The COVID-Crisis Could Bring A New Era Of Decline For American Core Cities

The COVID-Crisis Could Bring A New Era Of Decline For American Core Cities

Tyler Durden

Fri, 06/26/2020 – 20:25

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

Manufacturing company 7-Sigma made headlines when it decided to leave Minneapolis as a result of the company’s plant being burned by rioters. “They don’t care about my business,” 7-Sigma owner Kris Wyrobek old the Star-Tribune. After more than 30 years in the city, the company isn’t staying, nor are any of the company’s fifty jobs.

But the costs of being victimized in protests is just one of many reasons homeowners and businesses may be realizing life and business in central cities has lost its luster. The ongoing threat of more business lockdowns, more riots, higher taxes, and failing schools may induce many Americans to flee, once again, to the suburbs as their parents or grandparents did.

This goes well beyond the fear of the disease many journalists have assumed is behind the observed beginnings of an exodus from cities. Yes, many in the upper classes have fled the cities for their mountain homes and yachts for “health reasons.” But these people are relatively few in number and their thinking quixotic. They can afford to drop everything and leave cities overnight.

But the larger impacts are likely to be felt as middle class homeowners and business owners conclude they’d simply rather avoid the edicts and neglect of mayors and city councils in central cities who thinking nothing of issuing job-destroying “stay-at-home” orders while allowing rioters and vandals free rein.

The real cost to cities is likely to emerge over time. It will come in the form of families and shop owners who decide it’s best to move their businesses ten miles down the road to a neighboring city that will actually do something about rioters. It will come in the form of families which decide their next home will be just a little bit farther from the urban dictator-mayors who have the heaviest hands in enforcing lockdowns and business closures. It will come in the form of potential new business owners and homeowners will be decide to never purchase property to start a business in central cities in the first place.

The Decline of Cities at Mid-Century

We may be seeing something reminiscent what happened in America’s large central cities during the 1970s and 1980s. Many Americans concluded these cities had become unlivable and crime infested. Many concluded these were places that were quite inhospitable to doing business. So they left. (Forced busing for “integration” purposes was a factor as well.)

In some cases, there were dramatic events that illustrated the trend. The late sixties in New York saw several strikes by city workers. Transit and sanitation in the city became a disaster. The 1977 blackout in New York City ended in widespread riots that induced many businesses to pack up and never return. Many households followed.

But for the most part, cities saw an exodus that took many years and slowly hollowed out the finances and tax revenues of big cities. Areas of Detroit fell into ruin. By the mid seventies, New York City was lurching from one fiscal crisis to another.

“Nearly half of large cities lost cities shrank by at least 10 percent” during the 1970s, according to the Kansas City Fed :

St. Louis, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Detroit each shrank by more than 20 percent. Vast stretches of urban land were left virtually deserted.

More than half of large cities lost population from 1950 to 1980.

There were other factors at work as well, of course. The central cities were often hit the hardest as the old Rust Belt went into decline after the region was destroyed by labor unions and city and state laws that made business in the region inefficient and uncompetitive. Business owners and workers who possessed any real ambition or entrepreneurial spirit had good reason to leave the region altogether.

City centers, built on an old manufacturing-based working class never recovered.

The situation today is a bit different. During the 1990s, core cities began to recover from their mid-century decline and many officials and intellectuals in these areas began cultivating the so-called ” creative class” (also known as the ” bohemian bourgeoisie “) with the idea that young artists, engineers, architects, and tech workers might be convinced to move into city centers and and revitalize local urban economies. It appears to have worked in many cases.

But in 2020 America the hey day of the new techno-city may be over.

Civil Unrest

The case of the Sigma-7 closure in Minneapolis is just the most famous case of central cities’ hostility to businesses within their borders. We’re not hearing about the many small less-notable businesses that won’t re-open in the wake of riots. In other cities, such as Chicago, city officials are now begging retailers to not leave the city.

Meanwhile, a number of small businesses now within the “CHOP” zone in Seattle is suing the city for abandoning businesses to the whims of the leftist mob.

As reported by the local NBC affiliate, local businesses have been threatened and harassed by the bosses of the “Capitol Hill Occupation Protest” (CHOP) zone in the city. The city government, the plaintiffs have concluded, essentially have abandoned these businesses to the new “government”:

The City’s decision has subjected businesses, employees, and residents of that neighborhood to extensive property damage, public safety dangers, and an inability to use and access their properties.

Minneapolis and Seattle aren’t the only cities the prospect of continued civil unrest. with forty million new unemployment filings in recent months, the US faces a worrisome period of highly elevated unemployment. Many of the worst-affected workers will be lower-income populations living in core cities. This won’t help the prospect of a speedy return to placid city environments.

Regime Uncertainty

As government experts and media pundits emphasize growth in reported COVID-19 cases, the prospect of renewed lockdowns now looms, as well. This is a threat at the state level and in many suburban local governments. But experience strongly suggests that those political jurisdictions controled by political leftists are likely to embrace the longest and harshest lockdowns. In many states, such as Texas and Colorado and California and Pennsylvania, local governments in big cities embraced lockdowns more enthusiastically than the surrounding regions and at the state capitols.  “Regime uncertainty”—uncertainty about what business-killing regulations a government might embrace next—appears to be greater in central cities.

Business owners are likely to remember this. In the medium- and long-term, business owners and potential business owners will gravitate to those areas where the threat of harsh lockdowns is smaller.

The Rise of the “Work-at-Home” Trend

If the work-at-home trend persists, core cities will have lost one of their main draws: namely, the prospect of a shorter commute for those who can afford a home close-in to the employment centers. Even if daily commutes are just reduced—say, to a three-days-per-week schedule—the commute-time cost of a home in the suburbs falls dramatically. Without the need to sit in traffic five days per week, more expensive city homes and the congrestion and crime of city centers becomes far less attractive.

Declining Tax Revenue and Urban Blight

On top of it all will come big cuts to city budgets as COVID lockdowns decimated tax revenues. All cities and states will be impacted, but if the most productive taxpayers move out of the core cities, it is these areas that will feel the brunt of revenue shortfalls. In other words, a shift of productivity toward the suburbs and small cities will hollow out big city budgets and school district budgets as well. This will only encourage businesses and families to stay away in even larger numbers. Families will seek to avoid school districts and decline, and employers won’t want to become part of a shrinking tax base where tax increases are frequently eyed by politicians as a way out.

The Beginnings of a Trend?

All of this will take time to play out. Yes, we’ve started to see those with means leave big cities already. The New York Times has reported on numerous former residents of New York City who have left for the surrounding regions. The Times asks “is New York City worth it anymore?” and points out  “the pandemic send young New Yorkers packing.”

Meanwhile, some real estate agents report a “mad rush” of wealthy buyers to get out of the city center and into the wealthy suburbs of San Francisco. These are just the early movers. The exiles of more modest means will come later. Not surprisingly, the median rent in San Francisco for a one-bedroom apartment dropped 9.2 percent in May, compared year-over-year.

But these remains a small percentage of the overall population. Most homeowners, families, and business owners need time to move their businesses, sell their properties, and be convinced it’s time to move on.

None of this should be interpreted, however, as a trend away from metropolitan areas overall. There appears to be little risk that large numbers of Americans will be quitting metro areas for rural villages and towns. Some will. But most will notice that metro areas still have most of the jobs, most of the cultural institutions, and most of the health care services. What can’t be said is that core cities have a monopoly on these resources. In recent decades, suburbs and small cities have increasingly become places that host a wide variety of sports teams, museums, convention centers, hospitals, and more. Metro areas are still a good place to be. But old core cities? Not so much.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2NAYu6C Tyler Durden

Visualizing The COVID-19 Impact On Advertising Spend

Visualizing The COVID-19 Impact On Advertising Spend

Tyler Durden

Fri, 06/26/2020 – 20:05

Before the COVID-19 outbreak, global advertising investment was estimated to grow at a 7.1% clip in 2020.

Now, as Visual Capitalist’s Katie Jones notes, global ad spend is estimated to see a brutal contraction of 8.1% – equating to almost $50 billion – as a result of changing consumer behavior. The total loss becomes a bleak $96.4 billion when taking pre-pandemic growth forecasts into account.

Today’s graphic uses data from the World Advertising Research Center (WARC) to visualize the estimated decline in advertising spend by media format and industry.

As advertisers adapt to rising in-home media consumption, the tug-of-war for ad dollars between online and traditional media seems to have a decisive winner.

The Death of Traditional Media

After decades of experts predicting the death of traditional media formats, the COVID-19 pandemic could be the last nail in the coffin.

In fact, spend across every type of traditional media format will see a decline in 2020, while most online media formats are expected to see an increase in spending.

Mid-term, this era will be associated with an accelerant of latent and incremental trends towards more digital consumption, commerce, and thus advertising”

– Dr. Daniel Knapp, Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe

With consumers spending significantly more time at home, brands are allocating more dollars to certain media formats to reflect that. However, when it comes to traditional in-home formats such as TV, consumers are opting for streaming services instead. In fact, they are streaming twice as much online video on services such as Netflix compared to last year.

Spending Estimates, by Category

Almost every industry will see reduced spending. The one category that will buck the trend is “Telecoms & Utilities”, which will experience a 4.3% increase in ad spend throughout the year.

Interestingly, stay-at-home restrictions have increased consumers’ reliance on these services for staying connected with loved ones and working from home.

Moreover, the pandemic has proved to be a turning point for the telecommunications industry, as the importance of faster internet speeds are emphasized and the potential of 5G is realized.

The Road to Recovery?

When inflation and exchange rates are taken into account, the decline in advertising spend is expected to be worse than that experienced during the global financial crisis.

Although 2021 shows signs of recovery, WARC suggests this is reflective of how steep the decline in 2020 will be.

Data shows that global advertising spending growth did not fully recover for eight years following the previous recession, so a swift recovery may be highly unlikely, and returning to pre-pandemic growth rates may not be possible for a number of years.

The Changing Advertising Landscape

As advertisers come to terms with their new reality, they are faced with the uncertainty of changing consumer behavior and the potential for a second wave to tighten quarantine restrictions once more.

Could the pandemic be accelerating the inevitable shift to digital, or is the pain for traditional media only temporary?

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2YAc68s Tyler Durden

Again, What Were The Benefits Of Locking Down?

Again, What Were The Benefits Of Locking Down?

Tyler Durden

Fri, 06/26/2020 – 19:45

Authored by Edward Peter Stringham via The American Institute for Economic Research,

The school closures, stay home orders, shuttering of businesses, banning of elective surgeries, closure of physical entertainment events, blocked flights, and sudden imposition of a central plan – it all happened suddenly from mid-March in the course of only a few days, and to enormous shock on the part of people who had previously taken their freedom and rights for granted. 

Despite enormous pressure from Washington, eight states did not lock down or used a very light touch: South Dakota, North Dakota, South Carolina, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Iowa, and Nebraska. 

After 100 days, we are in a position for some preliminary analysis of the performance of locked down states versus those that did not lock down. AIER has already published the evidence that lockdown states had higher rates of unemployment. 

The Sentinel, a nonprofit news source of the Kansas Policy Institute, confirms our research by reporting the following data: locked down states have overall a 13.2% unemployment rate, while open states have a 7.8% unemployment rate. 

But perhaps this better economic performance came at the expense of health? 

In terms of health, locked down states have nearly four times the death rate from COVID-19.

The results do not prove that staying open necessarily caused the good outcomes, but should certainly lead us to question the notion that “lockdowns are necessary or else we all are going to die.” 

To be sure, many mitigating factors may exist. Open states may have had fewer long-term health facilities housing people with low life expectacies; in every state, these account for roughly half of all deaths from COVID-19. In fact, “deaths among a narrow 1.7% group of the population are greater than deaths from the other 98.3%.” 

Population density between the states also varies and that could have been an explanatory variable. The open states also lacked governors who mandated that nursing homes accept active COVID-patients. Earlier this month, we published some more detailed research “Unemployment Far Worse in Lockdown States, Data Show” by economist Abigail Devereux who found similar results.

A routine trope in the media is that people who oppose lockdowns are pushing freedom and wealth over safety and health. But as we can see from this clean examination of the results, the open states experienced less economic pain and less pain from the disease itself. 

We are seeing desperate attempts by politicians, public health officials, and media commentators somehow to make sense of why the United States pursued the course it did with the closures, stay-home orders, travel bans, and near-universal quarantine, in violation of every principle that America has celebrated in its civic culture. 

With the evidence coming in that the lockdowns were neither economically nor medically effective, it is going to be increasingly difficult for lockdown partisans to marshal the evidence to convince the public that isolating people, destroying businesses, and destroying social institutions was worth it.

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

New York’s Pandemic-Inspired Restrictions on Church and Synagogue Services Are Unconstitutional, a Federal Judge Rules

Andrew-Cuomo-press-conference-3-24-20

Today a federal judge in Albany, New York, ordered state and local officials to stop enforcing COVID-19 control measures that impose special restrictions on religious services. Responding to a lawsuit brought by two Roman Catholic priests from upstate New York and three Orthodox Jews from Brooklyn, U.S. District Judge Gary Sharpe concluded that the state’s rules, which limit indoor services to 25 percent of capacity and outdoor gatherings to no more than 25 people, are not “generally applicable,” meaning they are subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom, a test they cannot satisfy.

Sharpe noted that New York has drawn several seemingly arbitrary distinctions between religious and secular activities that pose similar risks of virus transmission. “On its face,” he writes, “the 25% indoor capacity limitation applies only to houses of worship.” Meanwhile, the state is allowing “nonessential” businesses such as offices, stores, salons, and restaurants to operate at 50 percent of their capacity.

“Restaurant patrons sit and congregate with family and friends in close proximity for a lengthy period of time, and have close contact with their hosts and servers,” Sharpe notes. “Face coverings may be removed while [diners are] seated.” And when it comes to special educational services, the state has imposed no indoor limit at all during the summer term. Since “these secular businesses/activities threaten defendants’ interest in slowing the spread of COVID-19” at least as much as religious services do, Sharpe says, their preferential treatment “demonstrate[s] that the 25% indoor capacity limitation on houses of worship is underinclusive,” which “triggers strict scrutiny review.”

New York’s rules for outdoor gatherings are equally puzzling. Although the state “has specifically authorized outdoor, in-person graduation ceremonies of no more than 150 people,” Sharpe notes, the limit for outdoor religious gatherings, including funerals and weddings, is 25, regardless of the precautions that participants take. Furthermore, Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, like many public health experts, endorsed and encouraged recent protests against police brutality that attracted far more than 25 people, many of whom did not wear masks or follow social distancing guidelines.

“Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio could have just as easily discouraged protests, short of condemning their message, in the name of public health and exercised discretion to suspend enforcement for public safety reasons instead of encouraging what they knew was a flagrant disregard of the outdoor limits and social distancing rules,” Sharpe writes. “They could have also been silent. But by acting as they did, Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio sent a clear message that mass protests are deserving of preferential treatment.”

De Blasio’s attitude toward Jews who dared to gather outside for religious purposes was notably different. “Something absolutely unacceptable happened in Williamsburg tonite,” the mayor tweeted on April 28, the day he personally led a police raid on a Hasidic rabbi’s funeral in that neighborhood of Brooklyn. “When I heard, I went there myself to ensure the crowd was dispersed. And what I saw WILL NOT be tolerated so long as we are fighting the Coronavirus.”

De Blasio added: “My message to the Jewish community, and all communities, is this simple: the time for warnings has passed. I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons or even arrest those who gather in large groups. This is about stopping this disease and saving lives. Period.”

Such discrimination against religious activities, Sharpe says, is clearly problematic under the Supreme Court’s precedents regarding laws that impinge on religious freedom. The Court has said neutral, generally applicable laws that happen to restrict religious activities are consistent with the First Amendment. But it also has said laws that impose special burdens on religious activities are unconstitutional unless they are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest that cannot be achieved through less restrictive means. In this case, Sharpe says, “defendants’ generally-stated compelling interest in controlling the spread of COVID-19 is inadequate to demonstrate that they have a compelling interest that is narrowly tailored to these specific plaintiffs.”

Last month, when the Supreme Court declined to issue an injunction against California’s restrictions on religious services, Chief Justice John Roberts reaffirmed that state officials have wide authority to protect the public from communicable diseases. “When those officials ‘undertake[] to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,’ their latitude ‘must be especially broad,'” he wrote. “Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an ‘unelected federal judiciary,’ which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.”

In this case, Sharpe writes, “it is plain to this court that the broad limits of that executive latitude have been exceeded.” His injunction requires Cuomo, de Blasio, and New York Attorney General Letitia James to refrain from “enforcing any indoor gathering limitations against plaintiffs” stricter than those imposed on “nonessential” businesses such as stores and salons, “provided that plaintiffs follow social distancing requirements as set forth in the applicable executive orders and guidance.” Cuomo, de Blasio, and James are also forbidden to enforce “any limitation for outdoor gatherings,” except for the general rules that also apply to secular gatherings.

State and city officials say they are reviewing Sharpe’s decision before deciding on their next steps. Catholic League President Bill Donohue celebrated the ruling. “The Catholic League encourages people of faith to ignore all future restrictions placed on them by de Blasio and Cuomo,” he said. “They exposed themselves as frauds when they gave the green light to thousands of protesters who took to the streets, night after night, while imposing draconian restrictions on the faithful….They got creamed in court, which is exactly what they deserve.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Z8UBeC
via IFTTT

Daily Briefing – June 26, 2020

Daily Briefing – June 26, 2020


Tyler Durden

Fri, 06/26/2020 – 19:25

Senior editor Ash Bennington hosts managing editor Ed Harrison to discuss a day of pain on Wall Street as the coronavirus shows no signs of relenting and the normally cautious Federal Reserve issued an alarming mandate to large-cap banks. Ed and Ash also flesh out their thinking on a potential “double-dip recession” and a second wave of coronavirus. In the intro, Jack Farley looks at COVID-19 data and analyzes the dire results from the Fed’s “stress test” of the banking sector.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31mRtP0 Tyler Durden

Coronavirus Causes Weaponized ‘Tentacles’ To Sprout From Infected Cells, Directly Inject Virus Into New Ones

Coronavirus Causes Weaponized ‘Tentacles’ To Sprout From Infected Cells, Directly Inject Virus Into New Ones

Tyler Durden

Fri, 06/26/2020 – 19:25

The virus behind COVID-19 causes infected cells to sprout ‘tentacles’ which allow the virus to attack several nearby cells at once – poking holes which allow the disease to easily transfer inside.

This nightmare fuel was discovered by researchers led by the University of California, San Francisco.

There are long strings that poke holes in other cells and the virus passes through the tube from cell to cell,” said UCSF’s Director of the Quantitative Biosciences Institute, Professor Nevan Krogan. “Our hypothesis is that these speed up infection.

The images taken by scientists at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) laboratory in the US and University of Freiburg in Germany will be published in the medical journal Cell on Saturday.

Most viruses do not cause infected cells to grow these tentacles. Even those that do, such as smallpox, do not have as many or the same type of branching as Sars-Cov-2, the virus behind Covid-19. –FT

According to the report, the silver lining is that the tentacle discovery may pave the way for a number of drugs to work against the disease – most of which were previously being used to treat cancer.

“It totally makes sense there’s an overlap in anticancer drugs and an antiviral effect,” said Prof. Krogan, who added that cancers, HIV and SARS-CoV-2 are all searching for the “Achilles heel of the cell.”

Potential drugs include silmitasertib, made by Taiwan-based Senhwa Biosciences – which is working with the NIH on trials in the US. The drug works by inhibiting the CK2 enzyme which is used to build the tubes.

The drug is one of five which were found to be more effective against the virus than Gilead’s remdesivir, including FDA-approved Xospata (aka gilteritinib) made by Japan-based Astellas Pharma, Eli Lily’s FDA-approved abemaciclib (Verzenio) and ralimetinib, and dasatinib, made by Bristol-Meyers Squibb.

Remember, the official narrative is that the virus – which specializes in infecting humans and packs ultra-rare ‘infection tentacles’ – did not emerge from a Chinese biolab located at ‘ground zero’ for the pandemic, where scientists had previously come under international scrutiny for conducting ‘gain of function’ experiments in which chimeric coronaviruses were genetically engineered for the sole purpose of infecting humans.

But we digress.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3dxl8HG Tyler Durden

Weird: Out Of Nowhere, Something Just Rocked Earth’s Magnetic Field

Weird: Out Of Nowhere, Something Just Rocked Earth’s Magnetic Field

Tyler Durden

Fri, 06/26/2020 – 19:05

Authored by Anthony Watts via WattsUpWithThat.com,

A GLOBAL MAGNETIC ANOMALY:  On June 23rd, Earth’s quiet magnetic field was unexpectedly disturbed by a wave of magnetism that rippled around much of the globe. There was no solar storm or geomagnetic storm to cause the disturbance. So what was it?

The Sun today, cue ball blank. Image: NASA SDO

Lately, Earth’s magnetic field has been quiet. Very quiet. The sun is in the pits of what may turn out to be the deepest Solar Minimum in a century. Geomagnetic storms just aren’t happening.

“That’s why I was so surprised on June 23rd when my instruments picked up a magnetic anomaly,” reports Stuart Green, who operates a research-grade magnetometer in his backyard in Preston UK.

“For more than 30 minutes, the local magnetic field oscillated like a sine wave.”

This chart recording shows a magnetic wave rippling through Preston UK on June 23, 2020. Credit: Stuart Green.

Green quickly checked solar wind data from NOAA’s DSCOVR satellite.

“There was nothing – no uptick in the solar wind speed or other factors that might explain the disturbance,” he says.

He wasn’t the only one who noticed. In the Lofoten islands of Norway, Rob Stammes detected a similar anomaly on his magnetometer. “It was remarkable,” he says.

“Our magnetic field swung back and forth by about 1/3rd of a degree. I also detected ground currents with the same 10 minute period.

What happened? Space physicists call this phenomenon a “pulsation continuous” or “Pc” for short. Imagine blowing across a piece of paper, making it flutter with your breath. Solar wind can have a similar effect on magnetic fields. Pc waves are essentially flutters propagating down the flanks of Earth’s magnetosphere excited by the breath of the sun. During more active phases of the solar cycle, these flutters are easily lost in the noise of rambunctious geomagnetic activity. But during the extreme quiet of Solar Minimum, such waves can make themselves “heard” like a pin dropping in an silent room.

Magnetic observatories around the world detected the wave on June 23, 2020. Credit: INTERMAGNET

Earth’s magnetic field was so quiet on June 23rd, the ripple was heard all around the world. INTERMAGNET‘s global network of magnetic observatories picked up wave activity at the same time from Hawaii to China to the Arctic Circle. There’s even a hint of it in Antarctica.

Pc waves are classified into 5 types depending on their period. The 10-minute wave on June 23rd falls into category Pc5. Slow Pc5 waves have been linked to a loss of particles from the van Allen radiation belts. Energetic electrons surf these waves down into Earth’s atmosphere, where they dissipate harmlessly.

With Solar Minimum in full swing, there’s never been a better time to study these waves. Keep quiet … and stay tuned for more.

Story from SpaceWeather.com it is well worth visiting this site

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3g0ODmJ Tyler Durden

Satellite Images Show Huge ‘Permanent’ Chinese Troop Expansion At Site Of India Border Clash

Satellite Images Show Huge ‘Permanent’ Chinese Troop Expansion At Site Of India Border Clash

Tyler Durden

Fri, 06/26/2020 – 18:45

Even though by the start of this week India and China announced a cooling of tensions along the disputed Galwan Valley Line of Actual Control (LAC) border area, new satellite images have revealed a major military build-up especially by the Chinese side.

What was previously but a small, remote Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) outpost has grown huge in size after the June 15 nighttime clash which left 20 Indian soldiers said, many of them having fallen to their deaths during hand-to-hand combat from a precarious ridge line.

Maxar Technologies/CNN

The satellite images produced by Maxar Technologies were taken Monday, reports CNN, and show that a week after the deadliest India-China border clash in half a century PLA forces had significantly expanded their encampment. 

The PLA has reportedly stationed tank and artillery units in the contested border region.

It was a day later on Tuesday that Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian announced that talks between the two sides’ top regional commanders resulted in a positive breakthrough. They “agreed to take necessary measures to promote a cooling of the situation,” Zhao said.

Maxar Technologies/CNN

Below: Before image showing the relatively empty area of what’s dubbed Patrol Point 14 in the Galwan Valley between May 22 and June 22 (compared to apparent build-up in same area shown above).

Maxar Technologies/CNN

“The small outpost … has grown hugely in size,” the analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute who first revealed the images, Nathan Ruser tweeted on Thursday. 

“Indian troops aren’t dismantling this one,” he added, emphasizing that the new PLA expanded camp appears permanent.

Though analysts say it’s clearly a PLA encampment, Indian media reports claimed that the Indian Army was in full control of the disputed Galwan Valley area in question. 

However, analysts say the new images refute those claims, as CNN reports:

The Maxar satellite photos released this week appear to show China has put a tank company and artillery units at a camp north of Gogra. Another significant base was shown in the Kongka Pass.

Ruser, in an analysis released before the latest satellite photos came out, said previous such photos showed Chinese troops have been regularly crossing the LAC on patrols into Indian territory — although not at the point of the June 15 clash — but that reports of thousands of Chinese troops encamped in Indian territory were unproven.

Analysts examining the new satellite photos further say that while the PLA presence has increased, the Indian Army appears to have drawn down from the immediate area of dispute.

China has reportedly moved about a thousand additional troops into the area after recent hostilities and spiking tensions. 

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

New York’s Pandemic-Inspired Restrictions on Church and Synagogue Services Are Unconstitutional, a Federal Judge Rules

Andrew-Cuomo-press-conference-3-24-20

Today a federal judge in Albany, New York, ordered state and local officials to stop enforcing COVID-19 control measures that impose special restrictions on religious services. Responding to a lawsuit brought by two Roman Catholic priests from upstate New York and three Orthodox Jews from Brooklyn, U.S. District Judge Gary Sharpe concluded that the state’s rules, which limit indoor services to 25 percent of capacity and outdoor gatherings to no more than 25 people, are not “generally applicable,” meaning they are subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom, a test they cannot satisfy.

Sharpe noted that New York has drawn several seemingly arbitrary distinctions between religious and secular activities that pose similar risks of virus transmission. “On its face,” he writes, “the 25% indoor capacity limitation applies only to houses of worship.” Meanwhile, the state is allowing “nonessential” businesses such as offices, stores, salons, and restaurants to operate at 50 percent of their capacity.

“Restaurant patrons sit and congregate with family and friends in close proximity for a lengthy period of time, and have close contact with their hosts and servers,” Sharpe notes. “Face coverings may be removed while [diners are] seated.” And when it comes to special educational services, the state has imposed no indoor limit at all during the summer term. Since “these secular businesses/activities threaten defendants’ interest in slowing the spread of COVID-19” at least as much as religious services do, Sharpe says, their preferential treatment “demonstrate[s] that the 25% indoor capacity limitation on houses of worship is underinclusive,” which “triggers strict scrutiny review.”

New York’s rules for outdoor gatherings are equally puzzling. Although the state “has specifically authorized outdoor, in-person graduation ceremonies of no more than 150 people,” Sharpe notes, the limit for outdoor religious gatherings, including funerals and weddings, is 25, regardless of the precautions that participants take. Furthermore, Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, like many public health experts, endorsed and encouraged recent protests against police brutality that attracted far more than 25 people, many of whom did not wear masks or follow social distancing guidelines.

“Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio could have just as easily discouraged protests, short of condemning their message, in the name of public health and exercised discretion to suspend enforcement for public safety reasons instead of encouraging what they knew was a flagrant disregard of the outdoor limits and social distancing rules,” Sharpe writes. “They could have also been silent. But by acting as they did, Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio sent a clear message that mass protests are deserving of preferential treatment.”

De Blasio’s attitude toward Jews who dared to gather outside for religious purposes was notably different. “Something absolutely unacceptable happened in Williamsburg tonite,” the mayor tweeted on April 28, the day he personally led a police raid on a Hasidic rabbi’s funeral in that neighborhood of Brooklyn. “When I heard, I went there myself to ensure the crowd was dispersed. And what I saw WILL NOT be tolerated so long as we are fighting the Coronavirus.”

De Blasio added: “My message to the Jewish community, and all communities, is this simple: the time for warnings has passed. I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons or even arrest those who gather in large groups. This is about stopping this disease and saving lives. Period.”

Such discrimination against religious activities, Sharpe says, raises clear problems under the Supreme Court’s precedents regarding laws that impinge on religious freedom. The Court has said neutral, generally applicable laws that happen to restrict religious activities are consistent with the First Amendment. But it also has said laws that impose special burdens on religious activities are unconstitutional unless they are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest that cannot be achieved through less restrictive means. In this case, Sharpe says, “defendants’ generally-stated compelling interest in controlling the spread of COVID-19 is inadequate to demonstrate that they have a compelling interest that is narrowly tailored to these specific plaintiffs.”

Last month, when the Supreme Court declined to issue an injunction against California’s restrictions on religious services, Chief Justice John Roberts reaffirmed that state officials have wide authority to protect the public from communicable diseases. “When those officials ‘undertake[] to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,’ their latitude ‘must be especially broad,'” he wrote. “Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an ‘unelected federal judiciary,’ which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.”

In this case, Sharpe writes, “it is plain to this court that the broad limits of that executive latitude have been exceeded.” His injunction requires Cuomo, de Blasio, and New York Attorney General Letitia James to refrain from “enforcing any indoor gathering limitations against plaintiffs” stricter than those imposed on “nonessential” businesses such as stores and salons, “provided that plaintiffs follow social distancing requirements as set forth in the applicable executive orders and guidance.” Cuomo, de Blasio, and James are also forbidden to enforce “any limitation for outdoor gatherings,” except for the general rules that apply to secular gatherings.

State and city officials say they are reviewing Sharpe’s decision before deciding on their next steps. Catholic League President Bill Donohue celebrated the ruling. “The Catholic League encourages people of faith to ignore all future restrictions placed on them by de Blasio and Cuomo,” he said. “They exposed themselves as frauds when they gave the green light to thousands of protesters who took to the streets, night after night, while imposing draconian restrictions on the faithful….They got creamed in court, which is exactly what they deserve.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Z8UBeC
via IFTTT

Twitter Wins Lawsuit Over “Devin Nunes’ Cow” Twitter Feed

Nunes argued (in the court’s words) that “Twitter has a bias towards a point of view and that bias is so extreme that it governs its decisions regarding content that is allowed on its internet platform,” so that Twitter should lose its 47 U.S.C. § 230 immunity, and thus become liable for user-posted content.

No, said Judge John Marshall Wednesday in Nunes v. Twitter (Va. Cir. Ct.) (correctly, I think); § 230 regardless of whether an Internet platform engages in viewpoint discrimination.

UPDATE: Originally forgot to include the link; just added it. (Thanks to commenter santamonica811 for the reminder!)

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3i5CXRI
via IFTTT