Links 5/26/16

Posted on by

Did Canuck the crow swoop off with a knife from a Vancouver crime scene? CBC

The men who live as dogs: ‘We’re just the same as any person on the high street’ Guardian (furzy)

Reclaim the Internet research reveals huge scale of social media misogyny Guardian. Note that women bully women as much as men do. But at least the examples used (calling women sluts and whores) are about 1. alleging that the targets do not conform to approved gender stereotypes and 2. chastising them for it. If a man was called a slut, he’d laugh or even take it as a compliment of sorts. And if a woman who was either celibate or highly sexed (as the British like to call it) and was comfortable was called a whore, she’d also dismiss it and regard the attacker as a nut or a prude. So IMHO the underlying issues go way deeper than the style of bullying….

Getting babies to stop crying and not die may have made humans smarter ars technica (Chuck L)

New Study Predicts an Intolerably Hot World TakePart

ExxonMobil CEO: ending oil production ‘not acceptable for humanity’ Guardian (furzy)

US military uses 8-inch floppy disks to coordinate nuclear force operations GAO (Chuck L)


Warning sign: China’s currency at 5-year low CNN

China Moves Into U.S. Wind Sector OilPrice (resilc)

ECB warns of populist risk to financial stability Financial Times. As if central banks have done such a great job? But recall that the depression early in Andrew Jackson’s presidency was caused by banks to show him who was boss.

Refugee Crisis

Over 500 migrants rescued in capsize Financial Times


S&P: The pound could lose its spot as one of the world’s top currencies in a Brexit Business Insider

Which Brexit forecast should you trust the most? An economist explains The Conversation. What is not stated is: What is sovereignity worth? And who wins and who loses (or what economists call the distributional effects)?


Greece bailout: IMF queries eurozone debt relief deal BBC

IMF: No Cash Now for Greece Because Europe Hasn’t Promised Debt Relief Wall Street Journal

Fearing Russian Bear, Sweden Inches Toward NATO Foreign Policy (Swedish Lex)

French labour dispute: Nuclear power plant workers to join strike BBC


Saudi Arabia Facing Escalating Crisis as Washington Drifts away from Riyadh Iran Review (resilc)

Palestinian Families Are Smuggling Semen from Israeli Prisons Vice (resilc)

Big Brother is Watching You Watch

Companies Not Saving Your Data Bruce Schneier

Imperial Collapse Watch

Re-Tribalizing America American Conservative

Realism Restrained: The Washington Playbook Fights Back War on the Rocks (resilc)

The Obama Years Have Been Very Good to America’s Weapons Makers Mother Jones (resilc)

Clinton E-mail Hairball

State Dept. watchdog: Clinton violated email rules Politico

Hillary Clinton Is Criticized for Private Emails in State Dept. Review New York Times. Lambert: “This one mentions the mail she held onto but treats it as unproblematic.”

Hillary Clinton’s email problems just got much worse Washington Post. Lambert: “Nobody is mentioning the email on the server that she retained. That’s odd.”

Hillary Clinton email use slammed in State Department report CNN (furzy)

State Dept. IT staff told to keep quiet about Clinton’s server Computerworld (Chuck L)


Emails Add to Hillary Clinton’s Central Problem: Voters Just Don’t Trust Her New York Times

Hillary’s Cowgirl Diplomacy? Counterpunch (resilc)

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on thin ice CNN. Lambert: “Schumer puts the boot in”

Poll: Clinton and Sanders in dead heat in California Politico

Clinton breaks a California promise – San Francisco Chronicle. Furzy: “Ouch”.

On late night TV, Sanders and Trump agree to a debate — maybe Washington Post. OMG, if this comes off, Clinton would look ridiculous for not debating Bernie and I am sure Trump would taunt her for that. The calculus for Trump presumably is whether this hurts Clinton without derailing her as presumptive nominee. I’d think the odds favor him concluding yes, but he may also decide it’s not worth the effort and there’s no point in taking any risk. So netting that all out, my bet is a no but I’d love to be proven wrong.

Jeffrey Sachs: Bernie Sanders easily wins the policy debate

In shock poll, Sanders leads Trump in Georgia The Hill (martha r). From last week.

Serj Tankian on Bernie Sanders: ‘I’m Rooting for Him’ Rolling Stone

How the Hell We Got Here: Why the Democratic Party is Splitting Paste (martha r). From last week, still germane.

ABC poll: Trump surge due to massive 36% millennial swing Red Alert Politics (JohnnyGL)

Trump fires his national political director: campaign sources Reuters

Trump postpones party unity for a quick circular firing squad Washington Post (furzy). He seems to have an insatiable need for attention.

Hispanic Support Eludes Donald Trump Wall Street Journal

FEC Deadlocks Over Employer Political Coercion American Prospect (martha r)

These States Are Stepping Up To Reform Money In Politics In 2016 PopularResistance (martha r)

Black Injustice Tipping Point

Edward Nero not guilty in the death of Freddie Gray: US police offers who kill rarely get punished, but they might get rich Quartz (resilc)

Louisiana Is About to Extend Hate-Crime Protections to Cops and Firefighters Mother Jones (resilc)

Citi traders’ 2008 manipulations revealed Financial Times

Craving Growth, Walgreens Dismissed Its Doubts About Theranos Wall Street Journal

Brent Crude Rises Above $50 a Barrel Wall Street Journal

Just Released: Hints of Increased Hardship in America’s Oil-Producing Counties Liberty Street Economics. “Hints”? I was hearing of more than hints on a trip to Dallas earlier this year…

Was April Retail Sales Data Rigged? Barry Ritholtz (resilc)

Blackstone President Pretty Sure Hedge Fund Fees Are Total B.S. DealBreaker (DO)

Guillotine Watch

CEO pay climbs again, even as their stock prices don’t Washington Post

Class Warfare

How cracking down on America’s painkiller capital led to a heroin crisis Guardian (resilc)

Financial crisis caused 500,000 extra cancer deaths, according to Lancet study Telegraph (Swedish Lex). Lambert’s second law of neoliberalism: “Go die!”

Antidote du jour. Bob K: “Three new kids in my Chicago neighborhood! Days old!”

Chicago kids links

See yesterday’s Links and Antidote du Jour here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Harry

    I am currently only watching GoT on TV. I will definitely add the Bernie Trump debate to my viewing schedule.

    1. Peter Bernhardt

      The SF Chron’s editorial board is in a real pickle. I don’t know how they’re going to be able to endorse Clinton without losing what remains of their credibility. I suspect there’s a real tug-o-war going on in the house that Hearst built. Juxtaposed against that spirited editorial is a brief letter to the editor arguing that a debate is unnecessary (straight up Hillary PR). Gotta keep things balanced, I suppose.

      1. Strangely Enough

        Journalistic credibility seems to be an acceptable loss this campaign season. Much like the loss of institutional credibility at the DNC, so far…

    2. EmilianoZ

      Since $hillary broke her promise, Bernie should also feel free to break his promise of supporting the Dem nominee (should $hillary be the nominee).

      1. optimader’s foolish to promise such a thing, a lot of water under the bridge can change dramatically change circumstances at the event horizon. What if T.Rump wee to offer him a VPOTUS position? Obviously abut as likely as the asteroid strike, but who the heck knows in this election cycle? It would be one wildcard check-mate to collect Sanders supporters while inoculating himself from impeachment by those that are not Sanders supporters.

        2.Its disciplined to reevaluate a position based on new developments/information. GWB “stay the course” always made me cringe).

  2. Steve H.

    – On late night TV, Sanders and Trump agree to a debate — maybe

    Brilliant and innovative. Oblique focus on Clinton entitlement and broken promise. First Dem v Repub primary debate in history. MSM salivating over what would be the highest-rated debate in history, fighting over who’s talking head asks the questions (and willing to pay for the privilege?) Both candidates focused on the economy and the war machine. So what can Clinton do, go begging for a debate with Mr T? That would make it completely clear she can’t beat him in the open general election.

    And all because she broke another promise.

    1. Roger Smith


      Lying (or general dishonesty) never pays off in the end. Now she is here with no course of action.

    2. HBE

      A Bernie debate v. Trump would probably better for Bernie than another with clinton.

      If you don’t know by this point the woman is a lying, corrupt, warmonger you are either in denial or so low info you probably shouldn’t be voting. Another debate with her won’t change anyones mind

      A debate with trump on the otherhand illustrates his ability to win in the general and would be a massive awareness boost for him in the 50+ category before California.

      1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        A debate btw Bernie and Trump.

        It will be a ‘who can goad, sorry, out-compete the other person to expose Clinton faster’ debate.

        Trump will use those juicy sound bites in Nov.

        And a decisive D Party – which may be a good thing long term, with new splinter parties as a result.

        1. thoughtful person

          Don’t think so. Certainty Trump would say plenty about Clinton, but Sanders would focus on looking presidential and bashing trump, esp on the economic issues Clinton can’t touch. Sanders would likely come off looking good. Suspect that it is much too great a risk for trump.

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            Trump’s plan, not that he will do the debate, would be to repeat Sanders own criticisms of Hillary, daring him to refute them.

            And Sanders will lower himself to Trump’s level, as it appears to the nation that we have two men attacking a woman who is not even there to defend herself.

            It’s a trap for Sanders.

            And Hillary turns herself into Joan of Arc.

            Or Sanders can defend Hillary against Trump’s deliberately trumped-up charges against Clinton. And it will look like he is for her.

            1. giantsquid

              Bernie doesn’t have to fall into a trap. He merely has to say something like, “I’m here to debate Donald Trump, not Secretary Clinton. If you’re here to spend all your time attacking her, rather than debate our differences on the issues, you should have invited her to debate.” He doesn’t have to agree or disagree on Clinton, he can easily deflect, and probably make Trump look bad in the process.

              1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

                I can’t say how a debate between them will unfold exactly.

                Trump will try to link anything, at the slightest, to Hillary, and if possible, repeat Sanders’ charges, and ask him to deny his own statements or make him look like they are attacking a woman not present.

                That’s his main objective of the exercise – to use Sanders to get to Hillary.

                How that can be carried is what makes a person a skillful opponent or not.

        2. cwaltz

          It’s not Sanders responsibility to look out for Hillary Clinton. It’s his responsibility to make his case to the electorate. Trump is giving him a platform.

          I give Trump some points for giving Bernie this chance(and I don’t expect he’ll be nearly as mean as you think because I think Trump is courting a portion of Sanders electorate, knowing that the Democratic Party is divided and he can take advantage of that and keep the rift open and possibly secure the win.)

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            It’s not looking out for Hillary to think that Trump will turn the debate into a joint Hillary bash session, though everyone has a right to bash her.

            It’s looking for Sanders himself to avoid looking like he’s being used.

            1. cwaltz

              If I’m Sanders I let Trump bash her and use my platform.

              I don’t shrink away because some people(probably the same ones who have been bashing him all cycle because they are pro Clinton) scar me into losing that opportunity.

              1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

                Not scarring, but just be careful.

                Trump will keep repeating ‘Bernie and I agree she’s crooked Hillary.’

                Will Sanders say, ‘No, she’s not,’ or ‘yes, she is a crook?’

                “Bernie and i agree Obama is weak.’

                Now, I know Sanders will deny that.

                “Bernie and I agree the Democratic party is full of vote riggers. He was robbed.”

                On and on…

                And for “Bernie or Bust” voters, they will nod in agreement…perhaps looking at Trump less unfavorably in Nov.

      2. lyman alpha blob

        And it will be very bad for the sHill as both of them slam her on primetime TV for a couple hours

        I can hardly wait – please let it happen and pass the popcorn!

      3. Kurt Sperry

        Trump will never agree to debate Sanders. He would be publicly eviscerated, and I don’t think even he is so egotistical that he doesn’t know this.

        1. FluffytheObeseCat

          That’s my take on it. Trump will publicly toy with the idea, but will see to it that somehow, for nebulous reasons, he and Sanders don’t actually hammer out any agreement in time to speak.

          Beating on Hillary with the idea of a debate is more valuable to him than risking a debate.

      4. harry

        The DNC will crucify Bernie if he does it. No matter what he says Hillary will end up looking dumb and there will actually be real harm to get campaign. I think Bernie will have no one to sit with in the Senate lunch room.

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          I look at it similarly.

          First Hillary doesn’t want to debate you, so you debate Trump – that’s reactive.

          If you have always wanted to debate Trump, should have taken the initiative and done it at the beginning.

          Now, she’s dictating what you do and the debate could potentially turn into Hillary bashing (richly deserved no doubt) while she is not there.

        2. optimader

          The DNC will crucify Bernie if he does it
          Well, other than consistently negative and begrudging acknowledgment his existence as merely a primary season malcontent, a “crucifiction” would be the most attention the DNC and it Organs of Media will have given him.

          I think w/ HRC the presumptive candidate, who I feel would go directly into impeachment hearings upon election, he’d be ill-considered to provide anything that could be interpreted as an endorsement.

          Go out head held high, I don’t get the impression Sanders is interested in groveling for a cabinet appointment.

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            There is always the mulligan shot of putting himself in the general election, for another round of ‘Never Again Hillary in the White House.’

            He might not have to win himself to achieve that goal.

            Strategically, that’s where he differs from many of his supporters here.

            But he seems to talk to Schumer and I don’t know if he will go out head held high like that, inserting himself in the general election.

        3. inode_buddha

          The DNC has *already* been crucifying him anyways, so what’s the diff? They’re gonna ratchet up the ignoring him even more? At the very least he can continue to drag the national conversation back to where it should be, away from the 1%. Biggest political mistake we ever made as a nation was to let them frame the debate over the last 50 yrs.

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            That’s why he should thrown himself in the general election in some way.

            Most candidates are tempted to run to the right at that time.

            He has a chance to prevent that.

    3. HopeLB

      Better yet, they should hold an even more historic three way debate with clips of Hillary at the ready for any topic being debated. Trump and Bernie can both respond to each other and to Hillary. It would be Hillarious (promise-breaking Hillary-less), historic and make fine use of technology. They could even use clips of Hillary contradicting herself on topics and get responses from Trump and Bernie on her “evolving” conflicted views and which stance they each like/agree with more.

      1. Amateur Socialist

        Nah. Just put a big grimacing cardboard cutout of her on the stage. It’ll do.

        1. Antifa

          If you wanna be devastating about it, just play a track of her coughing uncontrollably whenever she’s her response.

          Or cackling, over and over.

        2. Jim Haygood

          ‘Just put a big grimacing cardboard cutout of her on the stage.’

          How about an empty chair with a stack of hundred-dollar bills on it?

          1. Pavel

            Let’s go a step further… Have a chair with e.g. 3 x $225,000 in hundreds and with a sign “This is how much it takes to get Hillary on a stage for 3 hours”.

    4. fresno dan

      Steve H.
      May 26, 2016 at 8:14 am
      The question to me is, is Trump willing to totally disavow the repub brand? Most repubs, and a significant majority of all Americans, simply do not want the neolilberal/neoconservative agenda of all war all the time and “free trade”
      Trump succeeded with repub voters cause he didn’t buy that “Bush kept us safe” and the associated pieties of the repubs – something quite remarkable at the time, and something the punditocracy thought could NOT POSSIBLY succeed – it shows how out of touch and uninformed the political class is… We’ll see if Trump is really willing to challenge repub orthodoxy in a debate – but if Trump REALLY wants to win, he has to get dems and independents – trying to “solidify” repubs is just a sure road to defeat.

      I think a Sanders Trump debate would be
      1. Well viewed – seriously, what is the point of watching most debates? Most of them are designed to disguise what the candidate will do, and issues like free trade and all war are only “debated” from the aspect of which candidate will give you more. Really, a debate between Jeb! and Hillary is just two sides of the same coin and only about which team gets the majority of the grift.
      2. Polices much, much more in line with what the majority wants will be discussed. Maybe Americans will realize that they actually have a choice with regard to trade and war.
      3. After seeing a Sanders Trump debate, won’t Hillary appear as thin gruel indeed?

      1. Steve H.

        Rather than disavow repub/demo brands, they can appeal to the branding from a half-century ago and disavow the Neo brand which has dominated for a generation. As a man born in Chicago, the question to me is how will the Machine respond. Trump has succeeded in his hostile takeover, and Bernie is even more of a threat to the status quo. The machine is high torque low speed, inexorable power over short distance, but things are moving quickly now.

        WWBD? (B = Bernays)

      2. Kurt Sperry

        Trump will run away from all the populist stuff that put him in the position he is now in. I don’t think he ever really wanted to be president, he just wanted to pop off in front of a ginormous audience and prove he could beat the stiffs at their own game, all of which he’s accomplished. He’s not really a political animal or fighter and that populist stuff will become a liability wants to just go on cruise control as the ultimate big shot and get in some rounds of golf. I think he’s already accomplished most of what he set out to do and if he pushes the populist envelope not only will he have to fight the entire Republican machine when he has their undivided attention, but going populist brings the real risk of winning the office and then fighting *both* parties to walk his talk. In the end I’d bet he’d be surprisingly like Obama in office: a disengaged, empty suit always following the path of least resistance who just wants the perks and adulation of the office but not the headaches and hard work of being an actual leader.

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          He could be as you said.

          I tried to find out more about the man and the only thing I saw from his Wiki entry was that as a kid, he was said to be a ‘pretty rough fellow when he was small.’

          Don’t know if he was a ‘hare’ fighter or a ‘tortoise’ fighter.

          He did go to a military academy, so maybe the presidency is not just short term thing.

          What could keep him going? I think both Trump and Sanders react to those who attack them. You can see the reactive responses from Sanders lately (good for him, hopefully not too late). That might keep Trump engaged. And in politics, there will be plenty of adversaries.

          1. GlennF

            Bernie will be on Bill Maher on HBO Friday night. Anyone out there with access to Bill should ask him to query Bernie on debate possibility.

            1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

              Speaking of Maher, the Wiki article on Trump provides a good insight into this man.

              He sued Maher to make him pay $5 million to a charity, after Maher challenged him to produce a birth certificate

              Later, the suit was withdrawn.

              Does Trump believe public statements, by anyone, him or others, are ‘flexible?’

        2. RabidGandhi

          If he doesn’t want to be Pres, then Trump should start campaigning for Sanders. HRC is a much harder candidate to lose against.

  3. diptherio

    A couple of questions on the LIBOR/Isdafix settlement with Citi. First of all, is it just me or does this seem rather self-contradictory?

    Even so, the regulator brought the matter to a close with its own choice revelations. Citi’s former trader Tom Hayes has become the reluctant face of the Libor scandal. He is currently serving 11 years in prison in the UK, arguing that his bosses were well aware of his actions.

    On Wednesday the CFTC reinforced findings from its Japanese counterpart in 2011 that Hayes had been working alone and deceiving his bosses. In a series of revelations — caught via electronic messages that have ensnared others — the regulator argued Hayes’s bosses talked openly about his reputation for controlling the market before he had even started.

    Instead, the bank was greatly influenced by its desire to generate profits of between $50m to $150m from his interest rates trading, the CFTC said.

    So was he working alone, deceiving his bosses, or did they know and approve the whole time? FT puts forward two totally contradictory claims in the span of two sentences…or maybe I’m not understanding something.

    And notice that they guy currently doing 11 years for market manipulation swears his bosses knew, which would seem like the perfect opportunity to get him to testify against his overlings…and no one is following up? It’s like the FBI arresting a street-level dealer, who then tells them about the doings of the top-level crime boss, and the FBI saying, “yeah, thanks but we’re not interested in all that.” WTF?

    My other question revolves around the counterparties to the banks, i.e. all the city governments (and whoever else) that bought interest-rate swaps from these banks. Are the banks required to refund any of those payments? We know that these swaps have played a major part in helping bankrupt a number of cities, and we know the swaps were manipulated. The banks are paying fines to the Feds, but what about the actual victims of the manipulation? Do the banks just get to keep their ill-gotten gains? Do municipalities have no option but to accept that they got defrauded and just forget about ever seeing that money again? It’s like somebody being found guilty of stealing a purse and the judge telling the thief he’s got to pay the court for his crime…but not returning the purse or anything else to the victim.

    What am I missing here? Surely, our federal financial police can’t be that crooked can they? Oh wait…yes, they can :-/

    1. JTMcPhee

      Interesting, what a large portion of the thinking class is putting so much mental energy into the presidential electoral sideshow. While, as diphtherio and others here have been educating us and reminding us, there is a political economy in operation, 24/7, much of it dedicated to behaviors that are suicidal and cancerous and parasitic.

      Gong Show/break room intensity, applied to the soap opera of electoral shenanigans; is it too much trouble, maybe too depressing, to bend the same intensity toward the thinking and hoping and looking forward and concentration on “compelling good wise honest decent policy,” somehow or other? And even if Sanders somehow beats Clinton, he rightly tells us there is so much more needed to accomplish what he calls a “revolution” but what looks a lot more like a kind of Reformation: much more needed than interstitial remarks and revelations and discourses about policy, which seems everywhere to only happen, if at all, between long strings of informed and/or wishful speculations on what new idiocies will appear and how they will play out (as far as we ordinary up people are allowed to see) in the Great Distractions the powers that be just love for us mopes to invest our energies in…

  4. Bubba_Gump

    Just want to get clarification on an acronym. In raising the TTP/TTiP/TISA trade topic the other day at a group dinner, I used the acronym T-T-P as is used on this blog for transpacific trade partnership. A guest googled it (at the table!) and found that in most online material including Wikipedia it is referred to as the T-P-P. Which, I observed, instantly blew my credibility to the group despite my explanations. But she had a point. Shouldn’t we be referring to the TPP part of it as the “TTP?”

      1. diptherio

        It’s always been TPP and TTiP. Anything else is a typo. And if people discount everything you say because you mix up a letter in an initialism, they not a bright bunch (sorry, I know they’re you’re friends). And, might I add, that I think the advocates of these deals purposely try to make the initialisms for these agreements as similar, and thus as confusing, as possible, for exactly this reason.

        Point out that mainsteam economics states that free trade agreements should lead to lower wages and higher profit rates in countries like the US, with relatively lots of capital and relatively high wages. Why would anyone who works for wages (or a salary) in the US support that?

    1. Dugh

      It’s TPP. Whenever I see someone use TT, I figure it’s a typo or an understandable transpose with its transatlantic cousin.

  5. fresno dan

    Which Brexit forecast should you trust the most? An economist explains The Conversation. What is not stated is: What is sovereignity worth? And who wins and who loses (or what economists call the distributional effects)?

    From what I have read, how GDP is measured is fraught with inconsistencies (output, income, and expenditure measures).
    But much more importantly, the absolute single minded OBSESSION with GDP masks other effects, that in my view are more important. Could it be GDP is a big McGuffin used to deflect attention from the ever increasing inequality, and that the overwhelming increases (if not all) in GDP have gone to the 1%?

    I have no doubt those at the top have benefited considerably from “free trade” – maybe that is why one never hears a critical dissection of the “free trade” economy in the MSM…
    The question is never asked of why a nation should pursue policies that disproportionately benefit so few members of a society at the expense of so many.

  6. Cdk

    Re: trump-sanders debate, would be perfect, but I also don’t think trump will come through. in addition to not wanting to boost Sanders, he avoids debates all around as a campaign strategy. I don’t see him engaging with what would be his most difficult debate opponent. … Unless he thinks there is a chance Sanders runs independent/green/however he can get on the ballot, which would really, really awesome.

    1. HotFlash

      Let’s see — Trump vs Bernie, HIllary a no-show. Downside for Bernie: he will be shut out of future DNC debates (that’s the roolz)! So, that’s not a problem. Upside: he can demonstrate how he would do against Trump as Dem nominee — dunno, he could do fine. If he does do OK, then the Dem superdelegates would have to rethink their votes, no? Hillary can only look worse. More risky for Trump than either of the Dem possibles, buy hey, he’s a risk-takin’ kind of guy.

      I am stocking in popcorn, just in case.

      1. NotTimothyGeithner

        I don’t think it’s a risk for Trump. Sanders would mop the floor with Trump already in the general already.

        Trump can’t beat a generic Democrat . Trump can beat a grossly corrupt, war monger who has largely been protected by the media on those problems. Trump’s act works against the out of touch. The msm is still reeling over Trump criticizing 43 in South Carolina or Bush country. Shouting socialist won’t hurt Sanders because it’s Sanders own labeling. Trump has succeeded by pointing out the emperor has no clothes. Sanders might not wear a tux, but he is clothed. Sanders won’t be dismantled, and every moderator has been out to embarrass Sanders.

        If it’s just kind of a mundane affair because political debates are stupid, nothing will change except that the vaunted debater of last fall will have ducked Sanders and Trump.

        Even if Trump is destroyed, it sets up expectations for debates with Hillary. Oh man, the Clinton die hard will set expectations of Hillary dropping the mic and pile driving Trump on stage if Sanders did that well. Trump can respond with corruption, Hillary’s foreign policy, and trade. The narrative will be Sanders destroyed Trump and Trump just Jebbed Hillary.

        1. JohnnyGL

          The upside for Trump is that even if he doesn’t do very well in the debate, he can bank on the idea that the supers won’t break from Clinton and that, combined with primary losses on 6/7 and the repeated insistence from camp-Clinton on scoring own goals is that Trump can help drive a bigger wedge and split the Democratic Party.

          Per the evidence from the ABC poll referenced in links above, the split ALREADY shows evidence that Sanders voters are willing to stomach Trump over Clinton. His being nice to Bernie, when the DNC has been so obviously rotten to him makes him look gracious in contrast and further deepens the divide.

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            Hillary will likely scream she is being ‘stabbed in the back.’

            “Herr Bernie Borman flying to England to debate the enemy.”

            Or whatever other excuses to undermine his legitimacy.

            1. Roger Smith

              To which I hope just turns around towards and flips her two Birdie Sanders.

              I love that this technically disqualifies him from future DNC primary debates too, hah! Well played.

        2. Buck Eschaton

          A debate would be great for both Trump and Sanders, I assume the ratings would be huge. Bernie could scold Trump regarding all the identity politics issues, Trump could try to explain himself and maybe even come across as a reasonable person, it would give him a chance to anyway. Then the two of them could spend the rest of debate to see which one them could most disavow the last 30-40 years of the Republican and Democratic economic and foreign policy consensus.

          1. Pavel

            The ratings would be YUUUUGE :)

            No doubt the biggest debate audience ever. Man, I hope it happens.

      2. vidimi

        given hillary pulled out of the california debate, there was no downside and a brilliant move that must have blindsighted the $hill.

      3. sd

        I m going to guess that Trump will argue that Hillary is a no-show because she is afraid and that she’s just tough words, all hat, no cattle. He will spin it that she’s a coward. Eventually, she’ll be the “Crooked Coward”

  7. Tom

    It seems a lot of publications are burying the lead on the report.

    The report describes three separate instances in which Clinton or her immediate staff were concerned that someone was hacking into her private email. In two of those cases, a non-departmental advisor to Clinton said he had to “shut down the server because he believed someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in I didnt (sic) want to let them get the chance to.”

    The report then goes on to note:

    “Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a
    personally owned device containing personally identifiable information. 12 FAM 682.2-6 (August 4, 2008). However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department.”

    Isn’t this the crux of the flap over Clinton’s private server? That hackers — including foreign governments — could gain access to Clinton’s emails and use the information to blackmail or influence her should she become President?
    Seems like kinda a big deal.

    1. RabidGandhi

      That may be the crux from a state security angle, but for me the angle is FOIA requests. The idea for this whole cockamamie system was to prevent us from accessing communications that would show her peddling access and state assets.

      But I don’t expect any of her Repub frenemies to go after her for this, because they hate FOIA just as much as she does. So it will be like Benghazi: a dumb show trial on stupid little details while ignoring the greater harm being inflicted.

      1. Tom

        Yes, the FOIA issue is equally as troubling as the security issue. It’s important to remember that Clinton and her people were the ones who initially decided which of the 60,000 or so emails on her private server were work-related. Eventually, they only turned over about half, or around 30,000 emails. Now, apparently the FBI has Clinton’s server in its possession, but it’s not clear how many of the deleted emails they’ve recovered. I have also read that investigators have contacted Clinton’s ISP to determine if her emails still exist on their servers somewhere. All this uncertainty about which emails were work emails and which were personal is because Clinton deliberately circumvented the State Department rules and policies for conducting State Department business for her entire term of office.

        1. Romancing the Loan

          The FBI has said they have all of Clinton’s personal emails that she didn’t turn over. I think they got it off the tiny IT company Clinton used for backup services.

        2. RabidGandhi

          Here I’m probably short on the details, but I don’t understand how the FBI can access NSA interceptions of everyone else’s communications but for some reason finding what HRC squirreled away on her princess phone is this Sisyphean task. My suspicion is that if she were an asset-benighted brown person like myself those deleted emails would show up right quick.

          1. NotTimothyGeithner

            Who says they haven’t? There is a good chance the contents of the emails are probably worse than the server issue, but I think the FBI would want this done before creating an election crisis. An indictment for smaller crimes if they have evidence of selling the office would solve the nomination issue. The operative words are “Al Capone” and “tax evasion.” They can take their time with the email contents.

            How long would a larger scandal play out? Comey will be gone and would be crucified if he didn’t wrap up an investigation prior to the DNC.

            1. bob

              NSA collections- Not legal, not admittable in court.

              FBI still has a few rules they have to follow, especially true with the Aristocracy.

              1. RabidGandhi

                Point taken, but if they possess the physical server, would it be possible for the defence to determine what came from the descrubbed server and what came from NSA?

    2. Waldenpond

      When you have a 1% for which privatization of government functions is the ideal, a hack is just an inconvenience. The argument will turn to no-bid non-public security contracts.

  8. Tom

    Seems like many publications are burying the lead about the Inspector General’s Report as it relates to the Clinton email hairball.

    The report describes three separate instances in which Clinton or her immediate staff were concerned that someone was hacking into her private email. In two of those cases, a non-departmental advisor to Clinton said he had to “shut down the server because he believed someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in I didnt (sic) want to let them get the chance to.”

    The report then goes on to note:

    “Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information. 12 FAM 682.2-6 (August 4, 2008). However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department.”

    Isn’t this the crux of the whole issue about Clinton exclusively using a private server for State Department emails? That a hacker — including those working for foreign governments — could gain access to sensitive information in Clinton’s emails and use it to blackmail or influence her if she were to become President?

    In fact, several attempts were made to hack into her server and she knew about them and still did not report the attempted intrusion to the proper State Department IT people as required.

    Seems like kind of a big deal.

    1. JustAnObserver

      Its *always* the attempted cover-up that will get you in the end. They never learn do they these 0.01%ers surrounded by their impenetrable walls of $$$ and sycophants.

      Interesting to note that its only the unexpected determination and improbable (to elites) success of the Sanders campaign that has allowed enough time for the email server thing to become a publicly visible *issue* during the nomination process. For that the Dem nomenklatura should be falling over themselves to thank Sanders for giving them time to recover & dump Clinton … but I expect they won’t.

  9. rjs

    Was April Retail Sales Data Rigged?

    my synopis of that report two weeks ago starts out with: this week’s retail sales report for April was preceded by an April 29th benchmark revision based on the results of the 2014 Annual Retail Trade Survey and the final results from the 2012 Economic Census, which revised prior estimates of retail sales back to 1992 broadly higher…thus this release reports changes from that revision, as if the prior reports we’ve covered had never been published…

    that means any comparison to previously publised data, which is cited in the alleged rigging, is invalid…

  10. Peter Bernhardt

    Probably all newspapers are running a tame AP story about the email audit, complete with spin from Clinton flaks. Maybe some actual journalism will follow?

    1. Kurt Sperry

      The scary part is that there is hardly one of the shrinking number of remaining post-consolidation media juggernauts that hasn’t been overtly exposed as pro Clinton in this past year. The NYT or the WaPo–or any of the big media–you know won’t be doing more than the most passive, pro forma journalism spun to minimize Hillary’s culpability. FOX News is 99% kayefabe/show biz too, they never go for the jugular, they pretty safely stick to stuff that can’t harm like the bizarrely off point Benghazi “scandal” or the cynical milking of birtherism for ratings. The highly partial, monocultural nature of the political media has been tested and exposed time and time again in this election cycle.

      Even if an FBI whistleblower were to spill damning evidence, is there a single US news organization whose first gut impulse wouldn’t be to protect Clinton before participating in the destruction of their overtly favored candidate? If any scandal involving Hillary comes into the light today that kills Clinton’s candidacy, it will almost have to first break through a wall of silence by the major media who could lend the story the putative authority to be quickly fatal to Clinton’s run. There might be an opening here for a small web based news outfit to get really, really famous for a very long time overnight if they hit the right FOIA ask or get fortuitously leaked to.

    2. JohnnyGL

      Heard “Morning Edition” on NPR this morning. It was a really shameless airbrushing of the whole scandal. We were repeatedly told there’s nothing new, no one’s mind will be changed.

    3. bob

      That could be very dangerous to the apostles that are looking for jobz in the next Clinton Admin. They are sure it’s going to happen, mind you.

  11. Paul Tioxon


    Tillerson said Exxon had invested $7bn in green technology, but the science and technology had not yet achieved the breakthroughs needed to compete with fossil fuels. “Until we have those, just saying ‘turn the taps off’ is not acceptable to humanity,” he said. “The world is going to have to continue using fossil fuels, whether they like it or not.”
    Ending oil production not acceptable for humanity, so they will end humanity to ensure oil production. The combination of the fossil fuel industry and the republican party is THE #1 existential threat to the planet and human civilization. It is not only my conclusion, but the reason for the success of Bernie, who has repeatedly declared to do everything in his power to keep Donald Trump from the White House. The buying off of politicians by Big Oil, climate change denial, deadly air pollution and water contamination and the discrediting of the alternative energy industry that is now taking over the fossil fuel industry as the future for all energy production. It is why Noam Chomsky would bother to vote at all, to prevent a Donald Trump or other republican president from taking power:

    ““The fact of the matter is that today’s Republican Party qualify as candidates for the most dangerous organization in human history… just what they call a radical insurgency, which has abandoned parliamentary politics. And they don’t even try to conceal it. Like as soon as Obama was elected, Mitch McConnell said, pretty much straight out, ‘We have only one policy: make the country ungovernable, and then maybe we can somehow get power again.’ That’s just off the spectrum.”

    Chomsky then goes on to lay the blame squarely at the feet of the neoliberal era, beginning with the end of the Carter presidency and sharply escalated by the Ronald Reagan administration, which began funneling the wealth of the middle class that was gained during the post-war boom up towards the richest of Americans:

    “This period, which has been a period of stagnation and decline for much of the population in many ways—wages, benefits, security and so on—along with enormous wealth concentrated in a tiny fraction of the population, mostly financial institutions, which are—have a dubious, if not harmful, role on the economy. This has been going on for a generation. And while this has been happening, there’s a kind of a vicious cycle. You have more concentration of wealth, concentration of political power, legislation to increase concentration of wealth and power, and so on, that while that’s been going on, much of the population has simply been cast aside. The white working class is bitter and angry, for lots of reasons, including these. The minority populations were hit very hard by the Clinton destruction of the welfare system and the incarceration rules. They still tend to support the Democrats, but tepidly, because the alternative is worse, and they’re taking a kind of pragmatic stand.”

    You can see the entire Democracy Now Interview here….

    Strategic voting according to his analysis, would prevent a Trump White House. Again, see his interview on Al Jazeera here:

    To learn more about the Big Oil lobby, see below:

    1. Charger01

      Tillerson is correct. Most Americans use fossil fuels to heat their homes, drive to work, and receive their meals via a supermarket by a transportation system run on fossil fuels. This is relative for the next 20 years.

      1. Katniss Everdeen

        Americans depend so heavily on fossil fuels because tillerson and his ilk demand that it be so. There are places in this country where you can be arrested and your property seized for going off the grid.

        The self-sufficiency provided by the use of renewables is an existential threat to the power, control and fortune that the fossil fuel industry enjoys. It cannot be tolerated no matter how much sense it makes.

        1. Jim Haygood

          ‘Americans depend so heavily on fossil fuels because tillerson and his ilk demand that it be so.’

          For comparison, try “Americans depend so heavily on coal because peabody and his ilk demand that it be so.” Well, not really.

          Historical transitions from wood and water power to whale oil to coal to oil to natural gas are driven by demand for energy in usable form at the cheapest price.

          Ever since the oil shocks of the 1970s, intensive research has been devoted to finding alternative sources of energy. The slow progress of the past four decades shows that it is a very difficult problem.

          Like economics, thermodynamics is a harsh taskmaster, imposing the cruel discipline of Carnot efficiency limits.

          1. Paul Tioxon


            According to recent numbers released by Portugal’s ZERO System Sustainable Land Association in collaboration with the Portuguese Renewable Energy Association (APREN), the country ran solely on renewable energy for a total of four days this month. This 107-hour run began Saturday morning, May 7, and ended early Wednesday evening, May 11. Solar, wind, and hydro electricity were the renewable sources used during this record-setting event.


            1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

              It’s still a slow process.

              And a difficult problem.

              Four decades.

              For those of us who can’t wait, we ask, why just 4 days?’

              Why can’t we have 365 days?

              Why do we have to wait?

              It’s a slow process, we are told.

            2. HBE

              “renewable” is a misnomer it does not exist. Solar panels take as much non-renewable energy to produce, as “renewable” energy generated over their lifetime (~20 years), it’s a carbon wash.

              Sure it’s great that Portugal is diversifying it’s energy sources but let’s not confuse diversification with sustainability. Solar and wind are not green nor “renewable” it takes lots of energy to make all these systems, and although I’m not informed on the carbon inputs required for hydro I do know and have seen the massively destructive environmental effects it has downstream, teaming diverse bios turned to deadzone.

              I am so tired of hearing how we just need to stop using fossil fuels (although we definitely do), and then “renewables” can save us all.

              This is delusional, renewables are like trying to use a band-aid to stop a gushing artery, it might slow the bleed but so little to be almost imperceptible.

          2. uahsenaa

            On the largest macro scale, I would agree with you, that there are very real resource limitations, not to mention the large quantities of minerals that would be needed to roll out current renewable energy technologies on a massive scale. It works now only because it hasn’t been implemented across the whole world.

            However, Katniss is right to note that there are very real political pressures that suppress the development of renewable and sustainable energy sources. The most obvious is the massive cuts in government funding of research that have taken place over the years. Industry certainly isn’t going to fund research that threatens its very existence, so that only leaves the government and private foundations, whose goals are foggy at best. Then you have the rotting on the vine of mid-scale (local/regional) projects that have already been studied and planned out but were never taken past the planning stage. A good example is the studies done at Iowa State University on retrofitting existing dam systems on the Mississippi (with obvious implications for other large dammed river systems) for hydro generation. Those studies went exactly nowhere, so the impetus to do that kind of research is diminished by the fact that it can’t be effectively used to establish an academic career dependent upon successful projects to secure future grant funding.

            Of course, such projects can’t cover all energy needs and introduce problems of their own–it makes sense to use rivers already dammed, since the environmental destruction is a sunk cost, but it becomes a thorny issue once you start damming rivers for this purpose. My point is you can’t discount the real downward political pressure on renewables research just because of other concerns. It’s both/and not either/or.

          3. Katniss Everdeen

            Beg to differ, Jim.

            The manipulation of oil prices by big oil in an attempt to quash development of alternatives is well documented and has been going on for decades.

            If you’ve never seen the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?” I’d suggest you take a look. From Wikipedia:

            “The film explores some of the motives that may have pushed the auto and oil industries to kill off the electric car. Wally Rippel offers, for example, that the oil companies were afraid of losing their monopoly on transportation fuel over the coming decades; while the auto companies feared short term costs for EV development and long term revenue loss because EVs require little maintenance and no tuneups.”

            Here in Florida, day after day the sun bakes hundreds of thousands of acres of rooftops that could be generating air conditioning from FREE solar power but whose owners are paying to burn fossil fuels instead. Power companies are protected by LAW from having to purchase excess electricity generated, for free, from the ever-present, unmonetizable, uncommoditizable and unprofitable sun.

            Drowning in sun, and the choice is coal, natural gas and even NUCLEAR power.

            Not to mention the war industry whose main reason for existing is protection of access to essential fossil fuel energy sources.

            I stand by my contention that it’s not thermodynamics, it’s tillerson.

          4. myshkin

            Agree with other posters who note that the difficult process has been hindered and the “slow progress” impeded by criminal elements of TPTB in the energy and political sector every step of the way.

            Twelve years ago I spent some time in sunny Anatolia, Turkey; the solar there was not PV but hot water and nearly every other house had an array of panels on the roof. These weren’t boutique greens these were average people in a developing economy supplementing energy requirements with a fairly simple technology not involving rare earth metals, etc.

            I also recall living with friends on a farm in Vermont in the early 1970s who were using wind generated electricity, with an array of basic batteries for storage and hot water solar collectors that they rigged themselves.

            Nuclear engineer Carter put pv solar collectors on the WH and Reagan took them down. Exxon, the Koch brothers, city planners, developers, transportation planners and others have been fighting rational alternatives from day one. Let’s recall that a half century ago there was awareness of the problem, the first Earth Day was in 1970. There is human culpability and greed, not just thermodynamic discipline that balances the sad results of our circumstances.

        2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          Self sufficiency.

          Off the energy grid.

          Can one get off the monetary grid and be self sufficient there as well?

          If a tree-loving person falls off both grids like that, does it make a fiat-currency sound?

          He/She would pay no taxes growing for oneself, living off the energy grid like that.

          Is complete self-sufficiency (by everyone) and fiat currency incompatible?

          1. uahsenaa

            Depends on how wide a net government surveillance chooses to cast.

            On a more Zen note:

            What is the sound of one bureaucrat laughing?

      2. bdy

        “Turning off the taps” is likely the only incentive strong enough to push technology as quickly as the emergency warrants.

      3. JustAnObserver

        You can now see an outline of the 1%’s strategy to combat Manmade Global Warming (*). Make the 99% (99.99% ?) so poor that they can’t afford to heat their homes, drive their cars, eat supermarket food etc.

        Who needs solar panels when you can you get the 99% to die off ? Small price to pay for having to walk your dog yourself.

        (*) And could we just f’ing stop with the use of “Climate Change” to describe what burning fossil fuels is doing to the planet. As Lambert would say it has no agency and, in this case, agency – i.e. we humans are doing this – is critical.

  12. fresno dan

    How the Hell We Got Here: Why the Democratic Party is Splitting Paste (martha r). From last week, still germane.

    Her campaign also went to great lengths to preserve the air of inevitability surrounding the former Secretary of State. Clinton targeted the early states in the south, and these early wins also helped give her the momentum to survive later defeats, and concerns about her declining favorability ratings. (((the irony of a Clinton “southern strategy” for a dem is just so….uh, ironic)))

    The Clintons also established financial ties with many individuals in the media including Chris Matthews (indirectly), Stephanie Cutter, Maria Cardona, Sara Fagen, Hari Sevugan, and Lynda Tran. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who purchased The Washington Post in 2013, made millions as a result of a government contract through the State Department while Clinton was Secretary. Former right wing political hitman David Brock, who runs several pro-Clinton super PACs that coordinate directly with the campaign, purchased Blue Nation Review. CNN too has financial ties to the Clintons. It is owned by Time Warner, one of the former Secretary’s largest career donors. Similarly, Comcast which owns MSNBC, is another big Clinton donor. David Cohen, Comcast’s executive vice president even threw her a fundraiser. (((I suspect the list is far, far, far, – did I say far – from comprehensive)))

    1. Seas of Promethium

      So apparently one of the major Clinton PACs is called “Bridge to the 21st Century”?

      The irony, it burns…

  13. Parker Dooley

    8 inch floppies? When I tell “the kids” that my first homebuilt computer (Compupro, CP/M, Z80) used them, they don’t even believe such a thing existed!

    1. Elasmo Branch

      On the other hand, do we want command of nuclear warhead-ed ICBM’s to be running on Windows? Kick-off human extinction when the US nuclear arsenal launches because Col Bat Guano, USAF, opened the wrong email attachment.

      1. Treadingwaterbutstillkicking

        I don’t know. All my friends cell phones crash simply when you look at them funny.

        But my 30+ year old IBM PC, when I turn it on, slowly fires up and runs very effectively. No bells and whistles or course, and a green mono screen, but it can still do what it is designed to do. Not being networked it can’t be hacked either…

    1. NotTimothyGeithner

      Those Chinese are so crafty. How dare they send their navy out of dry dock! Haven’t they seen those “global force for good” commercials?

      1. Jim Haygood

        When served too much Sichuan food, Chinese sailors from milder-cuisine provinces complain that the people’s navy is a “global force for GERD.” [Gastroesophageal reflux disease]

  14. C

    Just Released: Hints of Increased Hardship in America’s Oil-Producing Counties Liberty Street Economics. “Hints”? I was hearing of more than hints on a trip to Dallas earlier this year…

    Oil layoffs are gutting the industry. Oil companies are selling buildings for lend-lease operations. Frackers are running wells at a loss due only to sunk costs. Oil-dependent cities are shrinking. And oil-dependent states are experiencing budget crunches.

    If they are just now seeing “hints” I wonder what it would take for them to find real evidence.

  15. ScottW

    The issue is how many voters’ opinions about Hillary are changed by the Inspector General’s email report. For Bernie supporters, it is just independent confirmation that using a private basement email server is a disqualifying event. Hillary supporters are forced once again to rationalize her misconduct–“everyone did it,” “she was never hacked,” “documents are overclassified,” etc. The issue is addressed in similar fashion to not releasing her speaking transcripts. And it cannot be argued with a straight face the Inspector General was out to get her.

    It has to make many of her supporters tepid in their support and drives Bernie supporters further away from Hillary. Is there no end in having to rationalize yet another Hillary debacle? Clearly, any other Government employee would be stripped of her security clearance if engaging in similar conduct. And she wants to be President despite this four year lapse in judgment?

    My prediction–she does not get the nomination as her baggage is too heavy to ignore. She will lose to Trump because of voter inertia. Maybe the goal is to broker Biden in as the nominee.

    1. Katniss Everdeen

      Agree about biden. He is a reliable oligarch. Folksy too.

      I don’t think clinton will make it to November. She was purchased, at considerable expense, with the expectation that she’d continue to deliver. But she is fast becoming a non-performing asset.

      Her owners don’t care about the gender issue. Being the first woman president has turned out to be a less compelling feature than initially thought, and she is becoming damaged goods much more quickly than anticipated.

      When you make yourself a commodity, you’d better stay relevant and productive or else you’ll get traded-in for the newer, less damaged model.

    2. Jim Haygood

      ‘Is there no end in having to rationalize yet another Hillary debacle?’

      No, there is no end. Here’s a tasty hors d’oeuvre before the main course of the next debacle:

      Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe invited the Chinese businessman, whose donations to him have been named as a focus of Justice Department investigators, to a 2013 fundraiser at Hillary Clinton’s personal Washington, D.C., residence.

      Wang Wenliang, a Chinese national with U.S. permanent residency, briefly shook Clinton’s hand at the Sept. 30 event, a representative for Wang told TIME. An American company controlled by Wang made a $60,000 contribution to McAuliffe’s campaign three weeks before the fundraiser. Less than a month later, a separate Wang company pledged $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, the first of several donations that eventually totaled $2 million.

      The fundraiser was one of at least three interactions between Wang and McAuliffe, according to the businessman’s representative. McAuliffe initially told reporters this week he could not remember ever meeting Wang, though he later clarified that his staff had informed him of several likely meetings. “I did no deals,” McAuliffe said Wednesday in a radio interview. “I would not know the man if he sat in the chair next to me.”

      Can you believe this lying dirtball? [rhetorical question] He meets with Wang three times, personally introduces him to Hillary in her house, pockets a $60,000 contribution from him, and now claims “I would not know the man if he sat in a chair next to me.”

      Poor Mr Wang must be feeling rather hard done by. It’s called “loss of face” in China.

    3. Tom

      As to your point:

      Clearly, any other Government employee would be stripped of her security clearance if engaging in similar conduct.

      Yes. As stated in this Reuters article:
      Failing to safeguard information is the issue. It is not necessary to prove the information reached an adversary, or that an adversary did anything harmful with the information for a crime to have occurred. See the cases of Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Jeff Sterling, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou or even David Petraeus. The standard is “failure to protect” by itself.

    4. lylo

      Weird that they seem to be waffling even now about dumping her. They should have dumped her a year ago, before the campaign even began.
      She has absolutely no way to gracefully bow out at this point. Sort of a Nixon issue; even if she’s never found guilty of anything and makes another billion dollars, she will come out of this a disgraced national figure. They had several years to come up with a backup plan, or to reevaluate their whole ‘Clinton for prez’ idea, but that would have involved doing more than cashing a cheque.
      They absolutely need to decide immediately if they are going to dump her. At this point, they can still sort of hope the only casualty would be Clinton. Could you imagine if this goes down to rule-changes and shenanigans at the convention?
      The DNC is headed towards a storm that will make the ‘Tea Party’ look like the Koch funded astro-turf group we all knew it was.

      On a side note, that grand bargain made between Obama and Clinton for an easy election in ’08 sure doesn’t seem like such a good deal now, huh DNC?

      (In all honesty, I hope they hold on to her. I hope that someone *cough* Russia *cough* dumps her emails and she is completely disgraced, forcing the DNC to choose between Sanders and their anointed oligarchs. I then hope that they pick one of their oligarchs. Sorry, but my popcorn stash is getting a bit full, and I need to get through some of it. lol)

      1. NotTimothyGeithner

        The Democratic elite have a problem. By and large, they have no business receiving Democratic voters support. After Hillary, what is left? The correct answer is would be Clintons without the celebrity of Hillary. They don’t even have mystery men because of the shellacking at the polls.

        Biden and others put out feelers last October. All he did was hurt Hillary.

    5. Jason

      “Medical issues” could be a face-saving out for her. Clinton has “no choice” but to tearfully withdraw, and announces that her delegates will be voting for Biden, or some other compromise candidate. That could make for a real Wild West convention unless the DNC can get Sanders on board with the new plan, and I don’t see how they do that without nominating him. (Give him veto power over the nomination? Accept a few broken rice bowls as surety that the rest will be undisturbed and filled on schedule? Adding – that kind of momentum and change could be very dangerous to them, though.)

      1. NotTimothyGeithner

        Trump would win 45 states against Biden. He’s a less successful Hillary with none of her celebrity appeal.

        Biden would concede the Supreme Court argument immediately after the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas debacle.

        1. nippersdad

          Agreed. Parachuting someone in at the last minute would tend to confirm all of the suspicions about the establishment that motivates Sanders’ voter base. Biden’s Ukrainian oil exec son, the bankruptcy bill and the Anita Hill stories would only provide fodder for the political massacre to follow.

    6. voteforno6

      The people making those rationalizations either don’t know what they’re talking about, or they’re so blinded by tribal loyalty, that they’ll justify pretty much anything.

      “Everyone did it.” That’s not true. Clinton is the only one that set up her own server, at home. The others utilized commercial email services. Those commercial services are more secure, and much more reliable than a homebrew server. Powell in particular had a valid reason for his setup, and it appears that his office made a good-faith effort to abide by official policy.

      To me, the most damning part of this is her staff’s efforts to shut down any concerns raised by this, and the lies they told about having clearance to do it. What are they hiding?

      1. nippersdad

        Re: What are they hiding?

        There is a longform version of the Georgia Political Review article by Chetan Hebbale previously referenced here in the links (Opinion: Why Hillary Clinton will be indicted for mishandling classified information) that speaks to this. I have been trying, and failing, to put in a link because this is a really impressive piece.* It is broken up into sections, so one need not read the entire thing to get the gist. His theory is that some of her e-mails represent a smoking gun for the Saudi funding of the Benghazi embassy attacks, and that subsequent funding from Saudi Arabia to her foundation is an attempt on their parts to keep it quiet. It reads a lot less foily than it sounds.

        * The author is twenty two years old, a double economics/microbiology major who just wanted to answer that very question for himself. In the “about the author” section he provides a link to his economics thesis that may interest some of you here.

          1. nippersdad

            That’s it! Thanks, Mom.

            Chapter eight has the part about the Wahabist/Saudi funding e-mail connection.

  16. Jef

    ““Our key finding is that if we continue to burn our remaining fossil fuel resources, the Earth will encounter a profound degree of global warming, of 6.4 to 9.5 degrees Celsius [about 11 to 17 degrees Fahrenheit] over 20th-century averages by 2300,” said Katarzyna Tokarska, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in Victoria, British Columbia, who led the study. The Arctic’s mean temperature could rise about 15 to 20 degrees Celsius (27 to 36 degrees Fahrenheit) over the next century if such trends continue.”

    When they post the numbers this way they become meaningless and easy for people to dismiss them.

    An increase of just 3 degrees triggers multiple feedback mechanisms ramping up the heat exponentially. 6 degrees is the end of our hospitable habitat and most likely human extinction. All of which can happen in just a few decades.

    The situation is way more dire than the article presents.

    1. jrs

      Yes we are possibly heading for massive feedback loops as early as later this year.

      And this is what Trump believes: “expanding fossil fuel development, killing the Paris climate deal”, drill baby drill.

      Oh and by Trump says: open up federal land to drilling, privatize the commons, neoliberalism baby neoliberalism. Oh is anyone surprised he’s a Rupugnicant afterall, he will ultimately represent Repugnant neoliberal interests (and they’re probably bankrolling him now too).

      We are scr*wed, well and truly scr*wed.

      Bernie or bust.

  17. fresno dan

    This morning The New York Times reported an interview with Gawker owner Nick Denton in which Denton said he had begun to believe rumors that some extremely wealthy person had been bankrolling Hogan’s suit. Read the Times article for the specifics. But the gist is that Hogan’s lawyers made key decisions which made zero sense if the goal were to maximize the plaintiff’s settlement. Denton said he thought the person was likely someone from Silicon Valley, where you have a strong overlap between people who have virtually unlimited wealth and people who are not accustomed to the intrusive and aggressive coverage Gawker and its sister sites specialize in. It was a little difficult for me to believe something like this was actually happening. But the evidence of the legal strategy was pretty compelling. And in recent weeks, in the aftermath of the Hogan verdict, there have been a spate of new lawsuits brought against Gawker that are unrelated to the Hogan case. All have been brought by the same lawyer who handled Hogan’s suit.
    We don’t have to go any further than Donald Trump to know that the incredibly rich often use frivolous litigation to intimidate critics and bludgeon enemies. Mother Jones had a lawsuit like this, clearly intended to bleed them dry through endless legal expenses. They won, though at a steep cost. But when bully plutocrats do so in their own name there is at least a self-correcting dynamic at work. A plaintiff in a libel suit opens him or herself up to reputational harm and highly intrusive legal discovery which is often enough to scare people away. (Remember, when Trump sued Tim O’Brien for publishing Trump insiders’ claims that Trump was worth less than $250 million dollars, Trump was eventually forced to show O’Brien’s lawyers his tax returns.) In some ways, this lines up with something I noted in my ‘Brittle Grip’ series of posts: growing calls from the extremely rich to not only be able to use their money without limit to shape the political process but to do so anonymously to avoid being “intimidated” or “vilified”.

    My point would be how is it that our vaunted legal system is so dependent upon money to accomplish victory (I think it goes without saying justice is of no concern to the legal system, but it has morphed from a random process to a totally corrupted by wealth process)
    Like the political system, where the system of legalized bribery, kickbacks, and grifting is so entwined in how anything happens in this country that the implications are hardly every truly brought to the fore, the total corruption of the legal system into essentially a “pay to play” system in which money determines outcome – well, to me this is the most pernicious aspect of our modern corrupt political system – they are not just getting rich, they are oppressing people in other ways and causing injustices beyond financial.

    Keynes said “It is better that a man should tyrannize over his bank balance than over his fellow-citizens.”
    I thought that was a wise sentiment, but neither Keynes nor I realized that men, when they can buy everyTHING in the world, will not be sated, and will demand everyONE as well…

  18. flora

    re: “How the Hell We Got Here: Why the Democratic Party is Splitting ”

    This is a must read. As is the link in the article to Part 2.

    1. Dugh

      Great article by Matt Taibbi! I think “morally ambiguous compromise” and “political incrementalism” inevitably breed corruption and exploitation and ultimately lead to moral and intellectual mediocrity and decay.

  19. Massinissa

    I usually like American Conservative, but even though I hate SJWs myself, I found it really really hard to read that article. I gave up when they called Transexuals ‘mentally disturbed’. Does anyone here have opinions on it?

    1. B1whois

      Agreed. Why is it that adult transsexuals are deemed to be okay, but in the youth they’re Mentally Disturbed? Also not explaining what SJW means was kind of a pain in the arse when it came to reading the article.

      1. Massinissa

        Social Justice Warriors. Er, theyre sort of an obnoxious lot, usually on Twitter or Tumblr, who attack people who disagree with them on social justice issues. On the one hand I agree with them that things like sexism and racism are bad, but seriously these people can be pretty obnoxious and are commonly hostile and engage in behavior like personal attacks and trolling. They give everyone else who wants equality a bad name because the right just accuses everyone of being SJWs who even mention equality. Sigh…

    2. Massinissa

      I tried reading it again. Now its talking about America having a ‘masculinity crisis’ and why we should be more masculine like the Orthodox…

      What was the redeeming value of this piece again?

    3. Dugh

      Re: Re-Tribalizing America

      “The contemporary world is not very well built for a large chunk of males. The nature of current service jobs, coddled class time and homework-intensive schooling, a feminized culture allergic to most forms of violence, post-feminist gender relations, and egalitarian semi-cosmopolitanism just don’t sit well with many…what shall I call them? Brutes?”

      As an aggressive, risk taking “brute” who spends a lot of time several standard deviations away from the mean, I can relate to this statement. There seems to be an emergent structure in our culture and organizations that feels cage like and confining.

    4. cwaltz

      My opinion is transgender is essentially genetic glitch. Something happens during the gene cascade that stops certain genes from being turned on and off like they are supposed to and creates an intersex person. In essence the person becomes both genders instead of the binary choices of male or female.

      No one really knows what the population of transgender is because there really haven’t been full attempts to total people and people aren’t always forthcoming with identifying themselves as transgender when they are going to be targeted as freaks, deviants, and “mentally disturbed.” Scientists have guesstimated that around 1% of the population doesn’t fit into the neat little boxes when it comes to the term male/female(and yes that includes males who go into a hospital for abdominal pain and find out they have uteruses and young women who go into a doctor’s office to find out why they haven’t had their menses only to find out that genetically they are male complete with tucked in testes.)

      Personally, the bathroom debate is pretty ignorant and makes me wonder if the deviant bathroom squad have actually ever used a restroom or just pee in the roads. Every bathroom I have ever been in here in the US has stalls. The only ones having their junk checked out are the ones who for some odd reason(guys I’m looking at you) are the ones proudly putting it out there. The rest of us use stalls. The only thing you can see is our flipping feet. As it is I was just reading today how some weirdo punched a dad for taking his 5 year old daughter into a men’s restroom. Apparently this jerk felt leaving a kid this age unsupervised outside the restroom was a better option(*shaking my head at the ridiculousness of leaving someone this age to wander off*)

      1. Massinissa

        Im a man, and I dont know if this is normal behavior or not, but ive never really used urinals. Ive never really seen the point? The only time I remember having to wait on a stall was at DragonCon once or twice (big crowded convention), so ive never really had the need to use one.

        Secondly, to your last paragraph… Damn. That man (the one who punched) was a moron.At least he had the decency not to punch the little girl.

  20. B1whois

    I love how the first story under 2016 heading lists the source as “Her New York Times”. I realize it’s just a formatting error, however:
    the truth it is.
    Also, “The Voters Just Don’t Trust” is a larger truth as well

  21. Take the Fork

    From the Quartz article:

    “The Ferguson Effect” is a term used by some politicians and pundits to describe a link between a rise in protests against police brutality and an increase in crime since the 2014 killing of Brown. The theory has been debunked: officials from New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton to Attorney General Loretta Lynch to US president Barack Obama have all denied that there is any evidence to support it. And St. Louis’s crime rate began to rise in April 2014, months before Wilson killed Brown.”

    This statement is garbage. Denials don’t equal debunking. It appears there is evidence to support some sort of Ferguson Effect – at least with regard to murders. This is inconvenient for the BITP narrative NC has been pushing. Perhaps the premises need to be to be checked…

    1. diptherio

      BITP? Definition please.

      Also, correlation is not causation, even assuming that a correlation does exist as you claim. What’s the mechanism of action between protests against people getting killed by police and people getting killed in general? Maybe both are side-effects of something else entirely, say like increasingly poor economic outcomes across the board.

      1. Take the Fork

        “Black Injustice Tipping Point”

        Google Rosenfeld and Ferguson. Look at the stats. I have tried to post messages asking for someone to do this for a couple of days. If there is a logical error or something wrong with the numbers, I want to hear it.

        But: when was the last time you ever heard an academic reverse themselves, on anything?

  22. Take the Fork

    Also, you might need to consider grouping the BITP articles alongside ones such as “Re-Tribalizing America” and anything having to do with immigration. They are very quickly becoming linked. Ignoring this is not going to make it go away…

  23. bob

    “Companies Not Saving Your Data Bruce Schneier”

    Wherein Schneier finally comes clean as a tool.

    “The Apple-FBI case and its aftermath have tech firms racing to employ a variety of tools that would place customer information beyond the reach of a government-ordered search. ”

    Does not equal “NOT saving your data”. It says that they collect the data, they just don’t want anyone else to be able to use it, or sell it, or have access to it.

    Very different things. In the era of sharing, is anything true?

    1. nowhere

      The data that Apple saves (iCloud data) can be disabled from the device within your possession. The bit about placing it “beyond the reach of a government-ordered search” is the continuation of the new phones and that fact that Apple can’t (supposedly) create any custom software to override the phone’s firmware allowing access to the device (the secure enclave protection). In this way, Apple doesn’t and cannot access the data that is local to the phone, and if iCloud is disabled, they wouldn’t have access to any cloud data. The telecoms would still have records of calls and SMS texts.

      They are also pretty adamant about not using any personal data for advertising/marketing data, unlike some other technology providers.

      1. bob

        “They are also pretty adamant about not using any personal data for advertising/marketing data, unlike some other technology providers.”

        And apple would never, ever lie. What is today may not be tomorrow….Assuming today is even what is *advertised*.

  24. docG

    re: The “Intolerably Hot World” meme.

    Ho hum. Nothing new there. Not really. Though the level of hysteria keeps getting ramped up.

    I’ve posted more or less the same screed elsewhere, but it bears repeating:

    If you insist on buying into the climate alarm scenario, here’s your problem in a nutshell:

    First, it’s necessary to demonstrate that there has in fact been a true long-term warming TREND, which must be distinguished from a simple increase in temperature over a given period. (While current temperatures are now higher than they were 100 years ago there was in fact no long term trend — from ca. 1940-1979 temperatures were declining and many were anticipating a coming ice age.)

    Second, it’s necessary to demonstrate that the rather alarming short term warming trend so apparent from the last 20 years of the previous century has continued into the 21st. (According to the surprising results recently obtained by Michael Mann and his associates — see the new paper by Fyffe et al. — it has not. See )

    Third, it’s necessary to link most of the temperature increase to increased emissions of CO2, in a clear cause and effect relationship. (Despite the complete lack of correlation between the two during both the mid 20th century and the current period of roughly 15 to 19 years of only minimal warming despite the steep increase in CO2 emissions.)

    Fourth, it’s necessary to demonstrate that the increase in temperature over the last 100 years or so has actually done any harm. (According to the most recent research, there was no appreciable increase in extreme weather events during the 20 century as opposed to certain comparable periods in the past — see…/us-climatechange-extremes… )

    And Fifth, assuming all the above is in fact the case (clearly it is not), it’s necessary to demonstrate that something meaningful can actually be done to avert the extreme events now being predicted without making things far far worse than they are now. See, for example,

    1. PlutoniumKun

      Wow, so many word and links, all to demonstrate that you are completely scientifically illiterate. Well done.

  25. ewmayer

    Dilbert‘s creator opines on the Sanders/Trump debate proposal — by way of correction, it was Sanders who proposed it, and asked Kimmel to relay the question to The Donald (and by way of followup, Bernie will be on Kimmel tonight):

    The Sanders Debate Gambit | Scott Adams Blog

    Last night Donald Trump appeared on Jimmy Kimmel and said he would debate Bernie Sanders so long as the profits from the debate go to charity. Sanders quickly agreed via Twitter. There’s your headline for a few days, or more.

    Let me tell you how clever that was…

  26. ewmayer

    p.s.: I enjoy reading Adams re. Trump and the art of persuasion – though note in his latest piece which I linked above on the Trump/Sanders debate proposal he has the causality reversed – it was Sanders who floated the proposal, via Kimmel – but when writes laudatory epistles like this about squillionaire douchebags like Bill Gates, Mark Cuban and the execrable Peter Thiel, he turns my stomach.

Comments are closed.