Friday: Hili dialogue

April 27, 2018 • 6:30 am

by Grania

Welcome to the end of the week!

Today in 1974 thousands marched in Washington DC to impeach President Nixon as a result of the Watergate scandal. It would be barely three months later that he resigned.

“He shows a lack of concern for morality, a lack of concern for high principles, a lack of commitment to high ideals of public office that makes the transcripts a sickening exposure. Richard Nixon is humorous to the point of being inhumane. He is devious; he is vacillating; he is profane; he is willing to be led; he displays dismay and gaps in knowledge. He is suspicious of his staff, his loyalties minimal. His greatest concern is to create a record that will save himself and his Administration.” – Rep. William Hungate

Also today in 2011 President Barack Obama produced his detailed Hawaii birth certificate in an attempt to convince tin-foil-hat-wearing idiots and very stable geniuses that he was in fact a natural-born American citizen.

On Twitter today:

I’ll take two.

The response this NYP headline deserves.

A bit of history. Be sure to click on the white arrow and enable sound by clicking on the speaker icon.

And a little bit of science.

Even more science solving a case that was assumed originally to be several unrelated cases.

More cats because we don’t have enough of those on this website.

Spider-cat, spider-cat
Does whatever
A spider-cat does

Finally, Hili is being curmudgeonly today.

Hili: This bush has spikes.
A: But it has beautiful flowers.
Hili: That’s not helpful.

In Polish:

Hili: Ten krzak ma kolce.
Ja: Ale pięknie kwitnie.
Hili: To nie jest pomocne. ​

Hat-tip: Matthew

30 thoughts on “Friday: Hili dialogue

  1. Any speculations why the GS Killer stopped in ’86?
    Hope the investigators write a paper about this so the rest of us can follow the details, too.

    1. According to what I read yesterday:

      He may not have stopped in ’86

      His rape/murder fantasy routine grew more complex over the years [involving a bystander spouse who he’d make watch the rape] – harder to keep all the pieces on the board when older & physically less imposing [no old cat burglars]

      It’s common for serial killers to take sabbaticals if their circumstances change [marriage, prison, change of address, ill health] or they discover a displacement activity

      New forensic techniques may frighten off some – they realise their DNA is on a database & so it’s time to do nothing to attract police attention. I suppose some will relocate, break with old life contacts [& especially DNA relatives], get a new ID & be ultra conformist. Disappear Whitey Bulger style.

      1. Thx! Even more creepy (altho that’s hardly an adequate word in this case) with the spouse!!

        With the DNA trail, I’m guessing that they turned up a constellation of rare markers (how many, how rare?), which presumably everyone has to one degree or another, and from that combed databases for those in a fairly wide area that matched some of those. But from there, there must have been contact with some of those actual people. How did that work? Could the right relative have learned enough from the contact to perhaps tip the DeAngelo off? Maybe not so likely, but was there that risk?

        1. According to this link: Ars Technica

          “…California investigators caught a huge break in the case when they matched DNA from some of the original crime scenes with genetic data that had already been uploaded to GEDmatch. This familial link eventually led authorities to Joseph James DeAngelo, the man who authorities have named the chief suspect in the case. To confirm the genetic match, Citrus Heights police physically surveilled him and captured DNA off of something that he had discarded

          I take this to mean that distant relatives of the criminal uploaded their DNA profiles to a public genealogy site called GEDmatch


          [1] When the cops got the match they assembled a family tree of a few dozens of genetically related people from public records [only one or two of them being on GEDmatch]
          [2] They eliminated all the ones in the tree who were female & of the wrong age range
          [3] They looked at the remainder for factors such as where they lived historically

          That should be enough to zero down to one individual & I suppose the fact that he was a cop was the clincher – he had the methodologies & the physical authority to be the perpetrator.

          Then it was a simple matter of obtaining his DNA sample [in a public place] for comparison purposes.

  2. One wonders…How long before the marches get started on Trump.

    Hard to believe but Tom Brokaw gets hit by the me too movement.

  3. The link in the earthrise animation provides the full length of the animation. It is really cool.

  4. Today in 1974 thousands marched in Washington DC to impeach President Nixon as a result of the Watergate scandal.

    As the Eagles said, we haven’t had that spirit here since 196974.

  5. Re that New York Post hed, the surreptitious sidelong glance tends to be more salubrious in the short run.

  6. So how long before some ___ rights group decides that the methods and genetic databases used to catch the Golden State Killer were violating rights or privacy, and tries to change the laws to prevent them being used that way again? After all, the techniques used could lead to a slippery slope where any criminal that left DNA evidence could be tracked down.

    1. I am more on the side of the victims. So where ever you live your DNA is fair game. Besides, if you are concerned about your right to privacy a good start might be to stay off face book and some other platforms. However, I’m sure you are correct, the civil liberty folks are probably already filing.

    2. The information that I have at present is that there are various kinds of genealogical searches, and some people submit genealogical information for the express purpose of making it public for a number of reasons. Also there are various indirect ways that the information could be obtained. This article is informative in that regard

    3. “After all, the techniques used could lead to a slippery slope where any citizen that left DNA evidence could be tracked down.”

      See the problem?

      1. Not relevant to this case, but a problem with DNA evidence, in contrast with that of fingerprints, is that one does not necessarily need to be at the scene of the crime to leave such evidence. Suppose that you sit next to a subsequent murderee on a train, bus, aircraft etc. and a couple of your hairs land on the victim’s clothes, which are then analysed to find your DNA. Then you are put in the situation of having to prove your innocence, contrary to the normal presumption in law.
        This is a good argument against the kind of biometric identity cards proposed, for example, by that well-known exemplar of civil liberties /s Tony Blair.

  7. It was a legitimate and important question to ask whether a candidate for our highest office met the requirements. Especially so as obama, during college and again when promoting his first autobiography, let it be understood that he’d been born abroad.

    obama should have, and easily could have, produced his BC. Yet the obama campaign eagerly fanned the flames of the ‘birther’ controversy. It has never been explained how or why Daily Kos got hold of a forged version of obama’s BC.

    The BC that was belatedly produced is clearly authentic. Still, one question remains: was obama ever formally adopted, either by his stepfather, Lolo Soetero (when he went by ‘Barry Soetero’) or by his maternal grandparents (when he was enrolled in school as ‘Barry Dunham’)? If so, then a new birth certificate exists for the adoption.

    Finally, by the obama campaign’s own admission, obama holds British Commonwealth and Indonesian citizenship. A president with joint foreign citizenship raised a serious constitutional issue that was never addressed.

    All in all, the ‘birther’ controversy served obama quite well, by catalyzing the blanket accusation of ‘racism’ to shield him from any scrutiny into his foggy past, his involvement in shady business deals & dirty politics, or his links to foreign governments and to both domestic & foreign terrorists.

    1. Seems to me the issue of where Obama was born should have been handled by whatever entities are responsible for our elections. The reaction by some segments of the GOP and their press wing was way over the top. Someone would have to be blind not to see it as racially motivated. In fact, Trump clearly intended everyone see it as racial. All that was missing was an actual dog whistle.

    2. Obama never claimed to be born abroad.

      I have searched Kos thoroughly and find no record of their getting a forged copy of O’s birth record.

      Lolo Soetero never adopted Obama.

      The U.S. Constitution holds that only natural born citizens can become U.S. Presidents, but says nothing about those with dual citizenship such as Ted Cruz.

      1. People who knew obama in college stated he led them to believe he’d been born in Kenya. The publicist for obama’s first autobiography issued press releases stating the author had been born in Kenya. obama surely had to approve these.

        Lolo Soetero did in fact formally adopt obama.

        Note that gaining US citizenship requires an oath to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen”. The question of whether the president should, even in theory, have dual loyalties, is one that should have been addressed.

        A person may also act in ways that constitute a tactical renunciation of one’s citizenship. Questions remain whether obama used one of his other citizenships to: avoid a travel restriction on US citizens; avoid selective service registration; secure a college grant or admission — any of which could be viewed as tacit renunciation of his US citizenship.

    3. All that presumes some really weird retrospective conspiracy to put the notices of Obama’s birth in contemporary Hawaii newspapers.

      1. No conspiracy would have been required: newspapers printed without question any such notice that was submitted to them. The newspaper notice was therefore not sufficient proof for such a critical matter.

        obama could have in good faith produced his original BC prior to the election, yet he chose to milk the controversy to his gain.

        1. Did you not note “retrospective”? Someone would have needed to know ~40 years ahead that Obama was going to be elected.

Leave a Reply