This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: “Your Tax Dollars At Work”

  • And In the “YGBSM!” Department . . .

    . . . it looks like the “best and brightest” working for the VA were at it again.

    It seems that some VA medical facilities recently distributed a flyer indicating prohibited items.  Bring them to an exam, and you would not be seen.

    The fliers were apparently mailed to some vets with appointment letters. The VA also posted similar signs at some medical facilities depicting those prohibited items.

    Here are some pictures of the flier and signs:


    No, you’re eyes aren’t playing tricks on you.  For a while, in part of the US the VA actually was telling people that if they brought a smartphone or backpack to an appointment, they would not be seen.  (The flier and signs actually depicted an iPhone, but presumably any smartphone – and probably, any cell phone – would have been similarly banned.)

    The VA has since backpedaled, and has announced the policy was “ill advised” .  The VA has also apparently cancelled the policy – though they did not explain why the policy was ever instituted in the first place.

    Now, why might the VA do something like this?  Well, it seems that at least one vet has used a recording device at a VA appointment – likely a cell or smart phone – to obtain a personal record of what was actually said at that appointment.  They did so in Minnesota, which is a “one party” consent state regarding the recording of conversations (Federal law and 38 states require one-party-consent regarding the recording of conversations).

    One plausible explanation is that the VA doesn’t want anyone else to have a separate record of what’s actually said in their appointments, so they tried to prevent that by banning cell phones. If so, that was indeed “ill advised”.

    Now, I’m sure there are other plausible explanations.  I just wish I could think of what one of those other plausible explanations might be.

    The really sad part about all this?  This whole idea was obviously utter and complete idiocy.  Any one with enough common sense to p!ss in the toilet vice the bathroom’s wastebasket would have seen that immediately.

    But coming from VA administrators? This doesn’t surprise me one bit.

    I’m seriously beginning to wonder if the VA is salvageable.

     

    AUTHOR’S NOTES (IMPORTANT):

    1.  If you’re thinking about taking a smartphone/MP3 player/other recording device to your next VA appointment and recording it, please CHECK YOUR LOCAL LAWS FIRST.  A number of states (11) appear to require the consent of ALL parties to a conversation before it may be legally recorded.  If you live in one of those states, you cannot legally record your appointment unless you get the permission of all present to record.

    2.  While I believe the last link to the PDF document listing state recording laws (last link above) to be accurate, the document appears to be from 2013 – and laws change from time to time.  I strongly recommend that you double check it against Lexis or another up-to-date source of state and local laws if you’re thinking about recording an appointment based on assumed one-party consent law in your state.  It’s possible your state’s law has changed since that document was prepared in 2013. 

  • Most “Hardline and Effective” Regime In History

    I saw this gem from one of our frequent commenters.

    Fucking nonsense. Obama has been much more hardline and effective in the fight against Islamic extremists and terrorists than any president in history, including Reagan.

    I have to agree, at least in part. I must admit that the current Occupant, 1600 PA Ave, Wash DC, and his krewe have indeed been uniquely effective regarding engaging Islamic extremists and terrorists. Let’s discuss his and his regime’s amazing record of success here.

    1. Inherited a stable situation in Iraq, with functioning government, a low-level of insurgency, and relative peace. And just look at Iraq today!

    2. Took over a manageable conflict in Afghanistan. Initially ignored good advice (Afghan surge recommended by McChrystal), then implemented a variant later. Things have only gotten better there in the last 6 1/2 years, right?

    3. For political reasons (or possibly out of pure spite), failed to obtain an Iraq SOFA allowing a residual US presence in that nation.

    4. Ignored warnings concerning possibility of rise of ISIS/ISIL/whatever the hell they’re calling themselves today during Iraq SOFA negotiations. Coupled with #3 above, this led to the rise of ISIS. ISIS now controls about half of Syria and around a third of Iraq; the Iraqi Army and government are now barely credible.

    5. Appears to have based US strategy on countering Islamic extremism on “support for local populations” and clandestine armed RPA strikes. Yes, the latter has been of minor military value – but it’s been at least as counterproductive, if not more, in terms of creating hostility to US efforts due to occasional erroneous strikes. It’s also handed a major propaganda weapon to Islamic extremists for only marginal military gain. And it’s almost certainly undermining the Pakistani government in the eyes of the Pakistani public, since each uninvited strike in Pakistan is a demonstration that the Pakistani government cannot control its own territory and airspace.

    6. And that “support for local populations” thing, AKA the “Arab Spring”? It’s led to a chaotic Libya with at best a marginally effective central government and parts dominated by al Qaeda allies; the ouster of stable, pro-Western governments in Tunisia and Yemen; and nearly resulted in the Muslim Brotherhood taking over freaking Egypt. It also led to protests/unrest short of regime change in numerous other countries friendly to the US: Bahrain, Morrocco, Jordan, Kuwait, and Oman.

    7. Dithering over Syria – e.g., being at first afraid to do squat, then drawing meaningless “red lines”, providing support to feckless “moderate” Syrian opposition that was in turn largely handed over to Islamic hardliners (al Nursa), and wasting $500M with the net result of training 50 troops.  But no fear; all will turn out well.

    8. And don’t get me started on the 5-for-1 trade with the Taliban for the knowing return of an apparent deserter – followed by feting said apparent deserter and his family at the White House.

    Yeah, all of that simply screams “hardline, effective countering of Islamic extremism”, doesn’t it?

    The author of the comment above is correct. The current    gang of feckless fools and tone-deaf tools running things in DC since January 2009    Administration has indeed been singularly effective while engaging Islamic extremism.

    Problem is, it’s been almost uniformly successful from the perspective of the Islamic extremists. From the US perspective, it’s been a nearly-uniform series of failures.

    My reaction on reading that comment? “Son, I want some of whatever it is you’re smoking. That must indeed be some ‘really good sh!t’.”

  • Russian Combat Equipment, Troops in Syria – Along With Iranian Troops, Too

    We all know that the current        group of feckless fools and tone-deaf tools running things in DC      Administration has been somewhat reluctant to become involved in Syria’s civil war – at least, when it came to sending US troops.  I have to admit I think that’s the right call.  Or at least, it was when inactivity on the Administration’s part made it the de facto US response.

    Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice daily.  (smile)

    But other nations aren’t so reluctant to become involved.  Take Russia, for instance.

    Russia has apparently sent combat troops to Syria.  They’ve recently (as in last week) been reported to have participated in combat operations on the side of the Syrian government.

    It’s hardly a minor “just to show the flag” deployment, either.  The Russians have made a serious logistical effort to support operations in Syria, and appear to be setting up airfield/basing facilities IVO Latakia – including billeting for up to 1,500 troops.  They’ve conducted numerous Antonov 124 flights to deliver troops and/or key other items.  They’ve also delivered tanks (including T-90s), APCs, and artillery pieces via ship.  Components for the SA-22 SAM system have also reportedly been assembled in Syria.

    Russia also isn’t the only foreign nation supporting the Syrian government. Iran has also sent a number of troops to “support” Russian forces in Syria.

    The US government – or, at least those currently in DC pretending to perform that function – are reacting predictably to these latest developments.  They have publicly expressed “deep concerns” over Russian forces in Syria, and also indicated they are “closely monitoring the situation“.

    Well, that’s just dandy.

    This last tells me that the introduction of forces was both unforeseen and undesired by the current Administration.  Otherwise, why draw attention to the fact you couldn’t prevent it from happening by expressing your “deep concerns”?

    And unforeseen?  GMAFB.  The Russians have been arming Syria for decades; the Iranians have been similarly close recently as well.  The fact that either or both could decide to intervene on Syria’s side should have been foreseen, oh, maybe about 24 hours after the current Syrian troubles began.  Yet all this Administration can manage to do is call attention to an unwanted and apparently unanticipated foreign action – and wring its hands after-the-fact.

    Yeah, that’s effective leadership.  Just like we had back in 1977-1980.

    Let me be crystal clear here:  I’m not calling for US forces to be deployed to Syria. And maybe having Russian and Iranian forces there to do something we’re not willing to do (e.g., fight ISIS on the ground) is the correct course of action.  Dunno.

    But calling attention to your own major diplomatic failure probably isn’t going to get us much respect in that part of the world – or anywhere else, for that matter.  And I do wonder what quid quo pro Assad will give to his Russian and Iranian benefactors afterwards to show his gratitude for saving his butt.

    As I’ve said before about the current Syrian civil war:  “I got a bad feeling about this.”

  • Yet Another “Private Email” Update

    Well, we have a few new bits of news regarding the Clintoon “private email” brouhaha.

    So, Clintoon’s lawyers have turned over all her “private email”? Well, maybe – or maybe not. There are gaps totaling roughly 5 months in what was turned over to government authorities by Clintoon’s lawyers. Specifically, in what was released by Clintoon’s lawyers there’s roughly 2 months with no email received by Clintoon: 21 January thru 17 March 2009. There’s also a roughly 3 month gap in email sent by Clintoon: 21 Jan thru 17 April 2009 – plus another sent email gap for her last month in office, 30 December 2012 thru 1 Feb 2013.

    And then we have this: a senior DoS records management official apparently stated in an email to a colleague that they did not want to discuss certain matters by email, but instead wanted to discuss the matter in person. Why? Well here’s one possible reason: as that official knows quite well, email is considered a Federal record – and can be requested under a FOIA request. Verbal discussions that generate no written records are much easier to hide. (The specific details of what were to be discussed were redacted in the email from the senior DoS records management official that was made public. However, since that email was obtained by Judicial Watch in conjunction with the Clintoon private email scandal, it’s reasonable to infer the subject was – or was related to – the Clintoon email matter.)

    Oh, and it seems that Congress is starting to get a bit fed up with the matter, too. They’ve asked the Attorney General to weigh in on whether or not they can meet privately with Brian Pagliano (the staffer who set up Clintoon’s private email server) and his lawyers while determining whether to grant Pagliano immunity and then compel him to testify. It seems that Pagliano’s lawyers are pulling out all the stops to prevent this; they’ve raised questions as to whether such a private meeting would constitute a waiver of Pagliano’s 5th Amendment rights.  A couple of Congressmen have therefore asked the Attorney General for a formal reading on the subject. I guess Pagliano’s lawyers must never previously have been involved with similar private discussions with prosecutors with or on the behalf of other clients regarding possible testimony in exchange for immunity. Silly me – I thought lawyers did that on occasion.

    That’s all for today, but stay tuned – this one seems worth watching.

  • Yer Latest “Good Economic News”

    Well, the economic news for August is now out.  Short version:  the economy is still in the freaking toilet.

    For the third consecutive month, the US labor participation rate remained at 62.6%.  That means only 62.6% (the actual number, to 6 figures, calculates to 62.5518%) of the US civilian labor force is actually working or actively looking for work.

    This is a 38-year low – for the third straight month.  Prior to the last 3 months, the last time the US labor participation rate was this low or lower was October 1977.  Then, it was 62.4%.

    Yes, that does indeed read October 1977 – as in “during the worst of the Carter years”.

    It’s true that the “official unemployment rate” fell slightly last month, from 5.2% to 5.1%.  But that measure is absolutely worthless, because it tells you nothing about the underlying economic reality.  Here’s why.

    U3 – the “official unemployment rate” – is calculated using only those who are “actively looking for work” but who are unable to find work.  “Actively looking for work” is defined as looking for work within the last 4 weeks.  However, if someone has gotten completely discouraged and is no longer even looking for work, they’re not counted.  But they still exist.  And at some point in the future, they’ll be looking for work again.

    U3 is such a p!ss-poor measure that it’s even possible for this to cause the “official” unemployment rate to drop while you’re losing jobs overall.  I’ve provided a short example at the end to show how this can occur.

    That appears to be precisely what’s been going on for the past several years.  The US labor participation rate has gone down by 3.1% since January 2009.  That means a huge number of Americans simply aren’t even bothering to look for work that should be looking.  If the labor participation rate were the same today as it was in January 2009, an additional 7.78 million Americans would be in the labor force.

    Today’s US civilian labor force totals over 251 million.  Just for “fun”, let’s calculate what the “official” unemployment rate would be today if we had January 2009’s labor participation rate.

    In January 2009, the US labor participation rate was 65.7%.  If that were the case today, the US civilian labor force would be approximately 164,970,000. (Since the US labor participation rate today is only 62.6%, the civilian labor force today is only about 157,065,000.)

    However, today only about 149,055,000 Americans have jobs.  That means if we had a labor participation rate equal to that of January 2009, we’d have about 15,915,000 unemployed people who were actively looking for work today.

    Doing the math gives an unemployment rate of 9.64+% if we had the January 2009 labor participation rate of 65.7%. Since “official” unemployment in January 2009 was 7.8%, we’d need at least 4.5 million more jobs than exist today to get back to January 2009 economic conditions – and nearly 8 million more to achieve a 5.1% unemployment rate at January 2009’s labor participation rate.

    Oh, and we’re all also taking it in the proverbial shorts regarding purchasing power, too.  Per that wonderful bastion of conservatism called the New York Times, real wages (e.g., adjusted for inflation) have dropped since January 2009 in all earnings quintiles – with the lowest-earning quintile seeing the largest real decline.

    Recovery?  What  freaking recovery? So far, there hasn’t been one.  All we’ve seen is stagnation, along with people becoming discouraged to the point of giving up.  Actual economic recovery?  Um. no.

    It’s been more than 6 and a half years since January 2009.  Are we ever going to see any real economic progress?

    . . . 

    Example Showing Loss of Jobs AND a Decline in “Official” Unemployment

    This simple example assumes no retirements and no new entrants into the job market during the two months in question.  In real world calculations, they’re considered – those are handled by adding new entrants and subtracting retirements, but the example is simpler and easier to follow if we omit those.  FWIW:  since the population is growing, there are typically more new entrants than retirements each month.  In the real world, new job creation must exceed the difference between new entrants and retirements or the unemployment rate will go up.

    First month

    These are the numbers at the beginning of the first month.

    Number unemployed and looking for work:  100,000

    Number with jobs:  900,000

    Labor Force:  100,000 + 900,000 = 1,000,000

    Unemployment rate:  100,000  / (100,000 + 900,000) = 10.0%

    Second month

    At the beginning of the second month, 25,000 jobs are cut.  However,  50,000 of the previous month’s “officially” unemployed people got fed up and quit looking for work 5 weeks ago – so they’re no longer counted.  The 25,000 who lost their jobs immediately start looking for new work.

    Number unemployed and looking for work:  100,000 (previous month) – 50,000 (quit looking)  + 25,000 (lost jobs, started looking)  =  75,000

    Number with jobs:   875,000

    Labor force:  75,000 + 875,000 = 950,000 (those who quit looking are no longer counted)

    Unemployment rate:  75,000 / ( 75,000 + 875,000) = 7.89%

     

    So, there was a net loss of 25,000 jobs in that month, but because enough people got fed up and quit looking for work  the “official” unemployment rate  dropped by 2.1+%.  Truly a great measure of economic conditions, eh?

     

  • Wanna See ALL of Clintoon’s “Private” Email? Come Up With $500k and Maybe You Can.

    Gee, what a surprise.  We’re talking a private server, operated for a long time in an open environment and possibly without any effective information security controls.  What could possibly go wrong?

    Exposed! Libya Security Briefs, Algeria Hostage Info & More — Hacker Threatens To Sell Hillary Clinton’s ENTIRE UNRELEASED Private Emails For $500K

    My question is: if some unidentified hacker managed to get access and download all of that . . . who else did?

     

  • Yer “Private” Email Update

    Here’s the latest update on the Clintoon email server brouhaha.

    • Number of classified emails found on that “private” server? Now approaching 200 – 188 (125 + 63), to be precise.

    • How did that classified email get there?   Good question. Apparently, it  either “magically” moved between air-gapped systems or was deliberately moved to or created on State Department unclassified systems without proper markings.

    • But the State Department IT staff knew about Clintoon’s private server and gave their OK, right? In a word: no.

    • Oh and that private email server? It appears to have been on the same network – and maybe the same physical machine – as the Clinton Foundation email server.  Compromise one, you compromise both – and does anyone really think that the Clinton Foundation wasn’t high-profile enough to be a hacker target?   In any case, it’s a good bet that the network admins would have had access to both to some degree.

    • Some of the email on that server was, shall we say, “interesting” DoS business. One email apparently included a discussion of impeaching a sitting SCOTUS justice.

    Finally, in unrelated email news: a Federal judge has ruled that the IRS cannot refuse to produce White House emails relating to individual tax returns under the FOIA by refusing to say whether or not the records even exist. The IRS was apparently doing exactly that for FOIA requests relating to the IRS nonprofit scandal headed up by a lady named Lois Lerner.

     

    With apologies to the late Dezi Arnez, in his “Ricky Ricardo” role:  “Lois, Hill’ry – ladies, looks like you both got some ‘splainin’ to do!”

  • Well, That Didn’t Take Very Long

    I’m guessing any number of people are saying or thinking “Told you so” right about now.

    ‘Sister Wives’ family cites gay marriage ruling in polygamy case

    Sheesh.  I don’t think I wanna know what’s coming next.