Monday, February 8, 2016

The Mystery Mess on the Potomac

This has been brewing a few days now, and they don't seem Much closer to discovering where it came from than when in appeared in the wake of El Ninsnowmageddocalypse: Oil sheen on Potomac near DC under investigation
Oily liquid continued to ooze Sunday into a waterfowl pond along the Potomac River as investigators searched for a source in a Washington, D.C. area storm drain.

While the rainbow-colored sheen seen late last week along an eight-mile stretch of the river has dissipated, investigators Sunday morning spotted more oil coming from an outfall emptying into Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary, according to Lt. David Ruhlig, U.S. Coast Guard operations section chief overseeing response to the incident.

Booms were strung across the outfall to capture the oil, augmenting containment measures put in Roaches Run Friday.

“This allowed us to keep any further sheen from entering the Potomac from Roaches Run, and our hope is that it will help us to rule out other avenues of entry.” Ruhlig said in a statement released Sunday afternoon. The Coast Guard is coordinating the efforts of federal, state and local authorities dealing with the contamination.

Another 11 geese appear to have been affected by the oily sheen, in addition to 19 oiled geese and a duck recovered since Friday, according to the statement. A nonprofit wildlife rehabilitation service, Tri-State Bird Rescue & Research of Newark, DE, is working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to capture the geese.

The Coast Guard is working with Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality and Arlington County to try tracing the discharge up through the storm drain network.
I don't think this is a serious oil spill, like the spill into the Patuxent was a few years ago, but it's very odd they can't seem to find where it originated.

Sic Transit Gloria

Shockingly, no mention of the State Department email scandal in today's collection.

Press finds sexism in Dems who support Sanders.
"Bernie is building a movement, we're told (with little evidence of lasting organization, by the way), but it's a movement whose loudest advocates are entitled young men who heap the vilest abuse on women who don't deign to join it," Walsh wrote in a column endorsing Clinton late January.
We shouldn't be surprised, after all, they found racism in refusal to support Obama. Note that while the press was having a lot of fun going along with Sanders for a while, they seem to be waking up in the morning with a fear that he will cost them the election.

However Young Liberal Women "Think Bernie Is The Better Feminist," "Hillary Is Only There Because Of Her Husband" Yes and yes.

Even Bill got into the act:
But he perhaps saved his toughest words for Sanders’s online supporters, derisively known in some quarters as the Bernie Bros, saying Hillary and her women supporters “have been subject to vicious trolling and attacks that are literally too profane often, not to mention sexist, to repeat.”
Perhaps she's just too soft and gentle for the job. . .

Hillary is feminist because Feminism Is a Synonym for ‘Shut Up’
. . . consider this headline:
Gloria Steinem Says Young Women Only Support Bernie Because Boys Do
The iconic feminist Hillary supporter denounces the socialist Bernie Sanders as a patriarchal conspiracy? It’s too perfect!

America Needs Hillary for President Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle.
On Maher, Gloria said:
“Women are more for [Clinton] than men are. ...First of all, women get more radical as we get older, because we experience. ...Not to over-generalize, but ... men tend to get more conservative because they gain power as they age, women get more radical because they lose power as they age.

And, when you’re young, you’re thinking, where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie...”
What, young men will do almost anything for nookie! Even support Hillary! Young people are notoriously shallow.

But Gloria walked back her statement later:
In a case of talk-show Interruptus, I misspoke on the Bill Maher show recently, and apologize for what's been misinterpreted as implying young women aren't serious in their politics. What I had just said on the same show was the opposite: young women are active, mad as hell about what's happening to them, graduating in debt, but averaging a million dollars less over their lifetimes to pay it back. Whether they gravitate to Bernie or Hillary, young women are activist and feminist in greater numbers than ever before.
Ann Althouse on Gloria's apology.
It's a nonapology — she only purports to regret the way other people havemisinterpreted her. And there's nothing to explain how the specific words — "Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie" — did not have the meaning that's been read into them. She only said there were other words too, and those other words are the ones that convey her real attitude toward young women. But those other words were about the way young women care about feminism, not why these women might prefer Bernie to Hillary. On that topic, she needed to grope for an explanation, and what popped out was a dismissive insult: The young women are boy crazy, looking for sexual partners. That still feels like unfiltered Gloria — what she really thinks of these girls today.

In that light, let's look at the striking phrase that begins her statement: talk-show Interruptus.

I can only think of one interpretation of that. Maybe what I'm going to say is a misinterpretation, and I eagerly encourage you to offer any alternatives that escape me. To me, it seems that it must be a play on the only "interruptus" phrase in common parlance: coitus interruptus.
Coitus interruptus, also known as the rejected sexual intercourse, withdrawal or pull-out method, is a method of birth control in which a man, during sexual intercourse, withdraws his penis from a woman's vagina prior to orgasm (and ejaculation), and then directs his ejaculate (semen) away from the vagina in an effort to avoid insemination.
So... in Gloria's metaphor, she was fucking us, hoping to inseminate us with her idea that women must vote for Hillary — is there an abortion for that? — and she pulled out too soon and her idea-ejaculate spewed fruitlessly.
If it weren't for non-apologies, the left wouldn't have any apologies at all

Jonah Golberg notes Hillary’s Sincerity (and Humor) Problem
It’s not that Hillary can’t be sincere, it’s that she’s faked sincerity for so long, about so many things, she can’t really be sure if she’s being sincere.

This helps explain why her sense of humor can be so awful. When you joke, by definition you’re not being sincere. But if you don’t know what sincerity is, you can’t successfully craft something fake. It’s like trying to forge a painting with no clear memory of the image you’re trying to copy.
The Joke is on us:
CNN has done the math on the speaking fees the Clintons has collected since Bill Clinton left office “dead broke.” The numbers are mind-boggling. The Clintons have done very well by themselves as class warriors for the common man:
Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows. . .
There’s a joke in there somewhere — probably more than one — but I am afraid the big joke is on us.
But just maybe Hillary Clinton's venality will be her downfall.
How can she inveigh against the cost of college when she charges public universities $300,000 to deliver speeches to students who are walking away from school with $100,000 in loan debt?

How can she complain about the insidious role of money in politics when she and her husband have made an estimated $139 million from paid speeches, routing them through a complex system of charities and private companies seemingly in an effort to elude detection?

And how can Clinton claim to "feel the pain" of America's hollowed-out middle class when between 2013-15 she earned roughly $2.9 million from Wall Street banks and other financial companies for just a dozen speeches? After all, according to one estimate, that's more than the average worker with a bachelor's degree can expect to earn in a lifetime.

The answer is she can't.
But as Sarah Hoyt quipped at Instapundit "She only has to do it nine more months.

"Hillary can’t dodge Goldman Sachs questions forever
Maybe not: Clinton can’t seem to give any straight answers on her Goldman windfall.

The night before, she practically broke down when CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked why she accepted $675,000 in fees for three Goldman speeches. After a struggle, she answered, “Well, I don’t know. That’s what they offered. Every secretary of state has done that,” she said.

Not quite.

“That’s what they offered”? By all accounts, Clinton’s staff had a clear schedule of fees. One campus group that asked for a discount on her six-figure demand was told, roughly, That’s the college rate.

Over the last 16 months, Clinton raked in at least $30 million — chiefly, The New York Times reports, from closed-to-the-press speeches to corporations, banks, etc.

Care to bet on any other ex-secretary of state being so “lucky”?
Sic transit gloria mundi is a Latin phrase that means "Thus passes the glory of the world." It has been interpreted as "Worldly things are fleeting."

The Price of Stupidity is Pain #5613

MDDNR Cracks Down on Oyster Thief

Maryland Marine Police Crack Down on Oyster Poachers - Shellfish aquaculture’s rapid growth fuels theft along Atlantic coast
Aided by surveillance and underwater searches, Maryland authorities for the first time have brought felony theft charges in a case involving the poaching of farm-raised oysters.

The state’s fledgling shellfish aquaculture industry has grown rapidly, with the annual harvest more than doubling over two years to nearly 50,000 bushels last year. Officials want would-be thieves to think twice before nabbing the bivalves that private operators raise for sale.

“If you get caught, you’re not just going to get a ticket and go on your way,” said Lt. Col. Ron Ziegler Jr., acting superintendent of the Maryland Natural Resources Police. He likened such thefts to someone breaking into a storefront and stealing merchandise.

Oyster farmers praised Maryland’s marine police for filing criminal charges. The poacher in that case raided numerous submerged cages near where the Potomac River flows into the Chesapeake Bay, making off with more than 40,000 oysters.

Poaching is “pretty pervasive” up and down the Atlantic coast, said Bob Rheault, executive director of the East Coast Shellfish Growers Association. The group represents the interests of 1,300 aquaculture farms from Maine to Florida, with an annual oyster and clam harvest last year valued at about $160 million. . .
There are a couple of big oyster farms down in St. Jerome's Creek, where Buzz's Marina is, near the mouth of the Potomac, so I'll guess that's where this happened.

Chesapeake watermen have a long history of banditry, stretching back to the "Oyster Wars" starting just after the Civil War. It's bad enough to take wild oysters small, or in banned areas, or using illegal equipment. But to steal oysters that people have planted and nurtured in cage systems is despicable. It's good to see MDDNR take this crime seriously.

Sunday, February 7, 2016

The Big Question of the Day

Broncos . . .

or Panthers?

I don't care who wins much either way. Let it be a good game,  and let the best team win. Hopefully no one will be hurt irrecoverably,

UPDATE: Old age, cunning and a strong defense beats youth, braggadocio, and a strong offense. Broncos 24, Panthers 10. Neidermeyer's Dead Horse has an excellent cheerleader display at Ace's. Superbowl Celebration

Let's pile on a little. . .

The New York Times flails desperately as it tried to justify the Clinton's decision to allow top secret emails on the super secret private server, located first in the basement of their Chappaqua house, and then in the bathroom of a supporter's internet company: Agencies Battle Over What Is ‘Top Secret’ in Hillary Clinton’s Emails, and spends most of their effort trying to play the post-facto classification card, and sluff the card with top secrets from other agencies.  Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post's head fact checker spinner tries a similar exercise in How did ‘top secret’ emails end up on Hillary Clinton’s server?, but ultimately comes around to . . .
Clinton is in a pickle here, largely of her own making.

The emails in question were sent on an unclassified system — as they would have been if she had followed standard protocol and used a account. Under State Department practice, a request for public release of her emails would have been subject to the same classification discussion currently underway. Any “top secret” communications would have been withheld.

However, if she did not have a private server, intelligence officials now would not be scrutinizing every single Clinton email for possible public release. That has heightened the scrutiny of what should not be disclosed — and what was discussed in the unclassified system in the first place.

The State Department’s unclassified system is not perfect — the Russians have hacked it — but Clinton’s home server was outside official control or supervision. Moreover, unlike, it did not have dedicated government security personnel responsible for it.
before generously awarding her two out of four possible Pinocchios. After correction for the usual negative two Pinocchio bias toward Democrats, that's about right. Clinton accused of invoking 'everybody did it' defense on email scandal.
Clinton pointed at the debate to emerging reports that former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the immediate staff of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also received classified security information on their personal email accounts.

But the dozen emails reportedly connected to those cases represent a fraction of the more than 1,600 now-classified emails found on Clinton’s server. Further, no other secretary of state set up a private, “homebrew” server as she did.

“We’re talking apples and oranges here,” the National Journal’s Ron Fournier told Fox News.

“Official investigations have confirmed that Secretary Clinton’s unsecure server stored more than 1,000 emails containing classified information, including some classified at the very highest levels,” Issa said in his statement, put out earlier Thursday. “Her guarantee to the nation that the number was zero now seems more like desperation than news cycle spin.”
 On the Speaking Fees front: Dead broke candidate thinks $150K donation is “not very much money”
Now she’s been asked about how tough she’ll be on the big energy companies when some of them gave her $150K in donations. Her answer in this instance really wasn’t much more brilliant than her last few attempts. (Daily Caller)

Video has emerged of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton telling an anti-fossil fuels activist on the campaign trail in Dover, N.H. on Wednesday that the $150,000 she has received in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry “is not very much” money.
Clinton, who once came under fire for claiming that she was “dead broke” after leaving the White House in 2001, first claimed ignorance about the donations when an activist with the environmental group 350 Action asked her whether she would be willing to “take a stand against any more campaign contributions” from Big Oil. Clinton’s Democratic challenger, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, has pledged not to accept money from the industry.
“Yeah, I don’t even know what you’re referring to, but big oil knows I’m not their friends, so they must have put it in the wrong envelope,” Clinton responded.
They must have put it in the wrong envelope? And you kept the money anyway even though you suspected that it was intended for somebody else? I’m no lawyer, but that sounds like mail fraud to me. Of course, the FBI might not get around to that case until they finish up with your secret bathroom server.
From Patterico, as I thought, she had a price list for her speaking fees: Let’s Be Clear About Hillary Clinton And Those Goldman Sach Speaking Fees
Considering that Clinton maintained a price list for those wanting to book her for a speaking engagement, it seems highly unlikely that when it came to Wall Street, she would simply take “what they offered”. After all, this is Wall Street we’re talking about and she is Hillary Clinton, exclusive speaker. Anyway, the speech fees for Clinton were set by her representatives, not by Goldman Sach:
During the period of the Goldman Sach and many other top dollar speeches, she was represented by the Harry Walker Agency, which calls itself “the world’s leading speaker’s bureau.”
When groups pick from their list of speakers, which also include Bill Clinton, the price is discreetly provided. For Hillary Clinton, the price appeared to regularly be shy of $300,000 each.
For kicks, let’s just say it was what Goldman Sach *offered*, wouldn’t a presidential candidate whose platform includes railing against Wall Street greed, corporate recklessness, and disregard for the little people, actually jump at the opportunity to demonstrate that their actions back up their words by turning down such a speaking engagement? That way, the candidate would be seen as an *honest broker rather than a shady grifter with a penchant for big money and big lies.
Kathleen Parker tries to white wash it away in Hillary's golden tongue:
More likely than the cover-up conspiracy Clintons always seem to inspire, she probably prefers to protect the intimacy that any good speaker tries to develop with an audience -- a particular group of people rather than the entire country. Personally, I don't allow my speeches to be recorded so that I can relax and not worry over every word.
But Kathleen Parker isn't running for President, and if she did, I wouldn't vote for her.

Meanwhile, the "dump Hillary for Biden" movement continues to gather wind in it's sails. Democratic donor contacts Biden allies about possible run and Time to panic: “Draft Biden” drumbeats getting louder.
Fox News has learned that a prominent backer of the “Draft Biden 2016″ movement, Tulsa businessman Bill Bartmann, fired off an email Friday afternoon to several dozen Democratic allies musing about the possibility of reviving the push for Biden.

“I would urge all of you to join me in ‘keeping our powder dry’ until we see if for the good of the party and the country, we should resurrect (sic) the Draft Biden movement,” Bartmann wrote to fellow Democrats who had been involved in trying to draft Biden last year.
He does exude a certain simple minded honesty.

From the almost always sensible Megan McArdle Sanders and Clinton Get Substantive. That's Where They Go Wrong. Just an excerpt to whet your appetite:
There’s a funny thing, though, about substantive debates: They are in some ways less informing than the fluffy sort Washington wonks hate. After all, a group of people sticking to vague generalities about American greatness, opportunity, and so forth can’t actually be all that wrong. Wrongness emerges only when people start talking actual policy and making claims about the real world.
Relying on old friends from the last Clinton regime: Albright: 'There's a special place in hell' for women who don't back Clinton.
Albright's scolding of young women came less than a week after voters under the age of 30 backed Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton by a staggering 70-point margin—84 percent to 14 percent. The Iowa caucus entrance poll didn't break down results by both age and gender, but the topline number indicates Sanders must have carried young female voters in Iowa by a hefty margin.
Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and numerous other victims of Hillary's attacks on Bill's Bimbos were not consulted. Ed Dricoll at Instapundit quipped
I've always found that their dedication to the separation of church and state was contingent upon it's convenience to their politics.

How Hard Can it Be?

To just walk up and down that runway?

The Redneck Hot Tub