Thursday, January 18, 2018

Thanks KBR, Thanks Halliburton, and Special Thanks to You, Blackwater.


The American conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq ushered in the return of for-profit warfighting, now called "contractors" rather than their traditional name, mercenaries.

Now other nations are jumping in to the game, especially Russia.  Within a month the Russian Duma is expected to pass legislation legalizing PMCs, Private Military Companies, "authorised to conduct combat operations abroad in support of Russian policy objectives."


A number of Russian PMCs are believed to already be engaged in conflicts from Ukraine to Syria.


Thanks, America, for bringing back the age of the freebooter.

Did the NRA funnel Russian Money To the Trump Campaign?



If this didn't come from McClatchy Newspapers I probably would have given it a pass because it just sounds too fantastic - Trump, the National Rifle Association, and shady Russian money.

The FBI is investigating whether a top Russian banker with ties to the Kremlin illegally funneled money to the National Rifle Association to help Donald Trump win the presidency, two sources familiar with the matter have told McClatchy.

FBI counterintelligence investigators have focused on the activities of Alexander Torshin (shown above with Putin), the deputy governor of Russia’s central bank who is known for his close relationships with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and the NRA, the sources said.

It is illegal to use foreign money to influence federal elections.

It’s unclear how long the Torshin inquiry has been ongoing, but the news comes as Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s sweeping investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, including whether the Kremlin colluded with Trump’s campaign, has been heating up.

Zambia Bites Back

Tourism Zambia has used the Mango Mussolini's outburst to take the piss out of Donald J. Trump. How sweet it is.



Meanwhile, a new Gallup poll finds that Trump's popularity is as shitty abroad as it is at home in the good old USA.


Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Yeah, But Was He a Trump Boater? Kind of Sounds Like It.


75 year old Marlin Lee Larsen was just out for a spell of high speed cruising on Oregon's Columbia River. How was he to know that a gaggle of Hillary-lovin' salmon fishermen would get in his way.



Bryan Maess filed the suit against Marlin Lee Larsen, accusing him of boating while distracted by his cell phone. But Larsen denies the allegations and told investigators he couldn’t see over the dash of his boat because he was sitting down. The 75-year-old uses a motorized scooter when he’s on land.

According to a report by the local sheriff’s department, drugs and alcohol did not appear to be a factor, but Larsen was cited and released for “Reckless Operation, 3 counts of Recklessly Endangering and 3 counts of Assault in the 4th degree.”

Larsen told The Oregonian the accusation against him was “fake news.” He pleaded not guilty to the charges and said the lawsuit was unnecessary because no one was seriously hurt. His son-in-law, who was also on the boat at the time of the accident, told investigators he warned Larsen to pay attention and that he’d been using his cellphone off and on all morning.


Hell's bells, don't blame Marlin Lee. Why he can't see what's in front of his boat when he's sitting down. Besides he didn't kill even one of those people. It's all "fake news."

What Makes America So Uniquely Vulnerable to Outside Election Meddling?


Yes, it seems probable that Russian individuals did manipulate social media to deliver the several tens of thousands of critical votes that won Donald Trump the White House.  But, as George Washington University professor Henry Farrell writes in Foreign Policy, America's vulnerability to manipulation was largely homegrown.



Russia’s relative success in the United States is not thanks to the unique strategic insight of Putin. It is because Russian operatives have chanced upon real weaknesses in U.S. democracy, and American elites are unintentionally giving them a helping hand. While France and Germany have their own social divisions, they do not face the specific problems that America faces.

In America, more than in most other Western countries, there is a basic failure of democratic knowledge. In a well-functioning democracy, citizens agree broadly on facts and have some trust in the democratic system, allowing democracy to harness different perspectives and put them to good use. In America, in contrast, distrust and profound disagreements over facts have led to a kind of crisis of democratic knowledge that leaves democracy open to outside manipulation.

Over the last two decades, the common knowledge of American democracy has been undermined. As Alexis de Tocqueville warned could happen, the structures of shared knowledge are being weakened by democratic politics itself. Politicians — especially on the right — have cast doubt on sources of authority such as science and government, telling their supporters that they shouldn’t trust experts. Finally, the public itself, on its own initiative, has become less trusting of traditional institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church as they have revealed their feet of clay.

As a result, those who were disengaged from politics have become more so, while those who are engaged have become ever more partisan. The result is that most people don’t care about politics, and those who do are likely to have radically different understandings of the challenges faced by America.


Disaffection can be healthy up to a point. Many traditional institutions have failed badly and do not deserve people’s trust. ...Yet when people with different perspectives stop sharing a common basis of knowledge, democracy is liable to pull itself apart. Parties become enemies rather than competitors. When people stop trusting any institutions, they are likely instead to start thinking that the democratic process is rigged, and to pin their hopes instead on cranks and conspiracy mongers.
...

Trump and his supporters have already built an alternative reality on the right, in which America is besieged by an alliance of Muslims and liberals, who stole the popular vote by allowing millions of undocumented immigrants to vote illegally. A democracy in which both the liberal-left and the right have drifted into their own self-reinforcing mythologies will be incapable of defending the common interests of its public, either at home or abroad.

...

Now that the weaknesses of American democracy have been revealed, other actors — including some much closer to home than Russia — can look to increase democratic disarray for their benefit. The more likely threat that America faces is of a variety of smaller attacks on specific aspects of democratic knowledge, each aimed at particular ends, but accumulating to create massive overall damage. For example, there is nothing stopping American or foreign billionaires from undertaking further targeted attacks against aspects of public knowledge that they find uncongenial. Social media tactics could dramatically amplify attacks on scientific knowledge about global warming or efforts to undermine faith in the democratic process.

This threat model is likely to become much worse in the near future. These Russian efforts were clumsy, ill coordinated, and technically unsophisticated. The next attacks — whether they come from Russia or elsewhere, are likely to be far more technologically adept. As danah boyd, a prominent expert on social media, has argued, future attacks will likely use techniques designed to manipulate the machine learning algorithms that allow social media platforms to function, as well as carrying out their own machine learning attacks.

The attack surface is very hard to defend. Many of the underlying flaws of American democracy will take decades of work to remedy. A real cure cannot be imposed from above, since it requires a root and branch reorganization of American politics to make it more competitive, such that political parties have to fight to persuade voters rather than carving up the country into segregated ideological safe spaces. That would make it easier to build up healthier structures of knowledge, based on implicit agreement about which problems America faces, and explicit arguments over how best to solve them.

...

 Under a nightmare scenario, outside hacking could combine with partisan efforts to spread fear about the U.S. voting system to create disarray. The U.S. intelligence community has formally found that Russian hackers apparently tried to gain access to state electoral registries. The Russians probably did not want to secretly bias voting so much as to create a controversy over whether manipulation had happened, as they had previously attempted in Ukraine. If outside actors succeeded in this kind of attack in the future, it could serve as a massive force multiplier for partisan disagreement, leading, even in an optimistic scenario, to years of political chaos. As a group of experts has concluded: “Simply put, the attacker might not care who wins; the losing side’s belief that the election was stolen from them may be equally, if not more, valuable.

If America is not to find its democracy systematically dismantled, it needs to strengthen its structures of shared knowledge and trust in democracy as a matter of urgent priority. This most obviously involves strengthening voting systems and registries (which are now run through a mishmash of badly secured systems at the local and state level) against attack. Strengthening the census, rebuilding confidence in voting, and re-establishing knowledge structures that help partisans work in harness are usually thought of as exercises in civics. They now have crucial implications for national security, too.

This time, Russia probably lucked out. In the future, malicious actors will be able to use far more sophisticated knowledge weapons, in a country ever more shaped by Google’s and Facebook’s combination of machine intelligence and social feedback. It will be hard to think about, let alone confront these problems, if U.S. policy elites continue to allow Cold War fantasies to distract them from the fundamental weaknesses of American democracy.


He's Not Chief of Staff. He's Trump's Nanny.


Who's calling the shots in the White House? Well, according to Chief of Staff, John Kelly, he is.

According to the Washington Post, Kelly had a meeting with Congressional Democrats looking to build bipartisan support for a new immigration policy. At the meeting, Kelly dropped a couple of bombshells.


White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly told Democratic lawmakers Wednesday that the United States will never construct a physical wall along the entire stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border and that some of President Trump’s campaign promises on immigration were “uninformed.”

The comments put Kelly at odds with Trump, who repeatedly said during his presidential campaign that he would build a border wall that Mexico would pay for, not U.S. taxpayers.

Kelly met with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) and Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.), who chairs the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, at the U.S. Capitol in his fourth formal face-to-face encounter with Hispanic lawmakers, who have been deeply critical of Trump’s position on immigration policy.

During the meeting, Kelly repeatedly said that Trump supports enacting permanent legal protections for young immigrant “dreamers” and that he has helped the president evolve on immigration policy.  

...

“Certain things are said during the campaign that are uninformed,” Kelly said.

“One thing is to campaign, another thing is to govern. It’s really hard,” he added later.

A concrete wall from sea to shining sea” is not going to happen, Kelly said. Instead, “a physical barrier in many places” is what the administration is requesting. Kelly used the term “physical barrier” several times during the meeting, attendees said.

“Concrete wall is not a realistic solution in many places,” Kelly said — noting that topography, among other issues, makes building a physical wall difficult along certain parts of the more than 2,100 miles between the United States and Mexico.

Instead, “we need 700 more miles of barrier,” Kelly said — a concession that a physical barrier does not need to stretch the entire length of the border.

“Concrete wall would be good in only certain places,” he added, saying that manpower and drone technology should suffice in some parts.

Kelly also said that there will be no wall “that Mexico will pay for.”

So, there's not going to be a wall, not as such, and there's no way in hell that Mexico is going to foot the bill for the "barrier." Governing, apparently, is really hard and Kelly has worked to help Trump "evolve" his positions.


If It Isn't One Damned Thing, It's Another



In preparation for its upcoming Davos summit, the World Economic Forum has released its Global Risks Report, 2018.

The report can be summed up in three words - "worse than expected." It focuses on the usual suspects, environmental catastrophes, cyber-warfare, and nuclear war. Tossed into the mix is what is described as an "unsettling geopolitical phase."

Multilateral rules-based approaches have been fraying. Re-establishing the state as the primary locus of power and legitimacy has become an increasingly attractive strategy for many countries, but one that leaves many smaller states squeezed as the geopolitical sands shift. There is currently no sign that norms and institutions exist towards which the world’s major powers might converge. This creates new risks and uncertainties: rising military tensions, economic and commercial disruptions, and destabilizing feedback loops between changing global conditions and countries’ domestic political conditions. International relations now play out in increasingly diverse ways. Beyond conventional military build-ups, these include new cyber sources of hard and soft power, reconfigured trade and investment links, proxy conflicts, changing alliance dynamics, and potential flashpoints related to the global commons. Assessing and mitigating risks across all these theatres of potential conflict will require careful horizon scanning and crisis anticipation by both state and non-state actors.


Oh Yeah, About Trump's "Excellent" Health


How can a 71-year old who sustains himself on junk food and elaborate cakes and pastries be in excellent health?

Simple answer - he isn't.

Trump's doctor says he's fighting fit. Other doctors say Trump's doctor is full of sh*t.


Dr. Ronny L. Jackson, a rear admiral and the White House physician, said Tuesday in his report on the president’s medical condition that Mr. Trump was in “excellent” cardiac health despite having an LDL cholesterol level of 143, well above the desired level of 100 or less.

Dr. Eric Topol, a cardiologist at the Scripps Research Institute, disputed that rosy assessment. He said on Wednesday that the most alarming fact is that the president’s LDL levels remain above 140 even though he is taking 10 milligrams of Crestor, a powerful drug that is used to lower cholesterol levels to well below 100.

“That’s a really high LDL,” Dr. Topol said, echoing the concerns of other heart experts who reviewed Dr. Jackson’s report. “We’re talking about a 70-plus-year-old man who is obese and doesn’t exercise. Just looking at the lab value, you would raise a big red flag.”

He added: “I would never use the word excellent health. How you could take these indices and say excellent health? That is completely contradicted.”

Did the Trudeau Government Really Need the B.C. Supreme Court to Tell Them This?


Indefinite solitary confinement is wrong. It shames the nation that resorts to such an inhumane practice that is nothing short of mental torture.

In a lengthy ruling released Wednesday, Justice Peter Leask found that the laws surrounding what is known as administrative segregation in prison discriminate against Aboriginal and mentally ill inmates.

He said the existing rules create a situation in which a warden becomes judge and jury in terms of ordering extended periods of solitary confinement.

"I find as a fact that administrative segregation … is a form of solitary confinement that places all Canadian inmates subject to it at significant risk of serious psychological harm, including mental pain and suffering, and increased incidence of self-harm and suicide," Leask wrote.

...

In his ruling, Leask cited many of the tragic cases which brought the issue of solitary confinement to the forefront in recent years, including that of Ashley Smith, a 19-year-old who died in a segregated prison cell in Kitchener, Ont., in 2007. A coroner's jury ruled Smith's self-inflicted choking death was a homicide.
...

Then there's this, from Gizmodo:


A quick glance at literature review studies done by Sharon Shalev (2008) and Peter Scharff Smith (2006) affirms this assertion; here are some typical symptoms:


Anxiety: Persistent low level of stress, irritability or anxiousness, fear of impending death, panic attacks

Depression: Emotional flatness/blunting and the loss of ability to have any "feelings", mood swings, hopelessness, social withdrawal, loss of initiation of activity or ideas, apathy, lethargy, major depression

Anger: Irritability and hostility, poor impulse control, outbursts of physical and verbal violence against others, self, and objects, unprovoked angers, sometimes manifested as rage


Cognitive disturbances: Short attention span, poor concentration and memory, confused thought processes, disorientation

Perceptual distortions: Hypersensitivity to noises and smells, distortions of sensation (e.g. walls closing in), disorientation in time and space, depersonalization/derealization, hallucinations affecting all five senses (e.g. hallucinations of objects or people appearing in the cell, or hearing voices when no one is speaking

Paranoia and psychosis: Recurrent and persistent thoughts, often of a violent and vengeful character (e.g. directed against prison staff), paranoid ideas (often persecutory), psychotic episodes or states, psychotic depression, schizophrenia

Self-harm: self-mutilation and cutting, suicide attempts

In California, it has been shown that inmates are 33 times more likely to commit suicide than other prisoners incarcerated elsewhere in the state. Disturbingly, solitary confinement beyond 15 days leads directly to severe and irreversible psychological harm. But for some, it can manifest in even less time. What's more, a significant number of individuals will experience serious health problems regardless of specific conditions of time, place, and pre-existing personal factors.




Jeff Flake Unloads on Trump, America's "Supreme Leader."


Retiring Arizona senator, Jeff Flake, went after Donald Trump today on the floor of the US Senate.  The transcript is here.  What follows are some excerpts:

2017 was a year which saw the truth — objective, empirical, evidence-based truth — more battered and abused than any other in the history of our country, at the hands of the most powerful figure in our government. It was a year which saw the White House enshrine “alternative facts” into the American lexicon, as justification for what used to be known simply as good old-fashioned falsehoods. It was the year in which an unrelenting daily assault on the constitutionally-protected free press was launched by that same White House, an assault that is as unprecedented as it is unwarranted. “The enemy of the people,” was what the president of the United States called the free press in 2017.

Mr. President, it is a testament to the condition of our democracy that our own president uses words infamously spoken by Josef Stalin to describe his enemies. It bears noting that so fraught with malice was the phrase “enemy of the people,” that even Nikita Khrushchev forbade its use, telling the Soviet Communist Party that the phrase had been introduced by Stalin for the purpose of “annihilating such individuals” who disagreed with the supreme leader.

This alone should be a source of great shame for us in this body, especially for those of us in the president’s party. For they are shameful, repulsive statements. And, of course, the president has it precisely backward — despotism is the enemy of the people. The free press is the despot’s enemy, which makes the free press the guardian of democracy. When a figure in power reflexively calls any press that doesn’t suit him “fake news,” it is that person who should be the figure of suspicion, not the press.
...

Mr. President, so powerful is the presidency that the damage done by the sustained attack on the truth will not be confined to the president’s time in office. Here in America, we do not pay obeisance to the powerful — in fact, we question the powerful most ardently — to do so is our birthright and a requirement of our citizenship — and so, we know well that no matter how powerful, no president will ever have dominion over objective reality.

No politician will ever get to tell us what the truth is and is not. And anyone who presumes to try to attack or manipulate the truth to his own purposes should be made to realize the mistake and be held to account. That is our job here. And that is just as Madison, Hamilton, and Jay would have it.

Of course, a major difference between politicians and the free press is that the press usually corrects itself when it gets something wrong. Politicians don’t.
...

Mr. President, an American president who cannot take criticism — who must constantly deflect and distort and distract, who must find someone else to blame — is charting a very dangerous path. And a Congress that fails to act as a check on the president adds to the danger.
...

2018 must be the year in which the truth takes a stand against power that would weaken it. In this effort, the choice is quite simple. And in this effort, the truth needs as many allies as possible. 
...

But many untruths are not at all trivial — such as the seminal untruth of the president’s political career — the oft-repeated conspiracy about the birthplace of President Obama. Also not trivial are the equally pernicious fantasies about rigged elections and massive voter fraud, which are as destructive as they are inaccurate — to the effort to undermine confidence in the federal courts, federal law enforcement, the intelligence community and the free press, to perhaps the most vexing untruth of all — the supposed “hoax” at the heart of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

To be very clear, to call the Russia matter a “hoax” — as the president has many times — is a falsehood. We know that the attacks orchestrated by the Russian government during the election were real and constitute a grave threat to both American sovereignty and to our national security. It is in the interest of every American to get to the bottom of this matter, wherever the investigation leads.

Ignoring or denying the truth about hostile Russian intentions toward the United States leaves us vulnerable to further attacks. We are told by our intelligence agencies that those attacks are ongoing, yet it has recently been reported that there has not been a single cabinet-level meeting regarding Russian interference and how to defend America against these attacks. Not one. What might seem like a casual and routine untruth — so casual and routine that it has by now become the white noise of Washington — is in fact a serious lapse in the defense of our country.

Mr. President, let us be clear. The impulses underlying the dissemination of such untruths are not benign. They have the effect of eroding trust in our vital institutions and conditioning the public to no longer trust them. The destructive effect of this kind of behavior on our democracy cannot be overstated. 




Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Carving Out a Post-Globalism World


Even though our government may still embrace it, globalism is a failed concept and those who cling to it are inviting some pretty nasty consequences. The consensus about globalism is extensive and broad. It spans leftist economists such as Yanis Varoufakis, intellectuals such as John Ralston Saul, more mainstream economists such as Nouriel Roubini, Thomas Piketty and Joe Stiglitz, and even conservative stalwarts such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and so many more.

Globalization and its companion political ideology, neoliberalism, are crap. They have failed and that's not going to change.  Our federal government is flogging a thoroughly dead horse.

Fortunately there are options for a new political-economic regime to replace globalism although there are none on the horizon in Canada and no reason to hope there will be any time soon either.

There's a grave risk of not addressing the failure of globalization. It often manifests in authoritarian populism and the decline of liberal democracy across Asia, Europe, even the United States. Could it happen here? Absolutely because, absent progressive vision leading to reform, extremist populism is the default option.

It's a conversation they're now having in Britain thanks, in part, to Jeremy Corbyn and the new Labour Party. Arguments for reform and how to go about it are being heard in the UK. Here are some examples from today's Guardian.

George Monbiot has a piece exposing the sham of what in Canada are called PPPs or public-private partnerships of the sort Trudeau champions to meet Canada's massive infrastructure challenge.

Monbiot addresses the parlour-trick of accounting used to frame PPPs as cost-effective alternatives to direct government action.



PFI [privately financed initiative] projects, Blair and Brown promised, would go ahead only if they proved to be cheaper than the “public sector comparator”.

But at the same time, the government told public bodies that state money was not an option: if they wanted new facilities, they would have to use the private finance initiative. In the words of the then health secretary, Alan Milburn: “It’s PFI or bust”. So, if you wanted a new hospital or bridge or classroom or army barracks, you had to demonstrate that PFI offered the best value for money. Otherwise, there would be no project. Public bodies immediately discovered a way to make the numbers add up: risk transfer.


... A study published in the British Medical Journal revealed that, before the risk was costed, every hospital scheme it investigated would have been built much more cheaply with public funds. But once the notional financial risks had been added, building them through PFI came out cheaper in every case, although sometimes by less than 0.1%.

Not only was this exercise (as some prominent civil servants warned) bogus, but the entire concept is negated by the fact that if collapse occurs, the risk ripples through the private sector and into the public. Companies like Carillion might not be too big to fail, but the services they deliver are. You cannot, in a nominal democracy, suddenly close a public hospital, let a bridge collapse, or fail to deliver school meals.

Partly for this reason, and partly because of the inordinate political power of corporations and the people who run them, governments seek to insulate these companies from the very risks they claim to have transferred to them.

Monbiot points out that when a PPP venture fails, the loss usually defaults to the government anyway. The risk factor is a scam.

A separate article explores the PPP scam in the context of the recent failure of Carillion which is expected to dump hundreds of millions of dollars of losses on our government also.

The collapse of Carillion, embarrassing for a government that had championed the company and awarded it contract after contract, represents another significant blow to the “private knows best” economic dogma.

Nothing has come to symbolise the worship of free-market solutions – often against all the evidence – more than the persistent belief that key public services would be better provided by profit-seeking companies. As the journalist Robert Peston put it, the collapse of Carillion represents the definitive end of a 25-year love affair with the private provision of public services.


Abi Wilkinson writes that government policy is forcing poor people into catastrophic debt.  Zero hour contracts, the gig economy, the trap of easy credit as a substitute for inadequate wage rates, job churn, all that stuff isn't unique to our side of the Atlantic.

Finally, John Harris asks "what happens when all the jobs dry up?" a look at the looming crisis of robotics and automation.  The writer exhorts the left to develop an answer.

Academics at Oxford University’s Martin School say that as automation gains pace, even work in retail – which is all many places currently have left – “is likely to vanish, as it has done in manufacturing, mining and agriculture”. The era of driverless transport will soon be here. Even for the labour market’s winners, a digitised economy’s quickfire cycles and ever-changing demands are steadily killing job security.

...

So what might the progressive politics of the 2020s and 2030s look like? Clearly, our most glaring inequalities call for action that only a powerful central state can carry out. We should start, at long last, to move tax policy towards concentrations of wealth and assets, not least land and property. The line should be redrawn between what ought to be considered public services and utilities, and things best left to the private sector, a point underlined by the nightmarish collapse of the outsourcing giant Carillion. Investment needs to be forcibly pushed into places long deprived of it.
...

Because work and so-called welfare increasingly fail to provide any kind of secure foundation for living, one basic principle should sit at the core of the left’s vision of the future: that of a universal basic income (UBI). Thanks to the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, there is a rather quiet Labour “working group” apparently looking into this, with a view to reporting around the time of the next election, and chatter about UBI periodically flares up at party gatherings.

James Galbraith addresses this potentially calamitous threat in his book, "The Predator State." Here, here and here.  Like Varoufakis, Galbraith contends that  robotics will demand a very real form of wealth redistribution failing which society will collapse.







Why Is Canada the Country Insisting It Be Kept Intact? Just Who Is Our Government Protecting?



One of the truly perplexing aspects of the North American Free Trade Act, NAFTA, is the Ch. 11 investor dispute resolution section.

Trump wants it gone. Mexico doesn't seem to care. Canada insists it be retained. We want it. Why?

Canada gets sued by foreign companies under the ISDS provision more than the United States and Mexico combined. We get soaked.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says the Trudeau government's position makes little sense.

Canada has been the target of more claims under Chapter 11 than its Mexican and American partners and the trend is getting worse as Canada has been sued over twice as many times as Mexico and the U.S. combined since 2010.

Canada is also far more likely to lose challenges — the CCPA says Canada has won nine and lost eight concluded cases so far while Mexico has won seven and lost five and the U.S. has won all 11 of its concluded cases.

It says Canada is currently facing eight active investor-state claims — including Omnitrax's recent NAFTA claim related to its broken rail line to Churchill, Man., and Lone Pine's challenge to Quebec's fracking moratorium — that combined seek more than $475 million in damages.


Lori Wallach of the progressive Washington-based group Public Citizen is also critical of Canada's defense of Chapter 11.

"This is the irony to it. Canada is No. 1 in the world of developed countries that has lost under investor-state," she said.

"Canada's paid out a ridiculous amount of money... Of any country Canada should say, 'That's it. I've had it with investor-state."'


So, if the Canadian people are getting hammered by the ISDS in NAFTA and yet the Trudeau government is insistent that it be retained, somebody must be benefiting. If would be nice if our government would tell us just who it's working for.

Yanis Takes His Scalpel and Dissects Globalism



It is not easy to get people to think about globalization, capitalism in the neoliberal era and what lies ahead, if anything.  To use Bill Maher's indelicate metaphor, it's like waking up in a seedy motel room with a blistering hangover to find yourself handcuffed to a dead hooker.

Our dead hooker is globalism. John Ralston Saul declared it dead in 2005. He was right then and, guess what? It's still dead. We've been dragging it around ever since. The current management, Justin, somehow thinks he can bring it back to life.

Which brings us to Yanis Varoufakis, and a very important essay on globalism he penned published over the weekend in The Globe and Mail.  An early driving force in the Greek political movement, Syriza, the British-educated economist resigned when in a referendum the Greek people agreed to capitulate to their nation's EU creditors' demands for brutal austerity.

Varoufakis' take is that globalization is indeed dead. You'll never breathe life back into that dead hooker. A new order will emerge whether our leaders like it or not. The important question is whether we will control our future or allow ourselves to be overtaken by events. I urge you to read the essay, linked above, in its entirety. In the meantime here are a few excerpts:


At the discursive level, neo-parochialism is now trumping globalization's oeuvre in the United States, in Brexit Britain and elsewhere. Labour-saving technological change, meanwhile, underpins jobless deglobalization everywhere. None of these developments augur well for those who once believed in a borderless commonwealth of working people.

Humanity has been globalizing since our ancestors left Africa, the earliest economic migrants on record. Moreover, capitalism has been operating for two centuries like "heavy artillery," in Marx and Engels' words, using the "cheap prices of commodities" to batter "down all Chinese walls," "constantly expanding market for its products" and replacing "the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency" with "intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations."

It wasn't until the 1990s, when we noticed the unleashing of momentous forces, that we required a new term to describe the emancipation of capital from all fetters, which led to a global economy whose growth and equilibrium relied on increasingly unbalanced trade and money movements. It is this relatively recent phenomenon – globalization, we called it – that is now in crisis and in retreat.
...

In 1944, the New Deal administration in Washington understood that the only way to avoid the Great Depression's return at war's end was to transfer America's surpluses to Europe (the Marshall Plan was but one example of this) and Japan, effectively recycling them to generate foreign demand for all the gleaming new products – washing machines, cars, television sets, passenger jets – that American industry would switch to from military hardware.

Thus began the project of dollarizing Europe, founding the European Union as a cartel of heavy industry, and building up Japan within the context of a global currency union based on the U.S. dollar. This would equilibrate a global system featuring fixed exchange rates, almost-constant interest rates and boring banks (operating under severe capital controls).

This dazzling design, also known as the Bretton Woods system, brought us a golden age of low unemployment and inflation, high growth and impressively diminished inequality.
...

When Nixon trashed Bretton Woods as its surplus capacity dwindled it embraced a new order of fiscal and trade deficits that saw its trading partners pour their surplus cash into Wall Street.


But for Wall Street to act as this magnet of other people's capital, there were two prerequisites. One was Wall Street's unshackling from New Deal-era regulations. Bank deregulation was central in this audacious reversal: From recycling Amercian surpluses, via transferring them to Europe and to Japan, the United States was now recycling the supluses of the rest of the world rushing into Wall Street, completing the loop necessary to pay for America's deficits and keep globalization in rude health.

The second condition was the cheapening of American labour and the substitution of growing wages with escalating credit, provided via Wall Street. This cheapening of American labour was essential to helping push Wall Street's capital returns above those of Frankfurt and Tokyo, where competitiveness was based instead on enhancements to productivity.

Through it all, neoliberalism emerged from the margins of political economics to dominate our discourse after the end of Bretton Woods. But it was nothing more than the sermon that steadied the hand of politicians repealing New Deal-era protections for workers and society at large from the motivated abuses of Wall Street bankers and predators such as Wal-Mart.

In summary, what we now call globalization was the result of a brave new financialized global recycling mechanism of immense energy and ever-increasing imbalances – with the rise of neoliberalism, wholesale bank deregulation and Wall Street's "greed is good" culture as its mere symptoms. 
...

"Speculators may do no harm," John Maynard Keynes once hypothesized, "as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the position is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation." Which is precisely what had happened by 2007: Atop the tsunami of European and Asian profits rushing into Wall Street, bankers built oversized bubbles of exotic forms of private debt that, at some point, acquired the properties of private money.

When these bubbles burst in 2008, the recycling loop sustaining globalization was broken – despite energetic money printing by central banks and the Chinese government's breathtaking credit and investment spree. U.S. deficits, even after returning to their pre-2007 levels, could no longer stabilize globalization. The reason? Socialist largesse for the few – plus ruthless market forces for the many – damaged aggregate demand, repressed entrepreneurs' sales expectations, restricted investment in productive jobs, diminished earnings for the many and, presto, confirmed the entrepreneurs' pessimism. Adding more liquidity to such a mix makes not an iota of difference, as the problem is not a dearth of liquidity but a dearth of demand.

Wall Street, Wal-Mart and walled citizens – those were globalization's symbolic foundations. Today, all three have become a drag on it. Banks are failing to maintain the capital movements that globalization used to reply upon, as total financial movements across the globe are less than a fourth of what they were in early 2007. Wal-Mart, whose ideology of cheapness symbolized the devaluation of labour and the gutting of traditional local businesses, is itself being squeezed by the Amazon model, whose ultimate effect is a further shrinking of overall spending. And the walls that were the nasty underbelly of the "global village" are now a source of political discontent, exposing the absurdity of a system that promotes the free movement of money and trucks while people remain fenced in.

Looking at the world from an Archimedean distance, globalization has been caught in a steel trap of its own making. Its crisis is due to too much money in the wrong hands. Humanity's accumulated savings per capita are at the highest level in history. However, our investment levels (especially in the things humanity needs, such as green energy) are particularly low. In the United States, massive sums are accumulating in the accounts of companies and people with no use for them, while those without prospects or good jobs are immersed in mountains of debt. In China, savings approaching half of all income sit side by side with the largest credit bubble imaginable. Europe is even worse: There are countries with gigantic trade surpluses but nowhere to invest them domestically (Germany and the Netherlands), countries with deficits and no capacity to invest in badly needed labour and capital (Italy, Spain, Greece) and a euro zone unable to mediate between the two types of countries because it lacks the federal-like institutions that could do this.
...

The Case for a New Bretton Woods

Lest we forget, our problems are global. Like climate change, they demand local action but also a level of international co-operation not seen since Bretton Woods. Neither North America nor Europe nor China can solve them in isolation or even via trade deals. Nothing short of a new Bretton Woods system can deal with tax injustice, the dearth of good jobs, wage stagnation, public and personal debt, low investment in things we desperately need, too much spending on things that are bad for us, increasing depravity in a world awash with cash, robots that are marginalizing an increasing section of our work forces, prohibitively expensive education that the many need to compete with the robots, etc. National solutions, to be implemented under the deception of "getting our country back" and behind strengthened border fences, are bound to yield further discontent, as they enable our oligarchs-without-borders to strike trade agreements that condemn the many to a race to the bottom while securing their loot in offshore havens.
...

The Shape of an International New Deal

First, we need higher wages everywhere, supported by trade agreements and conditions that prevent the Uberization of waged labour domestically.

Tax havens are crying out for international harmonization, including a simple commitment to deny companies registered in offshore tax havens legal protection of their property rights.

We desperately need a green-energy union focusing on common environmental standards, with the active support of public investment and central banks.

We should create a New Bretton Woods system that recalibrates our financial infrastructure, with one umbrella digital currency in which all trade is denominated in a manner that curtails destabilizing trade surpluses and deficits.

And we need a universal basic dividend that would be administered by the New Bretton Woods institutions and funded by a percentage of big tech shares deposited in a world wealth fund.

The financial genie needs to be put back in its bottle, with capital controls domestically and globally to be imposed by co-ordinated action in the Americas, Europe and Asia. Money must be democratized and internationally managed in a manner that shrinks both trade deficits and surpluses. The robots must become humanity's slaves, a feat that requires common ownership, at least partly.





Friday, January 12, 2018

America's Ambassador to Panama Has Had His Fill of Presidente Shithole, Resigns.


56 year old John Feely, career diplomat and former Marine chopper pilot, serving as America's ambassador to Panama has resigned his post.


"As a junior foreign service officer, I signed an oath to serve faithfully the president and his administration in an apolitical fashion, even when I might not agree with certain policies," he wrote, in a letter obtained by Reuters.

"My instructors made clear that if I believed I could not do that, I would be honor bound to resign. That time has come."

Mr Feeley has worked at the state department for nearly 30 years.

He was nominated to the ambassadorship by President Barack Obama in July 2015 and was sworn in to the post on January 15, 2016.

Before becoming ambassador to Panama, Mr Feeley served as principal deputy assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere affairs from 2012 to 2015.

The ambassador is just one of many veteran diplomats and foreign service staffers who have voted with their feet, hollowing out the State Department, since Deplorable Donnie took power.  With them goes a lot of institutional memory - the people who knew how things worked, who knew the people to call in other countries' foreign service when a favour was needed or a deal had to be negotiated. These were people other countries had come to trust.

Der Spiegel Captures Trump Perfectly


The Spiegel cover says it all:



Meanwhile, the New York Daily News offered this take on Deplorable Donnie:


They're Not the "Party of Lincoln" Any More



Republicans like to praise themselves as the "party of Lincoln." Of course that was when the Republican Party was a party of the north. Back then the slave state South was Democrat. The parties switched polarity when Kennedy and Johnson brought in civil rights protections. Nixon took advantage of the southern discontent to pick up the low-hanging, often rotting fruit to win the presidency and the GOP has been the party of slack jawed, knuckle dragging racists ever since.

Today's Republicans are the party of shitholes, dutiful followers of the Shithole in Chief, the Mango Mussolini, Deplorable Donnie Trump himself.

Trump's "shithole" remarks yesterday (according to Dick Durban he used the word repeatedly) have emboldened America's cowed media to publish recaps of the litany of racist remarks that have come spewing from Trump's shithole, the one immediately beneath his nose, since he ran in the Republican primaries. Deplorable Donnie doesn't seem to miss a beat when it comes to disparaging certain groups. By 'certain' I mean people other than Cracker white.

While Trump has been practising his bigotry again and again, working out on black people and brown people, Muslims and even women, his courtiers in the House and Senate have been remarkably complacent. That's because, when it comes right down to it, they prefer to be shitholes too rather than stand up to this disgusting bully.

That goes for Trump's White House staff - in spades. When the "shithole" uproar broke yesterday, the White House did nothing to deny it. Instead they sent deputy press secretary, Raj Shah, to shovel out the stables. Even he wasn't going to deny the remark. Instead he responded: "Certain Washington politicians choose to fight for foreign countries, but President Trump will always fight for the American people."  Good one, Raj, double down.




Now in fairness, president shithole did try to defuze the problem this morning in his tweet storm. How? He denied it. Never happened. Never used those words. See, he's a bully, a bigot, a moron and a coward. Oh, and Raj? You too.

Lincoln emancipated the slaves. Isn't it time America emancipated Lincoln from today's Republican Party?



Three things the world, including America's adversaries and its rivals (no, they're not the same thing) now must believe are that: 1. Trump is a bigot ready to exploit every base instinct that can be harnessed in the United States; 2) Trump is chronically, pathologically dishonest. He's a liar. Everyone knows that. 3) Trump is reaching a point of intellectual/emotional impairment that his continued presidency is a threat to the world and to the United States.

This is not  good place for the United States to find itself.

Thursday, January 11, 2018

President "Sh_thole" Afraid to Show His Face in London


The trip is off. The Brits have repelled Trump from visiting their fair land anytime soon. Among other things, protesters threatened to line the parade route and moon the bastard as he passed by, a scene that would have been aired endlessly on newscasts everywhere around the world that has television. The humiliation would have been more than the Mango Mussolini could bear.

As an alternative it had been thought Trump could stage a drive-by visit, possibly cutting the ribbon to open the new American embassy. Seems the protesters were also ready for that possibility.

So what to tell the Gullibillies, the racists and the fascists and the rest of the Deplorables? Trump knows he can feed those clowns almost any sort of crap and so he tweeted that the new embassy was beneath him.

Donald J. Trump(@realDonaldTrump)
Reason I canceled my trip to London is that I am not a big fan of the Obama Administration having sold perhaps the best located and finest embassy in London for “peanuts,” only to build a new one in an off location for 1.2 billion dollars. Bad deal. Wanted me to cut ribbon-NO!
January 12, 2018


Ann Coulter - Bannon Was Trump's Brain

Ann Coulter is unleashing her flying monkeys on her ex-fave, the Mango Mussolini, Donald J. Trump.

In case you've missed it, Donnie has been having a non-stop senior's moment lately on everything from domestic surveillance of Americans to immigration and the "shithole countries" these people are coming from. First he's for, then he's against, and soon he's for again. Maybe his prostate is acting up or, yes, he's really senile. Perhaps both.


In order to prove he doesn’t have dementia, as alleged in a recent book, President Trump called a meeting with congressional leaders on Tuesday — and requested that it be televised.

Ivanka: Show them at your best, Daddy!

He then proceeded to completely sell out the base and actually added to his problems by appearing senile.

In a half-dozen exchanges — which, again, he wanted televised — Trump responded to remarks as if he had no clue what the person was saying. One senator would talk — he’d agree. Someone else would say the exact opposite — he’d agree with that, too.

...

Trump was more than willing to sell out the base to solve a personal problem of his — the Michael Wolff book — but managed to not convince a single American that he’s articulate, bright or a good leader.

On MSNBC, the hosts didn’t say, “You know, we saw a new side of Trump today …” Instead, they could barely suppress their giggles over the great negotiator being rolled.

Oh well, Ann, think of better, happier days.




Could Hackers Launch a Nuclear Attack?



Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, has released a study of cyber security risks posed to US, British and other countries' nuclear arsenals.

The threat has received scant attention so far from those involved in nuclear military planning and the procurement of weapons, the report said.

It blames this partly on failure to keep up with fast-moving advances, lack of skilled staff and the slowness of institutional change.

“Nuclear weapons systems were developed before the advancement of computer technology and little consideration was given to potential cyber vulnerabilities. As a result, current nuclear strategy often overlooks the widespread use of digital technology in nuclear systems,” the authors of the study said.

Nuclear weapons systems are at threat from hostile states, criminal groups and terrorist organisations exploiting cyber vulnerabities.

“The likelihood of attempted cyber-attacks on nuclear weapons systems is relatively high and increasing from advanced persistent threats from states and non-state groups,” the report said.

It cited examples such as a report the US could have infiltrated the supply chain of North Korea’s missile system that contributed to a test failure in April last year. The silos of US nuclear-tipped Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles “are believed to be particularly vulnerable to cyber attacks”.

Here's the summary taken verbatim from the report:


Nuclear weapons systems were first developed at a time when computer capabilities were in their infancy and little consideration was given to potential malicious cyber vulnerabilities. Many of the assumptions on which current nuclear strategies are based pre-date the current widespread use of digital technology in nuclear command, control and communication systems.
There are a number of vulnerabilities and pathways through which a malicious actor may infiltrate a nuclear weapons system without a state’s knowledge. Human error, system failures, design vulnerabilities, and susceptibilities within the supply chain all represent common security issues in nuclear weapons systems. Cyberattack methods such as data manipulation, digital jamming and cyber spoofing could jeopardize the integrity of communication, leading to increased uncertainty in decision-making.
During peacetime, offensive cyber activities would create a dilemma for a state as it may not know whether its systems have been the subject of a cyberattack. This unknown could have implications for military decision-making, particularly for decisions affecting nuclear weapons deterrence policies.
At times of heightened tension, cyberattacks on nuclear weapons systems could cause an escalation, which results in their use. Inadvertent nuclear launches could stem from an unwitting reliance on false information and data. Moreover, a system that is compromised cannot be trusted in decision-making.
Possible cyber resilience measures include taking a holistic approach in creating trustworthy systems based on rigorous risk assessments. These should incorporate an analysis of a combination of threats, vulnerabilities and consequences.
It is the responsibility of nuclear weapons states to incorporate cyber risk reduction measures in nuclear command, control and communication systems. Although some information is publicly available on US weapons systems, there is very little information regarding other nuclear weapons states. Academia and civil society should be encouraged to bring this issue to the attention of their government.

As a confidence booster, the report features a photo of a threadworn control panel from a Minuteman missile silo.  Nice, eh?

Well, That's the Pot Calling the Kettle Black


Donald Trump doesn't like illegal immigrants and he doesn't like the countries those little brown buggers come from either.  The Cheeto Benito likes his immigrants white, preferably Nordic too.

President Donald Trump grew frustrated with lawmakers Thursday in the Oval Office when they floated restoring protections for immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal, according to two people briefed on the meeting.

"Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?" Trump said, according to these people, referring to African countries and Haiti. He then suggested that the United States should instead bring more people from countries like Norway, whose prime minister he met yesterday.

The Assange Follies



Ecuador really wants Julian Assange out of its London embassy. It's been trying to work out some deal for the Brits to just let him go somewhere, perhaps to another country, but British authorities insist Assange must answer to their courts for breaching bail. They're looking to put Julian in HMP Greybar Hotel for a stretch, especially given that he's caused the Brits to rack up a police bill of some 18 million pounds to keep the scofflaw holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy.

The Ecuadoreans want him gone badly enough they granted Assange citizenship last week and then tried to get him accredited diplomatically but, again, the Brits said no deal. That's not the way diplomatic accreditation works.

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

A Eulogy for "The West." It Is No More and Will Be Missed.


Most of us were brought up seeing ourselves and our nation as members in good standing of this political, social, and economic entity we liked to call "the West." We formed the Western World.

It's over. We blew it.

Guardian columnist, Rafael Behr, writes that the West that won the cold war no longer exists.

The post-cold war realignment has now lasted almost as long as the confrontation itself. The Berlin Wall has now been down for longer than it was up. The period is politically definitive for those who grew up in it, and strangely remote to those who came after. The generation that occupies most positions of power in “western” countries has a crisp sense of what it means to be “the west”, but it is vaguer in their children and nebulous to their grandchildren.

The term can be very problematic. It is too often used to conflate democracy, civilisation and whiteness. But in the context of a strategic rivalry with Berlin as its epicentre, “the west” accurately described one side. So the label stuck.

Measuring political virtue by longitude has also been given fresh impetus by Vladimir Putin’s neo-Soviet statecraft and the emergence of populist governments in countries of the former Warsaw Pact. The power-hoarding habits of Poland’s Law and Justice party and Hungary’s nationalist prime minister, Viktor Orb├ín, give some coherence to the idea of a liberal “western style”. It means civil liberties upheld by independent courts, a free press, opposition parties unmolested by the state, and a credible prospect of incumbents losing power.

But the lines are blurred by Polish and Hungarian membership of the EU. Their accession in 2004 was supposed to require the highest standards of political pluralism. The deal was liberal reform in exchange for promotion to the economic premier league. Transition was meant to be a one-way street. More established EU states are alarmed by easterners’ sliding back to bad habits.
...

Austria avoids equivalent censure despite the far-right Freedom party joining its ruling coalition last month. When the same party, whose roots go back to the Nazi apparatus, joined the government in 2000, Vienna was ostracised by fellow EU members. The charge was legitimising extremism. The Freedom party was then beyond the pale. The pale has moved.

Heinz-Christian Strache, the party’s leader, now Austrian vice-chancellor, is not Eurosceptic in the style of Marine Le Pen or Nigel Farage. He nonetheless leads a party with an aggressive fixation on Islam – but Austria is a “western” EU member, and that unofficial senior status seems to confer privileges in the club that survive having xenophobes in high office.

Which brings us to Donald Trump. The US president makes a parody of the idea of the west as a beacon of moral authority. It is true that his despotic urges are hemmed by law in a way that lesser countries might not manage. But it is some downgrade of the system to boast that it might withstand assault by a venal, nepotistic maniac. America used to aim higher than constitutional kleptocracy.

In such times it is easy to forget that the “western” model is still the best way to organise people into peaceful, prosperous societies. The benefits of liberal democracy are routinely taken for granted by people who live in one, but not by those who don’t. Millions vote with their feet, migrating across continents in search of a better life. That movement flatters the achievements of democratic societies, although our politics rarely casts it in those terms. It took a generation to get from the idealism of tearing down the wall to the backlash and pulling up the Brexit drawbridge.
...

Meanwhile, on both sides of the divide, the case for political liberalism cruised in the slipstream of market capitalism. Western intellectuals and eastern dissidents pleaded for democracy on principle for years before brute economics settled the matter. Worryingly, liberalism doesn’t have as good a record of winning by argument alone as its advocates like to imagine. Fascism, its deadliest enemy, wasn’t debated into submission or outrun in an economic race: it was beaten by military force in a fight to the death, started by the fascists.

Now, as illiberal forces arise in democracy’s heartlands, liberals find themselves frighteningly short of rhetorical tools to defend their cause. There is no eastern bloc peering enviously over our fences, testifying to the superiority of our methods. The fences are down, and those we once pitied are treated as interlopers, snaffling scarce resources. And while Britain, the US and western Europe are still among the richest places on Earth, millions who live there do not take it as a blessing. They feel insecure, disenfranchised, cheated.

We still produce the best TV and the softest toilet paper. But those weren’t ever irrefutable arguments for liberal democracy: they were advertisements for something called the west. And that product, sold on those terms, doesn’t exist any more.






Tuesday, January 09, 2018

El Presidente Strangelove




In 2016 then candidate Donald Trump was given a briefing on the vexing issue of nuclear weapons.  According to his then buddy and confidante, Joe Scarborough, three times Trump asked the briefer why America had nuclear weapons if it couldn't use them.

Well in Trumpland, America is getting closer to using nukes than it has been in decades. It's a two-pronged approach - lowering the threshold for the use of nukes and development of smaller, more "usable" nuclear devices.

Arms control advocates have voiced alarm at the new proposal to make smaller, more “usable” nuclear weapons, arguing it makes a nuclear war more likely, especially in view of what they see as Donald Trump’s volatility and readiness to brandish the US arsenal in showdowns with the nation’s adversaries.

The NPR also expands the circumstances in which the US might use its nuclear arsenal, to include a response to a non-nuclear attack that caused mass casualties, or was aimed at critical infrastructure or nuclear command and control sites.

The nuclear posture review (NPR), the first in eight years, is expected to be published after Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech at the end of January.

[Jon] Wolfsthal, who has reviewed what he understands to be the final draft of the review, said it states that the US will start work on reintroducing a sea-launched nuclear cruise missile, as a counter to a new ground-launched cruise missile the US has accused Russia of developing in violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty.

Trump doesn't do "nuance" and there's no area as nuanced as nuclear weapons policy.



2018, the Year of America's Congressional Khmer Rouge



This could be a transformative year for the Republicans. Their tax deal passed, many Congressional Repugs are hitting the silk, bailing out, just as Joy Reid foretold before Christmas. As Reid said at the time, they've done their dirty work for the oligarchs and they're "cashing out."

NBC News' Howard Fineman says there's a Republican exodus underway that will usher in a new, more radical GOP.

In a city obsessed with "Fire and Fury" and Oprah Winfrey, Rep. Ed Royce, the 66-year-old Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, made no waves on Monday when he announced that he would not seek another term in his Southern California district after 25 years in office.

But in the real political world — the one that writes the nation's laws and has to work with the administration of President Donald Trump — Royce's decision was a potent sign of three crucial facts:
Republicans are increasingly worried that they could lose the House in the 2018 midterm elections and many think they are getting out while the getting is still good;
They have reason to worry, especially about the House, and especially since a series of prominent retirements can further hurt the party's chances in the fall and;
No matter what happens in November, a more militant rump parliament of younger Freedom Caucus radicals will have much more clout in what's left of the GOP ranks in the House.
...

Whether the GOP keeps the majority or loses it, the departure of this GOP chairman and others will leave a new brand of Republicans in the House: less traditional, more confrontational, less respectful of Washington and closer to the Tea Party of 2010.

"The House GOP leadership that is now in place is hardly a bunch of moderates," [Norm] Ornstein said. "But they tend to want to work within the rules and the institutions that exist. That is not going to be a true for those who succeed them after this year."






Steve Bannon - "Nobody Knows You When You're Down and Out"


He described himself as a Leninist. For a while he was Trump's Rasputin, the dark wizard devoted to bringing down the apparatus of the American state.

Then Trump's chief of staff, John Kelly, had enough of the Bannon insurgency and Stevie was shown the door, heading back to Breitbart from where he pledged to continue the alt.right revolution.

Well now Bannon has been turfed from Breitbart too.

According to The New York Times, “Mr. Bannon’s departure, which was forced by a onetime financial patron, Rebekah Mercer, comes as Mr. Bannon remained unable to quell the furor over remarks attributed to him in a new book in which he questions President Trump’s mental fitness and disparages his elder son, Donald Trump Jr.” Mercer rebuked Bannon last week following his public feud with Trump over the comments—a feud that resulted in the president publicly nicknaming his ex-strategist “Sloppy Steve.” In a statement, Bannon said he is “proud of what the Breitbart team has accomplished.”

Well, Steve, cheer up. Here's a parting gift from the legendary Alberta Hunter.