The Green Party says it would rather have the provocateur, Trump, to deal with than the anesthetizer, Clinton.

Note that this is not an endorsement of Trump (or Clinton). It is a calculating analysis of which of two evils would give the better chance for subsequent improvement.

I am not sure whether I agree with the analysis. It may have been true in 2000, but the existence of Sanders and his movement will limit Clinton's power to anesthetize in the next few years.

But even supposing that analysis is still valid, I take a less Machiavellian approach to the question. I do not wish a worse president on people merely in the hope he will create unrest. I think things will be much worse in any case.

Islamist bigots in Jakarta are protesting against the mayor, who is a Christian, saying he committed "blasphemy" when he criticized their citing the Koran for purposes of bigotry.

Indonesian Muslims did not think this way 50 years ago; they were taught by activities sponsored by Salafi Arabia.

Australia's substitute for a carbon tax, "direct action", pays landowners not to cut down plants that they wouldn't have cut down anyway.

The right-wing government naturally prefers a handout for businesses to any real CO2 reductions.

Some of the outer areas of Mosul have been liberated by the Iraqi army.

The reaction of the civilians justifies use of the word "liberated".

Scotland needs land reform, for people and for nature.