Good Intentions

Obama, Obama Care, most anything Liberal…

Derek Hunter:

A good idea can change the world; but a good idea that doesn’t work, no matter how well intentioned, can bring it crashing down. Such is the case right now with Theranos, a company that describes itself as “a consumer healthcare technology company.” But much more than a health technology company, Theranos was a media creation.

Theranos was founded in 2003 by Elizabeth Holmes, then a 23-year-old college graduate. Holmes, a brilliant young woman with a dream, was working on technology that could test blood for diseases using only a few drops. If perfected, this could save billions of dollars per year and lower costs for consumers.

Before the product could be proven to work, the value of the company exploded to nearly $9 billion, which turned heads in the media and made Holmes fabulously wealthy and a media darling.

In 2015, Time magazine named Holmes one of the “100 most influential people,” listing her in the “Titans” category alongside the Koch brothers and Apple CEO Tim Cook (also Kanye West and Kim Kardashian, so…)

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who sits on the Theranos board, wrote her Time profile. “Striving for prevention and early detection, she is dedicated to transforming health care around the world,” he wrote. “She manages an expanding global business by the refusal to be daunted by any obstacle.”

Dozens of other media outlets and magazines heaped followed on with glowing profiles. She was smart, rich, attractive, young and dazzling even in Silicon Valley. In other words, a perfect story.

There was just one problem – her technology didn’t work. She was proof that not all dreams come true.

Undeterred, Theranos used the technology to test blood anyway. But recently, it announced it was voiding two years’ worth of test results – results on which hundreds of thousands of medical decisions were based. The test results rendered were all no good, and should be voided retroactively, the company announced.

Elizabeth Holmes was elevated before she had done anything beyond starting to work on an idea. In time, the praise grew, as did the expectations. But no matter how good it all seemed, no one asked the most important question: Does it work.

The media didn’t ask because the story it wanted to tell did not demand it. The media wanted to write about an attractive woman heading a billion-dollar company, so success did not need to precede accomplishment before the trappings of success were heaped on her.

The story of Elizabeth Holmes is a sad one, but it’s not unique. When reporting on business success, the media is more interested in gender than achievement.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, Mostly Liberal ones.

Queen Hillary Busted

Low hanging fruit time. Hillary and her Emails were wrong. SURPRISE!:)

The State Department Inspector General released a new report Wednesday detailing how former Secretary Hillary Clinton violated the Federal Records Act by deleting thousands of emails, stored on her private server, that she deemed personal before turning remaining emails over the the Department for review and preservation. Details from POLITICO

The State Department inspector general concluded that Hillary Clinton did not comply with the agency’s policies on records, according to a report released to lawmakers on Wednesday that also revealed that Clinton and her top aides chose not to cooperate with the review.

While the report concludes that the agency suffers from “longstanding, systemic weaknesses” with records that “go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State,” it specifically dings Clinton for her exclusive use of private email.

“Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary,” the report states. “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”

The report also notes that she had an “obligation to discuss using her personal email account” but did not get permission from the people who would have needed to approve the technology, who said they would not have done so, if they had been asked.

“According to the current [chief information officer] and assistant secretary for diplomatic security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs,” the report reads. “However, according to these officials, [the relevant people] did not — and would not — approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email.”

The watchdog also “found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server.”

The report represents the latest pushback — in this case by a nonpartisan government entity — against her campaign’s claim that she did not break any rules and that her use of a private server was completely allowed.

Clinton Campaign spokesman Brian Fallon in a statement predicted that “political opponents of Hillary Clinton are sure to misrepresent this report for their own partisan purposes,” but argued that “in reality, the Inspector General documents just how consistent her email practices were with those of other Secretaries and senior officials at the State Department who also used personal email.”

Has the counter-spin stop the earth’s rotation yet? But I think her nose is appraoching the edge of the universe though…

Investigators also concluded that former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who used a personal email as well, likewise did not follow record keeping laws. However, the report notes significant difference in their circumstances: During Powell’s tenure, State’s capacity to email people outside the department was limited. He said he needed it to reach people who didn’t work at State. The IG also noted that he used email less frequently than Clinton and top technology officials were aware of his personal email use.

2001-2005, technology was different. But that doesn’t matter to Hillary or the Left. I’m surprised they didn’t go after John Jay or Thomas Jefferson…

“It’s clear from the report that the Department could have done a better job preserving emails and records of secretaries of state,” another senior state department official. “The department is much better situated today….This has high-level attention.”

It does now, because of HIllary.:)

One employee told investigators that he or she “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,” the document states.

But they were told to drop it: “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.”

A 2012 directory lists John Bentel as the director of the office that handles information technology for the Office of the Secretary. Bentel no longer works for State and has refused to answer Congressional investigators’ questions on this matter.

Which means she bought his silence.

“According to the other [IT] staff member who raised concerns about 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.”

And if Hillary Wins, I wonder who might be Secretary of State?:)

“Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”— Hillary.

According to the report a non-State adviser to Bill Clinton, who was the original user of the server later taken over by Hillary Clinton, shut down the server in early 2011 because of hacking concerns. While unnamed in the report, previous news reports have identified longtime Clinton staffer and Teneo employee Justin Cooper as the man who registered Clinton’s email address. According to the report, the individual who registered the address was the same person who reported the hacking.

Yeah, the Russians, the Chinese, etc.

Cooper, according to the report, reached out to Huma Abedin on Jan. 9, 2011 to notify her of the hacking problem, an occurrence that happened twice that day. He said he “had to shut down the server because he believed ‘someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to,’” the report says.

“Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, ‘We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min,’” the report reads.

That matter should have been reported, the IG report says, but was not.

“Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information,” it says. “However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department.”

State has deemed more than 2,000 of Clinton’s messages as classified, including 22 that were upgraded to the most sensitive national security classification, “top secret.” And the FBI is still probing whether any laws were broken laws by putting classified information at risk — or whether her staff improperly sent sensitive information knowing it wasn’t on a classified system.

At the very least, State’s inspector general says Clinton didn’t do what she was supposed to, though it also notes widespread email issues across the tenures of five secretaries of state, not just Clinton. The report found top staffers frequently used personal emails too.

“OIG recognizes that technology and Department policy have evolved considerably since Secretary Albright’s tenure began in 1997. Nevertheless, the Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership,” the report concluded. “OIG expects that its recommendations will move the Department steps closer to meaningfully addressing these risks.”

Clinton and her allies have contended she did nothing illegal by choosing to set up a private email server and account at her Chappaqua, New York, home, and that she was not trying to evade public records requests. Instead, Clinton has said she was motivated by the desire for convenience, though she has conceded it was not the best choice.

She exploited a weakness and when she got caught playing fast and loose she blamed someone else for it and her Media Allies did to. It was only not “the best choice” because she got caught doing it.

swan

The report gives more details of the under-the-radar work of Clinton’s top technology staffer, Bryan Pagliano, whom she paid to maintain her private email server. State’s chief information officer and deputy chief information officers, Pagliano’s direct bosses, told investigators that he never informed them of his side duties. They “believed that Pagliano’s job functions were limited to supporting mobile computing issues across the entire Department.”

“They told OIG that while they were aware that the Senior Advisor had provided IT support to the Clinton Presidential campaign, they did not know he was providing ongoing support to the Secretary’s email system during working hours,” the report reads.

The top technology officers also told investigators they “questioned whether he could support a private client during work hours, given his capacity as a full-time government employee.”

Pagliano invoked his right to avoid self-incrimination and refused to answer questions on the matter before Congress but received immunity from the FBI to talk about the email arrangement. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been eager to question him on whether Clinton intentionally used private email because she didn’t want anyone getting access to her messages.

Yes.:)

 

 

Another One Bites the dust

There-are-two-genders-anything-else-is-sociopathyThe insanity with transgender restrooms is just getting so out of control that words are barely able to describe it.

Now, a major family amusement park is hopping on board the give-rapists-and-pedophiles-immunity bandwagon and is opening restrooms to all genders.

Robert Gehl reports that since they have not learned the lesson from Target, Hershey Park in Pennsylvania announced they have the same “transgender restroom” policy as the big box store.

The Hershey Company announced their transgender policy on Friday:

 

For decades, Hersheypark has been dedicated to the safety and security of our guest and employees. It is foundational to our brand. Additionally, the Park has and will always strive to accommodate all guests and employees – including members of the LGBT community – to ensure those visiting or working at Hersheypark are comfortable and feel secure. To that end, the Park will continue its practice of treating all guests and employees the same no matter race, ethnicity, sexual identity, etc. Guests and employees may continue to use the restrooms with which they gender-identify, or are welcome to use the many family restrooms available across the destination.

That policy is the same as Target’s which is the subject of a boycott, a petition with more than 1.2 million signatures and stocks that continue to slide.

But don’t worry, as I predicted, Polygamy will next up on the “crisis” list for Liberal need to have a new “civil rights” battle after this one.

It’s on to the next one…

On Facebook, Tyler Harris responded: “Really Hershey? I thought you had more integrity than that. Keep family values and make boys use the boys room and girls use the girls room. No matter what you do you can’t get rid of that Y chromosome.”

Let the Lawsuits fly….:)

 

Is another boycott in the works? We’ll see.

It’s Only Fair

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7614

Students sign petition to allow man on women’s basketball team.

And use the Women’s Locker Room as well. And they need to install a urinal also.:)

In recent weeks, the issue of transgender rights has been brought to the forefront around the country.

Last week, President Obama directed public schools to allow students to use whichever bathroom they identified with, and now it seems to be just a matter of time before the same demands are made for transgender athletes.

As a contributor for Campus Reform, I wanted to see just how far young people are willing to go to accommodate those in the transgender community, so I went to the University of Maryland posing as a student who identified as a woman but was unable to try out for the women’s basketball team because of my “assigned gender at birth.”

Not knowing what to expect, I brought along 50 letters addressed to the school’s president, and began seeking signatures from “concerned students.”

Despite making no effort to exude femininity, it soon became apparent that students were more than willing to go along with the idea that I was a woman who had every right to play basketball with other women.

As the day progressed, I began to push the envelope further, calling myself a “hero” and even suggesting the abolition of gender-specific sports leagues. It seemed like the more outlandish my suggestions, the more enthusiastic my supporters became.

Of the 50 students who stopped to speak with me, just one insisted that I was clearly not a woman, and as such, should not be allowed to play basketball on the women’s team.

While some students adamantly agreed with me, there were many who seemed hesitant and disbelieving, yet offered words of encouragement and agreed to sign my petition anyway.

These students were the ones who interested me most, because they so aptly illustrate the politically correct environment in which Americans—especially millennials—have been taught that they cannot express any opinion that might hurt someone else’s feelings.

I firmly believe that many of the students who signed their name in support of my fictitious cause were simply hesitant to speak up in opposition for fear of being labeled a “bigot” or “intolerant.”

Damn Straight!

Orwell  (aka Liberals) has taught them well.

When in Trouble

Blame You Tube?  No, that’s Hillary

Blame Republicans? No, That’s Democrats

Blame Conservatives?  Not quite.

I know, GLOBAL WARMING!!!  That’s the Ticket!

As retailer Target sees its stock plummeting and sales dropping in the midst of a boycott over its recently announced pro-transgender bathroom policy, the company’s CEO is insisting the weather is the cause of falling sales, not the company’s bathroom policy.

In a recent Wall Street Journal interview, Target CEO Brian Cornell pegged the downturn in the company’s fortunes to the cold weather as opposed to anything the company itself is doing or not doing.

“It’s been a very wet and cold start to the year and it’s reflected in our sales,” Cornell told the paper. “We haven’t seen anything from a structural standpoint that gives us pause.”

In other words, the weather is responsible for the downturn, not Target’s  “structural” transgender bathroom policy.

Indeed, a month after the initial announcement, the Target CEO came out to double down on the transgender agenda (He played the race card- I’m surprised it took him this long) , so it appears the company is digging in heels instead of looking for ways at appeal to customers.

I still think they need to get rid of Men’s and Women’s Bathrooms altogether as they still discriminatory or install a new “Other” or “None of The Above” Bathroom. I’m sure the remodeling costs would be minimal compared to the consumer money that would just flood in…:)

Still, Cornell’s weather assessment does not quite tally with other reports stating Target has taken a major hit since it announced its transgender policy.

Granted, most retailers have been down over the first quarter and the start of the second quarter this year. But Target has been on a downward trend exceeding the fall of its competitors. Target, for instance, says it will post a $1 to a $1.20 adjusted earnings per share, which is well below the $1.38 analysts expected. Further, at 1.2 percent, the company’s sales are below the 1.5 to 2.5 percent annual target it had hoped to realize. With the tumble, Target warned that its sales might be flat by the end of the second quarter.

A closer examination, however, shows that sales and the company’s reputation have taken a particular hit since its April 19 pro-transgender bathroom announcement, a decision that sponsored a major boycott movement that earned 1.2 million supporters in only a week’s time.

A recent Business Insider article noted that Target’s reputation has tumbled six points among consumers in the last several months. In the months prior to the bathroom policy announcement, 42 percent of consumers said they would shop at the department store chain. But in the month following the bathroom policy announcement, the number dropped to 36 percent.

The reports also found that consumer perception of the Target brand is at its lowest in two years.

Whatever the cause of the drop, since April 19, Target has lost nearly $6 billion in stock values.

But at least their sanctimony is in tact. They are pandering to their people. That’s all that matters, right?

solved

swan

Anti-Science

Why do liberals hate science?

Only when they can’t use it to push their agenda.:)

The left has long claimed that it has something of a monopoly on scientific expertise. For instance, long before Al Gore started making millions by claiming that anyone who disagreed with his apocalyptic prophecies was “anti-science,” there were the “scientific socialists.” “Social engineer” is now rightly seen as a term of scorn and derision, but it was once a label that progressive eggheads eagerly accepted.

Masking opinions in a white smock is a brilliant, albeit infuriating and shabby, rhetorical tactic. As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Science is the language of facts, and when people pretend to be speaking it, they’re not only claiming that their preferences are more than mere opinions, they’re also insinuating that anyone who disagrees is a fool or a zealot for objecting to “settled science.”

Put aside the fact that there is no such thing as settled science. Scientists are constantly questioning their understanding of things; that is what science does. All the great scientists of history are justly famous for overturning the assumptions of their fields. The real problem is that in politics, invocations of science are very often marketing techniques masquerading as appeals to irrefutable authority. In an increasingly secular society, having science on your side is better than having God on your side — at least in an argument.

I’m not saying that you can’t have science in your corner, or that lawmakers shouldn’t look to science when making policy. (Legislation that rejects the existence of gravity makes for very silly laws indeed.) But the real intent behind so many claims to “settled science” is to avoid having to make your case. It’s an undemocratic technique for delegitimizing opposing views and saying “shut up” to dissenters.

For example, even if the existence of global warming is “settled,” the policies for how to best respond to it are not. But in the political debates about climate change, activists say that their climatological claims are irrefutable and so are their preferred remedies.

If climate change is the threat they claim, I’d rather spend billions on geoengineering to fix it than trillions on impoverishing economic policies that at best slightly delay it. It doesn’t matter; I’m the Luddite buffoon for thinking ethanol subsidies and windmills are boondoggles.

Even more outrageous: If you dispute, say, the necessity of spending billions on windmills or on killing the coal industry, you are not merely wrong on climate change, you are “anti-science.”

Intellectually, this is a monument of asininity so wide and tall, even the mind’s eye cannot glimpse its horizon or peak.

For starters, why are liberalism’s pet issues the lodestars of what constitutes scientific fact? Medical science informs us fetuses are human beings. The liberal response? “Who cares?” Genetically modified foods are safe, sayeth the scientists. “Shut up,” reply the liberal activists. IQ is partly heritable, the neuroscientists tell us. “Shut up, bigot,” the liberals shriek.

Which brings me to the raging hysteria over the plight of transgendered people who need to use the bathroom.

The New York Times recently reported about A.J. Jackson’s travails in a Vermont high school. “There were practical issues,” Anemona Hartocollis writes. “When he had his period, he wondered if he should revert to the girls’ bathroom, because there was no place to throw away his used tampons.”

Now, one can have sympathy for the transgendered — I certainly do — while simultaneously holding to the scientific fact that boys do not menstruate. This is a fact far more settled than the very best climate science. Perhaps it’s rude to say so, but facts do not cease to be facts simply because they offend.

In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio is pushing to fine businesses that do not address customers by their “preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.” The NYC Commission on Human Rights can penalize offenders up to $250,000.

Many liberals believe that “denying” climate science should be a criminal offense while also believing that denying biological science is a moral obligation.

In the law, truth is a defense against the charge of slander, but for liberals, inconvenient truth is no defense against the charge of bigotry. (Jonah Goldberg)

Understanding

Millennials Embrace Socialism, But Do They Know What It Is?
Jonah Goldberg: Socialism is having a moment.

I’m not just referring to Bernie Sanders’ surprisingly strong showing in the Democratic primaries.

Despite being rigged by Hillary and then the machinery cheating where it needed to.

Various polls show that millennials have a more favorable view of socialism than of capitalism. And millennials generally are the only age group that views socialism more favorably than unfavorably.

Because they’ve been raised by anti-capitalists in Liberal Parents, Liberal Media, and Liberal Education. They have been raised in a bubble of unreal “safe space”.

Some conservatives aren’t surprised. Schools have been force-feeding left-wing propaganda to kids like it was feed for geese at a foie gras factory.

Over-feeding. They wanted ban Foie gras in California because it was ‘cruel’.:)

On the other hand, what are we to make of the fact that only a fraction of the young people who say they like socialism can explain what it is?

Mindless, Orwellian programming.

If left-wing indoctrination is so effective at getting kids to like socialism, you’d think it would have more success at getting kids to at least parrot back a serviceable definition.

Regardless, this is a familiar tale. Young people have a well-documented tendency of skipping facts and arguments and going straight to conclusions.

Facts, who needs facts. Just look at the Fight for $15. They don’t even understand basic economics either and are shocked when they occur.

Writing in The Federalist, Emily Ekins and Joy Pullmann note that many of these young people think socialism is federally mandated niceness.

Government as “Mother” and “father” who will discipline the unruly. Something they probably didn’t have at home.

A 2014 Reason-Rupe survey asked millennials to define socialism. They had in mind a more generous safety net, more kindness and, as one put it, more “being together.”

One big happy, cooperative family. Psychology anyone?

But when asked if they agreed with a more technically accurate definition of socialism — government control of the economy — support dropped considerably (though not nearly enough).

The anti-capitalist liberals trained them well to hate the alternative first.

Given a choice between a government-managed economy and a free-market economy, millennials overwhelmingly chose the latter. It seems young people realize that putting bureaucrats in charge of Uber wouldn’t work too well.

But can’t quite grasp the concept of “free speech”.

Still, it boggles the mind that anyone can see the folly of having the government take over Amazon or Facebook but be blind to the problems of having the government run health care.

They don’t know what they have not been allowed to understand.

More intriguing to me is the fact that kids who don’t know what textbook socialism is actually have a better understanding of what drives socialism in the first place.

Karl Marx was one of the worst things to ever happen to socialism, and not just because he set the world on a path to the murder, oppression and enslavement of millions upon millions of people. It was Marx and his confreres who convinced the intellectual classes that socialism was a strictly “scientific” doctrine. For generations, economists — real and so-called — worked on the assumption that the economy could be run like a machine. Just as engineers had mastered the steam engine and the transistor, they could do likewise with supply and demand.

For generations, intellectuals — real and so-called — argued that economics was best left to “planners.” Time and again, reality — specifically, the reality dictated by human desires — refused to be bent to neatly arrayed columns of numbers and well-stacked slips of paper. The philosopher-economist Friedrich Hayek long ago explained that planners suffer from what he called “the knowledge problem.” Even the best bureaucrat couldn’t know what customers, suppliers and managers on the ground wanted or needed.

So they just skip that and go for what THEY desire. Like Obama does every day. And you want that to don’t you:)

And each time the planners insisted that if they just had a little bit more power, a bit more data, a few more resources, they could make planning work. When all you have is a hammer, you’re inclined to believe that there’s no problem a few more nails won’t fix.

“You didn’t build that!” Government did.

The Soviet Union and its various cousins did much to discredit “scientific socialism,” what with all the killing and totalitarianism. The fact that it didn’t seem to make people richer also undermined its appeal. “Scientifically,” people didn’t want to be bullied, oppressed or impoverished.

But Liberals still want to do it, TO YOU. And all in the name of “diversity” and “inclusion” you racist bigot!

The unrealism of socialism spelled its undoing — for a time.

The dilemma is that there is a reality underneath the fraud of scientific socialism. The first socialists were not economists or technocrats. They were romantics and nostalgists. They loathed the relentless logic of the market and its reward of merit and efficiency as judged by the marketplace.

They wanted to return to the imagined Eden of the noble savage and the state of nature. They wanted to live in a world of tribal brotherhood and mutual love. Long before the math of “scientific socialism” there were the emotions of socialism, both light and dark: egalitarianism and envy.

And that’s today’s “Democratic” Socialism. All Emotion, very little Logic. a Very “safe space” for the cruel reality.

Young people understandably are drawn by the promise of “being together.” But they think the federal government can make it happen. If government planners can’t even provide goods and services efficiently, how will they ever provide togetherness?

But if they just that bit harder, and they make sure you can’t be “hateful” then maybe, just maybe, paradise will spring forth…

Feel The Burn!

super delegate

coronation

rhodes