- Security Ramped-Up In Germany After Jihadists Threaten Drone Strikes At Euro 2024
Security Ramped-Up In Germany After Jihadists Threaten Drone Strikes At Euro 2024
Authored by Thomas Brooke via ReMix News,
An offshoot terror cell affiliated with Islamic State has published propaganda encouraging jihadists to target German football stadiums during this summer’s European Championships.
In the latest issue of the “Voice of Khorasan” magazine, a publication run by ISKP, or Islamic State — Khorasan Province, the terror organization called for jihad at Europe’s flagship football tournament, which runs for a month in Germany from June 14 until July 14.
Against a backdrop of an explosive drone flying across a football stadium, the publication used the headline, “If they restrict and oppress you on the ground, then attack them from the sky.”
“Run over the infidels with your car, hit them with a knife, with poison, or blow out their brains with bullets and set fire to their houses,” it further wrote.
German security services are understood to be treating the message as a credible threat. They are ramping up surveillance and implementing measures to combat any attempts to use drone strikes against stadiums hosting the event, which is expected to be attended by hundreds of thousands of football fans from across Europe.
The threat is the latest in a long line of menacing imagery published by terror cells to inflict fear across the continent.
Earlier this month, images circulated online of jihadists vowing to target the UEFA Champions League quarter-final games, prompting the authorities to bolster defenses at stadiums across Western Europe.
“The main question is whether these are free riders or a serious threat,” a high-ranking state security officer told Focus.
Authorities, however, are unwilling to take a risk on security and will treat the threat as credible.
“It is to be feared that other terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda will also use their PR channels to agitate for an attack offensive in Europe and Germany,” the source added.
The Afghan splinter group of Islamic State has grown in stature in recent months to become the primary organization of concern for security officials across Europe.
A major counter-terror operation took place in the German city of Cologne before Christmas after security services in Austria, Germany, and Spain received intelligence of jihadists affiliated with the group planning to carry out several attacks at Christian landmarks including Cologne Cathedral.
Last month, two Afghan nationals with ties to the U.N.-proscribed terror cell were arrested in Germany on suspicion of planning a terror attack near the Swedish parliament to avenge the permittance of Koran-burning demonstrations in the country.
Several individuals are understood to have exploited the migratory route from Ukraine to enter the European Union to plan attacks, with Tajikistan and Turkmenistan nationals arrested in Germany in July last year having entered Western Europe from the war-torn country.
Authorities in neighboring France are also concerned about the threat of terror attacks during Paris’ hosting of the summer Olympic Games this year, and its organizers have devised a “Plan B” in case terror threats jeopardize the event’s opening ceremony.
“There is no terrorist threat to the Olympics and Paralympics today, but we will continue to monitor the situation,” Oudéa-Castéra told France 2 earlier this month.
“Just because we don’t talk about it, just because we don’t mention Plan B, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.”
The terror alert level in France remains at the highest possible due to concerns over Islamic radicals and fears of retaliation against the West because of the war in Israel.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 04/16/2024 – 02:00 - The WHO's Road To Totalitarianism
The WHO’s Road To Totalitarianism
Authored by Bert Olivier via The Brownstone Institute,
Several articles on the proposed amendments to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) international health regulations have appeared here on Brownstone, such as this excellent introduction. Consequently, there is no need to repeat this information in a similar format. What I would like to do instead is to pursue the question, what the implications would be for people worldwide if this organisation were to be successful in getting the representatives of member countries to accept the proposed amendments. More specifically, what are the likely consequences in terms of the concept and practice of totalitarianism?
To understand this, one has to get to grips with the mode of rule called totalitarian government, of course, but I doubt whether most people have an adequate grasp of full-fledged totalitarian rule, despite recently experiencing it to a certain degree under “pandemic” conditions. Should the amendments proposed by the WHO be accepted in May, the citizens of the world would be subjected to unadulterated totalitarianism, however, so it is worthwhile exploring the full implications of this “anonymous” mode of governance here.
This is done in the hope that, if representatives of the people—which is what they are supposed to be—in legislative bodies around the world were to read this article, as well as others related to the same topic, they would think twice before supporting a motion or bill which would, in effect, grant the WHO the right to usurp the sovereignty of member nations. The recent developments in the state of Louisiana in the United States, which amount to the rejection of the WHO’s authority, should be an inspiration to other states and countries to follow its example. This is the way to beat the WHO’s mendacious “pandemic treaty.”
On her website, called Freedom Research, Dr. Meryl Nass has described the WHO’s notion of “pandemic preparedness” as a “scam/boondoggle/Trojan horse,” which aims (among other things) to transfer billions of taxpayer dollars to the WHO as well as other industries, in order to vindicate censorship in the name of “public health,” and perhaps most importantly, to transfer sovereignty regarding decision-making for “public health” globally to the Director-General of the WHO (which means that legally, member countries would lose their sovereignty).
In addition, she highlights the fact that the WHO intends to use the idea of “One Health” to subsume all living beings, ecosystems, as well as climate change under its own “authority”; further, to acquire more pathogens for wide distribution, in this way exacerbating the possibility of pandemics while obscuring their origin, and in the event of such pandemics occurring, justifying the development of more (mandatory) “vaccines” and the mandating of vaccine passports (and of lockdowns) globally, thus increasing control (the key term here) over populations. Should its attempt at a global power grab succeed, the WHO would have the authority to impose any “medical” programme it deems necessary for “world health,” regardless of their efficacy and side-effects (including death).
In the preceding paragraph I italicised the word “control” as a key term. What should be added to it is the term “total”—that is, “total control.” This is the gist of totalitarian rule, and it should therefore be easy to see that what the WHO (together with the WEF and the U.N.) strives for is total or complete control of all people’s lives.
No one has analysed and elaborated on totalitarianism from this perspective more thoroughly than the German-born, American philosopher, Hannah Arendt, and her monumental study of this phenomenon—“The Origins of Totalitarianism” (1951 and in enlarged format, 1958) still stands as the authoritative source for the understanding of its historical manifestations. The latter, focused on by Arendt, are 20th-century Nazism and Stalinism, but it is not difficult to perceive its lineaments in what we have been living through since 2020—although a strong case could be made that 2001 marked its identifiable beginning, when (in the wake of 9/11) the Patriot Act was passed, arguably laying the authoritarian groundwork for totalitarian rule as clearly perceived by Henry Giroux.
Arendt (p. 274 of the Harvest, Harcourt edition of “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” 1976) singles out “total terror” as the essence of totalitarian government, and elaborates as follows:
“By pressing men against each other, total terror destroys the space between them; compared to the condition within its iron band, even the desert of tyranny [which she distinguishes from totalitarianism; B.O.], insofar as it is still some kind of space, appears like a guarantee of freedom. Totalitarian government does not just curtail liberties or abolish essential freedoms; nor does it, at least to our limited knowledge, succeed in eradicating the love for freedom from the hearts of man. It destroys the one essential prerequisite of all freedom which is simply the capacity of motion which cannot exist without space.”
Reading this evocative characterisation of totalitarianism in terms of “total terror” makes one realise anew, with a start, how fiendishly clever the perpetrators of the so-called “pandemic” emergency were—which was no real pandemic, of course, as the German government recently admitted. It was the thin edge of the wedge, as it were, to insinuate “total terror” into our lives by means of curtailing our access to free movement in space. “Lockdowns” are the signature tool for implementing restrictions of free movements in space.
It may not, on the face of it, appear to be the same as, or similar to, the incarceration of prisoners in the concentration camps under Nazi rule, but arguably the psychological effects of lockdowns approximate those experienced by inmates of these notorious camps in the 1940s. After all, if you are not allowed to leave your house, except to go to the shop to buy food and other essentials before you hurry back home—where you dutifully sanitise all the items you bought (a concrete reminder that venturing out in space is “potentially lethal”)—the imperative is the same: “You are not allowed out of this enclosure, except under specified conditions.” It is understandable that the imposition of such strict spatial boundaries engenders a pervasive sense of fear, which eventually morphs into terror.
Small wonder the pseudo-authorities promoted—if not “commanded”—“working (and studying) from home,” leaving millions of people cloistered in their houses in front of their computer screens (Plato’s cave wall). And banning meetings in public, except for a few concessions as far as the numbers of attendees at certain gatherings were concerned, was just as effective regarding the intensification of terror. Most people would not dare transgress these spatial restrictions, given the effectiveness of the campaign, to instil a dread of the supposedly lethal “novel coronavirus” in populations, exacerbating “total terror” in the process. The images of patients in hospitals, attached to ventilators, and sometimes looking appealingly, desperately at the camera, only served to exacerbate this feeling of dread.
With the advent of the much-hyped COVID pseudo-“vaccines,” another aspect of generating terror among the populace manifested itself in the guise of relentless censorship of all dissenting views and opinions on the “efficacy and safety” of these, as well as on the comparable effectiveness of early treatment of COVID by means of proven remedies such as Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. The clear aim of this was to discredit contrarians who raised doubts over the official valorisation of these supposedly miraculous cures for the disease, and to isolate them from the mainstream as “conspiracy theorists.”
Arendt’s insight into the indispensable function of space for human movement also casts the WEF’s plans to create “15-minute cities” worldwide in a disturbing new light. These have been described as “open-air concentration camps,” which would eventually become a reality by prohibiting movement outside of these demarcated areas, after an initial period of selling the idea as a way of combating climate change by walking and cycling instead of using carbon-emitting motor cars. The WEF and WHO’s “concern” with climate change as a putative threat to global health offers further justification for these planned variations on prisons for the thinly disguised incarceration of millions of people.
The pertinence of Arendt’s thinking on totalitarianism for the present does not end here, though. Just as relevant as the manner in which it cultivates terror is her identification of loneliness and isolation as prerequisites for total domination. She describes isolation—in the political sphere—as “pre-totalitarian.” It is typical of the tyrannical governments of dictators (which are pre-totalitarian), where it functions to prevent citizens from wielding some power by acting together.
Loneliness is the counterpart of isolation in the social sphere; the two are not identical, and the one can be the case without the other. One can be isolated or kept apart from others without being lonely; the latter only sets in when one feels abandoned by all other human beings. Terror, Arendt sagely observes, can “rule absolutely” only over people who have been “isolated against each other” (Arendt 1975, pp. 289–290). It therefore stands to reason that, to achieve the triumph of totalitarian rule, those promoting its inception would create the circumstances where individuals feel increasingly isolated as well as lonely.
It is superfluous to remind anyone of the systematic inculcation of both of these conditions in the course of the “pandemic” through what has been discussed above, particularly lockdowns, the restriction of social contact at all levels, and through censorship, which—as remarked above—was clearly intended to isolate dissenting individuals. And those who were isolated in this way, were often—if not usually—abandoned by their family and friends, with the consequence that loneliness could, and sometimes did, follow. In other words, the tyrannical imposition of COVID regulations served the (probably intended) purpose of preparing the ground for totalitarian rule by creating the conditions for isolation and loneliness to become pervasive.
How does totalitarian government differ from tyranny and authoritarianism, where one may still discern the figures of the despot, and the sway of some abstract ideal, respectively? Arendt writes that (p. 271–272):
“If lawfulness is the essence of non-tyrannical government and lawlessness is the essence of tyranny, then terror is the essence of totalitarian domination.
“Terror is the realization of the law of movement; its chief aim is to make it possible for the force of nature or of history to race freely through mankind, unhindered by any spontaneous human action. As such, terror seeks to ‘stabilize’ men in order to liberate the forces of nature or history. It is this movement which singles out the foes of mankind against whom terror is let loose, and no free action of either opposition or sympathy can be permitted to interfere with the elimination of the ‘objective enemy’ of History or Nature, of the class or the race. Guilt and innocence become senseless notions; ‘guilty’ is he who stands in the way of the natural or historical process which has passed judgement over ‘inferior races,’ over individuals ‘unfit to live,’ over ‘dying classes and decadent peoples.’ Terror executes these judgements, and before its court, all concerned are subjectively innocent: the murdered because they did nothing against the system, and the murderers because they do not really murder but execute a death sentence pronounced by some higher tribunal. The rulers themselves do not claim to be just or wise, but only to execute historical or natural laws; they do not apply [positive] laws, but execute a movement in accordance with its inherent law. Terror is lawfulness, if law is the law of the movement of some suprahuman force, Nature or History.”
The reference to nature and history as suprahuman forces pertains to what Arendt (p. 269) claims to have been the undergirding beliefs of National Socialism and Communism, respectively, in the laws of nature and of history as being independent, virtually primordial powers in themselves. Hence the justification of terror being inflicted on those who seem to stand in the way of the unfolding of these impersonal forces. When read carefully, the excerpt, above, paints a picture of totalitarian rule as something predicated on the neutralisation of people, as human beings, in society as potential agents or participants in its organisation or the direction in which it develops. The “rulers” are not rulers in the traditional sense; they are merely there to ensure that the suprahuman force in question is left unhindered to unfold as it “should.”
It takes no genius to perceive in Arendt’s perspicacious characterisation of totalitarian domination—which she relates to Nazism and Stalinism as its historical embodiments—a kind of template which applies to the emerging totalitarian character of what first manifested itself in 2020 as iatrocracy, under the subterfuge of a global health emergency—something well known to all of us today. Since then other features of this totalitarian movement have emerged, all of which cohere into what may be described, in ideological terms, as “transhumanism.”
This, too, fits into Arendt’s account of totalitarianism—not the transhumanist character, as such, of this latest incarnation of the attempt to harness humanity as a whole to a suprahuman power, but its ideological status. Just as the Nazi regime justified its operations by appealing to nature (in the guise of the vaunted superiority of the “Aryan race,” for example), so the group of technocratic globalists driving the (not so) “Great Reset” appeals to the idea of going “beyond humanity” to a supposed superior (non-natural) “species” instantiating a fusion between humans and machines—also anticipated, it seems, by the “singularity” artist called Stelarc. I emphasised “idea” because, as Arendt observes (p. 279–280),
“An ideology is quite literally what its name indicates: it is the logic of an idea. Its subject matter is history, to which the ‘idea’ is applied; the result of this application is not a body of statements about something that is, but the unfolding of a process which is in constant change. The ideology treats the course of events as though it followed the same ‘law’ as the logical exposition of its ‘idea.’”
Given the nature of an ideology, explicated above, it should be evident how this applies to the transhumanist ideology of the neo-fascist cabal: the idea underpinning the historical process has supposedly always been a kind of transhumanist teleology—allegedly the (previously hidden) telos or goal of all of history has constantly been the attainment of a state of surpassing mere Homo and Gyna sapiens sapiens (the doubly wise human man and woman) and actualising the “transhuman.” Is it at all surprising that they have claimed to have acquired god-like powers?
This further explains the unscrupulousness with which the transhumanist globalists can countenance the functioning and debilitating effects of “total terror” as identified by Arendt. “Total terror” here means the pervasive or totalising effects of, for example, installing encompassing systems of impersonal, largely AI-controlled surveillance, and communicating to people—at least initially—that it is for their own safety and security. The psychological consequences, however, amount to a subliminal awareness of the closure of “free space,” which is replaced by a sense of spatial confinement, and of there being “no way out.”
Against this backdrop, reflecting on the looming possibility that the WHO may succeed in getting compliant nations to accept the proposed amendments to their health regulations, yields greater insight into the concrete effects this would have. And these aren’t pretty, to say the least. In a nutshell, it means that this unelected organisation would have the authority to proclaim lockdowns and “medical (or health) emergencies,” as well as mandatory “vaccinations” at the whim of the WHO’s Director-General, reducing the freedom to traverse space freely to ironclad spatial confinement in one fell swoop. This is what “total terror” would mean. It is my fervent hope that something can still be done to avert this imminent nightmare.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/15/2024 – 23:40 - Population Projections: These Will Be The World's 6 Largest Countries In 2075
Population Projections: These Will Be The World’s 6 Largest Countries In 2075
The end of the 21st century will see the first plateauing (and eventually shrinking) of world population since the Industrial Revolution.
As birth rates fall across the globe, what does this mean for the world’s most populous countries?
To find out, Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu visualized forecasts for the world’s six largest countries using data from the latest revised version of the UN World Population Prospects 2022.
Projections are based on a “medium fertility scenario”, which assumes countries will converge at a birth rate of 1.85 children per woman, by 2045-2050.
China’s Projected Population Decline
China’s population boom has officially come to an end, with the country reporting two consecutive years of decreases (down 850,000 in 2022, and 2.1 million in 2023).
Note: Figures are rounded.
The country’s population in 2050 is forecasted to be 1.32 billion, which is roughly the same as it was in 2007. The UN believes this demographic downtrend will accelerate as we enter the second half of the century.
What does this mean for the Chinese economy? Many worry that a smaller workforce, coupled with an aging population, will increase healthcare expenditures and hamper economic growth.
India’s Population Boom Continues
Meanwhile, the UN believes that India’s population will peak somewhere in the mid 2060s, just shy of the 1.7 billion mark.
India’s population will not age as quickly as its neighbor. Those over the age of 65 will represent less than one-fifth of the population until 2060, and their share of India’s total number of people and will not approach 30% until 2100.
Note: Figures are rounded.
Finally, whether these predictions come true or not will depend on how quickly birth rates fall as the country develops. For example, India’s fertility rate fell from 6.2 in 1950, to 2.0 in 2021 (births per woman).
Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/15/2024 – 23:20 - Water In Texas: A Window Into Problems Across The US
Water In Texas: A Window Into Problems Across The US
Authored by Suzanne Gasparatto via The Epoch Times,
Humans cannot live without water, yet many of us take for granted that water is readily available. As more people move to cities, adding to already crowded populations, the availability of potable water isn’t a given any longer.
While this planet has plenty of water, its distribution does not always coincide with areas where lots of people choose to live.
For decades, Texans, like citizens of other states, have been struggling with regional water issues. Heavily populated but still growing Central Texas has long been known as an area of perpetual drought occasionally interrupted by flash floods. The booming metropolis of Austin, Texas, literally sits on top of water problems. Underneath Austin is the Edwards Aquifer, which experiences rapid changes in water levels due to high demand. Other Texas cities have similar problems.
Cities as small as San Angelo and as large as San Antonio have purchased water rights in rural areas, diverting the supply of water used by farmers and ranchers over long distances for urban use. Rural Texas, which already had serious water deficits, is in trouble. Farmers and ranchers must have reliable supplies of water to produce the food that we eat.
The Highland Lakes northwest of Austin were originally built to control downstream flooding and deliver water to farmers and ranchers. The population shift from rural to urban has placed huge demands on this water supply. Lack of rain plus additional urban population has caused water levels in lakes to be so low that boat docks are far from the shoreline.
The recent large influx of people to Texas has spurred groups of investors to buy rural land and develop it into subdivisions. These investors are often from other states and are unaware of our water woes. They don’t realize that most rural Texas properties, including my location north of fast-growing Austin, depend upon individual water wells drilled by each property owner. Municipal water systems are nonexistent. Drilling deeper wells is not an option. Good-quality water isn’t available below relatively shallow levels.
Existing wells are drying up as demand for more wells arises with the building of new subdivisions. Many people, including those in existing subdivisions, are having to purchase water in bulk and have it delivered to meet their basic needs.
County officials in Texas do not have sufficient authority to manage growth while protecting our water resources. This authority needs to come from the Texas Legislature soon. Requiring larger acreage to qualify to drill a well is critical. Today, permission to drill a well can be obtained if you own as little as two acres.
Adjacent to my ranch, developers are selling four-acre to six-acre tracts that will result in 205 additional water wells. Folks who spend $250,000 to $350,000 for these tracts will expect that there is plentiful water to fill their swimming pools and water their landscaped lawns. This isn’t accurate.
These new wells will decimate our agricultural wells that are already low from years of drought. My County Commissioners Court doesn’t have authority to control this growth in a reasonable and fair manner for all residents.
A short-term solution involves increasing the acreage required to drill a well from two acres to at least ten acres and requiring rainwater collection systems in conjunction with all new wells. When I bought this land, a professional engineer designed a rainwater collection system off the metal roof of my barns, from which I water all my livestock. That allowed me to reserve well water for personal use only, and I monitor usage daily.
Requiring new wells to have pumps that limit pumping gallonage is necessary.
The regional underground water conservation district recently added some new regulations, which, for new wells on small acreage, will limit pumping output.
This is only a start in trying to manage over-consumption of available groundwater.
A medium-term solution is to build desalination plants to clean up the brackish water that exists below current potable water well levels.
A longer-term solution is building desalination plants along the Gulf Coast and creating a network of water pipelines throughout Texas to transport desalinated water to areas needing it. Existing easements for oil and gas pipelines can be made accessible for these water pipelines.
U.S. taxpayers contributed vastly to the development of desalination plants around the world. It is time to take care of our own citizens’ water needs.
In many populated areas, we have a shortage of adequate distribution of water. Vast parts of the western United States, on the other hand, have little water at all, and what they have is often being bought by cities and piped away from the source. Solutions are available. We only have to have the will to implement them.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/15/2024 – 23:00 - Yuan Weakens After 'Unbalanced' Chinese Economy Sees GDP Beat In Q1 But Domestic Consumption, Production Disappoint
Yuan Weakens After ‘Unbalanced’ Chinese Economy Sees GDP Beat In Q1 But Domestic Consumption, Production Disappoint
China’s economic growth beat expectations in Q1, rising +5.3% YoY – considerably stronger than the +4.8% consensus, and inching ahead of Q4’s +5.2% YoY growth.
Source: Bloomberg
Notably, that this is the first time the market compares two periods of economic growth without China’z Zero-COVID policy’s impact, and overall, as we detail below, economic activity data in March overall missed expectations.
-
Industrial production rose 4.5% in March from a year earlier (below economists’ forecast of 6%).
-
Industrial output rose 6.1% for the first quarter (below the 7.0% in February).
-
Retail sales climbed 3.1%, also disappointing (versus an expected 4.8% gain) – domestic consumption is still weak amid deflation pressure and after imports shrank during the month.
-
Investment flows were mixed with Property investment continuing to slide (down 9.5%, worst since December, and considerably worse than the 9.2% expected)…
-
…but broad-based fixed-asset investment expanded 4.5% in the first three months (better than the 4% increase projected by economists).
-
Finally, the surveyed jobless rate in March declined to 5.2% from 5.3% in February.
Source: Bloomberg
Simply put, China’s economic recovery has been unbalanced.
As Bloomberg reports, manufacturing is holding up, thanks to resilient overseas demand and Beijing’s efforts to cushion the blow from US trade restrictions by developing advanced technologies at home.
But Chinese consumers have been slow to recover their appetite for spending, amid a prolonged real estate downturn that’s weighing on household and business confidence.
Factory prices have been in deflation for more than a year, reflecting anemic domestic demand.
The central bank on Monday kept the rate of its one-year medium-term lending facility unchanged, and drained cash on net from the banking system via the tool for a second straight month. The PBOC cut its reserve requirement ratio for banks by 50 basis points in February – a move that allows extra lending – and said there’s room for more cuts.
But China has reasons to be cautious in any monetary easing, since widening the yield gap with the US risks adding to downward pressure on the yuan, which is weakening after the data…
Source: Bloomberg
Notably, China unexpectedly weakened its yuan defense as pressure from a resurgent dollar and poor sentiment pressured it toward a policy red line. Specifically, the PBOC set a weaker daily reference rate for the managed currency, implying some flexibility for it to depreciate alongside regional peers amid broad strength in the dollar.
“The PBOC is bowing to reality, with dollar broadly higher and onshore dollar demand surging,” said Richard Franulovich, head of foreign-exchange strategy at Westpac Banking Corp.
“They obviously want to control and contain the move though, so they are guiding yuan lower in a moderate and steady fashion.”
Source: Bloomberg
Finally, investors are closely watching one major government effort to boost domestic demand this year: a trade-in program that will encourage businesses to upgrade their machinery and households to buy new cars, refrigerators or washing machines. Shares of Chinese home-appliance makers jumped last week after officials vowed “strong” fiscal support for the plan.
The degree of government support for households and businesses to spend at home will likely depend on how Chinese firms fare on international markets, Goldman Sachs economists led by Hui Shan wrote in a note last week.
“If external demand is strong, then less domestic stimulus is needed,” they wrote.
“If the property market continues to deteriorate, then more easing measures will be introduced.”
The Goldman team raised their growth forecast, predicting the 5% target will be met, and said the government doesn’t seem keen to significantly exceed it.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/15/2024 – 22:40 -
- A Heretic's View: Blaming Food For Obesity Is Like Blaming Water For Drowning
A Heretic’s View: Blaming Food For Obesity Is Like Blaming Water For Drowning
Authored by Edward Archer via RealClearScience,
There is a politically expedient but problematic fiction that ‘consensus’ matters in science. Since a million matching opinions do not constitute a fact, a consensus — either real or apparent — is not a statement about evidence but an exercise in groupthink in which the status quo is made explicit.
Thus, scientific progress requires conservative and heretical thinkers — conservatives protect the authority and continuity of science, whereas heretics put forth creative dissent in an attempt to push the limits of what we know. Nevertheless, few people are willing and able to challenge the status quo — and those who have were often reviled, incarcerated, or executed (e.g., Galileo, Semmelweis, and Vavilov).
Consequently, when facts conflict with theory, academic researchers often ignore the facts rather than confront the consensus. As a result, the ‘marketplace of ideas’ — and research funding — are predestined to conformity, sycophancy, and stasis. In other words, the more pervasive the consensus, the more servile the research, the less probable the progress.
Although this unfortunate reality is evident across many fields, it has been extremely detrimental to nutrition science. For more than 50 years, ‘Diet-centrism’ — the theory that foods and beverages cause ill-health, obesity, and cardiometabolic diseases — has been accepted by physicians, researchers, and the public almost without question. Yet despite the unity and ubiquity of the consensus, there are centuries of evidence refuting diet-centric beliefs. Thus, because a million matching but ill-informed opinions do not constitute a fact, the consensus linking calories, ‘carbs’, meat, milk, sugar, salt, fat, cholesterol, and ‘ultra-processing’ to death and disease is not a statement about scientific evidence but the obsequious — and sterile — status-quo made explicit.
Accordingly, herein I present the heretical idea that the naïve determinism of ‘Diet-centrism’ — ‘you are what you eat’ and ‘what you eat is killing you’ — is not only simplistic and unscientific but specious because it ignores the fact that individual differences in metabolism (how the body ‘handles’ foods and beverages) is what matters most in diet-related health and disease.
Historical Evidence: It’s not the Food
Before the 20th century, obesity and cardiometabolic diseases such as type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) were uncommon. Yet over the past 50 years, the prevalence of these maladies in horses, humans, dogs, cats, lab, and zoo animals increased to epidemic proportions. Given that these herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores have always consumed different diets, the claim that foods and beverages have suddenly caused parallel epidemics in different species is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Yet there is no valid evidence supporting this belief.
To begin, humans have consumed highly palatable, ‘ultra-processed’ foods and beverages for thousands of years. Refined sugar, salt, butter, and cheeses date from 4000-8000 BC, and pasta, pizza, and pretzels were consumed in the 1st century AD. Although the consumption of ‘french-fries’ (‘chips’ in the UK) only began in the 17th century, potatoes fried in salt and animal fat quickly became the main source of nutrition in Ireland. By the 19th century, the Irish consumed ~4-5 lbs. of potatoes per person per day, with men consuming ~8-12 lbs./day. This is the equivalent of ~40 supersized servings of ‘french-fries’ every day for a lifetime. Yet despite consuming massive amounts of ‘carbs’, saturated fats, and salt, the Irish had little obesity or cardiometabolic diseases.
Similarly, the Amish — an ethno-religious group in the US — consume a high-calorie, highly-palatable diet that includes meat, potatoes, gravy, eggs, breads, pies, and cakes, and “is quite high in fat and refined sugar”. Yet the Amish have a greater life expectancy and substantially lower obesity, T2DM, heart disease, and cancer than other Americans.
Importantly, all humans start life consuming ~40% of their daily calories as dietary sugars and 25% as saturated fat — either in breast milk or infant formula (an ‘ultra-processed’, sugar-sweetened beverage with ‘added’ sugars, salts, and fats). Thus, recommendations to restrict ‘added’ sugars and ‘processed’ foods would prevent the feeding of most infants in industrialized nations. And contrary to current rhetoric, nations with the highest rates of sugar-sweetened beverage (formula) consumption by infants have the lowest rates of obesity and cardiometabolic diseases (Japan and Norway). Moreover, sugars added to foods and beverages enter the same metabolic pathways as intrinsic sugars. Thus, the glucose molecules in breast milk and the fructose molecules in fruit are exactly the same glucose and fructose molecules as in soda, sports drinks, and your favorite candy. This basic fact of biochemistry shows that the term ‘added sugar’ has no place in scientific discourse.
Furthermore, the medicinal use of sucrose (table sugar) for malnutrition and diarrheal diseases saves the lives of over 600,000 children each year. Thus, so-called ‘added’ sugars save more lives than any pharmaceutical agent. So if ‘food is medicine’, then table sugar is the greatest medicine of all. [Note: the phrase “let thy food be thy medicine” was fabricated by a journalist and attributed to Hippocrates to sell a diet book in the 1920s.]
Additionally, the most comprehensive report on dietary sugars — published before the current anti-sugar hysteria — concluded that “feeding normal human volunteers at levels of fructose approximating the 90th percentile intake levels of the U.S. population failed to demonstrate adverse effects on insulin sensitivity or glucose tolerance [cardiometabolic health].” And contrary to current rhetoric, over the last two decades the use of sugars & sweeteners in the US declined ~16% as obesity and T2DM increased almost 40% and severe obesity increased 96%. Thus, less sugar is linked to more obesity and diabetes — and this so-called ‘sugar paradox’ is ubiquitous (see Australia and the UK).
In sum, by ignoring contrary evidence, academic researchers and their ‘diet-centric’ consensus created a “fictional discourse on diet-disease relations”.
The Logic of Causality
The search for universal criteria by which to infer causality has eluded philosophers of science for centuries. Yet, at its simplest, the search for causes is the search for ‘differences that make a difference’ — mere associations are meaningless. For example, water (and other liquids) are associated with 100% of drowning deaths. Therefore, in the absence of water no one drowns. Yet despite the perfect correlation and counterfactual evidence, no educated person argues that water causes drowning because not everyone who drinks, bathes, or swims, drowns. In other words, water is not causal because it is not the ‘difference that makes a difference’.
To be precise, water is a sine qua non for drowning (an indispensable part or essential element) — not a cause. Thus, given the same environment (the presence of water), individual differences such as the inability to swim, intoxication, or insentience cause a person to drown.
The Illogicity of Blaming Food
Foods and beverages are a sine qua non for life — everyone must eat and drink. Yet just as water does not cause drowning because not everyone who drinks, bathes, or swims, drowns — diet does not cause poor metabolic health because not everyone who eats and drinks becomes obese or diabetic. Yet in contrast to the perfect correlation between water and drowning, there is no clear correlation between diet and obesity.
For example, muscular, male athletes consume more calories, ‘carbs’, sugars, salt, fat, cholesterol, and ‘ultra-processed’ foods than obese, sedentary women, yet have lower levels of adiposity and T2DM. Thus, more foods, beverages, and physical activity are linked with better health and less disease. Clearly, athletes’ bodies ‘handle’ their diets differently than those of sedentary people. Therefore, metabolism — not diet — is the ‘difference that makes a difference’ in health.
Similarly, in a 2013 study, my colleagues and I found that the people performing the least amount of physical activity gained the most fat mass — despite consuming less calories, less fat, and less sugar than those who ate more, performed more activity, and maintained their weight. Conversely, reducing physical activity causes an immediate decline in insulin sensitivity and metabolic health. Therefore, physical activity-induced differences in metabolism — not diet — cause differences in caloric intake, fat mass, and health.
Moreover, metabolism is the ‘difference that makes a difference’ in the ‘Oral Glucose Tolerance Test’ (OGTT) — a widely used test for diabetes and insulin resistance. In the OGTT, blood sugar is measured after patients consume a standard dose of dietary sugar. Over time, patients with weaker metabolisms have higher blood sugar than those with stronger metabolisms. Thus, given identical amounts of dietary sugar, differences in metabolism cause differences in blood sugar. It is nonsensical to argue that the dietary sugar caused the differences in blood sugar when each patient consumed the same amount.
What confuses most people — and [too] many researchers — is that different foods and beverages cause different metabolic responses. For example, consuming sugar or starch causes greater increases in blood sugar than consuming fat or protein. However, as the OGTT shows, it is not the increase in blood sugar after a meal that matters to cardiometabolic health but the decrease over time.
Stated simply, consuming dietary sugar increases everyone’s blood sugar — but not everyone’s blood sugar returns to ‘normal’ after a meal (e.g., diabetics). Thus, the diet-induced increase in blood sugar is irrelevant to cardiometabolic health because it is not the ‘difference that makes a difference’. What matters are the metabolic differences that cause blood sugar to decrease — or not — after a meal.
Yet most importantly, as a recent “intensive food-as-medicine program” showed, altering your diet has little effect on cardiometabolic health over time, whereas adequate physical activity “obliterates the deleterious effects of a high-caloric intake”. This explains why muscular athletes can consume massive amounts of calories, ‘carbs’, and ‘ultra-processed’ foods yet remain lean and healthy.
In sum, differences in metabolism — not diet — cause differences in cardiometabolic health.
‘Differences that Make a Difference’ in Obesity and Metabolic Strength
If people perform hard physical labor, they will consume more food, water, and oxygen than if they sat quietly in an office. Therefore, increased physical activity causes increases in metabolism that — in turn — cause increases in consumption (eating, drinking, and breathing). Therefore, if you ‘burn’ more calories through physical activity, you increase your metabolic strength, consume more calories, and maintain your weight. This fact explains why exercise rarely leads to weight-loss but is essential in health and preventing weight gain.
Conversely, when people reduce their physical activity ‘too much’ (below their ‘metabolic tipping point’), they weaken their metabolism. This causes them to consume more calories than they burn. In time, this leads to ‘acquired’ obesity and cardiometabolic diseases — independent of diet. In other words, a minimum amount of physical activity is needed for health, and individuals with extremely low levels will, over time, become obese, diabetic, or both — regardless of the foods and beverages they consume.
Importantly, if a woman’s physical activity is too low, her metabolism will be too weak to ‘handle’ pregnancy and she will consume too many calories. As a result, her children will be born fatter and with weaker metabolisms. In other words, they ‘inherit’ a life-long predisposition to obesity and cardiometabolic diseases. [Note: the non-genetic process of inheritance by which a mother’s prenatal metabolism irreversibly alters her descendants’ metabolism is known as a ‘maternal-effect’].
Consequently, the fact that women ’move less’ than they did five decades ago explains the recent rise in ‘inherited’ (childhood) obesity and adolescent T2DM. For example, from 1965 to 2010, the time women spent doing housework decreased by ~2 hours per day while sedentary time increased by 1 hour/day. This reduced the number of calories burned by ~250/day and doubled the amount of time spent sitting. By 2020, women spent more time sitting in front of the TV and using social media than cooking, cleaning, childcare, exercise, and laundry combined. As a result, their metabolisms became weaker — and because metabolic strength is essential for a healthy pregnancy, the decline produced successive generations of obese children with weak metabolisms.
Moreover, because all mammals share the metabolic pathways of pregnancy, my work suggests that ‘maternal-effects’ caused the parallel epidemics of obesity and cardiometabolic diseases in horses, humans, dogs, cats, lab, and zoo animals.
Conclusion
Consensus in academic research is rarely a statement about evidence. More often, it is an exercise in groupthink in which the status quo — right or wrong — is made explicit. Thus, progress needs heretics who are willing and able to challenge the consensus. Accordingly, I presented the heretical idea that humans have always consumed highly palatable, processed foods and beverages without increases in obesity or cardiometabolic diseases. Moreover, ‘acquired’ and ‘inherited’ differences in metabolism — not diet — cause obesity and poor metabolic health. Thus, the ‘diet-centric’ consensus linking calories, ‘carbs’, meat, milk, sugar, salt, fat, cholesterol, and ‘ultra-processing’ to death and disease is not only simplistic, but sterile and unscientific.
Nevertheless, given that science progresses ‘funeral by funeral’ and that food-based fears generate profitable marketing campaigns (e.g., low-fat and no ‘added’ sugars) and billions of dollars to fund academic research, ‘Diet-centrism’ will be the dominant paradigm in nutrition ‘science’ for the foreseeable future. Bon appétit.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/15/2024 – 22:20 - Conservatives Seek To Ban Private Funding Of Elections Ahead Of 2024 Races
Conservatives Seek To Ban Private Funding Of Elections Ahead Of 2024 Races
Authored by Steven Kovac via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
During the pandemic-plagued 2020 election season, hundreds of millions of dollars from private sources were granted to big cities, an action that many Republicans believe unfairly tipped the scales in favor of Democrats.
(Illustration by The Epoch Times, Shutterstock) Distributed for the stated purpose of protecting public health and assisting people to vote safely, the private funds helped popularize mail-in voting, ballot drop boxes, and ballot harvesting at a scale never seen before.
In the years since 2020, either by legislation or referendum, Republicans have outlawed such private funding in 28 states.
Twenty-two states still allow the practice, raising concerns among Republicans about the integrity of future elections.
“The people of the remaining states should be angry at their legislatures for not banning private money to fund their elections. No government officials should be accepting private payments to do their jobs,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation and former member of the Federal Election Commission, told The Epoch Times.
“When you allow private entities to give large donations for local election administration, the money can be used to manipulate the practices of local election officials for political advantage.”
Mr. von Spakovsky said many nonprofits are, in reality, political advocacy groups that have no limit on what they can donate and little reporting accountability.
“They receive unlimited sums of charitable, tax-deductible contributions and then grant them to localities. which has turned out to be a way to move the get-out-the-vote campaign of political parties or candidates into government offices. It’s wrong to use government officials to do that,” he said.
Former Michigan state senator and election integrity activist Patrick Colbeck, a Republican, told The Epoch Times that he believes a larger scheme to privatize the execution of America’s election system is well underway and pointed out another of its perils.
“Nongovernmental organizations are not subject to Freedom of Information requests. They are thus able to operate behind an effective veil of secrecy on what should be the most transparent process in government of them all—our elections,” he said.
Parker Thayer, an investigative researcher with think tank Capital Research Center, said allowing half the country to use private funding in elections is “a national security risk.”
“A 501(c)(3) organization can accept money from anywhere, including foreign sources like Russian oligarchs. Imagine such money being funneled to targeted jurisdictions in Alaska that are about to decide an oil-related referendum,” he told The Epoch Times.
“Since 2020, the hide-the-ball approach of a few big nonprofits regarding where their money comes from has inspired many copycats. It’s only a matter of time before the next copycat does not have America’s best interest at heart. That’s something that all Americans should be worried about.”
A voter casts his ballot at a drop box outside Philadelphia City Hall on Oct. 24, 2022. (Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images) Mr. Thayer said the injection of nonprofits into the 2020 system exposed a flaw in the system, reduced trust, and made the running of elections much more partisan.
In Wisconsin, 90 percent of 2020 nonprofit grant funding was given to the state’s largest cities; areas that turned out heavily for Joe Biden. Per capita, $3.75 went to big city dwellers and 55 cents to out-state residents, according to Capital Research.
After 2020, Wisconsin legislators twice passed bills to prohibit private money in elections. Twice, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, vetoed the bills.
On April 2, primary election voters in the state approved two veto-proof constitutional amendments that stops private money in elections and prohibits privately funded staff from helping run state elections. The amendments passed with 54 percent and 58 percent approval, respectively.
“Wisconsin has spoken, and the message is clear … Wisconsinites have turned the page on Zuckerbucks and secured our elections from dark money donors,” state GOP chairman Brian Schimming said in a statement following the referendum.
Opponents of the amendments stated that the vaguely-worded ban on private funding of elections would create confusion, deprive clerks of badly needed dollars required to conduct elections, and will result in a scaling back of voter outreach programs designed to boost participation.
Before the passage of the Help America Vote Act in 2002, local officials never received federal funding to pay for federal elections.
“They got along just fine for all those years. What has happened in our states and localities?” Mr. von Spakovsky said.
“Local election officials should talk to their legislators rather than going to private donors for money to run their elections.”
Highlighting the partisan divide on the issue, Wisconsin Democratic Party chairman Ben Wikler said in a statement before the referendum, “Rather than work to make sure our clerks have the resources they need to run elections, Republicans are pushing a nonsense amendment to satisfy Donald Trump.”
The former president made a campaign stop in Green Bay on the day of the primary. He was a strong proponent of the two amendments and urged his supporters to get out and vote.
Public ire against the use of private funding in Wisconsin was first stirred in the summer of 2021 when former Brown County Clerk Sandy Juno, a Republican, came forward with allegations that out-of-state political operatives funded by donations from the nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) took control of much of the administration of the November 2020 presidential election in Green Bay and other large cities in Wisconsin.
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, testifies at a hearing at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 31, 2024. (Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images) CTCL and another nonprofit organization called the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) were gifted a total of $420 million by billionaires Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan.
The money, which has since been labeled “Zuckerbucks” by critics, was ostensibly granted to local election offices throughout the United States to purchase personal protection equipment and pay for other means to help local jurisdictions conduct safe and healthy elections during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In a post-election accounting, Green Bay reported spending only 0.8 percent of its $1 million “Zuckerbucks” grant on personal protection equipment.
More Abuses Come to Light
Ms. Juno’s allegations were corroborated by special counsel Michael Gableman, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, who was commissioned by the state legislature in 2021 to investigate possible violations of the law and other irregularities in the conduct of the November 2020 election.
Read more here…
Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/15/2024 – 21:40 - How Widespread Is Underage Drinking?
How Widespread Is Underage Drinking?
Alcohol abuse is a behavioral risk factor connected to 2.4 million deaths in 2019, according to the latest Global Burden of Disease study from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation of the University of Washington.
While consuming large quantities of alcohol over a long period might not necessarily lead to a shortened lifespan, it hampers cognitive and motor function in its consumers.
Additionally, as Statista’s Florian Zandt reports, multiple studies suggest that it also prevents proper brain development when abused by adolescents and young adults since the brain is among the last organs of the body to mature. Nevertheless, alcohol use and even heavy and binge drinking are especially common among U.S. residents aged 21 to 25, as the most recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health shows.
Statista’s chart below, based on the results of this study, shows that the share of respondents using alcohol or participating in binge and heavy drinking in the last month from when they were surveyed is significantly higher for adults between 21 and 25 than for those aged 26 or older.
61 percent of young adults consumed alcohol, while almost ten percent drank four to five drinks in a short timespan every day for at least five days in a row. The sudden spike between the age cohorts of 18 to 20 and 21 to 25 can be explained by the United States’ legal drinking age being set at 21.
What’s harder to explain is that three percent of the respondents aged 12 to 17 participate in binge alcohol use.
You will find more infographics at Statista
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism suggests that parents and teachers can play a decisive role in preventing children from abusing alcohol.
The results of a comprehensive study published in the journal Alcohol, Clinical and Experimental Research analyzing if parents allowing their 14-year-old children to drink leads to unhealthy drinking behaviors are clear:
“Adolescents who were allowed to drink were more likely to have transitioned quickly from their first drink to consuming 5 or more drinks at one time and to drinking heavily 3 or more times in the past year”, say the study’s authors in their conclusion.
“Given well-documented harms of adolescent heavy drinking, these results do not support the idea that parents allowing children to drink alcohol inoculates them against alcohol misuse.”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/15/2024 – 21:20 - Financial Forecast 2025-2032: Please Don't Be Naive
Financial Forecast 2025-2032: Please Don’t Be Naive
Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,
Rather than attempt to evade Caesar’s reach, a better strategy might be to ‘go gray’: blend in, appear average.
Let’s start by stipulating that I don’t “like” this forecast. I’m not “talking my book” (for example, promoting nuclear power because I own shares in a uranium mine) or issuing this forecast because I favor it. I simply see it as the most likely trajectory of the global financial system, based on history and the dynamics of human systems. “Liking” it or not liking it has nothing to do with it: the opinions of Titanic passengers who didn’t “like” that the ship was sinking didn’t affect the outcome.
You already know the global financial system is untenable. In a nutshell, the expansion of production and consumption has been funded by the expansion of credit–money borrowed from future resources and income. The rate of expanding debt far surpasses the anemic rates of expanding production, and this rapidly expanding mountain of debt is perched precariously on the phantom collateral generated by The Everything Bubble, the astounding expansion of asset prices as those with the lowest cost access to credit have bid up every asset class, from real estate to gold to bitcoin to stocks to fine art.
All these assets are phantom collateral because they were bid up on the wings of cheap, abundant credit. History is rather decisive: all credit-asset bubbles pop, and the price of the assets round-trips back to pre-bubble valuations. As the bubble pops, credit shifts from being abundant and near-zero in cost to being scarce and dear.
The commercial real estate sector (CRE) is a real-time example of this dynamic. Half-empty buildings are being dumped at a fraction of their peak valuations, and then sold again for even less or abandoned to default and liquidation. This is how all bubbles pop; there is no other template supported by history. Humans cling to magical thinking and grasp at straws rather than face the unwelcome reality that the cycle has turned and there is no happy ending for those who believe the “real value” of an asset is the peak price at the top of the bubble.
Now that we understand the impossibility of keeping The Everything Bubble forever inflated, let’s shift our attention to those tasked with keeping the system from collapsing. In my view, the closest analogy is police officers tasked with protecting the often ungrateful and undeserving while being plagued by do-gooders and naysayers who are safely isolated from the wretchedness they demand the cops deal with in a manner that meets with their refined approval.
In other words, us and them: only those who share the responsibility for protecting the often ungrateful and undeserving while being plagued by do-gooders and naysayers can understand. Outsiders know little of the realities and are often naive, basing their convictions on what they think “should happen” rather than the limitations of real life.
This will be the mindset of the authorities tasked with “saving” the system we all depend on–especially the wealthiest who have benefited the most. These is of course the class that feels most entitled to advocate for special treatment: we’re rich and important, so you should listen to us and do what works for us.
In other words, like the do-gooders, naysayers and whiners telling the cops how to do their jobs. Those tasked with saving a system sliding toward an inevitable crisis will have little patience for obstructionists, however well-meaning. The attitude of those carrying the responsibility for saving the system will be: do your part, get out of the way, stop whining and be grateful we’re saving the system for your benefit.
Let’s now shift to a very common belief of “investors”: foreseeing this crisis, we’ve piled up “hard money” assets that are safely hidden from the grubby, illegitimate grasp of authorities. When the crisis sweeps away the bubble, we’ll still be rich, and we’ll then scoop up all the bargain-priced assets, making ourselves even richer.
It gives me no pleasure to say the obvious: please don’t be naive. Those who will be trying to save the system from collapse understand that every asset is only richly valued now because of the credit bubble. From their point of view, “investors” who are planning to preserve the bubble-valuation of their assets and then emerge to snap up everything for pennies on the dollar are, well, the enemy.
Another widespread belief holds that the hyper-wealthy always sneak through the wormhole and emerge with all their goodies intact. This fosters the idea that if they can do it, so can I. History offers examples on both sides: the great estates of the wealthiest Romans did not survive intact when the empire crumbled (or put another way, when control of the shards shifted to a new elite).
As the bottom 99.5% feel the squeeze, their rage at those at the top not paying their fair share will rise exponentially, and the political pressure on authorities to go after the hyper-wealthy will become too intense to ignore. Many of those trying to save the system will have already had enough of coddled billionaires, bankers and financier grifters.
Another conviction that will be revealed as naive is the faith that the rules will stay unchanged, allowing us to hoard our stash and emerge unscathed to scoop up the bargains offered by the less prescient. History is again rather definitive: the rules will change overnight, and continue changing, as needed. One “emergency measure” after another will be imposed and become normalized.
It’s important to put ourselves in the shoes of those struggling with the impossible responsibility of keeping the system from collapsing. From their point of view, everyone trying to evade the wealth taxes, windfall taxes, special assessments, etc. are ungrateful whiners, as what will anyone have if the system collapses? We’re doing you all a favor, taking only 10% in a wealth tax to preserve the 90% that remains yours.
Another point of naivete is what happens to obstructionists in a full-spectrum surveillance Corporate-state. China has shown other nation-states how to do it properly: every digital communication and transaction is monitored, and while VPNs and other gimmicks offer a few wormholes, the fundamental reality is: it takes an awful lot of effort to not leave a trail of crumbs, and at some point, is it worth all the effort? It’s much easier to just pay the wealth tax, the windfall tax, grumble about it, and move on to enjoy life as best we can.
In China, the local authorities politely invite transgressors to tea, and offer a suggestion to mend your ways and keep your nose clean. Those who insist on mucking up the works after the kindly advice will be neutered one way or another.
The naivete also extends to ways to evade surveillance. We’re all going to get by on barter. Really? Have you actually tried to exchange stuff with anonymous others? Like many encounters in online boards, people don’t show up, they flake out or decide not to make the deal. It’s tediously time-consuming and frustrating unless you already have a network of trusted contacts who do this kind of thing all the time.
In my experience, reciprocity with other trustworthy productive people works better than barter. Instead of haggling over price/value, just give stuff away. In a trusted network, whomever gets the free stuff will scrounge up something to give you for free in return. These networks tend to have a “node,” an outgoing, friendly, trustworthy person who can find a welcoming home for whatever is being freely distributed, and pass around what’s being given to those who gave freely of their surplus.
Another point of naivete is the belief that as an asset soars in value, the authorities will magically restrain themselves from noticing this juicy target. If we factor in history and human nature, we will conclude the opposite is more likely: the authorities will redouble their efforts to track and collect that which is Caesar’s from those trying to evade the collection of everyone’s “fair share.”
Given the resources of the NSA et al., how plausible is it to think little old me is going to leave no digital crumbs as I go on my merry way? Thanks to automation of data scraping, it’s going to get easier and cheaper to scrape data looking for miscreants trying to avoid paying “their fair share.”
The whole idea of a wealth tax is it’s a tax on all wealth, held anywhere in the world. So burying assets offshore only works as long as the authorities turn a blind eye to tax havens. As pressures mount, trusting the eyes to remain blind might not be as “sure-thing” as many seem to believe.
As specific assets soar in value, a “windfall tax” will become politically appealing. Since all this soaring wealth is unearned, shouldn’t the fortunate owners pay a bit more due to the windfall nature of their unearned wealth? Of course they should.
The key point to understand is the system will have to grab enough collateral to fund itself while collateral evaporates in the deflation of the Everything Bubble. This will truly be a case of TINA–there is no alternative. Desperation will drive policy extremes few think of as possible, much less inevitable.
Something else that may be revealed as naive is the faith that moving to another nation-state will offer secure respite from those demanding we render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. This faith overlooks the global reach of these dynamics: rampant inflation, the debasement of currency, the increasingly desperate need for collateral and revenue to keep the system from imploding, the rising cost of risk and credit, the scarcity of collateral, and so on. How will the nation-state we’re moving to respond to these financial crises? What are the odds that they will magically escape the crisis, or come up with a painless solution that doesn’t demand any sacrifices of residents? How secure will the rule of law and the wealth of foreigners be once push comes to shove?
In summary: to understand the next 8 to 10 years, start by having some sympathy for the fox and not just for the hare. Here we are, trying to save the system that everyone depends on, taking a modest 10% wealth tax, and the ungrateful wretches are whining and trying to evade paying their fair share.
Rather than attempt to evade Caesar’s reach, a better strategy might be to go gray: blend in, look average: post photos of kittens and puppies, complain about the cost of groceries, drive a look-alike vehicle, live in an unremarkable house, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, forget about emerging as one of the rich who evaded Caesar and get on with enjoying one’s private life focused on well-being, and as difficult as it may be, work up a little gratitude for those carrying the responsibility for keeping the system from collapsing. A system that degrades but coheres is a far better place to live than a system that completely collapses.
It gives me no joy to suggest please don’t be naive, but a realistic appraisal of what happens when things unravel suggests there are few limits on “emergency measures” anywhere on the planet and it’s best to plan accordingly and focus on what we can control rather than what we can’t control.
* * *
Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/15/2024 – 21:00 - Crime-Ridden San Francisco Wants To Punish Grocery Stores For Fleeing Said Crime
Crime-Ridden San Francisco Wants To Punish Grocery Stores For Fleeing Said Crime
Unpunished crime is so out of control in San Francisco that the city now wants to punish grocery stores who want to leave.
Under the ‘Grocery Protection Act’ introduced by city Board of Supervisors member Dean Preston (Democratic Socialist), stores that want to flee all the crime and other increased liabilities will have to provide the city with six months advanced notice, and make efforts to find a replacement supermarket for the location being vacated, Benzinga reports.
The move comes after While Foods shut down its flagship store in San Francisco after being open for just over a year, citing employee safety concerns.
The reports show how workers at the store were routinely threatened with weapons, while vagrants would throw food at staff, engage in fights, and even defecate on the floor.
One incident saw a homeless man with a knife spray an employee with a fire extinguisher.
…
There were also cases of drug overdoses with one man dying in the bathroom after overdosing on fentanyl and methamphetamine. Thefts were also common with large quantities of alcohol stolen from the store. –Daily Mail
Nearly 570 emergency calls were logged from the location, including one call with desperate pleas to the police saying “male [with] machete is back,” and “another security guard was just assaulted.”
Former SF Board of Supervisors member Matt Dorsey (who wasn’t assaulted at Whole Foods) said he was “incredibly disappointed” at the closing.
“Our neighborhood waited a long time for this supermarket, but we’re also well aware of problems they’ve experienced with drug-related retail theft, adjacent drug markets and the many safety issues related to them,” Dorsey said.
According to Preston, “Our communities need notice, an opportunity to be heard and a transition plan when major neighborhood grocery stores plan to shut their doors.”
Dean Preston Preston’s proposal would allow anyone impacted by a noncompliant store closure to initiate legal proceedings.
As Benzinga further notes, “It’s not just grocery stores that have had enough of the city. Other large businesses that recently closed their downtown San Francisco locations include Adidas, AT&T Inc., Nordstrom and Lego Group.”
Maybe start punishing crime?
Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/15/2024 – 20:40 - 20 Years Later, Abu Ghraib Torture Victims Get Their Day In Court
20 Years Later, Abu Ghraib Torture Victims Get Their Day In Court
Authored by Brett Wilkins via Common Dreams,
Two decades after they were tortured by U.S. military contractors at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, three Iraqi victims are finally getting their day in court Monday as a federal court in Virginia takes up a case they brought during the George W. Bush administration.
The case being heard in the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Al Shimari v. CACI, was first filed in 2008 under the Alien Tort Statute—which allows non-U.S. citizens to sue for human rights abuses committed abroad—by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on behalf of three Iraqis. The men suffered torture directed and perpetrated by employees of CACI, a Virginia-based professional services and information technology firm hired in 2003 by the Bush administration as translators and interrogators in Iraq during the illegal U.S.-led invasion and occupation.
Via AP: June 22, 2004 photo of a detainee in an outdoor solitary confinement cell talking with a military police officer at the Abu Ghraib prison on the outskirts of Baghdad. Plaintiffs Suhail Al Shimari, Asa’ad Zuba’e, and Salah Al-Ejaili accuse CACI of conspiring to commit war crimes including torture at Abu Ghraib, where the men suffered broken bones, electric shocks, sexual abuse, extreme temperatures, and death threats at the hands of their U.S. interrogators.
“This lawsuit is a critical step towards justice for these three men who will finally have their day in court. But they are the lucky few,” Sarah Sanbar, an Iraq researcher at Human Rights Watch, wrote on Monday. “For the hundreds of other survivors still suffering from past abuses, their chances of justice remain slim.”
“The U.S. government should do the right thing: Take responsibility for their abuses, offer an apology, and open an avenue to redress that has been denied them for too many years,” Sanbar added.
U.S. military investigators found that employees of CACI and Titan Corporation (now L3 Technologies) tortured Iraqi prisoners and encouraged U.S. troops to do likewise. Dozens of Abu Ghraib detainees died in U.S. custody, some of them as a result of being tortured to death. Abu Ghraib prisoners endured torture ranging from rape and being attacked with dogs to being forced to eat pork and renounce Islam.
A May 2004 report by Maj. Gen. Anthony Taguba concluded that the majority of Abu Ghraib prisoners—the Red Cross said 70-90%— were innocent. In addition to thousands of men and boys, some women and girls were also jailed there as bargaining chips meant to induce wanted insurgents to surrender. Some of them said they were raped or sexually abused by their American captors; lesser-known Abu Ghraib photos show women being forced to expose their private parts. Some female detainees were reportedly murdered by their own relatives in so-called “honor killings” after their release.
Eleven low-ranking U.S. soldiers were convicted and jailed for their roles in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the prison’s commanding officer, was demoted. No other high-ranking military officer faced accountability for the abuse. Senior Bush administration officials—who had authorized many of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” used at prisons including Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay—lied about their knowledge of the torture. None of them were ever held accountable.
Bush’s successor, former President Barack Obama, promised to investigate—and if warranted, to prosecute—the Bush-era officials responsible for the torture that had become synonymous with the War on Terror. Instead, the Obama administration protected them from prosecution.
In 2013, L3 Technologies agreed to pay $5.28 million to 71 former Abu Ghraib detainees who were subjected to sexual assault and humiliation, rape threats, electrical shocks, mock executions, brutal beatings, and other abuse.
The following year, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling prohibiting Abu Ghraib torture victims from suing U.S. companies implicated in their abuse. But the court later reversed itself, finding the case had sufficient ties to the United States to be heard in an American court. The suit was later dismissed under the political question doctrine, which prevents courts from ruling on issues determined to be essentially political.
Getty Images However, in 2016, a 4th Circuit panel ruled that “the political question doctrine does not shield from judicial review intentional acts by a government contractor that were unlawful at the time they were committed,” allowing the Iraqis’ case to proceed.
“This is a historic trial that we hope will deliver some measure of justice and healing for what President Bush rightly deemed disgraceful conduct that dishonored the United States and its values,” CCR senior attorney Katherine Gallagher toldThe Guardian on Monday.
“In many ways, this case may be seen as setting a precedent for holding contractors accountable for human rights violations should they happen in other contexts, too,” she added.
CACI—which denies any wrongdoing—has tried to get the case dismissed 20 times. The company still lands millions of dollars worth of U.S. government contracts. In February, Fortuneincluded the firm on its “World’s Most Admired Companies” list for the seventh straight year.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/15/2024 – 20:20 - Lockheed Martin Wins $17BN Interceptor Contract To Protect US Homeland
Lockheed Martin Wins $17BN Interceptor Contract To Protect US Homeland
With one massive war in Eastern Europe grinding past two years and with another potential major war brewing in the Middle East, Western defense contractors are perhaps the only ones with a smile on their faces while much of the rest of humanity suffers.
On Monday the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announced that Lockheed Martin has been awarded a new US government contract worth $17 billion, to develop the next generation of missile interceptor systems that would safeguard the homeland against intercontinental ballistic missile attack.
Illustration via northropgrumman.com According to Reuters, “The multi-year contract covers the development of the Next Generation Interceptor (NGI) to modernize the current Ground-Based Midcourse Defense program.”
“The network of radars, anti-ballistic missiles and other equipment is designed to protect the United States from intercontinental ballistic missiles,” the report continues.
This comes on the heels of record year for sales of US military hardware to foreign governments, which topped $238 billion – a record and 16% jump from the prior year. For its fiscal 2025 budget, the Biden White House is seeking a $28.4 billion set aside for missiles defenses.
The Missile Defense Agency said the following as part of its announcement: “MDA is confident in this decision based on the technical maturity of the solutions, objective contractor-provided performance data, technical rigor in the design development process and early testing built into the program from the onset.”
Reuters has noted that longtime Washington foes like North Korea and Iran are growing ever more capable in delivering long-range ballistic missile attacks. And for the US aerospace giant, “The win represents a shot in the arm for Lockheed after the U.S. said it wants to reduce F-35 orders and the Army said in February that it was abandoning development of a Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, a next-generation helicopter for which Lockheed had submitted a design.”
In 2022 – closer to the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, Ian Bond, director of foreign policy at the Centre for European Reform, described the surge in the market for weapons as the highest since the Cold War. “This is certainly the biggest increase in defense spending in Europe since the end of the Cold War,” he said.
On the very same day of the announcement by MDA, pro-Palestine activists have targeted Lockheed’s Washington D.C. headquarters…
UPDATE: Protesters block 2 separate entrances at Lockheed Martin. Confused police calling for guidance. #FreePalestine #StopArmingIsrael pic.twitter.com/3HonSe7o2e
— #StopCopCity (@ChuckModi1) April 15, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Lockheed’s stock price traded below $340 a share, the price increased to over $450 within a few months of the war’s start. On Monday, Lockheed shares closed up 0.60% at 453.08.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/15/2024 – 20:00 - Is Paxlovid A Dud?
Is Paxlovid A Dud?
Authored by Maryanne Demasi via The Brownstone Institute,
Of all the antiviral drugs for Covid-19, Pfizer’s Paxlovid has been the most successful.
Not for its safety and efficacy, but for its ability to earn the company billions in profits despite being largely ineffective for most people.
In November 2021, before any data had emerged, the Biden Administration committed to purchasing 10 million treatment courses of Paxlovid worth $5.3 billion, pending authorisation by the US drug regulator.
One month later, Paxlovid was granted emergency use authorisation (EUA) by the FDA for use in adult and paediatric populations, 12 years or older.
The authorisation was based on early trial data showing the drug could reduce hospitalisations or death (89% relative risk reduction, 6% absolute risk reduction) in high-risk patients who were unvaccinated and had no prior exposure to Covid-19.
But the problem was, most Americans by that time (Dec 2021) had already been vaccinated against Covid-19 or had prior exposure to the virus, making the trial results irrelevant to the majority of people.
Pfizer had to prove its drug could benefit a broader market.
The manufacturer commenced the EPIC-SR trial, investigating the use of Paxlovid in unvaccinated people and vaccinated people with at least one risk factor for Covid-19 [clinicaltrials.gov].
By July 2022, however, Pfizer stopped enrolling participants “due to a very low rate of hospitalization or death observed in the standard-risk patient population.”
In a press release, the company announced that Paxlovid failed to impact its “novel primary endpoint of self-reported, sustained alleviation of all symptoms for four consecutive days.”
In other words, Paxlovid – a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir – made no significant difference in alleviating symptoms of Covid-19 compared to placebo among non-hospitalised patients.
Pfizer stated that it was difficult to find benefit in a population that was already at a low rate of hospitalisation or death from Covid-19.
One year later, in August 2023, Pfizer quietly published the unfavourable findings on clinicaltrials.gov, without any fanfare or media attention. In fact, the media continued to promote the benefits of Paxlovid to the wider public.
The New York Times, for example, ran multiple stories during the pandemic about the “Power of Paxlovid,” encouraging more people to take the drug and criticised its under-use.
Simultaneously, Pfizer stoked public fear by overinflating the risk of Covid-19, paving the way for doctors to prescribe drugs like Paxlovid to manage the disease. Sometimes, the claims were misleading.
Pfizer, for example, tweeted that 3 out of 4 American adults were at “high risk” for severe Covid-19, but then cited a study in the advertisement that did not support the claim – so far, the misleading tweet has been viewed 11.6 million times.
“This is ridiculous,” tweeted Walid Gellad, Professor of Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, “I don’t know how it is legal…3 out of 4 adults are not at high risk of severe Covid.”
That didn’t stop FDA commissioner Robert Califf from taking to social media to promote the benefits of Paxlovid.
He tweeted the drug could reduce the risk of developing ‘long covid’ based on weak evidence, and admitted to ‘cheerleading’ the use of Paxlovid because he felt overall “the evidence was strong.”
Califf copped criticism for his lack of impartiality as the head of the regulator, but justified his actions in a “public health emergency.”
Regulatory affairs expert Jessica Adams said it was a poor excuse.
“Something is really wrong with public health ‘leadership’ if it thinks that every norm can be thrown out the window in an emergency,” said Adams. “The FDA has learned nothing during the pandemic and is setting terrible precedents for future emergencies.”
By 2023, reports of people experiencing “rebound” symptoms after using Paxlovid, were increasing. Authorities could no longer claim it was “rare.”
High-profile officials such as former CDC director Rochelle Walensky, former NIAID director Tony Fauci, President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden all had reported a rebound of Covid symptoms after completing a course of Paxlovid.
Califf dismissed concerns about rebound, saying it was all just a “distraction,” but a study published in JAMA Network showed that symptomatic rebound in people with mild to moderate Covid-19 was as high as 25% after taking Paxlovid.
In May 2023, the FDA granted Paxlovid full approval for managing mild to moderate Covid-19 infections in adults at high risk of developing severe disease (including vaccinated adults, despite no data showing benefit in this population).
Last week, Paxlovid was back in the spotlight after the EPIC-SR trial was finally published in the New England Journal of Medicine, almost two years after Pfizer announced the futility of the study in July 2022.
Regardless of all the positive media coverage and promotion of Paxlovid by public health officials and government advisors, the evidence is clear.
Paxlovid, which now costs $1,400 for a 5-day course, has only shown benefit in a very rare population – that is, unvaccinated people who’ve never encountered the virus and are at high risk of serious Covid-19.
* * *
Republished from the author’s Substack
Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/15/2024 – 19:40 - Illegal Immigrants Use Speedboat To Invade California – Nearly Run Over Beachgoers
Illegal Immigrants Use Speedboat To Invade California – Nearly Run Over Beachgoers
In a scene reminiscent of the Chuck Norris film Invasion USA, a speedboat loaded with at least a dozen illegal immigrants ripped through the waters just off the coast of Carlsbad, California, nearly slamming into bathers and surfers as they landed and sprinted across the beach.
Some migrants raced to nearby waiting vehicles which sped away, the rest walked off in broad daylight to mix with the surrounding tourists. Locals who filmed the migrants claimed police were called but didn’t show up.
This reportedly happened yesterday in Carlsbad, California. A group of mostly military age males invaded our country illegally via boat and then dispersed throughout the city in cars.
Are any of them on the terror watch list? Do any of them have a criminal history?
We don’t… pic.twitter.com/MQHqpF27Gu
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) April 14, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Carlsbad, which is just north of San Diego, is only one of many beach towns in Southern California that has seen a spike in boats carrying illegals into the US. Malibu has also seen multiple cases of invaders from the sea, usually small fast boats which are beached and left behind by migrants.
A high percentage of young men among illegal migrants in the past couple of years has inspired public concerns that a number of these people may have extensive criminal records, might be gang or cartel members or, even more disturbing, that they could be foreign terrorists seeking to bypass the border altogether despite the lack of immigration enforcement by the Biden Administration.
Though the footage of immigrants shown frequently by the corporate media is careful to only depict travel weary mothers and children, the real story is the army of foreign military age males that are pouring into the US from abroad.
Why are they all military age males?
But don’t call it an invasion or you are tagged as an extremist!
pic.twitter.com/eBqmftXwGP— Winnie Schola (@WinnieSchola) April 14, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Regardless of the motives for their illegal entry into the US, the migrant surge has put the American economy in great jeopardy along with the housing market. Over 60% of migrants will utilize welfare programs and government subsidies upon entry into the country, a problem which we have seen in full force in cities like New York and Washington DC where Democrat mayors have called for the declaration of a state of emergency along with federal aid. Until recently, Biden has denied that there is any immigration threat at all.
The migrant surge is expected to continue and perhaps expand even further as the US closes in on November elections. The return of Trump to the Oval Office would likely mean the reinstatement of Title 42-like restrictions that remove incentives for asylum seekers to enter illegally and that also allow Border Patrol agents to immediately boot captured immigrants back to their nations of origin. A mad rush to beat the clock and slip into America before borders are made more secure is about to ensue.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/15/2024 – 19:20 - California Auditor Finds Homeless Council Can't Account For Money Spent
California Auditor Finds Homeless Council Can’t Account For Money Spent
Authored by John Seiler via The Epoch Times,
Responsible businesses do regular audits of their finances to see which areas are making money and which not.
Families also do audits, if only at tax time to see how much they owe.
Contrast that with government. California State Auditor Grant Parks just came out with a new audit, “Homelessness in California: The State Must Do More to Assess the Cost‑Effectiveness of Its Homelessness Programs.”
The Joint Legislative Committee requested the audit for homeless programs ending in 2023. Mr. Parks said the audit “focuses primarily on the State’s activities, in particular the California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH),” which coordinates the state’s programs.
This ought to be a massive scandal.
Here’s the main conclusion.
Note there’s no definitive number given, just “billions”—and even the number of programs, “at least 30,” is fuzzy:
“More than 180,000 Californians experienced homelessness in 2023 – a 53 percent increase from 2013.
To address this ongoing crisis, nine state agencies have collectively spent billions of dollars in state funding over the past five years administering at least 30 programs dedicated to preventing and ending homelessness.
Cal ICH is responsible for coordinating, developing, and evaluating the efforts of these nine agencies.”
Below is the chart of the PIT—point in time—counts of the homeless:
(California State Auditor)
Also note the number went up 20 percent after Gov. Gavin Newsom took office in 2019, despite his Jan. 7 Inaugural Address that year pledging, “We will launch a Marshall Plan for affordable housing and lift up the fight against homelessness from a local matter to a state-wide mission.” The Marshall Plan was a 1948 U.S. aid program to restore economic growth to war-torn Europe.
‘Lack of Coordination’
Mr. Parks pointed to a Feb. 11, 2021 report by him, “Homelessness in California: The State’s Uncoordinated Approach to Addressing Homelessness Has Hampered the Effectiveness of Its Efforts.”
And he said Cal ICH fulfilled a legislative requirement to report its financial assessments, but did so only for the fiscal years 2018-19 and 2020-21, not after.
He added in the new report, “Further, it has not aligned its action plan for addressing homelessness with its statutory goals, nor has it ensured that it collects accurate, complete, and comparable financial and outcome information from homelessness programs. Until Cal ICH takes these critical steps, the State will lack up‑to‑date information that it can use to make data‑driven policy decisions on how to effectively reduce homelessness.”
Basically, the state government and the citizens of California have little idea where these untold “billions” of dollars to help the homeless have gone.
3 of 5 Programs Lack Enough Data
Mr. Parks said he looked more closely at five of the “at least” 30 state homeless programs. I’ll break up his paragraphs to make it more clear: “When we selected five of the State’s homelessness programs to review, we found that two were likely cost-effective: Homekey and the CalWORKs Housing Support Program (housing support program). …
-
“Homekey refurbishes existing buildings to provide housing units to individuals experiencing homelessness for hundreds of thousands of dollars less than the cost of newly built units.
-
“The Housing Support Program’s provision of financial support to families who were at risk of or experiencing homelessness has cost the State less than it would have spent had these families remained or become homeless.
“However, we were unable to fully assess the other three programs we reviewed … because the State has not collected sufficient data on the programs’ outcomes. In the absence of this information, the State cannot determine whether these programs represent the best use of its funds.”
The three unassessed programs were:
-
The State Rental Assistance Program, “Provides funds for rental arrears, prospective rental payments, utility and home energy cost arrears, utility and home energy costs, and other expenses related to housing incurred during or due, directly or indirectly, to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
-
The Encampment Resolution Funding Program, “Provides competitive grants to assist local jurisdictions in ensuring the wellness and safety of people experiencing homelessness in encampments by providing services and supports that address their immediate physical and mental wellness and result in meaningful paths to safe and stable housing.”
-
The Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grant program, “Provides local jurisdictions with funds to support regional coordination and expand or develop local capacity to address their immediate homelessness challenges.”
If the rest of the “at least 30” homeless programs were examined, who knows how many would end up with too little data to assess. But if the 3 to 5 ratio holds, overall of the 30 it would be 12 assessed thoroughly, 18 not properly assessed because of too little data.
Why Is Prop. 1 Money Needed?
On March 5, California voters barely passed Proposition 1, which Gov. Gavin Newsom pushed hard. The margin was 50.18 percent yea to 49.82 percent nay. As I pointed out in my analysis in the Epoch Times, officially the bonds will cost $310 million a year for 30 years to pay back, or $9.3 billion total.
The money will come from the general fund—which currently is $73 billion in deficit, according to the Legislative Analyst. Which is why for three decades I have called bonds “delayed tax increases,” because the money has to come from somewhere.
Worse, as I noted, with interest rates staying high, the true payback amount could be higher, by some estimates as high as $12.45 billion.
How can the state spend that money when it has no idea if the unaccounted “billions” currently being spent really are helping the homeless? Are the programs good, indifferent, or bad? Is the money really helping people—or just being wasted?
It’s too bad this audit wasn’t available before the March 5 vote on Prop. 1. Likewise with the late production of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for fiscal year 2020-22, which came out more than a year late on March 15, just after the election, and with a “net position” $29 billion worse than previously tallied.
If voters had known how bad the state finances really were, and the inability to assess current homeless programs’ finances, would they have approved Prop. 1?
Conclusion: What Really Can Be Done?
Former state Sen. John Moorlach, for whom I worked as press secretary, has been involved in helping the homeless since when he was a Certified Public Accountant in private practice in the 1980s. Later, as an Orange County Supervisor, he was the chairman of the Orange County Commission to End Homelessness.
“Newsom is throwing money everywhere,” he said. “But, really, what are you doing? What’s the program? What are the results? How do you measure? And it’s just so sad to watch.”
If current programs aren’t working, what could?
“Recently I’ve started to started to think the way you take care of you low-income housing is you’ve got to built some nice housing, and let people move up. Then the housing in the old part of town would be the low-income housing.”
He contrasted that with the current system, in which new complexes are built specifically to house the homeless. But due to government regulations, such as prevailing wage laws, “each unit costs $900,000.”
He said often the new housing is for people who don’t even want to live inside. And older housing is where the poor used to live before.
What’s certain is the current approach of “throw money at everything—and when that doesn’t work, throw more money at it,” isn’t working. Especially because, as the new audit shows, we have no idea even where most of the money is going.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/15/2024 – 19:00 -
- Heading For Supply Shock? Four Maritime Chokepoints Flash Red As Escalating Conflict Looms
Heading For Supply Shock? Four Maritime Chokepoints Flash Red As Escalating Conflict Looms
Just two days after Iranian commandos hijacked the Israeli-linked container ship MSC Aries in the Strait of Hormuz, it’s important to highlight that chaos continues to erupt at key global maritime chokepoints.
The hijacking of the Aries container ship was lost in the noise of the widely unsuccessful Iranian missile and drone strike against Israel on Saturday evening. It will likely be forgotten as the world focuses on what appears to be an imminent Israel counterattack against Iran.
Sal Mercogliano, a professor at Campbell University and shipping expert, wrote on X about an alarming number of maritime chokepoints under threat across the Middle East and Black Sea region.
Mercogliano pointed out four maritime chokepoints: the Bab el-Mandeb, the Strait of Hormuz, the Suez Canal, and the Bosphorus Strait, which are each experiencing some form of direct and/or indirect disruption due to the escalating chaos in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
Maritime Chokepoint status:
Panama 🟨
Gibraltar ✅️
Cape of Good Hope🟨
Baltic🟨
Turkish Strait🚨
Suez🚨
Hormuz🚨
Bab el-Mandeb🚨
Malacca🟨Chokepoints Status🟨 pic.twitter.com/j82nc2b3CT
— Sal Mercogliano (WGOW Shipping) 🚢⚓🐪🚒🏴☠️ (@mercoglianos) April 14, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Let’s begin wit the latest fare up in maritime violence on Saturday morning. Iranian commandos hijacked Aries as it was heading towards the Strait of Hormuz. This incident will keep focus on the world’s busiest shipping lane and a critical chokepoint for the world’s oil supply.
“If the Straits become an unreliable oil trading channel the outcome is binary. All previous Hormuz sabre-rattling has come to nought and I sincerely hope this is the same outcome; to the degree it becomes real and the Strait of Hormuz become blocked, crude will shoot past US$100/bbl without stopping for breath,” Liberum’s Joachim Klement wrote in a note to clients on Sunday.
Meanwhile, Iran-backed Houthis have been targeting US, UK, and Israeli-affiliated ships for the last five to six months, disrupting global trade flows in and around Bab el-Mandeb Strait. The conflict has forced many Western vessels to sail around the Cape of Good Hope to avoid conflict in the region. Ship diversions have also led to sinking activity on the Suez Canal.
In the Black Sea region, Turkey’s Bosporus and Dardanelles straits have seen a lull in activity as the war rages on between Russia and Ukraine.
In the Middle East, 25% of global trade flows through the Suez Canal, Bab-El Mandeb Strait, and Strait of Hormuz, all of which are experiencing either conflict or some form of heightened risk (read the MUFG note here).
Here’s a snapshot of the world’s chokepoints.
An escalating conflict between Israel-Iran could quickly seize up one or more of these maritime chokepoints, spark supply chain chaos, and trigger an inflationary shock (maybe in the energy markets) across the West – something that would ruin Biden’s reelection odds or whatever is left of them and destroy Fed Powell’s ability to arrest inflation.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/15/2024 – 18:40 - Biden Spending $300 Million On Sanctuary Cities
Biden Spending $300 Million On Sanctuary Cities
Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is distributing $300 million to sanctuary cities that provide services like shelter and food to illegal immigrants amid a massive increase in incursions across the southern border.
The $300 million in grants will be provided through the Shelter and Services Program (SSP), according to an April 12 press release. SSP offers funding to non-federal entities like NGOs and local governments that provide support to illegal immigrants released into the United States by the DHS. Out of the $300 million, $275 million will be distributed in the first allocation, with the remaining $25 million to be allocated later this year to meet operational requirements.
“The initial funding will be available to 55 grant recipients for temporary shelter and other eligible costs associated with migrants awaiting the outcome of their immigration proceedings.”
Costs covered under the program include expenses related to providing shelter, food, transportation, medical care, and personal hygiene for illegal immigrants. Other costs like modification of existing facilities, clothing, translation services, outreach information, and management and administration expenses are also covered.
In addition to the $300 million funding, the DHS also announced $340.9 million for the SSP competitive grant program.
Last year, over $780 million was distributed through SSP and another program that went to organizations and sanctuary cities across the country that provided services to illegal immigrants. Well-known sanctuary cities include Los Angeles, Chicago, New Orleans, New York City, and San Francisco.
The Biden administration’s latest funding splurge comes as the influx of illegal immigrants into the United States has ballooned in recent years.
According to data from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), border patrol agents encountered 1.73 million illegals at the southwest land border in fiscal year 2021. This number rose to 2.37 million in fiscal year 2022 and then to 2.47 million in 2023. For the first five months of this fiscal year, 1.34 million encounters have already been registered.
Between October 2021 and March 2024, the total number of encounters stands at over 7.9 million illegal immigrants.
During an April 10 press conference, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he estimates that nearly 16 million illegal immigrants entered the United States under the Biden administration.
“Since Joe Biden went into the Oval Office, it began on day one, they began to open that border wide,” he said. The Democrat government has taken more than 60 executive and agency actions to “open the border wide and send the welcome message to everybody around the globe, including violent criminals and terrorists and foreign nationals … coming here to do us harm.”
Under the Trump administration, the number of people on the terrorism watchlist caught attempting to illegally enter the United States was 11. This number has surged to 351 under the Biden administration.
“This is a disastrous situation,” Mr. Johnson said. “It’s a catastrophe that was caused by intentional policy choices.”
Biden’s Pro-Immigration Policies
Back in January 2023, the Biden administration announced the Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans (CHNV) program that allows people from the four nations the right to live and work lawfully in the United States for a period of two years under a legal mechanism called “humanitarian parole.”
In an April 12 press release, CBP said that more than 404,000 individuals from these four nations who arrived via commercial flights “were granted parole under these processes.”
According to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), “hundreds of thousands of inadmissible aliens from foreign airports” were ferried into some 43 American airports in the past year through CBP-approved secretive flights.
CBP did not reveal the names of the 43 American airports that received 320,000 illegal immigrants last year. Instead, the agency admitted that the process was creating law enforcement vulnerabilities.
“The public can’t know the receiving airports because those hundreds of thousands of CBP-authorized arrivals have created such ‘operational vulnerabilities’ at airports that ‘bad actors’ could undermine law enforcement efforts to ‘secure the United States border’ if they knew the volume of CBP One traffic processed at each port of entry,” CIS wrote in a post.
Former President Donald Trump has harshly criticized the Biden administration’s border policies, vowing to institute stronger measures if he returns to the White House.
Speaking to reporters in late February, President Trump called President Biden “the worst president our country has ever had.”
“He’s allowing thousands and thousands of people to come in from China, Iran, Yemen, the Congo, Syria, and a lot of other nations, many nations are not very friendly to us,” the former president said.
“He’s transported the entire columns of fighting-aged men and … they look like warriors to me. Something’s going on. It’s bad.”
During a rally in Ohio last month, President Trump promised swift action on the illegal immigration issue. “On day one, my administration will terminate every open border policy of the Biden administration and we will begin the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.”
“Nobody’s been hurt by Joe Biden’s migrant invasion more than our great African American and Hispanic American communities … because they’re taking your jobs and they’re creating lots of problems,” he said.
The millions of illegal immigrants flooding into the United States also puts a strain on America’s Social Security program, which would end up negatively affecting the lives of retirees, the former president stated.
“Your Social Security will be destroyed by the people coming in … There’s too many of them. It’s not sustainable. Joe Biden is costing you Medicare and he’s costing you your Social Security.”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/15/2024 – 18:20 - Tepco Loads Fuel Rods In World's Largest Nuclear Power Plant As Atomic Era Reignites
Tepco Loads Fuel Rods In World’s Largest Nuclear Power Plant As Atomic Era Reignites
The world is finally realizing, after trying to rid itself of nuclear power following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, that the power of the atom will be the heart of clean, reliable electricity generation – not unreliable solar and wind.
The latest sign that a nuclear renaissance is beginning to gain steam is news from Bloomberg on Monday morning that Tokyo Electric Power Co. will be loading fuel rods into one of the reactors at the Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear plant in Niigata prefecture.
The Kashiwazaki Kariwa is significant because it’s the world’s largest nuclear power plant, with a net capacity of 7,965 megawatts of electricity. Loading the No. 7 reactor with fuel rods is a sign that the power plant could be restarted soon.
Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority on Monday approved the plans to insert fuel rods at the No. 7 reactor at the site in Niigata prefecture. The plant will still need to complete additional inspections and win consent from the local governor — which is not guaranteed — before Tepco can restart generation.
Approval for fuel loading is a step forward for Tepco’s facility, which has been halted since the Fukushima nuclear disaster brought all of Japan’s reactors offline. Kashiwazaki Kariwa has faced additional complications to a restart after security breaches in 2021.-Bloomberg
The planned restart of Japan’s atomic fleet comes as power grids worldwide (maybe not China and or India) are undertaking massive decarbonization efforts to lower emissions.
In the US, the federal government recently announced that it would provide a $1.5 billion loan to restart a nuclear power plant in southwestern Michigan for the first time. NJ-based Holtec International acquired the 800-megawatt Palisades plant in 2022 with plans to dismantle it. Still, with support from the state of Michigan and the Biden administration, the focus has shifted to restarting the nuclear power plant next year.
And Patti Poppe, the chief executive officer of Pacific Gas & Electric in California, said just weeks ago, “Nuclear should be part of the future,” adding the state’s only nuclear power plant – Diablo Canyon – should be granted a license to expand its lifetime.
Governments are beginning to realize (and Wall Street) that nuclear power is the single largest source of reliable, carbon-free electricity. It will play a vital role in powering the economy, whether that’s AI data centers (read “The Next AI Trade”) or electric cars and trucks.
Still, restarting plants is not easy. Also, keep an eye on uranium futures.
And uranium stocks.
Nuclear will be powering up America for the digital age. We outlined this as early as December 2020 in a note titled “Buy Uranium: Is This The Beginning Of The Next ESG Craze.”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/15/2024 – 18:00 - "I Can't Go To My Son's Graduation": NY Judge Threatens Trump With Arrest
“I Can’t Go To My Son’s Graduation”: NY Judge Threatens Trump With Arrest
Update (1750ET): The first day of Donald Trump’s ‘hush money’ trial was fairly uneventful – aside from the judge, a complete dick, barring the former President from attending his son’s graduation and threatening arrest if he does.
Speaking after a long day of jury selection and ground rules (with more than 50 jurors dismissed), Trump walked out of the courtroom and expressed his obvious displeasure.
“As you know my son is graduating from High School, and looks like the judge will not let me go to the graduation for a son who’s worked very, very hard,” Trump said, adding that he was “looking forward for years to having graduation with his mother and father there,” adding that the trial is a “scam” and a “political witch hunt.”
BREAKING: Donald Trump speaks out after Judge Merchan informed him that he could not attend his son Barron’s high school graduation or he will be jailed. pic.twitter.com/exkZVQeGSS
— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) April 15, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Judge Juan Merchan also won’t allow Trump to attend a Supreme Court hearing in DC regarding immunity.
“We got a real problem with this Judge,” Trump continued, adding “that I can’t go to my son’s graduation, or that I can’t go to the United States Supreme Court, that I’m not in Georgia or Florida or North Carolina campaigning like I should be… it’s perfect for the radical left Democrats – that’s exactly what they want,” he continued, adding that it’s “election interference.”
This case is obviously a corruption of the law.
Lawfare.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 15, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
* * *
Update (1200ET): Monday’s ‘hush money’ trial against former President Donald Trump has begun, with jury selection and a discussion over evidence on the table. To get the blow-by-blow throughout the day, follow this thread on X by Inner City Press.
The case stems from a $130,000 payment made by Trump’s former lawyer, convicted felon and admitted liar Michael Cohen, to adult film actress Stormy Daniels at the end of the 2016 election in an alleged scheme to buy her silence. Trump is required to be present for the trial, which will take place four days a week and could last up to two months.
Judge Juan Merchan kicked off the day by refusing a request by Trump’s legal team to recuse himself from the case over an interview he gave to the press in which he mentioned the case, which Merchan said was within the law – while Merchan’s wife and daughter have worked for prominent Democrats and/or made anti-Trump statements.
EXCLUSIVE:
Ahead of President Trump’s “Hush money” trial which begins today in NYC, please review this chart created by @CcpSkipTracer and I that outlines the incestuous relationships of the New York State Supreme Court of New York County.
This puts it into perspective for all… https://t.co/soPrzWFRs8 pic.twitter.com/r9NlK1494E
— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) April 15, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Prosecutors sought to include evidence from the Access Hollywood ‘grab ’em by the pussy’ tape, as well as various sexual assault allegations from Trump accusers. Merchan allowed a transcript of the tape, and denied a request to present the other allegations in court.
Prosecutor: We seek to elicit the fact the additional allegations against Mr. Trump emerged in the wake of the Access Hollywood tape. The candidate became obsessed with denying and denigrating his accusers. Here’s what will be come Peoples’ 409…
— Inner City Press (@innercitypress) April 15, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Next, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked Trump’s attorneys to explain how the former president shouldn’t be held in contempt for allegedly violating Merchan’s gag order – arguing that Trump’s efforts have continued to this day, and that witnesses in the case “have incurred the wrath of Trump supporters.”
And now, jury selection begins… with Merchan telling the court that 500 prospective jurors are waiting.
BREAKING: Trump trial may now last until June and he is forced to stay in court or be arrested
Fine – he should hold rallies in Madison Square Garden and Trump Tower every night! pic.twitter.com/6m4D8xvZEY
— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) April 15, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Stay tuned for updates…
* * *
I have long been critical of the case as a clear example of the weaponization of the criminal justice system. No one seriously believes that Alvin Bragg would have spent this time and money to prosecute what is ordinarily a state misdemeanor if the defendant was anyone other than Trump. One does not have to be like Trump to repel from the spectacle about to unfold in Manhattan.
The famous Roman philosopher and orator Marcus Tullius Cicero once said, “The more laws, the less justice.”
This week, New York judges and lawyers appear eager to prove that the same is true for cases against Donald Trump.
After an absurd $450 million decision courtesy of Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will bring his equally controversial criminal prosecution over hush money paid to a former porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.
Lawyers have been scouring the civil and criminal codes for any basis to sue or prosecute Trump before the upcoming 2024 election. This week will highlight the damage done to New York’s legal system because of this unhinged crusade. They’ve charged him with everything short of ripping a label off a mattress.
Just a few weeks ago, another judge imposed a roughly half billion dollar penalty in a case without a single victim who lost a single cent on loans with Trump. (Indeed, bank officials testified they wanted more business with the Trump organization).
Now Bragg is bringing a case that has taken years to develop and millions of dollars in litigation cost for all parties. That is all over a crime from before the 2016 election that is a misdemeanor under state law that had already expired under the statute of limitations.
Like his predecessor, Bragg previously scoffed at the case. However, two prosecutors, Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, then resigned and started a public pressure campaign to get New Yorkers to demand prosecution.
Pomerantz shocked many of us by publishing a book on the case against Trump — who was still under investigation and not charged, let alone convicted, of any crime. He did so despite objections from his former colleague that such a book was grossly improper.
Nevertheless, it worked. Bragg brought a Rube Goldberg case that is so convoluted and counterintuitive that even liberal legal analysts criticized it.
Trump paid Daniels to avoid any publicity over their brief alleged affair. As a celebrity, there was ample reason to want to keep the affair quiet, and that does not even include the fact that he is a married man.
It also occurred before the 2016 election and there was clearly a benefit to quash the scandal as a candidate. That political motivation is at the heart of this long-delayed case.
It is a repeat of the case involving former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. In 2012, the Justice Department used the same theory to charge the former Democratic presidential candidate after a disclosure that he not only had an affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter but also hid the fact that he had a child by her. Edwards denied the affair, and money from donors was passed to Hunter to keep the matter quiet.
The Justice Department spent a huge amount on the case to show that the third-party payments were a circumvention of campaign finance laws. However, Edwards was ultimately found not guilty on one count while the jury deadlocked on the other five.
With Trump, the Justice Department declined a repeat of the Edwards debacle and did not bring any federal charge.
But Bragg then used the alleged federal crime to bootstrap a defunct misdemeanor charge into a felony in the current case. He is arguing that Trump intentionally lied when his former lawyer Michael Cohen listed the payments as retainer costs rather than a payment — to avoid reporting it as a campaign contribution to himself.
Thus, if he had simply had Cohen report the payment as “hush money,” there would be no crime.
Once again, the contrast to other controversies is telling.
Before the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton’s campaign denied that it had funded the infamous Steele dossier behind the debunked Russian collusion claims.
The funding was hidden as legal expenses by then-Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias. (The FEC later sanctioned by the campaign over its hiding of the funding.). When a reporter tried to report the story, he said Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”
Likewise, John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was called before congressional investigators and denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.
Yet, there were no charges stemming from the hiding of the funding, though it was all part of the campaign budget.
Making this assorted business even more repellent will be the appearance of Cohen himself on the stand. Cohen recently was denounced by a judge as a serial perjurer who is continuing to game the system.
Cohen has a long record as a legal thug who has repeatedly lied when it served his interests. He has a knack for selling his curious skill set to powerful figures like Trump and now Bragg.
For those of us who have been critics of Cohen from when he was still working for Trump, it is mystifying that anyone would call him to the stand to attest to anything short of the time of day . . . and even then most of us would check our watches.
Fortunately witnesses are no longer required to put their hand on the bible in swearing to testify truthfully in court. Otherwise, the court would need the New York Fire Department standing by in case the book burst into flames.
So this is the case: A serial perjurer used to convert a dead state misdemeanor into a felony based on an alleged federal election crime that was rejected by the Justice Department.
They could well succeed in a city where nine out of ten potential jurors despise Trump. Trying Trump in Manhattan is about as difficult as the New York Yankees going to bat using beach balls rather than baseballs. It is hard to miss.
However, this is a Pyrrhic victory for the New York legal system. Whatever the outcome, it may prove a greater indictment of the New York court system than the defendant.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/15/2024 – 17:48
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
