Friday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Friday, March 4. 2016

Today's masters of the universe are less likely to work on Wall Street and more likely to work in Silicon Valley.

The Ultimate working lunch: Inside the envy-inducing canteens at companies like Dropbox, Google and Pixar that offer free food, extensive menus, and gourmet desserts

If I have lunch I fall asleep

Teaching economics to the sixth grade

Why Billions of Patients Worldwide Lack Access to Opioid Pain Meds

Verona Takes Stand Against Multiculturalism

Teaching economics to the sixth grade

Chaos Set to Return to Big Apple Streets

Blue town follies

VDH: The Strange Case Of The Campus Cry-Bully

Yale’s Crime Wave

Very dangerous school, esp. for women and minorites. Remember its history as a school for white boys who wanted to become scholarly ministers in the Congregational Church. At the time, even scholarly ministers had to learn chemistry, physics, math, Latin, Greek, history, etc.

REVERSE THE ROLES AND YOU’LL UNDERSTAND ANTI-SEMITISM - Anti-Jewish hatred has become increasingly acceptable in the West.

Don't Look Now, But The European Union Is Now Calling for... A Wall

Insuring Crony Capitalism Obamacare leads trade groups to fight for a bigger place at the trough

Labor unions gave $420 million to Democrats, left-wing groups from 2012-14, report shows

Washington Post Columnist Takes ‘Islamophobia’ Bait

Obama's Empty Judicial Chairs

Hillary Pushing Racial Warfare: White Are Too Rich And Blacks Too Poor So We Need More Wealth Redistribution……

Romney is from another era

Ted Cruz Shines

Who is more personally (not politically) unappealing - Cruz or Hillary! ? Mrs. BD and I were thinking about about which candidates we'd be glad to have as next-door neighbors. We came up with Carson and Bernie. Maybe Kasich. Nothing to do with political preferences.

GOP Comes Into Focus As Yet Wide Open, Particularly for Ted Cruz

Could Trump Win the Election?

Trump is the voters' tool

Trump’s a disrupter — but most of the fire aimed his way is just shooting the messenger.

Donald Trump defends size of his penis

Show us, Don

Calais orders up to 1,000 residents of Jungle camp to leave by Tuesday

Ex-spy links Argentine gov’t to Nisman death, spurring venue change to murder court

Mob Of 30 Afghan Migrants Molest And Harass People, Chase Teenage Girls Thru German Mall

Afghan?

Neocons declare war on Trump - Prominent Republican hawks are debating whether to hold their noses and vote for Clinton instead

Do neocons want more US war in the middle east? Then Hillary! is their gal.

French Diplomacy on 'Palestine' Will Run Aground

NATO commander says ISIS spreading like cancer among Syrian refugees

The Israeli-Egyptian love affair

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:08 | Comments (37) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Mar 06, 09:29

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Trump, the Tool
I agree that Trump didn't create this constituency, it already existed. He just gave it a voice; it may be a crude voice, but it is heard and maybe even sucking the air out of the room.
Bernie in a way is the flip side. There is speculation and it is possible, but probably premature to say so, that we could be witnessing a realignment of the political factions. Imagine the real people of Main St vrs the "K Street" types and their minions, who are insulated from the negative effects of their policies.

#1 Exasperated on 2016-03-04 07:47 (Reply)

Trump is definitely a voice and definitely a crude voice but maybe that's what's needed today. Our last "voice(s)" were Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. They were too gentlemanly and got nowhere. In fact, many would argue that Ryan switched sides. Things have only gotten worse so the crude voice is the sound needed today. In another eight years the sounds we might hear are riots in the streets.

#1.1 DMW on 2016-03-04 08:32 (Reply)

This is exactly what's happening.

#1.2 Jim on 2016-03-04 12:48 (Reply)

I agree that Carson would be my first choice as a neighbor.

No way would I want Sanders near me - seems like the kind of guy who would call the town on people with Christmas lights or a trailer in the driveway.

#2 NJSoldier on 2016-03-04 08:08 (Reply)

I like cranky old farts

#2.1 Bird Dog on 2016-03-04 08:09 (Reply)

I like the cranky old Vets I shoot with at the range. I don't like cranky old commies who think they should have my stuff.

#2.1.1 NJSoldier on 2016-03-04 08:47 (Reply)

Thanks. When I hit 90 in five years, I'm changing my handle to cranky old fart ©.

#2.1.2 BillH on 2016-03-04 09:58 (Reply)

Ha Ha Yes! Then he'd want to borrow your lawn mower on Saturday and return it empty. No fun being next to the Bern.

#2.2 DMW on 2016-03-04 08:26 (Reply)

Nah, he'd want you to come over and mow his lawn - for free - because you have the lawn mower and it should belong to the community, but you also know how to work it so you should do the labor.

#2.2.1 Vince on 2016-03-04 14:05 (Reply)

Wow, I was going to say the same thing about Sanders - he seems like the kind of guy that every morning you'd find a note on your car windshield politely pointing out "I didn't want to say anything, but...." your grass is a half inch too long, you're not supposed to leave your garage door open overnight, you left your trash can out by the curb ten minutes longer than the rules say, your kid left his bike laying out by the sidewalk where somebody could have tripped over it, just a nightmare of a neighbor. Carson would be interesting to talk to, Kasich seems like the sort of guy who would be quick to say "well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that" and change the subject to find something we can agree on, an affable enough kind of guy but kind of boring. The rest of them? Meh, just a neighbor I'd try to avoid talking to. Trump would make it his business to make sure your attempts to avoid him fail, just because he knows you find him annoying and he thinks it's fun to annoy you. Hillary, I'd sell my house and move - not that she would ever deign to live in any sort of neighborhood that allowed the likes of me.

#2.3 Jerryskids on 2016-03-04 08:28 (Reply)

Trump as a neighbor would, most likely, be trying to use the government to get your property for himself. E.G.; using eminent domain to expand his driveway.

#2.3.1 charles on 2016-03-04 09:23 (Reply)

NJSoldier: No way would I want Sanders near me - seems like the kind of guy who would call the town on people with Christmas lights or a trailer in the driveway.

Sanders did very well with his hometown crowd (86%), so you may have missed the mark on his neighborliness.

#2.4 Zachriel on 2016-03-04 10:50 (Reply)

They are his kind of people, as he is theirs. Many places are different. He's not MY kind of people.

#2.4.1 Sam L. on 2016-03-04 11:30 (Reply)

"Do neocons want more US war in the middle east? Then Hillary! is their gal."

The problem with neocons is they apparently wanted just war and were caught completely off guard when the military handed them a victory in just a couple weeks. Then they held meetings while the opposition in Iraq coalesced.

#3 JK Brown on 2016-03-04 09:50 (Reply)

JK Brown: The problem with neocons is they apparently wanted just war and were caught completely off guard when the military handed them a victory in just a couple weeks. Then they held meetings while the opposition in Iraq coalesced.

They were ideologues. They thought that they just had to remove Saddam for democracy to flourish. However, democracy is built from the ground-up, not from the top-down. The results for Iraq and the region have been devastating.

#3.1 Zachriel on 2016-03-04 10:53 (Reply)

"The results for Iraq and the region have been devastating."

Or would have been had Saddam not already devastated the place through his own megalomaniac folies de grandeur .

#3.1.1 JJM on 2016-03-04 12:12 (Reply)

JJM: Or would have been had Saddam not already devastated the place through his own megalomaniac folies de grandeur.

The U.S. provided aid to Saddam during his ill-considered invasion of Iran, including the sale of helicopters capable of delivering chemical weapons. The war was devastating for both sides. Some people never catch a break.

#3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-03-04 12:24 (Reply)

"provided aid"

What the U.S. provided Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war was satellite data. To say the U.S. provided "helicopters capable of delivering chemical weapons" is to intentionally damn the U.S. while knowing your statement is inaccurate. Saddam also bought large chippers, the kind used to turn tree limbs into chips. Saddam used these to torture and kill his enemies. Using your slanted left wing thought process you could say the U.S. provided Saddam weapons of torture. Whatever helicopters Saddam purchased were not restricted (or they could not have been sold to him) and how ever he choose to use them was not their intended or stated use when purchased. But it wouldn't serve the same nefarious purpose for you to say he bought small commercial helicopters and repurposed them to deliver his WMDs. Saddam got 99.99% of his conventional weapons from China, France and Russia.

This is the problem I have with all your posts. You are decidedly left wing and neither honest nor honorable (sorry for the redundancy).

#3.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-03-04 15:20 (Reply)

Sure. The U.S. sold Saddam commercial helicopters capable of delivering chemicals during a war with Iran that Iran was poised to win, then just happened to provide Saddam with the satellite intelligence used for directing those chemical attacks. Sure.

It's typical. The U.S. keeps secrets, but the only ones fooled are the American public.

#3.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-03-04 21:09 (Reply)

Using your logic it would seem that it is Japan who is the largest arms dealer. After all every dictator, revolutionary, terrorist and bad guy mounts a .50 cal on a Toyota pickup to kill and destroy. So I think you are onto something, maybe we should bomb Toyota plants. Do you suppose the Japanese did this intentionally???

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-03-05 15:53 (Reply)

He is simply being disingenuous. Saddam's arms brokers were overwhelmingly the Soviet Union, China and France.

#3.1.1.1.1.2 JJM on 2016-03-05 10:47 (Reply)

So? That other countries piled on with the complicity of the Americans doesn't make it any better. Nor does it mean the U.S. didn't provide helicopters and satellite intelligence for chemical attacks.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-03-05 12:02 (Reply)

OK, simple question. Be honest and don't avoid the question. Do you think the U.S. knew Saddam was going to use chemical weapons when they provided Saddam with the satellite data??

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-03-05 15:56 (Reply)

CIA records show that the U.S. was aware of Iraqi use of chemical weapons for years, but provided them satellite intelligence anyway. It led to thousands of Iranian battlefield deaths from chemical weapons.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-03-05 21:43 (Reply)

Again, honest question, not just arguing:

CIA almost never gives up their information to the public and those who get CIA briefings do not have the authority to release what the CIA has told them (except perhaps Hillary). So how do we know that the CIA knew Saddam had chemical weapons? It is not uncommon for the opposition to claim that the CIA knew something to give them creds or to blame the U.S. for something they didn't do. So do you have any proof that the CIA knew about Saddams ability to use chemical weapons at that time and proof that the CIA released this publicly?

I might add that "what the CIA knew" has a different meaning if you both believe that the CIA knew back in 1980 that Saddam had chemical weapons AND don't believe that the CIA knew in 2001 that Saddam had WMDs. It would seem to be willful blindness or something.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-03-06 10:41 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: CIA almost never gives up their information to the public and those who get CIA briefings do not have the authority to release what the CIA has told them (except perhaps Hillary). So how do we know that the CIA knew Saddam had chemical weapons?

Because the CIA has to declassify documents after a period of time under the Freedom of Information Act.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

Keep in mind that this wasn't to keep U.S. actions from the Iranians. They already knew about Iraq's WMD from first-hand experience. It was to keep it from the American public.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-03-06 11:44 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: I might add that "what the CIA knew" has a different meaning if you both believe that the CIA knew back in 1980 that Saddam had chemical weapons AND don't believe that the CIA knew in 2001 that Saddam had WMDs. It would seem to be willful blindness or something.

Not at all. Saddam admitted to having WMD, which he had deployed during the Iran-Iraq War. After the Gulf War, he disbanded his WMD programs per the agreement.

As for the CIA in 2001, the intelligence was cooked. That is, the Bush Administration only wanted the results that they wanted, and ignored evidence which undermined their preconceptions. This involved not just WMD, but lack of understanding of the the sectarian divisions in Iraq, and what would be required for a successful occupation.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-03-06 11:48 (Reply)

I have to say that I think it is probably the truth that the CIA knew Saddam had chemical weapons.

I do disagree with one thing you stated: "Because the CIA has to declassify documents after a period of time under the Freedom of Information Act."

They do not. They get to decide what remains classified and it could stay classified for the next 1000 years if they want it to. That the government does regularly declassify things I won't disagree with but to say they have to is simply incorrect.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-03-06 17:52 (Reply)

Beating a dead horse.

Hillary and the Espionage Act of 1917

“While the spies of yesteryear were motivated by ideology, the thoroughly modern Clintons are totally commercial. How quickly we forget the trading of US weapons designs to ChiCom bundlers of campaign cash, and the DOJ investigations terminated before further treason was exposed. Do not imagine for a second that the home brew server was merely a FOIA foil and not a blame free method of transferring state secrets to our nation’s enemies for cash paid into the Clinton Global Initiative.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/03/hillary_and_the_espionage_act_of_1917.html

#4 feeblemind on 2016-03-04 10:12 (Reply)

Re opioid medication not available to 5 billion people: Sorry 'bout that. A TV ad touts an anti-opioid constipation med, so when the 5 billion get access to opioids, maybe they can then try to ease constipation as well.

#5 SgtBob (Link) on 2016-03-04 10:38 (Reply)

Hillary get out of jail free plan:
1. FBI investigates "Aides and underlings"
2. Hillary says she can't type, so she gave her top secret password to "trusted" underlings.
3. Underlings are indicted to keep non-political FBI staff (who have stuff on most politicians to release if they are unhappy - see Deep Throat.
4. Hillary promises to put Obama on Supreme court or head of the UN.
5. Obama pardons the underlings for their public service (just like Clinton pardoned Marc Rich and other buddies).
6. Obama works hard to elect Hillary.
7. News media praise Hillary underlings for their unstinting public service, and go all out to elect Hillary!!!

#6 jaybird on 2016-03-04 13:19 (Reply)

That is certainly a possible scenario.
Here's another:

The Democratic Party establishment realizes that Hillary is never going to be a sympathetic candidate and that Trump's campaign style will play particularly well with the public if she is his foil.
The Dems decide they don't like the risk of losing the white house with HRC as the candidate; but they know Bernie isn't going to save them either.
They keep the brakes on the email investigation, so that it sputters along, but they don't kill it completely. Hillary isn't hurt enough to suffer much in the polls because there are some who will ignore any fact once you utter the magic words "right-wing conspiracy."
Once Hillary's campaign has driven the final nail in the Bern's electoral coffin, The Democratic establishment will ratchet up the pace of the email investigation.
The investigation sweeps the legs out from under most of the remaining public sympathy for Hillary. There are plenty of people who will still vote for her, because they're voting with their tribe, but nearly no one trusts her and only a few like her.
The investigation also cripples her support among establishment insiders. Leaks make it clear that she's a day-to-day risk for a federal indictment, and no one is happy about investing in someone who can be smelled coming down the hall.
From time to time, a superdelegate who has pledged to her will suddenly let slip that they're now "uncommitted" and that they'll wait until the convention to decide who to nominate.
In the meantime, Trump is savaging her a dozen times a day to great effect. The body politic just doesn't like her enough to be offended by his attacks. He starts to smell victory and it convinces him to double down on the strategy of mockery, sneering and bombast.
Trump's attacks are working and her campaign is beginning to founder. Bill can't do much to help, because Trump's just attacks him, too (and these attacks are almost as effective). Other republicans increasingly mimic his tone, thinking that he's going to have some coattails they can ride on.
Just before she's able to officially lock in the nomination, leaks out of the FBI and DOJ become even more ominous for Hillary.
Despite increasing calls for him to enter the race, Biden stays mostly silent. He doesn't say no, but he consistently downplays the idea.
During the Convention, the delegates revolt against Hillary. She completely melts down, erasing any remaining support she may have had. Hints are made that Biden will get the nod.
Before the offer can be made, Biden announces that he will not accept the nomination. He's flattered by the support, but he'd already made up his mind to retire and that's still the right decision for him and his family. For a brief moment, the Dems have no favored nominee.
At the peak moment of drama, and having set the stage perfectly, the party elders announce that Elizabeth Warren will step in and help the party out of it's predicament.
Coming out of the convention, Warren-for-President plays like a breath of fresh air. Compared to Hillary, she looks squeaky clean. She doesn't have Hillary's warmongering track record. She's seen as a foe of Wall Street, instead of being their bought-and-paid-for shill. And her husband isn't a potential minefield of past indiscretions. Compared to Bernie, she's reliably and solidly progressive without the stigma of being the crazy poster-uncle for the party's most embarrassing fringe. The Dems are energized.
Trump, still amped up from months of curb-stomping the Clintons to wide acclaim, goes with what works and opens up on Warren. This blows up in his face because the same spectators who brought popcorn to watch him pummel Hillary see him attack Warren and want to know why he's picking on that nice lady. Trump doesn't take this reversal well and, as is his wont, doubles down.
At the same time, Warren plays it straight. In the public's eyes, she (aided and abetted by the media) comes across as careful, considerate, reasonable and fair. She is also pretty successful at selling the image that she is genuinely concerned about the well-being of everyday Americans; and that she's willing - anxious even - to take on the powers that be to do it. Compared to everyone else in view, she comes across as the only sane, well-adjusted, responsible person on the stage. She's the Mary Poppins of current politics -- the only true adult in the whole play.
Once upon a time, The Donald looked like the only guy willing to tell the powers that be that Americans aren't going to take it any more. Now, many of his one-time supporters see him as the nastiest of school-yard bullies; picking on innocents, towing a tantrum whenever he's caught, and always getting away with unspeakably bad behavior. No one liked those kids and no one likes him. His campaign craters.
It's still weeks (perhaps many weeks) until the general election, but with the embers of Trump's campaign dying in the grate, the complete implosion of the Republican party (that everyone was working so hard to pretend wasn't inevitable) plays out in technicolor. The infighting, blame and backstabbing that followed Romney's loss in 2012 returns 1000-fold. Because it's happening before the elections this time, it begins to foreshadow really bad things for down-ticket republican candidates all over the country.
All the while, Warren is hard at work stitching coattails onto her coattails in order to pack as many election-night wins as possible into the void left by GOP's collapse.
Once the November bloodbath is over, republicans will be stuck with the sorry reality that any hope they may have had of rolling back the Obama administration's relentless statism is permanently dead. Warren's presidency will mean more of the same and with even less opposition.

At that point, an indictment of Hillary (if indeed one ever materializes) will be the most meaningless consolation prize ever.

#6.1 Thos. on 2016-03-04 16:40 (Reply)

Nicely done! Plus, Warren presumably has a vagina, and will get the fake native american vote, because she built her career on falsely self-identifying as an indian. (I myself can trace my own heritage as out of Africa 50,000 years ago, but have not wanted to take unfair advantage of this privileged fact)

#6.1.1 jaybird on 2016-03-05 11:06 (Reply)

Any Republican that would vote for a Marxist rather than someone who is no less conservative than an old-fashioned JFK Democrat is not---repeat, NOT---a conservative.

#7 ahme on 2016-03-04 14:16 (Reply)

"Teaching economics to the sixth grade"

A yutes, they like it when someone tells them what to do, they like certainty. That, of course, structure is the basis of a calm childhood. That is why suburbia is so sedate and predictable, it's for kids. But it also is a construct set apart from the real struggles of life.

On the other hand, uncertainty is the basis of all life. Life and death, today, tomorrow or in 70 years. The ups and downs of trading to determine the best use of scarce resources.

It could be said, regardless of the credentials to your name, you do not know a topic, nor are you fully an adult, until you can face the uncertainty of life. Academic training ends at the dark abyss where the next step is uncertain and the researcher/thinker must tread solely by dead reckoning. Adult life is grasping the wild, unexplored country that is unique to you and carving out an increasingly secure base from which to continue your explorations. And regardless of their proclaimed certainty, no one can ever know the best allocation of scarce resources, but millions of individual choices that are the summation that make the market creates the best and most responsive information.

BTW, I'm just finishing up Thomas Sowell's 'Basic Economics'. Very readable and except for a dreary chapter on GDP and such, engaging. You won't be exposed to econometrics, but you will be exposed to the elements necessary to think economically rather than thinking about economics. Highly recommended and don't be intimidated by the books thickness.

#8 JK Brown on 2016-03-04 15:14 (Reply)

A song about Islam, sung to The Sounds of Silence.

Pretty much true, I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1RieIRFqN0&feature=youtu.be

#9 feeblemind on 2016-03-04 16:52 (Reply)

Hillary Pushing Racial Warfare: White Are Too Rich And Blacks Too Poor So We Need More Wealth Redistribution……

And she will be glad to tell you this while charging listeners $200,000 for a speech.

#10 Gringo on 2016-03-04 23:50 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, March 4. 2016

Friday morning links