- UK Election Registrations And Voters Swinging To Labour?
UK Election Registrations And Voters Swinging To Labour?
Submitted by Strategic Macro,
New voter registration closed last night. There have been 4.7m new voter registrations with 3.1m of them under 34 yrs old. On a 2017 voter turnout of 32m, new registrations are 15% of the 2017 vote.
Are the polls picking up this change in the electorate?
Young voters are massively Labour biased 60/40 vs Tories. Thats worth about 600k extra Labour votes or a 2%swing in voting bias for Labour and against the Tories. Lib Dems and SNP also benefit in addition to this.
If you add back undecideds and refused to answer then there is about 25% of the youth vote still up for grabs so if Corbyn has a good last three weeks the Labour > Tory bias could be even greater.
Hung Parliament?
Is the following plausible. Boris wins 300-320, vs 323 needed for a simple majority of 1.
Corbyn constructs disagreements with SNP, then Boris forms a minority govt. Corbyn then lets him pass the WA to leave the EU. Corbyn will then have achieved his lifelong goals of splitting the Thatcher Tory party and delivering Brexit.
He can hand over leadership to Stamer or whomever by the Autumn conference. That will be in the thick of a Trump/ Warren election with Warren campaigning on hard socialist credentials. Stamer then calls a confidence vote in Bojo…
We will find out soon enough.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 11/28/2019 – 02:00 - Don't Just Give Thanks. Pay Your Blessings Forward
Don’t Just Give Thanks. Pay Your Blessings Forward
Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
“As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.”
– John F. Kennedy
Once again, it’s been a hard, heart-wrenching, stomach-churning kind of year.
It’s been a year of hotheads and blowhards and killing sprees and bloodshed and takedowns.
It’s been a year in which tyranny took a few more steps forward and freedom got knocked down a few more notches.
It’s been a year with an abundance of bad news and a shortage of good news.
It’s been a year of too much hate and too little kindness.
It’s been a year in which politics and profit margins took precedence over decency, compassion and human-kindness.
And now we find ourselves at this present moment, understandably overwhelmed by all that is wrong in the world and struggling to reflect and give thanks for what is good.
It’s not easy, and it’s getting harder by the day.
After all, how do you give thanks for freedoms that are constantly being eroded? How do you express gratitude for one’s safety when the perils posed by the American police state grow more treacherous by the day? How do you come together as a nation in thanksgiving when the powers-that-be continue to polarize and divide us into warring factions?
With every passing day, the U.S. government more closely resembles an evil empire, governed by laws that are rash, unjust and unconstitutional; policed by government agents who are corrupt, hypocritical and abusive; a menace to its own people; and the antithesis of everything the founders hoped the government would be—a blessing to all the people.
We’re not just dealing with misguided government officials run amok.
This is evil disguised as bureaucracy.
This is what Hannah Arendt referred to as the banality of evil.
Evil has a broad spectrum, but still… evil is evil.
Evil is what happens when government bureaucrats unquestioningly carry out orders that are immoral and inhumane; obey immoral instructions unthinkingly; march in lockstep with tyrants; mindlessly perpetuate acts of terror and inhumanity; and justify it all as just “doing one’s job.”
To that list, let me add one more: a populace that remains silent in the face of wrongdoing.
This is how evil prevails: when good men and women do nothing.
By doing nothing, by remaining silent, by being bystanders to injustice, hate and wrongdoing, good people become as guilty as the perpetrator.
There’s a term for this phenomenon where people stand by, watch and do nothing—even when there is no risk to their safety—while some horrific act takes place (someone is mugged or raped or bullied or left to die): it’s called the bystander effect.
It works the same whether you’re talking about kids watching bullies torment a fellow student on a playground, bystanders watching someone dying on a sidewalk, or citizens remaining silent in the face of government atrocities.
We need to stop being silent bystanders.
So what can you do about this bystander effect?
Be a hero, suggests psychologist Philip Zimbardo.
“Each of us has an inner hero we can draw upon in an emergency,” Zimbardo concluded. “If you think there is even a possibility that someone needs help, act on it. You may save a life. You are the modern version of the Good Samaritan that makes the world a better place for all of us.”
Zimbardo is the psychologist who carried out the Stanford Prison Experiment which studied the impact of perceived power and authority on middleclass students who were assigned to act as prisoners and prison guards. The experiment revealed that power does indeed corrupt (the appointed guards became increasingly abusive), and those who were relegated to being prisoners acted increasingly “submissive and depersonalized, taking the abuse and saying little in protest.”
What is the antidote to group think and the bystander effect?
Be an individual. Listen to your inner voice. Take responsibility.
“If you find yourself in an ambiguous situation, resist the urge to look to others and go with your gut instinct,” advises Melissa Burkley in Psychology Today. “If you think there is even a possibility that someone is in need, act on it. At worst, you will embarrass yourself for a few minutes, but at best, you will save a life.”
“Even if people recognize that they are witnessing a crime, they may still fail to intervene if they do not take personal responsibility for helping the victim,” writes Burkley. “The problem is that the more bystanders there are, the less responsible each individual feels.”
In other words, recognize injustice.
Don’t turn away from suffering.
Refuse to remain silent. Take a stand. Speak up. Speak out.
This is what Zimbardo refers to as “the power of one.”
All it takes is one person breaking away from the fold to change the dynamics of a situation.
“Once any one helps, then in seconds others will join in because a new social norm emerges,” notes Zimbardo. “Do Something Helpful.”
The Good Samaritans of this world don’t always get recognized, but they’re doing their part to push back against the darkness.
For instance, a few years ago in Florida, a family of six—four adults and two young boys—were swept out to sea by a powerful rip current in Panama City Beach. There was no lifeguard on duty. The police were standing by, waiting for a rescue boat. And the few people who had tried to help ended up stranded, as well.
Those on shore grouped together and formed a human chain. What started with five volunteers grew to 15, then 80 people, some of whom couldn’t swim.
One by one, they linked hands and stretched as far as their chain would go. The strongest of the volunteers swam out beyond the chain and began passing the stranded victims of the rip current down the chain.
One by one, they rescued those in trouble and pulled each other in.
There’s a moral here for what needs to happen in this country if we only can band together and prevail against the riptides that threaten to overwhelm us.
So here’s what I suggest.
Instead of just giving thanks this holiday season with words that are too soon forgotten, why not put your gratitude into action with deeds that spread a little kindness, lighten someone’s burden, and brighten some dark corner?
Pay your blessings forward in whatever way makes sense to you.
This is something that everyone can do no matter how tight our budgets or how crowded our schedules.
Engage in acts of kindness. Smile more. Fight less. Build bridges. Refuse to toxic politics define your relationships. Focus on the things that unite instead of that which divides. Be a hero, whether or not anyone ever notices.
Do your part to push back against the meanness of our culture with conscious compassion and humanity. Moods are contagious, the good and the bad. They can be passed from person to person. So can the actions associated with those moods, the good and the bad.
Even holding the door for someone or giving up your seat on a crowded train are acts of benevolence that, magnified by other such acts, can spark a movement.
Volunteer at a soup kitchen or donate to a charity that does good work. Take part in local food drives. Take a meal to a needy family. “Adopt” an elderly person at a nursing home. Advocate for the creation of local homeless shelters in your community. Urge your churches, synagogues and mosques to act as rotating thermal shelters for the homeless during the cold winter months. Support groups like The Rutherford Institute that are tirelessly working to advance the cause of freedom.
In other words, help those in need.
I know that fixing what’s wrong with this country is not going to happen overnight.
There may not be much we can do to avoid the dismal reality of the police state in the long term—not so long as the powers-that-be continue to call the shots and allow profit margins to take precedence over the needs of people—but in the short term, there are things we can all do right now to make this world (or at least our small corners of it) a little bit kinder, a lot less hostile and more just.
On a larger scale, we need to stop being silent bystanders to our nation’s downfall.
Historically, this bystander syndrome in which people remain silent and disengaged—mere onlookers—in the face of abject horrors and injustice has resulted in whole populations being conditioned to tolerate unspoken cruelty toward their fellow human beings: the crucifixion and slaughter of innocents by the Romans, the torture of the Inquisition, the atrocities of the Nazis, the butchery of the Fascists, the bloodshed by the Communists, and the cold-blooded war machines run by the military industrial complex.
“I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation,” stated Holocaust Elie Wiesel in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in 1986.
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must – at that moment – become the center of the universe.”
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it’s never too late to start making things right in the world.
So this year, don’t just give thanks. Pay your blessings forward.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/27/2019 – 23:35 - NJ To Become Wasteland: 44% Of Residents Plan To Flee State
NJ To Become Wasteland: 44% Of Residents Plan To Flee State
Thanks to the highest property taxes in the nation and an unsustainable cost of living, 44% of New Jersey residents plan to leave the state in the ‘no so distant future,’ according to a recent survey from the Garden State Initiative (GSI) and Fairleigh Dickenson University School of Public & Global Affairs.
Via Garden State Initiative (GSI) Committing to a more solid time frame, 28% say they are planning to leave within five years, and 39% say they will do so over the next decade, according to Insider NJ.
Unsurprisingly, Property Taxes and the overall Cost of Living were cited as the main drivers. The results also debunk two issues frequently cited in anecdotal accounts of outmigration, weather and public transportation, as they ranked 8th and 10th respectively, out of 11 factors offered.
The desire to leave the Garden State was reflected most strongly among young residents (18-29) with almost 40% anticipating leaving the state within the next five years. At the other end of the spectrum, a third (33%) of those nearing retirement (50-64) plan to leave within the next five years. –Insider NJ
“These results should alarm every elected official and policymaker in New Jersey, said GSI’s president, former Chris Christie Chief of Staff Regina Egea. GSI focuses on providing “research-based answers to fiscal and economic issues” facing the state.
“We have a crisis of confidence in the ability of our leaders to address property taxes and the cost of living whether at the start of their career, in prime earning years, or repositioning for retirement, New Jersey residents see greener pastures in other states. This crisis presents a profound challenge to our state as we are faced with a generation of young residents looking elsewhere to build their careers, establish families and make investments like homeownership.”
After taxes and a high cost of living, government corruption and concerns about crime and drugs concerned citizens the most. Insider notes that there were no significant differences in responses across income levels.
Methodology
The survey was conducted by live callers on both landlines and cellular phones between September 26 through October 2, 2019, with a scientifically selected random sample of 801 New Jersey adults, 18 or older. Persons without a telephone could not be included in the random selection process. Respondents within a household are selected by asking randomly for the youngest adult currently available. The interview was conducted in English and included 253 adults reached on a landline phone and 548 adults reached on a cell phone, all acquired through random digit dialing.
The data were weighted to be representative of the non-institutionalized adult population of New Jersey. The weighting balanced sample demographics to target population parameters. The sample is balanced to match parameters for sex, age, education, race/ethnicity, region and phone use. The sex, age, education, race/ethnicity and region parameters were derived from 2017 American Community Survey PUMS data. The phone use parameter was derived from estimates provided by the National Health Interview Survey Early Release Program.[1][2][3]
Weighting was done in two stages. The first stage of weighting corrected for different probabilities of selection associated with the number of adults in each household and each respondent’s telephone usage patterns. This adjustment also accounts for the overlapping landline and cell sample frames and the relative sizes of each frame and each sample. This first stage weight was applied to the entire sample which included all adults.
The second stage of the weighting balanced sample demographics to match target population benchmarks. This weighting was accomplished using SPSSINC RAKE, an SPSS extension module that simultaneously balances the distributions of all variables using the GENLOG procedure. Weights were trimmed to prevent individual interviews from having too much influence on the final results. The use of these weights in statistical analysis ensures that the demographic characteristics of the sample closely approximate the demographic characteristics of the target population.
Read the rest here.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/27/2019 – 23:10 - Amazon Ring Doorbell Camera To Build Watchlist Of "Suspicious" Neighbors For Police
Amazon Ring Doorbell Camera To Build Watchlist Of “Suspicious” Neighbors For Police
Authored by John Vibes via TheMindUnleashed.com,
Ring, the home security system developed by Amazon, is planning to build a database of neighborhood watchlists using facial recognition technology.
Documents obtained by the Intercept revealed that the company is working with law enforcement on a system that will identify people who are considered “suspicious,” and let Ring owners know when these individuals are near their home, using the facial recognition software built into the security system’s cameras.
The software will also give the Ring owner the ability to notify police or call in the suspicious activity on their own.
According to the documents, the watchlists would be connected to Ring’s Neighbors app, where owners of the system communicate with their neighbors about packages being stolen from doorsteps and other potential security breaches. While this may sound innocent—or even helpful—critics worry that this technology may empower the kind of neighborhood snitches that call the cops on anyone who they find “suspicious,” typically based on their own prejudices.
In fact, a Ring employee, speaking to the Intercept under the condition of anonymity, admitted that “all it is is people reporting people in hoodies.”
While these plans are explicit in the documents, Ring spokesperson Yassi Shahmiri insisted that “the features described are not in development or in use and Ring does not use facial recognition technology.”
However, Amazon was later forced to admit that the facial recognition system is currently a “contemplated but unreleased feature” for Ring, in a response to a formal inquiry by Massachusetts Senator Edward Markey.
Mohammad Tajsar, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said that “‘watchlisting’ capabilities on Ring devices encourages the creation of a digital redline in local neighborhoods, where cops in tandem with skeptical homeowners let machines create lists of undesirables unworthy of entrance into well-to-do areas.”
Many of the questionable features proposed in the documents involve the identification of “suspicious” individuals, but the standards that are used to determine who is suspicious and who is not are unclear. However, if artificial intelligence is being used along with information being crowdsourced by neighbors, there is a high likelihood that the inherent bias, both on the part of the algorithm and on neighborhood busybodies, will contribute to an overall bias in the artificial intelligence system.
An article published last year in Nature explores the ethical framework of technology like self-driving cars. The article notes that the ethics of self-driving cars are based on the trolley problem, an ethical lifeboat scenario that would prove extremely unlikely in the real world. According to the ethics of self-driving cars, informed by the trolley problem, the lives of old people are less valuable than those of younger generations, and the life of an athlete is likewise more valuable than a “large” woman or homeless person. Other studies have shown racial and gender bias “accidentally” coded into facial recognition systems.
A self-driving car has a choice about who dies in a fatal crash. Here are the ethical considerations https://t.co/ZcEgDQfxhh #automation pic.twitter.com/XzLWQWDzcr
— World Economic Forum (@wef) November 3, 2018
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The documents went into detail about a variety of the features that are currently being “contemplated” by the company, including phone notifications about “suspicious” individuals who may have been spotted in the area, which even allows the Ring user to notify their neighbors. Another feature identified in the documents is something called “proactive suspect matching,” and while the documents were unclear about how this would function, it seems like a program that would cross-reference faces that walked by a Ring user’s house with a police database of potential suspects.
“Ring appears to be contemplating a future where police departments can commandeer the technology of private consumers to match ‘suspect’ profiles of individuals captured by private cameras with those cops have identified as suspect – in fact, exponentially expanding their surveillance capabilities without spending a dime,” Tajsar said.
These features are not unprecedented for Ring or Amazon. Earlier this year, Motherboard reported that Ring was encouraging its users to snitch on their neighbors in exchange for discounts and free products.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/27/2019 – 22:45 - Elon Musk Will Testify In His Own Defense In "Pedo Guy" Defamation Trial
Elon Musk Will Testify In His Own Defense In “Pedo Guy” Defamation Trial
The boy genius Elon Musk, who has already dug himself a wonderful hole by baselessly defaming British cave diving hero Vern Unsworth by calling him “pedo guy”, now apparently feels sufficiently confident that he can dig himself out.
At least, that’s the message Musk’s lawyer seems like he wants to get across. Musk will be testifying in his own defense against the lawsuit, according to Reuters, who reported the news based on a statement from Musk’s lawyer on Tuesday.
Of course, we can’t help but think this statement in and of itself is a bit of show – Musk really wouldn’t have a choice but to be examined by the plaintiff in a civil trial to begin with, based on our understanding of civil litigation. So his “decision” to testify may not actually be a “decision” at all.
And if Musk’s lawyer’s interpretation of the events is anything like what his testimony will look like, we can’t wait for Unsworth’s attorney, L. Lin Wood, to have his chance to question Musk
Musk’s lawyer, Alexander Spiro, said: “Evidence is going to be through Mr. Musk (testifying) that in fact Mr. Musk didn’t call him a pedophile. Mr. Musk deleted the tweet, apologized and moved on.”
Sure, if by “moved on”, you mean “referred to Unsworth as a ‘child rapist’ in correspondence with journalists” and “taunted Unsworth to sue him”.
Unsworth is also expected to testify to “his worries, his anxieties, his concern by being branded a pedophile,” his lawyer said. Both sides seem uninterested in settling the case.
Meanwhile, the case will be undergoing its second day of pretrial hearings on Tuesday to determine what evidence will be admissible in next week’s civil trial. Last week, Judge Stephen Wilson rejected Musk’s attempt to have the lawsuit dismissed and ruled that Unsworth was not a public figure, making it easier for him to prove defamation. Musk had previously argued that Unsworth had become a public figure due to the Thailand cave rescue and that Unsworth needed to prove “actual malice”.
Unsworth can now win the suit by showing that Musk acted negligently while making his comments.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/27/2019 – 22:20 - Retail Giants Gear Up For Black Friday… And Political Giving
Retail Giants Gear Up For Black Friday… And Political Giving
Authored by Anna Massoglia via OpenSecrets.org,
Ready, shoppers? Your long-awaited holidays are afoot — so are the countless deals up for grabs. But as millions of Americans gear up to flood drop-in shops and online stores for Black Friday sales, some of the top retail giants are pouring big bucks into the political sphere.
In the wake of ongoing U.S-China trade tension, many corporate giants are ramping up lobbying efforts this year, hiring President Donald Trump-linked lobbyists to try to steer the administration away from business-hurting tariffs. Some are growing more vocal on social issues and launching influence campaigns to sway Congress, giving campaign cash to dozens of congressional candidates up for reelection in 2020.
A Black Friday sale (Tolga Akmen/AFP via Getty Images) Compared to last year, major big-box chains are spending less this year in direct contributions and domestic lobbying. Despite the decrease, retail giants are still demonstrating substantial influence in the political realm.
Amazon
The world’s biggest online retailer saw record-breaking sales during last year’s Thanksgiving week, with more than 18 million toys and 13 million fashion items sold on Black Friday and Cyber Monday. The company could refresh its record this year as holiday non-store sales are estimated to grow by 11 to 14 percent compared to last year.
The company also broke its own lobbying spending record last year, doling out $14.4 million as the Pentagon considered Amazon as one of the frontrunners for a $10 billion contract. The contract was awarded instead to Microsoft last month, which prompted a lawsuit from Amazon. The company did not release the complaint but said it intends to submit videos of Trump’s comments on the issue as evidence as it challenges the department’s decision.
The lawsuit came as the president mocked Amazon owner Jeff Bezos on Twitter for his ownership of The Washington Post and attacked the paper’s presidential coverage. As the relationship between the two continues to sour this year, Amazon is approaching its lobbying spending record, burning cash at a higher pace each quarter compared to last year. The company has shelled out $12.4 million during the first three quarters of this year on technology, trade and tax issues, among others.
The company invested heavily in state-level elections this year, pouring almost $1.5 million into the Seattle City Council races to sway voters against a head tax that could harm its business. It also increased contributions to state elections in Virginia — home to its new East Coast headquarters — giving $278,000 as of the end of October. Federal-level political giving from Amazon’s PAC and employees plunged this year, totalling $1.6 million so far after its record-high $13.6 million of contributions ahead of the midterms last year. However, the bulk of last year’s contributions came from Bezos, who alone injected $10.2 million into the With Honor Fund, a super PAC backing candidates who were military veterans.
Sen. Berni Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) respectively received $134,224 and $75,830 from Amazon affiliates, leading a crowded pool of Democratic presidential contenders. Both Sanders and Warren have spoken against corporate interests and rejected PAC contributions. Amazon’s PAC spread its wealth among lawmakers of the two major parties, giving $275,000 to Democrats and $296,000 to Republicans.
Walmart
Having unveiled Black Friday deals weeks ahead of Thanksgiving, the world’s largest brick-and-mortar retail company is expected to rake in huge profits from this year’s holiday sales.
After two shootings that took 24 lives at its stores in El Paso, Texas and Southaven, Mississippi this summer, the retail chain banned in-store open carry and stopped selling military-style ammunition and handguns. The company also called for federal lawmakers to strengthen background check legislation and introduce bills to create a safer environment.
Top executives of Walmart also spoke out on climate change issues as the company launched projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On the heels of Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement, a United Nations initiative to address global warming, Walmart Executive Vice President Kathleen McLaughlin co-authored an op-ed criticizing the withdrawal as “unfortunate” and warned that it would damage the American economy and put Americans at “greater risk.”
Direct contributions to candidates from the company’s PAC and affiliates dropped from last year, totalling $993,204 this year. Like Amazon, Walmart affiliates also favored Sanders among all presidential candidates, giving the Vermont senator $68,438. The company’s PAC gave $422,000 to federal candidates of both parties and channeled $30,000 each to all four national congressional party committees.
The company’s lobbying expenditure is also down compared to previous years. Walmart has spent $4.7 million this year thus far, lobbying on environmental sustainability, drug pricing and other hot-button issues. The company is also lobbying on multiple trade-related issues as the tariff war between the U.S. and China exacerbates and Congress continues to work on the new trade agreement among the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
Walmart is actively involved in state politics as well. Lobbyists representing the interests of the company as well as other retail giants, for example, helped draft bills in Florida that would require customers to pay an online sales tax, Orlando Sentinel reported.
Best Buy
The largest electronics retail chain in the world, Best Buy reported strong revenue during the third quarter and predicted higher earnings toward the end of the year, setting high expectations ahead of the holiday sales. The company said the tariffs did not have a major impact on its revenue after lowering its revenue forecast in August due to the Trump administration’s threat of tariffs on Chinese goods
Unsurprisingly, employees at the Minnesota-based company gave the most money — $18,273 — to Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) among the Democratic presidential candidates. Sanders follows closely behind, receiving $17,384 from company employees. The company’s PAC gave $91,500 to federal lawmakers and $15,000 each to the Democratic and Republican Senate-focused party committees.
The company spent $1.1 million this year on lobbying, slightly down from last year. As U.S.-China trade tensions loomed, Best Buy’s lobbyists centered around trade issues with China and steel and aluminum tariffs. The electronics chain, which has long advocated for lower corporate tax rates, reaped benefits from the enactment of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and is now lobbying on the implementation of the legislation this year.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/27/2019 – 21:55 - Etiquette Coach Recommends Thanksgiving 'Safe Space' For Inevitable Political Arguments
Etiquette Coach Recommends Thanksgiving ‘Safe Space’ For Inevitable Political Arguments
As Americans gather for Thanksgiving once again, this year’s feast is bound to include heated debates over impeachment, geopolitics and manifest destiny as we live through one of the most polarizing periods in modern history.
And while Thanksgiving hosts may try to steer the conversation to lighter topics such as football and checking in on the lives of relatives who don’t keep in touch, there may be no way to avoid the giant elephants in the room.
“If somebody comes in and they’re not on the Trump train, so to speak, they get a little bit of an airing,” Alex Triantafilou told the Associated Press. Triantafilou (pronounced tree-aunt-a-FEE-loo), an attorney and chairman of the Hamilton County Republican Party in Ohio, added that it’s “usually in fun.”
But sometimes it goes past fun.
Wright recalls Thanksgivings with offensive comments that strained relations. Mindy Nagel, a physical therapist with liberal views, has unfriended her conservative brother on Facebook over his political posts and said she’ll be “surrounded” by people who disagree with her politically at her in-laws’ Thanksgiving.
“Politics is the elephant in the room,” she said. Her hosts will probably turn off conservative Fox News while she’s there, Nagel said, but there will likely be someone who “tries to stir the pot” by raising Trump and impeachment with her. –AP
Safe spaces, happy families?
What to do when your cousin starts rattling off all the ways that Orange Man Bad™ and you’re a Nazi for supporting him? According to Los Angeles-based etiquette coach Elaine Swann, you should set up a special room with snacks for family members who want to talk politics, and designate a ‘calm’ family member to moderate.
Elaine Swann, a Los Angeles-based etiquette coach, advises hosts to have a plan to deal with polarizing discussions amid “all this talk about impeachment” in the air, along with the aromas of oyster dressing and freshly baked pumpkin pies.
“I do think it’s healthy for people to express themselves and to have those conversations,” said Swann, who will host her family’s Thanksgiving. “My advice is to take a route to allow some sort of platform, but with guidelines.”
One tactic: sequester the debates. She’ll have a room away from the dining table stocked with snacks for people who want to talk politics. She also suggests designating a calm family member as a combination moderator-peacekeeper. –AP
“My preference would be to not have the conversations at Thanksgiving,” said Triantafilou, a former judge. “I’d rather watch football and leave politics behind.”
A Thunderdome is another option…
Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/27/2019 – 21:30 - Hong Kong Is In An Unwinnable Position
Hong Kong Is In An Unwinnable Position
Authored by Bruce Wilds via Advancing Times blog,
It is difficult to be optimistic about Hong Kong over the long-term. If you want to call a spade a spade you might even go as far as to say, Hong Kong is doomed. For months hundreds of thousands and at times over a million Hong Kong citizens have taken to the streets to protest several proposed amendments concerning how they are governed. The protesters, predominantly young people, some dressed in black and wearing face masks are often seen dragging metal barriers, linking arms, closing off roads, and surrounding government buildings.
Still, it is bigger than this, civic groups and small businesses have joined in at times with general strikes and school boycotts to “defend Hong Kong.” This started over an amendment that included a mechanism for extraditions to mainland China that triggered fears that Beijing could detain people in Hong Kong and try them on the mainland under China’s more opaque legal system. Mounting opposition has stirred from all corners of society, including business-people, lawyers and activists, who say the bill would undermine Hong Kong’s relative autonomy and independent judicial system.
While you might want to consider the idea Hong Kong has no future as simple doom porn certain social and economic factors are coming together that paint a picture devoid of hope. For the protesters, this has become a damned if you do damned if you don’t situation. While Hong Kong is considered a city by most people, it is officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. With over 7.4 million people of various nationalities in a 1,104-square-kilometre territory. it is one of the most densely populated places in the world. For many years the area flourished as a tax haven for the British and European elite. The continued viability of Hong Kong was questionable even before the Brits turned it over to China.
Hong Kong Is Most Likely Doomed
Anyone with a knowledge of how repressive governments work will tell you when you think those in charge have surrendered to the cries of the people victory often turns out to be fleeting. As soon as the people return to simply living their lives, the ugliness they crushed will rematerialize. It may be in a slightly different form but it will reemerge. For the people of Hong Kong, the ugliness is China’s government forcing its will and way of life upon them. Unfortunately, no matter what those of us living in other countries tell themselves, this is not limited to China.
The rise of totalitarianism and Orwellian rule is surging across the globe with governments nibbling away the rights of the individual for the “greater good”. Technology is key in employing tools such as facial recognition and keeping records of our communications. This includes things like China’s social scoring program that rewards and punishes citizens for their behavior. Adding to tensions, the United States Senate unanimously passed the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019”, and the House of Representatives then passed the same bill by a 417 to 1. The Chinese consider this a slap in the face and an assault on their sovereignty.
Circling back to Hong Kong, a big problem is that as the protests turn violent it gives China justification to lower the hammer and crush those standing against it. This, of course, would be done “for the greater good.” The narrative that the protesters are destroying businesses, companies, shopping malls, subway stations, and the economy is difficult to dispute. The decline in tourist stands as a testimony this has effected Hong Kong’s hard-earned reputation as a safe international business center.
It is logical to think that China has been busy gathering information on its enemies in Hong Kong and even if protests subside China will be slow to forget what they have done. This means Hong Kong is living under a cloud and most likely China will work hard in coning years to diminish its future by always putting other areas first, call it discrimination if you like. In a study, the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies asked 707 individuals by phone in late September if they would leave the city because of the turmoil. More than 42% answered yes, this is up from 34% last December. Almost a quarter of these respondents claim they have started plans to leave which includes things like getting out of housing leases, selling their homes and cars, and packing up their possessions.
The political chaos was the most significant element triggering a desire to move. The two largest factors being “too much political dispute or social cleavage” (27.9%) and “no democracy in Hong Kong” (21.5%). Adding to the desire to flee was the fact about 20% of the respondents had no confidence that China or Hong Kong would address overcrowded living conditions. Unfortunately, it is generally those with the best education and most money that have the option to actuality leave. This increases the possibility that the area will suffer financially over the long run as capital and wealth take flight to areas with better prospects.
Chinese Troops Have Assembled Near By
It has been suggested that some of the most extreme violence could be coming from Chinese agents whose goal is to elevate tension to the point where China has no choice but to send in troops to restore order. Beijing has warned for months that Hong Kong’s insubordination will no longer be tolerated. Even a video, complete with dramatic aggressive music was published by the state-owned tabloid Global Times, it showed “The People’s Armed Police assembling in Shenzhen, a city bordering Hong Kong.” The video highlights the idea China is ready to move in. It does not take a rocket scientist to see the writing on the wall, at some point things will most likely get ugly very fast.
The claims the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and China’s economy would pay a terrible price for a brutal assault may be overdone. We should remember the protesters have been painted as violent thugs going forth every day to harm the economy and other Hongkongers. The big question is whether China moving in and hammering the protesters into submission will trigger a war. If so, such a war has the potential to go global with a great number of nations weighing in. Still, how could you come to the wayward territory’s defense? It is both far away and impossible to defend. For Trump and America to draw a line in the sand and not carrying through would be most embarrassing indeed.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/27/2019 – 21:05 - Here's How Much Taxes Will You Pay Under President "…"
Here’s How Much Taxes Will You Pay Under President “…”
With the chasm between the world’s rich and poor wider than ever before, the topic of wealth redistribution and income inequality…
… is understandably at the forefront of not just the 2020 presidential campaign but is daily cooler talk across America if not the world. Furthermore, in a stunning turn of events, on Sunday we reported that none other than Fed president Kashkari recently came out with a “jaw-dropping” policy proposal, seeking to add wealth redistribution to the Fed’s official mandates , which only made it clear that the Minneapolis Fed president is unaware that redistributing wealth is precisely why the Fed was created in 1913 and why over the past 10 years the rich have gotten richer than ever before as the middle class has shrank to banana republic levels.
Confirming that fears about wealth redistribution are indeed real, and not just the emotional side-effect of highly charged political theater, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is now spearheading an initiative for a new global tax system for consumer-facing businesses: the WSJ reported that the OECD is scheduled to meet Thursday and Friday in Paris “to discuss a proposal that would set a standard tax rate for a company’s global operations and allow individual governments to tax profits above that based on sales accounted for by each country.”
In short, officials at the very highest levels are now coordinating the formation of a global taxation system, one which will affect not only corporations but also very wealthy individuals, whose ability to arbitrage (read flee) highly taxed jurisdiction and redomicile in tax havens such as Monaco has long been seen as a hurdle to any truly punitive tax redistribution initiatives.
Yet while the world is gradually seeking to impose a uniform system, all eyes will be on the US, especially after November 2020 when America’s next president will either be Donald Trump for another 4 years, or one of his far more progressive challengers.
So instead of debating the pros and cons of any one given tax platform – there are plenty of other venues that do that every day – here is a chart comparing what total tax rate any given US president will impose on US taxpayers, broken out by income group. Clearly where there is the greatest variation is in the treatment of the Top 1% – traditionally the group that has paid the bulk of US income tax and especially the “Forbes 400.”
And, courtesy of Deutsche Bank, here are a few bonus taxation charts:
Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/27/2019 – 20:40 - Democracy Is The Ideal Distraction
Democracy Is The Ideal Distraction
Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,
In the days of yore, there were kings. Everybody could agree to hate the king because he was rich and well-fed, when most of his minions were not.
Then, a more effective system was invented: democracy. Its originators had in mind a system whereby the populace could choose their leader from amongst themselves – thereby gaining a leader who understood them and represented them.
In short order, those amongst the populace who wished to rule found a way to game the new system in a way that would allow them to, in effect, be kings, but to do so from behind the scenes, whilst retaining the illusion of democracy.
The formula is to create two opposing political parties. Each is led by someone who’s presented as being a “representative of the people.”
You then present the two parties as having opposing views on governance. It matters little what the differences are. In fact, you can have the differences be as obscure and arbitrary as, say, gay rights or abortion, and they will work as well as any other differences. What matters is that your two parties object to each other strenuously on the declared issues, working the electorate into a lather.
Once you have each group hating the other group “on principle,” you’re home free. At that point, you’ve successfully completed the distraction. The electorate now believe that, whatever the trumped-up issues are, they’re critical to the ethical governance of the country.
Most importantly, the electorate actually believe that their future well-being depends on the outcome of the next election – that it will decide whether their own view on the issues will prevail.
In a dictatorship, the leaders try to convince the people to support the dictatorship by claiming that more than 90% of the people voted for the dictator. But this is primitive thinking. It results in the same focused anti-leader sentiment that plagued the kings.
Far better to have the people fail to recognise who their actual rulers are and focus on the candidates, who are mere bit players and are changed as needed.
And, in a country where the illusion of democracy has become refined, the rulers come to understand that elections should not result in an overwhelming victory for one party or the other. Quite the opposite. If it can be arranged effectively, the best election is one that results in a 51% to 49% split.
This ensures that the 49% will not lose hope – that they’ll be both frustrated and angry at their near-miss, and redouble their efforts in the next election in order to have a win. And the 51% will wipe their collective brow in relief at having won, but will fear losing their slim advantage next time around.
Both parties must remain both hopeful and fearful. Keep them focused on each other – hating each other – and they’ll never figure out that you control both candidates like marionettes. The focus should never be on you, the real ruling class.
It’s also quite important to switch winners often. The ball should bounce back and forth from one party to the other frequently, allowing each winning party to dump the other party’s actual accomplishments when they take over.
However, just as important, the new winning party does not rescind the more oppressive accomplishments of the previous party. In this way, it becomes possible for the only long-term accomplishments to be the growing power of the government over the population, not advances for the populace.
And of course, this, by definition, means that the real rulers, the perennial group of individuals who control those who are elected – continually expand their power and wealth at the expense of the electorate.
But what of the candidates themselves? Do they recognise that they’re mere foot soldiers in the game?
Ideally, no. At any given time in any society, there are sufficient people whose egos exceed their abilities. Such individuals are ideal as candidates, as they tend to love the limelight, but will easily cave to the desires of those who made their candidacy possible. No candidate at the higher levels ever attains office without owing his soul to his backers. That ensures that, in spite of their public bravado, they remain controllable by their masters.
What’s extraordinary in this picture is that it’s possible for the populace to figure out the scam and yet, still believe that they live in a democratic system in which their vote may decide the future of the country.
Increasingly, particularly in Europe and North America, the citizenry are becoming aware that the Deep State collectively rule the countries. They understand that this largely invisible group of people are the true rulers, yet they vainly imagine that somehow the puppet leaders that they elect have the power to effect a solution.
In the UK, the electorate imagine that Boris Johnson will actually take them out of the European Union.
Instead, he delivers a Brexit deal that’s a reheated version of the Theresa May Brexit deal, which is not Brexit at all, but a perverse form of remain.
The Brexit debate is mere window dressing for democracy, whilst the Deep State carries on, according to its plan – the unelected EU government rules the UK.
In America, Donald Trump tweets in the morning that he will take US troops out of Syria. No doubt, as an individual, this is what he hopes he’ll be allowed to do.
But he’s immediately castigated by the media. He’s given his marching orders from the Deep State that, once again, he’s to do as he’s told. By the next day, Mister Trump announces a reversal of his decision.
There will be no end to the Middle East war for the US. It’s far too profitable. The discussion is mere window dressing for democracy, whilst the Deep State carries on, according to its plan.
Time after time, regardless of how adamant the marionettes are that they’ll follow the will of the people and save the day, in every case, the people’s hopes are dashed and the national policy reverts to business as usual.
In every case, the true leaders create the problems, cash in on them, then present the government as the solution to the problems, then cash in again.
In every case, the electorate pick up the tab and, rather than rebel, vainly hope that the next election will provide them with a group of marionettes who will actually deliver them from evil.
What’s astonishing is not that the Deep State lives only for its own ends, but that the populace recognise that it exists and still imagine that change from the status quo is possible.
Voting is not intended to count. It’s meant to be the pacifier that’s inserted into the public mouth periodically, when the public become grumpy that they must submit to kings.
* * *
Democracy offers a false sense of hope that things will change for the better. In all likelihood, the public will vote itself more and more “free stuff” until it causes an economic crisis. Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can practically do to change the course of these trends in motion. The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible, and even profit from the situation. That’s precisely bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent new video. It explains what exactly is happening and how you can protect yourself. Click here to watch it now.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/27/2019 – 20:15 - In "Message To Tehran" Iraqi Protesters Torch Another Iranian Consulate
In “Message To Tehran” Iraqi Protesters Torch Another Iranian Consulate
The month of protest mayhem has continued in Iraq, on Wednesday once again escalating into attacks on Iranian and pro-Iranian bases and sites, especially in the restive southern provinces, where Tehran’s proxies in Iraq are considered strongest.
Reuters reports, “Iraqi protesters stormed and set fire to the Iranian consulate in the southern city of Najaf on Wednesday, police and civil defense sources said.”
Consular staff had reportedly evacuated as mobs of angry demonstrators gathered prior to the incident, which involved Iraqis storming the compound and breaching the gates. A mass blaze then erupted from within during the evening hours as social media videos quickly put online show.
Iraqis attacking Iranian consulate in Najaf. Symbolism hard to miss. #IranProtests #IraqProtests #irancables pic.twitter.com/rCajjKpSXz
— Farnaz Fassihi (@farnazfassihi) November 27, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
It marks the second such mob attack on an Iranian diplomatic compound in under a month, after the Iranian consulate in the southern Shia holy city of Karbala came under attack and was torched on Nov. 3.
Iraq remains a sectarian powder keg waiting to erupt further, given anti-corruption protests have quickly turned to target neighboring Iran’s influence.
Humanitarian monitors have counted hundreds dead among the protests which have raged for over a month, with most international media citing over 300 killed and many thousands wounded.
In the last 20 days both #Iranian Consulates in #Karbala and #Najaf set on fire. Bright message to #Tehran and its proxies in #Iraq.
— Barzan Sadiq (@BarzanSadiq) November 27, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Iran-backed Iraqi Shia militias have reportedly been increasingly involved in assisting security forces in putting down the popular unrest which has swept the country – by some accounts even deploying snipers.
This has increased fears that the even larger, but on the whole much more peaceful ongoing protests in nearby Lebanon could also soon become armed and sectarian just in Iraq.
Iranian consulate in Najaf burning overnight Wednesday, via Reuters. Kurdistan-24 journalist Barzan Sadiq described the consular attacks this month as a “Bright message to Tehran and its proxies in Iraq.”
Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/27/2019 – 19:50 - The Lessons From Japan's Monetary Experiment
The Lessons From Japan’s Monetary Experiment
Authored by Daniel Lacalle via DLacalle.com,
A recent article in the Financial Times, “Abenomics provides a lesson for the rich world“, mentioned that the experiment started by prime minister Shinzo Abe in the early 2010s should serve as an important warning for rich countries. Unfortunately, the article’s “lessons” were rather disappointing. These were mainly that the central bank can do a lot more than the ECB and the Fed are doing, and that Japan is not doing so badly. I disagree.
The failure of Abenomics has been phenomenal. The balance sheet of the central bank of Japan has ballooned to more than 100% of the country’s GDP, the central bank owns almost 70% of the country’s ETFs and is one of the top 10 shareholders in the majority of the largest companies of the Nikkei index. Government debt to GDP has swelled to 236%, and despite the record-low cost of debt, the government spends almost 22% of the budget on interest expenses. All of this to achieve what?
None of the results that were expected from the massive monetary experiment, inventively called QQE (quantitative and qualitative easing) have been achieved, even remotely. Growth is expected to be one of the weakest in the world in 2020, according to the IMF, and the country has consistently missed both its inflation and economic growth targets, while the balance sheet of the central banks and the country’s debt soared.
Real wages have been stagnant for years, and economic activity continues to be as poor as it was in the previous two decades of constant stimulus.
The main lessons that global economies should learn from Japan are the following:
-
No country can offset the problem of demographics and productivity with higher debt and money printing. It simply kicks the can further but leaves the economy weaker and in permanent stagnation.
-
The technology and productivity challenges cannot be solved incentivizing malinvestment and government spending. It is a massive constant transfer of wealth from the productive to the unproductive, which makes high productivity sectors stall and crony and obsolete sectors remain zombified.
-
Doing the same with different names will not generate a different outcome. Calling the same policy something different will not make citizens get excited about the economy.
-
The wrong diagnosis will lead to worsening outcomes. When the government is surrounded by economists that tell them that the problem of the economy is that there are too many savings, the government will decide to raise taxes and create a larger problem attacking consumption. With private debt at 221% of GDP. Japan has many issues, none of them being a “savings glut”.
-
If you abandon structural reforms, the results will be worse. The QQE program was based on three “arrows”: monetary policy, government spending, and structural reforms. Guess which arrow they forgot to implement? Exactly. Structural reforms never happened, and when they did, they came in the form of higher taxes and more interventionism, the opposite of what the economy needed.
-
The biggest lesson from Japan is not that the central bank can buy equities and keep kicking the can further. The biggest lesson from Japan is that monetary and fiscal policy is not designed to kickstart the economy and improve growth or productivity but to perpetuate the imbalances created by excessive government intervention and transfer wealth from salaries and savings to the government and the indebted crony sectors.
-
The lesson from Japan is that no government can make two plus two equal twenty-two, but they can prolong budget imbalances for much longer than logic would dictate.
The true lesson from Japan is that central planners will continue to prefer to gradually nationalize the economy before even considering a moderate reduction in government size and control of the economy. The result will be almost no growth, poor productivity, and rising discontent, but the bureaucratic machine will be safe.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/27/2019 – 19:25 -
- California DMV Rakes In $50 Million Per Year Selling Personal Information
California DMV Rakes In $50 Million Per Year Selling Personal Information
The California DMV has been selling the personal information of registered drivers to the tune of $50 million per year, according to a DMV document obtained by Motherboard.
In a previous investigation, Motherboard found DMVs in other states have been selling non-optional information drivers must provide in order to obtain a license, such as names, physical addresses and car registration information.
And while California didn’t disclose exactly who they’re selling to, other states were making a handy profit from customers which include data broker LexisNexis, Experian, private investigators and others.
In a public record acts request, Motherboard asked the California DMV for the total dollar amounts paid by commercial requesters of data for the past six years. The responsive document shows the total revenue in financial year 2013/14 as $41,562,735, before steadily climbing to $52,048,236 in the financial year 2017/18. –Motherboard
The California DMV told Motherboard that requestors may include insurance companies, vehicle manufacturers and prospective employers.
When asked if the DMV relied on this revenue, public information officer Marty Greenstein wrote that the revenue is applied to highway and public safety “including availability of insurance, risk assessment, vehicle safety recalls, traffic studies, emissions research, background checks, and for pre- and existing employment purposes.”
“The DMV takes its obligation to protect personal information very seriously. Information is only released pursuant to legislative direction, and the DMV continues to review its release practices to ensure information is only released to authorized persons/entities and only for authorized purposes. The DMV also audits requesters to ensure proper audit logs are maintained and that employees are trained in the protection of DMV information and anyone having access to this information sign a security document,” he added.
So, who exactly is California selling drivers’ non-optional information to?
Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/27/2019 – 19:00 - President Trump's Defense
President Trump’s Defense
Authored by Robert Gore via StraightLineLogic.com,
Democratic representatives should think twice before they vote to impeach President Trump.
I thought I had said all I was going to say on “Ukrainegate” in my article “Make the Truth Irrelevant.” Then I read a column on the Internet by Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan whose very title: “Trump’s Defenders Have No Defense” (WSJ, 11/21/19) bespeaks its idiocy. Unfortunately, it also represents a lot of what’s being peddled by the mainstream media.
How would Noonan or anyone else outside Trump’s circle know whether he does or does not have a defense when the rules of the only body that has pursued the case against him preclude him from offering a defense? In the House impeachment hearings, Trump’s defenders cannot call their own witnesses, cannot confront the whistleblower whose complaint launched the case, cannot challenge hearsay evidence and have it excluded, and cannot probe the motives or possibly illegal behavior of his accusers.
Noonan further embarrasses herself with the following: “As to the impeachment itself, the case has been so clearly made you wonder what exactly the Senate will be left doing. How will they hold a lengthy trial with a case this clear?” She reveals her own ignorance of the law and facts of this particular case, and complete lack of decency or sense of fair play, rendering such a judgment after hearing only one side of the case.
Noonan has prompted this analysis of possibilities concerning Trump’s defense in a Senate trial. It assumes that standard American judicial rules, procedures, and principles will be in force during the trial.
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I am an inactive member of the California Bar Association and have never practiced law.
The best case for a defense attorney is one in which the attorney can say: Assume what the prosecution is saying is true, my client has not broken the law or committed a crime. During his phone call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, President Trump asked for investigations of three matters, but he did not explicitly link receipt of US aid that had been held up to Zelensky conducting those investigations. Suppose, for argument’s sake, that he had either explicitly asked for that quid pro quo or that Zelensky could reasonably infer he was asking for such a quid pro quo. Trump’s first line of defense would be to challenge the ubiquitous characterization—at least among Democrats and the media―of such a link as a crime.
According to the transcript of the call, Trump asked Zelensky to look into the company Crowdstrike, which has been the only entity allowed to examine the DNC servers that were allegedly hacked by the Russians. In a related query, he eluded to possible Ukrainian involvement in initiating the Russiagate fiasco. Later in the phone call, he said: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”
Assume for argument’s sake that Trump was holding up aid to get Zelensky to investigate Crowdstrike, possible initiation of Russiagate, and the Bidens. Nobody is calling the first two requests illegal because investigations would not directly redound to Trump’s political benefit (but might well redound to his accusers’ political detriment, see below). Only the third request, if receipt of aid was conditioned on compliance, has been termed illegal, because it could harm Trump’s political opponent, Joe Biden, and presumably benefit Trump.
What if the subject of that third request was not Biden and son, but rather some nonpolitical but prominent US figure and son, the investigation of whom would yield no political benefit to Trump? The president would have a strong argument that there was a prima facie (literally translated as “at first face” or “at first appearance”) case of corruption against the nonpolitical figure and his son. He could assert that he had a duty as the chief executive of the laws of the US to launch a US investigation, and to press—because so much of the alleged corruption happened in Ukraine and involved Ukrainian citizens, companies, government bodies, and other entities—the Ukrainian president to launch an investigation. The US and Ukraine have a treaty, Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters ratified by the Senate in 2000 and signed by Bill Clinton. Trump could argue that under that treaty he would be well within his powers to ask for such an investigation. He could cite a letter Clinton sent to the Senate recommending passage of the treaty, which lists a number of ways assistance can be rendered, with a final catch-all for “any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state.”
If Trump then explicitly tied US financial and military assistance meant for Ukraine to President Zelensky initiating that investigation against the nonpolitical father and son, no one would bat an eye. In fact, many would commend Trump for applying that leverage. US foreign aid has often had explicit provisions about reducing corruption as a condition of the recipient country receiving the aid. A US president informally linking the two would be a nonevent.
It only became an event because the figures to be investigated were Joe and Hunter Biden. Here the proper question for Trump to ask is: So what? Yes, Trump might benefit politically from such an investigation, prosecutors and politicians often benefit politically from prosecutions, but does that exempt the Bidens from investigation of what are at least prima facie instances of possible corruption? Implicit in the Democrats’ case against Trump is the placement of the Bidens above the laws that would apply to anyone else (except perhaps other favored political figures).
If the prosecution in the Trump impeachment trial wants to contest that characterization and conclusion, then Trump’s defense should insist on calling father and son as witnesses to explain and be cross-examined. How does Hunter’s dealings with Burisma not make out prima facie corruption? How does Joe’s insistence that the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma be fired, and his threat to put a hold on foreign aid to Ukraine not make out prima facie corruption? Hunter, Joe, and their defenders can explain why there should have been no Ukranian investigation, and why Trump should not have used all the leverage he had, including putting a hold on aid—just as Joe Biden threatened to do (and bragged about in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations) to get the prosecutor fired—to prompt Ukraine to launch such an investigation.
If what Trump did is a crime, so too is what Joe Biden did. However, because Biden publicly bragged about what he did, proving Biden’s criminal culpability would be far easier than proving Trump’s.
It may be news to Peggy Noonan, but unlike in the House proceedings, in the Senate Trump will be able to avail himself of two bulwarks of the American legal system: the Sixth Amendment and the hearsay exclusion. The Sixth Amendment protects defendants’ rights, “to be confronted with the witnesses against him;” and “to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.”
The hearsay exclusion bars “testimony in court of a statement made out of the court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the truth of matters asserted therein, and thus resting for its value upon the credibility of the out-of-court asserter.” Mutyambizi v. State, 33 Md.App. 55, 363 A.2d 511, 518. Hearsay is “evidence not proceeding from from the personal knowledge of the witness, but from the mere repetition of what he heard others say. That which does not derive its value solely from the credit of the witness, but rests mainly on the veracity and competency of other persons. The very nature of the evidence shows its weakness, and it is admitted only in specified cases from necessity.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, 1979, West Publishing Co. The 6th Amendment and the hearsay exclusion are related, they both embody fundamental fairness by recognizing a defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him.
While Adam Schiff was able to keep the whistleblower whose memorandum initiated the House’s impeachment investigation from testifying, such protection would not be available in the Senate trial. Trump has the right to confront his accusers. There are allegations that Schiff and members of his staff conferred with the whistleblower before the memorandum was publicly disclosed. Trump’s defense team could argue that Schiff, by conferring with the whistleblower and leading the House impeachment investigation, was also an accuser within the meaning of the 6th Amendment. If that argument prevailed, Schiff would have to testify and be cross-examined. Who knows where that might lead.
Trump would also have the 6th Amendment right to call friendly witnesses, not just to dispute the particulars of his alleged criminal conduct, but to challenge the credibility of adverse witnesses. Again, who knows where that might lead.
Trump would also contest the whistleblower’s testimony, and the testimony from many of the witnesses who appeared in the House proceedings, as hearsay. There is no doubt that the testimony is hearsay, so it would have to be admitted under one of the hearsay exclusion’s exceptions, which would be problematic. Even if it was admitted, the witnesses would be subject to cross-examination, and that didn’t always go so well for Schiff and company in the House. Noonan cited Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland’s testimony concerning the alleged quid pro quo that, “everyone was in the loop, it was no secret.” She said his testimony “was kind of the whole ballgame.” Watch Republican Representative Mike Turner’s shred that testimony.
Perhaps Noonan didn’t see that video.
The one item of evidence that’s clearly admissible is the transcript of Trump’s call with President Zelensky. The authors of that transcript would be available to testify as to its authenticity, which means it fits within a hearsay exception. It’s also conceivable that Zelensky, Trump, or both could testify as to the subject matter, tenor, and tone of their conversation.
The transcript contains no explicit mention of a quid pro quo. Both Trump and Zelensky deny a quid pro quo. If the hearsay presented in the House and the whistleblower’s hearsay are barred in the Senate, it would severely weaken the prosecution’s case. It may be news to Peggy Noonan, but the prosecution has the burden of proof (although it’s unclear if the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard would apply). Without the hearsay, the prosecution won’t have much in the way of proof, and there is evidence that arguably tends to exonerate Trump. Supporting the two presidents’ assertions of no quid pro quo, Zelensky has not initiated an investigation of the Bidens, and Trump did eventually release the aid to Ukraine, although he may have been prompted to do so by the House, which was set to override his hold and release the aid.
In a conventional criminal case, the defendant can attack the integrity, impartiality, and conduct of the prosecution. If Trump is allowed to do so, he would have two strong lines of attack. Noonan approves of “the sober testimony from respectable diplomats,” who made it “clear in a new and public way that pretty much everyone around the president has been forced for three years to work around his poor judgment and unpredictability in order to do their jobs.” Whether that’s true or not, what is such testimony even doing in an impeachment investigation? Trump’s managerial style, and more importantly, his publicly expressed skepticism concerning some of the policies championed by “respectable diplomats” cannot be considered “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Article II, Section 4, US Constitution). Trump could object to such testimony on grounds of relevancy and argue that his accusers were trying to criminalize differences in policy and perceived shortcomings in his personal style.
Trump’s other line of attack would be to illuminate the Democrats’ many questionable ties to Ukraine, and argue that the real aim of their impeachment effort is to prevent him from possibly exposing and jeopardizing those ties.
Ostensibly, Ukraine is a minefield for Democrats. In 2014, the US sponsored a coup against Ukraine’s duly elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, who had aligned the country with Russia rather than the EU. That coup has not worked out well for the US. Russia quickly annexed Crimea, which had been part of Ukraine, and has aided a eastern Ukrainian separatist movement that favors Russia and bitterly resents the coup.
The puppet Ukraine government has been a corrupt money pit for Western aid, loans, and loan guarantees, featuring, among many questionable characters, a coterie that reveres Nazi Germany and the role it played in World War II. The Ukrainian government is a loser, but it’s our loser and Trump has doubled down on Obama’s failure, backing monetary aid and weapons shipments to the beleaguered nation.
Russiagate was launched by Ukrainian officials who disseminated rumors in 2016 that Trump was in league with Russia and later, openly questioned his suitability for the presidency. The DNC dispatched a contractor, Alexandra Chalupa, to Ukraine to search for compromising material on Paul Manafort, then Trump’s campaign chairman. In other words, the Democrats sought information from a foreign power to influence the 2016 election, precisely what they groundlessly accuse Trump of doing.
CrowdStrike, the firm that investigated the server the DNC wouldn’t let the FBI or NSA touch, was founded by Ukrainian Dmitri Alperovitch, a senior fellow of the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank, and funded by a fanatically anti-Russian oligarch, Victor Pinchuk, who donated at least $25 million to the Clinton Foundation before the 2016 election. CrowdStrike never even produced a final report on its Russian hacking investigation, and had to revise and retract statements it used to support its conclusion.
– “Make the Truth Irrelevant,” Robert Gore, SLL, 10/16/19
The reason the Democrats have repeated “quid pro quo” over and over is because that’s the one narrow point they can focus on without their Ukrainian shenanigans blowing up in their faces. Trump mentioned CrowdStrike and the possible Ukrainian initiation of the fruitless Russiagate investigation in his call with Zelensky. As the above-cited SLL article makes clear, those are two issues the Democrats definitely want to avoid, and they’re trying mightily to separate the issue of the supposed quid pro quo from the linked issue of Biden father and son’s possible corruption. The Trump defense team should pound the table on the Democrats’ odiferous involvement with Ukraine.
Impeachment is always a political process. Ultimately, legal considerations will be secondary to politics. However, the Democrats’ political strategy appears as flawed as their legal tactics. Assuming the House votes for impeachment, the case moves from the forum they controlled to the Senate, which the Republicans control. Never underestimate the cowardice of Republican politicians, but they cannot afford to roll on this one, given Trump’s popularity within the party’s rank and file. House Republicans voted unanimously against the impeachment proceedings. Any Republican voting in favor would have risked almost certain defeat in the next election. Republican Senators perceived as not giving Trump a fair trail, or who vote to convict, will suffer political backlash, especially those Senators up for reelection in the next election.
At the very least, Trump should be able to exercise all the rights afforded defendants in criminal trails. I have suggested ways he can avail himself of those rights, and he can hire attorneys who are far smarter and more experienced than I am. His team can mount a strong defense. Although the mainstream media will be solidly against him, and their commentary will undoubtedly be biased and tendentious, there will be wall-to-wall television coverage and thousands of YouTube videos, so people can see for themselves what transpires.
Those optics—to use a beloved Washington and media word—could well bolster support for Trump and hurt the Democrats. The Republicans may want to drag his trial out as long as possible. If his defense is effective and the Senate votes not to convict, the Democrats will have given him the last word as the House impeachment hearings fade from memory. He will have a golden campaign issue to rally his base and the Democrats will be even more discredited than they were after the Mueller report (with everyone but there own rabid base).
Trump’s defenders have a solid defense if they’re given a fair chance to present it in a forum governed by the standard precepts of American law. If Peggy Noonan’s column represents what the Wall Street Journal considers informed thought and commentary, I’m glad I cancelled my subscription long ago.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/27/2019 – 18:35 - Furious China Warns "The US Plot Is Doomed", Threatens Retaliation After Trump Signs Hong Kong Democracy Bill
Furious China Warns “The US Plot Is Doomed”, Threatens Retaliation After Trump Signs Hong Kong Democracy Bill
Update (2035ET): As expected, China has responded to President Trump’s decision to sign the Hong Kong bill (out of respect for Xi?). China’s foreign ministry says in a statement that America’s decision was “a naked hegemonic act” without offering any details on possible retaliation.
The United States signed the so-called “Hong Kong Bill of Rights and Democracy” into law. This move seriously interfered with Hong Kong affairs, seriously interfered with China’s internal affairs, and seriously violated international law and basic norms of international relations. It was a naked hegemonic act, and the Chinese government and people firmly opposed it.
Since the return of Hong Kong to the motherland, “one country, two systems” has achieved universally recognized success, and Hong Kong residents enjoy unprecedented democratic rights in accordance with the law. The United States ignored the facts, turned black and white, and blatantly supported the violent criminals who smashed and burned innocent people, trampled against the rule of law, and endangered social order. They are extremely bad in nature and very dangerous. Their fundamental purpose is to undermine Hong Kong ’s prosperity and stability, The great practice of “one country, two systems” undermines the historical process of the Chinese nation’s great rejuvenation.
We must tell the US side that Hong Kong is Hong Kong of China, and Hong Kong affairs are purely China’s internal affairs. No foreign government or power has the right to interfere. This so-called bill will only make the Chinese people, including our compatriots in Hong Kong, more aware of the sinister intentions and hegemonic nature of the United States, and it will only make the Chinese people more committed. The US plot is doomed.
The Chinese Government is unwavering in its determination to oppose any external forces interfering in Hong Kong affairs, its determination to implement the “one country, two systems” policy, and its determination to safeguard national sovereignty, security, and development interests. We advise the United States not to act arbitrarily, or China will resolutely counteract it, and all consequences arising therefrom must be borne by the United States.
How does Trump’s administration bullshit their way out of this by claiming a trade deal is close? Xi will be forced to respond, leaving Trump unable to offer a lifting of the imminent tariff threat.
* * *
As we detailed earlier, less than an hour after Trump once again paraded with yet another all-time high in the S&P…
New Stock Market Record today, AGAIN. Congratulations USA!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
… and on day 510 of the trade war, it appears the president was confident enough that a collapse in trade talks won’t drag stocks too far lower, and moments after futures reopened at 6pm, the White House said that Trump had signed the Hong Kong bill backing pro-democracy protesters, defying China and making sure that every trader’s Thanksgiving holiday was just ruined.
In a late Wednesday statement from the White House, Trump said that:
I signed these bills out of respect for President Xi, China, and the people of Hong Kong. They are being enacted in the hope that Leaders and Representatives of China and Hong Kong will be able to amicably settle their differences leading to long term peace and prosperity for all.
Needless to say, no differences will be “settled amicably” and now China will have no choice but to retaliate, aggressively straining relations with the US, and further complicating Trump’s effort to wind down his nearly two-year old trade war with Beijing.
Trump’s signing of the bill comes during a period of unprecedented unrest in Hong Kong, where anti-government protests sparked by a now-shelved extradition bill proposal have ballooned into broader calls for democratic reform and police accountability.
“The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act reaffirms and amends the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, specifies United States policy towards Hong Kong and directs assessment of the political developments in Hong Kong,” the White House said in a statement. “Certain provisions of the act would interfere with the exercise of the president’s constitutional authority to state the foreign policy of the United States.”
The legislation, S. 1838, which was passed virtually unanimously in both chambers, requires annual reviews of Hong Kong’s special trade status under American law and will allow Washington to suspend said status in case the city does not retain a sufficient degree of autonomy under the “one country, two systems” framework. The bill also sanctions any officials deemed responsible for human rights abuses or undermining the city’s autonomy.
The House cleared the bill 417-1 on Nov. 20 after the Senate passed it without opposition, veto-proof majorities that left Trump with little choice but to acquiesce, or else suffer bruising fallout from his own party. the GOP.
Trump also signed into law the PROTECT Hong Kong act, which will prohibit the sale of US-made munitions such as tear gas and rubber bullets to the city’s authorities.
While many members of Congress in both parties have voiced strong support for protesters demanding more autonomy for the city, Trump had stayed largely silent, even as the demonstrations have been met by rising police violence.
Until now.
The bill’s author, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, said that with the legislation’s enactment, the US now had “new and meaningful tools to deter further influence and interference from Beijing into Hong Kong’s internal affairs.”
In accordance with the law, the Commerce Department will have 180 days to produce a report examining whether the Chinese government has tried use Hong Kong’s special trading status to import advanced “dual use” technologies in violation of US export control laws. Dual use technologies are those that can have commercial and military applications.
One other less discussed but notable provision of the Hong Kong Human Rights Act targets media outlets affiliated with China’s government. The new law directs the US secretary of state to “clearly inform the government of the People’s Republic of China that the use of media outlets to spread disinformation or to intimidate and threaten its perceived enemies in Hong Kong or in other countries is unacceptable.”
The state department should take any such activity “into consideration when granting visas for travel and work in the United States to journalists from the People’s Republic of China who are affiliated with any such media organizations”, the law says.
* * *
In the days leading up to Trump’s signature, China’s foreign ministry had urged Trump to prevent the legislation from becoming law, warning the Americans not to underestimate China’s determination to defend its “sovereignty, security and development interests.”
“If the U.S. insists on going down this wrong path, China will take strong countermeasures,” said China’s foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang at a briefing Thursday in Beijing. On Monday, China’s Vice Foreign Minister Zheng Zeguang summoned the U.S. ambassador, Terry Branstad to express “strong opposition” to what the country’s government considers American interference in the protests, including the legislation, according to statement.
The new U.S. law comes just as Washington and Beijing showed signs of working toward “phase-one” of deal to ease the trade war. Trump would like the agreement finished in order to ease economic uncertainty for his re-election campaign in 2020, and has floated the possibility of signing the deal in a farm state as an acknowledgment of the constituency that’s borne the brunt of retaliatory Chinese tariffs.
Last week China’s Vice Premier and chief trade negotiator Liu He said before a speech at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum in Beijing, that he was “cautiously optimistic” about reaching the phase one accord. He will now have no choice but to amend his statement.
In anticipation of a stern Chinese rebuke, US equity futures tumbled, wiping out most of the previous day’s gains…
… while the yuan slumped over 100 pips in kneejerk response.
Still, the generally modest pullback – the S&P was around 2,940 when Trump announced the Phase 1 deal on Oct 11 – suggests that despite Trump’s signature, markets expect a Chinese deal to still come through. That may be an aggressive and overly “hopeful” assumption, especially now that China now longer has a carte blanche to do whatever it wants in Hong Kong, especially in the aftermath of this weekend’s landslide victory for the pro-Democracy camp which won in 17 of the city’s 18 districts.
“Following last weekend’s historic elections in Hong Kong that included record turnout, this new law could not be more timely in showing strong US support for Hongkongers’ long-cherished freedoms,” said Rubio
Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/27/2019 – 18:20 - Iran Says Over 700 Banks Were Torched In Vast Protest 'Conspiracy'
Iran Says Over 700 Banks Were Torched In Vast Protest ‘Conspiracy’
After early in the week Iran’s top elite Guard commander gave a fiery ‘victory’ speech declaring the mainstay of anti-government protests which gripped major cities across Iran since Nov. 15 had been quelled, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has followed up with denouncing the unrest as a “very dangerous conspiracy”.
This as according to Reuters Iranian authorities “reported about 731 banks and 140 government sites had been torched in the disturbances.”
Given the over week-long and government ordered total internet shutdown which had ensued, this claim can’t be independently verified. However, during the opening days of widespread unrest which had been triggered by a sudden fuel price hike by as much as 300% in some places when government subsidies were slashed, initial videos posted online showed dramatic scenes of banks and gas stations being torched.
“A deep, vast and very dangerous conspiracy that a lot of money had been spent on… was destroyed by the people,” Khamenei said while addressing members of the paramilitary Basij force. The Basij were among the elite security forces which spearheaded the crackdown against protests.
Over the past days sizable pro-government demonstrations have largely supplanted the anti-government unrest, which state media has touted as proof the “conspiracy” against the Islamic Republic has failed.
On Monday Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Gen. Hossein Salami blamed the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel for fueling the unrest as part of continued covert war against Iran. “If you cross our red lines, we will destroy you,” he threatened.
ISNA via AP: Protesters burned a gas station in protest over raised fuel prices in Tehran on Nov. 17, 2019. And it was Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli who gave the total alleged figure of 731 banks and 140 government sites being set on fire during the protests.
He also claimed that 50 bases used by police and security forces were attacked along with about 70 gas stations burned, according to the official IRNA news agency.
Burned bank in Tehran, via Reuters. Few details or locations were given to support this claim, but it is part of the government’s continued attempt to paint a US and Israeli “hidden hand” as driving the popular anger.
Ayatollah Khamenei had previously labeled the protests as driven by “thugs” who were playing into the hands of Iran’s enemies.
Burning a bank building by #IranianProtesters in #Behbahan, capital of Behbahan County, #Khuzestan Province, #Iran.
16th November 2019#IranProtests#IranUprising#IslamicRepublicMustGo#IranRegimeChange pic.twitter.com/7zg5FvDoEq
— Ahmad Batebi (@radiojibi) November 16, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
It should be noted that Washington did early on voice support to the protests, sparked initially by the economic crisis in the sanctions-wracked country. The death toll climbed to an estimated 200 dead as protesters clashed with police.
Last week Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had issued an unusual call for Iranian protesters to send the United States videos and photos and other evidence “documenting the regime’s crackdown” on protesters. It’s unclear the extent to which Iranian activists and protesters have heeded his call.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/27/2019 – 18:10 - What Will The World Look Like After The Trade War?
What Will The World Look Like After The Trade War?
Authored by Stephen Roach via Project Syndicate,
For the last two years, the conflict between the United States and China has dominated the economic and financial-market debate – with good reason. After threats and accusations that long predate US President Donald Trump’s election, rhetoric has given way to action. Over the past 17 months, the world’s two largest economies have become embroiled in the most serious tariff war since the early 1930s. And the weaponization of US trade policy to target perceived company-specific threats such as Huawei has broadened the front in this battle.
I am as guilty as anyone of fixating on every twist and turn of this epic struggle between the world’s two economic heavyweights. From the start, it has been a political conflict fought with economic weapons and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. What that means, of course, is that the economic and financial-market outlook basically hinges on the political dynamic between the United States and China.
In that vein, the so-called phase one “skinny” trade deal announced with great fanfare on October 11 may be an important political signal. While the deal, if ever consummated, will have next to no material economic impact, it provides a strong hint that Trump has finally had enough of this trade war. Consumed by domestic political concerns – especially impeachment and the looming 2020 election – it is in Trump’s interest to declare victory and attempt to capitalize on it to counter his problems at home.
China, for its part, would also like nothing more than to end the trade war. Politics is obviously very different in a one-party state, but the Chinese leadership is not about to capitulate on its core principles of sovereignty and its aspirational mid-century goals of rejuvenation, growth, and development. At the same time, there can be no mistaking downward pressures on the economy. But with Chinese policymakers determined to stay the course of their three-year deleveraging campaign – an important self-inflicted source of the current slowdown – they should be all the more eager to address the trade-related pressures brought about by the conflict with the US.
Consequently, the political calculus of both countries is coming into closer alignment, with each looking for some face-saving truce. There is always a risk that other complications will arise — recent events in Hong Kong and revelations of developments in China’s Xinjiang Province come to mind. But, at least for the time being, the politics of the trade war are now pointing more toward de-escalation rather than a renewed ratcheting up of tensions.
If that is the case, and if a phase one accord is reached, it behooves us to ponder what the world will look like after the trade war.
Several possibilities are at the top of my list: deglobalization, decoupling, and trade diversion.
-
Deglobalization is unlikely. Like the first wave of globalization that ended ignominiously between World War I and the Great Depression, the current wave has generated a mounting backlash. Populism is rearing its ugly head around the world, and tensions over income and wealth inequality – aggravated by fears that technological innovations such as artificial intelligence will undermine job security – are dominating the political discourse. Yet the climactic event that underscored the demise of the first wave of globalization was a 60% collapse in world trade in the early 1930s. Notwithstanding the current political dysfunction, the odds of a similar outcome today are extremely low.
-
Global decoupling is also unlikely. Reflecting the explosive growth in global value chains (GVCs) over the past 25 years, the world is woven together more tightly than ever before. That has transformed global competition away from the country-specific paradigm of the past to a far more fragmented competition between widely distributed platforms of inputs, components, design, and assembly functions. A recent IMF study found that GVCs accounted for fully 73% of the rapid growth in global trade that occurred over the 20-year period from 1993 to 2013. Enabled by irreversible trends of plunging transportation costs and technological breakthroughs in logistics and sourcing, the GVC linkages that have come to underpin global economic integration are at little risk of decoupling.
-
Trade diversion is another matter altogether. As I have long argued, bilateral trade conflicts – even a bilateral decoupling – can do nothing to resolve multilateral imbalances. Putting pressure on one of many trading partners – precisely what the US is doing when it squeezes China in an effort to reduce its merchandise trade deficits with 102 countries – is likely to backfire. That’s because America’s multilateral trade deficit reflects a profound shortfall of domestic saving that will only get worse as the federal budget deficit now veers out of control. Without addressing this chronic saving problem, targeting China will mean pushing the Chinese piece of the multilateral deficit on to America’s other trading partners. Such diversion will shift trade to higher-cost foreign sourcing – the functional equivalent of a tax hike on US consumers.
Trade truce or not, a protracted economic struggle between the US and China has already begun.
A cease-fire in the current battle is nothing more than a politically expedient pause in what is likely to be an enduring Cold War-like conflict. That should worry the US, which is devoid of a long-term strategic framework. China is not. That is certainly the message from Sun Tzu in The Art of War: “When your strategy is deep and far-reaching … you can win before you even fight.”
Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/27/2019 – 17:45 -
- Scathing Reports Document Worker Abuses At Amazon Warehouses Just In Time For Holiday Rush
Scathing Reports Document Worker Abuses At Amazon Warehouses Just In Time For Holiday Rush
Amazon has repeatedly insisted that reports about the allegedly terrible working conditions in its “fulfillment center” warehouses are overblown, and that it’s workers are treated no differently than any other warehouse worker. To try and save face, Amazon announced last year that it would hike pay to at least $15 for thousands of workers in its warehouses and elsewhere.
But the abuses have apparently continued, and a series of reports released just days before the beginning of the holiday shopping season highlighted Amazon’s abuses of both its workers and the public welfare system.
The report that drew the most attention was a joint project between the Reveal Center for Investigative Reporting and The Atlantic which found that Amazon warehouse workers are seriously injured on the job at twice the rate of other warehouse workers – likely a factor of Amazon’s demanding conditions.
The reporter who wrote the piece compared injury records from 23 of Amazon’s 110 fulfillment centers nationwide. He found the rate of injuries at Amazon’s centers was 9.6 per 100 full-time workers in 2018, compared with an industry average of four, according to the Atlantic.
It’s the latest indication that Amazon’s usage of robots to work in harmony with people on its warehouse floors has made work more dangerous for people.
One warehouse worker interviewed for the story was required to scan a new item at her station every 11 seconds – and that Amazon knew when she didn’t.
Dixon’s scan rate – more than 300 items an hour, thousands of individual products a day – was being tracked constantly, the data flowing to managers in real time, then crunched by a proprietary software system called ADAPT. She knew, like the thousands of other workers there, that if she didn’t hit her target speed, she would be written up and, if she didn’t improve, she eventually would be fired.
The report also delved into the death of a worker at one of Amazon’s warehouses, and whether Amazon’s quotas had any impact on that.
Another report released yesterday was from the Economic Roundtable, a nonprofit research group, in a study underwritten by the LA Federation of Labor (full disclosure).
It determined that more than half of Amazon warehouse workers in Southern California live in substandard housing, and that, for every $1 in wages they receive, they also get 24 cents in public assistance. On average, employees receive $5,245 in public benefits a year. And the biggest expense is government subsidized health insurance.
The report’s authors also accused Amazon of positioning its warehouses in California near low-income communities to ensure an endless supply of hungry workers. Meanwhile, the report describes Amazons culture of monitoring employees’ movements as “grueling and high-stress.”
Amazon’s warehouse jobs are grueling and high-stress. Customer orders must be assembled and delivered on rapid schedules. Warehouse workers wear tracking devices that management uses to monitor where they are at any time, how many steps they take to get their packages assembled, and how long it takes to pick up each item.
Those who can’t meet the assembly quotas are terminated. Most logistics employees are working full-time to support their families but 86 percent earn less than the basic living wage for Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The typical worker had total annual earnings in 2017 of $20,585, which is slightly over half of the living wage. Fourteen percent were under the federal poverty threshold and another 31 percent were just above the poverty threshold.
For what it’s worth, Amazon said that it’s high rate of injuries recorded is a result of its zealous reporting of injuries. Amazon said it tries to stop injured workers from returning to work, though employees interviewed by the reporter contested this.
And the company’s “safety protocols” were portrayed as some thinly veiled CYA, since employees say they are almost impossible to follow.
The company does instruct workers on the safe way to move their bodies and handle equipment. But several former workers said they had to break the safety rules to keep up. They would jump or stretch to reach a top rack instead of using a stepladder. They would twist and bend over to grab boxes instead of taking time to squat and lift with their legs. They would hoist extra-heavy items alone to avoid wasting time getting help. They had to, they said, or they would lose their jobs. So they took the risk.
Amazon has benefited generously from public resources, including roughly $800 million in tax breaks in just four counties in Southern California.
Adding to the mounting criticism, a group of grassroots organizations emerged this week to announce their opposition to Amazon’s “growing, powerful grip over our society and economy.” But even as popular support for breaking up big tech surges, automation still threatens millions of jobs over the next decade.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/27/2019 – 17:25 - Amnesty International: Google & Facebook's "Surveillance-Based" Model Threatens Human Rights
Amnesty International: Google & Facebook’s “Surveillance-Based” Model Threatens Human Rights
Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,
Amnesty International has said that the “surveillance-based” business models of tech giants like Google and Facebook threaten human rights. Big tech has been known to collect private data, censor speech on behalf of the government, and financially punish dissenters by disallowing advertising.
Amnesty International has gone public with its scathing commentary about big tech. Describing Google and Facebook’s advertising-centric business models as “surveillance-based,” Amnesty International warns that the “mass harvesting of data – primarily for the purpose of advertising – has meant that surveillance has become the ‘business model of the internet.’”
So in order to sell you more products and get you to spend your hard-earned dollars, big tech fully intends to spy on you. This is not new information by any stretch of the imagination, however, it’s worth pointing out again.
Amnesty International says:
-
Facebook and Google both run “continuous analysis and accumulation of information about people,” which constitutes illegal surveillance under the United States Constitution.
-
Facebook and Google don’t charge for their services, and instead, rely on people “handing over their data as a hidden kind of payment.”
-
Facebook and Google collect “a wealth of highly detailed data” that allows them to know more about individuals “than the individuals do about themselves.”
-
Facebook and Google now have the capacity to analyze and predict user habits and behaviors using artificial intelligence (AI) systems equipped with advanced surveillance and tracking technologies.
All of this proves that Facebook, Google, and the rest are acting against the best interests of consumers, though these tech giants and others deny that they’re engaged in any behaviors that harm their customers. –Natural News
“… despite the real value of the services they provide, Google and Facebook’s platforms come at a systemic cost,” the Amnesty International report reveals. “The companies’ surveillance-based business model forces people to make a Faustian bargain, whereby they are only able to enjoy their human rights online by submitting to a system predicated on human rights abuse,” it adds.
“Firstly, an assault on the right to privacy on an unprecedented scale, and then a series of knock-on effects that pose a serious risk to a range of other rights, from freedom of expression and opinion to freedom of thought and the right to non-discrimination.”
“This isn’t the internet people signed up for,” notes Amnesty International. “When Google and Facebook were first starting out two decades ago, both companies had radically different business models that did not depend on ubiquitous surveillance. The gradual erosion of privacy at the hands of Google and Facebook is a direct result of the companies’ establishing dominant market power and control over the global ‘public square.’”
We, as individuals, need to decide if the surveillance and lack of privacy is worth it.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/27/2019 – 17:05 -
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/Chart1_4.png?itok=cXcXJr0U){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/Black-Friday.jpg?itok=lLTanf6i){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/najaf%20burning.jpg?itok=jlywoPw1){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/gas%20station%20iran.jpg?itok=Un23elw5){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/iranbank1.jpg?itok=AJMZnbmH){kind=link}