UK PM Cameron contemptuously brushed off concern for human rights in Kazakhstan, saying that his reason for going there was oil and profits, not human rights.

Of course, we knew already that he puts money above people, but now he has admitted it.

Cameron thus gained the personal endorsement of the strongman of Kazakhstan:

That's a strong recommendation for Britons to vote for some other party, but which one would be better? Not New Labour, which says it will not try to reverse most of the harm that the Conservatives have done. Perhaps the Green Party.

A "hotshot" crew of elite firefighters was killed, every last one, because the Arizona fire spread too fast for them.

High heat and drought and dead trees, which global heating tends to cause, make fires spread faster. In effect, these men were killed by global heating, and it's going to kill a lot more as it gets hotter.

Euro-austerity continues making unemployment rise.

Timbuktu has been saved from theocratic rule, but it is not back to normal or even close.

Many Americans want to believe that Hillary Clinton would be a good president.

I see no indication that she would try to do what America needs any more than Obama does. She has not shown an inclination to fight the authoritarians and plutocrats on any of their major attack fronts (fossil fuels, banksterism, copyright, austerity/unemployment, privatization,war on drugs, surveillance). She's just another bought politician, another right-wing Democrat.

Thus, while I would be glad to see the US capable of electing a woman president, I will not support Ms Clinton just because she's a woman. A candidate's gender is as unimportant as a candidate's skin color.