Author: admin

Is Rejecting Someone Because of His “Jewish Blood” Race Discrimination Under Title VII? National Origin Discrimination?

Some discrimination against Jews is based on their religion, and is generally forbidden in employment and other contexts by federal and state laws banning religious discrimination. But many anti-Semites dislike Jews based on their ethnicity, a hostility that also covers irreligious Jews and Jewish converts to other religion.

American antidiscrimination laws generally don’t expressly ban discrimination based on ethnicity, but they do ban discrimination based on race and national origin. Judge Dee D. Drell’s decision in Bonadona v. Louisiana College (W.D. La. Aug. 28, 2019), illustrates how complicated this can end up being:

Joshua Bonadona was born to a Catholic father and Jewish mother. He was raised both culturally and religiously as a member of the Jewish community. His mother is both racially and religiously Jewish…. [While a student at Louisiana College, he] converted to Christianity.

Upon his graduation from LC in 2013, LC hired Bonadona as an assistant football coach. In June 2015, he resigned his position to pursue a graduate degree and football coaching position at Southeast Missouri State University.

In 2017, LC hired Justin Charles as its new head coach of the football team. Charles reached out to Bonadona about returning to LC as its defensive backs coach. Bonadona submitted an application wherein he identified himself as a Baptist, described his salvation experience, and acknowledged he understood and supported LC’s [Christian] mission statement.

Bonadona interviewed with Charles who advised that the coaching position was his, subject to approval by [LC President Rick] Brewer. Accordingly, Bonadona interviewed with Brewer. During the interview, Brewer asked Bonadona about his parents’ religious affiliations. Bonadona affirmed his father was Catholic and his mother was Jewish but expressed he was a practicing member of the Christian faith and attended a Baptist church in Missouri.

Based on representations made by Charles, Bonadona returned to Missouri and submitted his resignation. According to Bonadona, Charles contacted him a week later to advise that LC decided not to hire him because of his Jewish heritage [according to the complaint, Brewer referred to Bonadona’s “Jewish blood”].

The court allowed Bonadona’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866) to move forward; that statute, banning race discrimination in enforcement of contracts, was held by the Court starting with the 1960s to apply to private discrimination as well as governmental discrimination. Because “race” in 1866 covered what we might today label ethnicity, and in particular was used to refer to the “Jewish race,” the Supreme Court had interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1866 as “defin[ing] race to include Jews,” see Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb (1987).

But the court reject Bonadona’s claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because:

Under the canons of statutory construction, words should be given the meaning they had when the text was adopted. This canon was adhered to by the Supreme Court in Shaare Tefila Congregation, when it noted that while Jews were a protected race in 1866, they are no longer thought of as members of a separate race.

What about national origin discrimination? The Bonadona court didn’t deal with it, because Bonadona hadn’t mentioned it his Complaint. But some other district courts conclude that being Jewish isn’t a national origin, either, because “[S]tating that one is Jewish gives no indication of that individual’s country of origin…. Jews, like Catholics and Protestants, hail from a variety of different countries.” On the other hand, some federal district court cases treat ethnicity-based discrimination against Jews as discrimination based on race or national origin. The Second Circuit has also said that “for purposes of Title VII, ‘race’ encompasses ethnicity, just as it does under § 1981”; that case involved discrimination based on Hispanic ethnicity, but its logic applies equally to Jewish ethnicity.

Of course, well-counseled plaintiffs would generally be able to prevail under § 1981 even if they can’t prevail under Title VII, as we see for Bonadona himself. But the legal controversy remains important; as the Second Circuit noted, “Although Title VII and § 1981 overlap in many respects, there are significant differences with respect to their statutes of limitations, employers’ respondeat superior liability, the cognizability of claims against individuals (as opposed to organizations), and whether a plaintiff must show that discrimination was intentional.” This is especially significant for lawsuits against local governments as employers, where § 1981 rules are more pro-defendant. The disagreement about how Title VII deals with such ethnic discrimination thus remains important.

Note also that LC might well be entitled not to hire non-Christians, because Title VII ban on religious discrimination exempts religious institutions. But there is no such statutory exemption for race or national origin discrimination. (There is a First Amendment exception for any sort of discrimination as to clergy and similar employees, but that wouldn’t cover football coaches.) And of course Bonadona’s claim is that he was discriminated against based on his ethnicity, not based on his current or past religion.

The Anti-Defamation League, by the way, has condemned characterizing discrimination against Jews as race discrimination, even when such characterizations might help fight anti-Semitic discrimination:

ADL is deeply offended by the perception of Jews as a race found in both allegations against the College and the plaintiff’s assertions in the lawsuit.  According to a court filing, the administration was motivated in its actions because of Mr. Bonadona’s “Jewish blood” and Mr. Bonadona is attempting to circumvent the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s religious employer exemption by characterizing his “Jewish heritage” as racial….

The idea that Jews are not only a religious group, but also a racial group, was a centerpiece of Nazi policy, and was the justification for killing any Jewish person who came under Nazi occupation—regardless of whether he or she practiced Judaism. In fact, even the children and the grandchildren of Jews who had converted to Christianity were murdered as members of the Jewish “race” during the Holocaust.

Based on Congress’ 19th Century conception of race, the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1980s ruled that the definition of “non-white races” found in post-Civil War anti-discrimination laws, includes Arabs, Chinese, Jews and Italians.  The 1964 Civil Rights Act, which explicitly covers national origin and religion, does not embody these antiquated views.  Although Mr. Bonadona’s attorney certainly could try to bring claims under these 19th century laws, we believe that attempting to create similar legal precedent under the Civil Rights Act perpetuates harmful stereotypes and views about Jews….

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ZPsVxA
via IFTTT

Greenspan: Rising Gold Price Shows Investors Want Hard Assets That Will Increase In Value

Via SchiffGold.com,

During a CNBC interview, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said gold prices are surging because investors are looking for hard assets that they know will have value in 20 or 30 years.

Gold is up more than 21% on the year and is trading at levels not seen since 2013.

During the interview, Greenspan focused on an interesting fundamental he thinks is driving both the bond and gold markets – the aging population. He said there has been a shift in time preferences as people recognize they will likely live longer and they will need to finance those longer lives. This, he says, is increasing the demand for hard assets like gold.

One of the reasons that the gold price is rising as fast as it is … that’s telling us essentially that people are hard resources which they know are going to have a value 20 years from now, or 30 years from now as they age, and they want to make sure they have the resources to keep themselves in place. That is a clearly fundamental force that is driving this.”

Historically, gold has served as an inflation hedge and a wealth preserver. It makes sense that investors concerned about maintaining their savings well into the future would turn to gold. This is especially true given the likelihood of increasing inflation as the Federal Reserve continues to try to prop up the economy with low interest rates and quantitative easing.

Peter Schiff has said that eventually, the world will drown in an ocean of inflation.

Every central bank has bought into this nonsense that we must have inflation and that interest rates need to be negative. Inflation needs to be high enough to have real negative rates all over the globe. That’s where we are heading. So, if that is the case, people have no place to hide except gold and that is why they’re buying.”

Greenspan also talked about negative interest rates. He said the aging population is also one underlying factor in falling bond yields. An aging population is driving demand for bonds, pushing up the price and driving down yield. He says he eventually expects to see negative yields in the US.

You’re seeing it pretty much throughout the world. It’s only a matter of time before it’s more in the United States.”

There is now more than $15 trillion in negative-yielding debt globally. Greenspan said when there is a significant change in the attitude of the population, the “look for coupon.”

As a result of that, there’s a tendency to disregard the fact that that has an effect in the net interest rate that they receive.”

As far as the economy goes, Greenspan said it “seems to be sagging.”

Former Reagan OMB director David Stockman had another take on falling bond yields, saying recently that the bond market is in the “mother of all bubbles.”

What we’re seeing is rampant speculation in the bond market. Investors are banking on continued bond-buying by central banks. They believe this will continue to push prices up and they’re speculating on the rising prices. It’s nothing but a massive bond market bubble.”

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

Porsche’s 750 HP Tesla-Killer Has Landed… And Elon Is Getting Nervous

It wasn’t a mistake when Porsche chose Niagara Falls to introduce its new Taycan all electric sports car. Niagara Falls has long been heralded as a powerful and sustainable renewable energy source and is flanked on both sides by two statues of Nikola Tesla that look in from both the US and Canada, according to the LA Times. 

Plus, Niagara Falls is also the site where Tesla first tested his controversial AC electrical distribution system in the late 1800s.

For Porsche, the Taycan represents a billion dollar bet that’s just as bold. It aims to be the beginning of a long line of battery powered high-performance electric vehicles and sport utility vehicles for Porsche. It is also the most noteworthy challenger to Tesla that has emerged yet.

Porsche will be looking to the vehicle’s reception in California as a litmus test for how it will do across the US. California accounts for 25% of Porsche sales, so the state will be a good indicator as to whether or not the Taycan can win over Porsche’s legacy customers.

Things look good so far: the company says more than 20,000 Taycans have been ordered and it plans to produce 40,000 of them per year.

Performance-wise, the car is nothing short of a lightning bolt, going from 0 to 60 in 2.6 to 3 seconds, with a 240 mile range. There are two models of the vehicle, with base prices expected to start between $150,000 and $180,000.

Porsche is aiming to sell the vehicle to people that haven’t owned an electric vehicle before. It also looks to threaten the market of the Tesla Model S, a model than has seen its sales top out in the last quarter of 2018 and decline since the Model 3 has risen in popularity.

Porsche believes that drivers focused on performance are more likely to gravitate to its vehicle because of the track-worthy driving dynamics that the company has been perfecting since it started building race cars in the 1920s. Stefan Weckbach, the company’s vice president for electric-drive cars, calls it “the world’s first fully electric sports car” – certainly a backhanded jab at Tesla’s lineup. 

Danny McKenna, owner of McKenna Porsche in Norwalk, said: “I really think Mr. Musk did a fine job of showing the [big auto companies] that this electric thing could happen. People wanted that Tesla parked in their driveway. Now, they’ll want that Porsche parked there.”

Soon, we will have objective analysis of the vehicle as well. Car & Driver, Road & Track and Motor Trend all plan to test the vehicle up against Tesla’s Model S and a number of other performance vehicles. The author of the LA Times article, who rode with a professional driver in the vehicle, says he predicts “thumbs up” from reviewers across the board.

And because Porsche has a legacy internal combustion engine business to fall back on, it doesn’t have to worry about making the Taycan a profit center. This obviously stands at odds with Tesla, who is forced to make its EVs try to drive the company’s bottom line – an endeavour that has hardly been successful thus far. 

Jessica Caldwell, automotive marketing analyst at Edmunds said: “In terms of profits, this will not be the linchpin of their future. Now, what’s the trickle-down strategy? How do you materialize the Taycan into a larger business for yourself?”

Porsche says the Taycan will come in two models, the Turbo and the Turbo S. Despite not actually having a turbocharger, Porsche decided to keep the “Turbo” term for branding.

Weckbach said: “That was a big discussion internally. We decided it’s worth transferring the heritage of internal combustion engines to electric vehicles.”

The vehicle sports two permanent magnet motors that produce 625 hp and it has an “Overboost” mode that can power between 680 hp and 761 hp. Different from electric cars on the market now, the Taycan also has a two speed transmission that has a higher gear for highway driving. This higher gear boosts both efficiency and range.

Porsche is also redoing the way electric vehicles perform regenerative braking:

Also unusual, for now, is the way regenerative braking works. In electric cars, when the driver lifts her foot off the accelerator, the motors reverse to add more juice to the battery while aiding deceleration. This creates a halting feel in the accelerator pedal, and the car as a whole, that takes getting used to. To preserve a more traditional feel, Porsche’s regen system turns on only when the brake pedal is pressed.

The car will be recognized instantly for its classic Porsche look, and because the battery fits along the bottom of the car, designers could pencil in a flat hood with a “flyline” roof that angles towards the back. Seen from the street, the car is described by the reviewer as “aggressive” looking. We concur. 

This “aggressive” look could be because its aerodynamics are even better than the 911, based on its coefficient drag factor of 0.22. The car’s rear spoiler will rise and fall depending on the drive mode setting the car is in and the front trunk is big enough to hold a carry-on bag. The rear trunk can handle two golf bags or six carry-ons.

Internally, the car sports digital technology that includes three screens and a curved instrument cluster directly in front of the driver’s eyes. After being produced, the cars head through leak and wind testing and are driven on rollers for 10 to 20 km indoors to ensure that the build is tight enough to handle bumpy roads.

* * *

The introduction of the Taycan has certainly caught the attention of Elon Musk, who took the time on Thursday to uncharacteristically take a jab at Porsche for continuing to use the “Turbo” terminology on the Taycan.

Musk was them promptly ridiculed by, well, what appeared to be everyone on social media, who reminded him that people in glass EV houses shouldn’t be throwing stones. 

One helpful Twitter user even made a chart to get his/her point across:

Musk followed up with a Tweet letting the world know that the Model S would now coincidentally be at the Nurburgring next week. Surely it has nothing to do with the Taycan release.

Regardless, it is a pretty safe bet that Porsche owners won’t be greeted with screens like this when trying to operate their new luxury EVs:

We wonder how long before Elon Musk (wearing a corset and fake mustache) is spotted driving a Taycan around town. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/34viQ8v Tyler Durden

UN Global Comms Chief Says Illegally Entering The U.S. Is A Right

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

The head of United Nations Global Communications says that it is a “right” for migrants to illegally enter the United States.

Writing on Facebook, Melissa Flemming asserted that, “the right to seek asylum is enshrined in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights & was made binding by the 1951 Refugee Convention.”

“It is never a crime to seek asylum in another country even if one enters a country irregularly,” she added.

As head of communications, Flemming, who is American, is also the spokesperson for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the same organization that Rep. Ilhan Omar advocated take control of the US-Mexico border last week.

“We should do what any other country does by dealing with this situation in a serious way,” Omar said during an immigration forum in south Minneapolis.

“So, we have to bring in the United Nations high commissioner on refugees, an agency that has the expertise and the training to handle massive flows of refugees humanely.”

*  *  *

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

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

Sohrab Ahmari Is a Joke

Not too long ago, Sohrab Ahmari, the editor of the New York Post op-ed page, wrote a jeremiad against National Review‘s David French, succinctly titled “Against David French-ism.” At its core, it was an argument not only that French was too nice but that he embodied a habit among conservatives, and in particular among social conservatives, of shrinking from important cultural fights. 

What looked on the surface like a personal spat between two opinion journalists was in fact a larger debate about the future of the political right. Ahmari was arguing for a conservatism that wasn’t nice or civil as a matter of practice. He wanted a conservative politics that would wage cultural war on its enemies—and win. 

Last night, Ahmari took the fight directly to his enemy, debating French in person for the first time in an event at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., moderated by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. As debates go, it was profoundly lopsided.

French, a lawyer and former president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, repeatedly challenged Ahmari to explain what concrete actions he proposed to defend religious liberty and culture. In doing so, French demonstrated over and over again that Ahmari’s arguments are hollow, that his thinking is shallow, that he is an utter lightweight on virtually all the matters of policy substance he claimed to care about. To put it in the kind of blunt and less-than-civil terms that the Post editor might use, the evening proved that Sohrab Ahmari is a joke. 

Much of the debate centered on “drag queen story hour,” an event held at a California public library that was, by Ahmari’s telling, the inciting incident for his attack against French. Ahmari was offended by this event’s existence, and for whatever reason he decided that French, and French’s style of political argument, were to blame.

Ahmari brought up the California event early in the evening, calling it and others like it a “cultural crisis and a moral emergency.” Drag queen story hour, he warned, was a “global movement,” since the group that hosts it has 35 chapters. “It is,” he said, “a threat.” 

This eventually prompted French to ask the obvious question: What would Ahmari do to combat this supposed crisis? “What public power would you use?” he asked. “And how would it be constitutional?”

Ahmari’s answer—and I promise I am not making this up—was that he would hold a congressional hearing “on what’s happening in our libraries,” in which sympathetic conservative senators such as Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton would “make the head of the Modern Library Association or whatever sweat.” 

There has always been something frustratingly vague about Ahmari’s vision. In his original essay attacking French, he longed for a conservatism that would “fight the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good.” It was never clear what, precisely, he felt the common good or the Highest Good were, or who would be in charge of defining them. But now, at long last, we have some clarity about it means to fight the culture war in this manner: It means convening a formal event at which public officials are mean to the head of the Modern Library Association. Which is to say: It means political theater designed to entertain and satisfy Sohrab Ahmari.

Later, Ahmari suggested that local ordinances could be passed to prohibit culturally offensive displays like drag queen story hour, or that obscenity laws could be enforced more strictly. French, an actual lawyer, patiently explained that even the oldest and strictest interpretations of obscenity laws would not bar drag queens from the library; even back then, courts would not have seen dressing in drag as obscene. More importantly, local ordinances would violate the Constitution, which protects viewpoint-neutral access to public facilities such as schools and libraries. Those protections, French noted, have benefited conservative Christians immensely, ensuring that they cannot be denied access to public spaces because of their religious beliefs. But the same protections also prohibit public officials from turning away drag queens. You can’t have one without the other. 

“I’m going to fight for the rights of others that I would like for myself,” French said, “because I know that my rights are fragile.” It’s not possible to create a system that only delivers results that Ahmari likes. Sometimes, French said, “people you disagree with are going to have to go to court and win.” What matters is the fairness and integrity of the system as a whole, not one’s irritation with a particular outcome.  

Ahmari stumbled in response, arguing that there are “cultural battles that can’t be fought” in the courtroom. These issues were bigger than the courts, he said. This was something of a retreat, if not an outright reversal, from the position he took in his essay, in which he nonsensically complained that French—who has sued countless universities to protect individual religious and speech rights—was too resistant to using government power to achieve his desired ends. Instead, he claimed at the time, French was overly enamored of “cultural change” as the solution. 

So which is the correct way forward? Culture? Or law? As on so many things, Ahmari couldn’t seem to decide. 

I suspect he isn’t really concerned about either. What Ahmari really wants is theater, the satisfaction of watching a friendly senator dress down an unfriendly liberal. 

Similarly, Ahmari wants to reinstate the ban on assault weapons, a position an editorial in his paper recently endorsed, not because he believes it would be effective—the piece admits that such bans are arbitrary and that the previous one had “limited impact”—but because his agenda consists almost entirely of empty, symbolic action. 

He likewise defended Missouri Sen. Hawley’s absurd plan to regulate social media functionality, not because it offered good, practical ideas—”it’s not as if I agree with every provision,” he said—but on the grounds that “at least [Hawley’s] willing to say, here’s a problem, and the state may have a role.” At one point he offered, largely unprompted, “I am willing to ban things. Let me put it that way.” The Highest Good, I guess.

This is not a practical agenda. It is a flimsy expression of irritation. Ahmari is upset about things that are happening in the culture, and he wants them to go away—or at least to be castigated publicly by someone in a position of power. He doesn’t really have a plan to make anyone’s life better. He just wants the brief satisfaction of a lively political show. 

To be clear, my critique of Ahmari is not a defense of all of French’s ideas. The National Review writer is, to put it mildly, no libertarian. I believe he is wrong about many things, such as whether the First Amendment does—or should—protect pornography. (French made clear in the debate that he believes it shouldn’t, although he recognized that cultural demand presented challenges to his view.) But he has also done much to concretely defend individual liberty for both religious and secular people, especially on college campuses. And he understands, correctly, that the foundation of individual freedom is the protection of individual rights, even—especially—when they benefit people and actions you personally dislike.

French is sometimes wrong. But unlike Ahmari, he is arguing thoughtfully and in good faith. He knew what he was talking about, the precise details and history of the law, and the ramifications that alterations might have, in the way that a lawyer with years of on-the-ground experience knows. Ahmari knew what he felt, he knew that he was upset, and he didn’t know much more. 

So when I say that Ahmari is a joke, I don’t do so solely as a cheap jab. I’m saying he is so thoroughly ignorant of or careless about the particulars of legal and policy substance that he should not be regarded as merely wrong. I’m saying he should not be regarded at all. 

Ahmari has nothing productive to offer, nothing useful to add to the debate about conservatism and nationalism and the best way to protect the rights and liberties of Americans. He is a person without a plan beyond behaving rudely to garner attention. He has substituted shallow snideness and pointless personal attacks against a decent man in place of a thoroughly considered political program, because, in the end, his political program consists of little more than sneers and shallow assertions of moral righteousness. Incivility is not the process by which he means to achieve some larger political victory but an end unto itself. Ahmari-ism is not an agenda, or an ideology, or a political program. It is, at heart, being a jerk for its own sake. 

Ahmari will probably have to be satisfied with that, because his attack has backfired. He lost last night’s debate, and lost badly, in a fight that he started. In doing so, he proved not only that David French can fight but that French-ism can win. 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ZPIj9b
via IFTTT

Sohrab Ahmari Is a Joke

Not too long ago, Sohrab Ahmari, the editor of the New York Post op-ed page, wrote a jeremiad against National Review‘s David French, succinctly titled “Against David French-ism.” At its core, it was an argument not only that French was too nice but that he embodied a habit among conservatives, and in particular among social conservatives, of shrinking from important cultural fights. 

What looked on the surface like a personal spat between two opinion journalists was in fact a larger debate about the future of the political right. Ahmari was arguing for a conservatism that wasn’t nice or civil as a matter of practice. He wanted a conservative politics that would wage cultural war on its enemies—and win. 

Last night, Ahmari took the fight directly to his enemy, debating French in person for the first time in an event at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., moderated by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. As debates go, it was profoundly lopsided.

French, a lawyer and former president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, repeatedly challenged Ahmari to explain what concrete actions he proposed to defend religious liberty and culture. In doing so, French demonstrated over and over again that Ahmari’s arguments are hollow, that his thinking is shallow, that he is an utter lightweight on virtually all the matters of policy substance he claimed to care about. To put it in the kind of blunt and less-than-civil terms that the Post editor might use, the evening proved that Sohrab Ahmari is a joke. 

Much of the debate centered on “drag queen story hour,” an event held at a California public library that was, by Ahmari’s telling, the inciting incident for his attack against French. Ahmari was offended by this event’s existence, and for whatever reason he decided that French, and French’s style of political argument, were to blame.

Ahmari brought up the California event early in the evening, calling it and others like it a “cultural crisis and a moral emergency.” Drag queen story hour, he warned, was a “global movement,” since the group that hosts it has 35 chapters. “It is,” he said, “a threat.” 

This eventually prompted French to ask the obvious question: What would Ahmari do to combat this supposed crisis? “What public power would you use?” he asked. “And how would it be constitutional?”

Ahmari’s answer—and I promise I am not making this up—was that he would hold a congressional hearing “on what’s happening in our libraries,” in which sympathetic conservative senators such as Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton would “make the head of the Modern Library Association or whatever sweat.” 

There has always been something frustratingly vague about Ahmari’s vision. In his original essay attacking French, he longed for a conservatism that would “fight the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good.” It was never clear what, precisely, he felt the common good or the Highest Good were, or who would be in charge of defining them. But now, at long last, we have some clarity about it means to fight the culture war in this manner: It means convening a formal event at which public officials are mean to the head of the Modern Library Association. Which is to say: It means political theater designed to entertain and satisfy Sohrab Ahmari.

Later, Ahmari suggested that local ordinances could be passed to prohibit culturally offensive displays like drag queen story hour, or that obscenity laws could be enforced more strictly. French, an actual lawyer, patiently explained that even the oldest and strictest interpretations of obscenity laws would not bar drag queens from the library; even back then, courts would not have seen dressing in drag as obscene. More importantly, local ordinances would violate the Constitution, which protects viewpoint-neutral access to public facilities such as schools and libraries. Those protections, French noted, have benefited conservative Christians immensely, ensuring that they cannot be denied access to public spaces because of their religious beliefs. But the same protections also prohibit public officials from turning away drag queens. You can’t have one without the other. 

“I’m going to fight for the rights of others that I would like for myself,” French said, “because I know that my rights are fragile.” It’s not possible to create a system that only delivers results that Ahmari likes. Sometimes, French said, “people you disagree with are going to have to go to court and win.” What matters is the fairness and integrity of the system as a whole, not one’s irritation with a particular outcome.  

Ahmari stumbled in response, arguing that there are “cultural battles that can’t be fought” in the courtroom. These issues were bigger than the courts, he said. This was something of a retreat, if not an outright reversal, from the position he took in his essay, in which he nonsensically complained that French—who has sued countless universities to protect individual religious and speech rights—was too resistant to using government power to achieve his desired ends. Instead, he claimed at the time, French was overly enamored of “cultural change” as the solution. 

So which is the correct way forward? Culture? Or law? As on so many things, Ahmari couldn’t seem to decide. 

I suspect he isn’t really concerned about either. What Ahmari really wants is theater, the satisfaction of watching a friendly senator dress down an unfriendly liberal. 

Similarly, Ahmari wants to reinstate the ban on assault weapons, a position an editorial in his paper recently endorsed, not because he believes it would be effective—the piece admits that such bans are arbitrary and that the previous one had “limited impact”—but because his agenda consists almost entirely of empty, symbolic action. 

He likewise defended Missouri Sen. Hawley’s absurd plan to regulate social media functionality, not because it offered good, practical ideas—”it’s not as if I agree with every provision,” he said—but on the grounds that “at least [Hawley’s] willing to say, here’s a problem, and the state may have a role.” At one point he offered, largely unprompted, “I am willing to ban things. Let me put it that way.” The Highest Good, I guess.

This is not a practical agenda. It is a flimsy expression of irritation. Ahmari is upset about things that are happening in the culture, and he wants them to go away—or at least to be castigated publicly by someone in a position of power. He doesn’t really have a plan to make anyone’s life better. He just wants the brief satisfaction of a lively political show. 

To be clear, my critique of Ahmari is not a defense of all of French’s ideas. The National Review writer is, to put it mildly, no libertarian. I believe he is wrong about many things, such as whether the First Amendment does—or should—protect pornography. (French made clear in the debate that he believes it shouldn’t, although he recognized that cultural demand presented challenges to his view.) But he has also done much to concretely defend individual liberty for both religious and secular people, especially on college campuses. And he understands, correctly, that the foundation of individual freedom is the protection of individual rights, even—especially—when they benefit people and actions you personally dislike.

French is sometimes wrong. But unlike Ahmari, he is arguing thoughtfully and in good faith. He knew what he was talking about, the precise details and history of the law, and the ramifications that alterations might have, in the way that a lawyer with years of on-the-ground experience knows. Ahmari knew what he felt, he knew that he was upset, and he didn’t know much more. 

So when I say that Ahmari is a joke, I don’t do so solely as a cheap jab. I’m saying he is so thoroughly ignorant of or careless about the particulars of legal and policy substance that he should not be regarded as merely wrong. I’m saying he should not be regarded at all. 

Ahmari has nothing productive to offer, nothing useful to add to the debate about conservatism and nationalism and the best way to protect the rights and liberties of Americans. He is a person without a plan beyond behaving rudely to garner attention. He has substituted shallow snideness and pointless personal attacks against a decent man in place of a thoroughly considered political program, because, in the end, his political program consists of little more than sneers and shallow assertions of moral righteousness. Incivility is not the process by which he means to achieve some larger political victory but an end unto itself. Ahmari-ism is not an agenda, or an ideology, or a political program. It is, at heart, being a jerk for its own sake. 

Ahmari will probably have to be satisfied with that, because his attack has backfired. He lost last night’s debate, and lost badly, in a fight that he started. In doing so, he proved not only that David French can fight but that French-ism can win. 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ZPIj9b
via IFTTT

A Deeper Dive Into The Epstein-Dubin Wall Street Connection

Jeffrey Epstein may be dead, but there are still many stones to turn over while investigators sift through his network of high-profile friends, some of whom may be guilty of sex crimes themselves. 

The wealthy pedophile, transhumanist, and financier’s circle of friends included Bill Clinton, Ehud Barack, Prince Andrew, and Victoria’s Secret boss Les Wexner. 

It also included billionaire hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin and his wife, Dr. Eva Andersson-Dubin – a former Miss Sweden who dated Epstein for three years before she and Dubin married in 1994. 

The Dubins and Epstein were close, and remained close after his 2008 conviction for pedophilia – inviting him to their Palm Beach home for Thanksgiving the following year. Eva even wrote an email to Epstein’s probation officer insisting that she was “100% comfortable” with the pedophile and registered sex-offender being around her minor children. 

According to Vanity Fair‘s William Cohan, several sources said that Epstein was the godfather to the Dubins’ three children – a claim which the family disputed (“The Dubins are Jewish and Jewish people do not typically do godparents,” said a spokesman). 

Epstein, Dubin and Wall Street

In 2004, Epstein reportedly received a $15 million fee after JPMorgan Chase bought control of Dubin’s hedge fund, Highbridge Capital. Epstein had introduced Dubin to then-JPM Exec Jes Staley, who is now CEO of Barclays. According to Bloomberg, Staley “visited Epstein on the private island, accompanied by his wife Debora.” He also visited Epstein at his Palm Beach office while the Epstein was on prison work-release. 

Dubin, meanwhile, also directed some of Epstein’s money to at least two hedge fund mangers; Dan Zwirn and Joseph Kusnan – both former Highbridge employees who left to start their own firms. 

“Glenn Dubin introduced me to Epstein as a new manager that he was familiar with and thought highly of,” Kusnan told Vanity Fair – insisting that he and Epstein only met once, and never communicated again. Notably, Kusnan delivered “a good rate of return on his modest investment.” 

The relationship between Epstein and Dubin also ventured into more controversial realms, if one believes the depositions recently unsealed in an old court case between one of Epstein’s alleged victims, Virginia Giuffre, and Epstein’s longtime companion and alleged madam, Ghislaine Maxwell. According to Giuffre’s May 2016 deposition, Dubin was the “first” powerful person that Maxwell sent her to have sex with “after my training.” She also said that she was instructed by Maxwell to have sex with, among others, Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law professor; George Mitchell, the former U.S. senator; Bill Richardson,the former New Mexico governor; and Jean-Luc Brunel, a French model scout. “My whole life revolved around just pleasing these men and keeping Ghislaine and Jeffrey happy,” Giuffre said in her deposition. “[Maxwell and Epstein’s] whole entire lives revolved around sex. They call massages sex. They call modeling sex.” She said Maxwell told her to give Dubin “a massage.” (The Dubins categorically deny Giuffre’s allegations. Their spokesperson also provided evidence they say disproves Giuffre’s account. Dershowitz, Mitchell, Richardson, and Brunel have also denied her allegations.) –Vanity Fair

Did the Dubins bring in a 15-year-old girl?

Former Dubin chef and assistant Rinaldo Rizzo claimed in a recently unsealed June 2016 deposition that when he and his wife Debra worked for the Dubins, Andersson-Dubin brought home a 15-year-old Swedish girl who had been with Epstein and Maxwell during a visit to the Dubins’ home. 

The girl was “distraught,” “upset,” and “she was shaking” said Rizzo, who added that the girl seemed “on the verge of crying.” 

According to the report, “[T]he girl told him and his wife that she worked for Epstein as his “executive personal assistant,” and when Rizzo expressed shock that such a young girl could have that job, “she just breaks down hysterically.” Rizzo stated that the girl told him she was involved in some forced sexual activity at Epstein’s Caribbean island and was told by Maxwell and Epstein not to discuss it.“

But about a month later, according to Rizzo, the Dubins, along with the girl and the Rizzos, were on Dubin’s private jet back to Sweden and the girl was returned home. “We flew to Sweden,” Rizzo said in his deposition, “we stopped at an airport we didn’t usually stop at and she got off the plane.” The Rizzos left the Dubins’ employ in October 2005, following those events, he said in his deposition. “My wife and I had discussed these incidents, and this last one was just, we couldn’t deal with it,” he said. –Vanity Fair

The Dubins have denied everything – stating through a spokesman who shared flight records “There was never a 15-year-old Swedish nanny in the Dubins’ home and flight records for trips to Sweden on the Dubins’ plane do not include any minors other than family members.” The Dubins’ longtime live-in nanny also attested “with certainty” that they had never employed an underage nanny. 

That said, the Dubins did confirm having traveled with Epstein on his private jet – occasionally flying between Palm Beach and New York, where they all had homes. Maxwell, meanwhile, flew on Dubin’s plane twice along with his children; once in 2004 and again in 2010. 

Pilot Jim Dowd who flew for both Epstein and the Dubins said that both men were “friends” who liked “vacationing together.” 

Meanwhile, a Russian model who worked for French modeling exec and accused rapist Jean-Luc Brunel was reportedly “friendly” with Andersson-Dubin. The model, Lana Pozhidaeva, recently made headlines for having received a $55,000 donation from Epstein for her New York-based nonprofit. 

Dubins and Wexner

Last but not least, Vanity Fair‘s Cohan notes that the Dubins were close enough to Victoria’s Secret boss (and former Epstein pal) Leslie Wexner, the billionaire founder and CEO of L Brands. Wexner – Epstein’s only known financial client – allowed the Dubins and their children to use their 316-foot, $100 million yacht, Limitless, for a Mediterranean vacation.

“Wexner’s wife, Abigail,“graciously invited the Dubins to use their boat for four days while Eva Dubin was recovering from breast cancer surgery,” Dubin’s spokesperson explained,” according to the report – which adds that it was “quite unusual for Wexner to let anyone use Limitless when he was not on board.” 

Interestingly – all parties have denied all wrongdoing, and many claim to have had no knowledge of Epstein’s proclivities despite hanging out with him during and following his conviction for pedophilia. What’s wrong with these people?

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2UIP2RH Tyler Durden

The GOP Deals With Trump Competition by Canceling Elections

In a move that has been foreshadowed for a year, the Republican Party this weekend will cancel presidential primary elections in four states, Politico reports.

Quoting “three GOP officials who are familiar with the plans,” the paper said that South Carolina, Nevada, Arizona and Kansas, which between them comprise around 7 percent of the overall delegate haul, will simply wave away political competition rather than let the likes of Bill Weld, Joe Walsh, and perhaps Mark Sanford take a David vs. Goliath swing at an incumbent president whose Gallup approval ratings among Republicans has been between 87 percent and 91 percent all year.

The camcellations, which grow out of the unprecedented collusion between the Republican National Committee and President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign, demonstrates strikingly less confidence than that of his predecessor.

State Democratic parties generally held primaries and caucuses in 2012 unless no competitors qualified for the ballot. This led to such amusemens as attorney and perennial candidate John Wolfe winning 42 percent in the Arkansas primary. But Obama, whose approval rating among Democrats in the first half of 2011 bobbed between 75 percent and 85 percent, waltzed to the nomination.

South Carolina—Sanford’s home state—and Nevada are third and fourth, respectively, on the Republican primary/caucus calendar, giving them outsized influence on the electoral process. The last time an incumbent president acted in such a heavy-handed way toward an early-state primary was George H.W. Bush, whose apparatus eliminated the competition in the 1992 Iowa caucus and the just-after-New-Hampshire South Dakota primary. That focused the attention of Bush’s upstart challenger, Pat Buchanan, on New Hampshire, where his 37 percent of the vote shook up the whole election.

Trump and his team are reportedly very aware of the historical parallels (as are his competitors—Weld is focused on the “Buchanan benchmark” in Granite State polling), and they want to eliminate the element of surprise. “We don’t elect presidents by acclamation in America,” Weld said in a statement reacting to the news. “Donald Trump is doing his best to make the Republican Party his own personal club. Republicans deserve better.”

Walsh, too, is unamused.

Programming note: I will be appearing tonight with Joe Walsh (and also Christina Hoff-Summers, Maria Teresa Kumar, and Democratic presidential candidate John Delaney) on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, live at 10 p.m. ET.

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

The GOP Deals With Trump Competition by Canceling Elections

In a move that has been foreshadowed for a year, the Republican Party this weekend will cancel presidential primary elections in four states, Politico reports.

Quoting “three GOP officials who are familiar with the plans,” the paper said that South Carolina, Nevada, Arizona and Kansas, which between them comprise around 7 percent of the overall delegate haul, will simply wave away political competition rather than let the likes of Bill Weld, Joe Walsh, and perhaps Mark Sanford take a David vs. Goliath swing at an incumbent president whose Gallup approval ratings among Republicans has been between 87 percent and 91 percent all year.

The camcellations, which grow out of the unprecedented collusion between the Republican National Committee and President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign, demonstrates strikingly less confidence than that of his predecessor.

State Democratic parties generally held primaries and caucuses in 2012 unless no competitors qualified for the ballot. This led to such amusemens as attorney and perennial candidate John Wolfe winning 42 percent in the Arkansas primary. But Obama, whose approval rating among Democrats in the first half of 2011 bobbed between 75 percent and 85 percent, waltzed to the nomination.

South Carolina—Sanford’s home state—and Nevada are third and fourth, respectively, on the Republican primary/caucus calendar, giving them outsized influence on the electoral process. The last time an incumbent president acted in such a heavy-handed way toward an early-state primary was George H.W. Bush, whose apparatus eliminated the competition in the 1992 Iowa caucus and the just-after-New-Hampshire South Dakota primary. That focused the attention of Bush’s upstart challenger, Pat Buchanan, on New Hampshire, where his 37 percent of the vote shook up the whole election.

Trump and his team are reportedly very aware of the historical parallels (as are his competitors—Weld is focused on the “Buchanan benchmark” in Granite State polling), and they want to eliminate the element of surprise. “We don’t elect presidents by acclamation in America,” Weld said in a statement reacting to the news. “Donald Trump is doing his best to make the Republican Party his own personal club. Republicans deserve better.”

Walsh, too, is unamused.

Programming note: I will be appearing tonight with Joe Walsh (and also Christina Hoff-Summers, Maria Teresa Kumar, and Democratic presidential candidate John Delaney) on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, live at 10 p.m. ET.

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

JPMorgan Warns Stablecoins Like Libra At Risk From Negative Yields, Creating “System Gridlock”

Authored by Jack Martin via CoinTelegraph.com,

The new breed of stablecoins led by Facebook’s Libra could be vulnerable to failure in periods of network stress.

image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

According to an analysis from JPMorgan released on Sept. 5, they lack the short-term liquidity of other payments systems, so usage could grow faster than the network can safely support.

Transaction growth could outpace network capacity

In a note to clients, analysts highlighted the potential for substantial growth in stablecoin payment systems like Libra. 

“Stablecoins, and Libra in particular, have the potential to grow substantially and ultimately shoulder a significant fraction of global transactional activity.”

But JPMorgan urges caution if the networks become responsible for a significant proportion of global transaction activity. The note explains: 

“As currently designed and proposed, they do not take into account the microstructure of operating such a payment system. The risk of payment system gridlock, particularly during periods of stress, could have serious macroeconomic consequences.”

Further risk to Libra from negative yields

Another risk pointed out in the note was that of negative yields. Libra will rely on income from collateral in its reserve account of fiat currencies. However, yields on most major currencies are already negative, and trends point to further global monetary easing. 

JPMorgan notes: 

“Any system that relies on reserve-asset income to fund operational and other ongoing costs becomes unstable in a negative yield world…

…With more than half of high-quality short-term sovereign debt already negative, the vast majority of the remainder made up of U.S. government securities, and trends pointing towards global monetary easing, a fully negative yielding Libra reserve has become a plausible (some would argue likely) risk.”

Facebook’s Libra is one of a raft of incoming stablecoins from entities such as Binance, and even the Chinese central bank.

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