Third Party Presidential runs

In 1860,  Democrat John Bell split the Democratic Party into Northern and South wings.  He tipped the election to Republican Abraham Lincoln. 
In 1912, Republican Teddy Roosevelt  ran as the "Bull Moose Party" candidate.  He tipped the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson. 
In 1968 Democrat George Wallace ran as a third party. He  tipped the election to Republican Richard Nixon.
In 1993 Independent Ross Perot ran as a third party. He tipped the election to Democrat Bill Clinton.

Since the modern party system was created with the establishment of the Republican Party in 1856, these are the four "third party" campaigns that garnered enough votes to get into the history books.  Just about every election had third party candidates but mostly they never garnered enough votes to matter.  These are the four big third party campaigns that did well enough to matter.
  In all four cases, the third party was a split off from either the Democrats  (Bell and Wallace) or the Republicans (Roosevelt and Perot).  In each case the presence of the third party campaign tipped the election to the other side.  
   So today we have unhappy Republicans talking up a third party campaign.  If they get it off the ground, history says it will tip the election to the other party, Hillary.
   I don't want Hillary as president.  The Donald would be much better. 

Supremes cannot decide. Both plaintiffs claim victory

The eight surviving Supremes have lost all ability to discuss issues among themselves.  Four of them vote leftie, the other four vote rightie, they cannot reach agreement.  In short, the eight top legal beagles of America cannot agree on what the law means.  Good work law schools.
  In the Little Sisters of the Poor case, where Obama is trying to force a Catholic order of nuns to furnish birth control to their employees, the Supremes just ruled that the case must be reheard in the lower courts. 
  Both sides, the nuns, and the Obama administration claim victory. 
  They cannot both be right, Can they?

Slanting the news same-same Freedom of the Press

They have been all over Facebook and Zuckerman over the accusation of slanting the "Trending" column by dropping conservative stories.  A Congressional hearing is promised. 
   Not that I approve, I'm conservative too, but the United States has been blessed with slanted news reporting since the founding of the Republic.  Look at the New York Times.  In the 1930's they supported Soviet communism.  "I have seen the future and it works".  In the 1950's they supported Fidel Castro, strongly enough to make him dictator of Cuba.  In the 1960's they backed North Viet Nam.  They published the Pentagon Papers in order to destabilize the Nixon administration.  They published a leak from CIA about tapping Osama bin Laden's satellite phone, result, Bin Laden ditched the phone and went back to messengers. 
   I don't see much difference between want the Times does and what Zuckerman is accused of doing at Facebook. 

More Global Warming

It snowed up here, light, only 1/4 inch, but mid May is very late for snow, even in New Hampshire.  Clearly global warming at work. 
Then my electric bill shows power use by month over the last 12 months.  This year, May 2016, average temperature was 43F and my daily power use was 19 KWH.  Last May, it was 57F and daily power use was 15 KWH.   More global warming at work. 

Wendy's to install automatic kiosks in 6000 outlets

This story has gotten some serious airplay, always followed up with tsk-tsking about how $15 minimum wage causes low end jobs to be automated out of existence.  
It reminders me of  an old old Robert A. Heinlein story.  Our intrepid teen age hero has been invited to breakfast at a truck stop, by a trucker.  To make conversation the trucker says,
   "This joint used to be automated.  Then it went broke, and the trade all went to the Tivoli, down the road apiece.  Then the new owner threw out the machinery and hired girls.  Business picked up."
   At this point the waitress is taking their order and the trucker says to her,
   "I want that egg just barely dead.  If it's cooked solid I'll nail it to the wall as a warning to others."
   "I doubt that you will be able to get a nail thru it," replies the waitress.
   "See what I mean," says the trucker to our intrepid teen age hero.  "How can machines compete?"

   Good luck with automation Wendy's.

Trashing Sikes Picot

NPR and the Economist have been blaming the woes of the Arab world on the Sikes Picot Agreement of 1916.  Must be the centennial that brings this out.  I'll grant every one of the Arab woes, but I cannot believe they have anything to do with Sikes Picot.
   The Ottoman empire (forerunner to modern Turkey) used to own, operate, tax, and run all the the modern middle East, Greece and the Balkans, Egypt and North Africa.  Turkish/Ottoman control began to slip in the 19th century and World War I brought Lawrence of Arabia to completely tear up the Ottoman empire.  In 1916 the British and the French had Sikes (for Britain) and Picot (for France) draw up a plan to divvy up the Ottoman lands after the war.  The British, the French, the Italians, and the Russians all got a big slice.  Old style imperialism at work.  But that's the way things worked a hundred years ago.
   In reality, the local Arabs were too dis organized, too tribal,  too uneducated, and too primitive to actually run things.  It took 30 years for the Arabs to get up to speed and push out the European imperialists and set up their own regimes.  To a certain extent, but not entirely,  the boundaries of the new Arab states followed the boundaries drawn by Sikes and Picot, but so what?  The populations were/are  all Arab, they all speak Arabic, they are all Muslims.  With the exception of Egypt, there are no natural geographic borders (mountain ranges or rivers, or deserts) so one boundary is about as good as any other.
   The entire region is huge,  no Arab government has the smarts, the charisma, or the military force to run the whole place.  Best the Arabs can manage is to run smaller chunks of it, hence the multiplicity of regimes, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Qatar, Syria, and so on.
   So far as I am considered, the woes of the Arab lands are of their own making, it's not the fault of a diplomatic agreement among European imperialists a hundred years ago. 

Where have all the retail sales gone?

WashPo has a long article here bewailing the lack of retail sales.  One reason might be the really utilitarian product retailers have to sell.  Consider Walmart.  A worthy place, the price is right, the stuff is OK, and I shop there.  But only for pretty utilitarian things, like Jockey shorts, prescription medicine,  and paper towels.   Over the last few years we have lost the Radio Shack, a nice kitchenware place, a decent used book store, a very decent new book and toy store, an Ace Hardware, two video stores, and The Oasis restaurant.   All that's left is Lahout's, Walmart, Staples, Home Despot, and Lowes.  None of them are very gifty stores.
  For Christmas, birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, I go on line to find nice stuff to give as gifts.   I gotta drive a long way south on I93,. Tilton or Concord.  to find anything much better.  So this Christmas, Amazon, Lee Valley, Signals, and Garrett Wade got all my Christmas buying.