Jun 21

Today’s News 21st June 2024

  • Recipe For EU Disaster: Warning Signs Ignored
    Recipe For EU Disaster: Warning Signs Ignored

    Authored by Grzegorz Adamczyk via ReMix News,

    Recent European Parliament election results and reactions to them have sparked discussions about the true meaning of European autonomy, a term frequently touted by French President Emmanuel Macron that now seems to lack real substance beyond pompous declarations from Paris.

    These elections have exposed its actual and concrete implications.

    In France, political upheaval is evident. President Macron has announced forthcoming elections in response to new fractures in foundational EU politics. In contrast, Germany may face significant issues in the autumn when state elections are held there. Poland appears to some as a haven of peace, but this may be just a temporary illusion.

    Despite these cracks, the European Union structure still stands seemingly unshaken. Dominant beliefs within suggest that nothing significant has occurred: The center holds strong, the two main parties of the Brussels establishment have retained their majority, and while populists have gained more votes, they can still be contained.

    This perspective, however, is seen as a recipe for disaster.

    The EU needs no further warning signs, and if it lacks the courage to draw serious consequences this time, the project may have no future.

    True European autonomy is needed – the ability of the EU to correct its own mistakes, to self-repair, to learn from experiences, and to think in political terms.

    Mechanisms for verifying and holding accountable those who have failed and abused trust must be established.

    The EU can no longer be a tool for one nation to blackmail another.

    While this may seem like an idealistic view that could be crushed by harsh realities where only the strong prevail, European integration without idealism is meaningless.

    For the EU to survive, it must cease being an instrument of influence, pressure and even blackmail by one state or interest group over another.

    The notion that Europe belongs to certain entities who can do as they please, must end.

    If the Union is not treated as a common body, a shared good and common property of all, it will not recognize the internal issues plaguing it, nor will it be able to cure them.

    The ability to self-repair is the true essence of European autonomy.

    * * *

    Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 06/21/2024 – 02:00

  • Mission Creep: How The Police State Acclimates Us To Being Modern-Day Slaves
    Mission Creep: How The Police State Acclimates Us To Being Modern-Day Slaves

    Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one can argue, to whom one can present grievances, on whom the pressures of power can be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless, we have a tyranny without a tyrant.”

    – Hannah Arendt, On Violence

    Like the proverbial boiling frogs, the government has been gradually acclimating us to the specter of a police state for years now: Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality.

    This is how you prepare a populace to accept a police state willingly, even gratefully.

    You don’t scare them by making dramatic changes. Rather, you acclimate them slowly to their prison walls. Persuade the citizenry that their prison walls are merely intended to keep them safe and danger out. Desensitize them to violence, acclimate them to a military presence in their communities, and persuade them that only a militarized government can alter the seemingly hopeless trajectory of the nation.

    It’s happening already.

    Yet we’re not just being acclimated to the trappings of a police state. We’re also being bullied into silence and subservience in the face of outright injustice and heavy-handed political correctness, while simultaneously being groomed into accepting government tyranny, corruption and bureaucratic ineptitude as societal norms.

    What exactly is going on?

    Whatever it is, this—the racial hypersensitivity without racial justice, the kowtowing to politically correct bullies with no regard for anyone else’s free speech rights, the violent blowback after years of government-sanctioned brutality, the mob mindset that is overwhelming the rights of the individual, the oppressive glowering of the Nanny State, the seemingly righteous indignation full of sound and fury that in the end signifies nothing, the partisan divide that grows more impassable with every passing day—is not leading us anywhere good.

    Certainly, it’s not leading to more freedom.

    This draconian exercise in how to divide, conquer and subdue a nation is succeeding.

    It must be said: the various protests from both the Right and the Left in recent years have not helped. Inadvertently or intentionally, these protests have politicized what should never have been politicized: police brutality and the government’s ongoing assaults on our freedoms.

    We may be worse off now than we were before.

    Suddenly, no one seems to be talking about any of the egregious governmental abuses that are still wreaking havoc on our freedoms: police shootings of unarmed individuals, invasive surveillance, roadside blood draws, roadside strip searches, SWAT team raids gone awry, the military industrial complex’s costly wars, pork barrel spending, pre-crime laws, civil asset forfeiture, fusion centers, militarization, armed drones, smart policing carried out by AI robots, courts that march in lockstep with the police state, schools that function as indoctrination centers, bureaucrats that keep the Deep State in power.

    The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    How do you persuade a populace to embrace totalitarianism, that goose-stepping form of tyranny in which the government has all of the power and “we the people” have none?

    You persuade the people that the menace they face (imaginary or not) is so sinister, so overwhelming, so fearsome that the only way to surmount the danger is by empowering the government to take all necessary steps to quash it, even if that means allowing government jackboots to trample all over the Constitution.

    This is how you use the politics of fear to persuade a freedom-endowed people to shackle themselves to a dictatorship.

    It works the same way every time.

    The government’s overblown, extended wars on terrorism, drugs, violence, illegal immigration, and so-called domestic extremism have been convenient ruses used to terrorize the populace into relinquishing more of their freedoms in exchange for elusive promises of security.

    Having allowed our fears to be codified and our actions criminalized, we now find ourselves in a strange new world where just about everything we do is criminalized.

    Strangely enough, in the face of outright corruption and incompetency on the part of our elected officials, Americans in general remain relatively gullible, eager to be persuaded that the government headed up by their particular brand of political savior can solve the problems that plague us.

    We have relinquished control over the most intimate aspects of our lives to government officials who, while they may occupy seats of authority, are neither wiser, smarter, more in tune with our needs, more knowledgeable about our problems, nor more aware of what is really in our best interests.

    Yet having bought into the false notion that the government does indeed know what’s best for us and can ensure not only our safety but our happiness and will take care of us from cradle to grave—that is, from daycare centers to nursing homes—we have in actuality allowed ourselves to be bridled and turned into slaves at the bidding of a government that cares little for our freedoms or our happiness.

    The lesson is this: once a free people allows the government inroads into their freedoms or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to outright tyranny.

    Nor does it seem to matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican at the helm anymore. Indeed, the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle now seems to embody the same philosophy of authoritarian government, whose priorities are to milk “we the people” of our hard-earned money (by way of taxes, fines and fees) and remain in control and in power.

    Modern government in general—ranging from the militarized police in SWAT team gear crashing through our doors to the rash of innocent citizens being gunned down by police to the invasive spying on everything we do—is acting illogically, even psychopathically. (The characteristics of a psychopath include a “lack of remorse and empathy, a sense of grandiosity, superficial charm, conning and manipulative behavior, and refusal to take responsibility for one’s actions, among others.”)

    When our own government no longer sees us as human beings with dignity and worth but as things to be manipulated, maneuvered, mined for data, manhandled by police, conned into believing it has our best interests at heart, mistreated, and then jails us if we dare step out of line, punishes us unjustly without remorse, and refuses to own up to its failings, we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic. Instead, what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government, which “operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups.”

    So where does that leave us?

    Having allowed the government to expand and exceed our reach, we find ourselves on the losing end of a tug-of-war over control of our country and our lives. And for as long as we let them, government officials will continue to trample on our rights, always justifying their actions as being for the good of the people.

    Yet the government can only go as far as “we the people” allow. Therein lies the problem.

    We are fast approaching a moment of reckoning where we will be forced to choose between the vision of what America was intended to be (a model for self-governance where power is vested in the people) and the reality of what it has become (a police state where power is vested in the government).

    This slide into totalitarianism—helped along by overcriminalization, government surveillance, militarized police, neighbors turning in neighbors, privatized prisons, and forced labor camps, to name just a few similarities—is tracking very closely with what happened in Germany in the years leading up to Hitler’s rise to power.

    We are walking a dangerous path right now.

    No matter who wins the presidential election come November, it’s a sure bet that the losers will be the American people.

    Despite what is taught in school and the propaganda that is peddled by the media, the 2024 presidential election is not a populist election for a representative. Rather, it’s a gathering of shareholders to select the next CEO, a fact reinforced by the nation’s archaic electoral college system.

    Anyone who believes that this election will bring about any real change in how the American government does business is either incredibly naïve, woefully out-of-touch, or oblivious to the fact that as an in-depth Princeton University study shows, we now live in an oligarchy that is “of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.”

    Be warned, however: the Establishment—the Deep State and its corporate partners that really run the show, pull the strings and dictate the policies, no matter who occupies the Oval Office—is not going to allow anyone to take office who will unravel their power structures. Those who have attempted to do so in the past have been effectively put out of commission.

    Voting sustains the illusion that we have a democratic republic, but it is merely a dictatorship in disguise, or what political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page more accurately refer to as an “economic élite domination.”

    In such an environment, the economic elite (lobbyists, corporations, monied special interest groups) dictate national policy. As the Princeton University oligarchy study indicates, our elected officials, especially those in the nation’s capital, represent the interests of the rich and powerful rather than the average citizen. As such, the citizenry has little if any impact on the policies of government.

    We have been saddled with a two-party system and fooled into believing that there’s a difference between the Republicans and Democrats, when in fact, the two parties are exactly the same. As one commentator noted, both parties support endless war, engage in out-of-control spending, ignore the citizenry’s basic rights, have no respect for the rule of law, are bought and paid for by Big Business, care most about their own power, and have a long record of expanding government and shrinking liberty.

    We’re drowning under the weight of too much debt, too many wars, too much power in the hands of a centralized government run by a corporate elite, too many militarized police, too many laws, too many lobbyists, and generally too much bad news.

    The powers-that-be want us to believe that our job as citizens begins and ends on Election Day. They want us to believe that we have no right to complain about the state of the nation unless we’ve cast our vote one way or the other. They want us to remain divided over politics, hostile to those with whom we disagree politically, and intolerant of anyone or anything whose solutions to what ails this country differ from our own.

    What they don’t want us talking about is the fact that the government is corrupt, the system is rigged, the politicians don’t represent us, the electoral college is a joke, most of the candidates are frauds, and we as a nation are repeating the mistakes of history—namely, allowing a totalitarian state to reign over us.

    “We the people” have a decision to make: do we simply participate in the collapse of the American republic as it degenerates toward a totalitarian regime, or do we take a stand and reject the pathetic excuse for government that is being fobbed off on us?

    Never forget, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, that the lesser of two evils is still evil.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/20/2024 – 23:40

  • Putin Says West Prepared To Scapegoat Zelensky For War Failures: 'Replaced By Next Year'
    Putin Says West Prepared To Scapegoat Zelensky For War Failures: ‘Replaced By Next Year’

    Russian President Vladimir Putin is in Vietnam, where he signed at least a dozen energy and trade deals with the country’s President To Lam, on his tour to shore up ties in Asia in an effort to offset the West’s drive to isolate Moscow.

    On his last day in the country he made some wide-ranging remarks to the press, and among the most interesting was a statement on the future of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. 

    Putin predicted at a moment things are going very badly for Ukrainian forces, and at a rare time Western media seems to be turning on Zelensky, that the Ukrainian leader will soon be replaced over his poor and unpopular decision-making. Putin suggested Washington is essentially going to make him a scapegoat. 

    “In the West, they simply do not want to replace him [Zelenskyy], the time is not right. I think it’s obvious to anyone. They will blame all unpopular decisions on him, including lowering the [military] draft age, and that’s it,” Putin asserted, according to Russian media translation.

    That’s when he followed with: “And then they’ll replace him. I think it will happen sometime in the first half of next year.”

    Putin could be at least in part seizing on the obvious increased negative coverage of the Zelensky government in major Western media outlets, from the BBC to NY Times to Wall Street Journal. Indeed Zelensky’s ‘celebrity power’ on display throughout the first part of the war, where it seemed he could simply do no wrong in the media’s eyes, is waning fast.

    More importantly, there are signs of large-scale dissent among the Ukrainian population as recruitment officers violently grab men from off the streets.

    Despite Kiev forces clearly being against the ropes of late, Zelensky has still refused to even contemplate negotiating. He has stood by his earlier commitment to not enter dialogue toward ceasefire until Putin is out of power. Putin commented on this while in Vietnam:

    Talks on Ukraine could take place as early as tomorrow, but Russia will use the current situation as a starting point, the president added.

    “We have been conducting these behind-the-scenes talks, and what we hoped for has failed,” Putin told reporters.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Interestingly, Putin had back in May declared Zelensky “illegitimate” after Ukraine failed to hold previously scheduled elections. Zelensky’s term was set to end May 20, but the government declared no elections until the war is over, citing martial law.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/20/2024 – 23:20

  • Journalist Formerly Detained In China Barred From Australian Media Event During CCP Premier's Visit
    Journalist Formerly Detained In China Barred From Australian Media Event During CCP Premier’s Visit

    Authored by Rex Widerstrom via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Staff from the Australian prime minister’s office barred Chinese-born Australian journalist Cheng Lei from reporting on Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s meeting with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Premier Li Qiang.

    Australian journalist Cheng Lei observes a signing ceremony by China’s Premier Li Qiang and Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at the Australian Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, on June 17, 2024. (Lukas Coch/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

    The revelations come after Chinese Embassy staff were seen trying to block Ms. Cheng from being filmed by local media at an earlier press event at Parliament, which was attended by Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and CCP Premier Li Qiang.

    Ms. Cheng, a former anchor of the Chinese state-run channel CGTN, was detained in China for three years for breaking the embargo on a government press release by a few minutes.

    Critics, however, argued that it was an instance of Beijing’s hostage diplomacy during a period of deteriorating relations between Beijing and Canberra.

    The journalist was released and returned to Australia in 2023 and is now working for Sky News Australia.

    The latest episodes underscore the underlying tensions during the CCP premier’s recent visit, with the freed journalist saying Beijing viewed her as a “symbol of some sort” and that they “didn’t want that for the domestic audience.”

    Banned From Entering The Meeting Room

    On June 19, Ms. Cheng said she was barred from being present during the opening remarks of Mr. Dutton and Mr. Li at the Hyatt Hotel in Canberra, despite being registered for the event.

    The journalist told Sky News Australia that when she arrived at the event, one of Prime Minister Albanese’s media staff told her she wasn’t welcome, although her cameraman could enter. Staff from Mr. Dutton’s office witnessed the confrontation but did not get involved.

    “But I’ve been registered since last week,” Ms. Cheng recalled what she told the staff from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), adding that her bureau chief had put her name on the list.

    “Well that’s only an expression of interest, Dutton’s team can decide who gets to come in, you’re not on there,” the DPMC staff replied.

    Prior to this, Ms. Cheng said she saw members of the Chinese delegation, including two embassy staffer who previously blocked her from view at Parliament House on the same day, talking to the Australian official.

    She then heard the words among themselves in Chinese: “This is our turf, we can veto it.”

    An Undelivered Promise

    Ms. Cheng said she was “confident” she could get into the high-level meeting because a media staff from Mr. Dutton’s office previously promised to arrange access for her.

    But when politicians and government officials started to walk into the meeting room, Ms. Cheng tried to call the media staff’s name loudly several times, but he didn’t turn around.

    A PM’s media staffer then tapped her on the shoulder, motioning that she couldn’t go in.

    Later, she saw someone slipping into the room when the meeting had already started.

    Ms. Cheng then asked the PM’s staff, “How come anyone can go in but me? Who’s checking credentials? So all this is just about keeping me out?”

    “She reiterated the line that both sides agreed, I wasn’t on the list,” Ms. Cheng said.

    Ms. Cheng expressed her disappointment at the behaviour of the PM’s staff, noting that on the previous occasion at Parliament House, the Australian official was trying to help her participate in the event.

    Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (L) and CCP Premier Li Qiang leave after their visit to Kaarta Gar-up Lookout in Kings Park in Perth, Australia on June 18, 2024. (Richard Wainwright/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

    Politicians Back Cheng Lei

    While Mr. Albanese was quick to raise his concerns with the Chinese embassy about the events in Parliament earlier that day, he declined to comment on the actions of his staff at the Hyatt. Nor has Mr. Dutton.

    “Australian officials intervened, as they should have,” Mr. Albanese said of the first incident.

    “There should be no impediments to Australian journalists going about their job, and we’ve made that clear to the Chinese embassy.”

    Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesman Simon Birmingham also weighed in, saying freedom of the press was “paramount” and that Ms. Cheng—an Australian citizen and journalist— “should have been treated with respect.”

    Mr. Dutton went further and told the Prime Minister to “grow a backbone.”

    The clumsy attempts by Beijing officials to sideline a reporter once thought worthy of a leading role on their own state TV network has marred Mr. Li’s visit to Australia.

    CCP Premier Li Qiang (L) and New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon pose after attending a joint press conference at Government House in Wellington, New Zealand on June 13, 2024. (Marty Melville/AFP via Getty Images)

    New Zealand PM’s Response

    New Zealand PM Christopher Luxon defended the limitations placed on journalists to question the CCP premier during the visit, citing “different protocols” as justification.

    “I think we are really proud of the fact that we are very accessible to the journalists in New Zealand and the media, and that’s important, Mr. Luxon said.

    “It’s an important part of our democracy. But we also have to respect, as hosts of countries coming into New Zealand, and/or when we’re offshore that there are different protocols. That doesn’t preclude me from making myself available to you to ask me anything you wish.”

    It was also reported that CCP officials in New Zealand grabbed and shoved reporters at events attended by Prime Minister Luxon and the premier.

    Mr. Luxon said he was unaware of the incidents and urged the reporters to lay a formal complaint so it could be investigated.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/20/2024 – 23:00

  • "A Direct Attack On Our Democratic Process": Missouri AG Sues New York Over Trump Lawfare
    “A Direct Attack On Our Democratic Process”: Missouri AG Sues New York Over Trump Lawfare

    Missouri Attorney General Andrew Baily on Thursday announced that he’s suing the State of New York over what he called a “direct attack on our democratic process through unconstitutional lawfare against President Trump.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    “We have to fight back against a rogue prosecutor who is trying to take a presidential candidate off the campaign trail,” Baily posted on X, adding “Stay tuned.“

    While Baily didn’t elaborate, last month he accused the Biden DOJ of colluding with prosecutors in various Trump cases, filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in connection with his investigation.

    “The investigations and subsequent prosecutions of former President Donald J. Trump appear to have been conducted in coordination with the United States Department of Justice,” Baily posted in a lengthy thread on X.

    “This is demonstrated by the move of the third-highest ranking member of the Department of Justice, Matthew Colangelo, to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office in order to prosecute President Trump in December 2022,” Baily continues.

    What’s more, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg worked hand-in-hand with NY Attorney General Letitia James in pursuing civil litigation against Trump, which he used to campaign on.

    Is Baily about to become Trump’s Attorney General?

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/20/2024 – 22:40

  • Lott: Biden Gun Regulations Don’t Affect Mass Shootings
    Lott: Biden Gun Regulations Don’t Affect Mass Shootings

    Authored by John R. Lott Jr. via RealClearPolitics,

    President Biden is making gun control a central part of his reelection campaign. In a new ad, Biden says that Trump did “nothing” when children were “gunned down in classrooms,” innocent people “killed in church,” and others “massacred at a concert.”

    The Biden campaign is referring to shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida; First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas; and an outdoor concert in Las Vegas. In four years, there were 18 mass shootings that occurred in public places and that did not transpire during another crime such as robbery or selling drugs. (A “mass killing” is defined by criminologists as involving four or more fatalities, not counting the shooter.)

    But 23 mass public shootings have occurred so far under Biden – a 50% higher annual rate than under Trump. The deadliest shooting resulted in 21 victims at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas – four more than were killed in Parkland.

    Besides touting the establishment of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, Biden also points to his new Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ regulations for background checks on the private transfer of guns. But these additional background checks wouldn’t have prevented any recent mass public shootings. For example, the Uvalde murderer didn’t obtain his gun through a private transfer, and he passed a federal background check. There isn’t one mass shooting in this century that universal background checks would have stopped. But almost no one seems to challenge the Biden campaign’s stance on this issue.

    While Biden touts a regulation that won’t accomplish anything other than creating an obstacle to gun ownership and helping to complete a national gun registry, there is evidence that Trump’s proposed reforms could work.

    After the Parkland shooting, Trump tweeted: “If schools are mandated to be gun free zones, violence and danger are given an open invitation to enter. Almost all school shootings are in gun free zones. Cowards will only go where there is no deterrent.” Ironically, the Gun-Free School Zones Act was introduced in Congress in 1990 by then-Sen. Joe Biden.

    After a mass murder at the Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue, Trump made a similar point: “If they had protection inside, the results would have been far better. If they had some kind of protection inside the temple, maybe it could have been a very much different situation. They didn’t.”

    The only slight inaccuracy in Trump’s tweet after Parkland is that all school shootings with deaths or injuries, without exception, have occurred in schools that ban teachers and staff from having guns. He needn’t have offered the qualifier “almost.”

    These mass murderers want to commit suicide, and they want media coverage. They know that killing more people means greater media coverage, and they know that defenseless victims are easier targets.

    Police are very important in fighting crime, but they have a limited ability to stop mass public shootings. “A deputy in uniform has an extremely difficult job in stopping these attacks,” noted Kurt Hoffman, a Sarasota County, Florida, sheriff. Hoffman said that mass shooters can “wait for a deputy to leave the area or pick an undefended location.” And the problem with a visible police or security presence, he said, is that the officers may as well be holding up neon signs saying, “Shoot me first.” Concealed handgun permit holders, however, can’t be identified and therefore take away shooters’ tactical advantage.

    California has the strictest gun control laws in the country – all the other regulations Biden would like to see enacted nationally. But its per capita annual rate of mass public shootings is significantly higher than in the rest of the country. For shootings since 2000, California’s rate stands at 0.33 per million whereas the overall U.S. rate is 0.25 per million. Looking at data since 2010, California’s rate is 0.28 per million versus 0.15 for the rest of the U.S. And from 2020 to now, it’s 0.13 for California and 0.05 for the rest of the U.S. California’s rate is also consistently higher than that of Texas, a state that gun control advocates often seek to demonize.

    Biden claims credit for the drop in reported murder rates last year, pointing to his background checks and the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This is a canard. The new rules are only going into effect this year. Also, while last year’s projected murder rate was indeed down from 2022, it’s still 7% above 2019 levels. 

    Given Biden’s losing streak in the courts, his background checks may not exist long after taking effect later this year. The difference between Biden and Trump is clear. Biden wants credit for doing something even if it doesn’t help. Trump wants to do something that works.

    John R. Lott Jr. is a contributor to RealClearInvestigations, focusing on voting and gun rights. His articles have appeared in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, USA Today, and Chicago Tribune. Lott is an economist who has held research and/or teaching positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford, UCLA, Wharton, and Rice.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/20/2024 – 22:20

  • Watch: Filipino Soldiers Fought Off Axe-Wielding Chinese Coast Guard 'With Bare Hands'
    Watch: Filipino Soldiers Fought Off Axe-Wielding Chinese Coast Guard ‘With Bare Hands’

    Dramatic new video shows the latest ramming incident between Chinese and Philippine vessels in a contested area of the South China Sea, and it reveals clear escalation which involved the Chinese side clearly brandishing weapons.

    The incident happened near the Second Thomas Shoal on Monday, where the Philippine military has troops stationed as part of its claim on the Spratly Islands (also claimed by Beijing). Manilla officials said their military vessels were en route there on a normal ‘humanitarian resupply’ mission when the boats were deliberately rammed and boxed in by Chinese coast guard ships.

    The video shows Chinese crew hacking at inflatable vessels with axes and knives. The melee at sea left one Filipino soldier severely injured (he lost his thumb, official statements say), which is a rarity for such encounters. The event has been denounced as ‘piracy’ after Philippine soldiers fought off the armed Chinese sailors with “bare hands”.

    FT describes that “Several clips released by the Armed Forces of the Philippines late on Wednesday showed Chinese coastguard speedboats, assisted by at least one larger coastguard ship, ramming the Philippine boats and trapping them between the Chinese ones with ropes.”

    The report further emphasizes this “marked the sharpest escalation in the stand-off over the Second Thomas Shoal, a disputed reef inside the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone where Manila intentionally grounded a former US Navy ship in 1999 and which it has been using as a military outpost.”

    Watch some of the chaotic footage below:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    To be expected, Beijing has sharply rebuked and rejected Manilla’s denunciation of Chinese aggression, with Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian saying Thursday that the Philippine vessel’s purpose was “absolutely not about humanitarian resupply.”

    “The Philippine vessels secretly carried construction materials and even weapons and equipment, and they deliberately rammed Chinese vessels,” Lin claimed.

    Thus both sides are saying the other started it and was the aggressor, akin to past similar ramming incidents and the usual tit-for-tat accusations that follow. In some videos the Chinese coast guard members are heard shouting: “This is China!”

    But the situation in these waters is more dangerous than in the past, given the Chinese government has recently authorized new rules of engagement, allowing the coast guard to use lethal force or board ships if they are found in Chinese territorial waters.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The US and its regional allies have consistently rejected expanded Chinese maritime claims in the South China Sea, thus the rival sides are now on a heightened collision course as tensions soar. US warships are meanwhile still committed to their “freedom of navigation” patrols, while also flying surveillance planes overhead.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/20/2024 – 22:00

  • A Fiscal Crisis: The West Is On The Wrong Side Of Cost Curve
    A Fiscal Crisis: The West Is On The Wrong Side Of Cost Curve

    Authored by Matthew van Wagenen and Arnel David via RealClearWireThe Epoch Times,

    An axis of aggressors has embarked on a new strategy to defeat the West: relentless attacks with inexpensive weapons, produced at scale, to provoke a global response. Western militaries, which cling to outdated and excessively expensive weapon systems and platforms (that take too long to develop and replenish, and regularly exceed their budgets), are being systematically bled dry.

    In simple financial terms, the West is on the wrong side of the cost curve. Imagine the defense industry as a normal business. In economics, a cost curve illustrates the relationship between production costs and quantity. Successful businesses achieve economies of scale, reducing costs through efficiency. But the West’s defense enterprise is operating on the wrong side of this curve. Production costs are high, and output is low, pushing Western nations into diseconomies of scale.

    The recent aerial attack on Israel and the war in Ukraine expose this vulnerability. Iran’s 300-plus airborne weapons that targeted Israel amounted to less than $200 million while the Western response exceeds billions of dollars. In Ukraine, multimillion-dollar weapons platforms are destroyed by uncrewed aircraft systems that range from hundreds to thousands of dollars, and Russia’s prized Black Sea Fleet has been devastated by inexpensive maritime drones. Defense analysts estimate that the cost ratio is easily 100 to 1.

    A Call to Action

    A new revolution in military spending is underway. It’s a radical change in the way nations procure and integrate military capabilities. The innovation and changes in Ukraine have been described by Gen. Mark Milley as “the most significant fundamental change in the character of war ever recorded in history.” Consequently, this isn’t a military issue alone; it is a societal one. In democracies such as the United States, “We the People” are responsible for our common defense. We cannot afford to ignore this unsustainable cost mismatch. Every defense dollar matters when there are competing demands for resources to address aging populations, health care, migration challenges, and myriad other social services.

    Traditional procurement models in the West, to include the United States and NATO, are no longer fit for purpose. They are failing. Decades-long development cycles are obsolete in a world of rapidly evolving threats and disruptive technological change. Let’s say an adversarial nation has a four-year cycle to produce a capability and, in the West, it takes 10 years. In this scenario, in 20 years’ time, the adversary-to-West ratio for innovation and capability development is 5 to 2. This all but guarantees that our adversaries will field a greater range of innovative capabilities, potentially leading to overmatch.

    Rapid technological advancements are outpacing the military’s long-term development programs, rendering them obsolete as cheaper, more effective alternatives emerge. Program managers, those with the responsibility, authority, and personnel to deliver programs (e.g., ships, planes, software), lack both the incentive and the means to adapt to this fast-changing landscape. The ingrained culture of preserving existing programs stifles innovation and adaptability. It’s unlikely a program manager will kill their program for the greater good. Likewise, the political representatives of states where these programs sit will lobby heavily to keep these programs (i.e., jobs) alive, irrespective of any negative strategic impact.

    To overcome this, the military and the broader defense enterprise must urgently rethink their approach. Early and aggressive testing, integration, and prototyping of innovative warfare concepts are essential to gain an edge in modern conflicts. SpaceX’s rapid trial and error prototyping to develop rockets and OpenAI’s early release and testing of ChatGPT are examples of this approach to developing capability faster. Waiting for “perfect” solutions, or clinging to lengthy development cycles, leads to unpreparedness on the ever-evolving battlefield. Keeping this approach is akin to relying on horse cavalry in the era of mechanized warfare.

    A Glimmer of Hope

    There’s movement in the right direction. Nations such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Norway, and Finland are leading the way. Their “drone wall” initiative leverages affordable, networked sensors to safeguard their sovereignty. They will do this by keeping costs down to achieve economies of scale.

    The U.S. Department of Defense is also taking steps in the right direction with its Replicator initiative. Thousands of drones have been delivered, demonstrating a shift toward rapid, warfighter-centric innovation. This could be the necessary spark to ignite essential change.

    Other promising initiatives in NATO are the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic and the NATO Innovation Fund. Both complementary initiatives provide access to deep tech start-up communities, but the challenge for these programs will be transition. How do they transition capability into warfighters’ hands to be relevant going forward? As expressed above, it cannot take decades.

    The Path Forward

    To survive, the West must revolutionize its military procurement and production processes. We need a laser focus on swift prototyping and deployment of cutting-edge technologies. These systems must be affordable, easily updated, interoperable, and adaptable to new threats. The era of billion-dollar projects that risk obsolescence must end. A more diverse approach is not just needed, it’s compulsory if we want to win wars and preserve peace.

    The conflict in Ukraine serves as a stark warning. Clinging to expensive, slow-moving defense systems will leave the West vulnerable. We must out-innovate, not outspend, our adversaries. Our Alliance, made up of free and democratic nations, must unleash the creative capital present within our societies to find cost-wise off-sets that can be immediately integrated into our collective defense system.

    The future of warfare demands a fusion of accessible technology, rapid innovation, and scalable production. The West must adapt or face the consequences of falling behind an axis of aggressors who are united in their pursuit of strategic advantage and wish to see the West decline.

    *  *  *

    Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/20/2024 – 21:40

  • Oakland, CA Mayor's House Raided By The FBI
    Oakland, CA Mayor’s House Raided By The FBI

    The FBI raided the house of Oakland, California Mayor Sheng Thao Thursday morning for an unknown reason, according to the US Attorney’s Office.

    That said, law enforcement sources told NBC Bay Area that the raid was one of four search warrants executed in Oakland as part of a larger operation involving Thao.

    Other agencies involved include the IRS and the US Postal Service.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/20/2024 – 21:20

  • First-Of-Its-Kind Study Explains Why Some People Don't Get COVID-19
    First-Of-Its-Kind Study Explains Why Some People Don’t Get COVID-19

    Authored by Marina Zhang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Researchers have discovered why some people remain uninfected by the COVID-19 virus—even after their nasal cavities are exposed to it.

    (serhii.suravikin/Shutterstock)

    According to a recent study, these people have faster and more subtle immune responses than those who develop symptomatic COVID-19.

    “These findings shed new light on the crucial early events that either allow the virus to take hold or rapidly clear it before symptoms develop,” Dr. Marko Nikolić, senior author of the study and honorary consultant in respiratory medicine at the University College London, said in the press release.

    The study, published in Nature on Wednesday, was a human challenge study conducted by researchers from the UK and the Netherlands. It is the first of its kind wherein participants were deliberately exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

    Researchers recruited 16 young, healthy participants under 30 for the study. None had comorbidities, and none had ever previously been infected with COVID-19 or vaccinated.

    Before the study received peer review, a preprint of it was made available online in April 2023.

    3 Different Immune Responses

    The 16 individuals responded to the virus exposure differently and were grouped accordingly.

    The first group contained six symptomatic people. The study authors categorized them as having sustained infections.

    People in the second group were asymptomatic but still tested positive for COVID-19 with PCR tests. These participants were categorized as having transient infections.

    The third type of people were asymptomatic and continuously received negative COVID-19 PCR test results. The authors confirmed that these participants were infected but cleared their infections so rapidly that the infections were dubbed “abortive.”

    The second and third groups, who had asymptomatic COVID-19, had faster or more subtle immune responses, according to the authors.

    On Day 1, the authors detected immune cells that migrated to the nose—the site of infection—in the asymptomatic groups.

    However, people who tested negative for COVID-19 recruited fewer immune cell types, while the COVID-19-positive group recruited all immune cell types.

    Symptomatic people with sustained COVID-19 infections had slower and more systematic immune responses. These participants had all types of immune cells going into the nose on Day 5 rather than Day 1.

    Genetic Factors

    Individuals with high expression of specific genes, such as HLA-DQA2, “are better at preventing the onset of a sustained viral infection,” the authors wrote.

    Other studies have shown that increased activity of HLA-DQA2 in the blood is associated with milder COVID-19 progression.

    HLA-DQA2 is one of many human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes. HLA genes make proteins displayed on the cell surface. When pathogens infect cells, HLA proteins signal to immune cells that they have been infected.

    The authors said their data confirm that HLA-DQA2 activity protects against further production of SARS-CoV-2 virus in infected cells.

    Symptomatic People Had Systematic Responses

    Only people with symptomatic COVID-19 displayed systematic interferon responses. Interferons are messengers of the immune system that help reduce or aggravate immune and inflammatory activities.

    The authors were surprised to find that interferons in the blood were activated before those at the infection site. Interferon activity in the blood peaked on Day 3 of the infection; however, interferon activity at the infection site—the nose—was not detected until Day 5.

    In the press release, the authors said that slow immune responses in the nose could have allowed the infection to establish itself quickly.

    Asymptomatic people did not have systemic interferon reactions and rarely had infected cells.

    Unsurprisingly, “infected cells were almost exclusively found” in the nasal cavities of symptomatic people, the authors wrote. The cells lining participants’ nasal cavities start producing SARS-CoV-2 virus, contributing to increased viral load.

    “We now have a much greater understanding of the full range of immune responses, which could provide a basis for developing potential treatments and vaccines that mimic these natural protective responses,” said Dr. Nikolić.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/20/2024 – 21:00

  • Escalating Red Sea Attacks Drive Up Vessel Insurance Costs
    Escalating Red Sea Attacks Drive Up Vessel Insurance Costs

    Iran-backed Houthi rebels have been intensifying missile and drone attacks, targeting commercial vessels in the southern Red Sea, critical Bab el-Mandeb chokepoint, and the Gulf of Aden. The rebels have even threatened to extend their reach to the Mediterranean Sea. The recent sinking of the Tutor dry-bulk carrier by a kamikaze drone boat marks a significant escalation. The ongoing turmoil has sent containerized freight costs soaring, along with insurance costs back on the rise.

    Bloomberg spoke with two individuals familiar with the maritime insurance market. They said the price of covering a commercial vessel for transit has jumped from .3% to .4% of the ship’s total value to .6%. In other words, a vessel worth $50 million must pay upwards of $300k of insurance for one sail.

    “The rate is nevertheless slightly below a peak reached earlier this year when attacks ramped up,” Bloomberg said. But if Houthi attacks persist through summer, the rate will likely increase further. 

    The sinking of the commodity-hauling bulk carrier this week by a drone boat was a real eye-opener for the shipping community and commodity industry as President Biden’s Operation Prosperity Guardian fails to counter endless Houthi attacks on commercial ships in the critical shipping lane.

    It was also the first time a ship was sunk by a drone boat in this muti-month campaign by Houthis.

    “It’s another indicator that the Houthis are stepping up their attacks on those vessels that were warned not to pass through the Red Sea,” Dirk Siebels, a senior analyst at Risk Intelligence, said of the drone boat attack on Tutor, who Bloomberg quoted. 

    Considering Houthis are mainly targeting Western-linked vessels, not all insurance costs have soared. Bloomberg said Chinese vessels continue to receive significant discounts. 

    In addition to the rising insurance costs, the diversion of vessels from the Red Sea around the Cape of Good Hope is causing containerized shipping costs to skyrocket.

    Source: Bloomberg

    This shift is straining the world’s containerized capacity, leading to a significant increase in shipping costs for 40-foot containers. Logjams are also forming at some of the world’s top ports, including the Port of Singapore.

    Samuel Cranny-Evans, an associate fellow at RUSI, a London-based think tank, warned drone boats “can be difficult to intercept.” 

    That said, increasing insurance premiums and freight costs contribute to the sticky inflation story. Thanks, Iran, which is just causing turmoil on the maritime lane via its proxy group, Houthis. 

    “Iran is defeating US deterrence and counterstrike in the Red Sea. The stage is set for a similar fight in the Gulf,” David Asher, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, stated, as war risks are only rising. 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/20/2024 – 20:40

  • A New High-Rise Building Will House LA's Homeless In $600,000 Units
    A New High-Rise Building Will House LA’s Homeless In $600,000 Units

    Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

    A grand opening of Weingart Tower will have 278 units to shelter the homeless. Hooray!?

    Image courtesy of ABC News, YouTube video and details below

    ABC News reports New high-rise building to house homeless in $600K units in downtown Los Angeles

    There are 278 units in the 19-story development known as the Weingart Tower. It’s intended to help people currently without shelter on Skid Row and it will be L.A.’s largest permanent support housing project.

    The building will have an entire floor of offices for case workers, in addition to a list of impressive amenities: a gym, art room, music room, computer room and library.

    Residents will enjoy six common balconies and a café.

    It’s considered affordable housing, but the cost to build this type of project still adds up. Each unit costs nearly $600,000 and it’s being funded by taxpayers.

    The $165 million project is receiving permanent financing from Proposition HHH, which voters overwhelmingly passed in 2016. The new tower is also receiving state housing funds and $56 million in state tax credits.

    Several elected officials, including L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, attended a grand opening ceremony at for the building.

    Building Tour

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Beyond Insane Math

    This is beyond insane. NBC news reports There are 75,518 people are homeless in the county, and 46,260 in the city of Los Angeles, an increase from the 69,144 in the county, and 41,980 the city from 2022 as of Jan 23, 2023.

    $600,000 * 278 = $166,800,000. That’s $166.8 million. And that does not include free property taxes, case workers, maintenance, utilities, insurance, food, police, clothes, doormen, or medical care.

    If the county were to shelter the 75,518 homeless, the cost would be $45,310,800,000. That’s $45.3 billion, again excluding free property taxes, case workers, maintenance, utilities, insurance, food, police, clothes, doormen, or medical care.

    And it would not stop there. Every homeless person in the state would move their tent to LA to participate.

    Affordable Housing

    This dear woke fans is what’s known as “affordable housing”.

    Taxes have to rise to accommodate such stupidity. It makes me angry just thinking about this. For what? Does the city think this will cure the homeless problem?

    Most of these people are some combination of drug addicts, alcoholics, mentally unstable, and physically unfit to ever work. And even if they did work, they would not be living in $600,000 units.

    California Proposes Restraining Orders to Stop Thieves

    More and more headlines look as if they are from the Babylon Bee. Let’s discuss the latest idiocrasy from la-la land.

    Governor Gavin Newsom courtesy of the Hoover Institute

    On June 17,I commented Hoot of the Day: California Proposes Restraining Orders to Stop Thieves

    What’s going on in California is beyond insane.

    Also see Twenty Percent of California Lives in Poverty, What’s Going On?

    Meanwhile, working people are struggling.

    Angry Renters

    Hard working people are struggling to make ends meet due to rising inflation. And here we are offering $600,000 “affordable” units plus free food, medical care, etc. to drug addicts.

    For discussion of angry renters please see Why Angry Renters Will Decide the Election, Take II

    Think of the poor, nearly broke worker who gets up every day in his tiny apartment and drives a long commute to work eight hours a day so that he can pay for free healthcare for illegal migrants and $600,000 units for the homeless.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/20/2024 – 20:20

  • KitKat-Maker Warns 'Cocoaflation' Will Send Chocolate Bar Prices Higher For Consumers 
    KitKat-Maker Warns ‘Cocoaflation’ Will Send Chocolate Bar Prices Higher For Consumers 

    Mark Davies, managing director at Nestlé Confectionery UK & Ireland, has issued a stark warning to chocolate lovers: while secured and hedged supplies of cocoa beans have kept KitKat bar prices relatively low amid the cocoa price storm, the full impact is about to be felt as candy bar prices will be hiked. 

    “Demand appears to be resilient at the moment, but as prices go up, we would expect to see dampening demand,” Davies said during a visit to the company’s factory in York, England, which Bloomberg quoted. The York plant produces more than 200k KitKat bars every hour. 

    Cocoa futures in New York have once again crossed the $10k a ton mark, a clear indication of the persistent fears of dwindling global bean supplies. The situation in West Africa, the location of the world’s top cocoa farms, continues to deteriorate.

    Here are our latest bean reports:

    Bloomberg Intelligence stated earlier this year that chocolate makers who secured supplies well in advance or hedged at some capacity soon face higher costs.  

    Nestle’s Davies said the rise in cocoa costs may force some companies to use more substitutes for cocoa. 

    In other words, food inflation will remain sticky, and price hikes are imminent in the candy world. This may be a good thing as an increasing number of Americans inject themselves with big pharma’s Ozempic and dial back their carb intake. 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/20/2024 – 20:00

  • No "Blank Check": Dean Warns That Criticizing The School Or Its Leadership Is Not Protected At Harvard
    No “Blank Check”: Dean Warns That Criticizing The School Or Its Leadership Is Not Protected At Harvard

    Authored by Jonathan Turley,

    In my book out this week, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, I write about the anti-free speech movement that has swept over higher education and how administrators and faculty hold a view of free speech as harmful. Now Harvard is again at the heart of a free speech fight after Lawrence Bobo, the Dean of Social Science, rejected views of free speech as a “blank check” and said that criticizing university leaders like himself or school policies are now viewed as “outside the bounds of acceptable professional conduct.”

    Bobo warns that public criticism of the school could “cross a line into sanctionable violations.”

    In his opinion editorial in the Harvard Crimson, Bobo declares:

    “A faculty member’s right to free speech does not amount to a blank check to engage in behaviors that plainly incite external actors — be it the media, alumni, donors, federal agencies, or the government — to intervene in Harvard’s affairs. Along with freedom of expression and the protection of tenure comes a responsibility to exercise good professional judgment and to refrain from conscious action that would seriously harm the University and its independence.”

    The column adopts every jingoistic rationale used by anti-free speech critics today, including the invocation of the Holmes “crowded theater” analogy:

    “But many faculty at Harvard enjoy an external stature that also opens to them much broader platforms for potential advocacy. Figures such as Raj Chetty ’00, Henry Louis Gates Jr., Jill Lepore, or Steven A. Pinker have well-earned notoriety that reaches far beyond the academy.

    Would it simply be an ordinary act of free speech for those faculty to repeatedly denounce the University, its students, fellow faculty, or leadership? The truth is that free speech has limits — it’s why you can’t escape sanction for shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.”

    First and foremost, the ability of faculty to speak out on public disputes should not depend on whether you are more popular or visible.

    However, it is the theater analogy that is most galling.

    I have an entire chapter in The Indispensable Right that addresses the fallacies surrounding this line out of the Holmes opinion. It is arguably the most damaging single line ever written by a Supreme Court justice in the area of free speech.

    I have previously written about the irony of liberals adopting the analogy, which was used to crack down on socialists and dissenters on the left.

    One of the most telling moments came in a congressional hearing when I warned of the dangers of repeating the abuses of prior periods like the Red Scare, when censorship and blacklisting were the norm. In response, Rep. Dan Goldman, D-New York, invoked Oliver Wendell Holmes’ view that free speech does not give a person the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. In other words, citizens had to be silenced because their views are dangerous to others.

    When I attempted to point out that the line came from a case justifying the imprisonment of socialists for their political viewpoints, Goldman cut me off and “reclaimed his time.”

    Other Democrats have used the line as a mantra, despite its origins in one of our most abusive anti-free speech periods during which the government targeted political dissidents on the left.

    Dean Bobo is now the latest academic to embrace the theater rationale to justify the silencing of dissent. At Harvard, he is suggesting that the entire university is now a crowded theater and criticizing the university leadership is a cry of “Fire.” It is that easy.

    By punishing criticism of the school’s leadership and policies, Bobo believes that they can look “forward to calmer times” on campus. It is precisely the type of artificial silence that academics have been enforcing against conservatives, libertarians, and dissenters for years. It is the approach that reduced our schools to an academic echo chamber.

    The reference to Professor Steven Pinker is particularly ironic. As we have previously discussed, Pinker was targeted for exercising free speech. In past controversies, most Harvard faculty members have been conspicuously silent as colleagues were targeted by cancel campaigns. It was the same at other universities.

    As faculties effectively purged their ranks of conservative or Republican members, the silence was deafening.

    Others either supported such campaigns or justified them. Notably, over 75 percent of the Harvard faculty identify as “liberal” or “very liberal.”

    Then the Gaza protests began and some of these same faculty found themselves the targets of mobs. Suddenly, free speech became an urgent matter to address. Fortunately for these liberal professors, the free speech community is used to opportunistic allies. Where “fair weather friends” are often ridiculed, free speech relies on “foul-weather friends,” those who suddenly see the need to protect a diversity of opinions when they feel threatened.

    Bobo’s arguments are consistent with years of rationales for silencing or investigating dissenting faculty for years. It violates the very foundation for academia in free speech and academic freedom. The university is free to punish students or faculty for unlawful conduct. However, when it comes to their viewpoints, there should be a bright line of protection.

    Of course, this criticism is likely to trigger another common fallacy used to rationalize speech controls: as a private university Harvard is not subject to the First Amendment and thus this is not a true free speech issue.

    As discussed previously, free speech values go beyond the First Amendment whether it is a controversy on social media or campuses. For years, anti-free-speech figures have dismissed free speech objections to social media or academic censorship by stressing that the First Amendment applies only to the government, not private companies or institutions. The distinction was always a dishonest effort to evade the implications of speech controls, whether implemented by the government or corporations.

    The First Amendment was never the exclusive definition of free speech. Free speech is viewed by many of us as a human right; the First Amendment only deals with one source for limiting it. Free speech can be undermined by private corporations as well as government agencies. This threat is even greater when politicians openly use corporations and universities to achieve indirectly what they cannot achieve directly.

    Dean Bobo’s desire for “calmer times” would come at too high a price for free speech as well as Harvard.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/20/2024 – 19:40

  • US Pauses All Patriot Shipments To Other Countries, Will Redirect To Ukraine
    US Pauses All Patriot Shipments To Other Countries, Will Redirect To Ukraine

    The Biden administration continues going ‘all in’ on support for Ukraine, despite clear and universal acknowledgement that its forces are being beaten back along front lines, and a manpower crisis which is worsening by the day.

    A Thursday Biden administration statement has revealed a major decision which is to significantly impact Washington’s allies: the United States is pausing all shipments of Patriot interceptor missiles to foreign countries and redirecting them to Ukraine.

    US National Security Council spokeman John Kirby confirmed to reporters that the “difficult but necessary decision” of prioritizing the delivery of Patriot and NASAM missiles to Ukraine has been made.

    He also acknowledged this will come at the expense of allies which had struck deals with Washington for Patriots. Kirby described that Kiev must urgently have the ability to maintain its stockpiles “at a key moment in the war.”

    “We’re going to reprioritize the deliveries of these exports so that those missiles rolling off the production line will now be provided to Ukraine,” he affirmed. The shipments in question were expected to begin rolling out by late summer.

    “This . . . demonstrates our commitment to supporting our partners when they’re in existential danger,” Kirby continued. As we reported previously, Spain and Greece had come under considerable pressure from EU and NATO leadership to ‘sacrifice’ their Patriots to Ukraine, despite Greece in particular facing long-term threats (from Turkey).

    Recent weeks have seen President Biden authorize deployment of a second Patriot missile battery to Ukraine from its base of operations in Poland, despite these valuable systems being in limited supply. Warsaw wasn’t too pleased:

    This morning [last Thurs. June 13], the head of President Duda’s National Security Bureau (BBN), Jacek Siewiera, responded to the report by telling broadcaster Radio Zet that “American Patriots should not be transferred from Poland to Ukraine”.

    “We are a key country for supplies to Ukraine and deterrence on NATO’s eastern flank,” said Siewiera. “Air defence is necessary here. I will want to discuss this with US Presidential [National Security] Advisor Jake Sullivan.”

    President Biden had earlier announced that “everything we have is going to go to Ukraine until their needs are met” amid the broader push to get more European countries to donate weapons.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    But there’s also lately been some behind closed doors EU infighting over the rush to get Ukraine more, more & more weapons, even as Western countries’ own stockpiles are already dwindled.

    …Talk about a very literal concept of Ukraine first.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/20/2024 – 19:20

  • We Spent A Billion Dollars Fighting The Houthis… And Lost
    We Spent A Billion Dollars Fighting The Houthis… And Lost

    Authored by Ron Paul,

    Why does it seem the Pentagon is far better at spending money than actually putting together a successful operation? The failed “Operation Prosperity Guardian” and the disastrous floating Gaza pier are but two recent examples of enormously expensive initiatives that, though they no-doubt enriched military contractors, were incapable of meeting their stated goals.

    To great fanfare, last December the Pentagon announced the launch of Operation Prosperity Guardian, a joint US/UK military operation to halt the Yemeni Houthi disruption of Israel-linked commercial shipping through the Red Sea. The Houthis announced their policy in response to civilian deaths in Israel’s war on Gaza, but when the US and UK military became involved they announced they would target US and UK shipping as well.

    The operation was supposed to be quick and easy. After all, the rag-tag Houthi militia was no match for the mighty US and UK navies. But it didn’t work out that way at all. Over the weekend the Wall Street Journal published a devastating article revealing that after spending more than one billion dollars on munitions alone, the operation had failed to deter the Houthis and failed to re-open commercial shipping in the Red Sea.

    The Journal reported that Avril Haines, the director of national intelligence, recently told Congress that “the U.S.-led effort has been insufficient to deter the militant group’s targeting of ships and that the threat will ‘remain active for some time.’”

    Meanwhile, the article informed us that a continued US effort to fight the Houthis over Red Sea shipping was “not sustainable.”

    Perhaps the most revealing part of the article comes from a Washington military expert, Emily Harding of CSIS:

    “Their supply of weapons from Iran is cheap and highly sustainable, but ours is expensive, our supply chains are crunched, and our logistics tails are long.”

    It is reminiscent of a recollection by Col. Harry G. Summers of a discussion he had with North Vietnamese Col. Tu:

    “You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield,” said Summers.

    Tu paused for a moment, then replied, “That may be so. But it is also irrelevant.”

    Similarly, the US military spent a quarter of a billion dollars building a temporary floating pier to deliver aid to the starving Palestinians even though a land route already existed and would have been far cheaper to use. The project was doomed from the beginning, as days after opening stormy weather broke up the pier and washed part of it up on Israel’s shore. The US military managed to gather the pieces together again, but in total only a few aid trucks managed to use it before, over the weekend, the pier was again disassembled for fear of another weather-related break-up.

    The only thing the pier was good for, it seems, was assisting the Israeli military in a Gaza raid on June 8th that killed 270 Palestinian civilians.

    As neocons inside the Beltway continue to plot war with China over Taiwan, it seems someone should notice the trouble we have had dealing with Houthis and floating piers. For now, the growth in military spending seems unlimited, but increasing spending bringing diminishing results raises the question of just how much bang are we getting for our bucks?

    We have the most expensive military on earth, they say. That may be true, but it is also irrelevant.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/20/2024 – 19:00

  • Major Cyber Incident Paralyzes Thousands Of US Auto Dealerships  
    Major Cyber Incident Paralyzes Thousands Of US Auto Dealerships  

    The company supplying software for managing sales and services to thousands of auto dealerships across the US reported yet another cyber disruption on Thursday, disrupting sales of new and used vehicles. 

    X user Car Dealership Guy reports that CDK Global sent an email to auto dealers informing them of “an additional cyber incident late in the evening on June 19th.” 

    “Out of continued caution and to protect our customers, we are once again proactively shutting down most of our systems,” the email read.

    CDX told its clients, which includes almost 15,000 dealerships, “At this time, we do not have an estimated time frame for resolution, and therefore, our dealers’ systems will not be available at a minimum on Thursday, June 20th.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The auto industry is a powerhouse in the US economy, contributing 3-3.5% of the nation’s GDP. It employs over 1.7 million people at automakers, suppliers, and thousands of dealerships. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Here’s what X users are saying about the cyber incident:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Hmmm.

    *Developing… 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/20/2024 – 18:40

  • Price Discovery Equals Short Sales
    Price Discovery Equals Short Sales

    Authored by Douglas French via The Mises Institute,

    Price discovery in commercial real estate, which had been frozen while sellers insisted on prices from the good ol’ ZIRP days, is starting to thaw. Real estate giant Related Companies has unloaded the property at 321 W. 44th St., New York City, for less than $50 million, reports Bloomberg.

    Not only is that a 67 percent discount from the nearly $153 million that Related Fund Management paid for it in 2018, but also, the lenders, including Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, agreed to a “short sale.” For those who have forgotten 2008 or were too young, a “short sale” is when the lender agrees to a property sale for less than the outstanding amount on the mortgage. The owner loses everything, and the lender takes a large loss. In this case, the repayment to the lenders was more than cut in half as the property’s mortgage exceeded $100 million.

    Another recent office building sale had Blackstone and its lender agreeing to sell 1740 Broadway for $186 million. Blackstone Inc. bought the building in 2014 for $605 million.

    Pacific Investment Management Company (Pimco) expects more regional bank failures due to a “very high” concentration of troubled commercial real estate (CRE) loans on their books, Bloomberg reports.

    John Murray, the head of Pimco’s global private commercial real estate team, told Bloomberg’s Laura Benitez that “the real wave of distress is just starting” for lenders to everything from malls to offices.

    Ms. Benitez writes, “Contrary to some market expectations, larger banks have been disposing of some of their higher quality assets first to avoid deeper losses, according to Murray.”

    That means banks are selling their best assets because they can receive prices at least equal to what they are carrying in loans on their balance sheets. There is no other reason to sell good loans but to generate liquidity.

    “As stressed loans grow due to maturities, however, we expect that banks will start selling these more challenged loans to reduce their troubled loan exposures,” Mr. Murray said. Banks will take losses when these loans are unloaded, impairing capital and in some cases leading to bank failures.

    Ms. Benitez writes, “The turmoil has been particularly felt among regional banks, which boosted their CRE exposure that in many cases is now worth only a fraction of their value at their peak.”

    Not only are banks carrying a collective half a trillion dollars in unrealized losses on securities portfolios, but also, as Ms. Benitez explains, bank commercial real estate loan books are underwater as well.

    “The combination of rising rates plus recessionary pressures creates real challenges for commercial real estate, from both a capital markets and fundamentals perspective,” Mr. Murray said.

    Real challenges for the banks holding the paper as well.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/20/2024 – 18:20

  • Louisiana Orders Schools To Display 10 Commandments In Every Classroom, Including Colleges
    Louisiana Orders Schools To Display 10 Commandments In Every Classroom, Including Colleges

    In the latest shot fired in America’s intensifying culture wars, Louisiana will now require public schools to display a Ten Commandments poster in every classroom, after Republican Gov. Jeff Landry signed a bill into law on Wednesday. “If you want to respect the rule of law, you’ve got to start from the original lawgiver, which was Moses,” said Landry at a bill-signing event. 

    Starting in January, each public classroom in the Pelican State must have a display of the 10 Commandments measuring at least 11 by 14 inches and using “large, easily readable font.” The display must include a four-paragraph “context statement” on how the commandments “were a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Notably, the requirement covers not only K-12 schools but public universities too. The law says it doesn’t seek to create an “unfunded mandate,” but anticipates schools will use displays donated by private parties. 

    For now, Louisiana is the only state with such a requirement — and legal challenges are already in the works. A consortium of organizations comprising the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation issued a statement after Landry signed the bill into law, saying the measure goes against a 1980 precedent set in Stone v Graham, in which the Supreme Court struck down a similar Kentucky law. The group added: 

    “We are preparing a lawsuit to challenge H.B. 71. The law violates the separation of church and state and is blatantly unconstitutional. The First Amendment promises that we all get to decide for ourselves what religious beliefs, if any, to hold and practice, without pressure from the government. Politicians have no business imposing their preferred religious doctrine on students and families in public schools.”

    The law’s language was clearly drafted with legal challenges in mind. It notes that “including the Ten Commandments in the education of our children is part of our state and national history, culture, and tradition.” It also specifies that the text of the commandments to be used in Louisiana classrooms is the same as what was upheld in the 2005 Supreme Court case, Van Orden v Perry.

    An excerpt from Louisiana’s newly-enacted HB71, stipulating which version of the 10 Commandments must be displayed 

    In that 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the Constitution’s establishment clause did render a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas capitol building illegal. “Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the establishment clause,” the majority wrote. 

    The Supreme Court gave its blessing to this monument on the Texas capitol grounds, but an earlier decision threw out a Kentucky classroom requirement like Louisiana is now attempting (Larry Kolvoord/AP via NBC News)

    “It is the Legislature’s intent to apply the decision set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in Van Orden v. Perry…to continue the rich tradition and ensure that the students in our public schools may understand and appreciate the foundational documents of our state and national government,” the Louisiana law declares.  

    Given Louisiana has the second-highest murder rate of any American state, a little more “thou shalt not kill” can’t hurt.  

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/20/2024 – 18:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest