Monthly Archives: September 2017

net assessment

net assessment

meta description: net assessment, Awan, homework, IT, terabits, Hillary, Judicial Watch, DNC, Chelsea

Awan Funneling ‘Massive’ Data Off Congressional Server, Dems Claim It’s Child’s HOMEWORK

LUKE ROSIAK

Investigative Reporter

7:20 PM 09/26/2017

Democratic congressional aides made unauthorized access to a House server 5,400 times and funneled “massive” amounts of data off of it. But there’s nothing to see here, Democrats told The Washington Post: They were just storing and then re-downloading homework assignments for Imran Awan’s elementary-school aged kids and family pictures.

A congressional source with direct knowledge of the incident contradicted the Post’s account, saying that now-indicted IT aide Imran Awan and his associates “were moving terabytes off-site so they could quote ‘work on the files’” and that they desperately tried to hide what was on the server when caught, providing police with what law enforcement immediately recognized as falsified evidence and an indication of criminal intent.‘’

WATCH ROSIAK’S REPORTING ON AWAN CASE SO FAR on the embedded video at the link

The Post described the amount of data improperly flowing out of the congressional network as “massive.” One congressional source told Circa it was “terabits.”

A terabyte is a million megabytes; a terabit is about one-tenth of that. Awan’s three children are in elementary school or younger. A book report in Word document format could clock in at under a megabyte, even if it were 100 pages long. To fill a terabyte with family photos, a person would need 250,000 photos.

Rules aside, there would be little reason for a staffer to upload his children’s homework and family photos to a congressman’s server. For one, cloud services such as Google Drive and Google Photos readily provide that functionality, with a web interface. The congressional computer was a server with no monitor, so you couldn’t view the photos on it, and they had to have been uploaded onto it by another computer. It makes little sense that Awan would upload personal data from a home computer onto a House server only to re-download it.

Awan’s wife, Hina Alvi, was the sole person that was supposed to be authorizing the Caucus server, and she could have uploaded pictures of her children without attracting attention.

Yet she accessed it only 300 times as part of her job, while other people — including Awan’s two brothers and his friend Rao Abbas — accessed it 5,400 times. It’s unclear why extended family and friends would be uploading Awan’s kids’ homework and pictures more than their own mother would.

The Post did not note the “massive” outgoing data and unauthorized access until the 40th and 42nd paragraphs of its story, after it had quoted multiple defense attorneys and ventured into a lengthy and seemingly irrelevant but humanizing backstory on Awan’s childhood.

Its print headline was “Evidence Far Exceeds Intrigue” in the probe, yet it quoted only a congressional staffer who, TheDCNF’s congressional source said, would not have been able to make assurances that there was nothing to the criminal investigation, because Congress has been fire walled from the criminal probe since it was turned over.

The Post also did not specify that data was also being backed up online via unofficial Dropbox accounts. Wasserman Schultz has acknowledged that the accounts were used for congressional data, and that she has used the service in violation of House rules “for years.”

The server was under the auspices of Xavier Becerra, who left Congress Jan. 24 to become California attorney general and asked for the server to be wiped at that time. Police first asked for a copy and received what they identified as an elaborately falsified image, leading police to ban them from the network immediately because they viewed it as an attempt to tamper with a criminal investigation and an indication of clear criminal intent, TheDCNF reported before the Post story ran. The Awans were banned from the House network Feb. 2.

The Post reported:

By midsummer [2016], with the approval of the House Administration Committee, the Inspector General’s Office was tracking the five employees’ logins. In October, they found “massive” amounts of data flowing from the networks they were accessing, raising the possibility that an automated program was vacuuming up information, according to a senior House official familiar with the probe. Initially, investigators could not see precisely what kind of data was moving off the server due to legal protections afforded by the Constitution’s “speech and debate” clause, which shields lawmakers’ deliberations from investigators’ eyes. Investigators found that the five IT employees had logged on at one server for the Democratic Caucus more than 5,700 times over a seven-month period, according to documents reviewed by The Post. Alvi, the only one of the five who was authorized to access that server, accounted for fewer than 300 of those logins, documents show.

The invocation of “speech and debate” suggests that Democrats barred law enforcement from looking at the apparent data breach. The Post — which has highlighted the importance of cybersecurity and the intolerability of hacks on government — suggested finding any of this odd would be “unfounded conspiracy theories and intrigue.”

Yet, according to a senior congressional official familiar with the probe, criminal investigators have found no evidence that the IT workers had any connection to a foreign government. Investigators looking for clues about espionage instead found that the workers were using one congressional server as if it were their home computer, storing personal information such as children’s homework and family photos, the official said.

There are indications that Awan is less than a doting family man, and that he would use his congressional position for ill. Three women have called police on him in the last three years. One is his stepmother, Samina Gilani, who said she was kept “in captivity.” In court documents, she alleged: “Imran Awan threatened that he is very powerful and if I ever call the police [he] will do harm to me and my family members back in Pakistan and one of my cousins here in Baltimore … Imran Awan did admit to me that my phone is tapped and there are devices installed in my house to listen my all conversations … Imran Awan introduces himself as someone from U.S. Congress or someone from federal agencies.”

A second told police she felt “like a slave,” and a third said she “just wanted to leave.” The latter two were apparently in romantic relationships with Awan, who lived in small apartments in Alexandria, Va. that he paid for while he lived with his wife.

Awan began selling off many of the multiple houses that his family owns around the time he learned he was subject of the cybersecurity probe, and wired money to Pakistan, resulting in Awan and his wife being indicted for bank fraud.

The Post confirmed that Democratic IT aides had no experience, such as Rao Abbas, who worked at McDonald’s. But it did not mention that an Iraqi politician tied to Hezbollah sent $100,000 to a company the family set up while working for Congress, and that Awan had a secret account unknown to authorities, 123@mail.house.gov, that was tied to the name of an intelligence specialist working for Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana. The intelligence specialist denies knowing anything about the account.

Imran Awan: A Continuing DCNF Investigative Group Series

Court docs

‘Like a Slave’: Three Muslim Women, At Least One Of Them Bloodied, Called Police on Imran

Had Secret Server, Caught Falsifying Evidence To Cover It Up

Imran Still Has Copy Of House Laptop DWS Said Has Sensitive Leg-Branch Info

DWS Laptop Found at 3AM In Phone Booth With Letter To Prosecutors

Awan Asks Judge To Remove GPS, Citing Possible Emergency With Kids–Who Are In Pakistan

Has Secret, Still-Active House Account–123@mail.house.gov–Linked To Intelligence Specialist

DWS ‘Islamophobia’ Claim Prompts Angered Witnesses To Go Public

Rep. Yvette Clarke Quietly Signed Away $120,000 In Missing Equipment

Imran, Hina Indicted For Conspiracy Against U.S.

DWS Now Says Laptop She Sought To Keep From Police Was Awan’s, Not Hers

Liquidating $1.8M In Real Estate When Arrested, Some Still Pending

DWS Seemingly Planned To Pay Suspect Even While He Lived In Pakistan

Lawyer Is Longtime Clinton Associate

Arrested At Airport After Wiring $300k To Pakistan

FBI Seized Smashed Hard Drives From Home

Ex-DNC Head ‘Negotiating’ With Police Over Letting Them See Evidence

Dems Tying Themselves Into Knots To Ignore Criminal Probe

‘You’d Like Him:’ Associates Describe ‘Cunning,’ Charismatic Con Artist

In Personal Lives, Evidence Of Massive Cons

House Dems Hired A Fired McDonald’s Worker As Email Administrator

DWS Admits To Violating Network Security, Blames House

Wasserman Schultz Threatened Police Chief For Gathering Evidence

Suspect Has Fled To Pakistan, Relative Says

House IT Aides Fear Suspects In Hill Breach Are Blackmailing Members

Read the Court Docs Detailing Their Greed, Ruthlessness

Paul Ryan: Capitol Police Getting ‘Assistance’ On Criminal Investigation

Brothers Could Read Every Email Of Dozens Of Congressmen

…Also Had Access To DNC Emails

…Allegedly Kept Stepmom In ‘Captivity’ To Access Offshore Cash

…Received $4 Million From Dem Reps

…Owed Money To Hezbollah-Connected Fugitive

…Secretly Took $100K In Iraqi Money

Brothers Had Massive Debts, Years Of Suspicious Activity

House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs Committee Members IT Compromised

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/26/awan-funneling-massive-data-off-congressional-server-dems-claim-its-childs-homework/

[&&]{**}[##]

Where are all those congressional emails?

PHILIP GIRALDI • SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

I wrote an article on the strange case of Imran Awan about two months ago. To summarize it briefly, Awan, his two brothers and wife, naturalized U.S. citizens born in Pakistan living in the Washington DC area, found employment as IT administrators in the House of Representatives working for as many as 80 Democratic Party congressmen. Even though they may have had little actual training in IT, they insinuated themselves into the system and were paid in excess of $5 million over the course of ten years, chief-of-staff level pay, while frequently not even showing up for work. They even brought into the arrangement a frequent no-show Pakistani friend whose prior work history consisted of getting recently fired by McDonald’s.

Along the way, their security files were never reviewed. They were involved in bankruptcies, bank fraud and other criminal activity, but their troublesome behavior was never noticed. They were on bad terms with their father and step-mother, which including forging a document to cheat their step-mother of an insurance payment and even holding her “captive” so she could not see their dying father. Their father even changed his last name to dissociate himself from them.

Imran Awan, the leader of the group, worked particularly for Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who was, at the time, also the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Though he had no clearance and was not supposed to work with classified material, he and his family obtained password access to congressional files and Imran himself was able to enter Wasserman-Schultz’s own personal iPad computer which linked to the server used by the Democratic National Committee.

As of February 2016, the Awans came under suspicion by the Capitol Hill Police for having set up an operation involving double billing as well as the possible theft and reselling of government owned computer equipment. It was also believed that they had somehow obtained entry to much of the House of Representatives’ computer network as well as to other information in the individual offices’ separate computer systems that they were in theory not allowed to access. It was also believed that Imran sent “massive” quantities of stolen government files to a remote personal server. It may have been located in his former residence in Lorton, Virginia. The police began an investigation and quietly alerted the congressmen involved that there might be a problem. Most stopped employing the Awan family members and associates, but Wasserman-Schultz kept Imran on the payroll until the day after he was actually arrested.

Imran was arrested on July 25th at Dulles Airport as he was flying to Pakistan to join his wife Alvi, who had left the country with their children and many of their possessions in March. In January, they had also wired to Pakistan $283,000 that they had obtained fraudulently from the Congressional credit union. After his arrest, Imran was defended by lawyer Chris Gowen, a high-priced $1,000 an hour Washington attorney who has worked for the Clintons personally, the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.

There are many questions regarding the Awan case. One might reasonably ask how foreign-born IT specialists are selected and vetted prior to being significantly overpaid and allowed to work on computers in congressional offices. And the ability of those same individuals to keep working even after the relevant congressmen have been warned that their employee was under investigation has to be explained beyond Wasserman-Schultz’s comment that Awan had not committed any crime, which may have been true but one would expect congressmen to err on the side of caution over an issue that could easily have national security ramifications. And how does a recently bankrupt and unemployed Imran Awan wind up with a high-priced Clinton-connected lawyer to defend himself?

As the story involves possible espionage, fraud and even something new to consider regarding the theft of information from the DNC server, one might have expected the Fourth Estate to wake from its slumber and take notice. But perhaps not surprisingly there has been astonishingly little follow-up in the mainstream media about the Awan family, possibly because it involves some leading Democrats, though the Daily Caller and some other conservative sites have stayed on top of developments.

Since his arrest Imran Awan has had his passports confiscated by the court and has been released on bail on condition that he wear an ankle monitor at all times and not travel more than 50 miles from the Virginia home where he is staying with a relative. In early September, he sought to have the monitor removed and his passports returned so he could travel to Pakistan and visit his children. His plea was rejected. He is not yet scheduled for trial on the allegations of bank fraud and is apparently still under investigation by the Bureau relating to other possible charges, including possible espionage. His four accomplices are also still under investigation but have not been charged. They are on a watch list and will not be allowed to leave the United States while the inquiry is continuing.

It has also been learned that Imran had been on the receiving end of complaints filed with the Fairfax County Virginia police in 2015-6 by two women who resided in separate apartments in Alexandria that are reportedly paid for by Imran Awan. Both of the women complained of abuse and one is believed to be a “second wife” for Imran Awan, legal in Pakistan but illegal in the United States. Imran reportedly divorced his second wife shortly after his arrest.

In a surprise development, investigative journalists have also determined that Imran Awan retained as of the end of August a still-active secret, numeric email account on the House of Representatives server. E-mail accounts in Congress normally are labeled using the holder’s name, so all active accounts are identity-linked as a security measure. In this case the numeric account was linked to the actual account of a House staffer who works on national security issues for Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana. Imran Awan clearly has been using the anonymous House of Representatives address as it was cited in a suit filed by a landlord seeking unpaid rent on an apartment rented for his second wife in Alexandria.

The most significant recent development in the Awan case is, however, the decision made by Imran’s wife Alvi to return to the United States at the end of this month. She has been charged as a co-conspirator relating to the bank fraud that her husband was also involved in, which potentially could result in some jail time. There are, however, reports that she has been interviewed several times in Pakistan by FBI agents and has apparently agreed to a plea bargain to tell all she knows about what went on with the Awan family. Some on Capitol Hill believe that what she knows could prove to be explosive, not only regarding the lax security practices in Congress but also in terms of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s negligence in providing access to the DNC server. The actual whereabouts of the large quantity of stolen government documents might also be resolved.

This story, which is still unfolding, continues to have the potential to blow wide open the complacent culture on Capitol Hill and it also might ruin the reputations of a number of leading Democrats. Stay tuned!

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/more-on-imran-awan/ 

[&&]{**}[##]

“… Via Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch announced today that a federal judge will personally review, in camera, redacted material from emails discussing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of iPads and iPhones during her tenure at the State Department.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly also ordered the State Department to file an affidavit addressing why it should not have to search new Clinton emails recovered. In taking these steps, the court rejected arguments by the Tillerson State Department and its lawyers at the Sessions Justice Department.

The court will review the blacked-out information so as to better ascertain whether the government misconduct exception would require the release of the full emails.  Generally speaking, the government misconduct exception prevents government agencies from withholding information that would shed light on government wrongdoing under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

President of Judicial Watch Tom Fitton had this to say of having to fight Sessions’ DOJ for information on Hillary’s emails:

“Hillary Clinton knowingly used an unsecure email system and risky iPads and smartphones to conduct classified and sensitive government business. It is frankly outrageous that Secretary Tillerson and Attorney General Sessions allow their agencies to cover up for and defend Hillary Clinton’s scandalous and potentially criminal conduct.”

As previously reported Sessions’ DOJ is blocking Judicial Watch from Hillary’s emails just like the previous administration did.

“The Trump State Department and the Trump Justice Department sent the same lawyers into this judge to make the same arguments that had been made for four years during the Obama years, that we’ve already searched and we are not going to search anymore,” Judge Napolitano said during an appearance on FOX Business.

U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled that the State Department didn’t do enough to investigate areas of email between Hillary Clinton and her personal aides.

“There has been no substantial change whatsoever in the Rex Tillerson State Department or the Jeff Sessions Justice Department about Mrs. Clinton’s emails and an Obama appointee to the bench said, ‘I’m not buying this argument, you’re going to look for those emails.’ This is the world turned upside down,” he said…..”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/09/federal-judge-smacks-doj-lawyers-protecting-hillary-will-review-redacted-clinton-emails/

[&&]{**}[##]

http://feeltheliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/chelsea-and-hill.jpg 

CHELSEA’S ‘BEST FRIEND’ WINS $11 MIL IN DEFENSE CONTRACTS WITH NO CLEARANCE

•Tags: POLITICS/ELECTIONS/CORRUPTION

A company whose president is “best friends” with Chelsea Clinton received more than $11 million in contracts over the last decade from a highly secretive Department of Defense think tank, but to date, the group lacks official federal approval to handle classified materials, according to sensitive documents TheDCNF was allowed to review.

Jacqueline Newmyer, the president of a company called the Long Term Strategy Group, has over the last 10 years received numerous Defense Department contracts from a secretive think tank called Office of Net Assessment.

The Office of Net Assessment is so sensitive, the specialized think tank is housed in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and reports directly to the secretary.

Read more: www.whatreallyhappened.com

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz4u33IzK6b

http://warontherocks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/8658613720_095ea8504f_b-470×260.jpg

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Office_of_Net_Assessment

https://warontherocks.com/2013/11/the-office-of-net-assessment-swept-away-by-a-revolution-in-socio-political-affairs/

collaboration for successful truth circulation

collaboration for successful truth circulation

There must be more efforts at popular collaboration for successful truth circulation in the face of corporate gross mismanagement, governmental interference, and the attacks on journalism and information brokers.

September 18-19, 2017 — Google disseminates the largest amount of “fake news” on the web

Google claims it, like Facebook and Twitter, is tackling the issue of “fake news” appearing on social media sites. However, Google is the largest disseminator of “fake news” in the world today. There is a difference between “false news,” which is the focus of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others, and “fake news,” which primarily consists of meaningless and unimportant information. Chief among this so-called “news” is sports and celebrity entertainment.

Karl Marx once opined that “religion is the opiate of the masses.” Today, Marx would look around at near-empty churches and the preponderance of sports and celebrity news in the media and declare that “sports and entertainment are the opiate of the masses.” Google has lent itself to the dumbing-down of culture by programming its search algorithms to boost stories about sports and entertainment over those concerning issues of war and peace, feast and famine, and death and destruction. Google has created a virtual world that is composed of super-rich football players, entertainers, and super-models.

Google’s irresponsibility when it comes to offering anything closely resembling “journalism” should be condemned by every professional journalism organization. During the era of print journalism, it made sense to combine news, sports, entertainment — including comic strips like Dick Tracy and Blondie — and stock market reports in the newspaper. Until radio happened upon the scene, the newspaper served as a single conduit of information to the masses. With the advent of electronic journalism, there is no need to contaminate important news with meaningless nonsense about football, baseball, basketball, soccer, tennis, rugby, cricket, badminton, golf, professional poker, bowling, Nascar and Formula 1 auto racing, or tournament fishing. These are not “news” stories. Nor do gossip items about movie actors and actresses, singers, rap performers, or night club performers belong under the banner of “news.”

The most innocuous political story is still more important than what player the Philadelphia Eagles or the Atlanta Braves are contemplating trading or hiring. That drivel does not qualify as news, even though the brain-dead listeners of and callers to the broadcast wasteland known as “sport radio” would deem otherwise. These sports savants and nincompoops are able to rattle off the performance stats of some obscure quarterback or pitcher but come up blank when trying to name their two U.S. senators or governor. Google, with its prioritization of sports over actual news, contributes to the ignorance of such imbeciles. Giving more attention to such “fake news” also directly contributes to low voter turnout in the United States.

Some social scientists explain the sports “fandom” culture as promoting self-esteem when a fan’s sports team is successful. The fan is emotionally buoyed when his or her team is successful. However, sports fanatics are normally at the low end of the intellectual scale and are losers when it comes to education, no matter how well their favorite teams perform. Anyone who tortures themselves for even a few minutes by listening to “sports talk” radio can ascertain that sports fanatics, as well as the sports talk radio hosts, are like any other extreme devotees — born losers.

Google, the largest news aggregator on the Internet, uses several metrics to rank news stories. The company has remained mum on the details of its algorithms, but some aspects are known. Google bases its news rankings on the size of the staff of the originating news organization, popular opinion about the news story in question, the “breaking” quality of the news story, the length of the news article, the popularity of the news organization, the number of news bureaus associated with the news organization, number of identified sources in the news story, writing style, international diversity associated with the news organization, and use of a particular news story (cites) by other news organizations.

Google’s algorithms are based on extremely subjective calls. They also fail to distinguish between hard news and sports and entertainment. Google, Facebook, and Twitter are all joining in a campaign against “fake news,” but this, too, is based on subjectivity and relies heavily on thoroughly discredited websites like Snopes and Wikipedia. Snopes has not recovered from an embezzlement and prostitution sex scandal involving its co-founder, David Mikkelson, and Wikipedia continues to be plagued by the duplicitous behavior of its co-founder Jimmy Wales.

The following are but a few examples about how Google’s algorithms are helping to dumb-down the world by placing greater emphasis on fake news about sports and other meaningless trivia:

New Zealand is facing a general election on September 23, one that may see the governing party ejected from office. Google News does not appear to care as seen with its top three stories on New Zealand:

  1. Sport. Rugby Union. Aaron Cruden exclusive interview: New Zealand fly-half happy to quit All Blacks to build new life in France.

2. American rockers The Killers announce New Zealand tour.

3. Rugby Championship: New Zealand in record win over South Africa.

At seventh place on Google News is a story about New Zealand’s election: “Jacinda Ardern ‘electrifies’ NZ election.” That story should, along with other election news, been placed ahead of trivial items concerning rugby and some Las Vegas-based rock band. If Google News considers itself to be a news resource, it is guilty of blatant journalistic malpractice.

A search for “Canada” fares no better.

The first Google News story that appears is a click-bait item from a coin dealer website about crypto-currency. This story constitutes a different type of fake news, an advertisement masquerading as a legitimate news story. Google is certainly not alone in promoting this type of fraudulent journalism.

Following the click-bait is:

2. Canada’s Nestor, Pospisil top India to take Davis Cup lead.

The tennis item is followed by legitimate stories dealing with draconian U.S. immigration policies and U.S.-Canadian trade issues. The tennis item should have never been weighted as so important by Google relative to the more important U.S.-Canadian relations stories.

September 18-19, 2017 — Google disseminates the largest amount of “fake news” on the web [Wayne Madsen Report]

[&&]{**}[##]

music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VppuD1St8Ec&list=RDVppuD1St8Ec&t=18 

[&&]{**}[##]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-18/why-google-hiring-1000-journalists-flood-newsrooms-around-america 

[&&]{**}[##]

[&&]{**}[##]

The Silencing of Dissent 

By Chris Hedges

The elites, including the Democratic Party leadership, have decided to quash public debate.   – Continue

[&&]{**}[##]

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/the-root-of-current-tensions-they-hold-no-loyalty-except-to-themselves-and-to-personal-gain_09172017 

via

http://www.strike-the-root.com 

[&&]{**}[##]

[&&]{**}[##]

https://www.activistpost.com/2017/09/high-ranking-cia-whistleblower-deep-state-shadow-government.html 

via

http://www.strike-the-root.com 

[The whistleblower, whose video is embedded at the link] “held several high-level positions in the CIA. He was assigned as a protective agent for the Director of Central Intelligence, a counterintelligence investigator, a Counter Terrorism Center officer, a team leader protecting sensitive CIA assets from assassination, a manager of high-risk protective operations, a lead instructor for members of allied governments, an internal staff security investigator, and a polygraph examiner. He was tasked with protecting the CIA from foreign agent penetration and the chief of training for the CIA federal police force.  Mr. Shipp functioned as program manager for the Department of State, Diplomatic Security, and Anti Terrorism Assistance global police training program.  He is the recipient of two CIA Meritorious Unit Citations, three Exceptional Performance Awards and a Medallion for overseas covert operations.  He is the author of From the Company of Shadows–CIA Operations and the War on Terrorism.”

[&&]{**}[##]

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/09/17/what-is-public-relations-how-to-run-a-public-relations-campaign-based-on-the-truth/ 

[&&]{**}[##]

http://boydownthelane.com/2017/09/19/legerdemain/

visualizing savvy

visualizing savvy 

WHO IS THE SERIOUS, VIOLENT, HABITUAL OFFENDER?

A Speech by: Andrew H. Vachss

NEW DESIGNS

January-February 1983

When discussing the “serious, violent, habitual juvenile offender,” we should attempt to reach at least a glimmering of consensus as to whom we are talking about. Some people see serious offenders, violent offenders and habitual offenders as individual types. Because we are here to talk about the type of individual who has all three characteristics, it seems that we are talking about some new breed of juvenile. If you read the papers, watch T.V. or listen to politicians you will believe that somehow genetics and culture have combined or conspired over the years to produce a new kind of child: a kid who rapes and robs and murders with impunity, with abandon, and who seems to enjoy this work. Such a child seems to be completely unresponsive to anything we have to offer. But that’s been kind of an excuse. The kids they write about today, whose faces now appear in the newspapers and on television, are the same kinds of kids who existed 10 years ago, a decade ago, a generation ago … a hundred years ago.

“…One of the reasons that our profession has been willing to accept the idea that there is a new breed of juvenile is that this profession does not want to face the fact that it has failed with a particular, tiny segment of the population for which we are responsible.”

—Andrew Vachss

One of the reasons that our profession has been willing to accept the idea that there is a new breed of juvenile is that this profession does not want to face the fact that it has failed with a particular, tiny segment of the population for which we are responsible. It is much easier to say we are geared up to deal with “delinquents,” that we can handle all kinds of “juvenile” crime, and that there’s a certain type of kid whom we call the “life–style violent juvenile” (I’ll get into that definition in a moment) whose very existence is a threat to every single one of our treasured principles about juvenile justice. Every single bill of goods that we’ve been selling the public for the last century is at risk because of this kid. This kid is the failure of our profession but our fight now is to keep this kid. When I say keep this kid, I mean keep him within our jurisdiction. Keep him within our zone of responsibility. To fight against the idea of waiver, bind–over, transfer, certification, whatever term you choose to use. But to fight against the concept of washing our hands and throwing this kid out with the garbage. That fight is the strength of our profession too. I’m not always proud of our profession, but I am proud of the fact that we are not buying into the idea that we are going to surrender on this critical issue.

Now, what am I talking about? Who is this kid? What are his characteristics? (And when I say “his,” obviously there are female delinquents who also fit within this category. So far, their numbers are relatively small so there’s been little focus on them. So when I use the term “his” or “he,” picture in your mind that the terms are somewhat interchangeable with “her” and “she”). This kid is characterized by a complete lack of apparent empathy for other human beings. He feels no pain but his own. This is the type of kid who will kill three people on separate occasions for no apparent reason, commit a subway robbery, do a push–in mugging, blow somebody away because they “looked at him wrong.” He will show no remorse, and then come into the office of an institution just enraged, veins bulging out of his neck, sweat pouring off his forehead, eyes wild, incoherent almost to the point of tears … all because someone broke his portable radio. And he’ll see no contradiction whatsoever. He simply does not feel anyone’s pain but his own. This is a learned response. People are not born like this.

The second characteristic is lack of perception of the future. He has none. If you ask a kid like this, “What are you going to be doing next year?” you will get an absolutely blank stare. Not because he’s stupid, but because he simply cannot conceptualize such a distance from right now. If you want to speak with this kid, you have to speak within his time frame, and that time frame isn’t ever more than a few hours from the present.

This kid does not relate behavior to consequences. He does not see a causal connection between his acts and a response. What do I mean? To this kid, life is a lottery. Everyone rolls the dice, but not everyone pays the price. He has no perception as to how the dice will come up. In his world, everyone commits crimes. Everybody. Some smaller percentage of that number are arrested. A still smaller percentage go to court; an even smaller percentage go to trial. A smaller percentage still are actually found guilty (or “adjudicated delinquent” if you prefer), and a smaller percentage of that group are committed to a youth authority. Lastly, an even smaller percentage are actually incarcerated.

In his mind, everybody commits these crimes. He sees no connection between his acts and the consequences. He is marked by a chronicity of violence, usually an escalating pattern. Violence permeates his existence until it is his existence. It is not the extent of his criminality that frightens us, but its regularity. Crime is not so much an occupation in the sense of a professional criminal, but a way of life, with violence as the structural underpinning.

He has translator mechanisms in his head. You think of earning money; he thinks of taking money. You think of romance; he thinks of rape. Criminal sophistication is almost totally lacking. He takes money: he doesn’t plan in any real sense; he’s not organized in his criminality. Even what to do with the money is not pre–planned. The money itself has an ephemeral quality. He gets up in the morning about 11:00 a.m., puts on his sneakers, listens to the radio, looks in the refrigerator, sees nothing there … maybe some old corn–flakes. Hits the street with his friend, hangs out. He waits for an elderly woman to come home from the supermarket; follows her to her house. Gets on the elevator with her; she presses the button for the fourth floor; he presses it for the second floor. Jumps off at the second floor and runs up the stairs, watches her open her apartment door, slams forward, shoves the door open and the woman inside, kicks the door shut behind him, smashes the woman in the face until she hits the ground, snatches whatever little money she has. And goes back downstairs to the same corner. If there was enough money, he may buy some soda, some pizza, some marijuana; he may go to a movie downtown. He’ll be back tomorrow. Sooner or later one of the elderly women dies. And then the crime is treated in the media not as an organic continuation of a lifestyle but as some kind of nova–blast of episodic crime. That’s not the way it really is, and we all know better.

I’m not here to excuse or condone such crimes. But I want you to understand them. I’m not talking about an episodic offender. I’m not talking about some human being that just snaps out and hurts other people. I’m talking about a person who has violence so inexorably woven into his life that a fatality is, in fact, predictable at some point in his career.

WHO ARE THE ROLE MODELS FOR THESE OFFENDERS?

Who are his role models? Those who are, in his mind, successful criminals. He doesn’t know any real successful criminals. He knows no embezzlers. He knows no computer criminals. He knows no politicians. He knows only what he perceives as success. And what tells him someone is a success? A diamond ring, fine clothes, a car. Not a home, because his perception doesn’t extend that far. He focuses on the things you can carry around with you. And when he goes to jail, that perception doesn’t change. So when you read about one kid stabbing another to death over a fancy pair of sneakers in a juvenile institution, don’t dismiss it as insanity. It may be insane, but it’s consistently so.

So who are the role models? Pimps, dope dealers, armed robbers. And when this kid thinks “armed robbery,” he’s thinking like a cowboy. He’s thinking about the guys who kick in the door of a social club, blow away three or four people, and end up with five hundred dollars. He doesn’t even conceptualize a large–scale robbery, such as an armored car job. He doesn’t even conceptualize stealing anything but cash, or things readily convertible to cash.

This obsession with visible symbols of power and respect translates into the ultimate perversion of the American version of manhood. If you ask one of these kids, “how do you know you’re a man?”, he’ll answer you like this: “I’m a man because I can make a life, and I can take a life.” That kid, that’s his world. Is he dangerous? Of course he’s dangerous. Is he too dangerous to be at large? Very probably so.

IS HE BEYOND OUR REACH?

Now here’s the question: is he beyond our reach? If we can’t say “No!” to that, we should give it up. We’ve been ducking and dodging that issue for too long a time. If we face reality, this is what “prevention” is all about. Part of the profession wants to say: “We can’t deal with this kid; this kid is (you fill in the blanks with whatever you want … an animal, a beast, a lunatic); we can’t deal with him. Let the adult system take him. We’ll work with the good kids, the other kids.” Now part of our profession wants to accept and acknowledge our collective responsibility for this kid. But even that part doesn’t say: “I’ll take him.” No. What we say is: “We’re going to prevent him. We’re going to stop this deadly flower from reaching full bloom.” Well, people, that’s a joke, a real joke. And the joke is on you and on the American public. You cannot prevent this kid if you persist in starting where you have been. There’s a continuum of production that results in this kid being among us. There’s a virtual assembly line, with components being attached at each stage until this human being has reached his full dangerous growth. By the time you start to “prevent,” it’s already too late.

WHY SHOULD WE CARE?

Now why should we care about this kid at all? The whole profession keeps saying, in a very self–comforting kind of way, that this kid represents only a tiny minority of the juvenile population. A minority within a minority, we keep telling ourselves. People draw pictures that show us this kid is maybe one percent of the whole mixed bag of juveniles. In fact, I’ve talked to people from some states who swear “We don’t have any such kids. Not in the whole damn state. After all, we don’t even have apartment buildings.”

There’s a reason to care. First, these kids have a disproportionate impact on crime in any community. Allen Breed has quoted some scary statistics. He has said that twenty–four percent of all violent crime was committed by people under eighteen years of age. But he didn’t say that twenty–four percent of all criminals are under eighteen. And the fact is that each and every one of these kids is a crime wave. Each and every one of them. They are very few. In Professor Wolfgang’s famous “Cohort Study” he found that about six percent of all juveniles in his study were responsible for sixty–six percent of repetitive violent crime. Think about it. These young human beings impact explosively on communities. Then, too, they have high visibility. These kids are a politician’s dream. People have been elected to office on the backs of two or three violent kids. All because the public loves hypodermic solutions to problems. The public desperately wants to believe that there’s a pill or an injection that will stop crime. So these kids have been a bonanza for politicians. You can pass laws that will provide all kinds of Draconian consequences for kids who engage in this violent behavior on a daily basis, but you are doing nothing whatsoever to stop the behavior itself.

The real reason these kids are so important is that they destroy every piece of mythology that has been built up about juveniles over the past century. This kind of kid does not fit within any “program.” I’ll tell you what I mean.

Not too long ago, we were fighting another battle, the battle for de–institutionalization. We knew, instinctively, intuitively, and intellectually that institutions were bad for kids. They damage human beings; they are criminogenic. We called them “crime factories” and “sodomy schools” and we were right. We wanted to take kids out of institutions.

Community–based programs came into vogue in the late 60s and early 70s, and some folks had some fantastic programs. Some programs really worked. And then along would come one of these special kids, one life–style violent juvenile and, boom! … no more program. All by himself, one of these kids could dismantle a program.

So why did the programs take these kids? Well, there are two basic reasons. Number one, sometimes when people hit on an idea that works, they think it’s infinitely expandable, and that’s a mistake. The second mistake is that these community–based programs were always dependent on funding, unlike juvenile prisons. The more successful the program, the more likely you are to have one of these kids dumped into it.

Now how do they blow up a program? I’ll give you one example. When I was running an institution, we had a young man there I’ll call Raphael. He was a member of a gang in which manhood was expressed in ways I’ve already described to you, and with one additional feature: skill with a knife was most highly exalted. Skill with a knife and distorted visions of manhood and respect.

So Raphael cut a lot of people, hurt a lot of people. In fact, before we arrived, he hurt a lot of people within the institution. He settled all disputes, all conflicts, with a knife. Now, after a while, he was doing okay with us, and by “okay” I mean he wasn’t stabbing anybody. You understand what I’m talking about? I don’t mean he was “self–actualized.” I don’t mean to say he was a heavy participant in group therapy. He wasn’t on the road to college, but he wasn’t stabbing anybody. And we knew, unlike most of the people who seem to run institutions, that some day he would leave us and would be judged in the real world not on our success inside, but on how he acted on the streets. He was making progress.

Now he was a good–looking young man and had the gift of gab. And one day a group of people came in to see us. They’re running a “program;” I won’t characterize it, a group home of some kind. They were looking for candidates for their program. They had some empty beds and they wanted some of our kids. We were opposed to this. But, of course, we were not running the state government. So they roamed around and made a selection, and Raphael was a selection. We sat them down and tried to talk to them like human beings. We said “You don’t want this kid. Ever. You don’t want him in life. He’s going to hurt somebody.” And what do they tell me? “You’re a thug.” “You don’t understand. You have to reach out and touch him.” You know the story.

The temptation was to say “Go ahead and take him” but we still resisted. And we lost. So they took Raphael and figured they’d go to work on him right away. They had a procedure there that they called the “hot–seat.” They’d put one kid in a chair, circle around it, and then verbally attack him. They’d rip him up and then tell him that the house rules are “no violence.”

So they put Raphael in the chair and they decided that the reason he stabbed people, the reason he had tattoos, the reason he carried himself as he did, was that he was a homosexual. They confronted him with this so–called “reality” about himself. He excused himself, got up very calmly and went into the kitchen, found a knife, and gutted another kid, like you would a fish.

Raphael stabbed the other kid, sat down, said “I’m a man” and waited for the police to come. Big deal; an instant replay of his life. The program was totaled.

This happens a lot, and the program people in this case were not completely to blame. They thought they had something good; they wanted to go with it; there was heavy pressure on them to take more people. But every time you try and co–mingle one of these kids with their natural prey, it’s not going to work.

WHERE DO THESE YOUNG PEOPLE COME FROM?

Where did this kid come from anyway? Is he a bio–genetic mutation that has evolved after hundreds of years of reproduction in the human race? I hope you don’t believe that, and I hope you don’t believe that he’s a cultural aberration. Or that once the economy gets back on its feet, he will disappear. I hope you don’t believe it’s as simplistic as a “breakdown of family values.” Let me tell you something. He comes from us. He is a product of the human services profession.

“…I have never seen one of these kids that hasn’t been within our child protective and child–caring system for years and years before the juvenile justice profession is asked to “intervene.”

—Andrew Vachss

I have never seen one of these kids that hasn’t been within our child protective and child–caring system for years and years before the juvenile justice profession is asked to “intervene.” We have to create the beast. It cannot be born whole. If you look at adult life–style criminals (and again I emphasize life–style, not people who made a lot of headlines with one explosive act), you can be guaranteed to see one thing in their background. No matter where such people are politically or socially: from a berserk neo–Nazi like Charles Manson to a prison–created revolutionary like George Jackson, from the Boston Strangler to Carryl Chessman, from John Dillinger to Gary Gilmour, to Carl Panzram to Clyde Barrow (of Bonnie and Clyde). They all did time as juveniles. Amazing, isn’t it?

You probably never heard of Carl Panzram. He was a mass murderer who killed more than a couple of dozen people at different times in his short life. He killed for the fun of it. He liked to kill people. The only things he liked better than killing people were sodomizing little boys and arson. He caused more destruction than a small army.

Finally, Panzram, who was intelligent despite his lunacy, decided he wanted to die. But the state wouldn’t kill him. He kept killing, but he didn’t die. Finally, he killed a prison guard and ended up on trial for his life. Do you know what lie he told the jury? “I am what you made me. You put me in that training school for boys and you trained me that the greatest joy in life is sodomy and murder. And if you don’t kill me now, while you have the opportunity, I’m going to kill some of you. The state gave me birth, let the state take my life.” The state finally did.

Now I’m not Carl Panzram’s attorney. I’m not trying to excuse his behavior.

Even if I could explain it, he was too dangerous to walk among us. But he spoke the truth. When Charles Manson said, “You can see me in the eyes of your ten–year–olds,” that was not an original line. We have been producing the life–style violent criminal for generations, and the factory has been the child protective and juvenile justice system.

In order to create the kind of sociopathic, non–empathetic, violent human being I’ve been talking about, you need an institution. You need a controlled environment. You need an environment where might makes right.

You need an environment where there is a hierarchy of exploitation; where the rule is “be exploited or exploit others.” For many, many years we have run our institutions on a jungle model where the strong not only survive, but thrive. And when the beast is released, we all pay.

HOW DID WE GET WHERE WE ARE?

Now how did we get to this stage?

First, all we’ve ever done as a profession is react. From the beginning of juvenile justice, we’ve reacted to things. How did this all start? At the turn of the century, we said to the public: “You can’t lock up adults and children together. It’s going to criminalize the juveniles. Prison is a bad experience.” And when the public bought this proposition, we proceeded to simply react to the opportunity without going further. We did not say that prisons were a bad experience because of the way they are run. We did not design particular kinds of incarcerative options ranging from ultra–minimum to full maximum security. All we did was take the kids from the adult prisons and then replicate the adult prison system, brick for brick, program for program, and failure for failure.

Then we invented a whole lot of euphemisms. We changed all the names. Crime becomes “delinquency,” a “finding of delinquency” is substituted for guilty, prisons become “training schools.” We kept talking about “the best interests of the child,” “the needs of the child,” and it was all nonsense. We didn’t develop anything, we simply reacted, like any politician would.

We’ve been in hot pursuit of “rehabilitation” for a hundred years and we haven’t caught it yet. We bought into a medical model that we knew in our hearts was pure junk. You break a bone, you go to physiotherapy, you work with the therapist, you follow the program, you take the medicine, the cast comes off, the arm works again … it’s rehabilitated. But the kids we’re talking about today never functioned. They dysfunctioned starting before they ever came into the juvenile justice system. What can we return them to?

“…Child protective and juvenile justice professionals pay a terrible price for not being willing to take responsibility for these kids. That price is giving up the control we need to prove once and for all that we can do the job.”

—Andrew Vachss

Child protective and juvenile justice professionals pay a terrible price for not being willing to take responsibility for these kids. That price is giving up the control we need to prove once and for all that we can do the job.

We don’t want to bite the bullet and admit that there are certain human beings on this planet, in this country, in our cities who need basic socialization before they can be among us. I don’t mean that these kids need exotic drugs; I don’t mean that they need bizarre treatment modalities. I mean they need to learn how to be human beings. They can#39;t learn that on the street. They can’t learn that in group homes.

There are people who require incapacitation, because if it’s not provided, we end up where we are today, with a public that doesn’t trust us a good goddamn. The public has been listening to us, albeit with a jaundiced ear, for a century. And we’ve been promising them the moon. Now the only promise the public wants to hear is that we are going to do something about the crimes that affect the quality of their lives. We are too fond of parables that are just plain nonsense. Here’s one of my favorites: “It costs less to send a kid to Harvard than it does to incarcerate him for a year.” If Harvard would take them, we’d ship them to Harvard. Well, Harvard won’t take them, and if we want out from under the domination of these kids, we can’t get there with clever sayings.

What we have to realize is that kids will be adults. If all we do is put them on ice until we are no longer administratively responsible for their behavior, we’ve committed a mortal sin. If we get a kid that’s, say, 15 years old we probably will hold him in some kind of suspended animation, doing nothing but time until he’s eighteen. If after he’s released he kills a cop, he’s an adult. And we have nothing to do with it. Well, maybe not legally, but certainly morally. The public’s finally waking up to the fact that once you put your hands on something you have a responsibility for it.

I agree that we should fight wholesale institutionalization, but we should not fight it so hard that we abandon the field to our traditional adversaries. We should be against institutionalization, but we must also understand that we must have the capacity to remove the tiny percentage of life–style violent juveniles from society while work is being done. Without secure treatment units we show society nothing, and we show the kids nothing.

What do we do with the criminally insane, violent juvenile? The hospitals won’t take him. Nobody will take him. So he ends up in a juvenile institution, doing time with others who are criminal, but not insane. What other profession does this?

CAN WE “INDIVIDUALIZE THE OFFENDER?”

If we were truly to “individualize the offender,” we would take the responsibility upon ourselves, not pass it along to prosecutors, or to legislators. We would keep it. And if we were to respond to the problem by establishing secure treatment units for this tiny minority, we would take a crushing weight off the entire juvenile justice system.

Our skilled professionals then could get on with doing their business, freed from constantly watching their backs for the emergence of one of the kind of kid who can destroy their programs. Because we’ve known for a long time that if we could just get the life–style violent juvenile and the criminally insane juvenile out of our system, we could make that system work. In reality, we have to take collective responsibility for all kids, below whatever age the legislature establishes, and on a statewide basis. Accepting this as fact, within our collective responsibility we can and must make our own decisions. No law can prescribe the treatment required for an individual. The law can only define what constitutes an offense. Most people believe that murder is the worst offense of all. To me, murder is the offense for which there are the broadest possible range of motives. If I were told about a 15–year–old boy only that he killed somebody, I would actually know very little about him and I would certainly not be prepared to make an incarcerative placement or treatment decision about him. But we do that all the time.

Child protective and juvenile justice professionals pay a terrible price for not being willing to take responsibility for these kids. That price is giving up the control we need to prove once and for all that we can do the job. The public will accept construction of secure treatment units, not only because they guarantee incapacitation of those that they fear, but because such units are a visible symbol of the jurisdiction’s commitment to do something about violent crime. All we’re doing now is fighting a losing battle against the concept of treating juveniles in the adult criminal justice system. The fact is, if we say to the public, don’t send the kid to adult corrections, the public has a right to ask us “What are you going to do with him? More experiments? More R&D? No thanks. The risks are too high. Go ahead and conduct your experiments. Take a chance and see if maybe you can help this kid. But do it in some place where the kid can’t come around and visit me at night.” Until we can promise this to the public, we haven’t said a thing.

What the public really wants is a kind of “soft death penalty” for these kids: not to kill them, but to knock them out for a few years and then have them emerge, reborn as good citizens. We have sold the public a bill of goods about that too. We quote the old “burn out” baloney. “Kids who commit acts of vandalism burn out. They stop eventually. Kids who steal cars for joy rides; kids who get into fist fights, kids who shoplift. They may all burn out.”

But the kid who gets up every morning for crime and goes to sleep each night dreaming of violence doesn’t burn out. He burns people up. We’ve got to stop selling that bilge to the public. We have to advocate strongly for special programs for the life–style violent juvenile.

Years ago, the so–called “wolf children” were found in Europe. They had, apparently, been raised by wild animals. They were completely amoral, unsocial. They were feral, wild things. They lacked any semblance of social control; just responded, as animals, to stimuli. And millions and millions of dollars were spent understanding those kids.

Today we have “wolf children” in every city… and they scare the hell out of us. So, we try the “quick fix” solution: make them into adults. That will work. That will give the public half of what’s wanted. It will, in fact, temporarily, cage the animal.

New York, for example, has a life sentence possibility—for 13–year–olds. A kid may serve nine, 10, 15 years on a life sentence by the time he reaches the age of 28. Half his life has been spent in a maximum security prison. Is he going to rejoin society as a computer programmer? Of course not. He’s going to hurt people, very quickly, and, depending on what he’s learned in prison, perhaps very efficiently. This is not the solution to the problem of violent juvenile crime.

The public doesn’t really care about crime. The public cares about violence. The public cares about robbery, rape, arson, and murder. A bomb is ticking within the juvenile justice system. We have (and we have had before) the opportunity to defuse that bomb and we’ve been wasting time passing the buck instead.

There has been a lot of talk about “prevention,” but if by “prevention” we are talking about preventing vandalism we are probably perpetrating another rhetorical rip–off. If we’re serious, we’re going to try to prevent violent crime.

We are just beginning to realize that the protection of children from child abuse is protection of society in the long run. We are finally waking up to the fact that victims don’t just shrug off child abuse and go about their normal lives.

“…We are just beginning to realize that the protection of children from child abuse is protection of society in the long run. We are finally waking up to the fact that victims don’t just shrug off child abuse and go about their normal lives.”

—Andrew Vachss

CHILD ABUSE AND THE VIOLENT OFFENDER

Here’s the problem: a kid progresses from birth until the time he finally impacts on our system. I have seen (and please, don’t anybody ask me to “look at the numbers” because I haven’t received $3 million in federal funds to reinvent the obvious), as have others, an astounding causal connection between children who were horribly abused at an early age and those who end up as tenants in our juvenile institutions, convicted of serious violence.

Here, then, is the paradox. When social workers get an abused kid that’s been tortured, they say the kid is a victim. Several years later, when the juvenile justice system gets the kid, the kid is a predator.

When the kid kills, the newspaper coverage is sure to include a line about how this kid was known to the juvenile justice profession. He was on probation, on parole, a graduate of one program or another, a runaway from a training school… it doesn’t matter.

“…Here, then, is the paradox. When social workers get an abused kid that’s been tortured, they say the kid is a victim. Several years later, when the juvenile justice system gets the kid, the kid is a predator.”

http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/lifestyle.html

[##]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Vachss 

[&&]{**}[##]

synchronized swimming in the corporate shark tank

http://brandonpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/pyramid.jpg 

[##]

http://brandonpartners.com 

http://brandonpartners.com/survival-of-the-savvy/ 

[&&]{**}[##]

book progress report:

57 Books in blue have been fully annotated and re-shelved

13 Books remain to be annotated

3 Books in red need to be read and annotated

13 Books have not been read and may not be of value

1 Book dropped from list: it did not include a certain specific word

1 book has one sentence noted

[&&]{**}[##]

http://ouropenroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Perutheend6.jpg 

I love driving.  I love to get out on the open road and just go.  Scenery, good weather, a nice destination, great music, top companionship… you’ve been there. I could put together a list of my favorite drives. In fact, I think I already have…

http://www.wtm-insurance.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ph-dmg.jpg 

But I was looking the other night in a moment of dream state for an article that would describe the top vehicles for driving on America’s fractured infrastructure roadways, you know, with the thunks and the heaves and the potholes and the possible loss of control, to say nothing of potential damage to tires, rims, shocks and suspension.

I did not find that list. 

That vehicle probably includes a heavy-duty suspension, special tires, specially-sprung seats for occupants, secure luggage storage, protected-and-secured engine components if not the engine mounts themselves, racing harnesses for all passengers, and more.  What the authorities in the USofA allow for maximal headlight performance, for example, is near-criminal.

Riding on some highways inside New England is becoming like running the Baja 500. 

 

But I did find this list, and I had to share it with you. Hop in.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/g180/20-greatest-driving-roads-in-the-world/ 

[&&]{**}[##]

http://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/09/teaching-people-visualize-outcome-effective-teaching-people.html 

via

WhatReallyHappened.com 

[Ed.: Ayuh: http://boydownthelane.com/?s=Summon+The+Magic ]

[&&]{**}[##]

Finally, I was working the comments and back links section of my own web site here just before Ipostedd this and cleaned out a lot of stuff that slipped through (sorry, I won’t post links to erotic tapes, tales, toys, etc., not that there is anything wrong with erotica, but there’s a time and place for it and this ain’t it) when I found a link to a musical rendition that was probably the product of someone’s hard work.

Hard work and creativity are in short supply and need all the help it can get, and I apologize for having missed it previously; here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_HsaA-1q_s 

 

YouTube had previously coughed up this; enjoy it all. 

music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsJs_hEC_4E 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR5_Jxt1t-Q 

four hours of jazzy chanteuse