Buffett: Yesterday’s “One-Two Punch” To Stocks & Oil Was Wild – But “October 1987” Was Way Worse
For millions of Americans, especially those on the cusp of retirement, this selloff has been a nightmare, but for humble Omaha billionaire Warren Buffett, it is undoubtedly a dream come true. After a few years of relative inactivity on the deals front, with Buffett claiming he prefers to buy stocks (especially stocks that he had previously shunned like Apple) because whole companies are “too expensive,” Berkshire has accumulated a massive $100 million+ cash pile,
Everyone who has seen “Too Big Too Fail” knows that the Berkshire Hathaway Chairman scooped up some of the best deals of his lifetime during the financial crisis, when he invested in Bank of America, Wells Fargo and other firms. His state-backed market intervention helping to stabilize the market.
But is Buffett planning to take advantage of these ‘clearance sale’ prices this time around? Many still advocate the trusted practice of BTFD, as Buffett has in the very recent past. Others believe stocks are still ‘too expensive’.
One recent SEC filing showed that Buffett bought the dip in Delta Air Lines, while the stock was down more than 30%. We suspect this won’t be the only Berkshire ‘panic’ purchase.
And in an interview with Yahoo Finance published on Wednesday, Buffett said that while this selloff was unique in that it delivered a “one-two punch” to equities and the oil market.
“If you stick around long enough, you’ll see everything in markets,” Buffett said. “And it may have taken me to 89 years of age to throw this one into the experience, but the markets, if you have to be open second by second, they react to news in a big time way.”
However, while this selloff required investors to be watching “second by second” and was undoubtedly a wild ride, “it wasn’t October 1987 – but it was an imitation anyway.” He said later that it also wasn’t as bad as the financial crisis.
“At the close of business on Monday Oct. 19, most of the specialist firms….were broke…it was really close. And of course the financial panic, you had 35 million people who on Sept. 1 weren’t worried at all about their money market accounts…but by Sept. 16 everyone was worried.”
“People looked at money market accounts as the same thing as cash…I was at a birthday party and that’s all they talked about.”
That’s right, kids. You think this is a panic? Let me tell you – this is nothing! Back in my day, traders knew what a real ‘bank run’ looked like.
So buy the dip, you idiots, what are you waiting for? “‘Robinhood is down?’ – what the hell does that mean”?
WHO Declares Covid-19 A Pandemic, Deeply Concerned At “Alarming Level Of Inaction”
After weeks of exponentially rising death and suffering worldwide, with WHO’s major funding partner China perhaps having turned the corner, WHO Chief Tedros has finally decided to declare Covid-19 a Pandemic…
In his address, Tedros appeared to criticize the US administration while praising more authoritarian nations for their crackdowns…
In the past two weeks, the number of cases of #COVID19 outside 🇨🇳 has increased 13-fold & the number of affected countries has tripled.
There are now more than 118,000 cases in 114 countries, & 4,291 people have lost their lives.
Thousands more are fighting for their lives in hospitals.
In the days and weeks ahead, we expect to see the number of #COVID19 cases, the number of deaths, and the number of affected countries climb even higher
WHO has been assessing this outbreak around the clock and we are deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity, and by the alarming levels of inaction
We have therefore made the assessment that #COVID19 can be characterized as a pandemic
Pandemic is not a word to use lightly or carelessly. It is a word that, if misused, can cause unreasonable fear, or unjustified acceptance that the fight is over, leading to unnecessary suffering and death
Describing the situation as a pandemic does not change WHO’s assessment of the threat posed by this coronavirus. It doesn’t change what WHO is doing, and it doesn’t change what countries should do”
We have never before seen a pandemic sparked by a coronavirus. And we have never before seen a pandemic that can be controlled at the same time.
WHO has been in full response mode since we were notified of the first cases.
We have called every day for countries to take urgent and aggressive action.
We have rung the alarm bell loud and clear
As I said on Monday, just looking at the number of COVID19 cases and the number of countries affected does not tell the full story
Of the 118,000 COVID19 cases reported globally in 114 countries, more than 90 percent of cases are in just four countries, and two of those have significantly declining epidemics
81 countries have not reported any COVID19 cases, and 57 countries have reported 10 cases or less.
We cannot say this loudly enough, or clearly enough, or often enough: all countries can still change the course of this pandemic”
If countries detect, test, treat, isolate, trace, and mobilize their people in the response, those with a handful of COVID19 cases can prevent those cases becoming clusters, and those clusters becoming community transmission
Even those countries with community transmission or large clusters can turn the tide on this coronavirus.
Several countries have demonstrated that this virus can be suppressed and controlled.
The challenge for many countries who are now dealing with large COVID19 clusters or community transmission is not whether they can do the same – it’s whether they will.
Some countries are struggling with a lack of capacity. Some countries are struggling with a lack of resources. Some countries are struggling with a lack of resolve.
We are grateful for the measures being taken in Iran, Italy and South Korea to slow the virus and control their COVID19 epidemics.
We know that these measures are taking a heavy toll on societies and economies, just as they did in China.
All countries must strike a fine balance between protecting health, minimizing economic & social disruption & respecting human rights
WHO’s mandate is public health. But we’re working with many partners across all sectors to mitigate the social and economic consequences of this COVID19 pandemic
This is not just a public health crisis, it is a crisis that will touch every sector – so every sector and every individual must be involved in the fight
I have said from the beginning that countries must take a whole-of-government, whole-of-society approach, built around a comprehensive strategy to prevent infections, save lives and minimize impact
Let me summarize it in 4 key areas.
Prepare and be ready.
Detect, protect and treat.
Reduce transmission.
Innovate and learn”
I remind all countries that we are calling on you to (1):
activate & scale up your emergency response mechanisms
communicate with your people about the risks & how they can protect themselves
find, isolate, test & treat every #COVID19 case & trace every contact”
I remind all countries that we are calling on you to (2):
ready your hospitals
protect and train your #healthworkers
let’s all look out for each other”
There’s been so much attention on one word.
Let me give you some other words that matter much more, & that are much more actionable:
Prevention. Preparedness. Public health. Political leadership. And most of all, People
“We’re in this together, to do the right things with calm and protect the citizens of the world. It’s doable”
The year 1348, in the words of historian A.L. Maycock, was the closest that humanity ever came to going extinct.
That was the year the Black Death descended on the European continent. And many historians today estimate that it killed as much as 60% of Europe’s population.
Italy was hit especially hard by the plague. Port cities like Venice were accustomed to receiving ships from all over the world, and many of them carried the Yersina pestis bacteria which caused the plague.
And it was out of this pandemic that the first modern public health measures emerged.
Venice created a special council to reduce the outbreak… and one of their first decrees was to ban infected (or suspected) ships from docking.
Plus, any traveler who arrived from a plague-infested area was required to isolate themselves for a period for 40 days, or quaranta journi in Italian. This is the origin of the word quarantine—it’s a reference to the 40-day isolation period during Bubonic Plague.
Even when the worst was over, though, the effects of the plague were disastrous.
In his book An Introduction to the History of Medicine, author FH Garrison described the social impact of the pandemic, writing that family members and lifelong friends abandoned one another in an effort to save themselves from infection.
And public gatherings, including church attendance, declined dramatically.
The Black Death also ravaged European economies. So many people died that there simply weren’t enough willing, healthy workers. Commerce ground to a halt. Trade was nonexistent.
And by many measures, Europe didn’t fully recover its population or economic activity for hundreds of years.
What we’re experiencing right now is not going to be anywhere near as bad as that. Not even close. I wrote about this on Monday—the world is not coming to an end despite what you might read on Twitter.
But Corona will certainly have a major impact.
Just look at Italy. The entire country is on lockdown, practically frozen in time like the ruins at Pompeii. We can’t even begin to grasp how much of an impact that will have on the economy.
China– the world’s second largest economy and biggest manufacturer—effectively shut down last month. That alone is enough to tip the world into recession.
Planes, trains, and ships are virtually empty. This is as bad as 9/11 was for the airline industry. Tourism—which comprises more than 10% of global GDP, has completely collapsed.
Sporting events and concerts are being cancelled; even the Olympics may be cancelled… all of which will clearly have a nasty economic impact.
And we’re barely scratching the surface.
You might remember back in late 2018 that the US stock market fell nearly 20%, mostly because the Federal Reserve in the United States had gradually raised interest rates to 2.25%.
I mean… 2.25% is so low. It’s a joke. And yet that was enough to cause investors to panic and the stock market to plummet. Apple shares fell 40%. Facebook shares fell 43%. All because people were afraid of a tiny interest rate.
Afterwards I wrote about this, saying:
“[T]he lesson is, these falls can happen faster and be more severe than anyone expects.
We saw some of the most popular and largest stocks in the world nearly get cut in half because the Federal Reserve raised interest rates by a few basis points.
What happens when we have a real reason to be worried?
That “real reason to be worried” is now upon us.
Stocks are down around 20% from the peak, just like in 2018. And it’s worth considering: if the market fell 20% back in 2018 because the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to a measly 2.25%, it seems like this crash might still have a ways to go.
There’s going to be real damage to the global economy. Corporate earnings will fall. Plenty of companies will fail (especially in oil and tourism). The unemployment rate will rise. Tax revenue will shrink and government deficits will skyrocket.
And central banks will be completely powerless.
Usually when there’s a big crisis, the Federal Reserve steps in and restores some calm.
But that’s not happening now.
The Fed only knows how to do basically one thing: cut interest rates. Whatever the crisis, that’s their solution.
Earlier this month they already held an emergency meeting to cut rates by 0.5% to boost the economy and calm markets.
But it had absolutely no effect. Markets continued to fall. People are still terrified.
And the Fed may finally realize that their ridiculous interest rate cuts don’t matter. No one cares anymore whether rates are 2% or 1.5%. Rate cuts no longer have a big impact.
Not to mention, no interest rate cut is going to make the Corona Virus go away. So there’s really nothing that any central bank can do about this.
Bottom line– this is going to be a wild ride, and we’ve barely started.
But as I’ve said before, we’re going to see some extraordinary opportunities come out of this. And anyone with courage and clear thinking will do extremely well.
A lackluster compromise bill to reauthorize and reform federal surveillance powers has been released, and privacy rights activists on both the left and the right are speaking out against it.
At the end of the week, the USA Freedom Act will sunset if it’s not renewed. Passed after Edward Snowden revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) was secretly using the Patriot Act to collect mass amounts of Americans’ phone and internet records, the act formalized the process but also added restrictions on the ability of the feds to actually access that information.
The feds have actually abandoned the practice of collecting and retaining all our metadata because—surprise!—not only is it a violation of our privacy rights, it’s not a particularly effective way of fighting terrorism or crime.
Nevertheless, the government, once granted power, rarely gives it up completely. Rather than simply letting these authorities all expire, Congress is hammering out a renewal with reforms intended to further restrict the ability to use those powers against Americans without getting a warrant first.
But there’s little agreement on what those reforms should look like. Yesterday evening, Reps. Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.) and Adam Schiff (D–Calif.) introduced the compromise bill they’re pushing forward as ranking members of the House Judiciary Committee and House Select Intelligence Committee, respectively. The bill is H.R. 6172, the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act.
This bill is not a compromise designed to truly embrace the proposition that the U.S. government shouldn’t secretly snoop on its own citizens. Rather it’s about eliminating its worst excesses, some of which have already stopped on their own, and preserving the general nature of the authority.
One of the good things the bill does is completely eliminate the call records collection program. These have already been stopped, but it was the NSA’s own decision because it was ineffective and they kept accidentally collecting more data than they were permitted. This also means that under current law, the NSA could decide to fire it back up. These reforms would stop it from happening.
The proposed reforms would also prohibit authorities treating cell location and global positioning system (GPS) information as though they’re part of a “business record” (meaning the agencies will treat collecting this data as a form of surveillance subject to stricter regulation).
The proposal would require the destruction of collected records of Americans after five years, but there are so many exceptions that it’s hard to treat these stipulations seriously. One of the exceptions allows the feds to retain records if they’re “enciphered or reasonably believed to have a secret meaning,” strongly suggesting that they can store data just on the basis of it being encrypted, which online communications increasingly are.
Directly related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendment (FISA) Court warrants approved to wiretap Carter Page and the serious problems with the FBI’s behavior, there are some reforms that are not connected to the authorities provided by the USA Freedom Act. It calls for the attorney general to sign off on any surveillance of a federal official or candidate for federal office, punishment and possible removal of any federal official who makes false declarations (or engages in misconduct) before the FISA court, and increases the potential penalty for criminal penalties related to the misuse of FISA from five years of imprisonment to eight.
The bill also boosts the ability of the FISA court to bring in independent amicus curiae advisers to evaluate what the court is doing and help assure that FBI officials aren’t attempting to seek warrants to snoop on activities protected by the First Amendment. And the reauthorization sunsets again in three years. This is not a permanent renewal.
And that’s good because privacy activists don’t believe the bill goes nearly far enough. Adam Brandon, president of the conservative think tankFreedomWorks, is telling lawmakers today to vote no on the bill:
Not included are many common sense protections that would have garnered widespread bipartisan support had they been allowed their day as part of a real legislative process. These include stronger protections against surveillance orders targeted substantially at activities protected under the First Amendment, such as communications with journalists, protests, or religious observance. They include limitations on the use of business records collection and the requirement that surveillance applications directed towards a US person be subject to a probable cause warrant standard. They also include a much stronger role of an amicus curiae in assessing whether FISA applications conform with the legal rights afforded to Americans under the Fourth Amendment.
Importantly, neither Title II nor the amicus expansions in this bill are likely to have actually prevented the FISA process abuses revealed by the report of DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz with respect to the surveillance of Trump campaign employee Carter Page. Neither President Trump’s concerns about the use of FISA against his campaign, nor larger-scale concerns about how the government has violated the privacy of millions of ordinary Americans, are well addressed in this bill.
Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) is also not a fan:
The ‘Deal' on FISA is weak sauce diluted & made impotent by A.G. Barr. None of the reforms prevent secret FISA court from abusing the rights of Americans. None of the reforms prevent a President of either party from a politically motivated investigation. Big Disappointment!
Demand Progress is attacking the bill from the left for many of the same reasons. The group is encouraging members of Congress to vote no in a statement that reads in part, “These reforms are fully inadequate. Further, they are part of an ongoing effort to prevent Congress from considering surveillance reforms that would meaningfully protect their constituents’ privacy.”
Given that the part of the bill that requires more oversight by the attorney general only covers federal officials and candidates, it seems designed to assure President Donald Trump that he’s “safe,” even though he was never even personally wiretapped. Page himself was not a candidate for office when he was wiretapped and these new rules wouldn’t have stopped what happened to him.
As Spencer Ackerman at TheDaily Beastnotes, there are alternate bipartisan proposals to meaningfully restrain the use of secret FISA warrants against Americans that could protect against future abuses and mistakes that we saw in the Page case. But that’s not what’s being pushed forward. Historically, the strongest voices for more privacy here (like Paul’s) are in the minority. The political establishment prefers to reform as little about domestic surveillance that it can possibly get away with.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Q7cA1v
via IFTTT
A lackluster compromise bill to reauthorize and reform federal surveillance powers has been released, and privacy rights activists on both the left and the right are speaking out against it.
At the end of the week, the USA Freedom Act will sunset if it’s not renewed. Passed after Edward Snowden revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) was secretly using the Patriot Act to collect mass amounts of Americans’ phone and internet records, the act formalized the process but also added restrictions on the ability of the feds to actually access that information.
The feds have actually abandoned the practice of collecting and retaining all our metadata because—surprise!—not only is it a violation of our privacy rights, it’s not a particularly effective way of fighting terrorism or crime.
Nevertheless, the government, once granted power, rarely gives it up completely. Rather than simply letting these authorities all expire, Congress is hammering out a renewal with reforms intended to further restrict the ability to use those powers against Americans without getting a warrant first.
But there’s little agreement on what those reforms should look like. Yesterday evening, Reps. Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.) and Adam Schiff (D–Calif.) introduced the compromise bill they’re pushing forward as ranking members of the House Judiciary Committee and House Select Intelligence Committee, respectively. The bill is H.R. 6172, the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act.
This bill is not a compromise designed to truly embrace the proposition that the U.S. government shouldn’t secretly snoop on its own citizens. Rather it’s about eliminating its worst excesses, some of which have already stopped on their own, and preserving the general nature of the authority.
One of the good things the bill does is completely eliminate the call records collection program. These have already been stopped, but it was the NSA’s own decision because it was ineffective and they kept accidentally collecting more data than they were permitted. This also means that under current law, the NSA could decide to fire it back up. These reforms would stop it from happening.
The proposed reforms would also prohibit authorities treating cell location and global positioning system (GPS) information as though they’re part of a “business record” (meaning the agencies will treat collecting this data as a form of surveillance subject to stricter regulation).
The proposal would require the destruction of collected records of Americans after five years, but there are so many exceptions that it’s hard to treat these stipulations seriously. One of the exceptions allows the feds to retain records if they’re “enciphered or reasonably believed to have a secret meaning,” strongly suggesting that they can store data just on the basis of it being encrypted, which online communications increasingly are.
Directly related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendment (FISA) Court warrants approved to wiretap Carter Page and the serious problems with the FBI’s behavior, there are some reforms that are not connected to the authorities provided by the USA Freedom Act. It calls for the attorney general to sign off on any surveillance of a federal official or candidate for federal office, punishment and possible removal of any federal official who makes false declarations (or engages in misconduct) before the FISA court, and increases the potential penalty for criminal penalties related to the misuse of FISA from five years of imprisonment to eight.
The bill also boosts the ability of the FISA court to bring in independent amicus curiae advisers to evaluate what the court is doing and help assure that FBI officials aren’t attempting to seek warrants to snoop on activities protected by the First Amendment. And the reauthorization sunsets again in three years. This is not a permanent renewal.
And that’s good because privacy activists don’t believe the bill goes nearly far enough. Adam Brandon, president of the conservative think tankFreedomWorks, is telling lawmakers today to vote no on the bill:
Not included are many common sense protections that would have garnered widespread bipartisan support had they been allowed their day as part of a real legislative process. These include stronger protections against surveillance orders targeted substantially at activities protected under the First Amendment, such as communications with journalists, protests, or religious observance. They include limitations on the use of business records collection and the requirement that surveillance applications directed towards a US person be subject to a probable cause warrant standard. They also include a much stronger role of an amicus curiae in assessing whether FISA applications conform with the legal rights afforded to Americans under the Fourth Amendment.
Importantly, neither Title II nor the amicus expansions in this bill are likely to have actually prevented the FISA process abuses revealed by the report of DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz with respect to the surveillance of Trump campaign employee Carter Page. Neither President Trump’s concerns about the use of FISA against his campaign, nor larger-scale concerns about how the government has violated the privacy of millions of ordinary Americans, are well addressed in this bill.
Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) is also not a fan:
The ‘Deal' on FISA is weak sauce diluted & made impotent by A.G. Barr. None of the reforms prevent secret FISA court from abusing the rights of Americans. None of the reforms prevent a President of either party from a politically motivated investigation. Big Disappointment!
Demand Progress is attacking the bill from the left for many of the same reasons. The group is encouraging members of Congress to vote no in a statement that reads in part, “These reforms are fully inadequate. Further, they are part of an ongoing effort to prevent Congress from considering surveillance reforms that would meaningfully protect their constituents’ privacy.”
Given that the part of the bill that requires more oversight by the attorney general only covers federal officials and candidates, it seems designed to assure President Donald Trump that he’s “safe,” even though he was never even personally wiretapped. Page himself was not a candidate for office when he was wiretapped and these new rules wouldn’t have stopped what happened to him.
As Spencer Ackerman at TheDaily Beastnotes, there are alternate bipartisan proposals to meaningfully restrain the use of secret FISA warrants against Americans that could protect against future abuses and mistakes that we saw in the Page case. But that’s not what’s being pushed forward. Historically, the strongest voices for more privacy here (like Paul’s) are in the minority. The political establishment prefers to reform as little about domestic surveillance that it can possibly get away with.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Q7cA1v
via IFTTT
Newark Public Safety Director Anthony F. Ambrose strongly urges the public against posting false information on social media regarding the presence of the coronavirus in the City of Newark.
“Any false reporting of the coronavirus in our city will result in criminal prosecution,” Director Ambrose said. “We are putting forth every investigative effort to identify anyone making false allegations on social media to ensure that any posted misinformation is immediately addressed.”
Director Ambrose adds that misleading information on social media may cause an unnecessary public alarm.
“The State of New Jersey has laws regarding causing a false public alarm and we will enforce those laws,” Ambrose said. “Individuals who make any false or baseless reports about the coronavirus in Newark can set off a domino effect that can result in injury to residents and visitors and affect schools, houses of worship, businesses and entire neighborhoods,” he added.
New Jersey law doesn’t threaten to punish people for honest (even unreasonable) mistakes in what they say about epidemics or other immediate threats, but it does forbid certain knowing lies, see N.J. Stats. 2C § 33-3:
(a) [A] person is guilty of a crime … if he initiates or circulates a report or warning of an impending fire, explosion, crime, catastrophe, emergency, or any other incident knowing that the report or warning is false or baseless and that it is likely to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transport, or to cause public inconvenience or alarm.
(b) A person is guilty of a [more serious crime] if the false alarm involves a report or warning of an impending bombing, hostage situation, person armed with a deadly weapon …, or any other incident that elicits an immediate or heightened response by law enforcement or emergency services.
(c) A person is guilty of a [similarly serious crime] if the false alarm involves a report or warning about … any building, place of assembly, or facility [in the State] that is indispensably necessary for national security, economic stability, or public safety….
Such bans on these sorts of knowing lies are likely constitutional (and might even be constitutional if applied to “reckless” falsehoods, which is to say statements that the speaker knows are probably though not certainly false).
U.S. v. Alvarez (2012) did hold that some lies are constitutionally protected; there, the Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, which broadly banned lies about one’s own military decorations. But the two-Justice concurrence concluded that lies are generally less protected than other speech, and in particular that lies that are likely to cause tangible harm (beyond just the emotional distress or misplaced affection created by the deceit) are often prohibitable. And the three-Justice dissent would have gone even further, and would have treated most lies as generally unprotected.
This having been said, the concurrence and the dissent agreed that “[l]aws restricting false statements about philosophy, religion, history, the social sciences, the arts, and the like” create “a grave and unacceptable danger of suppressing truthful speech,” and are thus generally unconstitutional. The same may be true about the life sciences, so any attempt to punish even lies about (for instance) how coronavirus is generally transmitted would likely be unconstitutional; the remedy for such lies is public argument, and not criminal punishment. But the law likely can properly punish specific lies about whether one has been diagnosed with coronavirus, whether a person diagnosed with coronavirus has been present in some place, and so on; if the New Jersey statute (which is a bit vague on such matters) is interpreted as limited to lies on such specific topics, it will likely be upheld.
Thanks to reader Matt Monforton for the pointer.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2W38xHd
via IFTTT
Newark Public Safety Director Anthony F. Ambrose strongly urges the public against posting false information on social media regarding the presence of the coronavirus in the City of Newark.
“Any false reporting of the coronavirus in our city will result in criminal prosecution,” Director Ambrose said. “We are putting forth every investigative effort to identify anyone making false allegations on social media to ensure that any posted misinformation is immediately addressed.”
Director Ambrose adds that misleading information on social media may cause an unnecessary public alarm.
“The State of New Jersey has laws regarding causing a false public alarm and we will enforce those laws,” Ambrose said. “Individuals who make any false or baseless reports about the coronavirus in Newark can set off a domino effect that can result in injury to residents and visitors and affect schools, houses of worship, businesses and entire neighborhoods,” he added.
New Jersey law doesn’t threaten to punish people for honest (even unreasonable) mistakes in what they say about epidemics or other immediate threats, but it does forbid certain knowing lies, see N.J. Stats. 2C § 33-3:
(a) [A] person is guilty of a crime … if he initiates or circulates a report or warning of an impending fire, explosion, crime, catastrophe, emergency, or any other incident knowing that the report or warning is false or baseless and that it is likely to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transport, or to cause public inconvenience or alarm.
(b) A person is guilty of a [more serious crime] if the false alarm involves a report or warning of an impending bombing, hostage situation, person armed with a deadly weapon …, or any other incident that elicits an immediate or heightened response by law enforcement or emergency services.
(c) A person is guilty of a [similarly serious crime] if the false alarm involves a report or warning about … any building, place of assembly, or facility [in the State] that is indispensably necessary for national security, economic stability, or public safety….
Such bans on these sorts of knowing lies are likely constitutional (and might even be constitutional if applied to “reckless” falsehoods, which is to say statements that the speaker knows are probably though not certainly false).
U.S. v. Alvarez (2012) did hold that some lies are constitutionally protected; there, the Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, which broadly banned lies about one’s own military decorations. But the two-Justice concurrence concluded that lies are generally less protected than other speech, and in particular that lies that are likely to cause tangible harm (beyond just the emotional distress or misplaced affection created by the deceit) are often prohibitable. And the three-Justice dissent would have gone even further, and would have treated most lies as generally unprotected.
This having been said, the concurrence and the dissent agreed that “[l]aws restricting false statements about philosophy, religion, history, the social sciences, the arts, and the like” create “a grave and unacceptable danger of suppressing truthful speech,” and are thus generally unconstitutional. The same may be true about the life sciences, so any attempt to punish even lies about (for instance) how coronavirus is generally transmitted would likely be unconstitutional; the remedy for such lies is public argument, and not criminal punishment. But the law likely can properly punish specific lies about whether one has been diagnosed with coronavirus, whether a person diagnosed with coronavirus has been present in some place, and so on; if the New Jersey statute (which is a bit vague on such matters) is interpreted as limited to lies on such specific topics, it will likely be upheld.
Thanks to reader Matt Monforton for the pointer.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2W38xHd
via IFTTT
What is our country going to look like if COVID-19 keeps spreading this rapidly? The map that Johns Hopkins University is using to track the spread of this virus has become extremely popular, and I refer to it several times a day. On Monday, I watched as the number of confirmed cases in the United States crossed the 500 mark, and then on Tuesday I was really shocked to see it jump up to 1,025. In less than 48 hours, the number of confirmed cases more than doubled. Needless to say, we are going to be in a whole lot of trouble if this keeps happening. Of course the U.S. is far from alone. This outbreak has gotten completely out of control all over the western world, and right now Europe is being hit harder than anyone else.
On Monday night, computer scientist Mark Handley, Professor of Networked Systems and part-time Roboticist at UCL in London, tweeted a graph showing how growth figures in other infected countries compare to Italy’s.
‘Everyone else will be Italy in 9-14 days time,’ Handley tweeted along with the data.
At this moment, the entire nation of Italy has been locked down. If Handley is correct, we should expect to see this happen in a bunch of other countries before two more weeks are gone.
Of course Handley is not the only one making these sorts of projections. Dr. John Crane of the University of Buffalo says that the U.S. is “on the exact same trajectory” as Italy…
He told DailyMail.com in an interview that the world had never seen anything like the outbreak and that the US seemed to be watching how Italy responded before making any drastic decisions of its own.
‘It looks like they’re on the exact same trajectory. Italy had an 11.5 day head start,’ he said, referring to the data.
We definitely do not want what is happening in Italy to happen here.
There are now more than 10,000 confirmed cases in Italy, the death toll is up to 631, and their healthcare system is being absolutely overwhelmed…
Italian hospitals are so ‘overwhelmed’ by coronavirus that strokes are going untreated and elderly patients are not even being assessed, a doctor at the centre of the crisis has said – while another medic said people in the UK and US should be panicking more.
Doctors in Italy have been forced into life-or-death decisions over who should receive intensive care, with virus cases piling up around the country.
The same thing could soon start happening in the United States.
When there are too many people to treat, not everyone will be treated.
This is yet another reason why you want to stay away from public places so that you do not get this virus.
Top national disease expert Anthony Fauci is urging the nation to take an ‘all hands on deck’ approach to the coronavirus – and urging officials to plan for immediate measures even in states that haven’t had cases show up yet.
‘It doesn’t matter if you’re in a state that has no cases or one case,’ Fauci said at a press briefing with Vice President Mike Pence Tuesday. ‘You have to start taking seriously what you can do now that if and when the infections will come – and they will come – sorry to say, sad to say, they will,’ he told reporters.
Like so many others, Fauci seems resigned to the fact that we are going to see a lot more cases in this country.
But where will we put them? We only have a limited number of hospital beds, and those will fill up pretty quickly.
According to Washington Governor Jay Inslee, there could be 64,000 cases in his state alone by May…
Confirmed cases of the novel coronavirus are swiftly ballooning across the United States, and President Trump’s former Homeland Security Adviser Thomas Bossert says time is running out to control the spread.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), who is overseeing one of the country’s largest clusters, said “if you do the math” there could be 64,000 cases of COVID-19 in the Evergreen State by May, while New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said the positive cases in the city are “coming in so intensely now” that public officials are struggling to keep up with them. He said he wasn’t in a position to give the media a “detailed case breakdown” because of the rapidly changing number.
Speaking of New York, a state of martial law has essentially been instituted in New Rochelle in a desperate attempt to contain the cluster that has erupted there…
In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced the most rigorous actions to date to combat the spread in New Rochelle, which he described as the “most significant cluster in the country” and accounts for the lion’s share of the surging caseload in the tri-state area.
Those measures include deploying National Guard troops to a Health Department command post and setting up a satellite testing facility and one-mile, two-week containment area in the city. Public schools in that containment zone will be closed through March 25; National Guard troops will help clean surfaces and deliver food in that one-mile radius.
Unfortunately, it is only a matter of time before similar measures are put into place in communities all across the nation.
The months ahead are going to be extremely challenging for all of us, and so let us hope that this outbreak begins to subside as soon as possible.
We are already starting to see things happen that would have been unimaginable just a few weeks ago. If you can believe it, colleges and universities all over America are choosing to cancel classes for the foreseeable future…
A growing number of U.S. colleges have canceled in-person classes because of the coronavirus. The closures began in Washington state, and now include Harvard University, Columbia University, Princeton University, Rice University, Stanford University, Hofstra University, University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Washington, among others. As of midday Tuesday, more than half a million students are affected by the cancellations.
Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden’s presidential campaigns canceled rallies set for Cleveland on Tuesday night due to coronavirus concerns, the first disruptions the outbreak has caused in the 2020 Democratic primary.
In separate announcements, the Democratic presidential contenders’ campaigns said they exercised caution about holding large public gatherings after hearing guidance from public health officials.
At this point, there is even talk that the Tokyo Olympics could be delayed for a year or two.
In the short-term, bringing public activity to a screeching halt all over the western world won’t hurt too much.
But what if this outbreak continues to keep growing month after month?
Right now, it looks like this virus is going to be with us for a long time to come.
In Spain, the number of confirmed cases tripled in just two days, and the number of confirmed cases in France rose 70 percent from Monday to Tuesday.
Health minister Nadine Dorries has tested positive for coronavirus and fears for Boris Johnson’s health have been sparked after she attended an event hosted by the Prime Minister at No 10 last week. Ms Dorries is understood to have fallen ill on Thursday and then over the weekend, the “classic symptoms” of the disease emerged.
But everything that I just shared with you pales in comparison to what just happened in Germany.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly told the German Parliament that 60 to 70 percent of the German population will eventually catch the virus…
Angela Merkel says she expects around 60-70 percent of Germans will be infected with the coronavirus, which equates to about 53 million people.
Reportedly, the German Parliament fell completely silent when Merkel stated the number.
News outlet Bild reported the German Chancellor’s comments, which echoed numbers forecast by Berlin virologist Christian Drosten, who added that such a total could take 2 years or longer to reach.
If we eventually see similar numbers throughout the entire western world, the global economy will collapse, there will be great civil unrest all over the globe, and tens of millions of people will die.
Let us continue to hope that such a nightmare scenario can be avoided somehow.
But let us also prepare for an extended battle with this virus, because it certainly appears that COVID-19 is not going to disappear any time soon.
Watch Live: Bernie Sanders Discusses ‘Future Of His Campaign’
Watch live:
Update (1245 ET): Sanders is expected to say he’s staying in the race and looks forward to debating Joe Biden.
NEW: A source with direct knowledge of @BernieSanders plans tells @CNN at his 1p press event, Sanders is expected to say he is staying in the race and looks forward to a debate w/ @JoeBiden.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will appear at 1 p.m. on Wednesday to shed light on the future of his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, just one day after suffering a serious blow in a round of state primaries that propelled former Vice President Joe Biden into a decisive lead.
Sanders’ clear defeat can be seen in his PredictIt polling results:
On Wednesday, Sanders canceled a scheduled conference call with surrogates – sending them an email which says it would be rescheduled “so that we can better provide you with the most updated plans for upcoming states,” according to the report.
Sanders spent the morning at home with his wife Jane, which the New York Times somehow knew, in what appears to be foreshadowing his withdrawal from the race.
Top aides gathered Wednesday morning in the lobby of Burlington’s Hotel Vermont, surrounded by luggage tagged with Mr. Sanders’s name on it as they prepared for an early-afternoon flight to Teterboro, N.J., for the Vermont senator’s scheduled appearance on Jimmy Fallon’s late-night television show. Sanders’s advance team arranged a conference room at the hotel with a retinue of American flags. Sanders aides from around the country were gathering at the hotel, greeting each other, but provided no further information about the 1 p.m. appearance or what might be next for the campaign.
After getting pummeled in the Super Tuesday nominating contests last week, Mr. Sanders incurred a similar drubbing on Tuesday night, including in Michigan, where he had deployed resources and time in a final attempt to regain momentum. Mr. Sanders watched the results at his home with his wife while his aides gathered elsewhere, and later he opted not to make any public remarks. –New York Times
On Tuesday, Sanders canceled a primary night rally in Cleveland, while aides say a Friday rally in downstate Illinois won’t happen due to concerns over coronavirus.
The campaign instead has opted to hold virtual events such as tele-town halls and live-streamed events – however that may all be out the window after today’s announcement.
