- Lessons Of The OPCW's Douma Gas Attack Report: When The Narrative Fails, Lie
Lessons Of The OPCW’s Douma Gas Attack Report: When The Narrative Fails, Lie
Authored by Robert Fisk via The Independent,
In the very early spring of this year, I gave a lecture to European military personnel interested in the Middle East. It was scarcely a year since Bashar al-Assad’s alleged use of chlorine gas against the civilian inhabitants of the Damascus suburb of Douma on 7 April 2018, in which 43 people were said to have been killed.
Few present had much doubt that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which represents 193 member states around the world, would soon confirm in a final report that Assad was guilty of a war crime which had been condemned by Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May.
But at the end of my talk, a young Nato officer who specialises in chemical weapons – he was not British – sought me out for a private conversation.
“The OPCW are not going to admit all they know,” he said. “They’ve already censored their own documents.”
I could not extract any more from him. He smiled and walked away, leaving me to guess what he was talking about. If Nato had doubts about the OPCW, this was a very serious matter.
When it published its final report in March this year, the OPCW said that testimony, environmental and biomedical samples and toxicological and ballistic analyses provided “reasonable grounds” that “the use of a toxic chemical had taken place” in Douma which contained “reactive chlorine”.
The US, Britain and France, which launched missile attacks on Syrian military sites in retaliation for Douma – before any investigation had taken place – thought themselves justified. The OPCW’s report was splashed across headlines around the world – to the indignation of Russia, Assad’s principal military ally, which denied the validity of the publication.
Then, in mid-May 2019, came news of a confidential report by OPCW South African ballistics inspector Ian Henderson – a document which the organisation excluded from its final report – which took issue with the organisation’s conclusions. Canisters supposedly containing chlorine gas may not have been dropped by Syrian helicopters, it suggested, and could have been placed at the site of the attack by unknown hands.
Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday reported in detail on the Henderson document. No other mainstream media followed up this story. The BBC, for example, had reported in full on the OPCW’s final report on the use of chlorine gas, but never mentioned the subsequent Henderson story.
And here I might myself have abandoned the trail had I not received a call on my Beirut phone shortly after the Henderson paper, from the Nato officer who had tipped me off about the OPCW’s apparent censorship of its own documents. “I wasn’t talking about the Henderson report,” he said abruptly. And immediately terminated our conversation. But now I understand what he must have been talking about.
For in the past few weeks, there has emerged deeply disturbing new evidence that the OPCW went far further than merely excluding one dissenting voice from its conclusions on the 2018 Douma attack.
The most recent information – published on WikiLeaks, in a report from Hitchens again and from Jonathan Steele, a former senior foreign correspondent for The Guardian – suggests that the OPCW suppressed or failed to publish, or simply preferred to ignore, the conclusions of up to 20 other members of its staff who became so upset at what they regarded as the misleading conclusions of the final report that they officially sought to have it changed in order to represent the truth. (The OPCW has said in a number of statements that it stands by its final report.)
At first, senior OPCW officials contented themselves by merely acknowledging the Henderson report’s existence a few days after it appeared without making any comment on its contents. When the far more damaging later reports emerged in early November, Fernando Arias, the OPCW’s director general, said that it was in “the nature of any thorough enquiry for individuals in a team to express subjective views. While some of the views continue to circulate in some public discussion forums, I would like to reiterate that I stand by the independent, professional conclusion [of the investigation].” The OPCW declined to respond to questions from Hitchens or Steele.
But the new details suggest that other evidence could have been left unpublished by the OPCW. These were not just from leaked emails, but given by an OPCW inspector – a colleague of Henderson – who was one of a team of eight to visit Douma and who appeared at a briefing in Brussels last month to explain his original findings to a group of disarmament, legal, medical and intelligence personnel.
As Steele reported afterwards, in a piece published by Counterpunch in mid-November 2019, the inspector – who gave his name to his audience, but asked to be called “Alex” – said he did not want to undermine the OPCW but stated that “most of the Douma team” felt the two reports on the incident (the OPCW had also published an interim report in 2018) were “scientifically impoverished, procedurally irregular and possibly fraudulent”. Alex said he sought, in vain, to have a subsequent OPCW conference to address these concerns and “demonstrate transparency, impartiality and independence”.
For example, Alex cited the OPCW report’s claim that “various chlorinated organic chemicals (COCs) were found” in Douma, but said that there were “huge internal arguments” in the OPCW even before its 2018 interim report was published. Findings comparing chlorine gas normally present in the atmosphere with evidence from the Douma site were, according to Alex, kept by the head of the Douma mission and not passed to the inspector who was drafting the interim report. Alex said that he subsequently discovered that the COCs in Douma were “no higher than you would expect in any household environment”, a point which he says was omitted from both OPCW reports. Alex told his Brussels audience that these omissions were “deliberate and irregular”.
Alex also said that a British diplomat who was OPCW’s chef de cabinet invited several members of the drafting team to his office, where they found three US officials who told them that the Syrian regime had conducted a gas attack and that two cylinders found in one building contained 170 kilograms of chlorine. The inspectors, Alex remarked, regarded this as unacceptable pressure and a violation of the OPCW’s principles of “independence and impartiality”.
Regarding the comments from Alex, the OPCW has pointed to the statement by Arias that the organisation stands by its final report.
Further emails continue to emerge from these discussions. This weekend, for example, WikiLeaks sent to The Independent an apparent account of a meeting held by OPCW toxicologists and pharmacists “all specialists in CW (Chemical Warfare)”, according to the document. The meeting is dated 6 June 2018 and says that “the experts were conclusive in their statements that there is no correlation between symptoms [of the victims] and chlorine exposure.”
In particular, they stated that “the onset of excessive frothing, as a result of pulmonary edema observed in photos and reported by witnesses would not occur in the short time period between the reported occurrence of the alleged incident and the time the videos were recorded”. When I asked for a response to this document, a spokesman for the OPCW headquarters in Holland said that my request would be “considered”. That was on Monday 23 December.
Any international organisation, of course, has a right to select the most quotable parts of its documentation on any investigation, or to set aside an individual’s dissenting report – although, in ordinary legal enquiries, dissenting voices are quite often acknowledged. Chemical warfare is not an exact science – chlorine gas does not carry a maker’s name or computer number in the same way that fragments of tank shells or bombs often do.
But the degree of unease within the OPCW’s staff surely cannot be concealed much longer. To the delight of the Russians and the despair of its supporters, an organisation whose prestige alone should frighten any potential war criminals is scarcely bothering to confront its own detractors. Military commanders may conceal their tactics from an enemy in time of war, but this provides no excuse for an important international organisation dedicated to the prohibition of chemical weapons to allow its antagonists to claim that it has “cooked the books” by permitting political pressure to take precedence over the facts. And that is what is happening today.
The deep concerns among some of the OPCW staff and the deletion of their evidence does not mean that gas has not been used in Syria by the government or even by the Russians or by Isis and its fellow Islamists. All stand guilty of war crimes in the Syrian conflict. The OPCW’s response to the evidence should not let war criminals off the hook. But it certainly helps them.
And what could be portrayed as acts of deceit by a supposedly authoritative body of international scientists can lead some to only one conclusion: that they must resort to those whom the west regards as “traitors” to security – WikiLeaks and others – if they wish to find out the story behind official reports. So far, the Russians and the Syrian regime have been the winners in the propaganda war. Such organisations as the OPCW need to work to make sure the truth can be revealed to everyone.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 01/03/2020 – 00:05 - The World Of Wine: Visualizing An Industry Ripe For Disruption
The World Of Wine: Visualizing An Industry Ripe For Disruption
Winemaking is often thought of as a symbol of transformation.
While the fermented drink dates back 9,000 years, Visual Capitalist’s Katie Jones points out that the wine market is now experiencing its own transformation due to technological innovation, and the introduction of new business models. Generating $370 billion in revenue in 2019, the global industry is expected to grow considerably over the next decade—but not as we know it.
Today’s infographic from Raconteur explores wine consumption by region, and looks at how changing tastes are driving a new era of the millennia-old staple.
Will the industry continue to get better with age, or will it join the countless other industries that have fallen victim to disruption?
The Wine Leaders of the World
To start, let’s take a look at the countries around the world that have the biggest economic footprints linked to the trade and consumption of wine:
Exports: Spain is the largest exporter of wine globally, producing 21 million hectoliters of volume in 2018, followed by Italy with 19.7 million hectoliters.
Imports: Germany leads on imports with 14.5 million hectoliters of volume in 2018, while the UK is the second-largest importer with 13.2 million hectoliters.
Consumption: The U.S. currently leads on wine consumption, with Americans drinking an average of 3.7 liters per person each year—generating almost $50 billion in revenue.
Currently, 80% of all wine consumed within China is produced domestically, and with a growing middle class, there is a huge potential for the Chinese industry to gain ground in comparison to other leading wine markets.
Rapidly Changing Tastes
While older generations prefer wine to other alcoholic beverages, spirits are the drink of choice for those aged 18 to 27. In fact, only 27% of this age group prefers wine to spirits or beer, meaning wine companies will need to adapt to these younger audiences and their differing values.
Marketing could create an opportunity to connect with this audience in a more meaningful way, with packaging having the most potential to sway their decision making process by providing a number of unique benefits:
- Sustainability
- Smaller serving sizes
- Portability
Interestingly, canned wine is already a $70 million industry in the United States — and by 2025, it could make up 10% of total sales.
New Threats to the Industry
Along with changing expectations for packaging, millennials also crave new experiences, with more alternative options appealing to this age group, such as cannabis-infused beverages, craft beer, and whiskey.
Dealcoholized cannabis-infused wine is a new product innovation that could also appeal to this audience and have direct implications for the industry—but while cannabis companies have shown an interest in the category, collaboration with the tech industry is proving to be the most transformative.
When Two Valleys Collide
Technology is squeezing every opportunity it can get out of the wine industry, impacting different parts of the supply chain.
Winemaking
Drones are making farms and vineyards across the globe more efficient, while new technologies used to improve harvesting, sorting, and filtration during the winemaking process are also cropping up and providing new solutions to antiquated problems.
Consumption
Traditionally, decanting wine has been a slow and delicate process. Smart wine decanters however, can expedite that process.
These decanters use air filtration systems to remove impurities and enhance the aroma in just a few minutes—streamlining the decanting process, which typically takes around three hours.
Impact on the Environment
Industry experts predict that packaging such as edible bottles made from sugar substitutes, and compostable, non-plastic glass will replace glass bottles.
Meanwhile, QR codes have the potential to replace paper labels on wine bottles entirely, and a growing number of wine brands are already using augmented reality to deliver more immersive experiences to end consumers.
For an industry steeped in history and tradition, the future holds exciting potential for new innovations that will transform the way we look at wine forever.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/02/2020 – 23:45 - Military And Political Trends Of 2019 That Will Shape 2020
Military And Political Trends Of 2019 That Will Shape 2020
In the year 2019 the world was marked with a number of emerging and developing crises.
The threat of terrorism, conflicts in the Middle East, expanding instability in South America, never-ending military, political and humanitarian crises in Africa and Asia, expansion of NATO, insecurity inside the European Union, sanction wars and sharpening conflicts between key international players. One more factor that shaped the international situation throughout the year was the further collapse of the existing system of international treaties. The most widely known examples of this tendency are the collapse of the INF and the US announcement of plans to withdraw from the New START. Meanwhile, the deterioration of diplomatic mechanisms between key regional and global actors is much wider than these two particular cases. It includes such fields as NATO-Russia relations, the US posture towards Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, unsuccessful attempts to rescue vestiges of the Iran nuclear deal, as well as recent setbacks in the diplomatic formats created to de-escalate the Korean conflict.
One of the regions of greatest concern in the world, is the Middle East. The main destabilizing factors are the remaining terrorist threat from al-Qaeda and ISIS, the crises in Libya, Syria and Iraq, the ongoing Saudi invasion of Yemen, the deepening Israeli-Arab conflict, and a threat of open military confrontation involving the US and Iran in the Persian Gulf. These factors are further complicated by social and economic instability in several regional countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and even Iran.
After the defeat of ISIS, the war in Syria entered a low intensity phase. However, it appears that the conflict is nowhere near its end and the country remains a point of instability in the region.
ISIS cells are still active in the country. The announced US troop withdrawal appeared to be only an ordinary PR stunt as US forces only changed their main areas of presence to the oil-rich areas in northeastern Syria. Washington exploits its control over Syrian resources and influence on the leadership of the Syrian Kurds in order to effect the course of the conflict. The Trump administration sees Syria as one of the battlegrounds in the fight against the so-called Iranian threat.
The province of Idlib and its surrounding areas remain the key stronghold of radical militant groups in Syria. Over the past years, anti-government armed groups suffered a series of defeats across the country and withdrew towards northwestern Syria. The decision of the Syrian Army to allow encircled militants to withdraw towards Idlib enabled the rescue of thousands of civilians, who were being used by them as human shields in such areas as Aleppo city and Eastern Ghouta. At the same time, this increased significantly the already high concentration of militants in Greater Idlib turning it into a hotbed of radicalism and terrorism. The ensuing attempts to separate the radicals from the so-called moderate opposition and then to neutralize them, which took place within the framework of the Astana format involving Turkey, Syria, Iran and Russia, made no progress.
The Summer-Fall advance of the Syrian Army in northern Hama and southern Idlib led to the liberation of a large area from the militants. Nevertheless, strategically, the situation is still the same. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, formerly the official branch of al-Qaeda in Syria, controls most of the area. Turkish-backed ‘moderate militants’ act shoulder to shoulder with terrorist groups.
Turkey is keen to prevent any possible advances of the government forces in Idlib. Therefore it supports further diplomatic cooperation with Russia and Iran to promote a ‘non-military’ solution of the issue. However it does not seem to have enough influence with the Idlib militant groups, in particular HTS, to impose a ceasefire on them at the present time. Ankara could take control of the situation, but it would need a year or two that it does not have. Therefore, a new round of military escalation in the Idlib zone seems to be only a matter of time.
Syria’s northeast is also a source of tensions. Turkey seized a chunk of territory between Ras al-Ayn and Tell Abyad in the framework of its Operation Peace Spring. The large-scale Turkish advance on Kurdish armed groups was halted by the Turkish-Russian ‘safe zone’ agreement and now the Syrian Army and the Russian Military Police are working to separate Kurdish rebels from Turkish proxies and to stabilize Syria’s northeast. If this is successfully done and the Assad government reaches a political deal with Kurdish leaders, conditions for further peaceful settlement of the conflict in this part of the country will be created. It should be noted that Damascus has been contributing extraordinary efforts to restore the infrastructure in areas liberated from terrorists by force or returned under its control by diplomatic means. In the eyes of the local population, these actions have an obvious advantage over approaches of other actors controlling various parts of Syria.
Israel is another actor pursuing an active policy in the region. It seeks to influence processes which could affect, what the leadership sees as, interests of the state. Israel justifies aggressive actions in Syria by claiming to be surrounded by irreconcilable enemies, foremost Iran and Hezbollah, who try to destroy Israel or at least diminish its security. Tel Aviv makes all efforts to ensure that, in the immediate vicinity of its borders, there would be no force, non-state actors, or states whose international and informational activities or military actions might damage Israeli interests. This, according to the Israeli vision, should ensure the physical security of the entire territory currently under the control of Israel and its population.
The start of the Syrian war became a gift for Israel. It was strong enough to repel direct military aggression by any terrorist organization, but got a chance to use the chaos to propel its own interests. Nonetheless, the rigid stance of the Israeli leadership which became used to employing chaos and civil conflicts in the surrounding countries as the most effective strategy for ensuring the interests of the state, was delivered a blow. Israel missed the moment when it had a chance to intervene in the conflict as a kind of peacemaker, at least on the level of formal rhetoric, and, with US help, settle the conflict to protect its own interests. Instead, leaders of Israel and the Obama administration sabotaged all Russian peace efforts in the first years of the Russian military operation and by 2019, Tel Aviv had found itself excluded from the list of power brokers in the Syrian settlement. Hezbollah and Iran, on the other hand, strengthened their position in the country after they, in alliance with Damascus and Russia, won the war on the major part of Syrian territory, and Iran through the Astana format forged a tactical alliance with Turkey.
Iran and Hezbollah used the preliminary outcome of the conflict in Syria, and the war on ISIS in general, to defend their own security and to expand their influence across the region. The so-called Shia crescent turned from being a myth exploited by Western diplomats and mainstream media into a reality. Iran and Hezbollah appeared to be reliable partners for their regional allies even in the most complicated situations.
Russia’s strategic goal is the prevention of radical Islamists from coming to power. Russia showed itself ready to enter dialogue with the moderate part of the Syrian opposition. Its leadership even demonstrated that it is ready to accept the interests of other actors, the US, Israel, Kurdish groups, Turkey, Iran, and Hezbollah, if this would help in reaching a final deal to settle the conflict.
Summing up the developments of 2019, one might expect that the current low-intensity state of the Syrian conflict would continue for years. However, several factors and developments could instigate the renewal of full-fledged hostilities:
-
A sudden demise or forceful removal of President Bashar al-Assad could create a situation of uncertainty within the patriotic component of the Syrian leadership;
-
Changes within the Russian political system or issues inside Russia which could lead to full or partial withdrawal of support to the Syrian government and withdrawal of Russian forces from Syria;
-
A major war in the Middle East which would turn the entire region into a battlefield. In the current situation, such a war could only start by escalation between the US-Israeli-led bloc and Iran.
The Persian Gulf and the Saudi-Yemen battleground are also sources of regional instability. In the second half of 2019, the situation there was marked by increased chances of open military confrontation between the US-Israeli-Saudi bloc and Iran. Drone shoot-downs, oil tanker detentions, open military buildups, and wartime-like rhetoric became something common or at least not very surprising. The US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel point to Iran as the main instigator of tensions.
Iran and its allies deny responsibility for the escalation reasonably noting that their actions were a response to aggressive moves by the US-Israeli-Saudi axis. From this point of view, Iran’s decision to limit its commitments to the already collapsed Nuclear Deal, high level of military activity in the Persian Gulf, shoot down of the US Global Hawk spy drone, and increased support to regional Shia groups are logical steps to deter US—led aggression and to solidify its own position in the region. Iran’s main goal is to demonstrate that an open military conflict with it will have a devastating impact to the states which decide to attack it, as well as to the global economy.
The US sanctions war, public diplomatic support of rioters, and the Trump administration’s commitment to flexing military muscle only strengthen Tehran’s confidence that this approach is right.
As to Yemen’s Houthis, who demonstrated an unexpected success in delivering retaliatory strikes to Saudi Arabia, they would continue to pursue their main goal – achieving a victory in the conflict with Saudi Arabia or forcing the Kingdom to accept the peace deal on favorable terms. To achieve this, they need to deliver maximum damage to Saudi Arabia’s economy through strikes on its key military and infrastructure objects. In this case, surprising missile and drone strikes on different targets across Saudi Arabia have already demonstrated their effectiveness.
The September 14 strike on Saudi oil infrastructure that put out of commission half of the Saudi oil output became only the first sign of future challenges that Riyadh may face in case of further military confrontation.
The unsuccessful invasion of Yemen and the confrontation with Iran are not the only problems for Saudi Arabia. The interests and vision of the UAE and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East have been in conflict for a long time. Nonetheless, this tendency became especially obvious in 2019. The decline of influence of the House of Saud in the region and inside Saudi Arabia itself led to logical attempts of other regional players to gain a leading position in the Arabian Peninsula. The main challenger is the UAE and the House of Maktoum.
Contradictions between Saudi Arabia and the UAE turned into an open military confrontation between their proxies in Yemen. Since August 29th, Saudi Arabia has provided no symmetric answer to the UAE military action against its proxies. It seems that the Saudi leadership has no will or distinct political vision of how it should react in this situation. Additionally, the Saudi military is bogged down in a bloody conflict in Yemen and struggles to defend its own borders from Houthi attacks.
The UAE already gained an upper hand in the standoff with Saudi Arabia in the economic field. This provided motivation for further actions towards expanding its influence in the region.
During the year, Turkey, under the leadership of President Recep Erdogan, continued strengthening its regional positions. It expanded its own influence in Libya and Syria, strengthened its ties with Iran, Qatar, and Russia, obtained the S-400, entered a final phase in the TurkStream project, and even increased controversial drilling activity in the Eastern Mediterranean. Simultaneously, Ankara defended its national interests -repelling pressure from the United States and getting off with removal from the F-35 program only. Meanwhile, Turkish actions should not be seen as a some tectonic shift in its foreign policy or a signal of ‘great friendship’ with Russia or Iran.
Turkish foreign policy demonstrates that Ankara is not seeking to make ‘friends’ with other regional and global powers. Turkey’s foreign policy is mobile and variable, and always designed to defend the interests of Turkey as a regional leader and the key state of the Turkic world.
Developments in Libya were marked by the strengthening of the Libyan National Army (LNA) led by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar and backed by the UAE, Egypt, and to some extent Russia. The LNA consolidated control of most of the country and launched an advance on its capital of Tripoli, controlled by the Government of National Accord. The LNA describes its main goal as the creation of the unified government and the defeat of terrorism. In its own turn, the Government of National Accord is backed by Turkey, Qatar, the USA and some European states. It controls a small part of the country, and, in terms of military force, relies on various militias and even radical armed groups linked with al-Qaeda. Ankara signed with the Tripoli government a memorandum on maritime boundaries in the Mediterranean Sea. Thus, it sees the GNA survival as a factor which would allow it to justify its further economic and security expansion in the region. This clash of interests sets conditions for an escalation of the Libyan conflict in 2020.
Egypt was mostly stable. The country’s army and security forces contained the terrorism threat on the Sinai Peninsula and successfully prevented attempts of radical groups to destabilize the country.
By the end of the year, the Greater Middle East had appeared in a twilight zone lying before a new loop of the seemingly never-ending Great Game. The next round of the geopolitical standoff will likely take place in a larger region including the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia.
Consistently, the stakes will grow involving more resources of states and nations in geopolitical roulette.
The threat that faces Central Asia is particularly severe since the two sets of actors have asymmetrical objectives. Russia and China are rather interested in the political stability and economic success of the region which they view as essential to their own political and security objectives. It is not in the interest of either country to have half a dozen failed states in their immediate political neighborhood, riven by political, economic, and religious conflicts threatening to spread to their own territories. In addition to being a massive security burden to Russia and China, it would threaten the development of their joint Eurasian integration projects and, moreover, attract so much political attention that the foreign policy objectives of both countries would be hamstrung. The effect would be comparable to that of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on the US political and military establishment. The monetary price of these wars, the sheer political distraction, wear and demoralization of the armed forces, and the unfortunately frequent killings of civilians amount to a non-tenable cost to the warring party, not to mention damage to US international “soft power” wrought by scandals associated with Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and “black sites”. Even now, shock-waves in the US military hierarchy continue to be felt regarding the court-martialed senior-ranking US Navy “SEAL” commando charged for the wanton killing of civilians in Northern Iraq during the US military’s anti-ISIS operations.
By contrast, this dismal scenario would be enough to satisfy the US foreign policy establishment which, at the moment, is wholly dominated by “hawks” determined to assure the continuation of US hegemony. Preventing the emergence of a multi-polar international system by weakening China and Russia is their desire. This sets the stage for another round of great power rivalry in Central Asia. While the pattern is roughly the same as during the 19th and late 20th centuries—one or more Anglo-Saxon powers seeking to diminish the power of Russia and/or China—the geography of the battlefield is considerably larger for it encompasses the entirety of post-Soviet Central Asian republics. Also included is China’s province of Xinjiang which has suddenly attracted considerable Western attention, manifested, as usual, by concern for “human rights” in the region. Historically, such “concern” usually precedes some form of aggressive action. Therefore the two sets of great power actors—the US and other interested Western powers on the one hand, with Russia and China on the other—are locked in a standoff in the region.
The key security problem is militancy and the spread of terrorism. The US and its NATO partners remain unable to achieve a military victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban reached a level of influence in the region, turning it into a rightful party to any negotiations involving the United States. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that a fully-fledged peace deal can be reached between the sides. The Taliban’s main demand is the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the country. For Washington, conceding to this would amount to public humiliation and a forceful need to admit that the superpower lost a war to the Taliban. Washington can achieve a military victory in Afghanistan only by drastically increasing its forces in the country. This will go contrary to Trump’s publicly declared goal – to limit US participation in conflicts all around the world. Therefore, the stalemate will continue with the Taliban and the US sitting at the negotiating table in Qatar, while Taliban forces slowly take control of more and more territory in Afghanistan.
Besides fighting the US-backed government, in some parts of the country, the Taliban even conducts operations against ISIS in order to prevent this group from spreading further. Despite this, around 5,000 ISIS militants operate in Afghanistan’s north, near the border with Tajikistan. Member states of the Collective Security Treaty Organization are concerned that ISIS militants are preparing to shift their focus to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, and Russia. The terrorists are infiltrating CIS states, incorporating with organized crime, creating clandestine cells, brainwashing and recruiting new supporters, chiefly the socially handicapped youth and migrants, [and] training them to carry out terrorist activities. The worsening situation in Central Asia contributes to the spread of radical ideas. Now the main threat of destabilization of the entire Central Asian region comes from Tajikistan. This state is the main target of militants deployed in northern Afghanistan.
Destabilization of Central Asia and the rise of ISIS both contribute to achievement of US geopolitical goals. The scenario could devastate Russia’s influence in the region, undermine security of key Russian regional ally, Kazakhstan, and damage the interests of China. The Chinese, Kazakh, and Russian political leadership understand these risks and engage in joint efforts to prevent this scenario.
In the event of further destabilization of Central Asia, ISIS sleeper cells across the region could be activated and a new ISIS self-proclaimed Caliphate could appear on the territory of northern Afghanistan and southern Tajikistan. Russia and China would not benefit from such a development. In the case of China, such instability could expand to its Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, while in Russia the main targets could be the Northern Caucasus and large cities with high numbers of migrant laborers from Central Asian states.
Armenia now together with Georgia became the center of a US soft power campaign to instigate anti-Russian hysteria in the Caucasus. Ethnic groups in this region are traditionally addicted to US mainstream propaganda. On the other hand, the importance of the South Caucasus for Russia decreased notably because of the strong foothold it gained in the Middle East. 2020 is looking to be another economically complicated year for Georgia and Armenia.
Throughout 2019, China consolidated its position as a global power and the main challenger of the United States. From the military point of view, China successfully turned the South China Sea into an anti-access and area-denial zone controlled by its own military and moved forward with its ambitious modernization program which includes the expansion of China’s maritime, airlift, and amphibious capabilities. The balance of power in the Asia-Pacific has in fact shifted and the Chinese Armed Forces are now the main power-broker in the region. China appeared strong enough to fight back against US economic and diplomatic pressure and to repel the Trump Administration’s attempts to impose Washington’s will upon Beijing. Despite economic war with the United States, China’s GDP growth in 2019 is expected to be about 6%, while the yuan exchange rate and the SSE Composite Index demonstrate stability. The United States also tried to pressure China through supporting instability in Hong Kong and by boosting defense aid to Taiwan. However, in both cases, the situation appears to still be within Beijing’s comfort zone.
An interesting consequence of US-led pressure on China is that Washington’s actions provided an impetus for development of Chinese-Russian cooperation. In 2019, Moscow and Beijing further strengthened their ties and cooperation in the economic and military spheres and demonstrated notable unity in their actions on the international scene as in Africa and in the Arctic for example.
As to Russia itself, during the year, it achieved several foreign policy victories.
-
The de-facto diplomatic victory in Syria;
-
Resumption of dialogue with the new Ukrainian regime and the reanimation of the Normandy format negotiations;
-
Improvement of relations with some large European players, like France, Italy, and even Germany;
-
Implementation of the Nord Stream 2 project despite opposition from the US-led bloc;
-
Implementation of the Turkish Stream project with Turkey;
-
Strengthening of the Russian economy in comparison with previous years and the rubble’s stability despite pressure from sanctions. Growth of the Russian GDP for 2019 is expected to be 1.2%, while the Russia Trading System Index demonstrated notable growth from around 1,100 points at the start of the year to around 1,500 by year’s end.
The salient accomplishment of the Russian authorities is that no large terrorist attack took place in the country. At the same time, the internal situation was marked by some negative tendencies. There was an apparent political, media, and social campaign to undermine Chinese-Russian cooperation. This campaign, run by pro-Western and liberal media, became an indicator of the progress in Chinese-Russian relations. Additionally, Russia was rocked by a series of emergencies, corruption scandals linked with law enforcement, the plundering of government funding allocated to the settlement of emergency situations, the space industry, and other similar cases. A number of Russian mid-level officials made statements revealing their real, rent-seeking stance towards the Russian population. Another problem was the deepening social stratification of the population. Most of the citizens experienced a decrease in their real disposable income, while elites continued concentrating margin funds gained through Russia’s successful actions in the economy and on the international level. These factors, as well as fatigue with the stubborn resistance of entrenched elites to being dislodged, caused conditions for political instability in big cities. Liberal and pro-Western media and pro-Western organizations exploited this in an attempt to destabilize the country.
Militarization of Japan has given the US a foothold in its campaign against China, Russia, and North Korea. The Japan Self-Defense Forces were turned into a fully-fledged military a long time ago. Japanese diplomatic rhetoric demonstrates that official Tokyo is preparing for a possible new conflict in the region and that it will fight to further expand its zone of influence. The Japanese stance on the Kuril Islands territorial dispute with Russia is an example of this approach. Tokyo rejected a Russian proposal for joint economic management of four islands and nearby waters, while formally the islands will remain within Russian jurisdiction -at least for the coming years. Japan demands the full transfer of islands a term which is unacceptable to Russia from a military and political point of view. The social and economic situation in Japan was in a relatively stable, but guarded state.
Denuclearization talks between the United States and North Korea reached a stalemate after the North Korean leadership claimed that Washington was in no hurry to provide Pyongyang with acceptable terms and conditions of a possible nuclear deal. The example of the US unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran also played a role. The positive point is that tensions on the Korean Peninsula de-escalated anyway because the sides sat down at the negotiation table. Chances of the open military conflict involving North Korea and the United States remain low.
In February 2019, the Indian-Pakistani conflict over the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir put the greater region on the brink of a large war with potential for the use of nuclear weapons. However, both India and Pakistan demonstrated reasonable restraint and prevented further escalation despite an open confrontation between their militaries which took place at the same moment. Meanwhile, the February escalation demonstrated the growing power of Pakistan. In the coming years, look to Jammu and Kashmir as a point of constant instability and military tensions, with very little chance that the sides will find a comprehensive political solution to their differences.
The threat of terrorism is another destabilizing factor in the region. In 2019, ISIS cells made several attempts to strengthen and expand their presence in such countries as Malaysia and Indonesia. Law enforcement agencies of both countries are well aware of this threat and contribute constant and active efforts to combat this terrorism and radicalism. It should be noted that Malaysia is in conflict with the Euro-Atlantic elites because of its independent foreign policy course. For example, its government repeatedly questioned the mainstream MH17 narrative and officially slammed the JIT investigation as politicized and nontransparent. So, the leadership of the country is forced to be in a state of permanent readiness to repel clandestine and public attempts to bring it into line with the mainstream agenda.
While the European Union is, theoretically, the world’s biggest economy using the world’s second most popular currency in international transactions, it remains to be seen whether, in the future, it will evolve into a genuine component of a multi-polar international system or become a satellite in someone else’s—most likely US—orbit. There still remain many obstacles toward achieving a certain “critical mass” of power and unity. While individual EU member states, most notably Germany and France, are capable of independent action in the international system, individually they are too weak to influence the actions of the United States, China, or even Russia. In the past, individual European powers relied on overseas colonial empires to achieve great power status. In the 21st century, European greatness can only be achieved through eliminating not just economic but also political barriers on the continent. At present, European leaders are presented with both incentives and obstacles to such integration, though one may readily discern a number of potential future paths toward future integration.
Continued European integration would demand an agreement on how to transfer national sovereignty to some as yet undefined and untested set of European political institutions which would not only guarantee individual rights but, more importantly from the point of view of national elites, preserve the relative influence of individual EU member states even after they forfeited their sovereignty. Even if the Euro-skeptics were not such a powerful presence in EU’s politics, it would still be an insurmountable task for even the most visionary and driven group of political leaders. Such a leap is only possible if the number of EU states making it is small, and their level of mutual integration is already high.
The post-2008 Euro zone crisis does appear to have communicated the non-sustainability of the current EU integration approach, hence the recent appearance of “two-speeds Europe” concept which actually originated as a warning against the threat of EU bifurcation into well integrated “core“ and a less integrated “periphery”. In practical terms it would mean “core” countries, definitely including Germany, France, and possibly the Benelux Union, would abandon the current policy of throwing money at the less well developed EU member states and, instead, focus on forging “a more perfect Union” consisting of this far more homogeneous and smaller set of countries occupying territories that, over a thousand years ago, formed what used to be known as the Carolingian Empire. Like US territories of the 19th century, EU states outside of the core would have to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” to earn membership in the core, which would require them to adopt, wholesale, the core’s political institutions.
The deepening disproportion of EU member state economies, and therefore sharpening economic disputes, are the main factor of instability in Europe. The long-delayed withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the union, which is finally expected to take place in 2020, might trigger an escalation of internal tensions over economic issues which might blow up the EU from the inside. Other cornerstones of European instability are the extraordinary growth of organized crime, street crime, radicalism, and terrorism, most of which were caused by uncontrolled illegal migration and the inability of the European bureaucracy to cut off the flows of illegal migrants, integrate non-radicalized people into European society, and detect all radicals and terrorists that infiltrate Europe with migrants.
The situation is further complicated by the conflict in Ukraine and the destruction of international security treaties, such as the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and its planned withdrawal from the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty). These developments go amid constant military and political hysteria of micro-states and Poland instigated by the Euro-Atlantic elites. The EU bureaucracy is using this state of hysteria and ramping up speculations about a supposed military threat from Russia and an economic and political threat from China to distract the public and draw attention away from the real problems.
The return of Russia as the diplomatic and military great power to Africa marked a new round of the geo-economic standoff in the region. The apparent Russian-Chinese cooperation is steadily pushing French and British out of what they describe as their traditional sphere of influence. While, in terms of economic strength, Russia cannot compete with China, it does have a wide range of military and diplomatic means and measures with which to influence the region. So, Beijing and Moscow seem to have reached a non-public deal on a “division of labor”. China focuses on implementation of its economic projects, while Russia contributes military and diplomatic efforts to stabilize the security situation, obtaining revenue for its military and security assistance. Moscow plays a second violin role in getting these guaranteed zones of influence. Terrorism is one of the main threats to the region. The Chinese-Russian cooperation did not go without a response from their Western counterparts that justified their propaganda and diplomatic opposition to Beijing-Moscow cooperation by describing Chinese investments as “debt-traps” and the Russian military presence as “destabilizing”. In 2019, Africa entered into a new round of great powers rivalry.
The intensification of US “soft power” and meddling efforts, social, economic tensions, activities of non-state actors, and organized criminal networks became the main factors of instability in South America. Venezuela and Bolivia were targeted by US-backed coups. While the Venezuelan government, with help from China and Russia, succeeded in repelling the coup attempt, Bolivia was plunged into a violent civil conflict after the pro-US government seized power. Chile remained in a state of social economic crisis which repeatedly triggered wide-scale anti-government riots. Its pro-US government remained in power, mainly, because there was no foreign ‘democratic superpower’ to instigate the regime change campaign. Actions of the government of Colombia, one of the key US regional allies, undermined the existing peace deal with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and forced at least a part of the former FARC members to take up arms once again. If repressions, killings, and clandestine operations aimed at the FARC members committed to the peace continue, they may lead to a resumption of FARC-led guerrilla warfare against the central government. The crisis developing in Mexico is a result of the growth of the drug cartels-related violence and economic tensions with the United States. The right-wing Bolsonaro government put Brazil on track with the US foreign policy course to the extent that, the country worked with Washington against Venezuela, claiming that it should not turn into ‘another Cuba’. A deep economic crisis in Argentina opened the road to power for a new left-centric president, Alberto Fernandez. Washington considers South America as its own geopolitical backyard and sees any non pro-US, or just national-oriented government, as a threat to its vital interests. In 2020, the US meddling campaign will likely escalate and expand, throwing the region into a new round of instability and triggering an expected resistance from South American states. An example of this is the situation in Bolivia. Regardless of the actions of ousted President Evo Morales, the situation in the country will continue escalating. The inability of the pro-US government to deliver positive changes and its simultaneous actions to destroy all the economic achievements of the Morales period might cause Bolivia to descend into poverty and chaos causing unrest and possibly, a civil war.
During 2019, the world superpower, led by the administration of President Donald Trump, provided a consistent policy designed to defend the interests of US domestic industry and the United States as a national state by any means possible. This included economic and diplomatic pressure campaigns against both US geopolitical competitors and allies. The most widely known Trump administration move of this kind was the tariff war with China. However, at the same time, Washington contributed notable efforts in almost all regions around the globe. For example, the United States opposed Chinese economic projects in Africa, Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in Europe, tried to limit exports of the Russian defense industry, pressured NATO member states who did not want to spend enough on defense, and proposed that US allies pay more for the honor and privilege of provided “protection”. Additionally, Trump pressured the Federal Reserve Board of Governors into lowering interest rates and announced plans to lower interest rates even further to weaken the dollar in order to boost national industry and increase its product availability on the global market. These plans caused strong resistance from international corporations and global capitalists because this move may undermine the current global financial system based upon a strong US dollar. This straightforward approach demonstrated that Trump and his team were ready to do everything needed to protect US security and economic interests as they see them. Meanwhile, it alienated some “traditional allies”, as in the case of Turkey which decided to acquire Russian S-400s, and escalated the conflict between the Trump Administration and the globalists. The expected US GDP growth in 2019 is 2.2%. The expected production growth of 3.9% reflects the policy aimed at supporting the real sector. In terms of foreign policy, the White House attempted to rationalize US military presence in conflict zones around the world. Despite this, the unprecedented level of support to Israel, confrontation with Iran, China, and Russia, militarization of Europe, coups and meddling into the internal affairs of sovereign states remain as the main markers of US foreign policy. Nevertheless, the main threat to United States stability originates not from Iranians, Russians, or Chinese, but rather from internal issues. The constant hysteria in mainstream media, the attempt to impeach Donald Trump, and the radicalization of different social and political groups contributes to destabilization of the country ahead of the 2020 presidential election.
The year 2019 was marked by a number of dangerous developments. In spite of this, it could have been much more dangerous and violent. Political leadership by key actors demonstrated their conditional wisdom by avoiding a number of open military conflicts, all of which had chances to erupt in the Middle East, South Asia, East Asia, South America, and even Europe. A new war in the Persian Gulf, US military conflict with North Korea, an India-Pakistan war -none of these were started. A peaceful transfer of power from Petro Poroshenko to Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine allowed for the avoidance of a military escalation in eastern Europe. China and the United States showed their restraint despite tensions in the Asia-Pacific, including the Hong Kong issue. A new global economic crisis, expected for some time by many experts, did not happen. The lack of global economic shocks or new regional wars in 2019 does not mean that knots straining relations among leading world powers were loosened or solved. These knots will remain a constant source of tension on the international level until they are removed within the framework of diplomatic mechanisms or cut as a result of a large military conflict or a series of smaller military conflicts.
Chances seem high that 2020 will become the year when a match will be set to the wick of the international powder keg, or that it will be the last relatively calm year in the first quarter of the 21st century. The collapse of international defense treaties and de-escalation mechanisms, as well as accumulating contradictions and conflicts among world nations give rise to an especial concern.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/02/2020 – 23:25 -
- The Shocking Size Of The Australian Wildfires
The Shocking Size Of The Australian Wildfires
The devastating California wildfires of 2018 and last year’s fires in the Amazon rainforest made international headlines and shocked the world, but, as Statista’s Katharina Buchholz details below, in terms of size they are far smaller than the current bushfire crisis in Australia, where approximately 12 million acres have been burned to date.
You will find more infographics at Statista
Fires in remote parts of northern Russia burned 6.7 million acres last year, but most of the regions were sparsely populated and no casualties were reported.
While the California fires of 2018 have long been put out and the Amazon fires have been reduced at least, Australia is only in the middle of its fire season. Ongoing heat and drought are expected to fan the flames further. This week, shocking pictures of bright orange skies in Queensland and flames ripping through towns captured the world’s attention.
The bushfires grew more severe amidst a heatwave that saw Australia record its hottest day and simultaneously driest spring on record, according to The New York Times. New South Wales has been affected disproportionately, plunging Sydney into dark smoke in mid-December. Around 10 of the 12 million burned acres are located in the state.
Bushfires frequently occur in Australia, with some years bringing more severe destruction that others. Scientists are claiming that in connection to climate change, fires will become more frequent and more severe when they happen.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/02/2020 – 23:05 - Localism In The 2020s, Part 1 – The 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Movement
Localism In The 2020s, Part 1 – The 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Movement
Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
Many of you probably have heard of the second amendment sanctuary movement, which consists of municipalities and counties across the U.S. passing resolutions pledging not to enforce additional gun control measures infringing upon the right to bear arms.
The current movement traces its origins back to Effingham County in southern Illinois, which passed a resolution in April 2018 calling the county a second amendment “sanctuary”, essentially a vow to ignore gun control legislation proposed by Illinois state lawmakers. This particular tactic gained traction not just within Illinois, where 67 of 102 counties have now passed similar resolutions, but throughout the country.
The movement started gaining more attention over the past couple of months following the blistering momentum it found in Virginia after Democrats won the state legislature in November. As of this writing, 87 out of Virginia’s 95 counties have passed such resolutions and it’s important to note that virtually all of them were passed in the two months since the election. In other words, this is happening at a very rapid pace.
Before discussing the significance of all this, let’s address some thoughtful criticism of the movement from Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. His primary point of contention is that the resolutions these municipalities and counties are passing — unlike immigration sanctuary ordinances passed in places such as San Francisco — carry no weight of the law.
Specifically, they’re not passing ordinances, but rather resolutions, which Michael describes as “non-binding political statements.” In other words, it’s all just talk at this stage and he’s frustrated that much of the media coverage makes it seem what’s being passed is more concrete than it actually is. Although I disagree with his overall assessment of the importance of what’s happening, he makes many good points and puts some much needed meat on the bone of this issue for those getting up to speed. He published an instructive video on the topic, which I recommend checking out.
Despite his legitimate criticisms, I believe the second amendment sanctuary movement is meaningful in the bigger picture of the nation’s emergent social and political evolution. Although it is indeed mostly just talk at this point, there’s nothing wrong with that. If you’re going to build a movement you need to start by talking and establishing some sort of consensus amongst your peers. More concrete steps can follow in the future. Don’t forget this is a learning process for many of the people involved, and many of those coming out to these city and county meetings likely never engaged politically in such a manner before in their lives.
Moreover, if the goal from the start had been to pass ordinances that carry the weight of the law, the movement wouldn’t have spread nearly as fast. It wouldn’t have catapulted into the consciousness of so many across the country and I probably wouldn’t be writing about it right now. The fact that it’s largely just talk via county and city resolutions allowed the movement go viral in a short period of time, which is a fine strategy when it comes to something like this.
That said, it’s important to note when it comes to something as serious as this — municipalities and counties vowing to refuse to enforce state and federal laws — the only thing that really matters in the end is how the public actually responds when and if the rubber meets the road. Are people willing to make major sacrifices like go to jail? That’s ultimately the most important variable in the end. What sort of fortitude do these local communities really posses on this issue, and how many are willing to engage in genuine acts of civil disobedience and sacrifice if push comes to shove. We simply don’t know.
Even bigger picture, the second amendment sanctuary movement should be seen as a manifestation of a core trend I except to grow considerably in the decade to come: localism. The people driving this movement aren’t petitioning Washington D.C. or even their state house, instead they’re looking to their friends and neighbors and taking a unified stand at the local level. Simply put, they’re attempting to take matters into their own hands as opposed to begging distant authority figures. This is in large part why their actions seem disorganized and unsophisticated; these are just regular people saying enough is enough, and in this case the line in the sand happens to be firearms.
This goes against everything we’re taught. We’re led to believe we have representatives in D.C. that actually represent us and we just need to elect the right people to have our voices heard. This sounds good, but we all know by now it’s a lie. These largely rural Americans are finally starting to give up on this lie and are looking to local solutions because they have no other choice. It’s hard overstate how important this is. It demonstrates a new degree of political realism in the face of disconnected and unresponsive governments far removed from where they live. It’s people finally realizing they’re much better off connecting and working within their own communities to change things rather than groveling to self-interested, professional political crooks.
Importantly, this is how it should be. If we’re going to crawl out of the mess we’re in it seems clear we need a different approach. Pretending all we need to do is “elect good people” to Congress or the Presidency is a slave mentality. The system itself is so completely corrupt and so explicitly rewards criminal and evil behavior, we need to start thinking and acting differently, which means focusing on what’s closest to home. Get your own house in order before trying to save the world.
As stated earlier, the fact the second amendment sanctuary movement is grounded at the local governmental level (municipalities and counties), as opposed to the state or federal level, is extremely significant.
I wrote on this topic earlier this year. While I disagree with Bookchin on all sorts of issues, I completely agree with his conclusion that politics should be centered around the municipality. Localism is the only way you can truly have self-government.https://t.co/eoSQkvvZeE
— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) December 18, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
It’s also crucial to see this in a much larger context. As the populace (across ideological lines), grows increasingly disillusioned with their complete lack of agency within our imperial oligarchy, engaged citizens will naturally shift focus toward the local level in pursuit of alternative avenues for change. Firearms is just one issue, but there are many more and the list is seemingly endless.
In general, we need to stop believing in the fantasy that topdown change from Washington D.C. will magically fix the problems of such a geographically and politically diverse nation. It’s lazy, unrealistic, and more often than not dangerous. Change needs to start at home, and people will turn to localism out of necessity.
More in Part 2…
* * *
Liberty Blitzkrieg is an ad-free website. If you enjoyed this post and my work in general, visit the Support Page where you can donate and contribute to my efforts.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/02/2020 – 22:45 - Even More Colleges Are Now Taking Equity Stakes In Their Students As Tuition
Even More Colleges Are Now Taking Equity Stakes In Their Students As Tuition
The trend of colleges foregoing traditional tuition in favor of now taking an “equity stake” in their graduates looks like it is catching on.
The idea was first floated by Milton Friedman back in 1955, who suggested an incoming sharing agreement between the universities and the graduates once they enter the work force and begin to earn a regular salary. This obviously shifts much of the liability to make “workforce ready” graduates to the institution.
The Wall Street Journal recently profiled 27 year old Alex Ross, who took advantage of General Assembly coding school’s $14,700 design boot camp. She hasn’t been able to find work yet, but that’s not bothering her, as she took advantage of General Assembly’s income-share-agreement program, which requires her to make monthly payments of 10% of her paycheck for 48 months – but only after she lands a job paying $40,000 per year or more.
No matter how much she earns, her payback won’t exceed a $22,000 cap.
Ross said: “I considered taking out a loan, but didn’t want to start making payments right away. I didn’t want the pressure before I was employed full-time.”
Tonio DeSorrento, co-founder and CEO of Vemo Education, a company that helps schools design and implement income sharing programs, said: “It’s not the best thing for everyone, every time. But the fact that the school stands behind its product serves as proof it offers value.”
There’s now more than 60 universities that offer ISAs nationwide, including Purdue and the University of Utah. In the New York City metropolitan area, there is the Flatiron School and Holberton School, in addition to General Assembly.
Why might this process be working out so well, aside from its “free market” thinking? There’s been no federal laws defining or regulating ISAs, and terms vary widely. A typical university takes 2% to 10% of a graduate’s income for the first 5 to 10 years after graduation, starting as soon as the graduate lands a job paying at least $20,000 to $30,000.
Total payback is often capped at 110% to 120% of the amount borrowed.
Coding boot camps, like the one attended by Ross, mostly offer accelerated terms.
…a graduate typically pays 10% to 15% of their income for the first three to five years after graduating, starting as soon as the person lands a job paying at least $40,000 to $50,000. Total payments are typically capped at 1.5 to 2 times the amount fronted.
Whether an ISA costs more than a traditional student loan depends on how much the graduate earns.
For example:
…a student graduating with a traditional 10-year, $10,000 student loan with a 7.5% interest rate would make monthly payments of $117 until he or she paid off the loan. The payments would total $14,090.
Graduates with an ISA for the same amount could wind up paying back anything from $0—if they never land a good-paying job—to $20,000 if they obtain a job earning $100,000 a year.
“The lowest earners pay the least. It’s very progressive that way,” Mr. DeSorrento said.
<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>
And there have already been success stories, like Jane Zhu. Five months into a 10 month program from Pursuit coding school, she was applying to jobs. After finishing the program, she had a “near six figure job” already lined up as a junior software engineer. She pays back $900 a month and, while it’s a “squeeze” with two kids, she says it’s manageable and it’s “only for 3 years”.
Recall, we first wrote about this trend back in April 2019. Shortly after we wrote about an online software engineering school that was allowing students to pay their tuition by forfeiting 17% of their income after they graduated, we wrote about how the new method for funding college was starting to make its way to the mainstream.
Oh and, by the way – paging Neel Kashkari and Paul Krugman – if Friedman is right about this tuition model – what else do you think he could have been right about?
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/02/2020 – 22:25 - Doug Casey's Top 7 Predictions For The 2020s
Doug Casey’s Top 7 Predictions For The 2020s
Authored by Doug Casey via InternationalMan.com,
The task is to make some predictions (although “forecasts” sounds more legitimate) about the Big Picture.
OK, I’m game. Let’s write some plausible science fiction, with a tinge of horror story.
#1 Demographics
First, it’s good to remember that demographics have a life of their own. That’s not good from the point of view of those of us of European descent. We’re only 10% of world population and falling rapidly. Worse, it seems we’re responsible for all the world’s problems and therefore aren’t very popular.
In Europe, I expect the ’20s will have a lot of mass migration, the largest in scale since the barbarian invasions of the fifth century. This time there will be millions, then tens of millions, of Africans coming across the Mediterranean, looking for a higher standard of living—like all migrants.
In the United States there will be hundreds of thousands coming up from Central America. A Reconquista movement will develop, to make the Southwest Hispanic again. And young Chicanos and cholos won’t be interested in paying 50% of their incomes to support old white broads on Social Security in New England.
Meanwhile, lots of Mohammedans from Central Asia will migrate north to Russia.
Millions of Chinese will migrate to Africa. The reason for this is that the Chinese have lent scores of billions of dollars to Africans to build seaports, airports, roads, railroads, mines, and other infrastructure as part of their One Belt, One Road Initiative. They’re repossessing these assets and bringing in their own people in order to run them profitably—as well as disperse excess population.
All of these things will be massively destabilizing.
#2 The Greater Depression
The consequence of scores of trillions of new currency units being printed around the world in response to the crisis that began in 2007 will be a catastrophic Greater Depression. Made worse by negative interest rates. Expect massive unemployment, high retail inflation, a collapse of the bond market, and a much lower stock market. Most important, expect a lower standard of living for the average American.
#3 The Election of a Left-Wing Democrat
One consequence of the Greater Depression will be the election of a left-wing Democrat, if not in 2020, then definitely in 2024. The US has been undergoing what amounts to a cultural revolution, because the universities, media, and entertainment have been captured by the memes of cultural Marxism. The last cultural revolution was in the ’60s. This one will be much more serious, with broader participation. In fact, the US is on the ragged edge of a civil war between the Red counties and the Blue counties. They don’t like each other and don’t share the same values. The best solution is separation.
#4 China Implodes
China is on its way to dominating the world this century. The changes in China over the last 30 years are both real and unparalleled in world history. But in the meantime, its financial system—starting with its banks—will implode. Mrs. Wong will be very, very unhappy to find that 50% of her savings has disappeared.
#5 The United States Starts a Major War
The US is likely to provoke a major war, partly in an attempt to unite a culturally divided country. But not just a sport war such as we’ve had in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Probably with China, possibly Russia or Iran. Perhaps with all three. The US won’t do well, since it will find that its aircraft carriers, F-35s, and the like are equivalent to cavalry before WW1 and battleships before WW2.
#6 US Dollar Loses Its Top Status
The US dollar will lose its preeminence and will be treated like a hot potato by foreigners. Trillions will flood back to the US in exchange for whatever is available: land, companies, what have you. This will help take domestic inflation to unprecedented levels. Meanwhile, China, Russia, and numerous other countries want to discard the dollar. It makes no sense to use the currency of your adversary—or enemy. Especially when all dollar transactions have to clear through New York.
Foreign governments have been buying gold in anticipation of this. And the gold price will go considerably higher.
#7 The Singularity
But enough doom and gloom. On the bright side, we’ll approach the Singularity. Many technologies—including artificial intelligence, robotics, space exploration, biotech, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology—are advancing at the rate of Moore’s Law.
As these new technologies come into their own over this decade, the changes they create will be on par with electrification, the automobile, the airplane, and the computer during the 20th century. But all this will happen in a decade or so. These things have the potential to transform the very nature of reality.
What Should You Do?
I can give you a lot of speculations. But in times of radical change the most important thing is to keep what you have.
I suggest three simple actions. Diversify politically and geographically. Buy lots of gold and silver. Have a nice piece of productive land in a reasonably secure jurisdiction.
And get yourself a nice widescreen to watch it all happen. You might as well be entertained…
* * *
The decade ahead is likely to be an increasingly volatile time. More governments are putting their money printing on overdrive. Negative interests are becoming the rule instead of the exception to it. One thing is for sure, there will be a great deal of change taking place in the years ahead especially for retirees, savers, and investors.
Legendary speculator Doug Casey and his team released just released a timely report that outlines how to survive and thrive as the financial uncertainty continues to unfold around the world. Click here to download the PDF now.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/02/2020 – 22:05 - Judge Exempts 70,000 Truckers From California 'Gig Worker' Law
Judge Exempts 70,000 Truckers From California ‘Gig Worker’ Law
A federal judge in San Diego has temporarily blocked California’s new ‘gig worker’ labor law from impacting some 70,000 independent truckers, ruling they would suffer ‘irreparable harm’ if their employers are forced to classify them as salaried employees.
US District Judge Roger Benitez on Tuesday granted a temporary restraining order requested by the California Trucking Association while he decides on whether to issue a permanent injunction – noting that the association is likely to eventually prevail on its argument that California’s law runs afoul of federal law, according to CBS News. Benitez added that the injunction is in the public interest.
The public focus of the law has largely involved ride-share companies such as Uber and Lyft and food delivery companies like DoorDash and Postmates, which have vowed their own challenges in court and at the ballot box. There are about 400,000 workers in California doing such “gig” work, according to various estimates. However, an additional 1.5 million workers in California, doing jobs such as cleaning, construction, building maintenance and trucking, are likely to feel its effects.
The trucking association’s lawsuit, filed in November, said many truckers would have to abandon $150,000 investments in clean trucks and the right to set their own schedules in order for companies to comply with AB5, which the group says illegally infringes on interstate commerce. –CBS News
Opposing the trucking association is Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez of San Diego, who says the state will continue to fight “to return jobs in the trucking industry to good, middle class careers.”
“For decades, trucking companies have profited from misclassifying drivers as independent contractors, taking away rights such as meal and rest periods and fair pay,” she added.
Meanwhile, freelance writers and photographers filed a lawsuit last month to block the law, arguing that it’s an unconstitutional violation of free speech and the media.
On Tuesday, the American Society of Journalists and Authors and the National Press Photographers Association asked a federal judge to grant them a temporary restraining order while he considers a more permanent injunction in March. However, no date was immediately set for a hearing or decision by U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez in Los Angeles. –CBS News
Uber claims the law doesn’t apply to its drivers, filing a Monday lawsuit along with Postmates to challenge the legislation.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/02/2020 – 21:45 - "Unknown" Viral Pneumonia Outbreak In China Has Hong Kong, Taiwan Worried About SARS
“Unknown” Viral Pneumonia Outbreak In China Has Hong Kong, Taiwan Worried About SARS
Authored by Nicole Hao via The Epoch Times,
Hong Kong and Taiwan are on high alert following a notice from Chinese authorities on Dec. 31 that 27 people contracted an “unknown viral pneumonia” in the central city of Wuhan.
With some netizens likening the epidemic to the deadly outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) virus that killed almost 800 people in 2002-2003 after being covered up by Chinese authorities, the Hong Kong and Taiwan government have called for faster genetic testing after Chinese authorities said they were yet to confirm the cause of the outbreak.
As China has the technology to identify viruses within 48 hours, the authority’s slow response has led many to be suspicious as to why the disease has yet to be identified.
Emergency Notice for New Outbreak
On Dec. 30, Wuhan city Health Commission released an “Emergency Notice About Unknown Pneumonia.” The notice said that several Wuhan hospitals had received pneumonia patients with similar symptoms and that no further details were available.
The notice was soon spread by Chinese netizens via different social media platforms. Although the government soon censored this information, the notice was broadly spread among overseas Chinese communities.
On Dec. 31, state-run media confirmed the outbreak but also did not have any information about the cause of the infections.
The report said patients’ symptoms included fever, having difficulty breathing and invasive lesions in both lungs. 27 people from Wuhan had fallen ill, with seven of them in serious condition.
Most of the patients were sellers at the Huanan Seafood Market located close to Hankou Railway Station in the city’s Jianghan district. That same market was linked to all SARS cases seen in Wuhan in 2003. The market is not limited to selling seafood, netizens said, but also sees various animals including cats, snakes, and marmots.
The notice added that hospitals were planning to release two of the 27 infected people in the next few days after some more treatment, while 18 other patients are in a stable condition.
The state-run People’s Daily reported on the afternoon of Dec. 31 that the initial investigating team didn’t find an obvious human-to-human transmission, and that so far, no medical staff have been infected.
“The cause of the disease is not clear,” the newspaper said on the popular social media platform Weibo, citing unnamed hospital officials.
“We cannot confirm it is what’s being spread online, that it is SARS virus. Other severe pneumonia is more likely.”
The Chinese National Health Commission, a cabinet-level executive department for sanitation and health, said it has sent a group of experts to Wuhan on Dec. 31 to lead more tests and another investigation.
Meanwhile, Hong Kong and Taiwan have stepped up border screening and hospitals are on alert.
Hong Kong
Every day, there are four trains that run between Hong Kong and Wuhan. As a result, the presence of the disease in Wuhan has Hongkongers worried.
David Hui Shu-cheong, a professor of respiratory medicine at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, told local media on Dec. 31 that the critical situation of Wuhan’s viral pneumonia reminded him of what Hong Kong faced with SARS in 2003.
Hui pointed out that in 2003, one out of four SARS patients was in serious condition. He said mainland authorities should arrange virus tests as soon as possible. Meanwhile, people should wear a facial mask and wash their hands frequently if they plan to go to Wuhan, he added.
Yuen Kwok-yung, microbiology professor at Hong Kong University, tried to calm down the public after acknowledging that the outbreak had similarities to the 1997 outbreak of bird flu and the 2003 outbreak of SARS.
He said at a government-organized press conference on Dec. 31:
“Now in Hong Kong and the mainland, the protection is better than 2003 … So I think people shouldn’t panic but must be alert, must follow the instructions from Hong Kong’s Department of Health and Hospital Authority.”
Taiwan
Fears about the disease has been a topic of great concern in Taiwan. People are worried that with the Chinese New Year holiday on Jan. 25, there is a heightened risk that the virus may be spread by Taiwanese businessmen returning from China.
Taiwan’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) organized a press conference on the afternoon of Dec. 31. Lo Yi-Chun, the CDC’s deputy director, gave a briefing on the situation and said the agency had sent an inquiry email to China requesting information.
Lo said that once the Wuhan side has confirmed the type of virus, the Taiwanese government will set up an emergency working team to coordinate departments reacting to possible infections.
On Jan. 2, Taiwan News reported that a 6-year-old child who arrived in Taiwan on Dec. 31 after passing through Wuhan has developed a fever and is being closely monitored. However, the child was allowed to go home as they had not been traveling in Wuhan and had not been in contact with animals.
Since the first SARS epidemic, no additional cases of the virus have been reported so far worldwide.
The virus was first discovered in China’s Guangdong province in 2002, after which it spread to Hong Kong and other cities. At least 1,755 Hongkongers became infected with the SARS virus, of which 299 died. In neighboring Taiwan, 307 people contracted the virus, of which 47 died.
Globally, a total of 8,096 people from 31 countries contracted SARS, including Singapore, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, and the Philippines.
There is currently no cure for SARS.
* * *
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/02/2020 – 21:25 - Oil & Gold Spike, Stocks Slip On Reports Iran's Top Military Commander Killed
Oil & Gold Spike, Stocks Slip On Reports Iran’s Top Military Commander Killed
Following reports that Iran’s most senior elite military commander, IRGC Quds Force chief Qasem Suleimani, has been killed (reportedly assassinated by a US airstrike), global markets are starting to react.
Oil prices are spiking (but we suspect have a lot more to go)…markets are just waking up to the consequences of this action!
Brent…
WTI…
And gold is bid on safe-haven flows…
As stocks sink…
This is far from over.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/02/2020 – 21:08 - Commercial And Industrial Loan Growth Stalls Amid Manufacturing Recession
Commercial And Industrial Loan Growth Stalls Amid Manufacturing Recession
New Federal Reserve data shows commercial and industrial loan growth weakened in 2H19, an indication the industrial recession continues to plague the overall US economy.
C&I loans rose 1.6% in Dec. to $2.4 trillion, with most of the growth seen in the first half of the year. As for 2H19, no “green shoots” have yet materialized in industrials.
The Financial Times said commercial real estate lending marginally increased at smaller to mid-sized banks but dipped at larger ones.
Decelerating C&I loan growth in 2019 is a direct result of an industrial recession that has been deepening in the back half of the year.
C&I loan growth quarterly quickly decelerated in 2019 and has dove recently into a contraction.
C&I loan growth yearly faded from a top in 4Q18 to levels that are considered stagnate in 4Q19.
Jennifer Piepszak, JPMorgan Chase’s CFO, said business confidence has perked up since a temporary trade war resolution was found in the fall, but uncertainty in an economic rebound remains.
“Trade would, of course, top the list there, but the elections in the US will contribute to an uncertain environment in 2020,” Piepszak said.
Refinitiv data shows that in 4Q19, capital expenditure by S&P 500 firms rose 1%, far from the 12% increase seen a year earlier – a clear sign that President Trump’s tax cut to boost the economy has been exhausted.
CapEx is the primary driver of C&I loans. Still, with massive uncertainty in the global economy and a domestic slowdown that has resulted in an industrial recession, C-suite executives chose to buy back their stock rather than build factories.
Brian Klock, a bank analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, said, “we’re just not seeing that big CapEx coming through,” and it could remain depressed in 2020.
So far this year, C&I loan growth at the largest 25 US banks has been underwhelming.
Brian Foran of Autonomous Research blamed the slowdown on the trade war.
Foran also said low demand for credit in the oil and gas space was another significant contributor to the slowdown.
With CapEx spending unlikely to significantly turn higher in the near term, forcing C&I loan growth lower amid an industrial recession — the damage to the US economy has likely been seen. It could result in a low growth period in 2020.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/02/2020 – 21:05 - "If History Is A Guide, The Market Peak Will Occur In Q1 2020"
“If History Is A Guide, The Market Peak Will Occur In Q1 2020”
Submitted by Joe Carson, former head of Global Economic Research at Alliance Bernstein
Two Equity Market Booms, Two Policy Paths
Equity market booms are far from alike, and their symptoms and causes differ as well. In the past two decades there have been two fundamentally different types of equity market booms that resulted in the market valuation of US companies relative to Nominal GDP soaring to equivalent record highs.
Yet, during the dot.com boom monetary policy “leaned against the wind” whereas during the current equity market boom monetary policy has opted to “go with the wind.”
Easy money policy can extend the life cycle of an equity boom, but at the risk of greater financial instability at some point for the simple reason easy money can trigger speculation and over-valued assets since it does not increase the economy’s long-term growth rate or the profitability of companies.
Two Equity Market Booms
The US equity markets soared in 2019, with broad stock averages posting gains of 25% to 30%, extending a long advance in equity prices. The surge in equity prices lifted the market valuation of domestic companies by estimated record $9 trillion over the course of 2019, pushing the total valuation to approximately $40 trillion at the end of 2019.
Measured in relation to Nominal GDP – a well-known metric to assess the over-or-under valuation of the overall stock market – the market valuation of domestic companies stood at 1.85X at the end of 2019, near the upper end of its long run average.
A similar level of the market valuation of domestic companies to Nominal GDP occurred at the end of the dot.com boom. Fueled by speculation that a new business model (internet) would result in large gains in future profits investors’ poured huge sums of money into new start-ups driving 20% to 30% gains in the broad equity markets for five consecutive years. At the peak of the tech boom in Q1 2000 the market valuation of domestic companies to Nominal GDP stood at a record high of 1.86x – a level that appears to be reached again at the end of 2019.
The dot.com equity boom of the late 1990s and the current equity market boom have little in common. To be fair, powerful common elements of liquidity and optimism about future profits are key factors in both cycles, but the dot.com liquidity engine was not sourced by easy money, whereas the current equity cycle is.
Two Policy Paths
During the dot.com boom the target of the federal funds rate averaged 5.5%, with a range of 4.75% to 6.5%, running 250 to 300 basis points over underlying inflation. Compare that to the zero to 2% target of fed funds for the past several years, and a fed funds rate that consistently ran below underlying inflation.
And, most importantly, the different monetary policy regimes are most extreme at the highest points of the relative market valuations. To be sure, at the peak valuation of the dot.com equity boom in 2000 policymakers were raising official rates, or “leaning against the wind” trying to dampen the wealth effect in the economy. Compare that to 2019 when policymakers faced with similar jobless and underlying inflation stats of 2000, decided to lower official rates, or in other words, “go with the wind”.
In reality, monetary policy can contribute to an equity market boom by holding rates low, or cutting them as what occurred in 2019, causing investors to demand less compensation for risk, inflating the prices of assets in the process. Yet, historical evidence is unambiguous that easy money contributes nothing to long-term economic growth or operating profits of companies, but can and has triggered financial instability.
Presiding over one stock market boom (and bust) that was not fueled by easy money could be seen as bad luck. But presiding over a second one that is fueled by easy money smacks of negligence since one of the mandates of monetary policy is to ensure financial stability.
Policymakers appear to be in no rush to reverse the policy actions of 2019 so the current equity bull market will continue to run. Yet, the odds of a policy mistake are rising and the safety valve of easy money for the equity market is limited as well. And if history proves to be a reliable guide the equity market peak will occur in Q1 2020.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/02/2020 – 20:45 - Baltic Index Has Worst Day In Six Years – Vessel Demand Sinks As Front-Loading Ends
Baltic Index Has Worst Day In Six Years – Vessel Demand Sinks As Front-Loading Ends
The Baltic Dry Index (BDI), a composite of the Capesize, Panamax and Supramax time charter averages, recorded its most significant one-day percentage drop in six years, reported Reuters.
BDI was pressured 10.5% on Thursday thanks to waning demand for dry bulk vessels. It was the most significant one-day percentage drop since January 2014. The index fell 114 points to 976 points, the lowest print since May 2019.
“Some of it represents the fact that it is the first quoting for almost a week now. We expect a bit more softness to come around and we see … China as the main locomotive behind this,” Peter Sand, the chief shipping analyst at BIMCO, told Reuters.
It wasn;t just the headline Baltic Dry Index (h/t @JHannisdahl):
-
Capesize -16.47% to $11,976
-
Panamax -13.76% to $7,695
-
Supramax 58k tons -9.11% to $7,539
-
Handysize -9.21% to $6,410
“The market as such is not strong in a fundamental way,” Sand said, adding that the global economy will continue to weaken into 2020.
Slowing demand for bulk carriers could be due to the decline in firms’ front-loading goods ahead of tariff deadlines as trade resolutions have been found between the US and China.
Chinese firms and US importers rushed to ship goods to the US through 1Q19 to Septemeber as the US and China were engaged in a tit-for-tat trade war. The implementation of tariffs by both countries on billions of dollars in goods forced importers and exporters to increase outbound and inbound delivers before tariff deadlines went into effect.
As a result of trade policy change, demand for bulk carriers increased throughout the year, raising the Baltic index +318% from January to Septemeber. With a possible trade resolution and the need to front-load has subsided, the dry bulk index topped out in September and has plunged 61% in the last three months.
Front-loading also gave the economy a boost, but since that has ended, the US economy continues to decelerate into 2020.
The JP Morgan Global Manufacturing PMI printed at 50.1 in December, versus a 50.3 in November, suggesting a global slowdown will continue into 2020.
Plunging shipping rates and waning global manufacturing data signals the world has entered a period of low-growth, and the probability of a massive economic rebound in early 2020 is unlikely.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/02/2020 – 20:25 -
- Iran's Top Military Commander, Qasem Suleimani, Assassinated In US Airstrike
Iran’s Top Military Commander, Qasem Suleimani, Assassinated In US Airstrike
LIVE FEED:
Update 3: The Pentagon has confirmed that Soleimani was killed at the direction of President Trump in what it termed a “defensive action” as per the following statement:
And while Trump has yet to make a statement, shortly after the news of Suleimani’s death, the president tweeted an American flag with no commentary:
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
* * *
Update 2: It’s official — unbelievable as it is — first Iraqi state TV, and then Iran TV too, announced the death of Iran’s most senior elite military commander, IRGC Quds Force chief Qasem Suleimani:
BREAKING: #IRAQ OFFICIAL TV ANNOUNCES #IRAN IRGC LEADER QASSEM SULEIMANI IS ASSASSINATED.
ALSO KILLED HEAD OF KATAIB HEZBOLLAH ABU MEHDI MUHANDIS https://t.co/K0cJn9rMIc
— Joyce Karam (@Joyce_Karam) January 3, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Iran’s state TV now officially announces that #IRGC Quds force commander Major General Qassem #Soleimani was killed in an American attack in #Iraq pic.twitter.com/Nskbj1tjkF
— Ali Hashem علي هاشم (@alihashem_tv) January 3, 2020
This is the spark that could set the whole region on fire, given Suleimani is Iran’s most important, visible and powerful military leader.
#BREAKING: Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, Deputy Commander of Hashd al-Shaabi and Qassem Solaimi Commander of IRGC killed in Baghdad — Hezbollah’s Mayadeen says. pic.twitter.com/RjPMiZH7F9
— Baxtiyar Goran (@BaxtiyarGoran) January 3, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Journalists are circulating graphic photos of the blast aftermath, seeking on the ground confirmation of Suleimani’s identity:
Is it the same ring or similar? Asking for expert opinion #Iraq , this is Qassim Sulaimani the Iranian leader of Quds force #Baghdad pic.twitter.com/Xe4viCWKXY
— Steven nabil (@thestevennabil) January 3, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
It appears Iranian officials have begun circulating condolences, acknowledging his death.
At the beginning of the last decade, when Gen. Suleimani began becoming a more visible and powerful face of influence in Iran and across the Middle East, one former CIA officer cited in a New Yorker biographical piece on him referred to the IRGC commander as the “most powerful operative in the Middle East today.”
As leader of the Revolutionary Guards’ most elite Quds force, he directed all unconventional warfare and intelligence activities abroad. For that reason Washington and Tel Aviv had long considered him threat #1 within the Iranian military command structure.
Source in #Iran tells me:
Senior Iranian diplomats are sharing Gen. Qasem Sulaimani’s photo along w/death prayers for him. #Iraq— Farnaz Fassihi (@farnazfassihi) January 3, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
With war in the Middle East now virtually inevitable, here is the latest US naval deployment as of Jan 2:
* * *
update: It appears the ‘mystery’ strike which took out vehicles along the perimeter of Baghdad International Airport in the early morning hours of Friday was actually a US targeted assassination.
Reports – An “American” drone strike just killed the #PMU’s “Head of Protocol,” Mohammed Reda al-Jabri, along with 2 aides & 3 “guests” (i.e. #IRGC) on their exit from #Baghdad Airport.
If that’s accurate, the #Trump admin just ratcheted up the ante in #Iraq in a big way. pic.twitter.com/p784XmVVq7
— Charles Lister (@Charles_Lister) January 2, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
There are even significant but as yet completely unconfirmed rumors, some coming from of a well-known BBC Iran reporter and other regional sources, that Iran’s most senior military commander, the IRGC’s Quds Force chief Qasem Suleimani was taken out in the hit, which appears to have been an airstrike.
FWIW, there have also been denials of this – from potentially reputable sources. #Iraq https://t.co/Ik6ipMJq1g
— Charles Lister (@Charles_Lister) January 3, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
According to Stars and Stripes:
An early-morning strike hit the Baghdad International Airport perimeter, near the air cargo terminal, the Iraqi government said Friday.
The attack, which set two cars ablaze, apparently occurred at about 1 a.m. Social media users posted hearing the explosions, then the sounds of military aircraft.
The Iraqi defense ministry’s security information cell confirmed the strike about 45 minutes later, posting photos of the burning vehicles on its Facebook page and attributing the damage to a rocket attack.
Later, security sources told local media a strike hit two vehicles, killing Mohammed Redha, a senior member of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units — an umbrella group that includes Iran-backed Shiite militias with close ties to Iran and other militias that have fought the Islamic State group since 2014. Other PMU members and “guests” were also killed, the PMU said.
Just who those “guests” were remains the major question as huge rumors of Qasem Suleimani’s death continue to spread, however unlikely.
It true this could be the spark that ignites WWIII in the region, given Suleimani is Iran’s most important and powerful military leader.
Sources at the #Baghdad international airport tell me that “the main targets were #PMF leader Abu Mahdi Mohandis & #Iran‘s Qassem Soleimani as they were at the airport tonight”
They weren’t sure if these two got in the convoy or not.#Iraq
Can’t still confirm it 100%— Nafiseh Kohnavard (@nafisehkBBC) January 3, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
* * *
earlier:
At a moment tensions are on edge after pro-Iran militia protesters attacked and set fire to the outside of the US embassy compound in Baghdad’s Green Zone earlier this week, another major incident is developing overnight.
Reuters and Al Jazeera are reporting that at least three missiles struck on or near a base that houses American and Iraqi counter-terrorism forces in the early Friday morning hours at Baghdad International Airport.
#Baghdad international airport on fire ! pic.twitter.com/D3d6Eibw7M
— Barzan Sadiq (@BarzanSadiq) January 2, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
All civilian flights have been canceled as US military helicopters were also seen patrolling the skies in the immediate aftermath.
Al Jazeera has cited Iraqi security sources to say that though the rocket attacks appeared to have targeted a joint US-Iraqi training base within the sprawling airport perimeter. At lease one of the projectiles landed near a passenger terminal, causing an immediate shutdown of the civilian side of the airport.
It is the second such rocket attack on the airport in under a month, after on Dec.9 four projectiles were launched on the facility, targeting the US-Iraqi base on the property.
Footage shows civilian cars outside of Baghdad Airport on fire after being hit by missile/s. Via @omartvsd #Iraq pic.twitter.com/9lTCRLqkik
— Baxtiyar Goran (@BaxtiyarGoran) January 2, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Vehicles at the airport were filmed exploding as a result of the attack, and there are conflicting reports of possible civilian casualties.
Kurdistan24 journalist Barzan Sadiq has said at least one civilian was killed in the attack with more injured, as well as multiple Iraqi military personnel among the wounded.
3 Katyusha rockets in the vicinity of Baghdad International Airport near the sleeve of advisory units of the International Alliance, which is located in the vicinity of Baghdad Airport.
Civilians burn cars pic.twitter.com/GruQFI1Rva— سيف صلاح الهيتي (@saifsalahalhety) January 2, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
While details are as yet unclear and unconfirmed at this point, Reuters did confirm the following per local security authorities:
Three Katyusha rockets fell on Baghdad International Airport, the military-run Security Media Cell said in a statement on early Friday.
The rockets landed near the air cargo terminal, burning two vehicles and injuring several citizens, Security Media Cell added.
Earlier in the day Defense Secretary Mark Esper put Iran and its proxies on notice, saying the US is prepared to launch “pre-emptive action” if American troops and interests come under threat.
developing…
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/02/2020 – 20:17 - The Most Absurd PC Moments Of The 2010s
The Most Absurd PC Moments Of The 2010s
Authored by Katherine Timpf via NationalReview.com,
A lot has happened in the last decade – including a lot of things being called racist, sexist, offensive, or insensitive.
Here, in no particular order, are 24 of the most absurdly politically correct moments of the decade:
1. A college diversity-training course taught that it was culturally insensitive to expect people to be on time.
A Clemson University training course taught its attendees that it is offensive to expect people to be on time, because “time may be considered fluid” in other cultures.-
2. The phrase “trigger warning” was deemed a trigger.
According to a piece in Everyday Feminism, “trigger warning” is actually in itself a trigger — because it could “be re-traumatizing for folks who have suffered military, police, and other forms of violence.” (The piece recommended using “content warning” instead.)
3. A professor was accused of sexual harassment for saying that effort is 10 percent of the grade.
A Brooklyn College of City University of New York professor says he was forced to change his syllabus after he was accused of “sexual harrassment” for stating that effort was 10 percent of the grade.
4. A campus survey included a trigger warning to caution college students that it may contain “anatomical names of body parts.”
The survey was distributed at several major universities — because, apparently, college students just might not be able to handle the kinds of words that most kids hear in their middle-school biology classes.
5. University researchers demanded that we accept people who “identify as real vampires.”
Apparently, it’s the least we can do to prevent anti-vampire discrimination.
6. A Seattle-area councilman was concerned about the city hosing poop off of its sidewalks because he thought that it might seem too racially insensitive.
The area in question reportedly stank like “urine and excrement” — but one councilman was worried that hosing it down could be a microaggression.
7. A bathing-suit advertisement was criticized for being “sexist” because it depicted a woman in a bathing suit.
I thought it was normal for product advertisements to depict the product that they’re selling — but apparently, I was wrong.
8. Some feminists decided that “pussyhats” were both racist and transphobic.
Why? Well, because not all women have vaginas, and not all vaginas are pink, of course.
9. A professor claimed that the small chairs in preschools are sexist, “disempowering,” and “problematic.”
Apparently, it makes no difference that preschoolers are small people.
10. College students decided against bringing a camel to school for a “Hump Day” event, due to concerns about racism.
Students at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota were worried that the presence of a camel might offend Middle Eastern students.
11. A school in Seattle reportedly insisted that Easter eggs be called “spring spheres.”
Maybe calling them, simply, “eggs” would still have been too religious? Hard to say.
12. A group of Berkeley students insisted that they could not take their in-class exam due to their lack of privilege.
Apparently, test-taking was just too emotionally taxing for some University of Berkeley students to be able to handle.
13. The phrase “long time, no see” was reportedly declared to be “derogatory” toward Asians.
A student at Colorado State University said she was told that she shouldn’t use the phrase — despite the fact that even NPR admits that “it is so widespread as a greeting that there’s nothing to indicate the term’s origins, be they Native American or Mandarin Chinese.”
14. A college newspaper changed its name from “The Bullet” because its editors were concerned that that name was too dangerous.
The University of Mary Washington changed its newspaper’s name from “The Bullet” to “The Blue and GrayPress” — because its editors were worried that the old name “propagated violence.”
15. Lecturers were warned that capital letters might scare students and that they should avoid using them.
Journalism lecturers at Leeds Trinity University were instructed to avoid using all caps when communicating with students, because it might make them too afraid to do the assignment.
16. A campus-wide email told white students to stop wearing hooped earrings, because doing so was cultural appropriation.
A resident assistant at Pitzer College sent an email to her entire school claiming that white girls wearing hooped earrings was offensive to “the black and brown bodies who typically wear hooped earrings.”
17. A campus Christian club was found guilty of discrimination for requiring its leaders to be Christians.
Apparently, the Chico State University club’s rules violated a 2011 executive order.
18. Oxford University law students were told that they didn’t have to learn about rape or violence law if they found it too triggering.
Undergraduate law students were reportedly allowed to leave during any lessons about such material if they felt uncomfortable.
19. The word “too” was declared sexist.
According to a piece in the Huffington Post, the adverb has “deprived” “most women” “of self-satisfaction and appreciation.”
20. A liberal author demanded that “normal people” avoid wearing any kind of red hat, because all red hats can be too scary.
Sorry, Washington Nationals fans.
21. Skinny eyebrows were declared “cultural appropriation.”
Apparently, it is offensive to tweeze your eyebrows a lot if you’re not Latina. (Note: Thick eyebrow styles were called “cultural appropriation” during the 2010s, too.)
22. Evergreen State University told professors to take student protesters’ feelings into account when grading them.
Apparently, their “emotional commitment” to protesting should be taken into account when evaluating their academic work. (Apparently, grading classwork based on, you know, classwork would be too insensitive.)
23. A lot of college kids were upset about The Vagina Monologues.
Several colleges and universities either canceled or adapted performances of The Vagina Monologues over concerns about excluding women without vaginas. One school, Southwestern University in Texas, canceled theirs for another reason: because a white lady wrote it.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/02/2020 – 20:05 - "Their Day Is Coming, I Promise You": Durham Probe To Contain "Very Problematic Findings", Meadows Warns
“Their Day Is Coming, I Promise You”: Durham Probe To Contain “Very Problematic Findings”, Meadows Warns
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) sat down with Steve Bannon on Thursday’s War Room: Impeachment, where he suggested that US Attorney John Durham will uncover “very problematic findings” with the FBI’s counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign – both before and after the 2016 US election.
“When we look at the investigation that is going on now with Mr. Durham, he is finding things that will be very problematic,” said Meadows – who will not be seeking reelection in 2020.
“And where they’re problematic is not just in the initial investigation, it is after January of 2017 before the president is actually sworn into office, they’re still operating on trying to take him down when they know they had no case,” Meadows added.
Durham, appointed by Attorney General Bill Bar to examine the origins of the Russia investigation, has reportedly been focusing on former CIA Director John Brennan’s communications in regards to the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment which concluded that Vladimir Putin meddled in the last election to help President Trump.
Barr, who has been directly involved in the investigation, reportedly traveled to London over the summer to discuss matters with UK intelligence officials – telling NBC that he was there “to introduce Durham to the appropriate people and set up a channel through which he could work with these countries.”
Meadows told Bannon that impeachment is about power dynamics between the establishment’s approach to foreign policy vs. President Trump’s agenda:
“It’s a policy and power debate. I want to emphasize the power. This is all about are we going to let the American people along with their representatives and the President of the United States establish foreign policy or are we going to let the intel and national security apparatus continue to do whatever they’ve done for years which is not effective. That’s the reason why there was such a big pushback with Brennan and Clapper.“
He notes: “Their day is coming. I promise you. Their day is coming.” -War Room: Impeachment
Watch:
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/02/2020 – 19:45 - Does Bernie Sanders Want To Kill Pro Baseball?
Does Bernie Sanders Want To Kill Pro Baseball?
Authored by Chris Calton via The Mises Institute,
Bernie Sanders loves baseball. He loves it so much, that when he learned of Major League Baseball’s decision to phase out 42 of their 160 minor league teams, he called for the government to pressure the MLB to keep the teams, protecting the jobs of minor league players while raising their annual salaries. He has suggested using the government subsidies to professional sports stadiums to compel the League to submit to his demands. But his goal is not to reduce corporate welfare (is it ever?) — he merely wants a business to maintain its unprofitable branches.
It should be absurd enough — even to people who subscribe to Sanders’s socialist ideas — to say that the government needs to protect the jobs of people who play games for a living. Sports entertainment is certainly a valid economic good, but the most faithful apostles of state omnipotence should be able to recognize that salaried professionals for games is a remarkable luxury that few people can realistically expect to enjoy in any economy. Sanders also cites the community value of minor league baseball teams — romantically referencing his own personal memories — failing to realize that profits from attendance are the signal of how much a community values the franchise. It is as if Sanders is a better judge of what communities value than the citizens themselves.
These obvious objections aside, Sanders thinks he is working to save baseball, but if he gets his way, his plan is actually likely to accelerate baseball’s decline (unless the government beefs up its subsidies for professional sports, which Sanders would undoubtedly support). The reality is that the minor league system is a relic of a society that consumed sports very differently from the way modern spectators do, and the decision to phase out minor league teams reflects these changes.
Two American Pastimes
Baseball’s popularity steadily grew throughout the late nineteenth century, leading to the development of several professional leagues. Athletic competition waged within each respective league, and economic competition waged between them. At the turn of the century, the two dominant leagues — the American and National Leagues — came to an agreement that allowed them to maintain some independence but brought the economic and athletic competition together. The leagues would continue to compete athletically in isolation, and the annual champions of each league would play each other in the World Series (the mid-season All-Star game was added in 1933, but interleague play in the regular season did not begin until 1997). Other leagues who failed to match National and American on the economic front survived as farm teams — the minor league feeder system for the majors.
Although baseball continued to grow in the first two decades of the twentieth century, popularity exploded after rule changes shifted the dominance from the pitcher to the hitter, leading to power hitters such as Babe Ruth, who drew fans hoping to see him knock the ball out of the park. But fans had no way of witnessing these feats from home. If you wanted to watch the game, you had to buy a ticket and travel to the stadium — a significant barrier even for those participating in the automobile boom that was already underway. The best teams naturally made their homes in America’s largest cities where fans could walk to the stadium, and minor league franchises found a market in smaller cities whose populations still enjoyed baseball but were not large enough to support a major league team. Attendance was crucial to making the sport economically viable.
The earlier football leagues attempted to follow baseball’s model, some even enjoying the backing of the MLB. But unlike with baseball, the market was tight. Contrary to popular conception, it was not so much that Americans had no taste for the sport, but that the dependency on ticket revenues limited leagues’ expansion. Football players were far more likely to sustain injuries during a game, and even when they didn’t, the sport was more taxing, so it was impossible to play one hundred forty games in a season, as baseball teams did in the early twentieth century. Playing a fraction of the games, football teams could not be profitable from home-game ticket sales, so leagues were small and geographically constrained to allow competing teams to share a field.
However, while professional football was limited by these economic barriers, the sport was perfect for students. Universities are not unlike small cities, giving college sports teams an association to develop a fan base around. Baseball fans saw their team as representing their city; college football teams did the same for universities. The growth of college football mirrored that of baseball much more closely than professional football did, if on a smaller scale. The limitation here, of course, was that, prior to World War II, few Americans attended college. Football was by default a sport for economic elites while baseball was the populist pastime.
In the 1950s, economic changes disrupted this trend. In the postwar economic boom, millions of middle-class Americans bought mass-produced homes outside of major cities, giving rise to the suburbs as a type of community that did not fully resemble the city or the country. Although the proliferation of automobiles made trips to the city more accessible, baseball had fewer fans in walking distance of their stadiums. For major league teams, of course, this was a less pronounced problem — more people were willing to make the trip to see a major league game, but minor league teams felt the change more dramatically.
Television, though, most helped launch football to the top of the sports hierarchy in the United States. Football may not have been the most economically viable sport when revenues had depended primarily on live attendance, but the sport was perfect for television, whose revenue came from advertisements. Suburbanization and home television ownership grew in tandem. In 1950, Bob Levitt — a pioneer suburban developer — started advertising his $7,995 homes as including not only a refrigerator and a washing machine, but also a personal television. In 1948, less than two hundred thousand television sets were sold. In 1950, the number had grown to five million.
By 1958, forty-two million households had a television set. This year proved pivotal for football’s popularity, as the championship game between the Baltimore Colts and the New York Giants — played in Yankee Stadium, indicating baseball’s surviving dominance — ended in sudden-death overtime, following an exciting eighty-yard drive to the winning touchdown for the Colts. The game earned the enduring title “The Greatest Game Ever Played,” and it did for football what Babe Ruth had done for baseball in 1919.
Minor Leagues, Major Waste
Baseball certainly benefited from the new medium as well, but it had developed in a way that made it comparatively less suitable for televised sports. Minor league teams were financially viable when live attendance was the only way for most people to enjoy a game, but televisions made it too easy for audiences to watch only the best athletes. The (modern) 162-game season also meant that fans were saturated with games, analogous to taking a popular Broadway show and televising it on repeat. Baseball’s live-attendance model was not built with the expectation that the same fans would attend every game. But TV made this possible. Television, combined with the high number of games in the baseball season, made it easy for fans to virtually ignore minor league baseball.
The minors, of course, still served as a necessary nursery system, preparing players for the major leagues. Football, however, having grown predominantly through college sports, had a natural feeder system that required no financial support from the National Football League. The growing university system evolved as a de facto nursery that still enjoyed the live-audience support from students and local fans, and because both college and professional football played fewer games, each could attract a marketable television audience.
By the 1980s, when college baseball started to enjoy its own rapid rise in popularity — even earning modest television coverage — minor league baseball began to look increasingly unnecessary. In fact, as Sanders himself inadvertently hints, government subsidies (including, significantly, support from municipal governments) have helped prop up both major and minor league franchises. Sanders fails to recognize that the necessity of these subsidies undermines his claim about the community value of the sports teams — if communities value them, they’ll buy tickets to the games.
Apparently, what people really value is the ability to watch the greatest athletes from the comfort of their homes for free instead of paying to watch second-tier athletes live.
The MLB is merely responding to customer demand by phasing out minor league franchises, and if Bernie gets his way — short of doling out more government largesse to franchise owners — his plan will not save baseball; it will help kill it.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/02/2020 – 19:25 - From Full House To The Big House? Lori Loughlin Learning Martial Arts As Trial Looms
From Full House To The Big House? Lori Loughlin Learning Martial Arts As Trial Looms
“Aunt Becky” from Full House is preparing for the possibility of doing hard time over the college admissions scandal, hiring a prison coach to train her on fighting and ‘prison lingo,’ according to RadarOnline.
“She’s knuckling down, learning the lingo and practicing martial arts to give off the impression she’s tough and to ward off potential bullies,” an insider told Radar, adding that the 55-year old Laughlin “knows there will be plenty of them in federal prison.”
Loughlin and her 56-year-old husband Mossimo Giannulli have been accused of paying $500,000 in bribes to get their daughters into the University of Southern California. They contend they are not guilty, and that federal prosecutors have intentionally withheld evidence in their case.
They have been charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, honest services fraud, money laundering and federal programs bribery.
“Prison is going to be sink or swim and Lori doesn’t intend to sit back and take the abuse without a fight,” the insider added.
“Besides the physical training she’s getting lots of advice from prison professors on how to earn one’s keep behind bars … It’s a sure sign she knows deep down she’s facing an inevitable stretch and will need to be prepared.”
Loughlin faces up to 45 years in prison if convicted on all charges – though the chances of this actually happening fall somewhere between slim and none based on the short sentences handed out to other offenders in the scandal. Loughlin faced two years under a plea deal she declined, according to TMZ.
The Full House star isn’t the only parent who though to prepare for the potential of prison life. As we noted last April, parents have been seeking advice from a former convicted felon, Justin Paperny, who now works as a “prison consultant”. He told CBS that he had been hired by one parent charged in the scheme, while he is “in talks” with others.
Loughlin’s trial is set for April 3.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/02/2020 – 19:05 - The Great Russian Election-Hacking Myth
The Great Russian Election-Hacking Myth
Authored by ‘TheDarkMan’ via TheDuran.com,
The claim that Russia somehow interfered with the 2016 American Presidential election (and was thereby responsible for the ascent of Donald Trump) has been parroted incessantly by both the mainstream media and leading Democrats, including of course Hillary Clinton. While many people believe this claim, Mrs Clinton doesn’t simply blame Russia for her election loss but the world and his dog, as can be seen from the above cartoon.
Though we are now in 2020, many leading Democrats and a substantial tranche of the American media are still replaying the 2016 election, and if their attention has switched to Ukraine, their pronouncements contain the same inference, namely that Trump is being assisted by foreigners, and should he triumph again in November, his Presidency will still be illegitimate. What though is the evidence for Russian interference, and how was this interference carried out?
The evidence, such as it is, is that a company/organisation called the Internet Research Agency paid for a number of advertisements on social media. This evidence is compelling, although anyone who has seen these advertisements can only wonder how they were supposed to have influenced the election to Trump’s benefit. Lee Camp has argued that the Internet Research Agency is nothing more than a troll farm that was generating memes in order to attract clients. In view of the puerile nature of some of these advertisements, it is difficult to disagree with him.
In an earlier age, both the cinema and the Western press portrayed Russia agents as sinister and deadly men and women who would kill without conscience. They travelled on professionally forged documents, used sophisticated weapons, and were totally loyal to the Kremlin. Are we now to believe James Bond’s deadliest enemy is a troll who sits behind a keyboard all day long hoping to dissuade people from voting Democrat by posting cartoons augmented by subtle propaganda? Apparently so.
There is also the little matter of the hacked e-mails, but these were not hacked from a US Government network, rather they were from John Podesta’s Gmail account, and one of Hillary Clinton’s accounts hosted by her (illegal) private server. The hack of Podesta’s account was effected by a phisher. If you use e-mail a lot you’ll quite likely receive many such fake e-mails every week, although you may not notice those that are sent directly to your spam folder. Mrs Clinton’s account was hacked by someone in China, possibly an agency of the Chinese Government, though it would be just as unfair to point the finger directly at Xi Jiping as at Vladimir Putin.
The other alleged hack was shown by William Binney to have been not a hack but a leak of information. The probable culprit was Seth Rich, who was murdered July 10, 2016 in strange circumstances. Although claims about his murder have been dismissed as a conspiracy theory, any such theory is a lot more plausible than most of the garbage that has been peddled about Trump and the Kremlin.
Is it then possible that Russia or any other outside agent could have interfered with the elections in a more direct manner, and could perhaps do so again? The only way to do this would be to tamper with the vote count electronically. It remains to be seen how this could be done, but as far as votes are tampered with at all, this appears to be a purely Democratic pastime. In June last year, under pressure from Judicial Watch, California began a purge of up to a million and a half “inactive” voters from its rolls. Why did it take a court action to compel this? Clearly because the people running this particular area – Los Angeles County – felt an unpurged roll was preferable to a purged one. Kevin McCarthy is the Republican Congressman for Los Angeles County; all the others are Democrats. Including Adam Schiff! Only two of the Districts fourteen senators are Republicans.
While Russian interference with voting sounds and is extremely improbable, the actual hacking of American Government websites and those of commercial organisations is something that is done routinely by all manner of actors, not all of them hostile but clearly all of them unwelcome (with one exception).
Here are a few examples:
-
In March 1995, a Russian by the name of Vladimir Levin rather than Vladimir Putin was arrested at Stansted Airport on suspicion of hacking into Citibank and stealing money, a massive financial fraud. He was eventually extradited to the United States where after a plea bargain he was sentenced to three years behind bars and ordered to pay restitution.
-
Scotsman Gary McKinnon hacked into no fewer than 97 US military and NASA computers over a thirteen month period in 2001–2002. He said he was looking for evidence of UFOs and other fringe subjects. His was said to have been the biggest military hack of all time.
-
In October 2012, the South Carolina Department Of Revenue was hacked; this affected over three and a half million accounts.
-
In August 2013, hackers targeted Yahoo. Although based in the US, this Internet giant has branches worldwide. According to a report by National Public Radio four years later, it was likely that every Yahoo! account in existence at the time had been hacked.
-
Also in 2013, the social network site Tumblr was hacked, which led to the compromise of over 65 million passwords.
-
In May 2014, eBay was hacked, and 145 million users had their data compromised.
-
Navinder Singh Sarao was said to have helped trigger a multibillion dollar Wall Street crash. The so-called Hound Of Hounslow was living with his parents at the time of his arrest in April 2015. Although not a hacker, he made (and apparently lost) millions by manipulating markets with a sophisticated computer program of his own design.
-
In October 2018, digitaltrends dot com reported that a hack of the Pentagon had compromised the personal information of over thirty thousand staff. Has Rachel Maddow even mentioned this?
-
Finally, the Pentagon is so aware of its vulnerability to hackers that in 2016 it invited people to hack into it – the one exception alluded to above. The winner of the Hack The Pentagon Bounty Program was a teenager; David Dworken received a share of $75,000 prize money.
All this tends to undermine the ludicrous claims of Rachel Maddow and her fellow cranks that Russia and Russia alone is any sort of threat to America cyber security.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/02/2020 – 18:45 -
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...