The Ideal Public Transportation System

What would the ideal public transportation system look like?

Imagine a city where you would use an app to summon a robot-driven car. If you summon it in advance for a specific time, it will arrive at that time. When it drops you off, you can schedule a pickup time for when you need to return. If you need an unplanned ride, you can get one within a certain amount of time, say 15-30 minutes depending on the time of day.

This may sound like an inconvenience, until you consider the vehicles will be publicly owned and operated, which will mean the cost of repairs, insurance and any other vehicle costs will be public. You will only have to pay a small fee per ride, which will limit frivolous use of the public vehicles. If the fee is high enough, the system could pay for itself.

Other advantages include the ability to maintain a traffic logistics system, whereby all traffic can move at the same speeds on every road. With computer oversight, it would be possible to increase traffic speeds to clear out traffic in some areas, unlike today where traffic only moves as fast as the slowest vehicle. Consider: Stop lights and signs would be unnecessary, with a computer system to oversee how traffic moves.

Unlike trains or buses, this system allows freedom of movement within the designated city area, covering a much larger area than just "specific routes".

Naturally, there are limitations. You could only set up such a system within one city. Perhaps it might be feasible to build a whole country of roads like this, but we aren't there yet.

There will need to be a hard firewall between the app system to summon the cars, and the city traffic controller system. Otherwise, you risk allowing hackers to get in and screw up traffic for the entire town.

Bulk transport (i.e. currently done by 18-wheelers and large trucks today) will need to be limited to off-hours. In addition, only special robot-driven bulk transport trucks will be allowed in the city, so they will need to be loaded at the edge of the city, and then unloaded at receiving stations inside the city. Zoning for manufacturing will be limited to the edges of the city to allow for ease of transport outside the city, while still allowing for transport inside the city.

Feel free to do with this idea what you will.

Wednesday Wisdom: William Saroyan

"Whoever the kid had been, whoever had the grand attitude, has finally heeded the admonishment of parents, teachers, governments, religions, and the law: "You just change your attitude now please, young man." This transformation in kids — from flashing dragonflies, so to say, to sticky water-surface worms slowly slipping downstream — is noticed with pride by society and with mortification by God, which is a fantastic way of saying I don't like to see kids throw away their truth just because it isn't worth a dime in the open market."--William Saroyan

When discussing race, does race matter?

Former NFL player Rodney Harrison stepped in it Tuesday. From ABC:

In an interview with iHeartRadio, Harrison said Tuesday that [San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin] Kaepernick has the right to stand for what he believes, but he "has to understand there might be consequences and might be backlash to what he's saying."

"I tell you this, I'm a black man. And Colin Kaepernick -- he's not black," Harrison said. "He cannot understand what I face and what other young black men and black people face, or people of color face, on an every single [day] basis. When you walk in a grocery store, and you might have $2,000 or $3,000 in your pocket and you go up into a Foot Locker and they're looking at you like you about to steal something.

"You know, I don't think he faces those type of things that we face on a daily basis."

Kaepernick, the biological child of a white mother and black father, was adopted and raised by white parents. He has been outspoken on his Twitter account on civil rights issues and in support of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Harrison took to Twitter later Tuesday to apologize for the remarks, saying he "never even knew [Kaepernick] was mixed."

Regardless, wasn't this a discussion about equality? Notice how Harrison was quick to exclude Kaepernick from the discussion when he thought Kaepernick was white. When he discovered the truth, Harrison then gave Kaepernick a reluctant and derogatory "mixed" pass.

I have bad news for Harrison and any other black people who think like him: If you want "equality" with whites and all other races, we have to be a part of the discussion. Excluding us because we are white and can't possibly understand the black experience completely disrespects our EQUAL integrity as human beings.

Equality isn't just about the end results, but also the process to reach those results. No side gets to decide and/or run the process alone. Equality is a shared endeavor. Excluding people from it due to the color of their skin is rather...racist.

Homeland Election Takeover: Today's news for August 31, 2016

Washington Examiner:

Homeland eyes special declaration to take charge of elections

Even before the FBI identified new cyber attacks on two separate state election boards, the Department of Homeland Security began considering declaring the election a "critical infrastructure," giving it the same control over security it has over Wall Street and...the electric power grid. 

The latest admissions of attacks could speed up that effort possibly including the upcoming presidential election, according to officials.

At the risk of going conspiracy theory on you, if you were a president trying to stay in power, or make sure your party remains in power through an election, what would you do?

This sounds suspiciously like it. It is below the radar so most people will ignore it, yet it is powerful enough to allow you control of the election results.

That is if someone were so inclined to do something like this. Naturally, we can trust President Obama with this, just like we did when he said, "If you like your health insurance, you can  keep it!"

Maybe that's a bad example. How about we can trust him to faithfully execute the laws of the United States? Oops, I forgot about Hillary getting off without a slap on the wrist.

Ok, so maybe this isn't such a good idea.

Speaking of crooks in government...

Reuters:

New Jersey Governor Christie vetoes minimum wage hike to $15/hr

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on Tuesday vetoed a bill to raise the state's minimum wage to $15 per hour over the next five years.

The legislation would have made New Jersey the third state to adopt a $15 per hour minimum wage, Christie said in a statement.

State voters agreed to a previous wage hike in 2013, to $8.25 from $7.25. New Jersey's rate is tied to the consumer price index and is now at $8.38, according to a database from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

"Despite having a constitutional mandate in place, the legislature now wants to increase the minimum wage by almost 80 percent just three years later," Christie said in a statement about his veto.

...Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto, lead sponsor of the bill, said in a statement the wage increase is a key component to Democrats' strategy to combat poverty. 

"A substantial minimum wage increase will help lift countless families out of poverty, decrease government dependency and boost commerce by pumping more dollars back into the economy," he said.

Nowhere in this does anyone ask what is the median wage in New Jersey? Until that figure is sufficiently above $15/hour, raising your minimum wage that high is dangerously stupid. I have discussed this before.

Moving on to another state...

CBS Detroit:

Warren To Ticket Residents Over Mosquitoes, Standing Water Ahead Of Yellow Fever Threat

Is there anything more entertaining than watching politicians responding in advance to a non-existent threat?

West Nile is dangerous but one local mayor says Yellow Fever is worse, and he’s getting ready for a possible outbreak. 

Warren Mayor Jim Fouts isn’t taking any chances. He’s cautioning residents to look out for mosquitoes like their lives depend on it. 

“I’m worried about Zika, I’m worried about West Nile, I’m worried about Chikungunya and I think we have to begin to look at the potential for Yellow Fever sweeping the United States within the next year or two,” Fouts told WWJ’s Charlie Langton. “Yellow Fever is even more serious — 20 to 50 percent of the people who contract Yellow Fever die.” 

Fouts was quick to point out that nobody in Warren currently has Yellow Fever, but he wants to be ready if an outbreak does happen 

“Many years ago when I was on the city council, we didn’t have West Nile and then we got it,” he said. “And if you remember, Warren was one of the top cities in Michigan to have several fatalities from West Nile.”

So what's the solution, Sheriff Brody?


No, not THAT solution! This one:

So, the city is taking a proactive approach, Fouts said, issuing tickets to those who could be harboring the disease-spreading mosquitoes on their properties. 

“We have zero tolerance for anyone with a swimming pool or large water area with standing water. We are going to issue major ticket violations,” he said. “We are going to treat this as a potential epidemic.”

Maybe the bigger boat was a better idea?

"Voting Hillary" for Dummies

There is a reason blogging has a lowbrow reputation, and it is mainly because of the poor thought process behind some blog posts. Today's example is from a blog called "The Contrarian Blogger", who can't be much of a contrarian if he is voting for Hillary Clinton.

In a post entitled, "The Moron’s Case For Hillary Clinton…because some of you really are that stupid." On the bright side, the author is correct about his readership being stupid. But I digress...

In this post, he provides a list of Hillary's accomplishments, which is just too precious to avoid comment (my comments are in italics):

• First ever student commencement speaker at Wellesley College. Obama was elected for his speaking abilities too. That was a mistake.
• Distinguished graduate of Yale Law School. Another Ivy League lawyer? Ted Kaczynski was an Ivy League graduate too.
• Editorial board of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action. Edgar Allan Poe could write too, but he would make an awful president.
• Co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. Another community organizer? Didn't we get enough of that over the past 8 years?
• Former civil litigation attorney. She also got a child rapist off on a technicality.
• Staff attorney for Children’s Defense Fund. See last comment.
• Faculty member in the School of Law at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Ted Kaczynski was a college professor after he graduated too.
• Former Director of the Arkansas Legal Aid Clinic. She might not have even gone to Arkansas if she hadn't failed the D.C. bar exam.
• First female chair of the Legal Services Corporation. She was appointed by President Jimmy Carter. 'Nuff said.
• First female partner at Rose Law Firm, the oldest and one of the largest law firms in Arkansas. Whitewater! Cattle futures! Fun times!
• Twice named by The National Law Journal as one of the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America. Translation: "Influential lawyer" means "sold soul to Devil, who is waiting to collect".
• Former First Lady of Arkansas. She married well!
• Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983. Being First Lady has its perks.
• Chair of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession. Don't forget she's a lawyer!
• Created Arkansas’s Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth. I bet she did this all by herself, without any help from staff at all...NOT! Remember, this is the same woman who got a child rapist off on a technicality, and then laughed about it afterwards.
• Instrumental in passage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Because we have to give welfare to the little people so we can stay in power.
• First Lady of the United States. She married well, redux!
• Promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses. I've advocated for things too. Where's my credit?
• Successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health. Isn't it fun to tell the government how to spend money, since none if it is ours anyway?
• Worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War (now recognized as Gulf War Syndrome). What is "worked to investigate reports"? Mind you, it doesn't mean she actually did any of the actual "work". My money is on staff doing it. "Huma, come in here a minute..."
• Helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice. About time she did some penance for enabling her rapist husband.
• Initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act. As FLOTUS, she got a bill through Congress which takes children away from their natural parents when they have been in foster care for 15 out of the last 22 months. Why that particular length of time? It was a decision negotiated by politicians. In other words, it was arbitrary.
• First FLOTUS in US History to hold a postgraduate degree. She graduated from law school AND married well!
• Helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries. Community organizing, on an international scale!
• Two-term New York Senator and the first ex-FLOTUS in US History to be elected to the United States Senate. She married well, then used her name recognition to get elected to the Senate. Brilliant! 
• Served on five Senate committees: Budget (2001–2002), Armed Services (2003–2009), Environment and Public Works (2001–2009), Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2001–2009) and the Special Committee on Aging. While in the Senate, she did things senators do.
• Member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Because we all know how insecure and uncooperative Europeans are...
• Leading role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders. After her husband ignored the Al Qaeda issue for 8 years and left the problem to the Bush administration.
• Worked with Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York on securing $21.4 billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment. Because the private sector would never have constructed a skyscraper on New York City prime real estate.
• Former United States Secretary of State. Where she broke the law and used a private and unsecure email server, allowing hackers to access her classified communications.
• Brokered a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas in 2012. Which both sides later violated.

While I kid her, she has done some good things. But there are many people in this country who have done good things, and that doesn't make them qualified for the presidency. All politicians have laundry lists like the one above, but that doesn't qualify them for higher office. Especially when every good thing in that list above does not outweigh her Nixonian behavior, which is conveniently overlooked.

RIP Gene Wilder: Today's news for August 30, 2016

CNN:

Gene Wilder, star of 'Willy Wonka,' dead at 83

Gene Wilder, who brought a wild-eyed desperation to a series of memorable and iconic comedy roles in the 1970s and 1980s, has died, his lawyer, Eric Weissmann, said. 

He was 83. 

...Wilder died due to complications from Alzheimer's disease, which he struggled with for three years...

The death of Gene Wilder forces a reflection on what makes a great comic actor. The obvious answer is "be funny". While Wilder was funny on his own, what made him great was the ability to make the people around him funnier. When a scene called for someone else to deliver the punchline, Wilder could add to it, making a funny line even more hilarious.

A few examples, from Young Frankenstein:







Even though Young Frankenstein was a satire of the old Frankenstein movies, it stands up as its own story, transcending the satire label. I would rank it among the top 5 comedies of all-time.

In other news...

The Atlantic:

Could More NFL Players Join Colin Kaepernick's Protest?

Before I begin this story, I should explain I quit watching football three years ago, when I got rid of my satellite dish. While I could still happily sit down and watch a game, I haven't missed it. So when I heard about Colin Kaepernick's protest, I shrugged.

Here is the story:

San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for the national anthem before games as a protest against recent high-profile incidents of police brutality and racial injustice have been met with criticism and protests, but is an important step for a league where professional athletes rarely speak out on such issues.

So now some other overpaid and pampered football players are going to protest too. The problem with this is football players live their entire lives in a football bubble. By the time they reach college, they are nearly immune from the law, much like our politicians (i.e. Hillary Clinton). Basically, people who live without consequences for their actions are going to lecture the rest of us about what is wrong with this country?

My response to Mr. Kaepernick and his hypocritical buddies: Step out into the real world boys! When we get stopped by cops, we don't get to drop our own names and ride off. We get tickets, and sometimes much worse.

Don't lecture us about how bad this country is that pays you 7 and 8 figure salaries to play a game, while the rest of us work like slaves in dead-end jobs, if we are lucky enough to have jobs. Note those large salaries paid to football players go to a lot of black people too. In fact, the majority of players in the NFL are black. You don't even live in a world of racial injustice.

Finally, if you are going to make a protest over police brutality, be prepared to talk specifics. I have looked at these cases thoroughly, and except for two of them, most are either justified or borderline enough to give the police the benefit of the doubt.

Rant over.

UPDATE 9:00 am EST: David Harsanyi has a great take on this story over at the Federalist.

CNN:

Hear me now? 'Strong signal' from sun-like star sparks alien speculation   

I love astronomy news, and it doesn't get much bigger than this:

Astronomers engaged in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) are training their instruments on a star around 94 light years from Earth after a very strong signal was detected by a Russian telescope.

An international team of researchers is now examining the radio signal and its star, HD 164595 -- described in a paper by Italian astronomer Claudio Maccone and others as a "strong candidate for SETI" -- in the hopes of determining its origin.

"The signal from HD 164595 is intriguing, because it comes from the vicinity of a sun-like star, and if it's artificial, its strength is great enough that it was clearly made by a civilization with capabilities beyond those of humankind," astronomer Douglas Vakoch, president of METI International, which searches for life beyond Earth, tells CNN.

But here is the neat takeaway from this story:

Paul Gilster of the Tau Zero Foundation, which conducts interstellar research, said that if the signal was artificial, its strength suggested it would have to come from a civilization more advanced than our own. 

Such a civilization would likely be Type II on the Kardashev scale, an attempt by the Soviet astronomer of the same name to categorize various technological stages of civilizations. 

"The Kardashev scale is based basically on the energy that that civilization might be able to funnel for its own use," says Maccone. 

At present, our own species is somewhere near Type I on the scale, whereby a civilization is able to harness all the energy available to it on its own planet, including solar, wind, earthquakes, and other fuels. 

 A Type II civilization would be able to harness the entirety of the energy emitted by its star, billions of billions of watts.

Doing so would require a colossal undertaking, likely the construction of some kind of superstructure, such as a giant sphere or swarm of super-advanced solar panels popularized by astronomer Freeman Dyson that could catch and store all radiation put out by the sun.

So what is beyond Type II? According to Wikipedia:

A Type III civilization can control energy on the scale of their entire host galaxy.

I love days when I learn something new.

Trump and Racism

Disclaimer: I will not be voting for Trump, because I consider him incapable of being a successful president. His main qualification for the presidency, his alleged business acumen, is a sham. He has more failed business ideas than Ralph Kramden. Trump's only skill is marketing himself, hence his success in politics so far. Finally, his political views seem to shift quickly and often, so it is difficult to say what he believes in, if anything.

With that disclaimer out of the way, now we must face an unpleasant truth: Hillary Clinton and the progressive/socialist Media are about to get him elected president, because they are ignoring the 800 pound cultural gorilla in the room: Racism.

But they keep accusing him of racism? How are they missing it?

The problem is in the classic Shakespearean line: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Or if you prefer, it is in the boy who cried wolf. The Left's favorite accusation for everything is racism. If you simply disagree with a darker-skinned Leftist, you will inevitably be called a racist, especially when they have no other defense.

This has created a dog whistle for conservatives and moderates and independents. When they hear a Leftist call something racist, it probably isn't racist, and it might even be a good idea. Take the Michael Brown shooting. As protested as it was, it was clearly a justified shooting. If a white guy reaches into a cop's SUV, he will get shot too.

Mind you, I am not saying all police shootings aren't racially motivated, but the ones that get thrown in our faces tend not to be racially motivated. And God forbid we should correct a black person who holds up Michael Brown's death as an example of racism.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention Trayvon Martin's shooting, which is a textbook example of  two a-holes looking for trouble, and finding each other. The only problem is the black a-hole ended up dead, so this somehow proves racism is alive and well. If George Zimmerman was black, this would have been an ignored statistic, since black-on-black crime is ignored because it doesn't prove racism exists.

Let's not forget the immigration problem. To point out there are literally tens of millions of Mexicans and other hispanics in this country illegally is racist, even though many of them are as caucasian as the majority of Americans. Since when did "pointing out a criminal" come to equal "racist"?

Racism is used as a discussion ender for Leftists, so they don't have to defend their ideas or actions. This has reached the point where the rest of the country has learned what they are doing. So when we see/hear Leftists crying racism, we immediately stop and reconsider the person/idea being accused of racism, because we know the Left has run out of arguments against the person/idea.

This is what is happening to Trump now.

While racism is a valid charge, is it the most important one? In this case, if a person is openly and actively racist, then yes, a case can be made against that person's qualifications. If they aren't, then the charge is speculation at best. If your case isn't air-tight, then the charge of racism, which is very serious, should not be made. In my opinion, the Left's case against Trump is speculative.

And this is where we have our problem. If the Left throws the racism charge at Trump too hard and too often, it actually makes him look sympathetic to many Americans. When they consider all the other times the Left has done this (i.e. the Duke lacross scandal), the average American looks at Trump and reconsiders him. If the Left is using the racism label on him, maybe he is right?

There are plenty of good issues to attack Trump. Even if he is a racist, he has much bigger problems as a candidate. The Left needs to save the racism charge for where it needs to be used. Their indiscriminate use of the racism charge is turning it into a dog whistle meaning "another bone-headed Leftist idea".

Democrats! Today's news for August 29, 2016

Today's news has the many flaws of Democratic Party politicians in all their infamy. 

New York Post:

Anthony Weiner sexted busty brunette while his son was in bed with him

This is baby-sitting — Anthony Weiner-style. 

While his wife, Huma Abedin, travels the country campaigning for Hillary Clinton, the disgraced ex-congressman has been sexting with a busty brunette out West — and even sent her a lurid crotch shot with his toddler son in the picture, The Post has learned. 

The stay-at-home cad shot the revealing photo while discussing massage parlors “near my old apartment” shortly after 3 a.m. on July 31, 2015, a screen shot of the exchange shows.

Suffice it to say, the details of the story are inappropriate, especially considering he is married. But this wouldn't even be a story except for the fact he is married to Hillary Clinton's top aide.

Speaking of Hillary...

Washington Post:

Hillary Clinton had the chance to make gay rights history. She refused.

During her first run for president in 2008, Hillary Clinton had an opportunity to become an undisputed leader in the gay rights movement. 

As she prepared for a forum on the gay-oriented Logo network, she reached out to her friend Hilary Rosen, a political consultant who is a lesbian. Rosen expressed frustration that so many mainstream political figures opposed legalized same-sex marriage, and she challenged Clinton to speak out for a community that had strongly supported her. 

Clinton refused. 

“I’m struggling with how we can support this with a religious and family context,’’ Rosen recalled Clinton telling her. Clinton just wanted to know the best way to explain the position.

...Clinton eventually got where her friends wanted her to go, though her change of heart came when the political risk had disappeared — close to a year after similar shifts by President Obama and Vice President Biden. 

Mind you, this is a flaw shared by most politicians everywhere. They are unable to take a principled stand by themselves. Unfortunately, this is a bad quality in a "leader".

Speaking of empty pantsuits...

Wall Street Journal:

An Internet Giveaway to the U.N.

Long story short: Icann, the organization which controls the Internet, will no longer have its monopoly status when the U.S. government gives up control of the Internet. As the article points out:

Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption. Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally. So much for the Obama pledge that the U.S. would never be replaced by a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”

Oops.

But we still have Obamacare, right?

Wall Street Journal:

Health Insurers’ Pullback Threatens to Create Monopolies

The new study, by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, suggests there could be just one option for coverage in 31% of counties in 2017, and there might be only two in another 31%. That would give exchange customers in large swaths of the U.S. far less choice than they had this year, when 7% of counties had one insurer and 29% had two. 

...At least one county—Pinal in Arizona—is at risk of having no insurers offering marketplace plans next year, despite talks between regulators and insurers aimed at filling the void.

Heck, even under Obamacare, you can't keep your coverage if you like it!

Speaking of government healthcare...

Activist Post:

Harvard Study Finally Admits 

Drug Prices Are High Because Govt Grants Big Pharma A Monopoly

In what can only be described as paradigm-shattering research on drug prices, the Journal of the American Medical Association has officially recognized why drug prices skyrocket in America. Big pharma is granted a monopoly by the State which effectively eliminates their competition and allows them to charge any price they want — so they do.

The new paper, published on August 23,  “The High Cost of Prescription Drugs in the United States: Origins and Prospects for Reform,” set out to  “review the origins and effects of high drug prices in the US market and to consider policy options that could contain the cost of prescription drugs.”

What the paper’s authors, Harvard Medical School doctors Aaron Kesselheim and Jerry Avorn, and jurist Ameet Sarpatwari, found and subsequently admitted, shatters the very assertion that government regulation in the market is needed to keep medical care costs low. In fact, their findings were quite to the contrary.

According to the paper:

The most important factor that allows manufacturers to set high drug prices is market exclusivity, protected by monopoly rights awarded upon Food and Drug Administration approval and by patents.

Imagine that. So basically all the efforts that the Bush and Obama administrations put into "fixing" the costs were actually caused by the government in the first place? Naturally, the FDA is still chugging along as before, untouched by anything our bumbling politicians have tried.

But don't expect the Democrats to ever fix this. They believe government can do no wrong. Will Rogers said it best: "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat."

The accomplishments of our presidential candidates

In a National Post editorial, Rex Murphy sums up Hillary Clinton's rise perfectly:

There are some who see the prospect of Hillary Clinton winning the U.S. presidency as a milestone for modern feminism and women in general. Yet Clinton’s decades-long march to the White House owes much of its success to her rapscallion, silver-tongued husband, Bill Clinton. She did not storm the citadel of male power and privilege from the outside; she was escorted in under the banner of one of its most flamboyant high achievers. She came into politics by the back door of her mate’s male prowess. She may be the first female presidential nominee for a major party, but it’s hard to say she shattered glass ceilings. She has always had Bill’s key to the penthouse.

Bill Clinton was everywhere before her — always in front, opening every door, setting up the machinery for her advance and enabling her to reach a standing that she could never have achieved without him. The Hillary Clinton story is, in this case, A Handmaid’s Tale.

The true feminist icons were not enabled by men — they rose to the top on their merits and prowess alone. Consider the example of Golda Meir, who was elected prime minister of Israel nearly 50 years ago — before the advances of progressive thinking, before the societal push to get more women into public life. Meir was a pioneer, at a time when female heads of government were virtually unheard of.

On the other hand, Donald Trump is given far too much credit for his wealth, which he inherited from his father, Fred Trump. If Donald has any self-made virtue, it is as a shill for himself.

Ironically, both of the third party candidates, Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party's Jill Stein, were self-made. Before entering politics, Johnson started his own mechanical contracting business and grew it into a multi-million dollar success story. As for Stein, she was a practicing physician for two decades before entering politics.

For personal accomplishments, the presidential choice is pretty clear: We have the silver spoon-fed elitists of the major parties versus the self-made candidates of the third parties.

This reminds me of the Grail choice in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, where the Grail Knight said, "But choose wisely, for while the true Grail will bring you life, the false Grail will take it from you." Amazing how it was the "poor" cup which was the actual Grail, and not the golden cup? I suspect the "golden" candidates of the major parties are similar false Grails.


"But choose wisely" - Indiana Jones and the... by WondaSouthard

The racist label

"Put simply, most white people in this country fear being called racist more than they fear any other thing in American public life."--Clay Travis

The quote above is from an article titled, "ESPN Argues Ryan Lochte Represents White Privilege, Fails Miserably". I am not interested in Lochte, who acted like a drunk frat boy in Rio. However, throwing the racism charge onto him is beyond absurd, since he did nothing that was even subtly racist. There were no minorities involved in his activities. Attaching him to "white privilege" is a silly elitist game.

If you want to understand how the racist label can be applied to Trump, but then be ignored by a large percentage of the voting public, look no further than frivolous racism charges like this. White America is tired of living in fear of this modern Spanish Inquisition. When we can't even do something stupid without being labeled a racist, even though no black people were involved, it has gone too far.

White America looks at how the Media treats Trump, and we actually sympathize with him. He says Mexican murders and rapists are being allowed into the country, and we know this is true. It isn't a blanket aspersion on all Mexicans, and we see that. Yet the Media paints him as a racist for it.

Just like blacks get profiled by cops, so too do whites get profiled by the PC police in our culture. This must end, or else true racism will come back. If you think Trump is racist, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Hillary and the racist Republicans: Today's news for August 26, 2016

New York Times:

Hillary Clinton Says ‘Radical Fringe’ Is Taking Over G.O.P. Under Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton delivered a blistering denunciation Thursday of Donald J. Trump’s personal and political history with race, arguing in her most forceful terms yet that a nationalist conservative fringe had engulfed the Republican Party. 

In a 31-minute address, building to a controlled simmer, Mrs. Clinton did everything but call Mr. Trump a racist outright — saying he had promoted “racist lie” after “racist lie,” pushed conspiracy theories with “racist undertones” and heartened racists across the country by submitting to an “emerging racist ideology known as the alt-right.”

Mrs. Clinton needs to realize we live in a democracy, where even racists get to vote. I would argue there are more racists on her side than Trump's side. The following video explains it nicely:

#AltRightMeans you realize the ALT-Left are the real racists. #MAGAhttps://t.co/dejO6AxJEG

— MAGS-4-TRUMP/PENCE16 (@magnifier661) August 25, 2016

That said, I am not suggesting racism is a good or even acceptable thing. But the problem is the accusation is overused by the Left in general, and by Hillary in particular here. She even props up what is really the only so-called obvious case of racism in Donald's past:

Mrs. Clinton detailed the Justice Department’s housing discrimination case against Mr. Trump during the 1970s, noting that the applications of black and Latino residents “would be marked with a ‘C’ — ‘C’ for colored.” 

The problem with that case is it was Donald's father, Fred, who ordered the racist policies in the company where the father called the shots. An article from the Leftist magazine The Village Voice described it:

Another rental agent said that Fred Trump had instructed him not to rent to blacks. Further, the agent said Trump wanted "to decrease the number of black tenants" already in the development "by encouraging them to locate housing elsewhere."

Admittedly, Donald did not stand up to his father, and he defended the practices after the fact:

Donald Trump charged in the press that the suit was part of a "nationwide drive to force owners of moderate and luxury apartments to rent to welfare recipients." 

"We are not going to be forced by anyone to put people...in our buildings to the detriment of tenants who have, for many years, lived in these buildings, raised families in them, and who plan to continue to live there. That would be reverse discrimination," he said. "The government is not going to experiment with our buildings to the detriment of ourselves and the thousands who live in them now." 

By today's standards, Donald's words and actions were racist. But this happened over 40 years ago. On top of that, he was defending his father's company (where Donald was president). It is possible Donald was being more of a sycophant than a racist.

If Donald was still doing these kinds of things, then a racism charge might be appropriate. In addition, if Ben Carson even suspected that Trump might be racist, would Carson be actively supporting Trump?

We need to get past this ugly period of the Leftist "Spanish Inquisition" of racism, where the racist label is used to invalidate anything the Left doesn't like. Frankly, it makes the charge carry less weight than it should.

Trump is all kinds of crazy, but racist? No.

Politico:

Clinton ad ties Trump to KKK, white supremacists

A video released Thursday by Hillary Clinton’s campaign makes the case that Donald Trump is the candidate of racists, white supremacists and neo-Nazis. 

“The reason a lot of Klan members like Donald Trump is because a lot of what he believes, we believe in,” a robed man identified as the Imperial Wizard of the Rebel Brigade Knights of the Ku Klux Klan says at the top of the video, followed by images of a Confederate flag fluttering in the wind, Trump waving after a speech, and a man performing a Hitler salute at what appears to be a Trump rally.

So? White supremacists actively support Trump. The Communist Party USA actively supports Hillary Clinton. Will she disavow them? Unlikely. Expecting candidates to deny their supporters is absurd.

To be honest, the more Hillary pushes this charge, the more sympathetic Trump becomes. She is actively lumping him in with people who have been falsely accused of racism. If you want to know why racism is making a comeback, just look at decades of tossing the charge around in a meaningless way. It is "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" written large.

Ironically, if Hillary wanted to make the case that Trump is sexist, she might have some success there. Just ask Megyn Kelly.

In other news....

Fox News:

America's last Howard Johnson prepares for nostalgic visitors

With its signature orange roof and bright blue signage, Howard Johnson was once the most recognizable symbol of American family dining. 

The second to last roadside eatery in Bangor, Maine will be closing its doors-- and frying its last famous clam strips-- on Sept. 6th. 

That closing will leave just one Howard Johnson open in the U.S.-- in Lake George, N.Y. Owner John LaRock is sad that the once-booming restaurant chain is going the way of the dinosaurs. But he’s happy to keep serving customers and expects an uptick in business from nostalgic food fans. 

“We are doing very well. Especially on the weekends,” LaRock told FoxNews.com. “We hold 225 people and lines are out the door from 8 to 2 p.m.”  LaRock says he strives to keep the place as original as he can by still serving clam strips, ice cream and not serving alcohol. Many nostalgic TripAdvisor reviewers say the restaurant has maintained the charm-- and original food style-- of classic Howard Johnsons. 

I am saddened by this news. I always enjoyed their clam strips and vanilla milk shakes (which were the best I ever had). Nostalgia is the price I pay for getting old.

Hillary's lies: Today's news for August 25, 2016

While the Leftist Media covers for Hillary Clinton, the Right Media has no trouble disproving her lies as fast as they leave her mouth. Case in point:

CNN:

Clinton on foundation attacks: 'I know there's a lot of smoke, and there's no fire'

Hillary Clinton slammed Donald Trump and issued a strong defense of the Clinton Foundation Wednesday amid the Republican nominee's claims that she used public office for personal gain.

Speaking to CNN's Anderson Cooper in her first national news interview in nearly a month, Clinton pushed back against Trump's accusations and issued perhaps her most succinct answers on her use of a private email server during her time leading the State Department.

"What Trump has said is ridiculous," Clinton said. "My work as secretary of state was not influenced by any outside forces. I made policy decisions based on what I thought was right."

She added: "I know there's a lot of smoke, and there's no fire."

Trump has recently upped his attacks on Clinton and her family's namesake foundation, saying that foreign governments and business leaders gave primarily to get something in return.

"It is impossible to figure out where the Clinton Foundation ends and the State Department begins," Trump said Tuesday night at a rally in Austin, Texas. "The specific crimes committed to carry out that enterprise are too numerous to cover in this speech."

In the first place, it wasn't Trump who made up these allegations. It was the Associated Press. Trump merely echoed them.

The story later goes on to tell the truth, but it is showing far too much bias by burying the lede.

Circa:

Memo undercuts Hillary story on controversial Russian uranium deal, Clinton foundation

I brought up Hillary's Russian deal before, but here is more evidence that she actually sold out American interests for a Russian donation to the Clinton Foundation:

When Hillary Clinton was questioned about a deal that gave Russia increased sway over uranium markets, the former secretary of state and now Democratic presidential nominee said she had no reason to intervene in the decision and didn't even know her husband's foundation was being enriched by its beneficiaries.

"I was not personally involved because that wasn't something the secretary of state did," Clinton told WMUR a New Hampshire TV station in June 2015, the lone time she has addressed the controversy that first surfaced a year ago.

In fact, there was a reason to be concerned, according to diplomatic dispatches left sitting in public on the WikiLeaks site that have not garnered much media attention.

State Department officials in fall 2009 -a year before the U.S. approved the deal- obtained an internal strategy document from Russia's nuclear energy firm, Rosatom, that provided a warning about Moscow's intentions as it "flexes muscles" in uranium markets.

In one cable sent to Clinton, U.S. officials in Brussels warned Russia was about to strong arm U.S. ally Ukraine into a deal for "long-term supply of nuclear fuel" that could "shut" the U.S. company Westinghouse out of the market and extend Moscow's influence over Europe.

Please read the entire article, because it paints a rather unflattering picture of how Clinton knowingly sold out America to Russia.

How about some good news?

The Sun:

'SECOND EARTH' DISCOVERED Planet orbiting Earth’s ‘closest neighbour’ Proxima Centauri could be home to ALIENS

Astronomers have discovered a “second Earth” orbiting our closest star and it could have exactly the right conditions to sustain alien lifeforms.

Stargazers from the European Southern Observatory spotted the mystery world circling Proxima Centauri, a red dwarf star that’s just four light years away.

The planet is orbiting in the “goldilocks zone” of Proxima Centauri, which means it’s close enough to the  star that water would not freeze but far away enough so that water wouldn’t boil.

This is important because the presence of liquid water is thought to be necessary for the development of life.

Now scientists are trying to figure out a way of getting a robotic probe to the planet to see if it is home to alien organisms, although this is not a mission many of us will live to see.

Using current rocket technology, it would take 76,000 years to get to our nearest star.

However, there is hope that “light sail” technology currently under development could allow us to send a robotic probe to the planet in about 25 years.

Proxima Centauri is about 4.24 light years from Earth. Conceivably, if you could come up with a rocket which could get closer to the speed of light, it might be possible to reach that solar system in about 4.5 years, with a round-trip taking 9 years.

While the planet itself is roughly a third larger than Earth, the star it is orbiting is only slightly larger than Jupiter. This is a rough correlation, but it does have potential. I would guess we are looking at something closer to Mars than Earth, but I would love to be wrong.

Wednesday wisdom: Thomas Paine

"He who dares not offend cannot be honest."--Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

Agreement doesn't mean equivalence

If I agreed with the worst racist ever about how good babyback ribs are, would that make me a racist? Of course not. 

Unfortunately, that is the kind of argument the Media is using against Donald Trump. Case in point: The Salon article "Sexism, meet racism: Trump’s Angela Merkel comments expose the collision of misogyny and white supremacy". Here is a taste:

Donald Trump has a new obsession: comparing Hillary Clinton to Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany. During a Monday speech, Trump denounced the “massive immigration” to Germany under Merkel, for which he blames crime rising “to levels that no one thought would they would ever see.” He followed up this speech with press releases and a hashtag aimed at equating Clinton and Merkel. 

The choice is an odd one on its surface because most Americans don’t have an opinion about Merkel, even when they know who she is. But as Alice Ollstein of Think Progress persuasively argued on Wednesday, the meme makes more sense when one considers that white supremacists definitely know who Merkel is, because they hate her...

It’s yet another example of how Trump is mainstreaming white supremacist sentiment. 

Here is the logic laid out in its syllogistic form:

1. Trump thinks Merkel's immigration policy was flawed.
2. White supremacists think Merkel's immigration policy was flawed.
3. Ergo, Trump is a white supremacist.

In case you aren't familiar with syllogisms, here is the classic syllogism:

1. God is love.
2. Love is blind.
3. Ray Charles is blind.
4. Ergo, Ray Charles is God.

While syllogisms aren't necessarily as silly as the Ray Charles example, they tend to run off the tracks when they make flawed assumptions (i.e. "Love is blind" is not factually provable).

In the case of the Salon article, it assumes that only white supremacists disagree with Merkel's immigration policy. In actuality, there are many reasonable Germans who aren't happy with it. When you consider 64% of German's don't want her running for re-election, and immigration is the most controversial topic in Germany right now, it is safe to say there a good number of disgruntled Germans now. (Of course, to American Leftists, they just might assume a large percentage of Germans are white supremacists. Our Left is ignorant that way.)

Personally, I consider it reasonable to question Merkel's immigration policy, especially in the face of Western Civilization's "War on Islam". Inviting your enemy into your house, even if you don't actually call them an enemy by name, is crazy stupid. Even idiotic white supremacists can see this, even if our self-deluding Leftist Media is missing it.

As for Trump, I disagree with his views on continuing the "War on Islam" (although he does seem to be less aggressive than Hillary Clinton), but at least his immigration views are consistent with his militaristic views.

The Envy/Inequality Theory

envy

1. a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc. 

(from Dictionary.com)

The problem with inequality is not a denial of human rights, but rather the source of inequality, envy.

This is because most discussion of inequality centers on income and/or wealth. It is easy to sit back and bash the wealthy, because we can always get someone to agree with us, since there is always somebody with more money than most. At its heart, this is nothing more than natural human envy.

If used for a topic of discussion, this is mostly harmless. But words do have consequences, and discussion topics tend to find their way into the ears of politicians who would use it for their own benefit. This is why envy is considered one of the "seven deadly sins", because it can be used by people as a cause for action. When used by the government's lethal force, it can turn a perfectly good free market system into something corrupt.

Democracy is called the "tyranny of the majority" for a good reason. All it takes is a simple majority to create any kind of evil action. Add a dose of envy, which is easy to find in most people, and voila! You have a progressive tax system! The problem with envy is that even politicians are susceptible to it. So they create lots of legal loopholes so that money can find a way to them. Long story short: Wealthy people send money to the politicians to create tax loopholes which the wealthy can use to avoid paying the taxes.

When money is considered the source of value in a culture, then those who have it will do whatever they can to keep it. (This is why "greed" is also one of the seven deadly sins.)

Basically, inequality is just a game of political "three-card Monte", where the politicians dupe the public and the wealthy stake the game. And since everyone is under the mistaken belief that government is honorable, we just let the game continue. And we wonder why the rich get richer?

There is a simple cure to this situation. Get inequality "cures" out of the government. They are the definition of "cures worse than the disease". Once that is done, we need to look at our own individual situation and ask: Are we happy with what we have? Most objective people will say "yes". If your answer is "no", then ask if you are working hard enough to make your life better in the short or long term? If your answer is "yes", maybe you need a little more patience? (It is one of the "seven cardinal virtues".)

On the other hand, if you can see an obvious pattern of circumstances actively at work to keep you down, then you need to change your circumstances. Using an "ism" (i.e. racism, sexism, etc.) as your excuse for failure is exactly that: An excuse. Using the government to force people to do what you want is no better than the wealthy man who bribes a politician for a tax break. (NOTE: I am not talking about forcing people to NOT infringe upon other people's rights.)

When we fail to recognize that government serves all of us, and not just "me", then we also fail to see how government can be turned against "me". All it takes is a simple majority of people to decide on a policy that "I" don't want, in order to take an equalizing policy and reverse it. Look! We have a progressive tax policy! (Disclaimer: With major tax breaks for the wealthy.)

If ever you need an example of how destructive envy really is, just look at America's income tax system.

By the way, if you think socialism holds some kind of cure, I refer you to the old Soviet Union. Instead of a money-based system, it was all about the power. People in power had the money and/or "material stuff", whereas the average people had barely enough to scrape by (China has only started to figure this out in recent years, but they still have a way to go). Replacing money with political power isn't a solution to inequality, or envy.

Ultimately, my point is this: If you see inequality in your situation, first look inside yourself for any signs of envy. If that is all it is, you need to move on to the next topic.

Italy: Today's news for August 24, 2016

The big news today is a 6.2 earthquake that hit Italy, destroying the ancient town of Amatrice.

To me, Italy is a place of wonder and beauty, a place where history lives. I have never been there, yet I soak it up in every way I can. In a way, I idolize it from afar. If Italy was a woman, I'd be considered a stalker.

When someone dies, we mourn for purely selfish reasons, knowing the dead person can never be seen again in this life. I mourn today for an Italian town which I will never get to see or know.

In other news...

Associated Press:

Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State

More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president. 

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million. 

Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton's help with a visa problem; and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm's corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa. 

The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.

Even though the article says there was nothing illegal here, I question whether this meets the qualification of bribing a public official. The fact she solicited the "donations" even gives it the appearance of bribery. The additional fact that she used State Department staff to help solicit the donations further gives it the appearance of state-sanctioned bribery. Is this what America is about?

CNN:

Clinton's health is fine, but what about Trump?

I cannot believe CNN actually used that headline. It reads like a child's response to an insult: "I know you are, but what am I?"

Even worse, the article is nothing more than speculation. Here is the most interesting, albeit inconclusive, thing from the story:

Like Clinton, Trump has released minimal information, most notably in the form of a December 2015 letter of a few paragraphs from his personal physician, a gastroenterologist, that described his blood pressure and lab results as "astonishingly excellent" while suggesting a President Trump would be the "healthiest individual ever elected."

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent, found much of that language surprising and, in some cases, almost comically lacking in objective data.

"I don't even know what to make of this letter," he told CNN's Ashleigh Banfield on Tuesday. "Whether you are a doctor or not, that degree of hyperbole and these words being used is very unusual. People don't write like that. ... 'Strength and stamina are extraordinary' -- what does that mean, exactly?"

If you read the linked letter, it does actually include some facts to back up the doctor's hyperbole:

• Trump has had no significant health problems over the past 39 years. (His last surgery was an appendectomy at the age of 10.)
• Trump's blood pressure was 110/65.
• As of December 2015, Trump had lost 15 pounds over the previous 12 months. 
• "...Trump takes 81 mg of aspirin daily and a low dose of a statin."
• Trump has never used alcohol or tobacco.

Aside from the extremely childish-sounding headline, the article reads like a hit job, with CNN pulling out their resident progressive-minded doctor to give his Leftist opinion on what Trump's doctor wrote.

CNN needs to grow up. They are making Trump look like the adult in the room with their pointless attacks. 

Climate change and the presidential candidates

Climate change is arguably one of the most polarizing topics in the world. While it is a scientific fact that our planet's climate does change, what causes it? Is it manmade or natural? Somewhat less importantly, how do America's presidential candidates view the topic?

Personally, I have always viewed the topic this way: If the sun went out tomorrow, there is no amount of greenhouse gas that mankind can put into the atmosphere to warm things up. To me, climatology has done the proverbial looking into the oven and ignored the heating elements. For example, during the period when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, CO2 was much more prevalent in the atmosphere than it is today. This caused the plants to grow larger, which of course led to larger animals due to the plentiful food. And yet they claim CO2 is somehow going to harm the planet's climate, and us, today? The whole theory screams of snake oil. Someday, mankind will look back on us and think, "You idiots believed that bunk?"

So what do our presidential candidates believe? From Left to Right...

Green Party's Jill Stein

Stein is arguably the most thoroughly in the pocket of Global Warmists, with climate change all over her platform:

Enact an emergency Green New Deal to turn the tide on climate change, revive the economy and make wars for oil obsolete. Initiate a WWII-scale national mobilization to halt climate change, the greatest threat to humanity in our history. Create 20 million jobs by transitioning to 100% clean renewable energy by 2030, and investing in public transit, sustainable agriculture, conservation and restoration of critical infrastructure, including ecosystems. 

I could go on, because climate change is all over her platform. But here is one of her nuttier ideas:

Enact energy democracy based on public, community and worker ownership of our energy system. Treat energy as a human right.

Does she realize what she is saying? If energy is a "human right", then Stein is proposing government subsidized free energy for everyone. If you understand the economic theory "The Tragedy of the Commons", you will understand that a free energy system is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Nothing is ever so expensive as when government gives it away for free. Just look at our education system.

GRADE: F. Stein has taken a flawed idea and compounded it.

Democratic Party's Hillary Clinton

Here is Hillary's "Day One" plan:

• Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.
• Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
• Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.

When I read "make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient", I ask one question: What manufacturing? We have run off most manufacturing with our expensive and over-regulated manufacturing environment. And she wants to regulate it more? Stupid is as stupid does...

But then she says this:

Hillary’s plan will deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. 

So she will do it all by executive fiat! Why don't we just eliminate Congress and make her Queen? Climate change demands it!

Clinton adds lots of government spending (one program she quotes a $60 billion figure, which is about the value of Dow Chemical), and her plan is VERY detailed. If I thought her plan was to make America energy independent, it would actually be intriguing. But her hawkish ways tell me otherwise.

GRADE: D. Hillary's plan isn't dangerously stupid, and parts of it could actually work. But it is a huge mess overall, and expands government far beyond the need to accomplish energy independence.

Republican Party's Donald Trump

Trump's website doesn't even mention climate change under "issues", and according to the Washington Post:

The Republican presidential front-runner repeatedly has said he isn’t “a believer” that humans have played a significant role in the Earth’s changing climate. He said as much in an interview with talk show host Hugh Hewitt last year. He told “Fox & Friends” earlier this year that climate change “is just a very, very expensive form of tax. A lot of people are making a lot of money.” 

In his own tweets, Trump has called the concept of global warming everything from a “hoax” to “bulls—” to a scheme “created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” (He later said he was joking about the China tweet).

On the other hand...(from The Atlantic):

...in late November [2009], a full-page ad appeared in The New York Times. The ad, an open letter, called on President Obama and Congress to finally pass legislation restricting greenhouse-gas emissions.

“We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today,” it read. “If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.” 

Below that text were 55 names. They included squishily liberal executives and various other famous people, like the CEOs of Patagonia, Timberland, Blue Man Group, and Chipotle; and Deepak Chopra, Martha Stewart, Kenneth Cole, and Ben and Jerry.  

Someone else was on that list, too: Donald J. Trump, and his three children. That’s right: The Republican nominee for president supported urgent climate action before he opposed it. 

...Trump flipped on climate change long before his presidential run. Less than two months after that letter ran in the Times, he had implied to a crowd that global warming couldn’t exist if snowfall was setting records. 

So what is his real position? My guess is he signed on to that ad as a "joiner". Trump loves being associated with the "beautiful people". His public statements have been fairly consistent in being against the manmade climate change theory, with only that one exception.

GRADE: A-. Aside from one flip-flop, Trump has been on the money. This is an issue that should be ignored.

Libertarian Gary Johnson

Johnson does start with a compelling argument;

The environment is a precious gift and must be protected. Governors Johnson and Weld believe strongly that the first responsibility of government is to protect citizens from those who would do them harm, whether it be a foreign aggressor, a criminal — or a bad actor who harms the environment upon which we all depend.

We need to stand firm to protect our environment for our future generations, especially those designated areas of protection like our National Parks. Consistent with that responsibility, the proper role of government is to enforce reasonable environmental protections...

Governor Johnson believes the Environmental Protection Agency, when focused on its true mission, plays an important role in keeping the environment and citizens safe.

Johnson does not, however, believe the government should be engaging in social and economic engineering for the purpose of creating winners and losers in what should be a robust free market.  Preventing a polluter from harming our water or air is one thing. Having politicians in Washington, D.C., acting on behalf of high powered lobbyists, determine the future of clean energy innovation is another.

But then he runs off the rails:

When it comes to global climate change, Johnson...[believes] that the politicians in Washington, D.C. are having the wrong debate. 

Is the climate changing? Probably so. 

Is man contributing to that change? Probably so. 

But the critical question is whether the politicians’ efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the private sector are cost-effective – or effective at all. The debate should be about how we can protect our resources and environment for future generations.

First, the climate is changing. It always has, and always will. "Probably so" is unnecessary political fence-straddling.

Second, is man contributing to it? But like Johnson did in the first question, he decides to straddle the fence again. The problem with this is the dire nature of the Global Warmists' warnings. You can't straddle the fence with "the world is ending tomorrow". You believe it, or you don't.

However, Johnson may have shown his true colors in this JuneauEmpire.com interview:

“I do believe that climate change is occurring. I do believe that it is man-caused,” Johnson said. 

To address climate change, Johnson said he believes “that there can be and is a free-market approach to climate change.” 

That would include a fee — not a tax, he said — placed on carbon. Such a fee would make pollutants bear a market cost. 

“We as human beings want to see carbon emissions reduced significantly,” but at the same time, he says the United States is only “16 percent of the (global) load” of carbon, and “I don’t want to do anything that harms jobs.”  

Even Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein don't include carbon "fees" in their plans. (The irony of Johnson talking about "fee — not a tax" is eerily reminiscent of the Obama administration's Obamacare tax/fee flip-flop, where "fee' was used to sell it, but they called it a "tax" at the Supreme Court hearings.)

GRADE: D+. From a Libertarian perspective, this is an epic fail for Johnson. From an overall election perspective, I would call his plan less dangerous than Hillary's plan, but still a failure.

Back to ClinTrump: Today's news for August 23, 2016

If you were wondering when the Media would get back to bashing Trump and Clinton, today is your lucky day!

Fox News:

Trump calls for special prosecutor to look at Clinton Foundation

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump called for an “expedited investigation” by a special prosecutor into “pay-to-play” accusations involving the Clinton Foundation... 

“The Clintons' made the State Department into the same kind of Pay-to-Play operations as the Arkansas Government was: pay the Clinton Foundation huge sums of money and throw in some big speaking fees for Bill Clinton and you got to play with the State Department,” Trump said at a campaign rally Monday night in Akron, Ohio. 

“The amounts involved, the favors done, the significant amount of time, require an expedited investigation by a special prosecutor immediately, immediately,” he added. 

Trump also called the investigation by the FBI and Justice Department into Clinton’s private email server a “whitewash,” and said that the two agencies “cannot be trusted to quickly or impartially investigate Hillary Clinton’s crimes.”

If you are wondering what Trump is talking about in Pay-To-Play, here it is:

Communities Digital News:

Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton implicated in pay-for-play

One day after news broke that top Hillary aide Huma Abedin served for a decade as the assistant editor of radical Islamic journal, the Clinton Foundation is embroiled in questions about pay-for-play and special access allegations. These were brought to light by watchdog group Judicial Watch. Once again, Abedin is directly involved in the controversy.

Judicial Watch has released 725 pages of emails that were previously undisclosed by the Clinton Campaign, calling into question Clinton’s testimony before the House Benghazi panel. There she clearly said that all of her work-related emails had been turned over.

One of the most significant revelations from this latest document dump is the relationship between Huma Abedin, the Clinton Foundation, and the Prince of Bahrain.

Trump is right about this needing to be investigated by a special prosecutor. The Obama administration is far too corrupt. They already dropped the ball on Hillary's email scandal.

Naturally, the Left strikes back...

CNN:

The Gordon Gekko period: 

Donald Trump's lucrative and controversial time as an activist investor 

So what was Trump's great big evil sin? Read on:

A CNN examination of the period included the review of hundreds of pages of testimony, depositions, financial and legal documents, as well as interviews with more than a dozen former state and federal regulators, lawyers, executives from targeted companies and former Trump organization employees. It reveals a game plan for the novice, would-be corporate raider that bears striking resemblance to the playbook deployed by Trump the novice politician. It lays clear his penchant for operating without the advice -- or even acknowledgment -- of top advisers, placing a heavy emphasis on using the media to further his efforts and deploying bare-knuckled tactics punctuated by efforts to mislead, bully and even punish opponents.

The central issue for many was whether Trump was engaged in the tactic known as "greenmailing." It was an entirely legal strategy repeatedly deployed by activist investors throughout the 1980s -- a practice that, for lack of a better description, amounts to a corporate ransom payment. It works like this: an investor quietly buys up a significant amount of a targeted company's stock and threatens a takeover attempt. The company, in an effort to make the investor just go away, makes a deal to buy that stock back at a premium. The investor nets the difference.

It's a practice that has all but disappeared in the decades since, snuffed out by a series of state laws and a federal excise tax designed explicitly to rid companies of the threat many deemed as stock manipulation. But it was, at the time, entirely legal -- something Trump himself made clear when he testified in April 1987 before the New Jersey Casino Commission.

"The practice is a totally legal practice, however, it's something, the name, greenmailer, is not a very pretty word," Trump said, according to the transcript of the hearing of obtained by CNN. "It's a practice that on Wall Street is very open and common and done quite a bit."

So Trump did something perfectly legal although ethically questionable, but he has been honest about it ever since then.

Let's compare that with Clinton's clearly and undeniably illegal activity which she has lied about from day one. In today's news battle, I have to give the points to Trump. 

Phrase of the day

"...government should be socially [tolerant] and fiscally responsible."--from Pepper Snyder's campaign website

I have heard similar statements from other Libertarian candidates (i.e. Austin Petersen's "fiscally conservative and socially whatever you want provided you don't force it on anyone else"), but I like the way Pepper worded it best. It really gets to the heart of libertarianism in a well-defined and concise manner.

Media bias comes out of the closet

There was a time in America when the Media's Leftist bias was subtle. It would show only in the way stories were reported, but it didn't stop the news from flowing. If there was a Democratic Party scandal, it still got reported, even if it was given short shrift. 

Then Fox News came along with their "fair and balanced" take on the news, which was really just reversing the bias in the opposite direction. Think of Fox News as the affirmative action program for Republican-biased news.

Now, journalists openly advocate, even as the Media has become split into Democratic and Republican echo chambers. Now, everyone can get their news with spin which doesn't offend their world views.

The New York Post's Michael Goodwin brought up this issue in his editorial, "American journalism is collapsing before our eyes":

Donald Trump may or may not fix his campaign, and Hillary Clinton may or may not become the first female president. But something else happening before our eyes is almost as important: the complete collapse of American journalism as we know it. 

The frenzy to bury Trump is not limited to the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House. They are working hand-in-hand with what was considered the cream of the nation’s news organizations. 

The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America. 

The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent. 

Goodwin is right, even though he is only looking at it from one side.

The problem comes when stories get overlooked on one side while the other side is propping them up. Consider this editorial from The Hill's Joe Concha, about the recent Louisiana floods:

2005: President George W. Bush's presidency is basically declared over after he waits two days to cut a vacation short to return to the White House to directly engage in relief strategy around hurricane-ravaged Katrina.  On Day 3, he would visit the Gulf Coast to survey the damage. 

The headlines at the time and since have included, A compassionate Bush was absent right after Katrina, The 7 worst moments of George W. Bush’s presidency, Kanye West Rips Bush at Telethon, What If They Were White?, Jesse Jackson lashes out at Bush over Katrina response, Katrina thrusts race and poverty onto national stage: Bush and Congress under pressure to actand An Imperfect Storm - How race shaped Bush's response to Katrina. 

So it's clear how the narrative went from "Bush waited three days to visit the Gulf Coast" to "Bush is a racist who would have acted faster if white people were victims of Katrina."

You will notice even Fox News got into the Bush bashing frenzy. And now:

Fast forward to August 2016 — several storms hit Louisiana, not just a hurricane — the floodwaters have created the biggest natural disaster to hit the United States since Hurricane Katrina. 

...A very simple question, if George W. Bush was president right now and playing golf with celebrities in one of the richest zip codes in the country, would the headlines again be everywhere that portray him as insensitive, out-of-touch, even a racist president be the same now as they were 2005? Of course they would. 

Instead, President Obama continues his vacation that includes fundraising events for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and the relative silence is deafening.

Obama did not even cut his vacation one day short. Heck, he isn't even going to Louisiana until Tuesday.

Mind you, this is not an indictment of President Obama. In my opinion, this should be a matter for the state of Louisiana and not the federal government (although I am sure there will be federal disaster relief heading in Louisiana's direction). The truth is the Media's Bush-bashing was overdone, and it was only because he was Republican. If Al Gore or John Kerry had been president, the Media would have been silent.

On a personal note, this is why my "Today's news" posts try to include news from multiple sources, both Right and Left. The days of objective news reporting are gone, and it is left to "We the Readers" to mine the biased news stories for what is "truth". Hence the name of my blog.

No Trump here! Today's news for August 22, 2016

For once, Donald Trump is absent from today's news. Maybe later today he can hire a transsexual Russian lobbyist as his campaign manager?

Fox News:

North Korea threatens 'pre-emptive nuclear strike' amid US, South Korea drills

BIG SCARY HEADLINE! No news here:

North Korea threatened Monday to turn Seoul and Washington into “a heap of ashes through a Korean-style pre-emptive nuclear strike” if they showed any signs of aggression toward the North’s territory during their annual military drills. 

South Korea and the U.S. began the drills despite the strikes.

That last sentence should read, "South Korea and the U.S. began the drills despite the IDLE THREAT OF strikes."

By the way, what is a "Korean-style pre-emptive nuclear strike"? It is one where no actual nukes are used.

Now if you want to see a real war, look at Turkey and...Sweden?

RT:

Turkey warns travelers at airport of high ‘rape rate’ in Sweden amid underage sex scandal

Turkey has posted its own "travel warning" amid an ongoing international scandal linked to Turkey’s underage sex law, placing ads at Istanbul Airport alleging that "Sweden has the highest rape rate worldwide."

The "warning" apparently appeared at the international Ataturk airport, in the form of a banner, by the Turkish Gunes newspaper, The Local reported on Friday.

Earlier, Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom took to social media, calling on Ankara to "reverse" a court ruling which she believed legalized sex with children under the age of 15 in Turkey. Ankara blasted the Swedish official, with her Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu calling the allegations "lies" and said that Wallstrom had no idea of what she was talking about.

Strangely, the "Great Airport Banner War" (or we can call it the "GAB War" for short) started with Austria:

International concern over changes into Turkish laws regarding punishment for sexual abuse of children has already triggered diplomatic trouble. Austria's deputy ambassador in Turkey has been summoned by Ankara over a message shown at Vienna airport, which read "Turkey allows sex with children under the age of 15." 

Earlier this year, Turkey's constitutional court canceled a legal article pertaining to the sexual abuse of children under 15 years of age following a petition by a lower court, which said there was no difference between cases of sexual acts involving teenagers or toddlers. According to Turkish Hurriyet Daily, the move was to "increase rather than decrease sentences for the crime."

Admittedly, the GAB War does lend new meaning to the phrase "war of words".

In other international news...

CNN:

Life inside the Philippines' most overcrowded jail

My initial reaction to this lede story was, "So?" A lot of places in the world have overcrowded and/or inhumane jails.

But then I got to the reason for it:

It's always been packed, guards say, but recently the number of inmates has spiked. 

Critics say this overcrowding is a predictable effect of President Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs -- a crackdown the pugnacious new leader promised in the campaign that propelled him into office. 

Conditions inside are astounding. Every available space is crammed with yellow T-shirted humanity. The men here -- and almost 60% are in for drug offenses -- spend the days sitting, squatting and standing in the unrelenting, suffocating Manila heat.   

Yet another failed war on drugs. Get out the bear for President Duterte, as well as the Philippinos who elected him:

Speaking of CNN...

Zero Hedge:

Clinton Campaign Refuses To Answer Questions Over Foundation Funding

In a somewhat shocking interview, CNN does not lob softballs at Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook when he refuses to answer the simple question of why The Clinton Foundation will continue to accept funding from homosexual-killing, terrorist-funding foreign entities... until she becomes President, when it will be unacceptable for more than half of her donors. 

Having admitted that 53% of her current donors will be barred under her proposed new rules, questions remain as to why she continues to accept donations from these entities...

Sometimes, CNN does get it right:

Of course, I don't recognize the interviewer, so she must be new. She obviously didn't go through the proper socialist/progressive indoctrination. Otherwise she would know the first rule is "never hold Democrats accountable for anything". I am sure she will do better next time.