• Trump to Steamroll Cruz in Indiana?  By Richard C. Young
• Who Are You?  By Richard C. Young
• The Prudent Man: The Wisest Action is Sometimes No Action  By E.J. Smith
• The Joint Launch to Defeat ISIS  By Richard C. Young
• Eat Avocados, not Strawberries  By Debbie Young
• The Science of Intimidation  By Debbie Young
• Second Cold War on the Horizon?  By Richard C. Young
• Working Millennials: Rent or Buy Real Estate?  By E.J. Smith
• Breaking Up the United States, Part 2  By Justin Logan

In Tuesday’s Indiana primary, 57 delegates are in play—30 delegates will be awarded to the statewide winner, and 27 delegates (3 per congressional district) will be awarded district winners. As things stand this morning, it appears that Mr. Trump will win the 30 statewide delegates to capture the Indiana primary.

As to delegate distribution, Mr. Trump is in a good position to capture the blue-collar vote. There are more manufacturing jobs in Indiana, relative to total employment, than anywhere else in the country. Indiana voters know full well that bringing back America’s manufacturing jobs is at the heart of Trump’s America First message.

Trump should win a majority of the 9 congressional districts. The badly fading Cruz seems to have a clear shot at just one district.

Donald Trump supporters have to be crossing their fingers for not only a state-wide, Bobby Knight facilitated, Indiana romp, but a final Indiana delegate haul of  perhaps even 54 delegates. How would this position Mr. Trump heading to the California primary contest? Trump is projected to do extremely well in California. If so, he should be in position to lock-up a first ballot win at the Republican convention in my original hometown of Cleveland, Ohio (I am a Shaker Heights High grad).

PBSNEWSHOUR asks, “Do you live in a bubble?

There exists a new upper class that’s completely disconnected from the average white American and American culture at large, argues Charles Murray, a libertarian political scientist and author.

Take this 25-question quiz, based on a similar one published in Murray’s 2012 book, “Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010,” to find out just how thick your bubble is.”

For the record, I scored a 37. Apparently I have made a point of “getting out a lot.”

FLASHBACK VIDEO: PBS’s Paul Solman interviews Charles Murray

 

What is the key to achieving the financial success you and your family deserve? Well, for one it’s about keeping it simple—Simple is Sophisticated. Another key is to stop spinning your wheels. In portfolio management terms, spinning wheels or, how long a position is held over the course of a year is called the turnover rate. In other words, if your holdings at the beginning of the year were sold and replaced by new positions, then the turnover rate would be 100%. Here’s a wonderful example, one of my favorite, that Dick Young explains to his readers:

Mr. 3.5% Turnover

In 1992, Forbes profiled David L. Stone of the tiny Beacon Hill mutual fund. “The curmudgeonly manager of the little Beacon Hill mutual fund has some old-fashioned advice for nervous investors: The wisest action is sometimes no action.” Forbes told readers that Stone “…arrives early at his Federal Street office in Boston every day. He reads the newspapers, opens his mail, and waits for a call from State Street Bank, the fund’s custodian, with the previous day’s closing price and cash position. He scribbles those down. Then he reads some more. Then he packs his briefcase and leaves.” And he noted, “People ask me what I do all day. Well, a decision to do nothing is still a decision. It takes effort.” The perfect response for a “standpatter” fund with a 10-year turnover rate of just 3.5%. Like I’ve said, keep it real simple. Practice the ultimate in patience.

The Syrian and Iraq armies are no strangers to war; but, they have never coordinated with one another, despite their shared interest in defeating the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS). However, this changed in April of 2016 when both the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Iraqi Armed Forces launched a simultaneous offensive to wedge ISIS in the vast desert landscape that links both their countries. Unbeknownst to many, the Syrian and Iraqi forces are advancing towards one another on the Damascus-Baghdad International Highway.

Two weeks ago, the Iraqi Armed Forces recently liberated the strategic town of Al-Hit in order to begin their large-scale push to the ISIS strongholds of Al-Baghdadi and Al-Haditha in the Al-‘Anbar Governorate. Coincidentally, the Syrian Arab Army liberated the ancient city of Palmyra (Tadmur) at the end March, but they would not begin their Palmyra-Deir Ezzor offensive until mid-April. Now, the Syrian Arab Army is advancing along the Damascus-Baghdad Highway, towards the T-3 Pumping Station, which is only 215 km west of the Al-Qa’im border-crossing into Iraq. On the other-side of the border, the Iraqi Army and Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) are situated approximately 175 km east of Al-Qa’im.

Are the Iraqi and Syrian armies coordinating with one another? According to a senior officer from the Syrian Armed Forces, the two armies are working through an intermediary – primarily Iran – to make this push. Iran is an important ally to both the Iraq and Syrian governments; moreover, they are overlooking the transfer of thousands of Iraqi paramilitary forces to Syria. More importantly, the arrival of Hashd Al-Sha’abi (Iraqi’s strongest paramilitary unit) to Deir Ezzor City, further implies that something big is coming. What is Hashd Al-Sha’abi doing in Deir Ezzor? Hashd Al-Sha’abi is working side-by-side with the Syrian Special Forces to retake the city of Mohassan in southern Deir Ezzor.

End Goal

The end goal is to eliminate ISIS’ presence in eastern Syria; however, this cannot be done without coordination between the Iraqi and Syrian armies. If this operation is successful, then ISIS will be contained in northern Syria and their non-threatening pockets in Rif Dimashq, Dara’a, and Al-Sweida governorates.

CAUTION: GRAPHIC FOOTAGE: Iraq War 2016 – Iraqi Special And Popular Mobilization Forces In Heavy Clashes With ISIS

Remember when you could buy strawberries only in spring and early summer? How lucky we now are to be able to buy strawberries and pretty much anything else—asparagus, peaches, nectarines, tomatoes—all through those dreary winter months. Right? Well, maybe not. Recently strawberries topped the list of fruits and veggies (pushing apples out of top slot) with the highest level of pesticide residue.

Most any article on health and nutrition emphasis that readers need to eat fruits and vegetables as the best way to obtain nutrients that support optimum health. But there is a hidden concern—pesticides. Pesticides are a real health risk, according to many experts. “The toxicity most commonly associated with pesticides in animal studies include disruptions in the normal functioning of the nervous and endocrine system, and increased risks of cancer,” writes Dr. Andrew Weil.

According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG) data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), strawberries tested in both 2009 and 2014 contained nearly six different pesticides per sample compared to under two per sample for all other produce. California data shows that “nearly 300 pounds of pesticides were applied to each acre of strawberries grown in the state in 2014. Compare this to corn, which is doused with about 5 pounds of pesticides per acre — and is considered to be a pesticide-intensive crop.” (For more, read Michael Pollen’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma.)

So before you grab that stick of celery, you might like to consider which are the top 12 offenders and the top 15 least pesticide-contaminated fruits and veggies.

EWG’s 2016 Dirty Dozen (Buy These Organic)

• Strawberries
• Apples
• Nectarines
• Peaches
• Celery
• Grapes
• Cherries
• Spinach
• Tomatoes
• Sweet bell peppers
• Cherry tomatoes
• Cucumbers

EWG’s 2015 Clean 15 (OK to Buy These Conventional)

• Avocados
• Sweet corn
• Pineapples
• Cabbage
• Sweet peas (frozen)
• Onions
• Asparagus
• Mangos
• Papayas
• Kiwi
• Eggplant
• Honeydew melon
• Grapefruit
• Cantaloupe
• Cauliflower

Forbes magazine explains that Lysenkoism was “ … ’politically correct’ (a term invented by Lenin) because it was consistent with certain broader Marxist doctrines. … Scientists who promoted Lysenkoism with faked data and destroyed counterevidence were favored with government funding and official recognition and award.  Lysenko and his followers and media acolytes responded to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists resisting the advance of the new modern Marxism.”

As Mr. Rahn explains:

My heresy and that of the researchers at CEI and many other institutions that have been critical of the so-called global warming consensus is not that we do not believe climate change is occurring — it always has and always will — but that the science of climate change is still too primitive to make definitive predictions about causes and effects. Yes, pumping carbon dioxide into a greenhouse in the sunlight will cause it to warm, but the earth is far more complex than a greenhouse. Remember how the global warming crowd told us we were going to have more tornadoes and Atlantic hurricanes? We have actually had fewer tornadoes and a record low level of Atlantic hurricanes over the last decade.

The reason the climate Lysenkoists are so vitriolic in their denunciation of those of us who question is that most of them depend in one way or another on government grants or employment that would disappear if it was determined there was no crisis at hand. The political classes thrive on never-ending crises, because those give them reasons to spend, tax and regulate more. Better to try to shut us up, even if it requires imposing fines and jail time, rather than cut off the climate-crisis gravy train.

More from Rahn on Climate Change:

Are you aware that NATO troops including a battalion of Germans are on the move? Pat Buchanan explains what both Putin and NATO are up to and asks why.

Friday, Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work announced that 4,000 NATO troops, including two U.S. battalions, will be moved into Poland and the Baltic States, right on Russia’s border.

“The Russians have been doing a lot of snap exercises right up against the border with a lot of troops,” says Work, who calls this “extraordinarily provocative behavior.

But how are Russian troops deploying inside Russia “provocative,” while U.S. troops on Russia’s front porch are not? And before we ride this escalator up to a clash, we had best check our hole card.

Germany is to provide one of four battalions to be sent to the Baltic. We are reaping the understandable rage and resentment of the Russian people over how we exploited Moscow’s retreat from empire.

Did we not ourselves slap aside the hand of Russian friendship, when proffered, when we chose to embrace our “unipolar moment,” to play the “great game” of empire and seek “benevolent global hegemony”?

If there is a second Cold War, did Russia really start it?

When you’re a working Millennial, your weekends are extra valuable: Everybody’s working for the weekend. When I was the age of today’s Millennial I worked at Fidelity Investments and lived in Watertown, MA. Rent was a big chunk of my paycheck but that’s what it cost to be so close to Boston. I wasn’t saving much money.

Then there was a change. My department was moved out to Marlborough, MA—40 minutes west of Boston.

For a while I did the reverse commute from Boston to Marlborough.

But that got old fast.

I wanted to live where I worked and I was also tired of paying someone else rent.

I started looking into multi-families in the area and found one where the numbers worked. But I didn’t have enough for the down payment. I explained to my dad what I wanted to do and that I needed some help with the down payment. I bought the three-family in Marlborough, paid back my dad within six months, and lived rent free and then some for the next few years.

I sold the house before Becky and I got married and used the profit for a down payment on our first home in Newport, RI.

If you’re a Millennial this doesn’t have to be how you do it.

But if you want to start living for a future where you pay yourself—start thinking creatively. I don’t want you buying some spec house you hope to sell at a profit. That’s a suckers game. It’s not investing.

You may not have to come up with all of the cash at closing. I borrowed from my dad. But you might be able to borrow from a motivated seller. It’s just a matter of getting the dialogue going.

Do what you have to do here. I’m not fooling around. I want you to figure out a way to pay yourself, not a landlord. It is the key to your eventual success that I’m almost positive will be yours. Pay yourself. You have time on your side. And time is a most valuable asset—something  many others wish they had, but don’t.

The various cultures, affectations, and traditions contained in the United States make about as much sense combined as one nation as does the European Union. Which is to say: not much. An alien that descended and tried to form peoples into nations would have a hard time making an argument for the United States beyond geography.

One rejoinder to this is that no nation-state makes much sense when you really think about it. True, but not helpful to our purposes. If much of the conflict in the contemporary United States is due to the fact that the nation contains a wildly varied array of cultures and identities, saying it was always thus doesn’t itself fix the problem.

It’s also true to say that an awful lot of nation-building has helped mash the united states into the United States. From the hastily-assembled ideology that fueled the Spanish-American War and the conquest of the Philippines around the turn of the last century, to the horrible shared sacrifice of World War II, to our superpower blunders in Vietnam and Iraq, the farm hand in inland California and the hedge fund guy in Greenwich, Connecticut have been through a lot together. Or a lot of headlines, anyway.

Which leads us back to the subject of breaking up the United States. What would a redrawn map of North America look like?

The task has been taken up a number of times recently. Paul Starobin did so in 2009, and Colin Woodard did the same in 2012. What’s so striking is the extent of overlap of the various models of a pluralistic United States. Good chunks of Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and even Texas have more in common with Northern Mexico than with Boston.

Perhaps once you start breaking up the United States this becomes inevitable. It becomes so obvious that rural Nebraska and San Francisco are alien to one another; that Chicago and Miami are different; that New Orleans sits oddly with the Upper Plains, that you wonder why we began to take for granted that these parts combined to make up a whole at all.

While pondering your own map is both enticing and megalomaniacal (see below for a starter), the best way to start thinking about the problem might be the form of devolution. If the federal government somehow could be convinced to stop claiming authority down to the smallest matter across all 320 million of us, what would the devolved political arrangement look like?

Woodard’s United States.

This is where the trouble starts. Most models would begin with some sort of confederation or union in which the (supra-)national government would still claim jurisdiction over issues like national defense. But with spoilers in the mix like nuclear weapons and Texas, it seems far-fetched that this solution could long survive. If you want to lose the better part of an afternoon, this exegesis from an Iraq veteran of what the second American Civil War would look like is as good a way to do so as any.

If there’s one thing the United States can still cooperate on, it’s blundering into pointless, ruinous wars, and it’s next to certain that any effort to break up the United States would produce such a conflict. As amusing and grotesque as the concept of Lena Dunham vs. Phil Robertson is on its own, put nuclear weapons into the mix and you really have a crime against humanity.

So it’s difficult to get this much further than the dorm room bong-session level of discussion. Recognizing the complexity and incongruity of the United States is the first step toward self-awareness. Realizing that the repulsive political factions we comprise might just deserve one another–or at least remain better than any plausible alternative–is almost certainly the second.

Read Part I here.