Displaying posts published in

May 2017

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Clapper defends Comey By J. Marsolo

By on May 13th, 2017

James the Great and James the Less: Clapper defends Comey

James Clapper, Obama’s DNI chief, tried to aid James Comey, Obama’s FBI director. Clapper, in an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, said Comey felt uneasy about having dinner with President Trump on January 27, 2017 because he felt it might compromise the FBI.

According to Clapper:

“He mentioned that he had been invited to the White House to have dinner with the president and he was uneasy with that[.] … Comey didn’t want to create “the appearance of compromising the integrity of the FBI.”

Too bad NBC had Andrea Mitchell instead of real journalist interview Clapper. A journalist would have questioned Clapper by asking:

Did Comey believe that the integrity of the FBI was compromised when Terry McAuliffe, friend of Hillary, donated $700,000 to the political campaign of Jill McCabe, wife of assistant FBI director Andrew McCabe? McCabe was involved in investigating Hillary for her illegal use of a private unsecured email server. Did Comey ask McCabe to recuse himself, or better yet, give back the $700,000? Was McCabe warned, reprimanded, or otherwise spoken to about this?
Was the integrity of the FBI compromised when Comey questioned Hillary not under oath and gave immunity to Hillary’s assistants? Granting immunity is usually the function of the Justice Department in consultation with the FBI.
Was the integrity of the FBI compromised when Comey took it upon himself to make the decision whether to indict Hillary instead of following procedure to give the results of the investigation to the Justice Department for its review as to whether to indict?
Was the integrity of the FBI investigation of Hillary compromised when Bill Clinton met with Comey’s boss, Obama’s attorney general, Lynch, days before Comey gave Hillary a pass?
Was the integrity of the FBI compromised when Comey listed all the facts that warranted an indictment of Hillary but declined to indict because he added the requirement of “intent” that is not in the statutes – and worse, the issue of intent is for a judge or jury to infer from the facts?

The bottom line is that it is not the integrity of the FBI that is the issue. It is the integrity of James Comey.

Of course, Clapper is not the best witness for credibility. He admitted that he lied to Congress about the NSA’s bulk collection of data – not exactly a minor issue.

Or maybe Comey can use John Brennan, but Brennan also lied when he denied that the CIA had hacked the computers of Senate staff members.

Who else from the Obama administration can help Comey? Susan Rice, the liar of Benghazi? Hillary? Bill Clinton, perjurer?

Continue reading →
ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE Comments turned off

Academic Global Warming Advocates and the Power of Incoherent Jargon By Norman Rogers

By on May 13th, 2017

The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink. — George Orwell

Nature Climate Change is a monthly magazine that is devoted to supporting the idea that we face a man-caused climate disaster that will surface at some future date. The magazine presents itself as if it is a scientific journal. But scientific journals, real scientific journals, don’t fill their pages with advocacy for a single point of view.

The April 2017 issue of Nature Climate Change carries a commentary: The food-energy-water nexus and urban complexity. The title is an indication of things to come. “food-energy-water” is abbreviated as “FEW.” Obviously, people need food, energy and water. But, why are these grouped together? People need lots of other things, for example: police, transportation, housing, and education. Is water a more urgent problem than, say, education? Some people think so. When I lived in Chicago there were true believers wandering on Michigan Avenue, proselytizing for the supposed future global warming-caused water crisis. This a few blocks from one of the great fresh-water inland seas of the world. These true believers were, no doubt, less interested in the education crisis represented by the failing public schools of Chicago.

According to the article:

“The world’s FEW systems are significantly stressed and already experiencing shortfalls due to their interactions with global anthropogenic processes such as urbanization and climate change”

Okay — urbanization, the migration of poor rural people to cities, is an anthropogenic process. In fact, everything that people and societies do is an anthropogenic (man-caused) process. Urbanization in the U.S. was largely finished by the 50s and instead we had migration out of the cities to the suburbs. But, is “climate change” a man-caused process? Not unless you believe that carbon dioxide is the great controller of the Earth’s climate.

The authors explain some of their thinking with this quote:

“National and human security approaches illuminate contrasting aspects of FEW security and their epistemological and ontological differences lead to differing proposed response options, and can hinder communication and incorporation of insights and lessons across disciplines. These differences need to be carefully elicited to avoid the risk of theoretical and practical incompatibility of inconsistency.”

I have tried to translate this into plain English, but it defies a translation that makes sense.

When the authors occasionally descend into the real world, they appear to embrace conspiracy and be badly misinformed:

“While the energy security of consumers would benefit more from distributed [solar] installations, utilities and their investors have supported regulations, business plans, and technology designs that favor industrialized, large-scale plants managed by a few.”

Continue reading →
ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

$697,177 for a ‘Climate-Change Musical’: You Call That Science? Research is often a wise investment of tax dollars—but agencies also fund ridiculous boondoggles. By Henry I. Miller

By on May 13th, 2017

https://www.wsj.com/articles/697-177-for-a-climate-change-musical-you-call-that-science-1494625499?mod=nwsrl_review_outlook_u_s_

Dr. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He was founding director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Biotechnology.

Research is the lifeblood of technological innovation, which drives economic growth and keeps America competitive. Government-funded scientific research runs the gamut from studies of basic physical and biological processes to the development of applications to meet immediate needs. Unfortunately, the definition of what constitutes “science” has gradually expanded to include sociology, economics and woo-woo “alternative medicine.” Much of the spending on these disciplines by the nation’s two major funders of nonmilitary research, the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, is systematically shortchanging taxpayers.

The NSF, whose mission is to ensure U.S. leadership in areas of science and technology that are essential to economic growth and national security, frequently funds politically correct but low-value research projects. A few doozies include the veiling-fashion industry in Turkey, Viking textiles in Iceland, the “social impacts” of tourism in the northern tip of Norway, and whether hunger causes couples to fight (using the number of pins stuck in voodoo dolls as a measure of aggressive feelings). Research funding in the geosciences, including climate change, is certainly legitimate, but not when it goes to ludicrous boondoggles such as a climate-change musical that cost $697,177 to produce.

The primary culprit is the NSF’s Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, known as SBE. Underlying its ability to dispense grants is the wrongheaded notion that social-science projects such as a study of animal depictions in National Geographic and a climate change musical are as important as research to identify early markers for Alzheimer’s disease or pancreatic cancer.

In January President Obama signed the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, which accomplished little with respect to setting funding priorities other than endorsing the only two criteria NSF had previously used to evaluate grant applications—the “intellectual merit” of the proposal and its “broader impacts” on society. The bill’s lead proponent, House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, had wanted to include a “national interest” criterion defined by several factors including improving economic competitiveness, health, national security, the STEM workforce and scientific literacy.

In the end the national interest standard was retained, but only to provide examples of how grant applicants can satisfy NSF’s “broader impacts” requirement. In other words, SBE will continue funding marginal research by social scientists—what a former NSF official characterized as “the inmates running the asylum.”

As for the NIH, most of its budget—currently about $32 billion, with another $2 billion in the just-approved omnibus spending bill—goes to fund grant proposals from researchers all over the country. The proposals are not judged by their merits across all disciplines, but are divided by categories of research—cancer, aging, eye, etc. But one institute that is the brainchild of politicians—the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (formerly the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine)—on average does far-less-significant work than the others, but receives a significant amount of grant funding.

NCCIH’s stated mission is “to define, through rigorous scientific investigation, the usefulness and safety of complementary and integrative health interventions and their roles in improving health and health care.” But “complementary and integrative” often means implausible and poorly designed, because peer review at this institute permits the funding of such projects.

One study supported by the center found that cranberry juice cocktail was no better than a placebo at preventing recurring urinary-tract infections. Other supported studies include “Long-Term Chamomile Therapy of Generalized Anxiety Disorder,” “The Use of Narrative in Public Health Research and Practice” and “Restorative Yoga for Therapy of the Metabolic Syndrome.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
EDUCATION Comments turned off

In Praise of Edison Jackson Bethune-Cookman’s president stands up for Betsy DeVos.

By on May 13th, 2017

As if we needed another example of civility gone off the rails at America’s institutions of higher learning, the treatment given Education Secretary Betsy DeVos this week at Bethune-Cookman University deserves special mention.

Edison O. Jackson, the president of Bethune-Cookman, a historically black institution of higher education, invited Mrs. DeVos to be the schools commencement speaker. As she began, many students screamed at her and turned their backs to the stage. So it went for nearly the whole speech.

President Jackson, let it be noted, defended the Secretary at her side, and the school’s faculty stood onstage in solidarity with him.

The irony here is that Mrs. DeVos has dedicated her adult life to improving educational opportunities for inner-city black children, specifically so they can qualify for a higher education and the lifetime of benefits that brings.

We are reaching the limits of political polarization when it turns this self-defeating.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

A Week in Trump’s Washington What we’ve learned in the Comey-White House maelstrom.

By on May 13th, 2017

The Washington spectacle continues in the aftermath of President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, and unlike Ringling Bros. it won’t be closing soon. As a service to readers, we thought we’d sort the fact from the suspicion, hyperventilation and bluster and sum up what we’ve learned from the latest tumultuous week in the Trump Presidency.

• Whatever Mr. Trump’s calculations, Mr. Comey’s departure is good for the FBI, the Justice Department and the country. The President and White House first said Tuesday that he had acted based on the recommendation of his top two Justice officials. On Thursday he told NBC News that he was going to fire Mr. Comey anyway, and that he had the FBI’s Russia-Trump probe on his mind.

The two aren’t mutually exclusive, but with Mr. Trump who knows? He often acts on one impulse then changes his explanation later. The main problem of his Presidency is that he treats his own statements as a form of public entertainment rather than acts of persuasion to build public trust. This is self-destructive, but it means everyone else has to discount what he says and focus even more than with most politicians on the substance of what he does.

Mr. Comey’s political calculations—most of them aimed at preserving his personal standing—had damaged the bureau. His dismissal sent a message that the FBI director is politically accountable through the Attorney General and Deputy AG.

• Rod Rosenstein deserves better treatment—from Democrats and Mr. Trump. The Deputy AG’s memo on Mr. Comey’s 2016 behavior is persuasive and a public service. It bears the hallmark of a straight shooter concerned with the accountability that is essential to a credible rule of law.

Democrats are now saying they don’t trust him, though a chunk of the memo quoted what Democratic legal veterans had written. They should be pleased to have someone of recognized integrity in such a crucial Justice role. So should Mr. Trump, whose initial public statements appeared to load the responsibility for Mr. Comey’s dismissal on Mr. Rosenstein.

The Washington Post report that Mr. Rosenstein threatened to resign has since been contradicted—it doesn’t sound like his M.O.—but Mr. Trump should still apologize to him.

• The various Russia probes will continue with even more vigor. Acting FBI director Andrew McCabe, a Comey loyalist, told Congress this week that he has seen no attempt to interfere with its investigation. He said the FBI has ample resources for the job and that he wasn’t aware of a request by Mr. Comey for more. This contradicted another media report.

If Mr. Trump hoped to cover something up, sacking the FBI director is exactly the wrong way to do it. Every G-man with a mediocre lead will leak if he thinks politicians are trying to sit on evidence. The next FBI director will be watched like a Russian agent for any hint of political favoritism. The House and Senate intelligence committees have also been given new impetus for thorough investigations.

• There still is no serious evidence of Trump-Russia collusion during the 2016 campaign. The worst detail so far is Michael Flynn’s denial (he says he forgot) that he had met with the Russian ambassador. The various other names who’ve flashed as targets of media suspicion are small-timers (Carter Page) or Beltway bandits ( Paul Manafort ) who look more like mercenaries than conspirators.

Perhaps such evidence will emerge. If it does, Mr. Trump’s Presidency isn’t likely to survive. If it doesn’t, he could emerge politically stronger for having his denials vindicated.

Continue reading →