Archive for the ‘Behaviour’ Category

BREXIT

June 24, 2016

Brexit

A leave could take around 3 years.

A new dawn? for the EU?

Clear win for BREXIT (but a win for remain in Scotland).

Cameron thought he knew how to use referenda as a tool of government. But he got virtually no concessions from the EU and his strategy has backfired. Now we will see whether David Cameron is a leader or just another follower. I think his position is untenable — except if he can get real concessions and call yet another referendum.

It is time to dismantle the Brussels machine and the first step shoud be to abolish the European parliament.


 

Zika fears lead to spike in DIY abortions in Latin America

June 23, 2016

Abortion is still illegal in most of Catholic Latin America and the governments have responded to the Zika virus by suggesting that women not get pregnant. They seem to have the support of the Pope for that approach. As The Guardian reports, “Pope Francis has indicated that women exposed to the Zika virus may be permitted to use contraception to avoid pregnancy, in a departure from Catholic teaching. However he reiterated the church’s staunch opposition to abortion, saying it was a crime and “absolute evil”.

But the reality is that DIY abortions are spiking and interestingly the countries advising women not to get pregnant are seeing the largest increases in abortion. Effectively The Pope’s dispensation on contraception is being taken, it would seem, as a dispensation also for abortion.

BBCFears over the Zika virus have contributed to a “huge” increase in the number of women in Latin America wanting abortions, researchers say. Estimates suggest there has been at least a doubling in requests in Brazil and an increase of a third in other countries. Many governments have advised women not to get pregnant due to the risk of babies being born with tiny brains.

The findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

A termination remains illegal in many parts of Latin America, but women simply turn to unofficial providers. Women on Web, which advises women online and then delivers pills to end a pregnancy, is one of the largest. The researchers analysed the thousands of requests received by Women on Web in the five years before the Pan American Health Organization issued its warning on Zika on 17 November 2015. It used this to predict how many abortion requests would have been expected between 17 November 2015 and 1 March 2016.

The analysis of countries that advised against getting pregnant suggested Brazil and Ecuador had had more than twice the expected demand for abortions.

Country Expected Actual Increase
Brazil 582 1210 +108%
Colombia 102 141 +39%
Costa Rica 49 67 +36%
El Salvador 18 24 +36%
Ecuador 34 71 +108%
Honduras 21 36 +76%
Venezuela 45 86 +93%

Analysis from other countries, which did not advise against pregnancy, suggested smaller increases in abortion demand.


 

The election is Hillary’s to lose

June 21, 2016

Does Donald Trump really have a chance to win the Presidential election in November? It is – still – improbable but it is not impossible. Both Hillary Clinton and Trump have such high negatives that I suspect this is becoming an election which will be lost by someone rather than be won by anyone.

It is not difficult to imagine blunders by Trump which can increase his negatives. His support is driven by attacks on him perceived to be from the “establishment”. His negatives could multiply quite easily to make him unelectable.

But what could Hillary Clinton do that would increase her negatives? I can think of the following:

  1. Choosing another woman as her VP pick. An all woman ticket will win some but will probably lose more. More importantly it may lose her more support among traditional Democratic, blue collar, and minority groups. Muslims and some of the other ethnic groups who are now for Clinton, would have second thoughts if it was an all-woman ticket.
  2. Go too soft on immigration. Legal immigrants are not at all keen on the too-easy rationalisation and ratification of the status of illegal immigrants. It devalues the effort and hardships they have had to endure and overcome. The problem for Clinton would be that even a small defection – or even abstention – of her assumed “captive voters” could have a major impact on her vote.
  3. No message for the young. Bernie Sanders has enthused some of the young in a way that is alien to Hillary. With no clear message for the young beyond the usual cliches, she could see a large abstention of the millennials. The young voting surge seen in 2008 has peaked and is already on the way down. A lack of any clear and uplifting message would only exacerbate this trend.
  4. Clinton is indicted for emails or Libya or something. Many of Clinton’s negatives are based on her perceived dishonesty and deviousness. A formal indictment will only cement such perceptions and – if serious enough – could even make her unelectable.
  5. Revelations that Hillary “allowed” or “covered-up” Bill’s sexual transgressions. Hillary is already on shaky ground when it comes to her “feminist” credentials. If it is perceived that she actually helped Bill in his predatory behaviour with young women, then she could lose all her support from Republican women voters and and a good chunk of her Democratic female support.
  6. Revelations that the State Department under Hillary actively supported the groups that have now become ISIS. To some extent this is already “out there”. But memos or the like linking, first, US support for these extreme groups in Syria and second, those groups with what is now ISIS, could be debilitating in its own right. It could also provide Trump with some serious ammunition.

It is difficult to see either Clinton or Trump coming with positive messages which command enthusiasm and which can mobilise the electorate in their support. It is quite possible to see them alienate further groups and increase their own negative perceptions such that they mobilise voters only against themselves (#stoptrump or #stopclinton).

It is still a long way to November but it is an election that will, I think, be lost by someone.


 

Obama has a new strategy against ISIS – he’s going to edit them out of existence

June 20, 2016

Everything else having failed, Obama will now edit ISIS out of existence (and note that Politico is more than a little Obama friendly).

There is denial and there is Denial …. and then there is Barack Obama. At some point the denial is an expression of cowardice (when your actions are subordinated to your fears). The governing fears here are the fear of upsetting Saudi Arabia and the fear of being called an Islamophobe.

Politico: 

Florida Gov. Rick Scott on Monday assailed the Justice Department’s decision to redact the Orlando shooter’s declaration of allegiance to the Islamic State in transcripts of 911 calls from the June 12 shooting as another example “of not focusing on the evil here.”

“This is evil, this is ISIS. It’s radical Islam. At some point, we lost 49 lives here and we lost a journalist who was beheaded by ISIS,” the Republican governor told Fox News’ Bill Hemmer on “America’s Newsroom,” referring to the shooting last Sunday and the 2014 beheading of journalist Steven Sotloff, who was from Florida. “We need a president that’s going to say I care about destroying ISIS.”

Attorney General Loretta Lynch reasoned to CNN Sunday that the reason for the edits “is to avoid re-victimizing those people that went through this horror,” adding that it “will contain the substance of his conversations.”

“I have no idea what she means. But I can tell you what: I have gone to funerals, I’ve sat down and cried with the parents. I’ve gone and visited individuals in the hospitals. They are grieving. Now, they want answers. If it was my family I would want answers. We all would like answers. She should release everything that doesn’t impact the investigation. I can understand if it impacted the investigation until this is finished, I get that. But she is not saying that. It doesn’t make any sense to me. We have to get serious about destroying ISIS.”

The federal government’s decision did not sit well with other Fox News guests on Monday morning, either. “That would mean during the Second World War if I called up and said ‘I am part of the Nazi movement, I’ve joined here in the United States, and I’m going kill 49 Americans and we left out ‘Nazi movement,'” Rudy Giuliani said Monday on “Fox & Friends.”

The redactions represent a “degree of denial” for the United States, Giuliani said, adding that it “helps to cause the terrorists to be encouraged to commit more attacks.”

If you stop mentioning them, maybe they will go away.


 

Markets assume that BREXIT chances died with Jo Cox

June 20, 2016

The markets are all up sharply today. It seems as if the murder of MP Jo Cox has put paid to the small chance of a BREXIT win and that the financial industry is now assuming that any BREXIT will not happen. It is not just the FTSE but markets all across Europe which are showing gains of 2 – 3+%. Even in japan and Hong Kong, markets are buoyed by the apparent risk of a BREXIT receding. Gold is down by about 1%.

markets 20th June 2016 c1300 -- Reuters

markets 20th June 2016 c1300 — Reuters

The relief in the markets is palpable.

Of course, there is still a faint possibility that BREXIT could win, but elections, like markets, depend upon mood.  There is plenty of anti-EU sentiment which will not go away so easily. But the dominant mood now, I think, is that Jo Cox’s murderer cannot be seen to have won. For the markets, better the blundering and fumbling EU and the ECB than the uncertainty of a BREXIT.

BREXIT died with Jo Cox.


 

UK likely to vote to remain but fundamental flaws in the EU concept are now exposed

June 20, 2016

I see the BREXIT vote as an opportunity to correct the glaring flaws in the EU concept of a Holy European Empire. Whether BREXIT wins or not in this vote, the EU will no longer be able to just ignore the disconnect between the concept and the bulk of the voters/tax payers in the EU. Of course if BREXIT does not win, it will slow down the inevitable reforms that the EU must introduce.

I suspect that finally the fear of leaving will govern and that BREXIT will lose by a small margin. The EU politicians and bureaucrats will probably tout this as a win for the EU concept but, in fact, they will have to prepare for drawing back the various EU encroachments into the territory of national sovereignty.

NYT: 

There is no argument that the European Union is a flawed institution. Its dysfunction has been on display in its fitful handling of the Greek debt and refugee crises, its bureaucracy is pathetically slow to recognize or correct its failings and it often acts like an out-of-touch and undemocratic elite. Part of that is the inherent inefficiency of an institution of 28 member states with big differences in size, wealth and democratic traditions, and which participate to different degrees in the single currency and border-free zone.

Yet the E.U. is an extraordinary achievement, a voluntary union of nations whose histories include some of the bloodiest wars ever waged. However flawed the bloc, it has replaced blood feuds with a single market, shared values, free travel and labor mobility. Britain has always been something of an outlier in the E.U., joining what began as the European Coal and Steel Community two decades after it was formed and declining to participate in either the euro currency or the borderless Schengen zone. Yet there is no question that Britain has benefited from membership, both economically and as a strong voice in shaping E.U. policy.

The euroskepticism that has led to the British referendum, and that forms a strong component of the right-wing nationalist parties on the rise in many European countries, is not about efficiency or history. It is about ill-defined frustration with the complexities of a changing world and a changing Europe, a loss of faith in mainstream politicians and experts, a nostalgia for a past when nations decided their own fates and kept foreigners out. To those who hold these views, the European Union is the epitome of all that has gone wrong, an alien bureaucracy deaf to the traditions and values of its members. Not surprisingly, Mr. Trump and the French politician Marine Le Pen both favor Brexit.

I see parallels in the “anti-establishment” views embodied in euroscepticism and in the “anti-establishment” views of the Trump supporters in the US. In both cases the revolt is a reaction to what is perceived as the over-weening arrogance of a political, liberal, elite who insist on defining political correctness and on telling the electorate that they know best what is good for them.

In 2016, both in the EU and in the US, it is immigration and the flawed concept of multiculturalism which is dominating. It is occupying this ground which may well determine many of the elections. In fact the rise of the right-wing nationalists in Europe is the pendulum swinging back from 3 decades of self-righteous, social democratic dogma. Europe has moved further left in the 3 decades after communism fell than while communism was still an acceptable philosophy. But I note that some of the right-wing parties (Sweden, Denmark, France …. ) are losing some support as more of the centrist parties adopt more restrictive measures on immigration and take away this ground from the right. Take Trump’s immigration ground away from him and he will not stand a chance.


Could Trump get concessions from the NRA that are beyond Obama and Clinton?

June 16, 2016

It is strange but true that a left-wing government can succeed in implementing an austerity package where a right-wing government cannot. The left leaning government in Greece has implemented austerity measures which would have caused riots if implemented by a conservative administration. Of course there has to be a practical imperative to do so and the apparent betrayal of ideology is excused on the necessity of realpolitik. Similarly right-leaning governments are excused for going against their natural instincts when being heretical. Increasing taxes or increasing public spending can be introduced where a left-leaning government would be critcised for blindly following ideology.

Now it is reported that in the wake of the Orlando massacre, Donald Trump is trying to get the NRA to cooperate in preventing people on watch lists from easily acquiring automatic weapons.

CNBCPresidential hopeful Donald Trump on Wednesday said he will meet with the leading U.S. gun rights group about preventing people on a government terrorism “watch list” from buying guns, a move that may put pressure on fellow Republicans to enact new gun restrictions following the Orlando massacre. …….

…… The National Rifle Association, a politically influential lobbying group that claims more than 4 million members and has played a key role in thwarting gun control legislation in the U.S. Congress, on May 20 endorsed Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

“I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

Trump last month told an NRA convention that he would protect the constitutional right to bear arms. He accused the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, of wanting to abolish that right, which she says is false. Trump said in a November television interview he would support gun restrictions for someone on a “watch list” who is “an enemy of state.”

Trump NRA

I observe that when the same suggestions have been made by Democrats it invites immediate and instant opposition from the NRA.

But it could be different coming from Trump. The suggestion is basic common sense and unexceptionable. While Paris and Brussels demonstrate that even stringent gun restrictions will not stop terrorists from carrying out their atrocities, it may well make their life a little harder. But for the NRA to take a Democratic suggestion on board is not genetically possible. But accepting a suggestion coming from Trump – who they have endorsed for President – offers both Trump and the NRA a potential win/win. Trump could do with demonstrating his effectiveness in achieving something – even when just a Presidential candidate – which Barack Obama has not been able to do in 8 years with the full range of Presidential powers available to him. The NRA has the possibility of demonstrating their consideration not only of “individual rights” but also of “the national interest”.

So my expectation is that the NRA may well accept restricting gun sales to people on “watch” lists or “no-fly” lists and that Trump will be able to take the credit.


 

Orlando was primarily about radical Islam not about gun availability

June 13, 2016

Common sense is the victim when political correctness reigns. Gun controls are much stricter in Europe than in the US, but that didn’t stop Paris or Brussels or London.

Those in the US who don’t wish to confront radical Islam are spinning the Orlando event into a gun control issue. I perceive a tendency among the (mainly liberal) media to ignore both the shooter’s declared allegiance to ISIS and ISIS’ claim of responsibility. There is a reluctance to address the shooter’s path to radicalisation and, at 28, he was no spring chicken. The influence of his father and his support for the Taliban is given very little space. His being interviewed three times by the FBI gets some attention but not much. It is seen as more important not to blame the vast bulk of moderate Muslims than to confront the radical elements within Islam. Political correctness is clearly in the camp of cowardice.

Instead of blaming radical Islam there is a clear effort to blame the availability of guns. But this spin rings hollow. The politically correct sections of European media (BBC, The Guardian ….) are also closing their eyes to the influence of radical Islam and focusing on gun availability. After Paris and Brussels they should know better. Obama has made his standard speech after a mass shooting for the 14th time during his time in office. His words stand out because of his reluctance to pin the blame on radical Islam and not for his empty – and now largely discounted – boilerplate words about love and hate.

Orlando now joins San Bernadino and London and Paris and Brussels and Bagdad as victims of terrorism inspired by radical Shia Islam – and probably ordered (loosely) by ISIS. The US will have to get used to the fact that radicalised Muslim maniacs are now among them and many of them were born in the US. For someone with an agenda, stricter gun control laws are unlikely to be any kind of a deterrent.

For both Europe and the US, it is of little value to ignore the fact that among the millions of refugees on the move from the Middle East and North Africa there are going to be significant numbers of proponents of radical Islam and “terrorists”. Political correctness and molly-coddling radical Islam for fear of being labeled Islamophobic will not change that.


 

Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr. – RIP

June 4, 2016

Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr., aka Muhammad Ali passed away last night at the age of 74.

I first saw him win the Light Heavyweight Gold medal – on film – at the Rome Olympics in 1960. We had no TV then. He has floated like a butterfly in my view of the world for over 50 years.

RIP.

“Marcellus vanquished Carthage,

Cassius laid Julius Caesar low.

And Clay will flatten Douglas Jones

with a mighty measured blow!”

1960 Olympic gold medallist

1960 Olympic gold medallist


 

Obama, Clinton, media slam Trump, and Trump support will probably rise

June 2, 2016

This week has seen a concerted, seemingly coordinated, attack by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the establishment press on Trump and Trump University. If my theory, that Trump is riding an anti-establishment wave which feeds on attacks from the establishment, is correct, this will lead to an increase in Trump’s numbers. This will show up in next week’s polls.

The anti-establishment wave could, if fed enough energy by the media attacks on Trump, turn into an anti-establishment tsunami. I find it amazing that the NYT, WaPo, LA Times, HuffPo …. have not picked up on the reality that it is their “over the top” attacks on Trump which are energising and feeding his support. The content of their attacks has become irrelevant. It is their contempt which is creating a magnified reaction. The more the establishment seem to be “ganging up” on him, the greater the reaction. I see an analogy with the vibrational collapse of a bridge when troops march across in step and cause a resonance failure. As media attacks on Trump seem more coordinated, the anti-establishment reaction could reach resonance and become an uncontrollable tsunami.

Obama’s stuttering attack was particularly unconvincing and gives some backing to the suggestion that “Barack Obama as your enemy is equivalent to having a thousand friends”. 

(ISIS might agree. I note that the Iraqi (with US air support) assault on Fallujah has stalled. Massive advance publicity was released about the assault but it has been somewhat less effective than when Syria (with Russian air support) has taken back ISIS strongholds.)

In the meantime Clinton does not seem able to finally kill off Sanders. In line-ups against Trump, Sanders consistently does much better than Clinton. I take this as being consistent with the angry, anti-establishment wave which transcends “left” or “right”.