This week has been marked by devastating illustrations of why so much of the public distrusts the institutions of the state. On Tuesday, the FBI announced that, in spite of numerous legal precedents otherwise, Hillary Clinton would not be indicted for her mishandling of classified material. The incident was simply the latest example of how the laws of this country do not apply equally for those in power.
For months before the Brexit referendum on June 23rd, entire industries were hard at work attempting to predict how the UK electorate would vote.
Polling companies canvassed neighborhoods, made phone calls, sent surveys by e-mail, monitored websites, and spoke with people on busy city streets, in the process assembling a trove of data which the companies then analyzed and distilled down to probabilities for and against.
Nearly everywhere on the planet the giant financial bubbles created by the central banks during the last two decades are fracturing. The latest examples are the crashing bank stocks in Italy and elsewhere in Europe and the sudden trading suspensions by three UK commercial property funds.
If this is beginning to sound like August 2007 that’s because it is. And the denials from the casino operators are coming in just as thick and fast.
Like all employees of the FBI, James Comey lives off the sweat of the American taxpayer. His large salary, upon retirement, will be converted into a very generous pension. Like most federal employees in a high ranking position like his, Comey continues to look forward to decades of living at a standard of living far above what is experienced by ordinary people in the private sector.
1. The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to “Developed” Countries by Ryan McMaken
2. First the UK, then Scotland ... then Texas? by Ryan McMaken
3. FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low by Ryan McMaken
Last month, the Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding the case of Edward Strieff. In this opinion, the majority of the Court argued that it is constitutional for a police officer to detain someone without suspicion and demand their identification in order to see if they have any outstanding arrest warrants. (Or, more accurately, they consider such a search illegal, but will still accept in court the evidence obtained via the illegal search.)
