In Huge Shakeup, Trump Moves To Withdraw 12,000 US Troops From Germany

In Huge Shakeup, Trump Moves To Withdraw 12,000 US Troops From Germany

Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/29/2020 – 10:25

Earlier this summer President Trump directed the Pentagon to withdraw some ten thousand US troops from Germany by September, following years of the administration severely criticizing lack of enough military spending from its European ally. This inevitably set up a fight and push back from both hawks and Congress and some among the defense establishment.

It also came out of ‘America First’ related promises made going back to the campaign trail wherein the president vowed to stop being the world’s global policeman and to ultimately “bring to troops home” from far flung stations. Cited as still angry that Germany is “taking advantage” and “not paying their NATO fees” Trump has moved to withdraw about 12,000 troops from Germany, Bloomberg reports.

Trump at Ramstein Air Base, Germany in Dec. 2018, via AP.

Though the Pentagon has cautioned the drawdown process could take “years”, Bloomberg now reports: “The U.S. plans to withdraw about 12,000 troops from Germany, with some redeploying to other European nations and a little more than half returning to the U.S., a defense official said.”

The AP is describing it has a significant “shakeup” sought by Trump, and notes that an estimated 6,400 will be sent back home – or rather bases on US soil – while 5,400 will be restationed to other countries. 

Trump is making good on prior threats meant to pressure Germany to pay more for NATO as a condition for keeping a large American military troop presence.

But it will be interesting to see how far it goes in practical terms, given that Germany is a major training hub for US forces across Europe and beyond – all of which is rumored to be on the chopping block as part of the pressure campaign on the NATO ally. Even US Africa Command is headquartered in Germany. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30aFuTS Tyler Durden

Rep. Louie Gohmert Tests Positive For COVID-19 Ahead Of Presidential Flight To Texas

Rep. Louie Gohmert Tests Positive For COVID-19 Ahead Of Presidential Flight To Texas

Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/29/2020 – 10:17

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert has tested positive for COVID-19, Politico reports.

The Republican Congressman was tested Wednesday morning during a pre-clearing process for Wednesday’s historic anti-trust hearing.

Gohmert also attended yesterday’s hearing with AG Barr, which begs the question: why wasn’t his illness flagged yesterday? As Gohmert was sitting in the presence of not only the AG but many of his colleagues for hours, often shouting questions and commentary back and forth.

Politico noted that the Republican, who represents Texas’s 1st District, has been seen “walking around the Capitol…without a mask.”

In another close call for the president, Gohmert had been scheduled to fly to Texas on Wednesday morning with the president. The eighth-term Republican told CNN last month that he wouldn’t bother wearing a mask because he was being tested regularly.

He also claimed that “[I]f I get it,” he told CNN in June, “you’ll never see me without a mask.”

We hope the Congressman follows through with that promise.

 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/33a6Kn9 Tyler Durden

Rabobank: It Is Ironic That US “Tech Giants” Don’t Actually Produce Anything

Rabobank: It Is Ironic That US “Tech Giants” Don’t Actually Produce Anything

Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/29/2020 – 10:15

By Michael Every of Rabobank

The Means of (No) Production

Today is a Fed decision day. For the markets, the key question is “What more can they realistically do at this stage?” Indicative that there is still more to do is the fact that the virus has not stopped raging across the US, and indeed much of the world, even if it no longer deems major media coverage; that opening-ups are becoming locking-downs; that the most recent initial claims numbers were even more terrible than usual; and that, as things stand at time of writing, Congress is divided over the shape of the latest fiscal response package even though extended unemployment benefits have now stopped and the rental eviction moratorium expires at the end of the month. Moreover, the Fed already took the step of announcing a day before their meeting finishes that seven of their nine emergency lending programs will be extended to the end of the year. (When do they get extended into 2021?)

For a full preview of the upcoming meeting outcome, please see here from Philip Marey, but it seems too early for serious flagging of yield curve control, especially when yields are so low, or of negative rates, which are the final Rubicon for the Fed to cross. There certainly aren’t going to be any reasons for Treasuries to sell off on the meeting outcome, however. On the FX front, and against market chatter –not subscribed to here– that any new Fed dovishness presages the beginning of the end of the USD as a reserve currency, we might see USD on the back foot, which would hardly be exceptional at the moment. Again, let’s reiterate the only reason other major central banks are not having to keep ‘double dipping’ as much as the Fed is doing are: 1) because their fiscal stimuli, like nationalised payrolls, have been in place for months – and yet which runs out in after the summer in the UK case, for example; and 2) because nobody else globally is demanding their currency like the USD.

The Fed today will be thinking about how to maintain as much consumption as possible going forwards and as much stock elevation as required. Might we even get an indication of some new macroeconomic (and maybe socio-economic?) variables that it will track, besides inflation and generic unemployment, so the market can get a grasp of just how long it will be staying on hold?

You will notice one thing missing above for the Fed to worry about: production. Which says a lot about where we stand today and why we stand there. Growing up when I did, and where I did, there was regular dinner-table discussion about ‘the means of production’ and who was and should be controlling them. I suspect many younger market players today could not even tell you which economist coined that key term. They probably have a really good funny picture of a dog or a cat or a heavily-edited ‘catfishing’ selfie though, so there’s that. Of course, the US economy is not coincidentally today all about consumption and not production of goods: “Let other countries *produce* stuff and we will just buy it,” was the ruling economic philosophy in the States from 1945 to 2016, after all. (Not before, and not necessarily in the future though, despite it trying to make a comeback as Trump stumbles.)

On one level this is a story that matters for the Fed, because with no production and lots of needed consumption you also need lots of debt – which we have, but which has logical limits for the household sector at least. It’s also a story for the FX market, because the US consuming and others producing is a weak USD story and also one of global business as usual. In which light, don’t overlook that the US firm Kodak just received a USD765m loan from the government to shift to producing chemicals needed for local production of generic medicines, a step taken to ensure that the US is no longer solely reliant on China and India for such inputs. Yes, that’s the first step on a long, long journey that the next US administration might prefer to talk about and not actually take. However, it also a sign that it’s not global business as usual, and that there are lots of potential USD stings in the tail – most so for those reliant on selling to them.

There is another level on which “the means of production” is relevant today – and that is because US tech giants are being called to testify to Congress against a backdrop of them becoming political footballs in an ever-more polarised society; something their many critics claim they help drive in various ways – have you seen the “Antisocial media” T-shirts?

In such a divided society –where “cultural Marxism” and “trained Marxist” are used as criticism and self-identification—it is ironic that most of these firms don’t actually produce anything, and certainly not in the US: one lets you search for other things; most of the others have no content unless the users provide it or produce it (in which case, mostly from abroad again). There is no “means of production” at all in that sense today. Yet clearly there is still vast power – and so an enormous ding-dong going on over who ‘controls’ them, and to what end.

However, if what these platforms say and how much concentrated power they have might generate some heat for the TV cameras, it would appear there is still little likelihood of any serious antitrust action being proposed by either the Republicans or the Democrats in Congress (despite Senator Hawley having just introduced legislation that would effectively kill targeted ads based on tracking your online activities).

Calls for moves against monopolies have been around in the US since its creation, flared in particular in the 1850s over land, and Congress passed major anti-trust laws to reshape the US economy in 1890, 1913, 1936, and 1950, as well as in the 1982. However, that strategy has dropped by the wayside since under the combination of a neoliberal view that monopolies can’t happen (ignoring evidence that they do) and that even if they do, which is inherently contradictory, they can be good for consumers. (Thanks to Milton Friedman – the man who argued the more ridiculous a theory’s basis is, the more important it is too.) Of course, now we also have the challenge of Chinese tech giants, which US titans will also lever in DC as reason to leave them untouched.

There is no room to repeat it here in full, but there is a strong set of arguments that monopolies of the means of production (in China, or anywhere) –and of the means of no production—are highly disinflationary and part and parcel of the “lower forever” rates view. High levels of profitability for just some are entirely consistent with far lower ones, and biting deflation, for many, many others.

As such, while we are listening to the Fed talk about what it needs to do, what Congress says it won’t need to do arguably gives us a clue as to what the Fed will ultimately be saying it needs to do when it is next surprised to the downside by structural low inflation.    

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

US Pending Home Sales Soar In June… To Highest Since 2006!

US Pending Home Sales Soar In June… To Highest Since 2006!

Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/29/2020 – 10:04

After rebounds in new- and existing-home sales, pending home sales in June were expected to continue to surge (after screaming 44% higher MoM in May) and they did, rising 16.6% MoM (beating the 15.0% expectations) and sending the YoY sales number UP 12.7%…

Source: Bloomberg

This is the biggest annual rise in pending home sales in over 5 years as mortgage rates hit record lows.

“It is quite surprising and remarkable that, in the midst of a global pandemic, contract activity for home purchases is higher compared to one year ago,” Lawrence Yun, NAR’s chief economist, said in a statement.

“Consumers are taking advantage of record-low mortgage rates resulting from the Federal Reserve’s maximum liquidity monetary policy.”

And the pending home sales index is back at its highest since 2006

And in case you’re wondering why the housing market was able to bounce so quickly in the face of an historic shock which left 22 million people unemployed? Here BofA offers five explanations:

  1. An uneven recession: the shock disproportionally impacted the lower income population who are less likely to be homeowners. Consider that 55% of households earning less than $35K a year lost employment income vs. only 40% of those earning $75K and above. According to the NAR, the median household income of recent homebuyers is $93k.

  2. Record low interest rates: mortgage rates reached a new historic low last week. Average monthly mortgage payments have declined by $80/month relative to this time last year due to lower mortgage rates.

  3. Running lean pre-crisis: inventory was low, home equity was high and debt levels manageable. The homeowner vacancy rate reached the lows of the mid-1990s.

  4. Supportive fiscal and monetary policy: forbearance programs reduced potential stress from delinquencies – according to the MBA, 7.8% of all mortgages were in forbearance as of July 12, which amounts to 3.9mn homeowners.

  5. Pandemic-related relocations: moving to the ‘burbs is a real phenomenon. Take NYC – according to data from USPS, the number of mail forwarding requests from NYC spiked to more than 80,000 in April, 4X the pre-COVID-19 monthly pace.

Pending home sales rose in all U.S. regions, including an 11.9% gain in the South that boosted the region’s index to the highest in records back to 2001. Purchases also increased 12.2% in the Midwest to the strongest since February 2017 and climbed 11.7% in the West. Contract signings jumped 54.4% in the Northeast to a four-month high.

Yun says that as house hunters seek homes away from bigger cites – likely in an effort to avoid the coronavirus – properties that were once an afterthought for potential buyers are now growing in popularity.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2P4TXub Tyler Durden

Big-Tech CEOs Release Their Prepared Remarks Ahead Of Historic Hearing

Big-Tech CEOs Release Their Prepared Remarks Ahead Of Historic Hearing

Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/29/2020 – 09:45

In a few hours (at 12ET), the CEOs of Amazon, Google, Apple and Facebook will testify before House lawmakers over allegations of anti-competitive practices. For members of the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, it will be their sixth hearing in their investigation into Silicon Valley antitrust accusations.

Composite photo via Business Insider

The four CEOs have now released their prepared remarks:

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos:

Apple CEO Tim Cook:

Google CEO Sundar Pichai:

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg:

*  *  *

As Politico notes, “The session also arrives as scrutiny of the behemoths is surging across the globe, including an expected Justice Department antitrust case against Google and the recent launch of two European probes of potential anticompetitive behavior by Apple.”

It will also mark the first time Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, has offered testimony before Congress – albeit via videoconference, while House Judiciary lawmakers will attend both virtually and in-person in a hybrid format, according to the report.

That said, today’s ‘showdown’ could go one of two ways; fireworks, or snoozefest. If House Democrats jump off script from antitrust issues and press the CEOs over online hate speech, or if GOP members drill them on anti-conservative bias, things could get interesting.

Even the format of the questioning – four elite CEOs, all appearing by videoconference because of the coronavirus pandemic – could make it harder for the members to land a glove on the companies’ varied issues, ranging from Google’s and Facebook’s command of digital ad revenue to Apple’s control of its App Store and questions about whether Amazon misled Congress. –Politico

“The discussion will go well beyond antitrust,” said Carl Szabo, VP and General Counsel of NetChoice, a tech trade group which counts Google, Amazon and Facebook as members. “It will go into issues of election interference, or conservative bias, or any of the other issues de jour on which we like to saddle tech.”

As we detailed previously, here’s what to expect assuming things go according to plan:

Lawmakers will likely question Bezos about whether an Amazon lawyer misled the Judiciary Committee last summer by claiming the company doesn’t use data collected from third-party vendors to launch competing products of its own.

In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, Amazon employees did just that – which prompted Judiciary leaders to question whether a criminal referral was appropriate for perjury charges. The company disputed WSJ‘s report, and said it did not ‘intentionally mislead’ the Committee – while also promising to conduct an internal investigation.

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg will likely face questions over acquisitions of former rivals WhatsApp and Instagram, while Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and others have called for regulators to break up the social media giant.

Other items of inquiry will include how Facebook handles its trove of data collected from more than 2 billion users, including whether it is for anticompetitive purposes.

“There’s a real fear that no other competitor could ever successfully launch a social media platform because it could never match Facebook’s troves of data, which, given their record, it’s a serious threat to users,” Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO) told Politico.

Google’s Sundar Pichai will have to answer for whether the company amplifies its own search services to the detriment of competitors and consumers seeking maps, videos or other services.

Separately, questions will be asked over whether their domination of online advertising has harmed smaller businesses as well as news outlets.

The committee has also accused the company of being less than forthright in its past testimony, including on questions such as what percentage of searches on the company’s engine lead to website referrals not on Google.

Google has separately been a frequent target of Republican allegations of anti-conservative bias on its video sharing platform YouTube, a topic that is expected to come up again at Monday’s hearing. Google and other major tech platforms deny those charges. Democrats, meanwhile, have taken issue with the company’s handling of hate speech and misinformation on YouTube. –Politico

Lastly, Apple CEO Tim Cook will face questions over how the company has handled its app store.

Because of the market power that Apple has, it is charging exorbitant rents — highway robbery, basically — bullying people to pay 30 percent or denying access to their market,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) told The Verge in June. “It’s crushing small developers who simply can’t survive with those kinds of payments. If there were real competition in this marketplace, this wouldn’t happen.

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

Kamala Harris for Vice President? A Disappeared Article Fuels Speculation.

rollcallpix128931

“I’m going to have a choice the first week in August,” said Biden. Speculation about who Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden will pick as his running mate is getting out of control as the announcement becomes more imminent. Biden said months ago that it would definitely be a woman and, while a multitude of names have been thrown around in the press as potential contenders, many are betting on California Sen. Kamala Harris—though her attempt to portray Biden as a racist on the debate stage last summer may still complicate things.

About the dust-up, Harris “laughed and said, ‘that’s politics.’ She had no remorse,” former Sen. Chris Dodd (and a member of Biden’s vice presidential search team) told Politico.

This and similar complaints have prompted accusations of sexism from some prominent progressive women. “When your pals help you pick your lady VP based on how contrite she is about having challenged you in a debate,” tweeted New York magazine writer Rebecca Traister.

But let’s not gloss over what Harris actually did to Biden. It may well be just politics, but it was certainly not Harris simply disagreeing with or challenging Biden during a debate.

Harris framed Biden’s former opposition to federal busing mandates to racially integrate schools to make him appear racist and out-of-touch—and then was ready with merchandise to sell around these digs. After a lot of media attention and donations garnered by her attack on Biden, Harris “clarified” that she also opposed a federal busing mandate. It was a backhanded and hypocritical fundraising ploy at Biden’s expense.

Still, Biden and Harris have been awfully chummy lately.

Now, a media mistake and Biden’s notes are fueling even more speculation that Harris will be the one.

First, Politico briefly published text—dated August 1—that declared Harris to be the vice presidential pick, prompting some to wonder if the publication had a scoop it had mistakenly offered up too soon. (Clicking the former page URL now will lead you to an error page.)

It’s common for news outlets to pre-write items like this around a number of possible outcomes, and that may be all that’s going on here. Politico could have similar slugs for others at the ready, too. However, it’s not common for journalists writing slug articles like this to fabricate direct quotes (usually you just use placeholder text, like “TKTKTK,” where you want a future quote to go), as the Politico text that went up yesterday does.

It states that “in his announcement, Biden called Harris ‘a worthy opponent and a worthy running mate.'”

So, what’s going on there is anyone’s guess. On Monday, Politico told readers not to “count Susan Rice out of the vice presidential contest” and ran a piece skeptical of Harris’ chances to be Biden’s running mate.

But Biden’s notes during a press conference yesterday are also fueling speculation. An image captured by the Associated Press showed Harris’ name followed by five talking points:

  • “Do not hold grudges.”
  • “Campaigned with me & Jill.”
  • “Talented.”
  • “Great help to campaign.”
  • “Great respect for her.”

But this list could easily be things that Biden would say about Harris if she’s not his pick but he still wants to convey that there’s no bad blood.

(Personally, I’m just amused—or maybe saddened—that such basic comments even needed to be written down, as if Biden couldn’t come up with positive things to say about Harris unscripted…)

“Biden ultimately did not field a question specifically about Harris,” the A.P. reports. And “Biden also sidestepped specific questions about the timing of his decision on a running mate, an approach reflected in another entry on Biden’s notepad. Under the heading ‘VP,’ Biden wrote ‘highly qualified’ and ‘diverse group,’ signifying his intention not to tease out any more details.”

Biden did, however, tell reporters that he would “have a choice the first week in August, and I promise I’ll let you know when I do.”

Aside from Harris and Rice, those reportedly in the contest include Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and California Rep. Karen Bass.

Already, Biden’s rumored Harris selection has a lot of people—including Warren fans—angry or questioning the wisdom of his choice. Harris’ prosecutor past is a liability especially during a period of such scrutiny toward police and our criminal justice system. Selecting Harris will also remind Americans of her attacks on him, with their potential to make both Harris and Biden look bad.

Many have focused on the fact that Harris is a woman of color as a reason Biden should pick her over Warren. And there’s certainly another overlooked perk: dirt on Trump-related activities.


FREE MARKETS

Democratic Party leadership is out of touch on marijuana. “On Monday the Democratic National Committee rejected an amendment to put a plank supporting marijuana legalization into the party’s platform,” notes Reason‘s Scott Shackford. “The final vote against, 50-106, is almost a perfect inversion of the two-thirds of the public who want legalization.”


FREE MINDS

The Trump administration is taking “steps to wind down legal protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought into the country as children, often called ‘Dreamers,'” NBC News reports. The White House said yesterday it will “reject initial requests and application fees for new filings, consider all applications for renewal on a case-by-case basis but limit renewals to one year rather than two, and reject all applications for advance parole unless there are ‘extraordinary circumstances'” as it undertakes a legal review of its plans to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

The Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s attempted DACA elimination in June.

The “ruling is a victory for DACA recipients, but a very limited one,” wrote Eugene Volokh at the time. His take:

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the Trump administration’s shoddy rationale for rescinding DACA violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it failed to offer any justification for repealing the central element of the DACA program: forbearance on deportation of undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. But Trump or a future president could still rescind DACA if they are willing to offer such a justification in the future and pay the political price of doing so. For that reason, I strongly agree with co-blogger Jonathan Adler’s view that this is a very narrow decision.

Today’s ruling does not definitively end either the legal or the political battle over DACA. Ultimately, only Congress can do that, by finally passing a law definitively protecting “Dreamers” from deportation and giving them permanent resident status in the United States. Until then, they will not be fully safe.


QUICK HITS

• The feds are conditioning protesters’ release from jail on them not attending any more protests.

• “A National Guard officer will testify Tuesday at a congressional hearing that the June 1 clearing of protesters outside the White House was ‘an unnecessary escalation of the use of force,'” writes Reason‘s C.J. Ciaramella.

• More on Republicans’ proposed stimulus bill.

• “Universal Pictures and AMC Entertainment, the No. 1 movie chain in the world, have reached a deal to allow movies to move to homes after a mere three weeks in theaters in the United States, almost certainly changing the way that Hollywood does business,” reports The New York Times.

• Attorney General William Barr talks Operation Legend:

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2X6Jdji
via IFTTT

Why Pandemic Pods are ‘the Ultimate In Parent-Driven Education Innovation’

dpaphotosfour570813

“It’s a big mess,” says Hollie Gesaman, a mother of two young children in Streetsboro, Ohio. She was talking about the upcoming school year, and what parents would do with their kids. “A lot of people are on the fence about a lot of different things. Our school hasn’t given us any idea of what they’re going for. They have ‘potential’ plans, but the bottom line is that there’s really not a 100% good choice.” Send the kids to school? There’s a health risk. Keep them home, and what about socialization? Homeschool? Unschool? Let them watch cartoons and learn the entire ACME product line? “There’s a negative consequence for each possibility,” Gesaman sighs. “Just pick a punch in the face.”

The punch suddenly getting the most play is the “pandemic pod.” “Pods went from, ‘Oh, isn’t that interesting?’ to ubiquitous in about 72 hours,” says Robert Pondiscio, a former Bronx public school teacher who now works at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

A pod is a small group of families who approve of each other’s quarantining habits and whose kids will spend the next few weeks, months, or God-knows-how-long learning together away from the school house. These may be kids who were going to the same school already, or they may be neighbors, cousins, or play-group buddies. They may be the same age, or not. They may hire a tutor, a babysitter, or a bona fide teacher. They may tune in together to the school district’s online lessons, or they may choose a totally different homeschooling curriculum. Their parents may or may not pitch in with the teaching. And they may or may not strive to include a kid or kids from a different income level, race, or neighborhood, to create more equity. (That last one is a big issue in the Facebook chats.)

In other words: Everything is up for re-imagining. “These pandemic pods are the ultimate in parent-driven education innovation,” says Kerry McDonald, author of Unschooled. “Parents were forced into COVID homeschooling last spring. But now they are willingly taking the reins of their children’s education.”

Amy Evans, a writer with two kids in Montclair, New Jersey, is one of them. She thinks she will probably have her daughter attend whatever online/offline hybrid the local high school puts together, because it has (or had?) a lot of specialized classes her daughter wants to take. But for her son, an 8th grader, she’s less sure. Is the risk and weirdness of a socially distanced classroom worth it, especially if there’s no gym class? And what if a lot of time is spent repeating the online lessons not every kid paid peak attention to last spring?  Evans says she may not send him back “if it’s a whole lot of reviewing and handwashing and still potentially unsafe.”

Instead, she might formalize an ad hoc group her son and a couple of his friends threw together in March, when students were first sent home. They did their homework together, remotely. In a way, says Evans, “Our kids beat us to it.”

Gesaman, the Ohio mom, also organized an informal gathering at her home in the spring. She had four first graders do math and art projects together in, essentially, a pod. “Some might say I invented the whole concept,” she says. “Just kidding—absolutely no one is saying that.” Furloughed from her job the same moment schools closed, she read up on the first grade curriculum and taught the class herself. She found the kids grasped the concepts, and now she is ready to do it again.

Does having a parent who can teach, or having a home with enough space for a class, or even confining a pod to people who can quarantine—thereby excluding the children of essential workers—create inequity? That’s the question plaguing a lot of parents. Understandably so, says Pondiscio, “Because everything in education causes inequity. It’s like the old Joe Jackson song: Everything gives you cancer.”

He’s not being flip. As the author of How the Other Half Learns, and he wants more equity between the halves, too. One idea that he, McDonald, and Corey DeAngelis, Reason’s own director of school choice, have been thinking about is giving education dollars directly to families. Could this cataclysmic time of school closures and remote learning be the time to experiment with redirecting school money to the parents? They could use it to hire a personal part-time tutor, or create a local pod where everyone is pooling their stipends.

“I call it ‘Universal Basic Education Income,'” says DeAngelis. Like food stamps that can be used at any grocery, or Pell Grants that can be spent on the student’s college of choice, these education dollars could be spent wherever the family thought best, including at the local public school. When life returns to normal, the experiment could be studied, including any unintended consequences and whether it helped create more equity.

To Beth Isaacs, a music teacher in the Lexington, Kentucky, public schools, that sounds like a recipe ripe for the very worst inequity. The public school system takes students across the economic, educational and ethnic spectrum and gets them all interacting and learning together. “In my school, we are 100 percent free and reduced lunch, and 15 percent refugee,” she says. 

Each teacher crafts the students into an assortment of, well, pods: Four kids at a table, learning together. The pods are shuffled all year long, so all the kids develop relationships and learn from each other. She worries that giving the education budget directly to parents means that some would choose to avoid any kind of mixing. She also stresses the possibility that a tutor would not be well-trained, and she argues that draining the ed budget would starve what Isaacs calls an already stretched-thin, “duct tape-and-Velcro” system.

“You’re not draining the system,” counters McDonald. “You’re redistributing it to students and allowing for the freedom of choice we have in all other areas of our lives.” As for hiring sub-par instructors, “Parents have the utmost interest in insuring that their children are highly educated,” McDonald says, and will choose wisely.

Clearly this is a fraught moment. Parents are reeling, students are waiting, and school districts are punting. Everything is up for grabs, including whether there’s about to be a giant teachers strike. But no matter what happens, this is going to be a year of educational changes, pods, no pods, or, given how things have been going, maybe even Tide Pods.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/335bbzv
via IFTTT

Kamala Harris for Vice President? A Disappeared Article Fuels Speculation.

rollcallpix128931

“I’m going to have a choice the first week in August,” said Biden. Speculation about who Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden will pick as his running mate is getting out of control as the announcement becomes more imminent. Biden said months ago that it would definitely be a woman and, while a multitude of names have been thrown around in the press as potential contenders, many are betting on California Sen. Kamala Harris—though her attempt to portray Biden as a racist on the debate stage last summer may still complicate things.

About the dust-up, Harris “laughed and said, ‘that’s politics.’ She had no remorse,” former Sen. Chris Dodd (and a member of Biden’s vice presidential search team) told Politico.

This and similar complaints have prompted accusations of sexism from some prominent progressive women. “When your pals help you pick your lady VP based on how contrite she is about having challenged you in a debate,” tweeted New York magazine writer Rebecca Traister.

But let’s not gloss over what Harris actually did to Biden. It may well be just politics, but it was certainly not Harris simply disagreeing with or challenging Biden during a debate.

Harris framed Biden’s former opposition to federal busing mandates to racially integrate schools to make him appear racist and out-of-touch—and then was ready with merchandise to sell around these digs. After a lot of media attention and donations garnered by her attack on Biden, Harris “clarified” that she also opposed a federal busing mandate. It was a backhanded and hypocritical fundraising ploy at Biden’s expense.

Still, Biden and Harris have been awfully chummy lately.

Now, a media mistake and Biden’s notes are fueling even more speculation that Harris will be the one.

First, Politico briefly published text—dated August 1—that declared Harris to be the vice presidential pick, prompting some to wonder if the publication had a scoop it had mistakenly offered up too soon. (Clicking the former page URL now will lead you to an error page.)

It’s common for news outlets to pre-write items like this around a number of possible outcomes, and that may be all that’s going on here. Politico could have similar slugs for others at the ready, too. However, it’s not common for journalists writing slug articles like this to fabricate direct quotes (usually you just use placeholder text, like “TKTKTK,” where you want a future quote to go), as the Politico text that went up yesterday does.

It states that “in his announcement, Biden called Harris ‘a worthy opponent and a worthy running mate.'”

So, what’s going on there is anyone’s guess. On Monday, Politico told readers not to “count Susan Rice out of the vice presidential contest” and ran a piece skeptical of Harris’ chances to be Biden’s running mate.

But Biden’s notes during a press conference yesterday are also fueling speculation. An image captured by the Associated Press showed Harris’ name followed by five talking points:

  • “Do not hold grudges.”
  • “Campaigned with me & Jill.”
  • “Talented.”
  • “Great help to campaign.”
  • “Great respect for her.”

But this list could easily be things that Biden would say about Harris if she’s not his pick but he still wants to convey that there’s no bad blood.

(Personally, I’m just amused—or maybe saddened—that such basic comments even needed to be written down, as if Biden couldn’t come up with positive things to say about Harris unscripted…)

“Biden ultimately did not field a question specifically about Harris,” the A.P. reports. And “Biden also sidestepped specific questions about the timing of his decision on a running mate, an approach reflected in another entry on Biden’s notepad. Under the heading ‘VP,’ Biden wrote ‘highly qualified’ and ‘diverse group,’ signifying his intention not to tease out any more details.”

Biden did, however, tell reporters that he would “have a choice the first week in August, and I promise I’ll let you know when I do.”

Aside from Harris and Rice, those reportedly in the contest include Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and California Rep. Karen Bass.

Already, Biden’s rumored Harris selection has a lot of people—including Warren fans—angry or questioning the wisdom of his choice. Harris’ prosecutor past is a liability especially during a period of such scrutiny toward police and our criminal justice system. Selecting Harris will also remind Americans of her attacks on him, with their potential to make both Harris and Biden look bad.

Many have focused on the fact that Harris is a woman of color as a reason Biden should pick her over Warren. And there’s certainly another overlooked perk: dirt on Trump-related activities.


FREE MARKETS

Democratic Party leadership is out of touch on marijuana. “On Monday the Democratic National Committee rejected an amendment to put a plank supporting marijuana legalization into the party’s platform,” notes Reason‘s Scott Shackford. “The final vote against, 50-106, is almost a perfect inversion of the two-thirds of the public who want legalization.”


FREE MINDS

The Trump administration is taking “steps to wind down legal protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought into the country as children, often called ‘Dreamers,'” NBC News reports. The White House said yesterday it will “reject initial requests and application fees for new filings, consider all applications for renewal on a case-by-case basis but limit renewals to one year rather than two, and reject all applications for advance parole unless there are ‘extraordinary circumstances'” as it undertakes a legal review of its plans to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

The Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s attempted DACA elimination in June.

The “ruling is a victory for DACA recipients, but a very limited one,” wrote Eugene Volokh at the time. His take:

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the Trump administration’s shoddy rationale for rescinding DACA violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it failed to offer any justification for repealing the central element of the DACA program: forbearance on deportation of undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. But Trump or a future president could still rescind DACA if they are willing to offer such a justification in the future and pay the political price of doing so. For that reason, I strongly agree with co-blogger Jonathan Adler’s view that this is a very narrow decision.

Today’s ruling does not definitively end either the legal or the political battle over DACA. Ultimately, only Congress can do that, by finally passing a law definitively protecting “Dreamers” from deportation and giving them permanent resident status in the United States. Until then, they will not be fully safe.


QUICK HITS

• The feds are conditioning protesters’ release from jail on them not attending any more protests.

• “A National Guard officer will testify Tuesday at a congressional hearing that the June 1 clearing of protesters outside the White House was ‘an unnecessary escalation of the use of force,'” writes Reason‘s C.J. Ciaramella.

• More on Republicans’ proposed stimulus bill.

• “Universal Pictures and AMC Entertainment, the No. 1 movie chain in the world, have reached a deal to allow movies to move to homes after a mere three weeks in theaters in the United States, almost certainly changing the way that Hollywood does business,” reports The New York Times.

• Attorney General William Barr talks Operation Legend:

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2X6Jdji
via IFTTT

Why Pandemic Pods are ‘the Ultimate In Parent-Driven Education Innovation’

dpaphotosfour570813

“It’s a big mess,” says Hollie Gesaman, a mother of two young children in Streetsboro, Ohio. She was talking about the upcoming school year, and what parents would do with their kids. “A lot of people are on the fence about a lot of different things. Our school hasn’t given us any idea of what they’re going for. They have ‘potential’ plans, but the bottom line is that there’s really not a 100% good choice.” Send the kids to school? There’s a health risk. Keep them home, and what about socialization? Homeschool? Unschool? Let them watch cartoons and learn the entire ACME product line? “There’s a negative consequence for each possibility,” Gesaman sighs. “Just pick a punch in the face.”

The punch suddenly getting the most play is the “pandemic pod.” “Pods went from, ‘Oh, isn’t that interesting?’ to ubiquitous in about 72 hours,” says Robert Pondiscio, a former Bronx public school teacher who now works at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

A pod is a small group of families who approve of each other’s quarantining habits and whose kids will spend the next few weeks, months, or God-knows-how-long learning together away from the school house. These may be kids who were going to the same school already, or they may be neighbors, cousins, or play-group buddies. They may be the same age, or not. They may hire a tutor, a babysitter, or a bona fide teacher. They may tune in together to the school district’s online lessons, or they may choose a totally different homeschooling curriculum. Their parents may or may not pitch in with the teaching. And they may or may not strive to include a kid or kids from a different income level, race, or neighborhood, to create more equity. (That last one is a big issue in the Facebook chats.)

In other words: Everything is up for re-imagining. “These pandemic pods are the ultimate in parent-driven education innovation,” says Kerry McDonald, author of Unschooled. “Parents were forced into COVID homeschooling last spring. But now they are willingly taking the reins of their children’s education.”

Amy Evans, a writer with two kids in Montclair, New Jersey, is one of them. She thinks she will probably have her daughter attend whatever online/offline hybrid the local high school puts together, because it has (or had?) a lot of specialized classes her daughter wants to take. But for her son, an 8th grader, she’s less sure. Is the risk and weirdness of a socially distanced classroom worth it, especially if there’s no gym class? And what if a lot of time is spent repeating the online lessons not every kid paid peak attention to last spring?  Evans says she may not send him back “if it’s a whole lot of reviewing and handwashing and still potentially unsafe.”

Instead, she might formalize an ad hoc group her son and a couple of his friends threw together in March, when students were first sent home. They did their homework together, remotely. In a way, says Evans, “Our kids beat us to it.”

Gesaman, the Ohio mom, also organized an informal gathering at her home in the spring. She had four first graders do math and art projects together in, essentially, a pod. “Some might say I invented the whole concept,” she says. “Just kidding—absolutely no one is saying that.” Furloughed from her job the same moment schools closed, she read up on the first grade curriculum and taught the class herself. She found the kids grasped the concepts, and now she is ready to do it again.

Does having a parent who can teach, or having a home with enough space for a class, or even confining a pod to people who can quarantine—thereby excluding the children of essential workers—create inequity? That’s the question plaguing a lot of parents. Understandably so, says Pondiscio, “Because everything in education causes inequity. It’s like the old Joe Jackson song: Everything gives you cancer.”

He’s not being flip. As the author of How the Other Half Learns, and he wants more equity between the halves, too. One idea that he, McDonald, and Corey DeAngelis, Reason’s own director of school choice, have been thinking about is giving education dollars directly to families. Could this cataclysmic time of school closures and remote learning be the time to experiment with redirecting school money to the parents? They could use it to hire a personal part-time tutor, or create a local pod where everyone is pooling their stipends.

“I call it ‘Universal Basic Education Income,'” says DeAngelis. Like food stamps that can be used at any grocery, or Pell Grants that can be spent on the student’s college of choice, these education dollars could be spent wherever the family thought best, including at the local public school. When life returns to normal, the experiment could be studied, including any unintended consequences and whether it helped create more equity.

To Beth Isaacs, a music teacher in the Lexington, Kentucky, public schools, that sounds like a recipe ripe for the very worst inequity. The public school system takes students across the economic, educational and ethnic spectrum and gets them all interacting and learning together. “In my school, we are 100 percent free and reduced lunch, and 15 percent refugee,” she says. 

Each teacher crafts the students into an assortment of, well, pods: Four kids at a table, learning together. The pods are shuffled all year long, so all the kids develop relationships and learn from each other. She worries that giving the education budget directly to parents means that some would choose to avoid any kind of mixing. She also stresses the possibility that a tutor would not be well-trained, and she argues that draining the ed budget would starve what Isaacs calls an already stretched-thin, “duct tape-and-Velcro” system.

“You’re not draining the system,” counters McDonald. “You’re redistributing it to students and allowing for the freedom of choice we have in all other areas of our lives.” As for hiring sub-par instructors, “Parents have the utmost interest in insuring that their children are highly educated,” McDonald says, and will choose wisely.

Clearly this is a fraught moment. Parents are reeling, students are waiting, and school districts are punting. Everything is up for grabs, including whether there’s about to be a giant teachers strike. But no matter what happens, this is going to be a year of educational changes, pods, no pods, or, given how things have been going, maybe even Tide Pods.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/335bbzv
via IFTTT

Federal Agents Leave Seattle: Mayor

Federal Agents Leave Seattle: Mayor

Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/29/2020 – 09:30

US tactical forces deployed to Seattle to protect federal property have left the city according to Mayor Jenny Durkan, who said local officials complained that their presence was ‘escalating tensions,’ according to Reuters.

Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan

Mayor Jenny Durkan rejected the deployment, saying it did not have the consent of local officials and could incite the property damage it was supposed to prevent.

She tweeted on Tuesday that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told her that U.S. Border Patrol Tactical Unit agents had left Seattle. DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. –Reuters

On Tuesday, Attorney General William Barr said that federal agents were stopping “rioters” in Portland who were trying to destroy the courthouse. 

Meanwhile last weekend, Seattle saw its largest Black Lives Matter protest in several weeks, while a man was shot at an Austin, Texas demonstration. Two protesters in Aurora, Colorado were shot and wounded, which led to the Tuesday arrest of a man.

On Monday, the Department of Homeland Security was sued over its deployment of agents to the Portland courthouse on grounds that it was unconstitutional for feds to take over the role of local and state law enforcement.

Widespread and mostly peaceful protests against racial bias and police brutality have taken place in the United States since May 25 when George Floyd, a Black man, died under the knee of a white officer in Minneapolis.

Federal agents sent to Portland have used tear gas, pepper balls and stun grenades on protesters outside a federal courthouse, who have tried to tear down a fence erected around it. –Reuters

On Wednesday, President Trump said the feds won’t leave Portland until the city is secured.

On Tuesday, Barr told a House panel that ‘far more’ officers had been injured than protesters, who are using industrial-grade fireworks, firebombs and other weapons – adding that two federal agents sent to Portland may have been permanently blinded by lasers.

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