What were they thinking?

The Clinton email scandal continues to deteriorate. Most people following the issue will be aware of the review by the inspector general which was released yesterday. In part it said:

Two staff in S/ES-IRM reported to the OIG that, in late 2010, they each discussed their concerns about Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account in separate meetings with the then-Director of S/ES-IRM. In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements. According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system. According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised concerns abut the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.

Emphasis added.

Ms.Clinton has also publically stated it was reviewed and approved. There are lots of other damning items in the review. And we haven’t even seen the results of the FBI investigation yet. Interesting time are ahead for “Crooked Clinton”.

But unless you “have your finger on the pulse” of some other sources you wouldn’t know that some really mindboggling stupid computer security practices were in place at the Clinton residence:

According to historic Internet address maps stored by San Mateo, Calif. based Farsight Security, among the handful of Internet addresses historically assigned to the domain “clintonemail.com” was the numeric address 24.187.234.188. The subdomain attached to that Internet address was….wait for it…. “printer.clintonemail.com“.

Ronald Guilmette, a private security researcher in California who prompted me to look up this information, said printing things to an Internet-based printer set up this way might have made the printer data vulnerable to eavesdropping.

“Whoever set up their home network like that was a security idiot, and it’s a dumb thing to do,” Guilmette said. “Not just because any idiot on the Internet can just waste all your toner. Some of these printers have simple vulnerabilities that leave them easy to be hacked into.”

More importantly, any emails or other documents that the Clintons decided to print would be sent out over the Internet — however briefly — before going back to the printer. And that data may have been sniffable by other customers of the same ISP, Guilmette said.

“People are getting all upset saying hackers could have broken into her server, but what I’m saying is that people could have gotten confidential documents easily without breaking into anything,” Guilmette said. “So Mrs. Clinton is sitting there, tap-tap-tapping on her computer and decides to print something out. A clever Chinese hacker could have figured out, ‘Hey, I should get my own Internet address on the same block as the Clinton’s server and just sniff the local network traffic for printer files.’”

I repeat, “Whoever set up their home network like that was a security idiot…”. It’s stupid to route your printer traffic via an outside network unless you are only printing the most vanilla of materials and need for people in the outside world to use your printer. Clinton had material on her email server that was highly classified. If she used the printer in this way it’s difficult to imagine that her printer traffic was not intercepted by unauthorized people. This is, in part, because whoever created the amazingly insecure system, essentially, advertised it to the public with the public subdomain records.

People need to go to jail over this.

Our country is in the best of hands.

Quote of the day—Anonymous Conservative

I see it in terms of political liberals, who respond to simple niceness with ever increasing demands for total capitulation and subservience under their brutal and capricious rule, and who respond to the cruelty and threat of groups like Islam with ever increasing groveling and ass-kissing. Morals, principle, it all means nothing.

Say you have no problem with men dressing as women and suddenly they demand you let those men be naked with your six year old daughter in a gym locker room. Say your religion requires those transgender men be thrown from buildings and murdered, and they will seek to import you into the country, provide you with free welfare, and give you victim status to get special privileges over real Americans. It is not logical.

Anonymous Conservative
May 25, 2016
On Violence, Amygdala, And Shifting Toward K
[While his claim about the transgender goals are less than accurate his point has a lot of truth to it. The liberal/progressives are all about tolerance and acceptance and want to politically suppress people who display a Confederate flag, deface bumper stickers of NRA members, and riot at assembles of their political opponents. All these people are, almost without exception, peaceful and law-abiding.

The progressives of the world are insistent that Muslims not be discriminated against, that refugees, consisting of a disproportionate number of warrior aged men with a demonstrated propensity for sexual violence, be allowed into their societies. Most terrorists events in the world are the work of Muslims. Nearly all armed conflicts in the world today involve Muslims on one or both sides. And drawing blasphemous cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed will get you murdered.

So what gives? Anonymous Conservative proposed hypothesis is that these people have mental issues. I have to conclude either this or that, as frequently proposed by Lyle, these people recognize Muslims as the enemy of their political opponents and hence, after a fashion, they are their short term allies.

In any case it is not logical nor does it bode well for freedom.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Josh Barro ‏@jbarro

The NRA is backing Trump because it’s not a gun rights group, it’s a group for people who are insecure about their penises.

Josh Barro ‏@jbarro
Senior Editor at Business Insider. MSNBC contributor. Host of KCRW’s Left, Right & Center. Host of @hardpasspodcast.
Tweeted on May 20, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

We have SCOTUS decisions. The best a “senior editor” can come up with is childish insults.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Asbury Park Press

Typically, as with any debate over gun rights, rational viewpoints are hard to find. Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, said the new standards could lead to “every cabdriver, every pizza delivery driver, and anyone else living or working in a high-crime neighborhood to qualify for a firearms permit.”

That sounds a little extreme, but is that any more hysterical than the gun-rights activists sounding alarms about government conspiracies and widespread gun confiscation every time government wants to ban an assault rifle or expand background checks?

In general terms, however, Weinberg’s warning should be heeded. The gun-rights crowd is trying to exploit the death of Carol Bowne, a Berlin Township woman allegedly stabbed to death by an ex-boyfriend while she was awaiting a permit to carry a gun for protection. Would Bowne’s life have been saved by an easier permitting process? We’ll never know. But as tragic as her death was, we can’t allow politicians to use the anger and grief over that death to advance an unnecessary and dangerous relaxation in the state’s gun controls.

Asbury Park Press
May 13, 2016
EDITORIAL: Don’t loosen grip on gun control
[This is almost material that could have come from The Onion.

The thought of people living or working in a high-crime area being allowed to defend themselves is considered “extreme” and “hysterical”? Wow!

They say, “We can’t allow politicians to use the anger and grief over that death…” Interesting. We should remember that the next time some activist wants to use anger and grief over the tragic death of someone murdered by a criminal with a gun. But of course that’s not how it works with these people. They have zero problem with their own hypocrisy.

Of course it may not be hypocrisy. It could be the sky is a different color in their universe.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Anonymous Conservative

Liberalism is a totally different thought process. Inherent to it is a drive to ignore reality and shift mental focus toward metrics that are, to any sane individual, totally irrelevant to the questions at hand.

Anonymous Conservative
October 11, 2015
Liberals are Socially Focused on Group Dynamics
[This reminds me of a conversation I had with an admitted Marxist after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He said the U.S. shouldn’t have invaded because we didn’t have the support of “our friends” France and Germany. I was confused. Why should this matter? And it was known at the time that France and Germany had been selling Iraq supplies for building WMDs which the U.N. was trying to find and being stymied by Iraq. As far as I was concern France and Germany were aiding an enemy and even if they weren’t, since when does the determination of right and wrong depend on whether your “friends” agree with you or not? He insisted it did but could not explain further than “it just does”.

The “progressive” mind is an example of mental defect.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Basepaul Season @paulbensonsucks

@SPQRzilla @TL671 @JoeHuffman @GunFreeZone president Hillary will ban guns and well finally be free of white terrorists.

Basepaul Season @paulbensonsucks
Tweeted on April 13, 2016
[This is what they think of you. And this is how they think things will go down in such a scenario.

Delusions are often functional.—Joe]

Deliberate deception or crap for brains?

I know mainstream media reporters get a lot of things wrong through ignorance and laziness. But this seems like a tough one to mess up on without being deliberate. The Washington Post headline is After the Pacific Ocean swallows villages and five Solomon Islands, a study blames climate change:

In a recent paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the scientists link the destructive sea level rise to anthropogenic — that is, human-caused — climate change. The study marks the first time anyone has concretely analyzed the loss of Solomon Island shoreline in the context of global warming, they say.

the sea-level rise observed in this study — at about a fourth to two-fifths of an inch a year — is triple the global average.

Really? So they believe the water just got piled up in the South Pacific? Do they have crap for brains? Or do they just believe their readers do?

So… I read the original paper, Interactions between sea-level rise and wave exposure on reef island dynamics in the Solomon Islands. Abstract:

Low-lying reef islands in the Solomon Islands provide a valuable window into the future impacts of global sea-level rise. Sea-level rise has been predicted to cause widespread erosion and inundation of low-lying atolls in the central Pacific. However, the limited research on reef islands in the western Pacific indicates the majority of shoreline changes and inundation to date result from extreme events, seawalls and inappropriate development rather than sea-level rise alone. Here, we present the first analysis of coastal dynamics from a sea-level rise hotspot in the Solomon Islands. Using time series aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014 of 33 islands, along with historical insight from local knowledge, we have identified five vegetated reef islands that have vanished over this time period and a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession. Shoreline recession at two sites has destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations. Rates of shoreline recession are substantially higher in areas exposed to high wave energy, indicating a synergistic interaction between sea-level rise and waves. Understanding these local factors that increase the susceptibility of islands to coastal erosion is critical to guide adaptation responses for these remote Pacific communities.

Nothing about climate change.

Here is the conclusion of the paper:

This study represents the first assessment of shoreline change from the Solomon Islands, a global sea-level rise hotspot. We have documented five vegetated reef islands (1–5 ha in size) that have recently vanished and a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession. Shoreline recession at two sites has destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations. The large range of erosion severity on the islands in this study highlights the critical need to understand the complex interplay between the projected accelerating sea-level rise, other changes in global climate such as winds and waves, and local tectonics, to guide future adaptation planning and minimise social impacts.

The paper mentions concerns about changes in climate which may affect the islands, but they do not attribute the changes they have seen to climate change. And, in fact, the paper mentions something the Washington Post conveniently doesn’t mention (emphasis added):

Change in the twelve islands in Roviana was mixed with six islands growing slightly (<20%) and six islands declining slightly (<20%).

Some islands are growing in size. Apparently that doesn’t fit the narrative so the general public doesn’t need to see it.

My conclusion: The Washington Post is deliberately deceiving the general public and has crap for brains for believing their readers are too stupid or lazy to read the original paper when they even give us a link to the original paper.

Thinking skills test: 0/10

Mike Volkerding asks this question for five points:

Please tell me how many of these violent criminals are members of the NRA…thanks.

Williem Stone answers a question requiring a number with a statement instead:

All of them, since having a gun means being in the NRA.

Later, with another five points available, Stone explains why looking at data is irrelevant in determining the level of violence in Australia:

Guns=violence. No guns, no violence. It’s simple.

Stone gets another zero for a total of 0/10 on the test.

That is the type of “thinking” our opponents engage in. Rational thought and data is irrelevant to their world view. When their world view does not intersect with real world data and rational thought you have fewer good options in dealing with them. But recognizing what options are available is useful because you now know to not waste time on other options.

Quote of the day—Clayton E. Cramer

The evidence is clear that AW bans fail rational basis scrutiny because AWs are seldom criminally misused relative to more readily accessible weapons.  The disproportionate minimum sentences in California’s AWCA law relative to much more dangerous weapons suggests a panic reaction that is hardly rational.  The comments of journalists, elected officials, and gun control activists reveal bigotry that makes Colorado Amendment 2 seem pretty calm by comparison.  Even the courts are reduced to arguing that perceived benefit as opposed to actual benefit is a sufficient reason to uphold bans. There is no way to hold that AW bans which deny a fundamental right, as Heller determined the Second Amendment to protect, survives the “rational basis” standard of scrutiny.

Clayton E. Cramer
April 13, 2016
Assault Weapon Bans: Can They Survive Rational Basis Scrutiny?
[This is a well researched paper and brings to light some fascinating information. An example is the ruling upholding the Chicago AW ban. Cramer rewords a section of the ruling and explains as follows:

The same reasoning could have been applied to uphold the constitutional provision struck down in Romer: “Colorado voters may be irrational in their bigotry against homosexuals, but if it reduces their perceived risk of homosexuals being given free rein to molest children, that’s a substantial benefit.”  Clearly, when the courts argue that feeling safer is a legitimate reason to do something that makes no real difference in public safety, this is the definition of irrational.  It makes people feel better, but without any actual basis in fact.

Numerous other examples of irrationality abound. It’s great fun to go through the enumerations of the crazy talk of our opponents.—Joe]

What did you expect?

If you do something like this:

When Amelia Hamilton started working with NRA Family on updating classic Grimm fairy tales, it was to rework the stories we all knew and loved to show what would happen if the main characters had been taught about gun safety and how to use firearms.

Never did she imagine the biggest criticism she’d face would be from people who hadn’t even read her work.

Of course you should expect the anti-gun bigots to get all upset. It shows gun ownership and usage in a positive light. This is unacceptable in their world view.

And, of course, there is absolutely no need for them to read your work. Knowledge and rational thought is irrelevant to their thought process. We have seen this again and again.

How else do you explain how quickly and frequently they resort to childish insults instead of calm rational thought when discussing gun ownership?

Quote of the day—edsdet @edsdet

@Gunsandcoffee12 @AdamPiersen @FShagW is what’s disgusting. America want created for you to masturbate with an AR 15 in a weekend militia

edsdet @edsdet
Tweeted on March 15, 2016
[Via a tweet from Adam Pierson‏ @AdamPiersen.

It’s almost a Markley’s Law, but not quite, so I’m not making it a Markley’s Law Monday post. Besides, I’m not really hurting for material. Markley’s Law Mondays are already scheduled out through the middle of January 2017.

But note, as is typical with these type of people, they don’t even make sense grammatically. And even if you corrected the grammar they still wouldn’t make sense on any of several different levels.—Joe]

They really don’t understand

I just have to shake my head at people like this:

You don’t need an automatic weapon to hunt deer or shoot targets,” she said. “If you really need a gun for target practice, why don’t the gun clubs have guns to rent?”

A statement like that only vaguely even makes sense to me. And when you try to talk to these people they seem incapable of understanding what you are saying as well. I would assert people like this really are that stupid, but yet they manage to dress and feed themselves with no apparent difficulty.

Quote of the day—Yankeesfan66 @Rangersfan66

I’m not talking about violent crime, I’m talking about homocides of children. There is quite a diffrent, the shrink can help

Yankeesfan66‏ @Rangersfan66
Tweeted on February 18, 2016
[In what universe does this guy live such that homicide of innocent children is not a crime?

These people have mental problems and projection issues.—Joe]

Update: I got a response on Twitter from this genius in response to this blog post:

Now you know why I remember psychiatrists for you gun addicts…

Mr.shawn has a point.

Quote of the day—Louis Pasteur

The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.

Louis Pasteur
[I can’t disagree with the conclusion. But I fear that particular derangement of the mind is so common that one would be hard pressed to prove it was abnormal. Hence my placing it in such a wide variety of blog post categories.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Murray Rosenbaum

If you have a single gun and over 50 bullets, you could be a public danger.

The amount of ammunition you would need to keep your home safe from potential thieves and those who would cause you harm wouldn’t be even close to 100 rounds of anything. A single clip is more than enough to be threatening and protective if worse comes to worse.

Murray Rosenbaum
A eighteen-year-old senior at Columbia Prep in NYC
February 3, 2016
Bullet, Not Gun Control
[Children say the cutest things!

But children with crap for brains like this shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Murray, let me help with your education.

A typical pistol match requires a 100 to 150 rounds.

Last month reloaded, for my own use, just under 2000 rounds. Last year it was 9531 rounds. Later this month I’m taking a class which requires, “2000 rounds of brass-cased FMJ ammunition (minimum)”.

When I took a friend to the range last weekend for a couple hours to teach her how to defend herself she went through about 200 rounds and her education and practice is far from complete. After I get her to a basic competency and comfort level she will probably take this class which requires, “600 rounds of brass-cased, FMJ ammunition (minimum)”. I expect getting her to that level will require another 500 rounds of ammunition.

Murray, you say,

the trick is making bullets more expensive…

I have no doubt there are plenty of other people who would claim that I’m endorsing the destruction of the second amendment. They can say that all they want, but in the end the Constitution says “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” but it doesn’t say anything about bullets.

Okay. Then using that same argument I have to conclude you would be unable to find a constitutional problem with a heavy tax on books. The First Amendment says freedom of the press, but doesn’t say anything about you being able to read it. Right?

When practicing I sometimes go through ammunition at the rate of up to five rounds per second. I figure that is about half the speed you can read words. So I propose we tax your use of reading of words at double whatever tax you want to impose on bullets. The number you used as an example in your post figured out to $75 per bullet. So, doing the arithmetic for you just in case your ignorance extends to the area of numbers as well as firearms and constitutional law, that would be a tax of $150 per word.

If you want to inflict a crushing tax on my education and those of others exercising their specific, enumerated, constitutionally protected, rights then you can say all you want, but in the end the constitution doesn’t protect you any more or less than it does me.*


* If you want to claim “books don’t kill people” ask your history instructor about Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, and Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book. Then reevaluate your claim before you engage me on that issue.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Maj. Gen. Robert Scales

Presidential involvement in small arms has been strategic and game-changing in our history. Obama comes along and tells the Army that, in this administration, money is going into small arms to build — not a deadly weapon, not an effective weapon, not a dominant weapon, not a lifesaving weapon, not a technological cutting-edge weapon — but a weapon that prevents accidental discharge. Give me a break.

Maj. Gen. Robert Scales
Former commandant of the U.S. Army War College
January 31, 2016
Obama’s eye-opening order to Pentagon: Make combat weapons safer, not more lethal
[He is doing just what he said he would do. He is fundamentally transforming our country.—Joe]

Anti-gun mental ill health

Via email from Miles I received this bill introduced in Missouri by Representative Stacey Newman.

The TLDR version is, in Miles words:

It would create restrictive guidelines that a person must follow to purchase a firearm in the state of Missouri.
 
Basically you can only buy from an FFL that’s at least 120 miles away from your residence, after getting a psych eval signed off (I assume at the buyer’s expense), watch a 30 minute anti-gun video and take a tour of a trauma ER on a weekend between 10pm and 6am when there’s actually a patient being treated for a gunshot wound, visit two families who have had a family member shot and visit two “ local faith leaders” who have performed a funeral service for a teenager who was shot and killed in the last year. Oh, I almost forgot, I have to have my 91 year old father and 89 year old mother sign off on the purchase too as there’s no age limit for the required parental permission slip (and what happens if one is an orphan?).

Many anti-gun people have mental health issues. I have to believe this another one. It’s hard to believe someone, even the most evil, if they are rational, can imagine this would pass muster in the courts let alone with a majority of their fellow politicians. Even in the most generous of scenarios, signaling her virtue to other anti-gun people, you would have to conclude, “this is crazy talk”.

How does someone like that even get elected? They must have stopped taking their meds after winning the election.

Quote of the day—Bruce Rollier

Denying a request to carry a gun in public is not disarming that person; he already owns the gun, and no one is proposing to take it away; just keep it at home. Reasonable gun controls designed to save lives have nothing to do with taking guns away. The writer says that “Examples abound of gun control leading to extermination of dissidents and minorities”, but of course he does not mention any actual examples where this occurred, and there are none.

Bruce Rollier
December 29, 2015
Gun control is not about disarming U.S. citizens
[I would find it difficult to come up with a more disingenuous and/or delusional statement even if I were deliberately trying. This is total crap for brains or alternate universe material.

If you can’t carry a gun in public then you are disarmed in public. Which is,  DISARMED.

No one is proposing to take away our guns? Is the New York Times, numerous politicians, and hundreds of ordinary citizens I have documented as saying they want to take our guns “no one”?

I have to wonder what color the sky is in his universe where Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, The People’s Republic of China, Cambodia, and numerous other countries did not murdered tens of millions of disarmed people.—Joe]