Seven Arrested After Philadelphia Federal Buildings Defaced With Antifa-Related Graffiti

Seven Arrested After Philadelphia Federal Buildings Defaced With Antifa-Related Graffiti

Seven people were arrested after a group of “about 50 people, all dressed in black” defaced and vandalized several Federal buildings in Center City Philadelphia on New Year’s Eve.

The large group was spotted by officers at the Robert Nix Federal building on the 900 block of Market Street, about 5 blocks away from the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall, where windows had been smashed in, according to ABC Philadelphia

Police witnessed a 25 year old man throwing a brick through windows before fleeing the scene on foot with another 24 year old man and two 23 year old women. They were all eventually arrested and damage to the building was estimated to be about $3,000 – which we’re going to guess that collectively, between the four of them, they don’t have enough money to make good on.

The same group of vandals also left “Antifa-related” graffiti at the Federal Detention Center at 7th and Arch streets, near the Ben Franklin Bridge. 

Later in the evening, three other people were arrested, including a 25 year old man and two women, aged 22 and 26. Officials said the man was carrying what was likely a molotov cocktail and that the group “had more plans” for the evening. The man had a glass jar with a fuse going into a bottle that had “a strong flammable odor”. He also had plastic container with white powder labeled “Fire Starter.”

Philadelphia Police Chief Inspector Mike Cram said: “During a search, they recovered Molotov cocktails and some other devices which have not been identified.”

But our take is that the real crime was a couple of nerds in their 20’s “drawlin” just to impress the women they were with. We’re sure that after the Philadelphia PD lets them out of their holding cells, it’ll be back to Xbox, Cheez-Doodles and Mountain Dew in mom’s basement – while, of course, romanticizing the story about the one day they “fought for freedom” they’ll no doubt be telling for years. 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/02/2021 – 17:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/38XlEyf Tyler Durden

Police Keep Secret List Of Kids With Bad Grades Labelling Them “Potential Criminals”

Police Keep Secret List Of Kids With Bad Grades Labelling Them “Potential Criminals”

Authored by Matt Agorist via The Free Thought Project,

In the ostensible land of the free, we are told that all people are presumed innocent until proven guilty by their peers. To those who’ve been paying attention however, we know that “innocent until proven guilty” is a farce into today’s police state. If you doubt this assertion, you need only look at the data to see that a whopping 74% of people in jails across the country – have not been convicted of a crime. 

While it is true that many of these folks are awaiting trial for crimes they did commit, there are innocent people behind bars for the sole reason that they cannot afford bail. A free country — who claims to protect the rights of citizens — should not be keeping hundreds of thousands of presumed innocent people in cages, yet this is the status quo.

A recent report from the Tampa Bay Times shows just how determined the American police state is to guarantee an assembly line of otherwise entirely innocent people to continue this process. Police in Florida are targeting children in an attempt to label them as criminals at a young age — despite the children being entirely innocent.

The Pasco sheriff’s office has a secret list of students it believes could “fall into a life of crime” based on ridiculous standards like their grades.

By these standards, people like Thomas Edison, one of the most successful inventors in human history, could’ve been labeled a criminal after he was kicked out of school at age 12 for being poor at math and unable to concentrate.

Steven Spielburg, the famous movie producer, may have been labelled a criminal as well after he temporarily dropped out of high school only to return to be put in a “special ed” class.

Kids often make poor choices when they are younger and these choices should never put them on some police watch list or criminal database. This is nothing short of “pre-crime” tactics that ultimately lead to segregation of dystopian societies based on ratings from the state.

Nevertheless, the Pasco Sheriff’s Office uses data from the Pasco County Schools district and the state Department of Children and Families to compile this very list from middle and high schools who they think will turn out to be criminals.

According to the Tampa Bay Times, the sheriff’s office defended the tactics and said its data-sharing practices with the school district goes back 20 years and are intended to keeping school campuses safe. Only a juvenile intelligence analyst and the school resource officers have access to the information, it said.

The department says they use this information to help troubled kids, but the parents of these kids have no idea that police are surveilling their children to potentially label them as future criminals.

“These programs, in conjunction with the School District’s Early Warning System, provides recommendations to community or school based programs or resources, and mentorship to those who have experienced adverse childhood experiences, something academically proven to lead the possibility of increased victimization, mental health concerns and other aspects,” a sheriff’s spokeswoman said.

School officials explained that they didn’t even realize this child surveillance was happening.

School District Superintendent Kurt Browning and the principals of two high schools told the newspaper they were unaware the sheriff’s office was using school data to identify kids who might become criminals.

“We have an agreement with the Sheriff’s Office,” Browning said in a statement. “That relationship has been strengthened in the wake of the tragedy at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018, and that includes processes for a two-way sharing of information that could save lives and result in timely interventions with students who are at risk.”

The program, called the Early Warning System tracks students’ grades, attendance and behavior. If a student was a victim of abuse or witnessed abuse, this increases their chances of police labelling them a criminal.

What qualifies for an “at risk” designation could be anything from getting a “D” on a report card to missing school more than three times in a quarter, according to the program’s manual. Other factors include witnessing domestic violence, having a parent in prison and being the victim of abuse or neglect.

The sheriff’s office then compiles this information — combined with grades and other data sets — and puts it into a system that scores children in 16 categories. The unwitting children are then each assigned a label: On Track, At Risk, Off-Track or Critical.

Hundreds of children are on this list.

The sheriff’s office denies that the list is used to label kids as criminals, and claims it is instead used to identify kids at risk for victimization, truancy, self-harm and substance abuse. As the Times reports, however, future criminal behavior is the only designation on the list and the office had a hard time proving anything else:

But the intelligence manual — an 82-page document that school resource officers and other deputies are required to read — doesn’t mention those other risks. Instead, in five separate places, it describes efforts to pinpoint kids who are likely to become criminals.

The office could not provide any documents instructing school resource officers to interpret the list another way.

The idea of cops spying on children in an effort to predict future criminal behavior is chilling. Thankfully, the Tampa Bay Times’ report has shed some much needed light on the practice.

“Can you imagine having your kid in that county and they might be on a list that says they may become a criminal?’ Linnette Attai, a consultant works with student privacy laws, told the Times. “And you have no way of finding out if they are on that list? This is a district that is sending millions of dollars to the sheriff of Pasco County to target its students as criminals.”

Indeed, this is worse than minority report.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/02/2021 – 16:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/353nOLD Tyler Durden

Edward Glaeser’s “Four Freedoms” Strategy for Revitalizing American Capitalism

Zoning

Harvard economist Edward Glaeser is one of the world’s leading experts on housing, urban development, and economic mobility. In a compelling recent article published in the City Journal, he lays out a “four freedoms” strategy for revitalizing American capitalism by expanding opportunity for the young. It’s a must-read for anyone interested in these issues:

A February 2019 Harris poll found that roughly half of younger Americans would “prefer living in a socialist country.” Millennials may not fully grasp the consequences of the government owning the means of production, but they certainly don’t like how American capitalism is working for them. They have a point. Over the past 40 years, insiders have increasingly captured the American economy—from homeowners opposed to new housing construction near them to incumbent firms that benefit from the overregulation of employment to interest groups that have transformed the federal government into the equivalent of a pension system with a nuclear arsenal. The young are usually outsiders; the bill for the insiders’ triumph has been laid in their laps….

What many young people today don’t realize is that socialism is a machine for empowering insiders. Few insiders have ever been rewarded more assiduously than the nomenklatura of the Soviet Union. Few governments have been as gray—in every sense of the word—as the Brezhnev regime. A vast expansion of the American government, as imagined by today’s Democratic Socialists, would create its own privileged elite….

These days, capitalism’s advocates often focus more on defending the status quo than on promoting outsider opportunity. If capitalism is to win over the young, that must change—and a new freedom agenda can help make that happen. In January 1941, Franklin Roosevelt announced his four freedoms (of speech and worship, from want and fear) that helped frame his objectives for World War II, which the nation would enter before the end of that year. Our contemporary outsiders would benefit from a renewal of four key freedoms: to build, to work, to sell, and to learn. The young need fewer land-use restrictions that make it tough to provide affordable housing in productive areas. They need fewer employment rules that limit their ability to find work, as well as fewer business regulations that suppress entrepreneurial energies. And—even before these other important things—they need new educational options that liberate them from underperforming educational monopolies.

The rest of the article expands on the four freedoms in greater detail. In doing so, Glaeser builds on his earlier pathbreaking work on the harm caused by policies such as exclusionary zoning, which makes it difficult or impossible to build new housing in many , thereby shutting out millions of people (particularly, the young, the poor, and racial minorities), from valuable job opportunities. There is a similar story to be told about occupational licensing restrictions, which similarly protect insiders from competition, lower mobility, and make it difficult for the young and the poor to start new careers.

As Glaeser notes, his critique of public education is reinforced by its awful performance during the coronavirus pandemic, where numerous public schools have been shut down at the behest of politically powerful teachers’ unions long past the point where evidence showed that schools do not pose a significant risk of spreading the disease, even as most private schools have remained open and continued to serve students with little or no added Covid spread, as a result. The obvious difference is one of incentives: private school administrators and teachers only get paid if they provide useful services to students and their families, while their public school counterparts can subsist off of taxpayer dollars even if they provide nothing but grossly inadequate “virtual” education.

Besides expanding opportunity for the young, the common theme between Glaeser’s proposed reforms is that they all empower people to “vote with their feet” rather than remain hostage to the decisions of government officials, interest groups, and political majorities. Under Glaeser’s “four freedoms” approach, many more people would be able to choose housing, job, and educational opportunities for themselves, regardless of regulatory dictates and majority public opinion. In this respect, his view is highly congruent with what I advocate in my recent book on foot voting, Free to Move. And I in fact owe a considerable debt to Glaeser’s earlier work on these issues, particularly zoning.

I do disagree with Glaeser on a few of the points in his article. I fear he relies too much on an implicit model of politics where most voters are motivated by promoting their own narrow economic self-interest. Thus, he argues that young people have become more sympathetic to socialism because they think it will enable their own economic advancement, while the elderly and suburbanites have voted for policies that harm the young primarily because they benefit the old. In reality, extensive social science evidence suggests that there is only a weak connection between most voters’ views and narrow economic self-interest. I summarize some of the relevant data in my book Democracy and Political Ignorance, and here is an earlier review by Bryan Caplan.

This is also true of many of the programs Glaeser criticizes for benefiting the elderly at the expense of the young. For example, public support for Social Security and Medicare differs very little by age. Similarly, it is far from clear that support for policies like occupational licensing and exclusionary zoning is correlated with age or other indicators of self-interest. It is likely that the persistence of these policies is due more to voter ignorance about their effects, than to self-interested calculations.

More generally, I think Glaeser somewhat overestimates the role of selfish voters and nefarious insiders in promoting dysfunctional policies in these areas, and understates the role of well-meaning but often ignorant voters and activists. Ironically, Glaeser has previously coauthored important work on how political divisions in the United States are often due to cultural and religious conflicts, rather than economic self-interest.

In his warnings about the dangers of millenial sympathy for socialism, Glaeser similarly  overemphasizes the role of insider favoritism for elites as a downside of socialist policies, and understates the much greater risks of total or near-total government control of the economy, such as large-scale poverty, oppression, and mass murder. Currently fashionable “democratic socialism” poses many of the same dangers as earlier explicitly authoritarian versions.

Public ignorance may make it more difficult to enact many of Glaeser’s preferred reforms. But success in such efforts is far from impossible, as shown by the recent successes of efforts to combat exclusionary zoning and reform occupational licensing, in several states.

The cultural and religious dimensions of current political conflict also suggest that Glaeser’s “four freedoms” may not dissipate millenial sympathy for socialism as much as he hopes. That said, it is hard to deny that economic stagnation contributes to sympathy for socialism on the left and statist nationalism on the right. Expanding opportunity and economic growth could help curb both of these dangerous trends.

More importantly, Glaeser’s reforms are worth pursuing because they are right, whether or not they will also have beneficial effects on public opinion. Expanding freedom and opportunity for the young and the poor is a vital moral imperative. And a more dynamic and open economy will also provide important benefits for many who are neither young nor poor themselves—including those of us who want to see greater opportunity for our children.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3b6tto7
via IFTTT

Edward Glaeser’s “Four Freedoms” Strategy for Revitalizing American Capitalism

Zoning

Harvard economist Edward Glaeser is one of the world’s leading experts on housing, urban development, and economic mobility. In a compelling recent article published in the City Journal, he lays out a “four freedoms” strategy for revitalizing American capitalism by expanding opportunity for the young. It’s a must-read for anyone interested in these issues:

A February 2019 Harris poll found that roughly half of younger Americans would “prefer living in a socialist country.” Millennials may not fully grasp the consequences of the government owning the means of production, but they certainly don’t like how American capitalism is working for them. They have a point. Over the past 40 years, insiders have increasingly captured the American economy—from homeowners opposed to new housing construction near them to incumbent firms that benefit from the overregulation of employment to interest groups that have transformed the federal government into the equivalent of a pension system with a nuclear arsenal. The young are usually outsiders; the bill for the insiders’ triumph has been laid in their laps….

What many young people today don’t realize is that socialism is a machine for empowering insiders. Few insiders have ever been rewarded more assiduously than the nomenklatura of the Soviet Union. Few governments have been as gray—in every sense of the word—as the Brezhnev regime. A vast expansion of the American government, as imagined by today’s Democratic Socialists, would create its own privileged elite….

These days, capitalism’s advocates often focus more on defending the status quo than on promoting outsider opportunity. If capitalism is to win over the young, that must change—and a new freedom agenda can help make that happen. In January 1941, Franklin Roosevelt announced his four freedoms (of speech and worship, from want and fear) that helped frame his objectives for World War II, which the nation would enter before the end of that year. Our contemporary outsiders would benefit from a renewal of four key freedoms: to build, to work, to sell, and to learn. The young need fewer land-use restrictions that make it tough to provide affordable housing in productive areas. They need fewer employment rules that limit their ability to find work, as well as fewer business regulations that suppress entrepreneurial energies. And—even before these other important things—they need new educational options that liberate them from underperforming educational monopolies.

The rest of the article expands on the four freedoms in greater detail. In doing so, Glaeser builds on his earlier pathbreaking work on the harm caused by policies such as exclusionary zoning, which makes it difficult or impossible to build new housing in many , thereby shutting out millions of people (particularly, the young, the poor, and racial minorities), from valuable job opportunities. There is a similar story to be told about occupational licensing restrictions, which similarly protect insiders from competition, lower mobility, and make it difficult for the young and the poor to start new careers.

As Glaeser notes, his critique of public education is reinforced by its awful performance during the coronavirus pandemic, where numerous public schools have been shut down at the behest of politically powerful teachers’ unions long past the point where evidence showed that schools do not pose a significant risk of spreading the disease, even as most private schools have remained open and continued to serve students with little or no added Covid spread, as a result. The obvious difference is one of incentives: private school administrators and teachers only get paid if they provide useful services to students and their families, while their public school counterparts can subsist off of taxpayer dollars even if they provide nothing but grossly inadequate “virtual” education.

Besides expanding opportunity for the young, the common theme between Glaeser’s proposed reforms is that they all empower people to “vote with their feet” rather than remain hostage to the decisions of government officials, interest groups, and political majorities. Under Glaeser’s “four freedoms” approach, many more people would be able to choose housing, job, and educational opportunities for themselves, regardless of regulatory dictates and majority public opinion. In this respect, his view is highly congruent with what I advocate in my recent book on foot voting, Free to Move. And I in fact owe a considerable debt to Glaeser’s earlier work on these issues, particularly zoning.

I do disagree with Glaeser on a few of the points in his article. I fear he relies too much on an implicit model of politics where most voters are motivated by promoting their own narrow economic self-interest. Thus, he argues that young people have become more sympathetic to socialism because they think it will enable their own economic advancement, while the elderly and suburbanites have voted for policies that harm the young primarily because they benefit the old. In reality, extensive social science evidence suggests that there is only a weak connection between most voters’ views and narrow economic self-interest. I summarize some of the relevant data in my book Democracy and Political Ignorance, and here is an earlier review by Bryan Caplan.

This is also true of many of the programs Glaeser criticizes for benefiting the elderly at the expense of the young. For example, public support for Social Security and Medicare differs very little by age. Similarly, it is far from clear that support for policies like occupational licensing and exclusionary zoning is correlated with age or other indicators of self-interest. It is likely that the persistence of these policies is due more to voter ignorance about their effects, than to self-interested calculations.

More generally, I think Glaeser somewhat overestimates the role of selfish voters and nefarious insiders in promoting dysfunctional policies in these areas, and understates the role of well-meaning but often ignorant voters and activists. Ironically, Glaeser has previously coauthored important work on how political divisions in the United States are often due to cultural and religious conflicts, rather than economic self-interest.

In his warnings about the dangers of millenial sympathy for socialism, Glaeser similarly  overemphasizes the role of insider favoritism for elites as a downside of socialist policies, and understates the much greater risks of total or near-total government control of the economy, such as large-scale poverty, oppression, and mass murder. Currently fashionable “democratic socialism” poses many of the same dangers as earlier explicitly authoritarian versions.

Public ignorance may make it more difficult to enact many of Glaeser’s preferred reforms. But success in such efforts is far from impossible, as shown by the recent successes of efforts to combat exclusionary zoning and reform occupational licensing, in several states.

The cultural and religious dimensions of current political conflict also suggest that Glaeser’s “four freedoms” may not dissipate millenial sympathy for socialism as much as he hopes. That said, it is hard to deny that economic stagnation contributes to sympathy for socialism on the left and statist nationalism on the right. Expanding opportunity and economic growth could help curb both of these dangerous trends.

More importantly, Glaeser’s reforms are worth pursuing because they are right, whether or not they will also have beneficial effects on public opinion. Expanding freedom and opportunity for the young and the poor is a vital moral imperative. And a more dynamic and open economy will also provide important benefits for many who are neither young nor poor themselves—including those of us who want to see greater opportunity for our children.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3b6tto7
via IFTTT

Iran’s President Rouhani Accused Of Threatening Trump With Assassination

Iran’s President Rouhani Accused Of Threatening Trump With Assassination

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani is being accused of threatening President Trump with assassination in a speech he gave this past week ahead of the one-year anniversary of the killing of popular Iranian General Qassem Soleimani on Jan. 3rd, 2020 in Baghdad.

It all appears to be based on a mistranslation from the Farsi of Rouhani’s words while he addressed a cabinet session on Wednesday. In a widely shared article The Washington Times quoted the Iranian president as saying, “Trump will soon be dead.” The report claimed that this was a clear death threat, also given Rouhani made a comparison to the Saddam Hussein’s demise. 

But Iran’s leaders are now slamming this as but more “anti-Iran bigotry” designed to escalate tensions as a pretext for preemptive military action against the Islamic Republic. Tehran has called The Washington Times report a deliberate mistranslation based in “fake news”. 

“Cowardice in assassinating foreign leaders is a US-Israeli trademark; NOT Iranian,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzade tweeted Friday evening, strenuously denying all accusations of an Iranian plot to target the US president. 

“@WashTimes should know better than to publish #FakeNews & spread anti-Iran bigotry -even though it has featured PAID content by the outlaw MeK terrorist cult,” the Foreign Ministry spokesman added. “Your readers deserve better!”

This “misunderstanding” comes after past weeks of Iran’s civilian and military leadership vowing future “vengeance” for the assassination of Gen. Soleimani, who headed the elite Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). 

Here’s how Iranian media presented (presumably correctly) Rouhani’s words translated into English

Addressing a cabinet session on Wednesday, Rouhani said: “I said it once, and I repeat it, Trump was like Saddam. Saddam imposed eight years of war against us and he was overthrown, and Trump imposed three years of economic war against us and he will be overthrown in the next few weeks, not just from office but from [political] life.”

“One of the effects of the stupid and disgraceful act of assassinating Martyr Soleimani was that Trumpism ended, and in a few days, this murder’s mandate is drawing to an end and he will go down into the dustbin of history,” Rouhani added.

This isn’t the first time that a mistranslation of the words of Iran’s leadership had led to increased tensions. 

In a 2005 speech then President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad famously declared Iran’s goal was to “wipe Israel off the map”. However, this has since been subject of fierce debate and was largely debunked

Arash Norouzi of the Mossadegh Project noted in 2007 that Ahmadinejad “never… uttered the words ‘map,’ ‘wipe out,’ or even ‘Israel'” in his statement.  Rather, he argued, the translation should have been that “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”  (Both The Washington Post and The Atlantic came up with similarly variant translations.)

This is a key difference, Mr. Norouzi argued, because Ahmadinejad used the “vanish from the page of time” idiom elsewhere in his speech: when describing the governments of the Shah of Iran, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein.  While war and revolution were involved in the three regimes’ collapse, none of them, Norouzi argued, were “wiped off the map.”  Rather, they underwent regime change.  This suggests in turn, he said, that Ahmadinejad was calling for regime change in Israel, not nuclear genocide.  Juan Cole, another critic of the speech’s translation, compared Ahmadinejad’s statement to Reagan-era calls for the end of the Soviet Union.

Critics of the mistranslation also point out the former president had been referencing Zionism as a political movement as well.

The “wipe Israel of the map” words have been used endlessly by hawks arguing for preemptive action against Iran to prevent their achieving nuclear weapons capabilities. 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/02/2021 – 16:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3rLFVQb Tyler Durden

Fauci Says Mandatory COVID Vaccines Are “On The Table”, Especially For Travel, School

Fauci Says Mandatory COVID Vaccines Are “On The Table”, Especially For Travel, School

Anthony Fauci is being broadly slammed after admitting to the New York Times that he publicly lowballed his estimate of the Covid-19 herd immunity threshold, but, as Holman Jenkins writes in WSJ, it’s ludicrously late in the day to discover that “messaging” has been going on.

Official lying about things large and small has been a staple of COVID politics: the letters to college students threatening them with arrest if they don’t quarantine, the interstate travel “bans” that were never enforced, the death counts that swept up anybody who died of any cause while infected with COVID.

Only lately has this reality snuck into public rhetoric as leaders in New York, Massachusetts and elsewhere started admitting that their moves are more about “signaling” than any practical effect.

And now, as The Western Journal’s Kipp Jones reports, Fauci is perhaps up to his “signaling” best once again, saying in an interview that the COVID-19 vaccines becoming mandatory in some cases is “on the table” with regard to international travel, or even in some localities to allow a return to in-person learning at schools.

Speaking to Newsweek in an interview that was published on Friday, the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases spoke on the potential for so-called immunity passports, stating, “Anything is on the table. Anything is possible, of course.”

Fauci, who presumed president-elect Joe Biden announced last month would serve as the chief medical adviser in a Biden administration, Forbes reported, signaled he would help to form policy for which cases vaccines might become mandatory. But he doesn’t foresee the federal government mandating the vaccines broadly.

“It’s not up to me to make a decision. But these are all things that will be discussed [under the Biden administration],” he told Newsweek.

Fauci stated with regard to national health matters “we almost never mandate things federally.”

“I’m not sure [the COVID vaccine is] going to be mandatory from a central government standpoint, like federal government mandates,” he said.

“But there are going to be individual institutions that I’m sure are going to mandate it.”

“For example, influenza and Hepatitis B vaccines are mandated at many hospitals. Here at the NIH [National Institutes of Health], I would not be allowed to see patients if I didn’t get vaccinated every year with flu and get vaccinated once with Hepatitis [B]. I have to get certified every year … if I didn’t, I couldn’t see patients,” he said.

As far as mandatory vaccinations for schools go, Fauci said he foresees those decisions being made “at the state level and city level.”

“A citywide school system might require it in some cities but not other cities. And that’s what I mean by things not being done centrally but locally,” he added.

He also speculated some countries might make proof of a vaccine required prior to travel. Israel, for example, will issue the so-called immunity passports to citizens traveling abroad. Those passports could allow those who have them to avoid COVID testing upon arrival at their destinations.

The U.S. could issue similar immunization passports under a Biden administration and potentially at the recommendation of Fauci.

Also, with regard to confusing information about the vaccines which might require those inoculated to remain socially distant and masked, Fauci said that is because it is not yet known if being vaccinated can prevent people from passing along the coronavirus to others.

“We do not know if the vaccines that prevent clinical disease also prevent infection. They very well might, but we have not proven that yet,” he told Newsweek.

“That’s the reason why I keep saying that even though you get vaccinated, we should not eliminate, at all, public health measures like wearing masks because we don’t know yet what the effect [of the vaccine] is on transmissibility.”

On the subject of the unknowns about both the coronavirus and now the vaccine, Fauci said “We don’t know what we don’t know.”

A day before his Newsweek interview, Fauci predicted a return to “normality” by the fall of this year during an interview on MSNBC.

“If we do it correctly, hopefully, as we get into the end of the summer, the beginning of the fall of 2021, we can start to approach some degree of normality,” he said.

However, we return to Jenkins’ WSJ op-ed for the reality of a return to normality. At year-end, pundits everywhere sermonized over the lessons of the pandemic: the need to change our relationship with nature, the need for more disease surveillance, etc.

Most of it won’t matter in the least when natural selection throws up another disease with the properties of Covid-19. The virus wasn’t just transmitted easily; crucially, its effects were mild enough that for billions of humans the cost of quashing it outweighed the personal benefit.

This rock-bottom truth our uninsightful media spent much of 2020 trying not to understand. Worse, it tried to make this truth go away by frightening or morally bullying people into behaviors at odds with perceived self-interest.

This proved to be the dead end it usually does. We need to smarten up. Limited social distancing to protect the most vulnerable is the only kind likely to prove sustainable over time.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/02/2021 – 15:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/387LCQv Tyler Durden

Portland Mayor Turns On Antifa, Vows To Battle ‘Lawlessness And Anarchy’

Portland Mayor Turns On Antifa, Vows To Battle ‘Lawlessness And Anarchy’

In July, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler thought he was in control. As BLM protests raged across the country in response to the death of George Floyd, a black man who died while in police custody in late May, Wheeler decided to mingle with protesters – a mix of BLM activists and Antifa.

Yet, instead of a rockstar crowd-surfing moment or whatever fantasy he envisioned, Wheeler was mocked as he gagged on tear gas, until he was forced to flee.

Two weeks later, Wheeler had changed his tone – calling protesters who attempted to burn down a police station with people inside “attempted murderers,” as the city saw its most violent month in decadeswhich came after the Portland City Council slashed the police budget as part of an early July push to defund the police. The move forced the city to make drastic cuts to its Gun Violence Reduction Team as lawless anarchists destroyed property throughout the city.

The loss “forced us into a position where we have to really look at what resources we can bring to bear, absent that structure that we had with the Gun Violence Reduction Team,” said Police Chief Chuck Lovell in August.

In December, Portland police were attacked in broad daylight after Antifa erected a new ‘autonomous zone.’ Police were seen being struck by fists, fists, and even bricks hurled through the air “in broad daylight,” as the AP described further that “The violence happened in broad daylight.”

Now, (and with the 2020 election in the rearview mirror) Wheeler has had enough in the wake of a New Year’s Eve riot.

In a New Year’s press conference, the Portland Mayor admits that efforts to compromise with Antifa have failed, and he’s now committing to pushing back – with his limited police force.

My good faith efforts at de-escalation have been met with ongoing violence, and even scorn, from radical Antifa and anarchists,” said Wheeler.

“It will be necessary to use additional tools, and to push the limits of the tools we already have, to bring the criminal destruction and violence to an end,” he added. “Lawlessness and anarchy come at great expense, and with great risk to the future of our community. It’s time to push back harder against those who are set on destroying our community, and to take more risks in fighting lawlessness.”

“I condemn anyone who engages in violence or criminal destruction no matter what their ideology.”

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/02/2021 – 15:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3hCSR6n Tyler Durden

Facebook Shuts Down Page For GOP Senate Campaigns Just Before Georgia Runoffs

Facebook Shuts Down Page For GOP Senate Campaigns Just Before Georgia Runoffs

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Facebook shut down a fundraising page for Sens. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) just days before voters head to the polls to decide between the Republicans and their Democratic challengers.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) runs the Georgia Battleground Fund, a joint fundraising committee for the NRSC and the campaigns for Loeffler and Perdue.

According to a screenshot from the committee, Facebook alerted them that the page for the fund was disabled “for policy violation.”

The page allegedly violated a policy against unacceptable business practices.

“We don’t allow ads that promote products, services, schemes, or offers using deceptive or misleading practices, including those meant to mislead or scam people out of money or personal information,” the alert said.

“Big Tech is at it again,” the NRSC said in a statement.

“This is unacceptable with only four days to Election Day.”

A Facebook spokesperson told news outlets that what happened was a mistake.

“An automated error caused this ad account to be disabled,” the spokesperson said.

“The account has since been restored.”

The Jan. 5 runoff elections could determine which party controls the Senate.

Republicans hold a 50-48 edge in the upper chamber in the next Congress. If Democrats win both runoffs and the White House, they’d control the Senate by virtue of the tiebreaking vote the vice president, acting as the president of the Senate, can cast.

Democrats maintained a majority in the House of Representatives, though their edge got slimmer.

Loeffler is being challenged by pastor Raphael Warnock while Perdue is facing filmmaker Jon Ossoff.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/02/2021 – 14:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/353jOLs Tyler Durden

100s Of Israelis Infected With COVID After Receiving Pfizer Vaccine Amid Frenzied Inoculation Campaign

100s Of Israelis Infected With COVID After Receiving Pfizer Vaccine Amid Frenzied Inoculation Campaign

In a world where the rollout of covid vaccines has been far slower than the so-called experts predicted – which is bizarre considering the plunge in public faith in the “covid scientist” sector amid the surge in horror stories involving adverse side-effects from both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, to which the mainstream media has finally caught on as detailed in “As COVID-19 vaccines come online, fewer Americans want to take them” – the same mainstream media has been fawning over those counties which have steamrolled through popular skepticism and opposition with authoritarian ruthlessness to unleash widespread vaccination campaigns, praising them as model nations for everyone to follow. Countries like Israel.

Case in point: in its top charts of 2020, none other than Goldman was quick to demonstrate Israel – where over 1 million people or 12% of the population has already been vaccinated – as the sole “successful” outlier in rapid vaccine rollout, and proof that “logistical issues” surrounding vaccinations can be “resolved given Israel’s rapid rollout.”

The New York Times rushed to congratulate Israel, explaining “How Israel became a world leader in vaccinating against COVID-19”  in which it wrote that…

More than 10% of Israel’s population has received a first dose of a coronavirus vaccine, a rate that has far outstripped the rest of the world and buoyed the battered domestic image of the country’s leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, at a critical juncture.

Israel’s campaign, which began Dec. 20, has distributed the vaccine to three times as much of its population as the second-fastest nation, the tiny Persian Gulf kingdom of Bahrain, according to figures compiled mostly from local government sources by Our World in Data.

By contrast, less than 1% of the population of the United States and only small fractions of the population in many European countries received a vaccine dose by the end of 2020, according to Our World in Data, though China, the United States and Britain have each distributed more doses overall.

In short: Israeal great and shining example of how to force millions to get injected with some mRNA, while the US (and orange man of course) bad.

Which would be fantastic, if only it wasn’t for the ideologically-mandated and rushed conclusion, which is laughable at best and potentially lethal at worst because just as Israel has been scrambling to get everyone vaccinated with substances whose side effects are still very much unknown, the Times of Israel reported that over two hundred Israeli citizens have been diagnosed with the disease days after getting the Pfizer/BioNTech shots. The number of those who got Covid-19 despite being vaccinated was at around 240 people, according to data from the Times of Israel

According to the official explanation provided by the Israeli media, while the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine doesn’t contain the coronavirus and can’t infect the recipient, time is needed for the genetic code in the drug to train the immune system to recognize and attack the disease. The course of the US-made vaccine requires two shots. According to the studies, immunity to Covid-19 increases only eight to ten days after the first injection and eventually reaches 50 percent. The second shot is administered 21 days from the first one, while the declared immunity of 95 percent is achieved only a week after that. And, of course, there’s still a five percent chance of getting infected even if the vaccine is at its full potential.

This is why the second dose of the vaccine, given 21 days after the first, is critical: It strengthens the immune system’s response to the virus, bringing it to 95% effectiveness and ensuring that immunity lasts. This level of immunity is only reached about a week after the second dose — or 28 days after the first.

In other words, anyone who is infected a few days before getting the vaccine’s first dose or in the weeks before full effectiveness is reached is still in danger of developing symptoms. (Even when the vaccine reaches its top potential, there remains a 5% chance of this.)  It wasn’t immediately clear what other symptoms those receiving the rushed vaccine shots may have demonstrated.

For those wondering how Israel has been able to mount such a rapid and aggressive vaccination campaign, the Times of Israel explains that the country’s “heavily digitized, community-based health system — all citizens, by law, must register with one of the country’s four HMOs — and its centralized government have proved adept at orchestrating a national inoculation campaign, according to Israeli health experts.”

With a population of 9 million, Israel’s relatively small size has played a role as well, said Balicer, who is also the chief innovation officer for Clalit, the largest of the country’s four HMOs.

An aggressive procurement effort helped set the stage.

The health minister, Yuli Edelstein, said in an interview Friday that Israel had entered into negotiations with drugmakers as an “early bird,” and that the companies were interested in supplying Israel because of its HMOs’ reputation for efficiency and gathering reliable data.

“We are leading the world race thanks to our early preparations,” he said.

True, meanwhile the world is also looking at Israel with great interest due to the country’s decision to make itself a gunniea pig for the rest of the world in the most rapid administration of vaccines which have been developed in record time and have never been used before. Meanwhile, since vaccinations kicked off on December 20, at least four people in Israel died shortly after getting the short, Kan public broadcaster reported. However, the Health Ministry said that three fatalities were unrelated to the vaccine, with the fourth case of an 88-year-old man with preexisting conditions currently being investigated.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/02/2021 – 14:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3846HLM Tyler Durden

David Stockman On Janet Yellen’s Return & The Financial Storm Ahead…

David Stockman On Janet Yellen’s Return & The Financial Storm Ahead…

Authored by David Stockman via InternationalMan.com,

Janet Yellen is back.

Naturally, the follies of Keynesian central banking come to mind.

In many ways, Yellen’s tenure as Fed chairman was far worse than Ben Bernanke’s. At least Bernanke’s money-printing madness was undergirded by his credentials as a misguided scholar of the Great Depression and the mistaken conclusion that the Wall Street meltdown of September 2008 was the prelude to another such occurrence.

The Great Depression of the 1930s was caused by way too much Fed-fostered foreign borrowing on Wall Street during the roaring twenties. It stimulated an unsustainable boom in US exports—soaring domestic CapEx in order to expand production capacity and a stock bubble–fueled consumer-spending boom in cars, radios and appliances. Therefore, when the Wall Street bubble burst in October 1929, foreign borrowing dried up, US exports and CapEx crashed and spending on consumer durables plummeted.

This was the cause of the massive contraction in 1930–1933, which took the GDP down from $95 billion to $58 billion in dollars of the day. By contrast, it had nothing to do with Milton Friedman’s crashing M-1 (money supply), which was a consequence of unavoidable and necessary bad debt liquidation by the banking system. Nor did it stem from any lack of credit availability to solvent borrowers, as demonstrated by market interest rates that remained ultralow (under 2%) throughout the downturn.

The depression of 1930–1933 wasn’t owing to the stinginess of the Fed, which actually expanded its balance sheet by 72% between August 1929 and early 1933.

Consequently, Bernanke’s maneuver of flooding the zone with fiat credit during 2009–2013 was a mistaken page from Milton Friedman’s counterfactual playbook, which was wrong the day it was written in the early 1960s and even more wrong when Bernanke cut and pasted it into his PhD thesis at MIT in 1979.

By the time Yellen became Fed Chairman in February 2014, however, there was no plausible excuse for keeping Bernanke’s bloated Fed balance sheet in place or continuing to keep interest rates at the zero bound. If there was ever a chance to normalize Bernanke’s misbegotten Depression-fighting policy, it was during the 48 months of Yellen’s term.

Needless to say, Yellen’s Fed did no such thing.

After 45 years of devotion to the 1960s Keynesian bathtub theory of full employment economics, Yellen kept real interest rates buried in negative territory during the entirety of her term, and not just marginally.

The 16% Trimmed Mean CPI increased by an average of 1.90% per annum during that four-year period, while the Fed’s target interest rate averaged just 0.40%.

During the sweet spot of the longest business cycle expansion in history—from month #55 to month #103—when the economy should have been left to expand on its own without “stimulus” from the central banking branch of the state, Yellen kept real money market rates pinned at an unprecedented -150 basis points.

The justification for such economic insanity was the claim that the US economy was not at its full-employment level as measured by the dubious U-3 unemployment rate and that the job of the central bank was to keep injecting “demand” into the economy until the bathtub was full to the brim and 100% of “potential GDP” was attained.

But here’s the thing. Potential GDP and full-employment labor markets are Keynesian malarkey.

In a world in which domestic labor competes with China’s price for goods, India’s price for internet-based services and Mexico’s price for manufactured goods assembly, full employment cannot be measured by the headcount metrics of the BLS, nor can it be achieved by injecting massive amounts of fiat credit into the bank accounts of Wall Street dealers.

In fact, with total outstanding credit now at $81 trillion, or 382% of GDP, the Fed’s liquidity injections never really leave the canyons of Wall Street. The result is increased speculation on Wall Street and accelerating inflation of financial asset prices.

After all, money markets do not finance the working capital or fixed asset investments of business, nor do they fund consumer borrowing for automobiles and durables. Instead, short-term money markets are where Wall Street dealers finance their inventory and where speculators fund their positions in the options markets—or via margin and repo credit against stocks and bonds held outright.

Consequently, negative real interest rates are the mother’s milk of financial speculation and the resulting asset price bubbles.

Yellen’s policies constituted an epic monetary error that has fueled bond- and stock -market bubbles that are off the charts, thereby sending erroneous price signals to Wall Street gamblers, corporate C-suites and spendthrift politicians alike.

Real Cost of Money Market Borrowings, 2014–2018: 16% Trimmed Mean CPI Less Fed Funds Rate

The yawning gap below between the red line, signifying (the running inflation rate) and the blue line (the money market rate) connotes the massive subsidy Yellen’s Fed conferred on speculators and day traders.

In short, Yellen sowed the wind of monetary excess, and now we are reaping the whirlwind of a gargantuan Wall Street bubble that is a clear and present danger to the economic future – because it will crash, and the resulting financial and economic damage will be biblical.

Ironically, Janet Yellen may be sitting in the captain’s chair when the most violent and destructive financial storm in history finally comes ashore. It would serve her right.

*  *  *

The coming economic and political crisis is going to be much worse, much longer, and very different than what we’ve seen in the past. That’s exactly why New York Times bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent new report titled Doug Casey’s Top 7 Predictions for the Raging 2020s. Click here to download the free PDF now.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/02/2021 – 13:50

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/399Nec3 Tyler Durden