Red And Blue States: It’s Time For A Multistate Solution

Red And Blue States: It’s Time For A Multistate Solution

Authored by James Ketler via The Mises Institute,

Far from being a unitive force, powerful, centralized government only serves to pit blocs of the electorate against each other. Division grows in lockstep with the ceaseless expansion of federal power, and the 2020 presidential election was a mere symptom of how heated that division has become. How much worse can it get? That remains to be seen. After Joe Biden’s contested presidential win, the country may have to break apart into multiple independent political units if it is to avert further social disintegration.

Power and Polarization

To win elections, candidates must pander to the lowest common political denominator; i.e., they must promise to expand wide-reaching projects like social security, public healthcare, economic stimulus, and the military. In fact, candidates are incentivized to outpromise one another and when in power to follow through on carrying out at least some of those promises in the interest of reelection. The mass-democratic structure lubricates this process, as costs are distributed across the entire population and thus become more or less “hidden.” That’s led to a constant, creeping growth in government power, behind which Republicans and Democrats almost always form a united front. As Tom Woods says: “No matter who you vote for, you always wind up getting John McCain.” Within that statist unity, however, exist the seeds of electoral division.

Old, widely accepted government programs are used by politicians as a springboard for new, more expansive powers. Consider, for instance, the Green New Deal; it could only have been seriously proposed because of the broad-based support the New Deal programs have today. Each new law, regulation, bureau, and program is like a brick on top of which many others can be laid. Government seldom abrogates any of its power, tending instead towards constantly expanding it. That raises the stakes higher and higher with each successive election, with the winning party taking office with more power than ever before.

Centrally, as vote seekers, candidates must always work to demonize the opposition and distance themselves from them. To safeguard their own interests, voters must factionalize behind one candidate or the other, often coming to develop a deep, politico-cultural affinity with their choice, though they may only be the “lesser of two evils.” This drives a sharp wedge down the center of the political spectrum, pushing both sides further and further apart. As competing ideologies vie for control of the system, smaller and more amicable politico-cultural disputes thus become the faultlines of national fractionation. Many nuanced opinions are pounded into the ground and replaced, instead, by the Republican-Democrat binary. These two sides look at politics with irreconcilable politico-cultural presuppositions, driving each side—as both fight for control of the same system—to hate the other.

Once one party seizes control of the federal apparatus, it tries to solidify support from independents and moderates, while also working to “punish” its political rivals. From the enlightened, liberal principles that originally drove its adoption in the West, democracy has melted and deformed—as it was always inevitably bound to—into an arena of open-faced realpolitik. Both parties seek to win by any means necessary, and the losers must always “accept the results of the election”—that is, have the will of the majority imposed upon them. It’s a system that neither side can consistently accept and that both—for the good of the people—must agree to reject.

America’s Division Crisis

Nearly eight in ten Republican voters agree that this year’s presidential election was rigged against President Trump through the perpetration of widespread voter fraud. Biden’s “win” was, as they see it, a fait accompli—predetermined before the first vote was cast. The legitimacy of the past few elections have been widely contested, moreover, as with, for instance, the Democrats’ accusations of Russian interference in 2016. After years of investigations and hearings, at least, those accusations were proven false, but this time around, further inquiry into the Republicans’ claims of voter fraud have been blocked by the mainstream media and the Washington establishment. With just cause, therefore, Trump loyalists have grasped at every legal recourse they can find in hopes that something will stick. But the bid to overturn the election was, from its inception, a long shot. On January 20, the 74 million Americans who voted for Trump will be forced under the yoke of a Biden presidency, which will only serve to turn up the heat in the country even more.

Nevertheless, Joe Biden has continuously tried to position himself as a moral leader who will “unite” the nation. In his November 7 victory address, he said, “I will govern as an American president. I’ll work as hard for those who didn’t vote for me as those who did.” Does anyone, though, actually believe that? Biden’s politics have differed over the years, but it’s clear that his 2020 agenda is by far further to the left than that of any other president in American history. At his side is Kamala Harris, who was rated the most progressive senator in all of Congress last year. How can anyone pretend to imagine that the next administration will be at all “unifying”? Better yet, how can anyone think any modern presidency will bring America together? Since 2016, the Democratic Party has freely embraced the tenets of socialism and radical progressive politics, while the rise of Trump helped fuel the growth of a new “America First” nationalist populism in the Republican Party. In just the past four years, the two parties have aggressively shifted away from each other and toward their ideological fringes. Moving forward, that split will likely only widen further.

On the campaign trail, Biden identified himself as a “transition candidate” for a deeper, more radical leftism coming down the line. First, the likes of Kamala Harris will take the reins of the country; then, AOC and “the Squad. The Constitution-bashing, history-flipping platform of these soon-to-be party leaders will only exacerbate left-right tensions even further as they deal the coup de grâce to America’s founding principles. On the conservative side, Trump insiders have already pointed to the possibility of the outgoing president staging a comeback campaign in 2024. And if he doesn’t run himself, it’ll be one of his children, or his closest allies in Congress—perhaps Tom Cotton or Matt Gaetz. The “Trump brand” looks like it’s here to stay in the Republican Party, and, if it is, it will continue to focus on carrying out the MAGA agenda. In fact, after four years of Biden, the Trump camp may be more energized than ever before. As the national consciousness continues to fork apart all the more diametrically, friends and neighbors will become—in the affairs of state, at least—ever more bitter enemies, and the dream of a “united” US will fall further out of reach.

With that in mind, we must ask: Why should America be a single country at all? The states have for years already been working to nullify federal legislation on guns, drugs, healthcare, immigration, the environment, and police militarization. Why hold the states together in a union whose diktats they each want to escape? That steady resistance is unlikely to do anything but grow. Last month, after one of Biden’s top covid policy advisors called for a national lockdown, more than a dozen Republican governors expressed their refusal to comply. How much more will it take before states decide to just walk away entirely?

Secession would give states full sovereignty over their own affairs, so that voters could live under policies more friendly and suitable to their own local and regional interests. There would no longer be a system of national politics, through which voters control and domineer others hundreds of miles away. From the very earliest years of the republic, secession was considered a viable possibility. The United States was not considered a single, monolithic blob, as it often is today, but rather a voluntary confederation of free and independent states associated for the preservation of the common good. If the political tides turned and the Union ceased to be beneficial to its constituent parts, each was free to leave it. In 1816, Thomas Jefferson made this clear:

“[I]f any state in the union will declare that it prefers separation….I have no hesitation in saying ‘let us separate.’ I would rather the states should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce & war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace & agriculture.”

Though the public perception of secession has been radically altered since the Civil War, America’s founding principles respect the right of every state to leave the Union. At this point, the states’ reassertion of that right has been long overdue. Secession is now the only way for the millions of tired and fed-up Americans to protect their interests against federal tyranny. Without it, nothing else can prevent the eventual breakdown of the social order, which is looming in the country’s future.

Just this past summer, far-left looters clashed violently with right-wing groups and police in city streets across the nation from Portland to Kenosha. Some of the postelection “Stop the Steal” rallies have themselves led to dangerous confrontations, including stabbings in Washington, DC, and a shooting in Washington State. Indeed, a poll from September revealed that around 20 percent of voters in general would eagerly support the use of violence against their political opponents. Although the pivotal spark may have not yet arrived, the scaffolding for potential civil disaster is already in place. When the last straw breaks, will America spiral into chaos and insurrection, or will cooler heads agree to peaceful separation?

A Secessionist Moment

The idea of secession is, thankfully, neither alien nor farfetched to voters. In fact, widespread calls for secession have already been made in response to recent presidential elections. After Obama’s reelection, the White House’s “We the People” initiative was inundated by petitions from all fifty states to be granted the right of unilateral secession. When Trump was elected, Democrats in Oregon and California organized serious mass secessionist movements that almost led to both states holding referenda on the topic. With each new election, the politico-cultural divide in America grows deeper and a national breakup looks all the more alluring. The impending Biden presidency may be the drop that spills the bucket.

poll from Hofstra University this past September found that 44 percent of Republican respondents were open to the possibility of seceding if Joe Biden was elected. For millions of Trump voters, self-determination is an essential component to preserving their families, finances, and ways of life. Even Rush Limbaugh—the “king of conservative talk radio”—recently pondered whether, without secession, right-wing ideals can ever truly “win” again. If some Republican-majority states managed to leave the Union, that might mean lower taxes, fewer regulations, the repeal of gun laws, a new gold standard, school choice, abortion bans, and a more free healthcare market across the board. As independent states, they may discover that Trumpian politics doesn’t actually represent them after all and instead forge paths more in line with their own local traditions. At last, political diversity would be allowed to emerge and flourish in these smaller, decentralized states, keeping the government more homegrown and orienting politics more toward the interests of the people.

What’s most promising is that a few recent murmurings of secession have actually come from GOP lawmakers. After the election, Price Wallace, a state congressman from Mississippi, expressed his interest in secession, followed by Congressman Randy Weber, who succeeded Ron Paul for Texas’s fourteenth congressional district seat. Weber’s secessionist endorsement helped generate attention for the Texas Nationalist Movement (or “Texit”), including a sudden spike in the group’s membership registrations. Weeks later, Texas state congressman Kyle Biedermann announced that when the Texas House resumes session in January, he’ll introduce a bill to allow a popular referendum on the question of secession. Seemingly in support of Biedermann’s proposal, the chairman of the Texas Republican Party, Allen West, then commented, “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a union of states that will abide by the constitution.” Evidently, state legislators are entertaining the notion, many with considerable interest.

America may be on the brink of a “secessionist moment,” and if it is, the time to dismount the surly tiger of big government is now. Like dominoes, the process need only begin with one single state and many more will surely follow. After everything, that’s the only real solution left for America—shaking hands, splitting up, and staying friends from afar, for clearly the country has already split apart in heart, mind, and soul, and at last this internal reality must be reflected in the legal reality.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 12/21/2020 – 18:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/38s329s Tyler Durden

Bank Of America Expects 1.1BN People Will Be Vaccinated For COVID By Late 2020

Bank Of America Expects 1.1BN People Will Be Vaccinated For COVID By Late 2020

If 2020 has been a year to remember, then it has also been a year filled with surprises, where nothing really worked out like investors had anticipated. Following one of the fastest wipeouts in modern history, markets around the world have rebounded and according to Bank of America, global equity market cap has topped $100TN, soaring $40TN from the lows seen in March.

According to BofA, the rebound in stocks has been one of the strongest of the last century.

But as markets showed again on Monday, anything that upsets the outlook on the vaccination timeline, whether by calling the efficacy of vaccines into question, or by hinting at a new version of the virus that could spread more quickly (or, in theory, could kill more efficiently), can deliver a shock to markets, prompting a selloff (if a brief one).

According to official forecasts from Operation Warp Speed, some 50 million Americans are expected to have been inoculated by the end of January, according to DHHS.

Looking even further down the line, analysts at Bank of America projected that 1.1BN people will be vaccinated by the end of 2021, a figure that dwarfs the 75MM who contracted the virus – or who at least tested positive, or were diagnosed, with the virus

When it comes to consumer goods, inflation hasn’t been as pronounced. But as far as asset price go, valuations are so stretched…

…BofA’s “Main Street Inequality” index has surged to 6.3x in 2020.

The only problem is as vaccinations continue and the US nears the 50%-70% area, the Fed will likely face some pressure from savers to start allowing interest rates to rise to benefit savers. At what point will the central bank acquiesce, feeling that the real economy is finally resilient enough to withstand a steep drop in stocks.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 12/21/2020 – 18:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2LOZMxc Tyler Durden

Pork City: Here Are The Most Ridiculous Pet Projects In $900 Billion Stimulus Package

Pork City: Here Are The Most Ridiculous Pet Projects In $900 Billion Stimulus Package

As Congress prepares to pass a $900 billion COVID-19 stimulus bill rolled into a consolidated appropriations package – with funding for assistance for households and businesses, along with vaccine distribution and other pandemic-related measures, the bill also includes a ton of pork per usual.

We already know about the $600 checks for each adult and dependent. This time, however, ‘mixed-status’ households where eligible citizens live with illegal immigrants, will not only receive payments – they can retroactively claim benefits after being left out of the last round.

The bill also includes $300 per week in enhanced unemployment benefits, and would extend unemployment to 50 weeks for both state and federal programs, vs. the standard 26 weeks.

Illustration via WSJ.com

And now, on to the pork… which includes billions to foreign countries, US military weapons purchases which go above and beyond their budgets, $40 million for the Kennedy Center, and nearly $200 million so that federal HIV/AIDS workers overseas can buy cars and car insurance, among other things.

FOREIGN HANDOUTS:

A minimum of $3.3 billion in grants to Israel.

Also included is $453 million to Ukraine, on top of the $400 million Trump eventually released. No word on how much of that goes to the ‘big guy.’

$10 million for “gender programs” in Pakistan.

$1.3 billion to Egypt, and $700 million to Sudan.

$135 million to Burma, $85.5 million to Cambodia, $1.4 billion for an “Asia Reassurance Initiative Act,” and $130 million to Nepal.

BOMBS AWAY

$4 billion for Navy weapons procurement, $2 billion for Space Force and $2 billion for Air Force missiles.

BUREAUCRATIC BONANZA AND OTHER MALARKEY

$208 million to upgrade the Census Bureau’s computer systems (which couldn’t have waited until the next count in 2030?).

$40 million for the Kennedy Center, and funding to discourage teenagers from drinking and hooking up.

$193 million for federal HIV/AIDS workers to buy cars and car insurance overseas, and a feminist museum.

Funding for a commission to educate consumers “about the dangers associated with using or storing portable fuel containers for flammable liquids near an open flame.” (What?)

Just remember, $600 is a significant amount…

Tyler Durden
Mon, 12/21/2020 – 17:40

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

Peloton Buys Fitness-Giant Precor For $420MM In Largest Ever Acquisition

Peloton Buys Fitness-Giant Precor For $420MM In Largest Ever Acquisition

Peloton is moving out of the basement (or wherever it is you store your exercise bike with the iPad superglued to the front).

The company which has ridden the workout from home craze better than anyoneannounced on Monday it had agreed to buy fitness-equipment giant Precor for $420 million to gain U.S. manufacturing capabilities and new expansion opportunities.

In the press release, Peloton said it “plans to establish U.S. manufacturing capacity, boost research and development capabilities with Precor’s highly-skilled team, and accelerate Peloton’s penetration of the commercial market. Peloton plans to produce connected fitness products in the U.S. before the end of the calendar year 2021.”

Precor provides commercial-grade stationary bikes, ellipticals, treadmills, climbers and strength-training equipment to gyms, hotels, apartments, college campuses and other corporate locations. Thus far, Peloton’s business has focused on sales to consumers, but the company plans to use Precor’s relationships to expand into the commercial market.

Precor is a division of Finnish sporting goods company Amer Sports, which is owned by an investor consortium including ANTA Sports, FountainVest Partners, Anamered Investments Inc. and Tencent Holdings Limited. The transaction is expected to close in early calendar year 2021 and is the largest to date for the New York-based maker of pricey bikes and treadmills.

“We have seen a ton of growth. No one would wish a global pandemic on anybody, but it’s been a tailwind for our business,” Peloton President William Lynch said. “Keeping up with that growth, which has been a moving target, has been a big company priority. As we’ve been investing in scaling our manufacturing, this is an area where Precor is very strong,” he added.

Peloton shares – and sales – have soared this year as the pandemic shut gyms and forced people to work out from home, however, the company has struggled to keep up with demand. That led to long wait times and frustrated customers. Existing manufacturing facilities overseas will continue operating, according to the company. The acquisition will add 625,000 square feet of U.S. manufacturing capacity with in-house tooling and fabrication, product development, and QA capabilities. Peloton will be able to control the entire production process, from design to ship, and increase total production scale. By making fitness equipment closer to U.S. consumers, Peloton will be able to deliver connected fitness products to customers sooner.

As Bloomberg notes, the $420 million transaction is a strategic departure for Peloton, which has avoided acquisition.

Peloton shares have soared 400% this year, valuing the company at $42 billion. In a sign of approval by shareholders, Peloton shares jumped after hours, rising as high as $157.88 after closing at $144 in the regular session.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 12/21/2020 – 17:32

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Ku8SiB Tyler Durden

Apple “Moving Forward” With Self-Driving Car Technology

Apple “Moving Forward” With Self-Driving Car Technology

In what could come as a huge blow to Elon Musk’s plan for 1 million robotaxis – if it had any basis in reality, that is – is today’s news that Apple is “moving forward with self-driving car technology and is targeting 2024 to produce a passenger vehicle,” according to Reuters

The news dropped just before the closing bell on Monday – during Tesla’s first day trading as an S&P 500 index component. Tesla shares slipped to their lowest of the day on the news, while Apple shares perked up to their highs of the day.

In addition to designing self-driving vehicles, Reuters also reported that Apple’s cars could “include its own breakthrough battery technology”.

Apple’s development project, called “Project Titan” was rumored to have been shelved after first starting in 2014. However, former Tesla executive Doug Field returned back to Apple in 2018 to work on the project before laying off 190 people from the team in 2019. But since then, “Apple has progressed enough that it now aims to build a vehicle for consumers”, Reuters noted.

Apple could now become competitors with major self-driving projects, including Google/Alphabet’s Waymo. 

Apple also apparently is working on a new battery design that could “radically” reduce battery cost and increase a vehicle’s range – one of the biggest problems currently facing the EV industry.

The battery is said to be a “monocell” design that “bulks up the individual cells in the battery and frees up space inside the battery pack by eliminating pouches and modules that hold battery materials”, the report noted. A source close to the company said: “It’s next level. Like the first time you saw the iPhone.”

“If there is one company on the planet that has the resources to do that, it’s probably Apple. But at the same time, it’s not a cellphone,” one person familiar with the company said.  Apple will likely “rely on a manufacturing partner to build vehicles” and there’s still a chance it could pare back its efforts, a source said. The company is also using outside partners for Lidar systems and other elements of the vehicle. The car could “feature multiple lidar sensors for scanning different distances,” including sensors that have been developed internally at Apple. 

Two people said that the pandemic could push Apple’s production date into 2025, or perhaps later. 

Tyler Durden
Mon, 12/21/2020 – 17:20

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

A 14th Amendment Case That Deserves the Supreme Court’s Attention

sipaphotoseleven202464

In The Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the U.S. Supreme Court left for dead the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. Taking a page from The Princess Bride, a new constitutional case is asking the Court to recognize that the clause “is only mostly dead.”

The case is Courtney v. Danner. At issue is one Washington state family’s 23-year odyssey to secure the right to ferry customers to and from its ranch via the waters of Lake Chelan. State law requires would-be ferry operators to first obtain a certificate declaring the “public convenience and necessity” of their enterprise. As part of that process, would-be operators must show that any existing ferry business in the area “has not objected to the issuance of the certificate as prayed for.” In other words, a settled firm gets to veto the arrival of any new competitor.

Here’s how the Slaughter-House decision factors in. In that 1873 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments of a group of Louisiana butchers who claimed that a state law granting monopoly powers to a slaughterhouse corporation deprived them of their right to earn a living, one of the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizenship secured against state infringement by the recently ratified 14th Amendment.

Writing for the 5–4 majority, Justice Samuel Miller held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause placed virtually no limits on state power and did virtually nothing to protect individual rights from state infringement. To hold otherwise, he wrote, would make the Supreme Court “a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the states.” The butchers were out of luck.

Miller’s Slaughter-House opinion did, however, recognize a very small handful of rights that the 14th Amendment does protect. Among them was the “right to use the navigable waters of the United States.”

Lake Chelan is a federally designated navigable water of the United States, which means that the Courtneys have a clear constitutional case to make against Washington’s anti-competitive stance and have the Slaughter-House precedent—as problematic as it is—squarely on their side.

“The Courtneys have been trying for nearly a quarter century to exercise their right to use the navigable waters of the United States, and the State of Washington has prevented them from doing so at every turn,” notes a petition seeking review filed by the Courtneys and their lawyers at the Institute for Justice. “Theirs is not some abstract, hypothetical complaint. It is a concrete, tangible injury—an injury redressable in the Privileges or Immunities Clause.”

The Supreme Court should take the case and begin the long overdue process of breathing some life back into the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/37FJrU6
via IFTTT

A 14th Amendment Case That Deserves the Supreme Court’s Attention

sipaphotoseleven202464

In The Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the U.S. Supreme Court left for dead the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. Taking a page from The Princess Bride, a new constitutional case is asking the Court to recognize that the clause “is only mostly dead.”

The case is Courtney v. Danner. At issue is one Washington state family’s 23-year odyssey to secure the right to ferry customers to and from its ranch via the waters of Lake Chelan. State law requires would-be ferry operators to first obtain a certificate declaring the “public convenience and necessity” of their enterprise. As part of that process, would-be operators must show that any existing ferry business in the area “has not objected to the issuance of the certificate as prayed for.” In other words, a settled firm gets to veto the arrival of any new competitor.

Here’s how the Slaughter-House decision factors in. In that 1873 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments of a group of Louisiana butchers who claimed that a state law granting monopoly powers to a slaughterhouse corporation deprived them of their right to earn a living, one of the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizenship secured against state infringement by the recently ratified 14th Amendment.

Writing for the 5–4 majority, Justice Samuel Miller held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause placed virtually no limits on state power and did virtually nothing to protect individual rights from state infringement. To hold otherwise, he wrote, would make the Supreme Court “a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the states.” The butchers were out of luck.

Miller’s Slaughter-House opinion did, however, recognize a very small handful of rights that the 14th Amendment does protect. Among them was the “right to use the navigable waters of the United States.”

Lake Chelan is a federally designated navigable water of the United States, which means that the Courtneys have a clear constitutional case to make against Washington’s anti-competitive stance and have the Slaughter-House precedent—as problematic as it is—squarely on their side.

“The Courtneys have been trying for nearly a quarter century to exercise their right to use the navigable waters of the United States, and the State of Washington has prevented them from doing so at every turn,” notes a petition seeking review filed by the Courtneys and their lawyers at the Institute for Justice. “Theirs is not some abstract, hypothetical complaint. It is a concrete, tangible injury—an injury redressable in the Privileges or Immunities Clause.”

The Supreme Court should take the case and begin the long overdue process of breathing some life back into the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/37FJrU6
via IFTTT

City Investigators Call Out NYPD for Using Excessive Force Against Protesters

starmax672372

New York City police officers used excessive force in their response to protests following the May 25 killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, according to a report from New York City’s Department of Investigation (DOI). Police treatment of those demonstrating against law enforcement excess went so far, at times, as to undermine their own legitimacy, acknowledged the head of the agency that produced the report.

Investigators offer recommendations for improving New York Police Department (NYPD) interactions with demonstrations in the future. But nothing in the report can ease the inherent tensions when cops are themselves the targets of the protests they’re monitoring, and little evidence that police are open to changing their ways.

“Nationwide protests following the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor at the hands of police were met, in many cities, by even more police violence,” Reason‘s Scott Shackford noted last July. “In New York City, dozens of incidents in which police responded with excessive force were caught on camera. But so far, the department says only four NYPD cops have been disciplined.”

Individual incidents remain under internal investigation by the Internal Affairs Bureau and the Civilian Complaint Review Board, for what that’s worth.

The current report focused on NYPD responses to George Floyd protests at an institutional and systemic level, DOI Commissioner Margaret Garnett specified in a December 18 press conference. While pointing to “violence and property damage by some protesters,” Garnett also admitted that “our investigation found that the NYPD as an institution made a number of key errors or omissions that likely escalated tensions and the potential for violence.”

The report said NYPD lacked a strategy for dealing with protests where police conduct was the target, defaulting “to an application of ‘disorder control’ tactics and methods, without adjustment to reflect the NYPD’s responsibility for facilitating lawful First Amendment expression.”

The report pointed to indiscriminate use of force on peaceful protesters and rioters alike. That force included “encirclement (commonly called ‘kettling’), mass arrests, baton and pepper spray use, and other tactics.” Among the examples of such tactics was an incident on June 4 when “officers began executing mass arrests for curfew violations, which were accomplished in part by using physical force against protesters, including striking them with batons.”

“Some policing decisions relied on intelligence without sufficient consideration of context or proportionality,” the report added. The implication is that the intelligence was used to justify forceful tactics rather than to determine appropriate responses.

DOI investigators also noted that, except for some specialized units, “most officers responding to the protests had not received recent relevant training for policing protests.” Even after the protests, remedial training emphasized disorder (riot) control rather than de-escalation and community affairs.

The outcome of missteps in May and June was the abusive use of force against peaceful protesters who were not attacking people or vandalizing property. That likely raised tensions and fanned the flames of violence as some protests escalated into actual riots and looting.

But more is at stake beyond the impact on demonstrators and bystanders, as Garnett specified in her press conference. “Policing is a vital service, and its success depends heavily on public trust and legitimacy,” she said. “Aspects of the NYPD’s response to the Floyd protests undermine this trust and their own legitimacy.”

Police who behave as thugs aren’t improving their standing at all in the minds of people who are already protesting against abusive policing. To the contrary, they harden opposition and set the ground for repeat conflicts at a time when some people are calling for entirely abolishing police and many more favor widespread reform.

The DOI report offers recommendation that will, hopefully, improve police response to future protests.

“NYPD should draft a Patrol Guide policy specific to policing protests and protected First Amendment activity,” according to the report. Importantly, the guide should be developed in consultation with outside parties, including civil rights attorneys.

On the same note, the report recommends moving protest management from the Strategic Response Group and its riot-oriented Disorder Control Unit to a new Protest Response Unit. The new unit would be more community oriented and, theoretically, First Amendment-friendly.

“NYPD should develop a written policy outlining reasonable limitations on the use of disorder control tactics, such as encirclement and mass arrests, specific to their use at First Amendment-protected protests,” the report adds.

Still, it’s obvious that a police department is going to face challenges when addressing demonstrations aimed at its own officersespecially when tempers are simmering. “NYPD officials characterized the scope of violence, the looting, and the hostility toward police as a significant difference from past large demonstrations in the City,” acknowledged DOI investigators.

That has police on the defensive and less than cooperative with efforts to reform protest response.

“When DOI asked NYPD officials whether, in retrospect, the Department could have done anything else differently and made any further changes to improve its response to the protests, with few exceptions, officials offered none,” the report observes. “While some difference in views is to be expected, the wide gap between the apparent views of the Department’s most senior officials and the views of members of the public who participated in the protests is troubling.”

That means reform in dealing with protests and in distinguishing between peaceful demonstrators and violent rioters will probably have to come to the NYPD from the outside, without the active assistance of police officials themselves.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34yDF4y
via IFTTT

Are We Facing A Future Where Life Only Goes “Back To Normal” For Rich People?

Are We Facing A Future Where Life Only Goes “Back To Normal” For Rich People?

Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

As jobs and businesses vanish, and prices go up, Americans could soon face another expense – the expense of proving that they’re “healthy.”

While the government tells us that the Covid vaccinations are going to be “free,” are they really? Let’s take a look.

How much will it actually cost to get vaccinated against Covid?

While the government is paying for the vaccine itself, it will still cost money for most people to get injected with it.

However, providers will be able to bill you an administrative fee for giving the shot to patients, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This would be similar to paying a charge when you visit the doctor’s office, or for specialized vaccine delivery, such as infusion, a process in which a substance — like medication, a chemotherapy drug or hydration — enters the bloodstream intravenously.

If you don’t have insurance, the medical provider you used should be reimbursed for any COVID-19 treatment you receive through the CARES Act Provider Relief Fund, at no cost to you.

…If you receive a bill for administration fees, it’s still unclear whether or not those will be covered in full. It’s a good idea to contact your local provider or health insurance company for more details on whether you’ll be charged additional fees before receiving a vaccine. It might be that you have more than one option for immunization, including finding a medical provider that would give you the vaccine free of charge, or offer a more straightforward approach to reimbursement if you’re charged. (source)

So it’s kind of free, sort of, unless somebody charges you but then you might be able to get your money back. Multiply by your number of family members.

And what about all the apps for proving you’ve gotten vaccinated? Will that be government-funded or will people pay a few bucks to the app store to download it onto their smartphones? What about people who don’t have phones? What about those who can no longer afford phone service?

I think it’s pretty easy to see that this could become an escalating expense for some and completely unaffordable for others. If you’ve never been in a position where an added $5 expense could make or break your grocery bill, then it may be difficult for you to understand how tough this could be on families who have suddenly found themselves living in ever-deepening poverty.

How will you manage if you can’t prove that you’re covid-free?

Soon, all sorts of businesses and services may require people to prove that they don’t have covid with a recent test (probably not a free one once people are doing the tests for recreational purposes) or proof of vaccination.

But that’s not all. Schools and workplaces may make proof of health mandatory as well. So what happens if you can’t afford your vaccine or documentation? Does that mean your kids can’t go to school and that you can’t go to work? What if you’ve been out of work for months but to get a new job, you must show your proof of health and/or vaccination?

And what about public transit? I’m not talking about flights to Europe – I’m talking about taking the bus or an Uber so you can get to work? What about entering stores? As private businesses, they have the right to choose those with whom they do business as long as discrimination can’t be proven. How can a poor person get from Point A to Point B if they can’t afford vaccination and proof of vaccination?

Who needs a social credit system when you can just shut down entire sectors of society because they can’t provide proof they’ve gotten their shots? You know, like the little rabies tag your dog gets for his collar after he’s vaccinated by the vet.

The transfer of wealth has been enormous…and will continue to be.

Covid and the subsequent government restrictions have all but wiped out the middle class, sweeping millions of formerly financially comfortable families into debt and poverty as they struggle to survive. Countless businesses have collapsed under the weighty mandates. Chapter 11 Bankruptcies are up by 48% this year. Meanwhile, enormous corporations like Walmart, Home Depot, and Amazon have seen soaring profits.

Jim Cramer, a financial analyst for CNBC calls it one of the greatest transfer of wealth in history.

The coronavirus pandemic and corresponding lockdown made way for “one of the greatest wealth transfers in history,” CNBC’s Jim Cramer said Thursday.

The stock market is rising as big business rebounds from state-ordered stoppage of nonessential activity, while small businesses drop like flies, the “Mad Money” host said.

“The bigger the business, the more it moves the major averages, and that matters because this is the first recession where big business … is coming through virtually unscathed, if not going for the gold,” he added. (source)

Cramer believes that the recovery of the stock market has little or nothing to do with the recovery of the economy at large – for which his outlook is grim. Although he supports another stimulus package for small businesses, it’s unlikely to be enough.

“The companies that took the money just got a big break: they only need to spend 60% on their employees to get the loans forgiven, down from the original 75%. That’s important, as most small businesses fail because they can’t afford to pay the rent,” Cramer said.

“But, in the end, the stimulus package probably won’t be enough, for one simple reason,” he said. “It’s not going to work because of social distancing.” (source)

And he’s right – what good will paying the rent do (aside from short-term good for the property owner) if nobody is allowed to patronize the business due to more government-mandated shutdowns?

What happens next?

As these giant companies rake in the profit and Mom & Pop businesses go under, what happens next? Finding a job right now is next to impossible and it will soon be even harder as the second wave of lockdowns intensifies. More businesses will go under. More jobs will disappear.

And then the much-vaunted vaccine will arrive to save the day (also making a hefty profit for Big Pharma – don’t leave them out when you think about this transfer of wealth.) It’ll save the day for those who can afford it, anyway. And for those who can afford to prove they’ve gotten it.

The rollout of the vaccine isn’t going to happen overnight either. There are over 330 million people in the US, but Pfizer says it expects to send the US 25 million doses by the end of 2020, or enough to vaccinate about 12.5 million Americans, as each recipient will need two doses. That’s roughly the populations of New York City and Los Angeles combined. Moderna, which has a similar type of vaccine as Pfizer, says it will be able to make about 15 million vaccine doses at first, which can treat 7.5 million people (again, two shots per person). (source)

Poor folks aren’t going to go straight to the front of the line. As it stands, senior government officials are at the front of the line, then healthcare workers, then employees and residents of nursing homes. Next will be essential workers, those with comorbidities, and the elderly. Each state’s governor will decide the pecking order. Dr. Anthony Fauci says that the ordinary person shouldn’t expect a vaccination until April, May, or June of 2021.

Oh – or if you have the option of making a $25,000 donation to a hospital, you might be able to bump the line and get your vaccination before the peons do.

So don’t expect all this to happen quickly. Don’t expect the jobs to come back, the businesses to reopen, and life to return to normal when the calendar flips to 2021.

And unless you’re rich, you might not ever see that pre-covid normal again.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 12/21/2020 – 17:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/37EqmBJ Tyler Durden

City Investigators Call Out NYPD for Using Excessive Force Against Protesters

starmax672372

New York City police officers used excessive force in their response to protests following the May 25 killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, according to a report from New York City’s Department of Investigation (DOI). Police treatment of those demonstrating against law enforcement excess went so far, at times, as to undermine their own legitimacy, acknowledged the head of the agency that produced the report.

Investigators offer recommendations for improving New York Police Department (NYPD) interactions with demonstrations in the future. But nothing in the report can ease the inherent tensions when cops are themselves the targets of the protests they’re monitoring, and little evidence that police are open to changing their ways.

“Nationwide protests following the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor at the hands of police were met, in many cities, by even more police violence,” Reason‘s Scott Shackford noted last July. “In New York City, dozens of incidents in which police responded with excessive force were caught on camera. But so far, the department says only four NYPD cops have been disciplined.”

Individual incidents remain under internal investigation by the Internal Affairs Bureau and the Civilian Complaint Review Board, for what that’s worth.

The current report focused on NYPD responses to George Floyd protests at an institutional and systemic level, DOI Commissioner Margaret Garnett specified in a December 18 press conference. While pointing to “violence and property damage by some protesters,” Garnett also admitted that “our investigation found that the NYPD as an institution made a number of key errors or omissions that likely escalated tensions and the potential for violence.”

The report said NYPD lacked a strategy for dealing with protests where police conduct was the target, defaulting “to an application of ‘disorder control’ tactics and methods, without adjustment to reflect the NYPD’s responsibility for facilitating lawful First Amendment expression.”

The report pointed to indiscriminate use of force on peaceful protesters and rioters alike. That force included “encirclement (commonly called ‘kettling’), mass arrests, baton and pepper spray use, and other tactics.” Among the examples of such tactics was an incident on June 4 when “officers began executing mass arrests for curfew violations, which were accomplished in part by using physical force against protesters, including striking them with batons.”

“Some policing decisions relied on intelligence without sufficient consideration of context or proportionality,” the report added. The implication is that the intelligence was used to justify forceful tactics rather than to determine appropriate responses.

DOI investigators also noted that, except for some specialized units, “most officers responding to the protests had not received recent relevant training for policing protests.” Even after the protests, remedial training emphasized disorder (riot) control rather than de-escalation and community affairs.

The outcome of missteps in May and June was the abusive use of force against peaceful protesters who were not attacking people or vandalizing property. That likely raised tensions and fanned the flames of violence as some protests escalated into actual riots and looting.

But more is at stake beyond the impact on demonstrators and bystanders, as Garnett specified in her press conference. “Policing is a vital service, and its success depends heavily on public trust and legitimacy,” she said. “Aspects of the NYPD’s response to the Floyd protests undermine this trust and their own legitimacy.”

Police who behave as thugs aren’t improving their standing at all in the minds of people who are already protesting against abusive policing. To the contrary, they harden opposition and set the ground for repeat conflicts at a time when some people are calling for entirely abolishing police and many more favor widespread reform.

The DOI report offers recommendation that will, hopefully, improve police response to future protests.

“NYPD should draft a Patrol Guide policy specific to policing protests and protected First Amendment activity,” according to the report. Importantly, the guide should be developed in consultation with outside parties, including civil rights attorneys.

On the same note, the report recommends moving protest management from the Strategic Response Group and its riot-oriented Disorder Control Unit to a new Protest Response Unit. The new unit would be more community oriented and, theoretically, First Amendment-friendly.

“NYPD should develop a written policy outlining reasonable limitations on the use of disorder control tactics, such as encirclement and mass arrests, specific to their use at First Amendment-protected protests,” the report adds.

Still, it’s obvious that a police department is going to face challenges when addressing demonstrations aimed at its own officersespecially when tempers are simmering. “NYPD officials characterized the scope of violence, the looting, and the hostility toward police as a significant difference from past large demonstrations in the City,” acknowledged DOI investigators.

That has police on the defensive and less than cooperative with efforts to reform protest response.

“When DOI asked NYPD officials whether, in retrospect, the Department could have done anything else differently and made any further changes to improve its response to the protests, with few exceptions, officials offered none,” the report observes. “While some difference in views is to be expected, the wide gap between the apparent views of the Department’s most senior officials and the views of members of the public who participated in the protests is troubling.”

That means reform in dealing with protests and in distinguishing between peaceful demonstrators and violent rioters will probably have to come to the NYPD from the outside, without the active assistance of police officials themselves.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34yDF4y
via IFTTT