September 2 AND 3, 2016


News and Views


TRUMP, CONTINUED:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-hispanic-adviser-resigns?utm_content=bufferf5f61&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Member Of Trump's Hispanic Advisory Board Resigns After Phoenix Speech
By CAITLIN MACNEAL
Published SEPTEMBER 1, 2016, 6:52 AM EDT

Donald Trump's Wednesday night speech full of hard-line views on immigration prompted one member of his National Hispanic Advisory Council to resign, Politico reported.

Jacob Monty resigned from the board following the Phoenix speech, telling Politico that he was disappointed in the rhetoric Trump used in Phoenix.

"I was a strong supporter of Donald Trump when I believed he was going to address the immigration problem realistically and compassionately," he told Politico. “What I heard today was not realistic and not compassionate.”

Monty and other members of the Hispanic advisory board met with Trump earlier in August, where the Republican nominee reportedly suggested he could soften his policy on deporting undocumented immigrants.

“When we met [earlier in August] he was going to approach this issue with a realistic plan, a compassionate plan, with a plan that was not disruptive to the immigrants that were here that were not lawbreakers," Monty told Politico on Wednesday. “He didn’t deliver any of that.”

Another Latino surrogate for Trump, Alfonso Aguilar, also told Politico that he was disappointed by Trump's speech.

“It’s so disappointing because we feel we took a chance, a very risky chance,” Aguilar, who organized Latino conservatives to support Trump in a letter, told Politico. “We decided to make a big U-turn to see if we could make him change. We thought we were moving in the right direction … we’re disappointed. We feel misled.”

“I can tell you there’s a real possibility we will withdraw support from Donald Trump because of that disappointing speech," he added.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexican-president-trump-policies-could-be-huge-threat-to-mexico/

Mexican president: Trump policies could be "huge threat" to Mexico
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
September 1, 2016, 10:50 AM


President Enrique Pena Nieto levied heavy criticisms at Donald Trump following the Republican nominee’s visit to Mexico Wednesday, calling some of his policies a “risk” that “must be confronted.”

“His policy stances could represent a huge threat to Mexico, and I am not prepared to keep my arms crossed and do nothing,” Pena Nieto said in a television interview late Wednesday evening, according to a Reuters report. “That risk, that threat, must be confronted. I told him that is not the way to build a mutually beneficial relationship for both nations.”

Pena Nieto’s comments come after the two politicians gave differing accounts on whether the payment of a border wall -- one of Trump’s key immigration tenets -- was discussed in the course of their hour-long meeting in Mexico.

At a news conference immediately following the closed-door session, Trump told reporters: “We did discuss the wall. We didn’t discuss payment of the wall -- that will be at a later date. This was a very preliminary meeting. It was an excellent meeting.”

Later, at Trump’s speech on immigration at a Phoenix, Arizona rally, the GOP nominee again promised that Mexico would pick up the tab for the border wall -- “100 percent.”

“They don’t know it yet, but they are going to pay for the wall,” Trump told a boisterous crowd Wednesday evening.

But Pena Nieto, facing mounting disapproval from Mexican citizens over his invitation Trump, painted a different picture of their meeting.

In tweets, the Mexican president said this in a tweet in Spanish: “At the beginning of the conversation with Donald Trump I made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall.”


Follow
Enrique Peña Nieto ✔ @EPN
Al inicio de la conversación con Donald Trump dejé claro que México no pagará por el muro.
6:51 PM - 31 Aug 2016
14,143 14,143 Retweets 15,343 15,343 likes


A Mexican government official with knowledge of the meeting also dismissed any charge that Pena Nieto’s message was lost in translation.

According to Reuters, the official said the Mexican president spoke English during their time together and that Pena Nieto had clearly told Trump about the offense his comments had caused the Mexican people.

Trump tweeted again Thursday morning that Mexico is picking up the tab for the wall.


Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Mexico will pay for the wall!
6:31 AM - 1 Sep 2016
13,425 13,425 Retweets 26,653 26,653 likes


In another address Thursday morning -- this time to the American Legion for their annual conference in Cincinnati, Ohio -- Trump once again reiterated that he had a “wonderful meeting” with the Mexican president, where he “thanked him for the tremendous contributions of Mexican Americans in our country.”

“You know how good they are,” Trump said. “I want to again thank him for his gracious hospitality, express my belief that we can work together to achieve great things for both countries, that’s Mexico and the United States.”

“We agreed in the meeting on the need to stop the illegal flow of guns, drugs, cash and people across the border and to take out the cartels -- have to get rid of those cartels and we have to do it quickly,” Trump continued. “Our country is being poisoned.”

Trump did not, however, directly respond to Pena Nieto’s claims about the border wall.



Wikipedia EXCERPT -- “While condemning the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and providing considerable relief aid to the U.S. after Hurricane Katrina, the Mexican government, pursuing neutrality in international affairs, opted not to actively join the controversial War on Terror and the even more controversial Iraq War, instead being the first nation in history to formally and voluntarily leave the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance in 2002,[2] though Mexico later joined the U.S. in supporting military intervention in the Libyan Civil War.[3]”


What international cooperation agreements do we have with Mexico? Trade between our countries is significant, the Mexicans who come here send a considerable amount of money to Mexico for their families, and Mexico has given aid to the US in some cases, but voluntarily and selectively. Mexicans in general and Pena Nieto himself hold not only a negative reaction toward Trump personally, but his yuuge wall would cost way more than the US is likely to want to pay, and more than Mexico will consent to pay. The fact that Trump keeps saying these things is simply the continued result of his desire to court his “constituency” of hostile white men. That’s my opinion anyway. See below for some international agreements that we shouldn’t be eager to disrupt.


https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/united-states-mexico-reach-modernized-aviation-agreement

United States, Mexico Reach Modernized Aviation Agreement

The U.S. Department of Transportation announced today that a new, modernized air service agreement has been reached that will expand opportunities for passenger and cargo carriers to provide service between the United States and Mexico, and strengthen the economic ties between the two countries. The new agreement with Mexico includes unlimited market access for U.S. and Mexican air carriers, improved intermodal rights, pricing flexibility, and other important commercial rights.

. . . .

“Travelers, shippers, airlines, and the economies of both countries will benefit from competitive pricing and more convenient air service,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “This agreement is the result of the commitment on both sides of the border to strengthen the strong bonds of trade and tourism between our two countries, and demonstrate our shared commitment to a competitive, market-based international economic system.”

The agreement will expand opportunities for air services and will encourage price competition by airlines, while strengthening our commitments to aviation safety and security.

The agreement will not enter into force until January 1, 2016, after both parties have completed their necessary internal processes.

###

Friday, November 21, 2014



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_relations

Mexico–United States relations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mexico–United States relations refers to the foreign relations between the United Mexican States (Estados Unidos Mexicanos) and the United States of America. The two countries share a maritime and land border in North America. Several treaties have been concluded between the two nations bilaterally, such as the Gadsden Purchase, and multilaterally, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement. Both are members of various international organizations, including the Organization of American States and the United Nations.

. . . .

The U.S. is Mexico's biggest trading partner and Mexico is the U.S.'s third largest trading partners [sic]. In 2010, Mexico's exports totaled US$309.6 billion, and almost three quarters of those purchases were made by the United States.[1] They are also closely connected demographically, with over one million U.S. citizens living in Mexico[citation needed] and Mexico being the largest source of immigrants to the United States. Undocumented immigration and illegal trade in drugs and in fire arms have been causes of differences between the two governments but also of cooperation.

While condemning the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and providing considerable relief aid to the U.S. after Hurricane Katrina, the Mexican government, pursuing neutrality in international affairs, opted not to actively join the controversial War on Terror and the even more controversial Iraq War, instead being the first nation in history to formally and voluntarily leave the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance in 2002,[2] though Mexico later joined the U.S. in supporting military intervention in the Libyan Civil War.[3]

According to a 2010 Gallup poll, 4.4% of surveyed Mexicans, roughly 6.2 million people, say that they would move permanently to the United States if given the chance,[4] and according to the 2012 U.S. Global Leadership Report, 37% of Mexicans approve of U.S. leadership, with 27% disapproving and 36% uncertain.[5] As of 2013, Mexican students form the 9th largest group of international students studying in the United States, representing 1.7% of all foreigners pursuing higher education in the U.S.[6]

The United States of America shares a unique and often complex relationship with the United Mexican States. With shared history stemming back to the Texas Revolution (1835–1836) and the Mexican–American War (1846–1848), several treaties have been concluded between the two nations, most notably the Gadsden Purchase, and multilaterally with Canada, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Mexico and the United States are members of various international organizations, such as the Organization of American States and the United Nations. Boundary disputes and allocation of boundary waters have been administered since 1889 by the International Boundary and Water Commission, which also maintains international dams and wastewater sanitation facilities. Once viewed as a model of international cooperation, in recent decades the IBWC has been heavily criticized as an institutional anachronism, by-passed by modern social, environmental and political issues.[7] Illegal immigration, arms sales, and drug smuggling continue to be contending issues in 21st-century U.S.-Mexico relations.

. . . .

Boundary issues and the border region[edit]
Main article: Mexico–United States border

Under Mexican president Adolfo López Mateos, the U.S. and Mexico concluded a treaty to resolve the Chamizal dispute over the boundary between the two countries, with the U.S. ceding the disputed territory.[48] The Boundary Treaty of 1970 resolved further issues between the two countries.

. . . .

As of 2009, 62% of undocumented immigrants in the United States originate from Mexico.[51] Commonly those who enter the United States illegally are smuggled in by individuals referred to as "coyotes".[52] In 2005, according to the World Bank, Mexico received $18.1 billion USD in remittances from individuals in the United States.[53] In response to this and the trafficking of illegal drugs the United States has built a barrier on its border with Mexico.[54]



http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/252-a-river-runs-through-it-the-chamizal-dispute-1895-1963

252 - A River Runs Through It: the Chamizal Dispute (1895-1963)
Over a year ago by FRANK JACOBS

Ever since the Mexican-American War (1845-49), the Rio Grande has been the border between the two nations from El Paso to the Gulf, giving Texas a natural southern boundary. Fixing the border on a river might seem a tidy solution. But while rivers last longer than most treaties, they are also bound by none. When a river shifts, it shifts, treaty or no.

Does the border then trace the old riverbed or the new one? Naturally, both parties would prefer the outcome that left them the most territory (and the other the least). A war, anyone? International law has a rule for this particular clash between fluctuation and demarcation: if the river changes course gradually, through erosion, the border follows. If the river radically changes course, through avulsion, the border should remain where it was before.

By 1895, the Rio Grande – and the US – had moved south about 600 acres (2,4 sq. km), a disputed area known as El Chamizal. Mexicans filed claims to the land south of the old riverbed (but north of the new one), an arbitration commission was established and it eventually proclaimed in 1911 that each country should receive part of the disputed area:
The US was to receive the area between the riverbed as originally surveyed in 1852 and the riverbed as it had shifted southwards by 1864, the rest going to Mexico, even though this was to the north of the later riverbed of the Rio Grande.

The US did not accept this split decision, leading to sustained tension with Mexico and the development of a curious zone in El Chamizal, called Cordova Island. This was a virtual Mexican island in the disputed zone, leading to a grey zone that fostered crime and illegal border crossings.

In 1963, US president JF Kennedy and Mexican president Adolfo Lopez Mateos agreed to settle the Chamizal Dispute along the lines of the 1911 recommendations.

• The US and Mexico each received 193 acres of Cordova Island;
• Mexico received 366 acres west of Cordova Island, and 264 acres to the east of it.
• Mexico and the US shared the cost of a man-made channel that would (or should) prevent further blurring of the border.
• US citizens in the Chamizal area were relocated and compensated for the loss of their homes and businesses.
• A Chamizal National Memorial, an amphitheatre, a bookstore and a museum were established in the area, which every October hosts several cultural events such as the Border Folk Festival and the Siglo del Oro drama festival.

This map, found at this page at answers.com, would have benefited from a better dating of the three sets of riverbeds, which I assume must be the ones from 1852 (‘old boundary’), 1864 (‘Relocated River Channel’) and around 1895 (‘Rio Grande’).



TRUMP’S WOES ON THE SCRIPT LEAK

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ny-times-obtains-script-of-trump-interview-at-black-church/

NYT: Script leaked for Trump interview at black church
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
September 2, 2016, 11:42 AM

Play VIDEO -- Clinton, Trump exchange bigotry barbs


Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who lags far behind Hillary Clinton in African American support, will have some scripted answers to rely on for an interview he’s taping with a black pastor Saturday in his first public appearance before a majority black audience in Detroit.

The New York Times obtained a leaked 8-page script prepared by his campaign that has answers to the 12 questions Bishop Wayne T. Jackson will ask Trump when the candidate pays a visit to Detroit’s Great Faith Ministries International. Trump will sit down for a closed-door session with the pastor, and the interview is expected to air several days later on the Impact Network, Jackson’s cable television channel on the Christian faith.

The interview questions, the Times reported, range from Trump’s relationship with God to views among African American voters that the Republican party can be racist.

The prepared responses are a departure from Trump’s usual diatribes on rival Hillary Clinton’s “bigotry” and negative impacts on black communities.

Instead, Trump is expected to offer up his own optimistic vision for race relations under his administration.

“If we are to make America great again, we must reduce, rather than highlight, issues of race in this country,” Trump is expected to say. “I want to make race disappear as a factor in government and governance.”

To another question posed by Bishop Jackson on whether Trump’s campaign is racist, the candidate is advised not to repeat the word.

“The proof, as they say, will be in the pudding,” the script says. “Coming into a community is meaningless unless we offer an alternative to the horrible progressive agenda that has perpetuated a permanent underclass in America.”

And in addressing undecided black voters, the Times noted the script cleaves close to Trump’s usual rhetoric: “If you want a strong partner in this journey, you will vote for me. I will never let you down...By the way, my support is now up to 8 percent and climbing.”

Trump, who has also struggled with answering questions about his faith, is also getting coached on his views about God.

When the candidate is asked “Are you a Christian and do you believe the Bible is an inspired word of God?” the script offers this response from Trump: “As I went through my life, things got busy with business, but my family kept me grounded to the truth and the word of God...I treasure my relationship with my family, and through them, I have a strong faith enriched by an ever-wonderful God.”

While in Detroit, Trump will attend a two-hour church service and is also expected to address the Great Faith Ministries congregation for a few minutes. According to the Times, he will also spend about 30 minutes mingling with church members.



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-details-black-community-visit-script-leak-article-1.2775622

Donald Trump changes details of black community visit as script of his planned interview
BY CAMERON JOSEPH
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Friday, September 2, 2016, 10:04 AM

Photograph -- Donald Trump campaign hires Citizens United prez David Bossie
AUG. 25, 2016 FILE PHOTO
Photograph -- Trump has been heavily criticized by African American leaders — including some black Republicans — for his refusal over the course of the campaign to engage with the black community. (GERALD HERBERT/AP)
74 PHOTOS, VIEW GALLERY -- New York Daily News covers of Donald Trump through the years
Related: Wade rips Chicago's gun laws, says Trump tweets left 'bad taste'


He's going to speak with black people after all.

Donald Trump will address a black church after all during his planned trip to Detroit to prove he can reach out to the African Community, a shift that comes after a carefully prepared script of what his staff hopes he'll say during the trip leaked to the press.

Trump will spend Saturday in the heavily black, economically struggling city, heading to a church then going out with surrogate Ben Carson to see the neighborhoods where his former primary rival grew up as he seeks to show that he can indeed reach out to the black community.

After more than a year of dog-whistles criticizing Black Lives Matter and years of controversial moves that some view as racist, Trump has spent the last few weeks arguing he'd be best for African Americans. But his question to the community of "what do you have to lose" has been presented repeatedly to heavily white audiences.

Now, he's finally stopping by an African American church — but his staff is clearly nervous about what he'll have to say. The original plan for the trip was for Trump to visit a church but not speak, and then participate in a short, private interview with a friendly African American host, complete with pre-screened questions.

According to a leaked copy of a script for that interview was [sic] leaked to the New York Times, Bishop Wayne T. Jackson planned to ask Trump about Black Lives Matter, police violence, racial tension and questions about whether the GOP is racist.

The proposed answers were crafted by Trump and Republican National Committee aides, including the exact wording for what they hoped Trump would say.

Back in 1999, Trump considered running for president and said that he would choose Oprah to be his running mate. The headline on Oct. 8, 1999 read, "I want to be the Prez."

Lines include “If we are to make America great again, we must reduce, rather than highlight, issues of race in this country” and “I want to make race disappear as a factor in government and governance," according to the Times.

After the script leaked, Trump's team changed its plan, saying he will indeed speak to the congregation for a few minutes.

Trump has been heavily criticized by African American leaders — including some black Republicans — for his refusal over the course of the campaign to engage with the black community. The GOP candidate is polling near historic lows with African Americans, in the low single digits in most surveys.



I wonder. Can Trump remember what’s in the script, or will he have to rely on a teleprompter or one of those little ear mikes that the newscasters use? It’s good, for his purposes, that he has decided to visit a black neighborhood, and actually speak to the church rather than merely doing a canned interview with a “friendly” black pastor. What looks to me to be a lack of courage on Trump’s part until now, or perhaps simple distaste, has been overcome. Of course, there won’t be one of those teleprompters in a one-to-one interview, so that’s out. I can’t wait to see this on TV when it’s aired. I don’t expect he will be able to break out of the “low single digits” in the polls, though.

Still, it’s interesting to see him actually trying hard to please people who are not his natural group. That’s a necessary part of politics, while his real love is standup comedy. He lives for the audience reaction. He isn’t happy unless he’s throwing insults around, and with the Black community that kind of thing will not win votes. He is making a real effort, I think, to do what he’s told and refrain from doing something outrageous, like when he grotesquely imitated the reporter with a physical disability. After all, this presidential election is his life goal. He’s willing to take some coaching, but most of us will REMEMBER the things he has done, and have absolutely no faith in his ever becoming a good president of the US.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pastor-mark-burns-donald-trump-supporter-overstated-biography-details/

Pastor Mark Burns, Donald Trump supporter, "overstated" biography details
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
September 3, 2016, 11:01 AM

Photograph -- Pastor Mark Burns speaks during a rally for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at the Travis County Exposition Center on August 23, 2016 in Austin, Texas. SUZANNE CORDEIRO/AFP/GETTY IMAGES


Mark Burns, a Donald Trump surrogate and the pastor of a South Carolina church, is owning up to false statements in his professional biography following a heated interview with CNN earlier this week.

“As a young man starting my church in Greenville, South Carolina, I overstated several details of my biography because I was worried I wouldn’t be taken seriously as a new pastor,” Burns wrote in a statement late Friday. “This was wrong. I wasn’t truthful then and I have to take full responsibility for my actions.”

Burns sent the apology in a tweet, adding that he was “thankful for a god who looks beyond our faults.”


View image on Twitter
Follow
Pastor Mark Burns @pastormarkburns
I'M SO THANKFUL FOR A GOD WHO LOOKS BEYOND OUR FAULTS AND MEETS OUR NEEDS..I LOVE YOU ALL..!
8:16 PM - 2 Sep 2016
603 603 Retweets 1,294 1,294 likes

The statement comes shortly after the interview with CNN anchor Victor Blackwell about several exaggerated professional accomplishments the pastor had listed on his website.

Burns, a televangelist who spoke at the Republican National Convention and regularly introduces Trump at events, was asked to explain some of his bio’s discrepancies, including his supposed membership in the historically African-American fraternity Kappa Alpha Psi, his active duty in the U.S. Army Reserve and his completion of a Bachelor of Science degree from North Greenville University.

Asked of his website biography’s claim that he belonged to Kappa Alpha Psi -- which CNN reported to be untrue -- Burns said in the interview, which aired in full on Saturday: “I did, without question, say that I had crossed, I mean not crossed, but I had started the process of being a part of that organization. But that’s the furthest that I’ve gotten.”

And when pressed on the site’s statement that he had been a member of the Army Reserve, Burns had this reply: “I was never part of the... no, no... South Carolina National Guard.”

“I just asked you about the Army Reserves,” CNN’s Blackwell noted. “That was my question. You, in this bio, claim six years in the Army Reserves.”

“Which is... it is Reserves,” said Burns, who did serve from 2001 to 2005 in the state’s National Guard. “The Army South Carolina National Guard is Reserves.”

Blackwell also questioned whether the pastor had obtained a bachelor’s degree from North Greenville University, as his website had also claimed.

“Did you attend from North Greenville University?” the CNN host asked.

“Yes, I did attend,” Burns responded.

“Did you graduate from North Greenville University?” Blackwell followed up.

“No, I didn’t complete the degree at North Greenville University,” Burns responded. The university reportedly told CNN that Burns attended for just one semester.

During the course of the interview, Burns pushed back on CNN, claiming the questioning was “not fair at all.”

“I thought we were doing a profile, and all of a sudden you’re here to try to destroy my character,” Burns said. “I understand that this is what media does -- and I understand that when you find someone who is speaking out their heart and is speaking out their desire to bring people together and get past the political correctness of society -- that the job of investigative journalism, in this case, is to try to destroy the character of the individual so their voice is silenced.”

Later, Burns also seemed to imply that his website could have been hacked, with the information added without his consent.

In his statement released Friday, Burns repeated his condemnation of the media, claiming he was a target because he was an African-American backer of Trump:

“I do also want to set the record straight about why this attack is happening – because I am a black man supporting Donald Trump for president,” he said. “For too long, African-American votes have been taken for granted by Democratic politicians, and enough is enough.”



This is just sad, but it needs to be brought out into the light of day. Not everything that happens is persecution. Faking a bio is not totally new, of course, but it is profoundly embarrassing for all concerned and it’s totally avoidable. Just don’t tell that lie in the first place.

When I was young in North Carolina there were many ministers who were “called to preach,” and with not a bit of special schooling they found themselves the head of a home church. Nowadays most churches want their pastor to have a college degree.

His involvement with Trump’s campaign has put him up into the public eye, and he is suffering for that. If he hadn’t become politically active it is very probable that no news agency would have looked into his background at all.



What’s good for the petrochemicals industry is good for the USA …

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/03/492517062/earthquake-rattles-oklahoma-one-of-strongest-recorded-in-state

Earthquake Rattles Oklahoma; One Of Strongest Recorded In State
BILL CHAPPELL
September 3, 20169:01 AM ET

Photograph -- A map shows the recorded location of a strong earthquake that struck west of Tulsa Saturday morning. USGS


An earthquake struck northern Oklahoma early Saturday morning, rattling houses and waking residents in the region around Pawnee, about 74 miles north of Oklahoma City. Preliminary measurements show the quake had a magnitude of 5.6 — believed to be one of the strongest in state history.

The quake was felt in five states, according to the U.S. Geological Survey: Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas and Texas. It struck just after 7 a.m. local time, at a depth of 6 kilometers (3.7 miles).

The epicenter was around 8 miles northwest of Pawnee, a town of less than 3,000 people. Shortly after the large quake hit, at least four additional temblors struck the same area, with the strongest having a magnitude of 3.6; all of them were shallower than the first quake.

According to the National Weather Service's Tulsa office, the earthquake ties the strongest quake in Oklahoma history at 5.6 magnitude. The previous record breaker hit on Nov. 5, 2011, the agency says.

Public Radio Tulsa — where the quake was strongly felt — describes the scene:

"Police in Pawnee report some windows were broken and homes sustained damage to the the outside facade. There have been no reports of injuries.

"The quake struck just after 7 a.m on Saturday morning. It was nearly four miles deep.

"Social media was alive with people feeling the quake from Dallas to Springfield, Missouri. The quake was so strong in Joplin, people there were worried it was the New Madrid Fault in far eastern Missouri, the site of the United State's strongest earthquake ever in 1812."

A number of smaller earthquakes have hit northern Oklahoma in the past week — including one that struck the same area as today's quake on Thursday, with a 3.2 magnitude. Since last Saturday, a string of similar quakes have hit an area west of Pawnee, including at least eight with a magnitude of 3 or higher.

In Oklahoma and other regions that are experiencing a spike in earthquakes, a consensus has emerged that they're linked to the underground injection of wastewater that's generated from fracking in oil and gas production, as Public Radio Tulsa recently reported.

The station says the Oklahoma Geological Survey is now working on a six-month study of injection wells to get a grip on how to cut the chances that operations "inadvertently induce a seismic event," as an oil industry representative said last month.

The U.S. Geological Survey says that Saturday's strong quake "occurred as the result of shallow strike-slip faulting."

More from the USGS:

"Locations across the central and eastern United States (CEUS) have been experiencing a rapid increase in the number of induced earthquakes over the past 7 years. Since 2009 rates in some areas, such as Oklahoma, have increased by more than an order of magnitude. Scientific studies have linked the majority of this increased activity to wastewater injection in deep disposal wells in several locations. However, other mechanisms such as fluid withdrawal, enhanced oil recovery, or hydraulic fracturing processes can also result in induced earthquakes."



Businesses (corporate entities) are never held responsible for their foolish actions unless they are directly sued for damages. That’s because under our intensely “capitalist” legal system, PROFIT is king. After those business owners are finished exploiting the whole earth, they will get into their privately owned space ships and take off for the moon or Mars or somewhere else where there is a little bit of water and enough oxygen in the atmosphere for us to survive. Then “the meek shall inherit the earth." That's you and me, Buddy!



SANDERS TODAY


http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-road-trip-benrie-sanders-hits-the-1472821260-htmlstory.html

Road trip: Bernie Sanders hits the campaign trail for Hillary Clinton
REPORTING FROM WASHINGTON
Lisa Mascaro
SEPT. 2, 2016, 6:10 A.M.

Photograph -- ABC News Politics ✔ @ABCPolitics
First Biden, now Sanders: the Senator will stump for his formal rival Clinton next week http://abcn.ws/2bGbSao
6:19 PM - 1 Sep 2016


Former Democratic presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders will campaign for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire this weekend, as the Democratic Party continues to unify in ways that have eluded the GOP.

The senator will stump for his former rival at a Labor Day event at Lebanon High School where he'll talk economics in what promises to be a fiery speech.

Sanders will contrast "Clinton's plan to building an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top, and Donald Trump's plan, which would benefit himself and other millionaires and billionaires," the campaign said.

Clinton is striving to maintain a decisive lead over Trump amid continued questions about her family's foundation and her private email server.

But Democrats have largely rallied behind their candidate in a show of party loyalty that Republicans have not mustered for Trump.



https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/09/02/clinton-still-struggles-sanders-democrats/

Clinton still struggles with Sanders Democrats
Many Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents who preferred Bernie Sanders in the primary still have gripes with the nominee
William Jordan
Elections analyst @williamjordann
September 2, 2016, 10:34 a.m.

Bernie Sanders is hitting the campaign trail for Hillary Clinton on Labor Day – his first solo trip since the Vermont senator endorsed his former rival for the Democratic nomination in July.

The trip could be useful for Clinton, as data shows she continues to struggle with Democratic voters who preferred Sanders in the primary, though opinions have become more positive in August.

According to data from the YouGov/Economist Poll, Clinton’s favorability rating among Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents who preferred Sanders over Clinton fell to a low-point in late May and early June as it became clearer Clinton would be the nominee. (This is a slightly different group than the “Democratic primary voters” YouGov has also tracked, a group which includes non-Democratic leaning voters). At one point in May, only 40% in this group had a favorable opinion of Clinton and 59% were unfavorable. In August the number has been more volatile, but smoothing the trend suggests an uptick since the Democratic National Convention. Clinton hasn’t received a favorable rating of less than 46% since mid-July among Bernie Sanders supporters, and her unfavorable rating has floated down to the low 50s and high 40s.

Clinton’s popularity among this group is below where it was in the fall of 2015, but notably the group itself – Sanders supporters – has likely experienced significant churn over the same period. In October and November, his support among Democrats and leaners ranged from 23% to 33%. In other words, it may be that the Sanders campaign eventually attracted voters already unhappy with Clinton as he became better known as the main alternative.

Favorability isn’t everything, however, and many Sanders supporters may just need to be convinced to hold their noses and vote for a candidate they don’t like. In voting intention, 60% of Sanders-supporting voters back Clinton over Trump in the latest poll – which is more than the 47% who have a favorable opinion of Clinton in the same poll. But Donald Trump gets 9%, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson gets 6% and the Green Party’s Jill Stein gets 11% with this same group. If Clinton could even get to 80% with these voters, her support would have been at 45% rather than 42% overall in the poll (Trump was five points behind at 37%) – a more comfortable place to be in a volatile four-way race.

There may be some echoes of the primary campaign in Clinton’s reputation with Sanders supporters. While this group mostly see Clinton as capable (78%) and qualified (80%), 52% also describe Clinton as “corrupt” and 59% says she is dishonest. By 40% to 20% this group tends to say Clinton personally profited from the Clinton Foundation, compared to a 34% to 24% split against this view among Democrats overall.

YouGov/Economist Poll Archives



I can’t imagine many Sanders supporters could actually turn around and support Trump, but if a large number of us refuse to vote for Clinton it is likely to have the same effect. If Sanders can maintain his famous “fiery” style to contrast Clinton clearly with Trump, perhaps those lagging Progressives will get their/our behinds out the door and vote for her in November. All people who care about this country and the democratic system need to do that. I personally believe that in the final analysis she will be the winner.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-china-enter-climate-change-deal/

U.S., China formally enter climate change deal
CBS/AP
September 3, 2016, 6:57 AM

Photograph -- Chinese President Xi Jinping and President Obama shake hands during their meeting at the West Lake State Guest House in Hangzhou, China, Sept. 3, 2016. REUTERS/WANG ZHAO
Play VIDEO -- Obama to roll out new climate change efforts
Play VIDEO -- Top of the World
Play VIDEO -- Warming climate breaks records – again


HANGZHOU, China -- Setting aside their cyber and maritime disputes, President Obama and China’s President Xi Jinping on Saturday sealed their nations’ participation in last year’s Paris climate change agreement. They hailed their new era of climate cooperation as the best chance for saving the planet.

At a ceremony on the sidelines of a global economic summit, Mr. Obama and Xi, representing the world’s two biggest carbon emitters, delivered a series of documents to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The papers certified the U.S. and China have taken the necessary steps to join the Paris accord that set nation-by-nation targets for cutting carbon emissions.

“This is not a fight that any one country, no matter how powerful, can take alone,” Mr. Obama said of the pact. “Some day [sic] we may see this as the moment that we finally decided to save our planet.”

Xi, speaking through a translator, said he hoped other countries would follow suit and advance new technologies to help them meet their targets. “When the old path no longer takes us far, we should turn to innovation,” he said.

The formal U.S.-Chinese announcement means the accord could enter force by the end of the year, a faster than anticipated timeline.

The Paris deal is the world’s first comprehensive climate agreement, but it will only come into force legally after it is ratified by at least 55 countries, CBS Radio News reporter Shannon Van Sant reports from Hong Kong. China’s efforts are cruical [sic] to the fight against climate change. It is the world’s biggest polluter and responsible for about 25 percent of global carbon emissions.

The nations that have joined must also produce at least 55 percent of global emissions. Together, the U.S. and China produce 38 percent of the world’s man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

The White House has attributed the accelerated pace to an unlikely partnership between Washington and Beijing. To build momentum for a deal, they set a 2030 deadline for China’s emissions to stop rising and announced their “shared conviction that climate change is one of the greatest threats facing humanity.” The U.S. has pledged to cut its emissions by at least 26 percent over the next 15 years, compared to 2005 levels.

The meeting of the minds on climate change, however, hasn’t smoothed the path for other areas of tension. The U.S. has criticized China over cyberhacking and human rights and voiced increased exasperation with Beijing’s growing assertiveness in key waterways in the region. Most recently, the U.S. has urged China to accept an international arbitration panel’s ruling that sided with the Philippines in a dispute over claims in the South China Sea.

China views the South China Sea as an integral part of its national territory. The U.S. doesn’t take positions in the various disputes between China and its Asian neighbors, but is concerned about freedom of navigation and wants conflicts resolved peacefully and lawfully.

Meeting Xi after the climate announcement, Mr. Obama said thornier matters would be discussed.

The ceremony opened what is likely Mr. Obama’s valedictory tour in Asia. The president stepped off Air Force One onto a red carpet, where an honor guard dressed in white and carrying bayonets lined his path. A young girl presented Mr. Obama with flowers and he shook hands with officials before entering his motorcade.

But the welcome didn’t go entirely smoothly. A Chinese official kept reporters and some top White House aides away from the president, prompting a U.S. official to intervene. The Chinese official then yelled: “This is our country. This is our airport.”

Throughout his tenure, Mr. Obama has sought to check China’s influence in Asia by shifting U.S. military resources and diplomatic attention from the Middle East. The results have been mixed.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive trade deal the White House calls a cornerstone of the policy, is stuck in Congress. Mr. Obama planned to use the trip to make the case for approval of the deal before he leaves office.

Climate represents a more certain piece of his legacy.

Under the Paris Agreement, countries are required to set national targets for reducing or reining in their greenhouse gas emissions. Those targets aren’t legally binding, but countries must report on their progress and update their targets every five years.

The state-run Xinhua News Agency reported Saturday that China’s legislature had voted to formally enter the agreement. In the U.S., no Senate ratification is required because it is not considered a formal treaty.

Li Shuo, Greenpeace’s senior climate policy adviser, called Saturday’s declarations “a very important next step.”

If the deal clears the final hurdles, he said, “we’ll have a truly global climate agreement that will bind the two biggest emitters in the world.”



“A Chinese official kept reporters and some top White House aides away from the president, prompting a U.S. official to intervene. The Chinese official then yelled: “This is our country. This is our airport.”

My first take: this is definitely disorderly conduct and seems to represent “dissention within the ranks” of the Chinese government. Does it indicate a high enough level of anti-US feeling among the people to be a problem? I certainly hope not. We do need China.

The dailymail portrays this little episode differently and in more detail. See below.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3772139/This-country-says-Chinese-official-Obama-lands.html

By AFP
PUBLISHED: 06:29 EST, 3 September 2016 | UPDATED: 14:34 EST, 3 September 2016

'This is our country!': Furious Chinese official squares up to press and White House staffers traveling with Obama to DEFEND the President - because he thought they were standing too close to him
President Barack Obama landed in China for his last trip to Asia as POTUS
Security personnel in China took issue with reporters with the president
Chinese officials attempted to rope off the journalists from Obama
One personnel member felt they were too close and screamed at them
Secret Service clashed with Chinese security before the motorcade left
Obama is in Hangzhou, China, for the final G20 summit of his presidency


When president Barack Obama arrived in China on Saturday, typical pleasantries were spoiled slightly after a Chinese official began shouting at U.S. White House staff.

Chinese authorities have imposed extremely tight security precautions for the G20 summit.

Not even U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice and the White House press corps proved exempt when Air Force One landed in host city Hangzhou.

Scroll down for video

Photograph -- President Barack Obama arrived in China on Saturday for his final G20 summit as president, but his initial landing was marred by tension between Chinese officials and White House staffers

Photograph -- Chinese authorities have imposed extremely tight security precautions for the G20 summit, which cause tempers to flare on the tarmac

Photograph -- U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice and senior White House staffer Ben Rhodes were blocked from getting close to the president until Secret Service stepped in and escorted them

Photograph -- Chinese official shouts at White House Press aid before G20

When Obama travels, the reporters accompanying are brought under the wing of the Boeing 747 to watch him come down the aircraft stairs.

On Saturday they were penned off behind a blue rope installed by Chinese security.

But that was not far away enough for the Chinese personnel, one of whom screamed at White House staff, demanding the U.S. press leave the scene.

He said they were too close to the president, despite the fact they followed protocol

One Chinese official (pictured) shouted at a group of reporters for being too close to the president, despite the fact they followed protocol

A female White House official (pictured), handbag over her arm, told him that it was an American plane and the U.S. president

'This is our country!' the Chinese official, in a dark suit, shouted at her in English. 'This is our airport!'



From watching this video, I don’t think the Chinese man was so much hostile as he was excited and confused, and he wasn’t doing what I would call “screaming,” but talking loudly and insistently in an unfamiliar language. After the first few seconds he lapsed into Chinese. What does seem clear is that the Chinese don’t allow a group of press members as close to a head of state as we do. Of course that’s partly how President Reagan got shot all those years ago, but we still like to do things our way. Freedom of information/the press is a big deal in our country.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/war-over-wolves-in-washington-state/

War over wolves in Washington state
CBS/AP
September 2, 2016, 5:35 PM

Photograph -- Opponents of the state’s decision to eradicate a wolf pack in order to protect cattle protest outside of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Thursday, Sept. 1, 2016, in Olympia, Wash. So far, six of the 11 members of the Profanity Peak pack have been killed. (AP Photo/Rachel La Corte) AP PHOTO/RACHEL LA CORTE


SPOKANE, Wash. - The on-going extermination of a wolf pack in Washington is the latest development in a controversy that pits conservationists against cattle ranchers in a part of the state far from the populous Seattle metro area.

The issue took an unusual twist this week, when Washington State University publicly rebuked a faculty member who had spoken out in support of the wolves.

The hunt has outraged environmental groups, who say wolves are natural predators that should not be killed in favor of cattle grazing at subsidized rates on public land.

Ranchers say the wolves are a menace.

In July, a cattleman’s group told agricultural newspaper the Capital Press that a wolf pack had killed three calves belonging to the Diamond m Ranch. In 2012 the ranch lost 40 calves to the Wedge pack and 20 the previous year.

“This situation needs to be addressed because if it isn’t, we are going to see as many losses as we did in 2012 from the Wedge Pack,” Justin Hedrick told the Capital Press. “That is rugged country and the wolves are just going to keep killing.”



Why are we allowing grazing, mining and other private business activities to take place on public land at all? We need to be preserving our environment by allowing these lands to remain untouched. The animals there should be wild animals. That’s my view, at any rate. If ranchers want to graze those lands, they should simply accept a certain percentage of loss. Give them a tax write-off for it. That’s plenty of help for the very wealthy business interests in this country, who get all kinds of benefits from the government – “corporate welfare,” as people call it. That’s like the problem with fracking, which is causing earthquakes. There should be penalties for abusing the environment, but of course there aren’t.




JUST PHOTOS, BUT GOOD ONES:

For those of you who are my age, you will enjoy these.
http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/today-in-history-throwback-thursday-september-1/

19 Photographs -- The way it was: Today in history



FOR QUIET CONSIDERATION -- I PERSONALLY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THE DEMAGOGUE IS TRUMP AND THE STATESMAN IS BERNIE. I THINK THE EVIDENCE BEARS THAT OUT.

https://mimimatthews.com/2016/08/11/the-victorian-demagogue-19th-century-words-on-a-modern-danger/

THE VICTORIAN DEMAGOGUE: 19TH CENTURY WORDS ON A MODERN DAY DANGER
August 11, 2016

“No organist can manipulate the stops and keys of his instrument with more dexterity than the demagogue exhibits in playing upon the different weaknesses, errors, and absurdities of the untutored mind.” Kent & Sussex Courier, 1874.

Painting -- The House of Commons by Sir George Hayter, 1833.

The word demagogue is thrown around quite a bit in politics today, but the term itself is nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a demagogue as a “political agitator who appeals to the passions and prejudices of the mob in order to obtain power.” In the Victorian era, such a man was considered dangerous.

Philosophers, poets, and newspapermen alike sought to warn the public, reasoning that the better one understood the repertoire of a demagogue, the less chance the demagogue would have of success. Their commentary is incredibly modern and (as in the case of a poem on demagoguery) occasionally quite humorous. In today’s article, we look at a few of the highlights.

To begin, it is worth noting that some learned Victorians felt that their society was especially vulnerable to the influence of demagogues. An article in an 1880 edition of the Pall Mall Gazette explains:

“Vast miscellaneous multitudes again govern the commonwealth, more at the mercy of sophistry than Greek or Roman assemblies because less on their guard against it, and more ignorant than the men who filled those assemblies because far less acquainted with the existing instruments of knowledge. In this kindly soil the Demagogue has again arisen, and under conditions far more favourable than of old to his pernicious authority.”

A meeting of the Anti-Corn Law League in Exeter Hall in 1846..

The same article goes on to call the growing influence of the demagogue in politics a “deadly malady” and a “sinister phenomenon.” Men in crowds were believed to be particularly vulnerable. Lies and half-truths which they might have resisted or even challenged on their own were “received as convincing by the multitude.” Vulgarities and suggestions of violence were also more acceptable when a man was part of a large group. As the Pall Mall Gazette states:

“…abuse which each man would think indecent is listened to with delighted approval by a great number of men collected together; and a contagion of irrational violence is seen to run through a crowd of hearers with the rapidity of blight spreading through the vegetation of a field.”


John Bright, Vanity Fair, 1869.

An example of just such an audience is referenced in an 1884 article in the Bucks Herald. Describing the group of men who had come to listen to a speech made by controversial British statesman John Bright, the article reports:

“…his abuse was applauded to the echo; his gross misrepresentations fell upon ears which were eager to receive anything which would strengthen in their perversity the distorted minds of their possessors.”

According to an article in an 1874 edition of the Kent & Sussex Courier, the “professional demagogue” worked upon the ignorance, prejudices, and selfish passions of his audience. In doing so, he employed his greatest skills:

“A fluent tongue, a loud utterance, an unabashed front—such, of course, are the prime articles of his repertory.”

Another skill of the demagogue was his ability to make his language ambiguous. As the Kent & Sussex Courier reports:

“Great, too, is the ingenuity which he expends in devising those terse and telling ambiguities, which, in one sense, appeal to the baser passions of his audience, and yet are capable of explanation and defence towards an opponent.”

It was just such ambiguity of language that allowed Bright to defend himself when his recommendation that his followers “burst open the doors of Parliament, which were barred against them” resulted in the 1866 Hyde Park Riots. The Kent & Sussex Courier explains that, to the masses, these words would not have been seen as metaphorical. Instead:

“…to the common mind they carried so dangerous a suggestion of physical force that they might in justice have led to the appearance of the writer in the dock on a charge of sedition.”

Political Cartoon Detail by Joseph Morewood Staniforth, 1899.

Some believed that the followers of a demagogue need only see the man’s true colors to condemn him. As the Bucks Herald states:

“…we believe that this display of the real colours under which they are fighting will drive all who really love their country, and wish to see its noble institutions preserved from the rash blows of the wild demagogue, into an alliance with the party of steady progress and reasonable reform.”

Unfortunately, in reality, the poor character or temperament of a demagogue made little difference to the most ardent of his followers. One of the best explanations for this is given not by a Victorian but by 18th century philosopher and political activist Thomas Paine (one of the founding fathers of the United States). In his 1819 biography of Paine, author John Harford quotes him as writing:

“Those who are simple enough to listen to a Demagogue, seldom care about his moral character. With the rights of the citizens, their virtue, and their sovereignty, eternally vibrating on his lips, he may, for aught they care, have a heart as black as Tartarus.”

Serious Rioting in Trafalgar Square, Illustrated Police News, November 19, 1887.

Based on all of this, it sounds as if there was no defense to a demagogue. After all, if a demagogue was impervious to truth and well-reasoned arguments and if his followers remained devoted no matter his actions, what was an educated populace to do? According to Cobbett’s Gridiron (1822), the first step was to recognize that:

“…though he is excessively malignant and loud in his abuse; though he rages and foams like a storm, while he is assailing his adversary; he is as cowardly as he is unjust and cruel…”

It was this cowardice that prevented the demagogue from engaging with his adversary in a formal debate about the issues. Though powerful in front of his followers, he was wholly unequipped to meet his rival face-to-face. Cobbett’s explains this in vivid terms:

“Oh! how big and bold he looks! How he swaggers! How pompously he talks! But, put him in the face of that adversary; let him meet him foot to foot, and he sinks down his head, and hides his face, as if it were pelted at with mud or rotten eggs.”

I close this article with the promised poem on demagoguery. It was first printed in a May 5, 1866 edition of the Bucks Herald.

THE DEMAGOGUE

Thou base fomentor of a war of classes,
Though call’st the mob all wise, the peers all asses;
With thee in stupid vice each landlord grovels,
And none live well but they who live in hovels!

Thy rampant rhetoric owes half its force
To this, that Falsehood seldom checks its course.
Fierce on the platform, in the senate meek,
In declamation strong, in reason weak.

Dull in the moral sense, though bright in parts,
In thee good talents grace the worst of hearts—
Talents that still want wisdom and good sense,
Not bent to teach or please, but give offence.

Though foe to civil peace and calm contentment,
Preacher of envy, discord, and resentment,
That tell’st the freest nation of the earth
How that they groan in bondage from their birth.

Insulted, trodden on, by squire and peer,
Who tax our sugar, tea, tobacco, beer,
To pay for wars which they, the vile patricians,
Set going, that their sons may get commissions!

Most mischievous, most disingenuous prater,
Peace on thy lips, but quarrel in thy nature,
Whose thought of Freedom is that all thy betters
Should lick thy feet and wear thy galling fetters.

Of Freedom and Peace the champion eager,
That bidd’st a mob the senate-house beleaguer!
Still on thy course remorseless wilt though go,
And like a turbid torrent onward flow.

For thou, it seems, art fitted and design’d,
With all the gifts of a perverted mind,
To be a festering thorn in England’s side—
A crook in England’s lot, a slur upon her pride!

**Author’s Note: The images I’ve used in this article are merely to illustrate men speaking to crowds and the danger of riots and violence, not to condemn or endorse any political movement in history. As I’m sure you will all understand, illustrating this article was a rather difficult task.

Works Referenced or Cited in this Article

Cobbett’s Gridiron: Written to Warn Farmers of Their Danger. London: Henry Stemman, 1822.

“The Demagogue.” Bucks Herald. May 5, 1866.

“The Demagogue.” Pall Mall Gazette. April 23, 1880.

Harford, John. Some Account of the Life, Death, and Principles of Thomas Paine. Bristole: J. M. Gutch, 1819.

“Mischievous Demagogues.” Bucks Herald. August 9, 1884.

“Professional Demagogues.” Kent & Sussex Courier. October 2, 1874.

“The Triumvirate.” Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine. Vol. CV. London: William Blackwood & Sons, 1869.

© 2015-2016 Mimi Matthews

For more Romance, Literature, and History, follow me on:
Facebook and Twitter