Louisiana Police Abuse in the Spotlight in Sugar Town: New at Reason

'Sugar Town'No network runs more true-crime slice-and-dice than Investigation Discovery. From Beauty Queen Murders to Bad Teachers to the epochal work of sociology Truth Is Stranger Than Florida, Investigation Discovery is pretty much round-the-clock police procedural, with cops hunting killers and rapists and guys who tear those tags off of mattresses.

Sugar Town is a complete reversal of form: This time, the police are the bad guys and their investigation is the crime. And the result is a show more horrifying than anything about the Boston Strangler or Aileen Wuornos. Low-key but packing a powerful punch, Sugar Town ought to convince even the most indifferent citizens that maybe this #BlackLivesMatter stuff is worth worrying about. Television critic Glenn Garvin explains more.

View this article.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2ADBro3
via IFTTT

Forget $1 Trillion: This Is The Real Resistance Level For Apple

With Apple darting gingerly above the $1 trillion market cap territory today after crossing it yesterday for the first time ever following some early morning weakness today, traders are asking if there is only upside now to Apple, especially with tens of billions more to go on the company’s stock buyback program .

But maybe $1 trillion, while a nice round number, is not the real resistance level: as Bloomberg’s Michael Regan writes, “whether or not the round number gives investors pause is open for debate, but there’s a coincidental stumbling block to consider.”

Regan is talking about Apple’s increasingly weight as a share of the entire stock market: to wit, the latest surge has put it above 4% of the market cap of the S&P 500. And as Regan notes, while Apple was able to stay above that weighting for much of 2012, its outperformance has petered out in subsequent years as it approached or hit that threshold:

Why could 4% of S&P prove to be a bigger peak for AAPL to surmount than the $1 trillion market cap, which has largely been scaled thanks to hundreds of billions in debt-funded buybacks? Because as the Bloomberg commentator notes, “surmounting a 4% share of the index may be a bigger challenge considering that active fund managers may not be too comfortable being “overweight” a stock that’s already such a huge weight.

The other reason: virtually everyone – hedge funds, mutual funds, pension funds, reserve managers and even central banks…

… are already long to the gills AAPL stock. Which means that aside from the company buying back its own stock, the question is who is left?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2LZ3Idq Tyler Durden

Top New Hampshire Dem Arrested For Allegedly Biting, Attacking Woman

A top New Hampshire Democrat was arrested Thursday for a variety of assault and domestic violence allegations, after a woman reported that he bit her at least two times, struck her in the stomach, and threw a cup of water and the cup at her after breaking into her residence, according to New Hampshire Attorney General Gordon MacDonald

Jeff Woodburn, 53, is the Democratic leader of the New Hampshire state Senate. In total, he was charged with four counts of simple assault, two counts of domestic violence, two counts of criminal mischief and one count of criminal trespassing. From the AG’s office: 

  • Two counts of simple assault (RSA 631:2-a) charging Mr. Woodburn with causing unprivileged physical contact to the adult female victim by: (1) throwing a cup of water in her face and then throwing the empty cup at her as well, striking her in the face on August 10, 2017; and (2) striking the victim in the stomach with his hand on December 24 , 2017. 
  • One count of criminal trespass (RSA 635:2) charging Mr. Woodburn with entering or remaining in the residence of the adult female victim, after forcing open the locked door to the residence, an occupied structure as defined in RSA 635:1, III, knowing that he was not licensed or privileged to do so on December 24, 2017.
  • Two counts of domestic violence (RSA 631:2-b) charging Mr. Woodburn with causing bodily injury to the adult female victim, an intimate partner as defined in RSA 631:2-b, III(b), by use of physical force, by: (1) biting the victim on her left hand, resulting in bruising on December 15, 2017; and (2) biting the victim on her right forearm, resulting in bruising, on or between June 9, 2018 and June 10, 2018.

In response to the arrest, several New Hampshire Democrats have called for Woodburn to resign, including NH Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley, who told the Concord Monitor: 

“The New Hampshire Democratic Party stands firm in our belief that any form of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or domestic violence is completely unacceptable behavior for anyone, let alone our public officials who should all be held to a higher standard. 

We take these accusations against Senator Jeff Woodburn very seriously and stand with his accuser and support her during this unimaginably painful time. We are asking Senator Woodburn to resign from office immediately.”

Woodburn, a third-term senator, represents 58 towns in the North Country and has led the Democratic Senate caucus since 2014.

The Democrat has no primary challengers but does face a Republican opponent in the general election: David Starr of Franconia. –Concord Monitor

Woodburn was booked by by the Concord Police and released on a $500 cash bail and $10,000 personal recognizance. He is scheduled to be arraigned at 10:30 a.m. on August 20 at the Lancaster 1st Circuit Court District Division. 

“These charges are serious,” said Lyn Schollett, executive director for the coalition. “New Hampshire communities expect elected officials to uphold the laws they pass. We stand by this victim and all survivors in accessing resources and support and seeking justice.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2naEHhm Tyler Durden

Trade War Kills a New Hampshire Meadery’s Plan to Export 100K Bottles to China

Earlier this year, Michael Fairbrother was closing in on a huge deal: a contract to send 100,000 bottles of mead—a wine-adjacent alcoholic beverage made from fermented honey—to a distributor in China.

Landing the $750,000 contract would have been a game-changer for Moonlight Meadery, the New Hampshire–based business that Fairbrother started in his garage eight years ago. Already recognized as one of the best breweries in the state, it would have opened a huge new market for for its products. It also would have hired at least six new employees and bought new equipment to meet the new obligations, he says.

Then the trade war came.

President Donald Trump slapped tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from around the world, then followed up with another round of tariffs on various Chinese-made goods. China responded with a range of tariffs that mostly targeted agricultural products—including those, such as mead, that are made with honey.

“We had gone through multiple rounds of evaluation, and we were getting to the final point, negotiating down to the penny,” Fairbrother tells Reason. “The conversation at that point went dry, so I followed up to see how things were going. They said with the tariffs happening, they were taking their business to Poland.”

Trump’s trade war has many costs that can easily be measured, like the job losses triggered at places like the Mid-Continent Nail Corporation, or the jobs at Harley-Davidson that could be shifted overseas. But there are hidden effects too—costs that won’t show up in a ledger. Jobs that could have been created but never were, as shifting trade policy changes businesses’ decisions about where to invest and build. Or, as in the case of Moonlight Meadery, causes prospective buyers in China to take their business elsewhere.

“Basically, the second runner-up got the contract because of the increase in cost,” says Fairbrother.

Instead of protecting American jobs and businesses—as the White House claims it is trying to do—Trump’s tariffs (and the predictable response they have triggered from America’s biggest trading partner) have limited businesses’ ability to grow.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D–N.H.) brought Moonlight Meadery’s circumstances to the attention of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer during a hearing on trade policies last week. What’s the plan, she asked, to address the costs of tariffs on small businesses?

“The president is very sympathetic and I, personally, am very sympathetic,” said Lighthizer. “It certainly is not our plan to have small business or agricultural or anyone else in America feel the brunt of a change in trade policy which is designed to make the U.S. stronger and richer.”

But if that’s not the plan, one might reasonably ask what the plan actually is. Before erecting tariffs, Trump proclaimed that a trade war would be “good and easy to win.” Peter Navarro, director of the White House’s National Trade Council, predicted that no country would retaliate to American tariffs.

Each day seems to bring new evidence of just how inaccurate those claims were. Today China announced another round of retaliatory tariffs aimed at $60 billion worth of U.S. imports, with rates ranging from 5 percent to 25 percent. That means another set of American businesses face the prospect of reduced access to Chinese markets. Like Moonlight Meadery, they might miss out on a chance to expand their sales, hire more workers, and grow their business.

“Any unilateral threat or blackmail will only lead to intensification of conflicts and damage to the interests of all parties,” the Chinese government said in a statement, according to a translation by CNBC.

Meanwhile, Trump is threatening to impose tariffs on literally all Chinese imports. The two sides are growing farther apart, and the prospects of a deal to end the escalating tensions seem to be fading. Indeed, Chinese officials say they don’t even know what concessions the White House trying to get.

Until there’s a plan, and until the trade war comes to an end, more businesses will get caught in the crossfire.

At the end of our conversation, I ask Fairbrother what would he say to Trump if he had a chance. He chuckles and then pauses, like he’s holding back what he really wants to say.

“I’d just love to see some wisdom from his years on this earth,” he finally offers. “Instead of all this.”

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2n9gPe1
via IFTTT

Michael Shermer on Why Even Scientists, Transhumanists, and Atheists Want To Believe in Heaven: Podcast

In Heavens on Earth: The Scientific Search for the Afterlife, Immortality, and Utopia, Michael Shermer seeks to explain why so many of us are deeply invested in the idea of a world beyond the one we’re already living in. Shermer isn’t just talking about religious believers. He also chronicles the ways socialists and others have tried to create paradise now, and the obsessions of transhumanists trying to create a secular version of immortality.

One of the world’s best-known “skeptics,” Shermer teaches at Chapman University, is the publisher of Skeptic magazine, writes a column for Scientific American, and has penned a shelf of best-selling books on such subjects as evolution, the brain, and the morality of capitalism.

In a wide-ranging conversation taped at FreedomFest, the annual gathering of libertarians held in Las Vegas each July, I asked Shermer about his long association with libertarian ideas, including his involvement with Andrew Galambos, an idiosyncratic self-help guru whose ideas about intellectual property were famously parodied in Jerome Tuccille’s underground classic, It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand. We also discussed the welcome return and explicit defense of Enlightenment values of rationality, evidence, disinterestedness, and progress—in his work, and in the work of such figures as Matt Ridley, Deirdre McCloskey, and Steven Pinker.

Subscribe, rate, and review our podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

Don’t miss a single Reason Podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2OFo9dL
via IFTTT

Kunstler: Is The Deep State Ready To Start A World War Just To Oust Trump?

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

Light It Up

The Guardians of the Galaxy at National Public Radio were beside themselves Wednesday night reporting that “the lights are blinking red for a 2018 election attack by Russia.” Well, isn’t that an interesting set-up? In effect, NPR is preparing its listeners in advance to reject and dispute the coming midterm election if they’re not happy with the results. Thus continues America’s institutional self-sabotage, with the help of a news media that’s become the errand boy of the Deep State.

What do I mean by the Deep State? The vested permanent bureaucracy of Washington DC, and especially its vastly overgrown and redundant “Intel Community,” which has achieved critical mass to take on a life of its own within the larger government, makes up its own rules of conduct, not necessarily within the rule of law, and devotes too much of its budget and influence defending its own prerogatives rather than the interests of the nation.

Personally, I doubt that President Putin of Russia is dumb enough to allow, let alone direct, his intel services to lift a finger “meddling” in the coming US midterm election, with this American intel behemoth vacuuming every digital electron on earth into the NSA’s bottomless maw of intercepted secrets.

Mr. Putin must have also observed by now that the US Intel Community is capable of generating mass public hallucinations, to the beat of war-drums, and determined not to give it anything to work with. That’s my theory about what Russia is up to. If you have a better one, let’s hear it?

Another curious incident played out on CNN earlier this week when Max Boot, senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations (the Deep State faculty lounge) faced off against Russia historian/scholar Stephen F. Cohen of Princeton on Anderson Cooper’s prime-time show.

“Russia is attacking us right now according to Trump’s own Director of National Security (Daniel Coates)!” Mr. Boot shrilly declared.

“I’ve been studying Russia for forty-five years,” Mr. Cohen replied, “I’ve lived in Russia and I’ve lived here. If Russia was attacking us, we would know it.”

“You’ve consistently been an apologist for Russia in those last 45 years,” Mr. Boot riposted.

“I don’t do defamation of people; I do serious analysis of serious national security policy,” Mr. Cohen rejoined. “When people like you call people like me ‘apologists for Russia’ because we don’t agree with your analysis, you are criminalizing diplomacy and detante and you are the threat to national security.”

Referee Anderson Cooper stepped in: “So, finally Stephen, you’re saying Russia was not attacking the United States?”

“Yes, I don’t think they attacked the United States,” Cohen said.

“You’re apologizing for Russia as we speak,” Mr. Boot inserted.

“This is low-level stuff that went on,” Mr. Cohen said. “It is not 9/11. It is not Pearl Harbor. It is not Russian paratroopers descending on Washington. This kind of hyperbole, ‘an attack on America,’ suggests that we need to attack Russia….I think Mr. Boot would have been happy if Trump had waterboarded Putin at the summit and made him confess….”

Notice how astonished Mr. Cooper was to hear the view that Russia did not attack the US. It’s inconceivable in the universe-as-known-to-CNN, so potent is the hallucination there that even the water-cooler is bubbling with angst.

Oh, and by the way, do any of you readers actually know how the duties of the Director of National Security (Mr. Coates) differ from the Director of the CIA (Gina Haspel) or the Director of the NSA (Paul M. Nakasone)?

In case you are mystified as to why a considerable portion of the public is disgusted with the news media, it is as simple as this: they appear to be an instrument of that permanent government bureaucracy, doing its bidding, defending its criminal mischief, and covering up its dishonesty. Proof of that is the media’s conspicuous inattention to the now well-documented political depravity in another arm of the Intel Community, the FBI — a much more compelling story of villainy than 13 Russian Facebook trolls and the alleged (still unproven) hacking of the DNC.

Donald Trump, aka the Golden Golem of Greatness, may be an unappetizing and embarrassing president. But is the Deep State ready to start a world war just to shove him offstage? Or burn down the constitution? While CNN stands by with Jeri-cans of gasoline?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2MhboVd Tyler Durden

NYPD Hunting Black Man For Punching “White Bitch” On Brooklyn Bus

Have you seen this man?

Police in New York City are looking for him after he (alledgedly) attacked a stranger for apparently being white.

Fox5NY.com reports that the violence happened on a bus Monday morning about 10 a.m. in Downtown Brooklyn.

NYPD says a 29-year-old man was onboard a B25 MTA Bus on Fulton Street. Another man walked up to him and punched him in the face while making an anti-white comment:

“I hate everyone like you, a white bitch,” the suspect reportedly said to the victim.

The victim was not seriously injured but suffered swelling and pain. The attacker then got off of the bus at the intersection of Fulton Street and Bond Street.

As The Hill reports, police are investigating the assault as a hate crime and are still searching for the suspect.

Which is odd because, unlike the “I hate white people”-screaming eskimo, and NYT’s latest hire – who are apparently not racist, this black man in Brooklyn screaming “I hate everyone like you white bitch” before physically assaulting someone is racist and committing a hate-crime (at least for now, until the NYPD gets the tap on the shoulder from the higher-ups).

So, in case you are confused as to what is racism/hate-crimes/unacceptable in modern society,  @JessKellyDC explains:

Media: “Trump voters are white racists and Nazis and racism is why Trump won.”

NYTimes: “Racism is fine if you’re crapping on white people.”

We wonder if the assailant was as worried for his life (before his punched the man in the face) as Jim Acosta was at a Trump Rally?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2LZiEId Tyler Durden

Senate Votes to Extend Federal Flood Insurance Funding

The Senate voted 86–12 this week to keep funding the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) until November. The House passed the same bill last week, so it’s now on its way to the president’s desk.

Too bad. When Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) voted against the bill, he rightly called it “fiscally unsustainable” and “structurally unsound.” It’s also a handout to the rich.

When Congress created the NFIP in 1968, it was trying to shrink the role of federal aid in disaster-prone areas by offering incentives to undergo risk mitigation. But instead of reducing the need for federal dollars, the program done the opposite. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the NFIP is around $30 billion in debt.

Lee tried to mitigate the fiscal blow with an amendment that would have capped the payouts at $2.5 million, but the measure failed to get enough support. Meanwhile, other legislators called for rushing the bill through. “We need to reform this program, but we also need to keep it alive through the end of hurricane season,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.). The NFIP insures more than five million properties; failing to reauthorize it would amount to “scaring” the policyholders, Kennedy said.

But the people who benefit from the NFIP do not tend to be impoverished Americans looking to rebuild their lives after hurricanes. Homes covered by the insurance program are, on average, more expensive than those not covered by the programs.

A Cato Institute report last year found that the median value of a subsidized coastal property was $402,768, while the median value for an unsubsidized property on the coast was a much smaller $339,842. Another study—this one from the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth—found an “inverse relationship” between property values and premiums: The owners of higher-value properties paid a smaller premium than the owners of lower-value properties. In effect, taxpayers across America are subsidizing the lifestyles of rich people with waterfront homes.

Congress may want to create incentives for risk mitigation, but artificially low flood insurance premiums incentivize people to live in riskier areas. People should be free to choose where they want to live, but it’s shouldn’t be the role of the government—especially a government $21 trillion in debt—to take bail out wealthy citizens’ risky decisions.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2Meebyp
via IFTTT

New Age Fiscal Stimulus Is Unprecedented – And Ominous

Authored by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,

In a normal business cycle, the economy expands for a while and businesses hire lots of new people at somewhat higher wages, generating enough tax revenue to shrink the government’s budget deficit – and in rare cases produce a surplus. So, for a while, the government borrows less money.

Not this time. The current recovery is nearly ten years old and the labor market is so tight that desperate companies are trying all kinds of new tricks to attract workers – including higher wages.

Yet the US just announced its intention to borrow $1.3 trillion in this fiscal year, the most since the depths of the Great Recession.

And this isn’t a one-shot deal. Trillion-dollar deficits are now projected for as far as the eye can see:

What does this mean? The US has decided that since we’ve borrowed a lot of money in the past and are still here, debt must not matter.

Voters don’t care, the markets don’t care, so why not spend money we don’t have on cool stuff in the here-and-now. A new generation of super-weapons? Sure. A wall across 3,000 miles of southern border, check. Tax cuts for people who already more than they’re able to spend? Why not?

But here’s the problem – or the short-term one, anyhow: Using debt to push an expansion beyond its natural lifetime (this one is approaching the longest ever) makes the imbalances that normally end expansions much, much worse. The aforementioned labor shortage, for instance, will only become more extreme if the economy keeps growing. Interest rates, already rising, will keep going up.

So think of the current bout of late-cycle New Age fiscal stimulus as an experiment in the style of QE and ZIRP. That is, something that hasn’t been done in the past but – given the alternatives – seems like the least risky option.

And as with QE, the US isn’t alone. Japan has given up trying to balance its budget and is now looking for new things to buy with fresh-off-the-press yen. China, faced with a manufacturing slowdown and incipient trade war, is “going for growth” via a domestic infrastructure program – after a decade of the biggest infrastructure build-out in world history.

It’s useful to note that even Keynesianism, generally the most debt-friendly (or debt-oblivious) school of economic thought, views deficit spending as a cyclical stabilizer. That is, in bad times governments should borrow and spend to keep the economy growing while in good times governments should scale back borrowing – and ideally run surpluses – to keep things from overheating.

But now we seem to have turned that logic on its head, with fiscal stimulus ramping up in the best of times, when unemployment is low, stock prices high and inflation stirring. New Age fiscal policy seems to call for continuous and growing deficits pretty much forever.

As I said, unprecedented and definitely ominous.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Meqjzf Tyler Durden

Secret Surveillance of Americans Traveling by Air Found Nothing, Will Continue

Airport arrival boardFederal air marshals have secretly stalked about 5,000 Americans since March. None of these people were suspected of any specific criminal or terrorist activities, and the surveillance didn’t turn up any evidence of criminal or terrorist activities.

Nevertheless, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) says the program should and will continue.

The Boston Globe reported over the weekend that the TSA’s program, called “Quiet Skies,” tracks fliers who weren’t even on terror watch lists, based on a vague concept of suspicious behavior. The air marshals themselves object to the program, and their union would like them assigned elsewhere rather than having to follow these people around. Some members of Congress have complained too, saying they weren’t been informed about the launch of this program. So this week, TSA officials have been having closed-door meetings with various lawmakers.

The TSA wouldn’t acknowledge the program existed until the Globe revealed it. Now that it’s been publicized, they’re quick to defend it. Spokesman James Gregory said Monday, “The program analyzes information on a passenger’s travel patterns, and through a system of checks and balances, to include robust oversight, effectively adds an additional line of defense to aviation security.”

It has other defenders, too. The Washington Post‘s editorial board gave it a quasi-stamp of approval with the “If it’s done right” disclaimer, noting that this system would allow the TSA to deploy air marshals to keep track of suspicious people rather than sticking them on large airliners to keep tabs on entire flights even when there’s no sign that anything may happen:

Among other things, the marshals employ behavior detection techniques similar to those that TSA agents use to evaluate all passengers at security checkpoints, such as watching for signs of excessive nervousness. Since airliners are spaces where no one expects privacy, it is unlikely the marshals’ scrutiny constitutes an illegal search. If the 90 days pass without incident, the scrutinized passengers are removed from the list and their files are closed and later purged, the TSA spokesman said.

The editorial highlights a behavior that the average person would find suspicious—”excessive nervousness.” But in practice, the TSA “behavior detection techniques” can find just about any behavior that anybody normally exhibits at an airport to be suspicious. As Elizabeth Nolan Brown noted on Monday, suspicion can be triggered by such behaviors as boarding late, sleeping on flights, or simply sweating.

ReasonTV pointed out the absurdly contradictory triggers in the TSA’s behavior detection systems. The short version: We’re all potential terrorists no matter what we do at the airport. But the longer version is funnier to watch:

In any case, the fact that this secret surveillance of 5,000 Americans uncovered nothing actionable is a sign that it is not, in fact, being “done right.”

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2LQIJdw
via IFTTT