Datasets:

Bingsu

/

openwebtext_20p

like 4

An aftermarket radiator keeps the engine cool, hooked up with red Samco silicone hoses. To slow things down, there’s an oversized front brake—and the rear brake has been treated to a Fasst Co. spring kit for a smooth, easily modulated feel—ideal for road use.

Those gorgeous wheels are one-off numbers from Warp 9, shod with Goldentyre flat track rubber.

Yes, this is a barely street legal racer, right down to the battery-powered lights. It’s perfect for short stints on the curvy village roads outside Stockholm.

Marcus is a MotoGP fan, and if you look closely, you’ll spot a couple of HRC logos on the bike. “In my dreams, this bike would be HRC’s version of a street tracker. Or maybe a gift to Marc Marquez, so he can hit the streets after he wins the Superprestigio in Barcelona!”

We reckon the pint-sized phenomenon would have a ball on this machine. And he probably wouldn’t even miss the seat padding.

Marcus Moto Design | Facebook | Instagram | Images by Simon Hamelius

Ready to fight back? Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every week. You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every week.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Fight Back! Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can take each week. You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can take each week.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue

Travel With The Nation Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits. Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States announces that “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Ad Policy

The attorney general of the United States is a civil officer. If he has lied under oath to the Senate, that act demands impeachment.

After news reports published last Wednesday made it clear that Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III had deceived the Senate regarding his interactions with Russian officials, there were immediate demands that the attorney general recuse himself from investigations into issues relating to those lies and that he resign as the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer. Sessions announced Thursday afternoon that he would recuse himself from any examination of Russian involvement with President Trump’s campaign. But he gave no indication that he would consider the next necessary step of removing himself as attorney general.

Sessions has made his position clear.

This lawless attorney general is not going to do the right thing, so Congress must consider the prospect of impeachment. The founders anticipated such circumstance. This is why they outlined an impeachment process.

Here’s why: The Washington Post has revealed that during the 2016 presidential campaign, when Sessions was a close counselor and top surrogate for Donald Trump, he spoke twice with Russia’s ambassador to the United States.

Sessions acknowledges the meetings now. But when he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee as Trump’s nominee for attorney general in January, Senator Al Franken asked how Sessions might handle revelations that individuals associated with the Trump campaign had communicated with the Russian government.

Sessions replied: “I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

This was not the only denial from Sessions. According to The Washington Post:

In January, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote. Sessions responded with one word: “No.”

We now know that was not the case. And, unless Sessions is far too absentminded to continue to serve as attorney general (a circumstance that no one seriously entertains at this point), then we have been handed evidence that this man engaged in a blatant attempt to deceive the very Senate that was charged with determining whether he would take charge of the Department of Justice.

Sessions and his aides were busy making excuses Wednesday night and Thursday morning, claiming that he spoke with the ambassador in his capacity as a senator rather than as a Trump surrogate—and that the Russian ambassador was one of many foreign officials with whom he met as “a senior member of the Armed Services Committee.”

So what? The issue isn’t whether Sessions spoke with the ambassador. Nor does it matter whether he did so as a senator or as a Trump surrogate. He was both. What matters is what Sessions told fellow senators when he was asked straightforward questions. He volunteered, “I did not have communications with the Russians.” He replied “no” to a direct inquiry about whether he had such communications. If these were not overt lies they were, at the very least, legalistic attempts by Sessions to deceive colleagues who were charged by the Constitution with a duty to provide advice and consent regarding his nomination to serve as the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer.

Of course, Sessions had to recuse himself from inquires into inquiries into allegations that the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. As New York Representative Eliot Engel, the ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, explained, “[The] revelation about then-Senator Sessions’s contact with Russia’s ambassador removes all doubt that he must recuse himself from any investigation of Russia’s interference in last year’s election. He should do so without delay. The President should also appoint a special prosecutor to handle this matter whose work must complement a thorough investigation by a bipartisan commission.” Ready to Fight Back? Sign Up For Take Action Now

Even Republicans who have been slow to hold the Trump administration to account were calling for recusal. House Oversight and Government Reform committee chair Jason Chaffetz tweeted: “AG Sessions should clarify his testimony and recuse himself.”

The decision by Sessions to recuse himself addressed concerns about his personal involvement tainting specific investigations. But it did not address the issue of Sessions’s lying to the Senate.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi proposed a more appropriate response to the revelations regarding Sessions; declaring that “after lying under oath to Congress about his own communications with the Russians, the Attorney General must resign. Sessions is not fit to serve as the top law enforcement officer of our country and must resign. There must be an independent, bipartisan, outside commission to investigate the Trump political, personal and financial connections to the Russians.”

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer agreed.

So did Senator Elizabeth Warren, who said: “We need a special prosecutor totally independent of the AG. We need a real, bipartisan, transparent Congressional investigation into Russia. And we need Attorney General Jeff Sessions—who should have never been confirmed in the first place—to resign. We need it now.”

True enough. But Sessions is not about to resign. And his record does not offer any indication that he intends to start telling the truth.

The founders anticipated such circumstances, which is why they wrote a constitution that outlined an impeachment process. The catch-all phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” was intended to give guardians of the republic leeway for holding presidents, vice presidents, and cabinet members to account. An impeached official is not charged by a prosecutor and tried in the courts; nor is he or she jailed or fined if found guilty. An impeached official is charged by the House of Representatives, tried by the Senate, and removed from office if convicted.

The signers of the Constitution did not intend that this tool would be used only by the opposition party; the intent was that all members of the House and Senate might rise above partisanship and ideology when it came time to defend the American experiment. And, while no one is naive about the level of partisanship in today’s Washington, no one should make excuses for House members or senators who fail to rise above it.

Jeff Sessions disrespected the basic premises of that experiment and disregarded the Constitution. He did so in pursuit of a position: that of attorney general of the United States. He obtained that position under false pretenses. It is now time to relieve him of his responsibilities as the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer.

The tool, impeachment, is at the ready. It should be employed by all members of Congress who believe that constitutionally defined oaths must be upheld.

There’s measuring the drapes, and then there’s measuring the drapes on a house you haven’t bought, and may never own, but you’re so convinced you will that, hey, let’s buy drapes!

And there’s hubris, Joe Miller-style.

So confident is Miller that he’ll win Lisa Murkowski’s Alaska Senate seat in November, he boasted last night to his over 4,000 Twitter followers that, on his trip to DC this week, he might do some house hunting. And perhaps buy some furniture. And also commission a name plaque for the door of his future Senate office.

The tweets were flagged by a source and sent my way. Check it out.

The blog Mudflats and Slate reporter Dave Weigel also noticed.

Today, they’re gone.

In Miller’s defense, he is leading his race. TPM’s Polltracker has him ahead by just over two points in a three way race with Murkowski and Democrat Scott McAdams.

But it’s probably for the best that he took those Tweets down. After all, everybody knows there are no big egos in the United States Senate.

US-led coalition air strikes on a jail run by the Islamic State group in eastern Syria killed at least 57 people, monitors said on Tuesday.

The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the air strike took place on Monday at dawn, hitting a building in the town of Mayadin, south of Raqqa, that was being used as a prison.

"The strikes hit an IS jail in Mayadin at dawn on Monday, killing 42 prisoners and 15 jihadists," Observatory chief Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP.

Many of the dead are thought to be civilians, as well as captured rebel fighters from the Free Syrian Army.

If the toll is confirmed, it would make it one of the deadliest single incidents since the US intervened in the Syrian war in 2014.

Islamic State is believed to have moved most of its leaders to Mayadin in Syria's Euphrates Valley, southeast of the group's besieged capital Raqqa, two U.S. intelligence officials have said.

Among the operations moved to Mayadin, about 50 miles west of the Iraqi border, were its online propaganda operation and its limited command and control of attacks in Europe and elsewhere, they said.

"The Coalition conducted strikes on known ISIS command and control facilities and other ISIS infrastructure in (Mayadin), Syria, June 25 and 26," Colonel Joe Scrocca, coalition director of public affairs, said in an email.

A notorious protester convicted of wilfully promoting hatred against Muslims and criminally harassing a Muslim man and his family was sentenced Tuesday to nine months in jail. Eric Brazau handed out a flyer that “vilified Muslims and disparages their religion,” Ontario court Judge S. Ford Clements said in February, when he found Brazau guilty.

Eric Brazau was convicted of willful promotion of hatred against Muslims and criminally harassing a Muslim family. ( CARLOS OSORIO / TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO )

The case was far from being on the borderline between “rough and tumble debate” and hate speech, as Brazau had argued, Clements said in a College Park courtroom. Brazau handed out the flyer, which contained many offensive references to Islam and Muslims, in August and September 2012. While distributing it, Brazau sometimes yelled obscenities about Islam “in a tone of voice that suggested he was very angry and had little interest in debate,” Clements said. Brazau had argued that he did not intend to promote hate speech; instead he wanted to stimulate debate about censorship, “blasphemy laws” and Sharia law, Clements said.

Article Continued Below

Clements disagreed. “He knew the material would deeply wound and anger Muslims,” said Clements. The content was not humorous, ironic or satirical, he said. “Mr. Brazau is far too intelligent to believe this to be so.” The flyer also contained a somewhat blurred photograph of a Muslim family on a downtown Toronto street.

The man in the photo testified that Brazau called him a “terrorist” on the day Brazau took the photo. In a second interaction a few weeks later on a sidewalk, the man, whose name is protected by a publication ban, said that Brazau approached him aggressively while photographing the family, making him “concerned and fearful.”

Article Continued Below

Clements found this to be criminal harassment. During sentencing submissions, Crown prosecutor Derek Ishak described Brazau as an “unrepentant hatemonger … who abused his right to freedom of speech in a planned, deliberate manner,” Clements said Tuesday in his sentencing decision. However, Clements said that while Brazau’s conduct was “despicable” and his beliefs “repugnant,” the maximum sentence of six months for a summary conviction on willfully promoting hatred was unwarranted. He also noted the defence submission that Brazau committed his offences in public, where he was easily identifiable, rather than by stealth. Instead, he gave Brazau a four-month sentence, plus two months for criminal harassment and mischief and three months for breach of probation by not keeping the peace. Brazau, who had spent nine months in pre-trial custody, was sentenced to time served. Clements declined to ban Brazau from distributing flyers, since that could impede his right to freedom of expression. Outside the court, Brazau said he will appeal his sentence. He says he is aware the flyer was “problematic” and “would offend.” But his voice won’t be silenced, Brazau added, though he will keep in mind the hate speech laws, which he says he has learned to navigate over the past few months. “Hatred is the harvest he wanted to gather,” Clements said in his conviction decision, quoting William Butler Yeats. “I find this is true of Mr. Brazau.” Last month, a small claims court found that Brazau had been wrongfully arrested and detained while protesting near Sgt. Ryan Russell’s funeral procession in 2011. However, the deputy judge also found his conduct “reprehensible” and awarded him only $1,000 in damages.

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.

You have to give President Barack Obama credit for one thing: consistency. Nothing is ever his fault. Nothing will ever be his fault. Faulting Fox News and the American people, on the other hand, now that's a different story.

Do you remember when Obama traipsed around the country and desperately pleaded with Americans to vote for Hillary Clinton because his agenda and his legacy were on the ballot? He made a similar pitch before the shellacking his party took in the 2014 congressional elections.

Yet did he acknowledge after this 2014 failing that he had anything to do with it? Does he own up to his leading role in last month's presidential election?

Let's rewind the tape further, to Obama's reaction to his party's stunning defeat in the 2010 congressional elections, which was largely about Obamacare. He didn't acknowledge any personal culpability for visiting that monstrosity on the American people through trickery and deceit. He simply lamented that he hadn't done a good enough job getting the message out to the American people about it, despite his 50 propaganda speeches trying to persuade us to ignore our lying eyes.

Do you see the pattern here? Obama's view is that the American people -- those in the red states, anyway -- are a little slow, paranoid and bigoted and need to be brought along carefully into the 21st century, where progressivism has ushered in a new age of enlightenment. His only failing has been in inadequately re-educating the bitter clingers.

Let me give you another example. Remember Obama's depiction of the Islamic State group as "a JV team"? How about his claim, the night before the terrorist massacres in Paris, that the Islamic State was "contained"?

Did he ever acknowledge his errors there? No. Again, his only failing was in not having communicated sufficiently his counterterrorism strategies to the American people. He said his strategy against the Islamic State was working. (This was before, as I recall, his admission that he had no policy.) The problem was that saturated media coverage after the Paris attacks was fueling terror fears in the United States. He said: "We haven't, on a regular basis, I think, described all the work that we've been doing for more than a year now to defeat" the Islamic State. "If you've been watching television for the last month, all you've been seeing, all you've been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you. And so I understand why people are concerned about it."

Again, there's nothing to see here. It's not a terrorism problem but a perception problem. There's no Obamacare problem; it's just that the American people don't get it.

Even liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd acknowledged, in 2012, that Obama and his wife, Michelle, are condescending and aloof. The Obamas "do believe in American exceptionalism -- their own, and they feel overassaulted and underappreciated," she wrote. The Obamas haven't disappointed Americans; "we disappointed them."

Even earlier, in February 2010, Obama pledged to "listen" to Republicans at a health care summit. But, as columnist Joseph Curl wrote, "turns out he meant he'd be listening to his own voice. By the end of the televised event, Mr. Obama had spoken for 119 minutes -- nine minutes more than the 110 minutes consumed by 17 Republicans. The 21 Democratic lawmakers used 114 minutes, giving the president and his supporters a whopping 233 minutes."

And why do the rubes keep misperceiving Obama's greatness? Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity.

In a recently published interview with Rolling Stone, Obama denied that he and his party overlooked the "cohort of working-class white voters" that supposedly accounted for Donald Trump's victory. Absolutely not his fault. "Part of it," said Obama, "is Fox News in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country, but part of it is also Democrats not working at a grass-roots level, being in there, showing up, making arguments."

The challenge Democrats have, according to Obama, is not that they've neglected these communities from a policy perspective. "What is true, though, is that whatever policy prescriptions that we've been proposing don't reach, are not heard by, the folks in these communities. And what they do hear is 'Obama or Hillary are trying to take away (your) guns' or 'they disrespect you.'"

I repeat: This guy is remarkably, incorrigibly consistent. He has made no policy errors; his message just isn't getting through, partly because the conservative media are lying about it and partly because people are just too darned dense.

I hate to keep bringing up the past, but his war on the conservative media is nothing new, either. I wrote about it in 2010 in my book "Crimes Against Liberty." He began snubbing Fox reporters at news conferences for insufficiently pandering. The White House blog regularly denounced Fox News and other critics. White House communications director Anita Dunn recommended a "rapid response" to counteract "Fox's blows" against the administration, calling Fox News "part of the Republican Party." Presidential adviser David Axelrod said Fox News Channel is "not really a news station."

Remember when Obamacare's principal architect, Jonathan Gruber, openly admitted that the Obama administration was able to deceive the American people about Obamacare and chalked it up to "the stupidity of the American voter"?

So go ahead and cry us a river about how the conservative media are mistreating you, Mr. Obama, and misleading the public. You have been trying to deceive us for eight years, and the public has been onto you for at least 6 1/2 of those years. Now voters have handed you your biggest spanking yet, and you still will not listen. You can't listen. It's not what you do. But the American people have been listening, and they do understand your policies. And it's a new day in America.

What is the cure for American health care? That is a question that a lot of people are trying to answer, and it’s a highly debated topic, but the answer is plain and simple. Single payer health care is the best form of health care a nation can hope to have. It is efficient, provides quality and timely access to everyone, and it is cost effective. A single payer health care system is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health costs. The system is funded typically through income taxes and is free at the point of use. Some countries with a single payer system include Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, and Australia. France is often considered to have the best health care system in the world, but a large group of people (including myself) believe the best system is the U.K.’s National Health Service (NHS). This is because of its central and efficient operation, as well as high quality standards, low wait times, and staff quality.

To start let’s dismiss some of the common arguments against single payer health care that come from the opposite side, like a single payer system having long wait lists, or that it is very inefficient and expensive. This couldn’t be farther from the truth, fact a recent Public Library of Science study stated, “Reported efficiency tended to be lower in the private sector than in the public sector…Studies evaluated in this systematic review do not support the claim that the private sector is more efficient, accountable, or medically effective than the public sector.” It also found that countries with a single payer system also spend less per capita, and that the United States would save over 150 billion annually. That doesn’t even include personal and business savings which would be thousands of dollars annually, would boost the economy, and make the United States more globally competitive.

This is just one example of the several studies on this issue all saying the same thing, that single payer works and it is inherently the best system a nation could hope to have. A study by the World Health Organization also supports this claim and in a world-wide health care ranking, the United States was ranked 37, Canada was 32, the UK ranked 7, and France number 1. All of the countries ahead of the United States had a form of universal coverage and all of the countries in the top 25 had a single payer system. The OECD (The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) performed a study on wait times and found that the wait times in the United States increased by 30% in major U.S. cities, and that the U.S. had above average wait times. However, the U.K. and France were below the average wait times and were in the top five worldwide, both operating under a single payer system. Another organization, based in the United States, that has been pushing for single payer and has also conducted multiple studies is the PNHP (Physicians for a National Health Program), an organization of thousands of doctors, nurses, and health specialists. PNHP has been supporting and proposing legislation at the state and federal level for years, gaining little ground. A large reason is health insurance company money in politics, and “corporate” arguments propped up, in large part, by the republican party.

To be clear this isn’t a conservative or liberal issue, in fact, in most countries it’s just a given there are no politics involved. The PNHP explained the conservative argument for single payer health care, saying that it would save money by eliminating bureaucracy, boost American business by eliminating health costs and would also save individuals thousands. Which leads into the next point, the method of payment and how it works. As previously explained, a single payer system is paid for through income taxes, so that means you’re going to see a large increase in income taxes right? Actually no, you aren’t. A recent study by the University of Massachusetts Amherst found that it would call for a 2.2% income tax increase on individuals earning less than $200,000 annually, and cost middle income earners roughly $1,100 that is $3,855 less than the average out of pocket premium. Sadly, even though polls for the last 70 years have consistently shown a majority of Americans support a single payer system, Congress is bought and paid for by health insurance companies.

So, it’s likely there won’t be any action to move to this system, which every major study finds is better, for a whole, on a national level. However, there has been a growing movement for a single payer system on a national level mainly rallied around the Independent Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, and even though it might not be possible in the next 4 years, it seems like the inevitable future. At the state level, however, it seems like an increasingly likely outcome within the next few years, and there have been efforts in Vermont, California, and even Minnesota. Current Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton has been one of the few Democrats to take the lead on this issue, criticizing Obamacare, supporting a single payer system, and even proposing a public option for MNsure. It is an increasingly likely possibility that Minnesota could adopt a single payer system and we could experience the benefits first hand, however, the current problem is the state legislature doesn’t support any government action on health care and you can probably guess why.

But with midterm elections in two years it’s quite possible things could change and a single payer option could be back on the table. I would like to take a moment to encourage everyone, Conservative or Liberal, to put politics aside and come together on this issue. No one should be denied the right to health care for any reason, and it is important to support candidates who support this basic idea. A local candidate and former member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, Andrew Falk, has been one of the few outspoken local political advocates for a single payer system and has taken the lead on this issue. It’s important to rally around candidates like Falk who turn down corporate dollars and put the interests of the people first. If we all do that a single payer system could be a reality sooner than we think.

The rock icon was 66

Tom Petty‘s death has been confirmed. The US rock icon suffered a cardiac arrest. He was 66. Check out the star-studded tributes to the icon below.

After suffering a cardiac arrest, rumours of the rock icon’s passing spread yesterday. Now, his death has been confirmed by Tony Dimitriades, longtime manager of Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers. Dimitriades confirmed Petty’s death on behalf of the performer’s family.

Petty formed The Heartbreakers in 1976, and their self-titled debut album was released the same year. It featured Petty’s classic song ‘American Girl’. Petty’s breakthrough came with his band’s third album ‘Damn the Torpedoes’ in 1979. Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers last released an album in 2014 in the form of 13th LP ‘Hypnotic Eye’.

As well as his career with the Heartbreakers, Petty also co-founded supergroup the Traveling Wilburys with Bob Dylan, George Harrison, Jeff Lynne and Roy Orbison.

The news of Petty’s death comes following initial confusion and contradicting reports about Petty’s condition.

TMZ were the first outlet to report that Petty was rushed to UCLA Santa Monica Hospital on Sunday night (October 1) after being found unconscious, “not breathing and in full cardiac arrest” at his home in Malibu, California. The report added that Petty had been put on life support and his condition was thought to be “critical”.

Sharethrough (Mobile)

However, the website later reported that “after Petty got to the hospital he had no brain activity and a decision was made to pull life support”. They later issued an update that described previous reports of Petty’s death as “inaccurate”, adding that the musician was “still clinging to life” but “not expected to live throughout the day“.

CBS News had also reported confirmation of Petty’s death, citing a statement from the Los Angeles Police Department. The LAPD was later forced to release a statement saying that it had “no information about the passing of singer Tom Petty” and that “initial information was inadvertently provided to some media sources”. CBS then retracted their original story.

Petty recently concluded a 40th anniversary tour with his band The Heartbreakers. The final date took place at the Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles on September 22.

The music world pays tribute

Tributes have been pouring in following the news of Petty’s death. Bob Dylan has issued a statement and you can see more tributes below.

Nothing left to say A post shared by Taylor Momsen (@taylormomsen) on Oct 2, 2017 at 1:25pm PDT