A Certain Animus

For John, BLUF:  Do the members of the FBI have contempt for you?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election

A followup on my earlier Post on DOJ text messaging suggesting a certain animus toward Candidate Donald J Trump:

11:02:22, FBI Employee:  “All the people who were initially voting for her would not, and were not, swayed by any decision the FBI put out.  Trump’s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS that think he will magically grant them jobs for doing nothing.  They probably didn’t watch the debates, aren’t fully educated on his policies, and are stupidly wrapped up in his unmerited enthusiasm.”

DoD IG Report, Page 417

I remember someone here in Lowell telling me I didn't have anything to say until I renounced Trump.

Then there was another candidate who put me in a "basket of deplorables".

Then there was the earlier candidate, who suggested I was a "bitter clinger" (I am originally from Western Pennsylvania).

Now I find that I am an "uneducated, lazy POS".  Frankly, the uneducated and lazy parts may well be true.  I only have a Masters Degree (USC) and my wife suggests to me sometimes that I am lazy.  It is the POS part that I find insulting.  And I find it disturbing that it is being said of me by a Federal Government Civilian Employee, who lives off my tax dollars and the tax dollars of many like me.  It is worse than disrespectful.  It is full of contempt.

If it wasn't that my Father and my two Brothers have all been Civil Servants, and did great jobs for we taxpayers, and others I know who have been Civil Servants, like my Daughter and two Sons, I would begin to question if we were developing a corrupt class, at least in Washington.  I still have faith, but there is some leadership needed, at least in DoJ.

The big issue is that the DOJ, and the FBI, failed to foster a culture of non-partisan investigations.  Yesterday, in response to the IG Report, the head of the FBI, Director Christopher A. Wray, said that the FBI would reeducate the workforce.  Reeducation isn't what is needed.  Cultural leadership is what is needed.  It may require firing everyone who works on the top two floors of the J Edgar Hoover Building.  I hope not, but Mr Wray doesn't seem to get it.  It is culture, not education.

Regards  —  Cliff

Lowering Education

For John, BLUF:  Parents, leading their children are what can make our schools better.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

"No Ethnic Group Owns Stuyvesant.  All New Yorkers Do.  Mayor Bill de Blasio’s plan would destroy the best high school in New York City"

This is not Professor Althouse's headline, but the headline of the article she linked to in her Blog Post of 13 June 2018.

She doesn't comment on the article, but does balance it with a second item from The Old Gray Lady, "De Blasio’s Plan for NYC Schools Isn’t Anti-Asian.  It’s Anti-Racist.  It gives a diverse group of working class kids a fairer shot, which shouldn’t be controversial," by Minh-Ha T. Pham.

Here is the quote that Professor Althouse led with:

"Admission to Stuyvesant was and remains determined by a single test available to all middle school students in the city.  There are no soft criteria for admission no interviews, no favoritism for legacies, no strings to be pulled.  It’s all about whether you do well on the test, which best determines whether or not you can do the academic work.  You would think that Mayor Bill de Blasio would celebrate Stuyvesant as the crown jewel of the city’s school system.  Instead, he has announced a plan that will destroy it in all but name.  This month, the mayor said he would seek legislation that would eliminate the test completely.  Instead, he’d guarantee automatic admission to Stuyvesant — and the seven other specialized high schools in the city — for the top students at every middle school, regardless of their abilities.  The mayor says he is trying to address what is undoubtedly a heartbreaking problem:  the gross underrepresentation of black and Latino students at Stuyvesant and schools like it....  But the mayor’s solution is no solution at all.  For one thing, his plan seems purposely oblivious to his administration’s utter failure to prepare students across the city for the admissions test — and for a school as challenging as Stuyvesant.  In nearly one quarter of the city’s public middle schools, zero seventh graders scored at the advanced level on the annual New York State Mathematics Exam in 2017.  Mr. de Blasio would send the top 7 percent of students at every middle school to the specialized high schools, but at 80 middle schools — or one out of every six — not even 7 percent of seventh graders passed the state math exam."

Deep down inside that paragraph is the idea that New York City Mayor Will de Blasio is trying to cover for the fact that he can't get the City Schools to perform by wiping out the high quality examine high schools, like Stuyvesant.  He won't change the names, but he will change the quality of education in those high schools.

Here is an excerpt from the second article, supporting Mayor de Blasio:

[F]or school admissions to be truly unbiased, all students would need to have equal access to elementary schools and middle schools that receive equal shares of property taxes and state and federal aid and have the same cultural, educational and social resources.

I think the second author makes the point about cultural, educational and social resources.  Within Lowell all students have access to the property taxes and State and Federal aid.  But, students coming from families, and neighborhoods, where education is valued and parents facilitate education, will do better.

The real tragedy here is that Mayor de Blasio, and those like him, are hurting the students by not recognizing the critical importance of parents (even if a single parent) in motivating students to learn.  Here in Lowell we missed an opportunity when we didn't follow up on then City Councilor Franky Descoteaux's idea for adopting the "Promise Neighborhoods" approach.

Oh, and, yes, this will hasten the growth of alternative systems of education, like charter schools, parochial schools and home schooling.

Hat tip to the Althouse Blog.

Regards  —  Cliff

My Error

For John, BLUF:  Let us readdress on Monday.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election

Here is the deal.  On City Life Show this morning (Local Lowell Channel 8, Repeat at 4:00 PM this afternoon or here on the Internet) I raised the question of a Text Message interchange between DOJ Lawyer Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok.

The exchange I mentioned was this one:

Lisa Page text to Peter Strzok: “(Trump’s) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

Strzok: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

The show's producer immediately jumped on me for this, for which I did not have (foolishly, on my part) "proof".  It was, he suggested, all part of the fake news we hear and see every day.  My co-host, Jim, did not disagree with the Producer and our guest, Erik, was on his side also.  So, my question of how we take that just died right there.

After the show, I went to a meeting of the "Access to Healthy Foods Working Group", and then came home and opened the above referenced DOJ IG Report.

Here are the two quotes, from the source:

We were deeply troubled by text messages exchanged between [Peter] Strzok and [Lisa] Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations. Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, which was not a part of this review. Nonetheless, when one senior FBI official, Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, Page, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it” in response to her question “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”, it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.

DoD IG Report, Pages xi and xii

So, how do we understand this.  Is this just casual banter between two DOJ "colleagues" or is this, as the IG Report suggests, an indication of Swamp People who had decided that they should move from their Civil Service neutrality into a more partisan position?

My take is that if you are not concerned you don't understand how serious the situation is.

Regards  —  Cliff

Space Weather Threat

For John, BLUF:  The question is, who funds this?  The Power Companies or the People collectively (i.e.; the Government)?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Rocks Under I-95 Present Odd, and Scary, Threat to Power Grid

From Bloomberg Quint, by Reporter Brian K. Sullivan, 13 June 2018.

Here are the basics:

Here’s something you probably didn’t know you needed to worry about:  There’s a layer of 300 million-year-old rock under Interstate 95 that’s capable of killing the lights from Washington to Boston and beyond the next time the sun erupts in all its fury.

Sound far-fetched? Perhaps.  But not to scientists.  A solar storm is now viewed as enough of a risk in fact that grid operators across North America are working on plans to respond to just such a disturbance.  And a draft of a soon-to-be-published U.S. Geological Survey report pinpoints the Eastern Seaboard as one of the areas most in danger.

That’s because this Paleozoic-era rock doesn’t let the energy from a major geomagnetic storm — a once-in-a-100-years kind of event — pass through it but instead acts as a backstop that sends the surge back up above the ground for a second shot at causing mayhem.

“It’s an active problem that a lot of people are trying to solve and understand,” said Christopher Balch, space scientist at the Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, Colorado.

Through a stroke of bad luck, the worst of these rocks basically traces the path of I-95 from Richmond, Virginia, to Portland, Maine, passing through Washington, New York and Boston along the way.

Qu

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

California Dreaming

For John, BLUF:  Given the mood of voters these days, Californians could vote to split up.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Reuters: The Never-Ending Effort To Dismember California Continues To Never End

From Hot Air, by Captain Ed Morrissey, 12 June 2018.

While the topic of a California breakup is interesting (and is as old or older than Captain Ed suggests) I wanted to look at this issue:

Everything they claim about California is true, of course. It’s an economic wreck, where regulation has strangled small business and where income inequality is fourth-highest in the nation, right behind New York, Connecticut, and, er … Louisiana.

So, for all the whinging about income disparity, three of the most progressive states, New York, Connecticut and California, along with Louisiana, are the four highest in the nation for income disparity.

As to the breakup itself, I am not sure Congress will look with favor on such a split-up.  For me, if it knocks folks off top dead center WRT Puerto Rico it will be worth it.  Regarding Puerto Rico, I say make them a State or kick them lose (over five years, to allow their economy and government to adjust). End that vestige of colonialism.♠

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Yes, I would allow the Commonwealth of Guam, where America's day begins, to remain in its current status, if it wishes.  If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Bake That Cake

For John, BLUF:  I think, in the long run, we benefit from applying the principle of Freedom of Association to commercial practices, while encouraging everyone to be open to the hopes and aspirations of others.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From In and Out

A product of W Magazine, by a person unknown, on 12 June 2018.

They always start with a quote:

“We are all sacred and we all belong, so let’s just bake a cake for everyone who wants a cake to be baked.”  —  Andrew Garfield

I like this idea, but I still want space for people to politely decline.

What if some group in berets shows up asking for a Birthday Cake for Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (18 December)?  How about one for Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria (29 March).  Then there is the old standby, Adolf Hitler (20 April).

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

In and Out, from W Magazine

California Nightmares

For John, BLUF:  One of the great things about these United States is that the individual states provide places to experiment.  When I was young California experimented and it is good.  Today California experiments and it is a warning to other states.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Yes, California Has Effectively Banned Showering And Doing Laundry On The Same Day

Here is the sub-headline:

Snopes, Facebook, and others purporting to ‘fact check’ conservative frustrations with California’s new water-restrictions law are the ones misleading about its effects.

From The Federalist, by Ms Inez Feltscher Stepman, 11 June 2018.

Here are the first three paragraphs:

The latest in Facebook-policed “fake news” is a claim echoing through the conservative Twittersphere, including from my own account, that two bills outgoing California Gov. Jerry Brown signed impose such draconian water use standards that fines could be imposed for taking a shower and running laundry on the same day.  Snopes rated these assertions as “mostly false,” and Facebook flagged stories about them as fake news.

But Snopes, Facebook, and others purporting to “fact check” conservative frustrations with the law are the ones misleading about its effects.  The way these allegedly neutral fact-checkers present repackaged liberal assumptions as hard fact is a great illustration of how the Left pulls off the kind of logical ju-jitsu that allows them to label conservative arguments as fake news in order to dismiss them.

In this particular case, none of these “debunking” articles actually dispute the three most crucial facts: there is a daily per-person 55-gallon limit ratcheting down to 50 gallons over the course of a decade, fines will be imposed upon violation, and, for at least some users, a reasonable-length shower and running the wash will put them over.  In fact, most of the articles in question actually confirm these three vital points, usually squashed into a final paragraph that contradicts the headline.  Nevertheless, they conclude that conservatives are spreading false information.

From there, Ms Stepman goes on to show how Snopes and Facebook suffer from innumeracy.

But, the thing I really liked about this post by Mr Ed Driscoll, at the InstaPundit, is this:

P.J. O’Rourke once wrote that “You can’t get good Chinese takeout in China and Cuban cigars are rationed in Cuba.  That’s all you need to know about communism.”

Too right.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff