Michigan and New Hampshire Still Not Called by the AP and Media

I didn't expect to actually do any blogs on the election after it was over.  But there's too much of interest still happening.  One thing that bothers me is the AP, and the media in general, have not yet called the presidential race in Michigan and New Hampshire.  I'm a numbers person, so I went and looked at the statistics to see why not.  Admittedly, I relied on the media's numbers.  I looked at every county in Michigan to see where the votes weren't reported yet.  EVERY county had 100% of their votes reported.  Yet Fox, and presumably the AP, only show a total of 96% on their Michigan vote results page.  A similar situation was found for New Hampshire; every county had 100% of their votes reported.  What’s going on?

Michigan's margin for Trump was 11,837 votes, and Michigan is worth 16 electoral college votes.  New Hampshire's margin for Clinton was 2,528 votes, and New Hampshire is worth 4 electoral college votes.  Those are using the current Fox News tallies.

In an article from Heavy.com the AP is quoted as saying “The responsibility for calling races rests with experienced journalists in each state. They are armed with on-the-ground knowledge of their territory that no other national news organization can match.” In addition, says the AP, “On election night, race callers in each state are assisted by experts in AP’s Washington bureau who examine exit poll numbers and votes as they are counted.”

There's lots more worth reading in the Heavy.com article.  You find out the AP claims they won't call a race while there is the possibility of a recount.  That Michigan won't automatically do a recount when the margin is over 2,000 votes.  That Michigan is not required to certify the vote for 14 days.  And that Michigan officials believe no recounts will be requested until certification is made.

So in any state with a possibility of a recount, the AP won't call a race?  Sure, no chance of recounts in any of the other 48.

Here's a point from my own perspective.  Calling Michigan for Trump, and New Hampshire for Clinton would make the electoral vote predictions 306 for Trump to 232 for Clinton.  To me, the 306 looks a lot more impressive than 290, when only 270 are required for a win.

Another point, "experienced [AP] journalists" do the calling on the ground.  Was the AP biased for Hillary like all of the main stream media during the campaign?  I think it was obvious they were.  What's the chances the AP journalists in a state or two are like the Trump protesters in the big Hillary voting cities that say "Not My President"?

You can make up your own mind.  To me, making the call in those two states is straightforward.  If later recounts change the results, you then change your predictions.  It looks to me like the electoral college count is now 306 for Trump and only 232 for Clinton.

UCLA Crazies and Our Future

I’m going to take a few words to get to my primary point.  So to avoid losing you ahead of time, I want to touch on my ending.  Yesterday, while trying to enjoy Trump’s victory, I saw a video shot of UCLA students walking through a long hall.  There seemed to be hundreds of students.  They were all marching to a slow, continuously repeated chant of “F*** Trump”.  And it seemed like most, if not all were staring down at their phones.  It made me think of what a Nazi Youth march might have looked like, only with a different target and no phones.  It also made it hard to get to sleep.

I’m obviously a Trump supporter.  I really believed that the polls couldn’t be far enough off to support a Trump victory.  All the media, including a good portion of Fox News commentators and Wall Street Journal columnists, seemed to support Hillary Clinton and continuously criticize Trump.  Extreme, over-the-top criticism.  The few advertisements we saw here in Texas, most of which were focused on electing congressmen, were nearly content-free slander.  They took a few seconds of video of their opponent, out-of-context, and made them look like the great Satan out to destroy the good things in America.  I have always assumed most people, busy with their hectic lives working or studying 60 hours or more a week, do not have the time or energy to get past the information on the Main Stream Media and understand the policies and potential impacts of the candidates’ actual positions.  Everything Trump said was taken out of context or distorted to sound like racism, bigotry and misogyny--24/7.  Hillary got a light drubbing on honesty and misjudgments, but the media still depicted her as the nice, dependable, experienced candidate—without ever criticizing or describing her policies.  There were a few on Fox and at the Wall Street Journal that were honest.  But they seemed to be offset, maybe by an editorial policy, that there had to be 50% democratic talking heads on every show.  In written articles, anything criticizing Hillary had to be offset by at least a paragraph also pointing out Trump’s deficiencies.  I won’t be renewing my Wall Street Journal subscription again.

 

Anyway, on election night, I watched a movie and went to bed early.  I had watched McCain and Romney lose on election night TV coverage, and thought maybe I could avoid the heart-ache of a repeat.  I was unhappy with the nice-guy approach of those two.  They never seemed to fight back.  Trump fights back, and I’m actually a lot happier with his policies.  So I thought maybe I could limit my disappointment to a few minutes on Wednesday morning.  Of course, my wife watched the returns and couldn’t resist giving me a few results:  Texas went red (expected, but the media seemed to think it was in doubt), Evan Bayh lost in Indiana (I grew up with Birch Bayh and was really disappointed with his and Evan’s time in office), she said the media seemed to be going crazy (?), and she thought Florida was going to go red.  Avoiding the returns didn’t help, I couldn’t go to sleep worried about a Clinton future.

I woke up Wednesday morning, turned on my computer, and brought up FoxNews.com.  There was a big picture of Trump.  I thought, if Hillary won, why would they have a picture of Trump?  I scrolled down and saw the headlines of a Trump victory.  I have to say, I got a bit emotional, and a strong feeling of relief.

I turned on the TV and watched Fox News for most of the morning.  The criticism of Trump was over, though they still had a few of the bitter Democratic partisans on their programs.

I was especially affected by the scene at the Democratic headquarters earlier that morning, when Podesta came on and said Hillary would not show.  Her fans were crying.  And I felt empathy for their loss. 

I was a bit taken aback by Hillary not showing up to say anything.  Had she been so affected by the loss that she had some kind of medical problem?  Was she just so upset and bitter that she couldn’t maintain her composure on stage?  All those people showed up and stayed through 2:30 am with all the bad news, and she couldn’t even make an appearance?  Since then, I’m leaning towards a simpler explanation, she didn’t have any concession remarks or speech prepared, and she can no longer speak without a teleprompter or memorized lines.  Whatever the reason, her lack of appearance seemed to just emphasize my belief in her lack of character.

So I went through the day, feeling pretty good.  And I decided to watch Fox News from Bret Bair through O’Reilly, plus a little bit of Kelly.  I’m not sure when I saw it, but one of them showed a video of the UCLA students marching through a hall chanting “F*** Trump”, again and again and again…  And this morning I see marches in most big cities where worse rants were going on against Trump.

What gives?  The Left criticized Trump when he said he might contest an election.  The election took place, it wasn’t close, and now the Left, at least some of them, seem to think it was illegitimate?  Way too many people seem to be hypocrites.

But more worrisome is the behavior of the UCLA students.  Supposedly, these students are representative of the future of our country.  Did your parents let you curse in public or even in private?  Sure, no one is allowed to physically discipline their children any more.  But you figure most parents are still going to try to instill a sense of decorum and courteous behavior in their children.  They want their children to know right from wrong, how to think about what’s going on around them, and understand it so they can get ahead in life.  They want their children’s schools to teach them how to behave in society as well as imparting the knowledge necessary to live life prosperously in our country.

How did these students get to this point?  Did their parents fail them?  Did their schools?  Did the media or Hollywood lead them off course?  I know the latter two groups have had an obvious slant towards approving this type of behavior.  Schools have been tending towards nonsensical behavior for years.  Some parents may have been bad influences, but I cannot believe most did not want better for their kids and work to make that happen.

Maybe there were other hundreds or thousands of students at UCLA who disapproved of this behavior, whether they vote left or right.  Maybe that’s true on most campuses.  Maybe you don’t see the people with good manners, and that have the ability to think, because they don’t make spectacles of themselves in their schools’ halls and in the streets.

The problem is, you see the mainstream media throwing mud continuously.  You rarely see a new movie that doesn’t push liberal culture and morals.  You almost never hear of colleges promoting free speech and open debate.  You see riots and protests that take place without any apparent regard for the rule of law.  You see politicians pushing to abolish and ignore the Constitution of the United States.  You see people unwilling to admit that most terrorism is Islamic terrorism.  You see a complete political party that seems to want open borders as a way to get more voters for their positions.

All that is worrisome enough.  Then you see hundreds of UCLA students marching to and chanting “F*** Trump”, our new president elect.  Yeah, maybe this election will help us retain our rights and liberties under our Constitution for a few more years.  But the media, our colleges, our entertainment industry and half of our citizens are pushing a different direction.  If our young people move that way too, where is our future?

Protecting Classified Information and Hillary Clinton's Emails

I’ve noticed that a lot of the folks commenting on the Clinton e-mail investigation do not seem to understand how classified information comes about and is protected.  So I thought I would put together a short primer.

Information can be generated, received or collected. If its disclosure to the wrong party could cause damage to the national security, the information is classified at the confidential level.  If disclosure could cause serious damage, the information is classified at the secret level.  If disclosure would cause exceptionally grave damage, it is classified top secret.  If the protections required for those three classification levels are not considered sufficient, the information will be placed in a ‘compartment’ where access is limited and additional security measures are applied.  Reportedly, some of the classified information sent through Hillary Clinton’s non-secure ‘home’ server was at the compartmented level.

Information becomes classified when an Original Classification Authority (OCA) designates it as such.  Usually OCA’s are heads of agencies or departments, though the ability to classify information at the lower security levels is sometimes delegated to organization commanders or directors.

Usually, the OCA will approve a security classification guide.  Sometimes at agency and department levels, there will be a security instruction (regulation).  And you can even get guidance at the Presidential level via Executive Orders.  What you find in these guides, instructions, or orders is a description of what information is and is not classified, what is sensitive but unclassified, and what security classification level is to be applied when the information is classified.  Usually, there is a table in the guidance where the first column is a list of categories or types of information.  Each row in the table describes the classification level and related information.

So, you might have a security classification guide on the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).  It would tell government employees working with the JDAM what information is classified and what is not.  Usually, you don’t get extreme detail.  As an example, the performance characteristics of the JDAM might be classified at the secret level.  The existence of the JDAM, and its general uses, might be unclassified.  Keep in mind, this is a hypothetical case for me, I have no knowledge of the JDAM other than what I’ve read in newspapers.

And I have absolutely no information, beyond what I’ve read in newspapers, about classification guidance for State Department information.

What I do know is that a government employee, when documenting something or communicating about something in their area of expertise, is expected to be aware of the applicable classification guidance.  They are expected to mark titles, headers, and paragraph portions with the appropriate classification markings when they generate a document.  They also apply a document classification header indicating the source for the classifications:  either the OCA, the classification guidance reference, or the derivative classification source from which they have obtained the classification markings.  If you create a document based on OCA guidance, your new document can become a derivative classification source for other ‘authors’.

Everyone is briefed on the protections required of classified information before they are given access.  And they are given periodic refresher training.  They sign forms indicating they have completed the training, and most of those forms indicate the criminal penalties for mishandling or disclosure of classified information to unauthorized individuals.

And here is a key point.  Once the classification guidance is issued, whether or not classified information is properly marked, it is still classified.  And the guidance generally is written to cover categories of information, not specific bits of info.  It is possible that some info could retroactively be classified.  If, for example, the categories in the guidance were not all inclusive.  In my, admittedly limited experience, I’ve never seen that happen.

Another part of security training is that publication of classified information does not change the classification level to unclassified.  Properly cleared government employees are still required to protect that information as classified.  In general, they are not allowed to comment on any public information or disclosure.  And everyone is told to refer any questions to the Public Affairs office at their organization or agency.

A final training point is that everyone is told to transmit information only on approved, secured networks and devices that are authorized to handle the appropriate classification level.  There are specific networks for secret and higher levels of classification.  Everyone knows that it is a security violation to transmit classified information on an unsecured network such as the Internet.

So, with Clinton having upwards of 2,000 classified messages on an unsecured system, it is extremely unlikely that more than a minute fraction were not classified at the time.  Any government employee, with a clearance, knows that transmitting classified information on the Internet, or giving it to unauthorized individuals will cost you your clearance, your job, and probably your freedom for a number of years. 

On the subject of work emails and unclassified networks.  Over the years, the availability of unclassified .gov and .mil email accounts on government desktops has become wide spread, at least in government buildings and installations.  As the cyber threat has grown, guidance has gone out to use only your .mil or .gov email account for government work.  For the last few years, most organizations have provided government Blackberries or iPhones to those senior employees that need to work away from the office or during travel.  They are configured to use the .mil or .gov email accounts and are secured as much as possible against intrusions.  In most cases, you cannot access your .mil or .gov accounts from your personal devices.  To my knowledge, US government systems do not permit automatic forwarding of emails from .mil or .gov accounts.  The only way to get an email off the unclassified .mil or .gov network is to forward an individual email to an Internet account. 

Also, it is supposed to be impossible to transmit an email from a secure, classified network to an unclassified network or the Internet.

For 2,000+ classified emails to be on Clinton’s home server, somebody or several somebodies had to have been at least criminally negligent about protecting classified information.  Someone had to type that information into an email, knowing it was classified.  And that had to have been done 2,000+ times.  Mr. Comey’s claim that there was no evidence of intent is simply hogwash.

Trump (***) vs Clinton (*)

I’ve decided to work through my inclination not to post on social media and talk about my personal history.  So to put this post in perspective, I retired as an Air Force officer the first time, then as an Air Force civil servant the second time.  For all of that period I held security clearances.  I repeatedly signed non-disclosure forms that said if I disclosed classified information to unauthorized individuals I would be subject to penalties such as 10 years imprisonment or $100,000 fines.  Over the years, I stayed away from social media because of a concern of inadvertently revealing information that could affect my security clearance and my job. 

So my view is that Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted and penalties imposed.  If not in jail (miraculously), she should be on probation and ineligible for office.

Many of us lived through the Clinton presidency where we continually heard that one’s private sexual life was not germane to one’s performance as president.  Most Republicans probably thought that was wrong, and it’s definitely leading to a feeling of hypocrisy when planning to vote for Trump.  However, with Bill Clinton there was substantial reason to believe most if not all of his accusers were legitimate. Hillary vociferously attacked those accusers.  With Trump I have seen accusations of lesser offenses than Bill Clinton’s rapes, all coming within the last 30 days of the campaign, from years ago, and with almost no proof.  The claims against him sound too much like the insults of racism, bigotry, and the twisting of Trump’s words that stream continuously from Hillary Clinton and the main stream media.  Denigrating Trump, rather than pushing her policies, seems to be Clinton’s primary approach to campaigning.

What I will base my vote on are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the policies of the two candidates.  Most of all, I believe in the Constitution of the United States and in the concepts of individual liberty and unalienable rights.  I want the Supreme Court and the other life-long appointees of the federal judiciary to interpret the laws and apply the Constitution as they are written.  I do not want an unelected, life-long set of jurists legislating from the bench and destroying the rule of law.  Hillary wants to nominate liberal justices who will legislate their agenda from the bench.  Trump wants justices that will apply the Constitution.

I want the right to own and carry a weapon as needed for self-defense.  Hillary either wants to repeal the Second Amendment or allow states such as California or New York or the District of Columbia to place any restriction on ownership, up to not even allowing you to own a gun.  Trump defends the Second Amendment.

I believe in the right to life of the unborn fetus, so does Trump.  Clinton believes in allowing late term abortions and partial birth abortions.

I believe in the right to live your life according to your religion.  Clinton’s judges and the great majority of liberals no longer believe in Religious Freedom outside your home or place of worship.

I believe in the right to Free Speech, for everyone, including corporations, companies, unions, and any organization that represents a group of citizens.  Clinton wants to reverse Supreme Court decisions supporting that belief.  And just to comment on liberal culture, I don’t believe that freedom should be abridged on college campuses that take money from state or federal governments.

Obviously, I believe in a strong military.  Trump plans to reverse the decline in defense capabilities of the Obama years.  Clinton believes the Obama approach is correct.

Regulations are probably my second biggest concern after the Constitution.  Obama (as well as Clinton) and the EPA’s campaign to kill coal, natural gas (fracking), and pipelines to distribute the fuel is disastrous.  We have a power network that relies on fossil fuels for something like 67% of our power.  Do you want brown-outs and high energy costs in your future?  Sure, I like solar and wind, and believe they should be expanded as economics and technology allow.  But I also have graduate degrees in electrical engineering and physics.  Alternative sources of energy (i.e. solar and wind) can supplement, but they can never be a primary energy source, and they are costly.  We recently obtained an estimate for a solar installation for our home.  To provide about 77% of our annual usage, it would have cost us $65,000 (before federal tax credits).  And that’s after years of hearing that the cost of solar is coming down!  I worry some about cyber attacks on our power grid.  With a solar installation I could guarantee our water pump would work during sunny days.  But our refrigerators, freezer, and air conditioning (in south central Texas) wouldn’t have any solar power at night.

Beyond the EPA, Obama has expanded bureaucracy/agency regulations that are stifling our economy and its growth.  Clinton wants to continue that approach.  Trump wants to reverse it.

Free trade is an issue that I’ve changed my mind about over the years.  In an open society where politics and national interests do not manipulate economic behavior, free trade would be great once a steady-state condition is reached.  Until then, there would be disruptions and hardships on individuals, groups and communities (i.e., your job would be at risk).  With the current nation-state partitioning of the planet’s population, our current agreements are destructive to our economy.  High employee salaries and costs plus high U.S. taxes mean jobs and manufacturing move to other countries.  If you increase productivity (to make an item cheaper to offset high employee costs) by automating the manufacturing process, you end up with fewer jobs.  Trump claims he will modify treaties to achieve deals that are not disadvantageous to the U.S.  I think he deserves the chance to show what impact a changed approach may have.  Clinton wants to continue with our current ruinous approach.

Health care is another issue that seems to be a core item of contention.  Obamacare has shown that a liberal attempt to impose government regulations on our health system causes higher costs and less choice.  I use the military retirement TriCare system, and cannot imagine a $5,000 annual deductible.  But I have also seen what it’s like to live with the doctor they assign you with no choice.  I’ve gone in to a military clinic coughing up green phlegm and been given cough medicine as their solution, I presume because they were told to minimize the use of antibiotics and to keep costs down.  I had to go to the emergency room days later to get an x-ray and the antibiotics needed to clear up the bronchitis.  I do not want to transition to government provided medical care for everyone, whether a public option that is cheaper and drives out private competition or a single payer (government only) system.  Choice will disappear and costs will rise.  If you don’t pay the costs because of government subsidies, other taxpayers will.  Trump presents us with the chance of a revitalized health care system.  Clinton’s will be a European or British system.

On immigration and national security.  I want to see our immigration laws enforced.  I don’t want borders where drug smugglers, terrorists and anyone with two feet can enter our country illegally.  Secure the borders, don’t just promise it or provide misleading statistics showing it’s not a problem.  Then work on the issue of legalizing those who came here without permission--that have not demonstrated other criminal behavior.  And do not grant entry to prospective immigrants without a background check, especially if they come from countries supporting or involved in terrorism.  Trump believes in that approach.  Clinton does not.

On international affairs and national security, Clinton and Obama have a history.  Clinton does not propose significant changes, for the most part.  The situation with Russia, China, Iran and North Korea has deteriorated, in my opinion, due in large part to Obama and Clinton foreign policy.  They do not seem to have the ability to counter increasing and emerging threats.  They seem to ignore it.  Clinton’s state department ignored requests for added security in Libya.  When an attack came that killed four people, including our ambassador, they did not even launch a timely military rescue.  I do not know how anyone can think Clinton’s foreign policy experience and decision making is something we want in a President.

Further, Clinton has recently proposed a no-fly-zone in Syria.  Early in the Syrian conflict, that might have worked.  Today, Russia has set up mobile variants of the S-300 air defense system (I am not an expert on this) that can take out anything flying within 100 to 150 miles of the system.  Can we take out those units?  I don’t know--maybe.  But it would seem to require a direct conflict with Russian forces.  Otherwise, how would we control the air?  Either Clinton was just trying to sound tough and smart for votes, intentionally misleading the voters, or she is inept and poorly advised about military operations.

Trump won’t talk much about his approach, which is considered good operational security, before an operation.  On the other hand, it doesn’t let you make firm conclusions about his decision making.  He does have good advisors!

On general temperament, I still lean to Trump.  Can you envision an extremely successful businessman with the characteristics Clinton claims for Trump?  He couldn’t make a deal or arrange a contract.  I expect Trump's deal making skills would make an excellent President.  Can you see a foreign head of state trusting anything that Clinton says?  Well maybe, if they make a big enough donation to the Clinton Foundation.

Finally, I almost overlooked policing in America.  With Black Lives Matter and recent media attention on police shootings of minorities, this has become a significant issue.  My wish is to allow police and the local justice systems to do their investigations, and if needed, go to trial.  Complete the initial process without federal intervention such as FBI and justice investigations, and premature conclusions and statements from the President.  If the local/state investigation and follow-up appears in error, prejudicial to one party, or not timely, then get the feds and public interest groups involved.  The police need our support to maintain the rule of law.  Trump understands that.  I’m not sure Clinton does.

To wrap up, I think it is almost unconscionable to vote for the candidate that does not support one’s beliefs on the Constitution, regulations, the economy, health care, foreign policy and crime/policing.  I can live with uncouth outbursts.  I can only feel anger about a public servant who has violated the trust of the American people by disclosing classified information to unauthorized individuals on unsecured networks and devices, then made light of it.  I don’t see that the arguments are even close.  Trump will be my choice.

Day 29 Final

I decided to leave the trail. No injury or major problems. Basically it was just that it wasn't working out well with me on the trail and my spouse at home working. She wasn't happy about my hiking, and I couldn't help with any of the problems cropping up at home. 

And lack of AT&T signal in Hot Springs was a major problem. I couldn't get Google Voice to call using WiFi and Viber wouldn't accept their own code this year. FaceTime was working on weekends when she had her iPhone with her. But when she went into work she has to leave it outside. 

The in laws had a major connectivity outage, on a system I had set up, but I didn't have the details with me. My wife was very unhappy. 

I did find out that AT&T can be configured on the iPhone for WiFi calling. Apparently it is disabled by default because 911 calls won't give your real address. I had to agree to numerous 911 forms.  Calling worked normal from the library WiFi after that. Met one other guy in town who tried to buy a Verizon phone locally but they were out!  I told him about the library free WiFi and the WiFi calling setting and he was pretty grateful. 

Anyway, the combination of missing Susan and my conscience issue of not being home to help her made up my mind to stop here. Unless she's fully supportive in the future, I'll stick to trips around 2 weeks long. 

Also, I met lots of couples, pairs of friends, and some single folks hiking. The only other married guy I heard about hiking alone made a similar decision a day or two earlier--around the one month point. That doesn't mean there aren't lots of married folks hiking without their spouses...

If you've been following along, thanks!  And I hope I didn't disappoint you. Have a good day!

Day 28 Zero in Hot Springs

Not too much to say for today. Hot Springs is small. I got up early and finally got the eggs, bacon, pancakes, grits and milk breakfast I've been craving!

Then I repackaged the mail drop into my food and toiletry bags. Susan sent me a smaller size pair of pants, so I'm going to mail the others back. 

I'll spend some time on my kit...

The insoles on my Altra Lone Peak 2.5 trail runners have been sad. Every time they get wet they fold. Flimsy!  I've got a permanent crease in the left one. I am going to see if Bluff Mountain Outfitters has a better insole. I am not hopeful as the shoe is designed light and of course there is little spare room--except at the toes. 

The wintry cold weather and deep mud have resulted in my reconsidering my kit. If I stopped at a shelter I would have to leave my muddy shoes on to cook, eat and do toiletries. Most have camp shoes. Same issue in hostels. But my pack is not really designed for external equipment attachment. 

In the sleet storm I was chilly. It wasn't dangerous as I was relatively dry. I had on my merino wool base layer, my wind shirt, and my rain jacket. But the tremendous cold wind pulled the heat right out of me. The possum-down gloves and rain mitts were equally ineffective. I could have put on my down puffy, but that would have risked getting it wet. Plus the risk of moisture in the pack when I opened it. If it had gotten worse or been a degree or two warmer so the sleet was rain, I would have needed to stop and set up the tent to use the puffy or quilt for warmth. 

If I had been carrying my capilene hoody instead of the puffy, and maybe some wool mittens, I would have been fine and warm. But I saved a few ounces because I didn't anticipate any snow storms. When I do the summer to winter equipment change up north, I'll remember the lesson. 

Finally my quilt. It's a Katabatic 30 degree down quilt with a 'fixed' foot box. I love it except for the foot box. I have a touch of restless leg syndrome, and the fairly small foot box is like tying your feet together at the ankles. It's great in cold weather, but when it gets warmer it defeats part of the purpose of having a quilt instead of a mummy bag. I like the design of the Zpacks quilts and will take a look. 

Not sure what I'll do today, probably eat and watch TV!

Have a good day!

Day 27 Bluff Mountain to Hot Springs

Monday, May 09, 2016; AT Mile 273.7

------------------------------

Walked from 258.9 to 269.4 or 10.6 miles.

Started 06:45 AM, stopped 12:12 AM.

Ave mph was 1.93, excluding lunch.

Battery used:  4 percent

------------------------------

The ankle was feeling better today. Compared to my usual travel, I moved!  Most of the trail was downhill, but most wasn't too steep. I only got passed by a couple of college age girls. Not sure if they were thrus, awfully clean looking. But they were carrying their packs around town. 

Weather is nice today, but I'm not sure it will continue. Lots of clouds. 

Saw Square Peg at the diner on town entry. Tried for lodging at Elmers, but guy said last room was taken an hour earlier. He didn't seem too polite about my not having a reservation. 

Didn't want a standard hostel for a zero. Not too unhappy, proprietors are vegan. Got a room at Alpine Court. Almost nice. But I have to come here to the Wash Tub to do my laundry. 

Went to Smoky Mountain Diner for lunch after showering. Good food at average prices. It's open 0630 for breakfast and has homemade cobbler!

Stopped in Bluff Mountain Outfitters for change for the wash. Will need to pickup my mail drop there soon. 

No AT&T in town. And no WiFi at the Alpine. I'll use the library WiFi next door to call Susan.  Not sure why I had cell on the mountain last night but nothing in town??