Interesting

The Guardian reports:

Another major insurer, Axis Capital, has shunned the Adani Carmichael coal project and withdrawn a bid to underwrite the construction of the mine’s rail line.

The withdrawal, first reported by Reuters, follows announcements from 15 of the world’s leading insurers which say they either won’t support the Carmichael mine, or won’t insure thermal coal projects.

It also presents a clear opportunity to activist groups seeking to stop the construction of Carmichael. Those efforts have targeted companies – on their front pavement and in the boardroom – who might provide logistical or financial support to Adani...

John Quiggin, a professor of economics at the University of Queensland, has said the Carmichael project “can’t proceed” without insurance.

So activists may not have to superglue themselves to the track, after all?  Or read up on rail line demolition for amateurs.   (I'm scared to Google the topic myself, just in case some it sets off some cyber alert in ASIO.)

Sounds about right

From The Onion:

From the article:

“It’s really not that complicated: Eat a sensible amount of plain, ordinary food each day, and then we won’t have to do all these confusing studies and you won’t have to worry anymore,” said Blair Amundsen of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who explained that Americans continually eat such large quantities of bad food—drinking 24-ounce mocha lattes in the morning, ordering pizza for lunch, making hot dogs for dinner—that it’s almost impossible to determine which bad things are hurting them the most. “We wouldn’t have to churn out all this goddamn research on red meat if you didn’t eat it three meals a day, okay? So maybe just try something normal like a sandwich—not the huge kind with so much meat you have to cut it into pieces before you can fit it into your mouth, but a regular, standard-sized sandwich with lettuce and tomatoes and stuff on it. And don’t try to correct your weird, bad eating habits with a diet of nothing but salad for a month, because that’s weird and bad too. Please stop whatever you’re doing now and, for like a week, just eat normal. We’re every bit as exhausted as you are with all this food study shit.”

Yeah, I have to say, some of those American deli sandwiches, with like 4 cm of sliced meats in them, are just over the top.   Seinfeld was eating one of them in a recent episode, even though I doubt from his slim figure that it's not a regular part of his diet.

American candidates

So, it would seem Bernie's health rules him out, and the Democratic candidate for President will be Biden or Warren.

I really don't follow American politics in the same level of detail that other people do, so I haven't paid much attention to Warren.  But Biden does seem too old and past it, and while Warren herself is 70, she looks younger and pretty fit.  She seems a lot younger than Trump, even though he is only 3 years older.    

Lots of people I trust on twitter say she's good at explaining stuff, and Zuckerberg has it in for her, so she probably should be the next President.   She is said to have Wall Street in a panic because she wants a wealth tax (but only kicks in at $50 million)  Surely Democrats can stand up to the rich who think that will be a disaster?

Americans can be a bit weird in their view of tax though.  They fantasise about upward mobility so much that they can imagine how annoyed they would be if facing a wealth tax, even if they're personally forever stuck on a barely living wage and have so few assets that urgent health care could send them bankrupt. 

I know the feeling

Before the internet broke my attention span I read books compulsively. Now, it takes willpower

More reason to impeach him

It's one (dangerous) thing for wingnuts to talk about Democrats trying to stage a coup;  a much, much worse thing when their cult leader makes the same claim.

Some well deserved mocking

On the story about Trump and his ideas as to how to bolster the border:

And this:

So much for that (already long debunked) theory

A report on a new planetary carbon audit that came up with these key findings:

• CO₂ out-gassed to the atmosphere and oceans today from volcanoes and other magmatically active regions is estimated at 280 to 360 million tonnes (0.28 to 0.36 Gt) per year, including that released into the oceans from mid-ocean ridges
• Humanity's annual carbon emissions through the burning of fossil fuels and forests, etc., are 40 to 100 times greater than all volcanic emissions

Telling each other conspiracy theories has killed the Right

Jonathan Chait explains how The Federalist started a false and conspiracy laden claim about the whistleblower rules changing, which was taken up with enthusiasm by Trump and his cult followers, but the Intelligence Inspector General has denied it completely.  Does the Federalist retract?  No, it  claims some element of vindication to gloss over the fact they were completely wrong and have mislead and dumbed down the Trump base, again.

And how about this for a complete disgrace - a key Trump adviser using language bound to fire up the lurid conspiracy of the dangerous armed wingnut Trump base:

Of course he does

Hey, just dropped into Mark Latham's twitter feed, to see that now he's devoting time to defending Trump, including re-tweeing Trump's "you can't impeach me, I'm too great at being President" tweets:

How pathetic.

Latham, with his obsession with testosterone fuelled Right wing takes on matters, truly belongs with the losers at Catallaxy.  Maybe he is already commenting there?

Today's Trump madness

Even Ed Morrissey, one of the more conservative columnists at Hot Air, is embarrassed with Trump's use of "treason":

It’s incredible that we have to explain this to adults, but what Trump describes here bears absolutely no resemblance to treason — not even in a moral sense, let alone the legal sense over which Trump rants. Article III Section 3 of the Constitution establishes the only legal definition of treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

In other words, it requires a declaration of war (which we haven’t had since World War II) and explicit aid to the enemy named by it. Bzzzzt! Thank you for playing! Nor is what Schiff did treason in a moral sense; he’s attacking Trump, not the United States of America. We do not have lese majeste laws in the US; one is allowed to criticize the president, even unfairly, even dishonestly, without it being a case of treason....

If Barack Obama had accused Republicans pushing the birther conspiracy theory of treason and called for their arrest, his critics would have screamed for Obama’s impeachment. If Trump wants to make a case that Schiff’s dishonest about him abusing his office, then just stick to that. It would be a lot easier to defend Trump against allegations of abusing the powers of his office if Trump wasn’t going all Red Queen in demanding Schiff’s arrest for a non-existent crime. Just sayin’. 

The New York Times notes this:

WASHINGTON — President Trump was repeatedly warned by his own staff that the Ukraine conspiracy theory that he and his lawyer were pursuing was “completely debunked” long before the president pressed Ukraine this summer to investigate his Democratic rivals, a former top adviser said on Sunday.

Thomas P. Bossert, who served as Mr. Trump’s first homeland security adviser, said he told the president there was no basis to the theory that Ukraine, not Russia, intervened in the 2016 election and did so on behalf of the Democrats. Speaking out for the first time, Mr. Bossert said he was “deeply disturbed” that Mr. Trump nonetheless tried to get Ukraine’s president to produce damaging information about Democrats.

And in Australia, of course our jellyback and sycophantic PM would say this in response to a phone call from Trump:

"The Australian Government has always been ready to assist and cooperate with efforts that help shed further light on the matters under investigation," a Federal Government spokesperson told the ABC.

"The PM confirmed this readiness once again in conversation with the President."

 And of course, lots of Australians would be thinking "so that's why the reception in Washington looked rather over the top."

I'd love to know the questions Barr will put to our government:  "So, this Alexander Downer - come on, level with us, is he some sort of spy?"

In further examples of Barr debasing the role of AG:

Finally, I was amused by the sarcasm in this:

Sounds cool

The Guardian notes:

Sweden’s navy HQ is returning to a vast underground cold war fortress designed to withstand a nuclear attack, in what has been seen as a defensive move against a resurgent Russia.

After a 25-year absence, the navy will once again be commanded from beneath billions of tonnes of granite as the country strives to build up its defences in response to the perceived threat from Moscow.

The top secret naval base on Muskö, about 25 miles (40km) from Stockholm, resembles a cross between Tracy Island from Thunderbirds and the film set of You Only Live Twice, where James Bond grappled with arch villain Ernst Blofeld in his headquarters beneath a volcano.

Completed in 1969, it boasts cavernous underground docks that can shelter warships, with miles of tunnels, offices and a hospital.

Yes, he is panicking

I find it pretty telling that the Trump cultists are still running with "nothing to see here" regarding impeachment, despite the fact that the Trump tweet rate is at "panic stations" levels, indicating that even their Dear Leader knows he is in trouble. 

I haven't checked for myself, but someone on Twitter said a short time ago that he's re-tweeted 50 or 60 times today or yesterday, including the one that mentions "civil war" - always a great look in a President!

I wonder - maybe one way of knowing something is truly "up" would be by news of a meeting between some high level Republicans and Lachlan or Rupert Murdoch.   Because their whole problem is the bind of how they dump Trump without losing all of his cult followers, and the key to his cult is to be found at Fox News.

Update:   I keep feeling a bit torn about whether to describe Trump cultists as incredibly dumb, incredibly blind, or both.  I mean, a lot of these people hold down jobs - academics or professionals some of them - so is it a case of cult blindness just makes you seem dumb?   Were Germans who hated Hitler having this discussion amongst themselves in the 1930's?

Update 2:  For Steve Kates, there is no reason to expend charity, given his routine, hyperbolic condemnations of all of those who do not agree with him:  

What does get me down is that there is not more disgust in America such that not only will PDT with certainty win the election, but the Republicans will also sweep the House and pick up another half dozen in the Senate. If the Dems represent somewhere near the middle of where political sentiment now is, the West is truly lost and we will all in good time end up with political controls on our lives similar to those in China.

As for our diseased and addled media, anyone at the ABC, to take just one example, who thinks there is a case for any Democrat candidate to win against PDT is a terrifying example of political inanity, with zero morality and less judgement.

Dumb and nasty. 

Update 3:  David Von Drehle writes on the importance of Fox News in any move on Trump:

With impeachment gathering steam, the fate of President Trump is in the hands of a single institution. Not the Senate, though that’s the body established by the Constitution to make the ultimate decision to remove a president. I’m thinking of Fox News....

As it happens, Trump’s crisis finds Fox News at a turning point. With the sale of his company’s movie arm to Disney, founder Rupert Murdoch has cashed out a large part of his empire while anointing his eldest son, Lachlan, the chief executive of the media business. The death of Roger Ailes, accused sexual harasser and Fox News visionary, opens the way to fresh thinking — which the channel sorely needs, given its median audience age of about 65 .

Amid this flux, it is intriguing that Fox News added a veteran politician to its rather compact board of directors earlier this year and placed him in charge of nominating future board members. Paul D. Ryan, former House speaker, has as much reason as any conservative Republican in America to nurse a gigantic grudge against the president. To have him advising the new Fox News leadership on strategy and future directions cannot bode well for the aging star of the Donald Trump Show.

Von Drehle goes on to argue that Paul Ryan has every reason to seek revenge on Trump, and as such, his role at Fox is bad news (for the President.)

Not exactly "corruption"

Lots of writers who think Trump is good for impeachment for his dealings with Ukraine nonetheless admit that the Hunter Biden "jobs for the boys" story is not a great one for Joe Biden either.

This article at The Atlantic:   Hunter Biden’s Perfectly Legal, Socially Acceptable Corruption talks about how this is happening all the time on both sides of politics probably takes it too far with using "corruption" in the headline, though.

I guess that one of the problems of dealing with it, though, is that there is also a legitimate case for saying that the children of political figures should not be unduly punished by having certain jobs that they may legitimately be well qualified to hold off limits only because of what their parent does.  (Not that I am saying Hunter fits into that category.)   I don't know how you could stop the children of politicians benefiting from the perception that they are influential with their parent.

The internal Fox wars still hot

An interesting post at Hot Air by Allahpundit - Chris Wallace from Fox has thrown petrol on the fire between between the two camps at his network. Here's the key part of it:

According to Wallace, diGenova is working with Giuliani on the Biden business with Ukraine. The guy whom Tucker invited on as some sort of dispassionate legal analyst to counter Napolitano turns out to be a secret participant in the matter that’s being analyzed, Trump’s interactions with Zelensky and his government. I didn’t see the first Tucker segment with diGenova but you can watch the second here. He’s introduced merely as a former U.S. Attorney, and Carlson prefaces their conversation by noting that legal opinion is split on the point about a “thing of value” that Napolitano had made. In other words, diGenova was presented to the audience as nothing more or less than a seasoned lawyer whose acumen led him to a different opinion than Judge Nap’s. Tucker even laughed at one point at Shep’s claim that diGenova is a “partisan.”

Now here comes Wallace to imply that the entire segment was basically a fraud, with diGenova concealing a glaring conflict of interest....

Did Tucker know and conceal the information? Presumably he was in the dark, but he’s a buddy of Trump’s and has been known to talk foreign policy with him by phone. Did Trump ever idly mention to him that Rudy *and Joe diGenova* are working on the Ukraine thing? Also: Did Fox executives know of diGenova’s role? If so, why did they conceal the conflict of interest? If not, will there be any sanction against diGenova for not disclosing his involvement in the Ukraine stuff before appearing on a segment to comment on it?

Relatedly, who greenlit this on-air revelation by Wallace? It’s to Fox’s credit that they allowed it to be reported knowing the questions it would raise about diGenova’s segments this week and his role on the network going forward, but I’m surprised that they allowed it to be done in such a showy way. They could have relegated it to a story on the Fox News website and then quietly warned Tucker not to have him back on, or at least to be forthright about disclosing his role in the Ukraine matter next time.
 

Late movie review - Spotlight

It's on Netflix, and I've been meaning to watch it for a while.

It's very competently made, and I think Mark Ruffalo is the stand out actor in it.

But I was surprised that the story did not have more examples of actual obstructionism from the Catholic establishment.  My son said he was expecting thugs for the church to come around and threaten one of the journalists.  I didn't trust the white haired editor (or whatever he was) - I thought it would turn out he had actively suppressed previous stories.  But even that theory came to naught.   As Peter Bradshaw said in his review:

We keep hearing about how the church is going to come after reporters who dare to challenge its authority – but this never really happens, and there is none of the paranoia of a picture like Alan J Pakula’s All the President’s Men (1976) or Michael Mann’s The Insider (1999).

So, yes, worth watching, interesting and competent, but a bit lacking in the level of intrigue and emotional impact.  So I would put it down as over-praised (93% on Metacritic.)