Month: June 2016

Brexit, Benghazi, and Virginia Postrel: The Fifth Column Is Back!

Reason readers have a very special, well, reason (drink!) to tune into the latest episode of The Fifth Column, the podcast starring Kmele Foster, Michael C. Moynihan, and me. And that reason is…Virginia Postrel! The beloved former editor of this here mag joins the three fifths to discuss Brexit, populism, the fate of global liberalism, and (of course!) high-speed rail. Listen to the whole episode, which also gets into Benghazi and the BET Awards, right here:

Head over to the podcast website for info on how to subscribe; you can also listen using iTunes, Stitcher, and Google Play.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/291na1j
via IFTTT

107 Nobel Laureates Demand Greenpeace Stop Opposing GMOs… Because “We’re Scientists”

Forget Brexit, one of the most contriversial debates has surfaced once again, and this time with a vengeance. More than 100 Nobel laureates have signed a letter urging Greenpeace to end its opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The letter asks Greenpeace to cease its efforts to block introduction of a genetically engineered strain of rice that supporters say could reduce Vitamin-A deficiencies causing blindness and death in children in the developing world.

"We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against 'GMOs' in general and Golden Rice in particular," the letter states according to The Washington Post.

The reasoning is simple according to those who signed the letter: "We're scientists" – so there!

From WaPo

The letter campaign was organized by Richard Roberts, chief scientific officer of New England Biolabs and, with Phillip Sharp, the winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for the discovery of genetic sequences known as introns. The campaign has a website, supportprecisionagriculture.org, that includes a running list of the signatories, and the group plans to hold a news conference Thursday morning at the National Press Club in Washington.

 

“We’re scientists. We understand the logic of science. It's easy to see what Greenpeace is doing is damaging and is anti-science," Roberts told The Washington Post. “Greenpeace initially, and then some of their allies, deliberately went out of their way to scare people. It was a way for them to raise money for their cause."

 

Roberts said he endorses many other activities of Greenpeace, and said he hopes the group, after reading the letter, would "admit that this is an issue that they got wrong and focus on the stuff that they do well."

 

Greenpeace has not yet responded to requests for comment on the letter. It is hardly the only group that opposes GMOs, but it has a robust global presence, and the laureates in their letter contend that Greenpeace has led the effort to block Golden Rice.

 

The list of signatories had risen to 107 names by Wednesday morning. Roberts said that, by his count, there are 296 living laureates.

"I find it surprising that groups that are very supportive of science when it comes to global climate change, or even, for the most part, in the appreciation of the value of vaccination in preventing human disease, yet can be so dismissive of the general views of scientists when it comes to something as important as the world’s agricultural future." Nobel laureate Randy Schekman, a cell biologist at the University of California at Berkeley told WaPo.

That reminds us of a pertinent rebuttal to that comment written last year by Mark Spitznagel and Nassim Nicholas Taleb (the full piece can be found here):

First, there has been a tendency to label anyone who dislikes G.M.O.s as anti-science — and put them in the anti-antibiotics, antivaccine, even Luddite category. There is, of course, nothing scientific about the comparison. Nor is the scholastic invocation of a “consensus” a valid scientific argument.

 

Interestingly, there are similarities between arguments that are pro-G.M.O. and snake oil, the latter having relied on a cosmetic definition of science. The charge of “therapeutic nihilism” was leveled at people who contested snake oil medicine at the turn of the 20th century. (At that time, anything with the appearance of sophistication was considered “progress.”)

The article states:

Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity.

 

Greenpeace has spearheaded opposition to Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia.

 

The World Health Organization estimates that 250 million people, suffer from VAD, including 40 percent of the children under five in the developing world.  Based on UNICEF statistics, a total of one to two million preventable deaths occur annually as a result of VAD, because it compromises the immune system, putting babies and children at great risk.  VAD itself is the leading cause of childhood blindness globally affecting 250,000 – 500,000 children each year. Half die within 12 months of losing their eyesight.

* * *

In summary, everyone should listen to the elites, no matter what one's personal conviction is. This letter is not a surprise, as there was recently a call for elites to rise up against the ignorant masses – this group wasted no time in that effort.

via http://ift.tt/29qJSlm Tyler Durden

Killing Trump’s “Elephant In The Room”

Excerpted from Dilbert Creator Scott Adams' blog,

For months I have been saying mostly good things in this blog about Trump’s powers of persuasion, and mostly bad things about how the Clinton campaign does persuasion. And yet Clinton has a solid lead in the polls, assuming the polls are accurate. How can that be?

The quick answer is that Clinton’s side is totally winning the persuasion battle.

Confused?

Clinton’s side includes more than her campaign team. It also includes pundits, supporters on social media, and the liberal-leaning parts of the mainstream media. While the Clinton campaign itself has been notably weak with its persuasion game, the folks on her side have been viciously effective at branding Trump a crazy racist.

Nothing else in this election matters.

…

The persuasion kill shot against Trump is the accusation that Trump is a crazy racist. When you combine crazy and racist, you have a lethal persuasion cocktail. And that’s what the Clinton side has done.

The folks on social media tested lots of accusations against Trump until they found traction with the “crazy racist” theme in all its forms. And Clinton’s campaign team wisely amplified it.

Remember when social media was saying Trump wasn’t serious about running, or that he was a clown, or he was doing it for the money? Those accusations didn’t get traction, and Trump swept them away with his continued success.

But the accusations kept coming, one after another, until the combo of crazy and racist bubbled to the top, as measured by social media virality. The Clinton campaign recognized the crazy racist theme as the best approach and started hammering on it through a variety of “fear Trump” message. Fear works when facts do not. And “crazy racist” is totally scary. And totally working. You can test it for yourself by asking any anti-Trumper to list the top three reasons for disliking Trump. Some form of “crazy racist” will normally come out on top. Persuasion-wise, every other reason is just noise.

…

The facts don’t matter. Facts never matter. What matters is that the “crazy racist” label picked up enough confirmation bias to stick like tar. The Clinton team won the month of June. And unless something changes, Clinton will saunter to an easy victory in November.

But remember also that Trump always makes aggressive first offers before negotiating to the middle. I predicted a softening of Trump’s immigration proposals and you see that happening now, right on schedule. Those changes in his proposals won’t be enough to change the election results because facts and policies are meaningless for persuasion. Trump would have to do far more to shake off the crazy racist label.

I now update my prediction of a Trump landslide to say that if he doesn’t give a speech on the topic of racism – to neutralize the crazy racist label – he loses. There is nothing he can do with policy tweaks, debate performances, advertising, interviews, or anything else that would remove the tarring he received from the Clinton side. But a persuasive speech could do it.

How?

Trump needs to convince Americans of all types that he loves them and plans to protect them from outside forces. Here’s a simple and persuasive formulation for that:

Example: “If you are an American citizen – of any color, ethnicity, gender, or religion – I love you, and I’ll fight for you. I support the melting pot of America, and I will fight to protect each of you from crime, terrorism, and economic risks.”

That’s the basic idea. Talking about policies won’t be enough. To become president, Trump has to embrace the melting pot. And he has to embrace the value of American diversity, loudly.

If Trump doesn’t directly address the elephant in the room – the accusation that he is a crazy racist – he loses. If he makes a case for the value of American diversity – and does it persuasively – he wins in a landslide.

I expect him to do the latter.

Read more here…

via http://ift.tt/293rA94 Tyler Durden

Health Care Costs Are Rising Sharply, And It Will Get Much Worse

Submitted by Mish Shedlock of MishTalk

 

Inquiring minds are diving into Kaiser Family Foundation reports on health care. The charts and stats are not pretty, and they are sure to get worse.

Health Care Expenditures 1960-2014

The above chart from the Kasiser Family Foundation report Health Spending Explorer.

Deductible Spending Soars

Between 2004 and 2014, average payments for deductibles and coinsurance rose considerably faster than the overall cost for covered benefits, while the average payments for copayments fell. As can be seen in the chart below, over this time period, patient cost-sharing rose substantially faster than payments for care by health plans as insurance coverage became a little less generous.

The above chart from the Kasiser Family Foundation report Cost Sharing Payments Increasing Rapidly Over Time.

The above via Kaiser Family Tweet.

Huge Cost Increases Coming

Those charts hugely understate the problem. All date to 2014.

In January, CNSNews reported CBO: Obamacare Costs to Increase in 2016 As Millions More Get Subsidized Insurance.

Taxpayers will have to shell out an estimated $18 billion more to subsidize Obamacare in 2016 despite lower than expected enrollment in the health care exchanges, according to a forecast by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

 

In its latest 10-year economic forecast, CBO predicted that 13 million Americans would purchase health insurance through the Obamacare exchanges in 2016, with 11 million of them receiving government subsidies to help pay for their premiums.

 

But that figure is 40 percent lower than the 21 million enrollees CBO predicted last year would sign up.

 

Despite fewer than expected enrollees, the cost of running the exchanges will increase $18 billion, according to the CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook: 2016 to 2026.

November Surprise

Many consumers will see large rate increases for the first time Nov. 1 — a week before they go to the polls.

Politico comments on Obamacare’s November Surprise.

The last thing Democrats want to contend with just a week before the 2016 presidential election is an outcry over double-digit insurance hikes as millions of Americans begin signing up for Obamacare.

 

But that looks increasingly likely as health plans socked by Obamacare losses look to regain their financial footing by raising rates.

 

Just a week after the nation’s largest insurer, UnitedHealth Group, pulled out of most Obamacare exchanges because it anticipates $650 million in losses this year, Aetna’s CEO said Thursday that his company expects to break even, but legislative fixes are needed to make the marketplace sustainable.

 

“I think a lot of insurance carriers expected red ink, but they didn’t expect this much red ink,” said Greg Scott, who oversees Deloitte’s health plans practice. “A number of carriers need double-digit increases.”

 

Republicans are already pouncing on UnitedHealth’s decision as proof the law is unworkable. “You’re seeing the beginning of the so-called insurance death spiral,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said last week.

Related Articles

Also consider Obamacare Redistribution and the Disincentive to Work.

Thanks to Obamacare, it is frequently better for a middle class family to get no raise than even a decent sized raise.

The wage point varies, but many will say “Dear employer, please don’t pay me more. It will cost me a lot of money”.

via http://ift.tt/294nuxM Tyler Durden

Controversial North Carolina Bathroom Law Could Change, but May Make Life More Difficult For Transgender People

After months of backlash from numerous groups, leaders in the North Carolina General Assembly are preparing to introduce legislation to change certain provisions of the state’s controversial bathroom law.

If you recall, the Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill in March requiring individuals to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender listed on their birth certificate. In addition, the bill also prevented cities from passing any anti-discrimination protections that would apply to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people as well as other labor regulations.

That law—the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, commonly known as House Bill 2—was a response to an ordinance passed in Charlotte, which would have allowed transgender people to use the bathroom or locker room for the gender they identify with and prohibited discrimination for housing and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The statewide law was passed during a one-day special session, and was signed by Republican Gov. Pat McCrory after the session concluded.

Reaction to House Bill 2 has been heated. Businesses were quick to criticize McCrory and the General Assembly, and the law has been the subject of multiple lawsuits, including one from the United States Department of Justice.

However, conservatives have stood by House Bill 2, saying it will protect women and children from being sexually assaulted (though this claim lacks compelling support).

Three months after the law went on the books, leadership in the state’s House of Representatives has drafted legislation to modify it. According to television station WBTV, the draft comes as a result of conversations between political leaders and officials from the National Basketball Association (NBA). Charlotte is currently set to host the 2017 NBA All-Star Game, but the event’s future has come into question since House Bill 2 passed.

So is the General Assembly planning on making it easier for transgender people to use their preferred bathroom? Far from it. Based on the draft of the bill, it won’t just continue to be a hassle for these individuals to choose their bathroom—the change may make their lives more difficult.

If this draft were to become law, it would permit the government to create an official document recognizing someone’s gender reassignment. In order to receive this certificate, a trans person would have to submit an application as well as a statement from a doctor who “has examined the individual and can certify that the person has undergone sex reassignment surgery.”

As Reason‘s Scott Shackford noted when House Bill 2 was passed, the government should treat gay and transgender people the same way they treat straight people. Instead, North Carolina’s General Assembly is putting up a major hurdle to a minority group’s self-determination. Despite the backlash to House Bill 2, legislators are only slightly loosening the restrictions they’ve placed on people who, like everyone, have to use the bathroom.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/294oEZU
via IFTTT

Is the ACLU’s Lawsuit Against Bad Anti-Hacking Law Ingenious or Terrifying?

The vague language of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has made it prone to abuse by federal prosecutors.

This law’s alleged purpose is to fight cybercrimes and hackers. But the law is far more expansive, making it a federal crime to violate a web site’s “terms of service” as a user or to access a computer or network in an “unauthorized” fashion. Yes, the law is used to fight hackers trying to get into people’s bank accounts to steal their money. But it has also been used to put journalist Matthew Keys in prison for giving a password to a member of Anonymous, who then vandalized the website for the Los Angeles Times by changing a single headline. The law was also used against activist Aaron Swartz, who was arrested and charged for downloading huge numbers of academic studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with the intent of making them freely available to everybody. The prosecutor used the law as a hammer to try to push Swartz to accept a plea deal. Instead he committed suicide. It’s a terrible law that you’ve probably broken without even realizing.

And now the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing to challenge the constitutionality of the law. This is very good news. How they’re tackling it is both interesting, but also just a little bit troubling. Their argument is that the law has the side effect of chilling some online research and journalism investigations of some online commercial behavior. More specifically, this is research over whether online algorithms that put information and advertising in front of people’s eyeballs is influenced by discriminatory attitudes or intent. Are those sponsored ads you’re getting racist or sexist?

The CFAA barrier keeps academics and journalists from researching algorithmic behavior, stopping researchers from independently “auditing” what happens by keeping them from creating fake online profiles to see how advertising reacts. The terms of service of many websites prohibit the use of fake accounts or identities. Therefore using the same sort techniques used to sniff out discriminatory behavior in the “real world” in areas like job interviews and bank loans (fake applications) are legally not permissible. People, of course, create fake online profiles and identities anyway, but most people are not researchers or journalists who plan to publicly release the results of their investigations and would have to worry about legal retaliation.

But potentially bringing about an end to at least part of this broad law may be exchanging one type of legal threat with another. A look over the ACLU’s arguments for striking down that part of CFAA should set off alarms about what the future could bring:

As more and more of our transactions move online, and with much of our internet behavior lacking anonymity, it becomes easier for companies to target ads and services to individuals based on their perceived race, gender, or sexual orientation. Companies employ sophisticated computer algorithms to analyze the massive amounts of data they have about internet users. This use of “big data” enables websites to steer individuals toward different homes or credit offers or jobs—and they may do so based on users’ membership in a group protected by civil rights laws. In one example, a Carnegie Mellon study found that Google ads were being displayed differently based on the perceived gender of the user: Men were more likely to see ads for high-paying jobs than women. In another, preliminary research by the Federal Trade Commission showed the potential for ads for loans and credit cards to be targeted based on proxies for race, such as income and geography.

This steering may be intentional or it may happen unintentionally, for example when machine-learning algorithms evolve in response to flawed data sets reflecting existing disparities in the distribution of homes or jobs. Even the White House has acknowledged that “discrimination may ‘be the inadvertent outcome of the way big data technologies are structured and used.'”

Companies should be checking their own algorithms to ensure they are not discriminating. But that alone is not enough. Private actors may not want to admit to practices that violate civil rights laws, trigger the negative press that can flow from findings of discrimination, or modify what they perceive to be profitable business tools. That’s why robust outside journalism, testing, and research is necessary. For decades, courts and Congress have encouraged audit testing in the offline world—for example, where pairs of individuals of different races attempt to secure housing and jobs and compare outcomes. This kind of audit testing is the best way to determine whether members of protected classes are experiencing discrimination in transactions covered by civil rights laws, and as a result it’s been distinguished from laws prohibiting theft or fraud.

The text of the complaint (read here) makes it abundantly clear that one likely outcome—even a desirable outcome—could be civil rights lawsuits under other federal laws like the Fair Housing Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is not just about people trying to avoid being punished under one federal law. This is also potentially about getting evidence in order to use federal discrimination laws to punish private companies over the complex results of computer algorithms.

This is not to say that the ACLU itself plans to go around filing lawsuits willy nilly. But the ACLU and the people they’re representing in this case (one of whom is First Look Media, publishers of The Intercept), would not be the only people who be able to mobilize as a result of a friendly court ruling. Consider the lawyers (and their clients) who use the Americans with Disabilities Act to go from business to business looking for reasons to sue over frivolous concerns and eke out settlements. When the ACLU says, “Companies should be checking their own algorithms to ensure they are not discriminating,” there’s now a threat there, even if it’s not coming from the ACLU, isn’t there? Is that something even small businesses would have to pay attention to now? Is this going to be a new type of compliance cost? Could a business get into trouble for—as an example—buying targeted advertising that only reaches people in certain zip codes that have a high proportion of one race over another? Even if there are very good reasons for doing so, will a business is still now have to worry about having to defend against a lawsuit over it? Consider how many businesses settle complaints because the cost of fighting becomes too much of a burden.

It’s vexing, because the ACLU’s arguments for striking down that part of the law are compelling. There’s no reason that it should be a federal crime to do the same kind of auditing to determine discriminatory process that’s used through mailed applications or in-person interviews. Honestly it’s hard to justify making the violation of a sites “terms of service” a federal crime for any reason.

It’s disappointing, though, that ending one sort of abusive federal government prosecution may also be used as a tool to pry open new avenues to use the courts to harass people. The ACLU invokes redlining—the historical system of discrimination in which banks refused to provide mortgage loans in neighborhoods with high numbers of minorities. Does that really compare to which people get shown different types of online advertising?

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/29qp6SS
via IFTTT

Futures Spike After Banks Unveil Tens Of Billions In Buybacks

Betwen BofA, Citi, JPMorgan, and now Goldman, (and excluding MS for now), announced buybacks totalling over $24 billion have sent US equity futures spiking after hours.

  • Bank of America Authorizes $5b Buyback; Boosts Div to 7.5c-Share
  • Citigroup Plans $8.6b Buyback; Lifts Qtr Div to 16c From 5c
  • JPMorgan Chase Plans $10.6b Buyback, Maintains qtr Div at 48c/shr
  • Goldman Sachs plans buybacks of stock, boosts quarterly dividend

Futures are up across the board… no matter what exposure to financials they have…

 

As The S&P spikes…

 

Some context…

via http://ift.tt/29bCj4m Tyler Durden

Fed Fails Deutsche Bank And Santander In Stress Test, As 31 Other Banks Unleash Dividend, Buyback Frenzy

One week ago, the Fed released the first part of its annual solvency stress test, which found that all 33 bank participants had passed, and would not need additional capital even in a severely adverse scenario which looked as follows:

The severely adverse scenario is characterized by a severe global recession accompanied by a period of heightened corporate financial stress and negative yields for short-term U.S. Treasury securities. In this scenario, the level of U.S. real GDP begins to decline in the first quarter of 2016 and reaches a trough in the first quarter of 2017 that is 6.25 percent below the pre-recession peak. The unemployment rate increases by 5 percentage points, to 10 percent, by the middle of 2017, and headline consumer price inflation rises from about 0.25 percent at an annual rate in the first quarter of 2016 to about 1.25 percent at an annual rate by the end of the recession.  Asset prices drop sharply in the scenario, consistent with the developments described above. Equity prices fall approximately 50 percent through the end of 2016, accompanied by a surge in equity  market volatility, which approaches the levels attained in 2008. House prices and commercial real estate prices also experience considerable declines, with house prices dropping 25 percent through the third quarter of 2018 and commercial real estate prices falling 30 percent through the second quarter of 2018.

 

Today, moments ago the Fed released the second part of its stress test, the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR), one which gives banks the green light (or in some cases not) to return capital to shareholders.

What it found is that what Morgan Stanley conditionally passed the stress test and was “not objected to” it is required to “address certain weaknesses and resubmit its plan by the end of 2016.” The Fed also found that Deutsche Bank and Santander’s US units had failed the stress tests. This is what it said: “The Federal Reserve Board on Wednesday announced it has not objected to the capital plans of 30 bank holding companies participating in the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR). The Board objected to two firms’ plans. One other firm’s plan was not objected to, but the firm is being required to address certain weaknesses and resubmit its plan by the end of 2016.”

Who passed without question? Some 30 companies:

The Federal Reserve did not object to the capital plans of Ally Financial, Inc.; American Express Company; BancWest Corporation; Bank of America Corporation; The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation; BB&T Corporation; BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc.; BMO Financial Corp.; Capital One Financial Corporation; Citigroup, Inc.; Citizens Financial Group; Comerica Incorporated; Discover Financial Services; Fifth Third Bancorp; Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; HSBC North America Holdings, Inc.; Huntington Bancshares, Inc.; JP Morgan Chase & Co.; Keycorp; M&T Bank Corporation; MUFG Americas Holdings Corporation; Northern Trust Corp.; The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.; Regions Financial Corporation; State Street Corporation; SunTrust Banks, Inc.; TD Group US Holdings LLC; U.S. Bancorp; Wells Fargo & Company; and Zions Bancorporation. M&T Bank Corporation met minimum capital requirements on a post-stress basis after submitting an adjusted capital action.

Morgan Stanley, however, did not do quite as well, and the while the Fed did not object to the capital plan of Morgan Stanley, it “is requiring the firm to submit a new capital plan by the end of the fourth quarter of 2016 to address certain weaknesses in its capital planning processes.”

Finally, “the Fed objected to the capital plans of Deutsche Bank Trust Corporation and Santander Holdings USA, Inc. based on qualitative concerns. The Federal Reserve did not object to any capital plans based on quantitative grounds.”

Ironically, just moments after the Fed announced that Morgan Stanley may have deficiencies, it announced that it is boosting its dividend to $0.20/share and will repurchase up to $3.5 billion in stock, adding that it sees itself “fully meeting requirements within the timeline.”

MS stock dipped at first, then ripped right back into the green.

 

And with the Fed out of the way, all other banks have unleashed a veritable feeding frenzy of dividend hikes and buybacks.

  • Bank of America Authorizes $5b Buyback; Boosts Div to 7.5c-Share
  • Citigroup Plans $8.6b Buyback; Lifts Qtr Div to 16c From 5c
  • JPMorgan Chase Plans $10.6b Buyback, Maintains qtr Div at 48c/shr
  • Huntington Bancshares to Boost Qtr Div. to 8c From 7c/Shr
  • U.S. Bancorp to Buy Back $2.6b of Shares, Boosts Div. by 9.8%
  • Zions Bancorp Plans to Boost Dividend, Buyback
  • Citi to buy back up to $8.6 billion in shares, boost dividend to 16c/share
  • State Street to Buy Up to $1.4b; Boosts Dividend to 38c Vs 34c
  • Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Plan Includes Common Dividends of $120m
  • Discover Financial to Buy Back Up to $1.95b of Stock, Boost Div. to 30s/shr from 28c.

We expect many more to boost their dividend and buyback plans before the night is over. And since all of these transactions will be debt-funded, and since other banks will pocket the commission, expect a feeding frenzy of cross bank revenue thanks to yield starved investors who have no choice but to give banks their money all as a result of the Fed’s policies which today pushed the 30Y just shy of record low yields.

The full CCAR report can be found here.

via http://ift.tt/294juND Tyler Durden

Attorney General Meets Privately With Bill Clinton, Mike Tyson Not Speaking at RNC, UFO Advocate Dares Government to Indict Him: P.M. Links

  • Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with Bill Clinton in Phoenix, but insists they didn’t discuss the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton or any other “pending matters” within the Justice Department.
  • Donald Trump denies Mike Tyson was invited to speak at the Republican National Convention this summer in Cleveland.
  • President Obama, the president of Mexico, and the prime minister of Canada met in Ottawa for a North American Leaders’ Summit.
  • Misty Snow became the first openly transgendered Senate nominee when she won the Democratic primary in Utah.
  • A UFO disclosure advocate in Canada said he’s daring the U.S. government over his release of government documents detailing the tracking of nearly 2,000 UFOs by NORAD.
  • Miss Teen USA, to be held in Las Vegas next month, will be dropping its swimsuit competition.
  • Outrage over a “decidedly non-feminist” clue perceived as insensitive in The New York Times crossword puzzle.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/29dnRud
via IFTTT