. . . thousand dollar cigar?!!??
No? Well, someone famous might disagree.
Maker of world’s most expensive
cigars says Bill Clinton a client
I have to say that this seems somehow . . . apropos. After all: the man has some experience with cigars that ended up being very expensive.
I couldn’t make this sh*t up if I tried . . . .
. . . we have the following two “inconvenient truths”:
We all remember just how “wonderfully” the rollout of the Federal ObamaCare website went. Because of this debacle – and fears concerning system security because of the poor initial implementation of that website – the AP made a FOIA request for documentation regarding the website’s system security plan.
The Administration is flatly refusing to release any information about the subject. They are allegedly doing so for two reasons. First, because the release of system security plan might help attackers circumvent it. And second, because “releasing this information would potentially cause an unwarranted risk to consumers’ private information.”
Sheesh – what a load of crap. First, any competent IT professional will tell you that this is merely an example of what’s called “security through obscurity.” They will also tell you that “security through obscurity” is merely the illusion of security; a competent attacker can figure out what you’ve done in a reasonable amount of time.
Second: the allegation that releasing the system security plan “would potentially cause an unwarranted risk to consumers’ private information” is absurd. The plan doesn’t contain a damn bit of PII. So releasing the plan doesn’t risk disclosing squat concerning “consumers’ private information.”
What a release of the plan would do is allow 3rd-party review and validation of the plan. It would also show if the job was done “just as competently” as the initial website implementation – and thus would risk further embarrassing the Administration. My money’s on that being the real reason behind the refusal.
And then, we have this. It seems that on 15 April 2009, the Administration decided to get a handle on FOIA requests throughout the Federal government. On that date, Gregory Craig – Counsel to the President – wrote a memo reminding all Federal agencies of the need to consult with the White House if any document was requested that had “White House equities”. The requirement to consult with the White House involved all types of requests – including FOIA, Congressional, subpoena, and GAO.
You can see an extract of the memo here.
Gee. What a wonderful way to prevent the public from finding out what you’re really doing. The late LBJ and Richard Nixon must be smiling in their graves. They’d have heartily approved this!
Transparent? Yeah, right. Just about as transparent as a freaking stone wall.
But this should be no surprise. I mean, when the person in charge of making nonprofit group determinations tells a subordinate in e-mail they think conservatives are ”crazies” and “assholes” you can be fairly sure that they aren’t really interested in either operating openly or fairly. And when the Attorney General won’t investigate such incidents, you know that a distain for open government goes pretty far “up the chain”.
Like maybe to the very top.
This Saturday will be an old friend’s 60th birthday. On 23 August 1954, the Lockheed C-130 made its first flight.
It’s not the US military aircraft with the longest operational history. That honor goes to the B-52, which first flew on 15 April 1952 and entered operational service on 29 June 1955 (the C-130 entered operational service on 9 December 1956).
However, like the B-52 the C-130 has been a US military fixture – and workhorse – as far back as I can remember.
It was not the first military aircraft in which I ever flew. That would have been either a UH-1 or a C-123. After three plus decades, I can’t remember with certainty which of those two was the first – I think it was a UH-1, but I’m not positive.
However, it was indeed a C-130 that took me from Kuwait to Iraq – both times. And I left Iraq both times on one. It was also the military aircraft on which I flew last while in uniform.
Over the years, I flew on a number of C-130s – including at least one that might have literally been older than I was. When I was young, the Air National Guard still had a few “A model” C-130s in their inventory. Some of those C-130As supported my unit on one exercise.
The C-130 always put me down safely, and took me where I wanted to go (with one minor hiccup, discussed here). Unless, of course, I was jumping out of the bird’s jump doors – or walking off it’s loading ramp at jump altitude (got the chance to do a tailgate jump or two – they were a blast). (smile)
The C-130 has been called the most successful military aircraft in history. Frankly, it’s hard to argue with that characterization. It’s a helluva fine piece of military hardware.
Finally: believe it or not – you can indeed get more than 450 people on-board a C-130, take off – and land safely. It’s been done at least once. And yes, this last link is indeed worth your time to read.
Happy birthday, Herc. I hope to be here for your 70th and beyond.
PS, and FWIW: according to his autobiography, Ben Rich helped designed the intakes on the C-130 in his pre-Skunk Works days. Maybe that’s one reason why the bird was so successful. (smile)
We all know some anecdotal stories about veterans and good work ethic. But this one might just take the cake.
New Jersey veteran, 101, still working same job 73 years later
Well done, Mr. Goldman. Well done.
I do have to say I hope I never have to travel through the same town he works in while he’s commuting, though. According to the article, he still drives himself to and from work. (smile)
So, why can’t our Federal government figure it out – and fix the problem?
Enjoy. (smile)
One thing that military commanders are sensitive to is the concept of “command influence” in criminal matters. Best I can tell (I’m not a lawyer), it’s one of the easiest ways to get a slam-dunk court-martial case thrown out or set aside.
But apparently the rules in Missouri must bere very different. The “esteemed, wise” governor of that state, Jay Nixon, has publicly said that “a vigorous prosecution must now be pursued” in the Ferguson shooting case.
Now, as I said above – I’m no lawyer. But it seems to me that that statement fits the dictionary definition of one that is “prejudicial” to the investigation. That is, it’s a statement that shows someone in authority has already determined the desired outcome of the investigation, and is blatantly attempting to influence the outcome.
I wasn’t at the site of the shooting, so I don’t know what happened. That’s for an investigation to determine – a fair and impartial investigation.
But last time I checked, the same is true of Governor Nixon. So, tell me: why is he publicly calling for a “vigorous prosecution” of a case that hasn’t even been freaking completely investigated yet, or brought before a damned grand jury?
Frankly, this smacks of the old Soviet-era “show trial” mentality. As in, “We don’t give a flying f**k if the guy is actually guilty or not; we’re going to convict him for political purposes anyway – justice be damned”.
If the cop involved is found to have committed a crime, he should indeed be tried and – if found guilty – do time. But at this point, the best I can tell nothing has yet determined regarding whether a crime was committed. In fact, accounts emerging appear to points to the conclusion that the cop just might be telling the truth about what happened. Or perhaps not.
Bottom line: right now we just don’t freaking know the score. And neither does Governor Nixon.
We don’t need Governors decreeing the results of legal investigations a priori, or trying to pressure prosecutors or investigators into conducting prosecutions for political purposes. Ditto the US Attorney General’s office. Allegedly, this country operates under the rule of law – not according to the whims of those in power.
Rule by fiat and politicized justice was the kind of sh!t went on in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and in Mao’s China – as well as numerous other communist and non-communist dictatorships throughout history. It was wrong there and then; it would be even worse here and now, since we (the US) purport to obey the rule of law – and claim that justice should be blind.
(PS – if you’re wondering what might possibly be Governor Nixon’s political motive here, check out the first linked article. It identifies Govern Nixon’s political affiliation.)
Well, according to one liberal billionaire – a hedge fund manager – it’s because 99.5% of all Americans are “not super sophisticated”. Presumably that’s his polite way of saying it’s because we “just don’t know any better”.
It’ can’t possibly be because recent climate data doesn’t support the thesis; that the theory is completely the opposite of what was accepted climate science 40 years ago; that current climatologists never have and still cannot adequately explain the Medieval Warm period and the “little Ice Age”; that there appears to have quite possibly been widespread tampering with “correction” to actual raw data to support a man-made global warming hypothesis; the fact that the results have been overly sensationalized, possibly deliberately (Himalayan glaciers, anyone?); and the fact that for years “global warming” research was a key to getting research dollars? Or maybe that a sizeable minority of actual, you know, scientists think the thesis is currently unproven and may well be false?
No, none of those could possibly be among the reasons people might doubt that global warming propaganda thesis. It must be because those who doubt the global warming propaganda thesis are “not super sophisticated”.
Yo, fella: last time I checked, someone who was “sophisticated” typically was willing to examine facts and think for themselves. They didn’t usually simply accept and parrot whatever trendy BS, prevailing opinion, or half-baked theory was tossed their way for consumption. Sounds to me like you’re the one simply following the crowd here – “bubba”.
Now, why don’t you just run along get stick to making money from speculative and often-risky investments. Regarding that, you might actually know what you’re talking about.
Sheesh. Liberal hypocrisy never ceases to amaze.
Sometimes there just aren’t any appropriate words. Provided without comment.
