- Tour de France: Too Fast To Be Clean?
Tour de France: Too Fast To Be Clean?
Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/22/2020 – 02:45Tadej Pogačar made history on Sunday by becoming the first Slovenian to win the Tour de France.
Winning the Tour a day before his 22nd birthday, Pogačar is now the second-youngest rider ever to win the Tour de France, trailing only Henri Cornet who was just 19 years and 352 days old when he won the second-ever Tour de France in 1904.
Pogačar, who rides for UAE Team Emirates, had only taken the lead on the penultimate day of the Grand Tour after outclassing his compatriot and friend Primoz Roglic in an individual time trial to the top of La Planche des Belles Filles. Flying up the hill in spectacular fashion, Pogačar had made up his 57-second deficit to Roglic way before the finish line, taking almost 2 minutes off his friend in the end.
While a finish like that would have made huge headlines during the Tour’s heyday two decades ago, it went strangely unnoticed this year.
As Statista’s Felix Richter notes, many former fans of the Tour de France and cycling in general appear to have lost faith in the integrity of what is arguably one of the most doping-ridden disciplines in the world of sport.
You will find more infographics at Statista
With an average speed of 39.87 kilometers per hour (24.78 mph), this year’s Tour winner was only fractionally slower than Lance Armstrong was in his seven Tour wins between 1999 and 2005, begging the question if today’s riders really are as clean as every fan of the sport would hope.
- Exposing War Crimes Should Always Be Legal… Committing And Hiding Them Should Not
Exposing War Crimes Should Always Be Legal… Committing And Hiding Them Should Not
Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/22/2020 – 02:00Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,
The Kafkaesque extradition trial of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange continues, with each frustrating day making it clearer than the day before that what we are watching is nothing other than a staged performance by the US and UK governments to explain why it’s okay for powerful governments to jail journalists who expose inconvenient truths about them.
The Assange defense team is performing admirably, making the arguments they need to make to try and prevent an extradition that will set a precedent which will imperil press freedoms and creating a chilling effect on all adversarial national security investigative journalism around the world. These arguments appear to fall on deaf ears before Judge Vanessa Baraitser, who has from the beginning been acting like someone who has already made up her mind and who has been reading from pre-written judgements at the trial regardless of the points presented to her (an unusual behavior made all the more suspicious by her supervision under Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot, who has a massive conflict of interest in this case).
And while it is essential to fight this fight with every intention of winning, I’d also like to issue a friendly reminder that this entire trial is illegitimate at its very foundation.
Amid all the pedantic squabbling over when it is and is not legal under US law for a journalist to expose evidence of US war crimes, we must never lose sight of the fact that:
(A) it should always be legal to expose war crimes,
(B) it should always be illegal for governments to hide evidence of their war crimes,
(C) war crimes should always be punished,
(D) people who start criminal wars should always be punished,
(E) governments should not be permitted to have a level of secrecy that allows them to start criminal wars, and
(F) power and secrecy should always have an inverse relationship to one another.
The Assange case needs to be fought tooth and claw, but we must keep in mind that it is so very, very many clicks back from where we need to be as a civilization. In an ideal situation the public should have governments too afraid of them to keep secrets from them; instead here we are begging the most powerful government in the world to please not imprison a journalist because he arguably did not break the rules that that government made for itself.
Do you see how far that point is from where we need to be?
It’s important to remember this. It’s important to remember that the amount of evil deeds power structures will commit is directly proportional to the amount of information they are permitted to hide from the public. We will not have a healthy world until power and secrecy have an inverse relationship to each other: privacy for rank-and-file individuals and transparency for governments and their officials.
If wars are started by lies, peace can be started by truth… pic.twitter.com/Kmxw35tITt
— WanderingDuckweed (@candle_finder) September 14, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
“But what about military secrets?” one might object. Yes, what about military secrets? What about the fact that virtually all military violence perpetrated by the world’s largest power structures is initiated based on lies? What about the utterly indisputable fact that the more secrecy we allow the war machine the more wars it deceives the public into allowing it to initiate?
-
In a healthy world, the most powerful government on earth wouldn’t be trying to squint at its own laws in such a way that permits a prosecution of a journalist for telling the truth.
-
In a healthy world, the most powerful government on earth wouldn’t prosecute anyone for telling the truth at all.
-
In a healthy world, governments would prosecute their own war crimes instead of those who expose them.
-
In a healthy world, governments wouldn’t commit war crimes at all.
-
In a healthy world, governments wouldn’t start wars at all.
-
In a healthy world, governments would see truth as something to be desired and actively sought, not something to be repressed and punished.
-
In a healthy world, governments wouldn’t keep secrets from the public, and wouldn’t have any cause to want to.
-
In a healthy world, if governments existed at all, they would exist solely as tools for the people to serve themselves, with full transparency and accountability to the people.
We are obviously a very, very far cry from the kind of healthy world we would all like to one day find ourselves in. But we should always keep in mind what a healthy world will look like, and hold it as our true north for the direction that we are pushing in.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my books Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
-
- "A Black Box Of Unclear Motives" – World's Oldest Central Bank Blasted After Redacting BlackRock Bond-Buying Report
“A Black Box Of Unclear Motives” – World’s Oldest Central Bank Blasted After Redacting BlackRock Bond-Buying Report
Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/22/2020 – 01:00Ahead of today’s Riksbank rate decision, Swedish authorities are facing consternation from many market participants over the lack of transparency about its newly unveiled corporate-bond buying scheme.
While Swedish officials are likely unphased by ‘outsiders’ questioning their decisions (after their controversial – yet successful – strategy in dealing with COVID), Bloomberg reports that initial enthusiasm by market participants as the world’s oldest central bank brought in consultants from BlackRock to help it move ahead with a controversial corporate bond purchase program.
The Riksbank’s decision to start buying corporate bonds this month is turning into one of its most controversial policy moves ever.
In response to Bloomberg’s request for information about BlackRock’s report, 19 pages of heavily redacted text was sent…
“The Swedish corporate bond market exhibits a number of singularities when compared to other Anglo-Saxon markets,” the document showed.
Almost everything else was blacked out.
Riksbank cited a further 68 pages of the report couldn’t be shared at all, as they, “in their whole, are covered by secrecy.”
As Bloomberg notes, the legal adviser to a parliamentary committee responsible for drafting a new Riksbank Act has suggested the program might be unlawful. And investors have warned that the purchases will distort bond prices in a market that’s already rebounded from the Covid crisis.
“It becomes a black box, run by the Riksbank, with highly unclear working methods and motives,” said Andreas Halldahl, head of Swedish rates at Storebrand Asset Management.
“It only brings more uncertainty and destroys another market that worked just fine without them.”
The corporate bond program even raises questions about the Riksbank’s mandate when it comes to unconventional monetary policy, according to Par Osterholm, a professor of economics at Orebro University.
“A relevant question to ask here is how much credit risk it’s reasonable for the Riksbank to expose itself to,” Osterholm said inan opinion piece in Svenska Dagbladet.
The Riksbank said earlier this month that:
“The Swedish market for corporate bonds is currently functioning in a satisfactory manner, but is assessed to still be vulnerable if the crisis worsens and unease increases.”
One look at the market’s risk-pricing for Swedish corporate debt suggests all is not well as spread compensation has collapsed to almost record lows once again…
…as the bond-buying program is barely under-way…
“They set out to ‘save’ a market, but can’t really define what the problem is and how they will make it better,” Storebrand’s Halldahl said.
“Nor can they say what distinguishes the Swedish market from the foreign ones and in which areas we function so much worse.”
The Riksbank started its corporate bond-buying program on Sept. 14, but hasn’t provided any details of actual purchases.
- Kennedy's US-Russia Joint Space Vision Must Be Revived
Kennedy’s US-Russia Joint Space Vision Must Be Revived
Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/21/2020 – 23:55Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
September 20th marked the anniversary of the last speech John F Kennedy delivered to the United Nations’ General Assembly.
This event bears more relevance upon our present crisis than most people could possibly imagine. This is true not only because it is wise to pay homage to great ideas of the past which lesser souls allowed to slip away and get buried under the sands of time, but also because history provides many of the solutions to seemingly impossible problems in our own time.
During his short speech, Kennedy outlined the very same fundamental obstacles to survival faced by our own world 57 years later:
The spectre of nuclear annihilation looming overhead, poverty and the evils of colonialism staining humanity on earth, and the dominance of destructive modes of thinking which have prevented honest dialogue between the west and east who have so many common interests and yet have been blocked from acting upon them for want of creativity, understanding and faith.
Although it is far too rarely displayed in history, great leaders (those who are beholden to their consciences) recognize that there are solutions to every problem. From Plato to Cicero to Confucius and Christ in ancient times or Thomas More, Benjamin Franklin, Lincoln, and Kennedy in our modern age, these rare but vitally important individuals demonstrate through their words and deeds that when the dominant social rules of the game prevent those necessary and possible solutions from manifesting, then only one course of action becomes possible: Change the rules of the game.
The martyred Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin eloquently touched on this truth in 1992 shaking the hands with Yasser Arafat and advancing a two-state solution saying:
“The future belongs to those who have the courage to change their axioms.”
Kennedy Breaks the Rules of the Great Game
Such was the case of John F. Kennedy who recognized early on in his short-lived presidency that the geopolitical “closed system” thinking dominant among the military and foreign policy experts of the west held only the seeds for humanity’s destruction. In his speech of September 20, 1963, Kennedy revisited a theme which he first unveiled on the day of his inaugural address in 1961: A joint U.S.-USSR space program to transform the rules of the Cold War and usher in a new creative age of reason, win-win cooperation and boundless discoveries.
In his 1961 inaugural speech, Kennedy ushered in the theme that would animate his next three years saying:
“Together let U.S. explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce. Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah–to “undo the heavy burdens . . . (and) let the oppressed go free.”
Ten days later, Kennedy re-iterated this idea during his first state of the Union inviting Russia “to join with U.S. in developing… a new communication satellite program in preparation for probing the distant planets of Mars and Venus, probes which may someday unlock the deepest secrets of the universe”.
Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, and other leaders in the east heard these words with a mix of hope and trepidation.
The priests of the Cold War also heard these words… however hope was not among their feelings. Their hearts sank under the profound fear that the zero sum game theory models that they spent so much effort to bring online as substitutes for creative diplomacy would become obsolete in a new age of positive cooperation among sovereign nation states.
These latter priests who were then led by such figures as the State Department’s Dean Rusk, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, Joint Chiefs’ head Lyman Lemnitzer and the powerful Dulles brothers lit dangerous fires on multiple fronts in an effort to kill JFK’s vision in the cradle.
The form this attempted murder took was the Bay of Pigs Invasion of April 17-19 which was put into motion weeks before the young president had stepped into the White House. Even though Kennedy outflanked the Dr. Strangeloves among the Joint Chiefs of Staff by not providing air support for the invasion, grave damage was done to U.S.-Soviet relations. When he finally met Khrushchev on June 4, 1961 in Geneva, the president’s offer for space cooperation was rejected by the Russian leader who demanded America commit to arms reduction and other acts of good will before any positive cooperation could possibly take place.
Did Khrushchev recognize that Kennedy’s November 1961 firing of Allan Dulles and his threat to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces demonstrated a potentially trustworthy partner during this period? We may never know for sure.
Despite these setbacks, Kennedy’s requests for joint U.S.-Russian cooperation in space went on unabated and we do know that Khruschev’s letter congratulating the USA for putting their first man into orbit conveyed a strong reciprocal hope saying on February 21, 1962:
“One more step has been taken toward mastering the cosmos and this time Lieutenant Colonel John Glenn, a citizen of the United States of America, has been added to the family of astronauts. The successful launching of spaceships signalizing the conquest of new heights in science and technology inspire legitimate pride for the limitless potentialities of the human mind to serve the welfare of humanity. It is to be hoped that the genius of man, penetrating the depth of the universe, will be able to find ways to lasting peace and ensure the prosperity of all peoples on our planet earth which, in the space age, though it does not seem so large, is still dear to all of its inhabitants.
If our countries pooled their efforts—scientific, technical and material—to master the universe, this would be very beneficial for the advance of science and would be joyfully acclaimed by all peoples who would like to see scientific achievements benefit man and not be used for “cold war” purposes and the arms race.”
On September 12, 1962 Kennedy electrified the aspirations of both Americans and the world delivering his famous “Moon Speech” at Rice University saying:
“We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war… We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”
This speech and the accompanying top down federal spending needed to realize these goals ushered in a momentum and excitement which was nearly destroyed by the greatest nuclear confrontation humanity had ever faced only one month later as America and Russia nearly unleashed hell on earth during the 9 day Cuban Missile Crisis.
Although it took an immense effort, JFK overcame immense opposition from the Deep State to negotiate the test ban treaty on August 5, 1963 co-signed by the USA, the USSR, UK and joined by over 100 other nations prohibiting nuclear test explosions in the atmosphere, underwater or in outer space. By that time, word was circulating among JFK’s closest staffers that the president was planning to visit Moscow either during his presidential campaign or in the earliest moments of his 2nd term in office.
Never content to mechanistically focus on one policy at a time, Kennedy’s holistic approach to statecraft always opened multiple flanks simultaneously which was witnessed in his October 1963 efforts to pull America out of Vietnam with his NSAM 263, as well as his efforts to bypass the Federal Reserve by issuing Silver backed treasury notes to finance his growth policies both at home and abroad. A fuller exposition of Kennedy’s battle is outlined in the class “Montreal’s Permindex and the Deep State Plot to Kill JFK”:
The September 20 Offensive for Cooperation
This brings U.S. to the decisive moment on September 20, 1963 as Kennedy gave his loudest impassionate call for a U.S.-Russian joint space program with the goal of putting a Russian and American on the Moon by the end of the decade. Kennedy opened his speech acknowledging the existential dark threat wrapped tightly over humanity saying:
“The world has not escaped from the darkness. The long shadows of conflict and crisis envelop U.S. still. But we meet today in an atmosphere of rising hope, and at a moment of comparative calm. My presence here today is not a sign of crisis, but of confidence.”
Kennedy lays out the two opposing versions of peace (negative/deterrence vs positive/win-win) and clearly described which one was the only sustainable and legitimate form compatible with natural law:
“If either of our countries is to be fully secure, we need a much better weapon than the H-bomb–a weapon better than ballistic missiles or nuclear submarines–and that better weapon is peaceful cooperation.”
The president poetically builds an understanding within his audiences’ mind to understand the possibility and necessity for positive peace conceptions that would require an end to Cold War thinking and usher in a new age of reason saying:
“In a field where the United States and the Soviet Union have a special capacity–in the field of space–there is room for new cooperation, for further joint efforts in the regulation and exploration of space. I include among these possibilities a joint expedition to the moon. Space offers no problems of sovereignty; by resolution of this Assembly, the members of the United Nations have foresworn any claim to territorial rights in outer space or on celestial bodies, and declared that international law and the United Nations Charter will apply. Why, therefore, should man’s first flight to the moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction, and expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries–indeed of all the world–cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending someday in this decade to the moon not the representatives of a single nation, but the representatives of all of our countries.
“All these and other new steps toward peaceful cooperation may be possible. Most of them will require on our part full consultation with our allies–for their interests are as much involved as our own, and we will not make an agreement at their expense. Most of them will require long and careful negotiation. And most of them will require a new approach to the cold war–a desire not to “bury” one’s adversary, but to compete in a host of peaceful arenas, in ideas, in production, and ultimately in service to all mankind.”
How Did Khruschev Respond?
Everyone knows that Nikita Khrushchev, who frequently battled leading figures among Russia’s politburo during his last years in power, was deposed in a coup in 1964. But it is worth asking: how did he respond to Kennedy’s final call to cooperation? As far as this author can tell, history largely remained silent on this point for many years, until Sergei Khrushchev (Nikita’s son) delivered a revealing interview to Space Cast magazine on October 2, 1997.
In that interview, Sergei revealed that after the success of the partial test ban treaty and Kennedy’s UN speech, his father had decided to accept Kennedy’s offer saying: “my father decided that maybe he should accept (Kennedy’s) offer, given the state of the space programs of the two countries… He thought that if the Americans wanted to get our technology and create defenses against it they would do it anyway. Maybe we could get technology in the bargain that would be better for U.S. my father thought.”
Sergei also reported to Space Cast that like Kennedy, Khrushchev “was also planning to begin diverting weapons complex design bureaus into more consumer and commercial, non-military production.”
Sergei ended his interview saying:
“I think if Kennedy had lived, we would be living in a completely different world.”
The Aftermath of Kennedy’s Murder
Kennedy’s murder on November 22, 1963 ended this potential and pulled humanity back into the iron grip of the Cold Warriors who sought to keep humanity’s creative potential locked under the heavy chains of nuclear terror, consumerist decadence (today called Globalization) and never-ending wars that wrecked havoc upon the next five decades.
Under this closed system paradigm, creativity’s power to change our carrying capacity through scientific and technological progress was all but banned as vast financial resources were redirected away from NASA (whose budget peaked in 1965 and was only strangled continuously thereafter) into the military industrial complex and the growing debacle in Vietnam. This war which both Kennedy and his brother had fought to stop went far in annihilating the spirit of optimism in the hearts of the young and old alike while CIA-sponsored drugs flooded the campuses of America ensuring the growth of a new ethic of escapism, anti-humanism, post-truth modernism and rejection of Judeo-Christian traditions that infused western society its moral vitality for 2000 years.
Vital investments into nuclear fusion R & D were slashed and educational reforms under control of British imperial operatives steering the OECD (like Sir Alexander King) ensured that engineering/physics and other “practical sciences” were replaced with sociology and humanities courses which would be more “relevant” in a post-industrial Brave New World.
Humanity’s Second Chance
Second chances of this magnitude do not come often, but sitting as we are once more upon the precipice of nuclear Armageddon (the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has set the Doomsday clock mere seconds to midnight), the choice of global annihilation or survival has again been put before U.S..
Today, the spirit of JFK’s vision has come alive through the leadership of Russia and China who together have re-activated bold space missions to revisit the Moon with the full backing of the powers of sovereign nation states. This has manifested in the form of the Russian-China joint program to co-develop lunar missions, which have included the European Space Agency’s participation in the upcoming Luna 25, 26 and 27 missions to the Moon scheduled to occur between now and 2025.
Roscosmos officials stated on August 27 that this program (which is open for the USA to participate in as an equal partner) “includes missions to study the Moon from orbit and surface, the collection and return of lunar soil to Earth, as well as in the future, the construction of a visited lunar base and full scale development of our satellite.” Roscosmos representatives went further to announce their plans to establish a permanent lunar base by 2030 with China following suite soon thereafter.
This orientation obviously dovetails the American Artemis Accords which president Trump and NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine (a long time friend of Roscosmos’ Dimitry Rogozin) recently unveiled to promote international partnerships in lunar and mars development standing in stark contrast to the military industrial complex’s plans to militarize space.
The spirit of JFK’s space vision has certain come alive in new and exciting ways, but one question still remains unanswered: Does America have the ability to withstand the forces seeking to dissolve the republic and join this new open system paradigm or are those forces which killed JFK and sunk humanity into an age of war and closed-system thinking too powerful to stop?
- China Signals War Footing: PLA Minesweepers In 'Drill' To "Break Taiwan Sea Mines Threat"
China Signals War Footing: PLA Minesweepers In ‘Drill’ To “Break Taiwan Sea Mines Threat”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/21/2020 – 23:35China’s state media has confirmed what is a very serious and direct escalation in waters surrounding Taiwan amid ongoing PLA military exercises in the area.
PLA ships are engaged in ‘mock’ minesweeping activities “amid Taiwan’s attempt to deploy sea mines in the Taiwan Straits,” though it’s unclear the degree to which China’s mine-sweeping ships actually entered the contested strait.
#PLA flotillas recently held multiple mine-sweeping exercises amid Taiwan’s attempt to deploy sea mines in the Taiwan Straits. https://t.co/TJVLFfhgxG pic.twitter.com/vur6n6g6gH
— Global Times (@globaltimesnews) September 21, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
State-run Global Times described the minesweeping ships’ exercises as “honing their capability to effectively and rapidly clear sea lanes from mines, and open passages for other warships and landing forces, amid Taiwan secessionists’ attempt to surround the Taiwan Straits with mines.”
GT further claimed that it was a regular Taiwanese “tactic” to lay mines in the strait in order to “buy time for US reinforcements”.
But the publication added this would not succeed due to the PLA’s thwarting the operations.
The PLA drills, described state media, are ultimately aimed at countering “Taiwan secessionists and the US, who have been ramping up tensions in the Taiwan Straits.”
Sea mine detonation illustrative file image. According to GT:
An anti-sea mine flotilla consisting of the Liuyang, the Kaiping, and the Changshu affiliated with the PLA Southern Theater Command recently conducted a mine-sweeping exercise using live sea mines, China Central Television (CCTV) reported on Sunday.
The ships covered the calm sea, under which smart sea mines were hidden, as they would explode once they detect any sound or magnetic field change caused by ships passing by, the report said.
The Monday threat comes days after Taipei hosted yet another top American diplomatic delegation, which Beijing has repeatedly warned against, noting a violation in the longstanding ‘One China’ policy.
Multiple US advanced weapons sales are also currently in the works, which China also seas as a direct threat. All of this begs the question: were the Chinese minesweepers engaged only in mere “drills”? At the very least a clear signal has been sent.
RT @CGTNOfficial: Chinese navy conducts underwater anti-mine warfare drill pic.twitter.com/TkFmC4iUfb
— China Observer (@ChinaObserver2) September 20, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Though in the past months and more broadly in the last year rhetoric centered on the Taiwan issue has grown more aggressive and bellicose, we’ve entered different territory – clearly one presenting a war footing and posture on the Chinese side – when active minesweeping operations near Taiwan are referenced, complete with a photo from the bow of the ship presented in state media.
- Down The 1619 Project's Memory Hole
Down The 1619 Project’s Memory Hole
Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/21/2020 – 23:15Authored by Phillip Magness via Quillette.com,
The history of the American Revolution isn’t the only thing the New York Times is revising through its 1619 Project.
The “paper of record” has also taken to quietly altering the published text of the project itself after one of its claims came under intense criticism.
When the 1619 Project went to print in August 2019 as a special edition of the New York Times Magazine, the newspaper put up an interactive version on its website. The original opening text stated:
The 1619 project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative. [emphasis added]
The passage, and in particular its description of the year 1619 as “our true founding,” quickly became a flashpoint for controversy around the project. Critics on both the Left and Right took issue with the paper’s declared intention of displacing 1776 with the alternative date—a point that was also emphasized in the magazine feature’s graphics, showing the date of American independence crossed out and replaced by the date of the first slave ship’s arrival in Jamestown, Virginia.
For several months after the 1619 Project first launched, its creator and organizer Nikole Hannah-Jones doubled down on the claim. “I argue that 1619 is our true founding,” she tweeted the week after the project launched. “Also, look at the banner pic in my profile”—a reference to the graphic of the date 1776 crossed out with a line.
It’s a claim she repeated many times over.
But something changed as the historical controversies around the 1619 Project intensified in late 2019 and early 2020. A group of five distinguished historians took issue with Hannah-Jones’s lead essay, focusing on its historically unsupported claim that protecting slavery was a primary motive of the American revolutionaries when they broke away from Britain in 1776. Other details of the project soon came under scrutiny, revealing both errors of fact and dubious interpretations of evidence in other essays, such as Matthew Desmond’s 1619 Project piece attempting to connect American capitalism with slavery. Finally back in March, a historian who the Times recruited to fact-check Hannah-Jones’s essay revealed that she had warned the paper against publishing its claims about the motives of the American Revolution on account of their weak evidence. The 1619 Project’s editors ignored the advice.
Throughout the controversy, the line about the year 1619 being “our true founding” continued to haunt the Times. This criticism did not aim to denigrate the project’s titular date or the associated events in the history of slavery. Rather, the passage came to symbolize the Times’s blurring of historical analysis with editorial hyperbole. The announced intention of reframing the country’s origin date struck many readers across the political spectrum as an implicit repudiation of the American revolution and its underlying principles.
Rather than address this controversy directly, the Times—it now appears—decided to send it down the memory hole—the euphemized term for selectively editing inconvenient passages out of old newspaper reports in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. Without announcement or correction, the newspaper quietly edited out the offending passage such that it now reads:
The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.
Discovery of this edit came about earlier this week when Nikole Hannah-Jones went on CNN to deny that she had ever sought to displace 1776 with a new founding date of 1619. She repeated the point in a now-deleted tweet:
“The #1619Project does not argue that 1619 was our true founding. We know this nation marks its founding at 1776.”
It was not the first time that Hannah-Jones had tried to alter her self-depiction of the project’s aims on account of the controversial line. She attempted a similar revision a few months ago during an online spat with conservative commentator Ben Shapiro.
But this time the brazen rewriting of her own arguments proved too much. Hannah-Jones’s readers scoured her own Twitter feed and public statements over the previous year, unearthing multiple instances where she had in fact announced an intention to displace 1776 with 1619.
The foremost piece of evidence against Hannah-Jones’s spin, of course, came from the opening passage of from the Times’s own website where it originally announced its aim “to reframe the country’s history” around the year “1619 as our true founding.” When readers returned to that website to cite the line however, they discovered to their surprise that it was no longer there.
The Times quietly dropped the offending passage at some point during the intervening year, although multiple screencaps of the original exist. The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine suggests the alteration came around late December 2019, when the 1619 Project was facing an onslaught of criticism over this exact point from several distinguished historians of the American founding.
It wasn’t the only edit that the newspaper made to further conceal its previous denigration of 1776. Prompted by the discovery of the first deletion, Twitter users noticed another suspicious change to the project’s text. The print edition of the 1619 Project from August 2019 contained an introductory passage reading:
In August of 1619, a ship appeared on this horizon, near Point Comfort, a coastal port in the British colony of Virginia. It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonists. America was not yet America, but this was the moment it began. No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the 250 years of slavery that followed.
The website version of the 1619 Project now reads:
In August of 1619, a ship appeared on this horizon, near Point Comfort, a coastal port in the English colony of Virginia. It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonists. No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the years of slavery that followed.
This additional reference to the 1619 origin point, underlined in the original print version, is no more.
Whatever the exact occasion for the changes, the Times did not disclose its edits or how they obscured one of the most controversial claims in the entire 1619 Project. They simply made the problematic passages disappear, hoping that nobody would notice.
- Melbourne Police Surround & Arrest 2 Elderly Women Resting On Park Bench For 'COVID Violation'
Melbourne Police Surround & Arrest 2 Elderly Women Resting On Park Bench For ‘COVID Violation’
Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/21/2020 – 22:55“Victoria Police have lost all commonsense,” one Australian eyewitness quipped upon posting a video showing police telling a 38-week pregnant woman she can’t sit down due to coronavirus and social distancing enforcement measures.
It’s one of many recent viral videos to come out of Australia’s southeast state of Victoria, home to Melbourne, showing absurd “crackdowns” by police for alleged coronavirus policy violators. “As a pregnant woman I can’t sit in the park?” the incredulous woman whose story was covered widely in local media asked the couple of officers who harassed her.
Apparently not… because COVID. “You can only be out of your house for one of four reasons,” the officer responded. “One of those would be exercise. Sitting in a park is not one of the four reasons.”
We all ready knew it but now it’s confirmed. Victoria Police have lost all commonsense. Apparently 38 week pregnant women can’t stop for a breather on a park bench. pic.twitter.com/6RGI9GhN8f
— Damo Pelham🦈 (@DamoPelham) September 10, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The woman reasoned, “So, I’m pregnant and obviously my exercise is limited because I have to walk I’m now puffed out because I’m 38 weeks pregnant. So, even I can’t sit in a park, is that right?”
“You can only be out for one of the four reasons,” the officer asserted, explaining that her designated one-hour of exercise outdoors still includes certain restrictions (as if free citizens are under a prison regimen!).
But the above scene which unfolded earlier this month is nothing compared to another recent moment caught on video of police surrounding two old ladies resting on a park bench in Melbourne.
Daily Mail reported “Five officers swarmed two elderly women sitting on a park bench” earlier this month. This one made national media in Australia and is still going viral across the world after it happened during the first week of September:
Truly disgusting 🤬 – I thought we were supposed to be looking after our elderly?
How many cops for two little old ladies? https://t.co/yb9R6nEIsd pic.twitter.com/wHqzT5HdG4
— val glass (@AussieVal10) September 5, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Here’s how national news source news.com.au described the scene unfold:
Dramatic footage has captured a bizarre stand-off between five police officers and two elderly women sitting on a Melbourne park bench.
The video posted to YouTube on Sunday showed the officers surrounding the two women as one of them said firmly: “No, I’m not standing up”.
“On what grounds am I under arrest? This is unlawful,” the woman said.
The officers snatched a mobile phone from one of the elderly women as soon as she took it out to start recording the encounter.
They were then threatened with arrest for allegedly refusing to show identification – all because police literally wouldn’t let them sit down to rest, supposedly in violation of coronavirus measures.
In yet another incident police entered a pregnant woman’s home and arrested her for merely planning an anti-lockdown protest on Facebook.
A young mum who was arrested at her Ballarat home over a ‘Freedom Day’ protest says she plans to fight her incitement charge. Zoe Buhler’s arrest sparked international outrage as it was live-streamed on Facebook, but a top cop has defended the move. | @JaydeCotic pic.twitter.com/ohOwKzRryK
— 10 News First Melbourne (@10NewsFirstMelb) September 3, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
This also unfolded in Victoria.
“Pregnant mum Zoe Buhler’s arrest is dictatorial and dangerous.” Great piece by Caroline Overington. https://t.co/HRCsxRSpng
— Sharri Markson (@SharriMarkson) September 3, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Protests have sprung up in various major cities across the Australian continent over authorities’ ultra-restrictive coronavirus lockdown measures, which judging by these and other incidents are among the most stringent and far-reaching in the world.
- US Sends M2A2 Bradleys To Challenge Russian Forces In Northern Syria
US Sends M2A2 Bradleys To Challenge Russian Forces In Northern Syria
Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/21/2020 – 22:35Submitted by SouthFront,
The US military has reinforced its troops, supposedly mostly withdrawn from Syria, with a new batch of military equipment, this time M2A2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles.
In an official comment released on September 18, the US-led coalition said that mechanized infantry assets, including Bradley IFVs, were positioned to Syria in order to “ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS”, “ensure the protection of Coalition forces” and “provide the rapid flexibility needed to protect critical petroleum resources”.
The M2A2 Bradley is armed with a 25 mm chain gun, a 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun and a dual TOW anti-tank guided missile launcher. This makes the IFV the heaviest weapon deployed by the US on the ground in Syria.
As of September 21, the newly deployed armoured vehicles were already spotted during a coalition patrol in al-Hasakah province, where the US has a network of fortified positions and military bases. US forces regularly conduct patrols in the area. Another area of US interest in Syria’s northeast are the Omar oil fields on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. Washington reinforced its troops deployed there with M2A2 Bradley IFVs in October 2019.
The main difference is that, according to local sources, the vehicles deployed in al-Hasakah province will most likely be involved in patrols in the area and thus regular confrontations with the Russian Military Police and the Syrian Army.
Just a few days ago, Russian attack helicopters chased US Apaches after they had tried to harass a Russian Military Police patrol. Earlier, the US military claimed that US troops sustained “mild injures”, when a Russian vehicle rammed a US MRAP in the al-Hasakah countryside.
The US-led coalition regularly tries to limit the freedom of movement of Russian and Syrian forces in the northeast of the country and faces an asymmetric response. Now, US forces will have an additional argument in securing what they see as their sphere of influence.
Syrian government forces have suffered even more casualties from ISIS attacks in the provinces of Homs and Deir Ezzor. On September 19, at least five members of Liwa al-Quds, a pro-government Palestinian militia, died in an explosion of an improvised explosive device near the town of al-Shumaytiyah. On September 20, an explosion hit a vehicle of the Syrian Army near al-Mayadin reportedly injuring several soldiers. Also, a field commander of the National Defense Forces was killed in clashes with ISIS terrorists west of Deir Ezzor.
As of September 21, the Syrian Army, Liwa al-Quds and their allies continue a combing operation to clear the Homs-Deir Ezzor desert from ISIS cells. However, the strong ISIS presence is still a notable threat for the security situation in the central Syrian desert.
In Greater Idlib, the Russian Aerospace Forces continue their air campaign targeting training camps, weapon depots, HQs and fortified positions of Turkish-backed terrorist groups. The interesting fact is that with the resumption of active Russian strikes on targets across Idlib, terrorists have decreased the number of attacks on the Syrian Army and civilian targets along the contact line. It would appear that the airstrike diplomacy has all chances to become an integral part of the Idlib ceasefire.
- Last Ditch Olive Branch? Iran's Zarif Offers Full Prisoner Swap With US
Last Ditch Olive Branch? Iran’s Zarif Offers Full Prisoner Swap With US
Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/21/2020 – 22:15As if offering a last ditch olive branch to the Trump administration the moment the US is busy ramping up the anti-Iran maximum pressure campaign just ahead of the November election, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif on Monday said his country stands ready to conduct a full prisoner swap with the United States.
The offer was made during a virtual address to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, reports Reuters. A prisoner deal would include a handful of Americans who are among other Westerners languishing in Iranian political prisons, most in Evin prison outside Tehran, considered highly susceptible to the spread of coronavirus.
A couple of high profile US prisoners which Washington has long sought to gain the release of include Iranian-American father and son Baquer and Siamak Namazi. The latter is a businessman arrested in 2015 and given a ten year prison sentence for “collaborating with a foreign government”. The family was formerly in the US-backed Shah’s government prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Zarif also reiterated Monday that Tehran considers the 2015 nuclear deal “very much alive” even after the US pulled out of it in May 2018. Washington is still claiming authority to implement ‘snapback’ sanctions, however, which Iran has pointed out is backed by no one else.
The US has indeed remained isolated on the world stage as it attempts to uphold a full arms embargo on the Islamic Republic, which is set to expire in October.
The world says NO Security Council sanctions were restored.
But Mr. “We lied, We cheated, We stole” threatens to punish a world that refuses to live in his parallel universe.@realDonaldTrump should change tack before @SecPompeo further turns #MAGA into a global laughing stock. pic.twitter.com/PeOgJRR2SZ
— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) September 20, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Zarif has over the last days been mocking Washington over its seemingly contradictory stance regarding the status of the JCPOA:
Iran has mocked what it calls the Trump’s administration isolated stand on the question, and the other members of the U.N. Security Council, including U.S. allies, have vowed to ignore the administration’s declaration of a sanctions snapback.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif taunted Mr. Pompeo on Twitter, predicting Washington will face a fresh humiliation as this weekend’s deadline approaches.
“Wrong again, Secretary Pompeo,” Mr. Zarif tweeted. “Nothing new happens on 9/20.”
Unphased, Pompeo has said “We don’t need any other country to go along with us.”
Given this latest offer of a “full” prisoner swap, which the Trump administration could gain a political boost from so near the election, it seems Tehran is hoping for an “out” before US-led sanctions escalate further.
- Should Scott Atlas Sue His Detractors?
Should Scott Atlas Sue His Detractors?
Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/21/2020 – 21:55Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The American Institute for Economic Research,
Former Stanford professor and now White House advisor Scott Atlas has positioned himself against lockdowns and for widespread reopening of the economy, a position that is backed by high-prestige scientists around the world, including other colleagues at Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford, alongside many medical practitioners.
For that matter, before all these wicked lockdowns hit, 800 top medical professionals warned against them. But that was before politics completely poisoned the debate. Gradually, it emerged that one’s positions on lockdowns followed partisan lines, as the lives of millions were shattered, at least in the United States. Meanwhile, scientists around the world are writing open letters pleading for a return to freedom. Even socialists have come out against lockdowns.
Some colleagues at Stanford released a stinging letter against Dr. Atlas. It included this broadside:
To prevent harm to the public’s health, we also have both a moral and an ethical responsibility to call attention to the falsehoods and misrepresentations of science recently fostered by Dr. Scott Atlas, a former Stanford Medical School colleague and current senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Many of his opinions and statements run counter to established science and, by doing so, undermine public-health authorities and the credible science that guides effective public health policy.
What follows in the letter is a series of assertions that supposedly contradict views allegedly “fostered” by Atlas. Notice the vagueness of the term “fostered.” It can mean anything, including blaming him for whatever media misrepresentations of his opinion might be.
For example, the letter condemns “encouraging herd immunity through unchecked community transmission,” with a heavy implication that Atlas has pushed this. It’s completely ridiculous. He and many others in his position have favored an intelligent approach that protects the vulnerable, encourages therapeutics, while otherwise allowing normal social functioning as community immunity develops. It’s nowhere the case that anyone, to my knowledge, has ever encouraged “unchecked” transmission, except perhaps Governor Cuomo who forced Covid-19 patients into nursing homes.
The entire letter, in fact, seemed not about public health but rather political positioning, exhibit A in the politicization of science. Atlas had agreed to advise the White House: that was his crime and that is what prompted the letter, including the condescending demand that he, a highly accomplished and published scientist, should follow the science.
Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University wrote the Stanford Daily thusly:
Dear Editor,
In an open letter, 98 Stanford faculty members accuse their Stanford colleague and White House COVID-19 advisor Scott Atlas of “falsehoods and misrepresentations,” claiming that “many of his opinions and statements run counter to established science.” Surprisingly, the alleged falsehoods are not mentioned, making scientific discourse difficult.
Among other things, the letter advocates handwashing, which Atlas obviously agrees with. So, what are the disagreements?
While anyone can get infected, there is a thousand-fold difference in mortality risk between the old and young, and the risk to children is less than from annual influenza. Using an age-targeted strategy, Atlas wants to better protect high-risk individuals, while letting children and young adults live more normal lives. This contrasts with general age-wide lockdowns that protect low-risk students and young professionals working from home, while older higher-risk working-class people generate the inevitable herd immunity.
The open letter ignores collateral damage caused by lockdowns. Being a public health policy expert, it is natural and reassuring that Atlas also consider plummeting childhood vaccinations, postponed cancer screenings, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, deteriorating mental health and more house evictions, just to name a few.
Among experts on infectious disease outbreaks, many of us have long advocated for an age-targeted strategy, and I would be delighted to debate this with any of the 98 signatories. Supporters include professor Sunetra Gupta at Oxford University, the world’s preeminent infectious disease epidemiologist. Assuming no bias against women scientists of color, I urge Stanford faculty and students to read her thoughts.
Martin Kulldorff, professor, Harvard Medical School
Notice Dr. Kulldorff’s invitation to debate any of the signers of the letter. As yet, not one signer has taken him up on the offer, which is rather strange. They claim to believe in science and yet won’t consider debating a highly credentialed and widely published scholar who has a different view from the signers of the letter.
The original open letter, written most likely in haste and with politicized anger, was a smear. A defamation. A libel. Which is why Atlas has threatened to sue.
The signers responded by invoking their freedom of speech.
Who is right?
One could argue that all libel laws are an unjust use of force against the freedom to speak. This was Murray Rothbard’s position. He said we do not possess property rights in our reputation. As cruel and wicked as genuine defamation is – and truly many people would choose to have their car stolen than to be widely smeared on the internet – it falls into the category of sin not crime.
There are also huge problems with enforcement. The court system is not cheap. It is expensive to sue for libel or slander, and the guilty parties don’t often have resources to pay compensation. It ends up going to mediation, where one party decides reluctantly to recant. But there is no guarantee that the recantation will be seen by the same people who saw the smear.
What’s the point of a sheepish admission on Facebook that what one person said was a lie? This brings no justice at all. The damage is already done.
There is an additional problem with defamation law: its very existence might lead people to have an unwarranted trust in what others say rather than holding a proper incredulity toward implausible claims – claims such as that which accuses a famous public health expert of ignoring the science. If there were no opportunity to use the law to sue someone for something they said, the public might otherwise develop a correct suspicion of all such smears.
That said, the laws do exist. Given that, and the widespread but incorrect supposition that actual libel would not go unpunished, I see no real objection to deploying these laws in the defense of truth if the resources are available and there is some hope that regaining one’s good name is possible.
In this case, it strikes me that Scott Atlas has a strong case that his old colleagues played fast and loose with his professional reputation for purely political reasons. If the courts get involved and decide against the signers of this document, I won’t shed too many tears for their free speech rights: after all, the upshot of their letter is to lend their professional reputations to violating everyone’s rights in the name of disease mitigation, and cover up their political motivations with the veneer of science.
- "Maniacal Laughing Vandal" Derails Manhattan Subway Train By Tossing Metal Objects On Tracks
“Maniacal Laughing Vandal” Derails Manhattan Subway Train By Tossing Metal Objects On Tracks
Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/21/2020 – 21:35The debt laden and horrifically inefficient MTA, who has spent the better part of the last several months petitioning for bailout money amidst a historic collapse in riders, now has another problem on its hands after a Manhattan subway train derailed Sunday morning.
The wreck was blamed on a “maniacal, laughing vandal” who reportedly tossed metal plates onto the tracks, according to The Daily News.
The plates, called “D plates” were placed about 50 feet into 14th St. station. They are usually used to secure tracks to the roadbed and police say the ones that were thrown onto the tracks had been left behind by MTA workers. Three passengers were injured as a result of the derailment. 135 passengers were evacuated and the wreck tripped a breaker on the uptown express A train tracks between Canal and 34th Sts., leaving a second train without power. 125 people were on board and needed to be saved by a rescue train.
30 year old Demetrius Harvard reportedly tossed the plates onto the tracks before a bystander jumped onto the roadbed to try and clear them off the tracks before a train pulled in. Harvard then throw more of them onto the tracks as the train pulled further into the station.
The train’s first two wheel sets were then thrown from the tracks causing the front car to slam into station pillars. Frank Jezycki, acting senior vice president of subways at NYC Transit, said that “hundreds of feet” of rail was damaged or destroyed.
MTA chief safety officer Pat Warren said: “We’ve ruled out that this was any malfunction of our equipment or any inappropriate action of our crews.”
Transport Workers Union Local 100 President Tony Utano stated: “This was an all-hands on deck emergency with transit workers from multiple divisions responding to assist riders and then begin repairing the extensive damage. It’s a stark reminder that the MTA can’t cut its frontline workers even if the federal government fails to provide funding in a COVID relief package.”
Harvard was seen laughing after the train derailed, but Good Samaritans chased him down and held him at the station until the NYPD arrived. He was brought to NYPD Transit District headquarters at the Canal St. station and was charged with reckless endangerment, criminal mischief, assault and criminal trespassing.
It is being called one of New York’s “most catastrophic train derailments in years”. Harvard also has an “extensive criminal history” according to The Daily News – which means Mayor De Blasio will likely have him released immediately and cleared of all charges.
- China Stock Shorts Soar To Record High
China Stock Shorts Soar To Record High
Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/21/2020 – 21:15By Molly Dai, Singapore based macro commentator for Bloomberg
With China’s equity market cooling in recent weeks, following its fastest rally in years, investors have pushed the value of Chinese stocks being shorted to uncharted levels.
The balance of securities lending in domestic exchanges has jumped to a record 81.9 billion yuan ($12.1 billion), surging 8.8 billion yuan last week alone in the biggest one-week net increase ever, according to data compiled by Bloomberg dating back to late 2012.
That suggests traders remain worried about further declines in Chinese shares as the benchmark Shanghai Composite Index fights to hold on to a series of support levels around the 3,300 level.
- One Bank Expects COVID Herd Immunity To Emerge By 2022
One Bank Expects COVID Herd Immunity To Emerge By 2022
Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/21/2020 – 20:55Last week, Bank of America made a rough, back-of-the-envelope calculation that roughly 12% of the US population had achieved COVID herd immunity, far below the 60% threshold that is necessary for the disease to be contained without fresh policy actions, prompting BofA to propose a vision for a world in which we get periodic covid flareups in the coming months, many of which could culminate in fresh lockdowns.
Taking the initial thoughts from BofA, this morning Deutsche Bank published an extensive report analyzing what “Living with Covid” for the foreseeable future would be like (with an emphasis on Asian countries) since – like BofA – the German bank does not see herd immunity emerging as a factor until 2022 for advanced economies, and 2023 for the rest of the world, to wit:
Although developments on the vaccine front have been promising, there is uncertainty over the uptake of vaccines by the public and thereby the pace of achieving herd immunity, which would better ensure a more full normalization of economic activity. Our baseline forecast now assumes that some economies will achieve herd immunity to Covid-19 in 2022, along with most advanced economies. Other countries are likely to have to wait until 2023 to achieve the same. Risks around these forecasts are evenly balanced.
Another key point that remains lost on many politicians both in the US and elsewhere is that “the tolerance for extended rigorous social distancing appears to be weakening, with new social distancing regulations being in most places milder and imposed for shorter durations. People appear to have learned how to protect themselves and to live with the virus better than during the initial outbreaks, as economic data are proving in some respects more resilient to the virus.”
The bottom line, as we said many months ago, is that having done the calculus most economies are now willing to reopen their economies as the political and socioeconomic hit from lockdowns is far more adverse to the broader population – and especially the youth which is losing jobs by the millions – than enforcing full quarantine with spotty results while hoping to minimize new cases, something which can be seen most vividly in new cases in some countries like Spain and France, has failed to lead to a rebound in new deaths or hospitalizations.
Finally, reliance on a vaccine as some magic bullet that will magically cure the global economy appears largely misplaced, because as Deutsche notes, “although developments on the vaccine front have been promising, there are concerns about a possible low acceptance by the public of these new vaccines by the public. It may also matter importantly which vaccines are put into commercial production first – they vary significantly in cost and emerging economies could be at a disadvantage in acquiring enough vaccine.”
The bottom line, according to the report’s authors is that until herd immunity has been achieved – some time in 2022/2023, “economies will remain hostage to the virus – shrinking with each new outbreak and expanding quickly as social distancing eases with the subsequent decline in infection risks.”
One can only hope that after the US elections, the political angle of such decision-making will become moot, and policymakers can finally focus on the most optimal outcome without a preference for decisions that leads to who ends up in the White House, but rather what is truly for the benefit of the people.
- NASA Is Paying For Moon-Rocks – Implications For Space Commerce Are Huge
NASA Is Paying For Moon-Rocks – Implications For Space Commerce Are Huge
Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/21/2020 – 20:35Authored by Alexander William Salter via The American Institute for Economic Research,
Commercial space enthusiasts, we have liftoff! On September 10th, NASA announced that it’s soliciting proposals for private entities to collect lunar rocks and soil. Basically, NASA is offering to buy these materials from the corporations that gather them. This project has enormous implications for the future of commercial space activities.
“Today, we’re taking a critical step forward by releasing a solicitation for commercial companies to provide proposals for the collection of space resources,” announced NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine.
One of his goals is to create “a stable and predictable investment environment for commercial space innovators and entrepreneurs.”
Furthermore, he clarified that NASA intends to take an “‘in-place’ transfer of ownership.”
Translation: whoever harvests the moon materials needn’t bring them back to Earth. This initiative helps realize Congressional legislation to protect U.S. citizens’ property rights to celestial resources, and gives teeth to a recent executive order promoting the commercial development of space.
NASA is creating financial incentives for private companies to market lunar resources. This could be a first step to developing lunar mining capabilities. The biggest benefit of the program, though, is precedent. It puts the U.S. government’s imprimatur on space commerce. Given the ambiguities in public international space law, this precedent has the potential to steer space policy and commerce in a pro-market direction.
The foundational document of international space law is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST). Drafted at the height of the Cold War, its chief function was to prevent a celestial arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. That’s why it didn’t include any specific provisions for outer space property rights. Article II of the treaty forbids “national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” This calls into question the permissibility of private property rights. And Article VI states “activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision” by their governments. This suggests that commercial actors must be micromanaged by their governments.
Subsequent treaties tried to clarify OST’s purposes. For example, the Moon Agreement of 1979 clearly frowns on property rights to celestial resources: It forbids making the moon or any of its resources the “property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person.” Fortunately, none of the major spacefaring nations ratified the treaty. Nevertheless, a significant portion of the international community supports it.
With NASA’s announcement, the U.S. government decisively rejected this anti-commercial mindset. The U.S. government is not annexing lunar real estate, meaning it continues to affirm OST Article II. And as for Article VI, as space lawyer Laura Montgomery correctly notes, it is not self-executing. It isn’t “enforceable federal law” without Congress passing “domestic implementing legislation.” In fact, Congress passed such legislation: The previously-mentioned law to recognize and protect outer space property rights. It’s clear that Congress is comfortable with markets in space. Finally, because the U.S. government never signed the Moon Agreement, there’s no subterfuge.
The position of the US government is clear: commercial activities in space are neither exploitative nor illegal. Given the vagueness of international space law on property rights, the precedents created by national space law will have a decisive role in shaping the future space environment. Hence, NASA’s actions can support a pro-business turn not just for the United States, but also for the international community as a whole.
In ancient times, mankind extended the division of labor across tribes, turning enemies into friends. Later came trade across national boundaries, with similar largely peaceful effects. Now, humans are prepared to extend it still further: into the final frontier. Doux commerce is coming to the stars. NASA just made a “giant leap for mankind.” Everyone who cares about human wealth and welfare should heartily thank them.
- "End School To Prison Pipeline" – New Kim Klacik Ad Highlights How Liberals Destroyed Baltimore
“End School To Prison Pipeline” – New Kim Klacik Ad Highlights How Liberals Destroyed Baltimore
Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/21/2020 – 20:15Readers may recall, in mid-August, we pointed out Kim Klacik, the GOP congressional candidate from Baltimore, is attempting to take late Elijah Cummings’ congressional seat in Maryland’s 7th congressional district.
However, there just one problem, she’s a Republican, nevertheless, a young black millennial, who has been embraced by President Trump and top Republicans.
For more color on Maryland’s 7th District, which covers the northern and eastern boundaries of Baltimore County, the majority of Howard County, and a decent chunk of eastern and western parts of Baltimore City, which have been dominated by Democrats for a little more than half a century.
Klacik was propelled into the spotlight in August when her campaign released a video of her walking the streets of Baltimore. She showed people “the real Baltimore,” outlining how decades of Democratic policies have imploded communities:
“Democrats don’t want you to see this. They’re scared that I’m exposing what life is like in Democrat-run cities. That’s why I’m running for Congress Because All Black Lives Matter Baltimore Matters And black people don’t have to vote Democrat.”
Two weeks later, in early September, Trump tweeted that he “fully endorsed” Klacik.
Now the Baltimore-based GOP Congressional candidate is out with another political ad bashing Baltimore liberals for destroying the city. She focused on Baltimore’s trash problems, dilapidated row houses, and the “black struggle of people in Baltimore.”
“I see a Baltimore that picks up trash,” Klacik said. “There are piles of garbage all around Baltimore. It makes life unsafe for our families. I’ll work with city leaders to get Baltimore Solid Waste Bureau the resources it needs to take out the trash.”
Tens of millions of you have shared the struggle of black people in Baltimore. You cared about our black lives more than our own leaders.
They have done nothing for us.
Now they can’t hide.
We are the change.Please support our movement:https://t.co/8yLL5VmMSU pic.twitter.com/1sGyqXHpzt
— Kimberly Klacik (@kimKBaltimore) September 20, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
“Our streets should be a reflection of our leaders: clean, not dirty,” she said, adding that she wants to “end school to prison pipeline” and introduce the school choice plan, a program backed by Trump.
Klacik said there are more than 17,000 vacant row houses in the city, calling them a “scar on the face of our city” (read: “Baltimore Continues To Struggle With Thousands Of Vacant Homes”).
“A broken Baltimore doesn’t have to be our future,” she said.
Trump has criticized the liberal-run city for years. In 2019, he called the metro area, which is about a 40-minute train ride from Washington, D.C., a “disgusting” and “rodent-infested mess.”
Klacik’s new ad puts Baltimore Democrats to shame and points out their decades of failures.
- Crazy College COVID Rules: Online-Only Student Who's Never On-Campus Suspended Indefinitely For Attending Party
Crazy College COVID Rules: Online-Only Student Who’s Never On-Campus Suspended Indefinitely For Attending Party
Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/21/2020 – 19:55Authored by Robby Soave via Reason.com,
It was a gorgeous August weekend in New York City, and Andy – a college senior at New York University (NYU) – decided to attend a rooftop social gathering with his roommates.
The party was consistent with New York City’s Phase 4 COVID-19 guidelines, which allow events of up to 50 people. Many attendees went mask-less, but Andy says he didn’t stand in close proximity to anyone other than his roommates—who are also students—and they left after a short while.
But unbeknownst to Andy – whose name has been changed for this article to protect his privacy – someone at the party posted a video of the event on social media. Andy never saw this video, but he knows that he was visible in it. The video was reported to NYU administrators via the university’s COVID-19 compliance system. On Sunday, August 23—a day after the party—NYU Director of Student Conduct Craig Jolley sent an email to Andy accusing him of “threatening the health and safety of the NYU Community.”
By 5:00 p.m. on Monday, NYU had suspended him indefinitely:
To return to campus in 2021, Andy will need to write a reflection paper and beg for readmission.
Resuming his education might be impossible, anyway, since he relies on a full-tuition scholarship that is now threatened by his disciplinary status.
Andy thinks NYU treated him unfairly. It’s hard to disagree. Importantly, he didn’t actually put anyone on campus in danger, because he had no plans to set foot on NYU property: He lives off campus, and all his classes were online.
“I am not a student who will be staying at or near NYU housing, nor will I be entering Campus Grounds or NYU buildings as I am currently enrolled in all online courses,” Andy wrote in his appeal of the decision.
The appeal was rejected.
* * *
The COVID-19 pandemic is a multifaceted disaster, casually crippling vast swaths of the U.S. economy, bringing social interaction to an unexpected and unprecedented halt, and of course, killing more than 200,000 Americans. The challenges are daunting for many people, organizations, and industries—U.S. higher education certainly among them.
Colleges and universities have adopted a wide variety of strategies. Some have decided that in-person instruction is simply impossible: In May, California State University (CSU) became the first to announce that the fall semester would be online-only. Earlier this month, CSU made the same call regarding the 2021 spring semester.
Many other universities, perhaps realizing that students will balk at paying full tuition for a series of glorified online tutorials, attempted to reopen in various stages and forms. But these reopenings were accompanied by tough restrictions on student social gatherings in dormitories, off-campus housing, and elsewhere. Evidently, administrators expected that students would be willing to come to class, learn, then hurry back to their residences—and stay there. At many campuses, near-perfect compliance with extreme social distancing requirements on the part of students was not merely a requirement, schools assumed they would comply.
“Everything we have done – the months of planning to give our students the opportunity to continue their educational pursuits in person – can be undone in the blink of an eye with just one party or event that does not follow the rules and guidelines,” said Katie Sermersheim, Purdue University’s dean of students, in a statement detailing the school’s no-parties pledge.
Carl Bergstrom, a professor of biology at the University of Washington, likened Sermersheim’s admission that non-universal compliance will destroy the strategy to “an evacuation plan that will work perfectly as long as the building isn’t on fire.”
“Why would anyone admit that their months of planning would collapse if students hold a single party?” he wondered on Twitter.
Universities that believe they can ban many or all social functions for students are essentially conducting an experiment that has been run many times, from the era of Prohibition to modern abstinence-only education. The results of this latest experiment are in, and they are familiar: Students will party, COVID-19 be damned.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for instance, opened for in-person learning on August 10. By August 17, the school had decided to go online-only for the duration of the semester following a dramatic spike in coronavirus cases on campus. In an editorial, The Daily Tarheel, which reported numerous parties during the first weekend back at school, chided university leadership for failing to anticipate that students, “many of whom are now living on their own for the first time,” would be reckless. “Reports of parties throughout the weekend come as no surprise,” wrote the student editors.
The social gatherings are entirely unsurprising. But that’s not because students are uniquely incautious. On the contrary, students are just like the rest of us—trying to manage risk while still living life, months beyond the point where most people expected they would be able to go back to normal. (Remember “15 days to slow the spread”?) These risks are not the same for all people—age and health status matter—and they are not equally significant in all circumstances—outdoor events are not indoor events. And people who take on some amount of risk do not always attract equal levels of moral condemnation. Assuming that virtually everyone would obey orders, not just to be more careful than usual, but to live a sad and isolated existence indefinitely—perhaps that was reckless.
Events resembling what happened at UNC have transpired on dozens of campuses, and hundreds of students have already suffered suspensions. Purdue kicked 36 kids off campus for partying without masks. St. Olaf College in Minnesota suspended 17. Syracuse University suspended 23. Northeastern University learned that a first-year student had conducted a poll asking classmates whether they intended to party, despite the school’s restrictions. When more than 100 students responded in the affirmative, the pollster forwarded their names to administrators, who then threatened the students—and their parents—via email.
“You have displayed a disregard for health and safety measures, jeopardized our chances to keep our community safe, and increased the possibility that you and others—including your classmates—might not be able complete the semester,” wrote the school, before demanding that they sign a pledge to improve their behavior.
Northeastern eventually suspended 11 students for partying. They will be allowed to return in the spring. Their tuition for the aborted fall semester—a whopping $36,500—will not be refunded.
* * *
Andy’s financial hit is indirect but no less serious. His suspension is likely to result in the loss of his full-tuition scholarship, which means he would not be able to afford NYU, even if the administration lets him return. He also has a job offer with a bank that is contingent upon his successful graduation, he told Reason.
“I considered looking at legal action, though I might be out of my budget,” he says. “I contacted a lawyer. She was just ball-parking some numbers and they seemed unreasonable.”
Following their receipt of the social media video—emailed to covidcompliance@nyu.edu, the university’s hotline for reporting noncooperation—NYU administrators accused Andy of violating three separate aspects of the student code of conduct: Policy B1, which prohibits “threatening” behavior that compromises health and safety; Policy E1, which prohibits “disorderly, disruptive, or antagonizing behavior that interferes with the safety, security, health or welfare of the community”; and Policy E3, which obligates students to follow the new COVID-19 guidelines when on campus.
“As you are likely aware, the University is responding swiftly and seriously to behaviors that threaten the health and safety of the NYU Community,” wrote Jolley, the student conduct office director, in his initial email to Andy. Jolley did not respond to a request for comment on this article.
Andy was invited to plead his case on a Zoom call but was given just 24 hours to prepare for it. Jolley rendered his verdict swiftly: Immediately after the call, Andy says he was informed that he was suspended.
Andy was devastated.
“A suspension for me is more than just a semester,” he says. “This adversely impacts my entire life.”
The university was unmoved.
“Considering the importance of creating a safe environment during a global pandemic, the University will not tolerate conduct which intentionally and recklessly disregards the rules and threatens the health and safety of others,” wrote Jolley. “Your behavior in this situation is unacceptable.”
Was it? Reasonable people can debate—and are debating, all over the country—what level of risk is acceptable, for themselves and others. Many people believe the decision to open campuses at all is reckless: Students and faculty affiliated with the University of Georgia’s educators’ union, for instance, held a die-in protest on the school’s lawn to oppose re-opening. Many educators with union protection expect to be paid, regardless of whether schools re-open, which gives them greater reason to lobby for additional delays. University administrators, on the other hand, probably realize that distance learning hurts their bottom line since it encourages customers—students and their parents—to explore other options. College reopening strategies around the country are based on profoundly misguided assumptions about human behavior.
Andy says he didn’t put the health and safety of other students at risk—he lives off campus and takes all his classes online. He also thinks the COVID-19 rules, as written, only apply to people who are actually present on campus, or in NYU buildings.
Adam Steinbaugh, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, says Andy has a point.
“COVID-19 is not a computer virus, so unless this event involved a number of NYU students, any interest the university has in wielding its disciplinary procedures to deter the spread of COVID-19 among NYU students is pretty attenuated,” Steinbaugh tells Reason. “It’s hard to blame students for being surprised that this type of policy is being applied to their off-campus conduct.”
Steinbaugh reviewed Andy’s case at Reason‘s request (and with Andy’s permission). He thinks NYU is overreacting, and unless the rooftop party was itself in violation of New York City’s public health orders, it would be tough to justify the suspension.
“Universities appear eager to shift blame for ballooning COVID-19 infections to students,” says Steinbaugh, who notes that the reflection paper assigned to Andy in hopes of gaining readmission is supposed to “focus on the role young people have played in the transmission of COVID-19 in the United States.”
***
For now, Andy is trying to enroll in a different online college so that the semester is not a total waste.
“I’ve got to get some credit somehow,” he says.
He regrets going to the party and says that it wasn’t characteristic of how he has conducted himself during the pandemic.
“While it may not appear this way, I have been attempting to stay safe as best I can,” he wrote in his appeal. “My attempt to seek some feeling of normalcy was nothing more than a snap decision and I cannot emphasize how much I have learned from this process.”
Indeed, going back to school during a pandemic is proving to be an educational experience for everyone, including and especially the educators. School administrators are learning that they can’t quite overcome students’ natural inclinations—all they can do is process their tuition payments. The faster, the better, probably.
- Emmys Hit Lowest-Ever Ratings With Just 6.1 Million Viewers
Emmys Hit Lowest-Ever Ratings With Just 6.1 Million Viewers
Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/21/2020 – 19:35The Emmys hit their lowest-ever ratings Sunday night, as Nielsen‘s Live+SameDay fast nationals for reveal the awards ceremony had just 6.1 million viewers, and a 1.2 rating in adults aged 18-49.
This is a drop of 12% over last year, which marked the previous all-time low, and represented a 25% dropoff in the key demographic, according to Variety.
Perhaps it was host Jimmy Kimmel’s “Black Lives Matter” chant – which comedian Stephen Crowder ‘manipulated’ with clips of Kimmel’s old blackface routines.
Last year marked a historic low for TV’s top awards show, as a host-less ceremony on Fox delivered a massive 33% decline from the year before, scoring a 1.6 rating and drawing only 6.9 million viewers. For comparison, the previous four ceremonies before that were watched by 10.2 million viewers, 11.4 million viewers (in both 2017 and 2016) and 11.9 million viewers. That 6.9 million figure was roughly one third of the total pairs of eyeballs the Emmys drew as recently as 2013. –Variety
That said, Variety notes that Sunday night’s ceremony had competition from NBC‘s “Sunday Night Football” as well as the NBA Playoffs on the East Coast, which aired in the primetime window for the first time.
What’s more, there was no red carpet lead-in this year, which “likely played some part in producing these low numbers.”
- CNBC Screamfest Culminates With Muddy Waters Teasing Reveal Of New Short That "Makes Tesla Look Like Microsoft"
CNBC Screamfest Culminates With Muddy Waters Teasing Reveal Of New Short That “Makes Tesla Look Like Microsoft”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/21/2020 – 19:15Sometimes, CNBC goes too far in trying to represent “both sides” of an issue – like when Scott Wapner put himself in the awkward position of defending taxpayer handouts to corporations that blew all their own money on stock buybacks.
It happened against during Monday’s episode of “The Closing Bell”, when co-host Wilfred Frost became the latest to lose his cool on air during an interview with Muddy Waters founder Carson Block – inadvertently offering Block a golden opportunity to tease his firm’s next big short on twitter, instead of CNBC where it could have drawn far more eyeballs (and ad revenue).
According to the Muddy Waters Twitter account, the firm will release its next big short on Tuesday.
MW will release a new Short tomorrow pre-market. It’s a “company” that’s a complete stock promotion and makes $NKLA look like Microsoft in comparison. Shockingly the sell-side is positive on it. Would love to hear @WilfredFrost try to explain that away tomorrow.
— MuddyWatersResearch (@muddywatersre) September 21, 2020
Block, who built his reputation by uncovering fraud and shorting Chinese companies trading in the US, was brought on to discuss the disaster at Nikola, when the discussion suddenly veered off course.
After answering a few questions from Frost’s co-host Sara Eisen, Block was prompted to broaden his criticism after being asked about the sell-side analysts standing by Nikola. Block implied that sell-side analysts might be guilty of securities fraud, if it wasn’t for companies’ “safe harbor” statements.
Expanding on this, Block explained his low opinion of sell-side research, claiming “they’re a highly paid dating service for institutional investors…the way that they really add value to the world – to the extent they do – is by arranging meetings between institutional clients and management. And it’s no secret that if an analyst isn’t pretty bullish on a company, most companies won’t allow the analyst to arrange the dates, and so that analyst is shut out.
Then came the punchline: when talking about stocks, sell side analysts “should be taken about as seriously as your 5-year-old kid”.
Clips https://t.co/F7jSNFWYyH pic.twitter.com/4zNfCWksTV
— Sunny Po (@sunny051488) September 21, 2020
Frost was seemingly taken aback by this last comment (his seemingly genuine indignation reminded us of another classic CNBC moment that unfolded earlier this year). Responding with a hint of agitation, Frost insisted that he didn’t really appreciate that characterization and assured his audience that many analysts are “highly trained.”
“I think that’s completely wide of the mark even though at times there are examples where they do get things wrong,” Frost said.
— Sunny Po (@sunny051488) September 21, 2020
“It’s hard for me to let that one lie Wilford,” Block said.
Frost doubled-down, resolving to bash Block with his call to short Tesla.
“Have you gotten every single call you’ve made absolutely right? Well have you?”
— Sunny Po (@sunny051488) September 21, 2020
To this, Block replied that he has “about as good a batting average as anybody does on the long side…but I’ve been doing it on the short side during the biggest bull market of your generation. So maybe you can cut me a little slack.”
Then, the short-seller went for the jugular: “You’re the one who pushed back when I said Elon Musk was committing fraud…and then he settled with the SEC…do you actually read anything Wilfred…I know you’re a good looking guy with a British accent, but what do you read?”
— Sunny Po (@sunny051488) September 21, 2020
Frost responded by throwing Block’s Tesla call in his face: “You’re the guy who told viewers to short Tesla, then Tesla stock soared.”
Then, Frost touched upon what just might be the true motivation for his anger: Sell side analysts are hard-working people and “a lot of them come on this network and give up their time to do so,” Frost said.
— Sunny Po (@sunny051488) September 21, 2020
Of course, practically everybody on Wall Street knows showing face on CNBC is literally part of the sell side analyst’s job description. But Block kept pushing, doubling down on his critique of sell-side research: “It’s largely toilet paper, there’s occasionally a sell-side analysts who are willing to go out a limb and say something unpopular…but they’re a dying breed.”
As Frost stammered out a response, Block added “Do you understand that about Wall Street? That’s just baffling.”
Of course, Block has a point.
For the record @muddywatersre is right: most sellside research exists only to provide access to management. Nobody would pay banks solely for “research” which is 70% buy /25%
hold /5% sell. Just ask sellsiders who are trying to sell their insights post MIFID— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 21, 2020
Sellside organizes conferences where buyside traders only get invited if they meet soft dollar quota. Once there mgmt and buyside has private one on one sessions exempt from compliance oversight where inside information is openly shared
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 21, 2020
Those who understand this should also understand that for professionals, there is no “random walk down Wall Street”.
- Another Bloody Chicago Weekend Sees Almost 40 Shot, With Homicides Up 50%
Another Bloody Chicago Weekend Sees Almost 40 Shot, With Homicides Up 50%
Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/21/2020 – 18:55Another grim weekend out of Chicago as the Sun Times reports at least 36 total shot, including 9 fatalities across the city after total figures were tallied Monday.
This is slightly down from the prior weekend which included 42 people shot, 12 of which died of their wounds.
The windy city has seen shocking numbers nearly every weekend over the past months, also earlier this month over a bloody Labor Day holiday weekend which saw a whopping 51 shot, including 10 deaths.
Via CNN The deaths remain relatively young black males, with this weekend’s homicides all being male victims between the ages of 17 and 47 years old. A 16-year old was also shot, but is expected to survive:
The weekend’s youngest victim was a teenage boy critically wounded early Saturday in South Chicago. The 16-year-old was standing on the sidewalk about 2:15 a.m. in the 5000 block of West Monroe Street when someone fired shots from a dark blue vehicle in an alley, according to police. He was hit in the chest and taken to Stroger Hospital in critical condition.
Chicago police have that tallied shootings are up 50% compared to this time last year. Here are the numbers according to local reports:
But, overall, shootings and murders are up 50% compared to last year, according to Chicago Police Department statistics. Through Sept. 13, police have recorded 544 murders in 2020 compared to 364 murders during the same time in 2019.
The same increase applies to shootings. The city has seen more than 2,220 shootings in 2020 compared to about 1,500 over the same time in 2019, according to the statistics.
The weekend period running late Friday into Monday morning remain the deadliest portion of the week, with warm weekend holidays typically witnessing the worst numbers.
The nation’s second-largest county has recorded more homicides this year than in all of 2019, the majority of which – 95% – are people of color. Meanwhile, homicides are up 52% in Chicago.https://t.co/SwFLGOUfNs
— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) September 17, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
And this particular weekend, 30 among the 36 victims were reported shot Friday evening into Sunday morning alone in Chicago.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/seaminefile.jpg?itok=EY8HPtLI){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/melbournevid.jpg?itok=--gAw0Hl){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/chicagosh.png?itok=4u0dn6eL){kind=link}