Author: admin

More on the MIT Disinvitation of Dorian Abbot

University of Chicago professor Dorian Abbot was to deliver the Tenth Annual John Carlson Lecture at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on October 21. As a result of a pressure campaign, he was disinvited from delivering that lecture because of his views on diversity and inclusion initiatives in American higher education. He will instead be delivering his remarks virtually (on planetary climate and the prospects of life on exoplanets) on October 21 at the James Madison Program at Princeton University. The Academic Freedom Alliance issued a public letter rebuking MIT for caving in to such pressure.

The provost at MIT has subsequently publicly released an email he sent to the faculty about the incident and minimizing the damage that had been done by the disinvitation. The Academic Freedom Alliance has now released a second public letter, this one directed to the provost at MIT and responding to the points raised in his email.

As I note in that letter:

You note in your letter that the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences “had to make a difficult decision” when an organized petition campaign was launched to pressure the Institute to disinvite Professor Abbot. It is true that universities are sometimes put in the difficult position of upholding their values of academic freedom and open inquiry when particular instances of speech become controversial and universities are being pressured to suppress speech. Identifying the correct principle and the university’s proper responsibilities in such circumstances is not difficult, however.

The university’s duty is clear – once a university has extended an invitation to a speaker to speak to members of the campus community, the university must not rescind that invitation because some object that the speaker or ideas that the speaker has expressed are unacceptable. The Institute seems to have lost sight of that very basic principle in this case, and in doing so has subverted its own institutional mission to foster the free exchange of ideas.

You can read the whole thing here.

I should add that the MIT president has now posted a public letter to the campus community about the incident here.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3n2fUus
via IFTTT

NYC Cancels Thomas Jefferson

Today, the New York Public Design Commission will vote to remove a statue of Thomas Jefferson from City Hall. The seven-foot tall bronze statue will be loaned to the New York Historical Society. Annette Gordon-Reed criticized the move.

Annette Gordon-Reed, a Harvard Law School professor and a Jefferson expert, objected to the idea of taking down the Jefferson statue, but described its likely move to the New-York Historical Society, where she serves as a trustee, as the best-case scenario.

“This represents a lumping together of the Confederates and a member of the founding generation in a way which I think minimizes the crimes and the problems with the Confederacy,” Ms. Gordon-Reed said.

Later this year, the famous Theodore Roosevelt statue will be removed the Museum of Natural History.

Thankfully, Mt. Rushmore is not in Manhattan. At least three of the faces would be effaced.

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

Nigerian Separatist Group Sues Wash. Times, U. of Baltimore, Professor for Libel

Just filed yesterday, Indigenous People of Biafra v. Sheehan; some of the allegations about the group are likely matters of opinion, but some seem to be factual allegations. (Naturally, I can’t speak to whether the allegations are indeed false, and knowingly or recklessly false.)

In principle, I would think that a foreign organization—which the Complaint says is a “UK registered Community Interest Company“—would be able to sue for libel in the U.S., just as an American business corporation could. N.Y. Times v. Sullivan did hold that an American government can’t sue for defamation liability, even for knowing lies, and the same would likely apply to a foreign government. But I think that a nongovernmental organization, whether or not it’s also a would-be separatist government (and it’s not clear that it is), wouldn’t be covered by this principle.

I expect plaintiff would be treated as a “public figure,” and would have to show “actual malice” on the defendants’ part, which is to say knowing or reckless falsehood, and not just an honest mistake; but if it can show that, then it might be able to prevail. I think it’s very unlikely that this can be shown as to the Washington Times, since the Times’ editors are quite unlikely to be knowledgeable enough on the subject, and were likely counting on the expertise of Prof. Ivan Sascha Sheehan, the author of the article. But in principle plaintiff’s case might progress against Sheehan (and perhaps against his employer, the University of Baltimore, on the respondeat superior theory that the employer is liable for the torts of its employees committed on the job)—though of course plaintiff would have to prove that Sheehan’s statements were factually false, and it’s quite possible that they won’ be able to do that.

Still, it’s an unusual sort of libel case, so I thought I’d note it.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3n8xKfh
via IFTTT

SCOTUS GVRs Immigration Case In Light of Acting SG’s Letter

Today, the Court released its order list. One unusual entry caught my eye:

20-1492—ABDULLA, ABDULMALIK M. V. GARLAND, ATT’Y GEN. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of the brief filed by the Acting Solicitor General for the United States on August 27, 2021.

I pulled up the docket. As usual, filings in immigration cases are not made public. So I cannot know for certain what the SG’s brief said. But I can speculate. Here is the opening paragraph of the Third Circuit’s decision:

Abdulmalik Mahyoub Mulhi Abdulla petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion for certification of late-filed appeal. After an immigration judge (“IJ”) ordered Abdulla removed from the United States, Abdulla had 30 days to appeal that order to the BIA but did not do so for 78 days. Abdulla moved the BIA to exercise its discretion to permit the late-filed appeal, citing the exceptional circumstances presented by his appeal, which raises several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Because we conclude that the BIA’s discretion in the context of this case is not cabined by law, regulation, or a settled course of prior agency action, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to self-certify the late-filed appeal and will dismiss the petition for review in part. We also conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review Abdulla’s unexhausted merits claim and non-colorable due process claim. And because Abdulla’s other claims are unavailing, we will deny the petition in part.

If I had to guess, the Attorney General decided to exercise its discretion, and accept the late-filed appeal.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3n3q79Y
via IFTTT

Nigerian Separatist Group Sues Wash. Times, U. of Baltimore, Professor for Libel

Just filed yesterday, Indigenous People of Biafra v. Sheehan; some of the allegations about the group are likely matters of opinion, but some seem to be factual allegations. (Naturally, I can’t speak to whether the allegations are indeed false, and knowingly or recklessly false.)

In principle, I would think that a foreign organization—which the Complaint says is a “UK registered Community Interest Company“—would be able to sue for libel in the U.S., just as an American business corporation could. N.Y. Times v. Sullivan did hold that an American government can’t sue for defamation liability, even for knowing lies, and the same would likely apply to a foreign government. But I think that a nongovernmental organization, whether or not it’s also a would-be separatist government (and it’s not clear that it is), wouldn’t be covered by this principle.

I expect plaintiff would be treated as a “public figure,” and would have to show “actual malice” on the defendants’ part, which is to say knowing or reckless falsehood, and not just an honest mistake; but if it can show that, then it might be able to prevail. I think it’s very unlikely that this can be shown as to the Washington Times, since the Times’ editors are quite unlikely to be knowledgeable enough on the subject, and were likely counting on the expertise of Prof. Ivan Sascha Sheehan, the author of the article. But in principle plaintiff’s case might progress against Sheehan (and perhaps against his employer, the University of Baltimore, on the respondeat superior theory that the employer is liable for the torts of its employees committed on the job)—though of course plaintiff would have to prove that Sheehan’s statements were factually false, and it’s quite possible that they won’ be able to do that.

Still, it’s an unusual sort of libel case, so I thought I’d note it.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3n8xKfh
via IFTTT

Word “Spooky” Banned By National Theatre Over Absurd Claim It’s Racist

Word “Spooky” Banned By National Theatre Over Absurd Claim It’s Racist

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

The National Theatre of Scotland has banned the word “spooky” over its “racial connotations” despite nobody complaining and despite there being no record of it ever being used as a racial slur in the United Kingdom.

Yes, really.

“A source at the Scottish theatre told the Daily Record that no one has complained about the term “spooky” but they were concerned the word could become problematic in the future,” reports RT.

So based on the prospect that somebody, somewhere, might be offended in the future by a completely non-controversial word, it has to be banned.

Apparently, the word “spooky” may have been used in America 80 years ago during World War II to refer to black pilots, meaning it must be expunged from our consciousness for eternity.

The reason for the elimination of the word becomes clear when we learn it happened as a result of “a lot of training and meetings since the [Black Lives Matter] movement” about how “[National Theatre Scotland] should change.”

In other words, the social engineering brainwashing struggle sessions have claimed another victim, this time a prosaic word.

The theatre said it will “always interrogate language choices” for “historically oppressive connotations” in order to satiate the mere threat of the baying thought police mob.

There was some backlash to the announcement, although since these institutions never listen to it, and always default to what a minority of unhinged extremists wants, it’s always rather pointless.

Professor Sir Geoff Palmer said he’d never heard of “spooky” being used as a racial slur, adding that the theatre was “doing more harm than good.”

“Does anyone actually want this? Is it just high up white people doing what they think is right without actually trying to learn and understand where the problems actually are?” asked a Twitter respondent.

“Can anyone find a single instance of “spooky” being used as a racial slur in the UK since, say, 1960?” asked another person.

“It really is a sickness now,” commented another.

Remember when they said ‘political correctness is just being nice to people’?

Oh, how far we’ve descended.

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Get early access, exclusive content and behinds the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 11:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3BTftc1 Tyler Durden

SCOTUS GVRs Immigration Case In Light of Acting SG’s Letter

Today, the Court released its order list. One unusual entry caught my eye:

20-1492—ABDULLA, ABDULMALIK M. V. GARLAND, ATT’Y GEN. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of the brief filed by the Acting Solicitor General for the United States on August 27, 2021.

I pulled up the docket. As usual, filings in immigration cases are not made public. So I cannot know for certain what the SG’s brief said. But I can speculate. Here is the opening paragraph of the Third Circuit’s decision:

Abdulmalik Mahyoub Mulhi Abdulla petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion for certification of late-filed appeal. After an immigration judge (“IJ”) ordered Abdulla removed from the United States, Abdulla had 30 days to appeal that order to the BIA but did not do so for 78 days. Abdulla moved the BIA to exercise its discretion to permit the late-filed appeal, citing the exceptional circumstances presented by his appeal, which raises several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Because we conclude that the BIA’s discretion in the context of this case is not cabined by law, regulation, or a settled course of prior agency action, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to self-certify the late-filed appeal and will dismiss the petition for review in part. We also conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review Abdulla’s unexhausted merits claim and non-colorable due process claim. And because Abdulla’s other claims are unavailing, we will deny the petition in part.

If I had to guess, the Attorney General decided to exercise its discretion, and accept the late-filed appeal.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3n3q79Y
via IFTTT

Powell’s Stock Trades Leaked, Show Multi-Million Sale As Market Tanked

Powell’s Stock Trades Leaked, Show Multi-Million Sale As Market Tanked

With leaked trades in their personal accounts already costing two Fed presidents their jobs, and a third – vice chair Richard Clarida – currently on the ropes amid speculation he will soon follow, a few weeks ago we joked that if forces within the Fed want to get rid of all the hawks, they should just leak Esther George – the Fed’s last remaining uberhawk – trading record.

To be honest, not even we expected that the progressive American Prospect magazine (initially called The Liberal Prospect), the domain of such ultra-leftists/socialists as Robert Reich, Robert Kuttner, and Paul Starr, and whose interns include Bernie Sanders advisor Matt Duss, Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias, would try to kill Powell’s candidacy by leaking his trades in hopes of getting the Fed’s resident socialist, Lael Brainard to replace Powell amid the growing storm over Fed trades.

And yet that’s precisely what happened this morning, when the Prospect revealed that, amid 26 publicly disclosed transactions in 2020,  Powell sold between $1 million and $5 million worth of stock from his personal account on October 1, 2020, a sale of the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF, or VTI, according to disclosure forms reviewed by the Prospect and subsequently leaked in hopes of crushing Powell’s renomination chances.

All of the other leaked transactions are also sales, including another $50-$100K sales from the VTI on Sept 21, just days after the Fed’s Sept 15-16 2020 FOMC meeting, as well as a series of Sales anywhere between $15K and $250K on Dec 18, jus 2 days after the Fed’s Dec 16 FOMC meeting, in funds such as the MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA) where powell sold $15K-$50K, the RUT Russell 2000 ETF (for $100K-$250K), the Goldman US Equity Dividend and Premium Fund (GSPKX) and so on. There were also a handful of purchases, but none in the ballpark of the $1,000,000 – $5,000,000 sale noted above.

Powell’s full transaction breakdown is below:

To be fair, the large VTI sale ($1-$5MM) occurred just as the Dow tumbled, but before stocks staged a remarkable surge… and have continued to surge to this day, as they more than doubled from the March 2020 lows. So while one can argue that Powell is a terrible trader, he was hardly frontrunning the Fed’s market-friendly actions.

That said, the optics of the Fed chair actively trading at a time of historic market turmoil, will hardly encourage Liz Warren to support Powell.

As the Prospect notes, Powell’s stock sale came against a background of President Trump balking over an urgently needed new economic stimulus package. A day later, Trump announced to the public that he had tested positive for COVID. Additionally, meeting logs show that Powell had been in contact with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin four times on October 1. Powell had been pressing the administration to support more fiscal stimulus, so that the sole responsibility for rescuing the economy would not be on the Fed and monetary policy.

In a speech October 6, after his sale of stock, Powell warned that failure to enact stimulus could have “tragic” economic consequences. He said, “The expansion is still far from complete … Too little support would lead to a weak recovery, creating unnecessary hardship.”

Judging by the trillions in fiscal stimulus that followed, Congress was more than happy to listen and to take advantage of the Fed’s monetization of every dollar in debt issued by the US Treasury.

One final point to note: Powell, as everyone knows, is a multi-millionaire with a net worth between $17 and $55 million, having worked much of his career on Wall Street and especially at Carlyle, where he was a partner between 1997 and 2005. His filing confirm his wealth, and nothing wrong with that, but in what may be a problem for Powell, the leaked filing reveals among many other assets, substantial holdings, i.e., the $5 to $25MM, in in the SPY ETF, an asset which clearly is moved by the Fed’s announcements and decisions, and which we are confident will spark howls of fake outrage from Senate progressives who demand Powell’s ouster and immediate replacement with Democrat socialist Lael Brainard.

Not surprisingly, Powell’s odds to be reconfirmed by the Senate just tanked, plunging from 80 to 61…

… while those of Brainard are surging.

Powell’s full leaked financial disclosure form is below (pdf link)

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 11:14

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Z5Inr9 Tyler Durden

Nigerian Separatist Group Sues Wash. Times, U. of Baltimore, Professor for Libel

Just filed yesterday, Indigenous People of Biafra v. Sheehan; some of the allegations about the group are likely matters of opinion, but some seem to be factual allegations. (Naturally, I can’t speak to whether the allegations are indeed false, and knowingly or recklessly false.)

In principle, I would think that a foreign organization—which the Complaint says is a “UK registered Community Interest Company“—would be able to sue for libel in the U.S., just as an American business corporation could. N.Y. Times v. Sullivan did hold that an American government can’t sue for defamation liability, even for knowing lies, and the same would likely apply to a foreign government. But I think that a nongovernmental organization, whether or not it’s also a would-be separatist government (and it’s not clear that it is), wouldn’t be covered by this principle.

I expect plaintiff would be treated as a “public figure,” and would have to show “actual malice” on the defendants’ part, which is to say knowing or reckless falsehood, and not just an honest mistake; but if it can show that, then it might be able to prevail. I think it’s very unlikely that this can be shown as to the Washington Times, since the Times’ editors are quite unlikely to be knowledgeable enough on the subject, and were likely counting on the expertise of Prof. Ivan Sascha Sheehan, the author of the article. But in principle plaintiff’s case might progress against Sheehan (and perhaps against his employer, the University of Baltimore, on the respondeat superior theory that the employer is liable for the torts of its employees committed on the job)—though of course plaintiff would have to prove that Sheehan’s statements were factually false, and it’s quite possible that they won’ be able to do that.

Still, it’s an unusual sort of libel case, so I thought I’d note it.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3AS3cTT
via IFTTT

“A Wild Market” – Traders Are Rapidly Increasing Bets On $200 Oil

“A Wild Market” – Traders Are Rapidly Increasing Bets On $200 Oil

With oil prices having more than doubled in 2021 so far – and showing no signs of slowing – traders are doubling-down on bets that energy costs will go to the moon… by year-end.

WTI is currently at 7 year highs…

But, despite the futures curve being deep in backwardation…

Options traders are buying OTM calls with both hands and feet.

Wagers that WTI will top $100 by the end of 2021 have exploded in recent days…

Furthermore, some traders are betting that oil will reach $180 or even $200…

In fact, as The Wall Street Journal reports, the surge in bullish bets amounts to a gamble that supply-chain disruptions and regional shortages will keep pushing energy markets higher, despite a slowing global economic expansion and concerns that higher oil and natural-gas prices will crimp consumer spending.

“I haven’t seen crazy strikes like this in a long time,” said Mark Benigno, co-director of energy trading at StoneX Group Inc., referring to the price in the underlying asset at which the options become exercisable. “The momentum and trend is higher.”

Additionally, WSJ notes that the wagers also show that investors drawn by the small upfront investments and potentially quick payoffs of options trades are piling into energy markets, echoing trades in the stock market this year. 

“It’s just a bit of a wild market right now,” said John Gretzinger, a partner at Flashpoint Energy Partners, who has been trading oil options.

Not everyone is so exuberant about the price of crude.

“Oil fundamentals could ultimately disappoint the hype,” wrote JPMorgan analysts in a note earlier this month.

“We also think downside risks are underappreciated.”

President Biden better hope they’re right, with The White House desperately begging OPEC+ to re-ramp up production (and threatening to unleash the SPR), we wonder just what would happen to the president’s approval rating if Gas prices at the pump reached $4 (at $100 WTI) or $7 a gallon (at $200 WTI)…

Source: Bloomberg

Better start making some more calls Joe?

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 11:01

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3jfQx79 Tyler Durden