President Trump “understands what Russia did in our elections in 2016 and he has empowered” his administration officials to ensure it doesn’t happen in this year’s midterm elections or in 2020, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News on Thursday, adding that “this administration has been relentless in its efforts to deter Russia from its bad behavior… President Trump has been strong in protecting America from Russian aggression.”
Pompeo said Trump has been briefed on the matter consistently and knows Russia interfered both in 2016 and prior years, adding that the matter gets “confused” because some people want to make it a partisan issue due to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.
The Secretary of State also rejected any idea Trump is weak compared to Russian President Vladimir Putin or that Putin may have compromising information on Trump: “Those allegations are absurd.”
The Secretary of State claimed the Trump administration had inherited a situation from its predecessor where Russia was “running all over the US.”
Pompeo also said he doubted that US and Russian presidents had made important verbal agreements at their recent summit.
“I’m not sure I take the Russian ambassador’s word for a whole lot. From time to time they want to tell stories,” Pompeo said on Fox News.
The top US diplomat said he had a chance to talk with Trump about his private discussions with Putin in Helsinki last Monday. “There was progress made on a handful of agreements to try and work more closely on counterterrorism, an effort to begin conversations around arms control.”
.@SecPompeo on @POTUS‘ meeting with Putin: “There was progress made on a handful of fronts: Agreements to try and work more closely on counterterrorism, an effort to begin conversations around arms control to prevent the spread of nuclear proliferation.” @foxnewsnightpic.twitter.com/TXKvpNzgPA
Refuting that, however, the Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov told Rossia-1 television channel on Wednesday Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump reached deals on matters of global security.
Earlier, Pompeo told the EWTN TV channel that Donald Trump was able to set up a channel for dialogue with Russia: “The President was aiming towards creating a channel for communication and dialogue, and he achieved that” he said.
Pompeo also complained about “a lot of heat” following this Monday’s summit between the two presidents, who met behind closed doors in Helsinki. “The President had the objective of taking two countries that’d been on a bad path and trying to redirect that,” he underscored.
Earlier in the day, Donald Trump told CNBC that “he would be the worst enemy” Russian President Vladimir Putin has ever had if relationship between the United States and Russia falters.
“Getting along with President Putin, getting along with Russia is a positive, not a negative,” Trump told CNBC. “Now with that being said, if that doesn’t work out I’ll be the worst enemy he’s ever had, the worst he’s ever had.”
Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) sat down with Reason‘s Editor-at-Large Matt Welch to talk about the upcoming confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, what concerns him about Trump’s tariffs and the future of criminal justice reform. Watch above or click here for full text and downloadable versions.
In the last couple of weeks, record highs have been set around the U.S., particularly in the Los Angeles area, which I did a lengthy debunking of. Records were also set in Scotland, then denied by an errant Ice Cream truck, and also questioned in Africa. Josh is on the case to illustrate the one common denominator to all these high temperature records we’ve discussed here on WUWT.
For people who don’t believe this, or think we are just “making stuff up”…Here’s the official weather station at the airport in Rome, Italy. I wonder if the Pope has seen this?
WUWT provides more examples including some in the US including LA and Burbank. Here’s Burbank.
Yes, the weather station is virtually surrounded by asphalt runways, taxiways, and aircraft parking ramps. The likelihood for the station to get in the middle of a 400F jetwash is almost a certainty, being so close to taxiways with turns. This is a ridiculous place to measure for high temperatures.
Cities such as New York, Philadelphia, and Boston are prominent centers of political power. Less known: Their size, background ecology, and development patterns also combine to make them unusually warm, according to NASA scientists who presented new research recently at an American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco, Calif.
Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect.
Measurement Bias?
You bet
Reporting Bias?
You bet
Nonsensical Lawsuits
Clearly, we are not accurately measuring the rise in temperatures but that does not stop nonsense lawsuits.
NYC said BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips. Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell should compensate the city for the cost of mitigating the effects of global warming.
Judge Keenan wrote “Climate change is a fact of life, as is not contested by Defendants. But the serious problems caused thereby are not for the judiciary to ameliorate. Global warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government.”
Last month, a federal judge dismissed climate change cases against oil companies brought by Oakland and San Francisco based on similar grounds.
This case was so asinine that I wonder why it was filed in the first place. The judge should have made the city pay all of the defendants’ legal costs.
That would stop the nonsense.
Sound the CO2 Alarm
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. That’s the sound of my CO2 bullshit detector.
Last year the United States had the largest decline in CO2 emissions *in the entire world* for the 9th time this century.
In Climate Agreement, Hypocrisy and Summits, LaCalle accurately writes “Decarbonization is unstoppable . Not thanks to a summit or due to politicians, quite the opposite. Thanks to competition, technology and research. Thanks to human ingenuity. Coal has been disappearing from the global energy mix for decades, despite – not to thanks to – governments. And the same is happening with oil.”
Rising Oceans
But wait, what about the sea rise from melting ice in the antarctic?
Anew studypublished in the journal Climate of the Past has some (small) good news as far as snowfall is concerned: it’s going up. Since the 19th century, snowfall across Antarctica has increased by about 10 percent. It isn’t nearly enough to offset sea level rise from ice melting, but the numbers are still impressive.As a press releasepoints out, the continent is packing on about two Dead Sea’s worth of new ice each year.
Since it’s unclear as to whether or not Antarctica is currently losing or gaining ice, largely due to glacial isostatic adjustment uncertainties, two Dead Seas worth of additional ice (on top of the 19th century accumulation rate) is a lot of fracking ice… If two Dead Seas worth of ice per year were disappearing from Greenland, it would be catastrophic according to the alarmists. We know this because Greenland is currently losing an estimated 186-375 billion tons of ice per year and this is described as catastrophic, despite its insignificance to the overall mass and volume of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS). In Greenland, our friends at Skeptical Sciencedescribe this as “ominous”…
WUWT blasted the claim “Several millimeters a year of sea level rise coming from Antarctica’s melting ice each year”
“On what planet?,” asked WUWT.
“The best recent estimate is that Antarctica is somewhere between gaining enough ice to lower sea level by as much as 0.14 mm/yr and losing enough ice to raise sea level by 0.55 mm/yr. So… Several millimeters a year of sea level rise are *not* coming from Antarctica’s melting ice each year.”
Sea Level Math
At the current rate, the sea level will rise by 1.6 inches over the next 100 years if we stay on this path.
The title is very wrong, it’s more like five days. But there have been about 100 days this year. Here are some details.
2 July 2018 – “The Belgian department of solar physics research (SIDC) says we are about to touch 100; that is, a hundred days in which we do not see spots on our sun,” says Italian meteorologist Dr. Carlo Testa.
During a time of few or no sunspots (a solar minimum) the Sun emits less energy than usual, says Dr. Testa. “According to some scholars, this situation could lead to climatic upheavals.”
Suffice it to recall, says Testa, that between 1645 and 1715 the most significant solar minimum of history, the Little Ice Age, occurred, bringing years and years marked by very strict winters that lasted until June.
Now several studies indicate that we’re headed into another Great Solar Minimum, says Testa. For some scholars, this is only a hypothesis, but we are seeing small signals that support this idea: namely, the most powerful strat-warming ever recorded in mid-February, the very very unstable Spring, and finally this summer that continues to limp along.
Sunspots are becoming scarce. Very scarce. So far in 2018 the sun has been blank almost 60% of the time, with whole weeks going by without sunspots. Today’s sun, shown here in an image from NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, is typical of the featureless solar disk.
Beware, the Ice Age Cometh
Damn. If the sunspot theory holds up, we will have wasted $90 trillion to stop global warming when we need global warming!
Role of CO2
I am willing to concede – and always have – that man is responsible for a percentage of global warming (assuming global warming is actually happening).
Here is a better way of stating things: Man-made CO2, in isolation, all things being equal, would tend to raise temperatures. That statement should not be in dispute, by anyone.
But assuming there is global warming, does it account for less than 1%, 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 40%, 50%, or more?
And assuming it is happening, what percentages does one want to assign to natural cycles, sunspots or other solar activity like solar flares, volcanoes, changes in the earth’s core, changes in wind patterns, ocean current changes, changes in earth’s magnetic field, etc, etc, but also “man-made” global warming.
I do not pretend to know all the factors. No one else does either. And I highly doubt every factor has been tracked (or even can be!)
Correlation is not causation. Even if CO2 models correlate to change, are there more important factors (even natural cycles) that are coincidental to man-made CO2?
Changes measured by the Swarm satellite show that our magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster than originally predicted, especially over the Western Hemisphere
Earth’s magnetic field acts like a giant invisible bubble that shields the planet from the dangerous cosmic radiation spewing from the sun in the form of solar winds. The field exists because Earth has a giant ball of iron at its core surrounded by an outer layer of molten metal. Changes in the core’s temperature and Earth’s rotation boil and swirl the liquid metal around in the outer core, creating magnetic field lines.
Complex Systems
“The main idea behind complex systems is that the ensemble behaves in ways not predicted by its components. The” https://t.co/jbetMJvKN1
That is a lengthy video, but a very important one. Henrik Svensmark’s documentary on climate change and cosmic rays is one of the best believable explanations of global warming that I have seen.
Svensmark looks at background radiation coming from space, based on the earth’s position in the Milky Way galaxy. His model accurately predicted prior ice ages and warming cycles.
I recommend watching the entire video. It is fascinating. One can also skip to the 30 minute mark or so for a shorter version.
His believable thesis is background radiation, or lack thereof causes warming and cooling cycles.
The video should give everyone pause to think about the simple models the alarmists project.
Final Thoughts
Climate changes – ice ages and warming – have occurred over millions of years whether man was even alive.
It is beyond idiotic to map two variables, CO2 and temperature change (one of them extremely inaccurately), in an enormously complex system of thousands of variables evolving over hundreds of millions of years, to make a determination we need to spend $90 trillion to do something about it based on data from the last 100 years.
But that is precisely what the alarmists have done.
The sad thing about this discussion is that I am in favor of reducing pollution. Millions of people in China are suffering from both air and water pollution.
Acid rain is real. It has killed forests on the East coast.
It’s the hype on global warming and idiotic proposals to stop it that I cannot stand.
Divorcing couple can’t use their frozen embryos but someone else can, says judge. A new law in Arizona says that in embryo custody disputes, decisions must be made based on which party is most likely to have them “develop to birth.” This first-of-its-kind measure—signed in April and taking effect this month—portends an expanding front on the pro-life battleground: the fight over frozen embryos.
Slate takes a look today at the law firm and group of activists trying to secure more rights for the excess embryos created as part of in vitro fertilization procedures, and to establish preferential legal treatment for parties who want to see more of them become babies. At the forefront is the Thomas More Society, which represents people in frozen-embryo custody disputes. In Slate‘s words, the group “argues that embryos should not be treated as pieces of jointly owned property because they have a right to life that supersedes an adult’s right not to reproduce.”
The Thomas More Society helped get Arizona’s new embryo law passed, in part as a response to the situation between Ruby Torres and John Joseph Terrell. After they dated for a few months, Torres was diagnosed with cancer. The couple
created seven embryos before Torres went through cancer treatment. Later, during the couple’s divorce proceedings, she said she wanted to keep the embryos for possible use since she probably couldn’t get pregnant without them. Terrell said [he] didn’t want his genetic material to be involved in Torres’ hypothetical pregnancy at all. An Arizona Superior Court judge ruled that Torres couldn’t make a baby with the embryos without Terrell’s consent.
But, the judge added, the embryos shouldn’t be destroyed—they must be donated, offered up to infertile people who can’t make embryos themselves.
From the pro-life perspective, this is the second-best outcome: The woman who wants to bring the embryos to life doesn’t get to keep them, but they still stand a chance of becoming children. For pro-choice observers, however, it’s a disturbing decision. Why should a stranger have the right to use Torres and Terrell’s embryos when neither of them approved that option? If Terrell’s argument was compelling enough for the judge to deny Torres possession of the embryos, why wasn’t it enough to keep the embryos out of a mass donation bin, forcing him to have biological children he still doesn’t want?
Embryo custody battles are increasingly coming before courts, which have ruled in both directions but typically err on the side of not allowing the fertilized eggs to be used unless both parents consent.
“Judges have often—but not always—ruled in favor of the person who does not want the embryos used,” notesThe Washington Post, “sometimes ordering them destroyed, following the theory that no one should be forced to become a parent. Arizona, however, is taking the opposite approach.”
FREE MINDS
Massachusetts repeals old sex laws. It took a few hundred years, but Massachusetts legislators have finally declared it legal to have sex outside of marriage, to distribute information about abortion, and to prescribe birth control to single women. The Negating Archaic Statutes Targeting Young (NASTY) Women Act would “repeal a number of archaic laws, some dating back to the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s,” reports the Springfield Republican‘s Shira Schoenberg:
These include laws punishing adultery and fornication; criminalizing abortion and distributing information about abortion; requiring abortions be performed in a hospital; and prohibiting doctors from prescribing contraception to unmarried women.
Of course the laws aren’t enforced any longer—as Schoenberg notes, “most of the laws are unconstitutional and unenforceable under other state and federal laws.” But “this is an important moment to shore up all of our rights here in Massachusetts,” Rebecca Hart Holder, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, tells the paper, noting the possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade.
That’s the sort of stuff that makes good fundraising fodder for NARAL. But one needn’t believe we’re on the fast track to A Handmaid’s Tale to support the repeal of outdated and authoritarian laws.
The measure was approved by both houses of the Massachusetts Legislature this week and sent to Republican Gov. Charlie Baker.
FREE MARKETS
Tax all the things!
BREAKING: Trump says he’s ‘ready’ to put tariffs on all $505 billion of Chinese goods imported to the US https://t.co/jhu1dewsRK
No ruling on FOSTA injunction. “Judge Richard Leon of United States District Court in Washington D.C. made no ruling on [the Woodhull Freedom Foundation’s] request for a preliminary injunction” that would block enforcement of the anti-prostitution law until the case is resolved, “nor did he announce a date when he would issue a ruling,” reports AVN.
QUICK HITS
Sen. @RandPaul: “Trump derangement syndrome has officially come to the Senate. The hatred for the President is so intense that partisans would rather risk war than give diplomacy a chance.”
• Trump’s military parade is slated to cost $12 million—about double that of the South Korean “war games” the president has panned for being too “tremendously expensive.”
It’s not just US Treasury that have taken a step lower following Trump’s latest comments which have whacked both the dollar and US equity futures: Japan’s 10Y JGB futures are also sliding as traders cite a report in JiJi report that the BOJ will begin a full-scale investigation to mitigate the side effects of its yield-curve control policy on bank profitability and government bond trading, Bloomberg reports, which suggests that the BOJ may seek to “kink” the curve to the left of the 10Y in hopes of achieving a “beautiful steepening” to roughly paraphrase Ray Dalio.
Like in Europe where between NIRP and QE the yield curve has been so flat has been hurting bank profitability (with some bank, most notably Deutsche Bank complaining vocally about the ECB’s policies) similar concerns have spread in Japan where both banks and pension funds have been agitating for at least some yield curve steepening to increase NIM and support bank profitability.
As shown in the chart below, the JGB 10-year future – which barely trades on most days – has dropped sharply from 150.98 highs to 150.76, the lowest level since June 20.
The report comes hours after the latest latest data from Japan showed that inflation picked up just slightly in June, meanwhile the BOJ’s preferred CPI ex-fresh food and energy prices rose just 0.2%, missing expectations of 0.4%, and reducing speculation that the BOJ may start tightening its ultra-loose monetary policy and will likely cut its inflation outlook again. Which, of course, is a bit of a paradox because as the chart below shows, the BOJ has been actively reducing its bond QQE purchases in recent months.
Earlier, BofA Japan economist Izumi Devalier said on BBG TV after the inflation data that “in terms of actual changes to YCC, the 10- year target or of course the negative interest rates, I don’t think the Bank of Japan is anywhere close to signaling a policy move” which is also strange as two days ago the BOJ trimmed purchases in both the 10-25 year and 25+ year buckets.
Cryptocurrency investors are “unsophisticated” bumpkins who wouldn’t know what money was if it hit them on their heads, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell suggested during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Wednesday. No need to worry, however, because sophisticated folks like Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) believe Congress should “have the courage to ban cryptocurrencies” and save us from our misguided “animal spirits.”
During Powell’s semiannual testimony to Congress, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) turned the conversation to the subject of cryptocurrencies. At first, Powell merely echoed his comments from last November, saying cryptocurrencies are not significant enough to threaten the financial system. But then he took a cheap shot at investors who have backed cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and ethereum.
“Relatively unsophisticated investors see the asset go up in price, and they think, ‘This is great; I’ll buy this,'” Powell said. “In fact, there is no promise of that.”
All investments carry risk, and investors in any currency, stock, or bond should be aware of that. But that doesn’t make cryptocurrency investors any less sophisticated, as a group, than other kinds of investors.
That said, it’s important to understand the source of Powell’s skepticism. He derided cryptocurrency as an “investment with no promise.” Later in his testimony he said cryptocurrencies are not really currencies because they don’t “have a store of value,” have no “intrinsic value,” and are not commonly used for payments.
It’s clear that Powell, like his predecessor and many of his colleagues, believes bitcoin and its various cousins are built entirely on speculation. Driven by the Keynesian animus toward speculation, they cannot reconcile its potential with its speculative value. While cryptocurrencies lack the widespread use that defines a medium of exchange as money, their investment value encourages their use and brings us closer to a reality where bitcoin is money.
Contrary to what Powell said, cryptocurrencies already constitute a store of value, although generally not a stable one. Two Federal Reserve economists, Michael Lee and Antoine Martin, found that cryptocurrencies “provide a store of value” in “environments where trust is a problem.” Lee and Martin also pointed out that Federal Reserve notes, like cryptocurrencies, are not backed by physical commodities and have no intrinsic value.
Powell’s other comments about cryptocurrencies further illustrated his misunderstanding of their potential value. He called attention to money laundering through cryptocurrencies. There is no denying that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin are used for less-than-legal activities, largely by virtue of their anonymity and radical decentralization. But that fact does not disqualify them as serious alternatives to the present monetary system. Nor does it mean that cryptocurrencies should be banned, as Sherman suggested. “Yes, it is true that criminals have used bitcoin,” says Norbert Michel, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, “but it’s also true that criminals have used airplanes, computers and automobiles.”
There is an upside to Powell’s bearishness. As long as central bankers don’t believe cryptocurrencies pose a threat to the monopoly of state-sponsored fiat money, we can expect fairly lax regulation of the industry. Powell made it clear that he has no intention of pursuing jurisdiction over cryptocurrency. It’s better to have government officials mocking bitcoin than trying to regulate it out of existence.
The investigation of a San Bernardino County gang prosecutor accused of making some disturbing social-media posts has understandably become national news because of what it could imply about the county’s fair administration of justice and level of professionalism.
For those who missed the news, Deputy District Attorney Michael Selyem, the county’s top hard-core gang prosecutor, is being investigated for a Facebook post about U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.): “Being a loud-mouthed c#nt in the ghetto you would think someone would have shot this bitch by now,” Selyem reportedly posted a meme of a man wearing a sombrero: “Mexican word of the day: Hide.” And after a police shooting, he reportedly wrote: “That s—bag got exactly what he deserved. … You reap what you sow. And by the way go f— yourself you liberal s—bag.”
The now-deleted posts were captured on screenshots from posts with Selyem’s name, in a report by the San Bernardino Sun.
In statements, Ramos said he is “aware of the negative comments and they do not represent” his department’s views, and emphasized the importance of having “fair, ethical and unbiased” prosecutors. After public outrage, the DA’s office placed Selyem on paid administrative leave while the department reviews the matter.
Having a top prosecutor allegedly use the worst word one could call a woman, joke about Mexicans who need to hide, and wonder why no one has shot a congresswoman suggest a much deeper problem than one of saltiness or bad imagery. This language undermines the department’s fundamental mission, which is to fairly administer justice. Prosecutors help imprison people. The stakes are high, so the system should be above reproach, writes Steven Greenhut.
Winston Churchill said all there is to say about political summits with his quote: “Jaw jaw is better than war war.”
That is the thing to bear in mind when examining the rights and wrongs of the The Trump-Putin summit: Two leaders of two of the world’s most powerful nations, in Trump’s words “competitors” sorting out differences eyeball to eyeball.
Both men share Churchill’s approach, with Putin saying: “As nuclear powers, we bear special responsibility” for international security.
Putin said Russia (as a devout Christian country) considered it necessary for the two countries to work together on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation – and to avoid weapons being placed in space.
“Even during the tensions of the Cold War, the US and the Soviets were able to maintain a strong dialogue (with now Russia),” said Trump. “But our relations (with now Russia) have never been worse than they are now. However that changed as of about four hours ago.”
He added: “nothing would be easier politically than to refuse to engage” which would “appease partisan critics, the media” and the opposition.”
Donald Trump correctly reiterated the significance and importance of holding a meeting with Putin, despite the widespread criticism from within his own country and most notably from the mainstream media who are very now clearly controlled entirely by what has popularly become known as the “Deep State.”
And what was the response in America to the summit?
The most vitriolic insult came from the odious former CIA Director, John Brennan.
The not so funny irony is that Brennan literally voted for the then Soviet Union dominated US Communist Party to take power in the United States of America. Incredible, almost beyond belief. If you look at Brennan’s extremely insulting tweet repeated below, the full irony of his being a communist in the Soviet era should hit home.
Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???
So what are the facts? Well John Brennan was accepted into the CIA in 1980 even though he admitted voting Communist in 1976. This is something inexplicable and astounding for any thinking person to understand of itself.
Brennan, who by then had been appointed President Obama’s CIA chief, first publicly revealed this at the Annual Legislative Conference of the Congressional Black Caucus, on 15 September 2016, in Washington DC. There, he said that when he had applied in 1980 to join the CIA, he admitted to them that in the 1976 Presidential election, at the height of the Cold War against the “Godless” Soviet Union, when a strong Christian presidential candidate, Jimmy Carter was running against Gerald Ford, Brennan had voted instead for the candidate of the US Communist Party, Gus Hall, and that he was then greatly relieved to find that this information didn’t cause rejection of his CIA application. One must ask why, as it happened 11 years before the “end of the Cold War” in 1991.
At the risk of being repetitive, take this in: John Brennan literally voted for the Communist Party, the Soviets, to take power in the United States of America!
As a Brit, a keen observer of American politics for decades, it appears astonishing that a father and son, Americans Ron and Rand Paul seem to be representative of only a few sane voices that debate logically and objectively on the subject of Russia, acknowledging, as Trump put it, that they are our competitors not enemies.
On Monday on CNN Wolf Blitzer was aghast that Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul spoke on his programme saying that critics of Trump, Putin summit have “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
Blitzer almost angrily asking the Senator “Let me get right to the questioning. Do you believe that President Trump’s meeting with Putin made America safer?”
The Senator answered “You know, I think engagement with our adversaries, conversation with our adversaries is a good idea. Even in the height of the Cold War (with the Soviets), maybe at its lowest ebb when we were in the midst of the Cuban missile crisis, I think it was a good thing that Kennedy had a direct line to Khrushchev. I think it was a good thing that we continued to have Ambassadors to the Soviet Union even when we really objected greatly to what was going on, especially during Stalin’s regime. So I think , yes, that it is a good idea to have engagement.”
So from the outside as a Brit, the question one must ask is why haven’t the Clintons, Brennan, and their ilk been arrested already for the countless allegations of crimes that have been revealed to the public?
Does this movie signal the onset of Too Much ABBA? Of course not. There’s no such thing as too much ABBA, writes Kurt Loder in his latest review for Reason.
Cryptocurrency investors are “unsophisticated” bumpkins who wouldn’t know what money was if it hit them on their heads, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell suggested during a House Financial Services Committee 
The investigation of a San Bernardino County gang prosecutor accused of making some disturbing social-media posts has understandably become national news because of what it could imply about the county’s fair administration of justice and level of professionalism.
Does this movie signal the onset of Too Much ABBA? Of course not. There’s no such thing as too much ABBA, writes Kurt Loder in his latest review for Reason.