Category: zerohedge

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

Movement by the EU, by Boris Johnson, and most importantly by Ireland suggests a good chance of a reasonable deal.

Compromise Movements

• Boris Johnson has had a series of good discussions with Ireland.

• Out of the blue, Jean Claude Juncker gave an optimistic interview even to the point of scrapping the backstop.

Eurointelligence has an excellent discussion this morning on the political events. Emphasis is mine.

For a short moment last night, it appeared that the whole Brexit process was about to be solved. We don’t normally care much about interviews here at Eurointelligence, but Jean-Claude Juncker was well worth watching on Sophy Ridge’s show on Sky News.

He confirmed that a deal is possible. He said no-deal was catastrophic also for the EU. He was very clear that a deal would be based on a single market for agrifoods, with borders checks away from the border. He said the backstop was not sacrosanct, only a means to an end. And he said that he works on the assumption that Brexit will happen.

It looks to us that we are moving towards a deal vs. no-deal scenario by the end of the month. The whole dispute currently unfolding about prorogation and the Benn legislation is very much a sideshow. We will report on the UK Supreme Court’s ruling next week when it happens, but we are thinking the political process is much more important than procedure.

If a deal were agreed, we assume that the EU will agree to a demand by Boris Johnson to foreclose formally the option of an extension – except a short technical extension to make time for ratification. We have been arguing that the main loophole in the Benn bill is not procedural but political. The biggest loophole in the legislation is the European Council, whose operations are poorly understood in the UK, and not understood at all by the legal profession which obsesses with domestic procedure.

What would the UK parliament do? Would they try to test whether the EU is bluffing? This is quite possible, but that game is dangerous. They could vote against the deal, and the next day pass a vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson. But Johnson is at that point under no obligation to resign. Under the fixed-term parliament act, the parliament could pass a vote of confidence in another MP with a specific mandate to seek an extension for an election. But would they? Would the EU relent, having committed itself in a Council conclusion not to do so? We cannot answer these hypothetical questions, but note that this would be a risky course that might backfire on those who take it. Would that course of action really advance the election prospects of Jeremy Corbyn?

Maybe the answer to all these questions is Yes. Stranger things have already happened in the Brexit process. But time is playing against hardline Remainers. We also get a sense from Juncker’s interview and other reports that the EU’s patience with the Remainer strategy is wearing thin. We think what tipped the balance was the EU’s gradual awareness of Labour’s policy that it would negotiate a deal only to allow Labour ministers to campaign against it. Labour obviously formulated this policy having not even consulted with the EU.

The big question is: could an agreed withdrawal agreement find a majority in the House of Commons? The math of this situation is the same as it always was. Johnson will need to get the DUP on board, quell his own rebellion, have a larger number of Labour MPs to support the deal. He can probably count on the group around Stephen Kinnock. Kinnock and Caroline Flint MP yesterday visited Michel Barnier to talk about the chance of a new deal. The hard-core group of Labour MPs in favour of a deal is around a dozen, but there may be up to 20 or 30 Labour MPs who could support a deal.

But we don’t think the Labour Party or the other opposition parties will come to Johnson’s rescue. The Remain campaign yesterday issued a dossier to warn Labour MPs against the right-wing policies that would follow a deal.

One possibility is that MPs might choose to abstain. In doing so they would still distance themselves from Johnson’s deal, but without being accused of triggering no-deal.

What Happened?

1. The EU now realizes Boris Johnson really wants a deal. Johnson may have been forced into that position by Parliament but that is the state of affairs.

2. Boris Johnson, DUP, and Ireland are coming to terms on how to remove the backstop.

3. The EU realizes the losses will not most be on the UK. Germany is outright scared as I stated from the beginning.

4. The EU understands the Liberal Democrats will not win the election.

5. The EU realizes that Boris Johnson is likely to win an election and the result will be No Deal unless it happens now.

6. Labour’s position of promising a referendum with a pledge to campaign against it makes no sense to the EU (or any reasonable person).

Point six was likely the last straw but point three is what forced the issue. Still, this was all a no-go without point two.

Fair Deal Increasingly Likely

Removal of the backstop is now a given. That’s going to happen.

But the backstop is not the only odious thing. At a minimum, Johnson needs to insist on removal of language that puts the UK at the mercy of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Johnson also needs to strive for a Canada-style deal. This does not have to be resolved now, just the groundwork.

The closer he can come to that, the better things will be for both the EU and the UK.

Finally, and importantly, the EU needs to come up with a deal that Parliament will ratify.

If the EU wants a deal, it has to bend.

Juncker signals the EU really wants a deal.

Increasing Odds of a Deal

Yesterday I wrote Increasing Odds of a Bad Brexit Deal as Liberal Democrats Leap Ahead of Labour

That is still true.

But the odds of a fair deal have increased as well.

Thus, the odds of No Deal have fallen.

Ironic Setup

I told people for months the EU would deal if someone would back them into a corner.

Many thought I was nuts. I don’t blame them but I have watched the EU in action for years and just like magic there is a compromise at the 11 hour.

That’s what is happening now.

Here’s the irony: The person backing the EU into a corner might not have been Boris Johnson, but rather Jeremy Corbyn running on the silly platform of promising a referendum and campaigning against it.

Remain is hopelessly split. The EU is not blind to that fact.

The EU was finally forced to consider this would drag on for years with the UK and the Brexit party disrupting European Parliament the whole time unless thew EU compromised or accepted no deal.

Not Over Yet

Many things can go wrong but the odds of a (both good and bad) are now rising.

Boris needs to negotiate carefully. The backstop is not the only issue.

Binary Choice

Here’s the final irony.

Theresa May struggled for two years to produce a binary choice option for Parliament.

We may now finally have one thanks to the Tory revolt and and crazy stance of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Johnson and the EU need to find a solution that can actually pass Parliament.

If things go to plan, Parliament will have to accept No Deal or whatever Johnson can work out.

Pressure is on both sides!

Which is precisely what it takes to get a fair deal.

Kiss Remain Goodbye

Kiss Remain goodbye, it is not in the binary choice.

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Should we chalk it up to coincidence theory that just days after Trump gives John Bolton the boot as his National Security Adviser, Iran is blamed for an attack on a Saudi oil facility, forcing Washington to forego any hope of peace with Tehran?

One day before Bolton’s abrupt departure from the White House, Trump had reportedly discussed with his security advisers the possibility of easing sanctions on Tehran in an effort to create the “right conditions” for a possible meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the United Nations later this month.

“We’ll see what happens,” Trump told reporters last week. “I do believe they’d like to make a deal.”

Now we may never know how things may have turned out because one week later that comment looks like a page torn from ancient history.

On Saturday, Yemen Houthi rebels claimed responsibility for sophisticated drone attacks on the Saudi Aramco oil factory, which is situated deep inside the country, more than 1,000 kilometers away from the Yemen border. If the claims are true, it would mark a serious turning point in the four-year military ‘intervention’, which has seen US- and British-backed Saudi forces take a heavy-handed approach to extricating the rebels from the capital, Sanaa.

Yemeni military spokesman Yahya Sari said the attack involved an “accurate intelligence operation” that was assisted by “honorable and free” men working inside of the Kingdom. That televised confession, however, wasn’t going to stop the United States and its regional allies from believing what they wanted to believe, which was that Iran was solely responsible for the incident.

#Yemen
Yahya Sari’: “10 UAVs Targeted the Aramco’s Refineries in Buqayq and Khurais”

He said: This operation took place after accurate intelligence operation with help of honorable and free mans within the Kingdom.

Details here: https://t.co/4bTbAKkHf9 pic.twitter.com/RKKgqiU5XT

— IWN (@A7_Mirza) September 14, 2019

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, whose pugilistic presence in the Trump administration makes Bolton’s absence seem almost imperceptible, proclaimed in a tweet that Iran is responsible for launching “an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply.”

Pompeo went on to say there was “no evidence the attacks came from Yemen,” while never proving evidence the attack originated from Iran either. In other words, Trump is being pushed into a situation where he has no choice but to fight. Not the best situation for an incumbent president heading into the election season. And it certainly doesn’t help his situation when members of his own party shake the pompoms for war, as Senator Lindsey Graham did when he called for attacks on Iran’s oil refineries.

Tehran is behind nearly 100 attacks on Saudi Arabia while Rouhani and Zarif pretend to engage in diplomacy. Amid all the calls for de-escalation, Iran has now launched an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply. There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen.

— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) September 14, 2019

Thus, in a matter of hours, Trump has gone from being open to the idea of talking to Iran to saying the US is “locked and loaded” and just waiting to “hear from the Kingdom” before the White House takes some kind of action against the suspected perpetrator.

Incidentally, although that ominous tweet certainly got the attention of Iranian officials, it is worth noting that just over two years ago, as the war rhetoric between Pyongyang and Washington was hitting its crescendo, Trump used exactly the same threatening phrase “locked and loaded.” Yet today relations between the two countries have calmed considerably and Trump even went on to become the first US leader to enter North Korea. Was Trump sending a message to Tehran? Will the maverick from Manhattan soon be strolling down the streets of Tehran, shaking hands with imams as he did Kim Jong-un? Nothing would enrage the US deep state more.

With regards to the idea that Iran was behind the attacks on the Saudi oil factory that claim sounds highly dubious. Once again, we are expected to accept the narrative that sovereign states have some sort of suicide wish, and would happily submit to a mortal self-inflicted wound at the most incongruous time (as was the case with Syria, by the way, which, as the media desperately wanted everyone to believe, decided to carry out chemical attacks against the rebels, thereby risking a full-blown attack by the US military and half of NATO).

Iranian supported Houthi rebels who attacked Saudi oil refineries is yet another example of how Iran is wreaking havoc in the Middle East. The Iranian regime is not interested in peace – they’re pursuing nuclear weapons and regional dominance. https://t.co/RElvTDFYb2

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) September 14, 2019

Indeed, why would Iran, even through the use of proxy forces, risk an attack on Saudi Arabia that could set the entire Middle East alight? The idea becomes all the more preposterous when we remember that just several weeks ago, Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, made a surprise visit to the G7 summit, hosted by France, where world leaders, including US President Donald Trump, were gathered. Trump, alongside French President Emmanuel Macron during a post-summit press conference, agreed to the possibility of meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Rouhani.

Trump even seemed open to the idea of backing away from current US policy of “maximum pressure” on Tehran, saying he would consider providing Iran with an emergency credit line backed by its oil production.

Why would Tehran risk igniting World War III when the prospect for peace – not to mention financial relief – seems to be near at hand?

Iran’s active diplomacy in pursuit of constructive engagement continues.

Met @EmmanuelMacron on sidelines of #G7Biarritz after extensive talks with @JY_LeDrian & Finance Min. followed by a joint briefing for UK/Germany.

Road ahead is difficult. But worth trying. pic.twitter.com/oXdACvt20T

— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) August 25, 2019

The circumstantial evidence points to the fact that Iran, as it has vociferously declared, had nothing to do with the brazen assault on Saudi Arabia. Trump, I would imagine, is probably also very wary of the accusations, spouted by none other than his own Secretary of State, since he is very familiar with such underhanded tactics due to his experience in Syria.

Thus far in his presidency, Donald Trump has been able to avoid full-blown war despite serious efforts by a consortium of concerns to trigger such an event. Despite the hawks he gathers around himself, probably in an effort to “keep his enemies closer,” as Sun Tsu recommended, Trump is clearly not enamored of the battlefield as are so many others in Washington. Trump is a businessman, and sees much more advantage in walking away from a hard-won contract than walking away from an obliterated landscape, the worst imaginable thing for a real estate developer. Nevertheless, it is a nerve-racking experience watching the author of the ‘Art of the Deal’ bluster and bluff his way against rivals right up to precipice of disaster before retreating back again to stable ground.

This strategy keeps the Deep State constantly off guard as to his real intentions, which is not about triggering World War III. How long the Deep State will tolerate such a relative atmosphere of global peace is another question, but they will certainly be doing everything in their power to ensure he does not secure another four years in the White House. And that is the tragic reality of Donald Trump’s real war.

ATTOM Data Solutions has published its Q2 2019 U.S. Home Flipping Report, which states revenue from home flipping has plunged to an eight-year low.

According to Todd Teta, chief product officer at ATTOM, diminishing returns on home flips could be a sign that the real estate market is nearing a crisis.

“Home flipping keeps getting less and less profitable, which is another marker that the post-recession housing boom is softening or may be coming to an end. Flipping houses is still a good business to be in and profits are healthy in most parts of the country. But push-and-pull forces in the housing market appear to be working less and less in investors’ favor. That’s leading to declining profits and a business that is nowhere near as good as it was a few years ago.”

The report shows that 59,876 homes and condos were flipped in 2Q, up 12.4% QoQ, but down 5.2% YoY.

Homes flipped in the quarter represented 5.9% of all home sales, down from 7.2% in 1Q. 

In the quarter, homes flipped generated a gross profit of $62,700, up 2% QoQ, but down 2% YoY. The $62,700 in 2Q translated into a 39.9% ROI, down from 40.9% ROI in 1Q. 

Returns on home flips have fallen for six consecutive quarters and eight of the last ten, now reaching levels not seen since 4Q11.

But with returns at eight-year lows, investors, especially the mom-and-pop ones watching too much HGTV, were the ones flipping like crazy in 2Q. Flipping rates increased in 2Q YoY in 104 of 149 metropolitan statistical areas analyzed by ATTOM.

Many of these so-called investors, not conscious whatsoever about a housing slowdown, nevertheless an economic downturn, are financing their flips at a record clip. The total dollar volume of financed home flips in 2Q was $8.4 billion, up 31.3% from $6.4 billion in 2Q18, to the highest level since 3Q06.

Forty-one percent of homes flipped in 2Q were financed, marginally higher QoQ, but down from 45.9% in 2Q18.

The hottest metropolitan statistical areas analyzed in the report with at least a million people were Salt Lake City, UT; Austin, TX; Dallas-Fort Worth, TX; San Antonio, TX, and Kansas City, MO.

Homes flipped in 2Q19 sold for an average of $220,000, with a gross flipping profit of $62,700. The 2Q figure was up from a gross flipping profit of $61,500 in 1Q, but down from $64,000 in 2Q18. These homes are staying on the market much longer than ever before, which is leading to margin compression of the flipper as buyers negotiate lower prices.

House flipping returns are plunging at a time when Robert Shiller sat down with Bloomberg earlier this month and dropped a bombshell that might have every flipper wetting their pants: “I wouldn’t be surprised if home prices started falling, and it could be accompanied by a recession.” 

Nobel laureate Robert Shiller said he “wouldn’t be at all surprised” if U.S. house prices start to fall https://t.co/tqjfeGfo1l pic.twitter.com/mknbODH4Iq

— Bloomberg Economics (@economics) September 5, 2019

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

Most human suffering is due to believed mental stories, from the psychological suffering of the individual to the large-scale suffering caused by international power structures who advance violence and oppression via propaganda. We must evolve a new relationship with narrative.

Most people’s lives are dominated by mental story, so whoever can control those stories controls the people. The good news is that all we need to do to reclaim our world from the controllers is to reclaim our stories. The barrier between us and freedom is as thin as a fairy tale.

I talk about fighting establishment narrative control a lot, not because it’s the best way to change things, but because it’s the only way. The public will never, ever use the power of their numbers to change things so long as they’re being successfully propagandized not to.

We are bulldozing a paradise while praying we go to Heaven when we die. We are killing off giant-brained leviathans in our own oceans whose mental lives we know little about while searching the stars for intelligent life. We are burning our home in our search for a sense of home.

The most condescending sound in the known universe is Bill Maher’s voice.

Joe Biden could slip into a coma tomorrow and they’d still wheel him out to the debates with the words “NOT TRUMP” scribbled on his forehead in sharpie. And he’d continue to poll in the mid-to-high twenties.

We are about three years from watching President Biden say he’s working with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to win the Cold War, soiling himself at the podium, and then CNN pundits earnestly discussing his similarities and differences to President Obama.

It feels like we’re overdue for another media tour by Steven Pinker to tell us that things are better than ever and our discontent is just imaginary.

“Why doesn’t the left look at Israel exactly the same as every other country, hmmmmmmm???” Because it isn’t exactly the same as every other country. It plays a crucial role in the empire’s geostrategic maneuverings in the Middle East. It’s not about Jews or Judaism, it’s about imperialism.

One of the absolute stupidest things about US politics is how they made regime change in Iran vs regime change in Syria a partisan wedge issue, and partisans only question possible false flags based on which of those agendas their team cheers for.

If the political/media class wants to treat “proxy forces” and “Iran” like they mean the same thing, then they should have also been saying things like “USA fires rockets into Damascus” and “American troops sodomize Gaddafi with bayonet”.

It infuriates the empire propagandists to no end that after years of carefully crafting a very specific narrative about what’s happening in Syria, anti-imperialist journalists can just fly on over there and look around and report on the things they are seeing.

The US outsources all its ugliest aspects so that American voters don’t have to look at them. It outsources its torture, it outsources its slavery, it outsources its wars, and it outsources the the holding cells for its political prisoners.

In old-style British imperialism, they’d invade your country and replace your flag with theirs. In new-style US imperialism, your country keeps its flag, and the takeover can happen so slyly that the nation’s citizens sometimes don’t even know it’s occurred. It’s much more efficient.

All empires throughout history have had some kind of positive narrative about why it’s right that they should be conquering and dominating the world. The US-centralized empire with its bogus “freedom and democracy” schtick is no different.

If you were to combine all the very worst possible kinds of government with all the very worst possible government actions and roll them all together to create a single nation, that nation would look exactly the same as Saudi Arabia.

The maneuverings of establishment power structures are always made to protect the power they already have and/or to try and obtain more. It’s never anything more exotic or otherworldly than that: the mundane, primitive drive to try and control as many other humans as possible.

International alliances are often thought of as matters of secondary importance, as just something governments do when possible to make themselves a bit safer, wealthier, etc. Actually, uniting nations into one power structure is the goal, and it’s what alliances are really for.

I love a conspiracy enthusiast who can research with an open mind and live comfortably with the fact that there’s a lot we don’t know due to government opacity. I dislike the all-too-common other kind who pretend they know everything about everything and scoff at everyone else.

There are two kinds of people in conspiracy circles: those who have an intellectually honest relationship with what they know and don’t know, and the bullshitters who fake knowing things they don’t. It’s possible to get quite popular in conspiracy circles by faking it. Many do.

There’s an implicit default assumption among the political/media class that US government agencies have earned back the trust they lost with Iraq, despite their having made no changes whatsoever to prevent another Iraq-like horror from reoccurring, or even so much as apologizing.

I talk about Iraq all the time because that’s what everyone should be doing. It’s never been addressed, never been resolved, yet the US war machine and its propaganda apparatus have marched on as though it never happened. It’s a very large elephant in a very important room.

The Trump administration’s relentless fumbling, ham-fisted attempts to manufacture consent for a war with Iran remind me of of a really awkward loser constantly asking the prettiest girl at the office for a date again and again. Give it up, dude. She ain’t into you.

Many on the left care about domestic policy a lot more than they care about foreign policy. Meanwhile, foreign policy is the foremost priority of the establishment they’re trying to take down. This arrangement works out very nicely for the powerful.

“Peace through strength” just means “We’ll take money away from the poor and the needy and use it to beef up our already bloated military so we can bully the world into obedience.” That’s not peace, that’s tyranny.

It shouldn’t be too much to ask for one of America’s two mainstream parties to put forward at least one presidential candidate who opposes all military mass murders and has no plutocratic loyalties. That is not actually an unreasonable thing to demand. Don’t lose sight of this.

You can thank Obama for normalizing the “campaign as a progressive and govern as a Reaganite” strategy which now has Americans mostly clueless as to which Democratic primary candidate will actually represent their interests.

You are infinitely more qualified to report the news than the propagandists of the mainstream media. Even a teenager making a sloppy, amateurish first-time Youtube video about current events is superior to an MSM talking head who’s paid to lie. Be the press.

The establishment doesn’t fear Trump. It doesn’t fear Bernie, and it doesn’t fear Tulsi. It fears you. It fears the people. A single politician they can deal with. The public rising up and using the power of their numbers to force change is what keeps your rulers up at night.

*  *  *

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permissionto republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Researchers at the University of Buffalo (UB), funded by the Army Research Office (ARO), have developed a new plastic that could be used for advanced body armor, combat helmets, ballistic plates, and or even armor for vehicles.

The UB-led research team, fascinated by mollusk-grown gems, used inspiration from nature to create a lightweight plastic that is 14 times stronger and eight times lighter than steel and “ideal for absorbing the impact of bullets and other projectiles,” UB Now said.

The findings were published in a recent edition of the journal Applied Polymer Materials, published by the American Chemical Society (ACS).

“The material is stiff, strong and tough,” says lead author Shenqiang Ren, a professor in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and a member of UB’s RENEW Institute. “It could be applicable to vests, helmets and other types of body armor, as well as protective armor for ships, helicopters, and other vehicles.”

The new lightweight plastic is an advanced version of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE).

Researchers said while developing the UHMWPE-based material; they examined “mother of pearl, which mollusks create by arranging a form of calcium carbonate into a structure that resembles interlocking bricks. Like, mother of pearl, the material has an extremely tough outer shell with a more flexible inner backing that’s capable of deforming and absorbing projectiles.”

Evan Runnerstrom, the ARO program manager, said UB’s new plastic might “lead to new generations of lightweight armor that provide both protection and mobility for soldiers.”

Runnerstrom said the UHMWPE-based material is easier to mold into intricate shapes that would make it more affordable to create protection for soldiers, vehicles, and other Army assets.

The new plastic is so advanced that it could replace Kevlar, a heat-resistant and durable synthetic fiber, used in the production of ballistic plates.

The ability for the new plastic to rapidly dissipate heat further helps it absorb the energy from a bullet and or shrapnel.

The team even blended the UHMWPE-based material with silica nanoparticles, which created an even strong armor.

“This work demonstrates that the right materials design approaches have the potential to make big impacts for Army technologies,” Runnerstrom said.

The next step for researchers would be creating ballistic plates of the new material for live-fire testing.

 

Authored by Eoin Higgins via CommonDreams.org,

A U.S. drone attack killed 30 pine nut farmers and wounded at least 40 others in Afghanistan Wednesday night, the latest killing of innocent civilians by American forces as the “war on terror” enters its 19th year. 

The farmers had just finished work and were sitting by a fire when the strike happened, according to tribal elder Malik Rahat Gul.

“Some of us managed to escape, some were injured, but many were killed,” said farm laborer Juma Gul.

Reteurs reported that there may be more farmers missing:

Haidar Khan, who owns the pine nut fields, said about 150 workers were there for harvesting, with some still missing as well as the confirmed dead and injured.

A survivor of the drone strike said about 200 laborers were sleeping in five tents pitched near the farm when the attack happened.

In a statement, Colonel Sonny Leggett, the spokesman for the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan, said the attack was aimed at “Da’esh (IS) terrorists in Nangarhar” province. 

“We are aware of allegations of the death of non-combatants and are working with local officials to determine the facts,” said Leggett. 

However, Leggett said, the blame for the massacre is squarely on IS and the Taliban — not U.S. forces. 

“We are fighting in a complex environment against those who intentionally kill and hide behind civilians, as well as use dishonest claims of noncombatant casualties as propaganda weapons,” Leggett said. 

Human rights group Amnesty International, in a statement, said that the strike was “unacceptable and suggests a shocking disregard for civilian life.” 

“U.S. forces in Afghanistan must ensure that all possible precautions are taken to avoid civilian casualties in military operations,” said Amnesty.

In a tweet, journalist Emran Feroz said his reporting from the region indicates that the reality of U.S. policy with respect to attacks in Nangarhar is different than Leggett’s claims. 

“Seems that recent drone strikes in Nangarhar’s Khogyani district ended in a total massacre killing far more than 30 civilians,” said Feroz. “When I visited Khogyani in 2017, locals told us that drone strikes against farmers and other civilians are taking place regularly.”

Rita Siemion, the director of National Security Advocacy at Human Rights First, told Common Dreams that the U.S. military cannot knowingly continue to use a process that repeatedly kills civilians by mistake. 

“Mistakes can happen, but this strike is part of a pattern that suggests that there are serious flaws in the Pentagon’s targeting processes that need to be addressed,” said Siemion. “Knowingly using a process that fails to adequately distinguish between civilians and combatants would violate the laws of war and be detrimental to the overall mission.”

In a tweet, The Intercept‘s Mehdi Hasan noted just how little attention the massacre perpetrated by the U.S. military was likely to receive.

In terms of Afghanistan making an appearance on the US news agenda, this should cause more outrage and anger than Trump inviting the Taliban to Camp David – but it won’t. https://t.co/RBvqXDmQRz

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) September 19, 2019

MSNBC host Chris Hayes tweeted Thursday that Americans should pay attention to the attack and try to put themselves in Afghan shoes. 

“It is so easy to read this and be upset or shake your head and still see it as an abstraction,” said Hayes. “But take a second to play through a missile from, say, Iran landing in Iowa and killing 30 farmers and what that would do to domestic politics.”

More and more women are flocking to plastic surgery to correct a devastating condition known as “resting bitch face”, according the New York Post.

“Resting bitch face” is a condition wherein you look – well, bitchy – due to your normal, everyday facial expression. It’s also sometimes just referred to as simply “being from New York City”. 

Hope Davis, one woman who got surgery for the condition after her friends uploaded “a batch of unflattering photos to Facebook and Instagram”, said: 

“I was like, ‘Oh great, I look mad in the middle of the party’. I looked like a sourpuss.”

Davis didn’t comment on whether or not she actually was “mad in the middle of the party” – a road we hope she considered before having someone slice her face open. Perhaps she just wasn’t having a good day at the time.

But it’s too late to look back now. She, like many other women, turned right to a plastic surgeon. 

Dr. David Shafer, a double board-certified plastic surgeon and medical director of Shafer Plastic Surgery & Laser Center in Midtown, said he’s familiar with the request to deal with “RBF”, as he called it, and said its a common request that he gets several times each week.

Davis instructed Shafer that she didn’t want a ‘Joker’ smile, but rather a “pleasant resting look”. 

Doctors use techniques like injecting fillers into the face and Botox to achieve the look. The procedure takes about 10 to 20 minutes and can cost between $500 to $5,000. It generally lasts “up to two years”. 

Shafer said:

 “The worse the ‘bitch face,’ the more effective the Botox. If you always look dumpy, or unfriendly … people are going to react to you differently.”

Shafer said that requests to fix “RBF” have more than doubled over the last year. He claims it is due to a shift in focus to the lower face, “popularized by the Kardashians” and the prevalence of selfies, which force people to look downward at their phone, accentuating their resting bitch faces.

Davis said: “Nobody can quite put their finger on it, but they notice something’s different. People have definitely complimented me saying, ‘Oh you look so pretty and cute today.’ ”

Park Avenue plastic surgeon Dr. Melissa Doft said: “People gravitate to women who they perceive as happy.”

“It helps make patients look less sad,” she continued. 

But, as Davis will unfortunately find out, hacking your face apart isn’t necessary going to make you happy on the inside. 

She concluded:

 “I caught a glimpse of myself out of the corner of my eye, and it gave me a positive vibe because I looked happy. This whole time, [I was focused on] how I project to the world, but I wasn’t paying attention to how I project to myself.”

Maybe they’ll have plastic surgery for your soul at that point…

Authored by Rusty Weiss via The Mental Recession

CNN anchor Don Lemon has found what he considers to be the true angle on the Justin Trudeau blackface scandal – that President Trump is a bad man.

Orange man bad, as they say.

Trudeau was featured in a 2001 photo from a Time magazine report dressed in brownface makeup for an “Arabian Nights” party held at the private school in which he taught.

He was apologetic about the whole affair.

“I shouldn’t have done that. I should have known better, but I didn’t and I’m really sorry,” Trudeau said. “I take responsibility for my decision to do that.”

“I shouldn’t have done that. I should’ve known better. It was something that I didn’t think was racist at the time but now I recognize that it was something racist to do and I’m deeply sorry.”

Prime minister of Canada Justin Trudeau wore blackface at 2001 costume party. He’ll say he’s sorry, & liberals will forget it ever happened.

Just like they did with Ralph Northam, Jimmy Kimmel, Howard Stern, & Robert Downey Jr.

But if a conservative did it, they’d be ruined. pic.twitter.com/ojim3V59nj

— Mark Dice (@MarkDice) September 18, 2019

Imagine this was an image of President Trump. And imagine he apologized for doing something stupid in his past. Do you think Lemon, or anybody in the media for that matter, would be forgiving?

To nobody’s surprise, Lemon’s fellow beta male in Trudeau was praised for his apology. Not only did he praise Trudeau, but Lemon took a shot at Trump over a scandal that has absolutely nothing to do with him!

“Wow, a leader apologizing. It seems odd, doesn’t it?” Lemon said following a clip of Trudeau’s statement. “Because we have one who doesn’t.”

Nice leap in logic there, Don. Is it any wonder the President has repeatedly labeled Lemon the “dumbest man on television”?

The CNN ‘journalist’ fawned over Trudeau’s apology to end the segment as well.

“I do have to say this before we go: think about it however you want to think about it. When someone apologizes- wow!” Lemon gushed. “We don’t often see that here, especially in a world leader who is saying ‘I should’ve known better and I’m sorry.’ You can feel about it however you want, but that, to me, that does mean a lot.”

Wow Don Lemon is outraged about Justin Trudeau wearing brownface

Oh wait no he’s not, he’s commending him and using it as a way to take a shot at President Trump pic.twitter.com/ndCDDVeeEq

— Quoth the Raven (@QTRResearch) September 19, 2019

Again, no amount of apology from a Republican would ever suffice in Lemon’s world. But liberals who do this – perfectly okay. That’s why you can have a Ralph Northam or Justin Trudeau blackface scandal and both men can emerge unscathed.

The double standard is sickening.

A new report from the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command states that the Ballistic Low Altitude Drone Engagement (BLADE) prototype is ready to conduct further trials to protect high-value military assets from small unmanned aerial system attacks. 

The BLADE is a dome of protection that uses a set of systems to combat against small drone attacks, can be mounted on various tactical vehicles providing troops and military assets with close-range protection. 

The BLADE is integrated with the Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station (CROWS) and uses advanced fire control and precision targeting enablers to detect, track, and defeat small drones. CROWS includes a sensor suite and fire control software that allow soldiers to engage targets remotely. CROWS tracks targets with several sensors, including a camera and thermal optics. The new system can be stationary or mounted on most tactical vehicles. 

Once the BLADE identifies and locks onto a target, it will fire an electronic attack on small incoming drones with short bursts of fire.

A successful test occurred earlier this summer at Fort Dix, New Jersey, proved the new system is ready for additional, more rugged field tests against drone swarms.

BLADE is expected to be mounted on M1 Abrams tanks, M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, and Stryker wheeled armored fighting vehicles.

The Army said BLADE is at “final Level 6 technology readiness demonstration for the BLADE system will be conducted later this year.”

“Technology readiness levels refer to the maturity of a technology and range from Level 1 to Level 9. Level 6 is a model or prototype that has been tested in an operational environment, such as an aircraft or vehicle. Once we get a technology to the point where it can transition out of CCDC, which is typically Level 6, it transitions to program managers and program executive offices who make the technology a program of record, which means funding has been approved so the program can move forward.”

The proliferation of small drones on the modern battlefield, especially in Syria, and more recently, the Saudi Aramco drone/cruise missile attack over the weekend, have allowed terrorist organizations to exploit defense gaps in lower altitude air space. 

The first instance of where small drone attacks became very alarming was in Syria early last year. When terrorists strapped bombs to a swarm of small drones and attacked the Russian Khmeimim airbase.

In August of last year, a drone packed with explosives detonated near Avenida Bolívar, Caracas, where Nicolás Maduro, the President of Venezuela, was addressing the Bolivarian National Guard. 

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro unharmed after an assassination attemp by drones pic.twitter.com/AMBZTEu6An

— China Xinhua News (@XHNews) August 5, 2018

Earlier this year, Houthi rebels used an explosive-packed drone to target Yemen’s military leaders at an army parade. 

The moment Houthi suicide drone exploding above the dias of the Saudi backed Yemeni army parade: pic.twitter.com/qhjH1RkG2J

— Carl Zha (@CarlZha) January 10, 2019

Then over the weekend, a highly disruptive small drone attack, claimed by the Houthi rebels, knocked out 5.7 million barrels per day (bpd) of total Saudi oil output, which equates to about half of their production – causing oil prices across the world to spike. 

Massive fires at 2 Saudi Aramco oil facilities caused by drone attacks – Riyadhhttps://t.co/HRA4TpGP8Tpic.twitter.com/ljc5AC7aMI

— RT (@RT_com) September 14, 2019

All of these incidents prove that the rapid proliferation of small drones on the modern battlefields and across the world have created a significant defense gap that companies, corporations, and militaries are rushing to fix. The solution could be the BLADE. 

Authored by Minxin Pei via Project Syndicate,

On October 1, to mark the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic, Chinese President Xi Jinping will deliver a speech that unreservedly celebrates the Communist Party of China’s record since 1949. But, despite Xi’s apparent confidence and optimism, the CPC’s rank and file are increasingly concerned about the regime’s future prospects – with good reason.

In 2012, when Xi took the reins of the CPC, he promised that the Party would strive to deliver great successes in advance of two upcoming centennials, marking the founding of the CPC in 1921 and the People’s Republic. But a persistent economic slowdown and rising tensions with the United States will likely sour the CPC’s mood during the 2021 celebrations. And the one-party regime may not even survive until 2049.

While there is technically no time limit on dictatorship, the CPC is approaching the longevity frontier for one-party regimes. Mexico’s Institutional Revolutionary Party retained power for 71 years (1929-2000); the Communist Party of the Soviet Union ruled for 74 years (1917-1991); and Taiwan’s Kuomintang held on for 73 years (from 1927 to 1949 on the mainland and from 1949 to 2000 in Taiwan). The North Korean regime, a Stalinist family dynasty that has ruled for 71 years, is China’s only contemporary competition.

But historical patterns are not the only reason the CPC has to be worried. The conditions that enabled the regime to recover from the self-inflicted disasters of Maoism and to prosper over the last four decades have largely been replaced by a less favorable – and in some senses more hostile – environment.

The greatest threat to the Party’s long-term survival lies in the unfolding cold war with the US. During most of the post-Mao era, China’s leaders kept a low profile on the international stage, painstakingly avoiding conflict while building strength at home. But by 2010, China had become an economic powerhouse, pursuing an increasingly muscular foreign policy. This drew the ire of the US, which began gradually to shift from a policy of engagement toward the confrontational approach evident today.

With its superior military capabilities, technology, economic efficiency, and alliance networks (which remain robust, despite President Donald Trump’s destructive leadership), the US is far more likely to prevail in the Sino-American cold war than China. Though an American victory could be Pyrrhic, it would more than likely seal the CPC’s fate.

The CPC also faces strong economic headwinds. The so-called Chinese miracle was fueled by a large and youthful labor force, rapid urbanization, large-scale infrastructure investment, market liberalization, and globalization – all factors that have either diminished or disappeared.

Radical reforms – in particular, the privatization of inefficient state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and the end of neo-mercantilist trading practices – could sustain growth. But, despite paying lip service to further market reforms, the CPC has been reluctant to implement them, instead clinging to policies that favor SOEs at the expense of private entrepreneurs. Because the state-owned sector forms the economic foundation of one-party rule, the prospect that CPC leaders will suddenly embrace radical economic reform is dim.

Domestic political trends are similarly worrying. Under Xi, the CPC has abandoned the pragmatism, ideological flexibility, and collective leadership that served it so well in the past. With the Party’s neo-Maoist turn – including strict ideological conformity, rigid organizational discipline, and fear-based strongman rule – the risks of catastrophic policy mistakes are rising.

To be sure, the CPC will not go down without a fight. As its grip on power weakens, it will probably attempt to stoke nationalism among its supporters, while intensifying repression of its opponents.

But this strategy cannot save China’s one-party regime. While nationalism may boost support for the CPC in the short term, its energy will eventually dissipate, especially if the Party fails to deliver continued improvement in living standards. And a regime that is dependent on coercion and violence will pay dearly in the form of depressed economic activity, rising popular resistance, escalating security costs, and international isolation.

This is hardly the uplifting picture Xi will present to the Chinese people on October 1. But no amount of nationalist posturing can change the fact that the unraveling of the CPC’s rule appears closer than at any time since the end of the Mao era.