Cory ‘Spartacus’ Booker Wants To Assault Trump; Blames Testosterone For Violent Fantasies

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) can get in line behind Joe Biden as the second 2020 presidential candidate who wants to assault President Trump. 

In a Monday night appearance on “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” booker relayed a story from an Iowa campaign event where dozens of people showed up – one of whom told him to “punch Donald Trump in the face.” 

“Dude, that’s a felony man,” Booker replied, before launching into his deep seated desire to assault the president. 

“Donald Trump is a guy who you understand- he hurts you and my testosterone sometimes makes me want to feel like punching him, which would be bad for this elderly, out-of-shape man that he is if I did that,” said Booker,” calling Trump a “physically weak specimen.” 

And after Booker calls Trump an “elderly, out-of-shape man,” he adds that Trump is “the body shamer.” 

“That’s his tactics and you don’t beat a bully like him, fighting him on his tactics, on his terms, using his turf. He’s the body shamer, he’s the guy that tries to drag people in the gutter.” 

Did Booker’s testosterone make him similarly feel like sexually assaulting a girl in high school when he “slowly reached for her breast,” only for her to push his hand away once he reached his “mark?” 

Was Booker’s out-of-control testosterone responsible for a credible allegation (his phrase) that he sexually assaulted a man in a public restroom?

And did Booker fail to constrain his toxic masculinity when he browbeat former DHS Secretary Kristjen Nielsen last January over President Trump’s comment that Haiti and parts of Africa are ‘shithole countries.’

Sounds like Spartacus needs to get this under control. 

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

“What Is Risk?” – The Lessons Poker Can Teach You About Investing

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Over the last couple of weeks, I have laid out the bull and bear case for the S&P 500 rising to 3300, and the case for the Fed to cut rates. In summary, the basic driver of the “bull market thesis” has essentially come down to Central Bank policy.

This reliance on the Fed has led to a marked rise in “complacency” by investors in recent weeks despite a burgeoning list of issues. As shown in the chart below, the ratio of the “volatility index” as compared to the S&P 500 index is near it’s lowest level on record going back to 1995.

Combine that with investors now completely back in the market, and you have the ingredients for a decent short-term correction in the weeks ahead.

In other words, investors are “all in” based on hopes the Fed will cut rates. However, rate cuts are unlikely to reverse the macro pressures facing the markets currently. Such as:

  • The global economy IS slowing.

  • Interest rates have turned lower with nearly 1/3 of Sovereign bonds now sporting negative yields.

  • China, representing 30% of global GDP growth, has slowed markedly.

  • Domestic GDP is expected to rise by only 1.50% in the second quarter, which is a sharp reversal from last year.

  • The trade war with China, and to a lesser degree Europe, has not been resolved and could accelerate on a Tweet.

  • Not surprisingly, ten years into an expansion, markets at record highs, unemployment near 50-year lows, and inflation is near the Fed’s target. Yet, the Fed is talking about cutting rates at the end of the month. What does the Fed know that we do not? 

  • The potential for a hard Brexit is still prevalent.

  • Earnings expectations have fallen markedly along with actual earnings and revenues.

There is much more, but you get the idea.

Investors are currently betting very heavily on a “weak” hand as they ignore the “risk.”

What Is Risk?

The word “RISK” is not normally associated with positive outcomes. For example:

  • Walking a tightrope without a safety net.

  • Driving with a blindfold on.

  • Hanging off the edge of skyscrapers

Yes, professionals do these things and survive. But for the average person, it could mean serious injury or even death.

The same idea of “risk” applies to investing.

Many individuals convince themselves that in order to make more money, they need to take on more “risk.” The correlation, over the short-term, may indeed seem positive when markets are trending higher.

However, the reality is quite different. “Risk” in a portfolio can be directly correlated to the amount of loss (destruction of capital) which occurs when something inevitably goes wrong.

The Poker Analogy

Last week, I was visiting with a new client who had just transferred over from one of the “big box” financial firms. Of course, as usual, she began to regurgitate the media-driven myths of how she was a “long term”investor, how she was diversified, and since she was an “aggressive” investor with a “high risk tolerance,”she was willing to ride out the “wiggles” in the market.

It only takes a couple of questions to derail these myths.

  1. What did you do in 2001-2002 and/or 2008?

  2. How did you feel?

  3. Are you willing to do that again?

Since the “dot.com” bust, when I began asking those questions, I have NEVER had anyone tell me:

  1. I sold near the top and bought near the bottom. (Sell High/Buy Low)

  2. It was a truly terrific experience watching half of my money disappear. 

  3. Absolutely, just tell me when so I can get some popcorn.

In this particular case, she happened to be an avid “poker player” and enjoyed going to Las Vegas for a “few hands” at the tables. Poker is a straightforward comparison to investing as the general rules of risk management apply to both. The conversation was quick.

“Do you go ‘all in’ on every hand you are dealt?” 

“Of course, not” she responded.

“Why not?”

“Because I will lose all my money,” she said.

“You say that with certainty. Why?”

“Well, I am not going to win every hand, so if I bet everything, I will certainly lose everything” she stated.

“Correct. So why do you invest that way?”

“………….Silence………………….”

The issue of “risk,” as stated above, whether it is in the financial markets or a hand of poker, is the same.  It is simply how much money you lose when the “bet” you made goes wrong.

In poker, most individuals can not calculate the odds of drawing a winning hand. However, while they may not know the odds of drawing a “full house” in a 7-card poker hand is just 2.6%, they do know the odds of “winning” with such a hand are fairly high. Therefore, they are comfortable betting heavier on that particular hand.

When it comes to investing, they are comfortable betting their retirement savings on a market which, at current valuation levels, has a long history of delivering less than optimal results. I have shown you the following chart before, and statistically speaking, the odds aren’t in your favor.

Despite this simple reality, investors continue to chase stocks as if future returns over the next 10-years will be as profitable as the last 10-years. This most likely will not be the case.

To make this clearer, let’s equate market fundamentals to poker hands.

If individuals were presented with the following “hand,” rather than media rhetoric, do you think they would quickly put all their retirement savings in the markets.?

Sure, one could absolutely win with a “high card hand” assuming everyone else at the table is in exactly the same position without an “Ace.” But what are the “odds” of that being the case?

However, this is the market as it exists today and the media is telling you to “be all in” as it is a “no lose”proposition.

Are you all in?

I’ll bet you are and your reasoning is completely logical – “The market is going up.” 

What if you were dealt the following hand?

Are you “all-in” now?

You should be, but you won’t be.

Why? Because this is what markets look like following major, mean reverting events. It is at this point individuals have learned the lesson of “risk,” and want nothing to do with the “financial markets ever again.” 

If you were around in 2009, you remember.

The issue of understanding risk/reward is the single most valuable aspect of managing a portfolio. Chasing performance in the short-term can seem to be a profitable venture, just as if hitting a “hot streak” playing poker can seem to be a “no lose” proposition.

But in the end, the “house always wins” unless you play by the rules.

8-Rules Of Poker:

1) You need an edge

As Peter Lynch once stated:

“Investing without research is like playing stud poker and never looking at the cards.”

There is a clear parallel between how successful poker players operate and those who are generally less sober, more emotional, and less expert. The financial markets are nothing more than a very large poker table where your job is to take advantage of those who allow emotions to drive their decisions and those who “bet recklessly” based on “hope” and “intuition.”

2) Develop an expertise in more than one area

The difference between winning occasionally, and winning consistently, in the financial markets is to be able to adapt to the changing market environments. There is no one investment style that is in favor every single year – which is why those that chase last year’s “hot hands” are generally the least successful investors over a 10- and 20-year period.

As the great Wayne Gretzky once said:

“I skate where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.”

3) Figure out why people are betting against you.

“We know nothing for certain.” Managing a portfolio for “what we don’t know” is the hardest part of investing. With stocks, we must always remember that there is always someone on the other side of the trade. Every time some fund manager on television encourages you to “buy,” someone else has to be willing to sell those shares to you. Why are they selling? What do they know that you don’t?

3) Don’t assume you are the smartest person at the table. 

When an investment meets your objectives, be willing to take some profits. When it begins to break down, hedge the risk. When your reasons for buying have changed, be willing to “call it a day and walk away from the table.”

4) It often pays to pass, and 5) Know when to quit and cash in your chips

Kenny Rogers summed this up best:

You’ve got to know when to hold ’em. Know when to fold ’em. Know when to walk away.  Know when to run.

All great investors develop a risk management philosophy (a sell discipline) and combining that with a set of tools to implement that strategy. This increases the odds of success by removing the emotional biases that interfere with investment decisions. Just as a professional poker player is disciplined with his craft, a disciplined strategy allows for the successful navigation of a fluid investment landscape. A disciplined strategy no only tells you when you to “make a bet,” but also when to “walk away.”

6) Know your strengths AND your weaknesses & 7) When you can’t focus 100% on the task at hand – take a break.

Two-time World Series of Poker winner Doyle Brunson joked a bit about his book with which he had thrown around two alternative ideas for titles before going with “Super/System.” The first was “How I made over $1,000,000 Playing Poker,” and the second equally accurate idea was, ‘How I lost over $1,000,000 playing Golf.”

The larger point here is that invariably there will be things in life that you are good at, and there are things you are much better off paying someone else to do.

8) Be patient

Patience is hard. Most investors want immediate gratification when they make an investment. However, real investments can take years to produce their real results, sometimes, even decades. More importantly, as with playing poker, you are not going to win every hand and there are going to be times that nothing seems to be “going your way”. But that is the nature of investing; no investment discipline works ALL of the time. However, it is sticking with your discipline and remaining patient, provided it is a sound discipline to start with, that will ultimately lead to long-term success.

Those are the rules. Play by them and you have a better chance of winning. Don’t, and you will likely lose more than you can currently imagine. As the old saying goes:

“If you look around the poker table and can’t spot the pigeon, it’s probably you.” 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Y1juuS Tyler Durden

Libya Seizes Italian Ship In The Gulf Of Sirte

Another vessel has been seized on the high seas…but the parties involved might be surprising to some. 

Sputnik reports that Libya has seized an Italian vessel in the Gulf of Sirte.

Map

The seizure comes as tensions between Iran and the UK climb as both countries have seized oil tankers affiliated with the other.

More details to come…

 

 

 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/32JrJuo Tyler Durden

JPMorgan: We Believe The Dollar Could Lose Its Status As World’s Reserve Currency

Almost eight year ago, we first presented a chart first created by JPMorgan’s Michael Cembalest, which showed very simply and vividly that reserve currencies don’t last forever, and that in the not too distant future, the US Dollar would also lose its status as the world’s most important currency, since it is never different this time.

As Cembalest put it back in January 2012, “I am reminded of the following remark from late MIT economist Rudiger Dornbusch: ‘Crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.'”

Perhaps it is not a coincidence then that in light of the growing number of mentions of MMT and various other terminal, destructive monetary policies that have been proposed to kick on the current financial system the can just a little bit longer, that the topic of longevity of reserve currency status is once again becoming all the rage, and none other than JPMorgan’s Private Bank ask in this month’s investment strategy note whether “the dollar’s “exorbitant privilege” is coming to an end?”

So why is JPM, after first creating the iconic chart above which has since spread virally across all financial corners of the internet, not only worried that the dollar’s reserve status may be coming to an end, but in fact goes so far as to state that “we believe the dollar could lose its status as the world’s dominant currency (which could see it depreciate over the medium term) due to structural reasons as well as cyclical impediments.”

Read on to learn why even the largest US bank has started to lose faith in the world’s most powerful currency.

Is the dollar’s “exorbitant privilege” coming to an end?

In Brief

The U.S. dollar (USD) has been the world’s dominant reserve currency for almost a century. As such, many investors today, even outside the United States, have built and become comfortable with sizable USD overweights in their portfolios. However, we believe the dollar could lose its status as the world’s dominant currency (which could see it depreciate over the medium term) due to structural reasons as well as cyclical impediments.  

As such, diversifying dollar exposure by placing a higher weighting on other currencies in developed markets and in Asia, as well as precious metals makes sense today. This diversification can be achieved with a strategy that maintains the underlying assets in an investment portfolio, but changes the mix of currencies within that portfolio. This is a completely bespoke approach that can be customized to meet the unique needs of individual clients.

The rise of the U.S. dollar

It is commonly perceived that the U.S. dollar overtook the Great British Pound (GBP) as the world’s international reserve currency with the signing of the Bretton Woods Agreements after World War II. The reality is that sterling’s value was eroded for many decades prior to Bretton Woods. The dollar’s rise to international prominence was fueled by the establishment of the Federal Reserve System a little over a century ago and U.S. economic emergence after World War I. The Federal Reserve System aided in the establishment of more mature capital markets and a nationally coordinated monetary policy, two important pillars of reserve-currency countries. Being the world’s unit of account has given the United States what former French Finance Minister Valery d’Estaing called an “exorbitant privilege” by being able to purchase imports and issue debt in its own currency and run persistent deficits seemingly without consequence.

The shifting center

There is nothing to suggest that the dollar dominance should remain in perpetuity. In fact, the dominant international currency has changed many times throughout history going back thousands of years as the world’s economic center has shifted.

After the end of World War II, the U.S. accounted for biggest share of world GDP at more than 25%.  This number is brought to more than 40% when we include Western European powers. Since then, the main driver of economic growth has shifted eastwards towards Asia at the expense of the U.S. and the West.  China is at the epicenter of this recent economic shift driven by the country’s strong growth and commitment to domestic reforms.  Over the last 70 years, China has quadrupled its share of global GDP to around 20%—roughly the same share as the U.S.—and this share is expected to continue to grow in the years ahead. China is no longer just a manufacturer of low cost goods as a growing share of corporate earnings is coming from “high value add” sectors like technology.

China regaining its status as a global superpower

Source: Angus Maddison Database, IMF, J.P. Morgan Private Bank Economics. Data as of June 14, 2019

Earnings in China are becoming more balanced

Source: Bloomberg, J.P. Morgan Private Bank Economics. Data as of September 30, 2018. The low-value added sectors series is HP filtered to smooth over cyclical volatility. Low-value added includes materials and industrials. High-value added includes tech, health care, consumer staples, and consumer discretionary.

In addition to China, the economies of Southeast Asia, including India, have strong secular tailwinds driven by younger demographics and proliferating technological know-how. Specifically, the Asian economic zone—from the Arabian Peninsula and Turkey in the West to Japan and New Zealand in the East and from Russia in the North and Australia in the South—now represents 50% of global GDP and two-thirds of global economic growth. Of the estimated $30 trillion in middle-class consumption growth between 2015 and 2030, only $1 trillion is expected to come from today’s Western economies. As this region grows, the share of non-USD transactions will inevitably increase which will likely erode the dollar’s “reserveness”, even if the dollar isn’t replaced as the dominant international currency.

In other words, in the coming decades we think the world economy will transition from U.S. and USD dominance toward a system where Asia wields greater power. In currency space, this means the USD will likely lose value compared to a basket of other currencies, including precious commodities like gold.

Dollar’s declining role already under way?

Recent data on currency reserve holdings among global central banks suggests this shift may already be under way.  As a share of overall central bank reserves, the USD’s role has been declining ever since the Great Recession (see chart). The most recent central bank reserve flow data also suggests that for the first time since the euro’s introduction in 1999, central banks simultaneously sold dollars and bought euros.  

Central banks across the globe are also adding to gold reserves at their strongest pace on record. 2018 saw the strongest demand for gold from central banks since 1971 and a rolling four-quarter sum of gold purchases is the strongest on record. To us, this makes sense: gold is a stable source of value with thousands of years of trust among humans supporting it.

USD share of central bank reserves, %

Source: Exante. Data as of September 30, 2018. The series is FX-adjusted. 

Source: Bloomberg as of June 13, 2019

Given the persistent—and rising—deficits in the United States (in both fiscal and trade), we believe the U.S. dollar could become vulnerable to a loss of value relative to a more diversified basket of currencies, including gold. As we scan client portfolios, we see that many of them have far more U.S. dollar exposure than we feel is prudent. At this stage of the economic cycle, we believe this exposure should be more diversified. In many cases, our recommendation would likely be to place a higher weighting on other G10 currencies, currencies in Asia and gold (see chart).

FX exposure

Source: J.P. Morgan Private Bank as of June 13, 2019.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2y7Qlit Tyler Durden

Tucker Carlson’s Unhinged Rant Against Prison Reform Makes Us All Dumber

On Fox News last night, between the commercials for self-lubricating catheters and class-action lawsuits over defective hip replacements, you may have seen Tucker Carlson ranting about the release of “hundreds of violent criminals” onto the streets of America.

In a segment on his show, Carlson said that a source within the Trump administration had provided his show with exclusive data on crimes committed by the roughly 3,100 federal inmates who were released earlier this month under the FIRST STEP ACT, a criminal justice reform bill passed by Congress last December.

“So far this year, more than 2,000 federal prisoners were put on the nation’s streets thanks to the FIRST STEP Act,” Carlson begins. “You might remember that law. It was sold to lawmakers and the rest of us a way to ease overcrowded prisons and give a second chance to nonviolent offenders. That’s not what it’s turned into.”

Carlson continues:

In fact, that law has allowed hundreds of violent criminals and sexual predators back on the street. An administration official provided this show exclusively with data on what crimes were committed by the felons being released under the FIRST STEP Act. Turns out most of them were not in jail for smoking a joint 30 years ago. Instead, of the roughly 2,200 inmates who’ve been set free so far, 496 of them were in prison on charges related to weapons or explosives. Huh. Two hundred and thirty nine had committed sex offenses such as rape and sexual assault, 106 committed armed robbery, and 59 had committed aggravated assault or murder. That’s not what we were promised.

This is the part where gentle viewers are supposed to clutch their hearts and say, “My God, what’s happening to my country?”

The actual story is much less alarming. 

All of the inmates Tucker is referencing had their release dates moved up because the FIRST STEP Act forced the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to change the way it calculates the amount of “good time” credits inmates can earn through good behavior to shave days off their sentence.

You see, in the federal prison system, inmates were supposed to be eligible for 54 days of good time credits a year. Keeping a clean disciplinary record is one of the only ways federal inmates can reduce their sentences, since there is no parole in the federal system.

In practice, however, they could only accrue 47 days a year, thanks to the absurdly complicated way BOP calculated the credits. (If you’re really a glutton for punishment, you can read a long summary of BOP’s good time credit formula in a 2010 Supreme Court ruling upholding it, which includes an appendix entry about the algebra equations involved.)

For a federal inmate doing 10 years of hard time, that meant losing 70 days of potential credit toward an earlier release.

The FIRST STEP included a provision to ensure that inmates can now actually receive 54 days of good time credit a year, and it required BOP to retroactively recalculate credits for current inmates and adjust their release dates accordingly. Because of a drafting error in the bill, that provision didn’t go into effect until July 19.

Lawmakers and advocacy groups who supported the FIRST STEP Act say the provision was simply a fix to clarify Congress’ original legislative intent. In other words, these inmates were getting out exactly when they should have under the spirit of the law.

“Every single office we met with during the course of the FIRST STEP Act was told about that provision,” says Jason Pye, vice president of legislative affairs at FreedomWorks, a conservative group that supported the legislation. “Virtually every communication we sent to the Hill about the FIRST STEP Act at least mentioned this provision, explained what it was, and why it was included in the bill. It was a feature of the FIRST STEP Act, and it was included to fix a misapplication of law by the Bureau of Prisons, which had calculated the 54 days of good time credit that could be earned by a prisoner to mean 47 days.”

All of the inmates Carlson is fulminating about were going to be released anyway—and sooner rather than later. Most were released from halfway houses or home confinement where they were finishing out their sentences. And they’re all still subject to three to five years of supervised release.

Naturally, Carlson’s millions of viewers were left without this information.

Does Carlson think these inmates are at a higher risk of committing new crimes because they were released a few months earlier than they would have previously been? Or is he simply outraged that they were released at all? If it’s the latter, his beef goes far beyond the modest FIRST STEP Act. More than 10,000 inmates are released from U.S. state and federal prisons every week, according to the Justice Department, for all manner of crimes. More than 95 percent of all state prisoners will eventually be released.

It’s unclear exactly what Carlson wants us to be upset about—only that he wants us to be upset.

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

Tucker Carlson’s Unhinged Rant Against Prison Reform Makes Us All Dumber

On Fox News last night, between the commercials for self-lubricating catheters and class-action lawsuits over defective hip replacements, you may have seen Tucker Carlson ranting about the release of “hundreds of violent criminals” onto the streets of America.

In a segment on his show, Carlson said that a source within the Trump administration had provided his show with exclusive data on crimes committed by the roughly 3,100 federal inmates who were released earlier this month under the FIRST STEP ACT, a criminal justice reform bill passed by Congress last December.

“So far this year, more than 2,000 federal prisoners were put on the nation’s streets thanks to the FIRST STEP Act,” Carlson begins. “You might remember that law. It was sold to lawmakers and the rest of us a way to ease overcrowded prisons and give a second chance to nonviolent offenders. That’s not what it’s turned into.”

Carlson continues:

In fact, that law has allowed hundreds of violent criminals and sexual predators back on the street. An administration official provided this show exclusively with data on what crimes were committed by the felons being released under the FIRST STEP Act. Turns out most of them were not in jail for smoking a joint 30 years ago. Instead, of the roughly 2,200 inmates who’ve been set free so far, 496 of them were in prison on charges related to weapons or explosives. Huh. Two hundred and thirty nine had committed sex offenses such as rape and sexual assault, 106 committed armed robbery, and 59 had committed aggravated assault or murder. That’s not what we were promised.

This is the part where gentle viewers are supposed to clutch their hearts and say, “My God, what’s happening to my country?”

The actual story is much less alarming. 

All of the inmates Tucker is referencing had their release dates moved up because the FIRST STEP Act forced the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to change the way it calculates the amount of “good time” credits inmates can earn through good behavior to shave days off their sentence.

You see, in the federal prison system, inmates were supposed to be eligible for 54 days of good time credits a year. Keeping a clean disciplinary record is one of the only ways federal inmates can reduce their sentences, since there is no parole in the federal system.

In practice, however, they could only accrue 47 days a year, thanks to the absurdly complicated way BOP calculated the credits. (If you’re really a glutton for punishment, you can read a long summary of BOP’s good time credit formula in a 2010 Supreme Court ruling upholding it, which includes an appendix entry about the algebra equations involved.)

For a federal inmate doing 10 years of hard time, that meant losing 70 days of potential credit toward an earlier release.

The FIRST STEP included a provision to ensure that inmates can now actually receive 54 days of good time credit a year, and it required BOP to retroactively recalculate credits for current inmates and adjust their release dates accordingly. Because of a drafting error in the bill, that provision didn’t go into effect until July 19.

Lawmakers and advocacy groups who supported the FIRST STEP Act say the provision was simply a fix to clarify Congress’ original legislative intent. In other words, these inmates were getting out exactly when they should have under the spirit of the law.

“Every single office we met with during the course of the FIRST STEP Act was told about that provision,” says Jason Pye, vice president of legislative affairs at FreedomWorks, a conservative group that supported the legislation. “Virtually every communication we sent to the Hill about the FIRST STEP Act at least mentioned this provision, explained what it was, and why it was included in the bill. It was a feature of the FIRST STEP Act, and it was included to fix a misapplication of law by the Bureau of Prisons, which had calculated the 54 days of good time credit that could be earned by a prisoner to mean 47 days.”

All of the inmates Carlson is fulminating about were going to be released anyway—and sooner rather than later. Most were released from halfway houses or home confinement where they were finishing out their sentences. And they’re all still subject to three to five years of supervised release.

Naturally, Carlson’s millions of viewers were left without this information.

Does Carlson think these inmates are at a higher risk of committing new crimes because they were released a few months earlier than they would have previously been? Or is he simply outraged that they were released at all? If it’s the latter, his beef goes far beyond the modest FIRST STEP Act. More than 10,000 inmates are released from U.S. state and federal prisons every week, according to the Justice Department, for all manner of crimes. More than 95 percent of all state prisoners will eventually be released.

It’s unclear exactly what Carlson wants us to be upset about—only that he wants us to be upset.

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

“It’s Total Anarchy”: Shocking Videos Expose “Lawlessness” On NYC Streets

Mayor de Blasio should probably stop bragging about the fact that crime in his city has fallen to all-time lows.

In a series of shocking videos, NYPD officers can be seen being doused with buckets of water and pelted with projectiles as they tried to do their jobs (in one video, the officers were in the middle of making an arrest).

The stunning footage, which was first spotted online on Monday, shows the brazen young men in Harlem and Brooklyn dousing cops with water and, in one frame, an officer gets beaned in the back of the head with an empty red plastic bucket. The attacks on the officers started as they were arresting another young man, and in the video, they can be seen handcuffing the man while he was splayed out on the hood of a car.

NYPD

Sources from within the NYPD and the officers union spoke with the New York Post about the “outrage” they felt toward both the criminals who carried out the attacks and the mayor, Bill de Blasio, who was out-of-state when the attacks occurred. Senior NYPD officials and union leaders have repeatedly criticized de Blasio for going easy on criminals and undoing some of the progress that happened under Mayors Bloomberg and Giuliani, where crime rates in the city began a dramatic slide (though, in recent years, crime rates have started ticking higher again).

“Everybody’s outraged,” an NYPD source said. “It’s disgusting, embarrassing. There’s lawlessness around here now.”

Police Chief Terence Monahan called the footage reprehensible and said every New Yorker must show respect for NYPD officers.

Another officer blamed the incidents on the NYPD’s “hands-off approach to these guys” that Mayor de Blasio first advocated.

“Who does that in their right frame of mind? People who believe there’s no consequences,” the anonymous officer said. “It’s total anarchy. This is very sad.”

Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association head Pat Lynch, a longtime NYPD labor leader, called the water bucket attacks “the end result of the torrent of bad policies and anti-police rhetoric that has been streaming out of City Hall and Albany for years now.”

The PBA Twitter account tweeted one of the clips, and insisted that we are approaching “the point of no return.”

Lynch added that politicians don’t care about the dangers of being an NYPD officer.

“As police officers, we need to draw a line. In situations like this, we need to take action to protect ourselves and the public. The politicians may not care about the dangerous levels of chaos in our neighborhoods, but police officers and decent New Yorkers should not be forced to suffer.”

But de Blasio didn’t mention the videos on his Twitter.

The two videos were initially posted on separate Instagram accounts, but they first picked up traction after being shared by a Twitter account devoted to NYC emergencies.

Both videos were initially posted on separate Instagram accounts, then re-posted on a Twitter account devoted to New York City emergencies. Across all the platforms, the videos have racked up hundreds of thousands of views.

Watch parts of the videos below:

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

Crypto CEO Postpones Buffett Charity Lunch; Denies Money-Laundering, Porn, & Gambling Accusations

The Tron Foundation is pushing back the Warren Buffett Lunch and press conferences to an unspecified date, claiming it is due to medical issues, but is also facing multiple allegations of money-laundering.

image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

CoinTelegraph’s Max Boddy reports that, according to an official Twitter post, Justin Sun – who successfully procured the lunch with Buffett by winning the affiliated charity auction – is currently out of commission due to kidney stones, and associated parties have agreed to reschedule the lunch.

In June, Tron founder and CEO Justin Sun won a charity auction on eBay to have lunch with Buffett, the famously successful investor and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. Sun’s winning bid was apparently $4,567,888 – the highest bid in the event’s 20 year history.

On July 19, Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire accepted Sun’s invitation to join him at the lunch. In addition to Allaire, Litecoin creator Charlie Lee will also reportedly attend the event.

Warren Buffett has notoriously voiced some incendiary anti-cryptocurrency views. Last May, Warren said that cryptocurrencies will end badly, and called Bitcoin “probably rat poison squared.”

More recently, Warren claimed in February that Bitcoin (BTC) is a delusion, apparently because blockchain does not depend on BTC or actively produce something. Warren said: 

“You can stare at it all day, and no little Bitcoins come out or anything like that. It’s a delusion, basically.”

However, while the kidney stones are a good reason to postpone a lunch, one can’t help but wonder if there are other issues that make the lunch ‘awkward’ as CoinTelegraph’s Adrian Zmudzinksi reports that Sun denied illegal fundraising, porn transaction facilitation, gambling and money laundering accusations in a post on Chinese social media platform Weibo published on July 23.

image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

Earlier today, Chinese media 21st Century Business Herald claimed in an article that unspecified sources informed its reporters that Justin Sun is still on Chinese territory. The website also cites concerns over alleged pornography-related transactions in his Peiwo social media, fundraising and gambling.

The outlet further suggests that Sun cannot leave the country, and this is the real reason why Sun decided earlier today to postpone the Warren Buffett Lunch and press conferences to an unspecified date. The outlet rhetorically asks whether Sun will be able to meet Buffett without first resolving the aforementioned concerns.

In the aforementioned Weibo post, Justin addresses the accusations.

Sun denies involvement in illegal practices

According to his post, the illegal fundraising accusations are false since – after the Chinese government banned initial coin offerings in September 2017 – the Tron Foundation returned the funds. Sun also says that also the money laundering accusations have no basis since the Tron Foundation is located in Singapore, complies with local regulations, and does not involve fiat on or off-ramp services.

He also noted that, when it comes to Peiwo allegedly facilitating illegal porn-related transactions, the company collaborates with regulators, monitors users and tries to ensure that the content is positive. 

Sun also more broadly addressed the accusations of facilitation of illegal activities by pointing out that Tron is a decentralized internet network and that the Foundation opposes the unlawful use of the protocol. Lastly, Sun declares:

“We understand the concerns over the development of blockchain technology, and we are willing to open up and communicate to jointly promote the development of blockchain technology in China.”

Tron (TRX) price has plunged over the last 24 hours, trading at about $0.024, according to Coinbase.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Y0qsjK Tyler Durden

Joe Biden’s New Criminal Justice Platform Calls for Eliminating Harsh Policies Sponsored by Joe Biden

Former vice president and current presidential candidate Joe Biden has a new criminal justice reform plan. It aims to remedy many injustices caused by policies backed by…Joe Biden.

“Equality, equity, justice—these ideas form the American creed. We have never lived up to it and we haven’t always gotten it right, but we’ve never stopped trying,” said Biden in a video released today. “The public is ready. They’re ready. They’ve had enough.”

In the video, Biden endorses the SAFE Justice Act. That bill, first introduced in 2017, would limit the application of mandatory minimum sentences to the highest-level drug offenders, according to a summary by the criminal justice reform group FAMM.

Biden has also endorsed a list of other, more substantive reforms, including the elimination of mandatory minimums, the abolition of private prisons, the expanded use of drug courts, and the end of the death penalty. He would also eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, and he thinks states should be allowed to pursue their own cannabis legalization policies without federal interference.

That last item is more tepid than what we’ve heard from some of his opponents, several of whom have endorsed the full legalization of recreational marijuana. It would nevertheless represent a significant step toward more liberalized cannabis laws nationwide.

Indeed, reformers will no doubt find a lot to like in Biden’s criminal justice plan. (His endorsement of expanded drug courts, which have a very mixed record when it comes to keeping people out of jail, is an arguable exception.)

The most striking thing about Biden’s proposals is how much they are a rejection of the candidate’s own legacy. As former Reason criminal justice reporter Radley Balko once put it, “The martial/incarceral state has had no greater friend in Washington over the last 35 years than Joe Biden.”

When he was a senator from Delaware, Biden was one of the original co-sponsors on the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. That law imposed mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders and created the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, two policies Biden now says should be eliminated completely.

Biden was also a sponsor of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which expanded the application of the death penalty—another policy he now says should be abolished.

In this 1991 floor speech, Biden defends both policies:

Biden also supported the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act—indeed, he sometimes calls it the Biden Crime Law. That piece of legislation helped to drive mass incarceration at the state level by expanding federal funding for prison construction.

He now wants to that as well, with a $20 billion grant program encouraging states to shift their crime focus from incarceration to prevention.

Biden has not been totally devoid of self-reflection on his criminal justice record. He has described some of the harsh penalties for crack-cocaine as “a big mistake.” Even as a senator, he criticized some mandatory minimums.

Still, it’s breathtaking just how much Biden’s criminal justice platform implicitly repudiates his own record. Voters will have to decide for themselves whether this represents a genuine change of heart or a more cynical attempt to stay in tune with a party base hungry for reform.

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

Joe Biden’s New Criminal Justice Platform Calls for Eliminating Harsh Policies Sponsored by Joe Biden

Former vice president and current presidential candidate Joe Biden has a new criminal justice reform plan. It aims to remedy many injustices caused by policies backed by…Joe Biden.

“Equality, equity, justice—these ideas form the American creed. We have never lived up to it and we haven’t always gotten it right, but we’ve never stopped trying,” said Biden in a video released today. “The public is ready. They’re ready. They’ve had enough.”

In the video, Biden endorses the SAFE Justice Act. That bill, first introduced in 2017, would limit the application of mandatory minimum sentences to the highest-level drug offenders, according to a summary by the criminal justice reform group FAMM.

Biden has also endorsed a list of other, more substantive reforms, including the elimination of mandatory minimums, the abolition of private prisons, the expanded use of drug courts, and the end of the death penalty. He would also eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, and he thinks states should be allowed to pursue their own cannabis legalization policies without federal interference.

That last item is more tepid than what we’ve heard from some of his opponents, several of whom have endorsed the full legalization of recreational marijuana. It would nevertheless represent a significant step toward more liberalized cannabis laws nationwide.

Indeed, reformers will no doubt find a lot to like in Biden’s criminal justice plan. (His endorsement of expanded drug courts, which have a very mixed record when it comes to keeping people out of jail, is an arguable exception.)

The most striking thing about Biden’s proposals is how much they are a rejection of the candidate’s own legacy. As former Reason criminal justice reporter Radley Balko once put it, “The martial/incarceral state has had no greater friend in Washington over the last 35 years than Joe Biden.”

When he was a senator from Delaware, Biden was one of the original co-sponsors on the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. That law imposed mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders and created the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, two policies Biden now says should be eliminated completely.

Biden was also a sponsor of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which expanded the application of the death penalty—another policy he now says should be abolished.

In this 1991 floor speech, Biden defends both policies:

Biden also supported the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act—indeed, he sometimes calls it the Biden Crime Law. That piece of legislation helped to drive mass incarceration at the state level by expanding federal funding for prison construction.

He now wants to that as well, with a $20 billion grant program encouraging states to shift their crime focus from incarceration to prevention.

Biden has not been totally devoid of self-reflection on his criminal justice record. He has described some of the harsh penalties for crack-cocaine as “a big mistake.” Even as a senator, he criticized some mandatory minimums.

Still, it’s breathtaking just how much Biden’s criminal justice platform implicitly repudiates his own record. Voters will have to decide for themselves whether this represents a genuine change of heart or a more cynical attempt to stay in tune with a party base hungry for reform.

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