Journalism icon Bob Woodward says reporters on the left and right are becoming too emotionally invested in Donald Trump, telling Newsweekthat “a number of reporters have at times become emotionally unhinged about it all, one way or the other.”
In answer to a question about whether Woodward thinks the news media is “failing” the test when it comes to the Trump presidency, the former Washington Post investigative reporter said:
First of all, journalists can always do better. Myself at the top of the list. I don’t think journalism is failing at all in the Trump era. But we have a lot of work to do. A number of reporters have at times become emotionally unhinged about it all, one way or the other.
Look at MSNBC or Fox News, and you will see those continually either denigrating Trump or praising him. I think the answer is in the middle, and in this class I talk about how it’s important to get your personal politics out.
It’s destructive to become too politicized. The emotion should be directed at doing more work, not some feeling or personal conclusion.
Case in point:
Last but not least – who could forget CNN’s Brooke Baldwin’s full stop when Trump advisor Boris Epshteyn told her on air that Hillary Clinton’s aides destroyed her BlackBerries with hammers. Maybe not “unhinged” per se, but a good reminder that Hillary Clinton’s BlackBerries were literally destroyed with hammers while she was under active investigation by the FBI.
When it comes to America’s response to gun crime, one Georgia town has been thinking outside the box since 1982, when its leaders passed a law requiring it citizens to own a firearm.
The Kennesaw, Georgia, law states that “every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm,” according to CNN, and was reportedly passed as a deterrent to crime.
“It was meant to be kind of a crime deterrent,” Kennesaw Police Lt. Craig Graydon, a 30-year law enforcement veteran, told CNN. “It was also more or less a political statement because the city of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed a city ordinance banning handguns from their city limits.”
As for would-be criminals looking for an easy mark, judging by the crime statistics it seems most have bypassed the Georgia town and moved on to easier targets. Even CNN was forced to admit that Kennesaw, populated by 33,000 people, has only had “one murder in the last six years and a violent crime rate of below 2%.”
“But,” writes CNN, “it’s unclear whether that has anything to do with the gun law.”
Kennesaw’s mayor sees it differently.
“If you’re going to commit a crime in Kennesaw and you’re the criminal — are you going to take a chance that that homeowner is a law-abiding citizen?” asked Mayor Derek Easterling.
“It gives me the ability to protect myself as opposed to being somewhere where you weren’t allowed to have a firearm or it was frowned upon,” said Wayne Arnold, a local resident who is a fan of the law.
With the gun issue being in the spotlight of late, town officials have been getting plenty of attention from all over the world about their law.
“We get a lot of calls, conversation, and it seems to keep crime control, gun safety, things like that on the minds of many of the residents, because people are constantly talking about the gun law,” Lt. Graydon told CNN. “So that’s been somewhat of a benefit to us.”
Arnold noted the expectation of a “Wild West” environment with everyone walking around “with a firearm strapped to their side.”
“And it’s not like that,” said Arnold. “It’s strictly a home defense system type of deal. There’s no shootouts down the street.”
And a lot less crime than your average American city.
A former corporate-fraud lawyer for the Department of Justice has been sentenced to 30 months in prison for stealing over 40 whistleblower fraud cases in 2016 and trying to sell the information to companies under federal investigation, according to prosecutors.
Wertkin and his attorney Cris Arguedas enter San Francisco courthouse (photo: Jason Doiy)
Jeffrey Wertkin, 40, was arrested in an undercover sting after an attorney for a Sunnyvale, CA tech company contacted the FBI in January following Wertkin’s offer to sell them a sealed federal lawsuit for $310,000, according to court documents. As he was taken into custody wearing a wig and fake mustache at a Cupertino, CA hotel by FBI Special Agent William Scanlon, Wertkin reportedly said “My life is over.”
Following his arrest, Wertkin engaged in an “obstruction binge” at his private law firm to destroy additional evidence of the scheme he had formulated for over a year, while also trying to frame a former colleague at the DOJ for the theft of the records.
A far more extensive and calculated crime was revealed at Wertkin’s sentencing hearing – as the former DOJ prosecutor stole and copied dozens of files – some of which he swiped right off of his boss’s desk, copied, and then re-stapled before returning them.
Wertkin “took grotesque advantage” of his position within the DOJ by “shaking down companies” and disclosing confidential information which “jeopardized the integrity of the civil justice system and unfairly cast a shadow over the work of the civil fraud section,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Robin L. Harris, who added that Wertkin’s crime was “was breathtaking in its scope and is the most serious and egregious example of public corruption by a DOJ attorney in recent memory.“
Wertkin worked from December 2010 to April 2016 in the department section responsible for recovering $4.7 billion in misspent tax dollars in 2016 alone. Under the False Claims Act, whistleblowers can receive part of recovered funds for tipping off fraud in government services and contracts by filing what are known as qui tam lawsuits under seal to protect their identities while the United States investigates. –MSN
Imploring the court for leniency, Wertkin said he committed the crimes while on “a terrible path” of substance abuse involving alcohol and marijuana during “a period of heightened anxiety and depression, a sense of impending failure at work and a deteriorating marriage.”
“I believe I somehow viewed selling the complaints as a way to escape my problems,’’ reads a statement from Wertkin included in a court filing.
Path to destruction
Wertkin – who specialized in healthcare fraud, planned his brazen scheme as he was leaving his job of nearly six years as a DOJ fraud prosecutor in April 2016 to join the law firm Akin Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld as a $450,000 / year partner in Washington. He began copying files for over a month before leaving the agency – including dozens of federal cases that weren’t assigned to him, according to court records.
From his position at Akin Gump, Wertkin attempted to net potential clients by dangling the stolen information. When that tactic bore no fruit, he stepped up his efforts – reaching out to a targeted Alabama company for $50,000, a New York company for an undetermined price, and an Oregon company to which he mailed a redacted copy of the cover sheet in their federal case as bait.
“I thought if I could quickly earn a substantial sum of money, I could provide the material benefits I promised my family upon moving to Akin Gump — a new house in a better neighborhood and private school’’ for his two children, wrote Wertkin, who lived near Dupont Circle.
Prosecutors said Wertkin’s crime was nothing more than “narcissism and greed,” before his 2 1/2 year sentence on two counts of obstructing justice and one count of interstate transport of stolen property was handed down in a Wednesday hearing in San Francisco. Wertkin’s counsel had requested a sentence of a year and a day.
“Mr. Wertkin’s secret criminal life was not known to anyone at the firm. We were shocked when he was arrested and outraged when his bizarre, treacherous crimes were revealed,” said Akin Gump spokesman Benjamin J. Harris on Thursday.
In a letter to the court before Wertkin’s sentencing, the firm said it was a victim of his crime and defended its corporate culture.
The theft and misuse of government documents was a “reprehensible betrayal of Mr. Wertkin’s duties as a government lawyer” and of his ethical duties at Akin Gump, and were “harmful to the firm,” partner and general counsel Douglass B. Maynard wrote.
“Whatever drove Mr. Wertkin to his hidden criminal activity, it was not the culture of [sic] firm where he worked for nine months,” Maynard said. “The people he worked with at the firm saw him as a talented, well-liked young partner who appeared well on his way to a bright future.” –MSN
After Wertkin – a graduate of Georgetown Law, lost a $200 million case, he says he was left “devastated” and “a shell of a man,” according to his wife Erin Erlenborn.
His defense attorney, Cristina C. “Cris” Arguedas said that Wertkin grew “increasingly irrational” and “truly believed he was at the end of his rope,” as he called the general counsel of a California firm to try and sell a lawsuit.
Wertkin’s attorney called his actions truly aberrant in an otherwise “careful, diligent and unblemished life” and said it was “a testament to his previous standing in the legal community that so many attorneys and former government officials, including former DOJ attorneys” wrote letters to the sentencing judge on his behalf. –MSN
Wertkin has resigned from the bar.
“I hope someday I will be able to understand how I could have abandoned my principles and my honor,” said Wertkin in a pre-sentencing statement. “I often lay awake at night and think about these actions, and I weep at the tragedy that I have brought on myself.”
Do you believe that taking riskier equity exposures should reward you with higher returns?
Most finance education is founded on the positive correlation between risk and reward. Taking incremental risk would not be worthwhile otherwise. Over the long run (past 10 and 20 years) global and regional equities have not fulfilled that expectation. In fact, the relationship between risk and realized reward appears to be the reverse of what was expected!
Riskier equities generated lower returns. This result is a two-handed slap in the face for anyone who still believes that markets are efficient. Despite the huge advantage of having excluded the perennial basket cases of Venezuela and Argentina (for most of the decade), the Latin American index rewarded investors with the highest volatility and negative annualized returns. A $100 investment in Latin America would have been whittled down to $87, after having suffered 28% annualized volatility and a worst drawdown of 61% that lasted 9 months.
Performance in EM equities and the Asia region was not much better. If you believe that long term equity returns should surpass that of Treasury bonds, you would have been extremely disappointed with equities as an asset class over the past decade.
Even the S&P 500’s 8.5% annualized return is cold comfort when you consider that the Barcap 20+ year U.S. Treasury Index had a total return of 6.6%. The S&P 500’s realized excess return of 1.9% (excluding tax effects) includes a worst drawdown period of 14 months when the index lost 48%. For those who might point to the superior drawdown management of active equity investors, many active managers performed even worse than that.
Maybe 10 years is too short a time period to consider buy-and-hold horizon returns. What does it look like over the past 20 years? This time, the news is better (but not good!) for the typical MBA curriculum – there is the barest hint that riskier markets generated slightly higher returns.
But the weakly positive slope here is not convincing. Although the next 10 to 20 year period may not have a similar outcome, the risk/return profile over the past 10 and 20 years should make the thoughtful investor rethink the relationship between risk and reward. Over the past 20 years, the realized equity risk premium for the S&P 500 was 0.20%. Yes, that’s right: 20 basis points. In addition to the -48% drawdown experience during the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, the S&P also lost 45% during the early 2000s. I wouldn’t fault anybody for thinking that buy-and-hold equity risk was not worth the heartache. Indeed, a retiree would have to have an almost religious faith that markets will rebound from such a loss. But after demonstrating such faith after the first 10% drawdown, then 20%, then 30%, at what point does faith dissolve in a pool of tears?
Changing our focus to markets operating in regions of highest economic growth, Asian equities returned 8.7% annualized over 20 years, only 1.5% better than the S&P 500, and 1.7% better than the Barcap 20+ year Treasury Index. During this period, Asian equities had two periods of horrendous drawdowns. The first occurred during the late 1990s, when the MSCI Asia ex-Japan Index incurred a 51% loss. During the Great Financial Crisis, it lost 61%.
And in case you wonder how risk vs. return looked over the past 5 years, here it is:
The negative correlation between risk and returns is extreme over the last 5 years. Adding insult to injury: the riskiest markets (Asia, EM, LatAm) benefitted from extreme outperformance in 2017. Asian equities gained 42%, EM gained 38%, and LatAm gained 24%. Such “lottery ticket” type gains may explain global investors’ continued interest in these markets as buy-and-hold investments despite their poor long term track record, extreme volatility, inferior drawdown characteristics, and sub-standard corporate governance.
Those who object that volatility is a poor proxy for risk are correct. Worst drawdowns (i.e. losses from a previous high) are more important for most asset allocators and retirees. Here’s a chart showing returns vs. risk, as quantified by worst drawdown. The strongly negative slope in the relationship between returns and risk should, again, cause long term investors to question what they’re getting per unit of “risk” in these markets, especially when they are on the buy-and-hold bandwagon.
These observations may be of little interest to investors who are locked into a single equity silo (e.g. long only EM equity managers). However, for those with the freedom to hold other asset classes, the material may provide food for thought. Even for die-hard fans of the buy-and-hold philosophy, a nod toward asset dynamism was made by none other than Warren Buffett. He clarified in the 2016 Berkshire Hathaway shareholders’ letter that he isn’t a buy-and-hold investor where public equities are concerned.
A barista at an employee-owned coffee shop in Oakland, Calif. ignited a controversy a few weeks ago when they asked a police officer to leave the shop because of a new policy that prohibits employees from serving police officers in uniform.
As NBC Bay Area reports, a lengthy instagram post written in Spanish titled “Talk to your neighbors, not the police” explains the coffee shop’s policy and provides some context for the employees’ decision to turn away a uniformed police officer on Feb. 16. The post very clearly states: “We have a policy of asking police to leave for the physical and emotional safety of our customers and ourselves.”
KTVU reported that the officer – who was not named by the media – said he traveled to the coffee shop to pick up a cup of coffee and to introduce himself.
In an effort to extend an olive branch to the community and assuage customers’ fears relating to the police, the Oakland Police Officers Association sent the shop a letter asking to open a dialogue about its policy.
The sergeant who was turned away said he was surprised by the request, but left without incident – and without any coffee (KTVU joked that police officers are now “personae non java” at Hasta Muerte). The officer told NBC he’s looking forward to speaking with the employee-owners to build a better relationship with them.
Unsurprisingly, many area residents – including Latinos and people of color – said they felt the policy didn’t make sense.
“I don’t know what they got against them,” said Roberto Lopez.
Another resident, who wished only to be identified as “T,” agreed, saying, “I think it’s cold blooded. I don’t understand that.”
A third woman said the policy is silly: “If somebody is breaking in [to the coffee shop], who are they gonna call?”
The cafe hasn’t responded to the police union’s letter sent two weeks ago requesting an explanation. Cafe managers declined to comment to KTVU.
But Oakland City Council member Noel Gallo, who represents the Fruitvale District, said she spoke to the cafe managers on Thursday and confirmed that it’s still the shop’s unwritten policy not to serve men and women in uniform.
“My understanding is they’re not going to serve police officers,” Gallo said.
“I don’t agree with that, 100 percent,” Gallo added. “I think we need to work together, not against each other.”
The cafe opened several months ago at the corner of East 27th Street and Fruitvale Avenue.
As KTVU points out, the shop is a “worker-owned collective” with an anti-establishment bent that seeks to combat the militarization of police.
Still, one area resident said she supports the ban.
“I think that if a group of people don’t feel safe with a police officer currently on duty, coming into a space, they want people in this neighborhood to be able to feel safe, coming into their space. Then that is a choice they should be able to make,” said Tenaya Gunter Brown.
For now, police patrolling the Fruitvale neighborhood of Oakland will need to get their coffee fix at the Starbucks or Peet’s Coffee Shop up the street.
One wonders if, after the courts ruled against two Orgeon bakers who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple (due to their religious beliefs), can the cops file suit against the Oakland coffee shop for refusing to serve them (due to the barista’s feelings being hurt)? (of course, as we were reminded, those who ‘protect and serve’ are not a ‘protected’ class).
Kim Jong-un’s invitation to Donald Trump to meet, delivered through South Korean intermediaries, is both stunning and predictable.
After all, Trump has telegraphed his desire for a meeting with Kim ever since he suggested a hamburger summit with Kim as a candidate for president in 2016. Now that Trump has his invitation, the question is whether he can exploit it to bring a runaway North Korean nuclear and missile threat under control without being advanced by an accompanying intensive negotiation process that would inevitably rely on specialized expertise within the U.S. government to craft the level of agreement and verification measures necessary to pin Kim down. At a minimum, a prospective summit should provide momentum to secure the release of three Americans currently detained in Pyongyang.
Historically, the American president has been the “closer” of such deals, but an early meeting between Trump and Kim would sacrifice that role in favor of a reshaping of the relationship with the North Korean leader by setting the tone surrounding the U.S.-North Korea relationship without an accompanying (decades-long) process and verification of North Korea’s implementation of denuclearization.
Past denuclearization efforts have foundered on a combination of failures to secure verification and North Korean subterfuge, but have never gone so far in giving the Kim family the prestige or treating North Korea with the strategic weight that it has sought for decades. Trump’s strongest argument for such an approach: everything else has failed, and a U.S.-North Korea summit has never been tried.
Oddly, Trump’s own threats to annihilate North Korea, while challenging North Korean assumptions about how the United States would respond to its nuclear advances, has generated political space for Trump: even a bad deal with Kim may be perceived as a better outcome than a catastrophic conflict with North Korea.
But why would Kim reach out now and offer a meeting with Trump? Speculation on the range of possible motives for Kim will range from desperation to uncanny strategic intuition. But the most interesting aspect of Kim’s outreach and its timing is that it combines a high personal propensity to take risk with a strong desire to actively manage uncertainties generated by the growing risks to North Korea’s regime survival.
Alongside the Kim family’s desire to assert independence and centrality as narratives that undergird and reinforce its control over the regime is a deep desire for external affirmation that can only come from improving North Korea’s relationship with the United States. That is why North Korea has consistently asserted that it would only abandon its nuclear program if the United States were to drop its “hostile policy”—normalization and acceptance of the regime by the United States as an alternative regime survival guarantee to that provided by nuclear weapons. In essence, the Kim family has always wanted Washington to impute to Pyongyang the same strategic weight that Richard Nixon gave to Beijing when he used the China card to balance the Soviet Union.
At the same time, Kim’s move smacks of both desperation and an astute recognition that international economic pressure, political isolation, and the threat of military conflict could eventually checkmate the regime. Instead of furthering regime survival, North Korea’s pursuit of the capability to strike the United States with nuclear weapons raised the risks of accidental conflict and preventive war.
For Kim, the prospect of an early summit with Trump provides the best prospect of removing international sanctions pressure while giving Kim room for maneuver to possibly keep his nuclear deterrent in place. Moreover, a prospective nuclear deal with Trump provides Kim with an opportunity to secure external symbols of regime legitimacy without having to address North Korea’s atrocious human rights record. (After all, only Trump can offer a Trump-branded hotel in Pyongyang, payable in fissile material.)
Given the stakes, risks, and blowback that inevitably will accompany a Trump-Kim hamburger summit, a safer course, if indeed a summit is inevitable, would be to retain South Korean involvement by securing an invitation for Trump to join the inter-Korean summit already announced for the end of April at Panmunjom.
South Korea shares with the United States an existential interest in denuclearization, but only the United States has the standing in North Korean eyes as a counterpart in that discussion. But South Korean involvement would help address American staffing deficiencies while keeping denuclearization front and center, all the while blunting North Korean efforts to drive a wedge in the U.S.-South Korea alliance.
Broadcom shares are up over 5% after-hours (and Qualcomm lower) after WSJ reportsIntel is considering a range of acquisition alternatives in reaction to Broadcom’s hostile pursuit for Qualcomm that could include a bid for Broadcom, according to people familiar with the matter.
Intel has reportedly been considering such a move since late last year and is working with advisers, some of the people said, and as The Wall Street Journal reports:
Intel is watching the takeover battle closely and is eager for Broadcom to fail as the combined company would pose a serious competitive threat, the people said.
If it looks like Broadcom is likely to prevail, Intel could step in with its offer for Broadcom, the people said.
In other words, Intel’s interest is conditional on the Broadcom/Qualcomm deal’s consummation. One wonders how long before Qualcomm makes an offer for Intel (given the insanity in IG corporate bond markets, levering up for any acquisition is rewarded in the new normal).
Bass explained on CNBC why he doesn’t think the U.S. can allow Broadcom’s potential purchase of Qualcomm to go through because of QCOM’s importance to developing 5G technology: commented earlier in CNBC interview.
“We can’t possibly let the Broadcom Qualcomm merger go through. We can’t possibly allow that technology and that technological know how” to fall into hands of others.
The U.S. government is also worried about the issue. The Treasury Department wrote a letter Monday to lawyers involved in the deal expressing concern about Chinese competitors in 5G network development, which raises national security concerns over the Broadcom-Qualcomm merger.
Broadcom said in a letter to Congress regarding its offer to acquire Qualcomm that the company will not sell any “critical national security assets” to any foreign companies.
And just this evening the Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS) has asked Broadcom to submit a notice on redomiciling to the U.S., Reuters reports, citing sources.
From Maryland to Maine, millions of American’s strapped on their rubber boots and grabbed a rusty snow shovel to end the week, after a fierce nor’easter dumped several feet of snow across the Northeast. This, of course, was backbreaking work for the nation’s oldest population, which by the way, is centered in the Northeast, according to Census data.
“A favorable upper atmospheric pattern will allow for yet another formation of a coastal low-pressure system early next week. There remains tremendous uncertainty as to how far north this system will travel and this will have a huge impact on the sensible weather across the Northeast. The northern part of the forecast envelope would deliver yet another impactful winter storm to the I-95 corridor with gusty winds, snow, and coastal flooding. The southern part of the forecast envelope would allow the system to strengthen, but stay far enough away to spare the Northeast entirely. Data over the weekend will be crucial in determining the ultimate track of this storm system.”
According to AccuWeather, another winter storm could deliver “accumulating snow, drenching rain and strong winds to part of the mid-Atlantic region” beginning throughout the day on Sunday and continuing into early next week. The first part of the storm will bring heavy rains and travel disruptions to much of the southeast by Sunday.
“At this time, we feel there is a better than 50/50 percent chance the worst of the storm will stay to the south and east of New York City,” according to AccuWeather Senior Meteorologist Dave Dombek. “A light amount of snow [and rain] cannot be ruled out with roads mainly [expected to stay] wet.”
AccuWeather believes the storm could turn northwards once it reaches the southeastern part of the United States. What does this mean? Well, if this could leave parts of Washington, D.C., to Boston with wintery conditions.
“It is still too early to totally write the storm off for the Northeast,” Dombek said.
AccuWeather’s outlines the regional impacts where the heaviest snow is likely:
At this time, the best chance of a heavy accumulation of snow, clogged roads and power outages from clinging snow is in the mountains from southern West Virginia and west-central Virginia to western North Carolina eastern Tennessee and eastern Kentucky.
Snow is likely to turn to rain in the mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee on Sunday.
Farther to the northeast, including the Washington, D.C., area, a combination of rain and snow is likely in eastern Virginia, eastern Maryland, Delaware and southern New Jersey.
This portion of the lower mid-Atlantic coast has the potential for snow to fall at a heavy rate. How much, if any, snow accumulates in this area will depend on the strength of the storm and whether or not temperatures dip into the low to middle 30s F or spend most of the time in the 40s.
AccuWeather warns of strong winds, coastal flooding from North Carolina to New Jersey:
The storm is likely to strengthen quickly enough to produce gusty winds along part of of the mid-Atlantic coast.
The winds will push water toward the coast and result in flooding at times of high tide from northeastern North Carolina to southern New Jersey. The worst conditions are likely in southeastern Virginia, northeastern North Carolina, the eastern part of Maryland and southeastern Delaware, where tides may run 1-3 feet above normal.
Cities such as Norfolk, Virginia, and Ocean City, Maryland, should be prepared for flooding problems related to storm surge and heavy rainfall.
Wind gusts in this same zone may be strong enough to knock down trees and cause power outages.
While impacts farther north depend on the storm’s trajectory, AccuWeather provides an overview of the possible severe weather:
From Monday to Tuesday, the storm may track close enough to the coast to bring snow, rain and strong winds farther north or may stay too far to the east for much precipitation and wind in the mid-Atlantic and eastern New England.
Because of the potential for the storm to turn northward near the coast, there is a chance of snow and rain from Baltimore to Wilmington, Delaware, Philadelphia, New York City, Hartford, Connecticut, Providence, Rhode Island, Boston and Portland, Maine, early next week.
However, if the storm swings wide to the right before making a northward turn, clouds may break at times amid brisk conditions with spotty snow showers from coastal areas of the Northeast to the central and northern Appalachians.
Since the storm is likely to make an abrupt northward turn at some point early next week, areas from eastern Massachusetts to Maine, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick should be prepared for a period of strong winds, coastal flooding and perhaps heavy snow.
As has been the case with the prior nor’easters in the past couple of weeks, small craft should remain in port as the storm approaches. Large ocean-going vessels may want to consider altering their schedule until the risk of heavy seas subsides.
Based on the most likely storm track at this time in the airport hubs from Philadelphia to Boston, some airline delays are likely, but a great deal of flight cancellations are not expected. Only if the storm track farther to the north may delays and cancellations mount.
“Larger than usual uncertainty in strength/placement of our next NorEaster Mon/Tue. EPS range of potential outcomes spans from another big hit to a miss out to sea. All has to do with many delicate interactions between upper-level disturbance,” said Weather.us.
Larger than usual uncertainty in strength/placement of our next #NorEaster Mon/Tue. EPS range of potential outcomes spans from another big hit to a miss out to sea. All has to do with many delicate interactions between upper level disturbances. Maps: https://t.co/6eoB4do34Lpic.twitter.com/8oYWZRK7h0
— Weather.us – Home of free ECMWF/Euro model (@WeatherdotUS) March 9, 2018
“Chilly Conditions Continue Through The Weekend,” said Meteorologist Steven DiMartino.
“Temperatures 10°F to 20°F below normal for next week in the Southeast. That’s not Spring-like at all. Cold extends into Florida behind storm system in the Atlantic,” said Ryan Maue, Meteorologist and Chief Scientist @weatherdotus.
Temperatures 10°F to 20°F below normal for next week in the Southeast. That’s not Spring like at all. Cold extends into Florida behind storm storm system in the Atlantic. pic.twitter.com/DO4meLUSQs
In news that should come as no surprise to students of government infrastructure boondoggles, this week the California High Speed Rail Authority admits that California’s long-planned bullet train system will cost $77.3 billion, which is $13 billion more than they thought it would a couple of years ago. Proving that with government work you can have it neither cheap nor fast, the earliest any major part of the system might be fully operational is now 2029, not 2024, with the major San Francisco to Anaheim line not on target til 2033.
This is far from the first time earlier rosy estimates of cost and completion on this project were proven grossly overoptimistic. You can’t say Reasondidn’t warn you. And warn you. And warn you.
As the Los Angeles Times reports, “Roy Hill, one of the senior consultants advising the state, told the rail authority board, ‘The worst-case scenario has happened'” in terms of costs to build through California’s central valley. As those following all that past reporting at Reason already knew, “the warning signs of uncontrolled cost growth had already started mounting…even though until this year the rail authority has vehemently denied that it was facing a problem.”
Turns out grabbing property and moving existing infrastructure to make way for the bullet train is really difficult and expensive. How it will be paid for is also a problem, as this latest “disclosure about the higher costs comes nearly a decade after voters approved a $9-billion bond to build a bullet train system. The original idea was that the federal government would pay about a third of what was then an estimated $33-billion project, with private investors covering another third.”
As the San Jose Mercury News reports, “transportation planners assumed the project would be funded with a mix of federal, state and private dollars, each portion contributing roughly one-third. So far, the private funding hasn’t materialized, but officials hope that investment will come once the first segment starts running and passengers begin riding the new train between the Central Valley and San Jose.”
Even the federal money is iffy, as the bullet boondoggle “faces staunch opposition from California Republicans, who sent a letter last year asking the Trump administration to block funding for Caltrain electrification because it plans to share its tracks with the bullet train.”
Can you lose your Second Amendment rights just by virtue of living in government-owned housing?
That is the issue in a lawsuit filed Wednesday by an Illinois woman and licensed firearm owner looking to overturn the East St. Louis Housing Authority’s (ESLHA) prohibition on their tenants keeping guns in their residences.
The plaintiff—an ESLHA tenant identified only as N. Doe over concerns for her safety—wants to keep a weapon for self-defense, but has reportedly been threatened with eviction by both the housing agency and its executive director Mildred Motley—named as a party to the suit—unless she can verify that she does not keep a firearm in her home.
“This is a woman who has been attacked in her home, is under severe threat right now…and simply wants the means to protect herself and her family,” says David Sigale, the attorney representing Doe.
According to the complaint, Doe is being actively threatened by her abusive ex-husband, a convicted murderer who, while on parole, visited shocking violence on Doe, including choking her into unconsciousness, beating her so severely she bled internally, and threatening to kill her and her children should she end their relationship.
Doe’s ex-husband was sent back to prison because of these assaults, but has since been released, and has reportedly made subsequent threats against her. Doe, understandably wishes to keep a firearm in her home to protect herself and her two teenage children. Thanks to ESLHA policy, she is prohibited from doing so.
This, claims her lawsuit, denies “lawful persons Second Amendment rights due to their financial disadvantage and circumstances of residing in government housing.”
Says Sigel, the Supreme Court established with its 2008 District of Columbiav. Heller case that “people are allowed to have a functional operative handgun in their home for self-defense.” Heller was a landmark Second Amendment case that struck down a D.C. law forbidding most residents from keeping handguns in their homes.
Sigel has litigated a previous Second Amendment case against a housing authority in Warren County, Illinois which had similarly forbade residents from keeping firearms in their residences. That case ended with the housing authority agreeing to voluntarily strip the offending provisions about firearms possession from its lease agreements. No ruling was made as to the constitutionality of the such restrictions.
Sigel tells Reason he hopes his most recent lawsuit will clarify the constitutional question and secure his clients right to self-defense. “We want a declaration from the court that forbidding firearm possession by qualified people, whether on the threat of eviction or a stern fine, that that is unconstitutional.”
The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in United States District Court for Southern Illinois. The ESLHA has yet to respond.
Can you lose your Second Amendment rights just by virtue of living in government-owned housing?