Donald Trump wants to regulate social media, while Democrats want to regulate political spending. Both are prepared to sacrifice freedom of speech on the altar of fairness, balance, and equality.
The president’s plan for fighting anti-conservative bias on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook is still in flux. But it reportedly includes siccing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on companies that are deemed to be removing content for political or ideological reasons.
According to a summary of a proposed executive order obtained by CNN, one possible approach involves reinterpreting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects “interactive computer service providers” from liability for state crimes and many kinds of torts based on content produced by others. Section 230, which has been crucial to the development of the internet as we know it, also shields websites from liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”
Those two provisions are supposed to protect online forums, including all manner of blogs, vendors, review sites, and news outlets as well as the major social media platforms, from potentially crippling lawsuits triggered either by their failure to remove all arguably illegal posts or by their decisions to remove content they view as problematic. The idea is to give websites the freedom to exercise some editorial discretion without requiring them to exert comprehensive control over user-produced content, which would be fatal to social media in their current form.
The proposed executive order, CNN reports, would ask the FCC to “find that social media sites do not qualify for the good-faith immunity if they remove or suppress content” and “the decision is proven to be evidence of anticompetitive, unfair or deceptive practices.” The FTC, meanwhile, would “work with the FCC to develop a report investigating how tech companies curate their platforms and whether they do so in neutral ways.”
Removing Section 230 protection from platforms that bureaucrats consider biased, a policy similar to one proposed by Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), would be counterproductive, since it would encourage them to suppress a lot more content, as well as shortsighted. As Wayne Crews, vice president for policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, observes, “tomorrow’s Speech Police are not going to think political neutrality or criteria for a certification of objectivity mean what Trump (or Hawley) thinks they mean.”
While Trump is using the language of free speech to support a policy that would undermine it, Senate Democrats are taking a more direct approach, unanimously backing a constitutional amendment that would authorize “reasonable” limits on election-related spending. The Supreme Court has categorically rejected such limits, noting that they “place substantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions that the First Amendment cannot tolerate.”
The answer, Democrats think, is to amend the First Amendment. “Every American deserves to have an equal voice at the ballot box, regardless of the size of their bank account,” says Sen. Tom Carper (D–Del.).
Democrats, in other words, want to mute some voices so that others may be heard, an idea that is plainly inconsistent with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. When the government dictates how much money you can spend to praise or criticize politicians, it is directly restricting your First Amendment rights.
While Trump’s assault on the First Amendment is less blatant, it will lead either to a kind of compelled speech, forcing private companies to host content they would otherwise remove, or to a much less freewheeling internet where liability concerns stifle self-expression. And unlike the Democrats’ speech-curtailing constitutional amendment, Trump’s policy may actually come to pass, providing a real-life lesson in what happens when the government tries to act as a debate moderator.
I just clicked the box on the government form that asks if, once I die, I’m willing to donate my organs to someone who needs them.
Why not? Lots of people need kidneys, livers, etc. When I’m dead, I sure won’t need mine.
Still, there are not enough donors. So, more than 100,000 Americans are on a waiting list for kidneys. Taking care of them is so expensive, it consumes almost 3 percent of the federal budget!
So why not allow Americans to sell an organ?
People already legally sell blood, plasma, sperm, eggs, and bone marrow. Why not a kidney? People have two. We can live a full life with just one.
If the U.S. allowed people to sell, the waiting list for kidneys would soon disappear.
“Poor people are going to be hurt,” replies philosophy professor Samuel Kerstein in my latest video. Kerstein advised the World Health Organization, which supports the near universal laws that ban selling organs.
“Body parts to be put into Americans will come from poor countries,” warns Kerstein. “I don’t want to see poor people in Pakistan having their lives truncated.”
What arrogance.
People have free will. Poor people are just as capable of deciding what’s best for them as rich people. Who are you, I asked Kerstein, to tell people they may not?
“We are people who care about people who are different from us,” he replied, “and poorer than we are. That’s why we care.”
These are “vacuous moralisms,” replies Lloyd Cohen, an attorney who’s long argued against the ban on organ-selling.
“Transplant surgeons make money. Transplant physicians make money. Hospitals, drug companies make money,” he points out. “Everybody can get paid except the person delivering the irreplaceable part!”
He’s right, of course, except that today some donors do get paid. Whenever foolish governments ban things that many people want, black markets appear.
Some people go overseas and buy organs from shady middlemen. Some make secret deals in America.
The process would be much safer, and prices lower, if buying and selling were legal.
“Financial incentives work for everything!” says Cohen. “They work for food; they work for housing; they work for clothing!”
He calls the warnings that “the weak and poor will be exploited” paternalistic.
“We heard the same argument with surrogacy,” he points out. “Then you interview the women. (They say) this is a wonderful thing that they can do. And they get paid!”
Oddly, the one country that allows the selling of organs is Iran. The government buys organs from people willing to sell. I don’t trust statistics from Iran, but a PBS report claims legalization has dramatically reduced the waiting time for a kidney.
Twenty-four years ago, Cohen went on 60 Minutes to argue for legalization of organ sales. At the time, he joined the debate simply because he strongly felt the ban was unjust. But now Cohen has learned that his own kidneys are failing. He needs a transplant.
He won’t break the law and turn to the black market. He hopes to get a kidney though a group called MatchingDonors that pairs altruistic volunteers with people who need organs. Remarkably, a woman volunteered to give Cohen one of her kidneys. She’s now being tested to see if she is a match for him.
If not, Cohen will be back on the waiting list with 102,914 other Americans. Most will die, waiting.
“Organs that could restore people to health and extend life are instead being buried and burned,” sighs Cohen.
All because timid governments would rather suppress commerce than give patients a market-based new shot at life.
COPYRIGHT 2019 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Z3QHlb
via IFTTT
Donald Trump wants to regulate social media, while Democrats want to regulate political spending. Both are prepared to sacrifice freedom of speech on the altar of fairness, balance, and equality.
The president’s plan for fighting anti-conservative bias on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook is still in flux. But it reportedly includes siccing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on companies that are deemed to be removing content for political or ideological reasons.
According to a summary of a proposed executive order obtained by CNN, one possible approach involves reinterpreting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects “interactive computer service providers” from liability for state crimes and many kinds of torts based on content produced by others. Section 230, which has been crucial to the development of the internet as we know it, also shields websites from liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”
Those two provisions are supposed to protect online forums, including all manner of blogs, vendors, review sites, and news outlets as well as the major social media platforms, from potentially crippling lawsuits triggered either by their failure to remove all arguably illegal posts or by their decisions to remove content they view as problematic. The idea is to give websites the freedom to exercise some editorial discretion without requiring them to exert comprehensive control over user-produced content, which would be fatal to social media in their current form.
The proposed executive order, CNN reports, would ask the FCC to “find that social media sites do not qualify for the good-faith immunity if they remove or suppress content” and “the decision is proven to be evidence of anticompetitive, unfair or deceptive practices.” The FTC, meanwhile, would “work with the FCC to develop a report investigating how tech companies curate their platforms and whether they do so in neutral ways.”
Removing Section 230 protection from platforms that bureaucrats consider biased, a policy similar to one proposed by Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), would be counterproductive, since it would encourage them to suppress a lot more content, as well as shortsighted. As Wayne Crews, vice president for policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, observes, “tomorrow’s Speech Police are not going to think political neutrality or criteria for a certification of objectivity mean what Trump (or Hawley) thinks they mean.”
While Trump is using the language of free speech to support a policy that would undermine it, Senate Democrats are taking a more direct approach, unanimously backing a constitutional amendment that would authorize “reasonable” limits on election-related spending. The Supreme Court has categorically rejected such limits, noting that they “place substantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions that the First Amendment cannot tolerate.”
The answer, Democrats think, is to amend the First Amendment. “Every American deserves to have an equal voice at the ballot box, regardless of the size of their bank account,” says Sen. Tom Carper (D–Del.).
Democrats, in other words, want to mute some voices so that others may be heard, an idea that is plainly inconsistent with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. When the government dictates how much money you can spend to praise or criticize politicians, it is directly restricting your First Amendment rights.
While Trump’s assault on the First Amendment is less blatant, it will lead either to a kind of compelled speech, forcing private companies to host content they would otherwise remove, or to a much less freewheeling internet where liability concerns stifle self-expression. And unlike the Democrats’ speech-curtailing constitutional amendment, Trump’s policy may actually come to pass, providing a real-life lesson in what happens when the government tries to act as a debate moderator.
I just clicked the box on the government form that asks if, once I die, I’m willing to donate my organs to someone who needs them.
Why not? Lots of people need kidneys, livers, etc. When I’m dead, I sure won’t need mine.
Still, there are not enough donors. So, more than 100,000 Americans are on a waiting list for kidneys. Taking care of them is so expensive, it consumes almost 3 percent of the federal budget!
So why not allow Americans to sell an organ?
People already legally sell blood, plasma, sperm, eggs, and bone marrow. Why not a kidney? People have two. We can live a full life with just one.
If the U.S. allowed people to sell, the waiting list for kidneys would soon disappear.
“Poor people are going to be hurt,” replies philosophy professor Samuel Kerstein in my latest video. Kerstein advised the World Health Organization, which supports the near universal laws that ban selling organs.
“Body parts to be put into Americans will come from poor countries,” warns Kerstein. “I don’t want to see poor people in Pakistan having their lives truncated.”
What arrogance.
People have free will. Poor people are just as capable of deciding what’s best for them as rich people. Who are you, I asked Kerstein, to tell people they may not?
“We are people who care about people who are different from us,” he replied, “and poorer than we are. That’s why we care.”
These are “vacuous moralisms,” replies Lloyd Cohen, an attorney who’s long argued against the ban on organ-selling.
“Transplant surgeons make money. Transplant physicians make money. Hospitals, drug companies make money,” he points out. “Everybody can get paid except the person delivering the irreplaceable part!”
He’s right, of course, except that today some donors do get paid. Whenever foolish governments ban things that many people want, black markets appear.
Some people go overseas and buy organs from shady middlemen. Some make secret deals in America.
The process would be much safer, and prices lower, if buying and selling were legal.
“Financial incentives work for everything!” says Cohen. “They work for food; they work for housing; they work for clothing!”
He calls the warnings that “the weak and poor will be exploited” paternalistic.
“We heard the same argument with surrogacy,” he points out. “Then you interview the women. (They say) this is a wonderful thing that they can do. And they get paid!”
Oddly, the one country that allows the selling of organs is Iran. The government buys organs from people willing to sell. I don’t trust statistics from Iran, but a PBS report claims legalization has dramatically reduced the waiting time for a kidney.
Twenty-four years ago, Cohen went on 60 Minutes to argue for legalization of organ sales. At the time, he joined the debate simply because he strongly felt the ban was unjust. But now Cohen has learned that his own kidneys are failing. He needs a transplant.
He won’t break the law and turn to the black market. He hopes to get a kidney though a group called MatchingDonors that pairs altruistic volunteers with people who need organs. Remarkably, a woman volunteered to give Cohen one of her kidneys. She’s now being tested to see if she is a match for him.
If not, Cohen will be back on the waiting list with 102,914 other Americans. Most will die, waiting.
“Organs that could restore people to health and extend life are instead being buried and burned,” sighs Cohen.
All because timid governments would rather suppress commerce than give patients a market-based new shot at life.
COPYRIGHT 2019 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Z3QHlb
via IFTTT
“It is often the case that police shootings, incidents where law enforcement officers pull the trigger on civilians, are left out of the conversation on gun violence. But a police officer shooting a civilian counts as gun violence. Every time an officer uses a gun against an innocent or an unarmed person contributes to the culture of gun violence in this country.” – Journalist Celisa Calacal
Here’s what we’ve learned about the government’s gun violence since Ferguson, according to The Washington Post: If you’re a black American, you’ve got a greater chance of being shot by police. If you’re an unarmed black man, you’re four times more likely to be killed by police than an unarmed white man. Most people killed by police are young men. Since 2015, police have shot and killed an average of 3 people per day. More than 2,500 police departments have shot and killed at least one person since 2015. And while the vast majority of people shot and killed by police are armed, their weapons ranged from guns to knives to toyguns.
Clearly, the U.S. government is not making America any safer.
Indeed, the government’s gun violence—inflicted on unarmed individuals by battlefield-trained SWAT teams, militarized police, and bureaucratic government agents trained to shoot first and ask questions later—poses a greater threat to the safety and security of the nation than any mass shooter.
In Chicago, a SWAT team—wearing “army fatigues with black cloth covering their faces and wearing goggles,” armed with automatic rifles, and throwing flash-bang grenades—crashed through the doors of a suburban home and proceeded to storm into bedrooms, holding the children of the household at gunpoint. One child, 13-year-old Amir, was “accidentally” shot in the knee by police while sitting on his bed.
In St. Louis, Missouri, a SWAT team on a mission to deliver an administrative warrant carried out a no-knock raid that ended with police kicking in the homeowner’s front door, and shooting and killing her dog—all over an unpaid gas bill. Taxpayers will have to find $750,000 to settle the lawsuit arising over the cops’ overzealous tactics.
In South Carolina, a 62-year-old homeowner was shot four times through his front door by police who were investigating a medical-assist alarm call that originated from a cell phone inside the home. Dick Tench, believing his house was being broken into, was standing in the foyer of his home armed with a handgun when police, peering through the front door, fired several shots through the door, hitting Tench in the pelvis and the aortic artery. Tench survived, but the bullet lodged in his pelvis will stay there for life.
In Kansas, a SWAT team, attempting to carry out a routine search warrant (the suspect had already been arrested), showed up at a residence around dinnertime, dressed in tactical gear with weapons drawn, and hurled a flash-bang grenade into the house past the 68-year-old woman who was in the process of opening the door to them and in the general direction of a 2-year-old child.
These are just a few recent examples among hundreds this year alone.
Curiously enough, in the midst of the finger-pointing over the latest round of mass shootings, Americans have been so focused on debating who or what is responsible for gun violence—the guns, the gun owners, the Second Amendment, the politicians, or our violent culture—that they have overlooked the fact that the systemic violence being perpetrated by agents of the government has done more collective harm to the American people and their liberties than any single act of terror or mass shooting.
Violence has become our government’s calling card, starting at the top and trickling down, from the more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans by heavily armed, black-garbed commandos and the increasingly rapid militarization of local police forces across the country to the drone killings used to target insurgents.
The government even exports violence worldwide, with one of this country’s most profitable exports being weapons. Indeed, the United States, the world’s largest exporter of arms, has been selling violence to the world for too long now. Controlling more than 50 percent of the global weaponry market, the U.S. has sold or donated weapons to at least 96 countries in the past five years, including the Middle East. The U.S. also provides countries such as Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Iraq with grants and loans through the Foreign Military Financing program to purchase military weapons.
While Americans have to jump through an increasing number of hoops in order to own a gun, the government is arming its own civilian employees to the hilt with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment, authorizing them to make arrests, and training them in military tactics.
In the hands of government agents, whether they are members of the military, law enforcement or some other government agency, these weapons have become routine parts of America’s day-to-day life, a byproduct of the rapid militarization of law enforcement over the past several decades.
Over the course of 30 years, police officers in jack boots holding assault rifles have become fairly common in small town communities across the country. As investigative journalists Andrew Becker and G.W. Schulz reveal, “Many police, including beat cops, now routinely carry assault rifles. Combined with body armor and other apparel, many officers look more and more like combat troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Does this sound like a country under martial law?
You want to talk about gun violence? While it still technically remains legal for the average citizen to own a firearm in America, possessing one can now get you pulled over, searched, arrested, subjected to all manner of surveillance, treated as a suspect without ever having committed a crime, shot at and killed by police.
You don’t even have to have a gun or a look-alike gun, such as a BB gun, in your possession to be singled out and killed by police.
There are countless incidents that happen every day in which Americans are shot, stripped, searched, choked, beaten and tasered by police for little more than daring to frown, smile, question, or challenge an order.
Growing numbers of unarmed people are being shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.
With alarming regularity, unarmed men, women, children and even pets are being gunned down by twitchy, hyper-sensitive, easily-spooked police officers who shoot first and ask questions later, and all the government does is shrug, and promise to do better, all the while the cops are granted qualified immunity.
Killed for standing in a “shooting stance.” In California, police opened fire on and killed a mentally challenged—unarmed—black man within minutes of arriving on the scene, allegedly because he removed a vape smoking device from his pocket and took a “shooting stance.”
Killed for carrying a baseball bat. Responding to a domestic disturbance call, Chicago police shot and killed 19-year-old college student Quintonio LeGrier who had reportedly been experiencing mental health problems and was carrying a baseball bat around the apartment where he and his father lived.
Killed for opening the front door. Bettie Jones, who lived on the floor below LeGrier, was also fatally shot—this time, accidentally—when she attempted to open the front door for police.
Killed for running towards police with a metal spoon. In Alabama, police shot and killed a 50-year-old man who reportedly charged a police officer while holding “a large metal spoon in a threatening manner.”
Killed for running while holding a tree branch. Georgia police shot and killed a 47-year-old man wearing only shorts and tennis shoes who, when first encountered, was sitting in the woods against a tree, only to start running towards police holding a stick in an “aggressive manner.”
Killed for crawling around naked. Atlanta police shot and killed an unarmed man who was reported to have been “acting deranged, knocking on doors, crawling around on the ground naked.” Police fired two shots at the man after he reportedly started running towards them.
Killed for wearing dark pants and a basketball jersey. Donnell Thompson, a mentally disabled 27-year-old described as gentle and shy, was shot and killed after police—searching for a carjacking suspect reportedly wearing similar clothing—encountered him lying motionless in a neighborhood yard. Police “only” opened fire with an M4 rifle after Thompson first failed to respond to their flash bang grenades and then started running after being hit by foam bullets.
Killed for driving while deaf. In North Carolina, a state trooper shot and killed 29-year-old Daniel K. Harris—who was deaf—after Harris initially failed to pull over during a traffic stop.
Killed for being homeless. Los Angeles police shot an unarmed homeless man after he failed to stop riding his bicycle and then proceeded to run from police.
Killed for brandishing a shoehorn. John Wrana, a 95-year-old World War II veteran, lived in an assisted living center, used a walker to get around, and was shot and killed by police who mistook the shoehorn in his hand for a 2-foot-long machete and fired multiple beanbag rounds from a shotgun at close range.
Killed for holding a garden hose. California police were ordered to pay $6.5 million after they opened fire on a man holding a garden hose, believing it to be a gun. Douglas Zerby was shot 12 times and pronounced dead on the scene.
Killed for calling 911. Justine Damond, a 40-year-old yoga instructor, was shot and killed by Minneapolis police, allegedly because they were startled by a loud noise in the vicinity just as she approached their patrol car. Damond, clad in pajamas, had called 911 to report a possible assault in her neighborhood.
Killed for looking for a parking spot. Richard Ferretti, a 52-year-old chef, was shot and killed by Philadelphia police who had been alerted to investigate a purple Dodge Caravan that was driving “suspiciously” through the neighborhood.
Shot seven times for peeing outdoors. Eighteen-year-old Keivon Young was shot seven times by police from behind while urinating outdoors. Young was just zipping up his pants when he heard a commotion behind him and then found himself struck by a hail of bullets from two undercover cops. Allegedly officers mistook Young—5’4,” 135 lbs., and guilty of nothing more than taking a leak outdoors—for a 6’ tall, 200 lb. murder suspect whom they later apprehended. Young was charged with felony resisting arrest and two counts of assaulting a peace officer.
This is what passes for policing in America today, folks, and it’s only getting worse.
In every one of these scenarios, police could have resorted to less lethal tactics.
They could have acted with reason and calculation instead of reacting with a killer instinct.
They could have attempted to de-escalate and defuse whatever perceived “threat” caused them to fear for their lives enough to react with lethal force.
That police instead chose to fatally resolve these encounters by using their guns on fellow citizens speaks volumes about what is wrong with policing in America today, where police officers are being dressed in the trappings of war, drilled in the deadly art of combat, and trained to look upon “every individual they interact with as an armed threat and every situation as a deadly force encounter in the making.”
Remember, to a hammer, all the world looks like a nail.
Violence begets violence: until we start addressing the U.S. government’s part in creating, cultivating and abetting a culture of violence, we will continue to be a nation plagued by violence in our homes, in our schools, on our streets and in our affairs of state, both foreign and domestic.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2YLaPgM Tyler Durden
A petition that began nearly three months ago urges the Commission on Presidential Debates to elect comedian and podcast superstar Joe Rogan as one of the moderators for the upcoming presidential debates in 2020, has gained massive amounts of signatures on Monday and Tuesday.
The petition explains Rogan has interviewed both progressive and conservative politicians, such as Andrew Yang (D), Tulsi Gabbard (D), Kyle Kulinski (D), Gary Johnson (L), Benjamin Shapiro (R), and Candace Owens (R), have all recently appeared on “The Joe Rogan Experience” program.
“Joe Rogan has an audience containing viewers from all areas of the political spectrum. Joe Rogan is not registered under any political party and is well-known for having civil, productive, and interesting, conversations about political issues without partisan bias,” the petition said.
Bernie Sanders (I) made headlines last week when he was on Rogan’s show discussing free healthcare, free college, and open access to classified government documents about aliens.
Dozens of comments on the “News & discussion” tab of the petition’s Change.Org page, said the current debate structure is broken and outdated. Some said Rogan would talk about the real issues rather than letting cable news networks and their corporate sponsors dictate the topics and questions. Here are some of the comments:
“I believe Joe Rogan would be an impartial, yet highly enlightened choice to moderate the debates. He would see through the lies and get down to the REAL issues in the debate,” one commenter said.
“Joe Rogan is a very good interviewer, so naturally would be a good moderator.. He is very un-biased and really can sit and listen to two opposing sides with an open mind. Not unfairly coming into the interview with his mind already made up and his opinions set in stone. In other words Joe will really listen to what people have to say (with no political agenda in mind) and agree with the morally right people and when he agrees with a policy or an idea its cause he truly believes in it and not cause the Democrat party supports it or visa versa .. joe rogan is an overall good person at heart and Intelegiant and he is closer to the people than any of these news anchors or even politicians, so I think he naturally fits in this moderator position if he even wants to do it , which there is a strong chance he does not lol ..,” another said.
“Joe Rogan is fair, unbiased, direct and would ask the relevant questions most Americans want real answers to, minus all the fluff and bi-partisanship many past moderators have subscribed to. He resonates much closer to “the voice of the people” than any interviewer I have seen. Go Joe! We need ya buddy!” a commenter said.
With lots of interest sparking up in the last several days, the petition has about 56% of signatures needed by 7 pm est. Tuesday.
While over 85,000 signatures are only a small majority of Americans, the petition could spread like wildfire around the internet and achieve the 150,000 goal in the coming days, if not weeks.
This is one of the first movements where we’ve seen a grassroots effort to boot corporate media whores out of hosting presidential debates and have someone from the outside who might want to discuss the real issues that plague the bottom 90% of Americans.
Here are some topics Rogan could talk about: the wealth inequality gap, 50% of Americans don’t have $500 in their bank accounts, the housing affordability crisis, abolishing the Federal Reserve, endless wars in the Middle East, the national debt, and possibly how to stop the rise of the military-industrial complex.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2N2muR4 Tyler Durden
The “gray man” survival concept isn’t new in preppers’ circles, but it’s also something a lot of questions are asked about. Becoming a “gray man” essentially means strategically not drawing attention to yourself to avoid conflict.
Being a “gray man” is easier said than done. Since it’s impossible to predict what the future will hold, especially the future of survivalism, we can only speculate how to best achieve “gray man” status. That said, it is a skill that can be practiced now though, before the SHTF. Blending in, laying low, recognizing dangers, and situational awareness all play a role in this concept. Going unnoticed can keep you out of harm’s way.
It’s been said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So if you can avoid conflict or any need for self-defense, you’ll have an added advantage when the SHTF. This is one skill that actually costs nothing. All it takes is some rational thought and heightened awareness.
HOW TO BE A “GRAY MAN”
The first step is to observe others. Start to notice things like attire and how people speak to each other. Observe how people interact with each other and begin to recognize their mannerisms and inclinations. This requires you to first has some decent situational awareness skill – which is also free. After you’ve observed others, your goal is to fit in and avoid creating a stimulus (something that can be embedded in someone else’s memory and creates an impression). Be like those around you. If you stick out, you could become a target. Be remarkably unremarkable and unmemorable.
You want to be as invisible as possible, so while keeping with the general tone of attire others are wearing, you’ll want to make sure you wear muted colors, avoid prints (yes, even camouflage), and don’t accessorize. Avoid any military-style clothing. That makes a statement and ensures you will not appear invisible to others. Hide any distinguishable markings such as a birthmark or tattoos. These will make you easily identifiable.
You also want to appear non-threatening and make sure your demeanor matches your attire. Don’t go all out and cover your face with a bandanna under a hood. That will suggest that you’re up to no good. Instead, wear a baseball cap and give off the “vibes” of someone who is not doing anything at all except existing. Be boring, but walk as though you have a purpose.
Minimize interactions with all people, especially those you do not know. Once the SHTF, you’ll have more enemies than friends especially if your friends have failed to effectively prepare for the bad times.
Most importantly, you will want to learn to think like a “gray man.” Changing the way we think is difficult, and impossible for some. But if you want a chance at avoiding as many altercations as possible in dire situations, you’ll need to make the attempt. Watch the video below for some great advice:
Learning to be a “gray man” could save your life. Blending in while being forgettable and not leaving an impression on anyone will allow you to go about your business with very limited altercations. This is one skill that is ranked up there with situational awareness.
Both situational awareness and being a “gray man” are essential to a proper prepping mentality. Both are free, and in addition to this article, I suggest you read as much as you can about both and begin to use them in your everyday life as practice.
The Gray Man is the forgettable face, the ghost guy, the hidden human. Implementing the concepts is more than looking less tactical, less hostile, or less threatening. It is the willful abandonment of anything and everything that defines oneself as different. Using his unique “S” word conceptual approach featured in Appear to Vanish, camouflage and concealment expert Matthew Dermody discusses the concepts, tactics, and mindset necessary to assimilate into any urban environment. From the safety-conscious international traveler to the SERE contingencies of the deep cover foreign operative, GRAY MAN is the definitive urban concealment resource.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2OT05IB Tyler Durden
The US Postal Service (USPS) is in a dangerous death spiral as it could run out of cash by the mid-2020s. The postmaster general warned in May that unless significant reforms are made to the quasigovernmental agency, it could soon collapse.
A new report from The Wall Street Journal suggests that the downfall of the USPS could be more imminent than thought. Package delivery volume declined in 2Q19 for the first time since 2009. The cause of the drop is due to Amazon, United Parcel Service, and FedEx increasingly delivering online packages to homes.
The USPS has experienced diminishing revenues for years even though they deliver packages to at least a million new addresses per year. The increased competition, largely from private shippers, has made the marketplace more competitive, leading to lower shipping rates that have financially stressed USPS.
The Journal said USPS delivered 3.2% fewer packages for the quarter ended June 30.
Postmaster General Megan Brennan said Friday that other delivery players are convincing shippers to switch to their networks, noting that they’re “aggressively pricing their products and services in order to fill their networks and grow package density.”
Brennan added, “That said, we are constantly adapting our competitive posture to counter emerging developments.”
The USPS will likely notice higher package volume declines through 2020. FedEx plans on shifting 2 million of its daily packages that are diverted to USPS for “last-mile delivery” into its Ground network next year.
Overall for 2Q, USPS posted a modest drop in revenue to $17.09 billion. It lost money on first-class mail, marketing mail, and periodicals.
Total operating expenses fell by 4.3% to $19.3 billion for the quarter.
The total loss for the period was $2.26 billion, compared with $1.49 billion a year earlier.
USPS has avoided collapse by defaulting on $48 billion in mandated payments over the past several years, Brennan said at a recent hearing called by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
Brennan has called for legislative and regulatory changes to correct USPS’ busted business model, where its largest and most profitable business of first-class mail remains in a slump.
“We anticipate that given our ongoing liquidity concerns, and without legislative action and regulatory reform, we may not be able to pay all legally required obligations and also invest in much-needed capital expenditures in 2019 and future years that are necessary to ensure our ability to fulfill our primary mission,” USPS said Friday.
Early indications show that the USPS is headed for a credit crunch sometime in the early 2020s. The one question that we have: Could the government let the USPS fail in a push towards privatization?
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2MYbvYO Tyler Durden
You may have seen some headlines about a new study that says “doomsday prepping” is increasing in the United States because of our “culture of fear.” There are several things to know about this study to understand that they have it all wrong.
First, they don’t understand who preppers are.
Allow me to start with the description of prepping in general. Here’s how the report on the study opens.
“Doomsday prepping” or stockpiling food, medicine, weapons, and other supplies in case of an apocalyptic scenario has long been considered peculiar behavior only exhibited by conspiracy theorists and other extremists in the United States. (source)
This article examines the politics of American “doomsday” prepping during Barack Obama’s presidency. It challenges claims that growing interest in prepping post-2008 arose exclusively from extreme apocalyptic, white supremacist, and anti-government reactions to Obama’s electoral successes – claims that suggest prepping to be politically congruent with previous waves of extreme right-wing American “survivalism.” Drawing on ethnography, this paper argues that, while fears of Obama have been central to many preppers’ activities, much of their prepping under his presidency centred on fears that sit outside survivalist politics. Building on this, the article illuminates connections between prepping and America’s twenty-first-century electoral mainstream. Engaging with discussions about the “remaking” of American conservatism during Obama’s presidency, it particularly frames prepping’s growth as being engaged with, and shaped by, currents of mainstream anti-Obama fear that similarly undergirded the Tea Party’s rise within popular Republicanism at this time. (source)
The bibliography paints quite a picture.
I’m too cheap to pay Cambridge £25 to read the entire thing. And-omg-what-if-I-end-up-on-a-list? (sarc.) You can learn a lot from the bibliography, though. Many of the sources they cite are mainstream sources that have been mocking preppers for decades. Some of the articles I recall reading myself and rolling my eyes.
Lamy, Philip, Millennium Rage: Survivalists, White Supremacists, and the Doomsday Prophecy(London: Plenium Press, 1996) CrossRef | Google Scholar
Barkun, Michael, Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997)Google Scholar
You get the idea. They just went online and searched “crazy doomsday preppers” or something like that and came up with these articles and probably got a hefty grant to do this “research.” And we all know that the mainstream media loves to paint us as lunatics.
How the authors of this study see preppers
First, they seem to feel the need to add the word doomsday in front of the word preppers because that gives them the oomph for which they’re looking. The citations of the study said they chose respondents from six websites.
Respondents were recruited through appeals published on six prominent prepping websites (for example, www.doomandbloom.net). The websites selected were chosen because their content focusses on the practicalities of prepping – including instruction and guidance on various aspects of storing food and practising disaster medicine – rather than promoting particular political ideas.
And the respondents gave the kind of sensible answers most of us would expect. Except the authors still tried to paint them as political wingnuts. (Emphasis mine.)
In references to issues like Benghazi we see how, despite many preppers’ seemingly sincere disavowal of various conspiracy theories, their fears sometimes drew on speculative and pseudo-conspiratorial reporting through right-wing media. In particular, this case demonstrates how the prominence of the Benghazi attack as a story in right-wing media – around which reporting suggested that members of the Obama administration constructed a false narrative of spontaneous protest leading to the attack – fed into participants’ own assessments of the President. (The House Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee have since confirmed that these comments on protest were based on the CIA’s own conclusions at the time.) Here, respondents did not communicate elaborate theories concerning conspiracy related to Benghazi, as has sometimes been the case in right-wing culture. Nevertheless, mentions that, at a more basic level, the continued nature of the “scandal” had exposed the Obama administration’s poor performance in, and lack of proper commitment to, national security and foreign policy seemed to illustrate ways in which such thinking still indirectly resonated in their considerations on some occasions.
They even cited one lady who openly told them her concerns about Fema.
“The one exception to this within the sample was Gloria, a widowed prepper in Florida who at one point claimed, “FEMA … they do things with ulterior motives … In my opinion … and we all know what opinions are … FEMA has the FEMA camps and I truly feel that, at some point in time that, one of the leader’s executive orders … unsuspecting Americans will be put in these camps. It’s like a prisoner of war camp … guards, lights.”
Of course, preppers are white supremacist Christians.
Based on their carefully selected “evidence” that has pretty much nothing to do with the actual preppers they interviewed, they gleaned that as a whole, ‘preppers’ are all white Christian racist Tea Party members who hate former President Obama.
Because why wouldn’t you believe the mainstream media’s portrayal instead of the people you actually interviewed? This is an ideal example of a study set up to support a foregone conclusion.
Here are a few more citation examples. (Emphasis mine.)
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall and Cappella, Joseph, The Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Amato and Neiwert, Over the Cliff; Street and DiMaggio; DiMaggio; Press, Bill, The Obama Hate Machine: The Lies, Distortions, and Personal Attacks on the President – And Who Is behind Them (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2012)Google Scholar; Skocpol and Williamson; Berry, Jeffrey M. and Sobieraj, Sarah, The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar; Skocpol, Theda and Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander, “The Koch Network and Republican Party Extremism,” Perspectives on Politics, 14, 3 (Sept. 2016), 681–99CrossRef | Google Scholar.
It found that, though fear of President Obama and his political agenda played a role, those who engaged in the activity were motivated more by the general culture of fear that informs modern mainstream American society. Further, the research argues that a regular flow of recommendations from theUS government on how to prepare for potential disasters, including, for example, advice to stockpile water, have, to an extent, helped fuel the growth of ‘prepping’.
Dr Mills’ research presents a more nuanced view of prepping, which has traditionally been portrayed as an apocalyptic belief in imminent disaster or the end of the world. Rather, modern preppers are responding to a general sense of fear and concern about risks including economic collapse, cyber-attacks, terrorism, pandemics and environmental disasters, causing them to seek self-sufficiency ‘just in case’ the worst should happen. Much of this fear is not derived from extreme ideologies, but nevertheless remains connected to established right-wing politics in America, which views Obama and other Democratic Party leaders exclusively through fear.
He said: ‘Fear is now deeply entrenched in modern American culture and is the principal reason that so many citizens are engaging in ‘prepping’. Many believe that the government’s response in the event of a calamity, whether it’s a natural disaster or an act of terrorism, simply won’t be adequate to meet their needs. Many also believe that, under Democrat leadership, America becomes more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, financial collapse, and international hostility.
‘While the media portrays ‘preppers’ as extremists, our view is much more nuanced. Rather than seeing prepping as an exception within America’s right-wing political culture, we ought to see it as being reflective of increasingly established and popular outlooks.’ (source)
Then there are the liberal preppers.
Oh. Wait. There’s no mention of those preppers.
The study is flawed because it left out an entire demographic of new preppers – the ones who think President Trump signals the end of the world. Here are several articles that should have been a part of their mainstream bibliography.
Interestingly, there’s no mention whatsoever in the people who are prepping because they’re concerned about the Trump administration.
To sum it up…
Let’s sum up this study and the commentary around it.
#1) The near-constant use of the phrase “doomsday preppers.” I don’t know a single person in my network who considers themselves a “doomsday prepper. They are using a phrase from a horrible television show developed to make us look like batcrap crazy extremists worrying about the literal end of the world. Most of us are more worried about the literal end of our paycheck than Armageddon.
#2) The research itself was biased. The bibliography shows dozens of references to the Tea Party, white supremacists, the “Christian identity movement,” President Obama, and Republicans. There are no references to leftist, liberal, atheist, agnostic, or pagan preppers, who actually make up a fair number of our ranks.
#3) They say it’s all about politics despite evidence to the contrary. The researchers gave more credence to mainstream articles about prepping than to the interviews with actual preppers. Even though Dr. Mills said, “modern preppers are responding to a general sense of fear and concern about risks including economic collapse, cyber-attacks, terrorism, pandemics, and environmental disasters, causing them to seek self-sufficiency ‘just in case’ the worst should happen” the study focused on political themes. Although preppers who were interviewed talked rationally, they only cited the one who discussed a conspiracy theory in their bibliography.
#4) They completely ignore the politically-motivated liberal preppers. Despite the fact that this study was published during the third year of President Trump’s administration, there was absolutely no commentary on Antifa, Democrats who began prepping when Trump was elected, or any type of left-wing extremists, despite the fact that I was able to pull up dozens of articles within seconds with a quick Google search of “liberal preppers.” In fact, the only mention in the entire bibliography of the current president was “Johnson, 310. See also SPLC, 2017; Neiwert, David, Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump (London: Bloomsbury, 2017) Google Scholar.”
Real preppers know it isn’t about fear.
If you’re actually a prepper or survivalist, you know that it isn’t about fear. It’s about common sense and preparation for reasonable and realistic threats.
While certainly there are extremists out there, they aren’t limited to the world of preparedness. Preppers are not limited to one political demographic, one religion, one philosophy, or one race. The reasons we prepare are as varied as the number of families preparing. Most of us quite sensibly prepare for a variety of potential emergencies or crises.
And most of all, prepping is not about doom and gloom.
Does this sound familiar? You’re talking to a friend or family member who isn’t on board with preparedness. (And it’s even worse when they think they know what’s going on in the world but garner their so-called “information” from network news sources.) You try for the millionth time to get them to consider stocking up on a few things and they say this:
“Life’s too short for all of this doom and gloom. Live a little! You’re such a pessimist!”
My response to this is that preparedness is the ultimate form of optimism.
One who practices skills, makes dramatic lifestyle changes, and studies current events critically may come across to the uninitiated as a person who has buried himself or herself in negativity, but in fact, one who prepares is saying to life, “Whatever comes, we are not only going to live through it, my family is going to thrive!” (source)
Clearly, the optimistic, well-balanced approach to a prepared life isn’t what they were looking for in England when they examined our “culture of fear.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ZYSo4N Tyler Durden
With currency turmoil and social unrest, China’s economic assault tonight was supposed be the great equalizer – confirming that a few trillion here or there and everything looks awesome and happy, and not a tiny bit angry (and that the Americans are not to blame for everything).
Ahead of today’s data, broadly speaking, macro data globally has been weak, but in China, recent credit growth numbers slumped and steel production slowed, suggesting graver concerns. And so here it is…
China Industrial Production BIG MISS +4.8% (+6.0% exp, +6.3% prior)
China Retail Sales BIG MISS +7.6% (+8.6% exp, +9.8% prior)
China Fixed Asset Investment MISS +5.7% (+5.8% exp, +5.8% prior)
China Property Investment MISS +10.6% (+10.9% prior)
China Surveyed Jobless Rate MISS +5.3% (+6.0% exp, +6.3% prior)
Now all that is left is to figure out if bad news is good news, or not…
(The principle of “housing is for living in, not for speculation” was mentioned at the politburo meeting again last month.)
Finally, for a few minutes the world spiked after China set the yuan fix slightly stronger; we are not so impressed, nor is the yuan…
And stocks and bond yields tumbling…
So with inflation spiking, currency crashing, social-unrest; will the PBOC flood the nation with cash to ensure happiness at October’s CCP Anniversary?
It’s just that the sugar high from the injection is getting shorter…
Chen Yuan, former deputy governor of PBOC warned that “the trade war is evolving into a financial war and a currency war.”
As goes China, so goes the world.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2MhoHbV Tyler Durden
