So long, farewell feeders an ado. I do. I do to you, and you knew Trump pulls out of it this accord and global concern trolling ensues hurry. Yes, Hillary Clinton is still in the room. Why and Commissioner. In the event, The Tory crosshairs we'll discuss all this and more on this week's edition. the editors on Rich Lowry and on joint, as always by the right honourable Charles Seed, W cook the redoubtable in total and and

Fortunately, the ever essence, raw Hansel long has the day off. So let's jump right into Paris Charlie. What what? How did you feel yesterday when tremendous announcement? I was surprised that I thought that he was going to cave, or I thought that he was going to go for the big headline trumps pulled out of Paris, but not really out of parents that seem to be. a habit of his by lights. Donald Trump yesterday was a strange feeling. I like the whole thing to be honest with you. I, like you for two reasons. The first one is that the process by which President Obama entered the United States into this accord was, I thought, a disgrace, regardless of what one thinks of the merits of this was, in effect, a treaty,

have been treated as such. There is no issue that is too important for the constitutional process that is laid out. It seems to me that Obama disagrees thought that this would not get through the Senate and therefore he just had to do it anyway. But of course that's not how constitutional liberty works. You don't get to decide that, so I am pleased to the Trump pulled out on those grounds, in that it should remind americans- and indeed everybody around the world. That treaty is not a treaty unless the senator so stop your neck

Quick because it seems of trouble really want to make that point he could have submitted it to the sun shock, know another thing but really cross trumps mine, but I am happy with it. For those reasons, I think that dont from doesn't care you the way. The second reason I'm pleased is because I just don't believe that this agreement is worth anything, I'm not reflexively, hostile to all climate change legislation. I do think that an incredible amount of alarm ism silliness that surrounds it. My basic view is that, of course, man is changing the climate in some way that our debate is almost impossible to navigate, because we failed to distinguish between the problem and the solutions and that we should accept that this is an economic, not a religious question and therefore proceed as we would with with any other unexamined tradeoffs and the benefits,

But Paris really has put the environmental left in an opposition simultaneously their shouting that this had no effect a tool. That day and binding that it made no demand that there were no obligation that therefore tromp was stupid to stand up yesterday and say well America needed to get out, and that- Sing out was one of the worst things that has ever happened and that will all going to die in pit of lava and I think for the average person whose watching this, who is not a denier but is also not an alarmist. They really have no idea where to go. He has said that was really striking to me is just the contradiction in less case to say why you getting out of this. Its voluntary is completely meaningless. You can reduce your commitment any time or fail to fulfil your commitment and it's no big deal, but if you, if you actually pull out

it's the end of the world and the way they they square the circle and actually think this makes sense- is just that there too disingenuous to say this at the moment is that they want this infrastructure in place. An order were to kind of settle, win, become accepted globally and then steadily make it more robust and more binding and more restrictive yoga. I'm in the ones, are respectable idea. I suppose the rope is no not this. This initial commitment right now, but you you basically create the condition or something down the line and that's fine, but that basically demands that we trust the people who telling us to trust them, even though they ve been radically wrong on a whole lot of things over the past thirty years when it comes to. long term environmental projections

It also, though, partakes of a commitment on the left that I think trumps Trump spoken too, with a with a word that I don't particularly like, but which is its true. waiting for this occasion, that's globalism. This way there is Finally, an idea that, as long An international forum exists. The United States must be a part of it. This this totally non binding, voluntary agreement with absolutely no teeth to it. this air go, do states needs to be at the table. Charlie can speak to be the same thing that you heard during the breaks it debate or will, or that you hear when were you talk about potential withdraw from the European Union

The European Union exists, therefore, we must be part of it. We must be caught at the table so that we can and influence the flip side of that, of course, that well we're at the table now, whatever the case might be, and we're not having an influence. So why should it be in a different six month? for six years down the line than it is now, I think this is just to an article of if, among a lot of people who, There are really no, oceans other than global solutions and when it comes to I'm a change. The article of faith is that this is a global issue. Air go you nothing short of global cooperation, suffices said Charlie. You said you were just Europe made happy by this announcement. Let me just stirred knit pick here. The I really enjoyed the announcement to, but there's as with is always the case with Trump

there's a way to make the case. That's like really sound and really thoughtful and really well informed and what he said on the on the day. The announcement was not that no Wasn't no, it wasn't I'm in May and again. This is where the left was right and the reason that they were goaded into acknowledging that they did. Nothing was the Trump said it did, and tromp was arguing the terrible deal for the United States and its making all sorts of requests and on our economy and the icon. I just can't sit here in an preside over this terribly unfair deal when actually does very little, because in doing that, the left us with established exposed the floor in their argument. But the good argument, I think- or at least the argument that I like is that the United States is already doing pretty while reducing our missions emission sorry.

Unfortunately, when you go down that road, you have to acknowledge why that is, and the main reason for it is fucking we have through a combination. I would accept a of the free market with tracking and government action that I oppose, I think has been to brutal. We have increased the use of natural gas and decrease the use of coal, problem is. Even if you were to get on board with the Obama Anti call agenda, you cannot get to the stage that whereat without embracing tracking

If you do, there will be a huge hole in american energy production and you are never ever going to convince people, and nor should you that the way to deal with this problem is to use less energy is too materially diminish their condition. My view is that we need to embrace tracking, except that fucking has improved both for the left and the right, a situation and then move to other. sustainable energy sources such as nuclear power, I'm fine with solar and I'm fine with wind in all that, but to have a situation more can to save France's where nuclear as it is a large part of Europe.

She seems to me to be a genuine compromise between left and right. Unfortunately, the left simply doesn't want that, or at least outside of a few heretics. It doesnt want that, and so those who think that man is having an effect such as myself. I come to the table, and I say I accept that there is such a thing. I also accept that it could be a problem, although I think that we extrapolate forty much from the data Let's do tracking and nuclear power. How about that, and they look at you as if you say my approach to it is we have certain mama modesty about what we truly know about what the global temporal be. Eighty so now, and also some modesty about what just stated that knowledge II will be twenty years ago. was anyone serious seriously talking about racking, I'm sure there's a visionary or to that was, but this an absolute revolution in our energy production that came out of nowhere, and of human ingenuity and

yet the most adaptable species on the planet just will not be able to handle a few. We sell cs increase in their the temperature in eight years. Now. Strikes me as crazy. You, I think it's four of which are these pointing to in some is The way in which the basically Our debate about Paris is symbolic minutes about its about. moral commitments, one where the other- and I have absolutely no problem with the fervent advocates of environmentalism who think this is an urgent moral problem. That's fine! I act. I understand that position, but at the end of the day, Paris really had nothing. to do with that? It was just a question of signalling a commitment to addressing to to thinking this is a problem

and they sort of sidelined the actual content of the agreement and has Charlie points out Trump Miss presented it any other way. He exposed the the hollowness of supporters when it came to the actual content. So what this? What this debate needs but what it's it's never gonna get when you Tom STAR is out there saying withdrawing from the Paris accord, is a traitor, an act of war is a massive lowering of the temperature. No pun intended in this is just a debate, can no longer have because it's become religious and, in effect, and that there is an unwillingness hoping to accept that there are positive and negative on both sides of the ledger right.

heard many people on the left side. But your conservative shouldn't you wished to conserve the well yes, I do, but I also wish to conserve other things, such as our economy, property rights, limited government, individual liberty, decentralized power and so on and so forth, and when the cost, the proposed cost of conserving the earth training is an alarmist where putting it, but either way is a significant reduction in the status quo is significant. Change to the status quo is healthy to be sceptical, especially when it is the case that burning carbon brings an awful lot of benefit and an awful lot of benefits, not just a rich people, but to poor people, indeed, especially to poor people who live in countries who are not as industrialized her and are not as advanced as our own. Now I am not suggesting that we deal with is entirely by mitigation, but if you look at estimates as to what it would cost to mitigate the patent

the costs of climate change, the potential downsides of climate change, its actually not that high say about two percent of global GDP according to the National Resource Defence Council. Now I'm not saying that the right answer, but if you trade of two percent of GDP against, say people in developing wealth not dying at age eleven, if you traded off against the Material programme, but we ve made in eliminating poverty and polio, and so for that is an option needs to be looked at, and yet it's just never ever accepted that burning carbon and developing ass. A ass. A species has some pretty considerable ops. I want you can have very good for one of the reasons that we got this this loud, agreement, though, because is because the the reality of the Inn jewel lives of of millions of people in the developing world outweighed

The moral concerns of the leaders who gathered in Lima in two thousand fourteen remember: that's where they basically said we're not going to. a real agreement, we're gonna kick this kind. on the road a year and come up with this new hope. This voluntary feel good path, and part of the reason that happened is because all of the developing countries that came to the table said we are not putting caps our emissions, so the and feel good and basically cancel out war prove or prevent the construction of significant infrastructure. In in the developing world and in countries in Asia and Africa. I mean that's something that environmentalists haven't quite figured out. How to resolve is, is how do you both solve this global problem and also provide for

these people you use. You purport to two cares intensely about is a massive collective action problem and that's part of the reason that I think that the idea of a global solution. At this point just isn't feasible. I tell you may think this is the technology, Europeans ISM in me, the big drone guy in the driver's car guy, but it wouldn't surprise me several decades now we find out how to creating an artificial carbon sink success, stuff right back out of the atmosphere. Let's and this point the discussion with his exit question tunnel rate, this trump decision, zero, meaning, sly in short, sighted five meeting, stellar and wise. I figure for four, For this reason alone, it's five on them on the merits of the decision that it I have a problem with its four, because

he bade the wrong argument for doing it in his conference in and that spurred a lot of the wrong conversation Charlie. I grew with that. The one thing he said that I think was both true and good. Politics was it. He was elected to represent the people of Pittsburgh, not Paris and I've seen people say with its perverted better, not the point. The point is not who elected trump. The point is he's in this game: to defend America primarily and if, if Our friends on the other side think that that message is going to hurt him. They really need to go back to the drawing board, so I think on the merits. It was five that, like in I'm in a deduct for the public argument taken but only points,

I saw the four point. Five were right. We were your fine. I was for saying that we have to we without opportunity a week without decimal point. Someone has to take up the decimal point Baton, so, let's just hit on another aspect of this really quickly, Charlie. What did you make the international reaction and the commentary overseas, and also here at home freed, but the current? this year. This is that the United States, walking away from its international leadership and trumps doll over the leader of the free world, will, as always, I can almost not a tool.

Evil abroad. Think of America, and indeed, when somebody says to me, United States is the only country in which I might place over mostly because most of the circumstances under which that can be said, I'm on the american society. United States is the only country in the world without Hate speech, Lord Good, in terms of the claim that America's is abandoning its its global leadership role, I have a suspicion that this argument is supposed to impress people on the right. I think it aimed people on the right who, like America's pre, eminence, who think that America should be the global hedge, a mom. I reject the province. Fundamentally, I think, is extremely silly for free. The courier suggests that we

Then dark label leadership role yesterday, but you have to ask: when did we gain? It then? Did we gain it in September when this was signed? Did we have it when we refused to ratify the Kyoto treaty? Will we some sort of bizarre shrouding US leadership role while the Senate was deliberating, was Bill Clinton. Believe it Congress. Not. I don't think anyone can answer those questions

Reason for that is, I think, they're serious. I think this is a talking point. I think this is in a sense, a bullying point and really it is question begging at its absolute finest. The United States is not the pre eminent global power because it does or doesn't sit around with other countries and enter nonbinding carbon emissions agreements. The United States is the pre eminent global power because it has the most robust system of property rights and individual rights and the most stable legal system in the world, except perhaps for Britain, which invented many of them, because it the military that can protect power and because it has the biggest and strongest economy. The idea that the role that America Place is contingent upon this sloppy Paris agreements too silly on his face. The trail you gave to us two references are property rights. Already we're only that will at were just ninety minutes

I do see, has asked the question, and I say that not because I believe that the entire idea of climate changes this hoax. It was invented by communists who want to take away my rights, but because I do think that all of these questions involve trade offs and I think that it is fair to say that the vast majority of the people who have either a more alarmist view of climate change or who have more extreme solutions waiting in the wings are much less interested in preserving the capitalist order. The free market order, an order that is rests upon individual rights and property rights than I do, and I just think that's a huge huge mistake. I don't think that's how you to use a word that they like sustainably solve anything there. Many think it loses its sovereignty, question enlarged

women, and not just at a national level, but also at an individual level men. This goes back to Charlie's point about individual people here. The problem with part of the problem with the argument is that it doesn't matter if you take, if, if you individually take up the advice of the climate alarmist to not by an car or not, have an extra child, it doesn't make a difference. It has to be done among millions and millions of people, but you're the one who's making the sacrifice you have. You have to live with it on individual basis. For the for this, The term greater, largely hypothetical good that you won't experience, and so it is a question of of creating this space for individual freedom. That is at stake in this debate that there is a reason that that

We were called property rights. The last metaphysical right, Charlie hit. You just have to go back also to say it again and you to go back also determines point, though, about the international Protection Force, the mills, the military aspect, as is normal the United States has one point: three million actively deployed military personnel. Two hundred thousand of them are overseas on aid. Bases in one hundred seventy seven countries- there's no other country that can't. Do that or will be able to do that any time soon? As long as that presents remains, what do you mean? We don't have we're not global leader, said tried a question on this one, so this exit soon be forgotten in the

serve, other international business or will be held, or will it be held against the? U S going forward. I dont think other countries can afford to hold this against the Euro, especially given that he didn't do very much. We were dealing with it, a deal that had been hammered out it at great cost to everybody involved and that Germany and France in Japan, China were all busting, my guts to meet these targets and they were really damaging their own economies, but we were in crisis mode and then America pulled out. There would be some incentive to make America pay for that, but, given that its voluntary in the first place and doesn't affect anyone, why on earth, would you damage your relationship with? Our largest economy is yeah generally agree with that. I hold it against us in diplomatic ways and justice serve point of pride, but in terms of real substantive action, see anything he. I think it's a little bit

breaks it where everyone for about five days says it's the end of the world and they want to get used to it on they'll, be remembered, the central the talking point against Trump for years, but I agree that we have much substantive affair. So let me pause here but half way through our podcast for self interested public service. spent. If you are listening to the editors, but you haven't yet subscribed on Itunes. Google play stature or tune in. Please do so and another friendly request. If you actually like what you hear here, please please consider giving a favourable review on Itunes will appreciate it very much and Charlie you're, the technical guy here did it did I get all that no you're upset era thanks so much if anyone is a particular geek and doesn't like be services, they just want the rss feed than just hit me up on Twitter and on Sunday you are Sir

congeals move under less congenial business. Hillary Clinton just on this long. in unexplained tour. Woody things going on here is now she's. Apparently writing a memoir untitled. Although twitter had many entertaining suggestions today, I think there are are probably two things at least to obvious things in hand may be many more one is Hillary Clinton has been in the spotlight for thirty years, she's been applied, since an american politics at the highest levels. For that long, she is for reasons that will never become clear to me. The heroin

of millions and millions of people, and you can't give that up easily right herring committed she, I presume still has certain ambitions. Those ambitions are, is what those ambitions are unclear. But you know you look at somebody like Al Gore Spring in this climate treaty, whose unit taken on sort of a global position. As a representative of this grand cause, I could see Hilary trying to do that. That's the first obvious reason. The second obvious reason: and I dont know the extent to which Hilary buys into this- and this is the real. This is that the sixty four thousand dollar question is there is a large group of people around Hillary Clinton who still think that she can and will

be president of the United States. There is a just a large coterie of debt tease in her inner circle, who think that she was robbed in two thousand. Sixteen, as she was robbed in two thousand and eight and two thousand twenty will be her moment and that is patently insane but the question, and I don't have an answer to it, but the question is: does Hilary herself believe that or not and that'll be interesting to discover going forward such I'll? Even Democrats seem to be getting. Tired of this act. You had Al Frank in saying it time to move on you, yeah, when hurries complaining about the Dnc operation, which I soon was fairly shabby, but not the reason she lost. The Dnc Data Guy, pushing back on Twitter, including saying I think, that's why the treaty deleted subsequently saying look. Are our data always showed mission

in Pennsylvania and was constant nowhere near put away, and they would listen to us. I'm gonna preface what I am about to say by acknowledging that it must be heartbreaking for Henry content to be in the position she's in She wanted to be president for a long long time. She, presumably, as many of us, did thought she was going to be president for all of last year. I assume she couldn't believe her luck. When Donald Trump, nominated, and she is now living in a country that reveals that I think, probably the majority of people either, because the Republicans and I've always hated her or because the Democrats and she lost two Donald Trump. So I say this with no particular glee, but Hillary Clinton is dealing with this a lot worse than I thought she would De Rebecca traced her profile in New York magazine, which was a second one tries to has done, revealed a woman who, I think, does not

of an especially solid grasp on reality? Hillary Clinton really does still believe in the vast right wing conspiracy that comes across in this peace. She's constantly talking about these ideological forces, these people get up in the morning and they never stop they. citys and pernicious in their aims and their methods he seems to believe that the media is dominated by conservative. That is difficult for progressive to get out their message. She is according to trace the briefed constantly ass if she were the president on things that are going on around tat, and she has also it seems I bought into the ice That America is in an incredibly misogynistic place. The women simply can't get ahead that that cost her

action and also that there was voted suppression in places such as Wisconsin add that had a material effect on the result and, of course so did James Coma and Russia. Her telling- and I felt sorry I've heard many ways, but I also thought an awful lot less of her she's, not somebody who has just gone away whatever she thinks about things and she's, not somebody who is reflected on the law. She has a habit and she's done a few public appearances of which this has happened. She has a habit now of saying, of course, I accept full responsibility? It was all about me, but it wasn't me here all the reasons This is a sad sad person who I who I think is is not in tune with the moment so

The question is Hillary Clinton quickly, dad just doesn't realize it yet or is there some sort of faint pulse there? She stood out, she's, she's, absolutely fine, now, see, I'm gonna say became our tutor said there is an extremely faint pulse there because I think there's enough of the pulse. For her to begin thinking about it again and there's a potential that the field will be. weak enough. She'll, be the do, maybe not. It is robust as Mitt Romney and twenty sixteen, but sort of walk up to it and tall enough reality intrudes for hurt us to step so even in the latest Russia NEWS, we have Jared Kushner, I working and attempted back channel with the Russians which seemed a completely free. An amateurish idea that Sir he and an Flynn will go talk to him

since in russian facilities over russian communication equipment or to evade U S, intelligence and cut some sort of deal over ice in Syria and given all the focus on on Russia way that this is just dumb stopped. even more interest. What he make of it. You mean to a certain extent as it should. This is said, Anne possessor idea. Once you drill down into the details, we shouldn't we should say first All diplomatic back channels are common Brok, Obama, back channels with IRAN in the run up to making the the nuclear D public there's always been speculation. That Reagan had was using back channel communications to negotiate with the iranian stirring

his transition. We know the Nixon had a back channel with the Soviets during the transition from album J. So these these things have precedent. What's alarming about this. Is the aid, the amateur ism, as you point out, the sort of bizarre buckling under to russian russian preferences? Presumably as far as the Speck channel would go in terms of like you said that the actual communications they were, the communications infrastructure, they would be using etc, as well as the

text I dont like. I continue to be astounded by the political blindness in which so many members of the Trump White House seem to live. It seem like Turkish was at least smart enough to know this was this would be a bad idea apparently, if even if it wasn't in substance, a bad thing again, all of this boils down to what the intent was here and what will? What would actually have been hammered out, but it just seems like sort of bone, headed attempt from start to finish so Charlie. Do you, dear your small, are republican sensibilities offended at all by Gerard and advances role, this ministries and I'm throwing out smaller public and to try to go Jew? You two and oration at comes around apart property rights, again

I wish they were in indulging their property rights by living elsewhere in spending time sweat. Yes, it bothers me. I don't like the coterie that surrounds the president to start with, and I think the incessant focus on his family members has always been grows. That's not limited to Donald Trump. I've always been of the view that first lady should be quiet, and yes, it is ever first man. I would like him to be quiet too. I don't want to hear about Chelsea Clinton. I don't want to hear about I vodka trump. I don't

you're about tarkas. Now I don't want them brought into the fold they went elected. They have no expertise, they should remain quiet. There's even now talk of of I've Uncas legacy because she failed to convince President Trump not to withdraw from Paris who cares about. I think his legacy she doesn't get a legacy. She is extraneous So the question on its journey news in is jeered. Another shot side show in the russian controversy or a truly ominous turn any investigation. No, I don't think there's anything here. That's terrific recovering about a bombshell on this on this one site, your ominous, try, I think it's a sideshow, I've gotta go ominous and not not ominous in terms of the Russia conspiracy theories, any that I think. its ominous for Jared, because I think this never legal spread into his business dealings and

investigations work. They always get broader, rather narrower and they always something so maybe it's it's nothing to do with Jared, but he everything he's ever done better, be clean or or he may be why the once it takes just cause is not ending and some people get indicted and they get someone on perjury or something like that. a very quickly last topic. British elections will just go to you on this and will just do exit question Charlie. What the hell What is going on and the brutal action was been quite this story about two months ago. To save a terrorism may the leader of the conservative party, I was going to be as successful. A leader of her party ass had been Margaret Thatcher. People were talking about a three figure majority, maybe up into the one hundred and sixty one hundred and seventy range.

That would put the Tories rough in the position they were in Iowa VS, I just say one thousand nine hundred and thirty one. Now. The question is whether be a majority at all. In other words, whether the conservatives will in fact be diminished in parliament, this seems to have happened for a few reasons. The first is early poles. Often at this. Count those voters who come home late. There are many labour voters in the north who don't like Jeremy Carbon, but who are just not going to vote. Conservative politics can be tribe it certainly regional and class. Based in the UK, I think there's been some small reduction in the conservative advantage because of that, but all

Teresa may, has not run a good campaign. She's made two big mistakes: one she allowed herself to be cost ass, a mean anti government type by in polluting the manifesto, a plan that would have taken away from people all of their savings if they met certain criteria when they need scene care when they need care passed a certain age. This was quickly termed the dimension attacks. She then you turned on it, which in turn made her look, weak and vacillating. The second thing is she's, trying to turn herself into something of a cult figure. People have been going into the constituency, she needs to win and saying I am the representative of Teresa may, rather than I'm the conservative candidate and here's what I believe and one of the problems with that is that she hasn't really articulated what she said

As for because she thought TAT, she was likely to win such a big majority, as she didn't really want to alienate anyone, because she didn't want to alienate anybody. She tried to be all things to all people and in politics that really works and so journey carbon, who is clear the much more in the mould of nineteen seventies and eighties socialist labour politician by contrast, looks like a man of conviction, looks like a man with ideas, and the Tories have struggled with that now for weeks. I won't get two specific with my prediction, but my prediction is that the conservative party still going to win a majority, but it will be much much smaller than we had but maybe three four weeks ago, so quick couple later, I was chillier your beetles guidest. So this is a big require. Why didn't expect it to be? It was the fiftieth anniversary of sergeant pepper on the twenty sixth of April.

and the album, was released and re mixed by Giles. Martin, the Son of George Martin, whose original producer I dont tend to like these things. But my goodness me, this is a great work. What Giles Martin has done is taken the idiosyncrasies and the editing decisions from the original mono mix, which was the one that the Beatles worked on with that producer and using modern technology protocols and combination of

Maybe road analogue equipment has produced this clean Sonic Lee restored stereo mix that retains all of those idiots sink proceed, but is just a joy to listen to a special modern equipment. All of the decisions that were made all of the balancing down of tapes have been reversed in the sense that the guitars that were muddy are now for the thorough sounds in the background of some of the more psychedelic tracks. They really come through its more saturated you can hear, Hold Mccartney's voice, especially and the stacked harmonies are something to behold. I am a friend of this from the Chinese, I'm so scared. I expect and hope that what you're thinking about has been more literary high minded than the mere updating of old model mix, while deaths, amongst sounds like quite an update, was beautifully presented. I thinkers

I wouldn't talk of Don Giovanni. That's right, so I just wanted to take an occasion to highlight farm writers were really love. I cannot with a new book fairly recently the writers Robert Macfarlane. He is a british travel writer, I'm a huge fan of of travel and nature writing an Macfarlane is

a beautiful writer with lush throws, but his his real gift is for extraordinary sense of place and he makes that live by digging down into the etymology of place names. And so, if you read, for instance, his book of the old ways in which he travels a number of paths, see paths pass over land, island island roots, a whole variety of different routes that people have travelled in the british Isles he's constantly bringing into it. These place names that have these deep residences in

a british and and Welsh English in Welsh and scottish History- and she has supplemented all of this recently by starting a twitter account- which is one of my favorites at Rob, G Macfarlane and he every day will post several words and pictures to accompany them. They're beautiful pictures- and these wonder words an example, for instance the glow around the moon that you is a moon bra scottish word and he has examples. It's it's it's it's. A beautiful twitter account to accompany her a beautiful series of books, so do with that. What you will I can't compete with other you guys are so lovely I'll, just say I speaking of travel. I think I mentioned in last week's podcast. I went to Japan two weeks ago and if you want

know what it's like just imagine a country where nearly everyone is poor white and takes a credible care and pride and everything they do Japan. I urge everyone who possibly can to get over there. Some time is an amazing cultural exe and so it is that time in the editors podcast for editors picks. Charley was here's what I like to an essay by internal who is sitting opposite me with a loaded hangin pointed at my forehead making. You say this

now even wrote about a twitter account seems to be a theme this week called we rate dogs, I think, up until a few days ago, this twitter account just rated dogs or with high marks. It was really a place. You could go to sea cute poppies and cute dogs, but it's got political first. There was a reference to plan parenthood promised to donate money, to plan parenthood than an apology, and then I think, a relapse into politics, including some some swearing at anyone who descended, and not very nice anyway, in wrote a piece about civil society and where politics should be fenced. In there

is a prevailing view on the left at the moment that everything is political description on the right to inform us that nothing can escape politics, that all actions are inherently related to current affairs, and in says, that's not the case, and in fact, when that becomes the case, societies become less rich unless surely stable. We need one every week, so I'm recommending cabin Williamson's peace from the website. Earlier this week, entitled schmuck like us and cabin takes Tiger Woods recent running with the law as a hook to talk about the scorn that we poor onto celebrities and the the theme of the essay sits wonderfully done is, but for the good

God there go. I am going to pick up Benjamin Zipper piece on at a row about trumps, pull out of the Paris accord. He's a scholar at a high and I'm picking him. One cause is incredibly well informed and in command of the facts on an issue where there's a lot of hysteria and formation out there in two, because I owe him he was very helpful, to me earlier this week, when I wrote a column about Paris thinking at all through. So that's all the time we have this week for the editors. Thank you, Charlie thanks. Thank you. Even everyone for listening will see next week,