Links 2/4/16

The Clock Is Ticking on Yahoo as We Know It Motherboard

No Alcohol for Sexually Active Women Without Birth Control, C.D.C. Recommends New York Times. Scott: “This Sounds Like a Zero Population Growth Initiative!” Moi: Whoever at the Times found photo for the article deserves a prize. Look at the obviously hungry look in the guy’s eyes.


TPP gives no ground for legal disputes: Robb Sky News. Davin: “‘Australian Trade minister Andrew says he’s confident the Australian government wont be sued under investor state dispute clauses in the TPP’.Only just ‘confident’?! If we wont be sued then why is there any need for the clause in the first place Mr Robb? Sheez!”

Latest Photos of the Mumbai Garbage Fire New York Magazine

Mumbai’s Garbage Fire Can Be Seen From Space WSJ India

McKibbin: Sell it all to China MacroBusinessn (Davin). This is appalling. More privatization of public assets. In Australia, all beaches are public (I believe the first 150 feet). Or at least have been until now.

Corporate Japan Needs to Do More Than Apologize Bloomberg. The hypocrisy is stunning. Since when is the US a paragon of corporate virtue?


How Japan sees China’s island-building ‘problem CNBC

Debt levels cast cloud over march of China Inc Financial Times

U.S. Treasury Secretary urges China to communicate FX policy clearly Reuters

China: Large liquidity injections from the PBoC – Nomura FX Street

Crippled EU is no longer the ‘anarcho-imperial monster’ we once feared Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. Telegraph

Italy: Ground zero for European bank concerns? CNBC


Services paralyzed as Greeks strike against pensio Associated Press. Sports fans, this is the AP headline as of now! NC is not alone in having typos. But the story is important. There’s been no total shutdown of Greece since Tsipras was in power. This is a strong statement. But the Troika is certain to brush it off.

Greece talks to lenders ahead of national strike showdown over reforms Reuters

Refugee Crisis

Backlash grows to Schengen backlash Politico


Sweden vs Russia – A new Cold War front? BBC. I’ve been to Gotland, Visby to be specific, and I recommend it. Ingmar Bergman retired there.


Blue Cross of Alabama predicts $135 million loss in 2015, mostly due to Obamacare This received over 3400 comments. I don’t recall seeing anything close to this comment volume previously.


Syria conflict: Sides trade blame over talks’ suspension BBC (furzy). Gives the misleading impression that the talks ever got off the ground.

Big Brother is Watching You Watch

Julian Assange ‘will surrender’ if UN rules against him BBC (furzy)


Sanders Beats Clinton 49-49: The Real Story Behind the Iowa Numbers The Root (Judy B). Note the author.

Election 2016: Elizabeth Warren Defends Bernie Sanders From Goldman Sachs Criticism International Business Times

This Is Not the Way the Democratic Campaign Should Be Conducted Charles Pierce, Esqiure. Lambert featured this yesterday, but if you missed it then, you’ve got to read it.

What we can learn from Bernie Sanders’s Iowa voter Vox. Resilc: “Can she run from jail?”

Democrats Add Four More Debates NBC. Sanders blew it. The one debate that is early enough to make a difference is in New Hampshire, which is where Sanders has the most to lose.

Clinton defends Wall Street speaking fees: ‘That’s what they offered’. The Hill. So now it’s official. She’s for sale.

Judging from social media reactions of various Clinton surrogates, the Wall Street $ issue left blood on the floor tonight. @billmom1

Adding Up the Costs of Hillary Clinton’s Wars Common Dreams (Judy B)

Donald Trump accuses Ted Cruz of stealing Iowa — and demands new caucuses Washington Post

Ted Cruz’s claims about CNN are ‘false’ CNN (furzy)

The Daily Trail: In which Ted Cruz says President Trump might ‘nuke Denmark’ Washington Post

Rubio becomes the candidate to beat Financial Times

Jimmy Carter calls US campaign finance ruling ‘legalised bribery’ Guardian

California attorney general sues over massive gas leak Agence France-Presse

All the billionaire’s men (Or: Shattered Glenn) Mark Ames, Pando (resilc)

Angry White Men

Anti-Government Extremist in Florida Caught with 8 Pipe Bombs Charles Pierce, Esquire

Dollar Weakens Amid Growth Fears Wall Street Journal

The NIM force awakens Izabella Kaminska, FT Alphaville. This is why US banks were pressing the Fed for rate increases. The second part goes off the rails, but the first part is important.

Bill Gross Says Central Banks ‘Increasingly Addled’ WSJ MoneyBeat


Dudley flags tight conditions ahead of Fed meeting Financial Times

The ECB and the Fed: a comparative narrative Bruegel

Class Warfare

Compared to Other Rich Countries, the United States Is Pretty Bad at Fighting Poverty Slate. A feature, not a bug.

Antidote du jour: SH: “Siamese cat, in Siam”:

Siamese links

See yesterday’s Links and Antidote du Jour here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Synoia


    Beginning in 2014, the ACA eliminated health underwriting and waiting periods for pre-existing conditions allowing individuals to buy healthcare coverage regardless of their health condition

    Yes, that’s why we need a national program, and a single pool of “insured” with strict costs controls on providers, including executive compensation and administrative overhead.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      I am waiting for a candidate to declare health care a national emergency, or a disastrous zone.

  2. Synoia

    Can she run from jail?

    Nah, the trial will not be scheduled until after the election,and if she gets elected will Pardon herself.

    If not elected she will receive the Petraeus Punishment (If there is an ample supply of wet noodles), and then run again in 2020, 2024, 2028, 2032 and 2036.

    1. nippersdad

      That seems to be fashionable these days; see Nathan Deal and Scott Walker. Higher office has now become a protection racket, not just for ones’ ideological friends (regardless of Party) but for oneself as well.

      1. hunkerdown

        Hmmm, I’ve gotten that sense that Presidential candidates mostly run for the face time and the free executive protection force.

    2. Bev

      Well done Lambert. Your coverage was picked up by NYU Media Professor Mark Crispin Miller.

      What will be the results from the following to Hillery, and to Bernie’s count? Just as I feared from Microsoft’s “free” “helpful” app approved by both Democrats and Republicans. Bernie has a case. Trump may also have a case.

      Hillary stole Iowa (3): Microsoft, which “only interacted with the parties,” didn’t count young, first-time voters
      2:00PM Water Cooler 2/1/2016

      It’s worth noting, though, that even if Clinton does win, it took the entire political class acting collectively to heave her over the finish line, and she will have done so at the cost of “never, ever” being seen as “progressive” again. And Sanders can keep going until the (FBI indictment) convention, with his small donor base. Why wouldn’t he? So I expect the race to remain interesting for some time to come.

      “In a somewhat ominous sign for [Trump and Sanders], the registration numbers have not increased much for either party, and although there is same day registration, the Iowa hands all point out that the Obama upset was presaged by very substantial registrations of new Democrats for months ahead of time” [Digby,Salon]. Sketchy sourcing, though…

      And here’s one reason why: Microsoft wrote really bad software that will keep new voters from registering

      Hillary stole Iowa (2): Iowa precinct captain was paid Clinton campaign staffer (not from Iowa)
      BUSTED: Iowa Precinct Captain Revealed as Paid, Out-of-State Staffer for Clinton Campaign

      With the potentially pivotal Iowa caucus mere hours away, the Bernie Sanders campaign has found evidence to suggest that Hillary has been “infiltrating the caucuses with out-of-state paid staffers.”


      The alarming controversy began when Sanders supporter Dennis Clifford received a letter from the Clinton campaign urging him to caucus for Clinton. While this isn’t in itself unusual, the letter named a paid staffer from out of state as its precinct captain.

      “It’s my job to make sure all of Hillary’s supporters are in attendance on caucus night to ensure Hillary wins,” the out-of-state captain said.

      “I think this raises a very serious concern,” Jeff Weaver, national campaign chairman for Sanders, told Yahoo! News. “I would hope that the media will be able to get to this before Monday night.”

      Precinct captains are traditionally entirely staffed by Iowans. Weaver calls this a “highly irregular” practice on the part of the Clinton campaign, with some experts worrying that this placement “could easily lead to abuse.”

      While Weaver assured Bernie supporters that he’s not concerned specifically about this single out-of-state precinct captain, he did insist that this could be a small link in a larger strategy by the Clinton campaign to have “non-residents attempt to participate and be counted in the caucus.”

      Running contrary to what the intercepted letter suggests, the Clinton campaign continues to maintain that all of its precinct captains are Iowans.

      Hillary stole Iowa (1): Clinton team miscounted votes in Precinct #43 (as caught on C-SPAN)


      IOWA – Bernie Sanders supporters are outraged claiming caucus chair Drew Gentsch and precinct captain Liz Buck did not conduct an actual count of Clinton supporters. The pair are accused of deliberately misleading the caucus at precinct #43 in Des Moines.

      This is a very serious accusation especially given the razor thin race in Iowa between Clinton and Sanders. The entire incident was captured on camera by C-SPAN. We have included the full video below.

      Reddit user cosmicjesus3 explains:

      So basically in the caucus they have to hand count everyone depending on what side they’re sitting on. Well when it came time to do the second count the numbers were off. The first vote breakdown was like this
      FIRST VOTE: 215 Sanders 210 Clinton 26 O’Malley 8 Undecided 459 TOTAL
      And this is the SECOND Vote: 232 Clinton 224 Sanders 456 Total
      So somehow they lost 3 people but Clinton’s vote went up by 14.
      So basically what had happened was Hillary’s team didn’t take the time to do a full recount instead she just added the new people who joined the second vote. Which clearly wasn’t an accurate count.

        1. diptherio

          Damning. At the beginning of the video, the HRC vote-counter woman is asked if they recounted all the votes or just added the new ones and she says, “we just added the new ones.” A minute later a second woman says to HRC’s vote-counter, “You recounted all of them, right, you didn’t just add the new votes?” And HRC’s shill says she did. Shameless. I wonder if there are any penalties for that in Iowa’s election law…

      1. reslez

        Fairness is important, but to be honest I’m not sure what purpose this post election wrangling serves from a standpoint of winning the nomination. Sanders’ job in Iowa was not to tie but to win beyond a stealable margin. Those who support his campaign should probably focus on NH now. Of course some people just enjoy armchair analysis and don’t intend to participate in the nomination process. In that case, carry on.

        If you google ‘reddit’ and ‘Sanders for President’ you’ll find a huge community of people who can hook you up to volunteer. Stuff you can do with an app on your phone or PC that connects to actual voters. People can make a difference without spending money, and that’s something the working class of this country needs to get a handle on if we’re going to survive.

      2. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

        They stole the Repub primaries from Ron Paul and people yawned, one way or another they’ll steal the Dem primary from Bernie and people will just grab the clicker and change the channel. It’s not bad enough, not yet, 1776 redux when it is. Meantime those with alpha waves above flatline will just need a roll of paper towels handy to clean the spraying coffee off of their monitors, that and a giant bottle of blood pressure medicine

        1. Bev

          Bernie did not concede. I perceive that he is a fighter which makes me proud, thankful and happy. I am not sure how hard Ron Paul fought head-count problems in caucuses (see above) and those Evidence Removing e-voting, e-scanning, e-tabulating machines owned by the abusive right, which is the reason both parties have moved further and further rightward. And, the reason someone like convicted former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert could rise to the third most powerful position in the U.S.:

          See comment:
          Update from Sibel Edmonds:
          Newsbud-Where Media Integrity Matter: “How Will Newsbud Reinvent Journalism?”
          Sibel Edmonds
          Today Sibel Edmonds, Bill Conroy and Guillermo Jimenez join James Corbett for a roundtable discussion on the forthcoming Newsbud site and how it will operate.

          *We are asking those of you who support this one-of-a-kind media project to come and join us. Please add yourself, and your voice, to our group list here.

          See comments via:

          A link to rigged elections by the same people who abuse children. Save our kids and democracy.

          Still Evil after All These Years: The Franklin Scandal and Pedophilia in High Places

          By Charles M. Young Posted by Dave Lindorff

          The Omaha World-Herald was the foremost local cheerleader for persecuting teenagers instead of investigating their claims. One of its own columnists, Peter Citron, had a long history of arrests for pedophilia and child porn and was implicated by two witnesses at Larry King’s sex parties. The long-time publisher of the World-Herald, Harold Anderson, was a big supporter of Larry King and had raised money for the Franklin. During the 18 years that King presided over the Franklin, the newspaper never noticed that King was living a hugely expensive lifestyle when he was supposedly making $17,000 a year in salary. The World-Herald Company is co-owner of Election Software and Systems, which counts half the election ballots in the United States.

          Americans have plenty of obvious reasons to hate the rich and powerful. Wars for oil, rampant pollution, the destruction of individual rights, the constant lying about everything. It’s all on the front page, and it’s like old furniture in the living room. It’s hard for most people to notice. Boutique evil of the Gerry Sandusky sort affects fewer victims, but is more easily understood once the initial denial breaks down. If the denial of the Franklin Credit Union scandal ever breaks down, the consequences will reverberate far higher than happened at Penn State. Except for all those who died in suspicious accidents and suicides, the witnesses are still out there. Some might even talk about it. They talked to Nick Bryant.

          FRANKLIN SCANDAL: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse & Betrayal
by Nick Bryant

          The FRANKLIN SCANDAL is the story of a nationwide pedophile ring that pandered children to a cabal of the rich and powerful. The ring’s pimps were a pair of political powerbrokers who had access to the highest levels of our government. Nebraska legislators attempted to expose the network in 1989 and 1990, but the legislators’ efforts were followed by a rash of mysterious deaths and the overpowering responses of federal and local law enforcement, including the FBI and Justice Department, which 
effected an immaculate cover-up of the trafficking network.

          Get rid of convicted criminal and lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s project to get HAVA passed, the subversively marketed Help America Vote Act which put those abusive machines in our elections.

        2. Bev

          Looks like good news. Bernie is and now others are fighters:

          ‘Something smells’: Top Iowa paper calls for ‘complete audit’ of Clinton’s win over Sanders
          Travis Gettys
          04 Feb 2016

          An Iowa newspaper is calling for a “complete audit” of the state’s Democratic caucuses to sniff out “even the whiff of impropriety or error.”

          The Des Moines Register‘s editorial board called for state officials to closely examine Hillary Clinton’s razor-thin margin of victory over Bernie Sanders in Monday’s caucuses, reported The Hill.

          “Too many questions have been raised,” the editorial board wrote. “Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems.”

          Some editorial board members said they saw “chaos” at the caucuses, which they believe introduced opportunities for error and had made the state a national laughingstock.

          The former Secretary of State claimed victory over the Vermont senator by a 0.2 percent margin — which the newspaper said would have triggered recounts in other states.

          The Sanders campaign is working to confirm the results certified early Tuesday by the Democratic Party, and staffers say they have found inconsistencies in their early investigations.

        1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

          Um if they arrest Assange for mishandling national secrets and sent Manning straight to the can, then shouldn’t Madame Hilary be just a bit nervous?
          (Silly me, and here I was thinking we still lived in an era of the rule of law, administered by the nice blindfolded lady holding the scales lol).

          1. afisher

            Keep beating that dog, as the same watchdog has reported that both Colin Powell and Condi Rick also received classified information on their personal email accounts.

            1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

              Send them to jail too then. While you’re at it, send Obama for the daily pre-crime illegal drone bomb assasination programs. Send Blankfein and Dimon to jail for LIBOR and the endless bank lawbreaking. Or, decide we are no longer a nation of laws, and stop all the puffery and lecturing about what a great and free and just country it is.

  3. Llewelyn Moss

    re: Election 2016: Elizabeth Warren Defends Bernie Sanders From Goldman Sachs Criticism

    My Interpretation of Lord Blankfein’s message: “C’mon Bernie, stop exposing the truth about us Wall Street Scumbags. Someone is gonna take you seriously and get mad at us for crashing the economy and making the taxpayers pay off our losses.”

    Someone, Quick call Hillary to reassure the Banksters that nothing will be changing — Nothing.

    1. Uahsenaa

      There is an even more interesting development than banksters getting scared. Warren appears to be playing a subtle game of endorsing Sanders without publicly endorsing him.

      “In a time when literally thousands of people are being locked up every year for non-violent drug offenses or stealing a car, the CEO of a giant bank can help engineer the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars — and he gets a raise,” she said. “The executives of another bank can help organize the money laundering for drug cartels, and they don’t even get charged with a crime, while an addict [who] buys a few pills can land in jail for a year. This is two criminal justice systems.”

      This is exactly, almost to the letter, how Sanders framed this point in his Keene speech: many people put away for petty drug offenses, but bankers get off. I imagine, in their meeting, Warren committed to Clinton to remain neutral in the primary. This seems to be her way of getting around it, by mimicking talking points. If anyone were to ever point this similarity out, Warren could simply note that she’s always talked about these issues and that maybe it’s Sanders copying her.

      Quite clever.

      1. RP

        Bold prediction:
        In January 2025 she’ll be president; just a matter of whether she’s being sworn in for term #1 or #2.

        1. Jess

          I’m afraid she’ll be a little long in the tooth for the presidency in another nine years. (12 years if you project ahead to the end of her term, which would be in 2029.) But she would make an interesting VP candidate for Bernie. Anybody know off-hand if she’s up for re-election this year? (Don’t think so.) So she could run on the ticket without having to give up her Senate seat.

    2. GlobalMisanthrope

      I think the featured Blankfein quote is a blatant red-baiting dog whistle: a Bernie Sanders presidency means towing the Party line and it will be dangerous to even appear to depart from it.

    3. cwaltz

      The investment side of banking is already asking for more Alt A subprime low document mortgages since they got off scott free last time they crashed the economy.

      Heaven forbid the “jahb creators” make do with smaller returns on investments that come with smaller risks to our economy.

  4. rich

    This…. Clinton defends Wall Street speaking fees as ‘what they offered’
    “Look, I made speeches to lots of groups. I told them what I thought. I answered questions,” Clinton said.

    “But did you have to be paid $675,000?,” Cooper asked.

    “Well I don’t know,” Clinton responded. “That’s what they offered.”

    The crowd burst into laughter as Clinton explained that “every secretary of State I know has done that.”

    ….should be watched in the context of this: Mark Leibovich on Glitz and Greed in Washington
    August 23, 2013

    Bill talks with journalist Mark Leibovich about his latest book, This Town, a city where money rules the day and status is determined by who you know and what they can do for you. “If you can sell yourself as someone who knows how Washington works, someone who has these relationships,” Leibovich explains, “that’s a very marketable commodity. If you’re seen as someone who knows how this town works, someone who is a usual suspect in this town, you can dine out for years — that’s why no one leaves.”

    The Clinton apologists are deplorable. You want a cleaner system, vote Bernie. You want more of the sewer you call D.C.,,,well…then….buy what the Clinton Machine is selling.

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      This is just asking for someone to call Condi Rice and ask if she took $ while she was Secretary of State. I’d guess she didn’t. Condi was into power and I don’t think much into $ (as in all the opportunities later would more than do for her).

      1. MLS

        You may be right Yves, but even if Condi did accept speaking fees while SoS, Hilary is just using the “see everyone else is doing it too” defense which is pathetic (although it is popular among 5-year-olds).

    2. Llewelyn Moss

      I will bet those Wall Street speaking events are Teeming With Sound Bites that could sink the USS Clinton. Especially now that she is wearing the ‘cloak’ of a Populist Progressive — which is laughable of course.

    3. Carolinian

      HRC’s reply is the lamest sort of bs. From a Washington Post story on what happened when UCLA tried to reduce her speaking fee

      When officials at the University of California at Los Angeles began negotiating a $300,000 speech appearance by Hillary Rodham Clinton, the school had one request: Could we get a reduced rate for public universities?

      The answer from Clinton’s representatives: $300,000 is the “special university rate.”

      Of course she may only demand a price from hapless college students while making it a suggested amount for hard bargaining Wall Street sharks. But who buys this dodge?

    4. sid_finster

      She was giving a speech on futures trading strategies. Her speech may be summarized as follows:
      1. Become wife of governor of Arkansas.
      2. ?? (Better not to ask).
      3. PROFIT!

    5. reslez

      It’s kind of icky that her response to these questions is to laugh at them. I’m sure it’s a highly effective rhetorical technique, approved by all the image experts, but man is it patronizing. Two speeches at 625k apiece is more than some people make in a lifetime.

      “Are you laughing at the voters of this country, Secretary Clinton?”

      1. Skippy

        The laughing at every possibly damning question is haughty, patronizing, and belittling to those that she hopes will vote for her…

  5. Steve H.

    COINTELPRO was devastatingly highlighted yesterday, and the following article has a subheading ‘Cointelpro Techniques for Control of an Internet Forum’ which has some relevance:

    A twist to note here is that it refers to ‘forum sliding’ which pushes a dangerous comment down the line by piling on top of it. On this site, however, the first comment remains on the top, allowing for a derail to occur immediately. (An example of this occurred on another post from today, though it seems more dunderheaded than malicious.)

    The usual method of dealing with it by site moderators has been to delete the post. I can’t tell how often NC does this. I find the verifiable obliteration of the wrong to be more satisfying (despite having a couple of lumps myself), and creates a feedback system that increases the value of the site.

    On a personal note, being currently involved in a 2.5 millenia old satire by Aristophanes, it is not just the factual filleting that makes it what it is. Bringing the snark is more dangerous than simple rationality. One ‘Lordie’ can be worth a thousand bullet points.

    1. flora

      Thanks for that link.
      The ‘forum sliding’ technique was on clear display here in the comments section of some unflatttering Koch Bros. posts. A never before(or since) seen poster showed up with long, long rantings that renewables would never be commercially feasible, didn’t cut down on pollution, etc etc. Pretty amusing. My guess is that the mods here let some tr0lls thru for educational reasons, illustrations of said techniques. Just a guess.

  6. Torsten

    Re: Did Bernie blow it?

    Time will tell, but,

    1. His image as a clean, anti-machine politician demands that he debate as often and as openly as possible.

    2. He might even sincerely believe that #1 is the right thing to do, and

    3. Sanders has been utterly neglected by the MSM. Going into the South and Super Tuesday, he needs TV exposure wherever he can get it, even if he must share the stage with Hillary. Nationwide, the digital divide has almost disappeared along racial and ethnic lines, except in the rural South, where TV appears to remain critical for messaging (see Pew 2015, especially slide 28).

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      You are missing my point. The ONLY debate before Super Tuesday is the one in NH, the one that does more for Clinton than him. The other ones might as well be on Saturday night for all the good they’ll do in terms of the exposure he really needs.

      1. TsWkr

        After Super Tuesday, there will still be only just over 1000 delegates pledged with 3000 more to go (not counting Super Delegates). Sanders has the infrastructure and funding to go the distance, so the signaling that goes along with coming out ahead on Super Tuesday is not as paramount.

        On the same note, Clinton is not going to be knocked out no matter what. Sanders is going to need to keep picking up steam all the way to June, so spacing out the debates could help in a prolonged primary fight.

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          The are counting on their excellent propaganda department to put that Super Tuesday signalling to very good use, with maximum amplification.

          Will it work? All they can ask is that they try, give their best

      2. Gio Bruno

        The more TV time Bernie gets the better. HRC is not going to gain much from the NH primary voters (her story is old and stale to those folks). Bernie seems to be gaining steam and getting better at exposing Clinton for what she is: a tired Democrat.

    2. Llewelyn Moss

      All Bernie has to do in this debate is to take the gloves off. Hillary and her minions have been bashing Bernie in the press big time. It’s time for Bernie to speak up and tell America who Hillary really is. It’s not Negative campaigning, it’s Telling The Gawd Awful Truth.

      1. NotTimothyGeithner

        Sanders is a radical departure from the Clinton presentation. I thought she looked unhinged last night.

        The questions from msm moderators are garbage which is a major problem, but during the town hall, Hillary said, “I don’t know,” when asked why millennial women are supporting Sanders. She attacked Sanders seven times on guns. Yes, gun control is an important issue, but so is mental health care, police violence, lack of economic dignity, her deranged foreign policy, climate change, education, etc. Hillary is running for the President of bourgeois white women.

        The Hillary campaign desperately wants to push the “mansplain” propaganda, and Saturday Dees isn’t giving it to her.

        There are rumors Hillary might have money problems. Many of her donors are maxed out, and she doesn’t have small donors to bilk. SuperPacs are still self glorifying projects not organizing structures. Hillary’s best organizing goal is to rile low info and dead ender voters into a froth, so they go out to protect poor little Hillary from the bully Bernie Sanders. The Iowa Democratic Party is not releasing final numbers from Iowa for a reason. The youth support for Sanders was back in college. When Obama won Iowa in 2008, the kids were spread around the state over winter break. It’s possible she’s in real trouble.

        1. JohnnyGL

          Anyone see the woman who asked Clinton what she learned from her Iraq war vote? (Perhaps she heard Lambert’s suggestion?)

          Clinton had the audacity to imply that she thought it was just a negotiating tool and that Bush wasn’t going to go to war. That’s just brazen dishonesty. If it were true then she should have immediately pushed for legislation to take that authorization away or at least come out with public statements against military action. Instead, she waited for years until the bodies started piling up before she allegedly changed her mind and decided it was a mistake.

          1. NotTimothyGeithner

            Even her excuse implies she has terrible judgement, but at least she isn’t blaming 9/11 anymore.

          2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            Sometimes, the very same thing or act we adored when we were in love becomes unbearable when we split up.

            And maybe I am not reading them correctly, especially since I did not watch it last night, but was she both unhinged, mentally deranged, and also had the audacity to commit brazen dishonesty?

        2. Dr. Robert

          The most uncomfortable moment was when she took a question from a cancer patient about end of life care and assumed it was about euthanasia.

          Hillary seems to be trying to not lose. She’s not trying to win.

      2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        Knowing who Hillary really is.

        On the other hand, there is the argument that after 30 years, Americans know more about Hillary than we have learned about Bernie Sanders in the last few weeks.

  7. Ernie

    Yes, Bernie likely knows that the debate tonight in New Hampshire has more potential to hurt him than to help him. But Hillary had him cornered. After earlier calling for more debates, he couldn’t refuse this offer without looking totally hypocritical. And you can be sure the media would have played that angle to the hilt. Getting in return agreement for more debates later at least plays into his long game strategy of fighting for delegates in every state and not just relying on early state momentum to carry the day.

  8. ChrisFromGeorgia

    The pen is mightier than the sword, as Bill Gross demonstrates by getting his revenge on clueless, confused Fed governors.

    How’s that policy error working out for ya?

    1. Skippy

      Bill Gross is a jerk which was quite happy to play Gov middle man to wealth and riches until his used by date expired…. he’s just pissing in the wind…

  9. Jen

    I’m just going to leave this here. Announcement for an upcoming lecture:

    Kathryn Lofton, Yale University
    “Notes on Goldman Sachs”

    A talk considering the relationship between the most prestigious bank holding company in the world and the universities that provide so much of its talent, wondering whether the thing that binds them is religion.

    Petal, and any other readers in the Hanover area: I think we have a civic duty to attend and report back.

    1. petal

      Ooo I did see the notice for that this morning. I have a class event at 630 that night and between GS talk and event I have to get home to feed and take my two pups out. Will do my best to go and report back. Jen, are you going to go?

        1. craazyman

          So does comedy.

          It sounds like it might be hilarious. Please don’t be shy about reporting on it.

  10. JohnnyGL

    Re: Liz Warren comments on GS

    Wow, she really came out throwing haymakers in that interview, huh?? Great stuff.

    Also, is anything better for Bernie’s campaign than to have media spats with GS? I hope a few more bankster-types go off the rails blabbing dumb remarks to the media.

    1. timbers


      Let Hillary keep talking about how normal and natural it is for her to take millions for GS and Wall Street. If Bernie has an cunning, he’ll bait her to keep saying this like. Because no matter how normal Hillary thinks it is average Joe Voter knows what it really means. It’s not normal in my universe.

    2. Vatch

      Yes, Steve Schwarzman could repeat his foolishness about carried interest taxation being equal to the Nazi invasion of Poland, and Tom Perkins can make another one of his ludicrous comparisons to Kristallnacht.

      1. rich

        Goldman Sachs chief Lloyd Blankfein: Sanders candidacy a ‘dangerous moment’

        Blankfein avoided saying whether he supported former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, though both Clintons have long ties to Blankfein and to Goldman Sachs, which has been a heavy donor to Bill Clinton’s charity work.

        In 2012, Blankfein said he was a registered Democrat but a Rockefeller Republican. In 2015, he donated to the campaigns of Republican senators Rob Portman and Roy Blunt, but in 2008 he endorsed and raised money for Clinton’s failed presidential bid. His wife Laura has donated the $2,700 maximum to Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

        Read more:


        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          How dangerous?

          Dangerous enough to hope the S&P will double from here?

          I think if we enter a severe bear market before June, Hilary is done.

        2. Jerry Denim

          So that makes him a ‘Rockefeller Democrat’ then? That could be a good label for Hillary.

    3. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      I am also interested in knowing if a new president can fire the Fed chairperson and put in a new one?

      “Who is your choice?” is a question for all candidates.

      Will that person renounce negative interest rates? “Take a home mortgage and we will pay you interest every month.”

      “Who will head the pentagon?” – another one.

  11. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

    It’s interesting that our morality, or code of conduct depends so much on technology.

    When we come up with a 24-hour temporary male-sterilization pill (completely reversible afterwards), it will be required of alcohol drinking, sexually active men, instead of female birth control pills for sexually active women, or both.

    And, one day, when we find a way to energize our body with rocks and pebbles, instead of living things, it will be immoral to eat living and breathing vegetables.

    1. vidimi

      i would say, more generally, physical constraints. technology just being a way to tweak those around the edges.

      1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        I think technology is the primary way, if not the only way, to get around those physical constraints.

        Maybe zen meditation to lower one’s instincts for food, procreation, etc.

  12. vidimi

    i know mark ames is a personal friend, but what was the point of linking that piece? it is pure hit-piece garbage. thompson’s journalistic breach is serious, but why smear journalists who had nothing to do with it? as editor, betsy reed didn’t take the blame for thompson’s forgery, she’s just cleaning up the mess. why state otherwise? she didn’t get fired, thompson did.

    there’s a reason why intercept links feature much more prominently and frequently here than do pando links: they actually do real journalism (when quotes are not being made up). when a pando article is linked, it’s usually a hit on greenwald.

    when wikileaks (or maybe it was anonymous) published a dump of classified emails from top security contractors, among them was a powerpoint presentation from palantir. in it, one of the slides mentioned tarnishing journalists, and named greenwald specifically, in left-leaning sources as a response to the snowden leaks. the CEO of palantir is peter thiel. thiel is also mark ames’ paymaster at pando. but you really shouldn’t be a part of this.

    1. Uahsenaa

      There’s a little more to it than that. Ames has always had it out for Greenwald. A lot of the animus is sour grapes over Glenn being the primary gatekeeper to the Snowden documents, so he takes any chance he gets to sucker punch him.

      That said, when not punching sideways, Ames work is often very good and goes places his VC masters definitely do not want him to. His several pieces on how tech companies try to monopolize infrastructure are not beloved among the disruption set, and Sarah Lacy, the founder and still editor in chief of Pando, began her journalistic life as a rah rah tech bootlicker, but after becoming the subject of a nasty smear campaign herself, she has come around a bit to view the Valley with a much more suspicious eye.

      However, you’re right to note the perverse irony that both The Intercept and Pando have billionaire tech backers. Et tu, Marce.

      1. Skippy

        Sorta like M. Moore said wrt being on cable TV…. Whilst lambasting those that pay for ad space, because they don’t care about content… just viewership… which translates into money [profit] for them…

    2. bob

      Your very reasonable sounding and high minded piece is a hit job, without any merit to it.

      Thiel as paymaster? Nope. 100% completely false. But, you know who Pierre is good buddies with-

      Peter Theil you say? Isn’t he in business with Pierre? Lots of business. From memory, at least a few billion between them.

      Lotsa writing from Ames about Thiel, but you can’t read him, because?

      And, as Ames and MANY other have pointed out- where are we on the snowden dump? Less than 1%?

      That seems like better security than you can buy from Booze Allen. All it cost was 250 million for a generation of journalists.

      1. vidimi

        1-peter thiel is one of the main individual shareholders in pando. your insinuation is that greenwald is complicit with thiel in his self-discreditment by virtue of omidyar’s business ties with thiel, undisputed though they are.
        2-that ames has written about thiel is irrelevant – i never claimed he didn’t. thiel still influences the terms of ames’ employment.
        3-it’s true that only a tiny fraction of the snowden docs have been printed. however, that’s a misdirection. the vast majority of any files downloaded from server are going to hold no journalistic value. teh team has to sift through the hundreds of thousands of files manually for material. neither snowden nor the journalists he entrusted the files to wanted a wikileaks-type dump of the files, for legal and liability reasons. ames has no right to demand that they put their lives at risk and do so. snowden has issued no objection to how the files he leaked have been reported though he has had plenty of opportunity to do so. could it be that documents the public has a legitimate right to know have not been released? it could. do we have good reason to believe so? no, we do not.

        omidyar’s motivations for funding the intercept should be questioned every bit of the way. as should thiel’s of pando. casting shade on journalists who are making the world better, however, is revealing.

        the article was poorly written, rambling and hysterical, by the way. odd attacks about greenwald spending his twitter time taking down the “bernie bros” narriative being spun by the hillary camp; shock that the intercept hasn’t produced a 10000 page report following a months-long investigation; concern-trolling, self-repeating…

        1. Yves Smith Post author

          You are dead wrong about Thiel. He doesn’t even have a direct stake. Moreover, the last I saw, his firm only held 10%, well below enough to have influence even if he were active. Finally:

          I’m no fan of Thiel’s brand of techno-libertarianism myself, but because the various venture firms who have invested in Pando are barred from having any editorial involvement whatsoever with the company, and don’t have any board seat or even an advisory role, I’m not losing any sleep over it.

          You can criticize Ames for focusing unduly on Greenwald, when all the Intercept staffers deserve to be criticized (they’ve been trying to defend this lapse on Twitter, as opposed to staying silent or offering mea cuplas). But your attack is utterly false.

          And regarding 3, you have no basis for your assertion re what is material or not, having not seen the docs. Greenwald was making 2-3 bombshell releases a week when he was at the Guardian. Suddenly, when he went to Omidyar, they went to zero for months and have been at an extremely slow pace since then. This does not look like a coincidence, particularly given Omidyar’s strong ties to the intel community.

          1. bob

            I think the piece from Ames itself does a good job explaining “editorial influence”, and how it’s abused.

            Pierre is the gate keeper, with his stable of star journos holding the guard.

            I also think Pierre being very high up on the Clinton email dump list of “friends” brings into question his editorial influence.

            It’s also worth noting that Pierre’s “friendship” with the obummer admin ended with the departure of Clinton.

            Just things to keep in mind going forward.

            I’ve seen the number before and I think it was $200k from a Thiel fund. Paul Carr has written about it, and disclosed this very often.

            Is Pierre doing the same thing with his election coverage? He’s given MILLIONS to the Clinton, and her foundation.

            I have to wonder if this is part of the slave mentality that seems in line with the cult of personality of hero worship.

            “he works for Thiel!!” Not true by any stretch of the idea.

            um…Pierre is one of the “main individual shareholders”, along with Thiel in what would be a HUGE bank (ebay/paypal) by any normal measure or definition.

            Who’s gonna have more influence with Thiel? His partner, Pierre, or a journo who’s been extremely critical of Thiel in the past?

            How does it work the other way? Thiel and pierre are at the same level, sharing the same interests, and in partnership that is WAY ABOVE anyone else in this conversation. They’ve re-defined the word bank. Not even Goldman Sachs has managed that.

            Completely laughable the spin they put on this nonsense.

    3. RabidGandhi

      Whether or not enough Snowden docs have been released, while a good topic, is not the defect with the article.

      Vidimi is 100% correct that Ames’ personal tiff with Greenwald drives him to write poor quality articles. For example, in the linked piece he says USA Today did a 10 part series investigating their own fact checking scandal, how come the Intercept hasn’t done this??? Well, it’s ONLY BEEN THREE BLOODY DAYS since the scandal broke. Ames faults the Intercept for not producing 10,000 word internal investigations… in 3 freakin days?

      The Intercept has produced outstanding journalism thus far, but they also screwed up big time with Juan Thompson, and they and Greenwald should be made to answer for that. But Mark Ames, given his personal hatred of Greenwald is not the guy to be reporting on this.

      1. bob

        “personal hatred”- Facts not in evidence.

        It’s also been 3 days since they ANNOUNCED that they knew he was a fraud. When did they know he was a fraud?

        Once again, they are the filter.

        And where are all of the stories?

        1. Gio Bruno

          I don’t get it? Who said the Intercept would be infallible? I read the editors “mea culpa” and it seemed timely and forthcoming. To be honest: Who’s this Juan guy?

        2. vidimi

          ames’ personal hatred against GG is absolutely in evidence. a plurality of his journalistic output over the last few years has been hit pieces against glenn, including smears such as “Glenn Greenwald of the Cato institute”.

          as his tweet on adolphus reed bashing coates reveals, he has profound hatred for any journalist on the left more succesful than him.

        3. RabidGandhi

          1. Personal hatred: it’s in Ames’ article itself! Greenwald called me a child rapist! Greenwald called me his stalker! Maybe he did; I don’t know/don’t care. wtf does that have to do with how the Intercept is handling the scandal other than the Ames/GG personal baggage. Ames disqualifies himself; get another writer on the beat. (and fwiw, I would be just as turned off by a GG article on Pando/Ames)

          2. If you want an argument that the Intercept should not be thoroughly brought to account for the Thompson scandal, you’re barking up the wrong tree. I said as much above.

          3. Why do you keep repeating the point about “where are all the stories” when, as noted above, it is a separate issue unrelated to their handling of the scandal?

          1. bob

            So, proof of Ames hating GG is that Ames calls out the cult of personality around GG, and GG and his cult throwing smears at Ames.

            Yes, that’s perfectly self evident.

            It’s amazing how much you GG cultists scream bloody murder anytime anyone criticizes him, or his billionaire.

    4. Kitto Mandala

      Wow, the Pierre Omidyar sock puppet brigade is already swarming social media to distract anyone from paying attention to The Intercept’s Stephen Glass scandal. “Actually there’s no story here because the journalist who wrote this a bad person!” “Keep moving along folks, nothing to see here!”

      Maybe Naked Capitalism’s readers should read the article and make up their own minds. Why are Omidyar’s sock puppets so afraid? Why the distractions and smears?

      Sad, but the richer they are, the more thin-skinned and smeary they get.

  13. uka uka

    It’s a pity when feminists are represented by such idiots like Kirkham. Sure CDC’s recommendation is certainly naive and scatterbrained but it is also completely valid.
    Kirkham ignorantly pushes the issue into the gender-roles corner, thus relativizing a danger actual medical professional issued a warning against, even though, this isn’t about women’s gender but about their healthcare.

    The CDC should simply inform people that alcohol poses serious danger to fetuses, that about half of pregnancies are unplanned, and as a result in combination with alcohol not using contraceptives poses an additional risk.

    1. optimader

      Sure CDC’s recommendation is certainly naive and scatterbrained but it is also completely valid

      It is completely valid, full stop.
      The CDC is correctly reporting epidemiological findings as they impact Public Health. Is it reasonable to expect the CDC to nuance recommendations in a way that anticipates not offending someone’s social behavior sensibilities?
      It is what it is.. people should heed a CDC report for what it is, or not, and move along.

      HAHA there you have it, the American Beverage Institute Weighs in!
      The American Beverage Institute, a restaurant trade association, also criticized the new recommendation. In a statement, Sarah Longwell, managing director of the institute, said: “The C.D.C.’s view on alcohol is incredibly puritanical. Alcohol can be safely and responsibly consumed by women, even if they’re theoretically capable of having children

      1. uka uka

        Is it reasonable to expect the CDC to nuance recommendations in a way that anticipates not offending someone’s social behavior sensibilities?

        Of course, it is. If you go one step beyond merely informing the population – only saying: It is what it is. – and publish a recommendation of proper handling of some matter then you need to consider its feasibility in the respective cultural environment. Otherwise, all you get is a backlash of misguiding arguments like that quote from the ABI or the one from Kirkman.
        The CDC’s naive emphasis – “Alcohol and the Ability to Get Pregnant: Why Take the Risk?” – is on avoiding alcohol which no one is going to follow, instead of underlining that many women are for a long time unaware of their pregnancy and no amount of alcohol intake is risk-free.

      2. Antifa

        This is getting complex. As the Zika virus spreads across the South this summer, and a girl’s tippling a few at a backyard barbecue, wearing short shorts and short sleeves because it’s hot even in the shade, and she meets an okay fella so they go upstairs for a while and roll the dice with no condom or pill, is the primary danger from mosquitoes, alcohol, unprotected sex or that this is a family reunion?

        1. Stephanie

          $10 says any babies made in those circumstances go on to win the not-a-Nobel Prize in Economics.

        2. optimader

          HA.. indeed..
          That alluring nexus of Science, Health Policy, Societal Perceptions, Moral Inclinations– Add Lemon Hart Demerera Rum, Honey, Grapefruit, Lime, a shot of Seltzer Water, Ice… and that Cousin.

      3. Chris in Paris

        Yeah, it’s incredible that we’ve survived as a species for so long considering our use of alcohol for the past 100,000 years or so.

        1. Gio Bruno

          Actually, human induced fermentation of alcoholic beverage goes back about 9000 years. When surplus grain was available for experimentation. Now, all manner of living plants that create a “fruiting body” can spoil and naturally ferment to some degree and scientists have picked up genetic markers in hominids that go back millions of years. But I don’t think that is what you were referring to.

          In current day humans excess alcohol leads to bad metabolic outcomes, as well as, transmission of social disease.

        2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          The use of alcohol helps both population growth and reduction.

          The former from more pregnant women and the latter from alcohol induced fighting and warring.

      4. fosforos

        Epidemiological studies are probabilistic, finding “dangers” at very small significance levels. Only someone statistically sophisticated enough to have read and understood and evaluated those “epidemiological” studies can tell whether that minuscule risk is high enough to justify giving up the civilized and civilizing practice of drinking wine. For the rest of us, the fact that (at least) ever since the Flood humans, men and women, young and old, equally, have been growing grapes and drinking the resulting nectar without any noticeable genetic damage to the human race should be sufficient reason to disregard those scientistic admonitions as the misogynistic prohibitionist nonsense that they are.

      5. jlowe

        “. . . anticipates not offending someone’s social behavior sensibilities?”

        Maybe times are different. Seemed like CDC was able to be more candid with people 30 years ago about what they needed to do to avoid becoming exposed to HIV.

        It is ignorant to push this issue into into the gender-roles corner. However, how possible is it to view a women’s gender and her healthcare as separate issues? When it comes to exposure to developmental toxicants (such as ethanol), men receive a great big pass than women don’t.

    2. cwaltz

      I’m not sure how valid it is. Suggesting absolutely no alcohol seems overkill to me.

      It also seems like yet again the onus is being put on women since I don’t see any reference to condom use at all, which last I heard was a valid means of BC- but hey that would require menfolk to take an active part in reproduction.

      1. optimader

        kicking the can down the road a bit further,
        It also seems like yet again the onus is being put on women since I don’t see any reference to condom use at all, which last I heard was a valid means of BC

        The first paragraph of the article limits the recommendation applicability to women who are not using birth control — Sexually active women who are not using birth control….—-and indeed condoms are (a form of) birth control.

        So it seems like angst about nothing.

        1. cwaltz

          Again, my question is, why is this specifically being directed towards women?(and yes I realize that women get to house the fetus since I’ve had 5 of them.)

          Men play a part in baby making.They also have the means to use contraception as evidenced by my reference to CONDOMS. So why is this addressed specifically towards the female half of the species?

          Are they suggesting that it’s only females that drink that have a responsibility for contraception rather than it being a sexual PARTNERSHIP where two individuals have the responsibility to ensure that any human created have the best chance at being happy and healthy? Because it sure sounds that way to me. You’d figure the CDC would know better.

          1. optimader

            I think it is directed toward women because they are the gender that gestates. Her sperm donor can apparently be drunk as a skunk (that’s an epidemiological term.) if he rises to the occasion, with no adverse consequences to a fetus.

            1. jrs

              But is that even true? Somehow I doubt it. If he’s an alcoholic before conception it probably does affect the baby some.

            2. cwaltz

              My problem yet again, is because, they are suggesting that women are somehow responsible for contraception.

              They aren’t.

              Additionally, are you 100% sure that male sperm aren’t adversely affected by alcohol and have no effect on the fetus? Studies suggest otherwise. Alcohol has been proven to affect sperm quantity and QUALITY.


              As long as we’re going to be telling people to abstain for the sake of baby, then we ought to tell people, not just women. Especially if we’re going with the no alcohol is acceptable route.

          2. fritter

            Maybe because they carry the babies? Unless there is fetal alcohol causing sperm which their might be (dunno). I assume the CDC was issuing the advice as a warning not to wait until the 3rd trimester to stop drinking. That might be why the Obstetrics and Gynecologist Assoc. applauded the suggestion.
            I understand the overreaction, but it might actually be helpful advice. I personally had no idea it would be a problem at conception and I’m a 40 year old male. If I were married and looking to have children I would be eternally grateful.

            1. jrs

              But what if one is not looking to have children, what if one doesn’t even have a partner or isn’t even hetrosexual. No matter if you are of childbearing age very loosely defined, and don’t have your tubes tied, don’t have wine with dinner.

        2. jrs

          I don’t know casually I think “using birth control” means being on hormonal birth control and so condoms would not be included. Other better non-hormonal options exist of course.

      2. Oregoncharles

        Brute fact: men don’t get pregnant. Yet. Not fair, but a reality we all have to deal with.

        And, as Optimader points out, given consensual sex, use of condoms is up to her as much as him – besides which, there are also condoms for women.

        In general, there are more and better contraceptive options for women because they have a much greater stake – see point 1. There are also technical reasons.

        The chief real criticism of the press release is that it exaggerates: very moderate alcohol use has little effect. Comes down to “how safe do you want to play it?” In practice, as I said below, it’s really a plug for using contraceptives unless you intend to get pregnant – in which case, radical moderation as to alcohol and most other drugs is responsible behavior.

        1. Yves Smith Post author

          What is offensive about the recommendation is that it makes it sound as if women should not drink at all. This is the worst sort of nannying and guilt-tripping.

          There are generations before ours where women drank while pregnant, like pretty my all of our mothers.

          The real issue is binge drinking, and that apparently has grown among college students. Why not address an actual problem? This scare-mongering just backfired.

          1. Oregoncharles

            Poorly written, in that case. I read it the other way around: “if you’re going to drink, make sure you don’t get pregnant.” But my sensitivities are obviously different; and to be fair, that is not the way they phrased it.

            1. Yves Smith Post author

              What they don’t dare say is the real issue: if you partied hard and then got pregnant during that time frame, you should seriously consider having an abortion.

        2. jrs

          Since very few birth control methods are 100% effective, it really is “women should not drink at all” from puberty to full menopause.

  14. Vatch

    While the big news stories continue to be the success of Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz in the Iowa caucuses, life continues elsewhere. Here’s an article from the New England Journal of Medicine:

    Effect of Removal of Planned Parenthood from the Texas Women’s Health Program

    Selections from the article:

    Federal public health financing through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act relies on an array of public and private entities to deliver health care services. Historically, federal statute or rule has required that all medically qualified providers be eligible to provide care that is funded wholly or in part through federal programs. Legislation challenging this tradition by the exclusion of Planned Parenthood affiliates from participation in state-administered, federally funded family-planning programs has been adopted or proposed in 17 states and both houses of the U.S. Congress.1 Texas was the first state to enforce such a law.
    . . .
    Effective 15 months earlier (on September 1, 2011), Texas had cut family-planning grants (a separate funding stream) by 66% and redistributed the remaining grant funding away from dedicated family-planning providers, such as, but not limited to, Planned Parenthood affiliates.
    . . .
    The exclusion was also associated with an increased rate of childbirth covered by Medicaid within 18 months after the claim. The percentage of women who underwent childbirth covered by Medicaid within 18 months increased from 7.0% to 8.4% in the counties with Planned Parenthood affiliates and decreased from 6.4% to 5.9% in the counties without Planned Parenthood affiliates (estimated difference in differences, 1.9 percentage points; P=0.01). This change represents a relative increase of 27.1% from baseline (1.9 percentage points divided by 7.0%) in the proportion of women using injectable contraceptives who underwent childbirth covered by Medicaid within 18 months after the claim.
    . . .
    In conclusion, the implementation of the 2013 exclusion of Planned Parenthood affiliates from a Medicaid waiver program in Texas was associated with adverse changes in the rates of provision and continuation of contraception and with increases in the rate of childbirth covered by Medicaid. These findings have implications regarding the likely consequences of proposals to exclude Planned Parenthood affiliates from public funding in other states or at the national level.

    Well done, Texas. They increased the rate of unwanted pregnancies, and they also increased the cost to taxpayers for those pregnancies and births. The new Republican Presidential front runner, Ted Cruz, is a U.S. Senator from Texas.

      1. Antifa

        Images by Ted Cruz
        (apologies to Eddie Murphy)

        Make them holy in His sight
        Beat the children
        Beat the children
        Never mind their
        Weight or height
        Beat the children
        Beat the children
        Let them see
        That power’s paternal
        Make them fear
        All things infernal
        Help them attain
        Joy eternal
        Beat the children
        Beat the children
        B E E T
        the c h i l l d r e n

    1. cwaltz

      Who could have known?

      The GOP is a veritable brain trust. Apparently someone needs to tell them that paying for unplanned kids costs the government more than paying for reproductive planning- again and again. Because they’re really, really slow.

      It’s like their moronic idea to drug test welfare recipients that actually ended up costing more than it saved.


      1. PQS

        No, no, it isn’t that they don’t know the facts. It’s that they are impervious to them. Add in an extra helping of moral superiority and presto! Old white dudes show up on the television saying that an aspirin between the knees is contraception, and nobody challenges them on this.

      2. Kfish

        That’s a feature, not a bug. The point of defunding Planned Parenthood is to punish those nasty sluts for having extramarital sex. The point of drug-testing people receiving welfare is to humiliate people for daring to receive welfare.

        Cost savings are just a smoke screen to cover the real motivations. The GOP doesn’t need to be told a thing. They know exactly what they’re doing,

      3. hunkerdown

        Gotta love the smell of elite senility in the morning, eh? Of course, their desire is never to save money, but to reproduce a social order where the crown serves the noble class like they used to. That is, to reenact war as ritual. It’s easy when oligarchs will always refloat your fleet.

  15. Yancey Tobias

    “Can she run from jail?” Eugene Debs did, but then, he didn’t deserve to be there. So, Hillary can run from jail, although she does deserve to be there.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      Still, a good propaganda department will make her a martyr from there.

      “Our Mandela” – a good PR’s dream.

      The vast right wing conspiracy.

      Why not? People bought it before.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      I wondered once about the fate of all those pay phones.

      Are they still around in this Smartphone Age?

      I thought they would make good bird nests.

      Maybe the cat thought so too.

  16. Pookah Harvey

    During the Democratic Town Hall Clinton made the following statement after being questioned about her Goldman Sachs speaking fees:

    I’m out here every day saying I’m going to shut them down, I’m going after them. I’m going to jail them if they should be jailed. I’m going to break them up.

    I mean they’re not giving me very much money now. I can tell you that much.


    Fine with me. I’m proud to have 90 percent of my donations from small donors and 60 percent, the highest ever, from women, which I’m really, really proud of.

    CNN has done the only fact check I can find and here is their conclusion::

    Clinton is vague in the first part of her statement, leaving open the possibility that she’s talking about 90% of the number of donations rather than 90% of the total amount she’s raised…..So, as a percentage of contributors, the 90% that she cited is true. But looking at percentage of money raised, small contributors gave only 24% of the total raised. If we include that calculation, we must rate her claim as true, but misleading, since her campaign is mostly funded by large donors.

    So after covering up one lie they then completely ignore the fact she states ” they’re not giving me very much money now. I can tell you that much”. But according to her number 1 industry donor during this election cycle is “securities and investment” at over $17 million.

    And will someone tell me when Hillary ever said that she was going to “break them up” other than on that stage. If I remember right she argued against breaking them up.

    To top it off the headline for this fact check section is:
    “Reality Check: Clinton’s campaign donors are mostly women”

  17. RP

    “No Alcohol for Sexually Active Women Without Birth Control, C.D.C. Recommends”


    “You’re all just pre-pregnant to us until your fertility ends in your 40s and we can pretend you don’t exist.”

    1. cwaltz

      What I found egregious was the idea that it seems to present is women and women alone are responsible for contraception?

      It should have been addressed as a male/ female issue.

      It’s really tiresome that men complain they don’t get reproductive rights right along with women(although I’d argue that choosing who you sleep with carefully is probably the biggest right someone can have)however the narrative seems to be that they don’t have any of the responsibilities that go along with those rights.

      1. tegnost

        “What I found egregious was the idea that it seems to present is women and women alone are responsible for contraception?”
        I too had that reaction to the story after reading it this a.m. Also thought it was a really weird request from the CDC, I wonder what their stance on eating gmo’s when you could potentially get pregnant, or drinking lead infused water…why not tell women to avoid having sex with men who drink as alcoholism has genetic markers? Just weird, makes me think some insurance/pharma exec is trying to get more pills sold or something…

    2. fritter

      I know right. Next thing they’ll suggest as part of their sexist agenda will be to cut down on the cocaine and heroine while breast feeding.

  18. rich

    Former Head of the NAACP to Endorse Bernie Sanders

    Perhaps it’s merely a name recognition thing, or the fact that her husband was so popular with the black community. I don’t know, but what I do know is Hillary Clinton is running for President because she wants the Presidency. In contrast, Bernie Sanders is running because he sees America in deep trouble. There’s a huge difference.

    That said, the tide may be starting to turn. Time will tell, but an expected endorsement from Ben Jealous, former head of the NAACP, is a good sign.

    CNN reports:

    Ben Jealous, the former head of the NAACP, will endorse Bernie Sanders, a source familiar with the campaign told CNN.

        1. nippersdad

          I’ll be really interested in seeing who is closer to the pulse of the AA electorate. I understand that Jealous did great things for the NAACP, maybe he will have the credibility to overcome the BAR insights. What Sanders really needs now is a high profile SC AA community minister to endorse him. I think that would make all the difference.

      1. flora

        Thanks very much for this link. After reading the article I thought of the conversations I’ve had with many of my boomer age, educated and accomplished female friends who are adamant Hillary supporters. If I peel back the arguments they give and their defensive refusal even to consider Sanders issues, what I see is fear and resignation. Even considering Sanders brings that fear to the surface. Maybe that explains why they excuse any Dem pol embracing GOP neoliberalism, no matter how glaring – the fear of ‘something worse.’ My boomer age friends who are at undecided on a candidate don’t seem to have that fear and resignation. Thanks again for an article link that made me reconsider in a new light why some boomer age women might be supporting the Dem establishment candidate.

        1. nippersdad

          That is a really good insight; it hadn’t occurred to me that it would be equally applicable outside of the AA community, but one sees it constantly (but the Republicans!!) in every comments section one visits. You just need to know what to look for.

          A variant of Stockholm Syndrome.

        2. hunkerdown

          Are they speaking from their interests as citizens of a community or as vested future rentiers believing the next generation is obligated to make good on what the previous generation promised them? As educated and accomplished females, I would expect them to be deeply protective of “their” IRAs and other financial arrangements boomers have spent a whole lifetime socking away and on which boomers likely intend to start drawing within the span of two Presidential terms.

          My point being, I doubt that they are unconcerned, at least at the margins, about the health of their present privileged arrangements with the financial class. Their refusal to engage that issue (i.e. to defend their interests rhetorically) is compatible with this assertion.

          1. flora

            They are speaking as ‘citizens of a community’, not as vested future rentiers. I can say with a certainty that the boomer women I know who are supporting Hillary – who economically span from affluent to the struggling – are not speaking from fear about their financial state. The affluent are not worried about their finances, the struggling have learned how to survive on small income for themselves. The ‘next generation’ they worry about are their children; their daughters’ and granddaughters’ futures, fearing a theocratic GOP turn; their sons’ futures, fearing they will be crushed by GOP war mongering or an even faster destruction of the economy, although they know the Dem actions for the last 20 years have hurt the economy. I can only assume they hope that a ‘slow destruction’ will create a space of time for something to happen to turn it around. Whereas a fast GOP destruction will leave no room for change. Again, this is only my group of friends.
            I’m now very sympathetic to this fear that moves many of the boomer women I know, though I disagree with their thinking that Hillary and the status quo is the answer.

            1. flora

              shorter: they are the ones who believe Hillary’s assertion that if she, Hillary, isn’t the nominee then the GOP will win the presidency and the dark ages will return. They aren’t yet convinced Sanders can win. Hillary is playing to that fear.

  19. flora

    DesMoines Register editorial questions Dem Iowa caucus results. Calls for transparency.

    The Iowa Caucus is a huge economic boost to Iowa businesses. Other states have been questioning its legitimacy for years. For the Register (a notionally Dem paper) to call out the Iowa Dem party means they’re unsettled by how the caucus was run and what they’re hearing from around the country, in my opinion.

    1. 3.14e-9

      For the Register (a notionally Dem paper) to call out the Iowa Dem party means they’re unsettled by how the caucus was run and what they’re hearing from around the country, in my opinion.

      I saw this last night and thought it was extraordinary, because the Register’s editorial board unanimously endorsed Clinton. The article mentions that members of the board were observers at the caucuses and saw “opportunities for error.” That’s putting it mildly considering what the paper reported on Tuesday about some of the precincts being without leadership and in total chaos.

      1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        To beat Republicans at their game, Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004, for example, it seems like the Clinton team is saying, or the critics are claiming their ability, that we have to be better at that game, as we were in 1960 in Chicago.

  20. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

    How Japan sees China’s island building program.

    Well, yesterday or a day before that, in the South China Morning Post, there was an article about “Japan spends millions building structures on uninhabited rocks 1740km from Tokyo to mark its territory.”

    All those rich nations, with money to waste, sorry, spend (but not on their homeless).

  21. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

    Trump might ‘nuke’ Denmark.

    From the link:

    “We’re liable to wake up one morning and Donald, if he were president, would have nuked Denmark,” he told reporters. “That’s not the temperament of a leader to keep this country safe.”

    That quote came out of nowhere.

    I think if something smells rotten in Denmark, one would ‘puke’ Denmark, not ‘nuke it.’

  22. Oregoncharles

    “Look at the obviously hungry look in the guy’s eyes.” It’s certainly intense, but I’d say she has him enchanted. Granted, the end result may be the same.

    The Twitter quote in the article: “CDC thinks I shouldn’t drink booze *just* in case I accidentally get pregnant.

    Nope. We aren’t incubators. ” –

    is disturbingly illogical. Actually, the gist of the article is that women should use birth control if they don’t intend to get pregnant; i.e., “don’t be an incubator.” It does ignore the reality of abortion, but who wants to do that if they can avoid it?

    I think it’s always worthwhile to educate people (of any sex) about risks, so they can make informed decisions about what risks and what precautions to take (e.g., in this case, not drinking vs. using contraceptives). We all make those decisions whether we realize it or not.

      1. Oregoncharles

        Been there. He’s spell bound. A human oddity (?) is that the signals of lust or love are very similar to the signals of aggression. It’s really just passionate interest – on a primal level, lust and hunger aren’t very different. We can’t see her expression, but they’re obviously paired off, at least for the moment.

        Of course, that may well be a prelude to pregnancy…

        1. Yves Smith Post author

          No, his jaw is tight. I was never cute when I was young, but when men are horny enough, they go into “At night, all cats are grey” mode. I’ve dealt with men exactly like that guy, who’ve even verbalized what they are thinking: “I’ve spent enough time with you…” and even “I’ve spent enough money on you…so when am I going to get laid?”

  23. Jerry Denim

    “Democrats Add Four More Debates NBC. Sanders blew it. The one debate that is early enough to make a difference is in New Hampshire, which is where Sanders has the most to lose”

    My thoughts exactly. He’s got a 30 point lead in New Hampshire. After watching the Chris Matthews -Clinton “interview” on MSNBC I have a sick feeling Sanders is walking into a conspiratorial ambush. Why the sudden Clinton campaign change of heart regarding debates?

    1. Pat

      Oh, I have no doubts this is being done because Clinton needs help right now, and lessening Bernie’s edge in NH would certainly be that.
      Here’s the thing, the Clinton camp are arrogant and her people think that Clinton debates well. And on a technical level she may, but on the connect with your audience and get them to hear you level, not so much. No one is really remembering that Sanders has won every debate they have had so far with the public. The pundits can say Clinton won all they want. It won’t matter if the public goes “that old guy gets it!”

      I think both camps are rolling the dice. One knowing this a conspiratorial ambush, and the other throwing a hail mary pass. We’ll see who craps out, but my money is on the person who thinks laughing about addressing voters concerns about her personal and campaign money ties to the wealthy is an appropriate response alienating more voters than she impresses.

      1. NotTimothyGeithner

        +1000 The most talked about debate was the mess of a debate which featured Jim Webb describing how he killed a guy. Sanders is no longer a crank candidate, and the youth support is staggering. The Iowa Democratic Party won’t release the raw numbers from the naturally exclusionary caucus system.

        Sanders has no connection of Iowa and tied “the smartest and most qualified candidate and super trailblazer ever”.

      2. Jerry Denim

        Walking into an ambush right before New Hampshire seems an unnecessary risk for Sanders. Maybe it blows up in Clinton’s face but I’m sure the Clinton camp has something other than mere debating prowess up their sleeves. Their original instincts regarding candidate Clinton have proven correct. The more the public sees of HRC the less they like her. This is an established fact now thanks to Iowa. The Clinton campaign has no reason to believe more debate “victories” like the last four will arrest her falling poll numbers. They’ve got something nasty planned. Otherwise the sudden change in attitude makes no sense. This is no Hail Marry.

  24. tiebie66

    Corporate Japan Needs to Do More Than Apologize Bloomberg. No hypocrisy at all, just preparation for money extraction, I suspect.

    1. YY

      Aside from being fairly shoddy analysis/reporting, the point that is missed is that apology is just to fulfill a social obligation. Actual liabilities whether they be civil or criminal occur in a different and a far more rigorous environment in the courts. While politicians, in many cases, seem to have multiple lives, those who are tainted in business (aside from usually being too old anyway) do not recover and are usually lucky enough just to get suspended sentences and have their bank accounts drained.
      Compare and contrast to say those who are responsible for tanking the greater economy or validating torture schemes or lying to get soldiers and civilians killed. Whose usual rewards are book deals, continued tenure in universities, and adoration by the media as experts.

  25. Oregoncharles

    From “Bill Gross Says Central Banks ‘Increasingly Addled’ WSJ MoneyBeat;’ “Meanwhile, there is virtually no growth anywhere, and a number of nations are in deep distress.

    “Why after several decades of 0% rates has the Japanese economy failed to respond?” he asks. “Why has the U.S. only averaged 2% real growth since the end of the Great Recession? ‘How’s it workin’ for ya?’ – would be a curt, logical summary of the impotency of low interest rates to generate acceptable economic growth worldwide.”

    Hmmm – doesn’t really ask why that might be. You don’t suppose it’s because we’re now smack up against resource constraints, so real growth, overall, is essentially impossible, do you?

  26. Oregoncharles

    The antidote: ““Siamese cat, in Siam”” – only it appears to be a tabby, obviously the wild type.

  27. Oregoncharles

    Sorry, this was meant as a reply to Bev up near the top. The quote is from her comment.

    “the registration numbers have not increased much for either party, and although there is same day registration,”

    That’s Iowa. What about the rest of the country? Same day registration is not the norm – not allowed in, for instance, true-Blue Oregon.

    Ties are rather exciting, aren’t they? Normally, Oregon’s May primary is irrelevant (like our 7 electoral college votes), but this year, it might even matter.

  28. Elliot

    The issue is 100% that a fetus gestated by a woman consuming ANY alcohol is at risk for fetal alcohol syndrome, which can range from moderate IQ and developmental problems to severe disabling and if I recall correctely, anencephaly. The neural tube is developing during the earliest phase of gestation and alcohol in the maternal bloodstream is quite toxic to the developing fetus.

    The blood alcohol content of the sperm donor during conception (may affect sperm motility or whatever, I don’t know)— does not come into play during gestation. So there may be issues, but FAS is not one.

    I knew someone who did some of the first research on this in the late 1970’s, and after reading his reports and published articles, I’d be aghast at any doctor who would tell a pregnant, or about to become pregnant, patient, that consuming any alcohol during pregnancy was OK.

    1. cwaltz

      Actually, that ISN’T what studies have suggested at all. It’s a known fact that alcohol has an effect on sperm and that effect includes affecting the quality of sperm.

      I posted above a link to the Bump which states:

      Your hubby can’t give your baby fetal alcohol syndrome, but there is some evidence alcohol can mess with his sperm. What happens? Well, according to a 1994 study on rats, male alcohol use prior to conception might hurt your chances of getting pregnant or lead to children that are smaller, have compromised immune systems, or are more prone to behavioral or hormonal disturbances. Another rat study links male drinking prior to conception to hyperactive children. On the other hand, we aren’t rats and these studies don’t necessarily mean that alcohol has the same effect on humans.

      Here’s what the Fertility Factor has to say on the subject:

      Men who suspect they have a fertility problem may have already heard or read about the importance of a good diet and non-consumption of alcohol and drugs for a healthy sperm count and good sperm quality. However, a good many men and women trying to conceive may be unaware of the effect that alcohol can have on a man’s sperm. The bad news for men is that the damaging effect of alcohol on sperm is a scientifically proven fact. The only controversy which remains is how much alcohol, if any, it’s ok to drink while trying to conceive. Watching what you drink is no longer a solely female concern when it comes to fertility. That is not to say that all men who drink alcohol will have fertility problems, however, some men who have reduced fertility can trace their fertility issues back to alcohol.

      While alcohol use for males has not been studied as much as they’ve studied alcohol in females the idea that the egg is the only component that should need to be healthy to create a healthy baby is absurd.

      As long as we’re going to insist womenfolk forgo any alcohol “just in case” for the sake that ANY alcohol will potentially harm a fetus, it seems that men ought to be just as diligent in their concern for the sperm they might be contributing to the fetal cause, “just in case.”

Comments are closed.