Week in review – politics edition

by Judith Curry

U.S., Britain, Australia, and climate change

Professor Mark Blyth explains the real roots of Brexit & Trump [link]

PARIS AGREEMENT – STATUS OF RATIFICATION, 19 Parties have ratified, Accounting for 0.18% of global GHG emissions, [link]


The bright side of 2016 [link]

Hillary Clinton Saved From Prosecution Thanks to FBI’s Word Games [link]

The Democrats’ climate change conundrum [link]

Bernie Sanders’s Climate Change Activists Are Losing Hope [link]

More on Benghazi and the Woman Who Would Be President [link]

Why Trump winds [link]


First legal attempt to prevent Brexit set for preliminary hearing [link]

Leavers fall into 3 categories: the free-marketeers, regain sovereignty, halt immigration. [link]

It’s NOT the economy, stupid: Brexit as a story of personal values  [link]

Chilcot condemns Blair’s behaviour, but declines to accuse him of lying [link]

This is a pretty good post-referndum analysis from the BBC [link] …


The political story of the week is Pauline Hanson, in Australia

Pauline Hanson’s mixed bag [link].  Her energy proposals are very interesting, possibly worthy of a full post

“Deniers” may hold the Balance of Power in the Aussie Senate [link]

543 responses to “Week in review – politics edition

  1. Legal prevent Brexit. I have been following this avidly. The legal argument is that for centuries, well established UK law says parliament (statutory laws) trumps crown perogative. Magna Carta and all that. Since joining the EU was via a parliamentary act, (making all EU regulations equivalent to Paliamentary law) leaving requires another act of parliament nullifying the previous one (parliament trumps perogative).
    The somewhat subtler counter is that the original join EU act also provided that all subsequent EU ‘laws and treaties’ would be so incorporated. So subsequent Article 50 is already UK law by the original act of parliament.

    No expert here, but I think the counterargument wins and the next PM just triggers Article 50.

    • You think parliament would override the will of the people? Doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.

      • Dunno. My interest is legal formalism–what does British law require? On behalf of a number of clients, this law firm has filed suit claiming there must be a parliamentary vote on Brexit. The parliamentary act that enabled the referendum made it nonbinding. Perhaps because Parliament thought they would have to vote on Brexit (given statute trumps crown perogative) in light of its outcome. 52/48 is hardly a landslide. Depends on the precise reading of the 1972 EU entry statute and its future EU sweep in.

    • My reading of it was that the act only allowed EU laws to become British laws. Repealing it only prevents further EU laws from becoming British laws. It would be a formality to pass that after Britain has left through Article 50, and it would be rather pointless not to pass that because it doesn’t affect the exit.

      • Jim D, your argument is precisely why parliament would have to vote to approve Brexit. All those EU laws approved by Parliament via the 1972 EU entry act would become null and void. Whitehall has putntogether a task force to work on stautory substitutions, so it appears it is not a case of future EU rules only. It apparently affects the past EU rules adopted by the UK. If the PM simply triggered Article 50, it would be an ‘illegal’ case of perogative trumping statute and would be judicially nullified. Some question as I understand it is whether the 1972 statute swept in the future Lisbon treaty which contained Article 50, in which case the simple argument for perogative is that parliament ‘preauthorized’ it.
        There are senior British law professors arguing both sides in posts and comments.
        And it seems a knottier legal question than whether OBama’s CPP is unconstitutional. SCOTUS stay sort of settles that in advance of reaching the Court.

      • A parliamentary vote to exit would be something they would want to avoid. Not many want to be on record voting for something that leads to the next recession. They would prefer to put it on the PM to trigger Article 50 simply in response to the referendum. That way they can blame the public vote for what happens to the economy and remain blameless themselves. The pound is still slowly sinking and is now at $1.29.

      • Jim D, What will happen to their economy?

      • What is wrong with the hope of this Global Spring?

      • Jimd

        The eu is an undemocratic sclerotic basket case. Why are you such a big supporter of it?


      • I am not a big supporter of the EU, but I don’t see leaving it as a positive move either, more of a risk. It’s throwing all your cards in, hoping they will come back with a playable hand.

      • From what I read it is still the Off Season in Greece.

      • Haven’t checked British marks, but US markets have all rebounded and have recovered their losses from reaction to the initial news.

        Another lose for the experts and pundits.

      • It’s throwing all your cards in, hoping they will come back with a playable hand.

        Why, yes. (Funny you should mention that. I have personally designed card games with that option.)

        One will (all else being equal) only consider doing so if one has a below-average hand.

        If you have a really lousy hand, the decision becomes easier.

        Sometimes, however, the rest of the deck is partially or even entirely unknown. Or even affected by the decision to replace, itself. That makes the decision more difficult.

      • I am fairly sure the UK had some aces among the cards they threw in, which was British industries that were doing well on European trade. The public threw those cards in too, and now the politicians have to beg Europe for those aces back which they may get with some strings attached.

    • Rivstan,

      The Brexit referendum was advisory only. Parliament can do whatever it wants, as always.

      • Editor

        Not so.

        It would precipitate the greatest constitutional crisis in our history. The vote was for the people to decide whether to leave or remain in the EU, not ‘ ‘well we will tell you what we think then you MP’s can decide.’


      • The question is whether the new PM can trigger Article 50 without an enabling Act of Parliament. Both May and Leadsom have said they would. The suit is about whether they can, arguing they cannot because of long established precedent that statute trumps crown perogarive.

      • Tony,
        It would precipitate the greatest constitutional crisis in our history.”

        The UK has very little history of referenda. It does, however, have a long history of battling for the supremacy of Parliament, which is the key to representative democracy.

        I think the case touches on something I wrote about just after the referendum. The people may have spoken, whatever they were thinking about on June 24th, but it is Parliament that will have to deal with the consequences, and then be held responsible for those consequences by their electors. And I think they have to make the judgment on how they will carry out their responsibility to their electors. And the virtual disappearance of the chief protagonists of Brexit does not make its progress any easier. Who speaks for Brexit now?

      • Rivstan,

        The large distinction between acts of the Executive & Legislative branches is a feature of the US system. In the UK the prime minister can be removed in a single vote of Parliament. No PM could take the UK out of the EU without a majority supporting his (or her) action.

        While the mechanical details matter somewhat, of interest mostly to attorneys and parliamentarians, that is the bottom line.

      • Climate reason,

        I don’t know what you have been reading. Everything I have read says that the vote was advisory only, and is non-binding on parliament.

        See this analysis by the BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887

        Parliament has ignored the will of the people before. If enough remain angry, they can force a change of government at the next election. In that respect the UK is like those states in the US allowing advisory referenda.

      • Editor

        Havinloewsed through three Years of referendum information going on in the background and some six months of frantic activity culminating in my votimg at 7.15 am, 15 minutes after the polls opened,, at no time did anyone in government say ‘this is merely advisory and is non binding so MP’s will have the final say, you do all realise that don’t you?’

        There is a fixed term parliament until 2020 . Parliament could not function until then if MP’s decided to ignore the vote. they already have zero credibility and would be removed wholesale by voters and their constituency parties who could hold a vote of no confidence and force them out. The overwhelming majority of people in the constituency parties voted Brexit.


      • catweazle666

        “The Brexit referendum was advisory only. Parliament can do whatever it wants, as always.”


    • Did more reading and research. Discovered in Parliament’s own discussion on treaties a legal approach none of the British legal commentators have taken, but which persuasively supports Whitehall’s legal opinion that Parliament need not be involved.
      In the UK, all treaties are by royal prerogative. There is no parliamentary ratification as in the US. The only parliamentary leverage is where a treaty requires some additional enabling act of parliament (all EU treaties do, hence the ECA1972, where parliament enabled the EU entry treaty and whatever followed, including prospective approval of Lisbon’s Article 50). Parliament could withhold such enablement as a way to force treaty changes. Parliament could also force an advisory vote of no confidence. Both are means of political pressure, but not any direct say.
      Article 50 is the converse. It triggers a Brexit process. That will in 2 years either lead to a new ‘divorce’ treaty, or no treaty (just leave, with all future EU relationships still TBD). Both are just royal prerogative, especially since a divorce treaty is unlikely to include importation of EU laws and rules–the whole point of Brexit. In neither case does Parliament have a say in the new treaty or not treaty. So royal prerogative means the new PM can just proceed as she sees fit. And both have said they will honor the Brexit referendum. The only difference between them is timing. And Merkel’s stance makes timing pretty much a moot point.

    • Does “perogative” connote something similar to “prerogative”, or are their etymologies entirely distinct?

  2. The tragedy of Benghazi is that four brave Americans in a dangerous part of the world lost their lives to a determined and deadly enemy. The scandal of Benghazi is that instead of leveling with the American people, Mrs. Clinton and others who knew better opted for a more convenient—and corrosive—spin –

    Even more telling: Though there was no evidence linking the Benghazi attacks to a YouTube video mocking Islam, of the 10 “action items” from the notes of that meeting, five referred to the video. Mrs. Clinton referred to the video more than once in her public statements. At 10:08 p.m. on the night of the attack, she issued a public statement on Benghazi: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” She repeated the point the next day at the State Department. –

    Mrs. Clinton faced a “once to every man and nation” moment that night. She blew it and then tried to cover up her failure. Falsehood triumphed in the aftermath of the attack. – See more at: http://iwf.org/blog/2800674/More-on-Benghazi-and-the-Woman-Who-Would-Be-President#sthash.vMCJoIL9.bpO9Ps8U.dpuf

    • Definitely not the right choice for commander-in-chief, whereas all we have to judge Donald on is his Kim-Jong-Un type bluster. Fact is, the Iranian fertilizer is going to hit the fan fairly shortly and the US doesn’t appear to have a Plan B ready.

    • Let’s not forget the poor sod that made the video.
      They pounced and jailed him.
      Free speech be damned when political expediency and the news cycle need to be fed.

    • What’s disturbing with all this tit for tat between the Republicans and Democrats over Bengazi is that it focuses exclusively on proximate causes, while leaving ultimate causes unexamined.

      To examine ultimate causes, however, would require scrutiny of the neoliberal and neoconservative policies which, tragically, are favored by the establishment wings of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

      I disagree with the title of this article, because these were not “Clinton’s catastrophes,” but the catastrophes of hawks on both sides of the aisle. But the descripton of the US’s foreign policy disasters of late is incisive:

      Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes

      Many commentators have mentioned (such as here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the residents there….


      “We came, we saw, he died! (Chuckles)”[link]

      And what happened afterwards?

      (And what happened before?) [link]

      But what happened afterwards is even worse than people know: as Wayne Madsen recently reported [link], Hillary’s success at overthrowing Gaddafi served brilliantly the purposes of the U.S. aristocracy and of the jihadists who are financed by the Saud family and the other fundamentalist Sunni royal faimilies in Arabia [link]. Even if she doesn’t become President, she has already done enough favors for those royals so as to be able to fill to the brim the coffers of the Clinton Foundation.

  3. Curious George

    Five policemen shot dead in Dallas following a demonstration of Black Lives Matter. Black lives surely matter, but not to the exclusion of other lives. We hear a lot about polarization, and this illustrates its current extent. We read that a white policeman killed an innocent black somewhere, and then we read that a policeman killed another innocent black man elsewhere. Guess what skin color was the second policeman. An innocent Latino teenager pointed a very realistically looking toy gun at a policeman, and got shot. Latino community saw it as an attack on all Latinos – fortunately, for now, only locally. Many more white men get killed by police, but when Latinos start protesting nationwide, and Caucasians start protesting nationwide, we will have a real polarization. I hope that this is not what Black Lives Matter want.

    • This is a police problem and while there are statistical facts regarding race that certainly help explain the palpable anger and perception that this is a racial problem, but this is wholly a police problem.

      At the halfway mark of 2016 police had killed 506 people. Last year the number was 990 people killed by police. In 2014 a study compared the lethal proclivities of American police against European countries and found that American cops were 18 times more likely to use deadly force than Danish police and 100 times more likely than Finnish police.

      American’s have seen a rise in warrior cops and increasingly militarized police forces. When S.W.A.T. was first formed by the Philadelphia Police Department in 1964, it was in response to a sharp rise in bank robberies so a 100 man unit of highly trained officers who have a large array of weapons at their disposal and who can react quickly and decisively while a bank robbery was in progress. Then in 1967, Darryl Gates of the Los Angeles Police Department adopted S.W.A.T. and used that unit for a broader range of purposes including riot control.

      Since that time, the use of S.W.A.T. has been expanded to now include serving warrants to non-violent offenders, as well as used to apprehend people suspected of raising chickens without a permit. A shock and awe strategy is being employed to execute mundane police work. Where these highly specialized killing units were deployed roughly 3000 times a year in the 1980’s, American’s have seen that number rise to roughly 50,000 per year today. Indeed, Dallas has been known to use S.W.A.T. to break up a poker game.

      A few years ago, the New Haven, Ct. Police Department sent a S.W.A.T. unit to a bar suspected of serving under age drinkers. Over in Orlando, Florida at least that S.W.A.T. team claimed they were looking for guns and drugs when they raided barber shops around the Orlando area, ultimately arresting 34 people for “barbering without a license” (because barber shops are public and so barbers need permission from the public to be barbers, don’t ya know? Because law is viewed through such ontological paradoxes).

      Don’t even get me started on the too numerous to list civil asset forfeiture schemes being run by cops. That corruption permeates virtually all of the some 55,000 local and county police and Sheriff’s departments is hard to refute. Cops are getting away with legalized theft and legalized murder and it should not come as any surprise that such lawlessness would breed more lawlessness. It is predictable.

      “Better judged by twelve than carried by six” is common motto among cops to justify their high kill rate of American’s but I cannot help but wonder how many would still agree with that motto if those cops were actually being judged by 12 instead of being coddled by D.A.’s who will misuse their office to convene a grand jury and then do everything in their power to convince the grand jury not to indict. It is easy to say it is better to be judged by a jury when it is unlikely you will ever have to rely on a jury to acquit.

      The U.S. has a police problem and all races are paying for it.

      • And if you can’t figure out how to capture an armed offender, just send in a remote controlled bomb to blow him up.

        Next time it will be drone strikes under the guise of antiterrorism, with civilian casualties blamed on them being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

        Some might see the police approach of remote bombing as ineptitude. I suppose the police force still wants funding for now obsolete things like SWAT teams, armoured vehicles, sharpshooters, and all the rest.

        Don’t really need them, do they? If things get sticky, send in a drone equipped with a bomb of appropriate size (or larger).


      • David Springer

        Jean Pierre Zoodouche makes a good point. I’m wondering if it’s the police that should be disarmed not the rest of us.

      • Sadly, little Drooling Spittle misses the point again. Police should be armed and held accountable to the rule of law just the same as anyone else. Police are not military and do not need tanks and bazookas and drones with bombs, but in this needed reformation of police and Sheriff’s, disarming them is not required.

        Police should exist to protect and defend the rights of the individual instead of existing to trample them. It’s hard to make sense of the world little Drool, when you embrace contradictions as a part of your philosophy.

    • Well again, what is disturbing about the bulk of the discourse over police violence and the reaction to it it is that it focuses exclusively on proximate causes, while leaving ultimate causes unexamined.

      Here’s how Christian Parenti explains the why that our police departments were militarized:

      Reagan created whole new classes of poor and desperate people. It was in response to this social crisis, created by the elite response to the profit crisis, that a new wave of criminal justice crackdown began.

      Along with great economic transformations, the Reagan revolution kicked off a new round of criminal justice militarization….

      The quest for renewed profitability in the face of ongoing crises led down the path of brutal, short-term, upward redistribution of wealth. The post-liberal, post-welfare economic equation created more poverty and more opulence. Thus reproducing and governing the social order has required more repression, more segregation, and more criminal justice….

      Into this malaise rode William Jefferson Clinton, who many imagined might launch some sort of updated war on poverty. Instead, Clinton carried on with both neoliberal economic restructuring and the criminal justice buildup. With his victory came yet another wave in the storm of law and order repression.

      — CHRISTIAN PARENTI, Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis

      Obama, too, has merely carried on with the “revolution” that Reagan initiated, and has not been shy about placing a crown of laurels upon the Gipper’s head:

      Senator Barack Obama: “I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.”


      When it comes to jobs and household incomes, no sector of society has suffered more than Blacks under Obama and the rest of the Republicrat establishment:


    • Elijah Anderson concludes his outstanding analysis of the structural causes of the violence in the inner city as follows:

      It is understandable that the traditional old heads and other decent people of the community should focus on the idea of individual responsiblity. These people believe that whatever success they have achieved in their own lives has been the result of personal determination, and thus they are inclined to blame those who have not been successful for not having made enough of an effort.

      Not to blame the victim would be to make it too easy for those victims of inner-city problems. And it would give the decent people no way of distinguishing themselves from the street people.

      Therefore, even though the old heads are aware of the existence of discrimination and joblessness, their solution is to build up the grit of the community through the retrurn of decent daddy and the support of the grandmother.

      Despite their working conceptions of the world, the old heads are the saving grace of the community. Because the well-paying manufacturing jobs are unlikely to return, their orientation of making do with what one has is in some ways the height of resonsiblity. By telling people to be responsible, they are affirming that something can be done, that there is hope for the future.

      — ELIJAH ANDERSON, Code of the Street: Decency, Violence and the Moral Life of the Inner City

      But as Anderson goes on to explain:

      [T]he decent people are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain a sense of community.

      A vicious cycle has thus formed. The hopelessness many young inner-city black men and women feel, largely as a result of endemic joblessness and alienation, fuels the violence they engage in.

      This violence then serves to confirm the negative feelings many whites and some middle-class black harbor toward the ghetto poor, further legitimating the oppositional culture and the code of the street for many alienated young blacks.

      But when jobs disappear and people are left poor, highly concentrated, and hopeless, the way is paved for the underground economy to become a way of life, an unforgiving way of life organized around a code of violence and predatory activity.

      Only by reestablishing a viable mainstream economy in the inner city, particularly one that provides access to jobs for young inner-city men and women, can we encourage a positive sense of the future.

      Unless serious efforts are made to address this problem and the cycle is broken, attitudes on both sides will become increasingly hardened, and alienation and violence, which claim victims black and white, poor and affluent, will likely worsen.

      • And what a violent week it’s been.

        After Dallas, police were targeted in Tennessee, Georgia and Missouri, and social media threats against police are on the rise:

        Police on edge after Dallas shooting

      • “[The] decent people are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain a sense of community.”

        I don’t think one cannot but view the concentration and isolation of inner-city black youth without the lens of the past, the destruction of major cities during the 1960’s and 1970’s.

        Lost during those troubled years was the diversity of ethnic neighborhoods and an entire society of working men and women who by culture and heritage perpetuated a work ethic and self accountability. Within a decade, the inner city lost a population to the suburbs, carrying with them a sense of distrust and anger. Witnesses to the exodus and, the personal stories that initiated the movement, still linger today. Just because this legacy is not discussed as a contributor to the present urban ghettoization now so evident, does not mean it is/was not important.

        Blacks who had come North for work in the 1940’s, still lived in isolation in the urban centers. In part, this isolation contributed to the foment of the 1950’s and erupting violently in the 1960’s.

        To me at least, the present inner city isolation of young African Americans is only in part related to a lack of jobs. Missing from this narrative is a bit of earlier history when a schism developed between the philosophy of Booker T Washington and WEB Dubois in the early part of the 20th Century: education, personal accountability, and self help vs social justice and reparations. WEB Dubois led the NAACP in a direction I believe is still evident today.

        My reflective history does not mitigate the role of racism as it plays out in Black, White, Latino, Asian, Middle Easterner and “other” categories. What does make sense to me is that a return to “shared values”, as they translate here in the USA such as: education, personal accountability and self help are more likely than not to find a commonality that binds us together than seeking redress of past and present grievances.

        I read today about the violent dissolution of the world’s newest country of South Sudan along the lines of ethnic and religious groups. The present war is but a surrogate for a long lasting, hundreds and hundreds of years old tribal war(s), and to my way of thinking, no closer to resolution today than hundreds of years ago. There remain inequities and grievances and frank hatred, enough negative energy to keep the fighting going and going.

        Such a negative scenario is possible for the situation here in the USA and will not be sidetracked without a general awareness that such behavior is not productive and doesn’t get anyone what they want. If respect is what is wanted, then respect must not come from fear. Fear is a very powerful and mostly negative driving force. More negativism is not what is needed.

      • Holding men accountable for the children they spawn could make a difference. Children growing up with out a father and stable family are in large part the problem. Of course the Dimowits like to sustain this situation as it make for a pool of needy people who will vote for them.

      • RiHo08,

        Well it certainly looks like it’s one of those “wicked problems,” as Dr. Curry calls them.

        Adding another level of uncertainty and unpredictability is technology:

        Part I: People & Power – The Tech Threat

        It seems like, if we are indeed “rational” creatures, that advances in technology could do nothing but enhance human flourishing, making our lives easier, better and more prosperous.

        However, as Scott Noble explores here (beginning at minute 07:35), because of unequal relationships of political power an element of “irrationality of rationality” invariably emerges with “scientific management”: Fordism, Taylorism, McDonaldization, rationalization, etc.

      • RiHo08,

        The discussion of scientific management begins at minute 07:35 of Part 2/9 of Human Resources. I don’t know why Part 1/9 displayed.

      • “These people believe that whatever success they have achieved in their own lives has been the result of personal determination, and thus they are inclined to blame those who have not been successful for not having made enough of an effort.”

        Blame is irrelevant and it is unlikely that people who actually believe they achieved success as a result of their personal determination go around affixing blame to people who’ve not achieved success. Success is not achieved by affixing blame, it is achieved by overcoming the obstacles in one’s path.

        Of course people achieve success because of personal determination. Regardless of what that success is. If a junkie wants to get clean, no collective, no coercive government, no compassionate group of cheer leaders is going to help that junkie get clean, only that junkie, through personal determination can do that.

        If a person wants to start their own business, regardless of the help they may have in doing that it is still personal determination that counts. If a person starts a business and it fails, it will be personal determination that drives that person to try again. Praising personal determination does not mean others are blamed for whatever failings.

      • Glenn Stehle

        Thank you for the link and video.

        Behavioralism, at least early 20th Century Behavioralism and Watson in particular made it seem that operational conditioning of the rat was somehow directly translated to human behavior. Yet, as we have seen, now into the 21st Century, particularly with a variety of mental illnesses and behavior disorders, conditioning behavior modification has limits in impact.

        When mothers’ of asthmatic children are counseled and trained to take care of their children, the behavior soon reverts to past behaviors after some latent period when the continued “stimulus” is withdrawn. That is, the conditioning does not last. In addition, poor decision making skills on the part of the parent permeates other aspects of the family’s function. The asthmatic child is the one, i.e. the canary in the coal mine to come to social agency’s attention by the return to abuse of Emergency Room visits for asthma care.

        With regards to the ability to change behaviors of inner city African American youth, I believe some threshold for perceived social pain will allow a paradigm change in the way the inner city community reacts to events Instead of taking on the role of victim, rather, acting against the negative behavior to which people are confronted.

        I am encouraged by the video of the mother, during the recent Baltimore riots, grabbing her adolescent son, tearing off his mask, and dragging him home and out of the looting and social disintegration at that instant. The mother was addressing, on a very personal level, taking control of what she could control for the preservation of her child. No one went to her house and told her what to do. She did it as an act of self-family preservation and has been recognized for her instincts and behavior. Now, others within the community need similar attitudes and actions to address the current lawlessness of the urban realm.

        Change is possible and there are people in non-leadership positions who must be sought out, engage in constructive endeavors, and remain unrelenting until positive behaviors are a consistent feature of urban life.

      • °°°°°Jean Paul Zodeaux said:

        Blame is irrelevant and it is unlikely that people who actually believe they achieved success as a result of their personal determination go around affixing blame to people who’ve not achieved success.

        I don’t think there’s any empirical evidence to support that claim. Quite the contrary,

        This experimental result also addresses a third concern that economists have raised: people who do not want to give to the poor may say that the poor are lazy to justify their selfishness….

        Concern about the “undeserving poor” is pronounced in the U.S… [T]hose who say that poverty is the result of the laziness support less government redistribution and are less concerned about unemployment, poverty, and inequality than those who do not.

        [Those who say] that education, people’s parents, connections, good luck, dishonesty, and inherited money explain why some people get ahead [support more] redistribution.


        °°°°°Jean Paul Zodeaux said:

        Success is not achieved by affixing blame, it is achieved by overcoming the obstacles in one’s path.

        Again, there is little empirical evidence to support that claim.

        In a society like the United States where there is very little intergenerational mobility, the #1 precitor of someone’s future success is winning the parent lottery:

        Even in America, a tremendous amount of your life success is determined by your parents.

        Often referred to as the “birth lottery,” this concept is nothing new. The basic idea is that some people are born to families that are better off, better educated, and better situated. That matters a lot and puts them at a natural advantage.

        A new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research details just how big that advantage can be….

        Considering all that, it’s no wonder they call it the “birth lottery.” You have no say in the parental cards you draw, but there’s a lot riding on your hand.


        °°°°°Jean Paul Zodeaux said:

        Of course people achieve success because of personal determination.

        That is a partial truth. See studies cited above.

      • Glenn Stehle

        Although I like the idea of a “birth lottery” almost all the “data” accumulated is retrospective and highly biased.

        Using the same retrospecto-scope, there are a legions of books written about rich kids becoming drunks and other self-indulgent bums. Little personal achievement comes from idleness and slough except for Henry Higgins of course and his transformative speech teachings. The Southern leisure class left no shining legacy with their slavery. No art. No sciences. Nothing except cotton and riding around comparing horses and drinking mint juleps.

        So I personally throw out the “birth Lottery” writings attributing these thoughts to author self-loathing, and, again, blame. The Industrial Revolution changed materially the way people rose in society, and, in particular formed the middle class, beginning with “a nation of shopkeepers.”

      • Glenn,

        You suggested that there was no empirical evidence to support the claim that successful people don’t waste their time blaming others for their lack of success but that there was empirical evidence to the contrary, but instead of offering that empirical evidence you instead quoted Fong, Bowles, et. al., with this:

        ” people who do not want to give to the poor may say that the poor are lazy to justify their selfishness….”

        Empirical evidence? People may want a war on drugs in order to have a modern day caste system, but making such a claim does not mean that’s empirical evidence.

        To make matters worse, the next paragraph you cited by Fong et. al., your purposeful use of ellipsis makes it appear as if people in the U.S. are the one’s with this attitude:

        “Concern about the “undeserving poor” is pronounced in the U.S… [T]hose who say that poverty is the result of the laziness support less government redistribution and are less concerned about unemployment, poverty, and inequality than those who do not.”

        However, what follows your ellipsis is this:

        “…but it is far from absent in Europe. In figure 1 we show that in twelve European countries, those who say that poverty is the result of laziness support less government redistribution….”

        This is not to argue that the U.S. doesn’t have people who correlate with Europeans in regards to the same survey, only that you’re playing fast and loose with quotes to make a point I don’t think Fong et. al. are making.

        Further, this finding is based on a 1989 Eurobomater survey and the data shows a correlation between those who chose #2 (they’re lazy) on the 4 opinions provided and the none of the above option and a lack of concern for government welfare programs.

        “The results, presented in Figure 1, show that those who say that poverty is caused by laziness are less concerned about poverty than the rest of the respondents by 0.42 standard deviation. In contrast, family income has a very modest effect.4 The differences in concern about poverty between the richest and poorest quartiles is less than a quarter as great as the difference between those who think that poverty is due to laziness and those who do not.”

        You have not offered with this paper, Glenn, any empirical evidence to support the claim that successful people blame unsuccessful people for their lack of success. Instead you offered a paper that first, declares the welfare state a success, and then offers up reasons as to why.

        As to the second link, I cannot access the paper linked in the article. I Googled National Bureau of Economic Research + birth lottery but the closest I could find was Is the United States Still a Land of Opportunity? Recent Trends in Intergenerational Mobility, by Chetty, Hendren et. al., but this paper was published May of 2014, and the article you linked is dated Jan of 2014. I don’t have enough information to speak intelligently to this study, but I did read the article by Griswold, but I’m not seeing any empirical evidence showing that personal determination does not factor into success.

        “With no evidence of {my dream} ever being possible, I clung to that preposterous vision and, with the force of those dreams, willed it and made it happen…I needed the world that made me feel uninvited to be wrong. So imagined myself free. I imagined myself loved. I imagined myself as somebody.”

        ~Antoine Fisher~

        What Fisher is demonstrating is psychological resilience, or, if you will, personal determination. Resilience is no doubt dependent upon one’s ability to marshal resources and the more severe an event a child might face, the more severely can that resilience be broken and the child more inclined to adopt maladaptive behavior. But one’s imagination is never broken….perhaps temporarily stultified, but never broken.

      • RiHo08,

        So a study like that conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research is the same as “legions of books written about rich kids becoming drunks and other self-indulgent bums,” which are based entirely on anecdotal evidence?

        Rugged individualsm — the doctrine that says one should “pick yourself up by your bootstraps” — is a moral imperative. Your peremptory dismissal of the empirical data that the National Bureau of Economics marshalls is an indication that you wish to impose your moral vision upon factual reality.

        Notwithstanding your moral prejudice, the doctrine of rugged individualism is based on a partial truth.

      • Jean Paul Zodeaux,

        As I noted to RiHo08 above, rugged individualsm — the doctrine that says one should “pick yourself up by your bootstraps” — is a moral imperative.

        And your rush to spin the empirical data that Christina M. Fong et al cite in their study (linked above) is prima facie evidence that your mission is a moral one, and not a quest to ferret out factual truths, other than those factual truths that bolster your moral mandate.

        Rather than endlessly parsing the study, those interested can take a look at the study and decide for themselves what the empirical data means.

        One point I found intriguiging about the study, however, is that it found that “personal income is a surprisingly poor predictor of support for redistribution.”

        This flies in the face of orthodox economic theory, which “holds that each voter desires a personal wealth-maximizing level of redistribution.”

        If orthodox theory were true, since redistribution takes from the rich and gives to the poor, then the rich should always oppose redistribution, and the poor always support it.

        But this is not what polls have shown. Polls paint a very different picture, as the researchers explain:

        A large fraction of the poor oppose income redistribution and a large fraction of the rich support it.

        Among respondents of a nationally representative American survey (Gallup Organization 1998) who have annual household incomes of at least $150,000 and expect their lives to improve in the next five years, 24 percent respond that the government should “redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich,” and 67 percent respond that the “government in Washington DC should make every possible effort to improve the social and economic position of the poor.”

        Equally striking is the fact that among those with annual family incomes of less than $10,000 who did not expect to be better off in five years, 32 percent report that the government should not redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich, and 23 percent say that the poor should help themselves rather than having the government “make every possible effort to improve the…position of the poor.”

        So for many people, moral imperatives trump material self-interest.

        The researchers go on to explain that a much better indicator for support of redistribution is whether people believed “that the poor are poor through no fault of their own.”

        That is, generosity toward the poor is conditional on the belief that the poor work hard (Williamson 1974, Heclo 1986, Farkas and Robinson 1996, Gilens 1999, Miller 1999).

        For instance, in a 1972 sample of white women in Boston the perceived work ethic of the poor was a far better predictor of support for aid to the poor than one’s family income, religion, education, and a host of other
        demographic and social background variables (Williamson 1974).

        The rugged individualist doctrine holds that the reason that people fail to succeed is because they do not work hard enough, or lack “personal determination,” as you put it.

        Other people, however, disagree, believing instead that people fail to succeed for other reasons (e.g., structural causes, luck, the “birth lottery,” etc.)

        What one believes to be the cause of their own and others’ success or failure is the best predictor of support for redistribution.

      • Glenn Stehle

        In truth, I do discount studies that begin with a series of assumptions and then goes about proving such, re: National Bureau of Economic Research.

        I believe your assumption that I viewed the progress of the human kind from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution as one of “rugged individualism” is false.

        “Notwithstanding your moral prejudice, the doctrine of rugged individualism is based on a partial truth.”

        I purposely used the analogy of “a nation of shop keepers”, referring to a comment ascribed to Napoleon directed at England, that the origins of a middle class began in the mundane world of commerce along the streets of developing towns and eventually cities.

        As an American, I grew up and admired the push West and the pioneering spirit, your “rugged individualism”. (Laura Ingalls Wilder: Little House on the Prairie) But, the truth be told, more and more of the children born with the intent to be farm hands, instead journeyed away and found themselves in developing cities as foundry workers, tool-and-die makers, brick layers, bakers and working in shops, learning how to run a business, and, either taking over the business or branching out on their own, sometimes.

        George Bernard Shaw is probably correct that there is an “underserving poor” although the size, character and outlook for these people, in my view at least is different than during his late 19th and early 20th Century times. Today I would use the terms: poor decision makers to describe people who choose immediacy, fantasy, magical thinking: stunted very early childhood behaviors which they end up teaching their own children and perpetuate a style of social behavior doing them and society in general, no good. Public education at an earlier and earlier age is the likely way to address this issue for the children. The adults I fear are a lost cause.

        “Pain makes man think, thought makes man wise, and wisdom makes life more endurable.” Arthur Schopenhauer

        To me, this is the crux of the fallacy of the Welfare State; there is no economic pain, and, without that stimulus, there is no need to better one’s self. The welfare state allows people to get “stuck” economically and then become net “takers” from society and not net givers to society. Pretty soon, the net takers can make a considerable dent in the economic wellbeing of society itself. The politics is to keep the net takers numbers small and the net givers numbers large enough and successful enough to move society forward: economically growing.

        A focus on “social justice and reparations” is not in my mind an economic issue, rather a moral issue, and in a society that is growing economically, plays a moral role and can act as a moral compass. If the society gets to a point where moral compasses are paramount, one ends up with “religion” and the almost impossibility of forming any unity on common values, and chaos results, like South Sudan.

        A bit long winded I guess.

      • Dust off the old studies and…


        just add some crack. Here we are.

      • Arch Stanton,


        I especially found this interesting:

        It is fascinating yet terrifying to think that without the hardships of life, a species cannot survive. If we think about this from a human perspective, we see that our struggle for survival unites us as a species. Without hardship our life’s become pointless and shallow.

        I’ve seen the phenomenon many times, especially amongst some of my extremely wealthy friends. Many find something to strive for in life, but many don’t. And for those who don’t find something to strive for, the cross they have to bear is indeed a heavy one.

      • Glenn Stehle

        “Without hardship our life’s become pointless and shallow.”

        I would say: Without purpose, life becomes pointless and shallow.

        I’m not a fan of mouse/rat experiments, especially Malthusian focused. Mice and rate in social/psychological being meticulously observed behavior tends to be over analyzed, ascribing motivations and behaviors to endpoints, struggling mightily to draw connections to humans which may or may not be true, usually reflecting the biases of the researchers.

        One of the observed human phenomenon is the decreasing birth rate in societies more and more well off. Whether this birth rate decline reflects social dysfunction is moot. At least in my lifetime, I would hope to see a global increasing individual wealth accumulation and would predict as decreasing birth rate for those particular societies. Lumping the well-off with those newly well-off to those struggling to be well-off may be a bit misguided.

        For those who are or who have become well-off the struggle has been worthwhile. Now, the individuals need to be re-purposed sort of speak; i.e., find a challenge for them to latch onto and invigorate such seeking. Older, and mostly retired folk fit this category of achieving some financial stability and finding a new purpose in life, mostly helping the younger generation, seems appropriate for the time being.

        My guess is that repurposing through out most of the Eric Ericsson’s life stages will become the norm.

        I wasn’t born a mouse or rat and predicting what I will be doing tomorrow based on rodents seems pointless to me.

      • “And your rush to spin the empirical data that Christina M. Fong”

        It is not I who edited Fong et. al. in order to suit my purposes, that was you Glenn.

        “One point I found intriguiging about the study, however, is that it found that “personal income is a surprisingly poor predictor of support for redistribution.”

        Exactly! And yet, it is supposedly I who is using Fong to push my moral agenda. Again, my issue was with the slight being given to personal determination and the implication that successful people “blame” unsuccessful people for their lack of success, and you went and attempted to refute my defense of personal determination by citing Fong, when Fong isn’t making your argument.

        “This flies in the face of orthodox economic theory, which “holds that each voter desires a personal wealth-maximizing level of redistribution.”

        First of all agents would be more accurate than “voters” as it includes the disenfranchised, non-voters in terms of rational choice theory. Rational choice theory is not limited to voters. It is Bowles who likes to limit the theory to “voters”, but it is also Bowles that likes to make the point that:

        “A large fraction of the poor oppose income redistribution, and a large fraction of the rich support it. Among respondents of a nationally representative US survey who have annual household incomes of at least $150,000 and expect their lives to improve in the next five years, 24 percent respond that the government should redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich and 67 percent respond that the ‘government in Washington, DC should make every possible effort to improve the social and economic position of the poor’. Equally striking is the fact that among those with annual family incomes of less than $10,000 who did not expect to better of in five years, 32 percent report that the government should not redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich, and 23 percent say “that the poor should help themselves rather than have the government make every possible effort to…improve the position of the poor.”

        ~The New Economics of Inequality and Redistribution – Samuel Bowles p. 132-133~

        Secondly, this fact does not “(fly) in the face” of rational choice theory unless one erroneously assumes that Washington DC is making every possible effort to improve the social and economic position of the poor. It is likely that the respondents who were poor had a clearer picture of how this “wealth redistribution” scheme actually works and who really benefits from it. Fong made mention of the “undeserving poor” but failed to clearly demonstrate that the modern welfare state, of which Fong declares a “remarkable achievement” is predicated on separating the “deserving poor” from the “undeserving poor”.

        The modern welfare state has declared the aged, infirm and disabled as more deserving poor than the young able bodied poor and the benefits redistributed to the aged, infirm and disabled are noticeably higher than the benefits the unemployed receive. The “undeserving poor” is very much a fixture in the modern welfare state, and if the poor who qualify as “undeserving” are the same as the respondents cited by Bowels then the rationale is easier to understand.

        Thirdly, it is more than just a tad disingenuous to raise arguments of wealth redistribution and then dismiss the opposing argument as being a
        “moral imperative”.

    • Eight years of Obumbles’ constant ranting about racial issues has left the country more racially charged than since the 60’s and 70’s. He, Lynch, and much of the Dimowit party are to blame.

      However, the police, or more likely state and local governments, very much need to run background checks and as many relevant psychological checks as possible on police. Policemen know who in their group is a little flaky or racist. They need to start purging themselves of those people. Then there needs to be a lot of tactical training. Even at that, there will be inadvertent shootings.

  4. FROM: “Deniers” may hold the Balance of Power in the Aussie Senate [link]

    Both parties can lay claim to the dubious distinction of perpetrating the only environmental catastrophe visible from space.

    These people are not in jail where they belong…

    Hanson will find a way to jumble racism with climate obstruction. As Naomi Klein presciently argues they already go hand in glove.

    Virulent authoritarianism and race-baiting.

    What a lovely combination.

    It’s the new face of fascism sweeping the Anglo-American world.

    • Curious George

      The only environmental catastrophe visible from space? Surely not. Greens in Czech Republic allowed a bark beetle to kill a national park Sumava. You can’t see it in recent satellite pictures – there is a new greenery growing – but it was conspicuous around 2005, at around 48:50’N, 13:50′ E.

      The national park has an interesting history. Under communist rule it was a forbidden area along the West German border, with minefields and electrified fences. Nature took over. Even today, with fences gone for 25 years, German deer do not dare to cross into Czech Republic, and vice versa.

  5. Paris COP21 – STATUS OF RATIFICATION. What is the implications of only 19 parties having received ratification of their government signing of the agreement… corresponding to 19 ratified out of total 179 signed and only 0.18% of global emissions … Norway being the only developed economy. Obviously the figures are fairly meaningless at this point. Does it take several for countries to achieve ratification ? … what was the experience with Kyoto??

  6. johnvonderlin

    “Why Trump winds (link)” Beautiful typo. Did you mean “Why Trump winds up in the trash bin of history?” or “Why Trump is a Windbag?”
    Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Ho hum. So Hillary, on incomplete info, made a spin-oriented pronouncement that turned out to be wrong about the cause of a terrorist act. Wouldn’t she have known the truth would out, as it did? A politician making a self-serving initial estimate? Shocking!
    How about Mr. Rump’s “spin” about Egyptair 804:in his nearly immediate Tweet: “Looks like yet another terrorist attack. Airplane departed from Paris. When will we get tough, smart and vigilant? Great hate and sickness!” He then followed that up with the even more intemperate “A plane got blown out of the sky. And if anyone doesn’t think it was blown out of the sky, you’re 100% wrong,” 100%? gotta love him putting his rep on the line with such surety.
    Maybe I and other level-headed skeptical folks that thought who the passengers were, mainly Sunni Muslims, the small number of passengers on the plane and the fact it was an Egyptian plane, made it unlikely it was a terrorist act are wrong. Probably not. The evidence seems to be unfolding that we were not, but rather that Dangerous Donald is a foolish windbag who shoots from the hip without the facts.

    • Sorry John, but your inability to see Hillary’s performance for what it was – self serving and gutless – doesn’t say much for your comprehension.

      I once considered a career at State, took Foreign Service exam and did well. I eventually concluded I wouldn’t do well, knowing that the first time I presented a briefing paper that wasn’t in line with the political decision, I’d end up assigned to evaluating agricultural production for Chad. As prior service, if I am in a meeting to determine crisis response to events unfolding in Benghazi and some dipthong brings up the questions of getting Libyan permission and whether US Marines should be in uniform or not, I would have been hard pressed to not physically assault them. Those kind of points can only be raised by people who have never been at personal risk.

      But then maybe you don’t include Hillary in that category, seeing how she once dodged sniper fire.

    • While Americans undoubtedly find the downing of Egyptair flight 804 interesting, in the upcoming elections most have other priorities. The author of the cited article, Scott McConnell, named a number of these more pressing issues:

      • [Trump] won the support of those who favored changing trade and immigration policies, which, it is increasingly obvious, do not favor the tangible interests of the average American.

      • He won the backing of those alarmed by a new surge of political correctness, an informal national speech code that seeks to render many legitimate political opinions unsayable.

      • He won the support of white working-class voters whose social and economic position had been declining for a generation.

      • He won many who consciously or unconsciously identified with the pre-multicultural America that existed for most of the last century.

      • And he won with backing from the growing group of Republicans who understand that the Iraq War was an unmitigated disaster.

      But I do understand where the defenders of the Republicrat establishment, including the Hillarymongers, are coming from. They want to distract attention from the issues that McConnell listed.

      And the reason is clarion: If the establishment and its defenders are not able to make the election about irrelevant minutia and trivia, and identity politics, they lose.

    • Personally, I think Billary is guilty as sin. But OTOH, she polls worse against Trump than Sanders or, IIRC, even Biden. So, I don’t want to see her indicted. From the article:

      “Did you review the documents where Congressman Jim Jordan asked her specifically, and she said ‘There was nothing marked classified on my emails either sent or received,’” Congressman Chaffetz asked.

      “I don’t remember reviewing that particular testimony,” Director Comey replied. “I am aware of that being said, though.”

      “Did the FBI investigate her statements under oath on this topic?” Congressman Chaffetz asked.

      “Not to my knowledge — I don’t think there has been a referral from Congress,” Director Comey replied.

      “Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?” Congressman Chaffetz asked.

      “Sure do,” Comey replied.

      Congressman Chaffetz then left no doubt that the FBI would have one, very soon.

      “You’ll have one. You’ll have one in the next few hours,” Chaffetz said.


  7. Geoff Sherrington

    Australia. My country.
    Liz Conor is not known widely in Australia. Nobody is likely to give her weight of authority.
    Especially after an intemperate, factually wrong diatribe like the one linked above. It is merely more inconsequential chattering class stuff that people shrug off and forget.

  8. Distilled Donald:

  9. RE: The Democrats’ climate change conundrum [link]
    Bernie Sanders’s Climate Change Activists Are Losing Hope [link]

    The Warmist/Alarmist zealots are truly scary. Thank heavens they’re Clinton’s problem and not Trump’s, even though he has his own internicine battles to fight with the neocons and neoliberals.

    Here’s what the new face of fascism in America looks like:

    Democratic Party Platform 7/1/16 Draft Would Lock In Catastrophic Climate Change

    Here are top policy priorities for an actually effective climate policy which can replace or supplement existing planks.

    • Declaration of a Climate Emergency. [Folks, we’re talking marshall law here.]

    • Climate and Sustainability Public Awareness Program. The federal government in cooperation with educators, writers, and entertainers will create a campaign to explain the need for a full-scale transformation of the energy basis and resource-use patterns of our civilization through broadcast media and public events.

    • Net-zero emissions within a decade or less (8 years at best).

    • Build a Smart Renewable Energy Electric Supergrid that balances renewable energy flows (mostly wind, solar, and clean energy storage from sun and existing hydroelectric) with energy demand throughout the day (electricity most often must be generated just before its used). Power will be transported from where it is generated to where it is needed, enabling the replacement of fossil fuel generating stations.

    • Continental High Speed and Maglev Rail System, enabling rapid cross-continental and intercity travel using renewable energy.

    • Electrify Interstates and arterial road system. Via overhead or pavement embedded electrical transmission equipment, electric vehicles and trucks can be charged as they move, minimizing the requirement for on-board electrical storage.

    • Carbon Sequestration Program in Forests and Agricultural Practices

    • Emergency Cooling Program – Develop treaties that enable coordinated efforts to keep the earth cool as emissions are slowed and stopped

    • Why Shouldn’t the US Federal Government Invest $4-$6 Trillion Per Year on Climate Protection?

    • A US Climate Platform: Anchoring Climate Policy to Reality

    • David L. Hagen

      Policy by Alarmists
      “• Net-zero emissions within a decade or less (8 years at best).”
      Obviously not a rational economist or engineer in sight.
      ” Emergency Cooling Program – Develop treaties that enable coordinated efforts to keep the earth cool as emissions are slowed and stopped”
      Alarmists have not thought of the consequences of rapidly advancing the next glaciation with the consequent catastrophic reduction of food production.

  10. Peter Lang


    Thanks for posting the Quadrant article on Pauline Hanson and the sexists bias and crudity of the ABC and left media in Australia

  11. Professor Mark Blyth explains the real roots of Brexit & Trump
    I think he nailed it.

  12. More on Benghazi and the Woman Who Would Be President
    Extremely depressing.

  13. Cling to your guns, your Bill of Rights, and your Constitution. From the article:

    Calls for strict gun control following a deadly week in America come despite new statistics that show gun deaths plummeting as sales of firearms soar.

    According to the industry’s trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, homicides by gun have dropped 43 percent since 1991. Other crime with a gun such as robberies have decreased even more, by 70 percent since 1993.

    In a graphic display of the numbers, NSSF also showed that unintentional deaths with a gun have dropped 82 percent.

    Along the way, gun sales have soared to 140 million a year.

    “We’re urging all of our customers, including members of law enforcement and civilians, to stay vigilant. The best defense against a mass shooting is to buy a gun, get trained to use that gun, and carry it all the time,” said Justin Anderson, the marketing director of Hyatt Guns of Charlotte, N.C., one of the nation’s biggest sellers.

    • Downtown Dallas sounded like a war zone for a while there, like the inside of the Orlando night club a few weeks back. These aren’t defensive weapons. They are highly offensive. No call for them in a civilized society.

      • For once JimD I agree. There seems no valid reason for US citizens to purchase and use a SKS Semi-Automatic Rifle.

      • From the article:

        Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


      • “…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations…”. This might reflect the thinking of certain parts of the black community today, and we saw the result of that thinking in Dallas. Guns enable retaliations, even unjustified ones like this. In your ideal world, guns only empower the righteous and honest, but in reality whoever has the most guns wins, regardless of their morality, and that is not a good thing.

      • It’s in our best interest for everyone who is not truly mentally ill to have a gun. Long or pistol. That way “the people” will have the most guns.

        But we definitely need to profile Muslims, even if the odd mass shooting isn’t due to them.

      • Idealistic view of “the people”. What happens under anarchy is tribalism.

      • And you know what a war zones like how?

        For that matter how do you know what Dallas sounded like?

        One shooter does not a war zone make. Anyone familiar with firearms would have likely been able to determine a single shooter. Some may have even guessed correctly at the weapon being fired.

      • Now they are saying it was a high-velocity semi-automatic assault rifle with a 30-round magazine, which is different from the one mentioned above. These guns give even the 2nd amendment a bad name.

      • Peter Davies,

        The valid reason is called the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

        There is a reason the right to bear arms follows immediately after the roght for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion.

      • “Downtown Dallas sounded like a war zone…”

        How America’s police became so heavily armed:

        “ON MAY 18th Barack Obama barred the federal government from providing some military equipment to American police departments. The extraordinary arsenal maintained by some departments—which includes body armour, powerful weapons and armoured vehicles—has been highly visible over the last year, a result of outbreaks of unrest in response to police violence. In August 2014 Darren Wilson, a police officer, shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old black man in Ferguson, Missouri, sparking large local demonstrations. Two days after the shooting, tactical officers—paramilitary police generally referred to as SWAT (for Special Weapons and Tactics)—were called in to help clear protestors from in front of Ferguson’s police department. They arrived dressed for war, in riot gear and gas masks, bearing long truncheons and automatic weapons. Americans have grown used to seeing police respond to protests with tear gas, carrying automatic weapons and sniper rifles, and riding in vehicles that would not look out of place in Baghdad or Aleppo. The days of the beat cop walking the street with nothing more than a trusty old revolver seem distant indeed. How did America’s police forces get so heavily armed?”


      • ““Downtown Dallas sounded like a war zone…”

        WAR COMES HOME – The Excessive Militarization of American Policing:

        “Our neighborhoods are not warzones, and police officers should not be treating us like wartime enemies. Any yet, every year, billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment flows from the federal government to state and local police departments. Departments use these wartime weapons in everyday policing, especially to fight the wasteful and failed drug war, which has unfairly targeted people of color.

        As our new report makes clear, it’s time for American police to remember that they are supposed to protect and serve our communities, not wage war on the people who live in them.”


      • “Downtown Dallas sounded like a war zone…”

        Does the militarization of American police help them serve and protect?

        “But it took a major news event for the report to get noticed. It came out last June, but it wasn’t until Michael Brown was killed by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 9, 2014, that mainstream media started calling. The police response to the peaceful protests that followed Brown’s shooting shoved the militarization of American police forces into the national spotlight thanks to images of officers in full battle dress pointing assault rifles at unarmed citizens.”


      • ““Downtown Dallas sounded like a war zone…”


        “The intensive militarization of America’s police forces is a serious menace about which a small number of people have been loudly warning for years, with little attention or traction. In a 2007 paper on “the blurring distinctions between the police and military institutions and between war and law enforcement,” the criminal justice professor Peter Kraska defined “police militarization” as “the process whereby civilian police increasingly draw from, and pattern themselves around, the tenets of militarism and the military model.”

        The harrowing events of the last week in Ferguson, Missouri – the fatal police shooting of an unarmed African-American teenager, Mike Brown, and the blatantly excessive and thuggish response to ensuing community protests from a police force that resembles an occupying army – have shocked the U.S. media class and millions of Americans.”


      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, what’s different about it? It’s the same rifle in the link or they have identified the rifle wrong.

      • Now they say he was found with an AK-74, not SKS. Maybe he had both. Seems to me, these are different, but I don’t know much about guns.

      • Yes, there is no official word on the weapon type. It’s from a leaked photo.

      • Jean Paul Zodeaux said:

        ….which has unfairly targeted people of color.

        Maybe so, but nobody is immune:


      • stevenreincarnated

        It really doesn’t make much difference. In the Dallas situation even the clip size doesn’t make a difference although you can get 30 round clips for the SKS also. I’m not too sure about the picture going around on the net being the actual rifle though. Not enough left of him to do a toxicology report on and yet the rifle seems in fairly good shape.

      • “Jean Paul Zodeaux said:

        ….which has unfairly targeted people of color.”

        In fact, I said no such thing. An unattributed author over at the ACLU website wrote that. As a matter of clarification, I cited that, and other articles to demonstrate the long standing “war zone” like environment created by the militarization of the police. This issue is so recognizable that even the odious anti unalienable rights organization the ACLU is addressing it. I do not like the ACLU at all, but I don’t mind citing them in this demonstration of police militarization as it only illustrates how disparate groups can recognize a common problem that needs to be addressed.

        I did not say “which has unfairly targeted people of color” (nor do I have any interest in refuting that claim). I did say that this police problem has affected all races and I stand by that.

      • Jean Paul Zodeaux,

        Did you see this?



        The symbolism of a single person’s nonviolence resistance against a large, heavily armed opposition is reminiscent of a handful of other famous photographs, including Marc Riboud’s shot of a Vietnam war protester holding a flower in front of armed police, or the image of the lone protester confronting a tank in Tiananmen Square.

        I don’t know how nonviolent, in aggregate, the protests were, but nevertheless it’s a powerful image.

        VIDEO: Baton Rouge protests turned tense and dangerous

        VIDEO: Protesters clash with police in St. Paul over death of Philando Castile
        Protesters clash with police in St. Paul over death of Philando Castile

      • RE type of weapon:

        It is a bit hard to tell from one photo, but the weapon pictured could as be a Saiga shotgun. The barrel seems larger then the 5.45 mm round would use. However the magazine doesn’t look big enough for 12 gauge shells.


      • Antoni Scalia did NOT rule out gun control:

        There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.



    • jim2,

      Banning the sale of guns to the general public might lead to more lethal unintended consequences. The death toll from a recent bombing in Baghdad is over 300. Even Timothy McVeigh’s home grown bomb killed around 168 in Oklahoma.

      Or you could use Sarin gas, or remote controlled bombs, as the US police just did to kill a gunman.

      Luckily, most “terrorists” are not very bright. They manage to blow up their underpants or shoes, often themselves, and occasionally their intended victims. Anybody of reasonable intelligence can devise means of killing en masse, without the need for firearms. Banning guns might just invite the attention of more devious killers. Who would know?

      The third leading cause of death in the US is apparently medical error. Not many people seem concerned. How many people can rattle off the death toll from motor vehicle accidents? Or suicide?

      I have no good answers, and I wonder at the absolute certainty of those who claim they do. Experts of all stamps have proven remarkably adept at being wrong, time after time.

      Maybe politicians could have good think before rushing off half cocked.


      • Mike

        Here is an interesting article on police in various countries who do not regularly carry guns


        Of course, police not regularly carrying guns relies in large measure on citizens not regularly carrying guns either. Why does any citizen need a semi automatic weapon? Surely they should be banned then you can work down from there


      • Tony, we in the US don’t live on an island. Criminal gangs, US and foreign, will smuggle guns into the country. If the government bans guns, which is against the law here per the Constitution, only criminals will have guns. That is not the recipe for happiness you seem to imagine it is. A few high profile shootings do not make a good reason to ban guns.

    • How much confidence can we have in the establishment when a majority of voters who voted twice for a president who doesn’t even like America? I’ll stick with the Constitution: it was written by people who actually wanted a country that respected individual liberty.

  14. The New Matilda should stick to what it’s good at: making false claims about the Barrier Reef and helping destroy jobs and tourism. (If punters actually go to the Reef’s main tourist spots right now they’ll still see lovely, healthy coral, and we can’t have that!)

    By adding a truck-full of patronising to the mega-tonnage of patronising already piled on Hanson and her supporters – she had a fish and chips shop and doesn’t know big words! – Big Smug (in the form of the ABC, New Matilda etc) is shepherding thousands of conservatives and Labor voters toward Hanson’s movement.

    It’s not Hanson for many of them. (Me, I think she’s a bit dodgy, though I could be wrong.) It’s the patronising of Hanson by people who might know big words but who would faint if they had to run a fish and chips shop at a profit for just one day.

    Big Smug and its pet media are loathed. You’d think being such know-alls they would know that.

  15. Professor Mark Blyth explains the real roots of Brexit & Trump:

    It is a revolt against government by unrepresented, unelected, undemocratic elites.

    • Yeah, that nailed it.

      But Blyth’s broader economic analyses were way off the mark: for example, free trade does not lower living standards — it raises them: the law of comparative advantage has yet to be refuted. (To be sure, the WTO, EU, NAFTA, TPP, etc. are not free trade: they’re bureaucratically “managed trade.”)

      The real problem is that the West has, in the last half century, created economies in which most bright people try to avoid jobs in which they produce goods or services that people actually want to buy with their own money (i.e., things you have to buy due to government mandates do not count).

      E.g., my sister-in-law makes a good living as a “green consultant,” although she knows essentially nothing about climate science, engineering, accounting, or anything that might actually be relevant. When I think about my sibs, step-sibs, cousins, in-laws, etc., few are actually producing goods or services people voluntarily wish to buy.

      More often than not, parents want their kids to go to college so they can make a living without actually having to work. For a parent to insist that his kid major in something where he can actually do something useful is considered tantamount to child abuse.

      If a large fraction of the population is doing “work” that is not productive, most people’s standard of living just cannot be that high.

      Of course, the great irony is that the highest standard of living is often enjoyed by those engaged in the most parasitic activities.

      I would have voted for Brexit just to strike out at the parasitic elites, and I will probably vote for Trump for the same reason.

      But, let’s not use bogus economics to hide the real problem: too many people’s “work” is not productive work.

      Dave Miller in Sacramento

      • The problem with “free” trade, as it is currently practiced under Bretton Woods II, are the structural trade imbalances which have become permanent fixtures of chronic debtor countries like the UK and the US:



        And yes, this does create a situation in the US and the UK where a great many people can engage in unproductive, if not outright predatory, activities.

        The million-dollar question, however, is “Why did US policy makers do this?”

        Here’s one theory:

        The U.S. has been perfectly happy to accede to the current state of affairs in spite of the immense economic damage it has inficted on its domestic manufacturing sector (and the concomitant evisceration of its middle class) because it has provided the country with a cheap form of war finance, a particularly important consideration as it has gradually militarised its energy policy.

        If one includes America’s array of privately outsourced services along with a professional permanent military, the costs run around three-quarters of a trillion dollars a year. Chinese, Japanese and other central
        banks of East Asia via Bretton Woods II indirectly finance this cost.


      • Glenn. The link doesn’t work. So, what is “America’s array of privately outsourced services”?

      • jim2,

        You might try Googling “Renegade Economics: The Bretton Woods II Fiction” by Chris P. Dialynas and Marshall Auerback”

        For me, it’s the first thing that comes up, and one can go there and download the paper in pdf format


      • David,

        “Blyth’s broader economic analyses were way off the mark: for example, free trade does not lower living standards — it raises them: the law of comparative advantage has yet to be refuted.”

        Prof Blyth is a professor of political economy at Brown, specializing in dynamics of international affairs. Do you really believe he does not know the theory and history of international trade?

        First, it’s absurd to call “comparative advantage” a “law”. It is a theory. It need not be “refuted” because it has not been proven.

        Second, David Ricardo did not say that free trade was always of universal benefit. He said it benefited both sides when the key factors of production were not mobile (On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, chapter 7). That was true in 1817, but not so today. Three of the key factors are mobile: knowledge, capital, and labor (both as migration and outsourcing). This changes everything, as has become obvious during the past few decades.

        There is a debate in the economics literature about the dynamics of free trade under modern conditions. I suspect the result will be like the transition from the physics of Newton to Einstein — with the former becoming a special case of a broader set of dynamics.

        For details see Globalization and free trade: wonders of a past era, now enemies of America?

      • catweazle666


      • catweazle666

        So there is no confusion, the +1000 is for David Miller , not Fabius Maximus.

      • Editor of the Fabius Maximus website | wrote to me:

        Prof Blyth is a professor of political economy at Brown, specializing in dynamics of international affairs. Do you really believe he does not know the theory and history of international trade?

        I have a Ph.D., from Stanford, so, yes, it is quite plausible to me that a professor at an elite university can be woefully ignorant of his own subject.

        If you don’t mind, I shall refrain from listing specific names of such professors at Stanford, but, oh yes, they do exist.


      • In reply to me, Glenn Stehle quoted:

        The U.S. has been perfectly happy to accede to the current state of affairs in spite of the immense economic damage it has inficted on its domestic manufacturing sector (and the concomitant evisceration of its middle class) because it has provided the country with a cheap form of war finance…

        I worked in the defense industry for a time, and I will certainly second the claim that defense is one of those unproductive areas of the economy. I myself was truly shocked at the level of featherbedding and corruption in the defense industry.

        And, yes, all of this relates to the malfunctioning of our monetary and financial system: e.g., the institutionalized and accepted (even celebrated!) inflation that discourages saving.

        But, the ultimate and damning result is that we do not produce as much as we would like to consume. In the long run, you cannot consume more than you produce, and ordinary Americans are paying the price.


      • Fortunately our kids have found productive careers. One is an RN and the other writes code.

        Now that isn’t the same as my grandfather and Uncles who were immigrant coal miners, but I am proud of them.

      • Editor of the Fabius Maximus website wrote to me:

        First, it’s absurd to call “comparative advantage” a “law”. It is a theory. It need not be “refuted” because it has not been proven.

        Actually, it is a theorem of mathematics and it has been proven. If you took any sort of decent intro micro course (yes, many intro micro courses are not decent), you should have seen this.

        It is true that one can concoct models in which, due to “distributional effects,” a significant part of the population does not enjoy the benefits that flow from free trade: that is not a novel point — I pointed out that fact to my high-school teacher when we covered the subject over four decades ago. However, those models are a bit contrived.

        Furthermore, when it is so obvious why working-class standards of living have done so badly — i.e.,, the large fraction of unproductive work in the present-day economy — there is no need to gin up some story that blames free trade.

        Ask your physician whether the exploding cost of medical care has been matched by exploding salaries for physicians. Call up your local school district and ask what fraction of their employees are actually class-room teachers. Or, ask our host here whether the exploding cost of a college education has gone into the bank accounts of university professors.

        No, we have created institutional structures which encourage and mandate non-productive work. And, people’s standards of living necessarily suffer as a result.


  16. Street-level example of poor validation of scientific testing and methods. This is a political issue as well as a scientific one.

    Widespread evidence shows that these [drug] tests routinely produce false positives. Why are police departments and prosecutors across the country still using them?


  17. I would appreciate Tony’s take on this:

    “I think she’s the victim of a mega stitch up. I think she’s been treated, actually, by the media very much the way I was back in 2014 like just get the feeling that if you really challenge the establishment they become back and bite you very very hard”.
    These were the words of the outgoing UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage on LBC radio on Sunday morning, as Britain’s newspapers launched into another barrage of hatred against the socially conservative, pro-Brexit candidate to be the next leader of the Conservative Party.


    • jim2,

      Did you see the two videos of her in action that Eric Halfabe (@EricHalfabe)
      posted on a prior thread?

      From these, it’s pretty easy to see why she would become the object of TWO MINUTES HATE! from the Finance-Military-Big Oil industrial complex.





    • Jim2

      Yes, I fully agree with the comments in that paragraph from Farage.

      . Leadsom is socially conservative, anti establishment and a ‘leaver’ so is hated by the establishment. Disgraceful witch hunt and amply illustrates why a factor in the leave vote was to protest against our ‘betters’ who always seem to think they know better than we do.

      May is an establishment figure who in 6 years as Home Secretary presided over the largest immigration increase in our recent history. I do not see her as anything more than a middle ranking minister.

      Leadsom is an unknown, but the very fact she is unknown will play with the wider public. It is the members of the Tory party who will vote however and it is too early to know how affected they are by the tirade against Leadsom, because otherwise I feel they might favour her seeing as she is a ‘leaver’ as are most of the members.


      • I would not classify the Home Secretary as a middle ranking position. It is one of the big four positions (Chancellor, Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, Home Secretary). Leadsom is in the tough position of holding UKIP at arm’s length while also trying to embrace the right wing of her support. The interview with the BBC showed an example of that juggling act. May’s more steady and centrist views will play to those who are not in the mood for even more unpredictable extremism after the roughing of the waters from Brexit.

      • JIMD

        I did not say the position of Home Secretary was middle ranking, merely that it is May who is so. She was promoted above her abilities.

        Yes, of course a steady hand on the tiller is a perfectly understandable desire. May has shown little in the last 6 years to show she can bring the ship of state safely into harbour. If she was smart she would immediately appoint David Davis as her chief Brexit negotiator which would build a bridge to Brexiteers and give her access to someone that, had the chips fallen differently, may well have been Prime Minister instead of Cameron.


      • catweazle666

        “If she was smart…”

        She isn’t.

        Not even close.

        She has already intimated (via a third party) that she has a preference for a second referendum, in the hope that the plebs will get it right this time, in true EU tradition.

        Should she become PM, things could get decidedly messy.

  18. David Wojick

    The big issue with Trump is who will be his running mate. He is torn between wanting star power and experience. Palin provides both but I guess she is not on the list.

    • David,

      As political scientists have proven repeatedly (see the Monkey Cage column at the WaPo), VP picks seldom (almost never) have any substantial effect on the election.

      As John Nance Garner said, the job of VP is “not worth a bucket of warm spit” — unless the President dies.

      • David Wojick

        I think this derives from the fact that the original Constitution, not anticipating the two party system, make the VP the person with the second highest vote count, hence head of the opposition. But now VP’s can be important, Gore for example.

      • David Wojick

        Gore packed EPA and DOE with climate alarmists, many of whom are still in power because Bush was indifferent to the issue.

    • DW, Trump said (for what that may be worth) that he wanted someone to navigate the ways of Congress. That means Pence or Gingrich. Pence is an evangelical social conservative, which helps that faction. Gringrich has much more national political experience and exposure. Palin would provide neither. If Pence, the decision has to come by July 15, or Trump throws the Indiana governor election into turmoil. Pence apparently cannot run for Indiana governor and VP at the same time under Indiana law, unlike Paul Ryan in 2012 simultaneously running for VP and to keep his congressional seat.

      • David Wojick

        He also said he wanted star power which neither Pence nor (has been) Gingerich offer. Then there is the General. Trump would like to surprise us.

    • This has always been an issue of fear,


      on both sides as the good guys and the bad guys up-gun. Now what does our world look like in 2100?


        Listening to liberals like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, you would think that enormous numbers of black men are being gunned down by police officers. When the issue is debated, many take it for granted that a vastly disproportionate number of blacks are involved in police shootings–in fact, if you didn’t know better, you might think that only blacks are ever shot by policemen.

        The numbers tell a different story…..

        In short, the data on police shootings show that blacks are involved in such incidents just about exactly as often as one would expect, given their violent crime rate. Slicing and dicing the numbers is interesting, but doesn’t generate any obviously relevant correlations that would change that finding. Which means that, unless someone can make a compelling argument based on the data, which we have not yet seen, the Black Lives Matter movement is founded on a lie.

  19. Barroso chez Goldman Sachs, un bras d’honneur à l’Europe

    Former President of the European Commission joins Goldman Sachs. How cozy.

  20. Sanders backers frustrated by defeats at Orlando platform meeting

    Frustrated supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders were dealt a series of defeats as they made their last stand Saturday inside an Orlando hotel, where fellow Democrats refused to adopt several of their candidate’s progressive policies into the party’s platform….

    Sanders backers jeered as a total ban on natural gas “fracking” failed….

    Sanders supporters did not get all they wanted on the subject of fracking… A progressive amendment put forward Josh Fox, Oscar-nominated director of the documentary “Gasland,” called for a total moratorium.

    “There is a political revolution going on in this country and fracking has no place in it,” Fox said.

    Instead, the committee passed another compromise, calling to close a “loophole” preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating fracking, and stating that the practice should not be used in communities which object to it.

    Sanders supporters booed as the compromise passed.

    However, they did get something on their environmental wish list: an amendment stating that carbon dioxide emissions “should be priced to reflect their negative externalities,” and which also rejected the Keystone XL pipeline.

    It passed unanimously, to applause and chants of “Bernie! Bernie!”

  21. @jim2 | July 10, 2016 at 5:30 pm in moderation

  22. From the article:

    The airwaves are full of pundits screaming about violence against police officers. These are the same pundits that disregarded the warnings of experts in the field of insurgency when the Ferguson riots broke out and chose to dismiss the rioters as “thugs.” They continued to cheerlead for more police militarization even after the first officers were shot in targeted killings. They are now continuing their efforts to support police militarization. Those of us that warned of this last year, have watched in horror as all of our predictions came true. We are now in the fourth stage of the cycle of insurgency. The fifth stage is open insurrection. It is time for officers to dismiss the pundits on Fox News that have never held a firearm outside of a range and listen to people that know what they are talking about. None of us that have made these warnings did so because these are things we want to happen, we did it in an attempt to stop them from happening. A year after my first article on the subject, every single prediction has come true. Can the pundits on Fox News say that? No, and listening to their rhetoric has caused more cops and innocents to die.

    Certainly, departments all over the country will be issuing memos explaining the new security procedures to counter the threat of targeted killings. Some officers may have already received one. Allow me to guess its contents. The memo suggests riding in pairs, only answering a call once back up has arrived, sitting at separate tables when you eat in a restaurant, and performing all actions as a team to provide greater security. I’d be willing to bet that the phrase “safety in numbers” is somewhere in the memo. These tactics will all fail. The attackers will simply upgrade from firearms to pipe bombs.


  23. VIDEO:
    • Hundreds arrested in protests over shootings by police
    • Protesters shut down I-94
    • Protesters threw rocks, fireworks at police
    • At least 5 police officers injured


    • catweazle666

      You know Willard, one reason that I, an Englishman, devoutly hope that Donald Trump will win the forthcoming Presidential election is that it will boil the urine of all the right people, such as you and your thoroughly obnoxious, sanctimonious ilk.

      Nor am I the only one in my country who feels that way, not by a long chalk.

      We’ve broken the mould with Brexit, hopefully the Cousins will follow our lead!

      TRUMP 2016!

      • Catzy, Catzy, quite contrary,
        How does your garden grow?
        With Donald bells, and Brexit shells,
        And pretty GROWWWTH all in a row.

      • catweazle666

        one reason that I, an Englishman, devoutly hope that Donald Trump will win the forthcoming Presidential election is that it will boil the urine of all the right people, such as you and your thoroughly obnoxious, sanctimonious ilk.

        Plus Many!

        Go GB.

        Brexit may be the best thing that happens for a long time – especially if is causes the Paris Agreement to fall apart and the EU energy policies and the EU proletariat to be replaced by system of representative democracy.

      • Boiling urine is the most intelligent justification for a Trump vote I’ve yet come across. By a long chalk.

    • That’s pretty funny. It’s sort of like a NY Post type article.

    • Barack T Firefly beat him to it.

    • David Springer

      Weaponized Willard want to help The Donald.

      Vote Trump!

  24. From the article:

    Hillary Clinton’s 5 Biggest Lies in Her Benghazi Testimony

    Hillary Cared Deeply About the Human Cost.

    Hillary Thought The Attacks Had Something to Do With a YouTube Video.

    Hillary Didn’t Use Sidney Blumenthal As an Advisor.

    Hillary Was Transparent About Her Emails.

    Chris Stevens Was Responsible for His Own Death.


    • Benghazi has had more hearings than the Iraq War or 9/11. Was it more serious? Would it have happened if Kerry had been the Secretary of State? Perspective is needed. The UK just had a major 12-volume report on the lead-up to the Iraq War and handling of the aftermath. The leadership acted on poor information in which they were too trusting of the US administration. Blair indeed was Bush’s poodle, as he was accused of at the time. Similar things could be found out about that from the US end. Who made the poor calls about WMD, based on exactly what information, and that was a more consequential set of decisions in terms of what has happened since. Do Congress care? Apparently not as much as about Benghazi.

      • jimd

        we have had around 5 official enquiries on Iraq, of which the one published by chilcot a few days ago was by far the most comprehensive. It is important to hold people to account, especially when fictitious claims of WMD precipitated a devastating war with many after effects.

        Has anything similar been published in the US?


      • Yes, the BBC has a report on this here.
        There was also a 9/11 commission and recently there has been talk of releasing 28 pages kept secret that incriminates high-level Saudis more in the financing and pre-knowledge. I think important things are still not out on these two issues.

      • Tony, a lot of the inaccurate intel came from an Iraqi defector. Here is a Senate report on the intel.


      • Billary’s sorry behavior at the time of the incident to the present is serious in any case. But the woman is running for President. I don’t believe she would have my back in a critical situation. She might put any number donors from various countries above my welfare. She lies to us, US citizens, at the drop of a hat. I can’t think of any reason I would want her to lead my country, not one.

        Crooked Hillary is the shoe that fits and she ain’t no Cinderella.

      • My reply is in moderation, but the upshot is, I can’t trust her to have my back.

      • The capabilities of the CIA are vastly overrated. After reading the history of this agency and learning how poorly it served Presidents at times all the way back to Truman, I developed a little more sympathy for Bush and Blair. The intelligence is seldom truly solid. Rather it is a mixture of using sources of dubious reliability along with fitting a mosaic of data and information into something resembling a WAG. Believing in the competence of the CIA when it was not justified led to some poor decisions by both Blair and Bush.

        They tried to convince Ike to topple the Iraqi government in the 1950s.. He said no thanks. Having relied on intelligence of dubious quality in WWII might have given him some insights into what can be known and what cannot be known.

      • They got the answer from the CIA that they were looking for. However, the CIA did not back up their hoped for answer on African yellowcake uranium that was rumoured from British intelligence, but the President put it in his State of the Union anyway. The executive branch had their answer already, but were fishing around for people to give it to them.

      • catweazle666

        JimD: “However, the CIA did not back up their hoped for answer on African yellowcake uranium that was rumoured from British intelligence,”

        THIS yellowcake uranium?

        WASHINGTON (CNN) — The United States secretly shipped out of Iraq more than 500 tons of low-grade uranium dating back to the Saddam Hussein era, the Pentagon said Monday.

        The U.S. military spent $70 million ensuring the safe transportation of 550 metric tons of the uranium from Iraq to Canada, said Pentagon spokesman Brian Whitman.

        The shipment, which until recently was kept secret, involved a U.S. truck convoy, 37 cargo flights out of Baghdad to a transitional location, and then a transoceanic voyage on board a U.S.-government-owned ship designed to carry troops to a war zone, he said.


      • Specifically this piece of information.

      • catweazle666

        Oh dear, Wikipedia…


    • C I A – Criminally Incompetent Ars*holes.

      I’m sure they succeed in getting things right occasionally. Their successes remain top secret, while their blundering or incompetently bumbling mistakes are publicised.

      Maybe this is a cunning move to lull the opposition into a false sense of security! Brilliant!


  25. From the article:

    The Post investigation found that many top Clinton patrons supported them in multiple ways, helping finance their political causes, their legal needs, their philanthropy and their personal bank accounts. In some cases, companies connected to their donors hired the Clintons as paid speakers, helping them collect more than $150 million on the lecture circuit in the past 15 years.

    The couple’s biggest individual political benefactors are Univision chairman Haim Saban and his wife, Cheryl, who have made 39 contributions totaling $2.4 million to support the Clintons’ races since 1992. The Sabans have also donated at least $10 million to the foundation.

    They made historic inroads on Wall Street, pulling in at least $69 million in political contributions from the employees and PACs of banks, insurance companies, and securities and investment firms. Wealthy hedge fund managers S. Donald Sussman and David E. Shaw are among their top campaign supporters, having given more than $1 million each.

    The Clintons’ ties to the financial sector strained their bonds with the left, particularly organized labor. But unions repeatedly shook off their disappointment, giving at least $21 million to support their races. The public employees union AFSCME has been their top labor backer, giving nearly $1.7 million for their campaigns.


  26. From the article:

    1. Monica Lewinsky: Led to only the second president in American history to be impeached.
    2. Benghazi: Four Americans killed, an entire system of weak diplomatic security uncloaked, and the credibility of a president and his secretary of state damaged.
    3. Asia fundraising scandal: More than four dozen convicted in a scandal that made the Lincoln bedroom, White House donor coffees and Buddhist monks infamous.
    PHOTOS: The most consequential Clinton scandals — in order
    4. Hillary’s private emails: Hundreds of national secrets already leaked through private email and the specter of a criminal probe looming large.
    5. Whitewater: A large S&L failed and several people went to prison.
    6. Travelgate: The firing of the career travel office was the very first crony capitalism scandal of the Clinton era.
    7. Humagate: An aide’s sweetheart job arrangement.
    8. Pardongate: The first time donations were ever connected as possible motives for presidential pardons.
    9. Foundation favors: Revealing evidence that the Clinton Foundation was a pay-to-play back door to the State Department, and an open checkbook for foreigners to curry favor.
    10. Mysterious files: The disappearance and re-discovery of Hillary’s Rose Law Firm records.
    11. Filegate: The Clinton use of FBI files to dig for dirt on their enemies.
    12. Hubble trouble: The resignation and imprisonment of Hillary law partner Web Hubbell.
    13. The Waco tragedy: One of the most lethal exercises of police power in American history.


  27. article clip @jim2 | July 10, 2016 at 7:01 pm in moderation.

  28. From the article:

    “Whitewater” is a term that younger Americans probably don’t remember. And Hillary Clinton was counting on it staying that way.

    But for watchers of the Clinton White House, it was a property investment scandal dating back to the first days of Bill’s first term in office. And now, it’s back and setting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s White House dreams on fire.

    The Clinton library is going to be releasing documents, which include the once sealed Whitewater files. They will be included in a new book by Robert Fiske, the former U.S. attorney who was the first independent counsel in charge of the Whitewater investigation, who is ready to blow the lid off of the Clinton’s shady financial dealings which led them on the path to their extraordinary wealth.

    Fiske rightly holds a grudge, because he was so tough on the Clintons that they found a way to wrongly accuse him of a coverup. He was subsequently replaced by Kenneth Starr, who is now the Dean of Pepperdine’s law school.


    • Starr went on to be President of Baylor that hit the news in all the wrong ways recently. He was demoted and then stepped down.

  29. @jim2 | July 10, 2016 at 8:39 pm | in moderation.

  30. Distrust of external governments and irrational, worldwide “consensus science” produced the crisis that will be addressed at the London GeoEthics Conference on 8-9 Sept 2016:


  31. From the article:

    In 2012, the end appeared nigh for the humble Twinkie, the yellow sponge cake and American icon: A trend toward healthy eating and a bitter union brawl had forced its baker into bankruptcy.

    But its private-equity-fueled resurgence has also revealed some of the grim costs paid to keep the failing business alive. The company has shed thousands of workers, closed most of its decades-old bakeries and changed the face of one of the country’s most timeless junk-food brands.

    The once-bankrupt company is again booming, pulling in $650 million in revenue in the 12 months ending May 31, filings show. But along the way, management has carved deeply into its workforce.

    Where the company just five years ago had 8,000 employees — 75 percent of whom were represented by unions — the company now says in filings that it has a “streamlined employee base” of roughly 1,170 workers. That workforce is the shadow of a once-vast empire, which shortly before its troubles totaled 22,000 workers across more than 40 bakeries.

    The company has invested $130 million to upgrade production lines and industrial ovens in its three core bakeries in Indianapolis; Emporia, Kan.; and Columbus, Ga. Its other bakeries have disappeared: The company in 2014 announced it would shutter its long-running bakery in the Chicago suburb of Schiller Park, where the Twinkie was first baked. About 400 jobs were affected.


  32. From the article:

    The same goes for Progressivism.

    For 7 years I’ve stood in front of Republican and Conservatives groups talking about the Progressive disease that has infiltrated the black community.

    Progressives started Planned Parenthood for the extermination of blacks because they were genetically inferior.

    Progressives passed the first gun laws to prevent blacks from protecting themselves from the KKK.

    Progressives started the first Unions to protect white jobs from black workers.

    Then Progressives merged their ideology under the Democrat platform and that progressive machinery has dominated the black community for the last 60 years. It breeds poverty, death and destruction. Why are you surprised you look at the black community and see poverty, death, and destruction? Or even worse, how can you ignore HOW that poverty, death, and destruction were put in place?

    So let me re-iterate my stance in typical Sonnie Johnson form…

    Conservatives/Republicans: there is a progressive ideology rooted in Marxism planted in the black community and it causes poverty, death and destruction. That system has been in place for the last 60 years.


    Bill Ayers and Bernadine Doyle weren’t lying about creating a Revolution.

    Cloward and Piven really had a tangible plan to bankrupt the American system.


  33. The same goes for Progressivism.

    For 7 years I’ve stood in front of Republican and Conservatives groups talking about the Progressive disease that has infiltrated the black community.

    Progressives started Planned Parenthood for the extermination of blacks because they were genetically inferior.

    Progressives passed the first gun laws to prevent blacks from protecting themselves from the (Jim2 edit: Kaa Kaa Kaa).

    Progressives started the first Unions to protect white jobs from black workers.

    Then Progressives merged their ideology under the Democrat platform and that progressive machinery has dominated the black community for the last 60 years. It breeds poverty, death and destruction. Why are you surprised you look at the black community and see poverty, death, and destruction? Or even worse, how can you ignore HOW that poverty, death, and destruction were put in place?

    So let me re-iterate my stance in typical Sonnie Johnson form…

    Conservatives/Republicans: there is a progressive ideology rooted in Marxism planted in the black community and it causes poverty, death and destruction. That system has been in place for the last 60 years.


    Bill Ayers and Bernadine Doyle weren’t lying about creating a Revolution.

    Cloward and Piven really had a tangible plan to bankrupt the American system.


  34. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-michael-flynn-abortion_us_578252cfe4b01edea78e42e6?section=
    This puts our friend Mike Flynn out of the running I suppose. When they say he struggled with that question on ABC, he certainly did. It was almost like he didn’t expect it, but in the end the answer was that of a person in favor of choice. He also was uncomfortable with being asked about other “social” issues, but in favor of deportation of illegal immigrants.

  35. PARIS AGREEMENT – STATUS OF RATIFICATION, 19 Parties have ratified, Accounting for 0.18% of global GHG emissions

    The contribution of these 19 states to global warming is beyond measurement. It’s smaller than the statistical error of the global temperature anomaly. If Darth Vader used his death ray to vaporize these 19 states out of existence, the global temperature anomaly will not even notice they are gone


  36. All Brexiters fell under the proverbial No. 11 bus
    correction No.9 bus

  37. Brexiters holiday destination now the Wigan peer !

    • Lovely! Who needs the South of France when you can have this?



    • I’d suggest GB is in the process of saving Europe from itself once again. How many times does it have to keep doing it?

    • Brexit may be a really good result for the world, although it could take a decade until it is really obvious what a great decision the British made. If Brexit causes the Paris Agreement to fall apart, the EU to recognise it’s renewable energy and anti-nuke polices are irrational and disastrous for it’s economy, the system of unelected EU Kommissars to be replaced by a system of representative democracy, and the communist’s control of Europe to collapse, then Brexit will be seen a great march forward.

    • vukcevic,

      Not everyone has the great fortune to live in the Hamptons, or to spend their entire work life inside the Beltway.

      You should try to get out more.

    • Hi Tony
      Not too sure about that, paid lot tax though, but thanks anyway.
      Do you think that the our new ‘instant’ PM May may now call a snap general election before the Labour has a chance to reorganise themselvs?
      IMHO, a personal mandate would give her much stronger negotiating position with the EU.

      • Vuk

        The appointment is as the leader of the Conservative party. It just so happens that they are also the party in government, so no I do not think it necessary as they got a good mandate only last year, although not as large a mandate as Brexit of course.

        To get a strong negotiating position she needs to appoint leadsom and David Davis and Boris Johnson to her team and also incorporate our Euro Mp’s of all stripes, who know how the EU works (or doesn’t) We will see what she does when she takes over on Wednesday as Cameron will resign on that day

        What is bemusing about all this is why Camerorn resigned as we have merely exchanged one remain proponent (Cameron) with another (May)


      • Tony,
        I think you may have underestimated ruthlessness of the Tories behind the scene machinations ability in eliminating all Brexit leaders one by one; divided they fell faster than a set of the bawling alley pins.
        Labour is in the pocket of unions but the Tories are in the pocket of the big business, and the majority of the big business knows where they want to be.
        Mrs. May said “Brexit means Brexit”, there is no such a word in the Oxford dictionary, and as the Oxford educated lady Mrs. May knows that well. She would like larger majority, she may take (in a year or two) poor results of the EU negotiations to the parliament for vote, where it may be soundly defected. Referendums are advisory, parliament’s rulings are mandatory, democracy at work.

        What for Cameron now?
        Possibly Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, chairman of the ITV.

      • Vuk

        No, I do not underestimate the ruthlessness of the conservatives nor that of the electorate who have the largest democratic mandate in our history to Brexit.

        Cameron repeatedly said that the referendum result wold be respected, no matter the outcome and May has said Brexit is Brexit. So I expect to see us Brexit, but it is in al our interests that it is on favourable terms.

        I think you underestimate the wreck that is the EU. 28 countries can not be ‘governed’ (without political and fiscal union)as they all have different agendas and are at different levels of economic development. The EU banks are in a mess, Cypriot savers had money stolen from them, Greece and Italy had technocrats imposed on them. The level of youth unemployment in various countries is enough to cause civil unrest. It is high time we un-hitched our motor from this unworkable ‘union’.


      • Best not to go down with the EU Titanic.

      • Beth

        Don’t be absurd. Due to global warming there is not enough ice to sink the EU titanic…


  38. Hey! The “entire European banking system is on the verge of collapse, starting with Italy.”

    Trot out that whipping boy, Brexit. After all, it certainly can’t be the fault of the guys in charge in Brussels and Frankfurt, what with an image like this:



    Deutsche Bank Chief Economist: “Europe is Seriously Ill”

    The decline in bank stocks is only the symptom of a much larger problem, namely a fatal combination of low growth, high debt and a proximity to dangerous deflation.

    “Europe is seriously ill…” said the chief economist.

    • Keeping a jalopy going with baling wire and duct tape doesn’t last forever. Europe is following Japan down moribund lane. In spite of 25 years of stimulus spending, all the Land of the the Rising Sun has going for it is a Debt to GDP ratio of 230% and fewer employees than it had 25 years ago. More shrinkage on the way and without the Seinfeld jokes.

      • cerescokid,

        Well it sure looks like the spend-to-stimulate theories of John Maynard Keynes have lost their mojo. The magical elixir doesn’t seem to work like it once did, and that goes for the US as well as for Japan.

        This was probably a predictable outcome — that we’d get too much of a good thing — when back in 1971 Richard Nixon announced that “We’re all Keynesians now.”

        Jeffrey Snider I believe hit the nail on the head:

        What is being suggested here is that the economy may not always follow the models….

        Given what we know about the “recovery” post-2009, we can safely conclude another “jobless recovery” has been added to the cyclical routine in the domestic economic system. Further, the pace of the jobless recoveries continually wanes in progression; the 2001-03 recovery took longer and was less robust than the 1991-93 period, with the current phase far worse than either in every way…..

        The appeal to a debt-based “stimulus” in recovery is simply not as effective as an organic recovery driven by actual price discovery and market signals through actual business. Further, what seemed to be a smoothing of the economic cycles, which Greenspan got full and unearned credit for, so much so that his intentional deviousness became “cute”, was nothing more than artificial growth through debt…..

        It’s not about the real economy as it actually exists, it’s an attempt at recreating the academic understanding of how it all might work under these modeled assumptions.

        What was revealed in 1982 is equally applicable thirty-plus years later. There is often a chasm between the academic understanding of economic affairs and the real economy in all its dynamic glory and mess.

      • Britain can see the Rocky road ahead and wants to get off the EU jalopy before it goes over the cliff. This EIU banking crisis has been ongoing for 5 years and Greece is still a disaster waiting to reignite.


  39. Grassroots Conservatives back Andrea Leadsom for Prime Minister over ‘metropolitan’ Theresa May

    Ed Costelloe, the chairman of the Grassroots Conservatives, said Mrs Leadsom was popular among the party activists who have the final say over the next leader, with the result to be announced on September 9.

    One critical advantage Mrs Leadsom has is that she is not seen as part of David Cameron’s “metropolitan” clique, he said.

    “Theresa May is seen by many, particularly in the shires, as a Cameron creature and part of the metropolitan elite, which many members feel put off by,” Mr Costelloe said.


  40. Look up Warmists/Alarmists! Take note:

    A rational nation ruled by science would be a terrible idea

    “Scientism” is the belief that all we need to solve the world’s problems is – you guessed it – science. People sometimes use the phrase “rational thinking”, but it amounts to the same thing. If only people would drop religion and all their other prejudices, we could use logic to fix everything….


    There has always been a hope, especially as elites became less religious, that science would do more than simply provide a means for learning about the world around us. Science should also teach us how to live, pointing us towards the salvation that religion once promised. You can see this in any of the secular utopianisms of the 20th century, whether it’s the Third Reich, scientific Marxism, or the “modernisation thesis” of Western capitalism.

    Yet each of these has since been summarily dismissed, and usually for the same two reasons.

    Flawed science

    First, experts usually don’t know nearly as much as they think they do. They often get it wrong, thanks to their inherently irrational brains that – through overconfidence, bubbles of like-minded thinkers, or just wanting to believe their vision of the world can be true – mislead us and misinterpret information….

    And second, science has no business telling people how to live. It’s striking how easily we forget the evil that following “science” can do. So many times throughout history, humans have thought they were behaving in logical and rational ways, only to realise that such acts have yielded morally heinous policies that were only enacted because reasonable people were swayed by “evidence”.

    Phrenology – the determination of someone’s character through the shape and size of their cranium – was cutting-edge science. (Unsurprisingly, the upper class had great head ratios.) Eugenics was science, as was social Darwinism and the worst justifications of the Soviet and Nazi regimes.

    Scientific racism was data-driven too, and incredibly well-respected. Scientists in the 19th century felt quite justified in claiming that “the weight of evidence” supported African slavery, white supremacy and the concerted effort to limit the reproduction of the “lesser” races.

    It wasn’t so long ago that psychiatrists considered homosexuality unhealthy and abhorrent.

    And many scientists decided that women were biologically incapable of the same kind of rationality you find in men, a scientific sexism reborn in contemporary evolutionary psychology.

    And yet, despite its abysmal track record, people continue to have extremely positive opinions of “science.”…

    And for those who more strongly identify with the idea of rational thinking, their commitment is immutable….

    The myopia of scientism, its naive utopianism and simplistic faith, bears an uncanny resemblance to the religious dogmatisms that people such as Tyson and Dawkins denounce.

    Speaking of Tyson and Dawkins and the rest of the “SAM” club (“skeptics and atheists movements” as Massimo Pigliucci them), when it comes to religious dogmatists, it looks like it takes one to know one.

    • Remember back in the 70’s and 80’s when people from African countries like Ethiopia were touting “Scientific Socialism”.

  41. A Tragedy in Dallas

    “I do blame former Black Lives Matter protests,” said Texas lieutenant governor Dan Patrick, in an interview on Fox News earlier today, arguing that the movement foments hatred of police. Further, he added, it’s full of phonies: “All those protesters last night, they turned around and ran the other way expecting the men and women in blue to protect them. What hypocrites!”

  42. Another police shooting in Houston:

    Surveillance video shows man shot by Houston police

    An armed man who friends say was searching for a stolen horse overnight on Houston’s south side was shot dead by police early Saturday morning after waving a gun when he was approached by two officers, authorities said.

    A woman who identified herself on the scene as the man’s wife said his name is Alva Braziel. According to public records, Braziel is a 38-year-old black man. News about the shooting quickly appeared on social media where posts said “Groucho” was his nickname.

    Braziel was a felon and was not authorized to have a weapon. Since 2000, he has faced more than a dozen criminal charges in Harris County – mostly drug possession cases but also burglary of a vehicle, resisting arrest and evading detention.

    On Saturday afternoon in nearly triple-digit heat, Braziel’s younger brother stood in their home’s driveway as friends and relatives stopped by to offer condolences.

    Keon Jefferson, 31, said his sibling was a hard-working father who held down two jobs – working at a Jack in the Box and as a mechanic. They are their mother’s only children. Now, she has just one son left.

    Jefferson described the incident as “overkill” that he just can’t believe.

  43. Racially divisive liberalism comes home to roost.

    After he murdered five Dallas police officers and wounded seven others, Micah Johnson kept a SWAT team at bay for more than three hours. As they tried to talk him into surrendering, he told them that he wanted to kill white people, especially white policemen.

    Johnson’s horrific attack on police is the most recent evidence of one of the worst divisions in our society, that between law enforcement people and the civilians they are sworn to protect. That division has been created and is exacerbated daily by President Obama and the rest of the pure-as-ivory-soap ideological liberals he has led for eight years.

    Obama has pushed American blacks along the road to Dallas….

    Neither Obama nor any of the other liberals have said — or ever will say — that the Dallas cop murders were motivated by racial hatred despite the clear statement by the murderer. They won’t say that because for them to do so would be to admit the enormous flaw in their ideology that is literally killing Americans.

    From Henry Louis Gates’s arrest to five assassinated cops in Dallas is a chain of events caused by eight years of racially divisive liberalism. That liberalism, expressed in politically correct rhetoric, abandonment of the rule and letter of the law, has torn our social contract to shreds. Everything from Hillary’s escape from criminal prosecution to the Dems’ insistence that gun control is the answer to mass murder is traceable to that single cause.

    The more Americans are separated from those who are sworn to protect them, the less safe and less free we will be. Regardless of the result of the presidential election, there’s no reason for optimism.

  44. After all that’s happened, Trump fares no worse with Hispanic voters than Romney or McCain

    [A]fter all the problems Trump has had with Hispanic voters, a new poll shows him performing at roughly the recent Republican norm — and no worse than the last two GOP presidential nominees.

    A new poll from Pew Research Center found Hillary Clinton with a whopping 42-point lead over Trump among Hispanic registered voters, 66 percent to 24 percent.

    It’s a grim number for Republicans — but actually a little less than the 48-point lead Barack Obama had over Mitt Romney in Pew polling from October 2012, and also less than the 43-point lead Obama had over comprehensive immigration reform champion John McCain in July 2008.

    One fascinating note in the Pew survey. Pollsters found that about 57 percent of Latino registered voters are either bilingual or more proficient in Spanish than in English. Forty-three percent are more proficient in English than in Spanish. Among the bilingual and Spanish-dominant group, Clinton has a huge lead, 80 percent to 11 percent. Among the English-dominant group, it’s a genuinely close race — 48 percent for Clinton to 41 percent for Trump. After all that has happened, Trump polls as well or better with English-dominant Hispanic voters than with the electorate as a whole.

    “In polling, Hispanics are attracted to Mr. Trump’s policies on economic growth, job creation, national security and school choice/charters,” Conway continued.

  45. Fairly chilling stuff from Dallas a couple of years ago. This is only for context in that city. Dallas may be one of the better police departments, but there are always some trigger-happy types. The body cameras should be helping to weed that out as examples of what not to do.

    • stevenreincarnated

      Looks like a reasonable use of lethal force to me. How would you have acted different?

      • Are you being ironic?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Not at all. A man lunges at you with a screwdriver after being told several times to drop it and not complying. What do you do? Shoot him or wait to see if he plunges it in your chest?

      • How on earth did that escalate like that? I am not aware as to why they approached the house in the first place. It all seemed pretty calm. The officer walked slowly to the door and knocked. A woman came calmly out. A man asked what was going on. The police officer immediately escalated the situation and within seconds fired at close range.

        It seemed a gross over reaction. Poor training? Poor judgement?. Certainly it should not have ended the way it did.


      • The police also already knew he was mentally unstable going in, and so he may have some comprehension issues. I am sure police forces around the world with no guns know how to deal with these situations.

      • stevenreincarnated

        It wasn’t poor judgement or poor training which is why the police officers involved have already been cleared of any wrongdoing. You might argue they should have been trained differently but that is an entirely different question.

      • Yes, I think police without guns would be trained differently. So not necessarily poor training, but different training.


      • I agree that the officers appeared justified in shooting. I would suggest that a change in training protocols might help prevent incidents like this. And I strongly recommend people keep from judging incidents like this, as most haven’t a clue what law enforcement has to experience day in and day out.

      • Essentially those two cops work for me. That year I paid around 25 grand in taxes to Dallas. I don’t have a right to ask a policeman to lose his life while working for me; they have a right to defend themselves. There are a large number of things that are wrong in the video, and the DPD has addressed them. This was not a situation where they said they had done everything right and they’re was nothing to fix or improve. Nobody wants a call for assistance with a mentally ill family member to end like that, including those two officers, who are hopefully better trained today.

      • Here’s a plot of the number of police killed in the US from 1800-2015. Main features are lawlessness (what level would the killing have reach in post 1930, if the FBI had not taken a very strong negative view of the bad guys?) and civil disorder over black integration which culminated after a decade and half. Make you wonder what the next wave will be due to.

    • The mentally ill man was violent. The police had been called by his own family over a hundred times. From what I’ve read, even his own brother had to pull a gun on him when he threatened his mother with a butcher knife.

      Do you people believe his own family called the police that many times so the police could give him thorazine? No, they were afraid of this violent man.

      Why didn’t they call a social worker instead? Why was this guy even living at home? I mean really people, you blame this on guns???

      NO WAY!!!

    • And speaking of training:

      Bottom line: Within a 21-foot perimeter, most officers dealing with most edged-weapon suspects are at a decided – perhaps fatal – disadvantage if the suspect launches a sudden charge intent on harming them. “Certainly it is not safe to have your gun in your holster at this distance,” Lewinski says, and firing in hopes of stopping an activated attack within this range may well be justified.

      For more than 20 years now, a concept called the 21-Foot Rule has been a core component in training officers to defend themselves against edged weapons.

      Originating from research by Salt Lake City trainer Dennis Tueller and popularized by the Street Survival Seminar and the seminal instructional video “Surviving Edged Weapons,” the “rule” states that in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with a knife or other cutting or stabbing weapon can cover a distance of 21 feet.


  46. The latest piece of senseless violence in U.S.

    This one really hurts: I thought very highly of Molly and liked her very much

    • Sorry for your loss. Keep her memory alive.

      Jack Smith

    • Very sad. I hope they find the perps!

    • My sincere sympathy and condolences at the loss of your good friend and the fellow scientist.

    • stevenreincarnated

      I’m sorry to hear about your friend. I’m shocked that would happen in her neighborhood (as a one time Baltimore resident).

    • I’m sorry to hear about your friend.

    • Why do the majority of US citizens oppose implementing gun laws like John Howard led Australia to do. It just needs good leadership and then a referendum to confirm the change to the constitution (or so it seems to me, from my position at the front of the planet).

      • We are not an island nation. We have cr1m1n@l gangs, both foreign and domestic. The smuggle drugs, people, and weapons. Outlawing weapons here will just leave the populous undefended.

        I know some of the shootings here get a lot of attention, but in the grand scheme of things, there are much more dangerous things in life that cause many, many more deaths. It just that the media pounds on this issue.

      • Jim2,

        That is complete and utter rubbish. USA is the only country that goes around shooting people every time they get p1ssed off. You’d be far better of without people owning guns. It’s stupidity and ignorance to believe anything else.

        Furthermore, USA is exporting its disgraceful gun culture everywhere. Police now have to carry guns in Brittain and Australia which was not needed when I was young and may not have been needed if not for the US gun culture and the violence they’ve exported through their entertainment industry (films TV, etc) and export of guns. I am surprised you swallow such twaddle.

      • Well, Peter. That’s what I know about living here. You seem detached from reality from my point of view. And blaming the US for other countries problems doesn’t pass muster with me. Own your own problems.

      • No, Jim2,”It;s not me that’s detached from reality on this issue. You are suffering from group think and herd mentality on this issue. You need to get out and live elsewhere for long enough to be able to look back at your own country, to view it objectively. USA does overwhelming good for the world (except when you get really poor Presidents like Obama), but you also need to recognise the bad aspects of USA culture. The gun culture is one of them.

      • No, Peter, it is you who are detached from reality. The reality is that crime here would be much worse were it not for the over 40% of US Citizens who own guns. And I’m talking about crime against law abiding citizens, not c1m1nal on cr1m1nal crimes.

      • Absolute rubbish Jim2. Your reality is not reality. You are stuck inside a box and can’t see out. You seem to have little or no experience of the outside world.

      • Jim2,

        I leave you with this FACT to contemplate:

        I (PL) is right on everything! :)

      • I’d say it’s mostly a cultural norm. It’s been that way for centuries, and people have gotten used to it.

        Look at it this way: suppose some really big guy moves in next door, and tends to act in an offensive and overbearing manner. You can point out what a sh1thead he’s being, and if he attacks you you can pull out a gun and shoot him.

        If you don’t have a gun, you can get one after somebody like that moves in.

        Other cultures have other ways of dealing with such problems, but for centuries in America a large part of the population lived dispersed where they pretty much had to handle their own trouble.

        Trouble including natives who objected to having their hunting grounds taken over by farmers (and, later, ranchers), and not only were willing to shoot back, they often shot first.

      • Yep, AK, the cowboy culture continues in the USA. I am amazed that otherwide educated and intelligent people seem to honestly believe they are safer if everyone has a gun.

        Road rage incident – just shoot the bastard before he shoots you. Great culture.

      • The “gun culture” is not the problem. Plano Texas has a gun culture, and a murder rate comparable with any of your more preferred progressive countries. If you eliminate the Democrat controlled regions of our country our gun violence is comparable with any country in the world. We don’t have a gun culture problem , we have a Democrat culture problem.

      • Chuckrr,

        Gun related deaths per 100,000 population:
        US: 10.54
        Canada: 1.97
        Australia: 0.93
        UK: 0.23
        Japan: 0.06


      • I am amazed that otherwide educated and intelligent people seem to honestly believe they are safer if everyone has a gun.

        Well, I certainly feel safer living in a state where concealed carry is legal (with permit):

        •       All I have to do is wear a loose coat, or even a loose polo shirt in summer, and anybody looking at me can’t know I’m not carrying.

        •       People who are carrying legally are unlikely to pull out their weapon without substantial provacation. So I don’t feel much in danger from them.

        •       Would-be hooligans looking at just about anybody would be in the same position. (As looking at me.)

        •       Firearms are great equalizers: a small man, or woman, is pretty much on even terms with a large man. Even in confrontations between one person and several, it the one person cares enough to accept the risk of injury and death, the several will probably experience it too.

        •       Firearms are LOUD. A confrontation with blazing guns will inevitably draw law enforcement. This strongly tilts the advantage in favor of legally carrying civilians against criminal hooligans.

        •       etc.

        Road rage incident – just shoot the bastard before he shoots you. Great culture.

        Well, I’m against road rage. OTOH, I have to admit I’ve seen my share of drivers who deserve to get shot. (I just won’t be the one to do it.)

        Maybe if police gave tickets for impolite behavior with a 1-2 ton automobile…

      • BTW, she was killed by being stabbed in the neck. While she was walking two big dogs.

      • AK,

        Yep. That’s correct.

        She was killed by being stabbed in the neck.

        But I don’t think a discussion about banning knives in America would punch nearly as many hot buttons as a discussion about banning guns.

      • Gun advocates often mutter something about gangs or African Americans to explain away the differences between the United States and its peers. It is instructive to note that gun advocates will insist that the United States can’t be compared to our industrialized peers, and then reassure us that the United States is doing a little bit better than countries in the middle of civil war.


      • But I don’t think a discussion about banning knives in America would punch nearly as many hot buttons as a discussion about banning guns.

        The above is so dingy it’s laughable. On Iwo Jima my father treated Marines who had Samurai sword wounds. The Marine Corps did not decide to arm every Marine in a rifle platoon with a sword. They were grateful the ignorant enemy officer decided to go out symbolically with his sword instead of with an actual combat weapon.

        My son is a resident physician at a hospital just a few miles from where this incident took place. Gunshot wounds: he’s there so he can in part earn a living off treating this nation’s abject insanity.

      • JCH,

        Well as ususal, you launch into a tirade and cite a bunch of irrelevant trivia that has absolutley nothing to do with the issue at hand.

        The relevant question is this: What causes violence in the United States?

        Other related questions are these:

        • Does the abundance of guns in private hands cause the violence in the United States?

        • Is that the only cause of violence in the United States?

        • Are there other causes of the violence?

        • Is the abundance of guns even the most important cause of violence in the United States?

        We see the same sort of highly simplistic and reductionist “control knob” logic in the gun debate as we do in the CAGW debate.

        Well let me put a bug in your ear. Mexico has draconian laws against private gun possession, with extremely low private gun ownership rates. And yet it has a murder rate many times that of the United States.


        The left has become the world’s champs at coming up with simple-minded, facile solutions to extremely complex, wicked problems.

      • When violence is presented as being a solution to problems, then how can it be surprising when some people employ violence to solve their problems? When guns are presented as being a solution to problems, then how can it be surprising when some people employ guns to violently solve their problems?

        Shortly after the Port Arthur incident took place I vacationed in Australia. There were NRA types there trying to sell Australians that guns are a solution to a problem. They were wise; they rejected these arguments. Now the NRA is back over there trying it again.

        Guns are fun. Hunting is fun. The more armed we are, the more lethal the problem solvers will become. Dallas: problem solver scored 5 kills and 9 wounds; armed and fully trained intended victims scored a wound, robot with C4 scored a kill.

      • Peter Lang:

        Because so many suicides use guns in America (2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides) your stats are a bit misleading.

        Here is the crude death rate for the same countries. Source https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2066rank.html

        Gun related deaths per 100,000 population (followed by crude death rate):
        US: 10.54 8.15
        Canada: 1.97 8.42
        Australia: 0.93 7.14
        UK: 0.23 9.35
        Japan: 0.06 9.51

      • Peter,

        You should probably stick to subjects you are knowledgeable on. It is apparent that firearms isn’t one of them.

        If you want to understand why so many Americans are opposed to government imposed gun control, start by learning our history. You need to understand why the 2nd amendment was included in our Bill of Rights. It wasn’t a last minute add on. It was placed second for a very good reason. Figure out why and then get back to us.

      • timng56

        You should probably stick to subjects you are knowledgeable on.

        So should you. It is apparent that the obvious consequences of laws that allow allowing everyone to bear arms isn’t one of them.

        You’d have to be in denial to deny the bleeding obvious. Or perhaps it’s just another example of group think and herd mentality.

      • JCH,

        There is no violent crime wave sweeping America.

        The national murder rate has declined, while the percentage of households with guns has remained essentially flat.



        The sad thing, however, is that nobody seems to want to set the record straight.

        The police-prison-judicial complex is a growth industry which has an institutional interest in exaggerating the threat in order to acquire more funding.

        The authoritatians exaggerate the threat in order to justify their creeping police state.

        Others exaggerate the threat because they want to ban guns.

        And the media wants sensationalism, because it helps capture audiences.

        Here’s a study that explains the phenomena:


        These survey results are consistent with communications research finding that the news media largely determine what issues we collectively think about, how we think about them, and what kinds of policy alternatives are considered viable….

        More Fear, Less Crime, Fear of Minority Crime

        Despite sharp declines in youth crime, the public expresses great fear of its own young people. Although violent crime by youth in 1998 was at its lowest point in the 25-year history of the National Crime Victimization Survey, 62% of poll respondents felt that juvenile crime was on the increase.

        In the United States we no longer craft policy based on empirical data, but on misinformaton and hysteria.

      • Peter, You apparently didn’t get my point. Plano Texas has the highest per capita gun ownership and one of the lowest murder rates. If you eliminate the Democrat controlled regions of the US we have a very low murder rate. In Switzerland every household has a gun. What’s their murder rate? It’s not the guns or the availability of guns. It’s the culture. Most of the west has bought into big government as the sheepdog. Here in the US because of our history and our Constitution it’s unlikely that a plurality will ever buy into that. At least I hope not. it is not in our nature to be sheep. Just as the myth has been created that police are indiscriminately hunting down black men there is also the fantasy that there is a shootout around every corner. I’m 62 …., own guns as do most of my friends. I’ve never witnessed any gun violence ( except towards the occasional duck or deer) and I don’ know anyone that has. That’s my reality Now in the Democrat regions of the US their reality is a lot different. Maybe we could just ban guns for registered Democrats.

      • Your points are irrelevant. You are incapable of challenging your beliefs and and of rational analysis. Your video you posted was an example of the stupidity you accept and believe (couldn’t you recognise the pea and thimble trick?). Once you have a belief, as you have and flat earth believers have, you are incapable of recognising it. It’s a genuine case of Denial.

      • Well….who could argue with that? You’ve got me completely figured out. And my silly points…weather they are true or not… are all irrelevant.Your right. Any further discussion is pointless.

      • Peter, I do know a bit about guns and the 2nd amendment.

        My undergrad degree is in History and I have read widely on the intent of the founding fathers regarding the importance of a citizenry to be armed.

        I served as Small Arms Petty Officer aboard my sub and instructed and qualified crew members on board our boat in the use of the firearms we carried.

        I am a collector, with dozens of firearms, the majority of which are pre-1900.

        I thought that any rational adult understands the concept of “with rights comes responsibility.” That applies to guns just as it applies to everything else. Is everyone responsible? We know the answer is no. Prescription drugs provide a benefit, yet tens of thousands of people die each year from them, either by overdose or suicide. Should we ban them? The automobile has brought great mobility and freedom to Americans, yet tens of thousands die from their use each year. Let’s get rid of them. Alcohol? Tobacco? Maybe hundreds of thousands a year who die. Doctors and hospitals kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. Let’s prohibit them from practicing medicine.

        The right to bear arms is based on a very valid and time tested concept. That ultimately the only true protection of the people is to ensure whatever government they give their allegiance does not achieve a monopoly on the use of force. If the price of that is people using guns to kill themselves, or criminals using guns to commit crimes, or gangbangers using guns to fight turf wars, or people getting drunk and shooting someone in an argument, or the occasional nut case angling for their 15 minutes of fame, well guess what? That is a small price for so important a right. Your attempt to say that because some people needlessly die is all the justification needed to ban guns is baseless. As I have pointed out, in the US alone hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people die needlessly each year. What about them? Don’t their lives matter or do you only care about those lost because a gun was involved.

        As I said, it is clear you have little real understanding of the issue of guns in America.

      • timg56

        Peter, I do know a bit about guns and the 2nd amendment.

        Sorry, timg56, but that is totally irrelevant to the argument. We are not arging about guns o the 2nd Amendment. We are arguing about whether or not the people of a country are more or less safe if everyone is allowed to carry guns or they are not allowed to (except in specific, cases). Clearly, people are much safer if it is illegal for people to own or carry guns (except for a few special cases under tight regulations and sever penalties for breach). That’s the argument.

      • JCH says:

        “When violence is presented as being a solution to problems, then how can it be surprising when some people employ violence to solve their problems? When guns are presented as being a solution to problems, then how can it be surprising when some people employ guns to violently solve their problems?

        Shortly after the Port Arthur incident took place I vacationed in Australia. There were NRA types there trying to sell Australians that guns are a solution to a problem. They were wise; they rejected these arguments. Now the NRA is back over there trying it again.”

        Without a hint of irony, JCH, you first lament the notion of violence being a solution to problems, then in the very next paragraph you praise violence as a solution to a problem. Perhaps you are so inculcated that you do not recognize that when governments enforce prohibitions they do so either by direct violence or by threat of violence. Just more paradoxical nonsense from the ever so sanctimonious technocrats.

      • Peter says:

        “It is apparent that the obvious consequences of laws that allow allowing everyone to bear arms isn’t one of them.”

        This may really boil your urine, but in the United States, traditionally speaking – and there are still a fair share of Americans who still cling to this tradition, including Justices – the American people forged constitutions in order to clearly delineate what governments were allowed to do and what governments were not allowed to do. This is why the American people, as addendum’s to their federal constitution and their state constitutions, proclaimed the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Right, to clearly enumerate certain unalienable rights governments were not allowed to deny or disparage. This how Americans, at least the traditional ones, view what is allowed and not allowed.

        People do not exercise unalienable rights because they are “allowed” to, they simply do so by right. Perhaps you don’t fully grasp the concept of what is done by right.

        “You’d have to be in denial to deny the bleeding obvious.”

        Yep. It’s bleeding obvious that people exercise their rights without permission and yet her you are framing them in terms of what’s “allowed”.

        “Or perhaps it’s just another example of group think and herd mentality.”

        Yep. You are, after all, merely parroting what you were taught to parrot. It is not logical to call government allowed actions “rights”, and they would rightly be called “privileges”, but doesn’t your herd like to conflate the two words when it suits your purpose, and then make a clear distinction between the two when that suits your purpose?

        People are better off when law is rooted in logic and robust restraint is placed upon the fickle nature of whimsical decrees and arbitrary desires.

      • Peter Lang Springer – you don’t get to define what the argument is.

      • Jim2,

        What I said is what we were arguing about. If you wish to change topic, then that that needs to be agreed. You were arguing about the same thing as me, but when you were clearly losing you tried to divert and digress. That’s a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty – as is making silly accusations like “Springer”.

      • Americans, do not consider themselves sheep. And they don’t believe they need a sheepdog (government). This is a concept that is hard for many in the world to understand.

      • Peter Lang says “Clearly, people are much safer if it is illegal for people to own or carry guns (except for a few special cases under tight regulations and sever penalties for breach). That’s the argument.”

        This is true – but totally irrelevant – given the reality that guns are legal in the United States.

        People would also be safer if it was illegal for people to own or carry knives.

        People would also be safer if it was illegal for people to own or operate cars, trucks, motorcycles, ATV’s and boats.

        People would also be safer if they didn’t mountain climb or swim or really do anything.

        Guns will never be illegal in America – so I don’t understand what your overall point is.

      • Richard Arrett.

        Peter Lang says “Clearly, people are much safer if it is illegal for people to own or carry guns (except for a few special cases under tight regulations and sever penalties for breach). That’s the argument.”
        This is true – but totally irrelevant – given the reality that guns are legal in the United States.

        No. It;s not irrelevant. It is the whole point of the argument – i.e. should or shouldn’t US change the part of the constitution that says everyone has a right to bare arms.

      • One person lectures me that gun violence is going down… I never said it was going up. I said in Dallas-Fort Worth the crime rates were much much higher in the 1980s and 1990s. That statement means they have gone down since then. That is why they WERE higher. Imo the crime rates in big city Texas dropped like a rock because of aggressive expansion of the prison system which ended revolving door. 10 to 20 suddenly meant 10 to 20.

        then in the very next paragraph you praise violence as a solution to a problem.

        I did not praise violence. After the Port Arthur murders, the Australians rejected the NRA-style arguments. There was no violence. They just said “No” to the maroons.

      • Thin scientists told the world that for just a pretty penny, we could all buy Star Wars. I tried to point out the many historical failures when attempts to use defense as a means of offence were attempted. The Great Wall, being just one example.


        Of course my advice does not count for much so what difference does it make now, when I am an OFWXS?

      • “I did not praise violence. After the Port Arthur murders, the Australians rejected the NRA-style arguments. There was no violence. They just said “No” to the maroons.”


        Yes, you most certainly did praise violence. Your spin on what happened in Australia is not just pure fantasy, it is really bad Disneyfied fantasy. In your universe, apparently, people are either caught up in propaganda from groups such as the NRA or they bravely stand tall and reject this propaganda and then go down to the chocolate river and dip tangerines plucked from the skies in it and eat and merrily dance and live happily ever after.

        The reality is that Australian gun laws and restrictions and the “buy backs” were mandatory. What, I wonder, do you think government means when they make a decree mandatory? Do you imagine that those who refuse to comply will simply be shunned from the dinner table, not welcome in polite society and expected to go off and live as outcasts? In truth, when a “buy back” is made mandatory, regardless of the compensation, this is gun confiscation. Is this what you’re advocating, JCH?

        The Australian gun confiscation was not done voluntarily as your silly fantasy implies, and were the U.S. to adopt a similar type mandatory confiscation we’re talking about more than 3 million guns Who is going to enforce this mandatory gun confiscation? Wouldn’t it be likely that it will be our increasingly militarized police forces enforcing these strict gun laws? Or do you imagine all it takes is for people to reject the NRA style rhetoric that has magically held hundreds of millions of people in their sway, and then the militarized police can just peacefully enforce these gun laws?

      • On July 14th at 3:13 am, Peter said:

        “Sorry, timg56, but that is totally irrelevant to the argument. We are not arging about guns o the 2nd Amendment.”

        But then on the same day only much later, at 9:24 pm, Peter said:

        “No. It;s not irrelevant. It is the whole point of the argument – i.e. should or shouldn’t US change the part of the constitution that says everyone has a right to bare arms.”

        When both the facts and the law works against you Peter, the best you can do is scream for justice.

  47. Dallas Police Chief David Brown: “We’re Asking Cops To Do Too Much In This Country”

    “Every societal failure, we put it off on the cops to solve. Not enough mental health funding. Let the cop handle it. Not enough drug addiction funding. Let’s give it to the cops. Here in Dallas, we’ve got a loose dog problem. Let’s have the cops chase loose dogs. You know, schools fail. Give it to the cops. 70% of the African-American community is being raised by single women. Let’s give it to the cops to solve that, as well. That’s too much to ask,” a stressed Brown said.

    “Policing was never meant to solve all of those problems,” Brown said to reporters. “I just ask for other parts of our democracy, along with the free press, to help us. To help us and not put that burden all on law enforcement to resolve.”

    • Widen the scope to the globe and you’ll see that the US has done exactly this with regard to our military.

    • Very perceptive and on point. Given the personal tragedies he has faced, the Chief knows the reality from both sides.
      The sooner society does some self examination and quits blaming outside agents, the sooner the root causes can be addressed. Dollar bills will never solve the self destructive, sociopathic behavior endemic within certain segments of our society.

    • Curious George

      We have not heard from Glenn since 2:30 pm. Is he OK?

  48. “….most haven’t a clue about what law enforcement …”

    Let the critics walk in the shoes of an officer for a week. The theories have to be left at home. The dirty, nasty elements of humanity face them every day. Let the critics see how jumpy they get when they wonder before each shift if it will be their last.

  49. Place:
    England, London, Downing Street, No. 10’s front door
    2016. Wednesday 13th July, 21 pm
    Mr. Cameron kisses good night to Mrs. May, as she goes in he …..

  50. Fantastic News!!! Go GB!!

    Britain’s New Prime Minister Is Not A Greenie

    “The speech given by the next Prime Minister this morning contained some important passages setting out what kind of prime minister Theresa May will be. “This is a different kind of Conservatism,” she said, seeking to differentiate herself from David Cameron while remaining true to Conservative principles. Here is what she said and what I think she meant. “I want to see an energy policy that emphasises the reliability of supply and lower costs for users.” She’s not a Green.” –John Rentoul, The Independent, 11 July 2016 http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-what-kind-of-prime-minister-policies-what-she-really-meant-a7130911.html

    2) What Is David Cameron’s Green Legacy?
    The Guardian, 20 April 2016,

    Brexit Threatens EU Climate Policy

    3) Brexit Threatens EU Climate Policy
    Bloomberg, 11 July 2016,

    4) The Consequences Of Brexit For Climate Change
    The Listener, 11 July 2016

    5) MPs To Examine Brexit Implications On New UK Energy Policy
    Energy Live News, 11 July 2016,

    6) Brexit To Hit Green Energy Industry Hard
    BDC Magazine, 5 July 2016

    7) UK Relies On Emergency Measures To Avert Winter Blackouts
    The Daily Telegraph, 8 July 2016

    8) Carbon Markets Collapsing Around The World: Permits Have Become Virtually Valueless. Bloomberg, 9 July 2016

    Links to all these in GWPF Newsletter here: http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=1d078e6437&e=d3ab024ae2

    I am really pleased about all this. What is happening is why I supported Brexit all along. It’s happening much faster than I expected. GB could save the world from dictatorship and communism – again.

    • The more Merkel talks after Brexit, the more dictatorial she seems.

    • Maybe that is why the loons are doubling down
      Writing in the Climate Change Risk Assessment report, leading scientist Lord Krebs stressed there was “no question” that the primary response to climate change should be to reduce greenhouse gases.

      But he added that it was still “crucial to prepare for the inevitable changes” that will occur because of the emissions that have already been pumped into the atmosphere.

      Commenting on the report, an American scientist said climate change was now happening “so rapidly that people around the world are noticing the changes in global warming and extreme weather with their own eyes and skin”.

      In south-east England, the number of heat-related deaths would increase by 700 to 1,000 a year.

      “Risks to the UK food system arise from an increasing risk of extreme weather events affecting both production and supply chains. Incremental changes in temperature, rainfall patterns and ocean acidification are also likely to shift the global pattern of food production posing risks to the price of food in the UK,” it said.

      “There is no question that the primary response to climate change should be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit further climate change,” he said.

      “But at the same time it is crucial to prepare for the inevitable changes that will result from the gases that have already been released into the atmosphere and that will continue to be emitted for some time to come.

      “Even when the full impacts of climate change will not be felt for several decades, it may be a matter of urgency to act now, because of the long-term consequences of today’s decisions.

      “The six immediate priority areas are related to risks of flooding and coastal change, the impact of high temperatures in the built environment, risks to natural capital, risks of future water shortages, impacts on the global food system, and risks arising from new and emerging pests and diseases.”

      It goes on and on.
      It is time we got rid of these nutters. If all the doom and gloom that the Independent spout daily about Brexit is right we won’t be able to afford all this rubbish.

    • Peter

      May was not my first choice as leader but lets give here a chance and she has confirmed numerous times that ‘brexit means brexit.’ I have no knowledge of her stance on green issues. Lets just hope that we have a mild winter or there is a serious threat to our power supplies due to this obsession with renewables of the wrong type. Solar? In Britain??!!

      I liked most of her speech in Birmingham just before she knew she was now the only leadership contender.


      I can never understand this hero worship of Merkel. She has put Europe into an economic crisis through her pursuing exchange rates and policies that favour Germany and put the continent at risk by ignoring the rules and inviting millions of unknown people into the place.

      As a result thousands of people have lost their lives making a perilous crossing.

      The euro saga has yet to play out with great danger being posed by Italy and Greece and should they fail, to the Deutsche bank.


  51. From the article:

    Admins of the lighthearted political page “Liberty Memes” have been suspended from Facebook and had images mocking Hillary Clinton deleted from their page.
    The Facebook page, boasting over 100K likes, has had multiple images removed as they apparently don’t “follow the Facebook Community Standards”. One of the most recent images removed was one that poked fun at Hillary Clinton and the recent recommendation by the FBI not to press charges following Clinton’s email scandal.

    The image received approximately 10K likes, 50K shares and 4 million views before it was promptly removed from the page for violating community standards. The image in question can be seen below,


  52. This is a bad idea for many reasons, but most of all because it is more centralized control – something Obumbles hasn’t yet figured out we are sick of already. If the Fed wanted, they could offer tactical training. But if done under Obumbles, it would become how to work with transgender cops and settle bathroom kerfuffles due to gender confusion. From the article:

    President Barack Obama is harnessing the increasing attacks on police — and the periodic shootings of people by stressed cops — to push his agenda to federalize state and local police forces.
    “I want to start moving on constructive actions that are actually going to make a difference,” he said during his evening press conference in Poland when he was asked about the Dallas attack.

    Those actions, he said, would be based on the recommendations of the panel that he picked after the 2014 street riots in Ferguson, Missouri. The panel offered “practical concrete solutions that can reduce — if not eliminate — the problems of racial bias,” Obama said.


  53. Iceland ranks 15th in gun ownership and crime, including gun crime, is very low. Why? It appears it is due to the homogeneity of the populace, something the US lost long, long ago.

    It’s not guns people, it’s a whole mess, and I do mean mess, of social factors in the US: Too many single-mother families, too much racial tension, poverty, a divided electorate, assimilated migrants, you name it, we’ve got it.

    From the article:

    First – and arguably foremost – there is virtually no difference among upper, middle and lower classes in Iceland. And with that, tension between economic classes is non-existent, a rare occurrence for any country.


    From the article:

    93% of Iceland residents are Icelandic. Most Icelanders are descendants of Norwegian settlers and Gaels from Ireland and the Gaelic parts of Scotland who were brought over as slaves during the age of settlement.


  54. You know your socialist 5 year plans have succeeded when the populace turns to eating the pets. From the article:

    “People are hunting dogs and cats in the streets, and pigeons in the plazas to eat,” Ramon Muchacho, mayor of the Caracas district of Chacao, said this month in a tweet that was reported in many newspapers.


    • ” The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill

    • Bridges? We don’t need no stinkin’ bridges?

      • Interesting that the article links to a post here: Reversing the direction of the positive feedback loop, saying this:

        What to think of a passage like this:

        Once the UNFCCC treaty was a done deal, the IPCC and its scientific conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy. The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human-induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets.

        This sounds like an accusation that the IPCC conclusions were predetermined before it even started assessing the science. That is a far reaching and very bold claim.


        True, too. By hindsight. We need only consider Christiana Figueres:

        “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.

        “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”

        I certainly knew in 1997 that Kyoto etc. was primarily an attack on the Industrial Revolution.

        It was also a stalking horse for an effort to create a world government based on overarching bureaucracies similar to the EU.

      • AK,

        +1 million

      • “This statement [the AAAS press release signed onto by 31 scientific societies about Global Climate Change] is a blatant misuse of scientific authority to advocate for specific socioeconomic policies… In fact, climate science is well outside the wheelhouse of most of these organizations (what the heck is with the statisticians and mathematicians in signing this?)” ~J. Curry

  55. From, ‘The Bright Side of 2016’

    “They do this by convincing us that we need them,” could be an awakening that Western academia’s AGW King-with-no-clothes has been exposed and it’s time for the government scientists to be sent to the farms to earn an honest living…

  56. Survey: Europeans worry migrants may increase terror threat

    BERLIN (AP) — The refugee crisis and the threat of terrorism in Europe are very much related to one another in the minds of many Europeans, according to a survey conducted across the continent.

    Monday’s poll by the Pew Research Center found that in eight of the ten European nations surveyed, half or more believe that the influx of migrants increases the likelihood of terrorism in their country.

    Many Europeans also worry that migrants will become an economic burden and take away their jobs and social benefits.

  57. Michael Bloomberg is back to his old tricks, pushing the idea that the world is going to commit economic suicide in order to “save” the planet from CO2.

    Bloomberg and his disciples have become masters at using the old totalitarian rhetorical trick: stating predictions as if they were already matters of fact.

    Fossil Fuel Industry Risks Losing $33 Trillion to Climate Change

    Government regulations and other efforts to cut carbon emissions will inevitably slash demand for fossil fuels, jeopardizing traditional energy producers, Mark Lewis, Barclays’s head of European utilities equity research, said Monday during a panel discussion in New York on financial risks from climate change….

    The meeting Monday was organized by the Task Force on Climate Related Disclosures, a group established last year by Bank of England Governor Mark Carney.

    The group [is] led by Bloomberg LP founder and majority owner Michael Bloomberg…

  58. If we look at the content of this article, it paints a very different picture than what the headline does:

    Police more likely to use force on blacks than whites, study shows

    • The average rate of using force against blacks is 3.6 times as high as against whites

    • Use of force against Hispanics and Asians is extremely low, less than against both blacks or whites.

    • People who had multiple contacts with the police were more likely to report an experience of force.

    • The research team looked at more than 19,000 use-of-force incidents between 2010 and 2015 from 11 large and middle-sized cities and one urban county.

    • The researchers cautioned against overgeneralizing their results “because we do not know very much about what residents did during the interactions that turned forceful.”

    • Use of force rates averaged 273 per every 100,000 blacks compared to 76 per every 100,000 whites. Rates among Hispanics, Asians and other minorities were lower than those of both whites and blacks.

    • Use of force by police is rare. “That’s the big takeaway that we wanted from our report — it’s is a rare occurrence,” said Shelley S. Hyland, a statistician for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. “It’s hard for people to understand that when there’s a lot of attention on severe incidents of force that happen.”

    • As described by respondents, use of force included shouting, cursing, pushing or grabbing, hitting or kicking, pepper spray, Taser or pointing a gun. Since the BOJS survey is based on in-person interviews, it captures the victim’s perspective and includes lesser forms of force, such as verbal threats.

    Is the tactic that Obama and Clinton are using to stigmatize and demonize the police what is known as “spotlighting”?


    Nisbett and Ross see the cause of prejudice in various cognitive biases. For example, those in groups against which prejudice is held, those members who fit stereotypes are given disproportionatley higher weight than others, and “vivid” incidents are used to “validate” the stereotypes.

    Thus, according to this line of analysis, those who see a few lazy blacks, or loud Italians,and assume that all are, are simply over-generalizing.

    One may wonder, why do they not over-generalize positive attributes?….

    Emotional mechanisms seem at work. For example, people seem to split their ambivialence about others in such a way that negative feelings are projected on the out-group and positive ones to the We group.

    — AMITAI ETZIONI, The Moral Dimension

    • “Like all government price controls, minimum wage laws are distortionary. If you trust government officials and politicians to legislate and enforce a minimum wage for unskilled workers, you should logically trust those same bureaucrats to set all prices, wages and interest rates in the economy.” – AEI.org

      • “An increase in the minimum wage will do more good than harm. For one thing, it’s not tied to the inflation rate, so if it was right when it was set, it’s way too low now. Modest increases in the minimum wage don’t have much effect on forcing people out of work. It should be indexed to inflation in the same way that Social Security payments are, as a number of states have already done.” — Angus Deaton, 2015 Nobel Prize of economics.

    • Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage
      It’s the consensus. Economists are supposed to provide information that is useful to management. Wait, that’s accountants. Economists are supposed to take the controls of the economy and drive us in the direction of prosperity, to happy days are here again with a designated driver. Economists are supposed to make me a model so I can quite my job and be a successful day trader. Economists are supposed to go to third world countries and drive their economies to prosperity.

  59. Brexit could take up to SIX YEARS, warns Philip Hammond: Theresa May’s close ally says cutting ourselves free from the EU will take three times longer than expected

    By then most of the brexitiers still alive won’t even remember what Brexit was about.

  60. Theresa May will promote women into some of the most senior positions in her Government on Wednesday after becoming the second female Prime Minister in Britain’s history.

    Mrs May is this evening expected to announce significant promotions for Amber Rudd, the Energy Secretary

    If you thought Brexit was bad, God help us!

  61. David Springer


    Ad Blocker Plus, which I just recently installed, is trimming the spam out of Willard’s comments which of course leaves most them completely empty!

    In the words of a blog imbecile: Too funny!

    I’m sold. HIGHLY recommended:


  62. Peter Lang, like it or not we disagree on guns; but in your case, your country brought forth “The Gods Must Be Crazy” so I do believe you have potential.

    • Jim2,

      Yes we disagree that allowing everyone to own a gun makes people safer. This is complete nonsense. It’s ridiculous. We disagree because I am right (as always) and you are way out in left field (i.e. wrong) on this particular issue.

      Now that we’ve cleared that up. We are on the same page on most things – where, of course, we are both right :)

      • Cut it out Spr1nger.

      • From the article:

        KENNESAW, Ga – Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.

        In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.

        The ordinance states the gun law is needed to “protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants.”

        Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone “went crazy.”

        “People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes,” he said. “Of course, that wasn’t the case.”

        In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.

        Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law’s passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.

        “It did drop after it was passed,” he said. “After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years.”

        Mayor Leonard Church was not in office when the law was passed, but he said he is a staunch supporter of it.

        “You can’t argue with the fact that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city our size in the country,” said Church, who owns a denture-making company in Kennesaw.


      • Jim2,

        It doesn’t matter how many articles supporting and advocating the US gun culture you post, it makes no difference to the relevant facts. You are in denial of the reality. Get out of you box for a while so you can look at it from afar. Challenge your irrational beliefs on this.

      • Peter. You will be more comfortable if you attempt to become one with the cognitive dissonance.

      • Jim2,

        Not sure what you are getting at. You are stuck in the box and can’t see out, not me.

      • The state with the strictest gun control, California, has a large number of cities in the 25 safest American cities and Texas, which has few restriction, also has several cities among the 25 safest.

        I don’t think that was the case when I moved to Texas in 1981. I lived in Police Chief David Brown’s neighborhood – Oak Cliff from 1983 until 2000. In the 1980s, Fort Worth was said to have a murder rate comparable to that in Detroit. DFW was a “If it bleeds, it leads” news market. Murder murder murder. Burglaries… car theft… whatever. Dallas was ridden with crime. It did not change until Texas acquiesced to the federal judge and agreed to reduce prison overcrowding by building a huge number of new cells. Suddenly, 10-to-20 years meant 10-to-20, and not 6 months.

        In the Willie Horton year, the state of Texas released tens of thousands of convicted felons far far before their sentences were up, including some 1100 convicted murderers. Clean release. Bye. Freshly trained with lots of new criminal contacts, they went straight home and started jacking cars, murdering, burglarizing, etc.

      • https://youtu.be/kYX8sjIzjGw

        Killed by a gun carried by a US citizen just because he couldn’t get he attention. How gullible and irrational are the people who believe they are safer if everyone is allowed to bear arms.

      • Arm yourself and you have a good chance to prevent this. From the article:

        Sacramento County Coroner’s officials have released the name of a father and his two sons who were shot to death in what sheriff’s officials say was a home invasion robbery.

        They were identified as Thanh Le, 56, and his sons Dong Le, 32, and Tien Le, 21.


      • Jim2,

        Arm yourself and you have a good chance to prevent this.

        You can’t be serious, are you?

        Do you really think citizens of a country are safer if all are allowed to bear arms or guns are illegal except for specific, tightly regulated purposes?

        Just a yes or no answer, not a whole pile of gun lobby nonsense. If you believe it’s safer to have everyone bearing guns, you are as gullible as other groups with weird, irrational beliefs – bu they too really beleieve they are right.

      • From the article:

        In the three years since we started publishing HomeInvasionNews, we’ve detected an increase in incidents of homeowners who shoot home invaders. Some homeowners are even killing people who attempt to forcibly break into their homes.
        By January 2013, we had already noticed an uptick in residents shooting at home invaders. But those stories were still somewhat unusual. In fact, this January 2013 story about a mom in Oklahoma who got the okay to shoot an intruder was distinctive enough for us to devote an entire story to it.


      • This really proves the point doesn’t it. Having everyone allowed to carry guns means people use them to kill people, not to defend themselves.

      • The odds of me getting shot are very low. I’m not concerned. However, the odds of my house burning down are also very small. Still, I spend some of my hard earned money on home insurance.

      • Jim2,

        That’s all irrelevant. The citizens of a country are at higher risk of being shot if everyone is allowed to carry guns than if they are not. It’s bleeding obvious.

      • Jim2,

        I am going to bed. You have 8 hours to think about this and come to the logical conclusion – laws allowing everyone to carry guns are really stupid and people who can’t see that the citizens of a country are at higher risk of being shot if everyone is allowed to carry guns than if they are not are pretty dim. Don’t be one of them. I look forward to your rational response in the morning. :)

      • In your case, Peter, I have to believe that you think the unilateral nuclear disarmament of the US is a great idea also.

        At any rate, believe what you like, I don’t have to change your mind.

      • Jim2,

        That’s another really stupid comment. It’s not comparable. See if you can work out why.

        You don’t have to change your mind. But you are clearly trying to make all sorts of really stupid arguments to justify your illogical beliefs. Stubbornly sticking to your position when so clearly wrong is not wise.

      • OK, so you are David Springer after all.

      • Jim2,

        When you are down to this sort of argument, you’ve clearly lost. You know you’ve lost this argument. You should admit the basis for you belief that civilians of a country if everyone is allowed to carry guns is wrong Dead Wrong.

        10 Signs of Intellectual Honesty’

        4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak.

        5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong.


  63. The establishment has figured out two things: racism sells, and facts don’t matter.

    The war on cops: The big lie of the anti-cop left turns lethal

    [T]here is a huge, unacknowledged measure of support for the police in the inner city: “They’re due respect because they put their lives every day on the line to protect and serve. I hope they don’t back off from policing,” a woman told me on the Staten Island street where Eric Garner was killed….

    Meanwhile, protests and riots against the police were gathering force across the country, all of them steeped in anti-cop vitriol and the ubiquitous lie that “black lives” don’t “matter” to the police….

    The elites’ investment in black victimology [is] too great to hope for an injection of truth into the dangerously counterfactual discourse about race, crime, and policing.

    • Do you suppose the plan is to have so much turmoil by November that they’ll “have to” cancel the election?

  64. h/t WUWT for posting this speech by Sheldon Whitehouse where he lays out the distinction or lack thereof between big fossil and big tobacco, and between fraud and the first amendment. A useful legal lesson from someone who knows about these things.

  65. So far Obama has lost his anti-fracking battles in the courts, which have ruled that his attempts to regulate fracking are federal overreach.

    The White House, however, said it would appeal and continue to make its case in the courts.

    “There’s a number of folks out there who are committed to the philosophy that you need to keep fossil fuels in the ground. They also understand the revolution in the United States with oil and natural gas production is due in large part to [fracking]. So…impact to jobs and economic development be damned.”

    The Great Debate: Who Should Regulate Fracking?

  66. House subcommittee approves cuts to EPA funding

    The bill provides $7.4 billion for the EPA – a 9% reduction from fiscal year 2015. According to the subcommittee’s release, these funding cuts “will help the agency streamline operations” by centralizing the focus to broader goals….

    The bill also blocks the issuing of new regulations by the EPA….

    Rep. Ken Calvert (R—Calif.), the chairman of the subcommittee, told the Associated Press…”the bill takes meaningful steps to shield our economy and defend American jobs from the executive overreach of EPA regulators.”

    Obama had asked for exorbitant increases in the budgets of the EPA and other agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has also come under fire for its police state tactics.

    The proposed fiscal year 2016 budget for environment and interior funding, released by the House Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations Tuesday, grants $30.17 billion in natural resources for the Department of Interior, the EPA and several other agencies. The total funding is a decrease of $246 million from the fiscal year of 2015, and is in total $3 billion below the requested funding for these agencies President Obama proposed in February.

    • EPA Slams House Republicans For Trying To Gut Environmental Protections

      EPA administrator Gina McCarthy is fighting against a proposal to cut her agency’s budget by 9 percent.

      The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) fired back Tuesday against a proposed budget from the the Republican-led House, telling reporters the appropriations bill is “short-sighted” with “terrible real-world consequences.”

      The House of Representatives is currently debating an appropriations bill that would reduce the EPA’s budget by $718 million, or by 9 percent, and prohibit certain environmental regulations, including a sweeping proposal from the Obama administration to tackle carbon emissions.

      “We are deeply disappointed in the bill,” OMB Director Shaun Donovan said on a call Tuesday. “Representatives are attempting to hijack the appropriations process.” Donovan told reporters the overall budget…reflects the lowest real levels of funding in a decade.

      EPA chief Gina McCarthy echoed Donovan’s concerns… Under the appropriation bills, the EPA would be prohibited from finalizing the Clean Power Plan….

      The cuts are included in the Interior and Environmental budget proposed in June by a Republican-led House Appropriations Committee. The committee’s goal was to “fight job-crushing regulations, protect the nation’s natural resources, and promote safe and sustainable American energy.”

      The bill includes extra-budgetary provisions to block EPA implementation of the proposed Clean Power Plan….

      Attacking environmental protections has emerged a key priority for House Republicans, who have often accused the Obama Administration of a “war on coal.”

      • I find this comment from OMB Director Shaun Donovan to be rather laughable.

        “Representatives are attempting to hijack the appropriations process.”

        One would think any person selected to head a government agency would have at least a clue how said government actually operates. US Representatives are the appropriations process. At least they are the most important part of that process. The part that approves (or rejects) the amount of money appropriated.

      • tim56,

        One wonders if Donovan is really that colosally ignorant, or if he is just playing to the colossally ignorant.

        “The power of the purse’s earliest examples in a modern sense occurred in the English Parliament, which gained the exclusive power to authorise taxes and thus could control the nation’s cash flow,” explains Wikipedia. “Through this power, Parliament slowly subverted the executive strength of the crown; King Charles II was limited in his powers to engage in various war efforts by a refusal by Parliament to authorise further taxes.”

        Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government.

        Massachusetts’ Elbridge Gerry said at the Federal Constitutional Convention that the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.”


    • GO TRUMP!

      Obama theatens veto of EPA appropriations bill

      [T]he House of Representatives debated a bill to fund the Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency. The White House on Monday said Obama would veto that measure if it passes because it “underfunds” key Department of Interior programs and slashes the EPA’s operating budget.

  67. Disjunction Donald: he’d be president if only whites voted, or if only men voted, or if only the South voted, or if only people 65 and over voted, or if only Glenn & jim voted.


  68. Lordy! Lordy!

    You couldn’t make this stuff up. Look what the feckless CAGW dreamers at CalPERS have wrought.

    If these investment geniuses would have merely invested the pensioners’ money in index funds, the 2009 CalPERS’ investment fund would have grown from $180 billion in 2009 to $380 billion now, instead of its current $293.7 billion.

    • CalPERS Urges Investors to Vote for Climate Change Reporting

    “Climate change is an investment issue,” said Anne Simpson, CalPERS Director of Global Governance. “We need robust reporting by companies to ensure their long term strategies are in line with the Paris Agreement, which sets out the world’s goal to limit global warming.”

    • Watchdog: Another tough year for CalPERS as retirement fund loses billions

    The California Public Employees Retirement System – the nation’s largest – lost about 2 percent of its market value in the fiscal year that just ended, according to unofficial numbers published last week on the CalPERS website.

    The value of CalPERS investments was $293.7 billion on June 30, down from $301.9 billion one year earlier….

    Challenges are expected to continue for years….

    “What this means is simple: employers, employees and taxpayers will pay more to keep CalPERS afloat in the future,” said Joe Nation, a professor of public policy at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and a former Democratic Assemblyman….

    Those unfunded liabilities – the difference between what CalPERS has and what the agency has promised to pay people for work already performed – are about $150 billion, compared with $93 billion just two years ago, Nation said.

    And if one assumes “a more realistic 4 percent rate of return” (a “Treasury” or “risk-free” rate) “the unfunded liability for CalPERS alone is now $412 billion, or three state general fund budgets,” Nation said….

    Public agencies and workers will see their required contributions to pension funds continue to rise, said state Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa. His back-of-the-napkin calculations put the hike at an extra $1 billion next year, to try to make up lost ground.

    • Dole Donald:

      [Donald]’s net worth has grown about 300% to an estimated $4 billion since 1987, according to a report by the Associated Press. But the real estate mogul would have made even more money if he had just invested in index funds. The AP says that, if [Donald] had invested in an index fund in 1988, his net worth would be as much as $13 billion.


      • Willard,

        This is exactly the type of fact-free inanities that we have come to expect from the mainstream media.

        It is, of course, all propagandistic nonsense:

        Our ruling

        Occupy Democrats shared an image that said if Trump had taken the money he got from his father and simply put it in a fund that tracked the S&P 500, he’d have $8 billion today. While it’s true that Trump got a leg up from his father on the order of many tens of millions of dollars, this specific claim suffers from a key flaw.

        The only way to hit the $8 billion mark is to start with $200 million in 1982, and it’s wrong to say that was Trump’s father’s money. While the father’s business put Trump on the path to have $200 million in 1982, Trump himself had been running the company for eight years.

        We rate this claim False.


        The Democrats’ claim having been demonstrated to be false, they made another run at it, in fact several more runs.

        But in their second and successive tries, amongst other glaring factual errors, the Democrats conveniently omitted something from their calculations: Trump’s living expenses over the past 30 years, which is no small thing:

        This week there’s been another round of argument that Trump would be richer today if he had just put his money in an index fund instead of using it to make stiff buildings and colognes and schools that are not even a little academic.

        This round was set off by this National Journal article by S.V. Dáte; here are Dylan Matthews and Kevin Drum with more. The previous round of Trump versus index comparisons came from this Associated Press article; here is what I wrote at the time.

        The simplest version of the comparison seems to be that if Trump had taken his $40 million inheritance from his father in 1974, converted it into cash, and invested it in the S&P 500, reinvesting all dividends and spending no money along the way, he’d have about $2.3 billion or so today, depending on how you do the math.

        Bloomberg computes his actual net worth as $2.9 billion, so he’s modestly outperformed the S&P over his career, again depending on how you do the math.

        That, however, understates his performance. For one thing, if he put all his money in index funds and reinvested all the dividends for 41 years, he’d be dead, because you can’t buy food with reinvested dividends.

        As an investing strategy you can’t beat compound returns, but as a strategy for life food has key diversification benefits. Also I feel like Trump has unusually high consumption expenses? For instance, to choose one item at random, I gather that he is currently funding his own campaign for president. That would also eat into his returns.


      • > This is exactly the type of fact-free inanities that we have come to expect from the mainstream media.

        This is exactly the type of proof by assertion that Denizens are used to hear from you, Glenn.

        Here, have some Disclosing Donald:


        Let’s disclose this:

        In a court filing obtained by The Associated Press, Nunberg accused Trump of trying to silence him “in a misguided attempt to cover up media coverage of an apparent affair” between two senior campaign staffers.

        Such a legal dispute is highly unusual for a presidential candidate. It reflects Trump’s efforts to aggressively protect the secrecy of his campaign’s inner workings, as he has for years fought to protect the secrecy of his businesses and family.

        The AP reported last month that Trump requires nearly everyone in his campaign and businesses to sign legally binding nondisclosure agreements prohibiting them from releasing any confidential or disparaging information about the real estate mogul, his family or his companies. Trump has also said he would consider requiring such agreements in the White House.

        But transparency.

    • The problem is that taxpayers will now be asked to bail these investment geniuses out for their CAGW fanatacism.

      CalPERS and CalSTRS Care About Climate Change

      • Being global investors comes with great responsibilities.

      • We recognize climate change as a material risk to society, the economy, and the impacts on our investment decisions.

      • We have been at the forefront of tackling climate change issues through policy advocacy, engagement with portfolio companies and investing in climate change solutions.

      • CalSTRS and CalPERS both have well-established, thorough vetting processes for potential investments, which seek to test not only for financial potential, but for social, human and environmental impacts, as well.

      • CalSTRS developed an investment policy for mitigating environmental, social and governance risks under its CalSTRS 21 Risk Factors, adopted in 2008.

      • CalPERS adopted Investment Beliefs addressing Climate Change issues:

      ~ CalPERS believes long-term value creation requires effective management of three forms of capital: financial, physical and human.

      ~ Investors must consider risk factors, for example climate change and
      natural resource availability that could have a material impact on portfolio

      • Speaking of bailouts, here’s some Debt Donald:


        From the article (h/t jim):

        For a rich man,  [Debt Donald] is suspiciously familiar with bankruptcy court. Oh, but never for himself, he’ll rush to explain. Those were companies he “put into a chapter”—presumably Chapter 11—and the times he “used the laws of the country” to cut deals with creditors and avoid financial ruin. [Debt Donald] has sought bankruptcy protection for some of his biggest investments, including the [Debt Donald] Taj Mahal, [Debt Donald] Castle, and the Plaza Hotel.

  69. Time to End the Demonizing of Police

    Make no mistake: Assertions about systemic, deadly police racism are false….

    A “deadly force” lab study at Washington State University by researcher Lois James found that participants were biased in favor of black suspects, over white or Hispanic ones, in simulated threat scenarios. The research, published in 2014 in the Journal of Experimental Criminology, confirmed what Ms. James had found previously….

    In 2015 a Justice Department analysis of the Philadelphia Police Department found that white police officers were less likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot unarmed black suspects.

    And this month “An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force” by Harvard economics professor Roland G. Fryer Jr., analyzing more than 1,000 officer-involved shootings across the country, reports that there is zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings.

    All of which brings us to President Obama’s extraordinary statement last week alleging systemic racism in American law enforcement….

    A few hours after President Obama made his remarks, the Dallas gunman assassinated five police officers, in a rampage that police officials later reported was driven by hatred of white officers and white people generally.

    Mr. Obama’s statement undoubtedly had no causal relationship to the Dallas slaughter. But it certainly added to the record of distortion and falsehood that has stoked widespread animus toward the police….

    Indifferent to the…facts, President Obama on Thursday, referring to the police killings in Baton Rouge and St. Paul, said: “[T]hese are not isolated incidents. They’re symptomatic of a broader set of racial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system.” He made another sweeping allegation of law-enforcement racism, saying that there “are problems across our criminal justice system, there are biases—some conscious and unconscious—that have to be rooted out.”…

    Hillary Clinton has also taken up this warped cause. On CNN Friday, she decried “systemic” and “implicit bias” in police departments. She also called on “white people” to better understand blacks “who fear every time their children go somewhere.”….

    Meanwhile, Donald Trump emphasized “law and order” in a video released Friday, saying: “We must stand in solidarity with law enforcement, which we must remember is the force between civilization and total chaos.”

  70. How the Golden State lost its luster

    The Reason Foundation ranks California roads as the second worst in the country. The Road Information Program estimates that bad roads coststate drivers $44 billion per year, despite the fact that California gasoline taxes are 40 percent higher than the national average.

    California’s water infrastructure situation is no better. The last major water infrastructure was the 1960 California Water Project.

  71. “I-35W south near downtown Mpls. reopened after protests, arrests”
    “Demonstrators had been protesting fatal police shootings.”
    “In a statement distributed earlier in the morning by Black Lives Matter, a group calling itself the “Coalition to Wake Your Ass Up” said the shutdown “reinforces our belief that our comfort and business as usual must be disrupted until substantive changes occur in our city and throughout the country.””
    “It continued: “This group demands the dismantling of the police department, which includes disarming, defunding, demilitarizing and disbanding police.””
    It sounded to me that that shooting in Falcon Heights was a misunderstanding at the scene.

    • It looks like Black Lives Matter, Obama and Clinton have lost the plot. They need to take a page out of Martin Luther King’s playbook:

      When the idea is a sound one, the cause a just one, and the demonstration a righteous one, change will be forthcoming. But if any of these conditions are not present, the power for change is missing also. A thousand people demonstrating for the right to use heroin would have little effect.

      — REV. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., “Nonviolence, the Only Road to Freedom,” Ebony, October 1966.

      The fellow in this video (beginning at minute 06:45) hits the nail squarely upon the head:


      They colorize these things….

      Why are we talking about this as a black-white issue?…

      The other thing the pastor said, he talked about systematic stuff. The system he’s talking about is a Baltimore black mayor, a Baltimore black state attorney, a police chief who was black, and everybody in this system was pretty much black…. The cops involved were black, and we’re talking about as if there was some boogie man KKK guy that set this thing up….

      The government we’re talking about here is a government that is controlled by a president who’s black, an attorney general who’s black, and before her who is black, and we continue to colorize this.

  72. Touchdown Dancing Donald:


    A quote:

    Big names, big money, big vision—and an ego that encompassed it all. [Touchdown Dancing Donald]’s foray into pro football ownership with the upstart league in the ’80s was the kind of spectacle that now feels very familiar.


    Not everything was glitz and gold, though. [Touchdown Dancing Donald] ran the team as he might any of his other business ventures, and that left a sour taste at times, or worse. By the time the USFL folded, [Touchdown Dancing Donald] had alienated many people around the team and across the league.


  73. Whoops!

    With a drop in grades on honesty and moral standards, Democrat Hillary Clinton loses an 8-point lead over Republican Donald Trump in Florida, and finds herself in too-close-to-call races in the three critical swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to a Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released today.



  74. ExxonMobil “…spent nearly $2 million last year on more than a dozen think tanks, advocacy groups and associations that dispute climate science and disparage renewable energy.”

    Sounds like a lot.
    Sales: $237 B
    Gross Income: $52 B
    Net Income: $16 B

    Let’s take the smallest number, Net Income. Looks like they spent about 1/8000th of their Net Income denying climate. That a high sensitively for dollars spent. I don’t think any corporation has ever controlled the Congress to the extent it has for a measly $2 million dollars a year. Who are climate deniers according to the paper? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Black Chamber of Commerce. Another swing and a whiff about the big oil conspiracy.

    • I wonder how much Exxon money Billary has.

      • jim2,

        Here are Clinton’s top 20 contributors for the 2016 election cycle, and I don’t see ExxonMobil on the list.

        Saban Capital Group: $10,036,171
        Pritzker Group: $7,419,709
        Soros Fund Management: $7,044,500
        Euclidean Capital: $7,002,700
        Paloma Partners: $6,107,900
        Newsweb Corp: $5,013,500
        Center for Middle East Peace: $3,008,100
        Laborers Union: $3,006,561
        Herb & Marion Sandler/Sandler Foundation: $3,002,700
        Renaissance Technologies: $2,516,100
        Plumbers/Pipefitters Union: $2,507,265
        DE Shaw Research: $2,303,210
        Fair Share Action: $2,105,000
        Barbara Lee Family Foundation: $2,099,604
        American Federation of Teachers: $2,072,255
        DreamWorks SKG: $2,013,500
        Operating Engineers Union: $2,010,000
        BLS Investments: $2,002,700
        Bohemian Foundation: $2,002,700
        Laurel Foundation: $1,728,952

        This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2016 cycle. The money came from the organizations’ PACs; their individual members, employees or owners; and those individuals’ immediate families. At the federal level, the organizations themselves did not donate, as they are prohibited by law from doing so. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

      • That doesn’t mean Billary has no Exxon money.

      • jim2,

        That’s true.

        I would expect Big Oil (the international oil companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, etc.) to be for Clinton, since Big Oil is very much part of the Military-Finance-Big Oil industrial complex.

        After all, what did we fight the war in Iraq for, if not for this, illustrated by a map from Cheney’s secretive energy task force? The task force beleived that regions of Iraq which were unexplored for oil could contain vast oil reserves, perhaps even more than Saudi Arabia.


        And it’s pretty obvious from Trump’s reception in North Dakota that Little Oil (domestic oil producers like Harold Hamm) is for Trump.

        Harold Hamm: The Oil Mogul Behind Trump’s Energy Speech

      • ExxonMobil shocked the Bush administration when they told them they wanted no part of going back into Iraq. ExxonMobil likes stability. They lost a lot of money when the federal government backed out of certain initiatives in the 1980s. That is how Lee Raymond came up through the ranks. He got Exxon out of that mess.

      • Also, ExxonMobil has significant interests in North Dakota.

      • JCH,

        ExxonMobil also has significant interests in the Permian Basin and other shale plays. Some of these it has had forever, others it acquired when it bought out XTO Energy in 2009, and others were added with more recent acquisitions.

        ExxonMobil has a Permian Basin leasehold, for instance, of 1.5 million acres, which includes 135,000 acres it has acquired through five agreements in the Midland Basin since January 2014.

        And ExxonMobil is shopping around for more.

        Motley Fool speculates that the company has its eyes on three potential targets: EOG, Pioneer and Continental.

        3 Potential Takeover Targets for ExxonMobil

        Seeking Alpha names other potential targets: Marathon, Whiting, and asset purchases from distressed companies, but not for a whole company.

        Possible Acquisition Candidates For Exxon Mobil

        And Oil and Gas Investor says ExxonMobil is not in the market to buy companies, just assets:

        ExxonMobil Eyes Asset Deals, Not Takeovers

      • JCH,

        Despite ExxonMobil’s significant leasehold interest in US shale plays, one must keep in mind that 80% of ExxonMobil’s liquids production and more than 80% of its profits come from outside the United States. For all intents and purposes it is a transnational company, with transnational interests, and not an American company with American interests.


        The crisis that companies like ExxonMobil face is an existential one.

        With the vast majority of the world’s oil and gas reserves in the hands of governments and state oil companies, the question is, “Who needs companies like ExxonMobil?”

        A study conducted by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy sums up the problem up as follows:

        Are IOCs Obsolete?

        Increasingly, the IOCs [international oil companies, like ExxonMobil] have become more like general contractors, coordinating the operation of a number of suppliers who themselves are the ones who undertake seismic work, analyze data, provide drilling rigs and crews and a host of oil field services.

        The larger IOCs also serve the function of bankers, providing the vast amount of financial resources required to mount greenfield projects in increasingly unfavorable anddifficult environments. They also provide the management, organizational skills, and oversight that these large projects require.

        The question is whether NOCs [national oil companies owned by the state who control almost all the world’s oil and gas reserves] will find this role increasingly useful or whether they believe that such operational planning functions can either be performed by themselves or be farmed out to a service company under a fee-for service structure.

        The fact that IOCs have had a poor record in recent years avoiding giant cost overruns on mega projects in Kazakhstan, the Sakhalin Islands, and the Middle East means that NOCs might be skeptical of the benefits being offered by IOCs.

        Moreover, investors are also questioning whether there is a continued role for the largest firms in a world where the average size of new finds is declining. Smaller E&P firms have lower costs than the large bureaucratic IOCs. They might have an advantage in finding and developing the remaining reserves that are available to private firms. Stock markets reflect these perceptions, with the shares of NOCs and American independents generally performing better than IOC shares


        In order to overcome thier existential crisis, NOCs like ExxonMobil need more oil and gas reserves in the private sector. The second Iraq War was done with this goal in mind.

        The privatization of Mexico’s vast potential oil and gas reserves was also done with this goal in mind. This privatization was presided over by Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State.

      • Since Exxon earns so much of its money in other countries, a trade war is going to be bad for them.

    • You might also like:


      The ties between Exxon and the Republican party are well known. They run deep. Denizens should drop that one, but go team!

      • According to Open Secrets:
        Oil & Gas: Top Recipients

        Hillary Clinton:
        18th place $42,600

        16th place $74,700

        6th place $400,042

      • Sure, Ragnaar:

        1 Cruz, Ted (R-TX) Senate $1,343,537
        2 Bush, Jeb (R) $501,102
        3 Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK) Senate $470,100
        4 Clinton, Hillary (D) $393,453
        5 Rubio, Marco (R-FL) Senate $381,814
        6 Ryan, Paul (R-WI) House $361,215
        7 Portman, Rob (R-OH) Senate $304,475
        8 Brady, Kevin (R-TX) House $241,300
        9 Hoeven, John (R-ND) Senate $231,775
        10 McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) House $226,950
        11 Scalise, Steve (R-LA) House $226,700
        12 Toomey, Pat (R-PA) Senate $224,401
        13 Lankford, James (R-OK) Senate $215,150
        14 Johnson, Ron (R-WI) Senate $213,550
        15 Boustany, Charles Jr (R-LA) House $210,600
        16 Ayotte, Kelly (R-NH) Senate $210,425
        17 Upton, Fred (R-MI) House $188,950
        18 Shuster, Bill (R-PA) House $173,012
        19 Boehner, John (R-OH) House $170,350
        20 Barton, Joe (R-TX) House $163,83


        Please, do continue.

      • Thank you Willard.
        It’s a club and she was a member.
        Let’s throw them all out.

      • Even Deficit Donald will sooner or later join that club, Ragnaar:


        That’s how it goes, until you invent a better way to do politics.

      • Willard,

        I don’t think you’re helping yourself there.

        Three things stand out on that list, which is an accounting of “All donations from the oil and gas sector that took place during the 2015-2016 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday, June 21, 2016.”

        First, Clinton is the lone Democrat on the list. All the other 19 candidates on the list are Republicans.

        Second, Clinton ranks fourth on the list. And if we look only at presidential candidates, she ranks third, trailing only behind Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush. So Clinton has moved up a few notches since 2008.

        Third, Trump is nowhere to be found on the list.


      • More from Open Secrets
        Hilary Clinton Career donations
        Some of her large donors. All of which I think could be described as big finance:

        Citigroup Inc

        JPMorgan Chase & Co

        Goldman Sachs

        Morgan Stanley

        Greenberg Traurig LLP

        Bank of America

      • > [D] is nowhere to be found on the list.

        It’s just a matter of time, Glenn:

        “I would take the oil — and stop this baby stuff,” [Dove Donald] declared. “I’m only interested in Libya if we take the oil. If we don’t take the oil, I’m not interested.”

        More on Dove Donald:


      • I would like to clarify something I posted. When I gave 2004, 2006 and 2008 above, I was searching and meaning Senators only. If we included ALL, her placings probably would’ve dropped.

      • Thanks for clarifying, Ragnaar. I trust that if you could find a way to make her first on that kind of list, you would do so.

        More on Dirty Donald:


      • Trump may have found a better way, time will tell. Better is winning it seems to me.
        Sanders was perhaps within sight of a better way but the establishment stopped that.

      • Dirty Donald’s past is enough to show that unless there’s a piece for him (as he elegantly submitted to Ohioians recently), he’s seldom interested, Ragnaar. Even the present is enough to see he’s just a BS artist who portrays as an orange clown:


        Besides, he’s too evanescent to bring that kind of change.

      • Trump has changed the Republican party. He is BS but so is about every other national politician. Is there a place beyond the BS? If there is, I’d like to go there and I’d like the country and world to go there as well. The establishment is not Moses and it doesn’t have a map.

      • That tu quoque doesn’t fly, Ragnaar:


        In a matter of weeks, Delusory Donald will force Politifact to add negative percentages to their truth index.

    • This link is supposed to show ExxonMobil versus Vanguard’s S & P 500 index fund over the past 10 years. You get a different result over the past 5 years.
      It’s a popular stock for middle class retired people in my experience.

  75. First it’s Trump, now this:
    “We find that in those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices, the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new climate state emerged.”

  76. So is May serious about Brexit?


    May filling more government posts; euroskeptics in key roles

    British Prime Minister Theresa May is filling more Cabinet posts Thursday as she assembles a government that includes prominent anti-EU figures in key international roles.

    She rewarded Johnson with the plum job of foreign secretary….

    In April, Johnson suggested that U.S. President Barack Obama had an “ancestral dislike” of Britain because he is part-Kenyan.

    • I can’t believe Theresa May has appointed Boris Johnson to Minister for Foreign relations. What a dreadful appointment.


      “The German foreign minister says he is irresponsible and says his decision to play cricket after Brexit was “outrageous”.
      “People [in the UK] are experiencing a rude awakening after irresponsible politicians first lured the country into a Brexit to then, once the decision was made, bolt and not take responsibility,” Frank-Walter Steinmeier said during a speech at Greifswald University.
      “Instead they went to play cricket. To be honest, I find this outrageous but it’s not just bitter for Great Britain. It’s also bitter for the European Union.”
      Carl Bildt, the former PM of Sweden, tweets a picture of Boris on the Olympic zip wire.
      “I wish it was a joke but I fear it isn’t. Exit upon exit.”
      France senses that Boris Johnson is a weak appointment. He has his “back against the wall”, and is a “liar”, foreign minister Jean-Marc Ayrault says.
      “I am not at all worried about Boris Johnson, but… during the campaign he lied a lot to the British people and now it is he who has his back against the wall,” said Ayrault on Europe 1 radio.
      “(He has) his back against the wall to defend his country but also with his back against the wall the relationship with Europe should be clear,” Ayrault said.
      “I need a partner with whom I can negotiate and who is clear, credible and reliable,” he added.
      “We cannot let this ambiguous, blurred situation drag on… in the interests of the British themselves.”

      • Well I’m not British, so don’t really have a dog in this fight.

        But take a look at this video of Clinton on the campaign trail yesterday and tell me that Johnson’s description of Clinton as a “sadistic nurse” isn’t perspicuous.

        VIDEO: Clinton calls Trump a threat to democracy

      • British, but not English, descendant of Turkish and German aristocracy via which he is related to the queen EII.
        all in here:

      • David Wojick

        Johnson is a climate skeptic, which means the UK may not ratify the Paris Agreement, in which case neither will India. If Trump then wins skepticism may become more mainstream globally..

      • Peter

        Do you remember that at the height of one of the greek euro crises merkel declared it solved and promptly went on a two week long walkimg holiday?

        Boris played an afternoon of cricket, no doubt to collect his thoughts after the tumultuous events.

        May has appointed practically al the people that I wanted to see in her cabinet. Boris is an inspired choice for Foreign secretary speaking four languages and having a variety of overseas ancestors.

        The people of Britain were not ‘LURED’ into Bexit. We have been lied to by the EU eite for decades and suffered a democratic deficit. . The boot is now on the other foot.

        Lets hope someone sensible ends up at Energy

        Lets also hope Europe can also see they are heading for a financial and social car crash and heed the warning


      • TonyB,

        Thank you. I didn’t know that. Good comparison.

        I’ve actually changed my opinion since I wrote the comment you are responding to. I am now keeping an open mind. May actually be very smart in what’s shes done so far.

        1. Shen needs to put the Brexit leaders in high profile positions so they either succeed or fail. If they fail, they’ll be the first scapegoat, not her.

        2. She has to send a clear message that the UK government has heard the peoples message. They want change. They do not want the old guard who defended “Stay” still in charge.

        I say go Theresa May! And may we have a May for PM in Australia too, please?

      • A few over of cricket just to freshen up doesn’t seem too bad. I was having dismal forebodings about May, but it’s looking brighter.

        It’s about making sure that government of the people, by the technocrats, for the lobbyists, shall indeed perish from the Earth.

      • David Wojick

        Tony, as you know they have just abolished the Climate and Energy Department, apparently giving the building to the new Brexit Dept. Great news indeed.

      • David

        Yes, good news indeed. Lets hope they concentrate for a few years on actually producing reasonably priced and reliable base energy


        Intriguing that Andrea Leadsom has got environment. She is no friend of the greens


      • Tony B

        Thanks for point that out. I am hopeful GB is going to lead the world to a resurgence of The Enlightment. :)

      • David Wojick

        It just keeps getting better, Tony. Do you think maybe the Johnson and Leadsom posts are in exchange for dropping out of the PM race?

      • Must say, I thought the new PM would be yet another Blairite, flavour conservative, with a liking for the usual NATO bombs-away and the usual green pounds-away. The type of leadership to ravage and destabilise North Africa while fretting over the eurocratic virtues of burning American woodchips instead of lumps of coal.

        May not be the case judging from some resolute words and those cabinet appointments. Reason to hope, at least.

      • David

        When Boris went missing immediately after the referendum there were strong rumours that he had a conversation with May. Perhaps this was after Gove had done his Brutus act. If before, the rumour makes no sense as Boris presumably wanted the top job.

        I think Leadsom was fllleted by the tory hierarchy. May has said she wants more women in top jobs and leadsom is an obvious choice.

        Certainly its all very Brexit friendly and lets hope whoever is now in charge of energy treats this with the respect and urgency it needs and ensure we keep our lights on over the winter. Lets hope we have another 1869 winter-the one that pipped 2015/16 to the post!


      • David Wojick

        I think her primary focus is keeping the Party together in the wake of the referendum divide. This puts the truly conservative Brexiteers at the table. Reason to hope indeed.

      • UK Department of Energy and Climate Change has been abolished.

        What fantastic news, eh?. Some of the good consequences of Brexit I was hoping for but expected to take a decade to achieve are beginning within a day of Theresa May becoming UK PM.

        May we please have a PM like May in Australia.

      • “UK Department of Energy and Climate Change has been abolished.”

        Can it be true? Be still, my beating heart!

      • Heinlein once said (quoted)

        Major Ian Hay, back in the “War to End War,” described the structure of military organizations: Regardless of T.O., all military bureaucracies consist of a Surprise Party Department, a Practical Joke Department, and a Fairy Godmother Department. The first two process most matters as the third is very small; the Fairy Godmother Department is one elderly female GS-5 clerk usually out on sick leave.

        Well, the Brexit Vote has been the practical joke…

        And May’s new cabinet is the surprise party…

        All for the Green Euroblob!

        It’s important to remember that things can go wrong for your enemies, as well as for you.

      • May we please have a PM like May in Australia.

        Maybe they should re-establish the British Commonwealth.

        At least they all speak the same language.

      • Do we dare ter hope?
        I hope so.

      • Me too!!!

      • Here’s the take from an oil industry source:

        New PM May Scraps Department of Energy and Climate Change

        Trade association Oil & Gas UK responded to the news Thursday afternoon by issuing a statement in which its chief executive, Deidre Michie, said:

        “Offshore oil and gas is one of this country’s greatest industrial success stories and must remain a linchpin of a UK industrial strategy. Yet we are at a critical juncture and we need to work with government to address low levels of exploration and development in the North Sea and send a strong message that the UK Continental Shelf is a great place to invest in.”….

        [T]he elimination of DECC could be a signal that May’s government will pursue an energy strategy for the UK that is more concerned about economic growth and less concerned about the country’s impact on carbon emissions and climate change. May has a parliamentary record of voting favourably on such issues as shale gas fracking in the UK.

      • [T]he elimination of DECC could be a signal that May’s government will pursue an energy strategy for the UK that is more concerned about economic growth and less concerned about the country’s impact on carbon emissions and climate change. May has a parliamentary record of voting favourably on such issues as shale gas fracking in the UK.

        Thank’s Glenn. That’s more good news. It just keeps coming in. Go GB!

      • let the twelve labours begin! Cleaning out
        waste from them Augean departments.

    • The 14 year-old and his poem White Boy Privilege were everywhere on the MSM yesterday. Here’s the coverage on CNN, which includes a full transcript of the poem:

      Teen’s “White Boy Privilege” slam poetry goes viral

      Here’s an excerpt from the poem:

      Dear women, I’m sorry.

      Dear black people, I’m sorry.

      Dear Asian-Americans, dear Native Americans, dear immigrants who come here seeking a better life, I’m sorry.

      Dear everyone who isn’t a middle or upper-class white boy, I’m sorry.

      I have started life in the top of the ladder while you were born on the first rung.

      I say now that I would change places with you in an instant, but if given the opportunity, would I?

      Probably not.

      Because to be honest, being privileged is awesome.

  77. Will the police withdraw from the inner city, and leave its residents to fend for themselves?

    VIDEO: Police struggle with race relations

  78. Is the claim that CBS News makes that “Excessive use of force by police officers affects black people in a disproportionate manner” true?

    VIDEO: Policing and race relations

    Excessive use of force by police officers affects black people in a disproportionate manner.

    Sian-Pierre Regis and Khalil Muhammad talk about how that may play the biggest role in the racial strife facing America today.

    • Several black entertainers released a “public service announcement” that evangelizes the notion that “Excessive use of force by police officers affects black people in a disproportionate manner.”

      Alicia Keys calls for radical transformation in racial justice

      Singer Alicia Keys released a public service announcement Wednesday showing “23 ways you could be killed if you are black in America.” The PSA, which features Beyonce, Rihanna and Pharrel Williams describes the harmless actions black men and women were engaged in before they suffered untimely deaths. CBSN’s panel talks about the PSA.

    • Jennifer Lopez was roundly attacked on social media for using “All Lives Matter,” which challenges the notion that “Excessive use of force by police officers affects black people in a disproportionate manner.”

      Lopez deleted the tweet that contained the offending hashtag #AllLivesMatter after it provoked a storm of controversy.

      “The phrase #AllLivesMatter has been used as a counterargument to #BlackLivesMatter,” explained Nigel Smith in an article in The Guardian. “The latter phrase was inspired by the fact that disproportionate numbers of black people [have been] killed by police in the US,” Nigel adds, which “suggests black lives are less valued.”

      Lopez was using the tweet, which she quickly took down, to promote her new Orlando charity single with Miranda called “Love Make the World Go Round,” a tribute to the 50 people murdered during the Islamic terror attack on Pulse Night Club in Orlando, Florida.

      Lopez and Miranda, along with Epic Records, plan to donate 100 percent of the proceeds from each U.S. download on iTunes, from July 8 to Oct. 5, to the Hispanic Federation for the Somos Orlando Fund.

      Jennifer Lopez faces backlash for using ‘All Lives Matter’ phrase on Twitter

      Television host Bill Maher has expressed support of the “Black Lives Matter” phrase, saying that “’All Lives Matter’ implies that all lives are equally at risk, and they’re not”.

      • The entertainment world that Jenifer Lopez is a part of undoubtedly has a completely different zeitgeist than that of the US entertainment world. It can be seen in La Gozadera, a recent release by Gente de la Zona and Marc Anthony.

        The zeitgeist is one which seeks to transcend race, and unite various Latino peoples under a common pan-Latino ideology.

    • Curious George

      There is always more than one way to interpret an event. It was amply illustrated by a dashboard cam video posted a little above, and Professor Bland’s published account of the encounter. The published account positions Prof. Bland in a role of a victim, and it is difficult not to sympathize with her suffering. On the other hand the video shows a very different story.

      I wonder what her students will learn from it. I wonder what she teaches them. I wonder if she can view anything objectively. I wonder how her students will influence the black community when they start publishing.

  79. Obama is destroying this country.
    Bloomberg: Initial jobless claims printing a 43-year low 254k.
    Obama has fundamentally changed this country.
    CNBC: Stocks surge to all time record highs.
    Thanks Obama for turning this democracy in to a Capitalist utopia.

    I’m so depressed.
    Maybe Trump can turn this around and give us the great depression that was denied us in 2008. Burn it all down.

    • Enjoy your fantasy while it lasts, Jack. From the article:

      Fink said extraordinary central bank asset purchases has been inflating stocks prices.

      “I don’t think we should be at new [stock] highs,” he said. “All the stock repurchases, you’re seeing this reduction in investable assets.”


      • jim2,
        For years economist developed models to demonstrate what happens to an economy when they change variable X and X,Y,Z go up or down as programed. Remember when Nixon set price controls? You can bet they had a formula to predict how much it affected inflation rates over time. It used to take 5-10 years to to reshape the economy like the Regan era.
        Then the internet happened. Now they can connect their models directly into the money flows and markets and you get what you see today. It’s world wide now.
        We are living in a economic model. A virtual reality we can’t control and can’t turn off unless you go completely off the grid.
        Try it. Pick the blue pill. Turn off your internet, radio and TV for a month. Scary huh?

    • > Burn it all down.

      More on Dissonant Donald:

      The dissonance between gloomy rhetoric and recent performance is greatest on the economy. America’s recovery is now the fourth-longest on record, the stockmarket is at an all-time high, unemployment is below 5% and real median wages are at last starting to rise. There are genuine problems, particularly high inequality and the plight of low-skilled workers left behind by globalisation. But these have festered for years. They cannot explain the sudden fury in American politics.


  80. As a longtime resident of the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, I have learned that inside the beltway everything is about politics, power, and money. I have become so cynical that if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a politician pretending to be a duck.
    In the United States, the First Amendment protects the Private Citizen’s Right to Free Speech. That same Constitution protects the General Public with the Fifth Amendment, the Right to remain silent.
    97% of the world’s experts agree the Generals always out rank Privates.
    Don’t forget to VOTE.

    • To your point, 5 of the top 10 counties for household income are in the DC metro area. On some lists, Los Alamos County, NM, home of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, is hanging tough right in there.

      So 6 of the top ten richest counties have a close relationship to the Federal Government.
      If anyone wants to know where the shakers and movers are, they know where to look.

    • In retrospect do you think JFK made a fatal error in accepting LBJ to the VP position, placing him only a heartbeat away from the office of POTUS. Maybe it’s not science…

      • just some flim.


        What a picture, maybe there is a problem after all, Willard.

      • catweazle666

        Willard you puerile, childish little pest, hasn’t it occurred to you that if Trump wins the election – which becomes more likely with every passing day – that a great deal of the reason for that is because of the attitudes of people like you?


      • Dear Weazle,

        Right-wing populism’s anger bootstraps itself – witness the jim & Glenn weekly show at Judy’s. If that’s not enough, you can always read Big Dave’s comments, or go to an UKIP meeting, of which I believe you are a member.

        That on top of it are blaming me or all those strawmen like me just shows how oblivious you are to the violence of your psychological manipulation.

        Thank you for your concerns, and here have some Disempowering Donald:


        With all my love,


      • catweazle666

        Willard: “or go to an UKIP meeting, of which I believe you are a member.”

        Indeed I am, willard, the genuine, authentic card-carrying article. And for what it’s worth, before the last General Election the prospective Parliamentary candidate and his agent honoured my humble abode with their presence, and even had a cuppa with me and the missus.

        And perhaps it has escaped your attention, but Nigel Farage and UKIP were absolutely instrumental in forcing the British Government to hold a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, which we Brexit supporters won fairly comfortably, much to the chagrin of the Remainiacs, many of whom were quite literally distraught.

        A number of consequences have taken place as a result, one is that our exit has severely jeopardised the COP21 agreement which will apparently require to be renogiated, and now Theresa May, the new Prime Minister has as one of her first acts on taking power scrapped the Department of Environment and Climate Change, one of her chief advisers having been very caustic recently about the massive damage inflicted on British industry by the environmental regulations. You can see where this is going, can’t you?

        For your information, the esteemed Mr. Farage has been invited to the USA to give a speech at the Republican convention.

        So, when Donald Trump is sworn in as President of the United States, you will have at least some reason to be grateful for us UKIPpers for showing you Cousins how to break the mould and destroy the stranglehold that you “Progressives” have enforced on Western government for far too long. It is certain that the UK has massively influenced many other European states, at the last count there were no less than twenty-four out of twenty-eight agitating for referenda on EU membership or some aspect of it, unrestricted immigration for example

        So sneer all you like, you desperate little fellow, I hope you enjoy the next five years or so, I’m certainly going to.

      • > you Cousins

        I’m not an American, dear Weazle, and no, I can’t see where all this is going, which does not seem to be your case. Come what may, the Drumpf will always remain an amusement, ephemeral in history, and indelible in our hearts. Many may suffer in consequence, perhaps even including you, but is that too much to pay for five years of your own enjoyment?

        May your investments prosper as well as mine these days,


      • Willard:
        I have to disagree. Trump is in the populist area of this:
        Jesse (bleeping anything’s possible) Ventura framed himself in the libertarian area.
        All I can think of he’s drawing from the middle as Clinton had to focus on Sanders. Clinton herself is moderate with much lip service to many on the left. The establishment left has been journeying left for decades and they are hip and powerful, but they left the middle class behind. Student loan debt, thanks a lot Mr. President. It is unfortunate that the establishment right can strike now when the left is vulnerable yet many remain reserved. Their loyalty is to the past and the establishment.

      • My link above is to a 10 minute video. You’ll see the similarities between Ventura and Trump.
        “And the American dream lives on in Minnesota, cause we shocked the world.”

      • It’s the usual trick Freedom Fighters use to portray themselves as the, middle ground of everything, Ragnaar. That’s the basis of the lukewarm playbook. That’s the structure of Judy’s Goldilocks’ stories.

        It’s self-serving, cheap, and more than disingenious in our actual case. One does not simply put Doctrinaire Donald in the center of any political spectrum. While daying due diligence to the Drumpf is only an ephemeral pastime, dancing with Freedom Fighters is more interesting to me.

        Please beware your wishes.

      • The left portrays the right as fascists.
        The right portrays the left as communists.
        At election time, the left is just left of center and the right is just right of center.
        He’s not either one. He’s near the bottom of the matrix, but he’s drawing from the middle which should be Clinton’s shed. I say Trump is near the bottom because of his statements about a trade war. People run from the middle and look left and right. Ventura won as the politicians didn’t look up on the matrix at the libertarians, and Trump is close as people aren’t looking down the matrix at the populists. They are masters of the left/right and they sucked at up/down with Ventura and maybe will with Trump. The left/right is the Maginot Line they’ve built. Trump just waltzed though Holland.

  81. Drawbridge Donald:

    If Donald Trump had gotten his way in 1984, a New Yorker wouldn’t have had to travel to Atlantic City to visit the Trump Castle. The real estate mogul wanted to build a castle-like skyscraper right in Manhattan—complete with a moat and drawbridge.


    Sadly, the fortress on the Upper East Side was abandoned when Prudential, which owned the site, decided not to proceed with the project. “We didn’t want to do a deal that depended on selling apartments for $1.5 million each to break even,” a Prudential executive told the Los Angeles Times.


    Resellers beware.

  82. News outlets are reporting Trump’s VP pick.
    Indiana Governor Mike Pence.
    However they are qualifying this a bit, in case it doesn’t happen.

  83. David Springer

    Quinnipiac latest Swing State Poll finds Trump pulling ahead:

    FLORIDA: Trump 42 – Clinton 39
    OHIO: Clinton 41 – Trump 41
    PENNSYLVANIA: Trump 43 – Clinton 41


    • David Springer

      The Quinnipiac interviews were conducted June 30 – July 11 so it missed a lot of reaction to FBI director Comey’s public display of Hillary’s several blatant lies about her use of email and retention of public records. It also missed all the reaction to the Dallas police massacre perpetrated by Hillary/Obama supporters and Trump’s positioning as the law & order order candidate.

      Hillary’s fall from grace is a beautiful thing to behold.

      • It also missed the slaughter at Nice, France where the death toll has risen to 77. But Americans can rest easy, Hillary’s AG will confront terrorism with love and compassion. On to victory with love and compassion.

    • David Springer

      What makes these statistical ties in swing states particularly disheartening to libtards is that Hillary’s campaign outspent Trump by a 40-1 (yes Virginia that’s FORTY to ONE) margin.

      If Hillary can’t eke out solid lead when she’s outspending Trump forty times over what happens when Trump’s campaign starts making big ad buys?

      Clinton is toast. Buh-BYE Hillary. Get on your broom and get the phuck out.

    • The pundits continue to underperform. She’s a powerful moderate with powerful allies.

      ““The theory suggests that the system is pushed past a threshold…”
      And what does the “pushing”? It is called an external forcing.”
      It’s called Donald Trump. Apologies to R. Gates and Ellison.

      “The theory suggests that the system is pushed past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems.”
      I am having a grand old time.

  84. A truck just killed 30 people in Paris. Better take trucks out of hands of the people. 30 people dead witih zero cycle time. Wow!