Nightmare at Columbia

Columbia University President Nemat “Minouche” Shafik skipped the December 5 House Education Committee Hearing on anti-Semitism at their institutions that disgraced the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT. President Shafik was invited to the hearing, but she was otherwise engaged. She was speaking at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Dubai. Some might say that she sensed stormy weather.

Yesterday the committee reconvened to hear from President Shafik and Columbia’s leadership team. They were better prepared than their colleagues who appeared at the December 5 hearing. Listening to their testimony, one could not help but understand what an ant-Semitic cesspool Columbia University has become. The New York Post story on the hearing is here.

If you know any Jewish students or teachers at Columbia, you have undoubtedly heard about the sickening climate of hate on campus. It is shocking. It may be as bad at Columbia as any comparable institution in the United States.

Committee Chairman Virginia Foxx and committee member Rep. Elise Stefanik warmed up for the hearing with a press conference featuring Jewish Columbia students. I have posted the video below.

President Shafik appeared before the committee with the co-chairs of the school’s board of trustees, Claire Shipman and David Greenwald, and David Schizer, a law professor and former dean of Columbia’s law school. Schizer and Greenwald are Jewish. They did not labor to put a pretty face on the campus scene.

I watched the hearing live online at C-SPAN yesterday morning. I have posted full video of the hearing below. The hearing had highlights, lowlights, and moments of comedy, but most of all it captured the inescapable reality of this moment in the United States. Every remedial development at Columbia took place in anticipation of yesterday’s hearing, and yet the cesspool remains.

Committee Democrats took a variety of approaches to the witnesses. Some were decent, some disgraceful (“but Trump,” what about “Islamophobia”?), and then there was our own Ilhan Omar.

Readers may recall our role in exposing Omar’s marriage to her brother for fraudulent purposes. Yesterday she sought fraudulently to help Columbia minimize its anti-Semitism — while a pro-Hamas/anti-Israel “protest” was in progress on campus. One has to wonder if the Columbia leadership really appreciated Omar’s “help.” Omar herself is into flaunting her anti-Semitism. At this time one somehow doubts that the leaders of Columbia crave the Ilhan Omar seal of approval.

Wisdom from the Book of Samuels

On August 2, 2023, Tablet editor David Samuels interviewed David Garrow, author of Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama. On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a massive attack on Israel and committed the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. In light of those events, and the recent attack on Israel directly from Iran, consider some of Samuels’ own statements during “The Obama Factor” interview:

I find Barack Obama deeply sympathetic as a person. I identify with him emotionally. Yet there was something about this fictional character that he created actually becoming president that helped precipitate the disaster that we are living through now.

Obama’s hostility to American exceptionalism also seemed linked to his hostility to Israel, or more specifically to America’s identification with Israel, which finally resulted in his determination during his second term to reach his agreement with Iran—an agreement with the main objective of integrating that country into America’s security architecture in the Middle East, while limiting Israel’s power in the region. Again, why?

The sheer amount of political capital and focus Obama put into achieving the JCPOA during his second term, to the near-exclusion of other goals, suggests that the deal was central to his politics. It also carries more than a whiff of the kind of politics in which the American Empire is seen not just as unexceptional, but also, in some ways, as actively evil. It was a politics born out of the confluence of the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement, which saw a racist war abroad being used to protect a racist power structure at home. That old alliance of civil rights, anti-imperialism, and identity politics made the Democratic Party that Obama positioned himself to lead—college-educated, corporate-controlled—seem cool, allowing it to use post-1960s radical ideology as a language to sell stuff.

In the absence of what was once American journalism, it is hard to know which portrait of Obama’s post-presidency is truer to life: Obama as a celebrity-obsessed would-be billionaire, or as a would-be American Castro, reshaping American society from his basement, in his sweats.

The election of Joe Biden in 2020 gave the Obamas even more reasons to stay in town. The whispers about Biden’s cognitive decline, which began during his bizarre COVID-sheltered basement campaign, were mostly dismissed as partisan attacks on a politician who had always been gaffe-ridden. Yet as President Biden continued to fall off bicycles, misremember basic names and facts, and mix long and increasingly weird passages of Dada-edque nonsense with autobiographical whoppers during his public appearances, it became hard not to wonder how poor the president’s capacities really were and who was actually making decisions in a White House staffed top to bottom with core Obama loyalists. When Obama turned up at the White House, staffers and the press crowded around him, leaving President Biden talking to the drapes—which is not a metaphor but a real thing that happened. (Samuels’ link)

I have heard from more than one source that there are regular meetings at Obama’s house in Kalorama involving top figures in the current White House, with Secret Service and cars outside. I don’t write about it because it’s not my lane. There are over a thousand reporters in Washington, and yet there are zero stakeouts of Obama’s mansion, if only to tell us who is coming and going. But he clearly has his oar in.

 The easy explanation, of course, is that Joe Biden is not running that part of his administration. Obama is. He doesn’t even have to pick up the phone because all of his people are already inside the White House. They hold the Iran file. Tony Blinken doesn’t.

Rob Malley is just one person. Brett McGurk. Dan Shapiro in Israel. Lisa Monaco in Justice. Susan Rice running domestic policy. It’s turtles all the way down. There are obviously large parts of White House policymaking that belong to Barack Obama because they’re staffed by his people, who worked for him and no doubt report back to him. Personnel is policy, as they say in Washington.

Which to me is a very odd and kind of spooky arrangement. Spooky, because it is happening outside the constitutional framework of the U.S. government, and yet somehow it’s been placed off the list of permitted subjects to report on. Which is a pretty good indicator of the extent to which the information we get, and public reactions to that information, is being successfully controlled. How and by whom remain open questions, the quick answer to which is that the American press has become a subset of partisan comms. 

What scared me back then was coming to understand that a new milieu had been created consisting of party operatives, the people in the FBI and the CIA who are carrying out White House policy, and the press. It is all one world now. And that’s something people still seem loathe to admit, even to themselves, in part because it puts them in a state of dissonance with this new kind of controlled consensus that the press maintains, which is obviously garbage. But if you question it, you’re some kind of nut.

But historically speaking, Jews are not, or were not, a particularly American obsession, except among some morons and leather fetishists on the right. But they are a major obsession on the periphery of the American empire, where envy and fear of the mythic role that Jews supposedly play in Washington, because of Israel, are defining emotions, regardless of the facts.

So how do you talk all this foundation-land, community-organizer shit and then preside over the transformation of the country into a Gilded Age oligarchy? Maybe I just answered my own question: Obama is the Magic Negro of the billionaire industrial complex. And targeting Jews as outsiders and pushing them outside the circle was the way that the Gilded Age oligarchy consolidated itself in America, back then and also now.

And so on. Look for Garrow’s statements in a future post.

Biden Cannibalizes Himself

I remember when my grandmother reached her mid-90s, and she would tell old stories I had never heard before (and thus had no idea how true they might be), and then immediately repeat them like she was stuck on a tape loop. John notes below that Biden today twice told the story of his uncle’s World War II experience—not previously told that I am aware of—and how he may have been eaten by cannibals in New Guinea. (For what it’s worth, my dad was a Navy seaplane pilot based in Australia, and flew lots of clandestine missions behind Japanese lines in and around New Guinea in 1942 and 1943, often dropping off commandos and picking up teams who had been doing who knows what. Never mentioned spotting, or worrying about, cannibals.)

Later in the day Biden cautioned Israel against invading. . . Haifa:

Cue John Belushi:

How Much Money Does the Government Waste?

It depends on how you define waste, of course. I would define whole branches of government as wasteful or worse. And one can say that all money spent by governments on DEI programs is wasted, regardless of how efficiently the programs are carried out.

If you ask taxpayers, they think the government wastes a lot of their money. Our Thinking Minnesota Poll most recently found that, on average, Minnesotans–not known for being rabid right-wingers–think that Minnesota’s state government wastes 34% of their tax dollars. (One might ask: why, then, do they continue to pay taxes?)

The narrowest category of wasteful spending is fraud: not just inefficient or ill-advised spending, but money literally stolen from taxpayers. How much of our government spending is ripped off by criminals?

The General Accounting Office has been looking into this at the federal level:

GAO estimated total direct annual financial losses to the government from fraud to be between $233 billion and $521 billion, based on data from fiscal years 2018 through 2022.

The GAO’s methodology is explained at the link. For now, let’s just go with the numbers. Is it possible that something like $400 billion is outright stolen from our federal government each year? Here in Minnesota, the Feeding Our Future scandal, a single fraud among money, accounted for around $500 million in theft from federal taxpayers, in a program administered by the state. That is a little more than one tenth of one percent of the annual theft estimated by GAO. The numbers are staggering.

If we accept the GAO’s estimate, the amount that is not just wasted, but outright stolen by fraudsters from the federal government is around one quarter of what we spend on national defense. If we go back in time, $400 billion, a little over the midpoint of the GAO’s estimate of what is being stolen, equaled the entire federal budget as recently as 1977.

All of which raises the question: why do taxpayers put up with funding an endless succession of inefficient bureaucracies and outright criminals? Why don’t they rebel?

Well, some of us do. But look at it this way: governments at all levels spend around $10 trillion annually. Think about it–governments spend money only by writing checks, to some person or entity, for some service allegedly rendered or goods provided. Out of a total economy of $25 trillion, those checks amount to a large percentage, perhaps 40%.

So this is what I think is happening: a clear majority of voters who are not cashing government checks, at least not in significant amounts, are indeed angry about the vast waste and theft that eats up their tax dollars. (You could refer to these people as “Republicans.”)

At the same time, there are many millions who make their livings largely or entirely by cashing government checks. Some of those people, to their credit, want to live in a well-ordered society and don’t want their governments to waste money. But many others perceive a strong self-interest in keeping the government checks coming, and have no desire to see government spending scrutinized and cut back, even if they are not themselves fraudsters. (You could refer to these people as “Democrats.”)

I think that is the dynamic that is rapidly driving our country toward insolvency.

Net Zero? Oops, Never Mind

Great Britain, like other countries, has pledged to stop emitting carbon dioxide (“net zero”) by transitioning to a “green” economy. That means relying on wind and solar power rather than fossil fuels and nuclear. Such promises are easy to make, but it turns out they are impossible to keep.

The Telegraph reports on a new study that was commissioned by the British government:

Britain is incapable of building the wind farms, solar farms and transmission networks essential to net zero, a government report has warned.
***
The report, a “readiness study” for the UK supply chain, was commissioned by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) and released without any publicity on April 17.

Here are some of the problems identified in the report that came out earlier today. The first is, sadly, that the U.K. doesn’t have enough ships:

The UK lacks the ships needed to build offshore wind turbines and even if that were solved, would be unable to connect them to the shore because it cannot produce enough high voltage cables, according to the study.

Or enough high voltage cables. More:

For solar farms, it warned that the UK was also incapable of supplying enough switchgear and transformers, as well as cables.

Until now, no one, apparently, had figured this out. Britain doesn’t have the workers it needs to go green, either:

Disastrous shortages of skilled labour are also a factor. The report warned: “All renewables sectors face skills-related constraints. Shortages are particularly acute for design and commissioning engineers, project managers, and installation technicians.”

One thing about wind and solar installations is that, unlike reliable power plants, they can’t be sited near the urban areas that will consume their electricity (on those occasions when it is produced). Thus, long transmission lines are needed:

One of its most damaging findings is that the UK lacks the skills and engineering facilities to expand the transmission network, which is the network of high voltage cables essential for all electricity generators.

As I have said before, it is extraordinary that Western governments have promised to transition their economies from fossil fuels to intermittent and inefficient “green” energy without ever figuring out what it would take to do that. You might assume that someone, somewhere, has put pencil to paper and calculated the raw materials that would be needed; where those materials would come from; how they would be shipped to manufacturing sites; how and where the necessary equipment would be manufactured, and how it would be transported; what transmission wires would be needed, and where they would come from; and many other obvious elements.

But the fact is that no one has done this. There is no plan, just a fantasy. And it bears repeating that there is not a single demonstration project anywhere in the world–no state or province, no city, no town, no village–that has shown how wind or solar energy, alone, can power modern life.

The report discussed in the linked Telegraph article criticizes the British government for poor planning and coordination, but that strikes me as foolish. The idea that any government could plan and execute something as complicated as switching from fossil fuels–the greatest benefactors in all of human history–to regressive technologies like wind and solar, is absurd. No government planned the Industrial Revolution, and that was good.

What’s Eating Joe?

Joe Biden has told countless whoppers, but this one is a doozie: he says his uncle was eaten by cannibals in New Guinea. Seriously:

He told the story twice in one day:

Actually, Joe’s uncle’s plane was went down, for unknown reasons, over open water. The plane sank and several crewmen went down with it. Their bodies were not found, but they weren’t eaten by cannibals.

You can see in these videos how feeble Biden is. He doesn’t make sense on even the most basic points. For example, he says that his uncles all went down to the recruiting station and volunteered the day after D-Day. Which would have been a little late. In fact, Joe’s uncle’s plane crashed a month before D-Day. No doubt Biden meant to refer to Pearl Harbor. But he can hardly get through a sentence without descending into incoherence.

In one of these speeches, Biden talked about his son Beau serving in Iraq and “coming home with” brain cancer. In fact, Beau died six years after he returned from a year’s service in Iraq as a lawyer. To my knowledge, there is no evidence of a connection between his service in Iraq and his cancer.

More seriously, in both speeches Biden repeated the lie about Donald Trump calling soldiers killed in battle “losers.” That fabrication was spread by Trump-hater Jeffrey Goldberg, and is endlessly repeated by Biden.

Canada Extends the Victorian Age

On April 17, 2016, my mother Victoria Billingsley passed away at the age of 94. Today (April 17, 2024) she received a letter from Hôtel-Dieu Grace Healthcare about “the recent cyber incident affecting local hospitals in the Southwest Ontario region,” including approximately 46,000 patients of Hôtel-Dieu Grace Healthcare. As the letter explains:

We can confirm that, unfortunately, you were included in this group and some of the personal health information that you provided to Hôtel-Dieu Grace Healthcare was stolen by cyber criminals. Based on our analysis of these files, we believe the following information of yours was included in the stolen data: Date of Birth, Personal Health Information, OHIP/Health Card Number.

We would like to emphasize that the perpetrators of this attack did not gain access to Hôtel-Dieu Grace Healthcare’s electronic medical record (EMR) system, and this attack did not result in the full theft of all of your personal health information

We recognize that this incident may have shaken your trust in us, and we are focused on earning it back. We are, and always have been, dedicated to the security of your information. We will continue to reinforce that through improved security and training. We have rebuilt our systems to ensure that the perpetrators of this attack and their malware were removed. We have also made substantial improvements to our cybersecurty and network architecture. We have emerged stronger and safer from this.

We are focused on accountability We promptly reported the incident to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC). The IPC has opened an investigation file, and while you are entitled to file a complaint, the IPC has advised that it is not necessary as they are already investigating the matter.

And so on, confirming that government monopoly health care, what some persist in calling “socialized medicine,” is not immune to a “cyber incident.” I can imagine what my mother, a teacher, would have said about it.

In the early days of rock and roll, parents down the street would say, “Timmy, turn down that damn noisy junk!” My mother calmly told me, “that music is strident and cacophonous.” On the eighth anniversary of her departure, her great grandson Henry texted “rest in peace Victoria.”