NationalReview | The bureau is conducting a counterintelligence investigation, which
is a whole different beast.
There is no ongoing criminal investigation of President Trump or his
campaign. I realize that may not be what you expect to hear, if you’re
only casually consuming the news. But it’s what FBI director Jim Comey
told Congress, and no available evidence contradicts it.
Democrats are desperate to draw a parallel between Comey’s testimony
Monday before the House Intelligence Committee — about an ongoing FBI
investigation that includes any connections between the Trump 2016
campaign and Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election — and
Comey’s statements in July and October 2016 about the criminal
investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server. But if you
listen to what Comey actually told Congress under oath, you get a very
different picture.
Let’s quote the key portion:
As you know, our practice is not to confirm the existence of ongoing
investigations, especially those investigations that involve classified
matters, but in unusual circumstances where it is in the public
interest, it may be appropriate to do so as Justice Department policies
recognize. This is one of those circumstances.
I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that
the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating
the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential
election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between
individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian
government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign
and Russia’s efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation,
this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were
committed.
Because it is an open ongoing investigation and is classified, I
cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we are
examining. At the request of congressional leaders, we have taken the
extraordinary step in coordination with the Department of Justice of
briefing this Congress’ leaders, including the leaders of this
committee, in a classified setting in detail about the investigation but
I can’t go into those details here. [Emphasis added.]
In short, the investigation Comey references is not a criminal
investigation; it’s a counterintelligence investigation, and crimes will
be investigated or charged only if they happen to be uncovered in the
process.
buchanan | Two days after FBI Director James Comey assured us there was no truth
to President Trump’s tweet about being wiretapped by Barack Obama, the
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Trump may have had
more than just a small point.
The U.S. intelligence community, says Nunes, during surveillance of
legitimate targets, picked up the names of Trump transition officials
during surveillance of targets, “unmasked” their identity, and spread
their names around, virtually assuring they would be leaked.
If true, this has the look and smell of a conspiracy to sabotage the Trump presidency, before it began.
Comey readily confirmed there was no evidence to back up the Trump
tweet. But when it came to electronic surveillance of Trump and his
campaign, Comey, somehow, could not comment on that.
Which raises the question: What is the real scandal here?
Is it that Russians hacked the DNC and John Podesta’s emails and handed them off to WikiLeaks? We have heard that since June.
Is it that Trump officials may have colluded with the Russians?
But former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and ex-CIA
Director Mike Morrell have both said they saw no evidence of this.
This March, Sen. Chris Coons walked back his stunning declaration
about transcripts showing a Russia-Trump collusion, confessing, “I have
no hard evidence of collusion.”
But if Clapper and Morrell saw no Russia-Trump collusion, what were
they looking at during all those months to make them so conclude?
Was it “FBI transcripts,” as Sen. Coons blurted out?
If so, who intercepted and transcribed the conversations? If it was
intel agencies engaged in surveillance, who authorized that? How
extensive was it? Against whom? Is it still going on?
And if today, after eight months, the intel agencies cannot tell us
whether or not any member of the Trump team colluded with the Russians,
what does that say of their competence?
antimedia | Government’s meddling in the healthcare business has been disastrous from the get-go.
Since 1910, when Republican William Taft gave in to the American Medical Association’s lobbying efforts,
most administrations have passed new healthcare regulations. With each
new law or set of new regulations, restrictions on the healthcare market
went further, until at some point in the 1980s, people began to notice
the cost of healthcare had skyrocketed.
This is not an accident. It’s by design.
As regulators allowed special interests to help design policy,
everything from medical education to drugs became dominated by virtual
monopolies that wouldn’t have otherwise existed if not for government’s
notion that intervening in people’s lives is part of their job.
But how did costs go up, and why didn’t this happen overnight?
It wasn’t until 1972 that President Richard Nixon restricted the supply of hospitals by requiring institutions to provide a certificate-of-need.
Just a couple years later, in 1974, the president also strengthened unions for hospital workers by boosting
pension protections, which raise the cost for both those who run
hospitals and taxpayers in cases of institutions that rely on government
subsidies. This move also helped force doctors who once owned and ran
their own hospitals to merge into provider monopolies. These, in turn,
are often only able to keep their doors open with the help of government
subsidies.
This artificial restriction on healthcare access had yet another harsh consequence: overworked doctors.
But they weren’t the first to feel the consequences hit home. As the
number of hospitals and clinics became further restricted and the
healthcare industry became obsessed with simple compliance, patients were the first to feel abandoned.
- By 2018, 14 million could be uninsured with many of the uninsured
practicing the tyranny of a minority, as John S. Mill might call it,
upon the rest of the insured population as they drop out. Others will
simply lose healthcare insurance as states withdraw from the Medicaid
expansion and employers drop the coverage they were required to carry as
they had 50 or more employees. Many of today’s insured will be unable
to afford the increased premiums due to smaller subsidies. The elderly
will be faced with smaller subsidies and a higher 5:1 ratio premium,
which is up from the present 3:1 under the ACA program.
- Doctors, clinics, and hospitals have seen increased numbers of
patients coming through the front door rather than the rear door due to
the expansion of Medicaid to 138% FPL and subsidies for healthcare
insurance to those under 400% FPL. My own PCP has seen many new patients
who have never been to a doctor before except at the ER. With the
proposed reversal of the mandate to have healthcare insurance and the
dropping of Medicaid, it will fall upon hospitals and doctors to still
provide stabilizing care as defined by law to all who arrive at their
door. Except this time, the subsidizing payments for care for the
uninsured to hospitals and clinics will not be available as it was
reduced with the advent of the PPACA. It appears the AHA is not too pleased with Paul Ryan’s AHCA bill either.
Counterpunch | The investigation methods used to come to the conclusion that the Russian Government led the hacks of the DNC, Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta, and the DCCC were further called into question by a recent BuzzFeed report by
Jason Leopold, who has developed a notable reputation from leading
several non-partisan Freedom of Information Act lawsuits for
investigative journalism purposes. On March 15 that the Department of
Homeland Security released just two heavily redacted pages of
unclassified information in response to an FOIA request for definitive
evidence of Russian election interference allegations. Leopold wrote,
“what the agency turned over to us and Ryan Shapiro, a PhD candidate at
MIT and a research affiliate at Harvard University, is truly bizarre: a
two-page intelligence assessment of the incident, dated Aug. 22, 2016,
that contains information DHS culled from the internet. It’s all
unclassified — yet DHS covered nearly everything in wide swaths of black
ink. Why? Not because it would threaten national security, but because
it would reveal the methods DHS uses to gather intelligence, methods
that may amount to little more than using Google.”
In lieu of substantive evidence provided to the public that the
alleged hacks which led to Wikileaks releases of DNC and Clinton
Campaign Manager John Podesta’s emails were orchestrated by the Russian
Government, CrowdStrike’s bias has been cited as
undependable in its own assessment, in addition to its skeptical
methods and conclusions. The firm’s CTO and co-founder, Dmitri
Alperovitch, is a senior fellow at
the Atlantic Council, a think tank with openly anti-Russian sentiments
that is funded by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who also
happened to donate at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.
In 2013, the Atlantic Council awarded Hillary Clinton it’s Distinguished International Leadership Award. In 2014, the Atlantic Council hosted one of several events with former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who took over after pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in early 2014, who now lives in exile in Russia.
In August, Politico reported that
Donald Trump’s favorable rhetoric to Russia was concerning Ukraine, who
have been recovering from Russian interference in their own country’s
revolution. The article cited, “Russia wants Trump for U.S. president; Ukraine is terrified by Trump and prefers Hillary Clinton.” Trump recently appointed Atlantic Council Chairman Jon Huntsman as U.S. Ambassador to Russia, which Vox called a
“baffling” choice, and Democrats and anti-Russian hysterics haven’t
bothered to attempt to criticize, scrutinize or insinuate ties between
Huntsman and Russia.
paecon | When Trump was inaugurated on Friday, January 20, there was no
pro-jobs or anti-war demonstration. That presumably would have attracted
pro-Trump supporters in an ecumenical show of force. Instead, the
Women’s March on Saturday led even the pro-Democrat New York Times
to write a front-page article reporting that white women were
complaining that they did not feel welcome in the demonstration. The
message to anti-war advocates, students and Bernie supporters was that
their economic cause was a distraction.
The march was typically Democratic in that its ideology did not threaten the Donor Class. As Yves Smith wrote on Naked Capitalism:
“the track record of non-issue-oriented marches, no matter how large
scale, is poor, and the status of this march as officially sanctioned
(blanket media coverage when other marches of hundreds of thousands of
people have been minimized, police not tricked out in their usual riot
gear) also indicates that the officialdom does not see it as a threat to
the status quo."
Hillary’s
loss was not blamed on her neoliberal support for TPP or her pro-war
neocon stance, but on the revelations of the e-mails by her operative
Podesta discussing his dirty tricks against Bernie Sanders (claimed to
be given to Wikileaks by Russian hackers, not a domestic DNC leaker as
Wikileaks claimed) and the FBI investigation of her e-mail abuses at the
State Department. Backing her supporters’ attempt to brazen it out, the
Democratic Party has doubled down on its identity politics, despite the
fact that an estimated 52 percent of white women voted for Trump. After
all, women do work for wages. And that also is what Blacks and
Hispanics want – in addition to banking that serves their needs, not those of Wall Street, and health care that serves their needs, not those of the health-insurance and pharmaceuticals monopolies.
ibankcoin | Klayman has detailed all of this in a NewsMax article, followed up with an official letter
to Chairman Nunes today, requesting that he question Comey . Perhaps
this explains Nunes’ impromptu press conference today admitting that
Trump’s team was under “Incidental Surveillance” before making his way to the White House to discuss with the President.
So – we know that evidence exists from a CIA / NSA contractor turned whistleblower, detailing a massive spy operation on 156 judges, the Supreme Court, and high profile Americans including Donald Trump. See the letter below:
consortiumnews | It is encouraging that Foreign Affairs magazine, the preeminent
professional journal of American diplomacy, took the extraordinary step
(extraordinary at least in the current environment) of publishing Robert
English’s article, entitled “Russia, Trump, and a new Détente,” that challenges the prevailing groupthink and does so with careful scholarship.
In effect, English’s article trashes the positions of all Foreign
Affairs’ featured contributors for the past several years. But it must
be stressed that there are no new discoveries of fact or new insights
that make English’s essay particularly valuable. What he has done is to
bring together the chief points of the counter-current and set them out
with extraordinary writing skills, efficiency and persuasiveness of
argumentation. Even more important, he has been uncompromising.
The facts laid out by English could have been set out by one of
several experienced and informed professors or practitioners of
international relations. But English had the courage to follow the facts
where they lead and the skill to convince the Foreign Affairs editors
to take the chance on allowing readers to see some unpopular truths even
though the editors now will probably come under attack themselves as
“Kremlin stooges.”
The overriding thesis is summed up at the start of the essay: “For 25
years, Republicans and Democrats have acted in ways that look much the
same to Moscow. Washington has pursued policies that have ignored
Russian interests (and sometimes international law as well) in order to
encircle Moscow with military alliances and trade blocs conducive to
U.S. interests. It is no wonder that Russia pushes back. The wonder is
that the U.S. policy elite doesn’t get this, even as foreign-affairs
neophyte Trump apparently does.”
English’s article goes back to the fall of the Soviet Union in the
early 1990s and explains why and how U.S. policy toward Russia was wrong
and wrong again. He debunks the notion that Boris Yeltsin brought in a
democratic age, which Vladimir Putin undid after coming to power.
English explains how the U.S. meddled in Russian domestic politics in
the mid-1990s to falsify election results and ensure Yeltsin’s
continuation in office despite his unpopularity for bringing on an
economic Depression that average Russians remember bitterly to this day.
That was a time when the vast majority of Russians equated democracy
with “shitocracy.”
English describes how the Russian economic and political collapse in
the 1990s was exploited by the Clinton administration. He tells why
currently fashionable U.S. critics of Putin are dead wrong when they
fail to acknowledge Putin’s achievements in restructuring the economy,
tax collection, governance, improvements in public health and more which
account for his spectacular popularity ratings today.
English details all the errors and stupidities of the Obama
administration in its handling of Russia and Putin, faulting President
Obama and Secretary of State (and later presidential candidate) Hillary
Clinton for all of their provocative and insensitive words and deeds.
What we see in U.S. policy, as described by English, is the application
of double standards, a prosecutorial stance towards Russia, and
outrageous lies about the country and its leadership foisted on the
American public.
Then English takes on directly all of the paranoia over Russia’s
alleged challenge to Western democratic processes. He calls attention
instead to how U.S. foreign policy and the European Union’s own policies
in the new Member States and candidate Member States have created all
the conditions for a populist revolt by buying off local elites and
subjecting the broad populace in these countries to pauperization.
English concludes his essay with a call to give détente with Putin and Russia a chance.
WaPo | “Three of the airlines that have been targeted for these measures — Emirates, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways — have long been accused by their U.S. competitors of receiving massive effective subsidies from their governments,” wrote political scientists Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman. “These airlines have been quietly worried for months that President Trump was going to retaliate. This may be the retaliation.”
Farrell
and Newman suggested Tuesday’s order is an example of the Trump
administration “weaponizing interdependence” — using its leverage in a
world where American airports are key “nodes” in global air travel to
weaken competitors. My colleague Max Bearak detailed how this could be a part of Trump’s wider protectionist agenda. In February, President Trump met with executives of U.S. airlines and pledged that he would help them compete against foreign carriers that receive subsidies from their home governments.
“A lot of that competition is subsidized by governments, big league,” said
Trump at that meeting. “I’ve heard that complaint from different people
in this room. Probably about one hour after I got elected, I was
inundated with calls from your industry and many other industries,
because it’s a very unfair situation.”
reuters | A broad coalition
of advertising trade groups, ad buyers and sellers from Western Europe
and the United States have urged the industry to stop using annoying
online marketing formats that have fuelled the rapid rise of
ad-blockers.
The types of
ads the coalition has identified as falling below standard include
pop-up advertisements, auto-play video ads with sound, flashing animated
ads and full-screen ads that mask underlying content from readers or
viewers.
The explosion of
ad-blocking tools has launched a prolonged debate within the advertising
industry over whether to rein in abusive ad practices or simply freeze
out consumers who use ad blocker and still expect access to premium
content.
The Coalition for Better
Ads said on Wednesday it was publishing the voluntary standards after a
study in which more than 25,000 web surfers and mobile phone users rated
ads.
They identified six types of
desktop web ads and 12 types of mobile ads as falling beneath a
threshold of consumer acceptability and called on advertisers to avoid
them.
Matti
Littunen, research analyst at Enders Analysis focusing on digital
media, said the ad formats identified by the coalition "have already
been discouraged for years by these bodies and yet are still
commonplace."
guardian | Google’s decision-making process over which YouTube
videos are deemed “advertiser friendly” faces scrutiny from both brands
and creators, highlighting once again the challenge of large-scale
moderation.
The company last week pledged to change its advertising policies after several big brands pulled their budgets from YouTube following an investigation that revealed their ads were shown alongside extremist content, such as videos promoting terrorism or antisemitism.
Havas, the world’s sixth largest advertising and marketing company,
pulled all of its UK clients’ ads, including O2, BBC and Domino’s Pizza,
from Google and YouTube on Friday, following similar moves from the UK government, the Guardian, Transport for London and L’Oreal.
However, the inconsistencies behind the company’s ability to police
advertising on controversial content are coming to light – and it’s not
just advertisers who are complaining. Some YouTube creators argue their
videos are being unfairly and inconsistently “demonetized” by the
platform, cutting off their source of income that comes from the revenue
share on ads placed on videos.
unz | We have a president who is belligerent towards Iran, who is sending
“boots on the ground” to fight ISIS, who loves Israel passionately and
who is increasing already bloated defense budgets. If one were a
neoconservative, what is there not to like, yet neocons in the media and
ensconced comfortably in their multitude of think tanks hate Donald
Trump. I suspect it comes down to three reasons. First, it is because
Trump knows who was sticking the knife in his back during his campaign
in 2016 and he has neither forgiven nor hired them. Nor does he pay any
attention to their bleating, denying them the status that they think
they deserve because of their self-promoted foreign policy brilliance.
And
second, Trump persists in his desire to “do business” with Russia. The
predominantly Jewish neocons always imagine the thunder of hooves of
approaching Cossacks preparing to engage in pogroms whenever they hear
the word Russia. And this is particularly true of Vladimir Putin’s
regime, which is Holy Russia revived. When not musing over how it is
always 1938 and one is in Munich, neocons are nearly as unsettled when
they think it is 1905 in Odessa.
The
third reason, linked to number two, is that having a plausible and
dangerous enemy like Russia on tap keeps the cash flowing from defense
industries to the foundations and think tanks that the neocons nest in
when they are not running the Pentagon and National Security Council.
Follow the money. So it is all about self-interest combined with tribal
memory: money, status and a visceral hatred of Russia.
The hatred of Trump runs so deep that a leading neocon Bill Kristol actually tweeted
that he would prefer a country run by bureaucrats and special interests
rather than the current constitutional arrangement. The neocon
vendetta was as well neatly summed up in two recent articles by Max
Boot. The first is entitled“Trump knows the Feds are closing in on him” and the second is “WikiLeaks has joined the Trump Administration.”In
the former piece Boot asserts that “Trump’s recent tweets aren’t just
conspiratorial gibberish—they’re the erratic ravings of a guilty
conscience” and in the latter, that “The anti-American WikiLeaks has
become the preferred intelligence service for a conspiracy-addled White
House.”
Now,
who is Max Boot and why should anyone care what he writes?
Russian-born, Max entered the United States with his family through a
special visa exemption under the 1975 Jackson-Vanik Amendment even
though they were not notably persecuted and only had to prove that they
were Jewish. Jackson-Vanik was one of the first public assertions of
neoconism, having reportedly been drafted in the office of Senator Henry
Jackson by no less than Richard Perle and Ben Wattenberg as a form of
affirmative action for Russian Jews. As refugees instead of immigrants,
the new arrivals received welfare, health insurance, job placement,
English language classes, and the opportunity to apply for U.S.
citizenship after only five years. Max went to college at Berkeley and
received an M.A. from Yale.
washingtonsblog | As Rep. Adam Schiff tries out for the lead role in a remake of the
Joe McCarthy hearings by maligning specific Americans as suspected
Russian moles, some of the actual evidence argues against the Democratic
notion that the Russians own President Trump and other key Republicans.
For instance, last week, Democrats circulated a report showing that
retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who served briefly as President Donald
Trump’s national security adviser, had received payments from several
Russia-related entities, totaling nearly $68,000.
The largest payment of $45,386 came for a speech and an appearance in
Moscow in 2015 at the tenth anniversary dinner for RT, the
international Russian TV network, with Flynn netting $33,750 after his
speakers’ bureau took its cut. Democrats treated this revelation as
important evidence about Russia buying influence in the Trump campaign
and White House. But the actual evidence suggests something quite
different.
Not only was the sum a relative trifle for a former senior U.S.
government official compared to, say, the fees collected by Bill and
Hillary Clinton, who often pulled in six to ten times more, especially
for speeches to foreign audiences. (Former President Clinton received
$500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with ties to
the Kremlin, The New York Times reported in 2015,)
Yet, besides Flynn’s relatively modest speaking fee, The Washington Post reported that RT negotiated Flynn’s rate downward.
Deep inside its article on Flynn’s Russia-connected payments, the
Post wrote, “RT balked at paying Flynn’s original asking price. ‘Sorry
it took us longer to get back to you but the problem is that the
speaking fee is a bit too high and exceeds our budget at the moment,’
Alina Mikhaleva, RT’s head of marketing, wrote a Flynn associate about a
month before the event.”
So, if you accept the Democrats’ narrative that Russian President
Vladimir Putin is engaged in an all-out splurge to induce influential
Americans to betray their country, how do you explain that his supposed
flunkies at RT are quibbling with Flynn over a relatively modest
speaking fee?
Wouldn’t you think that Putin would have told RT’s marketing
department that the sky was the limit in paying off Flynn because the
ever-prescient Russian president knew from his Ouija board in 2015 that
Flynn would be the future national security adviser under President
Trump?
After all, it’s become one of Official Washington’s favorite
groupthinks that RT is nothing but a Russian propaganda front designed
to destroy the faith that Americans have in their democratic process –
as if the sleazy and shameful political campaigns financed with hundreds
of millions of dollars from billionaires need any help from RT.
reuters | U.S. Secretary of
State Rex Tillerson plans to skip a meeting with NATO foreign ministers
next month in order to stay home for a visit by China's president and
will go to Russia later in April, U.S. officials said on Monday,
disclosing an itinerary that allies may see as giving Moscow priority
over them.
Tillerson intends
to miss what would have been his first meeting of the 28 NATO allies on
April 5-6 in Brussels so that he can attend President Donald Trump's
expected April 6-7 talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Trump's
Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, four current and former U.S. officials
said.
Skipping the NATO meeting
and visiting Moscow could risk feeding a perception that Trump may be
putting U.S. dealings with big powers first, while leaving waiting those
smaller nations that depend on Washington for security, two former U.S.
officials said.
Trump has often
praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Tillerson worked with
Russia's government for years as a top executive at Exxon Mobil Corp,
and has questioned the wisdom of sanctions against Russia that he said
could harm U.S. businesses.
counterpunch |I want to move on to one of the issues people have been thinking
about today: in light of this new political context, I want to ask you
about the chapter in your book “K is for kleptocrat.” The new Trump
administration has done a number of things that people are concerned
about. With regard to the financial sector, they’ve rolled back the
feeble regulations of Dodd-Frank. The Republican Congress is looking
into an infrastructure project that largely looks to be a giveaway of
public funds to the private sector. This is to say nothing of the
president’s direct business interest, but I’m wondering what your
reaction is to the new administration. Also, there’s this idea that the
Trump administration represents something new. I was wondering what you
see that is new, versus what is more or less ‘business-as-usual’?
Michael Hudson: What’s new is that Trump said the emperor has no
clothes. He said, “You think you’re getting rich under Obama? You
haven’t got rich.” So when Hillary told her supporters to look and see
how much better off you are today than when Obama was elected, she made
herself look blind, referring only to the One Percent. All the growth in
the American economy from 2008 to 2016 accrued only to 5% of the
population – the richest. 95% of the population were worse off. Trump
saw the obvious – which you would think that any member of the 95% would
have seen. When Hillary tried to convince people they were better off,
Trump simply said, “Let’s look at reality: You’re worse off.”
Voters thought that if he could see that they’re worse off, he must
know how to cure it – instead of knowing how to make them even more
worse off. People wanted prosperity and Trump said NATO’s obsolete.
There’s no reason for us to maintain it—Russia’s not going to invade
Europe. Why should they invade? There’s no way any European country is
going to militarily invade another.
The new mode of warfare isn’t military anymore, it’s financial.
Russia and China realize that the United States is dissipating its
ability to conquer countries financially by spending its economic
surplus on military and the FIRE sector. Trump realized that as a real
estate developer, he’d been fighting banks all his life. There’s no love
there for the banks.
So the neocons are out to get him. They’re saying it is treason to
want peace instead of war. We need an enemy sufficient enough to justify
giving all the surplus to the upper 5% and spending it on the military.
If you don’t advocate doing that, you’re a traitor – to their fortunes. So they’re out to get rid of him.
Adam Simpson: As I understand it, he has promised to increase
military spending even without perhaps the enemy that Hillary would have
painted Russia to be.
Michael Hudson: On the one hand, he did say that. On the other hand
he said look we’re not going to spend so much money on Air Force One,
you’re overcharging it. We’re going to get rid of the F-35 fighter—it’s
cost almost a trillion dollars. He said that is a waste. We’re going to
get rid of the waste. But if you get rid of the waste and what’s not
necessary, you’re going to have lower military spending. So I don’t see
what Trump is going to spend more military money on.
peakprosperity | Nobel Prize-winning economist Angus Deaton recently agreed:
Income inequality is not killing capitalism
in the United States, but rent-seekers like the banking and the
health-care sectors just might, said Nobel-winning economist Angus Deaton on Monday.
If an entrepreneur invents something on the order of another
Facebook, Deaton said he has no problem with that person becoming
wealthy.
“What is not OK is for rent-seekers to get rich,” Deaton said in a luncheon speech to the National Association for Business Economics.
Rent seekers lobby and persuade governments to give them special favors.
Bankers during the financial crisis, and much of the health-care system, are two prime examples, Deaton said.
Rent-seeking not only does not generate new product, it actually slows down economic growth, Deaton said.
“All that talent is devoted to stealing things, instead of making things,” he said.
freakonomics | We tend to think of medicine as a science, but for most of human
history it has been scientific-ish at best. In the first episode of a
three-part series, we look at the grotesque mistakes produced by
centuries of trial-and-error, and ask whether the new era of
evidence-based medicine is the solution.
freakonomics | How do so many ineffective and even dangerous drugs make it to market? One reason is that clinical trials are often run on “dream patients” who aren’t representative of a larger population. On the other hand, sometimes the only thing worse than being excluded from a drug trial is being included.
freakonomics | By some estimates, medical error is the third-leading cause of death in the U.S. How can that be? And what’s to be done? Our third and final episode in this series offers some encouraging answers.
ZH | The percentage of people who are business owners relative to the overall employed population, is at an all time low.
The Fast Company,Shark Tank echo chamber would have you believe that entrepreneurialism is in a bubble.
It’s not.
Unprofitable, tech-centric gimmicks that are fueled by loosed monetary policies from the Fed are in a bubble. Legitimate businesses that produce cash flow and grow the middle class are not being created much, if at all.
Because the US has been waging war on the self-employed since the
1950’s, we not only have very few self-employed people in the workforce,
we also have multiple generations of journalists who have ZERO
experience engaging with those who run an actual business.
This is why NO ONE in the media gets Trump or the impact of his policies.
None of them have ever had to make payroll or create something from
nothing. They’ve spent the last eight years literally kowtowing to a man
who openly told the self-employed, “you didn’t build that.”
The same can be said for economists.
Time and again, you will see academics like Paul Krugman write op-eds
suggesting that Trump is going to collapse the economy. Krugman has
never once had to actually run a business. His entire career has been
one of writing the equivalent of glorified book reports for other people
who write glorified book reports to read.
If you ran a McDonalds or plumbing business implementing anything
Krugman claims, you’d be broke within six months. The man lives in a
world of excel spreadsheets and faculty meetings, not the world of
revenues and payroll.
So what is Trump doing?
First off, Trump is getting rid of regulations.
Economists don’t understand the impact of this because none of their
models include regulations. According to an economist, you simply “start
a business.” These people have no concept of the business costs of
licenses and the like.
Business owners care far more about regulations than taxes. Get ride
of stifling regulations and you can start growing your business more
aggressively.
I can tell you, business owners would happily pay more in
taxes if they were doing 50% more in revenues. No business owner feels
successful paying less in taxes on a business with zero growth.
Regarding taxes themselves, Trump understands them better than anyone in politics in the last 30 years.
Why?
Because as a business owner, Trump has been paying more taxes than
the media or politicians can believe. This is why the obsession with
Trump’s personal taxes is beyond moronic.
As a business owner, Trump has been paying taxes on property, payroll
tax, taxes on some products, excise taxes, and a slew of others than
journalists and economists don’t even know exist.
NewYorker | In 1993, when Nick Patterson mailed
Robert Mercer a job offer from Renaissance, Mercer threw it in the
trash: he’d never heard of the hedge fund. At the time, Mercer was part
of a team pioneering the use of computers to translate languages. I.B.M.
considered the project a bit of a luxury, and didn’t see its potential,
though the work laid the foundation for Google Translate and Apple’s
Siri. But Mercer and his main partner, Peter Brown, found the project
exciting, and had the satisfaction of showing up experts in the field,
who had dismissed their statistical approach to translating languages as
impractical. Instead of trying to teach a computer linguistic rules,
Mercer and Brown downloaded enormous quantities of dual-language
documents—including Canadian parliamentary records—and created code that
analyzed the data and detected patterns, enabling predictions of
probable translations. According to a former I.B.M. colleague, Mercer
was obsessive, and at one point took six months off to type into a
computer every entry in a Spanish-English dictionary. Sebastian Mallaby,
in his 2010 book on the hedge-fund industry, “More Money Than God,”
reports that Mercer’s boss at I.B.M. once jokingly called him an
“automaton.”
In 2014, Mercer
accepted a lifetime-achievement award from the Association for
Computational Linguistics. In a speech at the ceremony, Mercer, who grew
up in New Mexico, said that he had a “jaundiced view” of government.
While in college, he had worked on a military base in Albuquerque, and
he had showed his superiors how to run certain computer programs a
hundred times faster; instead of saving time and money, the bureaucrats
ran a hundred times more equations. He concluded that the goal of
government officials was “not so much to get answers as to consume the
computer budget.” Mercer’s colleagues say that he views the government
as arrogant and inefficient, and believes that individuals need to be
self-sufficient, and should not receive aid from the state. Yet, when
I.B.M. failed to offer adequate support for Mercer and Brown’s
translation project, they secured additional funding from DARPA,
the secretive Pentagon program. Despite Mercer’s disdain for “big
government,” this funding was essential to his early success.
Meanwhile,
Patterson kept asking Mercer and Brown to join Renaissance. He thought
that their technique of extracting patterns from huge amounts of data
could be applied to the pile of numbers generated daily by the global
trade in stocks, bonds, commodities, and currencies. The patterns could
generate predictive financial models that would give traders a decisive
edge.
medium | “This
is a propaganda machine. It’s targeting people individually to recruit
them to an idea. It’s a level of social engineering that I’ve never seen
before. They’re capturing people and then keeping them on an emotional
leash and never letting them go,” said professor Jonathan Albright.
Albright,
an assistant professor and data scientist at Elon University, started
digging into fake news sites after Donald Trump was elected president.
Through extensive research and interviews with Albright and other key
experts in the field, including Samuel Woolley, Head of Research at
Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Project, and Martin Moore,
Director of the Centre for the Study of Media, Communication and Power
at Kings College, it became clear to Scout that this phenomenon was
about much more than just a few fake news stories. It was a piece of a
much bigger and darker puzzle — a Weaponized AI Propaganda Machine being
used to manipulate our opinions and behavior to advance specific
political agendas.
By
leveraging automated emotional manipulation alongside swarms of bots,
Facebook dark posts, A/B testing, and fake news networks, a company
called Cambridge Analytica has activated an invisible machine that preys
on the personalities of individual voters to create large shifts in
public opinion. Many of these technologies have been used individually
to some effect before, but together they make up a nearly impenetrable
voter manipulation machine that is quickly becoming the new deciding
factor in elections around the world.
Most
recently, Analytica helped elect U.S. President Donald Trump, secured a
win for the Brexit Leave campaign, and led Ted Cruz’s 2016 campaign
surge, shepherding him from the back of the GOP primary pack to the
front.
The
company is owned and controlled by conservative and alt-right interests
that are also deeply entwined in the Trump administration. The Mercer
family is both a major owner of Cambridge Analytica and one of Trump’s
biggest donors. Steve Bannon, in addition to acting as Trump’s Chief
Strategist and a member of the White House Security Council, is a
Cambridge Analytica board member. Until recently, Analytica’s CTO was
the acting CTO at the Republican National Convention.
Presumably
because of its alliances, Analytica has declined to work on any
democratic campaigns — at least in the U.S. It is, however, in final
talks to help Trump manage public opinion around his presidential
policies and to expand sales for the Trump Organization. Cambridge
Analytica is now expanding aggressively into U.S. commercial markets and
is also meeting with right-wing parties and governments in Europe,
Asia, and Latin America.
Cambridge Analytica isn’t the only company that could pull this off — but it is the most powerful right now. Understanding
Cambridge Analytica and the bigger AI Propaganda Machine is essential
for anyone who wants to understand modern political power, build a
movement, or keep from being manipulated. The Weaponized AI
Propaganda Machine it represents has become the new prerequisite for
political success in a world of polarization, isolation, trolls, and
dark posts.
thesaker | Okay, so I am not being honest with this title. But hey, since
Harvard does list my blog as a ‘fake news’ source, I might as well
indulge, at least once, into some absolutely shameless click baiting and
“fake newsing” :-)
What a fall from grace, really. Harvard University, arguably THE
symbol of US academia, has now joined such “prestigious” (not) actors
like CNN or the BBC in the ideological scramble to discredit free
information sources. For somebody like me who studied in US colleges
and who got two degrees in the USA, it is really sad.
paulcraigroberts | What is scary about the US and Europe is not merely the gullibility
and insouciance of such a large percentage of the populations. What is
very frightening is the willingness of the media, government officials,
military, and members of professional organizations to lie for the sake
of their careers. Try to find any shame among the liars that their lies
expose humanity to thermo-nuclear annihilation. It is not to be found.
They don’t care. Just let me have the Mercedes and the McMansion for
another year.
The Saker, an observant being, says that the color revolution being
conducted by the neoconservatives, the Democratic Party, the
presstitutes, the liberal/progressive/left, and by some Republicans
against President Trump is “de-legitimizing the entire [democratic]
political process which brought Trump to power and upon which the United
States is built as a society.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46658.htm
The consequence, says The Saker, is that “the illusion of democracy and
people power” has been destroyed both domestically and abroad. The
propaganda picture of “American Democracy” has lost its believability.
As the false picture crumbles, so does the power that was based on
authority constructed by propaganda.
The Saker asks: do we face an endless horror or a horrible end?
As George Orwell said decades ago, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
This is the way the criminals who rule us see it, and it is the way
their whores in the media see it. If you tell the truth in America, you
are a purveyor of fake news and possibly a traitor.
libertyblitzkrieg | " I note the senator from Kentucky leaving the floor without justification or any rationale for the action he has just taken. That
is really remarkable, that a senator blocking a treaty that is
supported by the overwhelming number, perhaps 98—at least—of his
colleagues would come to the floor and object and walk away.
The only conclusion you can draw when he walks away is he has no
justification for his objection to having a small nation be part of NATO
that is under assault from the Russians. So I repeat again, the senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin."
This video should alarm all Americans. McCain is accusing a fellow
Senator of disloyalty and allegiance to a foreign power simply because
he disagrees with him. It’s remarkably similar to what we saw Adam
Schiff do a few months ago in an embarrassing interview with Tucker
Carlson.
hotair | Via the Daily Wire,
that’s quite a claim. The president of the United States using a
foreign intelligence agency to spy on the other party’s presidential
candidate, for the obviously illicit purpose of erasing any domestic
paper trail of his actions? “Scandal of the decade” material. And yet it
falls not to the Fox News investigative team to break the story but to
legal commentator Andrew Napolitano — and not on one of Fox’s marquee
shows like O’Reilly or Tucker but on Fox & Friends and Martha
MacCallum’s program. You’d think a scoop like this would be in 50-point
font on the Fox website, but as I write this at around 4:45 ET, they’re
leading with a story about a probe of IT staffers who work for House Democrats. How come?
Sean Davis thinks this is a game of telephone gone bad inspired by the “Trump dossier,” which was compiled by a British ex-spy. Could be. It gains some plausibility from the fact that the U.S. and UK are part of the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing arrangement, which of course includes the NSA and GCHQ
(Britain’s NSA). It’ll also seem a bit more credible than it might have
in light of the surprise resignation in January of Robert Hannigan as
head of the GCHQ. Hannigan stepped down three days after Trump’s
inauguration, ostensibly for personal reasons, having served just two
years on the job. With news swirling at the time about the Trump
dossier, some Brits speculated
that the real reason he resigned might have been “related to British
concerns over shared intelligence with the US in the wake of Donald
Trump becoming president.” On top of all that, the Times reported
just two weeks ago that two foreign intelligence agencies, the British
and the Dutch, had provided intelligence on meetings allegedly held last
year between Trump “associates” and Russian officials in European
cities.
rutherford | “The first and most important thing to understand about politics is
this: forget Right, Left, Center, socialism, fascism, or democracy.
Every government that exists — or ever existed, or ever will exist — is a
kleptocracy, meaning ‘rule by thieves.’ Competing ideologies merely
provide different excuses to separate the Productive Class from what
they produce. If the taxpayer/voters won’t willingly fork over to end
poverty, then maybe they’ll cough up to fight drugs or terrorism.
Conflicting ideologies, as presently constituted, are nothing more than a
cover for what’s really going on, like the colors of competing gangs.” —
Author L. Neil Smith
The American kleptocracy (a government ruled by thieves) continues to
suck the American people down a rabbit hole into a parallel universe in
which the Constitution is meaningless, the government is all-powerful,
and the citizenry is powerless to defend itself against government
agents who steal, spy, lie, plunder, kill, abuse and generally inflict
mayhem and sow madness on everyone and everything in their sphere.
This begs the question: if the government is overstepping its
authority, abusing its power, and disregarding the rule of law but no
one seems to notice—and no one seems to care—does it matter if the
government has become a tyrant?
Here’s my short answer: when government wrongdoing ceases to matter, America will have ceased to be.
Just consider the devastation wrought in one week in the life of our American kleptocracy:
activistpost | WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange suggested on Twitter Tuesday Hillary
Clinton and certain unnamed members of the U.S. Intelligence Community
are plotting a takeover by Vice President Mike Pence.
“Clinton stated privately this month that she is quietly pushing for a Pence takeover,” Assange tweeted. “She stated that Pence is predictable hence defeatable.”
Clinton stated privately this month that she is
quietly pushing for a Pence takeover. She stated that Pence is
predictable hence defeatable.
“Two IC officials close to Pence stated privately this month that they are planning on a Pence takeover,” he added in another tweet. “Did not state if Pence agrees.”
Two IC officials close to Pence stated privately
this month that they are planning on a Pence takeover. Did not state if
Pence agrees.
Further, he continued, “By handing unilateral power to
the CIA over its drone strikes at this time White House signals that
bullying, disloyalty & incompetence pays.”
By handing unilateral power to the CIA over its
drone strikes at this time White House signals that bullying, disloyalty
& incompetence pays
In response to shocked reactions to the tweets, Pence lambasted Assange’s suggestion of a takeover as “absurd” and “frankly offensive” in an interview with radio host Laura Ingraham
The object of this fear and loathing? An obscure essay (now available only on web archives) titled "The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement,"
written in 2001 by Eric Heubeck, a former associate of the late Paul
Weyrich at the Free Congress Foundation. Not only has his essay been
removed from Free Congress's website, but Heubeck has apparently
withdrawn from public life, as this author has not been able to contact
him.
In the estimation of Yurica and her fellow leftists, Integration concretely articulates a plan developed by "Christian Theocrats" to seize political power and use it forcefully to dismantle the domain of liberalism (secularism, welfare, multiculturalism, affirmative action, etc.) and enforce a fundamentalist Christian order in America. In brief, Yurica sees Integration as an American, Christian version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
This is the full meaning of the smear term "Dominionism" coined by the left. As Yurica sees it, this evil plan is well on its way to victory; one can visualize her shuddering as she imagines jackbooted, goose-stepping "Theocrats" chanting "Sieg Heil!"
kansascity | Vice President Mike Pence has been pushing for Kansas Gov. Sam
Brownback to land a job in President Donald Trump’s administration,
according to sources.
Brownback would not comment on a possible
appointment during his first public appearance since reports that he is
under consideration to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations for
food and agriculture, a post that is based in Rome.
Pence, a
former congressman who served as governor of Indiana, is close to
Brownback and has been advocating to find him a job in the
administration, according to several people familiar with the situation
but not authorized to speak publicly as a matter of practice. Trump has
considered Brownback for several jobs but has not yet offered one.
Brownback
said in August that Trump’s decision to choose Pence as his running
mate had helped persuade him to support Trump’s candidacy despite his
initial reservations. Brownback went onto serve on Trump’s agricultural
and Catholic advisory committees.
“Mike, I know well,” Brownback
said in August. “He’s a good man. He’s a man of faith. I have confidence
in Gov. Pence, and you know elections are about choices in
policy...What he’s shown in the picking of Pence is a willingness to get
good people around him, and you’ve got to realize that’s the way a
nation is run.”
The two men have shared staffers over the years.
Brownback’s former chief of staff, David Kensinger, served as a
consultant on Pence’s 2012 gubernatorial campaign shortly after stepping
down from his post in the Brownback administration.
The Star’s
sources say that talks between Brownback and the Trump administration
are ongoing, but the governor refused to clarify the matter Thursday.
“I’m
just not going to make any comments about any of that. I’m glad to see
the administration off to a strong start on job creation and security
issues, which is the key things they ran on, but I’m not making comments
about it,” Brownback said Thursday after handing out a humanitarian
award to a Kansas physician.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article137424678.html#storylink=cpy
motherjones | An ambitious effort by a Republican governor to drastically cut his state's taxes
is crumbling—and that's a bad omen for Donald Trump and Republicans in
Congress who are hoping to slash tax rates at the national level.
Shortly after he became governor of Kansas in 2011, Sam Brownback
went to work on rewriting the state's tax code. Together with the
Republican-dominated legislature, he eliminated the top income tax
bracket, lowered everyone else's income tax rate, and created a loophole
that allowed some business owners to pay no state income taxes at all.
Brownback sold the cuts as a way to jolt the Kansas economy to life,
promising major job growth thanks to the lower tax rates. To pass these
tax measures, Brownback worked to replace moderate Republicans in the
legislature who opposed his ideas with true-believer conservatives. He
helped knock off nine moderate Republican incumbents, and the effort
paid off when his tax reform passed in 2012.
But instead of the miracle growth that Brownback promised, the tax
cuts have left a widening crater in the state budget. State economic
growth has lagged behind the national pace, and job growth has stagnated.
Lawmakers have been left scrambling each year to pass unpleasant
spending cuts when tax revenue comes in below expected levels, leading
to contentious fights in the legislature and state courts over reduced public school funding.
When the state legislature convened last month, it faced a $320 million
budget shortfall that needed to be closed before the end of the current
fiscal year in June—and a projected additional $500 million shortfall
for the next fiscal year.
After more moderate Republicans joined the GOP-dominated legislature
following last November's election, the party has appeared more willing
to concede defeat and ditch Brownback's tax experiment. Last week, the
state House and Senate passed
a bill that would generate more than $1 billion by eradicating most of
Brownback's reforms. It would raise personal income tax rates (though
still not as high as the pre-Brownback rates) and end the loophole that
has allowed 330,000 business owners—including subsidiaries of
Wichita-based Koch Industries—to avoid paying income taxes.
chicagotribune | The federal government is projected to spend $4.091 trillion
next year, with roughly two-thirds of that going mostly toward Social
Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, poverty assistance and interest payments on the government
debt. This spending is expected to be left untouched in the budget
proposal next week.
What Trump will propose changing is
the rest of the budget, known as discretionary spending, which is
authorized each year by Congress. Slightly more than half of this
remaining money goes to the military, and the rest is spread across
agencies that operate things like education, diplomacy, housing,
transportation and law enforcement.
Among Trump's
expected proposals are an increase in military spending of $54 billion,
more money to start building a wall along the border between the United
States and Mexico, and the creation of new initiatives that expand
access to charter schools and other educational programs.
To
offset that new money, Trump will propose steep cuts across numerous
other agencies. Although final numbers remain in flux, his advisers have
considered cutting the Department of Housing and Urban Development's
budget by $6 billion, or 14 percent, according to a preliminary budget
document obtained by The Washington Post. That is a change that Trulia
chief economist Ralph McLaughlin said could "put nearly 8 million
Americans in both inner-city and suburban communities at risk of losing
their public housing and nearly 4 million at risk of losing their rental
subsidy."
Preliminary budget documents have also shown
that Trump advisers have also looked at cutting the Environmental
Protect Agency's staff by about 20 percent and tightening the Commerce
Department's budget by about 18 percent, which would impact climate
change research and weather satellite programs, among other things.
Trump
and his advisers have said that they believe the federal workforce is
too big, and that the federal government spends - and wastes - too much
money. They have said that Washington - the federal workers and
contractors, among others - has benefited from government largesse while
many other Americans have suffered. Federal spending, they have argued,
crowds the private sector and piles regulations and bureaucracy onto
companies.
Rejuvenation Pills
-
No one likes getting old. Everyone would like to be immorbid. Let's be
careful here. Immortal doesnt include youth or return to youth. Immorbid
means you s...
Death of the Author — at the Hands of Cthulhu
-
In 1967, French literary theorist and philosopher Roland Barthes wrote of
“The Death of the Author,” arguing that the meaning of a text is divorced
from au...
9/29 again
-
"On this sacred day of Michaelmas, former President Donald Trump invoked
the heavenly power of St. Michael the Archangel, sharing a powerful prayer
for pro...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...