- Escobar: How Kiev Wanted To Expand The War To Belarus
Escobar: How Kiev Wanted To Expand The War To Belarus
Well, Kiev – literally – never sleeps.
This document – attached, and verified at the highest level, is a report on several recon operations on the Ukraine-Belarus border conducted four months ago.
Several Ukrainian Special Ops groups had been engaged in deep recon previous to a possible Hail Mary-style plan: launching an offensive against the territory of Belarus, thus expanding the U.S. proxy war on Russia “multilaterally”.
It’s not clear if this was a Kiev idea; a plan dictated by the NATO masters; or a mix of the two. Minsk, of course, was not exactly observing from a distance.
Now let’s get to the meat of the matter.
The document specifies “aerial reconnaissance 130 Rbpak crew MATRICE-30”, in an intel report dated July 21, 2023.
“An aerial survey of the Republic of Belarus was conducted: two Matrice – 30 ascents were made.
The flight altitude is 950 m. Electronic warfare system was not detected, communication with remote control was not lost, GPS signals were in Normal mode.
Without crossing the DKU.
During flights in the direction of KALININO-SK-42. x: 5727537; Y: 5583485 a video surveillance vehicle “Grenadier” was discovered – SK-42. x:5727404;
Y:5583417. Designed for station monitoring of approaches to the border.
Traces and signs of the passage of enemy DRGS, and the movement of enemy equipment in these directions are not detected.
No changes were detected along the DKU.
During the conducted aerial reconnaissance, no active actions related to the enemy’s offensive were detected.
The area is wooded and impassable for enemy personnel and equipment.
This section of the DKU is not in demand of additional aerial survey.”
Watch those impassable swamps
Now we switch to an intel report by the group “IRLANDETS” (“Irishman”), also dated July 21, 2023.
“Reconnaissance was carried out by means of reconnaissance and military search in the direction of the ZABOLOTYE in the area of the border strip and adjacent areas.
Copter take-off Point X:5719499; Y:5520355.
Start of the route: X: 5719667; Y:5518682.
End of Route: X: 5719641; Y:5522372.
The area along the recreation center and roads leading to the recreation center were surveyed.
No traces or signs of the passage of enemy sabotage and reconnaissance group and enemy equipment were found.
The terrain in the area of reconnaissance is impassable for enemy equipment, which is due to a natural barrier in the form of impassable swamps, dense forest stands, and a river flows along the border line in this square. However, this section is possible for the passage of personnel.
Enemy’s composition, especially sabotage and reconnaissance group.
Confirmed presence of minefields.
Accumulation of military equipment, enemy personnel near the recreation center was not observed.
Aerial intelligence conducted.
We proceed to perform tasks for their intended purpose in another area, according to the intelligence agency’s action plan groups.”
Let’s collect some berries
Now for the RG (intel group) reconnaissance report “Partizan”, also dated July 21, 2023.
“Exploration was carried out by searching and observing, interviewing the local population in the direction of the PEREBRODY district (X:5733040; Y:5499111) – ZHADEN (X:5732068; Y: 5488281) – BUDIMLYA (X:5726038; Y:5498176) in the area of the border strip and adjacent areas.
Areas along the recreation center were examined, engineering and sapper barriers, forest and field roads leading to the recreation center were checked: presence of anti-tank ditches, rubble and obstacles from trees, minefields.
No traces or signs of the passage of enemy sabotage and reconnaissance group and enemy equipment were found. The area of exploration is conditionally passable for vehicles and personnel, which is due to a natural barrier, namely: reservoirs, swampy areas, engineering barriers.
Confirmed presence of minefields(SK – 42: 1)X:5734692; Y;5495350; 2) X:5734724;
Y:5495106; 3)X:5734899; Y:5494965; 4)X:5735543; Y:5497866; 5) X:5737721; Y:5501118).
When conducting reconnaissance, optical means were used: binoculars.
The situation along the DKU lines is calm. No sounds of movement or movement of enemy equipment were recorded.
Due to the berry season, the local population massively collects berries in border forests, moving to the sites by quad bikes, road transport and scooters. So, during the period of conducting reconnaissance, these vehicles and collectors were recorded up to and including the borderline.
We proceed to perform tasks according to the Action Plan of the Partizan intel group.”
There you go. This was the situation four months ago.
Much has happened since: the massive drying up of funds and weapons to Kiev; the war limelight stolen by Israel; and the Zelensky-Zaluzhny dogfight.
Still, there are no guarantees that plans to set fire to Belarus have been permanently shelved.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 23:40 - "Filthy Air": India Overtakes China As Country With Most Polluting Cities
“Filthy Air”: India Overtakes China As Country With Most Polluting Cities
While China is often the topic of discussing when bringing up bad examples of air quality, India has actually surpassed China in the poor quality of its air – especially at the onset of winter – Bloomberg notes in a new article.
During winter, the air quality gets worse because of the cold weather, lack of wind, and farmers burning their fields, the article notes.
A study found that in a 30-day period, New Delhi in India had air pollution levels 14 times higher than Beijing. Last year, out of the 100 most polluted cities in the world, 65 were in India and only 16 were in China. This is a big change from 2017 when China had most of the world’s most polluted cities.
India’s government hasn’t focused much on this pollution problem, even though it’s important for the country’s environment and health. Air pollution in India is causing a lot of deaths each year and is also hurting the country’s economy. The World Bank says that pollution is slowing down India’s economic growth because it affects how well people can work and how businesses grow, the report says.
Bloomberg also notes that a 2021 report by the Clean Air Fund highlights that air pollution in India impacts various business resources. It hampers the efficiency of solar panels by blocking sunlight, damages electronic components, and lowers the yield of crops.
Karthik Ganesan, a fellow and director of research coordination at the Council on Energy, Environment and Water, a Delhi think tank, told BBG: “This is the biggest challenge that urban India faces today. Effectively, it’s turning the demographic dividend into a big bane because I’m left having to care for all these people who in their 50s or 60s are down and out.”
India’s problem is contrasted by China – another well known polluter – who has made some progress in recent years.
Ten years ago, China’s big cities faced serious air pollution problems due to rapid growth and high emissions from vehicles, industries, and coal plants. The US Embassy in Beijing, one of the few places providing reliable air quality data, reported extremely high pollution levels. This issue led to protests in various parts of China.
Initially, China resisted international concerns and didn’t want foreign embassies to share air pollution data. However, as pollution worsened, the government acknowledged the issue. In 2014, President Xi Jinping recognized air pollution as Beijing’s biggest problem and launched a national plan with $270 billion to tackle it.
Since then, China has taken several steps to reduce pollution. They limited the number of cars in cities like Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. They also reduced the production in industries that cause a lot of emissions, like iron and steel, and stopped building new coal plants in some areas. According to the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC), China’s air pollution dropped by 42.3% from 2013 to 2021, and these efforts were the main reason for a slight decrease in global pollution levels during that time.
India has made some progress in slowing smog, the report noted:
According to data collected by the Centre for Science and Environment, a New Delhi research group, the level of PM 2.5 — microscopic, cancer-causing pollutants that travel deep into lungs — averaged 98 during the three years through 2023, down 28% from the three-year period ending in 2017.
But the pace of improvement has slowed over the last few years and measures like ‘smog towers’ do little to help, the report says. One 50 year old rickshaw driver commented: “It’s just constant. When I go home, there’s a layer of dirt on my face.”
“We might live five years, 10 years, who knows? You don’t know anything about tomorrow, so why think about it,” he added.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 23:20 - America's Best Strategy For Cold War II Is 200 Years Old
America’s Best Strategy For Cold War II Is 200 Years Old
Authored by Hal Brands, op-ed via Bloomberg.com,
The Monroe Doctrine is disparaged in Washington and Latin America, but it remains the foundation of the liberal international order the US leads today…
“I believe strictly in the Monroe Doctrine, in our Constitution and in the laws of God,” one American religious leader declared in 1923. That same year, 10 million American schoolchildren were subjected to a centennial recitation of President James Monroe’s famous doctrine in class.
“The American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers,” Monroe said in December 1823. For generations thereafter, that statement was a cardinal principle of US policy. It fused America’s founding ethos of anti-imperialism to the fierce nationalism and outrageous ambition that ultimately allowed the country to surpass every empire on Earth. It even became central to the America’s understanding of itself.
There have been no such celebrations this weekend to mark the 200th birthday. Most Latin American observers consider the Monroe Doctrine an imperial imposition. Even US officials now see it as an embarrassing anachronism. “The era of the Monroe Doctrine is over,” said Secretary of State John Kerry in 2013. Yet two centuries after it was issued, that policy remains more relevant than many might like to admit.
The Monroe Doctrine is a reminder that America’s strategic interests have always been intertwined with its revolutionary values. It represents the regional foundation of the liberal international order the US leads today. And although American policymakers often say the Monroe Doctrine is dead, they don’t — or shouldn’t — really mean it.
The Western Hemisphere was once an imperial battleground. At the start of the 1820s, Spain’s empire stretched from California to the Tierra del Fuego. Britain had territories and interests from Canada to Chile. France was clinging to imperial fragments around the Caribbean; Portugal was trying, vainly, to keep Brazil. Russia’s holdings included Alaska and outposts farther south. Powerful empires sought advantage in the Americas — and tried to keep a subversive republican newcomer well contained.
In 1823, America’s strategic landscape was menacing. The collapse of Spanish and Portuguese empires in Latin America was birthing new nations. But a coalition of European monarchies — the Holy Alliance of Austria, Prussia and Russia — was considering intervention to recolonize those countries; just two years earlier Russia had threatened a push down North America’s Pacific Coast. The Western Hemisphere was potentially facing a two-pronged absolutist assault. The US would then be surrounded by hostile, antidemocratic empires, foreclosing its future expansion and perhaps threatening its survival.
Monroe’s answer, drafted by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, combined self-assertion with self-denial. Monroe warned European powers not to seek new colonies in the Western Hemisphere (implicitly counting on Britain, which also opposed its rivals’ expansion, to enforce that ban), pledging that America, in return, would steer clear of Old World conflicts. After a slow start, Washington ultimately honored the first part of the doctrine more faithfully than the second.
By the mid-19th century, the US had foreclosed European expansion in North America by taking much of the continent itself. Washington then began pushing European powers out of its neighborhood, forcibly evicting Spain from the Caribbean in 1898. During the early 20th century, the US intervened in unstable nations from Nicaragua to Haiti, primarily to deprive prowling Europeans of chances to meddle. Over the subsequent decades, Washington beat back challenges from countries — Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union — that sought Latin American footholds amid the epic global clashes that defined the age.
No other country in the modern era has dominated its surrounding region so thoroughly, and for so long, as the US. In this sense, America denied imperial prerogatives to its rivals, only to claim them for itself. But it is ironic that the doctrine is now considered a historical relic — because it continues to influence the long arc of US statecraft around the globe.
First, the Monroe Doctrine asserted an enduring principle of US strategy — that America requires a balance of power that favors liberalism. “It is impossible,” Monroe declared, “that the allied powers should extend their political system” — monarchy — to the Western Hemisphere “without endangering our peace and happiness.”
This wasn’t some rhetorical flourish. America’s founding struggle had been a revolt against monarchy. Its republican government cast it, immediately, into sharp ideological conflict against Europe’s absolutist regimes. So Monroe was simply explaining that the US could not flourish in an environment ruled by regimes that were inherently, even existentially, hostile to its liberal experiment. Nearly a century later, President Woodrow Wilson argued more or less the same thing in calling on his country to make a “world safe for democracy” in World War I.
The Monroe Doctrine also enshrined a related American tradition — hostility to rival spheres of interest. The modern era has seen the astounding growth of a US sphere of interest that began in North America and now reaches around the globe. Yet American leaders have never been as comfortable with other powers, especially autocratic powers, carving out their own domains.
Such arrangements, Monroe said, could be established only by coercion: Free peoples would never accept them “of their own accord.” Autocratic empires, whether in the Americas or elsewhere, would serve as platforms for subversion, intimidation and aggression against the world beyond. Since the early 20th century, America has fought hot wars and cold wars to keep Eurasian autocracies from establishing globe-threatening spheres of interest in their own regions — an extension of Monroe’s doctrine, but one he and Adams would have understood.
Finally, the Monroe Doctrine established the regional primacy that underpins America’s global power. If the US faced serious threats close to home, it would have to deploy vast armies to defend its long land borders. But if America faced no major threats within the Western Hemisphere, it would be free, eventually, to roam the world. Which means that the quasi-imperialistic Monroe Doctrine was vital to the liberal order the US eventually built.
A country plagued by nearby challenges could not have intervened three times, in the two world wars and the Cold War, to prevent autocratic powers from dominating Eurasia. It could not have secured overseas regions through globe-spanning alliances after 1945. It could not have anchored a thriving international economy and helped democracy spread more broadly than ever before.
America’s enemies understood this: Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union all meddled in the Western Hemisphere because they knew that keeping the US preoccupied was essential to imposing their own, darker visions on the world.
The Monroe Doctrine cast its share of darkness, of course. The tools of US primacy included military interventions in Central America and the Caribbean; coups, covert action and aid for ugly counterinsurgencies in countries throughout the region; and land grabs in strategic points like Puerto Rico and the Panama Canal Zone. Hegemony is a messy business. No country can dominate a vast region while keeping its hands entirely clean.
When other powers pursued regional empires, in fact, they invoked US policy as their guide. Japan portrayed its aggression in China in the 1930s as a sort of Asian Monroe Doctrine. Today, when Chinese expansionists advocate “Asia for Asians,” or call Central Asia “China’s Latin America,” they are making, explicitly or implicitly, a similar claim. The truth is a bit more complicated.
Whatever its failings, the Monroe Doctrine did — with tacit support from the British Royal Navy — gradually curtail formal European colonialism in Latin America, an achievement of real value to the independent countries of the region. In the 20th century, moreover, a hemisphere free of US imperialism might well have been more susceptible to fascist or communist influence.
True, during the Cold War especially, the US protected its regional position through cooperation with friendly dictators. But preventing countries from going communist at least preserved the possibility they would later evolve toward democracy — as many eventually did, once their economies matured and the politics stabilized, in the 1970s and 1980s. The US placed itself firmly behind this democratic movement: Which of America’s great-power rivals would have done that?
American primacy has had other benefits. The fact that Latin America — a region suffused, sadly, with internal violence — has seen so little interstate conflict in the past century might, perhaps, testify to the role of US power in enforcing a hegemonic peace. Not least, insofar as Latin America has benefitted from the larger liberal order — one in which trade has surged, living standards have increased and global wars have been avoided for the last 80 years — it has also benefitted from the US regional supremacy that has enabled a degree of global progress.
Whatever the costs and benefits, the Monroe Doctrine long ago came to look like an imperial remnant in a post-imperial age. US officials mostly stopped publicly invoking the doctrine after a regionally polarizing CIA intervention in Guatemala in 1954. When Secretary of State Rex Tillerson mentioned the doctrine favorably in 2018, his comments were mostly treated as a costly gaffe. A policy Americans had once venerated now seemed painfully out of date.
True, after the Cold War, it had certainly seemed unnecessary. With US power unchallenged, with markets and democracy sweeping the region, everything was going Washington’s way. That’s no longer the case.
For years, the region’s politics have been deteriorating.
In Venezuela, Nicaragua and other countries, illiberal populists have set about destroying democratic norms and institutions. Democracy is fragile and political instability is rising across much of the region.
Peru is on its fourth president in the last three years; Argentina has elected a Donald Trump acolyte who promises to take a chainsaw to the political system. Mexico, which not long ago was moving toward stronger democracy and better ties with Washington, has regressed in both dimensions under Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Economic challenges often exacerbate political problems: Covid battered societies that were already suffering from high levels of economic insecurity.
Meanwhile, the US — which, since the 1990s, has seen the region primarily through the lens of illegal drugs and immigration — has been bleeding influence. And given that every great-power rivalry of the modern era has ensnared the Western Hemisphere, the bill for that strategic neglect is coming due.
One US antagonist, Russia, is forging anti-American alliances by making common cause with the region’s most thuggish leaders. When, in 2019, there was talk of US intervention in Venezuela to end the humanitarian catastrophe of Nicolas Maduro’s repressive rule, Russian military contractors raced to the country to protect his regime.
Russian weapons and intelligence support have bolstered another anti-American dictator, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega. Russian sniper rifles were used to kill pro-democracy protestors in 2018; Moscow and Managua have pursued cyber-cooperation to surveil and suppress Nicaragua’s opposition. Russian propaganda and disinformation fuel anti-US sentiment in Latin America and around the globe.
Russia’s presence in Latin America remains modest in comparison to the Cold War. But it is supporting states that brutalize their people and oppose US influence as part of a larger “raiding strategy” meant to keep Washington off balance by making it play defense around the globe.
There is also a Chinese challenge. Beijing is building influence for the long term by inserting itself into Latin American economies, infrastructure and communications networks. Through its Digital Silk Road strategy, China is proliferating surveillance technology that bolsters illiberal governments. Its larger Belt and Road Initiative features investments in nuclear power plants, space stations and other significant projects. Under its Global Security Initiative, Beijing is expanding internal security and intelligence programs in the region, as well.
There’s also a military component to Chinese policy, one that has, so far, remained somewhat disguised. From Cuba to Argentina, Beijing has been seeking — and sometimes acquiring — access to “dual-use” facilities with potential military uses. US officials reportedly worry that these facilities, such as the Amachuma Ground Station in Bolivia, could enhance China’s global military surveillance network, or eventually lay the basis for power projection in the Western Hemisphere.
Today’s autocracies aren’t recolonizing Latin America or supporting communist insurgencies. But the strategic implications of their behavior are real.
In the 20th century, Eurasian powers stirred the pot of political instability and anti-Americanism in Latin America in hopes of putting Washington on the defensive in its own backyard. Present-day US rivals know that playbook well.
America’s regional immunity underpins its global influence: A US fending off enemies in its own region will struggle to confront them in Eastern Europe or the Western Pacific. And if Russia or, more likely, China someday dominates its own region, it will have greater leeway to reach into the Western Hemisphere. If anything, the premium on preserving US sway may be higher today than it was in the past, given that pervasive Chinese economic influence in Latin America could spoil plans to nearshore critical supply chains.
The core of the Monroe Doctrine is as important as ever; another epoch of competition foretells another struggle for influence in the region to America’s south.
That’s not to say US officials should start waxing nostalgic about James Monroe and John Quincy Adams. There’s no profit in rhetoric that reminds even generally sympathetic Latin American observers of the region’s sometimes-humiliating experience with US power. The best way of obtaining a negative objective — denying America’s rivals strategic advantage in the Western Hemisphere — is through a positive program of regional cooperation.
The US will fare best at countering Chinese economic influence if it pursues a deeper regionalization of trade, manufacturing and financial relationships in the Western Hemisphere. If Washington wishes to turn countries away from Chinese digital and physical infrastructure deals that entrench debt, repression and corruption, it must find ways — whether alone or with democratic allies — of financing less-corrosive alternatives.
Alerting Latin American populations to the downsides of engagement with Moscow or Beijing requires helping governments and private citizens shine greater light on the role of Russian disinformation or China’s tightening grip on some of the region’s most vital resources. Investments in democratic institutions and civil society are good value amid political backsliding; so are efforts to rebuild long-atrophied relationships with the region’s militaries.
Containing hostile states, in the region and beyond it, entails consolidating relationships with friendly ones. The tighter the bonds of integration within the Americas, the better positioned the US will be within a fragmenting world.
That’s admittedly a tall order right now. Rather than sensibly discussing strategic challenges in Latin America, Republican presidential candidates are fantasizing about fighting the drug war by bombing Mexico. Neither major US political party has the courage to promote trade deals that might meaningfully increase economic integration with Latin America. Generating resources for the region has been a challenge for decades.
The problem, alas, goes well beyond Washington: From Mexico to South America, many once-reliable partners have been replaced by leaders who view the US with ambivalence at best. But the effort is worth making, because the more America struggles to secure its hemispheric position through positive policies, the more it may eventually rely on harder-edged measures instead.
Would the US really be more tolerant of its adversaries establishing military bases in Latin America today than it was during the Cold War? If it seems unthinkable that Washington might engage in covert meddling against an authoritarian strongman inviting America’s enemies into the region, or try to sway the outcome of a pivotal election in a pivotal state, that’s only because a generation of easy post-Cold War primacy left the US less reliant than it once was on such distasteful remedies.
As the longer history of US involvement in Latin America reminds us, even relatively respectable democracies will — when their strategic vitals are sufficiently threatened — do some dirty things.
Two centuries ago, the Monroe Doctrine asserted that the US must keep its rivals at bay within its own hemisphere. In the present era of rivalry, America will need to pursue the same policy, by one means or another.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 23:00 - Judge Grants Texas Woman With Abnormal Fetus An Exception To Abortion Law
Judge Grants Texas Woman With Abnormal Fetus An Exception To Abortion Law
In an exception to the state’s restrictive abortion law, a Texas judge on Thursday granted permission for a woman to abort the abnormal fetus she has been carrying for 20 weeks.
Kate Cox’s unborn baby has been diagnosed with trisomy 18, a chromosomal disorder that almost universally results in miscarriage, stillbirth, or death within a year of birth. Also called Edwards’ syndrome, the condition causes a variety of abnormalities, affecting the skull, heart and other organs. Of those who make it to birth, less than 10% survive a year, and frequently have major intellectual impairments. Cox’s lawyers say she’s had to make four emergency room visits to address pain and discharge.
“It is not a matter of if I will have to say goodbye to my baby, but when,” said Cox in a statement. “I’m trying to do what is best for my baby and myself, but the state of Texas is making us both suffer.”
In Thursday’s hearing conducted via video, Kate Cox weeps as the judge grants her an exemption to Texas abortion law Her lawyers argued that an abortion is needed to protect Cox — who’s had two prior C-sections — from a dangerous birth that could damage her fertility. “Continuing the pregnancy puts her at high risk for severe complications threatening her life and future fertility, including uterine rupture and hysterectomy,” they said in filing the suit.
“The idea that Ms. Cox wants desperately to be pregnant, and this law might actually cause her to lose that ability, is shocking, and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice,” said Judge Maya Guerra Gamble as she ruled in Cox’s favor.
In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v Wade and rightfully returned abortion governance to the individual states, many conservative state legislatures raced to impose restrictions. Texas has banned nearly all abortions, with exceptions limited to situations where it’s needed to save the mother’s life or safeguard her from “substantial impairment of major bodily function.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton doubled down on enforcing the law, immediately firing off a letter to three Houston hospitals warning that the judge’s order would “not insulate hospitals, doctors, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws.” The hospitals are the ones where a doctor who has committed to performing the abortion for Cox has admitting privileges.
To read the letter, see below. pic.twitter.com/tCZMSDGqMB
— Texas Attorney General (@TXAG) December 7, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The letter also spelled out Paxton’s reasoning for concluding that the restraining order was wrongly granted. His office, which may appeal the ruling to a higher court, warned the hospitals that the temporary restraining order “will expire long before the statute of limitations for violating Texas’ abortion laws expires.”
Doctors performing illegal abortions in Texas face sentences of up to life in prison, and the law also requires the state attorney general to pursue a civil penalty of at least $100,000. Critics say the abortion law’s language regarding medical exceptions is so vague as to leave doctors fearful of suffering severe consequences even where they’re confident of the medical necessity.
Those defending ambiguous medical exceptions in abortion bans regularly suggest that the problem is not the ambiguities, but doctors narrowly construing them.
And yet, here’s Texas AG Ken Paxton threatening doctors with civil and criminal liability for FOLLOWING A COURT ORDER. https://t.co/t3G9BW9LvQ
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) December 7, 2023
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 22:40 - Bah Humbug: The Police State Wants Us To Be A Nation Of Snowflakes
Bah Humbug: The Police State Wants Us To Be A Nation Of Snowflakes
Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
“This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased.”
– Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol
What a year.
It feels as if government Grinches and corporate Scrooges have been working overtime to drain every last drop of joy, kindness and liberty from the world.
After endless months of being mired in political gloom and doom, we could all use a little Christmas cheer right now.
Unfortunately, Christmas has become embattled in recent years, co-opted by rampant commercialism, straight-jacketed by political correctness, and denuded of so much of its loveliness, holiness and mystery.
Indeed, the season for giving has turned into the season for getting…and for getting offended.
To a nation of snowflakes, Christmas has become yet another trigger word.
When I was a child in the 1950s, the magic of Christmas was promoted in the schools. We sang Christmas carols in the classroom. There were cutouts of the Nativity scene on the bulletin board, along with the smiling, chubby face of Santa and Rudolph. We were all acutely aware that Christmas was magic.
Fast forward to the present day, and Christmas has become fodder for the politically correct culture wars.
Over the years, Christmas casualties in the campaign to create one large national safe space have ranged from the beloved animated classic Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (denounced for promoting bullying and homophobia) to the Oscar-winning tune “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” (accused of being a date rape anthem) crooned by everyone from Dean Martin to Will Ferrell and Zooey Deschanel in the movie Elf.
Also on the endangered species Christmas list are such songs as “Deck the Halls,” “Santa Baby,” and “White Christmas.”
One publishing company even re-issued their own redacted version of Clement Clarke Moore’s famous poem “Twas the night before Christmas” in order to be more health conscious: the company edited out Moore’s mention of Santa smoking a pipe (“The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth, / And the smoke, it encircled his head like a wreath.”)
In the politically correct quest to avoid causing offense, Christmas keeps getting axed.
Examples abound.
Schools across the country now avoid anything that alludes to the true meaning of Christmas such as angels, the baby Jesus, stables and shepherds.
In many of the nation’s schools, Christmas carols, Christmas trees, wreaths and candy canes have also been banned as part of the effort to avoid any reference to Christmas, Christ or God. One school even outlawed the colors red and green, saying they were Christmas colors and, thus, illegal.
Students asked to send seasonal cards to military troops have been told to make them “holiday cards” and instructed not to use the words “Merry Christmas” on their cards.Many schools have redubbed their Christmas concerts as “winter holiday programs” and refer to Christmas as a “winter festival.” Some schools have cancelled holiday celebrations altogether to avoid offending those who do not celebrate the various holidays.
In Minnesota, a charter school banned the display of a poster prepared to promote the school’s yearbook as a holiday gift because the poster included Jack Skellington from Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas and other secular Christmas icons, not to mention the word “Christmas.”
In New Jersey, one school district banned traditional Christmas songs such as “Joy to the World” and “Silent Night” from its holiday concerts. A New Jersey middle school cancelled a field trip to attend a performance of a play based on Charles Dickens’s “A Christmas Carol” because some might have found it “offensive.”
In Texas, a teacher in Texas who decorated her door with a scene from “A Charlie Brown Christmas,” including a scrawny tree and Linus, was forced to take it down lest students be offended or feel uncomfortable.
In Connecticut, teachers were instructed to change the wording of the classic poem “Twas the Night Before Christmas” to “Twas the Night Before a Holiday.”
In Virginia, a high school principal debated about whether he could mention Santa or distribute candy canes given that they were symbols of Christmas.
In Massachusetts, a fourth-grade class was asked to list 25 things that reminded them of Christmas. When one young student asked if she could include “Jesus,” her teacher replied that she could get fired if Christmas’ namesake appeared on the list.
Things have not been much better outside the schools, muddled by those who subscribe to the misguided notion that the Constitution requires that anything religious in nature be banned from public places.
In one West Virginia town, although the manger scene (one of 350 light exhibits in the town’s annual Festival of Lights) included shepherds, camels and a guiding star, the main attractions—Jesus, Mary and Joseph—were nowhere to be found due to concerns about the separation of church and state.
In Chicago, organizers of a German Christkindlmarket were informed that the public Christmas festival was no place for the Christmas story. Officials were concerned that clips of the film “The Nativity Story,” which were to be played at the festival, might cause offense.
In Delaware, a Girl Scout troop was prohibited from carrying signs reading “Merry Christmas” in their town’s annual holiday parade.
Clearly, Christmas has become one of many casualties in the misguided dispute over the so-called “separation of church and state,” a controversy that has given rise to a disconcerting and unconstitutional attempt to sanitize public places of any reference to God or religion.
Yet there’s a really simple solution to this annual angst of whether students and teachers can display Christmas-related posters, wear Christmas colors of red and green or sing Christmas songs, and that is for government officials to stop being such Humbugs and create a vibrant, open environment where all expression can flourish.
While the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing religion on people or endorsing one particular religion over another, there is no legitimate legal reason why people should not be able to celebrate the season freely or wish each other a Merry Christmas or even mention the word Christmas.
After all, the First Amendment affirms the right to freedom for religion, not freedom from religion.
Hoping to clear up the legal misunderstanding over the do’s and don’ts of celebrating Christmas, The Rutherford Institute’s Constitutional Q&A on “Twelve Rules of Christmas” provides basic guidelines for lawfully celebrating Christmas in schools, workplaces and elsewhere.
Yet while Christmas may be the “trigger” for purging Christmas from public places, government forums and speech—except when it profits Corporate America—it is part and parcel of the greater trend in recent years to whittle away at free speech and trample the First Amendment underfoot.
Anything that might raise the specter of controversy is avoided at all costs.
We are witnessing the emergence of an unstated yet court-sanctioned right, one that makes no appearance in the Constitution and yet seems to trump the First Amendment at every turn: the right to not be offended.
In this way, emboldened by phrases such as “hate crimes,” “bullying,” “extremism” and “microaggressions,” free speech has been confined to carefully constructed “free speech zones,” criminalized when it skates too close to challenging the status quo, shamed when it butts up against politically correct ideals, and muzzled when it appears dangerous.
At the slightest hint of trouble, government officials (and corporations) are inclined to chuck anything that might be objectionable.
Yet when all is said and done, what the police state really wants is a nation of snowflakes, snitches and book burners: a legalistic, intolerant, elitist, squealing bystander nation willing to turn on each other and turn each other in for the slightest offense, while being incapable of presenting a united front against the threats posed by the government and its cabal of Constitution-destroying agencies and corporate partners.
You want to know why this country is in the state it’s in?
The answer is the same no matter what the problem might be, whether it’s the economy, government corruption, police brutality, endless wars, censorship, falling literacy rates, etc.: every one of these problems can be sourced back to the fact that “we the people” have stopped thinking for ourselves and relinquished responsibility for our lives and well-being to a government entity that sees us only as useful idiots.
The Greek philosopher Socrates believed in teaching people to think for themselves and in the free exchange of ideas. For his efforts, he was accused of corrupting the youth and was put to death. However, his legacy lived on in the Socratic method of teaching: posing questions that help young and old discover the answers by learning to think for themselves.
Now even the ability to think for oneself is in danger of extinction.
As Rod Serling, creator of the classic sci-fi series Twilight Zone and one of the most insightful commentators on human nature, once observed, “We’re developing a new citizenry. One that will be very selective about cereals and automobiles, but won’t be able to think.”
We face an immense threat in our society from this drive to obliterate our history and traditions in order to erect a saccharine view of reality. In the process, we are creating a schizophrenic world for our children to grow up in, and it is neither healthy nor will it produce the kind of people who will be able to face the challenges of a future ruled by a totalitarian regime.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, you can’t sanitize reality. You can’t scrub out of existence every unpleasant thought or idea. You can’t legislate tolerance. You can’t create enough safe spaces to avoid the ugliness that lurks in the hearts of men and women. You can’t fight ignorance with the weapons of a police state.
What you can do, however, is step up your game.
Opt for kindness over curtness, and civility over censorship. Choose peace over politics, and freedom over fascism. Find common ground with those whose politics or opinions or lifestyles may not jive with your own.
Do your part to make the world a little brighter and a little lighter, and maybe, just maybe, we’ll have a chance of digging our way out of this hole.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 22:20 - Multiple Rockets Target US Embassy In Baghdad In First Since Gaza War
Multiple Rockets Target US Embassy In Baghdad In First Since Gaza War
There’s been a rare attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad at a moment the Gaza War has continued escalating in the southern half of the Strip.
A Pentagon official told Reuters Friday that about seven mortar rounds landed in the sprawling embassy compound in the Iraqi capital’s Green Zone during the early morning hours, resulting in minor damage but no injuries. Other sources say there were multiple rockets launched near the gate.
Front of US Embassy in Baghdad, Getty Images “The reported attack is the first time the embassy has been targeted in more than a year,” Reuters notes. “It comes as bases housing US personnel have been targeted in Iraq and Syria dozens of times since the war in Gaza began.”
While no claim of responsibility was immediately forthcoming, prior sporadic attacks on the US Embassy in recent years were blamed on Iran-backed militant groups. These same groups are believed to be connected with ongoing attacks on American outposts throughout the region, and in Syria.
According to a description in the Associated Press:
An Iraqi security official said 14 Katyusha rockets were fired Friday, of which some struck near one of the U.S. Embassy’s gates while others fell in the river. The official said the rocket attack caused material damage but no casualties.
A US official said in the aftermath, “We again call on the government of Iraq, as we have done on many occasions, to do all in its power to protect diplomatic and Coalition partner personnel and facilities.” The statement added: “We reiterate that we reserve the right to self-defense and to protect our personnel anywhere in the world.”
Likely the US Embassy’s powerful C-RAM systems, which protects aerial threats against the Green Zone, were on alert or activated during the attack.
🚨| 🇮🇶🇺🇸 US Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, has been targeted by a barrage of rockets. pic.twitter.com/b5TMuEMtN7
— Arya – آریا 🇮🇷 (@AryJeay) December 8, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Prior attacks on the embassy stretching back to 2020 and beyond were seen as pro-Iranian militants’ attempts to pressure American and NATO troops out of the country. There are still thousands of Western personnel that remain throughout the country, with the biggest presence being in the north – in the Iraqi Kurdistan region’s Erbil.
During the recent weeklong Israel-Hamas truce which saw hostages and prisoners exchanged, attacks on US personnel in Syria and Iraq temporarily ceased; however, with fighting raging once again in Gaza, and the death toll among Palestinians soaring, this fresh rocket attack on the embassy is a sign things are about to deteriorate further in the region.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 22:00 - We All Have PTSD
We All Have PTSD
Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,
Two years ago, reports started appearing that compared the effects of lockdowns with post-traumatic stress disorder. As it turns out, one of the symptoms of PTSD is forgetting what happened. It’s an evolved trait that helps the human mind cope with terrible things. Our brains are good at blocking it out. I will explain the neuroscience behind this in a bit but first an anecdote from this morning.
I was speaking to the director of a childrens’ choir and he was speaking about an age gap in his singers. The lead singer just graduated high school, and the next oldest singer is 14, which creates huge problems for the choral competence. I hesitated to do it but I finally just observed that this 3-year gap fits exactly with the lockdown period, child masking, and Zoom school.
He began to speak about what it was like to train a choir on Zoom and then conduct masked singers outdoors on winter nights. He recalled the attacks and the difficulties, and then his voice trailed off.
“Actually I’ve blocked out that whole period of life from my memory. I won’t think about it anymore. Anyway, I need to circulate a bit here but good seeing you.”
That was that.
It got me curious about the relationship between selective memory and trauma. For a long time now I’ve noticed that when this subject comes up, the response is either to quickly change the subject, which is common, or dig deeper into what seems like a bit of catharsis. Some people have so much to share, so many painful memories, so much shock and abuse to report, that once they start they cannot stop talking.
This one comment from this one choir director got me suspecting that vast numbers of people might be trying to forget it all. This is how the political debates manage to pretend like this never happened, how the major media gets away with never bringing it up, and how people like Fauci still get high speaking fees, and so on. It’s not just that they are no-good liars; too often it’s because people really do want to forget.
This is how the number one most shared trauma of our lives is fading so fast into the national and global consciousness.
It’s a well-known feature of child or spousal abuse. The memories are so terrible and grim that the human mind develops the capacity for pretending like it never happened if only so that life functioning can continue. This is fine but actually the trauma is still there and feeds other forms of pathologies like substance abuse and attachment disorders and so on. The point of therapy is to come to terms with the reality itself in the process of healing.
Some years ago, a theory developed to explain this and it was tested on mice. I’m going to quote directly:
“Two amino acids, glutamate and GABA, are the yin and yang of the brain, directing its emotional tides and controlling whether nerve cells are excited or inhibited (calm). Under normal conditions the system is balanced. But when we are hyper-aroused and vigilant, glutamate surges. Glutamate is also the primary chemical that helps store memories in our neuronal networks in a way that they are easy to remember.
“GABA, on the other hand, calms us and helps us sleep, blocking the action of the excitable glutamate. The most commonly used tranquilizing drug, benzodiazepine, activates GABA receptors in our brains. There are two kinds of GABA receptors. One kind, synaptic GABA receptors, works in tandem with glutamate receptors to balance the excitation of the brain in response to external events such as stress.
“The other population, extra-synaptic GABA receptors, are independent agents. They ignore the peppy glutamate. Instead, their job is internally focused, adjusting brain waves and mental states according to the levels of internal chemicals, such as GABA, sex hormones and micro RNAs. Extra-synaptic GABA receptors change the brain’s state to make us aroused, sleepy, alert, sedated, inebriated or even psychotic. However, Northwestern scientists discovered another critical role; these receptors also help encode memories of a fear-inducing event and then store them away, hidden from consciousness.”
To test the theory, researchers infused the hippocampus of mice with gaboxadol, a drug that stimulates extra-synaptic GABA receptors. The mice were put in a box and given an electric shock. When the mice were returned to the same box the next day, they played with no memory of what happened the last time they were there. However, when scientists put the mice back on the drug and returned them to the box, they froze, fearfully anticipating another shock.
The lesson here is that “in response to traumatic stress, some individuals, instead of activating the glutamate system to store memories, activate the extra-synaptic GABA system and form inaccessible traumatic memories.”
Is this what has happened to humanity on a global scale, some kind of activation of our extra-synaptic GABA systems to permit the formation of huge barriers around our trauma to make our memory inaccessible? Perhaps.
At the time of Fauci’s strange deposition, I suspect that there was some brilliant madness behind the claim that he could not remember. He said it hundreds of times, again and again on every subject. It was strange, almost like he was training the rest of us to do the same, like some mad scientist modeling the correct way to think about what happened to us. In his view, we shouldn’t think about it at all.
We know we’ve been made the subject of some insane medical and political experiments. It’s perhaps also true that we’ve been made the subject of some malicious psychological experiments, like mice injected with drugs, put in a box, and then shocked. It’s like perhaps the ordering was different: we were put in a box, shocked, and then given drugs.
In any case, it all does indeed feel like PTSD, and it affected no population cohort as traumatically as it did the children. They are owed the truth about the trauma, however, and now. We must have honesty about this. The lies have to stop. We should not tolerate them at all. And the professional liars all need to be removed from their jobs immediately.
In our own lives, we really do need therapy that comes in the form of friendships, community, and physical fellowship with each other. Sadly, the people who need it the most are least likely to get it. I’m thinking of the many people who are still walking around masked up, fearing getting next to others, and otherwise hiding out in their homes in a sense of terror that something bad from the microbial kingdom is going to attack at any time.
The only people who benefit from our mass amnesia are the people who did this to us. We must remember. We must discuss. We must seek justice.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 21:40 - Woman Who Threw Hot Chipotle Bowl At Employee Sentenced To Work 2 Months In Fast Food Industry
Woman Who Threw Hot Chipotle Bowl At Employee Sentenced To Work 2 Months In Fast Food Industry
A woman who went berzerk and threw a bowl of hot food into the face of a Chipotle worker has been sentenced by a judge not only to a month in jail, but also two months working in a fast food job.
Rosemary Hayne was caught on video screaming at Chipotle worker Emily Russell on September 5 of this year. She threw food at the worker’s face from close range and the 39-year-old mother of four subsequently pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault charges.
Judge Timothy Gilligan in Parma, Ohio gave her “the choice of a 90-day jail sentence or a 30-day sentence on top of 60 days working in a fast food job,” according to a report from ABC News’ local affiliate.
The judge commented about the hearing: “Every time you watch the video, it makes you more and more upset. I was thinking, ‘What else can I do rather than just have her sit in jail.'”
“You didn’t get your burrito bowl the way you like it, and this is how you respond?” he asked.
Gilligan asked her at the hearing: “Do you want to walk in her shoes for two months and learn how people should treat people, or do you want to do your jail time?”
Hayne To which Hayne responded: “I’d like to walk in her shoes.”
Judge Gilligan, who has been on the bench for three decades, expressed his displeasure at frequently coming across such cases. He recalled a similar incident where a customer assaulted a McDonald’s employee over a missing cookie in a Happy Meal, resulting in a 90-day jail sentence for the assailant.
Chipotle, commenting on the case, emphasized their commitment to employee safety and expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision.
The victim, Russell, reported ongoing stress and trauma from the incident, leading her to quit her job at Chipotle and seek another position. She is considering counseling to cope with the aftermath of the attack.
“Let’s give her the opportunity to not let this one day define the rest of her life,” Hayne’s attorney, Joseph O’Malley, commented to CNN. “I don’t see her as any greater risk than anyone who walks in off the street. I looked at it as someone who lost her cool.”
Russell concluded: “She’s going to get what she deserves. She didn’t get a slap on the wrist. She’s going to learn to work in fast food, and hopefully it will be good.”
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 21:20 - The Pentagon's Rush To Deploy AI-Enabled Weapons Is Going To Kill Us All
The Pentagon’s Rush To Deploy AI-Enabled Weapons Is Going To Kill Us All
Authored by Michael T. Klare via The Nation,
While experts warn about the risk of human extinction, the Department of Defense plows full speed ahead…
The recent boardroom drama over the leadership of OpenAI—the San Francisco–based tech startup behind the immensely popular ChatGPT computer program—has been described as a corporate power struggle, an ego-driven personality clash, and a strategic dispute over the release of more capable ChatGPT variants. It was all that and more, but at heart represented an unusually bitter fight between those company officials who favor unrestricted research on advanced forms of artificial intelligence (AI) and those who, fearing the potentially catastrophic outcomes of such endeavors, sought to slow the pace of AI development.
At approximately the same time as this epochal battle was getting under way, a similar struggle was unfolding at the United Nations in New York and government offices in Washington, D.C., over the development of autonomous weapons systems—drone ships, planes, and tanks operated by AI rather than humans. In this contest, a broad coalition of diplomats and human rights activists have sought to impose a legally binding ban on such devices—called “killer robots” by opponents—while officials at the Departments of State and Defense have argued for their rapid development.
At issue in both sets of disputes are competing views over the trustworthiness of advanced forms of AI, especially the “large language models” used in “generative AI” systems like ChatGPT. (Programs like these are called “generative” because they can create human-quality text or images based on a statistical analysis of data culled from the Internet). Those who favor the development and application of advanced AI—whether in the private sector or the military—claim that such systems can be developed safely; those who caution against such action, say it cannot, at least not without substantial safeguards.
Without going into the specifics of the OpenAI drama—which ended, for the time being, on November 21 with the appointment of new board members and the return of AI whiz Sam Altman as chief executive after being fired five days earlier—it is evident that the crisis was triggered by concerns among members of the original board of directors that Altman and his staff were veering too far in the direction of rapid AI development, despite pledges to exercise greater caution.
As Altman and many of his colleagues see things, humans technicians are on the verge of creating “general AI” or “superintelligence”—AI programs so powerful they can duplicate all aspects of human cognition and program themselves, making human programming unnecessary. Such systems, it is claimed, will be able to cure most human diseases and perform other beneficial miracles—but also, detractors warn, will eliminate most human jobs and may, eventually, choose to eliminate humans altogether.
“In terms of both potential upsides and downsides, superintelligence will be more powerful than other technologies humanity has had to contend with in the past,” Altman and his top lieutenants wrote in May. “We can have a dramatically more prosperous future; but we have to manage risk to get there.”
For Altman, as for many others in the AI field, that risk has an “existential” dimension, entailing the possible collapse of human civilization—and, at the extreme, human extinction. “I think if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong,” he told a Senate hearing on May 16. Altman also signed an open letter released by the Center for AI Safety on May 30 warning of the possible “risk of extinction from AI.” Mitigating that risk, the letter avowed, “should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks, such as pandemics and nuclear war.”
Nevertheless, Altman and other top AI officials believe that superintelligence can, and should be pursued, so long as adequate safeguards are installed along the way. “We believe that the benefits of the tools we have deployed so far vastly outweigh the risks, but ensuring their safety is vital to our work,” he told the Senate subcommittee on privacy, technology and the law.
Washington Promotes the “Responsible” Use of AI in Warfare
A similar calculus regarding the exploitation of advanced AI governs the outlook of senior officials at the Departments of State and Defense, who argue that artificial intelligence can and should be used to operate future weapons systems—so long as it is done so in a “responsible” manner.
“We cannot predict how AI technologies will evolve or what they might be capable of in a year or five years,” Amb. Bonnie Jenkins, under secretary of state for arms control and nonproliferation, declared at a Nov. 13 UN presentation. Nevertheless, she noted, the United States was determined to “put in place the necessary policies and to build the technical capacities to enable responsible development and use [of AI by the military], no matter the technological advancements.”\
Jenkins was at the UN that day to unveil a “Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy,” a US-inspired call for voluntary restraints on the development and deployment of AI-enabled autonomous weapons. The declaration avows, among other things, that “States should ensure that the safety, security, and effectiveness of military AI capabilities are subject to appropriate and rigorous testing,” and that “States should implement appropriate safeguards to mitigate risks of failures in military AI capabilities, such as the ability to… deactivat[e] deployed systems, when such systems demonstrate unintended behavior.”
None of this, however, constitutes a legally binding obligation of states that sign the declaration; rather, it simply entails a promise to abide by a set of best practices, with no requirement to demonstrate compliance with those measures or risk of punishment if found to be in non-compliance.
Although several dozen countries—mostly close allies of the United States—have signed the declaration, many other nations, including Austria, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, and Spain, insist that voluntary compliance with a set of US-designed standards is insufficient to protect against the dangers posed by the deployment of AI-enabled weapons. Instead, they seek a legally binding instrument setting strict limits on the use of such systems or banning them altogether. For these actors, the risks of such weapons “going rogue,” and conducting unauthorized attacks on civilians, is simply too great to allow their use in combat.
“Humanity is about to cross a major threshold of profound importance when the decision over life and death is no longer taken by humans but made on the basis of pre-programmed algorithms. This raises fundamental ethical issues,” Amb. Alexander Kmentt, Austria’s chief negotiator for disarmament, arms control, and nonproliferation, told The Nation.
For years, Austria and a slew of Latin American countries have sought to impose a ban on such weapons under the aegis of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), a 1980 UN treaty that aims to restrict or prohibit weapons deemed to cause unnecessary suffering to combatants or to affect civilians indiscriminately. These countries, along with the International Committee of the Red Cross and other non-governmental organizations, claim that fully autonomous weapons fall under this category as they will prove incapable of distinguishing between combatants and civilians in the heat of battle, as required by international law. Although a majority of parties to the CCW appear to share this view and favor tough controls on autonomous weapons, decisions by signatory states is made by consensus and a handful of countries, including Israel, Russia, and the United States, have used their veto power to block adoption of any such measure. This, in turn, has led advocates of regulation to turn to the UN General Assembly—where decisions are made by majority vote rather than consensus—as an arena for future progress on the issue.
On October 12, for the first time ever, the General Assembly’s First Committee—responsible for peace, international security, and disarmament—addressed the dangers posed by autonomous weapons, voting by a wide majority—164 to 5 (with 8 abstentions)—to instruct the secretary-general to conduct a comprehensive study of the matter. The study, to be completed in time for the next session of the General Assembly (in fall 2024), is to examine the “challenges and concerns” such weapons raise “from humanitarian, legal, security, technological, and ethical perspectives and on the role of humans in the use of force.”
Although the UN measure does not impose any binding limitations on the development or use of autonomous weapons systems, it lays the groundwork for the future adoption of such measures, by identifying a range of concerns over their deployment and by insisting that the secretary-general, when conducting the required report, investigate those dangers in detail, including by seeking the views and expertise of scientists and civil society organizations.
“The objective is obviously to move forward on regulating autonomous weapons systems,” Ambassador Kmentt indicated. “The resolution makes it clear that the overwhelming majority of states want to address this issue with urgency.”
What will occur at next year’s General Assembly meeting cannot be foretold, but if Kmentt is right, we can expect a much more spirited international debate over the advisability of allowing the deployment of AI-enabled weapons systems—whether or not participants have agreed to the voluntary measures being championed by the United States.
At the Pentagon, It’s Full Speed Ahead
For officials at the Department of Defense, however, the matter is largely settled: the United States will proceed with the rapid development and deployment of numerous types of AI-enabled autonomous weapons systems. This was made evident on August 28, with the announcement of the “Replicator” initiative by Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks.
Noting that the United States must prepare for a possible war with China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), in the not-too-distant future, and that US forces cannot match the PLA’s weapons inventories on an item-by-item basis (tank-for-tank, ship-for-ship, etc.), Hicks argued that the US must be prepared to overcome China’s superiority in conventional measures of power—its military “mass”—by deploying “multitude thousands” of autonomous weapons.
“To stay ahead, we’re going to create a new state of the art—just as America has before—leveraging attritable [i.e., disposable], autonomous systems in all domains,” she told corporate executives at a National Defense Industrial Association meeting in Washington. “We’ll counter the PLA’s mass with mass of our own, but ours will be harder to plan for, harder to hit, harder to beat.”
In a follow-up speech, delivered on September 6, Hicks provided (slightly) more detail on what she called all-domain attritable autonomous (ADA2) weapons systems. “Imagine distributed pods of self-propelled ADA2 systems afloat…packed with sensors aplenty…. Imagine fleets of ground-based ADA2 systems delivering novel logistics support, scouting ahead to keep troops safe…. Imagine flocks of [aerial] ADA2 systems, flying at all sorts of altitudes, doing a range of missions, building on what we’ve seen in Ukraine.”
As per official guidance, Hicks assured her audience that all these systems “will be developed and fielded in line with our responsible and ethical approach to AI and autonomous systems.” But except for that one-line one nod to safety, all the emphasis in her talks was on smashing bureaucratic bottlenecks in order to speed the development and deployment of autonomous weapons. “If [these bottlenecks] aren’t tackled,” she declared on August 28, “our gears will still grind too slowly, and our innovation engines still won’t run at the speed and scale we need. And that, we cannot abide.”
And so, the powers that be—in both Silicon Valley and Washington—have made the decision to proceed with the development and utilization of even more advanced versions of artificial intelligence despite warnings from scientists and diplomats that the safety of these programs cannot be assured and that their misuse could have catastrophic consequences. Unless greater effort is made to slow these endeavors, we may well discover what those consequences might entail.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 21:00 - Goldman Says China Politburo "Less Dovish" As Policymakers Gear Up For 2024 Fiscal Support
Goldman Says China Politburo “Less Dovish” As Policymakers Gear Up For 2024 Fiscal Support
The Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party held its monthly meeting on Friday. According to the statement, policymakers want to stabilize the economy and boost growth with more fiscal measures in 2024.
State-run media Xinhua News Agency reported Politburo, which includes the ruling Communist Party’s top 24 officials and chaired by President Xi Jinping, plans to ramp up fiscal policy “appropriately” amid the souring backdrop of a real estate crisis, increasing local government debt risks, slowing global growth, and rising tensions with the West.
According to Bloomberg, the Politburo said monetary policy should be flexible, appropriate, targeted, and effective, with the previous wording “forceful” dropped from the statement.
Economists who reviewed the statement said the change indicates Beijing might be less focused on a monetary cannon and instead utilize targeted tools.
Xing Zhaopeng, a senior strategist at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group, said the statement indicates the size of interest rate cuts and bank reserve requirements might be smaller in 2024 compared to 2023.
Goldman Sachs said, “The overall tone appears less dovish compared with the July Politburo meeting statement.”
“In particular, policymakers pledged to step up fiscal policy support “at an appropriate pace” in today’s readout, and vowed to enhance consistency in macro policies. These statements appear consistent with our expectation that fiscal policy will do the heavy lifting of supporting growth next year,” Goldman continued.
They added: “Today’s readout mainly aims to provide the broad guidance of policy tone for next year. The CEWC may offer more discussion around fiscal, monetary, property and local government implicit debt resolution plans, in our view.”
Here’s Goldman biggest takeaways from the Politburo meeting:
1. As the December Politburo meeting is the preparation meeting for the Central Economic Work Conference, today’s readout only aims to set the broad tone for policy stance, rather than offering detailed discussions on various policy measures for next year. The statement continued to send pro-growth signals, but appears less dovish compared with the July Politburo meeting statement.
- When assessing the recent economic developments, the authority shifted to a less cautious tone in today’s readout compared with the July Politburo meeting (Exhibit 1) by only highlighting the economic recovery this year after the end of pandemic. This is likely because Q3 real GDP growth picked up from 0.5%qoq in Q2 to 1.3% in Q3.
- Policymakers pledged to conduct “both countercyclical and cross-cycle policy adjustments” next year according to today’s statement, in comparison with only the “countercyclical policy adjustment” in the July statement. Specifically, the authority required stepping up fiscal policy easing “at an appropriate pace” and claim that prudent monetary policy should be precise and effective. Policymakers also vowed to enhance consistency in macro policies, and acknowledged the importance of managing expectations around economic growth.
- The authority softened the tone on significant reforms by stating that economic policies should be supportive first before being reformative (“先立后破”). This phrase was previously used in 2021 when policymakers tried to correct for the aggressive decarbonization efforts which contributed to coal shortages and power outages in many parts of the country.
- Besides the broad stance, the authority reiterated promoting technology and innovation, enhancing resilience and security of supply chains, pushing forward opening-up, and effectively containing and reducing risks. Policymakers will also better coordinate deepening supply-side reforms and expanding domestic demand, urbanization and rural revitalization, high-quality growth and high-level of security.
2. The December Politburo meeting statement continued to send pro-growth signals. The statement around fiscal policy is consistent with our expectation that fiscal policy easing will do the heavy lifting of supporting growth next year. However, the discussion around high-quality growth and emphasis of “appropriate pace of easing” imply policy support will likely still be measured rather than being aggressive. The CEWC, which will likely be held over the next few days, should offer more discussions around fiscal, monetary, property and local government implicit debt resolution plans.
Exhibit 1: The December Poliburo meeting continued to highlight measured policy easing
The key message from the meeting is that growth is crucial to policymakers. And the days policymakers flooded the system with credit are over as Moody’s Investors Service warned earlier this week that China risks a sovereign credit rating outlook downgrade.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 20:40 - The Deep State Agenda Is "Controlled Demolition Of America": Alex Newman
The Deep State Agenda Is “Controlled Demolition Of America”: Alex Newman
Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,
Award-winning journalist Alex Newman, author of the popular book “Deep State,” says there is a not-so-secret plan to destroy everything in America and everything it stands for.
Newman contends it is the only way for evil globalists to have the tyrannical New World Order they dream of.
The evil destroyers of freedom and liberty around the world will be talking about the demise of America at the globalist COP28 conference in Dubai, UAE this week. Newman explains,
“This is all part of the agenda. What we are watching now is the deliberate destruction of the American middle-class and the deliberate destruction of the American economy.
Ultimately, if these evil doers get their way, it will result in the deliberate destruction of the United States of America. We are talking about the controlled demolition of our economy, our military might and everything we hold dear. This has been known at the highest levels of government for a long time…
During the Trump Administration, they had Rich Higgens on the National Security Counsel, and he put together the ‘Higgens Memo.’ People should read this.
He talked about the global alliance of globalists, communists, socialists and Islamists who are all working in unison for the goal of destroying the United States of America.
This is not just as a nation, says Higgens, but even as an ideal.
They want to shift global power over to China and over to the United Nations to gradually and then suddenly destroy the United States.
They don’t just want to destroy this country, they also want to destroy the ideas and principles it is founded upon because it is simply not compatible with this one world system they want.
George Soros told us what the New World Order was going to look like 10 years ago. He told the Financial Times that China needed to own the New World Order in the same way the United States owns the current one.”
Newman says Donald Trump is not part of the New World Order, and he dismantled much of it during his Presidency.
Newman says,
“Donald Trump is the first President in a century who did not go to this weird club of elitists such as Bohemian Grove. He never went to Bilderberg. He was never involved with the Council on Foreign Relations. Trump did not participate in the Trilateral Commission. He was not recruited in the ‘Scull and Bones’ at Yale like John Kerry, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
He was just not part of the club… Trump was not controlled by these people.
They were able to manipulate him on some key things like the CV19 shots and the MCA, but ultimately, they did not feel like they could control him.
He was an outsider. This is why they are absolutely petrified of him coming back now.”
The news is not all bad as Newman says he is seeing a huge backlash from all sectors to the New World Order agenda. Newman explains,
“There is an enormous backlash building. Just go out and talk to regular people. Turn off the boob tube, and this is not even propaganda, it is psychological terrorism.
Turn it off and talk to real people…
What you will find is normal people who can’t tell you about the Bohemian Grove, the Council on Foreign Relations or the climate scam, but they can tell you ‘we are being lied to.’
Life is getting increasingly difficult. My spouse and I are both working with two jobs, and we still can’t make ends meet. We can’t pay the mortgage. Food costs are going up. They know that this is not normal.
They know that we have a uniparty with Kevin McCarthy who showed up at the Bohemian Grove just before he was ousted as Speaker of the House.
You have an incredible awareness from people that we are being looted, robbed, deceived and that our country is being betrayed.
You don’t have to watch the fake media to be aware of all those things.
I am encouraged by the awareness of people and the polling data that virtually nobody believes the media.”
There is much more in the 40-minute interview.
Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with hard-hitting journalist Alex Newman, founder of LibertySentinel.org and author of the book “Deep State” that explains it all for 12.02.23.
* * *
To Donate to USAWatchdog.com Click Here
Newman’s website is called LibertySentinel.org. There is lots of free information and articles. For a copy of Alex Newman’s popular book “Deep State,” click here,
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 20:20 - 'Shadow Fleet' Tanker Runs Aground Near Singapore
‘Shadow Fleet’ Tanker Runs Aground Near Singapore
A petroleum tanker, part of a global “shadow fleet” of vessels, hauled upwards of a million barrels of Venezuelan oil and ran aground near Singapore. Blomberg reported that this incident occurred shortly after the tanker falsified its location to avoid detection.
The 23- year-old oil tanker, “Liberty,” was sailing under the Cameroon flag and ran aground on Sunday. An Indonesian navy spokesman said an investigation into Liberty is underway.
Satellite research from TankerTrackers said the vessel was ‘spoofing’ its location in October, making it appear as if the ship was off the coast of West Africa while actually filling up on sanctioned oil in Venezuela.
TankerTrackers said this is the second time a shadow fleet tanker has “run aground west of the Singapore Strait” in 14 months.
For the 2nd time in 14 months, yet another Dark Fleet tanker has run aground west of the Singapore Strait. The vessel has been identified as LIBERTY (9207027).
According to our research, she’s laden with nearly a million barrels of Venezuelan fuel oil.https://t.co/JulhoMGgiK
— TankerTrackers.com, Inc. (@TankerTrackers) December 8, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Bloomberg pointed out that hundreds of tankers are part of the shadow fleet that allows Venezuela, Iran, and Russia to ship their US-sanctioned crude and crude products around the world.
The International Maritime Organization recently warned about shadow fleets operating outside international regulation, usually with no insurance, calling it a “grave concern” to the environmental safety and welfare of crews and countries that reside on coastlines.
The dangers posed by the dark fleet were realized earlier this year when a tanker called “Pablo,” which was thought to be transporting Iranian oil, caught fire off the coast of Malaysia.
This could be the tip of the iceberg as the growth in the shadow fleet soars, mainly because the US has been on a sanctioning spree against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 20:00 - Bitcoin: The Gold Standard For A Digital Age
Bitcoin: The Gold Standard For A Digital Age
Authored by Michael Matulef via BitcoinMagazine.com,
The nature of money is tragically one of the most unexamined and vital questions in modern society. Over the course of history, different monetary systems have risen and fallen as technology progressed and new forms of money emerged that were superior to what came before.
To help us understand money, we must examine the question: “who controls the ledger?” As we explore the technological history of money and its various incarnations, from informal social credit to commodity-backed systems, we can gain insight into how control over the monetary ledger impacts individual liberty, economic prosperity, and human flourishing.
In the Austrian tradition, figures like Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, and many others have written extensively about the function of money. At its core, money enables indirect exchange as a medium to facilitate transactions. In small communities, social credit systems can adequately regulate resources through direct exchange. However, as these communities grow, indirect exchange through money becomes essential. Expanding the division of labor and specialization requires more complex economic calculations. The increasing sophistication of wants necessitates indirect transactions between distant parties. Most crucially, direct exchange relies on trust and familiarity between counterparties, which erodes with scale. Money arose to enable growing communities to reap the benefits of economic expansion through indirect exchange. Without sound money, rising productivity and specialization cannot be effectively coordinated. The Austrian tradition recognizes how critical the monetary framework is in an evolving economy.
Naturally, certain commodities are selected as monies within the market economy due to their optimal monetary properties as a monetary technology. Said differently, The most salable good, which has the lowest rate of declining marginal utility will be chosen to facilitate indirect trade. The primary monetary properties of scarcity, durability, portability, divisibility, fungibility, and verifiability give way to the salability of goods across time and space. Sea shells, beads, silver, and gold are all examples of different commodities that have historically been used as different mediums of exchange for their respective strengths in these monetary properties.
Lyn Alden, in her recent book, Broken Money: Why Our Financial System is Failing Us and How We Can Make it Better reexamines the question of what money is through her ledger theory of money. She writes:
“A ledger theory of money observes that most forms of exchange are improved by having a salable unit of account that can be held and transferred over both time and space, and that this unit of account implies the existence of a ledger, either literally or in the abstract. These monetary units and the ledger that defines them rely either on human administrators or on natural laws to maintain their stability across time and space.”
Through this lens, we can come to a better understanding of What Has Government Done to Our Money? The cumbersome nature of physical gold as a medium of exchange ultimately led to the adoption of paper currency, and eventually fiat money no longer backed by commodities. Storing, transporting, and verifying pure gold for transactions became increasingly impractical as economies grew and developed technologically. Gold’s weight and risk of theft made storage expensive. Assaying gold to verify purity was difficult for everyday commerce. And transporting adequate gold for large transactions was hazardous. Paper currency provided a lighter, more portable proxy for gold that was more practical for exchange. However, it still depended on central authorities securing adequate gold reserves to maintain convertibility. This constrained monetary policy, as the expansion of currency was limited by gold supplies. Over time, the constraints of gold convertibility frustrated governments and central banks. Suspending convertibility in 1971 allowed greater control over money supply and interest rates, providing more policy flexibility. But without commodity backing, fiat currency carries greater risks of inflation, hyperinflation, and other negative externalities. Alden continues:
“The technology of banking systems and paper banknotes in various denominations backed by gold improved gold’s effective divisibility. And then, in addition to exchanging paper, people could eventually “send” money over telecommunication lines to other parts of the world, using banks and their ledgers as custodial intermediaries. This was the gold standard – the backing of paper currencies and financial communication systems with gold.”
“For a gold-backed banking system, the only part of the ledger that individual users have control of is the precious metal coins that they retain in their own custody, and for that they rely on the properties of nature to maintain the integrity of the ledger. Once they surrender coins over to the banking system, they have begun to rely on a hierarchy of other people to control their money.”
In the context of Alden’s ledger theory, the supply of gold is controlled by nature and natural laws. Fiat, in contrast, is controlled by human administration and unequivocally by the State. This explanation is the simple answer to what the government has done to our money. The State has taken control of the monetary ledger away from natural law and used that power to facilitate its metastatic growth. Moreover, it has exerted this control as one of its exclusive monopoly privileges. As advocates for free markets, individual property rights, and the right to self-determination nothing is more imperative in our time than separating money from State. The great Friedrich A. Hayek, who advocated for the Denationalisation of Money, famously stated:
“I don’t believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can’t take it violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something that they can’t stop”
For the past 15 years, Bitcoin has emerged and continued to develop into a possible sly roundabout way that Hayek hypothesized. Initially and abstractly, Bitcoin was conceived of as a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. A decentralized ledger system utilizing cryptographic digital signatures to enforce the concept of perfect digital scarcity. Bitcoin, as a monetary unit, represents a digitally native bearer commodity asset, a truly revolutionary concept. In the context of Alden’s ledger theory of money, she writes:
“Gold has long been turned to as a form of defense and savings, but it’s not a useful transactional money in the digital age. The Bitcoin network presents a newer and faster alternative, where nobody can create bitcoin for free, and thus nobody has the power of seigniorage”
Bitcoin closes the speed gap between transactions and settlements. Ever since the invention and deployment of intercontinental telecommunication systems in the second half of the 19th century, transactions have been able to move around the world at the speed of light, while scarce, self-custodial bearer asset money (e.g., gold) could only be transported and verified at the speed of matter. This speed gap opened a massive arbitrage opportunity for banks and governments to use, because it gave them custodial monopolies over fast long-distance payments. Bitcoin represents the first significant way to settle scarce value at the speed of light.
While politics can impact how we interact with money locally and temporarily, it’s technology that impacts how we interact with money globally and permanently. As new technologies come into existence, certain types of ledgers become obsolete and go extinct while new types of ledgers are born and become necessary. That’s why new forms of money tend to be adopted everywhere rather than just locally. As the world became increasingly industrialized, gold won out over every other commodity. And then as the world became increasingly connected by telecommunication systems, fiat currencies displaced gold in every country. Now that digital scarcity and digital settlement exist as new forms of technology, there is an opening for a new monetary era yet again.”
Today Bitcoin’s usage is primarily that of a store of value asset. One possible explanation for this is Gresham’s Law, which states that when two forms of currency have equal face value, the one perceived as less valuable will circulate more widely while the more valuable one will be hoarded. This helps explain Bitcoin’s current role – its capped supply and volatile valuation make it “good money” for holding as an asset, while fiat currencies with less perceived worth remain the common medium of exchange. However, Bitcoin’s monetary status could evolve if adoption increases.
CONCLUSION:
Studying monetary history reveals that the evolution of money reflects advancements in technology. Societies have selected different monetary mediums based on the strength of their monetary properties – their salability across both time and space. Examining who controls the ledger for each monetary system also provides useful insight. Natural laws governed the ledger of commodities like gold. However, the advent of telecommunications enabled financial transactions to occur much faster than settling payments in physical gold. This highlighted the limitations of using physical gold as money in the modern digital era. As a result, societies adopted credit-based paper and digital monies with ledgers controlled by human administration rather than natural laws.
Unfortunately, over time, the State captured control of these ledgers, expanding its authority by manipulating fiat currencies, removing their tether from gold entirely.
To counter the unchecked growth of state power, we must return to sound money anchored to a reliable store of value, with a ledger that cannot be manipulated by the State.
Using physical gold as a medium of exchange is no longer practical in an increasingly digital world. Therefore, an inventive, censorship-resistant monetary alternative must be developed to separate control of money from the State. Over the past 15 years, Bitcoin’s globally distributed public ledger has proven a fascinating experiment in decentralized digital money.
Unlike traditional currencies, Bitcoin’s ledger is not controlled by any single entity. Rather, it relies on a network of individuals voluntarily running Bitcoin software to reach a consensus on the protocol. This decentralized approach allows the market to decide on the properties of the network and monetary units. Ultimately, the market will determine if Bitcoin is best suited as a medium of exchange for humanity in the digital world.
One question we should ask ourselves is this:
“What would it seem like if it did seem like a global, digital, sound, open, programmable money was monetizing from absolute zero?”
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 19:40 - Putin Formally Announces 2024 Election Bid
Putin Formally Announces 2024 Election Bid
As was long anticipated, Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued a formal announcement saying he’s seeking re-election in 2024 – a vote that will be held between March 15 and March 17, 2024. The winner will be inaugurated in early May. Assuming a Putin victory, it would be his fifth term as head of state, and this would put him in office until 2030, after already approaching nearly a quarter-century in power.
Interestingly, the Kremlin cast Putin’s declaration as part of “spontaneous” remarks which followed an award ceremony honoring war veterans…
🇷🇺 Putin responding to a Russian serviceman’s question about running in the election:
“I won’t hide the fact that I’ve had thoughts at different times. But right now, you are right. These are times when decisions must be made. I will run for the office of president.” pic.twitter.com/X0xkFD9Yp1
— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) December 8, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
“I won’t hide it from you — I had various thoughts about it over time, but now, you’re right, it’s necessary to make a decision,” Putin said in a video released following the event. “I will run for president of the Russian Federation.”
Russian state media is already previewing that newly annexed territories of the Donbas would vote in the election:
The Russian leader made his remarks at a ceremony where he awarded Hero of Russia medals to servicemen who had taken part in the special military operation against Ukraine. Hero of the Donetsk People’s Republic Artyom Zhoga, who was recently named speaker of the Russian federal subject’s parliament, asked if he would run in 2024 and he replied in the affirmative.
The footage from the ceremony shows Zhoga shaking hands with Putin and telling him that the entire Donbass would like him to participate in the election. “Thanks to your actions… we became free, we got the opportunity to choose… You are our president… We are your team, we need you, Russia needs you,” he said.
The legal path was paved for this expected fifth term when in 2020 the Russian population voted to overwhelmingly approve an overhaul to the national constitution. Assuming he would again win by a landslide, this means that 71-year old Putin could theoretically stay in power until even 2036 if he wanted to go that far (assuming two more back-to-back terms). He would be 83-years old that year.
In power since 2000, those prior changes to the law allow him to run for two more terms in the Kremlin once his current term ends in 2024. The law now in effect basically “resets” his number of terms already served, which considerably stretch all the way back to 2000 (excepting Dmitry Medvedev’s stint as president, 2008-2012).
One early indicator of Putin’s intentions was on display all the way back in 2020, when he told reporters while discussing at that time the proposed constitutional changes, “I do not rule out the possibility of running for office, if this comes up in the Constitution. We’ll see.” He has also said at the time, “I have not decided anything for myself yet,” according to the prior state television interview statements.
Via AP Very likely, the Russian population will rally around desiring a ‘strong’ and ‘proven’ leader that can stand up to the West, and to Washington and NATO in particular, again especially given the proxy war nature of what’s happening in Ukraine, and given it remains clear that the Russian side is ‘winning’. But it remains that among some sectors, the war is unpopular given reports of a huge Russian death toll. The numbers of young men coming back either in coffins or severely maimed from war has certainly had an impact among many common Russian families.
It’s been many years since Putin actually had any significant challengers who had major name recognition in Russia (even during Medvedev’s rule, Putin was seen as the ‘real power’ while in the prime minister’s role). The West would chalk this up to the Kremlin oppressing or locking up any political rivals or oppositionists (like Navalny, who never actually polled very high regardless) – while many Russians would see in Putin national unity and strength. Following last summer’s Wagner armed rebellion, his power is consolidated now more than ever.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 19:20 - Senate Votes Down Resolution To Withdraw Troops From Syria: "Another Regional War Without Debate"
Senate Votes Down Resolution To Withdraw Troops From Syria: “Another Regional War Without Debate”
Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,
The Senate on Thursday voted down a resolution that would have directed President Biden to withdraw all US troops from Syria, where US forces have come under frequent attack in response to President Biden’s support for Israel’s Gaza onslaught.
The bill failed in a vote of 13-84 and received support from seven Democrats, five Republicans, and one Independent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT). The resolution was introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who argued the US occupation of eastern Syria risks a major regional war.
Getty Images “Keeping 900 US troops in Syria does nothing to advance American security. Rather, our intervention puts those servicemembers at grave risk by providing an enticing target for Iranian-backed militias,” Paul said.
“Our continued presence risks the United States getting dragged into yet another regional war in the Middle East without debate or a vote by the people’s representatives in Congress. Congress must cease abdicating its constitutional war powers to the executive branch,” he added.
Paul’s bill would have given the president 30 days to withdraw from Syria unless he was able to get authorization from Congress. The resolution received support from Robert Ford, who was the US ambassador to Syria from 2011 to 2014 when the US first threw its weight behind the regime change effort against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
“We owe our soldiers serving there in harm’s way a serious debate about whether their mission is, in fact, achievable. Absent a debate and authorization of such a mission, our troops should be removed. Consideration of S.J. Res. 51 is an important opportunity for the Senate to take a step towards that necessary outcome,” Ford said.
The US has launched several rounds of airstrikes against Shia militias in Syria and Iraq in response to the rocket and drone attacks that have targeted US bases since October 17. The US bombings, which have killed dozens of militia members, have not deterred further attacks, and the region has turned into a powder keg.
Via Artishok Interactive/EA Worldview The US maintains that its presence in eastern Syria is about fighting ISIS remnants, but the occupation is part of a broader campaign against Damascus and its allies, which includes Iran. The US maintains crippling economic sanctions on Syria that are designed to prevent the country’s reconstruction, and the area the US occupies is where most of Syria’s oil and gas fields are located.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 19:00 - Vivek Vivisects Van Jones Over 'Great Replacement' Hypocrisy
Vivek Vivisects Van Jones Over ‘Great Replacement’ Hypocrisy
Vivek Ramaswamy has seriously kicked the hornets’ nest – drawing harsh rebuke from MSM over his fiery debate performance on Wednesday, where he;
-
Called Nikki Haley a ‘fascist’ for thinking “the government should identify every one of those individuals with an ID”
-
Slammed Haley and Biden for being two of the last “neocons” supporting “pointless war” in Ukraine
-
Fat shamed Chris Christie
-
Said he was the “only candidate” who would raise questions regarding the Jan. 6 riot, Saudi Arabia’s involvement in 9/11 and more
-
Suggested the 2020 election was stolen
-
Said that the “Great Replacement Theory is not some grand, right-wing conspiracy theory,” but rather a “basic statement of the Democratic Party’s platform” and that the 2020 was “stolen by Big Tech.”
Watch:
Vivek Ramaswamy calls out all three candidates for turning on Trump after using him for money and endorsements and then drops truth nukes 🔥
– J6 was an inside job
– The 2020 Election was stolen
– The Government lied about 9/11
– The “Great Replacement” is not a “Conspiracy… pic.twitter.com/AAWKSwn2oG— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) December 7, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
It was the “great replacement theory” that really got the hornets buzzing – with the NY Times writing that it was a “racist idea that minorities, sometimes manipulated by Jews, want to replace white Americans,” none of which Ramaswamy articulated.
The “great replacement theory” has been creeping into the conservative mainstream, popularized by hosts like Tucker Carlson, and has been referenced by several mass shooters. -NY Times
CNN host Van Jones got in on the feeding frenzy, calling Ramaswamy a “demagogue” for discussing said great replacement theory.
Van Jones was left “Shaking” after hearing Vivek speak at the debate.
Lmao🤣
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) December 7, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Except, Jones himself is a big fan of it, which Vivek fired back in Jones’ face with a 2021 video of the race hustler saying “The request from the racial justice left: we want the white majority to go from being a majority to being a minority and like it. That’s a tough request, and change is hard.”
Watch:
Yesterday, Van Jones called me a “demagogue” for discussing the Great Replacement Theory. Well, here are Van’s words in 2021: “The request from the racial justice left: we want the white majority to go from being a majority to being a minority and like it. That’s a tough request,… pic.twitter.com/yPRvJ2VCUa
— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) December 8, 2023
The replies were priceless…
New York Times also covered this though. Are they also demagogues? https://t.co/eo5ioj7jaI
— The Rabbit Hole (@TheRabbitHole84) December 8, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Typical left wing tactic: It’s not happening, but it’s good that it is happening, which it isn’t.
— Simon Isturiz (@Simon_Isturiz) December 8, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Hey @VanJones68, you hypocritical sycophant. When are you going to issue your retraction for accusing Vivek of saying what you yourself said? Oh wait, you won’t. Because the racial justice left never ever admits it’s many, many faults and mistakes. You are a gaslighter…
— Drew (@304to956) December 8, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The real reason why Van Jones was shaking is because Vivek was speaking TRUTH. pic.twitter.com/BadRZIi9Ke
— Briana V. Whatley (@briana_whatley) December 8, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 18:40 -
- "A Constant State Of Sticker Shock" – Here Is Proof That Inflation In The US Is Wildly Out Of Control
“A Constant State Of Sticker Shock” – Here Is Proof That Inflation In The US Is Wildly Out Of Control
Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,
Do you believe the politicians in Washington or do you believe your own eyes?
The politicians keep telling us that “inflation is low”, but everyone can see that everything sure does cost a lot more than it once did. Our standard of living just keeps going down, and even JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon is admitting that “inflation is hurting people”. But how can inflation be “hurting people” if it is under control? Of course the truth is that it isn’t under control. If the official rate of inflation was still measured using the formula that was in place in 1980, it would be well into double digit territory right now. Prices have been rising much faster than paychecks have, and that is putting an extraordinary amount of financial stress on the more than 60 percent of U.S. adults that currently live paycheck to paycheck.
Vox is a website that leans very far to the left, and even they are complaining about inflation.
In fact, a recent article posted on Vox boldly declared that life in 2023 “means being in a constant state of sticker shock”…
Life in 2023 means being in a constant state of sticker shock.
You walk out of the grocery store feeling like you’re not really sure what happened, but somehow, your normal fare ran you $50 more than you swear it should have. Did Diet Coke always cost that much? Or eggs? Maybe you’ve been putting off buying that new car in the hope prices go back to where they were pre-pandemic, but you’re starting to feel like the wait is awfully long. Or, the morning after a post-work happy hour, you’re left scratching your head. You swear you had two glasses of wine, but the size of your credit card receipt makes you wonder if it wasn’t four. “How expensive everything is today” is a top theme of conversation. The whole situation can be infuriating.
I don’t care for Vox much, but those two paragraphs are quite accurate.
Prices have reached absurd heights, and most of us really are “in a constant state of sticker shock” these days.
And the cold, hard numbers back this up.
According to a report from Republican members of the U.S. Senate Joint Economic Committee, the typical household in this country “must spend an additional $11,434 annually” in order to have the same standard of living that it did when Joe Biden entered the White House…
The typical American household must spend an additional $11,434 annually just to maintain the same standard of living they enjoyed in January of 2021, right before inflation soared to 40-year highs, according to a recent analysis of government data.
So let me ask you a question.
Has your household income gone up by $11,434 a year since January 2021?
If you are like most Americans, your income has barely moved.
As I discussed last week, half of all American workers made less than $40,847.18 last year.
If you are one of those workers, life is not easy in 2023.
Even really basic things just cost so much at this point. For example, a Big Mac value meal will now set you back 18 dollars in some parts of the country…
A Big Mac burger, a medium beverage, and a medium fry meal now costs 18 dollars in some locations, up $10 from 2018 when former President Donald Trump was president.
Visiting McDonald’s has become something that only wealthy people can afford to do on a regular basis.
Of course it isn’t just fast food that has become painfully expensive…
-
A pound of ground beef now costs $5.23 on average, up from $3.89 in January 2020.
-
Coffee is up some $2 a pound. Prices for fresh fruits and vegetables are nearly 14% higher.
-
At one point, the price of a carton of eggs was triple its pre-pandemic price.
When I was growing up, my mother would feed us ground beef all the time.
Now it is considered to be a luxury item.
Let me give you another example of how inflation is killing us financially.
The cost of auto insurance and the cost of home insurance are both going through the roof…
The skyrocketing cost of auto and home insurance is increasingly weighing on cash-strapped Americans.
In 2022, the average price of both types of insurance saw its biggest spike in more than five years.
And this year rates are projected to grow by an even greater amount, according to analysis from S&P Global Market Intelligence. Within the first seven months, both had already jumped by double-digit amounts.
When you combine both expenses, the average American household is now spending over $3,700 a year…
According to the latest analysis from Forbes Advisor, the average cost of home insurance is $1,582 a year for a policy with $350,000 coverage. And typical motorist pays $2,150 a year for full coverage car insurance.
That means on car and home insurance alone a household can expect to spend more than $3,700 a year.
How can anyone afford that?
And don’t get me started on health insurance.
Our system is so broken that only those with lots of money can afford a decent health insurance policy that actually has adequate coverage.
Needless to say, Joe Biden doesn’t want to take the blame for any of this. Last week, he was accusing large corporations of “price gouging”…
President Joe Biden delivered remarks from the White House on Monday to announce the new council’s creation. He touted the lower inflation rate and falling grocery prices but admonished American companies for, in his view, not going far enough.
“Let me be clear: To any corporation that has not brought their prices back down—even as inflation has come down, even as supply chains have been rebuilt—it’s time to stop the price gouging,” Biden warned, imploring them to “giv[e] the American consumer a break.”
Seriously?
Other liberals are actually blaming you for inflation…
People hate inflation, just not enough to spend less: This is one of the central tensions of today’s economy, in which things are going great yet everyone is miserable. And in some ways, Americans have nobody to blame but themselves.
No matter how high prices go, most of us still have to pay the bills and put food on the table.
So there is only so much that we can “cut back” on our spending.
However, one recent survey did find that approximately a quarter of the U.S. population has been engaged in “doom spending”…
Nearly all Americans, 96%, are concerned about the current state of the economy, according to a recent report by Intuit Credit Karma.
Still, more than a quarter are “doom spending,” or spending money despite economic and geopolitical concerns, the report found.
A lot of people figure that if everything is about to fall apart they may as well enjoy things while they still can.
But I think that a much wiser approach would be to use the resources that you have to get prepared for the tremendous chaos that is ahead of us.
Economic conditions are going to get a whole lot rougher from here.
So enjoy these relatively stable times while you still can, because they will not last indefinitely…
* * *
Michael’s new book entitled “Chaos” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can check out his new Substack newsletter right here.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 18:20 -
- US Mulls Military Action Against Houthis After Officials Angered At Lack Of Response
US Mulls Military Action Against Houthis After Officials Angered At Lack Of Response
The US says it is in talks with regional allies to establish a joint naval task force to protect commercial vessels traversing the Red Sea, following several attacks on commercial ships and even the hijacking of one Israeli-linked ship.
The White House has said it’s in “active conversations” with allies about setting up such escorts. “We are in talks with other countries about a maritime task force of sorts involving the ships from partner nations alongside the United States in ensuring safe passage,” US national security advisor Jake Sullivan said earlier this week.
Via AFP The US position is that even though Houthi rebels out of Yemen had “their finger on the trigger” – also after declaring war on Israel – it remains that the Shia Muslim group’s Iranian sponsors are ultimately responsible.
By the end of the week, fresh Bloomberg reporting confirmed the following on Friday:
The US has been consulting with Gulf allies about potential military action against Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels in response to their increasingly brazen attacks on ships in the Red Sea, according to several people with knowledge of the discussions.
The talks are at a preliminary stage and both the US and partners still favor diplomacy over direct confrontation, said the people, who asked not to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. That said, the fact the discussions are taking place at all underscores how seriously the US takes the threat, the people added.
This follows several Pentagon officials complaining to US media outlets over the lack of response from President Biden over the increased attacks from the Houthis.
Defense leaders are said to be “frustrated” and handcuffed by US political leadership’s lack of action at a moment US warships are under direct threat in the region. Politico described the growing anger and pushback from the Pentagon this week as follows:
Senior Biden administration officials agree that striking Houthis in Yemen is the wrong course of action for now, per three U.S. officials, even though some military officers have proposed more forceful responses to the militants’ attacks in the Red Sea.
There’s high-level consensus within the administration that it does not make sense for the U.S. military to respond directly to the Houthis, the officials said. Although the missile and drone attacks on three civilian vessels on Sunday drew a U.S. Navy warship into an hours-long firefight, U.S. intelligence officials have not determined that the warship was the target.
The Biden White House has further been accused of “downplaying” the threat:
Some current and former military officials were frustrated by the administration’s initial response to the Houthis’ Sunday attacks on the ships. The Houthis launched four drone and missile attacks on three ships; the destroyer USS Carney, responding to the distress calls, shot down three drones in its vicinity. Those current and former officials say the Iran-backed group’s increasingly aggressive behavior poses a significant risk to American forces in the region, and took issue with the administration’s public statements on Monday, which they say downplayed that threat.
Via BBC The dissenters worry that lack of meaningful response could only embolden Iran-backed forces in the region, which also includes militia groups across Syria and Iraq, where Americans have also been coming under fire.
All of this serves to highlight that positioning Americans in the region – which includes the now years long occupation of Syria to put pressure on Assad – leaves troops incredibly vulnerable. Indeed Iran might see them as ‘easy targets’ – and with little to no strategic advance for Washington whatsoever.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 18:00 - Elon Musk Appeals SEC Case To US Supreme Court, Alleges Violation Of Free Speech Rights
Elon Musk Appeals SEC Case To US Supreme Court, Alleges Violation Of Free Speech Rights
Authored by Gary Bai via The Epoch Times,
Elon Musk asked the U.S. Supreme Court to undo a part of a deal he made with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that required vetting of his online posts, alleging that the deal violates his free speech rights, Mr. Musk’s lawyer, Ellyde Thompson, confirmed with The Epoch Times on Thursday.
The billionaire businessman asked the high court in a Dec. 7 petition to hear his appeal of a lower court’s decision in May that upheld a 2018 consent decree that he negotiated with the SEC, escalating a years-long feud between the industrialist and the powerful regulatory agency to the nation’s highest court.
The consent decree resulted from settlement negotiations of a 2018 lawsuit brought by the federal agency against Mr. Musk, which alleged that Mr. Musk made “false and misleading” statements to investors when he posted on Twitter (now X) in August of that year that he had “funding secured” to take private his electric car company, Tesla.
The terms of the consent decree, to which Mr. Musk agreed, stipulate that Mr. Musk steps down as the then-chairman of Tesla; Mr. Musk and Tesla each pay a civil penalty of $20 million; and that Mr. Musk obtain pre-approval from a securities lawyer before publishing written statements about Tesla or its shareholders.
In February 2019, the SEC alleged that Mr. Musk violated that deal when he posted on Twitter, “Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019,” and sought contempt sanctions, which included fines and potential imprisonment.
After a few court proceedings, the two parties resolved the contempt sanctions, but Mr. Musk sought to quash the SEC’s consent decree, arguing that the SEC had exploited the decree to “punish protected speech” because Mr. Musk is an “outspoken and much-followed critic of the government generally, and the SEC specifically.”
A Manhattan-based federal district court and later a federal appeals court both ruled in favor of the SEC, on the rationale that Mr. Musk could not revisit the speech-vetting deal because he previously agreed to the deal in the settlement with the SEC.
“Parties entering into consent decrees may voluntarily waive their First Amendment and other rights,” wrote a three-judge panel in the Manhattan-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in an August decision. “Had Musk wished to preserve his right to tweet without even limited internal oversight concerning certain Tesla-related topics, he had ‘the right to litigate and defend against the [SEC’s] charges’ or to negotiate a different agreement—but he chose not to do so.”
Mr. Musk’s Thursday filing takes issue with this point of law, contending that despite having agreed to the consent decree after negotiations with the SEC, the agency had no right to impose, as a condition of settling, a “gag rule” that they contend violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment constraints on governmental limits on free speech.
The petition asks the court to rule that “government settlements are not immune from constitutional scrutiny,” a decision Mr. Musk’s lawyer says would benefit “the hundreds of defendants who settle cases with the SEC each year” because they cannot afford to litigate.
The SEC consent decree “restricts Mr. Musk’s speech even when truthful and accurate,” Mr. Musk’s lawyers wrote in the petition to the Supreme Court. “It extends to speech not covered by the securities laws and with no relation to the conduct underlying the SEC’s civil action against Mr. Musk. And it chills Mr. Musk’s speech through the never-ending threat of contempt, fines, or even imprisonment for otherwise protected speech if not pre-approved to the SEC’s or a court’s satisfaction.”
The district and appeal courts’ ruling “squarely conflicts” with past U.S. Supreme Court decisions,” they added, “and it vests administrative agencies with intolerable power to coerce private parties into relinquishing their constitutional rights.”
Four of nine U.S. Supreme Court justices would need to agree to hear the case for it to advance to oral arguments.
Separately, the New Orleans-based Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to reconsider its March decision that Musk violated federal labor law by posting on Twitter in May 2018 that Tesla employees would lose stock options if they joined a union. The Fifth Circuit is set to hear arguments in the case in January 2024.
The SEC did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.
Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/08/2023 – 17:40
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
