Last Call For The Robot Revolution

Whoever the next president is starting in 2017 will have to deal with the rise of office automation as millions of office jobs (and in particular pink-collar jobs) are replaced by technology over the next four years.

Are the robots coming to take our jobs? Advances in any tech that aids in automation always come with questions about the jobs they take versus the jobs they create, but the World Economic Forum warned in a report published on Monday that advances in robotics, artificial intelligence, 3D printing, and other modern technologies are currently likely to lead to a net loss of 5.1 million jobs worldwide by the year 2020.

"Without urgent and targeted action today to manage the near-term transition and build a workforce with futureproof skills, governments will have to cope with ever-growing unemployment and inequality—and businesses with a shrinking consumer base," the report states in its introduction.

The workforce number estimate, which is based on surveys and data provided by 371 companies' chief HR officers worldwide (whose combined workforces include over 13 million employees in 15 "major, developed, and emerging economies"), includes numbers for different industries' gains and losses. The biggest loser, according to the WEF, will be in the office and administrative job sector to the tune of 4.76 million jobs—due to "a perfect storm of technological trends that have the potential to make many of [the job roles] redundant," the report states. Other fields with major expected losses include manufacturing and production (1.61 million) and construction and extraction (497,000).

It's not all bad news, all this new technology will mean new jobs, particularly in STEM fields.

Meanwhile, the report's authors believe that employment demand in the engineering and architecture sectors will see a big boost, as specialists will be needed "to create and manage advanced and automated production systems." Job numbers in the "computer and mathematical sector" will actually benefit from seemingly negative trends like geopolitical volatility and privacy concerns—meaning that bigger, out-of-touch companies will hire more data-crunching specialists so that they can adapt to modern disruptions.

On the technological side, the WEF's survey points to increased reliance on the cloud as the biggest driver of hiring change, as opposed to robotics—though respondents also believed that robots' impact on hiring trends won't really begin until 2018. On the demographic side, the survey's respondents cite flexible work environments as the most impactful trend, thanks to more advanced mobile technology access across the globe. This trend in particular is a major reason the report expects such a dive in office and administrative hiring.

And that's the key.  Mobile technology and the 24/7 workplace, combined with more and more companies going to telecommuting and flex-time, mean companies will expect an on-call workforce available anywhere, at any time, from any place.  Note too that the real caveat is "jobs lost by the 15 largest economies" and while that does include India and China, one has to wonder if that means telecommuting jobs will be offshored from those areas to countries not on that list, places like Central and South America, Central Asia, Eastern and Southern Europe, and the big one, Russia.

The other point is that these are going to be pink collar jobs, traditionally held by women. Drilling into the report, the places that the US is expected to lose jobs are in the Healthcare and Energy sectors with slight growth in the office sector, but it's China and Europe that will see these office jobs go the most, with big growth in India.

We'll see how this all shakes out in the end, but that's a healthy chunk of jobs worldwide that will go away and won't come back.

The Other Side: Berning Up The Charts

Republican pundits seem really, really interested in seeing Bernie Sanders as the Democratic candidate, the way our side seems very eager to see Donald Trump running for the GOP in 2016. John Podhoretz suddenly loves the guy after Sunday's debate.

On health care, Clinton seemed to walk into a trap. She found herself defending the charge made (by her daughter!) that Bernie Sanders would dismantle ObamaCare.

He made incredibly short work of that by saying that he voted for ObamaCare and simply wants it to be the opening step toward what he calls “Medicare For All” — meaning a single-payer government health care system.

Once again, the fact that Hillary wasn’t comfortable taking that idea on directly shows the weakness of her anti-populist approach. She would say only that to raise new health care ideas would open a can of worms in 2017 that would give Republicans a way to abolish ObamaCare.

That criticism makes no sense. After all, the scenario she was addressing would involve Sanders having been elected president and sitting in the White House — which would mean he would have veto authority over any such Republican action and that the country had decided in 2016 to move farther to the left in any case.

Sanders raised $37 million last quarter, more than Clinton did and with more individual donations than any candidate before him in American history. That has strengthened him as a candidate and it emboldened him as a debater.

Hillary’s defenders will doubtless be spinning frantically over the next few days, but anyone who says she won last night is either deluding themselves or trying to delude you.

Now, let's go over this here.  J-Pod seems to think Medicare for all is a winning hand for Bernie, and seems to believe his large number of individual donors makes him "strong" and emboldened".  He really wants Bernie Sanders to beat Hillary Clinton, someone he seems to think will soon be indicted by the FBI anyhow.

If all this strikes you as weird, backhanded, and just plain suspicious, there's a good reason for that, and as Martin Longman points out, trusting your instinct on Bernie's chances in the general may be a smart move.

So, what we’re seeing here is that Sanders might be able to win the Democratic nomination while bearing the socialist label, but that it’s not exactly a big plus for him. And we have little evidence to show that he’d find easy rowing in the general election.

I’m not sure that Gov. John Kasich is justified in being so confident that Sanders would lose all 50 states, but I also don’t think David Atkins is justified in his confidence that Sanders would do just fine and have no negative impact on down-ballot races.

I think Atkins wrote a well-reasoned piece, and I’m not going to rebut it in full here. What I will say is that Sanders hasn’t been put through the meat grinder yet. He may look more electable than Hillary in a couple of recent polls and his policies may poll well in the abstract, but that’s just preliminary data that should be encouraging to Sanders’ supporters but shouldn’t give anyone the idea that these questions have been settled.

Socialism is still a dirty word, even if it isn’t anywhere near as dirty as it used to be, and even if the post-Cold War kids aren’t conditioned against it. If Sanders is the nominee, the Republicans and their big business allies will spend north of a billion dollars trying to make “socialism” less popular than Windows Vista.

Maybe this anti-socialism campaign will have no more effect than Jeb Bush’s spending seems to have, but there is a difference. Jeb is one candidate in a crowded field, not the nominee facing off against a single Democratic opponent.

And, then, since political reporters never lose their jobs, most of them are old enough to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis and good James Bond movies. They think that they know what this country will and won’t tolerate, and it won’t tolerate socialism via Vermont.

I'd love to see Bernie win *if* he could pull off his agenda.  But unless we get a Dem House and 60 solid Dems in the Senate, it's going to get blocked.

And I see Republican really, really, really want Hillary to lose.  That tells me something.

Elegy For The Turned Out

It's not the "Trump Democrats" that should worry all of us in 2016, it's the folks who don't vote and see The Donald as their best chance yet of burning the whole system down and replacing it with authoritarianism.

Ted Wade hasn’t cared about politics enough to cast a vote in a U.S. presidential election for almost a quarter of a century, back when he supported Ross Perot’s independent candidacy in 1992.

But Republican Donald Trump's 2016 White House bid has motivated Wade to get involved and he plans to support the real estate mogul in Nevada’s nominating caucus next month. Trump is a "non-politician" who can fix the "chaos" in Washington, he says.

About one in 10 Americans who plan to cast a vote this election will do so for the first time in years, if ever, and Trump holds a decided edge with them, according to polling by Reuters/Ipsos. (tmsnrt.rs/1SgeLvi)

These voters offer Trump a pool of voters who could be decisive either in the Republican primaries or a general election. They could be crucial for Trump in early-voting states such as Iowa and South Carolina, where his nearest rival, Senator Ted Cruz, is putting pressure on Trump and enjoys a strong base of support with more traditionally conservative voters.

In Reuters/Ipsos polling from June to December 2015, 27.3 percent of these “new” voters said they would vote for Trump, higher than his poll numbers among independents and Republicans who regularly vote.

By way of comparison, Cruz captures just 3.4 percent of these voters. And Senator Marco Rubio of Florida snags only 4 percent.

“I’m tired of the chaos between Democrats and Republicans and want to give somebody a try who I think can make a difference,” said Wade of Trump.

The 51-year-old has already switched his affiliation from Democrat to Republican and even attended a Trump campaign event in Las Vegas. He has told his three older children to get involved in the elections, although he did not say whether he wanted them to vote for Trump.

Trump, the Republican front-runner, has made targeting “lost” voters such as Wade a focus of his campaign. His anti-immigrant rhetoric and protectionist trade proposals have helped him to fashion a message tailored to reach Americans alienated by the endless enmity between the political parties and who, because of declining economic prospects, may feel like neither party has done much for them.

Those "lost" voters who never trusted politicians but trust a dangerous demagogue like Trump? They know exactly what they want, and Trump has made it permissible to say again.

StupidiNews!

• Amid allegations of match-fixing as the Australian Open begins this week in Melbourne, tennis governing body ATP is denying a report of a cover-up of the problems in the sport.
• A St. Paul police officer has been suspended after suggesting on Facebook that drivers should run over "idiot" Black Lives Matter protesters with their cars.
• Eagles guitarist, singer, and co-founder Glenn Frey has died at 67 from complications with pneumonia, the band's Greatest Hits album remains one of the top sellers of all time.
• Major League Baseball faces off against cable and satellite TV giants in court starting today as the league defends forcing fans to sign up for expensive packages outside a market area.
• Amazon says its Prime Air delivery drones will be able to deliver up to 5 pound packages in 30 minutes once the FAA and Civil Aviation Authority approve commercial drones.

Last Call For Settling Up In Cincy

The big story here in the Cincy area tonight is the announcement of a settlement between the University of Cincinnati and the family of Sam DuBose, killed last year by campus officer Ray Tensing over a license plate stop.

The family of a man shot and killed by a University of Cincinnati police officer who pulled him over for not having a front license plate has reached a $5.3 million settlement with the school, the family and university announced Monday.

The deal gives the family of Samuel DuBose $4.85 million and promises free undergraduate tuition for his 12 children who range in age from 4 to 23.

The educational component of the settlement is valued at approximately $500,000.

Additionally, UC will erect a memorial to DuBose on campus and UC President Santa Ono will also issue an apology to the family for the loss of DuBose.

"This did not need to happen, and we need to make sure this doesn't happen to another family," said Terina Allen, DuBose's sister. "And if we have that memorial, maybe that makes people stop and say 'Wow.' And maybe it won't happen again."

"Everybody's hurt, you know?" Raegan Brooks, DuBose's 18-year-old daughter said. "And everybody's suffering from, you know, the loss."

Brooks is the administrator of her late father's estate meaning she will ultimately decide how the settlement money is doled out.

"We got some positives from it, but my dad won't be here," Brooks said. "So it's still a bittersweet moment."

Al Gerhardstein, a civil rights attorney who helped the DuBose family during settlement talks, said, "It is Martin Luther King Day. And he encouraged us to resolve our disputes peacefully. The family heard that. They had the most violent thing happen to Sam DuBose that can happen from a law enforcement officer. They lost their dad, their brother, their son and yet they responded peacefully and have worked for months with UC to try and both honor his legacy and promote reforms that will change things for the future and make this less likely to happen."

The fact the settlement was announced on MLK Day is not lost on DuBose's fiancee, Da'Shonda Reid.

"We're still looking for dreams," Reid said. "We're still marching. We're still singing. We're still praying. What has changed? We're still losing lives out here."

I have to say, while nothing can replace losing a loved one to murder like that, the University definitely appeared to be treating the DuBose family with good faith, and the tuition especially is a valuable offering that the University will hopefully be able to make a difference with in the future.

But DuBose's fiancee is right: black people are still dying out here.  In the end, that's the part that must change, and the settlement being announced on MLK Day makes it all the more important.
 

On Martin Today

A reminder that on today, the day we celebrate the life of Dr. King, that his most enduring message was that to get to the justice fulfilled of "I have a dream" that at some point white America would realize that it had failed black America for decades and would most likely continue to do so.

That was 50 years ago.

Hasn't happened yet.

Hence the "dream" part. Oh, and his assassination.

Please recall this as Republicans fall all over themselves to remind you of what Dr. King would think of America today.

Welcome To Jurassic Pork

A new year and a new administration in Frankfort means it's time to check in with Ken Ham and the Yabba Dabba D'oh. The new Noah's Ark Encounter that's being built off tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and will finally open this July as Newsweek's Lindsey Tucker takes a look.

Despite many competitive advantages, including buying a 99-acre parcel of land from the city for a mere dollar, the $101 million project has been plagued for five years by setbacks that include a lack of public support, unfruitful fundraising efforts and a bitter lawsuit over $18 million in tax incentives that the state withheld due to church-state separation concerns. But none of this has discouraged Ham, who says his ark could draw as many as 2 million visitors in its first year, although such projections are highly disputed.

Last month, I flew to Kentucky to meet Ham and tour the ark site and AiG’s design studio. The ark—which is still being built at the end of a very long, carefully guarded dirt road with a sign marked “Danger… Keep out”—is hidden from public scrutiny, and for good reason. In order to incentivize building there, Williamstown declared the ark site and the surrounding 1.25 miles a tax increment financing (TIF) district, which is a fancy way of saying that over the next 30 years, 75 percent of sales and real estate taxes generated within the area will go back to fund Ark Encounter. There’s also an employment tax for workers in the district, but more on that shortly.

Ham didn’t stand up when an assistant shuffled me into his office one Friday afternoon. He has railed against the media time and time again for, he says, falsely claiming that taxpayer money is going toward building the ark. When he speaks, he does so slowly, his words even and calculated. “No Kentucky taxpayer money is going to build the Ark Encounter,” he tells me. Several times.

Ham is telling the truth, but it’s a literal interpretation of the truth. The money used to build Ark Encounter came from donations of almost $30 million, plus $62 million in high-risk, unrated municipal bonds backed by the project’s future revenues. If Ark Encounter never makes significant profits (and bond documents warn that it may not), neither the city nor AiG is on the hook for the bond money. However, according to Mike Zovath, chief actions officer for AiG and Ark Encounter, the millions in tax dollars that will be rebated through the formation of the aforementioned TIF district could go toward repaying the bonds and funding future attractions. What neither of them mentioned in conversations with me or in their many blog posts on the subject is that, as part of the TIF agreement, employees working within the TIF district will be subject to a 2 percent employment tax on gross wages for the next 30 years. In other words, $2 out of every $100 earned by people working at or around the park will go directly to paying off the attraction. So while tax dollars might not actually have been used to build the ark, a boatload that would otherwise go back into the community will instead be used to pay off Ark Encounter’s debt.

Nice scam if you can get it, huh?  Workers, many of whom will be making minimum wage, are the ones who will be taxed to pay off the park's debt for the next 30 years.  But let's not lose sight of the true function of the park:

There’s more than just public money at stake. Other Ark Encounter attractions will reportedly include a petting zoo, a first-century village and so-called teaching exhibits with titles like “Flood Geology” (how the separation of continents and marine fossils found on mountaintops “are a direct result of the flood” ) and “The Ice Age” (AiG insists there was only one). Famed scientist and educator Bill Nye, who came under fire from some scientists in 2014 for dueling with Ham in a televised evolution vs. creationism debate, warns that using commonwealth dollars to suppress science is bad for the whole country. “Raising a generation of young people who are confused about the natural history of the Earth is not in our best interest,” he says. “This project is going to slow the response of voters in the Commonwealth to climate change and it’s going to hold us all back.” Given the way AiG rejects scientific evidence, he thinks it might not be so bad if the ark park goes the way of the Titanic.

Now, should the ark park, well, sink during the Bevin years, how much will ol' MIT grad Matt put into saving the place?  I think we'll find out before too long.

StupidiNews!

• US officials say three military contractors have gone missing in Iraq since Friday, grabbed from a convoy in Baghdad's Dora neighborhood.
• A new Oxfam study finds that the number of billionaires on earth that control the same amount of wealth as the world's poorest 50% is down to just 62 people.
• American prisoners released by Iran, including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, have arrived safely in Germany as sanctions against Iran are being lifted starting this week.
• Hollywood will face possible EU fines this week in Brussels as European Union antitrust regulators take on pay-TV contracts for movie blockbusters. 
• The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft that its Xbox 360 console scratched game discs and made them unplayable.

Dealing With The Five Percent

President Obama realizes that the problem with unemployment isn't just people losing jobs, it's people not having skills to get new jobs in new industries. His latest proposal is to do something about that.

President Barack Obama on Saturday proposed changes to the U.S. unemployment insurance system that he says would offer more security to the jobless and encourage experienced workers to rejoin the workforce, even if it means taking a pay cut.

"We shouldn't just be talking about unemployment; we should be talking about re-employment," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

The president's proposal would require states to provide wage insurance to workers who lose their jobs and find new employment at lower pay. The insurance would replace half of the lost income, up to $10,000 over two years. It would be available to workers who were with their prior employer for three years and make less than $50,000 in their new job.

The proposal also would require states to make unemployment insurance available to many part-time and low-income workers, and it would mandate that states provide at least 26 weeks of unemployment insurance. Nine states fall short of the benchmark, the White House said.

The "re-employment insurance" program would be part of the President's final budget proposal, which of course with the GOP controlling Congress and 31 states, it has zero chance of ever being adopted.  Perhaps in 2017 we'd have a more amenable Congress, but that would take people, you know, voting, and in record numbers.

It's not impossible, but at this point I don't see 2016 turnout being above 50%, much less the 70% plus it would take to shift Congress and the states.

Sunday Long Read: The Goodbye Man

I don't always agree with Mother Jones writer Kevin Drum, but as he faces terminal cancer and discusses openly the prospect and politics of assisted suicide, I find him brave.

IN THE DECADE after Oregon's law took effect, the physician-assisted-suicide movement gained little ground. On a national level approval rates remained steady, with about two-thirds of Americans telling Gallup they supported the concept, but that seemingly strong support didn't translate into legislative success.

Some of the reasons for this failure are obvious, but among the obscure ones is this: Assisted suicide has long been a West Coast movement. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, California, Oregon, and Washington all had active legislative legalization campaigns—even if only Oregon's succeeded—and according to a 1996 survey, West Coast doctors received many more requests for assisted suicide than doctors in other parts of the country. No one is quite sure why, but outside of the West Coast, it was simply not a very prominent issue.

Another reason legalization failed to gain ground is rooted in semantics. Miles Zaremski, an attorney who has argued on behalf of such bills for years, is typical of assisted-suicide supporters when he maintains that in the case of terminal patients, "we're not dealing with the concept or notion of suicide at all." Rather, it's nothing more than aiding the natural dying process. Opponents call this Orwellian and worse. Public sensitivities reflect thislinguistic divide. Although that longitudinal Gallup poll has long reported two-thirds support for legally allowing doctors to "end the patient's life by some painless means," support historically drops by 10 points or more when they ask if doctors should be allowed to "assist the patient to commit suicide." So when legislation is under consideration, opponents fill the airwaves with the word "suicide," and public support ebbs.

A third reason is demographic: The assisted-suicide movement has long been dominated by well-off, educated whites. As early as 1993, Dick Lehr reported in a Boston Globe series titled "Death and the Doctor's Hand" that every doctor he talked to said that patients who asked about assistance in dying were typically middle to upper class and accustomed to being in charge. As one oncologist put it, "These are usually very intelligent people, in control of their life—white, executive, rich, always leaders of the pack, can't be dependent on people a lot."

In fact, one of the reasons Oregon was first to pass an assisted-suicide bill is likely because it's a very white state—and so are the patients who take advantage of the Death With Dignity Act. The 2014 report from the Oregon Health Authority says that the median age of DWDA patients is 72 years old; 95 percent are white, and three-quarters have at least some college education.

Aid-in-dying bills are a tougher lift in more-diverse states. Minority patients have historically been wary of the medical establishment, and not without reason. There's abundant evidence that people of color have less access to health care than whites and receive less treatment even when they do have access. If the health care system already shortchanges them during the prime of their lives, would it also shortchange them at the end, pressing them to forgo expensive end-of-life care and just take a pill instead? This fear makes the doctors who serve them cautious about discussing assisted suicide. "My concern is for Latinos and other minority groups that might get disproportionately counseled to opt for physician-assisted suicide," one doctor told Lehr. More recently, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, director of the medical ethics program at the University of California-Irvine School of Medicine, explained to the New York Times, "You're seeing the push for assisted suicide from generally white, upper-middle-class people, who are least likely to be pressured. You're not seeing support from the underinsured and economically marginalized. Those people want access to better health care."

Finally, there's the fourth and most obvious reason for legislative failures: Assisted suicide has a lot of moral opposition.

It's difficult to ask to die with dignity when the country doesn't allow you to live with dignity in the first place, you know?  I'm glad Kevin lives in a state where this is possible, and I am glad he recognizes that in the end very few people are afforded this choice, the key word here being afforded, but to me it seems like some of those resources used for death could be used to give better lives to those who are struggling with it first.

That's just me.

Last Call For Now It's A Problem

A weird thing happened when over the last couple of years the epidemic of opioids spread from inner city black neighborhoods which didn't matter to Republicans, to Red State small towns that do. Suddenly Republicans in Congress are worried about kids being born addicted to smack.

The chairman of a U.S. House committee that oversees child abuse issues opened an inquiry Friday into whether the federal government is failing to enforce a law meant to protect thousands of babies born dependent on drugs each year.

The inquiry, launched by Representative John Kline of Minnesota, comes in response to a Reuters investigation last month that identified 110 examples of children who were exposed to opioids while in the womb and later died preventable deaths after leaving the hospital.

No more than nine states comply with a 2003 law that calls on hospitals to alert social workers whenever a baby is born dependent on drugs, the news agency found.

Since the law was enacted, the number of newborns diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome has skyrocketed – from 4,991 cases in 2003 to 27,315 in 2013, federal data show. A Reuters analysis found that thousands of drug-dependant newborns are sent home each year without a referral to social service agencies, contrary to the intent of the federal law.

Imagine that.  Now it's a problem to House Republicans, where before it was just "government overreach" for the federal government to deal with health issues.

Those referrals are intended to help social workers develop a "plan of safe care" for the newborns and mothers. Although most states fail to comply with the provisions, Reuters found none has lost federal funding.

In a letter Friday, Kline told Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell that he was "deeply concerned" that the agency may not be enforcing the law.

“A Reuters investigation released in December cast serious doubts over whether these basic requirements in federal law are being followed," wrote Kline, a Republican who chairs the House Education and the Workforce Committee. The letter was co-signed by Todd Rokita, an Indiana Republican, who chairs a subcommittee on early childhood education.

“The Reuters investigation reveals the shocking and deadly consequences when these vital federal and state child welfare policies are not properly implemented and enforced,” the lawmakers wrote.

"Even more troubling, according to the Reuters report, there are some states that have failed to put these policies in place altogether, yet not a single state is being denied … funds.”

You mean the 31 states controlled completely by Republicans are resisting federal mandates to do something about the health of their citizens despite taking federal taxpayer money to do so?

Perish the thought.

The Power Of Two

The same Republican Village pundits who told us that the smart money was on Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson and Marco Rubio now tell us they're sure they've got it this time, and that it's a two-man race between Trump and Ted Cruz.

As the presidential primary race moves into a more urgent and combative phase, there is growing acceptance among Republicans, including the Washington and financial elite, that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are the two candidates most likely to become the party’s nominee.

Their commanding performances at the sixth debate — along with their continued dominance in national and early state polls — have solidified the conclusion of many Republicans that the campaign is becoming a two-person contest.

Long expected to become a race between an outsider and an establishment candidate, it is coming down instead as one between two outsiders, with dwindling time for their rivals to change the trajectory before the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1.

There is hope that one of the four establishment candidates may emerge as a consensus choice and consolidate support. The two who seem best positioned to do so, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, had some sparkling moments in Thursday’s Fox Business Channel debate but left the stage bruised and squabbling. They returned to the campaign trail on Friday aiming more firepower at each other than Trump or Cruz.

“Trump and Cruz sucked all the oxygen out of the room, which is bad news for the establishment folks,” said Barry Bennett, a veteran GOP strategist who recently resigned as campaign manager to Ben Carson. “It doesn’t look like much is going to stop them. They’re in a tier off to themselves, and I think our nominee is going to be Cruz or Trump.”

If that's finally correct, then it's the best news for 2016 I've heard in a long time.

For the Democrats.

Iran The Table On Them

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry come through yet again as Iran and the US arrange a long overdue prisoner swap that includes Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian.

Iran has released four imprisoned U.S. citizens, including Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, as part of a swap, the office of Tehran’s prosecutor announced Saturday, according to Iranian news media.

The other released prisoners include Amir Hekmat, a former U.S. Marine, and Saeed Abedni, a pastor, and a fourth unnamed American. All four are dual U.S.-Iranian citizens. Rezaian has been held since 2014.

According to Iran’s Fars News Agency, the four were ordered released in exchange for six Iranian-Americans held in the United States on sanctions-related charges.

A statement by the prosecutor said that “based on an approval of the Supreme National Security Council and the general interests of the Islamic Republic, four Iranian prisoners with dual-nationality were freed today within the framework of a prisoner swap deal,” Fars reported.

There was no official confirmation from the United States. Kris Coratti, vice president of communications and spokeswoman for The Post, said that “while we are hopeful, we have not received any official word of Jason’s release.”

As the US-Iran nuclear deal heads towards the day of implementation as nuclear watchdogs are expected to sign off on the deal soon, the prisoner exchange is good ol' fashioned diplomacy.

It's hard to imagine any of the Republicans currently running for President Obama's job pulling this off without, you know, bombing something first.

Taking Stock Of 2016 So Far

It;s not been a good month for your 401(k) so far.  The markets are now in bear territory and have given back all their 2015 gains and then some.  Oil is now sinking under $30 and barrel and people are starting to ask uncomfortable questions about that Fed rate hike.

Wall Street bled on Friday, with the S&P 500 sinking to its lowest since October 2014 as oil prices sank below $30 per barrel and fears grew about economic trouble in China.

Pain was dealt widely, with the day's trading volume unusually high and more than a fifth of S&P 500 stocks touching 52-week lows. The major S&P sectors all ended sharply lower. The Russell 2000 small-cap index dropped as much as 3.5 percent to its lowest since July 2013.

The energy sector dropped 2.87 percent as oil prices fell 6.5 percent, in part due to fears of slow economic growth in China, where major stock indexes also slumped overnight. The energy sector has lost nearly half its value after hitting record highs in late 2014.

"Initially when oil was down, the convenient line was 'Well, it's good for the other nine sectors'," said Jake Dollarhide, chief executive officer of Longbow Asset Management in Tulsa, Oklahoma. "That tune has changed. Now, it's a contagion to the other nine sectors. It's a contagion to Main Street and Wall Street."

The technology sector was the day's biggest loser, sliding 3.15 percent as weak quarterly results from chipmaker Intel weighed heavily on chip stocks.

The S&P 500 has fallen about 12 percent from its high in May, pushing it into what is generally considered "correction territory."

Hopefully things will start to turn around here, unlike 2007/2008 we're not losing 800,000 jobs a month and not having economies collapse.  But even a mild recession at this point would be hideous news for the Dems, so I'm really hoping that this is a hiccup as it was in August.

Last Call For...Jeb?

The "smart Bush" is looking more and more like the burning Bush these days, and even Politico is writing Jeb's campaign epitaph with an eye towards who will benefit for his family's network of super-donors.

POLITICO talked to nearly two dozen major donors, and most say they are waiting for what one veteran Republican and former Bush 43 administration appointee described as the "family hall pass" to jump to another campaign after the New Hampshire primary.

“I’m resigned to it being over, frankly. It’s really disappointing,” said one top Bush Wall Street donor. “I’d urge him to get out after New Hampshire if he doesn’t do well, but he probably won’t."

The deterioration of the Bush campaign has been a humbling experience for his fundraisers. A year ago, even before he was a candidate, Bush's team was locking down donors across the country and getting commitments for six- and seven-figure checks with little trouble. Donors were pitted against each other to see who could raise more and be in the good graces of the man who, at the time, was described by many in Bush World as the inevitable nominee.

Now the fundraising pitch is decidedly different.

"Hey, I need you to throw away money on Jeb — out of loyalty," a Bush fundraiser has told donors recently.

Rival campaigns are watching Bush's finance operation closely and have been working behind the scenes to lay the groundwork to poach his donor network. So far, a top Florida Republican fundraiser, Brian Ballard, has been one of the only notable defections to Sen. Marco Rubio's camp after Bush's campaign attacked Rubio.

"Donors I've talked to are desperate not to abandon Jeb because of their long bonds and loyalty with the family, but they are also recognizing there is no ROI [return on investment] on this campaign," said Rick Wilson, a veteran Florida political operative who is backing Rubio. "The sense of these folks is it is so sad. They whisper to each other, 'When will Jeb go?'"

The mood is very much that in order for someone to be able to challenge Trump, the riff-raff and the chaff have to go, starting with the biggest drain holding back the most donor cash: Jebby.

I don't blame the Republicans.  They're just weeks away from putting a racist, bigoted white supremacist hatemonger out in front, and only a few months from assuring a nasty convention fight later in the year in order to try to strip him of the nomination.

The vultures are circling a lot of the remaining GOP field, frankly, but Jeb has the juiciest pickings.