Watch: Drone Airdrops Drugs To Inmates At Ohio Jail
The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office released a new video from within an Ohio jail that shows the moment when a consumer drone buzzed overhead and dropped a bag of drugs to an inmate, reported WTHR Indianapolis News.
The video, caught on a closed-circuit television system of the Cuyahoga County Jail, located in Cleveland, Ohio, shows several inmates in a fenced-off courtyard playing cornhole.
One inmate is seen walking around the courtyard with his head in the air, apparently lining up a drop from the drone operator. The inmate is holding a shirt like a catcher’s mitt as the drone operator releases the bag from an unknown altitude. The clumsy inmate missed the drop and tripped over the cornhole set, as the bag tumbled across the courtyard. Seconds later, he recovers the bag and walks away.
Authorities told WTHR, the incident took place over the summer, and the contents in the bag included marijuana and a smartphone. Prosecutors said the case is “under review,” although no criminal charges have been filed.
An air space map below shows drones are prohibited from flying over the Cuyahoga County Jail, located at 1215 W 3rd St, Cleveland, Ohio. The area is clearly marked in red, indicating the drone pilot broke Federal Aviation Administration laws.
The drone incident follows several instances where drugs were smuggled into the facility. In one example, authorities discovered a hole in one of the jail cells.
Cuyahoga County Jail will likely install contraband netting systems that are designed to deter, mitigate, and or deny drug airdrops via drones.
With billions already ploughed into the money-losing real estate company, and a combination of massive cash-burn and a $6bn loan contingent on its IPO, Softbank’s Masa-san appears cornered into quadrupling down on the giant tech company’s investment in Adam Neumann’s ‘creation’.
As a reminder, for every dollar WeWork earned in revenue last year, it lost roughly two.
And as its IPO-contingent funding evaporates, bond market investors are getting anxious…
Source: Bloomberg
To the point where WeWork is riskier than Tesla, Ukraine, and South Africa…
Source: Bloomberg
However, there is hope. As The FT reports, SoftBank is in talks with WeWork to increase a $1.5bn investment the Japanese telecoms-to-technology group has agreed to put into the office leasing company next year, according to people briefed on the matter.
A recut deal would see SoftBank invest at least $2.5bn, but would reduce the price per share at which it acquires WeWork stock, giving it a larger stake in the lossmaking property group, the people said.
Critically, the equity investment from SoftBank could unlock additional financing options for WeWork, without which it could quite clearly be a zero (the group burnt through more than $2.5bn of cash in the first half of 2019).
It appears this future investment would be the fourth 10-figure money drop:
China’s August Rare Earth Exports To US Jump Amid Threat Of Export Ban
According to a new report from Reuters, China’s exports of rare-earth magnets to the US in August jumped to the highest level in years, pointing to US firms scrambling to build stockpiles as China, the biggest rare-earth metals and alloys producer in the world, could slash flows of the minerals if the trade war continues to escalate into 2020.
New data from the General Administration of Customs of the People’s Republic of China shows shipments of rare-earth magnets to the US rose 1.2% MoM to 452 tons. Exports to the US were 6.2% more than last year, and the highest monthly total since Jan. 2017.
Rare-earth exports to the US have been increasing since President Xi Jinping visited a magnet factory in May, with January to August shipments to the US up nearly 24% YoY to 2,984 tons.
China accounts for 90% of the global production of rare-earth magnets. The minerals are used in everything from vacuum cleaners to automobiles and fighter jets, which suggests many US firms could be affected if China decides to block shipments of rare-earth magnets.
Bloomberg sourced a recent Citigroup report that said a Chinese ban on magnet exports to the US would become “manageable if ex-China processing gets built out swiftly.”
Citigroup added: “The impact gets much more serious were a ban to extend into rare-earth fabricated products — especially magnets and motors, or through third-party suppliers.”
China has subliminally signaled its dominance of global rare-earths, could introduce a ban on exports to the US if a no-deal scenario plays out next month.
Based on what I know, China is seriously considering restricting rare earth exports to the US. China may also take other countermeasures in the future.
Recently, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said that the US had declared “unprecedented action” to ensure rare-earth supply.
“The industrial value add at risk if this supply chain gets disrupted is tough to quantify but likely runs multiples higher,” Citigroup said. “While Japan and others ex-China presumably have spare magnet capacity to divert more supply to the US, conversations with experts suggest the infrastructure and technical knowledge to respond quickly is very limited in scale.”
Last month, we noted how Ellen Lord, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, recently met with Australian counterparts to quickly develop rare-earth mineral plants in Australia.
Lord’s meeting comes after a series of threats made by the Chinese to block rare-earth mineral exports to the US, about 17 minerals in total, mostly used in fifth-generation fighter jets, M1 Abrams tank armor, radars, lasers, and engines.
She said the Pentagon is reviewing several options to partner on rare-earth projects, adding “one of the highest potential avenues is to work with Australia.”
An Australian Defence spokeswoman told Reuters that discussions with the US on rare-earth minerals started in 2018 were continuing:
“Continuity and guarantee of supply of rare-earths and critical minerals is vital to a range of sectors, including defense. Cooperation with international partners is integral to this effort,” the spokeswoman said.
To derisk and decrease reliance on China, the Pentagon also held talks with Canada and countries within Africa to develop rare-earth reserves.
But at the moment, surging exports of Chinese rare-earth magnets to the US exposes just how vulnerable the US is if China cuts off supply.
So Mr. President, do you really hold all the cards in the trade war?
Recently, many political hopefuls on the Left in the US have “come out” as socialists. Some may have been socialists all along, whilst others may merely be hoping to cash in on the popularity of avowed socialist Bernie Sanders in 2016.
Whatever the answer, those on the Right have gone into attack mode, fervently stating, “The US will never be a socialist country!”
This will unquestionably become the primary emotionally based issue until the 2020 election.
Of course, in the modern world, very few countries are entirely socialist, or entirely capitalist for that matter. Most are a combination. Certainly, no country is free from government sticking its fingers into free enterprise, even if it’s just as a regulator. It’s just a question of the degree of government meddling.
So, what will be the fate of the US in 2020? Will this be the death of capitalism there? Will it become a country in which goods and services fall under government control?
Well, let’s have a look.
Social Security is a most decidedly socialistic government programme, one that takes up (according to figures provided by the US Office of Management and Budget) 24% of US government spending.
Medicare, Medicaid, etc., also come under the heading of government-run management of goods and services, thereby defining them as socialist in nature. They’re responsible for 26% of government spending.
Add to that, Safety Net Programmes (9%), Benefits for Veterans and Federal Retirees (8%), Education (3%), Transportation Infrastructure (2%) and Science and Medical Research (2%) – all of which can be provided by the private sector – and the number rises to 74%. Another 4% of expenditure comes under the “miscellaneous” heading, but much of this, too, can be performed by the private sector.
In spite of this fact, government takes them all under its wing to the tune of $3.4 trillion annually.
The 1787 Constitution envisioned the government as being responsible for the Military (15%), Interest on Debt (7%) and International Affairs (1%) – presently, a total of 23%.
By the above tally, it’s safe to say that the government that runs the US is already over three-quarters socialist in its method of management.
But there may be those who discount some of the items that make up the 77%. They may say that it’s a good idea that, for example, roadbuilding or education be managed by government rather than the private sector.
So, even if we were to say that we’re happy to have government compete with the private sector in such areas, benefits alone still amount to 67% of spending.
That, in essence, means that the US is between two-thirds and three-quarters socialist now, depending upon your assessment of what a government should manage.
So, what does that mean? Is the US a socialist state already?
Well, like most states today, it’s a gumbo of mixed concepts. And to understand this, we should first look at one of the most misunderstood “isms”: fascism.
Fascism’s creator, Benito Mussolini, said, “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
This takeover of power by corporatism in the US began, in earnest, about a hundred years ago and, at this point, is virtually complete. Today, the US is run jointly by Big Business and government agencies. Collectively, they’re most commonly described as the “Deep State.”
They’re not subject to election and tend to be relatively invisible to the public. Those who run for office receive the limelight and are assumed by the electorate to “run the show,” although, they are, for the most part, bit players.
The actual management of the US is corporatist; however, the system by which it’s managed is an odd combination of (mostly) socialism and (to a lesser extent) capitalism.
It’s important to note that, whilst conservative political candidates tend to wrap themselves around the flag, vehemently asserting that they’ll not tolerate socialism, they do, in fact, vote in favour of increases in socialist programmes in every administration.
By contrast, liberal political candidates tend also to pretend that the US is still a capitalist state. This serves their rhetoric well, as it allows them to claim that the “present capitalist system” is failing Americans.
The system is indeed failing; however, it is not a capitalist system. Truth be told, the great majority of failings emanate from existing unworkable socialist programmes and their enormous costs.
Whilst both conservative and liberal candidates are far from accurate in their claims, liberals almost always hire better public relations firms and produce more effective rhetoric, and the US has moved steadily to the left for the last ninety years.
All of the above suggests that the slow slide into socialism in the US will continue.
But this may not play out at the present rate, as we’ve seen a significant wrinkle on the horizon that may alter the slow progression into socialism.
In 1929, a stock market collapse occurred under the leadership of a conservative president – a wealthy businessman who had never before run for public office. This event was used by liberals to enable them to bring in a far-left president and, under him, to move the US into a semi-socialist state.
The markets are presently in a bubble of historic proportions. And the US once again has a conservative president – a wealthy businessman who had never before run for public office. Should there be a crash prior to November 2020, the stage will be set to complete the transition to full socialism, using the same rhetoric as in 1929.
It’s important to remember that, after the 1929 crash, Americans were so enamoured of their incoming socialist president that they allowed him to be president for life. (He was elected to four terms and died in office.) If this were repeated in 2020, a full sixteen years would be available to make the transition to full socialism.
Add to this the fact that, in the 1930s, most people prided themselves on their self-reliance. Today, at least half of all Americans receive federal largesse, and rather than be ashamed, as they would have been in the 1930s, they often wear their government dependency as a badge of liberalism.
Considering all of the above, it’s safe to say that, whist full socialism in the US in the near future would depend upon as-yet-uncertain events, the US is nearly there already, and whatever happens, it will not be turning back.
* * *
Misguided economic ideas are advancing rapidly in the US. Socialism continues to grow in popularity among Americans. All signs point to this trend accelerating until it reaches a crisis… one unlike anything we’ve seen before. That’s precisely why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released an essential guide to Surviving and Thriving and Thriving During an Economic Collapse. Click here to download the PDF now.
The new poll was published Tuesday morning, found that 63% of adults disagreed with the statement that “vaping is healthier than traditional cigarettes.”
Reuters/Ipsos conducted a similar poll in 2016, back then, only 47% disagreed with the above statement, that’s a 16% increase over the last three years.
The poll was conducted Sept. 17-18, around the time when government officials confirmed vaping-related illnesses reached more than 500.
It found that 29% of adults think vaping is the best way to help a traditional smoker quit, and 77% said vaping should be regulated just like cigarettes.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is investigating the outbreak of illnesses across the country. So far, eight people have died in California, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Oregon, and hundreds more have been hospitalized with severe respiratory issues.
After the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) alarmist briefing last Thursday about the number of deaths and illnesses, Walmart on Friday announced plans to halt all sales of e-cigarettes while citing “uncertainty” amid the outbreak.
“Given the growing federal, state and local regulatory complexity and uncertainty regarding e-cigarettes, we plan to discontinue the sale of electronic nicotine delivery products at all Walmart and Sam’s Club US locations,” the company said in a statement. “We will complete our exit after selling through current inventory.”
Greg Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, spoke with Reuters about the chaos unfolding in the vape industry. Conley said, “This is the natural consequence of a seemingly unending stream of misleading news stories.”
He said many of the vaping-related illnesses “involved people who used e-cigarettes to smoke street-bought drugs or liquids that contain ingredients from cannabis, not tobacco.”
Several days ago, we covered a story out of The Boston Globe that specified how oil-filled vaporizer cartridge sales in Massachusetts collapsed 25% in the last month.
CDC and FDA officials have said vaping oils containing marijuana ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or vaping oils with vitamin E acetate, a substance found in some THC products, could be the cause of the outbreak.
Several weeks ago, the FDA sent a warning letter to Juul for marketing its e-cigarettes as safer than cigarettes.
E-cigarettes have been a massive hit with millennials — now it’s killing them. About half of all 18 to 34-year-olds have tried vaping.
It’s an interesting dynamic that the Federal Reserve has conjured in the decade after the 2008 credit crash. They spent several years using artificial stimulus measures to inflate perhaps the largest financial bubble in the history of the US, and then a couple years ago something changed. They addicted markets and investors to easy cash only to then cut off the flow of monetary heroin. The system was so dependent on the Fed’s “China White” that all it took to give everyone the shakes was interest rate hikes to the neutral rate of inflation and a moderate balance sheet selloff. Now, the system is dying from shock and it’s too late for intravenous stimulus to save it.
For many this might seem unprecedented, but it’s really rather common. The Fed has a long history of inflating bubbles using easy liquidity and then imploding those bubbles with the tightening of credit. It also has a long history of pretending like it is trying to save the economy from crisis when it is actually the source of the crisis. As Congressman Charles Lindbergh Sr. warned after the panic of 1920:
“Under the Federal Reserve Act, panics are scientifically created; the present panic is the first scientifically created one, worked out as we figure a mathematical problem…”
In the latest theatrics of the Fed, a new trend has emerged – The “disappointing Fed”. In order to understand this disappointment, we have to define exactly what markets want from the central bank. Obviously, they want QE4; a massive liquidity program. For the past year at least they have been clamoring for it, and they still have yet to get it. But what does QE4 entail? In order to institute a new QE marathon the Fed would have to:
1) Lower the Fed funds rate to zero.
2) Lower the overnight repo lending rate to zero.
3) Stop balance sheet cuts.
4) Launch permanent asset purchases, NOT just overnight lending backed by collateral.
If the Fed was planning to kick the can on the collapse of the Everything Bubble, they would have initiated all of these steps and they would have done it at least 6-8 months ago. So far, only one of these things has been done (the end of balance sheet cuts). Here we see why the mainstream economic world is continually on the verge of a conniption fit. The implosion of the financial bubble is becoming obvious, most major corporate institutions and banks are stretched thin by historic levels of debt and dollar liquidity has become so tight globally that interbank lending rates are skyrocketing well above the Fed’s set interest rates. Yet, after every Fed meeting, the central bank gives the investment world a bare bones response.
Here is the question people should be asking but almost no one is: Why? Why didn’t the Fed just open the floodgates on QE4 back in November/December when it was obvious that a liquidity crunch was forming? Why did the Fed hike interest rates and cut their balance sheet at all? The only thing it achieved was to spark crash conditions.
Ah, but there is the key to answering our conundrum…
Since around November of last year the Fed has entered into a rather consistent pattern in which it does the bare minimum to make it appear as though it plans to support markets and defuse any crisis event while actually not doing much of anything. There comes a point where “kicking the can” on economic collapse becomes impossible, and I believe we have now reached that point according to the evidence. As I’ve noted in past articles, the Fed would not loosen the noose on liquidity until the crash starts to hit the consciousness of the general public. In other words, the Fed will not unleash QE4 until we are on the verge of another “Lehman Moment”. That time has nearly come.
Today, almost half of all Americans are worried about a recession striking in the next year, and 38% of fund managers expect a recession in the next year. The public is growing increasingly aware of the threat, but many still believe the Fed and government will act to mitigate the damage.
The liquidity crisis forming in overnight loans and the accelerating “repo panic” is a sign that crash conditions are about to hit mainstreet. Repo lending is a Fed mechanism for increasing the flow of credit within the banking system (hypothetically). Repo interest rates are the interest rates banks and other institutions charge each other for borrowing cash. Usually, repo interest rates follow the overnight lending rates set by the Fed, as well as the Fed Funds rate. But, recently, interbank rates have spiked far beyond the level the Fed has set.
Why is this important? Because it means that there is a supply/demand shortfall. Multiple banks and corporations need to borrow money on a short term basis to keep their operations functioning. This makes sense; US companies are currently weighed down by more debt than they were before the crash of 2008. The problem is, no one wants to lend that cash to them right now. There is, essentially, a dollar and credit shortage, and the demand is causing rates to skyrocket. The higher the rates, the more expensive it is for EVERYONE to borrow, including small businesses.
Confusion has erupted as to why banks and companies with large cash reserves won’t lend that money out, even at the high interest rates of the panic spike. Warren Buffet’s company, Berkshire Hathaway, for example, is holding a record $122 billion in cash. What do Berkshire and other cash heavy companies know that we do not? Generally, companies hoard cash when they are expecting an economic crisis, and, in a way, this cash hoarding can actually contribute to an exponential credit collapse. This is what happens when the lifeblood of your economy is based on debt on-demand.
Without anyone willing to lend at current interbank rates, the lender of last resort is the Fed, but the Fed’s response has been decidedly underwhelming for most investors.
Some see the Fed purchases for repo overnight lending as a sign that the Fed will soon step in with QE. Some people even believe that the repo spending is QE. Unfortunately, as with much of what the Fed does, not everything is what it seems and the repo situation is complex enough that I don’t think many people understand it. As one of my readers recently asked:
“The New York Fed said on Friday it would continue to offer to add at least $75 billion daily to the financial system through Oct. 10, prolonging its efforts to relieve pressure in money markets….Counting from today that’s 20 X 75B = 1.5 Trillion. Is this a form of QE? And would it avert the impending crash…?”
This is a common misconception about Fed overnight loans and repos. To put it in the simplest terms I am able – Repos are not generally cumulative long term purchases like QE is. Repos are usually OVERNIGHT LOANS that institutions like banks borrow from the Fed while offering collateral in return (secure financial assets).
Repos create TEMPORARY reserve balances, which are paid back and erased. Meaning, the Fed may offer Repos until October 10th, but this will not add $1.5 trillion to the Fed’s balance sheet. On the contrary, the Fed’s balance sheet will move relatively little as the Fed sells back the collateral it purchased, often with a haircut attached that feeds extra capital into the central bank.
Answer: No, repos are not QE. QE is not temporary, nor is it based on collateral purchases that are sold back daily. Also, as almost every economist, even in the mainstream, has been pointing out, the Fed would have to institute REAL QE and FAR MORE liquidity to relieve tight financial conditions, yet, they are not doing this. They are calling the Fed repo action a “bandaid”, and I tend to agree. The Fed is keeping conditions tight for as long as possible. Again, what people need to start asking is “why”?
“What’s more, an IOER cut is simply a temporary bandaid for the solution and the Fed will need to come up with a more permanent solution going forward. Expanding the Fed balance sheet features in the menu of possible solutions, and Powell made a strong effort to communicate clearly that it should not be interpreted as quantitative easing, aka policy stimulus, rather than a technical tool to increase currency in circulation.”
As another of my readers argued this week:
“I’m so tired of seeing people in the alt-media community call the repo lending “QE” when it absolutely is not QE. All they have to do is a little research to understand that the fed has been dodging QE and they’ve been keeping conditions tight. Like you’ve been saying for a while now, the bankers created the bubble, now they’re bursting the bubble by restricting liquidity. Maybe they’ll have QE4 in the future, but only when it’s too late to do anything about the liquidity crisis…”
That just about sums up the problem and the misconceptions bouncing around lately. The Fed has been well aware of the brewing liquidity crisis for quite some time. The US dollar LIBOR rate witnessed the biggest jump in a decade in early 2018, and the global dollar shortage has been consistent since then. With a dollar shortage comes greater demand by banks around the world for high cost short term debt – hence, repo rates skyrocket.
For several years the Fed was not shy at all about pumping vast amounts of fiat into the banking system; why are they shy about it now? And why aren’t we in the middle of QE4 yet?
A startling factor in short term interbank lending is that as repo rates inflate they can actually cancel out the effects of Fed stimulus measures. The Fed would have to dramatically increase its level of purchases to outpace the explosion in rates. They have not done this, and this is why their repo response has done little to stop interbank lending volatility.
To put the Fed repo response in perspective for those that want to treat overnight loans as cumulative, the audit of the TARP program alone shows the Fed injected around $16 trillion into the global economy, and much of that was in overnight loans. This is not even counting Fed QE programs post-TARP. The current Fed repo activity is a drop in the ocean by comparison.
I assert that the Fed is deliberately maintaining the liquidity crisis while trying to make it look like they are “taking action”. The Fed creates bubbles and then pops those bubbles by tightening liquidity into economic weakness. When they do ease credit conditions, it is almost always well after the avalanche has already started.
They did the same thing at the onset of the Great Depression, causing the crash to expand rather than retreat, as Ben Bernanke publicly admitted in 2002. They also kept crash conditions in credit markets hidden when Alan Greenspan shut down all conversation with the public on the housing bubble. And, today the Fed continues to fraudulently claim the US economy is strong and in recovery, and has even fired Simon Potter, the official most equipped to handle a repo lending crisis – the same official that warned the Fed response is basically too little too late.
The Fed can’t even claim that it “had no idea” what was about to happen. Jerome Powell, now Fed chairman, warned of these EXACT consequences if the Fed tightened liquidity back in 2012. But, of course, very few people in the public are aware of this, and whoever the Fed and the media blame for the crash will be who the majority of the public blames for the crash.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the crash of the Everything Bubble is accelerating around the same time that geopolitical chaos is erupting.
We have a trade war that is unlikely to end, with a US/China meeting in October that will probably produce little to no results.
We have a Brexit circus which is supposed to play out in October.
We have a crisis with Iran as the US is set to move troops into Saudi Arabia and the UAE in the next month.
And now we have an “impeachment inquiry” circus erupting over Trump, Biden and the Ukraine.
That sure is a lot of distractions for the general public as their economy crumbles around them…
To understand why the Fed would deliberately engineer an economic crisis, I suggest reading my article on the economic end game HERE. It is important to realize that the Fed has not “lost control” of the situation, nor is the Fed the bumbling and witless institution some alternative analysts make it out to be. Rather, the Fed is perfectly aware of the damage it is causing, and it is perfectly aware of how much this chaos will benefit certain globalist organizations.
* * *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of letting state-legal marijuana businesses have access to banks and other financial institutions.
It was a historic bipartisan moment, and an important one—though one that skirts the larger and more important matter of changing how the federal government treats marijuana.
The bill was the first stand-alone marijuana legalization bill to pass either chamber of Congress. The SAFE Banking Act—the acronym stands for “Secure and Fair Enforcement”—would shield banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions from being held liable for doing business with marijuana growers and pot shops in states where the drug has been legalized. Under current law, any financial institution that so much as allows a marijuana business to open a business checking account could potentially violate a host of federal banking and drug laws.
“People in states and localities across the country are voting to approve some level of marijuana use, and we need these marijuana businesses and employees to have access to checking accounts, lines of credit, payroll accounts, and more,” said Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D–Colo.) during debate on the bill. “Most importantly, this will also reduce the risk of violent crime in our communities. These businesses and their employees become targets for murder, robbery, assault and more by dealing in all cash.”
The bill also protects third-party vendors—like plumbers or electricians—that might have to do business with state-legal pot shops.
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R–N.C.) called the bill “one of the biggest changes to U.S. drug policy in my lifetime.”
But McHenry voted against it, saying that he worries the bill could give drug cartels access to U.S. financial institutions. The SAFE Banking Act, he added, is a “half answer to a much larger question,” specifically whether marijuana should remain on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.That’s a category that’s supposed to only include drugs with “no currently accepted medical use” and “a lack of accepted safety for use”—terms that obviously do not accurately describe marijuana.
It’s certainly true that Congress should have a larger debate over the federal status of marijuana, but it’s also easy to see why the SAFE Banking Act is the first bill to break the seal and earn a full vote. During debate on the floor, for example, Rep. Steve Stivers (R–Ohio) voiced support for the bill while noting that he would vote against any effort to legalize marijuana nationally.
The SAFE Banking Act passed by a final vote of 321–103 (with 10 members abstaining), enough to clear the two-thirds majority required for the bill’s passage under the suspension of rules that allowed it to be brought to the floor without any amendments being offered.
With the bill’s passage, it moves to the Senate, where a companion bill introduced by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D–Ore.), has 33 cosponsors. That total includes only four Republicans, making passage through the upper chamber more of an open question.
Sen. Mike Crapo (R–Idaho), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, told Politico earlier this month that he would like to hold a committee vote on the bill before the end of the year, despite the fact that he has not signed onto Merkley’s bill.
But neither the larger questions surrounding Congress’ slow-walking of the end of the federal war on marijuana nor the fate of the SAFE Banking Act in the Senate should take away from the significance of Wednesday’s vote, which gave members of Congress their first chance to affirmatively vote for legalization and regulation of marijuana businesses over the decadeslong failed efforts of prohibition.
“For the first time ever, a supermajority of the House voted affirmatively to recognize that the legalization and regulation of marijuana is a superior public policy to prohibition and criminalization,” said Justin Strekal, political director for NORML, a national marijuana legalization advocacy organization, in a statement. The group is “cautiously optimistic” about the bill’s future in the Senate, he said.
“American voters have spoken and continue to speak,” said Perlmutter just before the vote. “Prohibition is over.”
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2laRGlL
via IFTTT
The oceans are warming, becoming more acidic, and rising faster as a result of man-made climate change, according to a new special report, The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC). The report is a compilation of the latest research by climate scientists assembled under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Its authors write that the extent of Arctic sea ice is steadily declining, mountain glaciers are melting, the area of snow cover on land is decreasing, and permafrost is warming.
Some of the topline findings in the SROCC are that “it is virtually certain that the global ocean has warmed unabated since 1970 and has taken up more than 90% of the excess heat in the climate system.” In addition, it is likely that the rate of ocean warming has more than doubled since 1993. Researchers have very high confidence that marine heatwaves—defined as when the daily sea surface temperature exceeds the local 99th percentile over the period 1982 to 2016—have very likely doubled in frequency since 1982 and are increasing in intensity. It is virtually certain that by absorbing more carbon dioxide, the ocean has undergone increasing surface acidification.
Total global mean sea level rose by about 0.16 meters between 1902 and 2015 (a little over 6 inches). The rate of average sea level rise between 2006 and 2015 was about 3.6 millimeters per year, which is about 2.5 times the 1901–1990 rate of 1.4 millimeters per year. The rise in sea level is accelerating as water from melting ice sheets and mountain glaciers run into the oceans, and thermal expansion, as the oceans warm up.
In trying to see into the future, the SROCC chiefly focuses on two scenarios: one in which efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions keep future global average warming to around 1.6 degrees Celsius by 2100, and another scenario in which no efforts to limit emissions results in an increase of 4.3 degrees Celsius by that same year.
Global mean sea level rise in the lower temperature 2100 scenario is projected to be about 0.43 meter (17 inches), with respect to 1986–2005. For the higher temperature scenario, the corresponding sea level rise is projected to be around 0.84 meter (33 inches) in 2100.
The rate of global mean sea level rise is projected to reach 15 millimeters per year by 2100 in the high temperature scenario, and to exceed several centimeters per year in the 22nd century. In the low temperature scenario, the rate is projected to reach 4 millimeters per year in 2100. While the researchers express low confidence in computer model projections for 2300, they note that sea level rise in the high temperature scenario could be as much as 2.3–5.4 meters (7 to 17 feet) and 0.6–1.07 meters (2 to 3.5 feet) in the low temperature scenario.
Interestingly, during the last interglacial period between 127,000 to 106,000 years ago, temperatures were between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius warmer than now and sea level was 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet) higher. Researchers believe that the higher sea level of that time period occurred as a result of ice sheet melting in Greenland and Antarctica.
These trends certainly pose challenges to humanity. But there is good evidence that ingenuity and increasing wealth from economic growth can meet these challenges. Let’s take sea level rise. As I noted in an earlier article:
Using a worst-case climate scenario in which no efforts were made to reduce future warming, a 2018 study in Earth’s Future projected that sea level would rise by 2 and half feet by 2100. The researchers estimated that that increase would globally expand the area of land located in the 1-in-100 year coastal flood plain from its current area of about 210,000 square miles, to 290,000 square miles in 2100. The percent of the global population threatened by coastal flooding would rise (in the worst case scenario) from 3.6 percent now to about 5.4 percent by 2100.
A 2018 study in Global Environmental Change, this one also evaluating the economic effects of projected sea level increases ranging from 1 to 6 feet by 2100, concluded that it would be cost effective to invest in the protection of just 13 percent of the global coastline, thus safeguarding 90 percent the population and 96 percent of assets located in the global coastal floodplain. If these projections are approximately correct, addressing sea level rise will be costly, but it does not portend near-term societal collapse.
Setting aside big unexpected surprises, human ingenuity and increased wealth created by economic growth will similarly be able to adapt to the coming changes in the oceans and the cryosphere stemming from future climate change.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2mIj372
via IFTTT
Over at the Niskanen Center, I have a long post on the question of whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could simply refuse to hold a trial if the House of Representatives does manage to adopt articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. Ultimately, this strikes me as question of constitutional norms, and it would be inappropriate in most circumstances for the Senate to refuse to hold an impeachment trial and just ignore the actions of the House.
Here’s a taste:
Should a constitutionally conscientious senator ever agree to table or significantly delay an impeachment trial? The text of the Constitution does create some space for that kind of hardball. The Constitution says that the Senate “shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments,” and provides some directions on what should happen when the Senate is “sitting for that Purpose,” but the Senate is empowered to have a trial, not mandated to have a trial. If the Senate wants to take action against an officer, it would need to go through the constitutionally specified process of holding a trial, but if the Senate is content to allow an officer to remain in place it is not clear that the Senate needs to follow any particular procedure. Moreover, the fact that the Senate has the “sole Power” to try impeachments emphasizes that the impeachment process is a cooperative one. There is no way to end-run a Senate that does not want to remove an individual from office.
For The First Time, Warren Beats Out Biden For No. 1 Spot In National Poll
Thanks to an unceasing string of gaffes that have made him look like an addled, senile old man, Joe Biden has apparently lost his luster as the Democrats’ presumptive nominee and “most electable” candidate – the only one of the bunch who stands a chance at beating Trump, as many believe.
But a series of recently released polls in Iowa and New Hampshire (the two earliest primary states) showed Elizabeth Warren tied, or leading, Biden.
And on Wednesday, a national Quinnipiac poll showed Warren had support from 27% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, compared with 25% for Biden. Though it’s well within the 4.9% margin of error, it’s the first time another candidate has usurped Biden’s lead since Quinnipiac started the survey back in March.
Warren’s poll numbers have been steadily improving since her performance at the Democratic debate in Houston earlier this month.
Biden and Warren were followed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders with 16%, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg with 7% and California’s Kamala Harris at 3%.
And according to a Buzzfeed report from Des Moines, Cory “Spartacus” Booker might soon be forced to abandon his floundering campaign unless he can bring in nearly $2 million over the next week.
Though Warren’s rise is definitely notable, the Real Clear Politics’ polling data aggregator still has Biden way ahead.
Meanwhile, Kamala Harris has seen her poll numbers evaporate since the beginning of the summer.
And now that the Democrats have taken Trump’s bait and made a circus out of allegations that Trump tried to strongarm the president of Ukraine into investigating the Biden family, once the substance of their shady dealings in the country are exposed, it could create a serious problem for Biden.
