It Begs The Question
Hey…I'm just saying… And while we're at it, why are you defending them?

Robert Mueller Same Old Stripes

Before you read this article you should probably read the first two articles about Robert Mueller:

Part 1 – Raymond Shaw Is The Most…

Raymond Shaw and Robert Mueller – Part 2

That said… take off your MAGA hat…  or put away your “I’m With Her ”  2016 campaign yard sign.  Because this article is NOT about Trump, or Clinton, or Democrats, or Republicans.  Try as hard as you can to constantly remember that this article is NOT about any of that.  This article is  the 3rd of a series of articles about Robert Mueller whose bizarre story goes all the way back to the anthrax attacks that occurred shortly after the plancs flew into the World Trade Center on 911.


Now we begin… From page 49 of the Mueller Report…

1. Summer and Fall 2016 Operations Targeting Democrat-Linked Victims

On July 27 2016, Unit 26165 targeted email accounts connected to candidate Clinton’s personal office.  Earlier that day, candidate Trump made public statements that included the following: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” The “30,000 emails” were apparently a reference to emails described in media accounts as having been stored on a personal server that candidate Clinton had used while serving as Secretary of State.

Within approximately five hours of Trump’s statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton’s personal office. After candidate Trump’s remarks, Unit 26165 created and sent malicious links targeting 15 email accounts at the domain including an email account belonging to Clinton aide XXXREDACTEDXXX The investigation did not find evidence of earlier GRU attempts to compromise accounts hosted on this domain. It is unclear how the GRU was able to identify these email accounts, which were not public.

Unit 26165 officers also hacked into a DNC account hosted on a cloud-computing service XXXXREDACTED XXXX copies of the DNC databases blah blah blah

Now let’s think about this…

I think you’ll agree that in the above text Mueller is implying/suggesting a cause/effect relation between Trump’s joke at a rally and the Russians starting a hacking attempt to get the now infamous 30K Hillary emails

when, in fact, they had been publicly discussed by James Comey  and in the Washington Post over 3 weeks earlier!  In fact, it was widely known that Clinton had been using a private email server  since 2009!

Don’t the dumb-ass Rooskies read the Washington Post or watch James Comey’s news conferences or pay attention to the fact that Clinton and her aides were keying and sending out emails on their BlackBerrys FOR YEARS  while on TV at public events?

Mueller clearly attempts to imply a cause and effect between the joke at a rally and claimed hacking;  to try to deny that would be… well… you decide. And the suggestion of cause/effect is, in my opinion, perfidious and duplicitous at best especially when considered in light of what had been PUBLICLY disclosed about the targets of the hacks for weeks and even years earlier!

And one of those who disclosed the information, at his now famous news conference weeks BEFORE Trump’s rally joke, was a personal friend of Mueller AND was the Director of the FBI at the time!  Yep… James Comey.

Now that we know at least some of “the rest of the story” we can see that the Mueller Report is severely flawed. 

Are we really expected to believe that Trump’s rally joke was actually his version of flashing the Queen Of Diamonds on national television?

Does Mueller really expect us to believe that professional state hackers from around the world had been patiently waiting for years to have Trump signal them with a rally joke to tell them that…


Is that what we’re expected to believe?

Anyway… if you learn a little more about Mueller’s bizarre history none of this should be a surprise.  That said, read parts 1 and 2 about Mueller (if you haven’t already).

Part 1 – Raymond Shaw Is The Most…

Raymond Shaw and Robert Mueller – Part 2

The End???….Of the Mueller saga?  I doubt it

No Comments on Robert Mueller Same Old Stripes
Categories: Uncategorized

Whiteboard Tile Table

I like WhiteBoards (Dry Erase). I find them very useful for what I do day in and day out. So I had this idea to turn the table next to my computer “desk” into a kind of “WhiteBoard Table.” In my circumstance it would make life somewhat easier and I thought it would make a good, quick, and easy project.

After thinking about it for a few days and seeing what materials were available and suitable I decided to use plain white 4 inch tile of the type you might see as the “field” tile in a shower or surrounding a bathtub. The nice thing about these is that they are non-porous and quite literally have a “glass” finish which means they EASILY wipe perfectly clean. The only question was how to “attach” the tile to the table. I decided to try 2″ double sided carpet tape to “stick” the tile to the table; and I’m glad I did. It worked great and was simple and very easy to do. You might ask at this point, “How well does it adhere the tiles to the table?”   The answer… they “stick” the tile to the table really, really, really good and tight. And it made the job super simple and easy!

I used 4 inch tiles but if you do something like this you might decide to use a bigger tile or ones with some color (light color for good contrast with the markers). Whatever you decide you’ll find a non-porous shiny “glass” finish will  work best. Of course, one could buy some single tiles in a variety of sizes and colors and mark them up and let them sit a few days to make sure they easily wipe clean  before deciding.

Here’s a few photos.



The End

No Comments on Whiteboard Tile Table
Categories: Uncategorized

One More Thing

Just one more thing sir. Would you happen to know how much
the Sum of the Reciprocals of Odd Composites is?

See the footnotes for links to the prior related posts that lead up to this one.

I don’t know how this happened but recently I was thinking about the whole “Math Mystery” thing which ended up being all about coming up with the “formula” (value) for the

Sum Of The Reciprocals Of Composites  

which I represent as Sc.  


That is, Sc, or the “Harmonic Series of Composites” (to coin a phrase)  
is simply the log of the Prime Counting Function!
That is,     Sc  =   ln(π(N))   or…   Sc  =   ln( N /   ln(N) )

Then it occurred to me that we now knew the following:

The Sum Of The Reciprocals Of All Numbers (aka the vanilla “Harmonic Series)
s  equal to ln(N)  which I will represent as Sn.  So…

Sn = ln(N)

and The Sum Of The Reciprocals Of The Odd Numbers, as represented by So,
is 1/2  of the The Sum Of The Reciprocals Of The All Numbers.  That is

So  =  Sn / 2
So = ln(N) / 2

And the Sum Of The Reciprocals Of Just The Primes  is ln( ln(N) )
As I represent by  Sp.   

So,  the Sum Of The Reciprocals Of The Odd Composites  as represented by
Soc      should be “All of the Odd reciprocals  minus all of the Prime reciprocals

Soc  = So  – Sp

Soc  =  ln(N)/2   –  ln(ln(N) )

But using some “log arithmetic” we can rewrite the above equation as

Soc  =  ln(N1/2)  – ln( ln(N ) )                 


Using some more log arithmetic (See Footnote Log Arithmetic below) we get

Soc = ln(N1/2 / ln(N ) )                 


Or in English,  the Sum Of The Reciprocals of just the Odd Composite numbers (aka Soc),
is the log of (
the square root of N, divided by the log of N).
This is an interesting result when we consider that
the Sum Of The Reciprocals of ALL Composite numbers is

ln(  N / ln(N) ).

SOddComposites      = ln(  N1/2 /  ln(N) 

SAllComposites       =  ln(  N /  ln(N) )


Who would have guessed.

Footnote on Log Rules:

1) logb(mn) = logb(m) + logb(n)

2) logb(m/n) = logb(m) – logb(n)

3) logb(mn) = n · logb(m)

Links to the first 4 episodes of the “Math Mystery”

which lead up to this post. an-actual-math-mystery/

2 math-mystery-followup/ math-mystery-wrap-up/








No Comments on One More Thing
Categories: Uncategorized


The consequences will be unexpected…Methinks

Act 3  –  Scene 2

Hamlet makes a cup of coffee with his Keurig. When it’s done he picks it up and walks into the den and turns on the TV with the nearby remote. As the TV comes to life a talking head starts to speak. As the talking head speaks, Hamlet starts counting; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. In the background the talking head says the word “Trump…” and continues with a critical and hyperbolic diatribe. Hamlet takes a sip of coffee and changes the station on the TV. Another talking head appears and Hamlet again starts counting… 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and in the background we again hear the word “Trump…” and again accompanied by another tirade. The scene fades out and then in again and essentially repeats itself with minor variations. Over and over, as the scene fades out and then in again, we see the months (and years!) pass away by virtue of a calendar on the wall behind the TV as we hear Hamlet say…

too much, methinks.”


Now let’s think about the objectives of the talking heads. For the sake of discussion, let’s suppose that the objectives are to get the viewers of the “news” to believe what’s said and ultimately to vote in a specific way. The question is… even if the talking heads speak the truth, will the incessant anti-Trump tirades achieve those objectives, or instead, will it slowly but unrelentingly turn the population “pro-Trump” (even if at a relatively low rate). Or to say it another way,

Will there be unexpected consequences?


Before answering the above question, we might want to look back on the 2016 election and the events leading up to it. These “events” included, in case you’ve forgotten, incessant anti-Trump news coverage. And maybe most telling, are the results of the myriad of polls for many, many months leading up to the election.

The principles talked about above can be extended to “real life” and interpersonal relationships; especially as applied to the times we “talk politics” with others.  If what I say is too much and way too often then I may well convince you to have an opinion (and actions) opposite of mine… even if you were initially inclined to agree with me.   You may well be inclined to say “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.”  and act accordingly.   This is a good thing to know.

Of course, we need to point out (if it’s not already obvious) that Talking Heads don’t make the

agenda or decide what’s said (or how many times).   They are merely hired mouths.

Also, when talking politics, we are all correct and brilliant all of the time.


Here’s a couple of links to follow for more background.


So remember… it’s not what you say…

It’s how you say it (and how often).

The End

No Comments on Methinks
Categories: Uncategorized

For Want Of A Nail

This just in… From Smerconish on CNN today:
“Did long-shot candidates just upend 2 more elections?”

Watch the video from today’s Smerconish (8/11/18).



“Manchik was roundly attacked on Twitter

as spoiling the Democrats’ hopes even though…” 



If the alien from Pleiades hadn’t run on the Green Party ticket

then the Democrats would have gotten the CrazyWackoStarman vote

and changed the results of a close election.


Yup. It don’t take much;  and ya gotta love that Twitter thing.








No Comments on For Want Of A Nail
Categories: Uncategorized

Throwing Spaghetti — More Mika

Let’s see if this shit sticks…

Mika throws a plate of spaghetti against the wall.


Here’s why we can’t believe Mika.  If she really believed this stuff she would have a moral obligation to the whole world to do something about it and that would include,  first and foremost,  naming those close to Trump who she says know and believe what she says.  Surely saving the world would take precedence over hiding your sources as a “journalist.”!!!  Wouldn’t it?


That said,  do you really believe that Crazy Mika researched and came up with this story herself?  Or is she reading it off the teleprompter?


The End




No Comments on Throwing Spaghetti — More Mika
Categories: Uncategorized

I Know Someone Who



“I know someone who spoke to Donald Trump recently …”

WHO IS IT!?   YOU CAN TELL US!    You’re a great journalist and well connected.  You can tell US  who told you this!  We all know you wouldn’t lie about such a thing  but we are all more than curious!   Come on, tell us!   OOOH WAIT!  I know!  It was  Ivanka, wasn’t it!?  I knew it!  That “feckless cunt!1  What’s that bitch’s problem?



Well I’d be shaking too!  Just think of it!  Porn on TV in the oval office while most of his advisers are on the phones to 900 numbers.  Who did you say told you this story?  Never mind that… I’ve got to say that if it weren’t for brave,  honest,  and persistent journalists like you we would never be able to find out what REALLY goes on!  And for that we thank you.

She’s the new WoodStein!

That damned AutoComplete!

My text message was supposed to say “we’re going to have an intervENTION, NOT an intervIEW with her!


1 –  come on… surely you know this reference.



No Comments on I Know Someone Who
Categories: Uncategorized

test paste as text

Sn   –   Sp     =      ln(π(N))   

































Raymond Shaw is the most…

This post is not about Trump. If at any point you find yourself saying or thinking the word “Trump” then please exit this blog and do not return. “Stupid” is not welcome here.

Now we can continue.

Last Night MSNBC aired its “documentary”/”Bio” of Robert Mueller. Here is a link to a copy that someone put on YouTube. It’s unknown how long it will remain due to “copyright” issues. I could not find any official copies on I encourage you to watch this MSNBC “documentary” in its entirety.

Headliners: MSNBC “documentary/bio” on Robert Mueller
Aired 4/15/2018

If you don’t want to spend the time then watch the short version below.

Hatfill Raymond Shaw video

With the above in mind, follow the links further below and read the articles and watch the videos. They are about the Steven Hatfill case; that is, it’s about the anthrax attacks in the U.S. After 9/11 and the FBI’s associated investigation in which an innocent man was targeted, and his life ruined, while the actual perpetrator was quite literally under their noses but was ignored even though he should have been the obvious and primary suspect if they simply would have followed the trail of those who had access to the anthrax!

The Hatfill case was arguably the biggest and most important case in FBI history. It went on for years until… you’ll find out why. And interestingly enough, the man in charge of the case and in charge of the FBI’s investigation was… you guessed it… Raymond Sh… I mean, Robert Mueller.

Down below you’ll find a list of links to a wide variety of articles from a wide variety of sources that discuss the Hatfill case and Robert Mueller’s association with it. I encourage you to take the time to read and watch and learn about something you lived thru but which you have probably forgotten. And learn how someone at the forefront of today’s events was in charge of the Hatfill/anthrax case which ended very badly. That “someone” was/is Robert Mueller.

Now here is the BIG question. Did you watch the MSNBC biopic about Mueller (aka Raymond Shaw in the parlance of MSNBC)? In the MSNBC “documentary” did you see any reference to Mueller’s association with the Hatfill/anthrax debacle? No? Hmmmm… that’s odd. I wonder why not? An oversight maybe?

And THAT, dear reader is the point of this article! Is it any wonder that people do not trust what is reported in the “media?”; or in this case, what is NOT reported!

Here is the list of links to articles and videos on the Hatfill case from a wide variety of sources. Btw, there are many other sources of information. I am sure you can easily find them.

The Atlantic Magazine – 2010

Huffington Post

L.A. Times – 2017

NY Times – 2008

Orange County Register – 2017

Comey, Mueller bungled big anthrax case together

The Federalist – February 2018

mark levin

Associated Press – Aug 1, 2008

Associated Press – Aug 4, 2008

CNN death by mail – 2011

MSNBC hatfill lawsuit – exonnerated 2008

NBC Today Show – 2014 hatfill wrongly pursued by FBI

NBC news 2015

No Comments on test paste as text
Categories: Uncategorized

World’s Best Password Manager


Note:  Some of you are already doing something like what is discussed here.

You know who you are.  But read on anyway.



Do you have a problem with passwords? It seems that a lot of people do but it doesn’t have to be that way. I mean, just write them down and keep the list in places where you can find it. For example, write them in a notebook; Or on a piece of paper and keep it in your wallet; Or put a copy of the list on Google Keep; Or write them on PostIts and stick them on your monitor. But, you ask, what happens if someone gets a copy somehow?; like my ex getting a copy of my Google Keep notes! No problem. What you need is the world’s best password manager. And it’s FREE! And I’m going to give it to you now!

This “password manager” is just a list of 26 words that you must memorize where each word starts with one of the letters of the alphabet (a-z)… And… a simple algorithm that you apply. For example…

My list of 26 words is the military alphabet (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, … Zulu which I have memorized). Of course, it could just as well be a list of names like Anna, Brittany, Chuck, … Zorro. But I will use the military alphabet. In addition, you will need a simple algorithm to use for numbers and special characters. Here’s how it works…

Let’s say I need a new password for the Bank Of America. Let’s say it needs at least 8 characters, at least 1 uppercase letter, at least 1 number, and at least 1 special character. So I might write down the following in my notebook (or on a postit, etc.):

BofA12345&@ <=== This is my password that I write down somewhere

But on the Bank of America web site when I type in my new password I would enter the following:

BrosfoAl29@ <===== This is what I type in the password field on browser

The next time I log in to the BofA site I will look at my Postit Note that says “Bank of America password is “BofA12345&@” but I will apply my password “translation rules” to this and instead enter “BrosfoAl29@”

Here are my rules…


Using the military alphabet I will substitute the first 2 letters of the military word to replace each corresponding letter on my Postit Note.

If the letter on the Postit is uppercase I will also make the first of these 2 letters of the military word uppercase as well.

Note that the first letter of the pre-translated password on the Postit Note is uppercase B. B stands for bravo. So in place of the “B” on the Postit I will key in “Br” in the password field on the browser. Note that since the B of the written-down password is uppercase then the first of the 2 replacement letters will also be uppercase. Hence the “B” from the “password” on the postit gets replaced by “Br” when I actually key it in.

For lowercase letters on the written-down postit “password” I will simply use the first 2 letters of the corresponding military word. So the military word for “o” is oscar. Using the first 2 letters of oscar yields “os” (both replacement letters will be lowercase since the “o” in the written-down BofA12345&@ is lowercase.


Numbers written in the “postit password” are strings of 3 or more digits. For example 123, 935, 1234, 12345, and so on. Here’s the substitution/translation rule…

Multiply all but the last number to get a product then add the last number to that result. For example, 123 from the written postit password becomes (1×2) + 3 which yields 5 so I would enter 5 in the browser. Let’s use 12345. This becomes (1x2x3x4) + 5 which yields 29. So “29” would be entered in the browser. How about 321? This gets translated to (3×2) + 1 which yields 7 and it’s the “7” that gets entered into the browser.

Special Characters

When I see a “&” I simply enter the special character that follows. So “&@” simply becomes “@”

In a nutshell, you should come up with something simple yet meaningful as your “written down password.” When you are coming up with the written-down password you will be keeping in mind and considering your translation rules so keep it simple and meaningful. For example, you might use BillG456 for your Microsoft email password. You write down “My password is BillG456” which is somewhat meaningful to you. But when you actually enter your password in the browser you would enter “BrinliliGo26” which you can think of as

Bravo india lima lima Golf ((4×5)+6)= 26

where only the highlighted characters are entered.

The above is merely an example algorithm. You might use a similar set of rules based on the names of people you know for the letters. And you can come up with your own simple scheme for numbers or special characters. Or, just use the above as-is. But whatever you do, the point is that you “write down” your “pre-translated” passwords on paper, and/or put them in a text file, or write them in Google Keep, or whatever is convenient for you!!! . And whenever you actually enter them on the computer you will do the translation in your head as you type them.

And if someone gets hold of your “paper” password list do you think they would be able to figure out what it’s all about. Would they know or even think that some translation process is needed? Would they have any clue what the translation process is? Of course not! All of that information is perfectly SAFE IN YOUR HEAD!

Trust me… this is really easy and you will get ridiculously efficient at translating, on the fly, your paper passwords to what you key in. I’ve been using this method for over 20 years! This method is so foolproof and secure that I even write my pre-translated “paper” passwords on the front of my credit cards!

Trust me!  This is Middle School level stuff!  You can do this or something similar that you come up with. You can have the absolute best password manager ever. And you will carry it with you wherever you go. And it doesn’t cost anything because IT’S YOU!  IT’S IN YOUR HEAD!  And you can have fun doing this too!  Trust me… you’ll be amazed at how easy and fast it becomes after just a short time.  You will soon be making the translations as you type while barely thinking about it.  It’s like riding a bike.

If you don’t think you can do this then you need therapy.  Here’s my therapist.  She’s good.


Moving on… once again, you don’t have to use the above “rules.”  Play with the idea for a couple of weeks and then come up with your own translation rules.  You’ll have fun.  And best of all…

Once you start using your new password manager

you’ll find that

managing your passwords is as simple as just writing them down.


The End

No Comments on World’s Best Password Manager
Categories: Uncategorized

Raymond Shaw and Robert Mueller Part 2

This is Part 2  about the MSNBC “documentary” on Robert Mueller (and about trust).   Part 1 is required reading in order to appreciate what’s going on here.

Click HERE to review/read Part 1

Also, as with Part 1, this post is not about Trump. That said, if at any point you find yourself saying or thinking the word “Trump” then… well, you know the drill if you read Part 1.

Review of Part 1

The following information comes from the articles and videos linked to in part 1. You read/watched them, right?

We learned that MSNBC recently produced and aired a “documentary” about Robert Mueller. And we learned that Robert Mueller had been appointed the FBI Director shortly before 9/11. And that just a few weeks later there were the anthrax attacks.

Mueller personally took control of and personally managed the anthrax investigation and after a short time came to the conclusion that the anthrax “culprit” was one Steven Hatfill. After a long intensive investigation (which lasted 7 years!), and after destroying Mr. Hatfill’s life, a Federal court exonerated Hatfill and also determined that Hatfill should never have even been a “person of interest.” The Justice Department then settled with Hatfill and paid him $5.8 million for the suffering it caused him.

In addition, the FBI (and Mueller) had early on been warned and informed about the actual culprit who could have easily been captured immediately if the investigators (under Mueller’s personal tutelage) had simplyfollowed the access.You don’t buy anthrax at your corner drug store! There are very few places where anthrax is kept and the stuff is locked up tight behind strong doors with military guards and all access is meticulously documented! Even you or me could have easily tracked down the guilty party! But Mueller fucked up big time because he thought he was smarter than everyone else and instead “followed the bloodhounds” (quite literally! Read/view the articles/videos documented in Part 1).

So Mueller bungled the biggest case the FBI had ever seen. And he bungled it for 7 years! Until finally a Judge had to step in and put a halt to the travesty that Mueller had been “managing” for 7 years!

But this post is NOT about Robert Mueller…

So now we skip forward about 10 years to today where Mueller is in the news as a “special counsel” investigating President Trump. But again, this story is not about Robert Mueller; And again, neither is it about Trump.

It’s about trust

And now for the rest of the story…”

Today… 10 years later MSNBC produces a “documentary” (BioPic) about Mueller. You watched it when you read Part 1. You did watch it, didn’t you? Anyway, nowhere in that “documentary” was anything mentioned about Mueller’s Hatfill/anthrax case which he personally managed (bungled?) for 7 years until the courts had to step in to tell him to let it go! Did I mention it was one of the biggest and most important FBI cases ever? Did I mention that Mueller personally managed that case? Did I mention it went on for 7 years!?

Oh, I almost forgot. Did I mention that there is

no reference to any of this the MSNBC Mueller “documentary?”

I’m going to go way out on a limb and state that this “omission” was/is intentional. And I think it’s a safe bet that the omission was not due to some intern. Multiple people within MSNBC had to agree to not mention this extremely important 7 year period and the related events of Mueller’s life.  And I’ll bet they’re high up in the MSNBC food chain.

So who are they? Beats me. And why did they do this? Don’t know(but we both can speculate). But I bet Rachel could figure it out. Send her a tweet… after enough of them maybe she’ll accept the challenge.  Anyway, when all is said and done, will you now be at least Skeptical (with a capital S) about what appears on MSNBC? And after you think about all this for a while, what will your level of trust be vis-a-vis MSNBC?  Take your time before deciding.  I’m sure they took their time in deciding what you can’t see.

Now It’s The End Of The Story

No Comments on Raymond Shaw and Robert Mueller Part 2
Categories: Uncategorized