tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15972149808331863282024-03-18T02:14:09.943-07:00Nick Weil's BlogA place for my various projects and interests...nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-1891456672819943752024-02-19T22:27:00.000-08:002024-02-19T22:27:14.575-08:00The Case For Crying at Work<div><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";">Being sentimental is a personality trait that doesn’t get a lot of sympathy in our current society. There seems to be a baseline of sympathy for introverts and maybe even special accommodations made for them. Theres a whole Netflix show romanticizing the love lives of partnered people, both with Down Syndrome. It’s not a joke. it’s meant entirely sincerely (?). But the imaginary list of commonly coddled non-neurotypicals does not have sentimental people in the top 100. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";">In fact, when sentimental people are usually shown, they are the butt of the joke. The circus clown. Hoarders is a televised pillory of an overly sentimental person. It’s actually super messed up. It shows prized possessions being yanked away from a person and that person’s pain in seeing it leave. The endings of that show is usually a stern talk with the hoarder to change their ways or maybe even initiate a big-pharma intervention (yuck).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: .SFUI-Regular;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";">I am a very sentimental person. Thank God I’m not a hoarder in the same way as the people on that show. My thing is, rather than collect material things, I collect my feelings in each of their unique moments. Some might call them memories but that makes them seem like they were filmed in ultra HD. The video component of the memory gets very blurry or even altered but the feeling connected to it remains fresh so I call them feelings. I collect the overwhelming complexity of each moment and how each moment is a product of the past and a stepping stone to the future and all as precious as Gollum’s ring.</span><br /><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";">But everyone knows that bad feelings are often more potent than good feelings. So you end up with a nicely curated set of bad feelings on the homepage of your brain-based memory-Netflix under the label of “recently watched”.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: .SFUI-Regular;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";">And that sucks. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: .SFUI-Regular;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";">Recalling those bad feelings makes the current day cloudy and gloomy. Even understanding that built-in chafing, they are too precious to discard. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: .SFUI-Regular;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";">Like I said, there is not a lot of sympathy for someone overcome in the current moment with the weight of past feelings. “Snap out of it” might be the response. Or “get with the program”. Instead of feeling the feelings in the moment, some people thing the socially correct thing to do is to bottle it up until a tender movie moment or a live concert and then break down. Or exfiltrate from a public space to an entirely private one like a bathroom stall or their car. Out of sight from others.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: .SFUI-Regular;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";">Because that’s the thing about hoarding feelings versus hoarding material things. Its invisible. We can plausibly pretend we just don’t have any. A hoarder of material things can’t hide it. *Someone* will eventually walk in their door and send up the bat signal for an intervention. </span><br /><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";">I’m not unique. A whole lot of people are hoarding a whole lot of feelings and no one even knows. If we could see each others hoard-houses of feelings, there would be a lot of “you too?!”s. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: .SFUI-Regular;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";">We need to be more accepting of this public displays of sentimentality (PDS). It’s ok to want to hold on to and even re-live old feelings even if they are counterproductive to one’s current self. We dont need to yank those feelings out of our brain or bottle them. We just need to cope however we best cope.</span><br /><span style="color: white; font-family: ".SFUI-Regular"; font-size: 17px;">There are a few who truly don’t care about the past or future, who are entirely *entirely* in the moment and are entirely un-sentimental. But not many. I hope we can all find comfort in each others chronic mental aches and give ourselves a little peace.</span> </div>
<p style="color: white; font-family: ".SF UI"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 17px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 20.3px;"><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";"></span></p>
<p style="color: white; font-family: ".SF UI"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 17px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 20.3px;"><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";"></span></p>
<p style="color: white; font-family: ".SF UI"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 17px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 20.3px;"><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";"></span></p>
<p style="color: white; font-family: ".SF UI"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 17px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 20.3px;"><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";"></span></p>
<p style="color: white; font-family: ".SF UI"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 17px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 20.3px;"><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";"></span></p>
<p style="color: white; font-family: ".SF UI"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 17px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 20.3px;"><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";"></span></p>
<p style="color: white; font-family: ".SF UI"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 17px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 20.3px;"><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";"></span></p>
<p style="color: white; font-family: ".SF UI"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 17px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 20.3px;"><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";"></span></p>
<p style="color: white; font-family: ".SF UI"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 17px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 20.3px;"><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";"></span></p>
<p style="color: white; font-family: ".SF UI"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 17px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 20.3px;"><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";"></span></p>
<p style="color: white; font-family: ".SF UI"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 17px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 20.3px;"><span style="font-family: ".SFUI-Regular";"></span></p>
nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-56061522425657328562019-10-04T13:32:00.000-07:002019-10-04T13:32:23.046-07:00DIY Toddler Stoplight Costume with Arduino<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiR4ZMPUSZVrfSXv-yhUZ8Xte6UtaCZAelGZi6_WaA0YZQT7IEueQ-9WZmUbmIYJkbba69o8a2z_SxtUBi5LZ4S8xjQGYD9PEd7iN_ZxJzuLSrZuV_xkZIAUzwMh_ATdTS2PKvBIA8Xk0E/s1600/22886143_10214614736387973_133783424346361446_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiR4ZMPUSZVrfSXv-yhUZ8Xte6UtaCZAelGZi6_WaA0YZQT7IEueQ-9WZmUbmIYJkbba69o8a2z_SxtUBi5LZ4S8xjQGYD9PEd7iN_ZxJzuLSrZuV_xkZIAUzwMh_ATdTS2PKvBIA8Xk0E/s320/22886143_10214614736387973_133783424346361446_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
With Halloween coming up, we casually asked my 2.5 year old son what costume he wanted to wear this year. He responded with “a stoplight.” At first I thought he was being silly but then I realized it could actually be a pretty cool costume. It could also be a cool little electronics project that I could tackle.<br />
<br />
The scope of the project is basically to produce a black T-shirt modded to look and operate as an interactive stop light for Halloween night.<br />
<br />
Design requirements include functionality, ruggedness and most importantly, safety. Functionality is described above. Ruggedness is important because it often rains on Halloween. Also, anything in that path of a toddler needs to withstand a beating. Safety is obvious. Reusability is not a priority. Kids grow so fast that this shirt will be unlikely to fit for much more than a few months. Most likely it will only be worn for one night, maybe two if he really likes it. Ideally, the core parts can be salvageable to be used for future projects.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Schematic Design</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinbvXIDJvgd0VKKzMHM1SzcstHGh2NXq-uDGqzvvt1AMm4jntr4bedeYZUzRUCT8RcGzknQZ2rN6gTRS9ysgg_VV9Jn6oRKT5MsZcwMBNJqdWcjWlKxQ7RX3zLRGo7aOpQEro46DydWiU/s1600/may2018_a02_prologue.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinbvXIDJvgd0VKKzMHM1SzcstHGh2NXq-uDGqzvvt1AMm4jntr4bedeYZUzRUCT8RcGzknQZ2rN6gTRS9ysgg_VV9Jn6oRKT5MsZcwMBNJqdWcjWlKxQ7RX3zLRGo7aOpQEro46DydWiU/s320/may2018_a02_prologue.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
First order of business was to select the microprocessor. I have used the Arduino platform in the past, so I felt comfortable moving forward with that. Computing capacity isn’t really an issue for this project, it’s not too complicated. But since this is going to be a “wearable” project, I decided to go with the Adafruit FLORA which is specifically meant to be wearable. It is suited for conductive thread.<br />
<br />
To sense movement, there are a few accelerators with out-of-the-box Arduino libraries. I chose the Adafruit LSM303DLHC, mostly because I was already placing an order with Adafruit, so it made it easy.<br />
<br />
Finally, I needed controllable LEDs. There are many ways to do this. I probably picked the most "overkill" way: NeoPixels. Each NeoPixel has a brain on-board and can be programmed in any fashion, independently of any other NeoPixel.<br />
<br />
After choosing those components, I also had to estimate the total the power draw to know what size battery to buy. This was my calc:<br />
<table style="width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><div style="text-align: left;">
Item</div>
</th>
<th><div style="text-align: left;">
Quantity</div>
</th>
<th><div style="text-align: left;">
Draw (mA)</div>
</th>
<th><div style="text-align: left;">
Total</div>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Flora</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>30</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Accelerometer</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>20</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>NeoPixels</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>60</td><td>360</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2400mAh is a standard LiPo battery size. So if you divide 2400mAh by 410mA you get about 5 hours of runtime with all 6 lights on at a time. It will be less than that with wire resistance taken into account. But it should be more than enough to make it through the night. 2400mAh LiPo battery it is.</div>
<div>
<br />
Other, small items to buy/order would be<br />
<ul>
<li>Conductive Thread</li>
<li>JST 2 Pin on/off switch</li>
<li>Alligator Clips</li>
<li>LiPo Charger</li>
<li>Black long sleeve shirt</li>
<li>Black beanie</li>
<li>Felt (Red, Yellow, Green)</li>
<li>Sewing hoop</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
I’m literally starting from scratch for this. But many of these parts will likely be reused.<br />
<br /></div>
<h4>
Detailed Design</h4>
<div>
In terms of wiring everything up, the accelerometer occupies the I2C connection pins of the FLORA board, plus ground and 3.3V for power. Additional sensors could have been be daisy chained, but that was not necessary in this case.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The NeoPixels are connected to the D9 and D10 pins for PWM control, plus ground and VBatt for power. The NeoPixels all daisy chained.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The idea is to have the battery pack in a pants pocket, running to the FLORA which is attached to the shirt, tucked under the top circle of felt (Red). The accelerometer is also attached to the shirt, right next to the FLORA. They are electrically connected using the conductive thread. The conductive thread is also used to feed all the daisy chained NeoPixels. There are 6 Neopixels total, so each circle has 2 lights side by side.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The "backing" is black felt which insulates the shirt wearer from the conductive wire. Then the colored felt circles go on top of that. The felt covers up the mess of conductive wire.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Arduino Program</h4>
<div>
Accelerometer Library:</div>
<div>
https://github.com/adafruit/Adafruit_LSM303DLHC</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
NeoPixel Library:</div>
<div>
https://github.com/adafruit/Adafruit_NeoPixel</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Adafruit Common Sensor Library:</div>
<div>
https://github.com/adafruit/Adafruit_Sensor<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
The hardest part is the accelerometer. Making sure that it registers “moving” and registers “stop.” Even if the accelerometer is at a dead stop, it’s output fluctuates. So there needs to be a buffer.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The device also has a magnetometer built in to track magnetic north, but that's not needed for this application. In fact, the X and Y coordinates are not really needed either. Its basically just the Z coordinates, forward movement and backward movement. It looks like the Z axis reads as nominally 10 at rest.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The NeoPixels are pretty straightforward. I’m just going to be lighting them up in chunks of 2. The chunks will never be on at the same time as the each other. And they will always be the same color. The NeoPixels are actually way overqualified for the job I’m assigning them. But they are pretty affordable and could potentially be used on future projects.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Regarding color and brightness, I used max brightness and the full RGB color code (255,0,0 for example for red).<br />
<br />
Here is a sample Arduino program which just runs through Red, Green and Yellow using the NeoPixels.<br />
<br /></div>
<h4>
Sample Code</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">#include <adafruit_neopixel .h=""></adafruit_neopixel></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">#include <wire .h=""></wire></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">#include <adafruit_lsm303 .h=""></adafruit_lsm303></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">#define PIN 6</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">// Parameter 1 = number of pixels in strip</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">// Parameter 2 = pin number (most are valid)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">// Parameter 3 = pixel type flags, add together as needed:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">// NEO_KHZ800 800 KHz bitstream (most NeoPixel products w/WS2812 LEDs)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">// NEO_KHZ400 400 KHz (classic 'v1' (not v2) FLORA pixels, WS2811 drivers)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">// NEO_GRB Pixels are wired for GRB bitstream (most NeoPixel products)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">// NEO_RGB Pixels are wired for RGB bitstream (v1 FLORA pixels, not v2)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Adafruit_NeoPixel strip = Adafruit_NeoPixel(21, PIN, NEO_GRB + NEO_KHZ800);</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">void setup() {</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> strip.begin();</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> strip.show(); // Initialize all pixels to 'off'</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">}</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">void loop () {</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> RedOn()</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> //check for movement, loop until movement found, </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> GreenOn()</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> //check for stop, loop until stop found</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> YellowOn()</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> Delay()</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">}</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">void RedOn {</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">//set pixel numbers 1-7 to red</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">strip.setPixelColor(1,255,0,0)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">strip.setPixelColor(2,255,0,0)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">strip.setPixelColor(3,255,0,0)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">strip.setPixelColor(4,255,0,0)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">strip.setPixelColor(5,255,0,0)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">strip.setPixelColor(6,255,0,0)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">strip.setPixelColor(7,255,0,0) </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">//turn everything off</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">//push to LEDs</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">strip.show()</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">}</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">void YellowOn {</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">//set pixel number 8-14 to yellow</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">strip.setPixelColor(2,255,255,0)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">//turn everything off</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">//push to LEDs</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">strip.show()</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">}</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">void GreenOn {</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">//set pixel number 15-21 to green</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">strip.setPixelColor(3,0,255,0)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">//turn everything off</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">//push to LEDs</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">strip.show()</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">}</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">//push to LEDs</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">strip.show()</span><br />
<br /></div>
<h4>
Lessons learned</h4>
<div>
Sewing with conductive thread is a b*tch. The most difficult part is tying off each end. I ended up using clear nail polish to help keep the ends in place. It’s really time consuming to sew it all together. And programming in earnest really can’t start until you have the physical hardware installed. Note: as you handle it, tiny slivers of the conductive thread get stuck in your skin and can end up bothering you for days. Maximize continuous thread runs as much as possible. Or said another way, minimize tie offs. Keep a good posture while sewing. It gets so meticulous that I found myself slouching and squinting while I sewed. There is lots and lots of wasted thread. Sometimes you can re-use a thread scrap on a short run somewhere else. Constantly tighten the thread. That tightness ensures a strong connection at the pin. Minimize threads jumping over threads. That was the downfall of the circle vision. There was a ton of thread overlap. It got too crazy.<br />
<br />
The accelerometer is difficult to work with. It get's "stuck" sometimes and the best way to fix the problem is restarting the program. It would be good to have a physical reset button readily available on the shirt, able to be pressed while out and about.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Minimizing number of LEDs was really helpful to the project. It reduced the load on the battery, it made troubleshooting way easier and the greatest part was that it made the shirt much more reliable. Less places to go wrong. Less potential trouble spots. After simplifying it, I’m confident in the shirt holding up under crazy toddler conditions. </div>
nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-78125869217430580932019-08-11T01:24:00.003-07:002019-08-11T01:25:49.378-07:00Why I believe in God<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7eKKzA5T7pvuhiRBkmBgm4X8tkY2Idxdq38cgRE4K4oNysEJWauA4e2YFF7sSj5JakuuNLcF-tBjkHcJhr2CPmIoI-lAtIQKIwtpZ2frr3SQtMpE4LsOg8nBaB89Wmf1xfHFNGXZEUVc/s1600/Image.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7eKKzA5T7pvuhiRBkmBgm4X8tkY2Idxdq38cgRE4K4oNysEJWauA4e2YFF7sSj5JakuuNLcF-tBjkHcJhr2CPmIoI-lAtIQKIwtpZ2frr3SQtMpE4LsOg8nBaB89Wmf1xfHFNGXZEUVc/s320/Image.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
God would not be God if we could give Him a high five. We commune with Him through faith. But faith need not be preposterous; faith is still faith when it's supported by a measure of logic. So let me tell you why I believe in God.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground"</blockquote>
The Hebrew bible says we can find God in the dust of creation, so that seems like a reasonable place to start searching for Him here on earth. The problem is, when you drill down into our natural world, you find chaos on every level. Maybe no more so than on the electron level where quantum physics come into play. But you see it just walking around in nature. Every natural thing is misshapen, irregular, offset, disorderly.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
That simply cannot be God's form. God is not chaos. The world of God is straight lines. It's ones and zeros and infinity and perfection. It's the bookends of absolute good and absolute evil. All of which which is the opposite of nature.<br />
<br />
Nature is the gray area. It has no straight lines, so then either God does not exist in this world or He exists in a way we are not perceiving. Which is why I go back to the dust.<br />
<br />
Let's go with the theory that God is in the dust. That this dust is perfect, and when combined with itself it can form into Adam, just like the scriptures say. This dust is imperceptible even under our modern microscopes and could be smaller than an atom, smaller than an electron. It forms the atom, forms the electron.<br />
<br />
Thus we need some translation between the perfect dust turning into the imperfect natural, chaotic world. A pathway allowing God to come to us. Maybe the answer is in math...<br />
<br />
I'm no expert in math but I have taken quite a few classes in it. One specialty which uses a lot of math is signal processing. Signal processing is a discipline which blends the romanticism of mathematics with the pragmatism of engineering. In the development of signal processing, a great deal of thought went into how to translate the way computers talk into real world forms. Computers talk in straight lines (hmmmm) and ultimately they run on machine language, which is ones and zeros (double hmmm).<br />
<br />
Some background here. First, signal processing has a mathematical operation called "convolution" where two functions are combined, forming a third function. Second, as mentioned above, computers talk in ones and zeros. Ones and zeros can be modeled in function form as "pulses." Pulses can be rectangular, or they can be oddly shaped, but the point is it's an identifiable indicator of a one or a zero.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvyFek4m95lLXvhV43VzGZbT6yq5jKJoHPOIJZTNrLWri6vYtypHly_CdL-wJqC9DtBToA9iX-J101ukck6XVbNdpCEa_RJAOHHudCnkubZ6xLekokv3iHNpMVkZMRn-xCydl6RVFxPUY/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B73%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvyFek4m95lLXvhV43VzGZbT6yq5jKJoHPOIJZTNrLWri6vYtypHly_CdL-wJqC9DtBToA9iX-J101ukck6XVbNdpCEa_RJAOHHudCnkubZ6xLekokv3iHNpMVkZMRn-xCydl6RVFxPUY/s320/ScreenClip+%255B73%255D.png" width="202" /></a></div>
<br />
More background. A Gaussian probability distribution is observed everywhere in nature. It's the distribution you get when you flip a coin a bunch of times; it's what statisticians use to understand magnitude of error in random sampling; as stated in the clip above, the cross sectional intensity of a laser beam is Gaussian. It's sort of a stand-in for the chaos of nature.<br />
<br />
Anyway, here is the payoff.<br />
<br />
If a pulse-like signal is convolved with itself many times, a Gaussian is produced. Also, when you convolve a Gaussian distribution with itself, you get another Gaussian.<br />
<br />
So pulses (dust) are combined with each other (formed into man), and you get nature (Gaussian). When you already have nature (Gaussian) and combine it with more nature, you just see more nature.<br />
<br />
I know, this might sound like the ravings of a lunatic, but it had a huge impact on me when I first learned about all of this. To me it represents a logical explanation of how God can exist in this world while we don't see Him.<br />
<br />
If we could drill down far enough we could see perfection, but I don't think it's even possible to see that far here on earth. And it explains how we can be formed by perfection (God) and yet be so damn imperfect.nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-57289337945560336332019-08-09T16:39:00.000-07:002019-08-10T21:50:37.114-07:00Built to Unbuilt<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjut7H044mFVoAcRK0ItAcmytTMXsZ4L53jyF35SHY8NdiKv6Q5qYun0B2-4ebkXwakfijE5xIeH82Dih6oCxt38KRN3tm_7C31S2Y0tqNVPvZPoq8HF2V8fqR_7YLsRDwj4Px1V3xDoYc/s1600/1018589786.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjut7H044mFVoAcRK0ItAcmytTMXsZ4L53jyF35SHY8NdiKv6Q5qYun0B2-4ebkXwakfijE5xIeH82Dih6oCxt38KRN3tm_7C31S2Y0tqNVPvZPoq8HF2V8fqR_7YLsRDwj4Px1V3xDoYc/s320/1018589786.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Violence and destruction do not belong in highly developed places. It's an affront to all the hard work that has went into building that place and a slap in the face to those who maintain it. If the masses must hash something out with their elites, why can't both sides agree to a battlefield which produces the least amount of collateral damage?<br />
<br />
Wishful thinking of course, but I also wonder if there is something deeper here. A reason why developed places are exactly where violence and destruction feel most at home. Because it's easy to file the destruction under collateral damage or "caught in the crossfire" when that's not the whole story.<br />
<br />
There is a deep down predilection in many to want what is built,<i> to become unbuilt</i>.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The term anarchist is thrown around and those people certainly exist, but I'm describing way more than anarchists. Maybe Palahniuk's Fight Club is the best introduction to the pathos. Durden's men certainly become true-blue-anarchists by the end, but they don't start that way, and ultimately it was inside of them the whole time, they just didn't know it yet. They weren't awake yet.<br />
<br />
However, whereas Durden expressed a desire to destroy "everything beautiful" (which included natural wonders such as the "Amazon Rainforests" and "the ozone"), what I see as common is different. What I see is people desiring to keep or increase the natural at the expense of the manmade. This sentiment is featured in multiple mass shooter scribblings. The Christchurch shooter wrote "the Europe of the future is not one of concrete and steel, smog and wires but a place of forests, lakes, mountains and meadows." The Gilroy shooter posted "why overcrowd towns and pave more open space to make room for hoardes of mestizos and Silicon Valley white twats?"<br />
<br />
This undercurrent of anti-built-environment is quite widespread. It's a feeling of "this shouldn't be here," as if a building or a road is violating natural law simply by existing and must be punished immediately. There is no shortage of post-apocalyptic landscapes depicted in popular video games and movies. When you watch I Am Legend, does a part of you cheer when you see a lion prowling the streets of New York City? When you see the rainforest of Jumanji invading a millionaires home?<br />
<br />
I think many do, maybe even the majority do, even if they can't admit it. And in that sense, the seemingly radicalized mass shooters are not all that radical at all.<br />
<br />
For the ancient Jews, destroying or at least abandoning modernity had a central place in their recorded lore. Exodus describes them choosing primitive desert living over the surprisingly advanced development of ancient Egypt. And it is the <i>destruction</i>, as opposed to the construction,<i> </i>of their temples that form the centers of gravity upon which their cultural stories rest on. It makes you wonder if some wish they were wandering around in the desert still.<br />
<br />
The reasons for turning a cold shoulder to development and modernity can be many. For some it could be a righting of injustice. For some it's a fulfillment of their own self-hatred. For some it's simply rooting for the underdog.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhA5Qvya3GG_7MSiwqxClbc1ez1vWEyT2tVw3Fd6dVnSDmSxLtkTygvg3OXEu1h-B-VANBjX18qp-g-k-sOH9PXzTU1L9fYejLE_5fdM0r8JH6DoWbMJRRKsKBasc-VuTdwpa0oV03nUw/s1600/The-Limits-of-Mass-Protest-in-a-Dictatorship.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhA5Qvya3GG_7MSiwqxClbc1ez1vWEyT2tVw3Fd6dVnSDmSxLtkTygvg3OXEu1h-B-VANBjX18qp-g-k-sOH9PXzTU1L9fYejLE_5fdM0r8JH6DoWbMJRRKsKBasc-VuTdwpa0oV03nUw/s400/The-Limits-of-Mass-Protest-in-a-Dictatorship.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The recent unrest in Hong Kong underlines the fact that all this is not just hypothetical, and that if anything, the masses turning away from what has been built is accelerating. Hong Kong is a modern city that runs well. I'm not at all saying the protests are unjustified, I'm only pointing out the jarring juxtaposition of a city that is well run and a people who don't accept that as the status quo.<br />
<br />
Unrest makes sense in Caracas because people have no food, does it make sense in Paris? I suppose you could say the same thing about the thirteen British colonies settling the new world. The Brits wondered, why are you so unhappy, you have everything you need!<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Ukraine in 2014 also seems to have been a turning point. Ukraine is usually not considered a first world country, but it's certainly not a third world country. If a major, modern city like Kiev is seeing flames lap the sides of buildings, is anywhere safe? Is a Maidan style protest unthinkable in Portland?<br />
<br />
To me, it all fits in with a widespread and growing frustration with rapid change and progress at all costs. You start to want to stop the merry-go-round and maybe even go back a few steps. It's programmed inside of us already and events can bring the sentiment out further. Ironically, tearing down the status quo would be the biggest change of all, but who says all this is rational.<br />
<br />
These buildings, the subways, the bridges, the wells, the dams, the roads are just targets or venues to the anti-status-quo actor, the function is disregarded or least considered a lower priority. What they are fighting for is on a separate plane, a higher plane.<br />
<br />
Those most infected by this sentiment are young people. Boomers grew up with the threat of a nuclear holocaust happening at any time. That never came to pass of course. More recent generations have grown up with the threat of killing the natural word held over their heads. Those generations are still terrified of this.<br />
<br />
What the young people don't understand is the power of nature to reclaim what's hers. That it takes constant and herculean human effort to keep her at bay. If humanity does nothing, we lose everything. No extra action is needed if destruction is desired. But maybe the Durden inside all of us demands it.nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-13619349388384542522019-07-16T15:53:00.000-07:002019-07-16T16:45:37.714-07:00Part bummer, Part reset, Spygate checkup<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4MtxVG43G_IoRY_IsPwdIbXmwxztNPXMZEICvM3sBE7apa5gVJF-SPtm4l7_vrBHWNcyOHnhqQqIWJjpJKMG6-R8wiCYEUvZOAIvnkKbthbMAk9qcihkoAz7NbC9IMcfmvDyxxDYPOMA/s1600/blink182_enemaofthestate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="61" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4MtxVG43G_IoRY_IsPwdIbXmwxztNPXMZEICvM3sBE7apa5gVJF-SPtm4l7_vrBHWNcyOHnhqQqIWJjpJKMG6-R8wiCYEUvZOAIvnkKbthbMAk9qcihkoAz7NbC9IMcfmvDyxxDYPOMA/s400/blink182_enemaofthestate.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The twin towers of Russiagate and Spygate sometimes seem to be outfitted with tractor beams for charlatans and disinformation. So much digital (and real life) ink has been spilled telling and retelling fantastic tales of international intrigue, it's enthralling. The narratives constructed over the past three years are multifaceted and impressive.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, not all of it is actually true. Put another way, there are strains of truth running through rivers of lies. Remember, these stories until now have mostly been told by people like Glenn Simpson, Ben Rhodes, Adam Schiff, Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi and George Papadopoulos...not exactly clear-eyed honest operators.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
A valid predicate for the counterintelligence investigation against Trump very well could exist. However, that investigation metastasized into a witch hunt just like Trump is quite fond of reminding us. Thus, any strain of truth underpinning Russiagate gets thrown out like a baby with the bathwater.<br />
<br />
A valid predicate for the dive into Spygate (investigating the investigators), in my view, almost certainly exists. But similarly, the general narrative surrounding Spygate has metastasized into near absurdity. Thus, the strains of truth are drowned in noise.<br />
<br />
I'm not trying to be a bummer here, just voicing my concerns and, on a brighter note, hoping for a mindset-reset to refocus on facts. A "checkup" if you will. As my friend @Joestradamus91 <a href="https://twitter.com/Joestradamus91/status/1150498772281188353">has wisely advised</a>: "think for yourself." The real story here is likely different than any current narrative.<br />
<div>
<br />
This mental checkup was spurred for me when revelations started coming out about Carter Page's track record of work with the US Intelligence Community. Those revelations could still could end up being false as they are not confirmed by any official documentation but they do seem to be true, based on available information including Carter's own words.<br />
<br />
Calling the surveillance of Carter Page improper has always been a key plank of Spygate, as reflected in the <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4365338-Nunes-memo.html">Nunes Memo</a> of February 2018*. The accusation is that Page's civil liberties and fourth amendment rights were infringed by a politically motivated FISA. That still might be true but adding in the fact (if true) that Page worked with the US Intelligence Community puts a very, very different spin on it.<br />
<br />
People with security clearances must comply with a higher level of scrutiny than ordinary Americans. In essence, they receive the clearances <i>in exchange</i> for scrutiny. If Carter Page held a security clearance at the time of his FISA application, the entire episode makes much more sense.<br />
<br />
That led to wondering what else is being twisted (on "my side") to fit a narrative. And there certainly are other examples, such as the idea that Peter Strzok masterminded a plot to "get Trump." Again, there are strains of truth there but on the whole, that narrative is not true. Another one revolves around the role of Mike Rogers of the NSA and how he was a whistleblower for the whole thing. Strains of truth but Rogers is not a hero. The other side, of course, has pushed many more false narratives.<br />
<br />
Which brings everything back to the main point: <i>this is politics</i>. Trump has unmatched political instincts and uses them masterfully. He understood that Russiagate was primarily a <i>political</i> weapon aimed at him, not a legal one, and thus fought back with political warfare of his own. That is why the Mueller investigation was ultimately toothless against him. There were no actual crimes to pursue (related to the Trump campaign and Russia), only innuendo. Circa March 2017, Trump had many political battles to fight on the horizon, not the least of which was his reelection campaign in 2020, and so began building a strategy to counter Russiagate, leading to Spygate.<br />
<br />
Both of these things are probably true:<br />
-Spygate is a political weapon specifically designed by Trump and surrogates to counter the Russiagate narrative<br />
-The actual facts underlying Spygate are in fact damaging to the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton, as in, it's not made up<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, though, all of this being part and parcel of day-to-day politics means the facts are going to get spun and disclosures are going to be made in a piecemeal fashion. It's a double edged sword. The political focus on this issue forced many disclosures but it also has prevented disclosures. It's only after the dust has fully settled and the political bullets are spent that historians can gather all the facts.<br />
<br />
My goal currently is to stay grounded in source documentation and continue collecting and organizing. What happened over the past three years, continuing through today is a historical event and it will be analyzed for decades.<br />
<br />
I believe we have about 2/3 of the real, actual truth about Spygate out in open source right now but that last 1/3 has purposely been kept under wraps due to it's critical nature. So, there seems to be a ways left to go.<br />
<br />
But we will get all the documents and the real story eventually. Maybe in the last days of Trump's presidency or even after he leaves office. But even then, that's only going to be the US side of the saga. There will be further disclosures someday by foreign actors and governments.<br />
<br />
When it all comes out, I believe the actual actions and events will be underwhelming to most. Much less treason than was originally sold. I believe that the documentation will support the notion that Russiagate and Spygate were primarily theater billowed and played out on the grand stage of American media.<br />
<br />
But even theater can a major episode, historically, if it affects the governance of the most powerful country in the solar system. How did comparatively small actions led to all out political warfare? The key thing is determining what those actions actually were and the context of why they occurred. The IG report should move the ball somewhat. Whatever Durham finds will move the ball. Then it's probably waiting until Trump leaves office unfortunately. Many people (including me) will be waiting to see it.<br />
<br />
--------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
*Just to clarify, reading the Nunes Memo today, it holds up well. Everything in there has been backed up by documents as they leak out. The problem lies in the way the actual facts have been sewn into a mostly not-true narrative.</div>
nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-49684837963589361002019-06-26T15:33:00.000-07:002019-06-27T13:24:16.084-07:0010 Reasons Why Appointing Mueller Made Sense<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0trGrSKZa9ZPdIKGsGyXkV_lrZKWiuvylnnxtkbgr22HO4wllrr_DpFcZxzBZYUF5qxEJOGECb7aXGmjfA4jbBEfTIz15GW5qfd-0qyBX4EbQNTqbAn_7eGUn1ETtl6ynscNofh4bvBM/s1600/mueller-rosenstein.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0trGrSKZa9ZPdIKGsGyXkV_lrZKWiuvylnnxtkbgr22HO4wllrr_DpFcZxzBZYUF5qxEJOGECb7aXGmjfA4jbBEfTIz15GW5qfd-0qyBX4EbQNTqbAn_7eGUn1ETtl6ynscNofh4bvBM/s320/mueller-rosenstein.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Trying to decipher Rod Rosenstein is a hobby of mine (and a few others), and it's not easy to be honest. How did Rod go from (allegedly) discussing a wiretap of the President to <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/rod-rosensteins-strange-letter-of-thanks-to-donald-trump">effusively praising him</a>? The first order of business seems to be understanding the circumstances of the May 17th, 2017 appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel. For that decision alone, Rod Rosenstein became a MAGA-punching bag. Hell, I have been guilty of it too. But maybe some of that hate was and is misguided.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Here are 10 reasons why the decision to appoint Mueller actually made some sense:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>1-Shutting down the "Trump-Russia" investigation on May 16th, 2017 was untenable</b></div>
<div>
Shutting it down seems like the right move in a vacuum. Trump-Russia was a hoax, we now know that definitively with the release of the Mueller report. But at the time, there were "Russia" questions from Americans of all stripes. Trump was an outsider candidate with worldwide business dealings, and Mike Flynn had been fired for <i>something</i>, who knows maybe there is something there, they thought. All of these doubts were billowed by the echo chamber media but regardless, that perception was out there. Shutting it down would make Trump look guilty, like he had something to hide.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Making it worse, it seems likely that some at the top levels of the FBI and DOJ would mass quit if Rosenstein decided to shut down the investigation. I'm sure McCabe would. A mass quit event would be portrayed in Watergate terms, maxing out the political damage to Trump. </div>
<div>
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div>
<b>2-Mueller was effectively a "put up or shut up" moment for the investigation</b><br />
Trump-Russia began as a counterintelligence investigation. The world of counterintelligence is spy-vs-spy and full of shadows. The targets are often never charged with anything. They never find out they were being watched and are not afforded the ability to defend themselves in a court of law, as the constitution provides. The US intelligence community has vast powers to surveil. This is what Trump was up against, the IC collecting "dirt" and passing it around.<br />
<br />
The regulations governing the appointment of a Special Counsel are focused on <i>crimes</i>. Provable, prosecutable crimes. Moving the Trump-Russia investigation from the realm of counterintelligence to the realm of crimes sounds bad for Trump at first glance, but it ended up working in his favor. It's very risky, to be sure, but it meant that there was no more Comey sneaking around, making surreptitious memos and slipping them to confidants. It meant the people charged could ask for discovery of underlying documents and defend themselves. In this situation where Trump knew he wasn't guilty of collusion, that worked in his favor.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>3-No one wanted to take FBI Director job with Trump-Russia hanging in the balance</b><br />
After firing Comey, Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein had to nominate someone for the now vacant FBI Director position. Given the media uproar over firing of Comey, doing it quickly was important. Trump talked about the importance of filling the slot quickly many times in the days following the firing. And Sessions and Rosenstein tried hard to facilitate the tight timeline. Sessions was calling potential Director candidates the very next day, and eight in-person interviews were conducted two days after that (on a Saturday no less).<br />
<br />
Yet, Gowdy and Cornyn turned down the opportunity. None of the other candidates seemed to work out either. The stakes were so high and stepping into this job was like stepping into a firefight. The person taking over this Trump-Russia investigation was going to be accused of being a stooge of Trump by the left and accused of running a witch hunt by Trump. Shifting Trump-Russia to a Special Counsel meant the job requirements for the next FBI Director were more "normal."<br />
<br />
<b>4-The President was about to leave for his first trip abroad</b><br />
Trump's big <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/19/trumps-middle-east-trip-is-full-of-traps-saudi-arabia-israel/">trip to the middle east</a> began around 2pm EST on May 19th 2017, when he boarded Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews. That is <i>less than 10 days</i> after Comey was fired. And really, trips like this are planned months in advance. But this trip abroad was really important to his presidency, and full of traps. The swing included Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Vatican, plus G7 tacked on at to the end.<br />
<br />
Domestically, the media was pumping Trump-Russia non-stop in these days before departure. This is not a great look abroad where you are trying to project strength. Something, anything had to be done to quiet the jackals. Democrats had been explicitly calling for a Special Counsel, so that would at least quiet them for a time.<br />
<br />
<b>5-There were essentially no confirmed US Attorneys at the time</b><br />
Dana Boente was the only confirmed US Attorney at the time, all the others had been fired by Trump. And even Boente was detailed to Main Justice so he wasn't even running things day-to-day at EDVA. As a result, Rosenstein did not have a stable of known, reliable prosecutors to rely on for potentially helping with the sensitive Trump-Russia case. He had scrubs and holdovers.<br />
<br />
Bringing in a Special Counsel meant bringing in reinforcements, and likely ones from the private sector with shiny resumes and used to long work hours. If Rosenstein wanted things to get done, and fast, relying on the existing cast at DOJ was less than ideal.<br />
<br />
<b>6-An excuse to stonewall congress</b><br />
Even though they talk nicely about complying with oversight, the executive branch hates having congress all up in their business. I'm sure Rosenstein is no different. The FBI and DOJ had just produced an unprecedented amount of documents to congress as part of the Hillary Clinton email case, I'm sure most institutional DOJers hated that. And FBI/DOJ was already being asked for testimony and documents be made available to congressional committees related to Trump-Russia.<br />
<br />
A Special Counsel is like a force field going up. Production to congress stops because all of that is now part of an ongoing criminal proceeding. If nothing else, it buys time.<br />
<br />
<b>7-Rosenstein truly was conflicted in a case of obstruction of justice</b><br />
A Special Counsel is intended to <i>only</i> occur when there is a conflict of interest within the DOJ which requires an outside lawyer to handle an issue. When Trump-Russia was about contacts with Russians, Rosenstein had no conflicts. He was not involved with the Trump campaign, he never met with Kislyak, etc. That all changed when McCabe opened the obstruction of justice case. Rod would have to give an interview in that case because he was a key player in the whole thing. Rod couldn't be a witness and in charge of the investigation. Thus, there is a conflict and now Special Counsel is justified per regulations.<br />
<br />
How Rod managed to stay "the boss" of Mueller given his conflicts seems less clear cut, but he managed to do it.<br />
<br />
<b>8-Trump likes Mano-a-Mano situations </b><br />
It's a function of his personality that Trump likes a him-against-someone-else confrontation, each party trying to win. There is no subtlety, he is a fighter and who ever is put in front of him as "the opposition" is going to get pummeled. I bet Rod understood this. Statutorily, FBI Directors are appointed to a <i>10 year</i> term. If the Trump-Russia investigation was assigned to an incoming FBI Director, whoever is coming in is going to get ripped and almost certainly not last the full term.<br />
<br />
In essence, a special counsel can act as a "sacrificial" director. Taking all that political heat and leaving the actual office of the FBI director somewhat unscathed. And Trump likes it too, because rather than fighting the nebulous "deep state", he has a target with a face. It's him against Mueller, mano-a-mano.<br />
<br />
<b>9-Mueller knew all these people and groups so could get interviews</b><br />
Mueller was FBI director for 12 years and was integral to the shifts inside the intelligence community after 9/11. Mueller promoted Shawn Henry up the ranks of the FBI. Mueller picked Andrew Weissman as his General Counsel at the FBI. Mueller probably also knew a lot of the sensitive sources that were used in this case (Halper? Mifsud? Sater? Kilimnik?). He had been working on the Shadow Brokers case along with Rosenstein in the months before becoming Special Counsel. His law office had a long term relationship with the Kushners.<br />
<br />
Mueller knew so many of the players in this case, so he could just open up his rolodex and start talking to people, and cut through some of the chaff. Trust between Mueller and some of these sources meant the case could move faster. For example, Mueller was able to secure an interview with the head of Alfa bank, Petr Aven, a Russian who had no legal responsibility to talk to Mueller. Yet he still did, presumably because he felt Mueller would treat him fairly.<br />
<br />
<b>10-Can be used to freeze out McCabe</b><br />
I think this one gets too much run sometimes because McCabe was still involved with the investigation even after Mueller. But there is no doubt that Mueller's appointment meant McCabe took a step back. In fact, most the institutional elements of FBI and DOJ took a step back (except Weissman). It became the Mueller, Weissman and their high priced private sector lawyers (Rhee, Zebley, Quarles) show.<br />
<br />
I have no doubt that Rosenstein and McCabe had hard feelings against each other. Rosenstein was put in a horrible situation and he seems to have a temper as well. I imagine some choice words were exchanged. So, freezing out McCabe would certainly be a positive development for Rosenstein.</div>
nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-11714795606871281122019-06-07T23:55:00.002-07:002019-06-09T13:54:15.375-07:00How did we get the Spygate Texts?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQdEcsfZPyRYDRh3I5oTDDIdFSLwuABkKHDQ9Jz84NOwFOkFOiy4UpHF52guvGIQ3HLW76_T9zRkVCyl69ym3bP3sSeBuVdA47syTsMGmrZiS-EywvzS_U6JPIRTMjoxQHn5aKosZhzbc/s1600/6_182018_watchdog-report-clinton-e-38201_c0-186-4444-2777_s885x516.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="185" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQdEcsfZPyRYDRh3I5oTDDIdFSLwuABkKHDQ9Jz84NOwFOkFOiy4UpHF52guvGIQ3HLW76_T9zRkVCyl69ym3bP3sSeBuVdA47syTsMGmrZiS-EywvzS_U6JPIRTMjoxQHn5aKosZhzbc/s320/6_182018_watchdog-report-clinton-e-38201_c0-186-4444-2777_s885x516.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Anyone with an internet connection can right now read almost 8,000 text messages between FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, a stunning win for transparency, but how did we even get to that point? The usual answer is: "Horowitz found them," which is true, but it's nested inside this larger tempest of #spygate, Mueller and Congressional machinations.<br />
<br />
This post is focused on the discovery of the text messages, not necessarily on the release of them. But simply the story of these texts being lifted off of FBI archiving systems and tabulated is pretty incredible. This is how it went down, based on the information publicly available right now.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h4>
FBI archiving system works....kind of </h4>
The FBI has a system that automatically stores texts sent on work-issued cell phones. Both Strzok and Page had FBI-issued, Galaxy 5 then Galaxy 7 phones, then iPhones issued by the Special Counsel's office, so the texts they sent to each other were automatically retained.<br />
<div>
<br />
Note that these are only the communications between their respective work phones. Strzok and Page digitally communicated in a variety of ways, including work email, personal email, work instant messaging (via Microsoft's Lync product) and Apple iMessage. The FBI retained messages sent on work-based devices and platforms, but not ones sent on personal devices and platforms. Strzok and Page have refused to share the personal messages and apparently the DOJ has not forced the issue.<br />
<br />
Anyway.<br />
<br />
The FBI text message storage system is from a vendor who had been having issues pre-dating Spygate. A Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General (OIG) <a href="https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/i-2018-003523.pdf">report</a> specifically about text retention said: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Prior to the OIG’s investigation into the FBI’s actions in advance of the 2016 election, during at least two unrelated investigations, one of which dates back to 2015, the FBI made the OIG aware of gaps in FBI text message collection capabilities." </blockquote>
So while the text message gaps seem very fishy, they don't seem to be unique to Spygate. Really, it's a poor reflection on Comey-era FBI leadership and their inattentiveness to or outright disdain for functional oversight.<br />
<br />
It's also very clear that Strzok and Page did not fear anyone reading their texts, even though they knew the texts were being archived.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Horowitz and the first ask</h4>
So by the time the OIG (Horowitz) starts asking for these texts, they were all just sitting in a digital archive, waiting to be retrieved (most of them anyway).<br />
<br />
Horowitz was months into a wide ranging review of the FBI's actions as part of the Clinton email probe. Comey's decision to re-open the case days before the election was a key point of scrutiny, but to his credit, Comey issued a statement saying he was "greateful" for the OIG review and pledged full cooperation.<br />
<br />
Democrats on Capitol Hill were actually drivers of this OIG review, as was Chuck Grassley, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman. All expressed a need for transparency and indicated that the public's trust in the FBI was at stake.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, we do not have the date Horowitz made an initial ask for text messages. But looking at the dates we <i>do</i> know, we can sort of work backwards.<br />
<br />
A paragraph inside of a December 13th, 2018 <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-12-13%20DOJ%20IG%20to%20Grassley,%20Johnson%20-%20Strzok%20Text%20Messages.pdf">letter</a> from Horowitz to Senators Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley gives major insight into the text production process. I'm going to break it down into pieces here. Horowitz said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"In gathering evidence for the OIG's ongoing 2016 election review, we requested, consistent with standard practice, that the FBI produce text messages from the FBI-issued phones of certain FBI employees involved in the Clinton email investigation based on search terms we provided."</blockquote>
Let's break that passage down a bit.<br />
<br />
Horowitz is saying the initial request for text messages was entirely routine and in fact was <i>not</i> directed at Strzok and Page specifically, but rather at many members of the Clinton email investigation team.<br />
<br />
Whose texts might have been pulled? I would start from this abbreviated org chart of the investigative team and draw a line at a certain seniority level simply for not giving the appearance you are digging through FBI executives files. But who knows, maybe they pulled the higher up's messages too!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMVuiYEBB8BWDpsU8k_xhEC69rkg0kQZd2KBcRyZBq6-IRzoHveYsURwxhOl-CniaG2rMSGFN3rDtYHW_YvHzEOm4-IyHM1WM5NUSHwaVXIPqQddeYxx1Api04umVXDvFDJ73KNlNJaTo/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B31%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="802" data-original-width="573" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMVuiYEBB8BWDpsU8k_xhEC69rkg0kQZd2KBcRyZBq6-IRzoHveYsURwxhOl-CniaG2rMSGFN3rDtYHW_YvHzEOm4-IyHM1WM5NUSHwaVXIPqQddeYxx1Api04umVXDvFDJ73KNlNJaTo/s320/ScreenClip+%255B31%255D.png" width="228" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
My guess is it was from Strzok down. Texts from FBI Agent 1, FBI Agent 2, FBI Attorney 1 and FBI Attorney 2 are mentioned in the final OIG report so those were gathered at some point. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The other mystery is, what search terms would they have asked for? Could have been "Trump", which would have given many many hits from Strzok's phone.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h4>
The Second ask</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
But we still don't have a date of the first ask. The next section is needed to get there:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"After finding a number of politically-oriented text messages between Page and Strzok, the OIG sought from the FBI all text messages between Strzok and Page from their FBI-issued phones through November 30, 2016, which covered the entire period of the Clinton e-mail server investigation. The FBI produced these text messages on July 20, 2017."</blockquote>
OK so July 20 is when the OIG <i>received</i> the second round of text messages. Work back from there.<br />
<br />
How long would it take to produce all text messages between two FBI employees over a year plus time range? Probably more than two weeks right? To produce and filter and collate everything in a readable format. That would put the second <i>ask</i> in early July.<br />
<br />
The first ask would likely be more than two weeks before that. So now we're into mid-June. Why does this matter?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMAuY2qjWIwbfkzr71PiFN9Rx0VVOiWZe1Ai_B_pxjhThgme3wxDtgPCmY5rpEfsbWq1b7F2ekrHw_92YxkhMCV-qreGf37ZhIbXt4iif-V-_N85tdcqyt7U-34ztCOczWM3LGXi14Rtc/s1600/Robert-Mueller-Press-Conference-998x560.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMAuY2qjWIwbfkzr71PiFN9Rx0VVOiWZe1Ai_B_pxjhThgme3wxDtgPCmY5rpEfsbWq1b7F2ekrHw_92YxkhMCV-qreGf37ZhIbXt4iif-V-_N85tdcqyt7U-34ztCOczWM3LGXi14Rtc/s320/Robert-Mueller-Press-Conference-998x560.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Because mid-June is after Mueller's appointment and after Strzok had joined them. Strzok joined the Mueller team around June 3. Thinking about it from Horowitz's perspective, he is now pointedly investigating members of the most important investigative team on the planet at the time (the Mueller team), an uncomfortable place to be in.<br />
<br />
DOJ is a bureaucratic place and turf wars are common. Honestly I'm surprised Horowitz even went so far as to ask for the messages knowing it included members of Mueller's team. He probably thought doing so would actually <i>exonerate</i> someone like Strzok and "insulate" Mueller's team from Trump's charges of bias. Of course, the opposite happened.<br />
<br />
It's possible I'm not giving Horowitz enough credit here. Some have speculated that Horowitz's pursuit of the FBI text messages was a "brushback pitch" to Mueller. As in, "all your stuff better be on the up and up buddy, I'm watching." It's possible given the timeline I'm pointing to. We need more information to determine something like that definitively.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The Third ask and timeline</h4>
Finally:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Following our review of those text messages, the OIG expanded our request to the FBI to include all text messages between Strzok and Page from November 30, 2016, through the date of the document request, which was July 28, 2017. The OIG received these additional messages on August 10, 2017"</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
This is similar to the second ask but OIG extends the timeframe. Now instead of stopping at November 30th, 2016, they ask for all texts from these individuals through July 28th, 2017.<br />
<br />
Pulling everything together, the timeline gets pretty fascinating. So lets lay that out:<br />
<br />
All dates 2017<br />
May 17-Mueller appointed as Special Counsel.<br />
May 28-Lisa Page detailed to the Special Counsel team<br />
Jun ??-Strzok joins Special Counsel team, replacing John Brown<br />
Jun ??-OIG asks FBI for retained texts related to MYE that correspond to keywords<br />
Jun 7-Trump nominates Chris Wray to be FBI Director<br />
Jun 14-Mueller meets with Senate Intel Cmte leaders, they discuss not stepping on each others toes in respective investigations<br />
Jun 20-Mueller meets with House Intel Cmte leaders, discuss investigations<br />
Jun 21-Mueller meets with Senate Judiciary Cmte leaders, discuss investigations<br />
Jun 25-Lisa Page "please don't ever text me again"<br />
Jul ??-OIG gets batch of texts responsive to keywords. Alarming enough to ask for more<br />
Jul 14-OIG responds to Senator Feinstein's Mar 3, 2017 letter inquiring about Sessions' recusal<br />
Jul 15-Lisa Page completes her detail to Special Counsel and leaves team, turning in her Special Counsel issued iPhone<br />
Jul 19-Strzok interviewed by Special Counsel. Flynn investigation discussed as well as other things<br />
Jul 20-OIG gets large batch of texts ("second ask" above); Senate Judiciary Cmte confirms Wray, moving it to the full Senate<br />
Jul 26-Pre-dawn raid of Manafort's home<br />
Jul 27-Papadopoulos arrested at Dulles airport; OIG tells Mueller and McCabe about existence of texts<br />
Jul 28-Strzok leaves Special Counsel team; OIG sends a new request for texts, extending the timeframe through date of request; McCabe lies under oath to OIG about WSJ article<br />
Jul 31-Revised Flynn 302 filed without header; Lisa Page's iPhone reset to factory settings; all traces of Lisa Page on the iPhone are wiped<br />
Aug 2-Revised Mueller scope memo; Wray assumes office of FBI Director<br />
Aug 10-OIG gets the new batch of texts ("third ask" above)<br />
Aug 11-Strzok turns in his Special Counsel issued iPhone<br />
Aug 16-ABC has an article with the headline "Special counsel's Russia probe loses top FBI investigator," referring to Strzok<br />
Aug 22-Strzok 302 filed<br />
<br />
From then until December, no further articles about Strzok or Page, even though many reporters asked the Special Counsel's office for information. Also, HPSCI is asking to interview Strzok that whole time and getting rebuffed by Rosenstein.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Questions...</h4>
In the above sections there were a few embedded questions. Those include:<br />
-What day did Horowitz first ask for that text message keyword search?<br />
-Which employees did the text message search include?<br />
-What were the keywords asked for?<br />
-What day did Horowitz ask for all text messages between Strzok and Page?<br />
<br />
Then you have to look at the pivot point here: Horowitz telling Mueller about the texts on July 27th. There are a lot of questions I have surrounding that.<br />
<br />
-Why did Horowitz wait so long (at least a week) to notify Mueller, knowing that Strzok was on his team?<br />
-Why did Horowitz decide to notify in the first place?<br />
-What did Horowitz actually show or tell Mueller?<br />
-Did Horowitz give the same briefing to McCabe that he gave to Mueller? Did he brief anyone else?</div>
<div>
-Why did OIG wait until after talking to McCabe and Mueller to ask for the extended date range of text messages?<br />
-Why did Special Counsel's office wipe Lisa Page's phone <i>knowing</i> that potentially biased text messages were likely on there, having been briefed on it days beforehand?<br />
<br />
Much more to learn.</div>
nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-616726751109236142019-06-02T15:00:00.001-07:002019-06-09T14:03:15.410-07:00Is this all just a mall?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6h6sIufqjaRG0coF7d3feORshugAhSjNhQx6N8UBiB_0ArcYQGTADDZC1o368suUwktJIuNEKfXiABVHeuc8JVPwflbvxSd675AcM5OsCud4HOIT40KjHYO5D8Nv3llPgQ2gd0cT_fbc/s1600/meadowsmall-homepage-seo-767x510.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6h6sIufqjaRG0coF7d3feORshugAhSjNhQx6N8UBiB_0ArcYQGTADDZC1o368suUwktJIuNEKfXiABVHeuc8JVPwflbvxSd675AcM5OsCud4HOIT40KjHYO5D8Nv3llPgQ2gd0cT_fbc/s320/meadowsmall-homepage-seo-767x510.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br />
It seems like every day there a new suspension or ban on the major social media platforms and it's just getting to be too much. Too many people locked out of accounts. Too many hard to understand reasons for it. There is no recourse.<br />
<br />
In brilliant <a href="http://technosociology.org/?p=102">blog post</a> from 2010, sociologist Zeynep Tufekcia used a mall analogy to describe Facebook. She explains, it's a highly controlled/surveilled space, specifically designed to push you towards buying crap and the owners can kick you out pretty much whenever they feel like it.<br />
<br />
That description always stuck with me. Because when you take a step back, it seems like a silly thing (getting kicked off a social media site). It's something we used to laugh about and decry the overzealous mall cops giving you trouble. Yet these days, social media bannings feel more...upsetting. More oppressive.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
And maybe that's the core of the issue. Most of us are now congregated in these digital communities and it's not all that clear what they are. Where we are. What are the human ramifications and rules of the road in these communities? What is the bleed-through between "digital life" and "real life"?<br />
<br />
If social media communities are just malls, this discussion is pointless. The bleed-though between a mall and "real life" is very limited. We have a home, a work place, a school etc. That's where we live. We go to the mall to hang out sometimes, maybe watch a movie, shop, eat out, but it's not a place where you would have carte blanche to organize politically oriented groups, share intimate photos of your family, argue with strangers, etc. A mall is a public place with a specific purpose and we all agree to their arbitrary rules when we enter.<br />
<br />
If however these social media communities are something else, something more, then the somber to angry response to the recent bannings makes sense.<br />
<br />
Continuing this (now way overstretched) mall analogy, it's like we're meeting real friends at this digital mall. People that we find shared interests with and enjoy their company and, in some cases, <i>learn</i> from. But because of some silly thing, Paul Blart rolls up and kicks our newly found friends out of the building, forever.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHt_Bd3ocpMekZYH8rVVTEyE0zQEnCQLnPWiVDN1olbfousst5c61K178APuO6TFBesCe8EyzoEU8JPP2acrtHCMa4RvCVukewusZVUbBC2yWuMTJIVODvQ-uv4h7Nj1WyjO6Jr1CnLyw/s1600/17-paul-blart-mall-cop-2-2.w700.h700.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHt_Bd3ocpMekZYH8rVVTEyE0zQEnCQLnPWiVDN1olbfousst5c61K178APuO6TFBesCe8EyzoEU8JPP2acrtHCMa4RvCVukewusZVUbBC2yWuMTJIVODvQ-uv4h7Nj1WyjO6Jr1CnLyw/s320/17-paul-blart-mall-cop-2-2.w700.h700.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
And now you can't really find the banned friends to reconnect outside of the mall. Or wherever they now congregate, it just doesn't seem like a suitable place for you to be.<br />
<br />
None of this would be an issue if the mall wasn't so damn good at connecting you with cool people. Connecting people around the globe is what Mark Zuckerberg apparently set out to do way back when and he did a bang up job at it.<br />
<br />
Maybe I use social media differently than most people. Having grown up in one of the most thoroughly liberal areas in the country, I have always fought against a tide of robot-like ideological groupthink surrounding me in a physical sense. The digital realm offered a way to defeat the groupthink by bringing in opposing ideas and contrary opinions.<br />
<br />
Social media made it possible to search for and follow real, actual humans with fascinating, if contrarian, ideas and hear "their truth" and even be able to ask them about it directly. It's fantastic.<br />
<br />
And there is actually an upside to following people from the extreme ends of the ideological spectrum because it saves time. You get to see what the extremes are thinking and then you can fill in the middle ground with logic.<br />
<br />
But malls don't like extreme people shouting from soapboxes, understandably. It scares the customers and hurts business. Do that elsewhere.<br />
<br />
So we're left with kind of pickle. There is demonstrable upside to running wide open social media platforms. Big ideas ideas get discussed, people (like me) learn, humans connect in cool ways etc. On the other hand, someone has to run the platform and, if it's a private company, make money.<br />
<br />
Right now though, I just want them to stop messing with my friends. </div>
nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-86942170257958248182019-05-16T12:05:00.000-07:002019-06-09T14:03:26.039-07:00Rosenstein's Bad Options<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQNNeVRK_BF-yUfnLzS-vmyT80M2rR_inSQr6n7sFkMoGaAqmBn2XgUnnC84wBHJfpj2stPkadW5PjFIVXlqxn0QgUggu4EkdRwkZbfm3l6PqjcP2sCIZgBIuwjY8_0nNQkVY3dRjjozE/s1600/14-rod-rosenstein.w700.h467.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQNNeVRK_BF-yUfnLzS-vmyT80M2rR_inSQr6n7sFkMoGaAqmBn2XgUnnC84wBHJfpj2stPkadW5PjFIVXlqxn0QgUggu4EkdRwkZbfm3l6PqjcP2sCIZgBIuwjY8_0nNQkVY3dRjjozE/s320/14-rod-rosenstein.w700.h467.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
There are so many theories around Rod Rosenstein's motives that I can barely keep them all straight.<br />
<br />
The left at first thought he was a great choice for the DOJ, as evidenced by his confirmation in the Senate by a wide margin (94-6). Then once he had a hand in firing James Comey, they <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/et-tu-rod-why-deputy-attorney-general-must-resign">called for his head</a>. That flipped when he appointed Robert Mueller - Rod was their hero again. But now that the Mueller report is out and he supported Barr's decision-making, he's again a traitor. (phew!)<br />
<br />
On the right, Rosenstein has been excoriated for his decision to appoint Mueller. And this rhetoric (that Rod's a bad guy) has been continued by many on the right through today. However there are also those on the right who believe Rod has been quietly doing Trump's bidding all along and, quite honestly, I find this idea fascinating.<br />
<br />
Really, all this comes back to a single question: what was the reasoning behind the Mueller appointment. Why did Rod decide it was needed after consistently pushing back on the idea. Did he panic? Was he squeezed? Was it a grand plan? Something else?<br />
<br />
So this is my attempt to parse that question.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
There is no doubt that Rosenstein found himself in an extraordinary situation on the morning of May 16, 2017. The amount of crazy flying around Washington DC that day will go down in the history books. And it forced Rosenstein to make the unusual decision to appoint a special counsel.<br />
<br />
As of this writing, we don't have all the underlying information as to why Rosenstein made that decision. But looking at open source material, we can make some guesses.<br />
<br />
So, Andrew McCabe comes to Rosenstein with a fistful of new cases, one of them is an Obstruction of Justice case against the president of the United States. What does Rod do?<br />
<br />
Trying to keep this simple, I see three options:<br />
-Shut it down,<br />
-Assign the case to US Attorney(s), or<br />
-Assign the case to a Special Counsel<br />
<br />
Each has upsides and downsides.<br />
<br />
<b>Shut it down</b><br />
Essentially telling McCabe, this is a no go. You've gone too far. Shut it down.<br />
<br />
We know now (thanks to Mueller) that there was no conspiracy between any Americans and the Russian government as part of the 2016 election, so with hindsight being 20/20, maybe this was the right move. But at the time, there were a lot of questions, a lot of information that was not yet public so making that call would have been nearly impossible.<br />
<br />
For example, it's possible that McCabe brought Rosenstein information that morning that he had not yet heard. What if May 16, 2017 was the very first time that Rosenstein had heard about the Trump Tower meeting? It would be much harder to say "shut it down" when you are first hearing about information like that.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, given the extreme public scrutiny involved, it's a guarantee that this decision will be made public almost immediately. Thus the cry of "COVERUP!!" will be shouted from the rooftops. Not a great situation simply for the optics of it.<br />
<br />
Finally, and perhaps the most important part, shutting down the case would mean that Congress would be able to start asking for documents related to the (now finished) counterintelligence case against Trump/his associates. Given the precedent set as part of the Clinton email case where the FBI/DOJ produced large quantities of documents, Congress could start getting the case material from Crossfire Hurricane almost immediately.<br />
<br />
You might think, well, the GOP controls both the House and the Senate at that time, so they wouldn't start asking for documents, right?<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgipIKKeM86ZtudDsd2X17ZRT8OPE5IBR3MR2wewdAJgFUDWpIsJpqbqdfNLJzLTGl48JWDs0NqF0TupsjMg23sN4R5LHJDmbABq6y6eTLEjsnIPcW-uQTGY34FGOzwNyUuzyWCwlMkoNc/s1600/CVBBFTDSTEI6TEZRGC6FQNXURY.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgipIKKeM86ZtudDsd2X17ZRT8OPE5IBR3MR2wewdAJgFUDWpIsJpqbqdfNLJzLTGl48JWDs0NqF0TupsjMg23sN4R5LHJDmbABq6y6eTLEjsnIPcW-uQTGY34FGOzwNyUuzyWCwlMkoNc/s320/CVBBFTDSTEI6TEZRGC6FQNXURY.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Richard Burr</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Yes, GOP controlled both the House and the Senate, but a crucial Senate committee (Intel) was led by very squishy Republican. You could see them still asking for documents derogatory to Trump. Furthermore, Rosenstein had seen Trump's tweet about a Trump Tower wiretap, there was already a drum beat to "investigate the investigators." So, these documents were going to be asked for, probably going in both directions. The FBI and DOJ were about to undergo an enema.<br />
<br />
Telling McCabe that the investigation was over has a side effect of opening the floodgates to production of documents and I wonder if that was the biggest consideration of all.<br />
<br />
Because ultimately, the path to actually removing a president goes through the US Congress. Impeachment is the appropriate constitutional tool if you truly, honestly want to remove the sitting President. Ironically, Rosenstein shutting down the investigation of Trump could actually lead to his demise.<br />
<br />
And to be clear, Trump himself was not asking for the investigation to be shut down. In two separate, public interviews (Lester Holt and Jeanine Pirro), Trump expressed a desire for the investigations to go on, but in an orderly fashion and led by someone with integrity. No doubt Rosenstein heard that loud and clear.<br />
<br />
<b>Assign the case to US Attorney(s)</b><br />
Alternatively, Rosenstein could have said, "OK Andy, I'm handing this off to one of my US Attorneys and they will look at the evidence, work with the FBI to develop the case and ultimately decide whether to prosecute."<br />
<br />
This would be a pretty "by the book" way of doing things. But this also comes with large downsides.<br />
<br />
First of all, there was only one (!) Senate confirmed US Attorney at the time. His name was Dana Boente and he was already pretty tied up, being the acting assistant attorney general for the DOJ National Security Division and all. Boente had actually just stepped <i>back</i> from the Trump-Russia case after leading it for two months; he might have even expressed to Rosenstein a desire to get back into the background, rather than the holder of a political hot potato ("this is your problem now" type of thing).<br />
<br />
So if Rosenstein was going to give it to a US Attorney not named Dana Boente (EDVA), it would have went to one in an "acting" capacity, and the district that would make the most sense is the DC district. The DC district was led by Obama-handpicked Channing Phillips who seemed inclined to Get Trump at any cost. SDNY district had issues too, being the employer of James Comey's daughter.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjS_i6v3UyG3-nWw_8sP_XGWdxOAfes1EQZYDyP3tqWVlLrSWaoHGdrvjBjvxbPWwsWPTXHacUOA5DbeRNIqFgMYDIEGT5mq4_16DSpoZrjTOOwIh6hy704lhF-Xrr2O1HNZwQqdMozCIw/s1600/Channing-Phillips-Photo.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjS_i6v3UyG3-nWw_8sP_XGWdxOAfes1EQZYDyP3tqWVlLrSWaoHGdrvjBjvxbPWwsWPTXHacUOA5DbeRNIqFgMYDIEGT5mq4_16DSpoZrjTOOwIh6hy704lhF-Xrr2O1HNZwQqdMozCIw/s320/Channing-Phillips-Photo.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Channing Phillips</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Plus, farming out the case to new people dramatically increases the likelihood of leaks. And it just means that Rosenstein is no longer in tight control of it. There is a LOT that could go wrong and with something so high profile, even a small mistake could be devastating.<br />
<br />
Even if handing the case to a US Attorney would have been a very "by the book" way of doing things, I can see why this is a non-ideal solution.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<b>Assign the case to a Special Counsel</b><br />
Finally we get to the option that many Democrats had been asking for since January 2017: appointing a Special Counsel.<br />
<br />
First of all, the idea of it was not new in May 2017. Many many people, including Rosenstein himself, had been asked about it and said consistently in early 2017, a Special Counsel is not needed in this case, the DOJ can handle it. I'm sure the White House had internal conversations about it ("what if we did this"). Judging from the way Trump trusts him so much, Trump likely asked Chris Christie directly what he thought of the idea of a Special Counsel. And judging from interviews done before Mueller, Christie likely said it was a bad idea. Trump also trusts Steve Bannon a lot. And Bannon also would have advised against a Special Counsel, and in fact did, if Michael Wolf's <i>Fire and Fury</i> is accurate.<br />
<br />
Yet, on May 16, 2017, Rosenstein made the call to do it. Here are some possible justifications he made for doing it:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>It means Congress gets shut out from the investigation. Gang of Eight doesn't get briefed regularly</li>
<li>It means he can keep tight control of the investigation and ultimately has the final say on anything</li>
<li>It means he alone gets to select the person leading it, rather than having to get Sessions approval, White House approval, or Senate confirmation</li>
<li>A Special Counsel is designed for prosecuting <i>criminal</i> offenses. So rather than letting this critical investigation continue in the foggy world of counterintelligence, it moves into hard, provable crimes, if they exist. In some ways this is a form of calling a bluff. If you have crimes, show them. If not, shut up.</li>
<li>It means that Democrats and the public at large are going to have a really hard time calling the investigation corrupted. Remember what Trump said to Lester Holt: "I want (the investigation) to be <i>so strong and so good.</i>" He emphasizes those words in the interview. What better way to snuff out doubts about the investigation than giving the President's opponents exactly what they have been asking for</li>
<li>If the FBI and DOJ really are implicated in widespread FISA abuse, this buys time to root it out internally rather than have Congress or FOIA-warrior groups like Judicial Watch do the deed</li>
</ul>
And finally, there is the problem that Rosenstein was a participant in firing James Comey. If the firing of James Comey is part of the Obstruction of Justice case against Trump, there is no way Rosenstein can be the person in charge of it at DOJ. He truly is conflicted in that case. But recusing leaves it to the number three at DOJ, Rachel Brand, who was appointed by Trump but I get the sense that she got squishy too. She left the Trump DOJ about 6 months after being Senate confirmed. Really, Rosenstein shouldn't be overseeing the Special Counsel at all but he managed to avoid that bullet, even though it was <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-hasnt-rod-rosenstein-recused-himself-mueller-investigation">pointed out by Jack Goldsmith</a> at Lawfare.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMRu3VeKWrwH5SydLaQXIiHp3bVMuYwmzsN154VYUmK5zM9Ut6pwnz_rBIz-tyqauYjPYr6PaxFpkEhBmtukg3omHxcITN0SStaNt-n4eHu8zld4oKgGN5wYxepLtYHvNpSD5K82yDrpM/s1600/Security-Mueller-AP_19127033671938.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMRu3VeKWrwH5SydLaQXIiHp3bVMuYwmzsN154VYUmK5zM9Ut6pwnz_rBIz-tyqauYjPYr6PaxFpkEhBmtukg3omHxcITN0SStaNt-n4eHu8zld4oKgGN5wYxepLtYHvNpSD5K82yDrpM/s320/Security-Mueller-AP_19127033671938.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Robert Mueller</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So out of all the bad options, I can see how appointing a Special Counsel might actually be the best one, albeit a very explosive one.<br />
<br />
<b>Outro</b><br />
Lastly, the great Jeff Carlson has posited his view of all this in an <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/nine-days-in-may-the-quiet-struggle-between-rosenstein-and-mccabe_2733363.html">article</a>. The gist is that Rosenstein saw how out of control McCabe was and appointed a special counsel because that took the investigation out of McCabe's hands.<br />
<br />
That doesn't make sense to me, mainly for the following reason: McCabe's top assistant (Lisa Page) was invited on the Special Counsel team from day 1. If you are freezing McCabe out, why would you even let Lisa Page in the building. Wouldn't that taint the investigation?<br />
<br />
Also, if McCabe was truly the problem, why not either fire him or, even easier, appoint an interim FBI Director while a the search for permanent one goes on? You could even appoint Mueller himself as an interim FBI Director. That still accomplishes the task of freezing out McCabe.<br />
<br />
As mentioned above, we still don't have all the information and might not have it for a long time. First draft of history.nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-26054948844219098912019-04-27T15:12:00.002-07:002019-04-27T15:45:27.245-07:00The NCIJTF Finds a Home in Chantilly<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHjZ6W19j9UYVRBumDrGzhq9EWnyst7iyKCJ9QyDGhGTPDnQg0E7lAc5ow1R4E3-aHH2G9ptp0DctMiO-jOGcWNnT1xmXALqVsbyl2AgWYKxmsAiNH45mQcV5qaaDXZLCTMTJbPCYIu1Y/s1600/fit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="235" data-original-width="710" height="105" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHjZ6W19j9UYVRBumDrGzhq9EWnyst7iyKCJ9QyDGhGTPDnQg0E7lAc5ow1R4E3-aHH2G9ptp0DctMiO-jOGcWNnT1xmXALqVsbyl2AgWYKxmsAiNH45mQcV5qaaDXZLCTMTJbPCYIu1Y/s320/fit.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
The story here is about two buildings built in Chantilly, VA with defense contractors in mind and how those buildings got to be leased by the FBI to house it's growing Cyber division, and the NCIJTF specifically (if you want to understand what the NCIJTF is, <a href="http://www.nickweil.com/2019/04/what-is-ncijtf.html">read this</a>).<br />
<br />
The government leases buildings all the time, but the <i>most</i> sensitive operations seem to take place on government owned property. CIA HQ is it's own government owned campus in McLean, NSA HQ is inside of Fort Meade, DIA HQ is at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling. Even in Chantilly itself, there is the government owned National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) complex.<br />
<br />
FBI Cyber is certainly working with sensitive intelligence, yet a leasing arrangement was chosen in this case. Why did they choose to lease instead of own? Hard to say for sure. But I trace it back to the hacker mindset of being incognito. Holed up in a non-descript business park with no signage or even documentation saying you're actually there.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h4>
Two buildings are completed in Chantilly and sit empty</h4>
The buildings which are the subject of this article are called Mission Ridge I and Mission Ridge II and they are located at 15020 and 15030 Conference Center Dr, Chantilly, VA. You can look it up on Google Maps. Heck, you can even lease office space there, <a href="https://archive.is/jyMsZ">as of the writing of this article</a>!<br />
<br />
The overall site looks like this:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLiX30D9r5H_D568TWEMyJNLgVG-9zgX36AjGvwmiBHewj6PCQ9j1nXLbybd97ozQfKDBy5efh3o0xhZW0rWz-fK3bGN_P9r-Fk02jTeg3ZQhE9Rvf_Y-glc4qNGa-MaIB3mnTWICZ60E/s1600/img025_v1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="189" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLiX30D9r5H_D568TWEMyJNLgVG-9zgX36AjGvwmiBHewj6PCQ9j1nXLbybd97ozQfKDBy5efh3o0xhZW0rWz-fK3bGN_P9r-Fk02jTeg3ZQhE9Rvf_Y-glc4qNGa-MaIB3mnTWICZ60E/s320/img025_v1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8px;">Mission Ridge Complex</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The two 150,000 square foot buildings were completed in October 2007, one month ahead of schedule and "on budget" according to the <a href="https://archive.is/WHa5a">Prime Contractor</a>. It was owned by The Carlyle Group and even LEED certified. From the press release: "Terrazzo flooring, wood veneer and decorative metal ceilings highlight the main lobbies."<br />
<br />
The most interesting part of these buildings is that they were designed specially for either federal agencies or defense contractors. As in, much extra time and expense were spent making sure these complied with "secure facility" requirements. So it was built as a "super-secure office compound...replete with columns designed to resist progressive building collapse and a hardened facade with blast-resistant windows." At the time, the owners <a href="https://archive.is/C9ztf">said</a> "It's a very dynamic market and we think we have a very unique building. We think we are on the cutting edge. We feel that it is going to lease in a shorter rather than longer period of time."<br />
<br />
And yet...<br />
<br />
The Carlyle Group sold the building complex almost immediately after completion to The Pitcairn Group. And The Pitcairn Group couldn't seem to lease it at all!<br />
<br />
Of course, this also coincided with an economic downturn, so that could have something to do with it. It wasn't uncommon for buildings to be built without an actual tenant contract in-hand. However, these were large buildings, and The Pitcairn Group paid about $78 million for them, so you would imagine that they were chomping at the bit to lease them out. The area south of Dulles was still growing even with the downturn. It's surprising to me that they couldn't find a tenant but it is what it is.<br />
<br />
It would take about 3 years for these buildings to collide with the FBI.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Hoover Building inadequate, rise of FBI annexes around beltway</h4>
Rewinding the clock a bit to set the stage for how these buildings completed in 2007 and the FBI collide.<br />
<br />
The FBI had a major mission shift after 9/11 from primarily law enforcement to primarily national security. With this mission shift and growth came predictable headaches. The brutalist stylings of the J. Edgar Hoover building (long time FBI Headquarters in downtown Washington DC) had been a sore spot for decades but with these changes there were new issues.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8tos7SidRd5MFCmGfOKghMisIyH1Gsk6v1zRiNpFOAkCYp8Q9_vrXwPAcN8RzZAGq054iZ5jW-ku3kRBS0z9nOBcyRyPg7qCRPzeXwuPMape1VlvDJjzGWFEEHIG6A9_FWnNDyZD0lug/s1600/fbi01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8tos7SidRd5MFCmGfOKghMisIyH1Gsk6v1zRiNpFOAkCYp8Q9_vrXwPAcN8RzZAGq054iZ5jW-ku3kRBS0z9nOBcyRyPg7qCRPzeXwuPMape1VlvDJjzGWFEEHIG6A9_FWnNDyZD0lug/s320/fbi01.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">J. Edgar Hoover Building</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
First, a massive influx of new employees needed space to do their work. The Hoover Building has a very inefficient layout and couldn't accommodate these employees physically.<br />
<br />
The solution for that was to spread into FBI "annexes" in and around the beltway. Just to put it in perspective: in 2001, the FBI had 9,700 headquarters staff, working in 7 annexes; by 2011, the FBI had 17,300 headquarters staff spread across more than 40 annexes. (source: <a href="https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1296.pdf">GAO report</a>)<br />
<br />
Second, the workspaces needed to be places where classified material could be handled extensively. These are mostly jobs related to counterterrorism, counterintelligence and the like, so secrecy is a major concern. Simply leasing an off-the-shelf commercial office building and sticking these new employees inside wouldn't work because it's not secure.<br />
<br />
There are a few parts to this. The building exterior needs to be designed in a secure way or be retrofitted for physical security. And inside the building, there has to be spaces which guard against electronic surveillance and suppress data leakage of sensitive information (aka a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility or SCIF). Security policy overhauls after 9/11 were formulated and implemented, including <a href="https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/dcid6-9.htm">DCID 6/9</a> in 2002. Another set of standards was <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10678/isc-security-design-criteria-for-new-federal-office-buildings-and-major-modernization-projects">issued in 2003</a> by an interagency panel, chaired by the Department of Homeland Security. And then a <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/homeland-security-presidential-directive-7">presidential directive</a> was issued to assess the physical security plans of federal facilities. In 2005, the Hoover Building was judged by those standards and it failed miserably. Clearly a different approach was needed.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, new office buildings were popping up all over northern Virginia and southern Maryland and these were built with an eye to security and properly handling classified material (like the Mission Ridge buildings). In the northern Virginia area, there is such a large demand for these spaces that <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=SCIF+contractors&rlz=1C1YQLS_enUS789US789&oq=SCIF+contractors&aqs=chrome..69i57j35i39j0.2096j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8">groups of contractors</a> choose to specialize specifically in building SCIFs. I have heard of some three letter agency executives getting SCIF envy between each other. As in, it becomes a pissing contest of who has more SCIF space in their facilities and it's a sign of importance if you have a lot.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUTWYwKM1hSVfRFpWKUQNLNTZVed0HTJbGfvQFSRe6jod8goOc3ZJvxnT9IRLe-GSETZsgvY4ybAy6LE_Un2hcJW6SrPK_crwWfHT1YvFSgWBDO-iyG9QUOo46GKiQIsdVoRgYleDFrr4/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B23%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="699" data-original-width="989" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUTWYwKM1hSVfRFpWKUQNLNTZVed0HTJbGfvQFSRe6jod8goOc3ZJvxnT9IRLe-GSETZsgvY4ybAy6LE_Un2hcJW6SrPK_crwWfHT1YvFSgWBDO-iyG9QUOo46GKiQIsdVoRgYleDFrr4/s320/ScreenClip+%255B23%255D.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Specializing in SCIFs</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
As mentioned above, it's not just federal agencies who would use these spaces. Large defense contractors were processing sensitive information so they needed SCIF space in their offices as well.<br />
<br />
Of course, all of this is happening against the backdrop of the rise of the web. The areas around the beltway play a major role in this as well. For a while in the 90s, nearly all internet traffic moved through a few access points: FIX-East in College Park, Maryland; MAE-East in Tysons Corner, Virginia; MAE-West in San Jose; and FIX-West in Mountain View, California. Furthermore, the early Domain Name Servers of the internet were disproportionately clustered in beltway suburbs such as Chantilly, Herndon, College Park and Aberdeen.<br />
<br />
These beltway suburbs sat at the crossroads of two exploding trends of the 21st century: national security bureaucracies/defense spending and the world wide web. Chantilly is a perfect encapsulation of it all. Apparently the FBI thought so too.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Presolicitation for a space to lease goes public</h4>
NSPD-54 is discussed more thoroughly in <a href="http://www.nickweil.com/2019/04/what-is-ncijtf.html">this article</a>, but for purposes here, it established a new cyber intrusion focused fusion center called the NCIJTF, led by the FBI. So this new group needed a physical space to occupy. NSPD-54 was formalized in January 2008 and five months later a <a href="https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=4a107eec49b0a98517f885f1fab1c9a8&tab=core&_cview=0">presolicitation</a> went out on FebBizOpps, named "UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SEEKS SOURCES FOR LEASE OF OFFICE AND RELATED SPACE IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA"<br />
<br />
The presolicitation was sent out by the General Services Administration (GSA) but it says that the building will be used by a "Federal Law Enforcement Agency" which limits the possible options, and now looking back we know it was the FBI. It asked for 144,042 square feet of rentable space and was very specific about security requirements. Clearly they had the facility standards issued in 2005 in mind when GSA sent this out. And the geographical area they were considering was Fairfax, Arlington, Prince William and Loudoun Counties.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCgvS8wM64Slz3E-msSPg7PmIxDWCQ93fTbzjskthriOn_Ev86cOf2Ahc_qUQl5kUN2PYG0ijn8SK4OfHrVNRRN0oOusgo_nFBqQGJc14gUzeABmNymypisxRokySD56plfOaiHj8VTSk/s1600/nova+map+pic+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCgvS8wM64Slz3E-msSPg7PmIxDWCQ93fTbzjskthriOn_Ev86cOf2Ahc_qUQl5kUN2PYG0ijn8SK4OfHrVNRRN0oOusgo_nFBqQGJc14gUzeABmNymypisxRokySD56plfOaiHj8VTSk/s320/nova+map+pic+2.jpg" width="315" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Acceptable area in first presolicitation</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
You see right in the middle, Dulles Airport and Chantilly for scale. It's a big area. Interested parties were asked to express their interest by June 16, 2008.<br />
<br />
Presumably the GSA got some interest, but decided against moving forward with awarding it to anyone. Rather they waited a over year and then issued a modified, second <a href="https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=f04339949ea9cd6e4fc5b9fe5d85b2a1&tab=core&_cview=1">presolicitation</a>. Now we're into November 2009.<br />
<br />
This second presolicitation defined a much narrower geographical area in this one. This is what the area looked like:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgai8-rOJpNG_NoAmwsrdXJcUY31yWB8Qj2Ocl35dJFYGNlOQz821pPjjkBFUuiR72y4as-YY-GvF2-SQaxEFXc_L2oz3dsHMNwxBDNF09IzsuONk88H4AXduQenmPO_AVz-WYdpjJmEjg/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B192%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="685" data-original-width="636" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgai8-rOJpNG_NoAmwsrdXJcUY31yWB8Qj2Ocl35dJFYGNlOQz821pPjjkBFUuiR72y4as-YY-GvF2-SQaxEFXc_L2oz3dsHMNwxBDNF09IzsuONk88H4AXduQenmPO_AVz-WYdpjJmEjg/s320/ScreenClip+%255B192%255D.png" width="297" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Reduced acceptable area in second presolicitation</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
This is obviously focused on Chantilly and Reston. The space requirement is increased to 175,000 square feet.<br />
<br />
Also, the point of contact for the project changes from a representative of Staubach Co. to a representative of Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) which makes sense because <a href="https://www.nreionline.com/news/jones-lang-lasalle-acquires-staubach-co-boosts-tenant-rep-platform">JLL aquired Staubach</a> in July 2008. But I mention it specifically because Obama's best - and sometimes called "only" - friend Martin Nesbitt had worked as a Vice President at LaSalle Partners previously and would later join the Board of Directors of JLL.<br />
<br />
However, the second presolicitation doesn't seem to get off the ground either. There is a <i>third</i> <a href="https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=9e36541975c5a4d57fa0520983c2db1e&tab=core&_cview=1">presolicitation</a> issued on May 4, 2010 which is essentially the same but it adds clarifying language making a "two building solution" acceptable and outlines the requirements in that scenario.<br />
<br />
And, the point of contact changes again, this time to a GSA Realty Specialist.<br />
<br />
<h4>
JLL buys the buildings and GSA awards the contract</h4>
At this point, the presolicitation has not been awarded. It's now been hanging out there for 2 years.<br />
<br />
The Mission Ridge buildings are <i>still</i> sitting empty. The Pitcairn Group, who bought the buildings in 2007 for $78M, ended up not being able to pay their lender. So to avoid foreclosure, Pitcairn hands over the deed to the buildings, then valued at $26.5M together in early 2010. Quite a loss on their investment.<br />
<br />
The lender then sells the foreclosed Mission Ridge buildings to LaSalle Investment Management for $40.5M.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKoKDhf22AIkM7gwORsaooUMkxBsoryKobskg9lNmL5N3WYzdyhftzFQfbYGlv3bUbDmF-JuMxfl88TfzbVV2M5Hiib4ouYaCo_u5kyRGL6_-L_5V0d6cUdUjrKixrG7JbcpHx5hPwaY4/s1600/download+%25284%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKoKDhf22AIkM7gwORsaooUMkxBsoryKobskg9lNmL5N3WYzdyhftzFQfbYGlv3bUbDmF-JuMxfl88TfzbVV2M5Hiib4ouYaCo_u5kyRGL6_-L_5V0d6cUdUjrKixrG7JbcpHx5hPwaY4/s320/download+%25284%2529.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Martin Nesbitt</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Martin Nesbitt joins the board of directors of Jones Lang LaSalle within months of this sale. To be clear, I don't know if there is any funny business here. But we know Nesbitt is extremely close with Obama and sure enough...<br />
<br />
The lease contract is awarded to Jones Lang LaSalle. Just to go over the timeline<br />
<ul>
<li>May 2010: Final modified presolicitation is issued, allowing a two building solution and now with a GSA point of contact</li>
<li>3Q 2010: Pitcairn sells the Mission Ridge property to JLL</li>
<li>Jan 2011: Martin Nesbitt joins the board of JLL</li>
<li>Jun 2011: I&G Mission Ridge (JLL) is awarded the $53 million lease contract</li>
</ul>
Again, might be totally above board. Just something to point out.<br />
<br />
The sale of the lease was published among real estate type publications. From this <a href="https://www.fairfaxcountyeda.org/sites/default/files/publications/my11rer_0.pdf">document</a>:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgA4Yix2smjbYLAAhhYHawUuRm1KWvmttLIm8-KKMsWJ5Gd4FouHxMvS8nh05hD6Y1ZFDt4QqP9fiGD16kOGOUTGMpYeVetuCCuS5E4yLOeOc6ejI2Rb-wnzuHsrxx4-03qFE8ICd9P2J4/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B198%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgA4Yix2smjbYLAAhhYHawUuRm1KWvmttLIm8-KKMsWJ5Gd4FouHxMvS8nh05hD6Y1ZFDt4QqP9fiGD16kOGOUTGMpYeVetuCCuS5E4yLOeOc6ejI2Rb-wnzuHsrxx4-03qFE8ICd9P2J4/s320/ScreenClip+%255B198%255D.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjZ8J08LK4pG8hnW_DVdoIUvNK2-VhHzf4OatvXHvXVyVCFTRKvc6s95MHYlL5XWIODfKSVI_B63C7ihTmQQZYXT0fUzXwow_w5X4zvzEnONussj-Qbao5EkpZ5CMJMrAFbo6F4D7gYnI/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B199%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjZ8J08LK4pG8hnW_DVdoIUvNK2-VhHzf4OatvXHvXVyVCFTRKvc6s95MHYlL5XWIODfKSVI_B63C7ihTmQQZYXT0fUzXwow_w5X4zvzEnONussj-Qbao5EkpZ5CMJMrAFbo6F4D7gYnI/s320/ScreenClip+%255B199%255D.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
From <a href="http://www.federalnewsradio.com/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/010912_federal_realestate_jones_lang.pdf">this</a>: "The FBI will be relocating from several locations within the market as well as expanding to accommodate growth among its cyber-security operations"<br />
<br />
"The group that will occupy the space, known as Special Technologies and Application Office (STAO), was reportedly drawn to the space for several reasons, such as security features including setbacks and blast resistant construction and floor plates that allowed for efficient and flexible space planning The FBI’s STAO group will be relocating from several nearby buildings within Westfields, which is located adjacent to the National Reconnaissance Office, a major driver of demand in the area"<br />
<br />
So nothing about the NCIJTF. It mentions the STAO which was already in Chantilly and is now moving over to a new building. The non-mention of NCIJTF might be by design.<br />
<br />
The FBI didn't lease all of the square footage inside the two buildings. In fact, they really only leased one building and a small part of the other. So other companies followed quickly behind the FBI and lined up leases inside Mission Ridge. The second biggest tenant is Integrity Applications Incorporated. Plus a bunch of smaller leases.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNa9ppXeKpdkgybTNvbbOgLTrj14WBmSC-_aWZmqCP9AgdrTeGY_NvdZepGiYsFYL-G96Fc-JECEKvDRHax45_nIDXl_5fy050sjMriVpwfeZIBWu8prj-IWOWpdTU1V7TkPjxB5x_Kc8/s1600/img025_v1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="457" data-original-width="637" height="229" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNa9ppXeKpdkgybTNvbbOgLTrj14WBmSC-_aWZmqCP9AgdrTeGY_NvdZepGiYsFYL-G96Fc-JECEKvDRHax45_nIDXl_5fy050sjMriVpwfeZIBWu8prj-IWOWpdTU1V7TkPjxB5x_Kc8/s320/img025_v1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8px;">Mission Ridge Tenants</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<h4>
Some weird things</h4>
We can see the original <a href="https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/LVA02292-Lease-_Z.pdf">lease document</a> and it's kind of weird. First of all, the owners are listed as I&G Mission Ridge, but the address for those owners is 200 East Randolph Street #4500 Chicago, aka Jones Lang LaSalle Headquarters. I&G Mission Ridge seems to be a holding company.<br />
<br />
Again, I don't know if this is fishy or not, just pointing it out.<br />
<br />
Another weird thing is, you can't find any lease payments from GSA to I&G Mission Ridge anywhere. Look <a href="https://www.usaspending.gov/#/search/fd0c2bfcb5635b5fa4b558f06615985b">here</a>, and scroll through all the lease payments made by the federal government in Fairfax county. Nothing that would apply here.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
One final weird thing. Right after the lease contract was awarded, JLL's competitors filed <a href="https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/GSA_FOIA_Logs_For_FY_2011.pdf">Freedom of Information Act requests</a> to see what happened. Maybe they wanted to see who bested them in trying to get the contract. So two FOIA's are filed on the same day, November 7, 2011.<br />
<br />
One from Grubb & Ellis:<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3oxnHoSpd_AH5w7Bg7rCwFmLPoLbb8uunVKd-XUhloQihEslZOnc4wb37-9nlgT-2VCGBw_-1pB7K3QRl7qEJs8LoVS4It6_jZaKx_7I6CzSukN8GzCYaPEX6SaZl-5JpYLNP3rS1i6s/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B202%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="57" data-original-width="965" height="36" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3oxnHoSpd_AH5w7Bg7rCwFmLPoLbb8uunVKd-XUhloQihEslZOnc4wb37-9nlgT-2VCGBw_-1pB7K3QRl7qEJs8LoVS4It6_jZaKx_7I6CzSukN8GzCYaPEX6SaZl-5JpYLNP3rS1i6s/s640/ScreenClip+%255B202%255D.png" width="640" /></a><br />
<br />
And another from Colliers:<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlx5lXkafrp_idtHMoTYXH7s5aDLe7XJGShEOoR_CVbc14lxiSrXUB0__XlX7PRCZAF4UlktTaxt2Xz5lFYiaOBc_3KaLggvYR_q5iJZHqlAceiVtcBe2xZ5ctqjGzDJoeW7hltzhoogA/s1600/ScreenClip.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="48" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlx5lXkafrp_idtHMoTYXH7s5aDLe7XJGShEOoR_CVbc14lxiSrXUB0__XlX7PRCZAF4UlktTaxt2Xz5lFYiaOBc_3KaLggvYR_q5iJZHqlAceiVtcBe2xZ5ctqjGzDJoeW7hltzhoogA/s640/ScreenClip.png" width="640" /></a><br />
They are asking for documentation related to lease. And in fact, are asking for the exact same documents, yet get different responses. Grubb & Ellis gets 5-Non-Applicable, while Colliers gets 2-Partial Denial.<br />
<br />
The next year, Grubb & Ellis, who got the least useful FOIA response, tries again. They file a <a href="https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/GSAs_FOIA_Logs_FY2012.pdf">FOIA request</a> once again asking for the documentation on Mission Ridge.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNyozvrnqyYnlAmpWFKjzmZv1k0ntY9a_Hg3vLVg0ntzp_HSCtATM4dGUFUfH1MADIzRMdj8IyPctuHF82rKt0AVbwdry9keOX3ZrzStoMeQ3w_sOuUAHbucRXt4XzIpwk5hFGsQXMYws/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B200%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="63" data-original-width="957" height="42" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNyozvrnqyYnlAmpWFKjzmZv1k0ntY9a_Hg3vLVg0ntzp_HSCtATM4dGUFUfH1MADIzRMdj8IyPctuHF82rKt0AVbwdry9keOX3ZrzStoMeQ3w_sOuUAHbucRXt4XzIpwk5hFGsQXMYws/s640/ScreenClip+%255B200%255D.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
This time they get 2-Partial Denial, which is what Colliers got the first time.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Conclusion</h4>
The Mission Ridge buildings were not built for the FBI yet they ended up there anyway. The collision took a long time. The involvement of an Obama buddy in the process is very curious but there is no determination of funny business at this time. There seems to be a lot of secrecy and misdirection around the whole thing, which is unsurprising I suppose for a facility which handles classified information. But through putting together scraps of info, we can get a clearer picture of what happened.<br />
<br />
GSA awarding the lease was just the starting line of the NCIJTF in Chantilly. The next couple years brought more twists to be covered in a separate article.nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-1674672437017381562019-04-25T00:11:00.000-07:002019-04-25T15:14:11.491-07:00What is the NCIJTF?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSKUnhbVxUzN_e4L2b-9odwL_2bCfd0AA5ohz_FsLBp55tL3xBg91IyO2xbHAuqm0BGrSnVPgiwU39m5NKLmJTChC8LuepzRakYOPNAJKbO3HnXHPsUbUuEBL-AB9y-ddiSoW84InTyiI/s1600/1_cc358d7e44ac9dc76fbb50f925e67ad4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="176" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSKUnhbVxUzN_e4L2b-9odwL_2bCfd0AA5ohz_FsLBp55tL3xBg91IyO2xbHAuqm0BGrSnVPgiwU39m5NKLmJTChC8LuepzRakYOPNAJKbO3HnXHPsUbUuEBL-AB9y-ddiSoW84InTyiI/s320/1_cc358d7e44ac9dc76fbb50f925e67ad4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The acronym NCIJTF stands for National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force.<br />
<br />
It is a so-called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_center">fusion center</a>, one of many inside the US Intelligence Community, so it's not a three letter agency unto itself, but rather a hub where many agencies collaborate and participate. Fusion centers came into vogue after stovepiping of intelligence was identified as a cause of the 9/11 attacks. It's a simply a way to combat stovepipes/silos. One example of a fusion center is the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Terrorism_Task_Force">JTTF</a>) which are scattered across the US and are each comprised of the local branches of FBI, US Secret Service, DEA, ATF, ICE, US Postal Inspection Service, US Marshals Service and much more.<br />
<br />
Another example of a fusion center is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_Crime_Drug_Enforcement_Task_Force">OCDETF</a>, which Bruce Ohr ran not too long ago. That organization gathers intelligence on multi-jurisdictional drug trafficking and money laundering operations by pooling information from many of the same agencies mentioned above.<br />
<br />
However, unlike the JTTF (terrorism) or the OCDETF (drug trafficking), the NCIJTF is specifically focused on <i>cyber</i> crimes, a discipline which the FBI has had an interesting relationship with. Any talk of the NCIJTF has to be couched in a larger conversation about the FBI and Cyber.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h4>
FBI, Cyber & creating the NCIJTF</h4>
A ton of things changed after 9/11 and the FBI shifted from an almost exclusively law enforcement agency to one that actually prioritized national security first. In 2006, then-Director Robert Mueller <a href="https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/the-fbi-transformation-since-2001">said</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"After the September 11 attacks on America, the FBI priorities shifted dramatically. Our top priority became the prevention of another terrorist attack. Today, our top three priorities—counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cyber security—are all national-security related. To that end, we have made a number of changes in the Bureau, both in structure and in the way we do business."</blockquote>
As part of the reorganization, the FBI established a Cyber Division in 2002 and it was actually a quite prescient move. But "cyber" can mean many things of course. At first, the intent for the department seems to have been "crimes committed using a computer." So things like identity theft, digital child pornography and yes, P2P network intellectual property piracy.<br />
<br />
Whatever your opinion of Napster is, the FBI's focus did not seem to extend much to large scale cyber intrusions. And to be fair, these were just were just starting to filter into the mainstream. But the federal government as a whole didn't seem to really get serious about cyber intrusions until the waning days of the Bush administration.<br />
<br />
In January 2008, a classified presidential directive (specifically the <a href="https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-54.pdf">Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23 and National Security Presidential Directive 54</a>) was issued. It's also sometimes referred to as the Comprehensive National Cyber Security Initiative (CNCI). This thing seems to have a million names so I'm going to call it NSPD-54 or simply "the directive."<br />
<br />
It was classified at the time, but we have access to a semi-redacted version of it now. From it's preamble, the purpose was to "(strengthen) policies for protecting the security and privacy of information entrusted to the Federal Government." Meaning, protect the data of the federal government from all adversaries. It's described further in <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40427.pdf">this</a> congressional report.<br />
<br />
So, note here, that there is already a Cyber Division inside the FBI. NSPD-54 is intended to supplement or go above and beyond what is already there, and it's not just about the FBI, this has elements that affect all the three letter agencies.<br />
<br />
A clue for what was envisioned under this directive can be gained from one of it's architects: Shawn Henry<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKEigqCB1VIrHkZrbYor4d5jHrWLAB-V6PT8cGOE-PhqJ5PUg_9hVFt_UHrPlE59XUWnJXJzw8KMJki1V5gjPdlVDpyc0hIzmkwct7UUK70rFbYyJbNFee1BXuln8Xmw7ZRdx-jzMfMUc/s1600/download+%25283%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKEigqCB1VIrHkZrbYor4d5jHrWLAB-V6PT8cGOE-PhqJ5PUg_9hVFt_UHrPlE59XUWnJXJzw8KMJki1V5gjPdlVDpyc0hIzmkwct7UUK70rFbYyJbNFee1BXuln8Xmw7ZRdx-jzMfMUc/s320/download+%25283%2529.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">an enterprising lad</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Henry, later of Crowdstrike fame, was actually on the "study group" which formulated NSPD-54.<br />
<br />
At the time he was Deputy Assistant Director in the FBI Cyber Division and was in the middle of a large, successful <a href="http://was%20a%20deputy%20assistant%20director%20in%20the%20fbi%20cyber%20division%20at%20this%20time%20and/">sting operation</a>, which the FBI later took credit for and boasted about. Henry had set up an elite <i>seven-agent</i> cybercrime unit based at the National Cyber Forensics Training Alliance in Pittsburgh, PA, which is itself a semi-autonomous organization within the FBI.<br />
<br />
This will come up again. Henry seems to like small teams <i>outside of the bureaucratic structure</i> and ideally working in non-identified and non-descript buildings in order to outfox whatever his cyber foe is at the time. But I digress...<br />
<br />
The sting operation involved setting up a cybercrime forum called DarkMarket which purported to be run out of Eastern Europe but was actually run by the FBI in Pittsburgh! It netted 56 arrests worldwide, clearly a success.<br />
<br />
So the NCIJTF seems to be an outgrowth of this. A way to maintain an agile cyber team within the bureaucratic US Government while having access to it's vast array of tools and resources. Henry was promoted to Assistant Director inside the FBI shortly after NSPD-54 was issued.<br />
<br />
<h4>
What does the NCIJTF do?</h4>
Back to the directive, section 31 reads as follows:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNq0gEXTiEXeT3AmMDEnckh1-axh-NQP6Hqd101dJ7r9TRIbgtNUsh1Jh9lDMsyRZWs10yRfjXLOwTPy79IUf6fdUxcUFk6VxKgPKYZxovGhOeQ2vGlBPnpPoQzjaoqpXDHQ68Pek02H0/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B17%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="192" data-original-width="656" height="186" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNq0gEXTiEXeT3AmMDEnckh1-axh-NQP6Hqd101dJ7r9TRIbgtNUsh1Jh9lDMsyRZWs10yRfjXLOwTPy79IUf6fdUxcUFk6VxKgPKYZxovGhOeQ2vGlBPnpPoQzjaoqpXDHQ68Pek02H0/s640/ScreenClip+%255B17%255D.png" style="height: auto; max-height: 80%; max-width: 80%; width: auto;" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From NSPD-54</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The NCIJTF is made up of a constellation of federal agencies. In fact, the full list is here:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPlSiEQx-QNUnBSrQj1jhkZ1nEkWuhy-Ac0iVYXKO0xIxbWHMjQxy6tN3VroavOteRTT-MIyAFWWFBRXoVx609zlhVCetRh88-hHn7fcYX14jK3Wn908Z3jrynoSixNRSURN_Mg1VHyEk/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B18%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="737" data-original-width="674" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPlSiEQx-QNUnBSrQj1jhkZ1nEkWuhy-Ac0iVYXKO0xIxbWHMjQxy6tN3VroavOteRTT-MIyAFWWFBRXoVx609zlhVCetRh88-hHn7fcYX14jK3Wn908Z3jrynoSixNRSURN_Mg1VHyEk/s640/ScreenClip+%255B18%255D.png" style="height: auto; max-height: 80%; max-width: 80%; width: auto;" width="584" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From DOJ IG Report</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The one redacted agency is the CIA of course. But this redaction explains so many things. Anything that gets "The Agency" involved becomes extremely secretive, in fact ridiculously so, as you can tell from the above image.<br />
<br />
But in terms of what the NCIJTF was intended to do, here are some examples directly from the US Government:<br />
<ul>
<li>Strategy: Developing global view of information warfare activity creating strategic framework for centralizing coordination of existing operational initiatives an developing new initiatives</li>
<li>Attribution: Seeks to identify threats to computer networks affecting national security</li>
<li>Investigation: Conducts LE/CI/CT cyber-related investigations and response to counterintelligence threats</li>
<li>Disruption: Proactively disrupts the foreign exploitation of U.S. computer networks</li>
<li>Incident Response: Identifies new methods of attacks; intends to develop 24/7 operations center</li>
<li>Collaboration: Collaborates with Intelligence, Law Enforcement, USSS, other USG entities, foreign LE agencies, state and local government, and private sector; Developing synchronization and collaboration approach for investigations</li>
<li>Monitor: Reviews all-source data and identifies intelligence gaps</li>
<li>Collection: Collects and synthesizes common operating picture of hostile-intrusion-related activity to aid investigations</li>
</ul>
<br />
And even though this is a collection of various agencies, the FBI was clearly taking the lead role on the NCIJTF. There was later a push to make it equally-led.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Obama signs on</h4>
So to re-state, NSPD-54 is a late Bush administration invention.<br />
<br />
But once Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, he fully bought in to the plan. Look at <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/files/documents/cyber/CybersecurityCentersGraphic.pdf">this</a>, published by the Obama White House in May 2009 which essentially puts the NSPD-54 directive in in graphic form:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL1bdoFL6oRITyUTv3TN6Axnw7Irw8k1X7vcevrxj-2FA7c9NxFxoe-s7ZOHsklHSd1aESSqBXrusO3PKwG6geLkcwN8rEUaLWZbUA86E_aGM6ZxdxjL3jUn9Q-Il39iBVhjcc0Xxgi48/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B19%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="922" data-original-width="1599" height="368" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL1bdoFL6oRITyUTv3TN6Axnw7Irw8k1X7vcevrxj-2FA7c9NxFxoe-s7ZOHsklHSd1aESSqBXrusO3PKwG6geLkcwN8rEUaLWZbUA86E_aGM6ZxdxjL3jUn9Q-Il39iBVhjcc0Xxgi48/s640/ScreenClip+%255B19%255D.png" style="height: auto; max-height: 80%; max-width: 80%; width: auto;" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Issued by Obama White House</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
You can see the NCIJTF is named directly in the bottom left as one of seven federal cyber centers (fusion centers). If you count the spokes sticking out of each fusion center, each of which represent "main functions", the NCIJTF actually has the most spokes and thus the most expected functions.<br />
<br />
On the campaign trail, Obama promised to "make cyber security the top priority that it should be in the 21st century" so it must have been convenient to plug and play this policy. Also, his campaign was <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/3394083/Obama-and-McCain-computers-hacked-by-foreign-entity.html">supposedly targeted</a> by foreign hackers and he got a defensive warning from the FBI about it. So maybe he appreciated that. Regardless, Shawn Henry's brainchild survived a change in presidential administration and political party control in Washington.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The NCIJTF through today</h4>
Since 2009, the US Government has faced a dramatic rise in cyber threats and has had a spotty record of defending against them. The list of foreign hacks is long and sad. Some lowlights include the DPRK launched Sony hack in December 2014, the Clinton home-brew server reveal in March 2015, the Shanghai launched OPM theft in June 2015 and of course the GRU spearfishing attempts starting March 2016.<br />
<br />
Yet through all that, the NCIJTF has been assigned more and more responsibility. Under the FBI's "Next Generation Cyber" program launched in 2012, the NCIJTF was strengthened.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKYFishrxcoBbf4ACSbjwMd4lRR2T91KL7-f4JA3JwqLexCZPIaNpIZkStZMZv_5Nfcpz8we_Z-HWv9EJozO5K1KzY4b5rDjd7RFR4-ukJKq87tTaad7HswGGpXb6s-rsTHaXY9W6FU5g/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B17%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="538" data-original-width="1004" height="171" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKYFishrxcoBbf4ACSbjwMd4lRR2T91KL7-f4JA3JwqLexCZPIaNpIZkStZMZv_5Nfcpz8we_Z-HWv9EJozO5K1KzY4b5rDjd7RFR4-ukJKq87tTaad7HswGGpXb6s-rsTHaXY9W6FU5g/s320/ScreenClip+%255B17%255D.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From DOJ IG Press Release</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Plus, at the height of the election interference of 2016, the Obama administration <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/26/presidential-policy-directive-united-states-cyber-incident">designated</a> the NCIJTF as the lead responder to emerging cyber threats. That was issued on July 26, 2016...four days after the shocking Wikileaks drop of hacked DNC documents.<br />
<br />
Shawn Henry left the FBI in April 2012 to found his cybersecurity company, Crowdstrike. But Henry still uses his involvement with the NCIJTF in his press bios. It is something he is especially proud of:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR8sWnhQkgPFwSxzYjgoc0CVb0-BMDw_yFHK33Dy44O2iiX1uVq5twthqasoD28BYG5RNuBkf8MZeTWlTEf46XZ55BFIqgJu7ImPBOwV67_piypWmf9xuQFKHZ9qHAx-8HFoWBXy1V5D8/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B19%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="321" data-original-width="702" height="146" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR8sWnhQkgPFwSxzYjgoc0CVb0-BMDw_yFHK33Dy44O2iiX1uVq5twthqasoD28BYG5RNuBkf8MZeTWlTEf46XZ55BFIqgJu7ImPBOwV67_piypWmf9xuQFKHZ9qHAx-8HFoWBXy1V5D8/s320/ScreenClip+%255B19%255D.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
It is also named in some of the "Midyear Exam" (Hillary Clinton Email Case) FBI documentation. Such as here:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3RS7be2SC_4_Ctni6w4LrZW_rqwKout8miaSZdnnga3u_j4W237Njf_-XrTvGgvyqLP1G9jZRPtMZYQMYyRU209wS_9izlTgPhHW8O6IuHYZeif4Zmf6Kjwrp3wFex_H5EmdFopk0ySM/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B20%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="739" data-original-width="747" height="316" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3RS7be2SC_4_Ctni6w4LrZW_rqwKout8miaSZdnnga3u_j4W237Njf_-XrTvGgvyqLP1G9jZRPtMZYQMYyRU209wS_9izlTgPhHW8O6IuHYZeif4Zmf6Kjwrp3wFex_H5EmdFopk0ySM/s320/ScreenClip+%255B20%255D.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Which even names a location for the NCIJTF: Chantilly, Virginia. In a text message, Peter Strzok mentions going to "Mission Ridge" which is an office building complex in Chantilly and is where I believe the NCIJTF is located. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
But more info on that in for the next article...</div>
nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com84tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-16679713638080221312019-04-11T11:48:00.000-07:002019-04-11T15:17:28.669-07:005 Things About Those Spygate Texts<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPL8Tunq2Bt-HjtePF0jp872a9MoGtu6cFqH2fQBUQWbIR3CjqwpS7Dz0IeliIH9Kqszt28GGkY3mVZ0927HKSWMc8DtPh38dyx-SbtQImfUTP6U-1hWgTvJw5aoK5HKW42wBYVeQcYjc/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B232%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="290" data-original-width="828" height="140" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPL8Tunq2Bt-HjtePF0jp872a9MoGtu6cFqH2fQBUQWbIR3CjqwpS7Dz0IeliIH9Kqszt28GGkY3mVZ0927HKSWMc8DtPh38dyx-SbtQImfUTP6U-1hWgTvJw5aoK5HKW42wBYVeQcYjc/s400/ScreenClip+%255B232%255D.png" width="400" /></a></div>
Through Senator Ron Johnson's refreshing advocacy and some other surprising strokes of government transparency, the public has received ~8,000 texts between FBI employees Lisa Page and Peter Strzok to date.<br />
<br />
Once you start digging into these texts and cross-referencing, you notice some interesting artifacts. No doubt due to the strange journey these documents have taken from the bowels of the J Edgar Hoover building to the public eye.<br />
<br />
Here are five things I've noticed:<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b>1) The texts were produced in many different editions and ways</b><br />
What we have today is really a compilation of various productions of text messages.<br />
<br />
About 90% of the texts we currently have come from a <a href="https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2018/2/sen-johnson-releases-interim-report-including-strzok-page-fbi-text-messages">document Ron Johnson released</a> in February 2018 and it was labeled "Appendix C".<br />
<br />
That Appendix C document can be subdivided into three different parts:<br />
<ul>
<li>Comey's statement exonerating Clinton and the edit process (pages 1 through 28),</li>
<li>The first batch of texts, provided to congress Dec 12, 2017 (pages 29 through 118) and </li>
<li>The second batch of texts, provided to congress Jan 19, 2018 (pages 119 through 502)</li>
</ul>
<br />
So the first part, the edit process of Comey's statement, does not contain texts so not relevant here. The "first batch of texts" mentioned above seems to be an early production because much of these texts (but not all) are replicated in other productions. The "second batch of texts" is the real meaty section. You can further subdivide this "second batch of texts" into five productions. You can tell these are separate because the page numbering restarts each time, plus there are formatting differences. They are:<br />
<ul>
<li>Pages 119 through 160 (which corresponds to 8/21/2015-12/29/2015)</li>
<li>Pages 161 though 210 (which corresponds to 1/2/2016-3/31/2016)</li>
<li>Pages 211 through 284 (which corresponds to 4/1/2016-6/30/2016)</li>
<li>Pages 285 through 448 (which corresponds to 7/1/2016-12/1/2016)</li>
<li>Pages 449 through 502 (which corresponds to 11/30/2016-6/25/2017)</li>
</ul>
<br />
Then there is another batch of texts that were exclusively published by the Daily Caller in <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2018/04/27/read-the-strozk-page-texts-in-full/">this article</a>. This batch contains texts that don't appear anywhere else and are from the date range Dec 16, 2016 through May 23, 2017.<br />
<br />
I put all these together in one place at <a href="http://thespygateproject.org/">http://thespygateproject.org/</a> so you can easily browse and search. A discussion of all the differences between the productions could fill a whole separate blog post.<br />
<br />
<b>2) Red text in some places</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Some of the texts have red colored words.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Like here</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHuz1wstmMC4x_T4wKYwUAIfxOU5loDN30obWZc9H6JiCs3eWdvjWFTzH6lmnkCpS-G4ECWW2bacjbJXfPSOqGINhY4q9xvb9WMxx8erB5dPrT_WKmDVyKyKwz4vQdjipra3qXJQKlHx0/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B259%255D.png"><img border="0" data-original-height="54" data-original-width="229" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHuz1wstmMC4x_T4wKYwUAIfxOU5loDN30obWZc9H6JiCs3eWdvjWFTzH6lmnkCpS-G4ECWW2bacjbJXfPSOqGINhY4q9xvb9WMxx8erB5dPrT_WKmDVyKyKwz4vQdjipra3qXJQKlHx0/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B259%255D.png" /></a> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
And here</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjTqNaJHAf2uWE_7mBqEvxgnTyl9pwn_PDqJFaQuBxn26PqnIq5fN1LsBOWkLQJ_q5Fd_mKsQ6HWBs6x79GOhTs8tyGg4igsUShHJ6xUC-M6YElLJV6yNg8-_5ksZZWTaddPUMFYh-Ysw/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B258%255D.png"><img border="0" data-original-height="96" data-original-width="241" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjTqNaJHAf2uWE_7mBqEvxgnTyl9pwn_PDqJFaQuBxn26PqnIq5fN1LsBOWkLQJ_q5Fd_mKsQ6HWBs6x79GOhTs8tyGg4igsUShHJ6xUC-M6YElLJV6yNg8-_5ksZZWTaddPUMFYh-Ysw/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B258%255D.png" /></a> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
And here</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgY6ombD2aX9Zqlt-JviEiLsFxZzdyJtsDm6Vvp-z6YUy2bRYvQ4TIUWpZSVUcjtIHXSUOmSwWQrAOWbeW17IZlsX3TLsXpNLHK37iEAPHODU8cXP3b_2rzxoC3BReQes7ty__7iqrFHfw/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B257%255D.png"><img border="0" data-original-height="82" data-original-width="184" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgY6ombD2aX9Zqlt-JviEiLsFxZzdyJtsDm6Vvp-z6YUy2bRYvQ4TIUWpZSVUcjtIHXSUOmSwWQrAOWbeW17IZlsX3TLsXpNLHK37iEAPHODU8cXP3b_2rzxoC3BReQes7ty__7iqrFHfw/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B257%255D.png" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
And here</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIvijmmUIjYkzQLdmNu4nXhbytDa3dfiqTSgGOwiCxeLJAeMUHLFuwFvqMMBjZpfeWFIYb3kWxtPICY2UHIFxv09pOxrdmYZjwGoLWhGbwNtdgb9YMIRrCjJ0XKOnjU1-iipnOec3kcTg/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B255%255D.png"><img border="0" data-original-height="72" data-original-width="293" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIvijmmUIjYkzQLdmNu4nXhbytDa3dfiqTSgGOwiCxeLJAeMUHLFuwFvqMMBjZpfeWFIYb3kWxtPICY2UHIFxv09pOxrdmYZjwGoLWhGbwNtdgb9YMIRrCjJ0XKOnjU1-iipnOec3kcTg/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B255%255D.png" /></a></div>
<br />
There isn't a pattern obvious to me. It's never the whole text, just certain words, and the words themselves seem pretty innocuous. Also, they don't appear in every production. They pop up most frequently in the "Pages 211 through 284" production but also appear in the "Pages 285 through 448" production as seen here:
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0Z0IaKw2IIqCAVmo-tDZ2J-Iw8QZDatmRk5Bbld5iespG2M7eKVQbYOlN4zJ60R2DNWh39CEkNpa-QNnVvNMiDRM7-4hy7Kp9QD8yzUMSRwXtHXeJVE245qVwXL6JhoQKWp5YQ01AbHc/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B444%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="212" data-original-width="365" height="116" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0Z0IaKw2IIqCAVmo-tDZ2J-Iw8QZDatmRk5Bbld5iespG2M7eKVQbYOlN4zJ60R2DNWh39CEkNpa-QNnVvNMiDRM7-4hy7Kp9QD8yzUMSRwXtHXeJVE245qVwXL6JhoQKWp5YQ01AbHc/s200/ScreenClip+%255B444%255D.png" width="200" /></a></div>
Which looks a bit different than the others, like it's been scanned.<br />
<br />
It's possible reviewers used red text to indicate words that needed to be redacted. But then, why did these get turned red and <i>not</i> redacted? Just an oversight?<br />
<br />
<b>3) Different colored redactions</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Two different colors of redactions appear in the document, a black and a medium gray. The gray color is used most prominently. However, the is a significant amount of black as well. There is not a discernible pattern of when each is used. If fact, both colors are sometimes used within the same text message, like here for example:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFDPacjJ29cBLBMvWBChKd-ucQoarw-XBfzR7GcrAAfJ7Ady204RQn5_oc0R1qso8BIQl5lfo8js4KAEKFM9CqoXXuKBjIrYU4Po532hfGXqn2NSPkoF6YRqkQDORQ4dMEgcCpgEwFuLU/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B256%255D.png"><img border="0" data-original-height="191" data-original-width="544" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFDPacjJ29cBLBMvWBChKd-ucQoarw-XBfzR7GcrAAfJ7Ady204RQn5_oc0R1qso8BIQl5lfo8js4KAEKFM9CqoXXuKBjIrYU4Po532hfGXqn2NSPkoF6YRqkQDORQ4dMEgcCpgEwFuLU/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B256%255D.png" /></a></div>
<br />
Possible these different colors represent different reviewers. Or different exemption statutes.<br />
<br />
<b>4) Time sent on same text different</b><br />
You can see that the clips below show the same message, produced in two different versions.<br />
Version 1<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr-_BTZPCc9fyRAc7j8jfPVvcqHEyJKntL78l_Vh4KAyzCcfydwIp7Cco5-RuMah43kZrIXDtfjL8WUMKh-KzU1RLxaXsPVfg2KpVBFHHcmWvxRsEEr-VcLYLoSYeQxtsan2pqFY9SBK4/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B450%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="103" data-original-width="1459" height="28" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr-_BTZPCc9fyRAc7j8jfPVvcqHEyJKntL78l_Vh4KAyzCcfydwIp7Cco5-RuMah43kZrIXDtfjL8WUMKh-KzU1RLxaXsPVfg2KpVBFHHcmWvxRsEEr-VcLYLoSYeQxtsan2pqFY9SBK4/s400/ScreenClip+%255B450%255D.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Version 2<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKaj9ZfFx51givVC0a7Yp1FBWvaDRrjJuO2_kVCxrCzWz1W3rijM4vPJNZx_K7ZXMQQWDXCFdRaHthmch7U1ZS0d-cJNEpdywPz5DnXkXVlD2-iPEKz4MyHBx4jSGZLZ02W88qo7g16Uw/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B449%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="93" data-original-width="1600" height="23" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKaj9ZfFx51givVC0a7Yp1FBWvaDRrjJuO2_kVCxrCzWz1W3rijM4vPJNZx_K7ZXMQQWDXCFdRaHthmch7U1ZS0d-cJNEpdywPz5DnXkXVlD2-iPEKz4MyHBx4jSGZLZ02W88qo7g16Uw/s400/ScreenClip+%255B449%255D.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Everything is the same except the time sent is different by eight seconds. There are more examples of time differences throughout, although I would approximate that it's less than 10% of texts. For the most part, times match between all the different versions.</div>
<br />
<b>5) One time is actually redacted</b><br />
There is one text out of the entire 8,000 text database where the <i>time</i> the text was sent is redacted as well. In every other case, the content might be redacted but the date and time sent are not. This is the text:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxc1McNipkfR2KzwgI9DeofBCPziu7Mp7hVTew6qti06tED1Pzl9G_6e096brwQMugE38Z8MZBI64ZHibZKWBBA7GSiWKUr4-qU9GhMjPk_QqAewsZ2u-zSQ3pGv90bmRXuWwO_Byu0Kw/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B445%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="201" data-original-width="1544" height="52" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxc1McNipkfR2KzwgI9DeofBCPziu7Mp7hVTew6qti06tED1Pzl9G_6e096brwQMugE38Z8MZBI64ZHibZKWBBA7GSiWKUr4-qU9GhMjPk_QqAewsZ2u-zSQ3pGv90bmRXuWwO_Byu0Kw/s400/ScreenClip+%255B445%255D.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Does it mean anything? Maybe, maybe not.<br />
<br />nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-1617444880972664722019-04-10T22:13:00.001-07:002019-04-11T15:21:06.077-07:00Nunes quietly racking up wins<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3lN25-ZyQ_Hyd0rAyu10FLpgM_nqIOp6Uu5DCWadOyWL6UTH5OK624vZhy3zo56os7xtoxtZ3TDPerW9CbpNnIJ5_fN4_UNh4eKtwm9HqDxRH6VI958KY3YaEE_qq51qIpOFg8v5k70k/s1600/1144-nunes-cpac-award.jpg"><img border="0" height="210" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3lN25-ZyQ_Hyd0rAyu10FLpgM_nqIOp6Uu5DCWadOyWL6UTH5OK624vZhy3zo56os7xtoxtZ3TDPerW9CbpNnIJ5_fN4_UNh4eKtwm9HqDxRH6VI958KY3YaEE_qq51qIpOFg8v5k70k/s400/1144-nunes-cpac-award.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Devin Nunes has come under constant and heavy political fire for over two years now. His detractors have employed bureaucratic maneuvers, massive infusions of cash into his district election plus nonstop media hit pieces continuing through today in an attempt to derail the congressman from Tulare. Yet, quietly, Nunes has been notching wins.<br />
<br />
Look no further than the shady ethics complaint filed against him in April 2017. It apparently took eight months for the House Ethics Committee to consult with classification experts, but once they finally did, Nunes was fully <a href="http://documents.latimes.com/committee-ethics-statement-regarding-rep-devin-nunes/">vindicated</a>. Or look to the bureaucratic tactics used to prevent the release of his memo in early 2018. The FBI demanded a review period before release of that document, citing national security concerns, then attempted to use that review period to delay or stifle the actual release. In both cases, Nunes won.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Once the memo was released there was an official “response memo” from Adam Schiff, which purports to debunk it. A year later, the Schiff memo has been shown to contain falsehoods, while the Nunes memo has been confirmed by primary documents. A month later, Nunes told the world that the House Intelligence Committee performed a thorough investigation into the events surrounding the 2016 election and uncovered no collusion by the Trump Campaign. Of course this was roundly mocked and met by scoffs from the pundits. But the bottom line conclusions of Attorney General Barr’s letter looks strikingly similar to what Nunes told us over a year ago. So once again, Nunes won.<br />
<br />
Finally, look at the outside spending in the 2018 CA-22 Congressional race between Nunes and Andrew Janz. Over $900k of “outside” dollars (not directly contributed to the candidate) was <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/races/outside-spending?cycle=2018&id=CA22&spec=N">spent</a> in the race to oppose Nunes. The Sacramento Bee <a href="https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article216894890.html">reported</a> that only 12% of the direct contributions to Janz were from residents inside the district. Most of the money came from unsurprising places, like San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. And yet, on November 6 2018, the voters spoke, and Nunes won.<br />
<br />
It must be satisfying facing down the worst that the left has to throw at you and still holding on to your congressional seat. Even more satisfying knowing that you still have cards to play against your attackers.<br />
<br />
If there is one thing that President Trump likes, it’s winning. But of course, Trump wins have a certain style, during and after. Nunes has a very different style, he doesn’t spike the football afterwards like Trump does. And yet Trump seems to have a deep respect for Nunes. Trump has commended the congressman in tweets and in public interviews. I’m sure the same types of things are being said in private. Nunes has also earned respect inside the conservative community, winning an excellence award at 2018 CPAC and achieving a kind of folk hero status among the “spygate” community. With Nunes filing lawsuits against twitter harassers and against McClatchy, the parent company of the Fresno Bee, he clearly seems to be in an offensive stance. He is also promising criminal referrals. With the head of steam he has right now, why not?
nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-5196831071523620822019-03-24T14:36:00.000-07:002019-04-11T15:21:57.036-07:00Teflon Don Strikes Again<div style="-en-clipboard: true;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZoBC2AuKbT_ofSINX8axx5bNGZpHIsXDvZHtyCWiz8u0K5QjSG8lM1B9cQaO4Io5R8hXVXq50GtlrdySU0i7Vo8NKxgd75BJuxO-sdpxuuGie5TqkcKaypGM9rjpqD_MAYJfEbRSwEQA/s1600/john-gotti.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="269" data-original-width="640" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZoBC2AuKbT_ofSINX8axx5bNGZpHIsXDvZHtyCWiz8u0K5QjSG8lM1B9cQaO4Io5R8hXVXq50GtlrdySU0i7Vo8NKxgd75BJuxO-sdpxuuGie5TqkcKaypGM9rjpqD_MAYJfEbRSwEQA/s400/john-gotti.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
With the conclusion of the Mueller probe, Trump has now head-faked more dirty political attacks than I can count. From Obama's 2011 vitriol at the White House Correspondents Dinner to the 2016 GOP primaries to the unprecedented and unfounded accusations of treason no less, Trump has faced and absorbed political blow after political blow. Jeb!'s jaw must be on the floor by now.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's not an exaggeration to say that the Mueller probe, specifically, represented an existential threat to his presidency. Many sober minded people believe that the regulations governing the role of a Special Counsel are too expansive and inevitably lead to overreach and unintended political consequences. We don't need to look very far back to see this illustrated in the Clinton Independent Counsel probe led by Ken Starr which started at Whitewater and ended at Monica Lewinski.</div>
<br />
<div>
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div>
The invasiveness of the Mueller probe cannot be overstated. In Attorney General Barr's summary, he lists the investigative steps the Special Counsel office undertook. It includes:</div>
<div>
-2800 subpoenas </div>
<div>
-500 witnesses </div>
<div>
-500 search warrants </div>
<div>
-230 orders for communications records </div>
<div>
-50 orders authorizing pen registers</div>
<div>
-13 foreign govt intelligence requests</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But that only counts the investigative steps taken from May 17th, 2017, forward. The investigation of Trump and his orbit started way before that. It's still unclear exactly when it started but late 2015 is a good guess. At the very least, an official FBI investigation with a full-on codename was started by Peter Strzok on July 31st, 2016. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And this official FBI investigation was a <i>counterintelligence</i> investigation. That is very significant.<span style="text-size-adjust: 100%;"> A counterintelligence investigation is unparalleled in the arsenal of investigative tools available to agents, and it is <i>not specifically focused on a crime</i>. People can be the target of a counterintelligence investigation and never be the wiser, except their most intimate secrets now reside in a dusty file at the J Edgar Hoover building. There is no notification. </span><span style="text-size-adjust: 100%;">There is no cross examination. And that very well might have been the intention in this case.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="text-size-adjust: 100%;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="text-size-adjust: 100%;">These tools of counterintelligence are designed to catch enemies of the state, spies and other slippery spooks. You know, the kind of people who were executed for treason way back when. It is the surveillance apparatus of the most powerful country in the solar system. Serious stuff.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="text-size-adjust: 100%;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="text-size-adjust: 100%;">In the case of the Mueller probe, you have this convergence of the potentially runaway nature of a Special Counsel <i>combined</i> with the aforementioned counterintelligence tools. It's hard to imagine a more invasive type of investigation let loose within the United States.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="text-size-adjust: 100%;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="text-size-adjust: 100%;">And yet...</span></div>
<div>
<span style="text-size-adjust: 100%;"><br /></span></div>
Even through all that, Teflon Don is still standing. I’m sure there’s something that can take him down. No one is perfect. But at this point, who would bet against him?
<br />
<br />
It’s not so much that he won this battle, but it played out in such a public fashion that there was a clear beginning, a roller coaster in the middle, and then a clear end. So the general public actually gains rooting interest along the way, relating to the characters and the struggles. In the end, Trump seems to do a spin move, separate from the defender and high step his way into the end zone. The ending of this particular story feels so final.<br />
<br />
The most surprising aspect (to me anyway) is this is not a man who has lived his life as a typical "future president of the United States" would. He intentionally cultivated a playboy image, owning and operating casinos, having messy divorces, seeming to enjoy his mug appearing on the cover of the National Enquirer. Not to mention spending years as a reality television star where the cameras are never really off.<br />
<br />
On the business side, he always seems to have a hand outstretched to characters with spotty backgrounds. Where some might see unscrupulousness, he might see a kindred soul relishing action amid chaos and mental toughness. Anyone who brings Michael Cohen into their orbit has a non-traditional way of judging talent.<br />
<br />
All of this would seem to add up to a target rich environment for someone, anyone, looking for dirt. And as we know, look they did. Sharp-minded Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS spent the better part of three years digging and publishing. Same with Anthony Cormier and Jason Leopold of Buzzfeed.<br />
<br />
It's fair to say that Trump has been lucky in his enemies. The enemies themselves have often been been compromised (Hillary Clinton) and the hills chosen "to die on" by his enemies have been often been ill advised (Khashoggi!?). And yet you can't argue with the record of success.<br />
<br />
POTUS seems to have a magical, mythical quality surrounding him. The conclusion of the Mueller probe didn't pop that balloon. Seth Abramson and Malcom Nance (and Greg Jarrett and Scott Stedman and Greg O'Lear and...) will all still be shilling their books tomorrow morning but I hope the american people can finally <i>move on</i>.nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-43816499200540763072019-01-02T20:48:00.004-08:002019-06-27T14:21:13.684-07:00Transcript of John Batchelor interview w/ Michael Vlahos on Aug 24, 2018<i>The New American Civil War: Regicide and Trump "We don't want to go back we want to win"</i><br />
<i><a href="https://audioboom.com/posts/6984063-new-american-civil-war-1-of-2-regicide-and-trump-we-don-t-want-to-go-back-we-want-to-win">https://audioboom.com/posts/6984063-new-american-civil-war-1-of-2-regicide-and-trump-we-don-t-want-to-go-back-we-want-to-win</a></i><br />
<a href="https://audioboom.com/posts/6984064-new-american-civil-war-2-of-2-regicide-and-trump-we-don-t-want-to-go-back-we-want-to-win-m"><i>https://audioboom.com/posts/6984064-new-american-civil-war-2-of-2-regicide-and-trump-we-don-t-want-to-go-back-we-want-to-win-m</i></a><br />
<br />
TRANSCRIPT<br />
JB: I'm John Batchelor. This is the John Batchelor Show. Good evening. Michael Vlahos, my colleague of Johns Hopkins, Michael and I continue our conversation about the new American civil war if it is, because the salient fact always and always since the Romans invented civil war 2000 years ago and more, is that you cannot tell you're in a civil war at that time.<br />
<br />
It's afterwords such as the Congress declaring the American Civil War in 1907! There is always another way of explaining it to yourself as you're moving through the crisis. Michael, a very good evening to you. These last days, we've had what you'd have to say are strikingly salacious versions of regicide, challenging the president of the United States, our King, our elected King, on the basis of, at this point, campaign finance violations. However, the general sense is that those who have been investigating Donald Trump's presidency since before he was sworn in, since the fall of 2016 when when Barack Obama was president, those investigating have been looking for a tool to unseat him from power. Now the tool looks to be the midterm election of 2018 in which goes the regicidal theory the Congress, the House of Representatives, will be empowered with a majority in the hands of the Democrats to begin impeachment hearings and then...<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
A very good evening to you, Michael. Regicide side is often a turning point in a run up to a civil war. Certainly the revolution was a challenge to King George and we asked George Washington to be king afterwards. He chose not to be. He chose to be an elected king and invented the office. And in 1860, after Abraham Lincoln's election, that king was rejected and the south chose its own king. So this regicidal period, if it is we're in, is it another step towards the worst possible Michael. Or are we looking for a remedy. Good evening to you.<br />
<br />
MV: Good evening John. There are, as always, different advantages from which to view this increasingly corrosive or corroded situation in our national life. And I think it's worth noting that although American myth has come to enshrine the American Revolution as a struggle against King George and of course the election of Abraham Lincoln as a black Republican was the tipping point that pushed the south into secession. It nevertheless remains, I think, worth remembering that the struggle in the American Revolution was against Parliament and the struggle of the American Civil War arguably, that is to say the 1860s, was also a struggle within an American government dominated in many ways by the legislature. And I've just been reminded of that going through Kenneth Stamp's wonderful history of some years back entitled <i>American 1857</i> and the weakness of the presidency with presidents like Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan was front and center and it was really driving, towering figures of the Senate, like Douglass, who were moving the nation forward toward conflict.<br />
<br />
What's interesting about where we stand today is thanks to the FDR revolution and the Cold War that followed, we have had as a nation almost a century of the president as Emperor. An elected emperor to be sure but of course the Roman emperors were all acclaimed by the Republic in good fashion by the Senate and the people of Rome, right? So we have an elected Emperor. But that emperor can seize legitimacy and has authority only when supported by all the main constituent elements of the res publica, which still exists, like the Senate, and more and more in later antiquity the army. But what the Curiales and all the rest the leaders of the big cities in the east all of that played into the mix of Roman politics and what is in contrast really quite worrisome today is that the United States has created a reified and unchangeable system of two parties and the orderly transfer, through of an election process that all accept and embrace, has been replaced in the last of four or five elections. Maybe not that many. Maybe only since the later 70s culminating in say the last four or five elections.<br />
<br />
JB: Well certainly Nixon is a good place to start because that was a regicide.<br />
<br />
MV: Yeah and there were worries and even in 1980 but certainly everything came front and center after Bush the first was succeeded by Clinton and the elections since then have been incredibly contentious. But now, more than simply the process of power being transferred from one major faction to the other, now there is the notion that that it's all a war between these two power centers that increasingly find themselves unable to work together. And that also increasingly represent two visions of America that are rapidly moving apart like an expanding universe. They're fleeing from each other and their agendas. And in fact their very identity are defined in contrast to the other. As we've discussed many times and as a result, the election becomes a focal point of conflict and each election has to be passed or surmounted. Almost as though it's some giant National Hurdle and if that hurdle isn't made then the nation itself collapses into conflict. And we're at a point now where that is all but the prevailing reality in American life and American politics.<br />
<br />
JB: We have separate realities Michael, the nationalist and the globalist, the red and the blue, the coasts and the flyover country, separate realities. And they're viewing the events of these last days with with different understandings of the end product. The then the globalists believe that Trump is an interruption in their power and a challenge to their authority and their well-being. So they mean to remove him despite what you have you logically you are going to replace him with a Republican who is just as conservative as Trump is going to make the same the same sort of choices for the Supreme Court. But that doesn't matter. Trump himself is the goal for the globalists remove him and we'll restore order to the way things ought to be. That's globalism.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the Nationalists do not want to go back to what we had under Barack Obama. Even George Bush and certainly in the 20th century. The nationalists want a completely different understanding of their relationship with the government--with the central government--and want authority turned back to the states and turned back to the clans, back to the the identity groups, and in the country. There are many hands and identity groups. And Michael, you're not offering and I'm not blaming you because I don't have it either. You're not offering a path for this to be solved. You're saying that it's existing now and that the reluctance in the media, New York Times, Washington Post, the major television networks et cetera, the reluctance is to recognize what's in front of them. We don't want to go back where both sides want. We want to win.<br />
<br />
MV: Well this is where the contrast with the US and the civil war is quite helpful. So after the election of 1856, during the Kansas Nebraska debacle that was totally mishandled by Buchanan the then president, the Democrats, who who really owned all of government at that point, two houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, the presidency, they blew it over Kansas and they overreached. And as a result the Democratic Party itself began to split apart. And yet throughout this entire period of the later 1850s, there were still lots and lots of important people in the elites on both sides who really wanted to re-establish some kind of American core sense of identity and patriotism. And it was also considered a possible to come up with compromises and very possibly had Buchanan been smarter over what was going on in Kansas, the country might have survived the election of 1860 and not had a civil war. Although that was going to happen in all probability at some point.<br />
<br />
Now today what you have is a situation where where the battle lines have been drawn and the othering has reached the point where both sides are are using the word traitor. The Red is doing so in a kind of backhanded way talking about the absence of patriotic unity and belief among Blue, while Blue is directly pushing for the <i>j'accuse</i> of traitor.<br />
<br />
And this creates a language that cements that division and tends to move in in the direction of a confrontational choice that would be sparked by a constitutional confrontation of some kind. Like obviously right now impeachment and this is the problem with an imperial system in which the Emperor must represent one of the two completely divorced national identities and is thus therefore completely unable to represent the other. And that only intensifies the conflict. So we're at a point now where an election in the United States is the most dangerous situation that the nation can confront constitutionally. And we saw this in 2000 and in many ways we're seeing it as a result of the response by Blue to the 2016 election and it is a sign of a society that is not able to work any longer and for which the remedies that exist are structurally factored out. In other words we've already structurally become two separate national identities. And the imperial structure of rule, of authority and legitimacy, is now not simply an element in driving the crisis ahead, it is actually one of the key dynamics making for a kind of crisis coming to a head, a kind of touchstone, that leads to the actual real violent conflict that lies ahead.<br />
<br />
JB: I'm speaking with Michael Vlahos of Johns Hopkins. We're discussing the new American civil war if it is and the regicide around as if that's the way we can speak of it fairly. We will not know until long after perhaps long after Michael and I are no longer talking. I want to turn this to a subset of regicide in these last hours, the Democratic Senate suggesting that the Supreme Court nomination of Mr. Kavanaugh will not go forward because, yes, all parts of government, all three parts of government are now trembling. I'm John Batchelor. This is the John Batchelor Show.<br />
<br />
<break></break><br />
<br />
JB: I'm John Batchelor and this is the John Batchelor show. Michael Vlahos and I are discussing a new American civil war if it is. We cannot tell but certainly the language is...intemperate.<br />
<br />
I mean to be understated here. For example, in The New Yorker, which I read routinely as a rallying point for the most literate of the regicidal thinkers, this line from The New Yorker about the rally that the president held in West Virginia in these last days, during the crisis, for the attorney general, Patrick Morrisey, running against Senator Joe Manchin a Democrat (a centrist Democrat). The New Yorker writes: "Trump said that he would campaign for as many days as he was allowed even if he had to slip away from the Secret Service to do it." The quote from Trump is used here: "'A blue wave in November means open borders which means massive crime' Trump said. 'A red wave means safety and strength.' Safety above all for Donald Trump."<br />
<br />
Even the president, Michael, recognizes that we are at a crisis point here. He recognizes that a blue wave will mean that the regicide accelerates. I want to turn this to the Supreme Court because strikingly, the minority leader Mr. Schumer of New York, joining several senators, most notably Mr. Booker of New Jersey, to say that the nomination hearings which are scheduled to begin after Labor Day for Judge Kavanaugh to be associate justice Supreme Court, will not be held, should not be held, could not be held, may not be held, in any way you want to put it because the president lacks legitimacy to appoint a member to the Supreme Court, Michael. Yes. Yes that's a direct challenge from the Senate that would hold the trial for impeachment in the event of a blue wave. You see how it neatly comes like a Hollywood ending.<br />
<br />
MV: Well things come to a head through a familiar tool, a kind of perverse deus ex machina. A device that comes into play within the American constitutional context and that's called nullification. And nullification can take many forms, and nullification that is the rejection of a state law--I mean a federal law by a state--is not a completely settled law. And nullification has been a signal, the canary in the coal mine like cliché, of something is about to happen or we're reaching a point where this is a dire warning. And the nullification options exist for both Red and Blue at the moment. And I think the the nuclear option that was developed in the last administration in Congress and the argument of Booker and Schumer, also the threat of California to exercise nullification of certain federal laws, all of these are really important straws in the wind of of the way in which the conflict could move. And at this point it would be worth trying to understand better what the tipping points might be that would lead to an actual conflict and how that path might unfold potentially in the next few months depending on how the election turns out in November.<br />
<br />
And just as I was talking about America in the late 1850s potentially being in a position to to postpone the ultimate crisis over slavery, to kick the can down the road as they love to say, it was going to happen eventually. And is this going to happen here. It's already been locked in. The question is what the path the exact path would be.<br />
<br />
JB: Accident is always available. Michael Vlahos of Johns Hopkins. I'm John Batchelor. This is the John Batchelor Show.nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-69621225474684315302018-12-31T00:53:00.001-08:002019-06-27T14:21:02.246-07:00The Breaking News Network & a continued look at the bots of 2016We have heard all about <a href="https://www.salon.com/2018/07/09/russian-bots-are-back-walkaway-attack-on-democrats-is-a-likely-kremlin-operation/">Russian bots</a> and <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/from-utah-with-love">alt-right bots</a> who "interfered" in the 2016 election. The Russian ones get much attention despite being an <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-elections-interference/">amateurish operation</a>. We're just starting to find out about the bots secretly commissioned by American billionaire Reid Hoffman <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/26/18156702/reid-hoffman-backed-group-alabama-election-misinformation-roy-moore">while he was accusing</a> Roy Moore of the same. But even now, you rarely hear the accusation of "bot warfare" leveled against the left. Are they guiltless in this respect?<br />
<br />
The short answer is no. The more complete answer is that truly <i>everyone</i> was running bots throughout the 2016 election, and all the way up until Twitter had a crackdown mid-2017, but also keep in mind that not all bots are nefarious. Reddit CEO Ellen Pao <a href="https://twitter.com/ekp/status/1078095527420383233">recently tweeted</a> (in reference to internet traffic metrics): "everything is fake." That succinct answer generally applies to social media as well.<br />
<br />
One researcher <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/10/nearly-48-million-twitter-accounts-could-be-bots-says-study.html">estimated</a> in March 2017 that upwards of 15% of twitter accounts are bots. This estimate was somewhat validated when Twitter did a mass purge of bot-like accounts in July 2017. During that purge, the @Twitter account lost 7.7M followers, which was 12% of their previous 62M followers. And that purge definitely did not remove all bots from Twitter, as you will soon see. So this is an extremely widespread phenomenon and not limited to a single country or ideology, no matter how the media and certain members of Congress spin it.<br />
<br />
Determining what is acceptable or not on our social media platforms is a whole separate and extremely thorny issue. But taking a level headed approach to the problem is critical. That's why I thought the story of the Breaking News Network is so relevant and fascinating. It lies at the intersection of bots-on-social-media, the contentious 2016 election and the recent upheaval of the news industry as a whole.<br />
<br />
<h2>
How I stumbled onto this</h2>
<a name='more'></a>I have been doing <a href="https://twitter.com/nick_weil/status/1070970370243551232">research</a> on a guy named Felix Sater who is a part of the Trump-Russia story. Sater is mixed up with all kinds of shady characters and happens to consistently have twitter bots pushing his side of the story. If fact, at this very moment, if you tweet anything with the words "Sater" or "Bayrock" in it, you will trigger an auto reply from a twitter bot. You should try it.<br />
<br />
I was trying to drill down into the exact moment when a certain story about Sater surfaced. The story ran in the Associated Press on Dec 4, 2015 and it was titled "Misconduct allegations follow Trump associate with mob past." I did a twitter search for that exact phrase and received a long list of tweets that looked exactly the same, from the same day. Trying to find some sort of pattern in the accounts, I noticed at least ten of them had the same profile picture:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm-HvN_isr_pDcUCEOBeWunSQh32Ur9nTfcFN8TQPyxfyvVB0QXDguhH-mzfZl8XDzywoPgqayuewiQHEpGcMfUmP3p9YDNl5Vzy94TgNmYaXjV5t3dKFruF5656DzoEtrem0Q05ymUB0/s1600/ScreenClip+%255B25%255D.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="689" data-original-width="649" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm-HvN_isr_pDcUCEOBeWunSQh32Ur9nTfcFN8TQPyxfyvVB0QXDguhH-mzfZl8XDzywoPgqayuewiQHEpGcMfUmP3p9YDNl5Vzy94TgNmYaXjV5t3dKFruF5656DzoEtrem0Q05ymUB0/s320/ScreenClip+%255B25%255D.png" width="301" /></a></div>
And the account handles also shared a prefix. It was "POLS" then a city or metropolitan area. Usually bots have a random person as a profile picture and the handle is a name plus like eight numbers, so this was different. To be honest, I thought I had discovered a network of Russian bots at first, which led me to look deeper and deeper.<br />
<br />
I soon realized these weren't Russian bots after all, but rather it was a Bay Area company running all these accounts, which is still a fascinating story. What follows is the sum of my research up to this point.<br />
<br />
<h2>
The Breaking News Network</h2>
The Breaking News Network is/was the brainchild of a Bay Area denizen named Pat Kitano.<br />
<br />
<img height="360" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wXev2_WnpAwtjbunhE-7SOxKZMUbrdmcZk7A9VfUNcNiJnmcuDvdSD112eDkFY5FyoLp7Lpm-_ka8134p_5IOLmms3KuwGMnxv3t0Eb4CGBqr9mkqFZF_viQoQMIJHuFIcUoh5Pk" width="640" /><br />
Kitano launched the project in 2009. He <a href="http://journalismaccelerator.com/blog/ja-network-profile-the-breaking-news-network-explores-new-ways-of-expressing-media/">noticed</a> that traditional local news organizations were struggling mightily and how this left huge holes in coverage. The rapid rise in new consumption via social media led Kitano to question if the entire business model of newspapers and other news outlets was outdated. The margin for sustaining a strong local news staff on ad dollars (that were vacuumed up by Facebook anyway) simply wasn’t there.<br />
<br />
Kitano’s solution was stripping the news delivery infrastructure down to absolute bare bones and sourcing the content from people who are not "journalists" in the traditional sense, but still have newsworthy updates to provide to the community, such as city politicians, civic groups, non-profits, and independent publishers. Essentially moving from a centralized newsroom to a decentralized network of publishers, promoted via an extremely low-friction social media hub provided by the Breaking News Network, with no ads at all.<br />
<br />
This core idea led to the creation of <a href="https://twitter.com/breakingsfnews">@breakingsfnews</a>, established in April 2009, which served as a testing platform and a "mold" for the creating rest of the network. The rest of the network followed in 2011/2012 with accounts such as <a href="https://twitter.com/TulsaDailyNews">@TulsaDailyNews</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/arlingtonvabuzz">@arlingtonvabuzz</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/amarillojournal">@amarillojournal</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/allaboutnapa">@allaboutnapa</a>, etc. There were 400+ local specific accounts created.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Late 2014 signaled a shift. Not only would the Breaking News Network provide a local, general hub for community news, it would micro-target audiences within those communities. <a href="https://www.locavesting.com/ecosystem/a-local-news-network-with-a-conscience/">Kitano</a> laid <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy4ZNLFROlM">out</a> fourteen groups he wanted to provide "topical coverage" to:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Arts and culture</li>
<li>Civic sustainability and the sharing economy</li>
<li>Education and personal development</li>
<li>Environment, climate change and green tech</li>
<li>Ethnic and cultural news</li>
<li>Health and wellness</li>
<li>Housing and real estate</li>
<li>LGBTQ</li>
<li>Local and artisan food movement</li>
<li>Local politics</li>
<li>Social impact</li>
<li>Solving homelessness, poverty and hunger</li>
<li>Startups, small business development and entrepreneurship</li>
<li>Women and girls</li>
</ol>
</div>
In this vein, 600+ <i>additional</i> accounts were created. These had a prefix before the geographical identifier such as BLCK for a curated feed for the African American community, or CLMT for news related to climate change. Here are all the different prefixes:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="-en-clipboard: true; font-size: 100%;">ARTS </span></li>
<li><span style="-en-clipboard: true; font-size: 100%;">BLCK </span></li>
<li><span style="-en-clipboard: true; font-size: 100%;">CHNG </span></li>
<li><span style="-en-clipboard: true; font-size: 100%;">CLMT </span></li>
<li><span style="-en-clipboard: true; font-size: 100%;">FOOD </span></li>
<li><span style="-en-clipboard: true; font-size: 100%;">IMMREF </span></li>
<li><span style="-en-clipboard: true; font-size: 100%;">MSLM</span></li>
<li><span style="-en-clipboard: true; font-size: 100%;">POLS</span></li>
<li><span style="-en-clipboard: true; font-size: 100%;">RE</span></li>
<li><span style="-en-clipboard: true; font-size: 100%;">STRT</span></li>
</ul>
So you would have accounts such as <a href="https://twitter.com/mslmdenver">@MSLMDenver</a> or <a href="https://twitter.com/immrefnyc">@ImmRefNYC</a>. Not all 400+ cities had separate accounts for all these prefixes. In fact, very few of them had all strands. But the amount of "prefixed" accounts ended up surpassing the number of general city accounts. You can get a better sense of the accounts created at this <a href="http://archive.ph/nTyXJ">archived page</a>.<br />
<br />
By my count, the Breaking News Network ended up with 1,050+ Twitter bot accounts, which is not counting the accounts on other platforms such as Facebook.<br />
<br />
<h2>
What does "bot" even mean?</h2>
Kitano lays out pretty clearly how the automation works. Each account "listens" to a select group of content creators that are relevant to that account's stated mission. When the national content creators produce content, it is echoed nationally across the accounts. When local content creators produce content, it is echoed locally. This is an example of content curation for what would be a BLCK prefixed account:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhscZharVLUseCbUzDvkKQfA-jb2bU_Du_l9olTVmVfZRMMUd-UVZbrl3TLNUIWj9w7VAGsaieU-gkD0DF5MUs5DaJ1-wUsuzHFBRWrEVoFQvGYMahDlAV_OaEkpGHkRskw-APHWFxpNE8/s1600/1_017MOnu9Ik4dcgeeVR9HIA.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="576" data-original-width="877" height="262" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhscZharVLUseCbUzDvkKQfA-jb2bU_Du_l9olTVmVfZRMMUd-UVZbrl3TLNUIWj9w7VAGsaieU-gkD0DF5MUs5DaJ1-wUsuzHFBRWrEVoFQvGYMahDlAV_OaEkpGHkRskw-APHWFxpNE8/s400/1_017MOnu9Ik4dcgeeVR9HIA.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">source: <a href="https://medium.com/bnn-networks/topical-news-curation-at-the-local-level-a082769ea193">Medium article</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Of course, one man's "curation" is another man's "bias" but you see how the content flows from source to the various local feeds. Kitano emphasizes that his accounts echo good causes, not just partisan drivel.<br />
<br />
The <a href="https://botometer.iuni.iu.edu/#!/">University of Illinois Botometer</a> is generally recognized as an effective tool to identify bot accounts. It is interesting the results you receive when you plug in various Breaking News Network accounts.<br />
<br />
<img height="280" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/uVrntpoTXe1ZEv1YYNbSv4F4r_NJ2YVEegBNXnBQ1u_XCIxlO3eMAvhBONKFbvvaAbq1Za1MC6F1nA86LQHtAheaMl0rcVl_tCRgZn4ZYiHiUYdFwCcQVbOg8vL9rhw5UxdeiMRi" width="400" />
<img height="176" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/N7ZSYG0aDq-ioE5DFe47RIpp9B8cXGHskZRrah9JlIIXmFcJXL6dGxCBaLe9Rd035g6l4jF6QZ3aXm_-1NQIcF3w-lRUSdUImsGUe52y3vSwgQZFxYTTq5ptBfPCSUHxnd9d7LS0" width="400" />
<br />
Most of the accounts are rated as having an over 50% likelihood of being a bot, but not all of them. The POLS accounts trigger the botometer especially. These discrepancies can be attributed both to the crudeness of the botometer and to the non-bot-like behavior of some of these accounts. But ultimately, all of these accounts were created with the same vision and are, by definition, bots.<br />
<br />
So then, what kind of content are these accounts pushing out?<br />
<br />
<h2>
Anatomy of a single event</h2>
Remember <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-debates-bathroom-217052">that time</a> during the primaries where Trump said that Hillary got “schlonged” by Obama? Well, at the time, a woman named Megan Carpentier (<a href="https://twitter.com/megancarpentier">@megancarpentier</a>--note the nice profile banner stating "F*** THE PATRIARCHY") wrote an op-ed about it which appeared in the Guardian. She tweeted it out from her personal twitter account and it was also posted on the main Guardian US account as well as the Guardian US Opinion account:<br />
<div>
<div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
Donald Trump's 'schlong' remark just telegraphs the man's own insecurities | Megan Carpentier <a href="https://t.co/IiC0J6V3It">https://t.co/IiC0J6V3It</a></div>
— Guardian US (@GuardianUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/GuardianUS/status/679381504108208128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 22, 2015</a></blockquote>
<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
</div>
None of the “official” tweets of the opinion piece got much response. The Guardian US tweet got 7 retweets, the Megan Carpentier tweet got 5 retweets and the Guardian US Opinion tweet got zero response. I could find one blue-check account (an editor at The Nation) who <a href="https://twitter.com/KatrinaNation/status/679689573186846721">tweeted it</a> out, which received 32 retweets. But even the Guardian's own Ben Jacobs with his 181k follower count didn't tweet it out, even though he talked quite a bit about Trump's "schlong" remark quite a bit that day.<br />
<br />
It did get picked up by a lot of other accounts though.<br />
<br />
<img height="360" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/B0uRriNfAJ5DyhVB5lFDdO5mM68Ihik2FbUSv0hsiig9kWnCv0peV3EhuTx0cQYZkAEAlNMNQhz6CB8BckLv-7-x3v9YImfyonQJHpxvnYG-Pr0FN-pGbKGDf3kybGec3m_A8yZo" width="640" /><br />
And to be clear, it was not just Breaking News Network accounts who seemed to be auto-tweeting this in a big way. It was posted by many many seemingly automated accounts all with the similar phrasing.<br />
<br />
For example, here is a grouping of eight accounts, tweeting the exact same same thing within 2 minutes of each other and these were/are <i>not</i> affiliated with the Breaking News Network as far as I can tell:<br />
<br />
<img height="640" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/IQi7WvICWGl5PahkaWuC223TrBe5z1I85lkFBKIU4m8FWyuOLlBBTMD0vMYWEAvESsLXNGAPrEmUTrP77TYND7H0g_89W-hJOvojd3PulgmWIAKZg4cBuZmu2aQ-ELlLCB3NDAOn" width="460" /><br />
And they all seem to have Indian sounding names and Indian looking profile pictures. Were these bots designed to appeal to Indian-American audiences?<br />
<br />
Chronologically, these seem to be the first bots to tweet with that exact phrasing. So it's also possible these accounts were "trigger" accounts for other bot accounts, but I haven't been able to determine that either way. For reference, here is what Botometer thinks of these accounts<br />
<img height="280" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/fYXHCHqMJtUp4LxL2i5c9H36iGBnPj-nngw3qfXZcvifIJVI7sT1vWE3-v0ubtpFfDropS9_s-_0c519oj9TW27vrvedcycmBiq9tMiHkbpE26bCDqm5WQ9WG0z5JyKjXeymDT5U" width="400" /><br />
So this phenomena is not confined to the Breaking News Network at all. It is quite common in fact. But I hope you can see the concerns here.<br />
<br />
This is an anti-Trump opinion piece which was not spread much "organically." Neither the author or publisher of the article was retweeted much, despite having substantial follower counts. And the article was not tweeted much from readers cutting and pasting the link or by pressing the tweet button from within the article. However, it was pushed substantially by bot accounts which might or might not have ulterior motives.<br />
<br />
And the sheer quantity of accounts under the control of one entity means that that entity can create a twitter trend essentially out of thin air. They can attempt to inject talking points into the bloodstream of the public.<br />
<br />
What content gets "pushed" would seem to depend on who is paying for the bots. During the 2016 election, lots of money was spent for partisan purposes (as in <i>not just by the Russians</i>) and likely a nice chunk of it was spent on bots. It's not clear who was underwriting the Breaking News Network during this time period or any of the other bot networks. Nor is it clear what, if any, impact it had. Just lots of questions and what ifs.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Outro</h2>
Twitter under-the-radar changed it's policies regarding automatic delivery of content in March 2017. Queries to the Twitter API were restricted. Each automated feed is a query to their API server so this move greatly hampered large bot networks. Bots relying on services like Hootsuite, Buffer, IFTTT, dlvr.it required re-tooling to comply with Twitter's new terms of service. Ultimately, Twitter released official changes to it's policies in <a href="https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2017/Our-Approach-Bots-Misinformation.html">June</a> and <a href="https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-automation">November</a> and did a big purge of accounts. Clearly Twitter felt the heat on this front<br />
<br />
Due to these changes, most automated feeds in the Breaking News Network became unsustainable so the automation side of the accounts were shut down in March 2017. The accounts are still there, they are just dormant. <a href="https://twitter.com/breakingsfnews">@breakingsfnews</a> still feeds today and has over 10k followers. The Breaking News Network Facebook pages are also still active.<br />
<br />
The question of how we interact with and manage bots and automation in general on our social networks is a much larger issue which seems to be getting obscured by partisan talking points and reactionary purges.<br />
<br />
For example, there was a short-lived service called <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n20fcGjeAKM">thunderclap.it</a> where Twitter users could authorize tweets to be posted on their behalf in support of a cause or campaign, creating a situation where many many accounts post the same text or hashtag in a timed rollout to maximize their viral effect. Should giving "autopilot" privileges to a service like that in furtherance of a given cause not be allowed? I don't know. In the mean time, thunderclap.it was shut down.<br />
<br />
Transparency would go a long way but Twitter notoriously non-transparent. Even self-proclaimed "bot-trackers" like <a href="https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/hamilton-68/">Hamilton68</a> refuse to publish the actual list of twitter accounts they are tracking. That gives independent researchers no way to "check their work" (that might be by design). But this issue is only going to become more relevant so more eyes and level heads are a good thing.</div>
nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-90753718927161138712017-11-14T15:22:00.001-08:002019-01-25T16:47:58.646-08:00Wrong side of 30According to my meticulous examination of multiple Wikipedia pages, there are four stages of life for those who choose to follow the Vedic way of Hinduism, namely: student, householder, retired/forest dweller and renunciation/ascetic. You get the general idea of what each stage entails from their names. If you graphed it, it would look like a single peaked mountain measuring earthly attachment over time.
<br />
<br />
We're born naked, the number of possessions starts at zero. Over time we build up social, occupational and material attachments, receiving aid and mentoring from the older generation. A drag on parents and society for a time but with promise of a brighter future. Eventually the child becomes a man, the student becomes the householder, the net negative becomes a net positive, producing food and wealth that sustains a family and people in other stages of life. All the while living graciously and virtuously.
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
In this system, the peak of responsibility occurs around mid 40. The attachment slope upwards stops and starts moving downwards. The focus turns from building of skills, possessions and responsibilities to the passing off of those things. This is the pivot point, the fulcrum. The column tracking earthly attachments dwindles down while the column tracking enlightenment is supposed to rise. Eventually reaching a point where all material ties have been renounced and you are a 70 year old, natty bearded yogi mumbling "moksha" with your eyes closed.
<br />
<br />
I personally know many people who seek enlightenment, although some confuse it with salvation, and all see it as an urgent quest. I completely understand this position. If one believes that an eternal soul exists, matters related to the maintenance of it are quite obviously the most important thing in this short life. We all know we can't take our possessions with us. The Book of Common Prayer puts it "earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust."
<br />
<br />
That's why the existence of a householder stage on the Hindu path to enlightenment is so fascinating to me. Why not cut straight to the chase and encourage teens to give up the few possessions they have accumulated and live their entire life as an ascetic? Perhaps that's a differently phrased version of "why did Jesus wait until 30 to start his ministry?" Maybe it's because enlightenment just doesn't work that way. Just as a crate that is placed on sand leaves an imprint when it's picked up, the weight of responsibility leaves an imprint on us even after it's lifted. Just as the exact thing you're looking for is often in the last place you look.
<br />
<br />
I can respect an enlightenment process that makes you wait. Patience is not exactly a common virtue. Forcing your future monks to endure a family life first probably makes a lot of sense. Anyone who has lived the with the chaos of toddlers has a clearer appreciation of quiet contemplation.
<br />
<br />
And that is really the cycle of things isn't it? The thrill of creation inevitably leads to the drudgery of actually doing the dirty work. There are wildly creative inventors who have a million patents but can't actually run a business. There are serial entrepreneurs who start businesses and move on, never maintaining one for the long haul. There are scared inheritants who do nothing but maintain what someone else has gifted them. Rare is the person who patiently weathers all the stages. And it is through completing all stages that one seems to find meaning.
<br />
<br />
**<br />
Getting older is sure a strange experience. We get farther and farther from our earthly creation and closer and closer to our earthly death. Regarding the passage of time, I'm not sure if the womb shoots us forward like a cannon or death sucks us in like a black hole. Either way, they both conspire to keep our time on earth short and tidy. We're dropped on a fast moving conveyor belt, ride the bumps with white knuckled persistence and our hair thrown back by the wind until we reach the looming pneumatic hammer and, squish.
<br />
<br />
But it's not doom and gloom, in fact much the contrary. Thirty trips around the sun so far and I can't say they've been dull. The last decade was mostly split between college and work, but the balance was full of marriage, two kids, church and a couple bands. I regret basically none of it and that by itself deserves a hallelujah. Good, lucky or blessed, or maybe all of the above.nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-58848232162905701282017-09-24T21:53:00.004-07:002019-01-25T16:47:50.014-08:00"Burn the damn thing down"<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Everything is melting in nature. We think we see objects, but our eyes are slow and partial. Nature is blooming and withering in long puffy respirations, rising and falling in oceanic wave-motion. A mind that opened itself fully to nature without sentimental preconception would be glutted by nature’s coarse materialism, its relentless superfluity. An apple tree laden with fruit: how peaceful, how picturesque. But remove the rosy filter of humanism from our gaze and look again. See nature spuming and frothing, its mad spermatic bubbles endlessly spilling out and smashing in that inhuman round of waste, rot, and carnage. From the jammed glassy cells of sea roe to the feathery spores poured into the air from bursting green pods, nature is a festering hornet’s nest of aggression and overkill."
-From Sexual Personae by Camille Paglia
</i></blockquote>
The world we live in is constantly melting. Sometimes the change is fast and sometimes it's slow but it never stops. It seems helpful to say "the external world" is what's changing while the "internal world" stays constant but even that isn't true. Our physical bodies are constantly changing too - cells are dying and being replaced.
<br />
<br />
The way to survive change is to adapt, which sounds duplicative. Adaptation is just more change right? Sort of, but for the sake of this essay, change is out of your control while adaptation is in your control. The key part of adaptation is intentionality. A human or animal makes intentional changes in order to survive. The crazy part is that change and adaptation occurs simultaneously. Your skin cells are dying while you are intentionally putting on sunscreen to protect those exact cells, and it repeats and repeats. But all this complexity makes one's head spin. Let's limit the thought experiment to the "external" world changing and the "internal" world adapting.
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
You are faced with change. The best case scenario is you can simply add/subtract and achieve suitable adaptation. Say a computer program is missing a needed feature, so you add a few lines of code and you're done. Say a wrestler needs to lose weight to compete at a certain weight class, so they shed as much water from their body as possible. This is a simple answer to a simple problem. Usually the problems are not so simple.
<br />
<br />
Usually the problems, the change, requires a combination of destruction and creation to achieve suitable adaptation. It's a process of busting apart the old and building the new. Again, ideally the old gets completely carted away and the new is completely fresh. You demolish the rickety old hospital and build an entirely new and modern one in it's place. But all this takes resources and resources are not always easy to come by.
<br />
<br />
So what if you have limited resources and your problem is not simple? You break apart what you <i>have</i> and put it back together in a novel, better way. You fuse/split/intermix/rearrange your old systems into new systems better suited for the environment. This is the cycle of destruction and creation, of analysis and synthesis, of survival, and it continues indefinitely.
<br />
<br />
Col. John Boyd was a US fighter pilot who thought a lot about change and survival. Aherants of Boyd's philosophizing use the phrase "building snowmobiles" as shorthand for adaptive change. It stems from an illustration Boyd used:
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Imagine that you are on a ski slope with other skiers. Imagine that your are in Florida riding in an outboard motorboat, maybe even towing waterskiers. Imagine that you are riding a bicycle on a nice spring day. Imagine that you are a parent taking your son to a department store and that you notice he is fascinated by the toy tractors or tanks with rubber caterpillar treads.<br />
<br />Now imagine that you pull the ski’s off but you are still on the ski slope. Imagine also that you remove the outboard motor from the motor boat, and you are not longer in Florida. And from the bicycle you remove the handlebar and discard the rest of the bike. Finally, you take off the rubber threads from the toy tractor or tanks. This leaves only the following separate pieces: skis, outboard motor, handlebars and rubber treads. what emerges when you pull all this together? A snowmobile."
</i></blockquote>
Notice how in this scenario there is an arbitrary line limiting the extent of destruction. When Boyd mentions disassembling a motor boat, he doesn't say to crack open the motor itself and take it apart, lug nut by lug nut. He says to re-purpose the motor as a prefabricated unit. That is the limit of destruction. Could an even better and more adapted solution be attained by disassembling the motor itself? Maybe, but maybe that's way more work. Mostly, it works well to draw a line of destruction, keeping useful pieces in-tact and moving forward with them.
<br />
<br />
Truly, the limit of destruction is proportional to the extent of required change. To root out a problem, you need to dig down at least far enough to fix it. Too little destruction and you're still stuck with no snowmobile. There is also a point of no return. Once a thing has been broken down too much, it simply can't go back together as it was before. The scenario where the problem is too deep is a recipe for utter destruction. An overgrown forest producing an epic wildfire. What was lush and growing before ends up as a pile of ashes. The baby goes out with the bathwater. If a thing's problems run deeper than the point of no return, it must be reduced to ashes. If not, disassemble the system enough to eradicate the problems and re-assemble.
<br />
<br />
Our country has major problems right now. The good ol' US of A is due for adaptation. Recently, SecDef Mattis candidly said: "our country right now, it's got some problems, you know it and I know it." The question is, how deep do the problems go, how much do we have to destroy to fix them? There are those who have a solution at the tip of their tongue, namely to burn this whole damn thing to the ground. Some of those people are quiet, they dream of the apocalypse from their disheveled dorm room, face bathed in the glow of their yelling smart phone. There are those who are actively ripping at the foundations of our greater society, and no one seems to be telling them to stop, which says something in itself.
<br />
<br />
Change is absolutely going to happen. But we are not past the point of no return. We still have solid, functioning units to move forward with. Some destruction is necessary, but complete destruction is not. Let's pull things apart intentionally and put them back together thoughtfully, please. Dear god, please.nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-72522209914952687802017-09-01T14:57:00.001-07:002019-04-11T15:22:28.237-07:00Goodbye Darwin<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXGk3ZEi9U8rkbh51tTrc6w6K8XoAK6GQHkTwLtGz2HNVI1PThk6IjjRRYyv0BzI04fksW60gpaXXCjArhgmBDMqDxQklNWYKoUch-TPeg3_TavWAeOhiV_EEXtAXJ9apuEZ1L9t5KI0Q/s1600/21A1757B-4CBB-4AC4-93CC-FA087647DE36a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="367" data-original-width="1600" height="91" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXGk3ZEi9U8rkbh51tTrc6w6K8XoAK6GQHkTwLtGz2HNVI1PThk6IjjRRYyv0BzI04fksW60gpaXXCjArhgmBDMqDxQklNWYKoUch-TPeg3_TavWAeOhiV_EEXtAXJ9apuEZ1L9t5KI0Q/s400/21A1757B-4CBB-4AC4-93CC-FA087647DE36a.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
We live in an age where central bankers are politicians and the bills we carry in our pockets are ideological battle grounds. Rather than retelling the grimy myths of our past, the artwork on our bills is supposed to lead us forward to a future of equanimity and peace. Andrew Jackson is apparently getting booted from the $20 bill soon, to be replaced by abolitionist Harriet Tubman. To be sure, Tubman is eminently worthy of recognition, but is Jackson not? Jackson was a first generation immigrant, orphaned at 14, from humble means who built himself into a president of the US consistently ranked in top 10 historically. That seems to set a solid example for a first generation Mexican immigrant growing up right now in Riverside or El Paso.
<br />
<br />
The Bank of England is no different than the US Federal Reserve when it comes to tinkering with their bills. Since the year 2000, a bust of Charles Darwin has been featured on the £10 note in the UK. In a few weeks, <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/literally-psyched/jane-austen-is-replacing-charles-darwin-and-thats-a-very-good-thing/">he will be replaced</a> with author Jane Austen. It's unclear exactly why Darwin is getting removed but it certainly fits with the theme of heavy handed ideology pushing. Again, not that Jane Austen is unworthy. But Darwin is such a large historical figure that it seems wrong to rotate him out.
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
It's hard to understate the blimp-like presence of Darwin in our collective consciousness. His name is like bright light in the darkness which attracts hangers-on like flies so it becomes difficult to separate what he really did and said versus what has been advocated for in his name. And ultimately, maybe it's not helpful to differentiate too much. The name Darwin has become a brand in and of itself and with a life of it's own. It carries all kinds of baggage and controversy. But you can't deny it's relevancy. His name even adorns the main science building at a university near my house. Darwin is absolutely a major figure, a lighting rod, whether he deserves it or not. He grew a baller beard though. Very trendy. Also married his cousin. Not so trendy.
<br />
<br />
I fully understand why American evangelicals despise the brand of Darwin. And really, much of the resentment is a reaction. Characters like Thomas Huxley, Ernst Haekel and Eugene Dubois latched onto Darwin's ideas early on and built them into a kind of parallel religion with the intention of fully dismantling and displacing Christianity rather than integrating with and extending it. Huxley harbored a fiery hatred for Christianity. So-called "Darwin's bulldog" once said exactly what he would like to do to preachers who resisted Darwin: "I should like to get my heel into their mouths and scr-r-unch it round" In the case of Dubois, of "Java Man" fame, there was a similar distain for the catholic roots of his family which fueled his drive to prove Darwin right via paleontology. Certain people of the left have used Darwin and his theories to bash Christians over the head ever since. Look no further than the "Darwin fish" that mocks the Christian ichthys symbol slapped on the backs of cars.
<br />
<br />
In the face of this perceived assault, Christians went tribal. They closed ranks and doubled down on aggressively strict interpretations of the bible. And 100 years later we have Ken Ham and his one-two punch of evangelical hilarity, the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter. The saddest part is that natural selection is not incompatible with Christianity. But that gets lost in the turf wars, politics and money trials. Don't forget that Darwin was buried in a church and had a respected priest give the eulogy.
<br />
<br />
To Darwin's credit, he has haters on the left as well as the right. It's a good sign when you piss off people on both sides of the political spectrum. His main problem is that evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology assert inherent inequality among humans. "Equality" was a major slogan of the civil rights crusaders of the 60's and 70's. Jim Crow laws treated people unequally and they were wrong. But when you stretch that line of thinking to say "all humans are equal", you run into Darwin.
<br />
<br />
The DNA helix was discovered less that a century ago, well after Darwin had died. And our genome was sequenced only a couple decades ago. There were lay-people and scientists alike who were hoping beyond hope that these discoveries would show that all humans were alike inside. That our human differences were only skin deep, so to speak. In other words, they were hoping that modern science would prove Darwin wrong. But of course those hopes were dashed. Darwin's hypotheses have held up incredibly well to intense scrutiny. Look at these articles spaced about 15 years apart
<br />
<br />
Article from New York Times circa 2000: <a href="https://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/082200sci-genetics-race.html">Do Races Differ? Not Really, DNA Shows</a><br />
Article from Time Magazine, 2014:
<a href="http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/">Former New York Times Editor: Race is Real</a><br />
<br />
So the question is not whether Darwin is notable enough to appear on a bill but rather whether we like him well enough. Darwin's name is stained with some of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century. (Almost) everyone agrees that the eugenics movement <a href="http://www.nickweil.com/2017/07/duck-environment-is-trying-to-kill-you.html">was and is horrible</a>. But Darwin's hypothesis was a thunderclap in the history of human civilization, shattering the glassy eyed reverence given to the Christian creation myths in the west. The admirable scientific rigor with which Darwin researched his hypothesis moved his ideas from up for debate to beyond reproach, though the evangelicals still try. Who knew Mendel's soy beans would be so important. Really there isn't much difference between fame and infamy. So we say goodbye to the Darwin on the back of the £10 bill but his legacy lives on.
<br />
**
<br />
Does Darwin actually deserve his fame and name recognition? Probably not. Evolution was not a new idea proposed by Darwin by any means. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck published his "transmutation" theory in 1809 and his ideas were well known if not fully accepted within the scientific community well before Darwin came along. Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus, was a well known physician and public intellectual who wrote poems about life evolving from a single ancestor way back in 1802. Darwin's major breakthrough was not evolution itself, but the mechanism by which the transmutation occurs, namely, the theory of natural selection. But even if we focus on Darwin's crowning achievement, the theory of natural selection, he wasn't even the first person to publish a paper on it! Alfred Russel Wallace published "On The Law Which has Requested the Introduction of New Species" in 1855, which outlined the major ideas of natural selection. It was this paper which spurred Darwin to finally publish his "On the Origin of Species" years later in 1859. Who knows how long he would have waited to publish his theory if not for Wallace. To be fair, Darwin's book was full of facts and figures and backed up by research, in contrast to Wallace's paper which was hastily put together. Darwin had spent years researching and developing his theory, while Wallace was struck by the theory in a fever dream.
<br />
<br />
Darwin gets all the credit, for better or worse. Maybe it's because his family name was reasonably well-known in England and already connected with natural science and intellectualism (gasp, how privileged). He also worked as a researcher for many years before he published anything about natural selection. He had a solid base of credibility to work from. Ultimately, after "Origin of Species" was published, it sold out the initial print run. Not too shabby.
nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-19952618874337156312017-08-21T12:21:00.000-07:002019-01-25T16:47:33.874-08:00Black and white and grayTelling someone that they are stuck in "black and white" thinking is a modern day insult. It conjures images of the 16th century papacy wrongly insisting that the earth is the center of the universe in the face of Galileo's insights. Or more recently, the insult is applied to Christian fundies for their strict and wrong interpretations of the bible. Duality thinking is seductive because it makes the world terrifyingly easy to understand. Light and darkness, good and evil, body and soul, water and fire, ones and zeros. It's beautiful in it's minimalistic perfection. Especially when you place your team on one side and everyone else on the other side. Heaven and hell, life and death, black and white, straight lines, perfection.
<br />
<br />
We sew duality into our stories to make them captivating. Look no further than the book series that produced the first (and only) billionaire author on the planet. Millennials love Harry Potter so much that they <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/harry-potter-conjures-comeback-for-universals-parks-1460512158">single handedly revived</a> a previously lame Los Angeles theme park. And who can blame them for resonating with an epic tale of good versus evil? Add butterbeer to the mix and boom, literary hit of the century.
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The author, Rowling, is outspoken on social justice issues and even made <a href="http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-hall-reveals-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more/">Dumbledore gay</a> and Hermione black (<a href="http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/why-black-hermione-exists-despite-jk-rowling.html">maybe</a>). In light of all this, it's incredible that she had the discipline to keep Voldemort purely evil. Keeping Voldemort evil sets up the epic dualistic battle in the series between good and evil. In fact, the more evil Voldemort is, the more heroic Harry can be. I'm pretty sure all this was her ace in the hole, her special sauce, and she knew it from the beginning. We don't have many purely evil characters in our shared cultural mythos. In our postmodern age of <i>Maleficent</i>, humanizing the bad guy is all the rage. Or we make the evil characters so one dimensional and silly that Mike Myers can caricature them by lifting his pinky to his mouth. Yet we all agree that Voldemort is evil, even if an asinine Facebook quiz says we belong in Slytherin house. I can think of one other character in our cultural mythos that is purely evil...Hitler. The mere mention of his name silences a room, similar to <i>he-who-must-not-be-named</i>. Even Darth Vader got humanized in episodes I through III. By keeping Voldemort purely evil, Rowling tapped into our hard wired craving for duality.
<br />
<br />
Now, I hate to say this, but the progressives are right about spectrums, they are truly everywhere. Duality isn't real life. Real life is much messier than that. The electromagnetic spectrum is the most utilitarian and thus, famous spectrum. All visible light is contained in one slice of the EM spectrum, which is helpful for, you know, seeing things. The EM spectrum also gives us AM and FM radio, X-Rays, Infrared and Microwaves so we have a lot to appreciate. Spectrums are also found everywhere else such as the left-right spectrum of political opinion, the distribution of wealth, the varying sizes of a specific body part. Even time can be called a spectrum. On a spectrum, there are an infinite number of intermediate values between the extremes. Similarly, you can create an infinite number of spectrums from a single one. You can slice and dice the EM spectrum and end up with...a bunch more spectrums.<br />
<br />
It's tempting to say that spectrums are the opposite of duality but that's not quite right. A spectrum still has two ends. Usually the two extreme ends are pretty easy to define. But even if the ends are nebulous they can be still be labeled as distinct from each other. In mathematics, positive infinity and negative infinity are nebulous yes, but can still be plugged into equations to get a useful value. So a better way to say it might be, spectrums are the real-life version of our idealistic visions of duality.
<br />
<br />
We love to love duality but we actually experience spectrums. Duality is perfect and real life is often messy, dull and uninspiring. True duality is rarely, if ever, observed on earth or in our known universe. And maybe that is exactly it's power. We make God exactly what we're not. We die, God's eternal. We're sinners, God is pure. Deep down, all sane people know they are imperfect. Since we can't truly inhabit the brain of another, we assume everyone else must be imperfect too, like us. But how far do you apply that? Is every single thing in the universe at least a little imperfect? God fills that gap. For the sake of our sanity, believing in God, believing in duality, gives a ray of hope in the desolate scientific/postmodern landscape.
<br />
<br />
Do me a favor and pass the Butterbeer.
<br />
**
<br />
William Shockley's breakthrough with transistor technology really propelled modern computing to where we are today. Ultimately, a transistor stores a one or a zero, on or off. Through coordinating millions of these transistors on a microchip, we get cat videos and Pong. Some people have taken a class in python or java and believed that was how computers talk. Well those are closer, but even python is an abstraction. At their core, computers talk in machine code. Computers talk in ones and zeros, in binary.
<br />
<br />
"Binary" is a close cousin of "duality" most often used these days in the negative sense, "non-binary." The meaning is similar to spectrums, as in not black or white but a wide range of gray. The choice of the term "non-binary" is a fascinating juxtaposition to our current age of mass produced electronic gadgets. Streams of ones and zeros are silently passing below my keyboard keys right now but the actual interaction I'm having with the keyboard is analog. In the real world, there is always a gap that is bridged at some level between straight lines and messy ones, between digital and analog. Applied to the gender debate, "non-binary" advocates abuse the metaphor, implying that they are the true humans, expressing their rainbow flag spectrums to the fullest, not boxed in by arbitrary, computer-like duality. But this doesn't answer the actual question. Of course gender and sexuality is a spectrum, just like everything else in the universe. But if some form of duality/perfection/God himself exists, shouldn't we at least try to move closer to that? Yes, it's arbitrary and we'll never actually get there, but maybe trying would do us some good.nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-16213674637033723892017-08-04T22:47:00.001-07:002019-04-11T15:22:38.407-07:00Irresistible Icarus<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggG3POyWPC3fdva_uNtv06yqVyrsz6UP3P4BPBdZZMI3R2ByQ4HGYOFe6c07mny7YHINu77WFsgWRtXUHlXs3LetCb4WUI8geqnmrbrgYNktX2W2O5GODM7CLHOGA1vi2hiCpvaJkoVHI/s1600/33483121151_b8bd16c427_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="255" data-original-width="1600" height="63" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggG3POyWPC3fdva_uNtv06yqVyrsz6UP3P4BPBdZZMI3R2ByQ4HGYOFe6c07mny7YHINu77WFsgWRtXUHlXs3LetCb4WUI8geqnmrbrgYNktX2W2O5GODM7CLHOGA1vi2hiCpvaJkoVHI/s400/33483121151_b8bd16c427_o.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Philosophy is not a popular topic at brunches and nor should it be. Learning how to die is not a merry subject. A truly enlightening conversation is often an uncomfortable one and thus an impolite one. In fact, the best time to talk philosophy is after your audience has consumed a bongs-worth of weed. In that case, everyone is too stoned to remember how rude you were.
<br />
<br />
For the introspective few, philosophy and truth feel like an inescapable pursuer. The muse sticks with you like an earworm. It's a form of possession which drives its host deeper and deeper into the woods. In Christianity, this possession is called the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Non-Christians don't agree on a word for it but are affected by it just the same.
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Philosophers see that the world is bathed in light. Rather than simply enjoy it, they search for it’s source. As they get closer and closer to the source, the intensity grows and grows. Visions of a big reveal dance in their heads. They navigate a difficult section. Then another. Then another. The end must be near! Yes, the end <i>is</i> near. Like Icarus and his wings of wax, they perish. The source, the capital T truth, is a blinding light, a scorching sun, sadly unobtainable while here on earth.
<br />
<br />
Philosophy is passed around via the written word. Probably because those who are preoccupied with it tend to be poor public speakers. Written documents allow the speaker to speak uninterrupted and gives to reader the chance to throw the book out the window. Both are helpful when the subject matter is so esoteric.
<br />
<br />
It’s tempting to romanticize the life of a philosopher just as it's tempting to romanticize the life of a rock star. Both seem to be chasing a wildly dancing flame, discovering excitement and authenticity along the way. Never mind that most rock stars are strung out on painkillers. And most philosophers experience wild mood swings to the point of clinical insanity. To take one rock star as an example, no one should be jealous of Anthony Kiedis’ heroin addled past. But we can be jealous of his authenticity. Philosophers are authentic in the sense that they take a hard look at themselves and are honest about what they find. But they often hate what they find and go crazy trying to deal with it.
<br />
<br />
In that vein, philosophers often make terrible fathers. Jean-Jacques Rousseau fathered five children and abandoned them all. A preoccupation with the eternal renders human relationships mostly meaningless. The <a href="http://www.nickweil.com/2017/07/dreaming-of-nirvana.html">pursuit of Nirvana</a> is a selfish one. That's why the Hindu religion built in the four stages of life. The four stages of life require you to actually be a productive member of society and do a proper hand off of your responsibilities before you run off to become a full time space cadet in the woods.
<br />
<br />
I don’t consider myself a philosopher, although I do tend to have wild mood swings. Not much of what I say is profound and most is fairly obvious. The small number of pageviews on my creative writing clearly show I don't have a Midas touch. A predictable and humbling development and one that matters very little. The fact is, I can't help but be preoccupied with the pursuit of eternal truth. It's too great a draw to resist even though it might very well be fruitless. I respect a man like Eric Hoffer, who simply wrote down his thoughts with no discernible thirst for fame or recognition. He ended up receiving recognition for the truth contained in his sentences, although not nearly enough <a href="http://www.nickweil.com/2017/06/why-in-world-did-i-come-here-i-came.html">in my opinion</a>. But that’s OK. Kierkegaard famously said “the crowd is untruth” meaning a popular thing is probably a shallow thing.
<br />
<br />
Philosophy is a waste of time. Philosophy is the most important riddle of your life. Both are true unfortunately.
nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-20681800809133469822017-07-23T14:43:00.000-07:002019-04-11T15:22:50.457-07:00Dreaming of Nirvana<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdqGJMB-L6ZbaLBjxZgDH2QY9Wxpr9rEI1tnsW_DoqqdJBG0wUlCV7HHLQvjBFxOeg5Y3abr7Z9qQh8QslAF_EvosNCgG3xXlYfSSx8hGJ9_TsMdMWSpS5I-pqH9Hk0e2f04gndJMHfcI/s1600/32144000863_38923e81d6_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="256" data-original-width="1600" height="63" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdqGJMB-L6ZbaLBjxZgDH2QY9Wxpr9rEI1tnsW_DoqqdJBG0wUlCV7HHLQvjBFxOeg5Y3abr7Z9qQh8QslAF_EvosNCgG3xXlYfSSx8hGJ9_TsMdMWSpS5I-pqH9Hk0e2f04gndJMHfcI/s400/32144000863_38923e81d6_o.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Progressives in the west are so drawn to Indian philosophy. In gardens from Berkeley to Madison, small Buddha totems smile motionless next to gopher holes. If not in their gardens, tiny silent Buddha is placed on their stand-up desk. If not on their desks, a nice picture of a waterfall stamped with curly text ending with "-Buddha" is set as their desktop background. Zen is an office buzzword.<br />
<br />
There are various reasons people put Buddhas on their desk. For some, it's an outstretched hand to exotic foreign culture, an offering to the Gods of Globalization. For others it's a shred of hope in a dark world of suffering, a Jesus of their own making. It could even be a way to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2016/02/19/how-a-buddha-on-your-desk-could-ward-off-an-evil-boss/?utm_term=.cb9fb05c0575">manipulate your boss</a>.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>American desk Buddha is not a sign of spiritual awakening in the Siddhartha sense of the the word. Spiritual awakening is a nasty process. One that involves pain and discomfort. All in the pursuit of moksha (Hindu), also called Nirvana. We all have a mental image of a person who has reached earthly Nirvana and it closely mirrors the mental image of someone who has taken LSD. Both involve a separation of mind and physical body, of consciousness and common sense.<br />
<br />
And it involves vulnerability.<br />
<br />
Vulnerability is an opening for suffering to cleanse the soul. It lets the darkness in. It's the avenue for great truths of human nature to make themselves apparent. It's necessary to move forward toward awakening. This is the vulnerability of the mind.<br />
<br />
Once this level of higher consciousness is reached, our deep in meditation, cross-legged earthly body becomes vulnerable. We become unmoored from our surroundings and the daily concerns of the petty bourgeois. It's the opposite of tactical awareness. This is so seductive. A place where being a space cadet is no party foul.<br />
<br />
However in the midst of that personal bliss, any spouse, child, or pet gerbil that relies on us becomes vulnerable as well. Jesus never married or had children (that we know of), and I wonder if this is why. To have responsibility for others grounds us. To leave the earth for a higher realm leaves behind broken promises.<br />
<br />
Indian philosophy entices the west because it appears different than the same old thing. But all philosophy shares the thread of seeking eternal truths. In the seeking, we set aside tactical virtues, hoping for ageless ones. At it's best, Philosophy helps us rise out of our nature like a scissor lift for our souls. At it's worst, it makes us <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/pond-scum?intcid=mod-most-popular">hate our fellow man</a>. Can a dedicated philosopher also be diligent father? Can a Shaman be a surgeon? If you ever find me lying on a park bench with a Cheeto-smeared face claiming to have reached Nirvana, please ask me where my family is.nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-82894987127003631052017-07-14T21:45:00.002-07:002019-04-11T15:23:05.305-07:00Eugenics are Whack<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsNVlGMzXtz22CM4bSwrwPt-989ouXIZQyIXs4KPXGc26QYwYQU8lGINz360AtEY9o-yrwsIRw5pJqZWTDkgT3aFmiNdLnc02pDlee6aZVz6bspjFMs8EjeXmQkCkYdw244V0bURDzAF4/s1600/5941523854_5ed3c2c3e3_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="248" data-original-width="1600" height="62" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsNVlGMzXtz22CM4bSwrwPt-989ouXIZQyIXs4KPXGc26QYwYQU8lGINz360AtEY9o-yrwsIRw5pJqZWTDkgT3aFmiNdLnc02pDlee6aZVz6bspjFMs8EjeXmQkCkYdw244V0bURDzAF4/s400/5941523854_5ed3c2c3e3_o.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Duck! The environment is trying to kill you!<br />
<br />
People joke about the Darwin Award which hypothetically goes to a person killed doing something stupid. The truth is, a person doesn't even have to do something stupid to get killed off. The environment is a hostile force, as anyone who has gotten poison oak can attest, which makes me question the mental state of <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wdbgyq/ecosexuals-believe-having-sex-with-the-earth-could-save-it">so-called ecosexuals</a>. Darwin said it very eloquently and precisely and people listened. The environment comes at us in waves and we sink or swim. The waves vary in size and intensity. The waves come from various directions and with various speeds. Wits, strength, grit and luck (and sanity) keep us alive.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Luckily we don't face this danger alone. There are others aside us facing the exact same struggle so we coalesce and bond over shared hardship. Plus, grouping up often helps with reducing the collective danger. The group's size is a reflection of the environment. It can choose to stay small to stay agile or if it's remote. It might grow if many tribes are pushed together via shared survival concerns. How you define where one group ends and another begins is tricky and that's where it works to think about it as levels of survival.<br />
<br />
Survival happens within a context; survival of a species, survival of a tribe, survival of an individual, survival of a white blood cell, etc. These are all different levels of the same thing. Taking a slice of two levels at a time helps to make sense of it all. We can assign the lower level as "individual units" and the higher level as the group. As in, lower level: human individual, higher level: tribe; lower level: tribe, higher level: species; you get the idea. The individual units are where the death and rebirth cycle occurs while the group as a whole floats on. Individual units succumb to harsh environmental feedback but the the group continues unabated or even strengthened. More rarely, the group as a whole collapses and takes out all the individuals with it, like a body dying and rendering all the white blood cells inside it dead too.<br />
<br />
Within the group, the difference between barely scraping by and excelling is moot in some ways. Surviving is surviving. But what tends to happen is a self-reinforcing hierarchy forms. So in this sense, there actually is a difference between merely surviving and truly thriving. You get to the top of the hierarchy through various means, but at it's core, it's about being able to survive the best. It's about wits, strength, grit and luck.<br />
<br />
To be clear, being at the top of the hierarchy is a temporary privilege. Nothing is permanent. Strength tends to fade as a young man turns gray. Sometimes power is so intertwined with a specific moment in time that as the moment passes, so too does the potency of the strength. Cycles abound and are mostly inescapable. The point is to avoid the knockout punch. To gain strength and preserve and build systems to best maintain survival.<br />
<br />
So what of those at the bottom of the hierarchy? There are those at the bottom of the hierarchy who will soon die, picked off by natural selection. There are also those at the bottom of the hierarchy who will survive wave after wave of feedback until their unique moment in history arrives and they build the future. These are the people at the precipice with no safety net. At the bottom you have death but also rebirth. Who knows, maybe this is what Jesus meant when he said "the last will be first." The difference between who dies and who survives is difficult to ascertain, maybe there is not a fundamental difference aside from luck. Of course, ancient civilizations attributed the difference to the favor of the gods but now we say that's old school.<br />
<br />
All this to say, eugenics are whack. I’m not even touching morality or basic human kindness, which are extremely good reasons to leave people alone. Even in an amoral sense, the idea of homogenizing the entire group to better reflect the strength of those at the top of the hierarchy is a terrible idea. Superiority is temporary and often llusory. Because fringe elements have no investment in the status quo, they are free to adapt with no preconceptions. Novel solutions flow naturally when you never learned the “right” way. And if they were oppressed or ostracised under the status quo, they have even been hardened together. They have been united by shared hardship and ready to lean on each other in crisis. Fringe elements equal diversity which equals adaptability. Killing them off (or the more underhanded way, forced sterilization) is a bad way to survive long term as a group.nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-10120381073672382352017-06-28T09:59:00.001-07:002019-04-11T15:23:16.193-07:00Love For Hoffer<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-h_Qi7r0KaiwlHXr4yf1w3mnSU2TOB4RFDzoKsA-6ZarbLTu9mNvpCmacMWHLhoKi-XIscDzoEHxscCqm5jN1b6QfCjsk_XuAn93rU2_CMaLOhJI5lUQNfS-IgfoymI-Cv_iavPXe0wo/s1600/7033476545_70aa5ac58f_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="281" data-original-width="1600" height="70" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-h_Qi7r0KaiwlHXr4yf1w3mnSU2TOB4RFDzoKsA-6ZarbLTu9mNvpCmacMWHLhoKi-XIscDzoEHxscCqm5jN1b6QfCjsk_XuAn93rU2_CMaLOhJI5lUQNfS-IgfoymI-Cv_iavPXe0wo/s400/7033476545_70aa5ac58f_o.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<i>“Why the in the world did I come here”
</i><br />
<br />
I came because I'm a romantic. I’m always searching for the next high but I don’t do drugs. I’m always searching for revelations, making pilgrimages to places I think might be holy. But there are no holy places anymore. There are only holy moments.
<br />
<br />
As I turned the corner and saw the patch of grass where it was supposed to be, I doubted it was there. A public art installation dedicated to a man, a hero, who didn’t fit in, and not in a shy but charming sense. In a reclusive, grumpy, kind-of-an-jerk sense. His ideas are alternately uplifting and depressing and his life mostly dull. Yet I wish I was more like him. A blue collar pedigree, yet a philosopher's soul. What a combination.
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
The plaque commemorating it has been vandalized. It’s a standard plaque in that it is supposed to tell the clueless observer what they are looking at. It was made with a combination of small lettering etched in and large raised lettering fastened to the surface. The intention was to make the most important words of the plaque raised and thus more eye catching. The name of artist who created the sculpture got large-letter treatment. So did the name of the person it was dedicated to, the person I’m interested in.
<br />
<br />
But that raised lettering has broken off so all that’s left on the plaque is the unimportant, etched text. It looks ridiculous. Luckily, the raised text must have held on long enough for the rest of the metal surface to age and wear. Now, you can see the outline where the large text used to be because the metal that was previously underneath is clearly less worn than the rest of the surface. So you can still (barely) make out what it says. More telling than the fact they broke off is the fact that no one has cared enough to replace them.
<br />
<br />
I took this 5 minute walk from the office to pier 35 in search of a man's soul. A man that I revere. I now push papers a few blocks from where he unloaded shipping containers. I’m tapping away at a tiny computer screen feet away from he scratched out little thoughts on scraps of paper during his lunch break.
<br />
<br />
About a month ago I stopped at my local library branch for one of his books. I looked up the call number and went searching for it. I quickly found that the number didn't match any of the stacks. I asked the librarian and she pointed out the “CS” designation in front of the call number. She said CS means “Closed Stacks” as in, the vault where they put the books that never get checked out. No one cares about this guy except for me. I don’t get it.
<br />
<br />
He loved Montaigne. He said that when he read Montaigne, it felt like he was reading his mind, that Montaigne knew his innermost thoughts. When I read Hoffer, I feel the same way. Yet the three of us never walked the earth at the same time. Both Montaigne and Hoffer knew how to listen to their own thoughts. And they were able to identify and amplify the profound while still appreciating the inane. The mind is an incredible instrument and when properly cared for, it can produce a gusher of truth. Truth that rings, that resonates.
<br />
<br />
<i>“This damn sculpture. It's awful. It looks like a twisted paper clip half stuffed into the ground.”
</i><br />
<br />
Hoffer never went to Harvard and that's exactly why I trust him. If you need a Harvard degree to speak about “philosophy” then philosophy isn't philosophy anymore; it's a shell game played by the elite. Although I suppose it always was. It used to be the priests playing the shell game. Now it's professors. One more way that God is dead.
<br />
<br />
Perhaps a more fitting tribute to Hoffer would have been to make a life size bronze statue of him crouched over a real table at the San Francisco Public Library, squinting through his glasses, reading a thick book, with a library card jutting slightly out of his breast pocket. But this city is far more interested in a <a href="https://www.yelp.com/biz/tony-bennett-statue-san-francisco?osq=statues">statue of Tony Bennett</a>. Oh well. The only time people seem to really notice statues is when they're being torn down.
<br />
<br />
San Francisco doesn’t even realize the legacy it is home to. A blue collar union worker, holed up in a shack and producing some of the greatest philosophy of the 20th century. We teach our high school students to covet Ivy League acceptance letters. Maybe we should just tell them to start using their library cards first.
nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597214980833186328.post-34755995434975414412017-06-19T11:02:00.001-07:002019-08-10T21:51:46.398-07:00Theseus<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXWIbkvCN_gVVczGgNYlXGMWCveyTaahOFmKcwaAmx1yNaY2CTLb5aJlloPFhulnSwlv5PaREPNoXkBAVPm2TFrc4_W3-qot8eSBL-sFkEy-QeTongTFWZovUqiZqULfHsWiVX2jGvP8Q/s1600/10720196646_53fb96acdf_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="267" data-original-width="1600" height="66" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXWIbkvCN_gVVczGgNYlXGMWCveyTaahOFmKcwaAmx1yNaY2CTLb5aJlloPFhulnSwlv5PaREPNoXkBAVPm2TFrc4_W3-qot8eSBL-sFkEy-QeTongTFWZovUqiZqULfHsWiVX2jGvP8Q/s400/10720196646_53fb96acdf_o.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, our planet has rotated on its axis approximately one and a half trillion consecutive times so far. Does that make tomorrow's rotation a given? No. If every person you’ve ever met has exactly ten fingers, can you make the conclusion that every person, ever, has exactly ten fingers? No. In both of those scenarios, a clear pattern is apparent.
<br />
<br />
Circa 1740, David Hume came up with the disturbing philosophical problem of Induction. It states that the past doesn't necessarily predict the future and assuming that it does is based on faith rather than rationality; pretty deep stuff from someone who spent a good stretch of his adult life employed as a librarian. Put a different way, believing in patterns is an exercise in piety. Most people naturally take this into account. We notice patterns and apply them until they don’t work anymore. Patterns are useful for efficiency. It's perfectly reasonable to use apparent patterns to develop systems, in fact, it's the most reasonable thing one could do. <br />
<a name='more'></a>
<br />
Skepticism as a discipline represents an even broader application of uncertainty. Not only does the past not necessarily predict the future, but we should even question what we feel and sense. Question <i>everything</i>. The soul of a skeptic bears much resemblance to the kid in the back of the classroom, raising his hand to argue every small point, the kid that produces consternation from the presenter and eyerolls from everyone else. This youthful fervor is embodied by the turtleneck-clad Carl Sagan. Sagan was certainly intelligent and trained as a scientist, however, he was preoccupied with refuting what others believed, providing the other side of the argument, under the self-righteous guise of promoting critical thinking. This led him to the realm of pseudoscience and UFOs.
<br />
<br />
Rather than being a shining beacon of upright epistemology, Sagan was a skeptic in the modern sense of the word, which has been unhinged from its original meaning. The modern skeptic community is wacky and Sagan’s presence in it perfectly underscores how little scientific credibility it has. But essentially the community is based around providing counterpoints to mainstream thinking, whatever mainstream happens to be.
<br />
<br />
Providing counterpoints has it’s value, but you end up being a leech. It amounts to being the reign holding the horse back, as well as the rain on a parade. Rather than acting with creativity and originality, you are the critic. It’s much nobler to try to find the truth for yourself. To use skepticism as a tool to move forward wisely, rather than trying to pull everyone backwards.
<br />
<br />
A more noble skeptic would look like Theseus. Not the mythical Greek king, but rather the maze solving mouse invented by information theory pioneer Claude Shannon in the early 50's. Shannon created a dinner table-size maze made out of movable partitions and he would drop the robotic mouse in a random location in the middle of the maze. The mouse would proceed to bump against a wall, reverse, turn 90 degrees, and try again, finding all the ways to not solve the maze en route to finding the correct one. Through much trial and error, the mouse finally finds the cheese.
<br />
<br />
On that first maze run, the mouse is a skeptic in the truest, most radical sense of the word. The mouse is assuming nothing because it knows nothing. It is given an unknown situation and solving it through brute force and blunt force head trauma. Morbidly beautiful. How many walls does it collide with? More than it would care to count, I would imagine. It ends up hitting the same wall many times because it's not absolutely positive that it is the same wall. On and on. Yet Theseus still emerges victorious, battered and bloody, with the cheese.
<br />
<br />
That was the first maze run. Shannon actually equipped Theseus with a memory and the ability to fill it. In that sense, Shannon actually made Theseus a lot like us. So on it's second time through the same maze it solved the problem faster and with less trial and error. Soon it can solve the maze without hitting a wall once, because it remembers where all the walls are. But solving the maze faster is predicated on the maze itself remaining static. When the walls are shifted, the trial and error process must begin anew and new bruises must be earned.
<br />
<br />
To be clear, Theseus was a machine. Machines feel no sentimentality, no pain. Machines have no hunches and they make no assumptions unless we tell them to. They are skeptical because it's all they can do. In this we have to make the distinction between not knowing something and willingly refusing to believe something obvious. Theseus did not know the way on the first maze run, but it did the second time.
<br />
<br />
The truth is we <i>know</i> nothing. It’s depressing but true. All we have are patterns that are extremely reliable. We are all strangers exploring this universe for the first time. Every once in a while, we hear something or read something that produces a tingling sensation, a resonant ring of truth. That can’t be discounted. I consider myself a skeptic, though certainly not in the Sagan-sense. I have my doubts about every single thing I have ever believed or experienced or expect, because that is the only rational position. Along with that, I let myself believe things. Some of those things might very well be wrong. But a measure of belief is necessary to be a human rather than a machine. I also have no problem with slamming into walls just to make sure they are there. If you don’t do a bit of slamming, are you really sure of anything? Giving too much credibility to what someone has told you will blind you, and you will miss great truth. Giving no credibility to what you’ve been told is incredibly stupid. And you will end up with permanent facial fractures.
nick_weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01025691781192320905noreply@blogger.com0