as being at the party. They've already made on-the-record statements on penalty of perjury, so it is unlikely they can do more than elaborate. Ms. Ford's female friend could say how she never knew of Ms. Ford lying about anything, something like that.
One thing I do not know is how much investigator personal opinion on the credibility of an interviewee is allowed by the FBI. My guess, personal opinion is allowed on the 302's. I'm sure they prefer to have evidence of lying or dissembling when the agent questions credibility, but my guess is they allow opinion and expect the people evaluating the 302's to assign their own level of trust in the agent's opinion. With recent evidence of FBI prejudice against Trump and for Clinton, this throws a lot of uncertainty into what those 302's will say.
By the way, Privacy Laws are going to theoretically prevent any release of information in the background investigation to the public. I'm assuming the whole package will be transmitted to the Judiciary Committee, but like with Ms. Ford's letter in the previous package, they may black out key information. And like with Ms. Ford's letter that requested confidentiality, I'm guessing any negative findings will be leaked to the press, with everyone declaring they didn't do it.
My best guess is that the FBI will report an inability to access additional information on Ms. Ford's accusation and cannot therefore assess her credibility with any confidence. They may highlight the relative friendships of the witnesses and highlight any probable memory losses due to medical issues over the years. One would expect, with unbiased agents, and the previous difficulties encountered by committee investigators, that the FBI supplemental BI will be unable to confirm that a crime was committed and cannot add any significant additional information on the allegation.
But I don't think that is the only event that will appear in the media over the next week. Montgomery County in Maryland may open an investigation if Ms. Ford's lawyers can convince her to file charges. The media will be doing their best to find additional people (with corroborating witnesses) that will make additional allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. Do you think that the anti-Trump resistance cannot come up with two progressives willing to make an allegation for money? It can take some time to find people associated in some way with Brett Kavanaugh. But the delays in confirmation are continuing, and that time is increasing.
As you've seen, statements by just about everyone that knows Brett Kavanaugh that he's not the kind of person to treat anyone badly and statements that refute charges and even the actual get together are not enough to get him a vote. All there has to be is an allegation of misconduct, and they put off the voting. Further, they drag Brett Kavanaugh's reputation through the mud in the media.
This is wrong. Our society cannot continue in this fashion.
Friday, September 28, 2018
Kavanaugh vs the US Senate's Judiciary Committee
The Judiciary Committe's hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination for the US Supreme Court have left me very unhappy. I don't like the borking he received or the disrespectful in-committee protesters. But the allegations of attempted rape, exposing himself, and then conspiracy to commit gang rape--all at the last minute and unsubstantiated--infuriated me.
I was also irritated by my wife during the whole episode. She would watch the NBC or CBS evening news and then make comments like "Kavanaugh really screwed up." I told her the allegations were ridiculous and that the party attendees said it didn't happen, and I asked her to read some articles on the allegations. She refused, and at one point said something like "... all men behave horribly, except you." Predictably, the qualifier didn't make me feel any better. Subsequent discussions made me suspect she thinks rich, powerful men all misbehave, and not the people we know. I know she has a lot of male friends at work, and has never given even a hint of any sexual misconduct that she has observed. My conclusion was that the media propaganda against Kavanaugh was having an impact.
So, like much of the nation, I watched the Ford and Kavanaugh hearing yesterday. And there were a lot of things about the day's events that really bothered me.
First, I learned there is a process to confidentially issues handle raised about a candidate that doesn't involve an open hearing. Christine Ford wanted to keep her accusation confidential. Diane Feinstein didn't pursue the confidential process, but waited till just before the first vote after the hearings to raise the complaint. I'm leaving out a lot about how despicably I think the democratic members of the committee behaved.
Next, there's the fact that attempted rape apparently does not have a statue of limitations in Maryland. I think every woman that is sexually assaulted or abused should report the incident when it happens. Not doing so lets the offender off the hook and potentially allows him/her to continue the behavior and assault or harass someone else. Yeah, I know reporting this type of crime is difficult, and I theoretically understand why some women (or men) do not. But even if there is not enough evidence for a trial or conviction, the event is available as supporting a pattern of behavior for the next victim.
But back to my point. I was surprised there is no statute of limitations in this type of crime. She could still report the crime to the local Maryland police department where it occurred and get the investigation she and all the democrats on the committee say they want. Why doesn't she?
This line of thought leads me to my next point. There was too much information suppressed at the hearing. I don't think a police investigation was likely to reveal that information, as I don't think they could find any corroborating evidence to lead to a full scale court case with discovery and full cross examination. But there is the chance that a prosecutor could still bring it to trial. We've seen a lot of politically motivated trials in the past few years where there did not seem sufficient evidence to proceed. But a real trial would give the defense the opportunity, through discovery, to view evidence that brings into question Christine Ford's accusations.
Evidence such as her statements in couple's therapy and individual therapy that were not provided to the committee. What was her story then? What did she say about her memory of who assaulted her? You would think that just relevant parts of her therapy discussions could have been presented. But then maybe they would have shown more problems with mental issues? I prefer to assume that they likely showed she didn't know who her attacker was at the time or that her account of the event was significantly different.
Then there is the polygraph test recording and list of questions. All the committee was given was the polygrapher's conclusion that she answered two questions truthfully and that she verified the truthfulness of her hand-written story that day. Yesterday we found out the polygrapher was paid by the liberal pro-bono attorneys Christine Ford 'hired'. Way too much information being withheld. It's even worse when Ford described the questioning as lengthy and emotional, yet the report says they only asked her two relevant questions.
Then there's the whole episode about Ford not understanding that the committee offered to send investigators or come itself to California to interview her. Instead, she insisted on a delayed interview in DC, because, according to her lawyers, she was afraid to fly. Yet she flys frequently for work and vacation. Worse to me was her response to the republican questioner, Ms. Mitchell, when she first asked about whether she flew to DC for yesterday's inquiry. She said she had a lot of encouragement from friends helping her to fly. The subsequent revelations of frequent flying suggested strongly that she was attempting to dissemble or mislead the audience. This is even inconsistent with an assumption that her liberal lawyers had their own agenda and didn't properly inform her of the committee's offers or that they were the ones providing the fear-of-flying excuse. Ms. Ford made it obvious she was also being misleading.
Before getting to her actual story, let me point out that the four people she identified as being at the party all say they have no memory of such a gathering. Her female friend went further and said she had never met Brett Kavanaugh. These people don't just say that Brett did not assault the female, they claim there was never a get together like the one described by Christine Ford. And her good female friend says she never met or knew Brett Kavanaugh, one of only four guys at a small get together.
Now, if these folks had been talking to a reporter, you might believe you could impeach their 'testimony.' The boys probably felt some sympathy for their friend. Christine Ford says her female friend has medical issues. But they weren't talking to a reporter. They made the statements on penalty of felony--making false statements to the U.S. Senate. If they wanted to help their friends, and avoid legal jeopardy, they should have simply stated that they don't remember anything about such a party. Instead, they said no such party took place, and even that the female friend had never met Brett Kavanaugh.
Their on-record statements directly refute the story that Christine Ford told. This is why there should never have been any public hearings. Some democrat involved released Christine's Ford name to the media, the democrat's on the committee demanded a hearing, and the statements contradicting Ford came to light after the republicans were committed to a hearing.
Now back to Christine Ford's testimony and story. First, let's address the 'thorough' exploration of Ms. Ford's story. The democratic senator's toughest question was to what degree of certainty Mr. Ford believed Brett Kavanaugh was her assaulter. She answered 100%. All of the rest of the democratic time was taken up speaking about how heroic she was or asserting that they needed an FBI investigation to determine the facts.
The republican senators opted to have Ms. Ford questioned by Ms. Mitchell, a prosecutor involved with sexual assault crimes. This was probably their best option as plenty of pre-inquiry media discussion involved the fact that it was going to look like 11 old white men were going to attack the credibility of a helpless female. But the rather innocuous list of questions Ms. Mitchell asked did not lead to any significant impeachment of Ms. Ford's testimony. Sure, she found false-hoods, pointed out some of the unlikely representations, and showed some evidence of liberal/progressive involvement in supporting her presentation. But she never made any pointed accusations or highlighted what the answers meant. It was like a deposition, rather than the public trial or roasting that was meant to convict or clear Brett Kavanaugh of allegations of attempted rape. Sure, they all claimed this was just a job interview, but polls show that up to 50% of the public think he committed attempted rape. That's not the outcome of a job interview.
As I suspected, she gave a summary of her 'findings' to the committee later that evening out of camera view. Apparently she told them Ms. Ford's story was not enough to file charges or even get a warrant. But the public hearing wasn't just about gathering info for the republican senators, it was about the public's view of the behavior of a man nominated for the Supreme Court. If the public believed he was guilty, it wouldn't matter what the individual senators believed, they would vote the way that would keep them in office.
So, there was no effective cross examination or even thorough inquiry into Ms. Ford's story. Here are my thoughts.
First, she seemed very sincere in describing a story of assault. I believe she was assaulted at some time in her youth, and she used those memories to support her earnestness. I do not believe she was assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh, though she may have come to that conclusion. But she was never asked about how often she had met Brett Kavanaugh or why she was able to identify him. When asked about who introduced her to Brett Kavanaugh, she refused to identify the person. Why? Ms. Mitchell did no questioning on the identification of the attacker. And this seems to be the obvious line of questioning. The one thing she remembers, but no questions?
At this point, I also want to highlight something else that was never in the record. All of her social media was scrubbed. I don't do a lot of social media, but most people do. If she did not use social media, why not just explain it. But she was reported to have marched once and signed a petition once recently involving anti-Trump resistance. One may assume that there was derogatory behavior in her social media, whether anti-Trump, progressive, or showing personal behavior that would not have reflected well on her believability. But no questions were asked.
If she was anti-Trump or pro-resistance, it would help to explain a false identification of Brett Kavanaugh. But we aren't even given the opportunity of learning about such a motivation.
Now the story itself. I understand having a bad memory about events from 36 years ago. But there's some behavior that most people would expect. Like a 15 year old does not go to a party by herself. In this case, we have the implication that her female friend accompanied or met her there. I don't know about you, but I walked to parties on campus and drove to others. The few times I went to gatherings or events when I was younger, I either got dropped off and picked up by friends or family. Someone had to have been there to help her get there and home. Though this is a national event, and no one has come forward.
So she's at a small party and is assaulted. She doesn't approach or get her friend's help. Doesn't warn her about the guys' behavior. Doesn't get her assistance in going home. And doesn't say anything to her good friend about what happened. Further, her friend doesn't notice or inquire about her absence, nor note and inquire about subsequent behavior that Ms. Ford describes as having ruined her life for four to five years. And now, her friend says no such get together ever happened and she has not met Brett Kavanaugh.
Her friend's statement didn't even note that she had observed any change in Ms. Ford's behavior during that period of time that might have been explained by a traumatic assault.
The whole setup prevented any thorough questioning of Ms. Ford's account, including avoiding an off-camera in-depth forensic interview. Much of the supposedly supporting evidence (therapy transcripts and polygraph recording) were not available to the committee or the public. Almost no background information is available on Ms. Ford, other than typical resume facts, that would allow a reviewer to assess the likelihood of other motivations for her story.
We are asked to believe she is telling the truth just because she was earnest and believable on the stand. But the others' that she claims were at the party assert there never was such a party.
I believe Kavanaugh was unjustly smeared. He was not given the opportunity to question his accuser, and the process prevented anyone else from doing so. I believe Brett Kavanaugh is a good man and should be confirmed as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
I was also irritated by my wife during the whole episode. She would watch the NBC or CBS evening news and then make comments like "Kavanaugh really screwed up." I told her the allegations were ridiculous and that the party attendees said it didn't happen, and I asked her to read some articles on the allegations. She refused, and at one point said something like "... all men behave horribly, except you." Predictably, the qualifier didn't make me feel any better. Subsequent discussions made me suspect she thinks rich, powerful men all misbehave, and not the people we know. I know she has a lot of male friends at work, and has never given even a hint of any sexual misconduct that she has observed. My conclusion was that the media propaganda against Kavanaugh was having an impact.
So, like much of the nation, I watched the Ford and Kavanaugh hearing yesterday. And there were a lot of things about the day's events that really bothered me.
First, I learned there is a process to confidentially issues handle raised about a candidate that doesn't involve an open hearing. Christine Ford wanted to keep her accusation confidential. Diane Feinstein didn't pursue the confidential process, but waited till just before the first vote after the hearings to raise the complaint. I'm leaving out a lot about how despicably I think the democratic members of the committee behaved.
Next, there's the fact that attempted rape apparently does not have a statue of limitations in Maryland. I think every woman that is sexually assaulted or abused should report the incident when it happens. Not doing so lets the offender off the hook and potentially allows him/her to continue the behavior and assault or harass someone else. Yeah, I know reporting this type of crime is difficult, and I theoretically understand why some women (or men) do not. But even if there is not enough evidence for a trial or conviction, the event is available as supporting a pattern of behavior for the next victim.
But back to my point. I was surprised there is no statute of limitations in this type of crime. She could still report the crime to the local Maryland police department where it occurred and get the investigation she and all the democrats on the committee say they want. Why doesn't she?
This line of thought leads me to my next point. There was too much information suppressed at the hearing. I don't think a police investigation was likely to reveal that information, as I don't think they could find any corroborating evidence to lead to a full scale court case with discovery and full cross examination. But there is the chance that a prosecutor could still bring it to trial. We've seen a lot of politically motivated trials in the past few years where there did not seem sufficient evidence to proceed. But a real trial would give the defense the opportunity, through discovery, to view evidence that brings into question Christine Ford's accusations.
Evidence such as her statements in couple's therapy and individual therapy that were not provided to the committee. What was her story then? What did she say about her memory of who assaulted her? You would think that just relevant parts of her therapy discussions could have been presented. But then maybe they would have shown more problems with mental issues? I prefer to assume that they likely showed she didn't know who her attacker was at the time or that her account of the event was significantly different.
Then there is the polygraph test recording and list of questions. All the committee was given was the polygrapher's conclusion that she answered two questions truthfully and that she verified the truthfulness of her hand-written story that day. Yesterday we found out the polygrapher was paid by the liberal pro-bono attorneys Christine Ford 'hired'. Way too much information being withheld. It's even worse when Ford described the questioning as lengthy and emotional, yet the report says they only asked her two relevant questions.
Then there's the whole episode about Ford not understanding that the committee offered to send investigators or come itself to California to interview her. Instead, she insisted on a delayed interview in DC, because, according to her lawyers, she was afraid to fly. Yet she flys frequently for work and vacation. Worse to me was her response to the republican questioner, Ms. Mitchell, when she first asked about whether she flew to DC for yesterday's inquiry. She said she had a lot of encouragement from friends helping her to fly. The subsequent revelations of frequent flying suggested strongly that she was attempting to dissemble or mislead the audience. This is even inconsistent with an assumption that her liberal lawyers had their own agenda and didn't properly inform her of the committee's offers or that they were the ones providing the fear-of-flying excuse. Ms. Ford made it obvious she was also being misleading.
Before getting to her actual story, let me point out that the four people she identified as being at the party all say they have no memory of such a gathering. Her female friend went further and said she had never met Brett Kavanaugh. These people don't just say that Brett did not assault the female, they claim there was never a get together like the one described by Christine Ford. And her good female friend says she never met or knew Brett Kavanaugh, one of only four guys at a small get together.
Now, if these folks had been talking to a reporter, you might believe you could impeach their 'testimony.' The boys probably felt some sympathy for their friend. Christine Ford says her female friend has medical issues. But they weren't talking to a reporter. They made the statements on penalty of felony--making false statements to the U.S. Senate. If they wanted to help their friends, and avoid legal jeopardy, they should have simply stated that they don't remember anything about such a party. Instead, they said no such party took place, and even that the female friend had never met Brett Kavanaugh.
Their on-record statements directly refute the story that Christine Ford told. This is why there should never have been any public hearings. Some democrat involved released Christine's Ford name to the media, the democrat's on the committee demanded a hearing, and the statements contradicting Ford came to light after the republicans were committed to a hearing.
Now back to Christine Ford's testimony and story. First, let's address the 'thorough' exploration of Ms. Ford's story. The democratic senator's toughest question was to what degree of certainty Mr. Ford believed Brett Kavanaugh was her assaulter. She answered 100%. All of the rest of the democratic time was taken up speaking about how heroic she was or asserting that they needed an FBI investigation to determine the facts.
The republican senators opted to have Ms. Ford questioned by Ms. Mitchell, a prosecutor involved with sexual assault crimes. This was probably their best option as plenty of pre-inquiry media discussion involved the fact that it was going to look like 11 old white men were going to attack the credibility of a helpless female. But the rather innocuous list of questions Ms. Mitchell asked did not lead to any significant impeachment of Ms. Ford's testimony. Sure, she found false-hoods, pointed out some of the unlikely representations, and showed some evidence of liberal/progressive involvement in supporting her presentation. But she never made any pointed accusations or highlighted what the answers meant. It was like a deposition, rather than the public trial or roasting that was meant to convict or clear Brett Kavanaugh of allegations of attempted rape. Sure, they all claimed this was just a job interview, but polls show that up to 50% of the public think he committed attempted rape. That's not the outcome of a job interview.
As I suspected, she gave a summary of her 'findings' to the committee later that evening out of camera view. Apparently she told them Ms. Ford's story was not enough to file charges or even get a warrant. But the public hearing wasn't just about gathering info for the republican senators, it was about the public's view of the behavior of a man nominated for the Supreme Court. If the public believed he was guilty, it wouldn't matter what the individual senators believed, they would vote the way that would keep them in office.
So, there was no effective cross examination or even thorough inquiry into Ms. Ford's story. Here are my thoughts.
First, she seemed very sincere in describing a story of assault. I believe she was assaulted at some time in her youth, and she used those memories to support her earnestness. I do not believe she was assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh, though she may have come to that conclusion. But she was never asked about how often she had met Brett Kavanaugh or why she was able to identify him. When asked about who introduced her to Brett Kavanaugh, she refused to identify the person. Why? Ms. Mitchell did no questioning on the identification of the attacker. And this seems to be the obvious line of questioning. The one thing she remembers, but no questions?
At this point, I also want to highlight something else that was never in the record. All of her social media was scrubbed. I don't do a lot of social media, but most people do. If she did not use social media, why not just explain it. But she was reported to have marched once and signed a petition once recently involving anti-Trump resistance. One may assume that there was derogatory behavior in her social media, whether anti-Trump, progressive, or showing personal behavior that would not have reflected well on her believability. But no questions were asked.
If she was anti-Trump or pro-resistance, it would help to explain a false identification of Brett Kavanaugh. But we aren't even given the opportunity of learning about such a motivation.
Now the story itself. I understand having a bad memory about events from 36 years ago. But there's some behavior that most people would expect. Like a 15 year old does not go to a party by herself. In this case, we have the implication that her female friend accompanied or met her there. I don't know about you, but I walked to parties on campus and drove to others. The few times I went to gatherings or events when I was younger, I either got dropped off and picked up by friends or family. Someone had to have been there to help her get there and home. Though this is a national event, and no one has come forward.
So she's at a small party and is assaulted. She doesn't approach or get her friend's help. Doesn't warn her about the guys' behavior. Doesn't get her assistance in going home. And doesn't say anything to her good friend about what happened. Further, her friend doesn't notice or inquire about her absence, nor note and inquire about subsequent behavior that Ms. Ford describes as having ruined her life for four to five years. And now, her friend says no such get together ever happened and she has not met Brett Kavanaugh.
Her friend's statement didn't even note that she had observed any change in Ms. Ford's behavior during that period of time that might have been explained by a traumatic assault.
The whole setup prevented any thorough questioning of Ms. Ford's account, including avoiding an off-camera in-depth forensic interview. Much of the supposedly supporting evidence (therapy transcripts and polygraph recording) were not available to the committee or the public. Almost no background information is available on Ms. Ford, other than typical resume facts, that would allow a reviewer to assess the likelihood of other motivations for her story.
We are asked to believe she is telling the truth just because she was earnest and believable on the stand. But the others' that she claims were at the party assert there never was such a party.
I believe Kavanaugh was unjustly smeared. He was not given the opportunity to question his accuser, and the process prevented anyone else from doing so. I believe Brett Kavanaugh is a good man and should be confirmed as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
In Defense of Trump
I'm not sure how other people evaluate a person's behavior, but I tend to look at various alternatives and assess which motivation is mostly likely the primary driver.
As a shallow example, I will mention one of my wife's driving habits. First, the background. We bought a house about 14 years back with a limited access, divided 4-lane highway into the city. It's more than a few miles. As the years have gone by, they've built up sub-divisions all along that highway and started adding stop lights at every major entrance. Apparently over-passes are too expensive for this road. Traffic is going slower and slower.
Well, my wife gets exasperated. She'll get in the left lane thinking it will go faster, and it doesn't. So she loudly blames the slow driver in front of her. I look at the line of cars in front of the one she's blaming and point out that driver cannot go any faster than he/she already is.
My quick and dirty point is that you have to look at all the reasons a person will take a certain action in order to properly understand that action. Just because a car is going slow doesn't mean the driver is a slow-poke.
Now to my blog's title, the defense of President Trump. Yesterday, everyone was attacking Trump for not coming down hard on Putin for past election meddling. Unfortunately, I turned on Fox and saw Shepard Smith claiming Trump's behavior was treasonous, and I couldn't watch anything after that. So the logic I'll step through may have some holes due to my not watching the news on this one in depth.
Why might Trump not take a hard position against Putin and Russian election meddling? Could it be that most of the media and lots of social media claim that Russian meddling affected the results of the election and that Hillary Clinton would have won without it? That Russian meddling makes his presidency illegitimate?
I expect that President Trump believes that his campaign was superior to Hillary Clinton's. That Russian meddling changed little or no votes. And that his win and his legitimacy are being wrongly maligned for no good reason.
Further, you have the despised media and most of the government telling him what he has to say and how he has to behave in a meeting with Putin. Would you want to be told what you had to do in an important meeting?
Then take it a step further. Every action he has taken has been opposed by the media and frequently by much or most of his own party. Do you think Trump is the type of person to close-up, play it safe, and avoid controversy? Especially if he thinks he is in the right?
Let's take a few examples of the pressure he's been put under. Supposedly, he is the head of the executive branch of government. He hires an Attorney General he believes will be a defender of his agenda. The AG promptly recuses himself from all things Russian and campaign related. His deputy AG recommends firing the FBI director (which Trump does), then turns around and appoints a Special Prosecutor to investigate all things Russian and campaign related, an old friend. Does Trump have any control over his DOJ? Obviously not.
But it goes further, Congress introduces legislation that will prevent him from firing the AG and deputy AG. His own party indicates support. I assume Trump's advisers say don't fire them or you will be compared to Nixon and impeachment will be a likely outcome. So Trump lives with the Mueller investigation and the media bashing for over a year and a half.
Not only that, but anybody associated with his campaign that appears to have done anything legally questionable in the last decade or two is indicted on charges having nothing to do with Trump.
On a second topic, his immigration actions are stymied by federal judges for a year and a half until the Supreme Court finally says he was right in following the law.
He believes a wall will help limit illegal immigration--that violates our federal laws. But his request for $20 B goes unanswered. He cannot get congress to pass DACA legislation and cannot even get a rider on other bills for the wall. Further, the defense bill included language saying he could not use existing funds for the wall. His own party had to vote to include that language.
As far as I can tell, most of his attempts to reduce regulations have been successful, with the courts and congress being relatively unsuccessful at stopping those actions. However, the media has successfully hounded his cabinet members that have been the most successful at deregulation.
Then there is the world-wide tariff war. Trump is trying to to reduce or eliminate other nations' trade barriers to US imports. Does he get credit for using what little leverage he has? No, he's accused of trying to start a trade war. Do any of the media even talk about those nations' trade barriers? Nope. Does his party support him? Again no, he hears the same criticism from those folks. They even introduce a measure to prevent the president from raising tariffs for national security reasons.
Then there is every trip or summit Trump attends. The media and congress say how bad an idea it is for him to meet with anyone: North Korea, NATO, Germany, England, or Russia. And they tell him how he should behave and what he should say, if he absolutely must meet with them.
What else can I say. Be honest with yourself. Would you imply at a summit with Putin that his meddling got you elected and that your presidency is illegitimate? Sure, I'm sure you think you could walk the line better than Trump and wouldn't appear like a bumbling fool. Perhaps you should throw your hat in the ring for President of the United States?
As a shallow example, I will mention one of my wife's driving habits. First, the background. We bought a house about 14 years back with a limited access, divided 4-lane highway into the city. It's more than a few miles. As the years have gone by, they've built up sub-divisions all along that highway and started adding stop lights at every major entrance. Apparently over-passes are too expensive for this road. Traffic is going slower and slower.
Well, my wife gets exasperated. She'll get in the left lane thinking it will go faster, and it doesn't. So she loudly blames the slow driver in front of her. I look at the line of cars in front of the one she's blaming and point out that driver cannot go any faster than he/she already is.
My quick and dirty point is that you have to look at all the reasons a person will take a certain action in order to properly understand that action. Just because a car is going slow doesn't mean the driver is a slow-poke.
Now to my blog's title, the defense of President Trump. Yesterday, everyone was attacking Trump for not coming down hard on Putin for past election meddling. Unfortunately, I turned on Fox and saw Shepard Smith claiming Trump's behavior was treasonous, and I couldn't watch anything after that. So the logic I'll step through may have some holes due to my not watching the news on this one in depth.
Why might Trump not take a hard position against Putin and Russian election meddling? Could it be that most of the media and lots of social media claim that Russian meddling affected the results of the election and that Hillary Clinton would have won without it? That Russian meddling makes his presidency illegitimate?
I expect that President Trump believes that his campaign was superior to Hillary Clinton's. That Russian meddling changed little or no votes. And that his win and his legitimacy are being wrongly maligned for no good reason.
Further, you have the despised media and most of the government telling him what he has to say and how he has to behave in a meeting with Putin. Would you want to be told what you had to do in an important meeting?
Then take it a step further. Every action he has taken has been opposed by the media and frequently by much or most of his own party. Do you think Trump is the type of person to close-up, play it safe, and avoid controversy? Especially if he thinks he is in the right?
Let's take a few examples of the pressure he's been put under. Supposedly, he is the head of the executive branch of government. He hires an Attorney General he believes will be a defender of his agenda. The AG promptly recuses himself from all things Russian and campaign related. His deputy AG recommends firing the FBI director (which Trump does), then turns around and appoints a Special Prosecutor to investigate all things Russian and campaign related, an old friend. Does Trump have any control over his DOJ? Obviously not.
But it goes further, Congress introduces legislation that will prevent him from firing the AG and deputy AG. His own party indicates support. I assume Trump's advisers say don't fire them or you will be compared to Nixon and impeachment will be a likely outcome. So Trump lives with the Mueller investigation and the media bashing for over a year and a half.
Not only that, but anybody associated with his campaign that appears to have done anything legally questionable in the last decade or two is indicted on charges having nothing to do with Trump.
On a second topic, his immigration actions are stymied by federal judges for a year and a half until the Supreme Court finally says he was right in following the law.
He believes a wall will help limit illegal immigration--that violates our federal laws. But his request for $20 B goes unanswered. He cannot get congress to pass DACA legislation and cannot even get a rider on other bills for the wall. Further, the defense bill included language saying he could not use existing funds for the wall. His own party had to vote to include that language.
As far as I can tell, most of his attempts to reduce regulations have been successful, with the courts and congress being relatively unsuccessful at stopping those actions. However, the media has successfully hounded his cabinet members that have been the most successful at deregulation.
Then there is the world-wide tariff war. Trump is trying to to reduce or eliminate other nations' trade barriers to US imports. Does he get credit for using what little leverage he has? No, he's accused of trying to start a trade war. Do any of the media even talk about those nations' trade barriers? Nope. Does his party support him? Again no, he hears the same criticism from those folks. They even introduce a measure to prevent the president from raising tariffs for national security reasons.
Then there is every trip or summit Trump attends. The media and congress say how bad an idea it is for him to meet with anyone: North Korea, NATO, Germany, England, or Russia. And they tell him how he should behave and what he should say, if he absolutely must meet with them.
What else can I say. Be honest with yourself. Would you imply at a summit with Putin that his meddling got you elected and that your presidency is illegitimate? Sure, I'm sure you think you could walk the line better than Trump and wouldn't appear like a bumbling fool. Perhaps you should throw your hat in the ring for President of the United States?
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Never-Trumpers at Fox and WSJ
First, let me give you some background about my online activities. Obviously, I occasionally write posts for this blog. I don't use or read Twitter. I rarely use Facebook. I've joined a couple of the CDT groups (observing only), and occasionally I view a friend's or relative's posts. I use email and vastly prefer it to my rare texts. You might call me a hermit, and you wouldn't be too far off.
I had an excuse earlier in life. At that time, I was a government employee with a security clearance. I didn't want to risk my employment. Even further, most people with the clearance I had did not want to write about the government or participate in any political activities. Both were thought too much of a risk of accidentally violating rules, regulations or laws, and thus losing your clearance and your job.
Further, I don't like cursing or name calling. I also don't appreciate people that do not tell the truth, either with falsehoods or by omission. And, I have to say it, I don't think much of people that fail to think through the logic of an argument and instead base their decision on emotion or bad data.
So, getting back to my thesis, for the most part I don't use social media. But I tend to read multiple online news sites and blogs to keep up with current events.
Before Trump was elected, I was an avid reader of the Wall Street Journal. I got a couple of years at a reduced price (about $200/yr), but by the time Trump was elected, I was paying $100 per quarter. That hurt. But I really loved the in-depth writing that fully explored the issues under discussion. They seemed to be pretty non-political, though their analysis tended to line up with conservative positions.
After Trump was elected president, the articles seemed to become less non-political. Bret Stephens appeared like a rabid Trump hater, and his articles were actually offensive. I wasn't surprised when he moved to the New York Times. After his first couple of post-election articles, I didn't look at his material again.
But more bothersome was what happened to the Best of the Web, a daily humor column that would start with current events. Before Trump, they had been spot on. Afterwords, the conclusions were generally the same, but you had sprinkled everywhere things like "Trump went about it the wrong way" or "Trump's approach was unnecessarily offensive." It didn't seem to matter that Trump's position and goal were correct, he did it wrong and hence was subject to criticism.
As I mentioned before, I don't follow Twitter. I see it quoted extensively in online articles. But if someone doesn't quote a tweet in an online article or blog, I'm not going to know about it. Further, tweets are not part of our governmental processes. The fact that Trump my hit back at his attackers in a tweet bothers me not a bit. In fact, when I see liberal tweets with extensive cursing and crude language, President Trump's tweets seem particularly mild.
Bottom line here on the Wall Street Journal, I liked the core content of their articles, but could not stomach the constant Trump criticism for non-policy behavior. At $400/year, I was not going to pay to read off-hand criticism of my President that has nothing to do with policies that I whole-heartedly support. Each of those articles would be just as strong, and as interesting, without the presidential attacks. I stopped my Wall Street Journal subscription.
Fox News is a slightly different situation. They had both TV and online media that I watched and read. Then they moved Hannity out of my prime time period and canceled Bill O'Reilly's show. His No Spin News was my favorite talk show. I didn't always agree with him, but he always had reasonable positions. And he gave people the benefit of the doubt.
Fox News also replaced Brit Hume with Bret Baier on their Evening News show. I really enjoyed Brit and his panel. It all seemed to change when Bret took over. Bret just didn't seem to have the depth of understanding and grasp of the issues that Brit displayed. I may be doing Bret a disservice, but I stopped watching that show too.
Maybe all the change at Fox was innocent, but it sure seemed to remove the biggest Trump supporters from the scene. Though I think Brit's departure really was a normal retirement. He had an opinion piece in yesterday's Fox News web site that talked about Maxine Waters' suggestion to mob Trump supporters and staff. Just like with the Wall Street Journal's editorial pieces, he threw in that Trump's actions were likewise uncivil. Of course, he didn't quote any of Trump's 'incivility' like he did Rep Waters'. Why? Maybe because it wasn't on the same level.
My conclusion is that most of the Wall Street Journal editors and some of those at Fox are Never-Trumpers at heart. They have conservative beliefs, but cannot reconcile those beliefs with Trump's unusual style. They have to criticize the President, even when they are writing a piece that agrees with his policy and actions.
Fox News has one good thing going for it. Their opinion pieces do not seem to all be written by Never-Trumpers. There is some straight stuff.
On the other hand, their web site seems designed to gather clicks. Often their short titles are misleading. Yesterday I read an article about the Army's acquisition of about 476 new Bradley fighting machines/troop carriers. I don't remember the article's title being misleading. But today, the article was labeled "...Big Tank Buy..."--though now I've seen it changed again back to Bradleys. A Bradley is NOT a tank. My point is, they change article titles to get you to read them. It is very irritating to open an article when you are assuming the subject is one thing, and get another.
Worse than misleading titles is the fact that the top section of their home page is mostly what I would call personal interest articles (gossip). I suspect that approach must get more clicks than straight news would. In all fairness, it doesn't seem to be much different than the approach of USA Today or Google News, except that those sites have strong liberal bias. Reuters seems to go more with straight news (good), but it too has a strong liberal bias (bad, but not quite as bad as CNN, MSNBC, USA Today or Google).
So if Fox News ever added a pay wall (like the Wall Street Journal), I would drop it like a hot potato.
Obviously, I'm unhappy with my previous two conservative favorites (Fox and WSJ). My suggestion, for what it's worth (ha!), would be that, when writing about a government policy, reporters/journalists stick to the facts about the policy. That is, what is the policy and how is it being executed. Leave out irrelevant quotes from political parties and their propagandists. Opinion writers should write their opinions of the policy and how it is being executed. Leave out their personal opinions about the character of the government employees involved.
That doesn't mean reporters/journalists should not write articles on political controversies. I just don't want to read those. I also don't want to read opinion articles focused primarily on personal behavior of politicians.
But most of all I really don't want to read another irritating, one-sentence, hypocritical and offensive quote from some politician about their opponent's proposal or action.
I had an excuse earlier in life. At that time, I was a government employee with a security clearance. I didn't want to risk my employment. Even further, most people with the clearance I had did not want to write about the government or participate in any political activities. Both were thought too much of a risk of accidentally violating rules, regulations or laws, and thus losing your clearance and your job.
Further, I don't like cursing or name calling. I also don't appreciate people that do not tell the truth, either with falsehoods or by omission. And, I have to say it, I don't think much of people that fail to think through the logic of an argument and instead base their decision on emotion or bad data.
So, getting back to my thesis, for the most part I don't use social media. But I tend to read multiple online news sites and blogs to keep up with current events.
Before Trump was elected, I was an avid reader of the Wall Street Journal. I got a couple of years at a reduced price (about $200/yr), but by the time Trump was elected, I was paying $100 per quarter. That hurt. But I really loved the in-depth writing that fully explored the issues under discussion. They seemed to be pretty non-political, though their analysis tended to line up with conservative positions.
After Trump was elected president, the articles seemed to become less non-political. Bret Stephens appeared like a rabid Trump hater, and his articles were actually offensive. I wasn't surprised when he moved to the New York Times. After his first couple of post-election articles, I didn't look at his material again.
But more bothersome was what happened to the Best of the Web, a daily humor column that would start with current events. Before Trump, they had been spot on. Afterwords, the conclusions were generally the same, but you had sprinkled everywhere things like "Trump went about it the wrong way" or "Trump's approach was unnecessarily offensive." It didn't seem to matter that Trump's position and goal were correct, he did it wrong and hence was subject to criticism.
As I mentioned before, I don't follow Twitter. I see it quoted extensively in online articles. But if someone doesn't quote a tweet in an online article or blog, I'm not going to know about it. Further, tweets are not part of our governmental processes. The fact that Trump my hit back at his attackers in a tweet bothers me not a bit. In fact, when I see liberal tweets with extensive cursing and crude language, President Trump's tweets seem particularly mild.
Bottom line here on the Wall Street Journal, I liked the core content of their articles, but could not stomach the constant Trump criticism for non-policy behavior. At $400/year, I was not going to pay to read off-hand criticism of my President that has nothing to do with policies that I whole-heartedly support. Each of those articles would be just as strong, and as interesting, without the presidential attacks. I stopped my Wall Street Journal subscription.
Fox News is a slightly different situation. They had both TV and online media that I watched and read. Then they moved Hannity out of my prime time period and canceled Bill O'Reilly's show. His No Spin News was my favorite talk show. I didn't always agree with him, but he always had reasonable positions. And he gave people the benefit of the doubt.
Fox News also replaced Brit Hume with Bret Baier on their Evening News show. I really enjoyed Brit and his panel. It all seemed to change when Bret took over. Bret just didn't seem to have the depth of understanding and grasp of the issues that Brit displayed. I may be doing Bret a disservice, but I stopped watching that show too.
Maybe all the change at Fox was innocent, but it sure seemed to remove the biggest Trump supporters from the scene. Though I think Brit's departure really was a normal retirement. He had an opinion piece in yesterday's Fox News web site that talked about Maxine Waters' suggestion to mob Trump supporters and staff. Just like with the Wall Street Journal's editorial pieces, he threw in that Trump's actions were likewise uncivil. Of course, he didn't quote any of Trump's 'incivility' like he did Rep Waters'. Why? Maybe because it wasn't on the same level.
My conclusion is that most of the Wall Street Journal editors and some of those at Fox are Never-Trumpers at heart. They have conservative beliefs, but cannot reconcile those beliefs with Trump's unusual style. They have to criticize the President, even when they are writing a piece that agrees with his policy and actions.
Fox News has one good thing going for it. Their opinion pieces do not seem to all be written by Never-Trumpers. There is some straight stuff.
On the other hand, their web site seems designed to gather clicks. Often their short titles are misleading. Yesterday I read an article about the Army's acquisition of about 476 new Bradley fighting machines/troop carriers. I don't remember the article's title being misleading. But today, the article was labeled "...Big Tank Buy..."--though now I've seen it changed again back to Bradleys. A Bradley is NOT a tank. My point is, they change article titles to get you to read them. It is very irritating to open an article when you are assuming the subject is one thing, and get another.
Worse than misleading titles is the fact that the top section of their home page is mostly what I would call personal interest articles (gossip). I suspect that approach must get more clicks than straight news would. In all fairness, it doesn't seem to be much different than the approach of USA Today or Google News, except that those sites have strong liberal bias. Reuters seems to go more with straight news (good), but it too has a strong liberal bias (bad, but not quite as bad as CNN, MSNBC, USA Today or Google).
So if Fox News ever added a pay wall (like the Wall Street Journal), I would drop it like a hot potato.
Obviously, I'm unhappy with my previous two conservative favorites (Fox and WSJ). My suggestion, for what it's worth (ha!), would be that, when writing about a government policy, reporters/journalists stick to the facts about the policy. That is, what is the policy and how is it being executed. Leave out irrelevant quotes from political parties and their propagandists. Opinion writers should write their opinions of the policy and how it is being executed. Leave out their personal opinions about the character of the government employees involved.
That doesn't mean reporters/journalists should not write articles on political controversies. I just don't want to read those. I also don't want to read opinion articles focused primarily on personal behavior of politicians.
But most of all I really don't want to read another irritating, one-sentence, hypocritical and offensive quote from some politician about their opponent's proposal or action.
Sunday, June 24, 2018
Prius C Review in Local Paper
The anti-Trump propaganda in most news publications and the liberal social values propaganda in Hollywood productions have really ticked me off. But there is still some straight news (though usually with a lot of unanswered questions) that I find informative when going through the media.
So it surprised me when my wife cut out a review of the new Toyota Prius C from our local newspaper. She's pro-Toyota and I tend to go along with her automotive preferences. We have had only Toyota vehicles for years now, and that includes previous models of the Prius. But this article was written so poorly I couldn't get past the mileage figures.
The author claimed to have driven the vehicle 300 miles and stated that he still had 2/3 of a tank of gas remaining, implying that the vehicle could get 900 miles on a tank of gas. OK, that's a bit outlandish as I've never heard of a vehicle being designed to get more than about 450 miles on a tank of gas. But maybe Toyota came up with a better design. He also said that with a full tank, the Prius was indicating 760 miles of travel remaining.
Then he says that the vehicle's instruments showed he was getting 46.6 miles per gallon. According to that, he would have used over 6 gallons to go his 300 miles, and his tank must be over 18 gallons if the data was accurate, including his 300 miles and 2/3 of a tank of fuel left.
Our three year old Prius (not the small C model) shows about 48-49 miles per gallon, and if we go over 300 miles we are getting low on fuel. It has a very small gas tank. Did they increase the size of the fuel tank by a factor of 2 or 3? Was the miles per gallon shown on the Prius dash wrong? Were the miles driven or the fuel remaining wrong on the instruments? Did the author make a typo?
The author did not qualify any of his statements indicating uncertainty. Nor did he suggest further testing to resolve any kind of inconsistency in his report. Neither he nor his editor seemed to have any problem with the published article.
Personally, I could not trust this car reviewer in the future nor his paper to publish an accurate description of an event (even a non-political event).
I'm not sure what they are teaching journalists today. Throwing out the political and social propaganda that you can hardly avoid, even the straight news is deficient in information. Nearly every article leaves out critical information on who, what, where, when and why. I don't know whether the journalists and their editors cannot think and write, or whether they just are unwilling to expend the resources to gather the information.
And even finding a written article is somewhat difficult. All of the online media seem to be going to short video clips. There's no way in a 2 to 5 minute clip that you are going to get thorough questions and answers on a topic.
I think that's enough frustration for today.
So it surprised me when my wife cut out a review of the new Toyota Prius C from our local newspaper. She's pro-Toyota and I tend to go along with her automotive preferences. We have had only Toyota vehicles for years now, and that includes previous models of the Prius. But this article was written so poorly I couldn't get past the mileage figures.
The author claimed to have driven the vehicle 300 miles and stated that he still had 2/3 of a tank of gas remaining, implying that the vehicle could get 900 miles on a tank of gas. OK, that's a bit outlandish as I've never heard of a vehicle being designed to get more than about 450 miles on a tank of gas. But maybe Toyota came up with a better design. He also said that with a full tank, the Prius was indicating 760 miles of travel remaining.
Then he says that the vehicle's instruments showed he was getting 46.6 miles per gallon. According to that, he would have used over 6 gallons to go his 300 miles, and his tank must be over 18 gallons if the data was accurate, including his 300 miles and 2/3 of a tank of fuel left.
Our three year old Prius (not the small C model) shows about 48-49 miles per gallon, and if we go over 300 miles we are getting low on fuel. It has a very small gas tank. Did they increase the size of the fuel tank by a factor of 2 or 3? Was the miles per gallon shown on the Prius dash wrong? Were the miles driven or the fuel remaining wrong on the instruments? Did the author make a typo?
The author did not qualify any of his statements indicating uncertainty. Nor did he suggest further testing to resolve any kind of inconsistency in his report. Neither he nor his editor seemed to have any problem with the published article.
Personally, I could not trust this car reviewer in the future nor his paper to publish an accurate description of an event (even a non-political event).
I'm not sure what they are teaching journalists today. Throwing out the political and social propaganda that you can hardly avoid, even the straight news is deficient in information. Nearly every article leaves out critical information on who, what, where, when and why. I don't know whether the journalists and their editors cannot think and write, or whether they just are unwilling to expend the resources to gather the information.
And even finding a written article is somewhat difficult. All of the online media seem to be going to short video clips. There's no way in a 2 to 5 minute clip that you are going to get thorough questions and answers on a topic.
I think that's enough frustration for today.
Saturday, June 9, 2018
BRS-3000T vs Soto Micro Windmaster
While I was hiking the CDT this year, they announced fire restrictions for several national forests. Essentially, they allowed only the use of stoves with on/off switches. I believe the intent was only to allow canister stoves with the standard twist control to open and close the gas valve. Since I have used only alcohol stoves for the past few years, this was a big impact to my backpacking.
Well, I ordered a Soto Micro Windmaster and planned to buy a canister while on the trail. My knee injury and return home left me with a Windmaster, but no immediate use for it. A few days ago, a friend sent me a link to the BRS-3000T stove that is only 26 grams as opposed to the 68 gram (2.4 oz) Windmaster. The BRS was about $17, the Windmaster about $70. Because of the low price and weight, I couldn't resist ordering a BRS.
This post provides a rough assessment of the relative performance of the two burners and some of their potential pros and cons.
Here's a picture of the two burners.
As you can tell, in addition to being heavier, the Windmaster is significantly larger. It also has a built in spark generator to light the stove. And it has a broader base that mates more securely with the valve stems on canisters.
On the other hand, the BRS is titanium. Its burner head is smaller (and cools down a lot faster). And the pot support limbs are permanently attached (hinged) to the unit.
Here's a picture of the two burners broken down and ready to pack.
This morning, I wanted to see if the performance of the two burners was comparable. I started with an old (2014) Jetboil Jetpower Isobutane / Propane 100 g fuel canister. I had used it for an 8 day hike with a Jetboil Sol Ti stove back in 2014. After which, I decided to lighten my pack load and switched to alcohol stoves. I used the Jetboil for about 13 meals, and had used 37 grams of fuel. That was about 3 grams of fuel per meal. I only boil water for reconstituting freeze dried meals, so it was about 3 grams to heat a cup of water. The Jetboil was very efficient! But relatively heavy.
Anyway, the canister still weighed about 163 g with fuel; 100 g would be the empty weight. So the performance today was with an old, partially filled canister. The temperature out was in the lower 80's. The altitude was about 1200'. The test was outdoors and the wind was negligible. The water I used was probably about 70 F, as this is south Texas and it came from the tap on a well system. My pot was a light titanium Toaks 550 ml pot/cup with a lid that I believe is 90 mm in diameter--its just big enough to hold the small canister. The lid has 3 small holes to let out steam. The pot weighs 2.54 oz with the lid.
I only ran one test for each burner. In both cases, I boiled 300 ml of water, about 1.25 cups.
I tested the Soto Micro Windmaster first. I lit the stove, immediately put the cup on the stove (with water and lid on), increased the gas burn rate, and waited till I saw steam coming out of the holes on the lid. I took the lid off and observed a rolling boil. This is the same procedure I used for the BRS burner. I saw steam after about 1 minute and 50 seconds. The boil used about 6 grams of fuel.
The second run tested the BRS. In that test, the steam happened at about 1 minute and 55 seconds. I tried to adjust the burner to the same level--by sound. The boil used about 7 grams of fuel. However, the boil did not appear as energetic as it did for the Windmaster.
Here's what the BRS burner and pot look like configured with the canister.
The conclusion was that the two burners essentially burned fuel at the same rate and boiled water at the same speed. Please note that I did not open the two burners wide open, and this is just one test.
But I don't think performance is everything. Let me explain...
First, attaching and detaching the burners. The BRS caused a longer hiss (escaping gas) during attachment than the Windmaster. But the Windmaster made a little pop on disconnecting that appeared to be due to a slight vacuum around its wider base seal.
Related to that is the fact that the BRS requires the valve to be open an eighth of a turn in order to rotate the support limbs down for packing. When I first attached the burner to the canister, I thought I had a bad seal as I still heard gas. Then I realized I hadn't fully closed the valve. You will need to remember to re-close the valve when setting up the burner.
The BRS was also a little difficult to deploy. The pot support limbs have to ALL be rotated (180 deg) up, before any of them can be rotated the final 90 deg into their locked positions. In the up positions they are loose and it is a little difficult to keep them there until you get the first two locked down. Then there is the support hinges that may or may not last during a long trip.
On the other hand, I don't know if the one-piece Soto Windmaster pot support will be reliable over long use. It requires bending the metal supports to an open position, and then closing them again before packing. I would expect long term stress and failure.
The Windmaster burner took a long time to cool down. Though the valve stem cooled down pretty quickly. The BRS was cool to the touch (titanium) shortly after use. The BRS's quicker cooling might allow you to pack up the stove before your food is reconstituted--if you are just boiling water.
I used a new, smaller pot for this test. The Windmaster support legs extended maybe half an inch past the pot in each of the three directions. The BRS support legs did not quite reach the edge of the pot. Both burners provided adequate support for my small pot. The Windmaster does have a larger pot support system I can attach with four support limbs.
Obviously, the BRS required an ignition source; I used a match. The Windmaster did not. My preference there is for the integrated spark system.
One other thing I noticed during the boils. The BRS burn sound had a few abnormalities. Several times it sounded like the burner's fuel burn changed rates. I couldn't tell whether it was more or less efficient, but each anomaly would last for several seconds. The sound/burn always returned to the same default rate. I didn't notice any wind, but the BRS burner is smaller and more exposed.
I cannot tell you anything about whether the Windmaster actually works well in wind. That's what Soto advertises, but I would be surprised if you can get an efficient boil without a decent wind screen. You will notice from the picture that the Windmaster's burner includes a curved shell that does not directly expose the fuel ports to the wind. On the other hand, the BRS makes no such claim.
I would probably not recommend using the BRS if you have a significantly larger pot or intend to cook larger quantities. However, for a single user, especially one that just boils water, the BRS appears to have a significant advantage in weight and cost without losing any measurable performance.
On the other hand, the Windmaster appears to be a better (stronger) quality build. It has a better canister seal. It has an integrated spark generator. And its pot support is just a little bit larger. You can also leave your lighter, matches, or other fire starter packed away during meals.
I looks like I'm going to have to take both for a field test!
Well, I ordered a Soto Micro Windmaster and planned to buy a canister while on the trail. My knee injury and return home left me with a Windmaster, but no immediate use for it. A few days ago, a friend sent me a link to the BRS-3000T stove that is only 26 grams as opposed to the 68 gram (2.4 oz) Windmaster. The BRS was about $17, the Windmaster about $70. Because of the low price and weight, I couldn't resist ordering a BRS.
This post provides a rough assessment of the relative performance of the two burners and some of their potential pros and cons.
Here's a picture of the two burners.
As you can tell, in addition to being heavier, the Windmaster is significantly larger. It also has a built in spark generator to light the stove. And it has a broader base that mates more securely with the valve stems on canisters.
On the other hand, the BRS is titanium. Its burner head is smaller (and cools down a lot faster). And the pot support limbs are permanently attached (hinged) to the unit.
Here's a picture of the two burners broken down and ready to pack.
This morning, I wanted to see if the performance of the two burners was comparable. I started with an old (2014) Jetboil Jetpower Isobutane / Propane 100 g fuel canister. I had used it for an 8 day hike with a Jetboil Sol Ti stove back in 2014. After which, I decided to lighten my pack load and switched to alcohol stoves. I used the Jetboil for about 13 meals, and had used 37 grams of fuel. That was about 3 grams of fuel per meal. I only boil water for reconstituting freeze dried meals, so it was about 3 grams to heat a cup of water. The Jetboil was very efficient! But relatively heavy.
Anyway, the canister still weighed about 163 g with fuel; 100 g would be the empty weight. So the performance today was with an old, partially filled canister. The temperature out was in the lower 80's. The altitude was about 1200'. The test was outdoors and the wind was negligible. The water I used was probably about 70 F, as this is south Texas and it came from the tap on a well system. My pot was a light titanium Toaks 550 ml pot/cup with a lid that I believe is 90 mm in diameter--its just big enough to hold the small canister. The lid has 3 small holes to let out steam. The pot weighs 2.54 oz with the lid.
I only ran one test for each burner. In both cases, I boiled 300 ml of water, about 1.25 cups.
I tested the Soto Micro Windmaster first. I lit the stove, immediately put the cup on the stove (with water and lid on), increased the gas burn rate, and waited till I saw steam coming out of the holes on the lid. I took the lid off and observed a rolling boil. This is the same procedure I used for the BRS burner. I saw steam after about 1 minute and 50 seconds. The boil used about 6 grams of fuel.
The second run tested the BRS. In that test, the steam happened at about 1 minute and 55 seconds. I tried to adjust the burner to the same level--by sound. The boil used about 7 grams of fuel. However, the boil did not appear as energetic as it did for the Windmaster.
Here's what the BRS burner and pot look like configured with the canister.
The conclusion was that the two burners essentially burned fuel at the same rate and boiled water at the same speed. Please note that I did not open the two burners wide open, and this is just one test.
But I don't think performance is everything. Let me explain...
First, attaching and detaching the burners. The BRS caused a longer hiss (escaping gas) during attachment than the Windmaster. But the Windmaster made a little pop on disconnecting that appeared to be due to a slight vacuum around its wider base seal.
Related to that is the fact that the BRS requires the valve to be open an eighth of a turn in order to rotate the support limbs down for packing. When I first attached the burner to the canister, I thought I had a bad seal as I still heard gas. Then I realized I hadn't fully closed the valve. You will need to remember to re-close the valve when setting up the burner.
The BRS was also a little difficult to deploy. The pot support limbs have to ALL be rotated (180 deg) up, before any of them can be rotated the final 90 deg into their locked positions. In the up positions they are loose and it is a little difficult to keep them there until you get the first two locked down. Then there is the support hinges that may or may not last during a long trip.
On the other hand, I don't know if the one-piece Soto Windmaster pot support will be reliable over long use. It requires bending the metal supports to an open position, and then closing them again before packing. I would expect long term stress and failure.
The Windmaster burner took a long time to cool down. Though the valve stem cooled down pretty quickly. The BRS was cool to the touch (titanium) shortly after use. The BRS's quicker cooling might allow you to pack up the stove before your food is reconstituted--if you are just boiling water.
I used a new, smaller pot for this test. The Windmaster support legs extended maybe half an inch past the pot in each of the three directions. The BRS support legs did not quite reach the edge of the pot. Both burners provided adequate support for my small pot. The Windmaster does have a larger pot support system I can attach with four support limbs.
Obviously, the BRS required an ignition source; I used a match. The Windmaster did not. My preference there is for the integrated spark system.
One other thing I noticed during the boils. The BRS burn sound had a few abnormalities. Several times it sounded like the burner's fuel burn changed rates. I couldn't tell whether it was more or less efficient, but each anomaly would last for several seconds. The sound/burn always returned to the same default rate. I didn't notice any wind, but the BRS burner is smaller and more exposed.
I cannot tell you anything about whether the Windmaster actually works well in wind. That's what Soto advertises, but I would be surprised if you can get an efficient boil without a decent wind screen. You will notice from the picture that the Windmaster's burner includes a curved shell that does not directly expose the fuel ports to the wind. On the other hand, the BRS makes no such claim.
I would probably not recommend using the BRS if you have a significantly larger pot or intend to cook larger quantities. However, for a single user, especially one that just boils water, the BRS appears to have a significant advantage in weight and cost without losing any measurable performance.
On the other hand, the Windmaster appears to be a better (stronger) quality build. It has a better canister seal. It has an integrated spark generator. And its pot support is just a little bit larger. You can also leave your lighter, matches, or other fire starter packed away during meals.
I looks like I'm going to have to take both for a field test!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)