Apparently The Blast In NYC -- Explosive Device Wired To Cell Phone Was "Intentional" -- September 18, 2016

Updates

September 19, 2016: less than 36 hours or 48 hours, or thereabouts, the FBI has captured the alleged terrorist; a shootout with the police. It looks like he is the terrorist version of Kaepernick: it appears, like Kaepernick, the alleged terrorist had a personal problem. Kaepernick, as we all know, was at risk of losing his role as starting quarterback. 

September 19, 2016: authorities have released the name of a person of interest related to the terrorist acts in NY/NJ over the weekend. I do not recognize the name to be of Scandinavian origin.

Later, 9:19 p.m. Central Time: at least the governor is willing to go "out on a limb": New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said it was clearly "an act of terrorism." Wow. He actually said that?

Later, 9:05 p.m. Central Time: in light of "the Manhattan bomber," #BlackLivesMatter and Kaepernick look incredibly pathetic. Very pathetic. NYPD -- who are you gonna call?

Later, 8:22 p.m. Central Time: she or he now has a name: "the Manhattan bomber." And this comes just hours after Hillary and the mainstream media criticized Trump for calling the device a "bomb."What mainstream media is missing: this was a single bomber (or maybe a small cell of three or four Islamists). Even if it turns out to be an American-born lone wolf, imagine all the Islamists President Obama has allowed to enter the US in the past two years. Any New Yorker voting for Hillary in November is simply not paying attention. 

Later, 5:05 p.m. Central Time: from another "realist":

Unlike the powers-that-be charged with running New York City, you and I can be realistic. Intentionally placing two live bombs set to explode and intended to commit mass murder in a populated center of the most recognized city in the United States is terror. It does not matter if the perpetrator is part of a group or a lone wolf, it doesn’t matter if you are fighting for Islam or animal rights or if you are an anarchist. The definition is plain and simple. Using violence or the threat of violence to achieve a political end is terror.

The only time it is not called terror is when you want to keep the masses calm. Then you rely on antiquated definitions by the FBI and Justice Department. But those days are long gone.

When the bomb injuring dozens of people exploded in Chelsea on Saturday night and a second unexploded bomb was discovered a few blocks away, New York City’s Mayor De Blasio said it was “intentional,” but he added “there is no evidence at this point that there is a terror connection.” He also said that “there was no credible specific threat to New York.”

Later, 12:58 p.m. Central Time: after calling the event "bombings" (plural), Hillary jumped on Trump for calling them "bombs." With the Clintons, one really, really needs to parse their statements and a Funk and Wagnalls dictionary nearby. Hillary is correct: if it was simply a Samsung phone exploding, then technically it was not a bomb. 

Later, 12:49 p.m. Central Time: after reading the various news reports, and watching some of the video on the internet, is it just me or does it now appear there is a developing competition to see who can be more "successful": #BlackLivesMatter / attack on US law enforcement OR ISIS / attack on US citizens? 

Original Post

 

When I first saw that statement by the mayor of NYC that the blast was "intentional" I stepped back for a moment and said, "hey, wait a minute. If it was a Samsung cell phone ... that changes everything."

Seriously, did the mayor of NYC actually query his advisers on whether there was enough evidence to actually say the blast was "intentional"? I would be curious how the discussion went, and what the final vote of his staff was, to call it "intentional."

I've also lost the bubble on the definition of terrorism. Everyone agrees that there was one blast in NYC; another explosive device found in the same immediate area; and, another blast in New Jersey, all within hours of each other. And, then, of course, the mall stabbings, in that Minnesota mall in the name of Allah, apparently. But there remains a question whether this is terrorism.

Some people have blamed this on the Amish. At least in the comment sections of various news reports. 

Based on much less information, perhaps one rhetorical question, the mainstream press can declare Trump unfit for president. 

Whatever.

Time for a video.

Las Ketchup, Las Ketchup
Other than stories on the "intentional" explosions (but perhaps not tied to terrorism) it's an incredibly slow news day. Hillary must have taken the weekend off. Was she on the campaign trail only one day this week? I think so.

Which reminds me, what does the USC-LA Times poll show? Trump, 48%; Hillary 41%. Okay.

It's an incredibly slow news day and I had to really search the headlines to find something, anything worth posting, and here it is, over at the Drudge Report of all things. This was the headline link: In North Dakota, hints of US oil industry comeback. The article itself was hardly worth reading, but I did learn something: there's a new temporary work agency in Williston: the Command Center. I should be back in Williston in the near future and will check it out. The article said the center is across from the railroad tracks. That pretty much limits the area to about a two-mile stretch from east Williston to west Williston.

Don sent me the link to a story on whether Nigeria could upset the apple cart when OPEC ministers meet later this month to discuss the trillion-dollar mistake that Saudi Arabia made two years ago. The data points from that article:

• no one has a clue
• if Libya and Nigeria get their combined acts together, they could add 800,000 bopd to the current glut.

I replied to Don, not ready for prime time, and only slightly edited, with regard to the upcoming OPEC meeting:

The players:

• Saudi Arabia: 90% of its income comes from oil.
• Nigeria: no matter how much income comes from oil, it can exist as a failed nation if oil goes to $20
• Russia: oil is important to its economy, but it has a bit more diversified economy than Saudi's; in addition, the Russian people have tolerated much worse conditions than low price of oil.

Saudi can't survive on $40 oil.

• On $50 oil, Saudi won't do much better. Even $60 oil is well below a budget that depends on $100 oil. I am eager to see the Saudi's August cash reserves. The most recent data I can find is through July which I have posted a couple of times.
• Saudi is in deep trouble. They live in a troubled neighborhood and have the most to lose if they can't get this turned around.

I still don't understand the (implied) concern in this country about the glut or the price of oil.

• I think most Americans are happy with $2.00 gasoline (in our area, gasoline is now $1.85 in many places)
• Investors have reset their portfolios assuming oil will be at $40 for a long time
• Some operators will still fail, but the overall US oil industry has probably stabilized at a new level

Although oil trending down towards $40 right now is worrisome, I still think $46 to $52 oil is the sweet spot for the American economy.