Dad, music, soul, listening, feeling, thinking, learning, being, doing.
591 stories

Only 1-In-3 Americans Think Michael Wolff's Book Is Credible


Michael Wolff's new book "Fire and Fury" has proven explosive, sending shockwaves across Washington and beyond.

In its first week of publication, it sold 29,000 copies according to NBD BookScan with digital sales reaching an estimated 250,000. President Trump has claimed Wolff was not provided with access to the White House and that the book is "full of lies, misrepresentations and sources that don't exist".

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders also labeled Fire and Fury "complete fantasy".

Wolff has defended himself against that criticism, insisting Trump is "a man who has less credibility than, perhaps, anyone who has ever walked on earth."

Notably, however, Wolff did include a note at the beginning of the book where he says some of his sources were definitely lying to him while others offered contradictory reports, and this has cast doubt on the book's credibility. 

The end result of the sensational spat between Trump and Wolff is that the book is flying off the shelves.

But, given its success, Statista's Niall McCarthy asks (and answers) what does the American public make of its accuracy?

Infographic: Do Americans Think Michael Wolff's Book Is Credible?  | Statista

You will find more statistics at Statista

A new Morning Consult/Politicopoll has found that a third of registered voters (32 percent) think the book is very or somewhat crediblewhile a quarter (25 percent) consider it not too or not at all credible. 20 percent of respondents either haven't heard of it or have no opinion.

When it comes to political affiliation, unsurprisingly, 46 percent of Democrats view the book as credible while percent think it's inaccurate.

Among Republicans, a 38 percent majority are skeptical about Fire and Fury while just under a quarter find it very or somewhat credible.

Read the whole story
4 days ago
Who cares? It's all a distraction anyway.
New Hampshire
Share this story
1 public comment
2 days ago
"Only 1-in-3 Registered Voters think Michael Wolff's Book is Credible" is a more accurate headline but why not "Only 1-in-4 Voters think Wolff's book is not credible" or "Only 56% of Voters with an opinion think Wolf's book is credible" or "Only 57% of voters have an opinion about Wolff's book"? I find it hard to imagine there is something in Wolff's book that would seem too incredible for turmp in rl.

From Camo To 'Lucky Charms' - Tucker Carlson's Hilarious List Of 100 "Racist" Things

1 Comment

Authored by Amber Athey via The Daily Caller,

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson tweeted out Friday a hilarious list of 100 things people have deemed “racist” this year, and some of the entries are just unbelievable.

The Daily Caller founder geared up for the list by telling his followers that “we live in revolutionary times” and that some “wild things” happened in the past year.

Carlson gave each “racist” item its own separate tweet, and while the list is worth reading in its entirety, we’ve compiled some of the best ones for you here.

#1: Trees

A group of trees in Palm Springs, California, was considered racist because the trees separated an upscale golf course from a historically black neighborhood. City officials promised to kill the trees, ridding Palm Springs of a longtime symbol of oppression.

#8. Disney movies

Kat George, a writer for Vh1’s website, insisted in 2017 that some of your favorite Disney movies are racist. The Little Mermaid was listed as an offender because Sebastian, Ariel’s crab sidekick, spoke in an exaggerated Jamaican accent.

#13. Milk

Milk apparently became a symbol of the alt-right and neo-Nazis this year because racial minorities may be more likely to suffer from lactose intolerance. Even worse, the USDA’s dietary guidelines further such oppression by advertising dairy as an essential part of a healthy diet.

#18. Science

Students in South Africa declared that science is racist because it cannot explain “black magic” — no, really.

“I have a question for all the science people. There is a place in KZN called Umhlab’uyalingana, and they believe that through the magic, the black magic–you call it black magic, they call it witchcraft–you are able to send lightening to strike someone,” one student explained. “Can you explain that scientifically? Because it’s something that happens.”

#29. Military Camouflage

Don’t use face paint while sneaking through the jungle, or you might be accused of racism! The British Army was accused of donning “blackface” after they posted a picture of a soldier wearing dark face paint and holding a rifle.

#41. Lucky Charms

A diversity officer at Miami University was actually open to the idea of banning Lucky Charms because some undercover students claimed the cereal was racist against Irish Americans. Yikes.

#49. Expecting people to show up on time

In this case, timeliness is NOT next to godliness. Expecting students to show up on time to class might be insensitive to “cultural differences,” Clemson University said in a diversity training program.

#64. Babies

Looks like that diversity training might have to start sooner than expected. According to a study by the University of Toronto, babies show preferences to adults of their own race.

You can follow the full thread on Tucker’s Twitter account HERE.

Read the whole story
26 days ago
New Hampshire
Share this story

Prominent Names Within the Crypto Space Cash Out Their Positions

1 Comment



Prominent Names Within the Crypto Space Cash Out Their Positions

Written by Nathan McDonald, Sprott Money News


Prominent Names Within the Crypto Space Cash Out Their Positions - Nathan McDonald (21/12/2017)


Last week, I penned an article about the history of Bitcoin and how the community around it has dramatically changed. This isn't just Bitcoin, however; it is all Cryptos. In the beginning, as I discussed last week, the Bitcoin community was all about helping each other grow and prosper. It had its own micro-economies, and because of this, it boomed.


Fast-forward to today, and the landscape is nothing like it once was. "Getting rich quick" topics are all the rage on Bitcointalk, and small businesses can no longer even use Bitcoin as a form of payment, due to skyrocketing fees.


As I mentioned, this has led to a large number of original veterans of the Crypto space leaving altogether, as the vision they once saw is long dead. Little did I know a mere week ago just how over-the-mark I was in this assessment.


The trend appears to be continuing and is now moving to high profile names within the Crypto space. Two in particular have now cashed out of their cryptocurrency positions almost entirely.


The first is Charlie Lee, the founder of Litecoin, often referred to as “Bitcoin’s silver.” As it is closely linked to the success of Bitcoin, Litecoin has skyrocketed in value over the course of the year.


In fact, this time last year, it was trading at a mere $3.67 USD per Litecoin. Today it sits at roughly $320 USD per Litecoin, a phenomenal gain of well over 9000% in less than one year!


You cannot blame Charlie Lee for cashing out, but what is shocking is the fact that Lee has been one of the biggest promoters and pushers of Litecoin in the past. Still, there are those stating the price can never go down. A warning sign noticed by any contrarian investor.


Charlie Lee, of course, had an explanation that had nothing to do with the parabolic rise of Litecoin, stating that he suddenly now believes his ownership to be a "conflict of interest." You can read his full reddit post here.


The second prominent figure to cash out of the cryptocurrency markets is the founder of the original website.


Emil Oldenburg, of Sweden, has been a massive supporter of Bitcoin, and it comes as a shock to many to learn that he now dismisses it as a valid form of money. He even went so far as to state that Bitcoin is currently "the most risky investment a person can make.

During his interview with Breakit, Oldenburg goes on to explain why he sold out of his Bitcoin position. His reasoning will come as a surprise to many, but not myself, as it is exactly what I have been talking about in this article and preceding ones:


“It’s a group of fanatic bitcoin talibans who themselves do not use bitcoin everyday to want it like this. They see bitcoin like digital gold and a technical experiment, not something you should actually use. It will never be a currency used in everyday life or for people who run companies.”

The markets have simply not priced this in yet. The ones who had the foresight to be a part of Bitcoin from inception are sending up red flags and even publicly stating they are cashing out of their positions.


Yet, the price of Cryptos continues to trend higher. Perhaps these announcements will be looked upon as the beginning of the top for Cryptos; perhaps not. Only time will tell, but what is certain is the fact that high profile names are taking notice of what I have been stating for close to half a year now: the community around Cryptos has dramatically shifted and changed. What sparked its meteoric rise is no longer in place, and sadly, is likely never coming back.


Questions or comments about this article? Leave your thoughts HERE.




Prominent Names Within the Crypto Space Cash Out Their Positions

Written by Nathan McDonald, Sprott Money News



Check out these other articles by our contributors:


 Kite in a Tree - Jeff Thomas (21/12/2017)

Eric Sprott Talks Lows in Gold, Comex Shenanigans, and Answers Your Questions (Weekly Wrap-Up, December 15, 2017)

Read the whole story
28 days ago
"Yet, the price of Cryptos continues to trend higher..." Not in the past 48 hours though...
New Hampshire
Share this story

Anti-White Hate Crimes Are The Fastest Growing Racial Crimes In America

1 Comment

Authored by Justin Caruso via The Daily Caller,

A new FBI report indicates that hate crimes committed against white Americans are the fastest growing racial hate crimes in the United States.

The FBI report on 2016 Hate Crime Statistics shows that in 2016, there were 876 reported anti-white hate crime offenses in the United States. In 2015, this number was 734, indicating a 19.34 percent increase.

There were more racial hate crime offenses altogether in 2016 compared to 2015 - the total tally of hate crimes in 2016 was 6,121, compared to 5,850 in 2015. More than half of those incidents were motivated by the victim's race.

There were 4,029 single-bias incidents that targeted “Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry” in 2015, compared to 4,229 in 2016.

Anti-Hispanic or Latino hate crimes also increased in 2016. In 2015, the number of offenses targeting Hispanic/Latino Americans was 379. In 2016, that increased to 449, an increase of 18.46 percent. Anti-Black hate crimes actually declined by three offenses.

Within religious hate crimes, there were also increases.

Anti-Jewish hate crimes increased by 20 percent and anti-Islamic hate crimes increased by 26.57 percent. Anti-Catholic hate crimes also slightly increased.

*  *  *

However, as NPR notes, the FBI statistics are based on voluntary reporting by nearly 16,000 local law-enforcement agencies. Civil-rights groups, however, say the figures are deeply flawed because of what they say is systemic under-reporting.

The Anti-Defamation League, for example, noted that nearly 90 cities with populations of more than 100,000 either reported zero hate crimes or did not report data for 2016.

"There's a dangerous disconnect between the rising problem of hate crimes and the lack of credible data being reported," said ADL CEO Jonathan A. Greenblatt. He called for an "all-hands-on-deck" approach to get better nation-wide figures on the problem.

Sim Singh, the national advocacy manager of the Sikh Coalition, agreed. He noted that the FBI statistics count seven anti-Sikh hate crimes in 2016, which he said "represents the tip of the iceberg."

"If law-enforcement agencies fail to document the true extent of hate crimes against our communities," Singh said, "our nation will have a hard time mobilizing the political will and resources necessary to prevent and combat the problem."

The only way to fix the data problem, he added, is for law enforcement to adopt mandatory hate crime reporting.

In cases where law enforcement was able to identify the perpetrator, 46.3 percent were white and 26.1 percent were black.

*  *  *

Since Donald Trump’s election win, many mainstream media reports have centered on hate crimes being supposedly inspired by Donald Trump and his supporters. A number of these reports have turned out to be false.

Read the whole story
65 days ago
Fastest growing, or most-reported currently? Or both?
New Hampshire
Share this story

America's Extreme Social Fragmentation Exposed In 3 Simple Charts

1 Comment


Analysts have been conducting studies since 1994, trying to discern political polarization. These three charts look at the years 1994, 2004, and 2017.

Even as late as 2004, notice the broad crossover between the median Democrat and median Republican. And then notice how wide the divide is today.

Not only are the median positions of both parties further apart, but both parties have also shifted farther to their respective extremes in the last 13 years. The middle ground is much smaller, and to my eye it looks like the Democratic group is somewhat bigger than the Republican. You can see the same thing in the breakdown of the vote by states and counties; but since political commentary is not my genre, I’m going to avoid going any further down that rabbit hole.

But I will say that the internet, social media, and the media we consume on TV have allowed us to live in echo chambers where we are not really hearing much from the other side. We talk to people who think like we do and who tend to confirm that we are correct in our beliefs. That constant cycle of reinforcement makes our positions even more hardline, to the point where we trivialize or disparage the other side. It has seemingly become acceptable for an American congressman to say that he doesn’t feel sorry for those killed in the mass Las Vegas shooting because they were likely Trump supporters and against gun control. And for white hate groups to blatantly and publicly espouse racist positions. Antifa groups can call for the random killing of white people, simply for being white. And fewer than 30% of Millennials think that democracy is clearly the superior system of government.

And that is where we are today. Where are we going to be when unemployment is well over 12% and rising to 15%, the government is routinely running multitrillion-dollar budget deficits, state and local pensions are defaulting, and taxes are high and still rising?

And all this is going to happen at a time when wealth and income disparity are going to rising even faster than they are today. It’s all there in the data if you take the time to look. I am working hard to document not just the technological changes but the social, demographic, and political changes, along with the economic realities we will face in the book I’m currently writing. My greatest challenge will be to keep it under 300 pages!

And so, yes, when people ask what is in my worry closet, it is the fragmentation of society. As a country, we are going to have to begin to think the unthinkable. We really don’t know how to accurately measure GDP or inflation, and we certainly don’t have any way to statistically measure the improvements in lifestyle over the years. And we will need those tools. As conservatives and Republicans, we are going to have to think about something like universal basic employment, as opposed to universal basic income. Good work and participating in society give us meaning in life. Income just gives us a way to scrape by, but not personal life satisfaction or meaning, which is why we have an epidemic of opioid deaths, suicides, and rising deaths from alcoholism in the United States among white unemployed workers between 45 and 54. They have lost meaning and hope in their lives.

The calls for a guaranteed basic income (like Mark Zuckerberg’s) are just beginning, but that is going to become a major political theme in our future. Like King Canute, we cannot stop the tides – but perhaps we could get creative and channel that tide. What do we think of shorter work weeks? Just as Roosevelt put men to work during the Depression, maybe we need to think about finding jobs around our communities that need to be done. Guaranteed basic employment. Mull that over….

Yes, that offends every Hayekian neuron in my brain, but in a world of an unimaginable and unmanageable future, we are going to have start thinking the unthinkable.

Voters are going to want politicians to solve their problems. Politicians can’t really solve the problems we already have, let alone the problems of the future, so I expect we are going to see shifts from one political extreme to the other.

* * *

Like what you’re reading? Subscribe now and receive the full version of John Mauldin's Thoughts from the Frontline delivered to your inbox each week.

Read the whole story
76 days ago
Of course, this is when one uses the Republican view of 'liberal' and 'conservative.'
New Hampshire
Share this story

How can an Amazon headquarters work in Boston given our existing gridlock?

1 Comment

Folks here in Boston have been speculating about whether Amazon will choose to locate its second headquarters amidst our already-clogged roads, bringing 50,000 jobs and maybe 200,000 more cars (employee cars; family member cars; cars belonging to people in service businesses that will expand as a result of Amazon’s presence, etc.).

The most common response to this idea is wondering “how could it possibly work?” We are already short on housing. The streets are jammed from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. The MBTA’s subway system is packed and the service is falling apart as the enterprise is buried in pension and health care expenses. Unless they build a 50-story campus that includes dormitories for all workers and their families, nobody can figure out where an Amazon headquarters could go that wouldn’t result in Mexico City-style traffic jams.

The Amazon HQ2 response from Boston is 218 pages. The proposal stresses that Amazon won’t be plagued with a lot of stupid native-born white people: “55% of Bostonians are Hispanic or non-White” and “29% of Boston’s population is foreign born”. I think this is basically a lie because they’re drawing an artificial line around the city itself rather than considering the metro area. On the other hand, when the authors wanted to find some nerds they draw the line regionally, e.g., “With 130,660 workers in computer and mathematical occupations, the Boston MSA has the 7th highest number … amongst 34 comparable metropolitan areas.” What do these computer nerds and math geniuses read? Here’s what the merchandisers at a Cambridge Whole Foods thought would sell:

The proposal makes clear that there is nowhere near enough housing, talking about “53,000 new units of housing by 2030.” In other words, the Amazon workers would take up 100 percent of the new housing that has been contemplated! Another lie is that “1 in 5 households in Boston are affordable, making Boston a national leader.” I think this is only true because the city gives away free housing to people who don’t work. None of the Amazon workers, by definition, would be eligible for these units. Market rents in Boston are brutal.

It promises “A perfect, shovel-ready site with a single owner.” Where will this be? Not really in Boston, as it turns out. It will be the old Suffolk Downs horse racing site, which is technically in East Boston, but is mostly attached to Revere, Massachusetts, a separate city. The proposal is reasonably honest about this, saying that “the Site is adjacent to and accessible to established neighborhoods of East Boston and Revere.” The proposal talks about MIT and Harvard graduates running around, but, unless you count trips to Logan Airport, most of these eggheads have never been to East Boston or Revere. Google says that this is a 50-minute trip from Harvard Square by T.

The Blue Line train is disclosed as having 71,000 passengers per day right now. How would it not collapse with tens of thousands of additional riders?

One group of folks that should be supporting this move are divorce litigators here in Massachusetts. The probability of a divorce lawsuit goes up dramatically as the potential profits from the lawsuit are increased. Washington State family law provides for much more limited profits than Massachusetts. A plaintiff cannot collect child support revenue in Washington after children turn 18; the cash continues to flow in Massachusetts until children turn 23. It is tough to get more than about $22,128 per year for a single child in Washington State; the plaintiff who can get custody of the same child in Massachusetts might win $100,000 per year (tax-free) in child support. A Massachusetts plaintiff is more likely to win “primary parent” status than in Washington State.  Alimony lawsuits in Washington are also less lucrative, in general than in Massachusetts. In short, any Amazon employee who moves from Washington to Massachusetts and is the higher-earning spouse will face a higher statistical chance of being sued by his or her spouse. The Amazonian could try to protect himself or herself by settling in less-plaintiff-friendly New Hampshire, but the commute to Revere/East Boston would be brutal.

This would probably be the greatest thing that ever happened to JetBlue, which operates a major hub out of Logan, more or less adjacent to the proposed site. If you are confident that Boston will win this, buy stock in JetBlue!

Note that the proposal contains some even crazier ideas, e.g., that Amazon should try to spread itself among a whole bunch of different buildings in South Boston and downtown. Or maybe spread out across a couple dozen buildings in the South End, Back Bay (off the charts expensive), Roxbury, and some other unrelated areas.

My idea: Since Amazon can locate anywhere…. pick a happy place. Colorado always comes up in the top 5 happy states and always has cities in the top 5 or 10 (example). Boulder, Colorado would be awesome, obviously, but I don’t see how 50,000 new families could show up to the party. The area next to the big Denver airport is uncongested, on the other hand, and it will be convenient for Amazon employees to get anywhere on the planet from KDEN. Colorado family law doesn’t provide anywhere near the incentives to plaintiffs that Massachusetts does, so more of the Amazon workers will be able to keep their families intact. As a percentage of residents’ income, Colorado has a lower state and local tax burden than either Washington or Massachusetts. Denver has less traffic congestion overall than Boston (e.g., see TomTom data).

My backup idea: Vancouver! Amazon can gradually transform itself into a Canadian company and pay corporate taxes at Canadian rates (much lower). Vancouver is insanely packed, of course, but how about right next to the Boundary Bay Airport, a 35-minute drive to downtown Vancouver. The runway can handle an Airbus A320 or Boeing 737 to shuttle employees as necessary back and forth to Seattle (maybe less time than they currently spend commuting on Seattle’s own clogged freeway system).

Readers: What do you think? Does it make sense for Amazon to build a headquarters in a place whose transportation systems have already melted down? On the one hand, the meltdown of the transportation systems (car, bus, train, etc.) reflects the fact that people want to live in that place. On the other hand, since Amazon is one of the country’s best employers it would be able to draw people to wherever it settles.

[Question 2 for readers: How come progressive-minded government officials are bringing out the barrels of taxpayer cash to attract Amazon? Didn’t they read the New York Times expose about the abuse suffered by Amazon’s employees? If one believes the New York Times, why seek to bring that kind of abuse to one’s hometown?]

Read the whole story
83 days ago
Portsmouth, NH!
New Hampshire
Share this story
Next Page of Stories