Deputy Scot Peterson (of Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS Fame) Being Prosecuted for, Essentially, Cowardice in Battle

You can see the arrest warrant, which lays out the government’s theory.  Because Peterson “was assigned the duty and responsibility of protecting [the high school] and its occupants,” the theory goes, he was obligated “to promptly address the active shooter” (rather than “retreating to a position of increased personal safety”). In particular, the arrest warrant alleges, he was criminally culpable in “refusing to seek out, confront, or engage the shooter.” (There’s also a separate perjury charge, but I’ll set that aside here.

1. Now generally speaking, it’s not a crime to decline to rescue or protect people in peril. That’s true even when one could have rescued them with no risk or real cost to oneself.

2. It is a crime to fail to rescue or protect people when you have a special relationship with them, whether that comes from status (spouse, parent) or contract (lifeguard, doctor). But even when you do have such a duty, you aren’t obligated to seriously risk death or serious injury; for instance, to quote the California jury instruction applicable when a parent is prosecuted for failing to protect a child (usually, when a mother is prosecuted for failing to stop her husband’s or boyfriend’s abuse of her child),

A parent has a legal duty to take every step reasonably possible under the then existing circumstances to protect [his] [or] [her] child from harm including physical attack. The parent however need not risk death or great bodily harm in doing so ….

My quick research has revealed precedents supporting this in Alabama, California, Michigan, Montana, and North Carolina, and no precedents imposing a more categorical protect-even-at-risk-of-death duty. Likewise, the few states that purport to impose a more general duty to help even strangers generally limit that duty to safe rescues.

3. Peterson, though, is being prosecuted for failing to confront an armed murderer, a confrontation that certainly would “risk death or great bodily harm” to Peterson. The question in this case, I think, is whether the legal duty is more stringent for police officers, firefighters, armed security guards, and the like than it is for others (like parents) who owe such a duty.

If the answer is “yes,” I take it, the rationale would be that a duty to risk one’s life is part of the job, and that this duty is enforceable through the threat of criminal punishment and not just the threat of being fired. (Plus if you aren’t willing to run the risk, you should leave the job to someone who is willing.) If the answer is “no,” the rationale might be the same used by a court discussing the parent’s duty:

[W]e believe that to require a parent as a matter of law to take affirmative action to prevent harm to his or her child or be held criminally liable imposes a reasonable duty upon the parent. Further, we believe this duty is and has always been inherent in the duty of parents to provide for the safety and welfare of their children, which duty has long been recognized by the common law and by statute. This is not to say that parents have the legal duty to place themselves in danger of death or great bodily harm in coming to the aid of their children. To require such, would require every parent to exhibit courage and heroism which, although commendable in the extreme, cannot realistically be expected or required of all people.

But I don’t know of any caselaw on the limits of the duty owed by police officers, firefighters, guards, and the like; indeed, I couldn’t find any cases at all in which they were prosecuted for failing to confront criminals (of any degree of dangerousness). If any of you know of such cases, please do pass them along.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2wzZAHn
via IFTTT

D.C. Sex Workers Want Decriminalization—and City Council Members Agree

There was nothing novel about the demands that sex workers and activists voiced from the steps of D.C.’s city hall on Monday: They want an end to the stigma, the arrests, and the violence endured by people who sell sex. What’s unusual is that they were joined by government officials who agree.

District of Columbia Councilmember-at-Large David Grosso has introduced legislation to end criminal penalties for paid sex between consenting adults. “It is long past time for D.C. to reconsider the framework in which we handle commercial sex and move from one of criminalization to a new approach that focuses on human rights, health, and safety,” Grosso said yesterday.

Grosso’s “Community Safety & Health Amendment Act of 2019” already has four co-sponsors, including Councilmember Robert White, who joined Grosso at Monday’s press conference announcing the new legislation, and Councilmembers Anita Bonds, Brianne Nadeau, and Charles Allen, the last of whom chairs the Council’s judiciary committee. It was drafted with the help of a coalition that includes D.C. sex workers, community health advocates, LGBTQ folks, feminists, racial justice advocates, and religious organizations.

“We have control over our bodies, we know what we want to do with our bodies, and we don’t need government interference,” said Nnennaya Amuchie of the group BYP100. “We’re here today because we know that the criminalization of sex work is one of the main sites of violence [against] black women and girls and gender non-conforming folks. It’s one of the main sites of police violence, because criminalizing sex work means that police officers have a legal right to go undercover and extort sex.”

Transgender activist and artist Laya Monarez said the city needs “to focus on stopping trafficking and violent pimps.” Decriminalizing prostitution between consenting adults helps with that by freeing up police time and resources and allowing sex workers to report violence against them and others in their communities without fear of being arrested.

As supportive speeches continued, two men holding a giant “Trump 2020” sign walked by with a few disruptive shouts. They stopped and lingered on the edge of the crowd, then continued on a few steps before something drew them back. They ended up sticking around and listening quietly for the rest of the press conference.

Across the street, two activists climbed tall telephone poles—for which they would later be arrested—to unfurl a banner about sex worker rights.

From the steps of the city building, Monarez stressed that “there are many different kinds of sex workers, but the passage of this bill will help marginalized communities like trans women of color the most.”

Specifically, the bill would repeal the section of the D.C. Code that prohibits “engaging in prostitution or soliciting for prostitution,” as well as sections that set out vehicle impoundment and asset forfeiture penalties for the same; the bill would also repeal a 5-year criminal penalty for “keeping a bawdy or disorderly house,” and it would repeal a section making it illegal to “establish, continue, maintain, use, own, occupy, or release any building, erection, or place used for the purpose of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution.”

Grosso’s measure would also amend criminal-code sections concerning “pandering” and “procuring”—i.e., receiving “any money or other valuable thing for or on account of arranging for or causing any individual to engage in prostitution or a sexual act or contact.” The new measure would add language that excludes from this prohibition any person arranging for prostitution “involving herself or himself” and anyone pandering or procuring for consenting adults, so long as “no force, fraud, coercion,” minors, or violations of D.C. human trafficking law are involved.

A task force would be established to study “the positive and negative effects” and “any unintended consequences” of the changes.

“This is not something that we just took out of nowhere,” Grosso said on Monday. “This is a policy that’s been in place in New Zealand for a long time. This has also been supported by Amnesty International, by Human Rights Watch, by the World Health Organization.”

On Tuesday morning, Grosso officially presented the decriminalization bill to the full D.C. Council. The District now joins a growing number of city and states where lawmakers are starting to embrace the idea of treating sex work like work.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2XxbYE4
via IFTTT

CNN, Maddow Ratings In Absolute Freefall After Russia Narrative Collapses

Ratings for the anti-Trump media have taken an absolute nosedive ever since the Mueller report dispelled their multi-year narrative that President Trump is a Kremlin agent. 

According to Breitbart‘s John Nolte, CNN’s primetime ratings suffered a 16% collapse in May – luring just 761,000 members of the resistance and captive airport audiences alike. Overall, the network’s total day viewers dropped to just 559,000. 

As Nolte points out, “Fox News earned three times as many primetime viewers (2.34 million) and more than twice as many total day viewers (1.34 million). What’s more, when compared to this same month last year, Fox lost none of its primetime viewers and only four percent of its total day viewers.” 

Do you have any idea just how low 761,000 primetime viewers is…?

How does a nationally known brand like CNN, a brand that is decades old, only manage to attract 761,000 viewers throughout a gonzo news month in a country of over 300 million?

But his is just how far over the cliff CNN has gone… CNN has lost almost all of its viewers, all of its moral authority, and every bit of trust it once had. Over the past six years, as soon as Jeff Zucker took over, CNN got every major national  story exactly wrong, including…

  • Hispanic George Zimmerman: The White Racist Killer
  • Hands Up, Don’t Shoot
  • Trump Can’t Win
  • Brett Kavanaugh: Serial Rapist
  • The KKKids from KKKovington High School
  • Trump Colluded with Russia

And in every one of those cases, CNN got it deliberately wrong because CNN is nothing less than a hysterical propaganda outlet, a fire hose of hate, violence, and lies… –Breitbart

In a separate Tuesday article, Nolte notes that MSNBC’s top conspiracy theorist Rachel Maddow has lost 500,000 viewers who realized life is too short for her bullshit. 

During the first quarter of 2019, prior to the release of the Mueller Report (which debunked the media’s Russia Collusion Hoax and proved Trump did not obstruct justice), Maddow averaged 3.1 million nightly viewers. Last month, after the release of the Mueller Report (which debunked the media’s Russia Collusion Hoax and proved Trump did not obstruct justice), she averaged only 2.6 million viewers. –Breitbart

In other words, networks which bet the farm on the Mueller report finding collusion have lost all credibility and are now suffering financially. Those such as Fox News‘s Sean Hannity – who has consistently been right about the Russia hoax, are experiencing a surge in viewership. 

And as Nolte concludes, “Maddow is damaged goods, damaged beyond repair, a fool and a liar exposed beyond redemption.” 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2WtXqIV Tyler Durden

D.C. Sex Workers Want Decriminalization—and City Council Members Agree

There was nothing novel about the demands that sex workers and activists voiced from the steps of D.C.’s city hall on Monday: They want an end to the stigma, the arrests, and the violence endured by people who sell sex. What’s unusual is that they were joined by government officials who agree.

District of Columbia Councilmember-at-Large David Grosso has introduced legislation to end criminal penalties for paid sex between consenting adults. “It is long past time for D.C. to reconsider the framework in which we handle commercial sex and move from one of criminalization to a new approach that focuses on human rights, health, and safety,” Grosso said yesterday.

Grosso’s “Community Safety & Health Amendment Act of 2019” already has four co-sponsors, including Councilmember Robert White, who joined Grosso at Monday’s press conference announcing the new legislation, and Councilmembers Anita Bonds, Brianne Nadeau, and Charles Allen, the last of whom chairs the Council’s judiciary committee. It was drafted with the help of a coalition that includes D.C. sex workers, community health advocates, LGBTQ folks, feminists, racial justice advocates, and religious organizations.

“We have control over our bodies, we know what we want to do with our bodies, and we don’t need government interference,” said Nnennaya Amuchie of the group BYP100. “We’re here today because we know that the criminalization of sex work is one of the main sites of violence [against] black women and girls and gender non-conforming folks. It’s one of the main sites of police violence, because criminalizing sex work means that police officers have a legal right to go undercover and extort sex.”

Transgender activist and artist Laya Monarez said the city needs “to focus on stopping trafficking and violent pimps.” Decriminalizing prostitution between consenting adults helps with that by freeing up police time and resources and allowing sex workers to report violence against them and others in their communities without fear of being arrested.

As supportive speeches continued, two men holding a giant “Trump 2020” sign walked by with a few disruptive shouts. They stopped and lingered on the edge of the crowd, then continued on a few steps before something drew them back. They ended up sticking around and listening quietly for the rest of the press conference.

Across the street, two activists climbed tall telephone poles—for which they would later be arrested—to unfurl a banner about sex worker rights.

From the steps of the city building, Monarez stressed that “there are many different kinds of sex workers, but the passage of this bill will help marginalized communities like trans women of color the most.”

Specifically, the bill would repeal the section of the D.C. Code that prohibits “engaging in prostitution or soliciting for prostitution,” as well as sections that set out vehicle impoundment and asset forfeiture penalties for the same; the bill would also repeal a 5-year criminal penalty for “keeping a bawdy or disorderly house,” and it would repeal a section making it illegal to “establish, continue, maintain, use, own, occupy, or release any building, erection, or place used for the purpose of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution.”

Grosso’s measure would also amend criminal-code sections concerning “pandering” and “procuring”—i.e., receiving “any money or other valuable thing for or on account of arranging for or causing any individual to engage in prostitution or a sexual act or contact.” The new measure would add language that excludes from this prohibition any person arranging for prostitution “involving herself or himself” and anyone pandering or procuring for consenting adults, so long as “no force, fraud, coercion,” minors, or violations of D.C. human trafficking law are involved.

A task force would be established to study “the positive and negative effects” and “any unintended consequences” of the changes.

“This is not something that we just took out of nowhere,” Grosso said on Monday. “This is a policy that’s been in place in New Zealand for a long time. This has also been supported by Amnesty International, by Human Rights Watch, by the World Health Organization.”

On Tuesday morning, Grosso officially presented the decriminalization bill to the full D.C. Council. The District now joins a growing number of city and states where lawmakers are starting to embrace the idea of treating sex work like work.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2XxbYE4
via IFTTT

Google Parses Your Gmail For Financial Transactions

Submitted by Mark Jeftovic of EasyDNS

Recently I came across this story  by Todd Haselton that describes how the author located an obscure “purchases” page in his Google account settings and there found a methodical list of his online purchasing history, from third-party outside vendors, going back to 2o12.

The upshot of the story was that:

  • Google saves years of information on purchases you’ve made, even outside Google, and pulls this information from Gmail.
  • It’s complicated to delete this private information, and options to turn it off are hidden in privacy settings.
  • Google says it doesn’t use this information to sell you ads.

Naturally, I flagged this story for the next edition of our #AxisOfEasy newsletter.  Haselton reports that it isn’t easy to locate and delete this information, nor is there a straight-forward path to find it in your privacy settings to disable this behaviour.

This can’t be true (can it?)

The more I thought about this the more I thought “this can’t be true”. I apologize for doubting Haselton, but I thought he had to have it wrong, that maybe he had a stored credit card in his browser that he had forgotten or something, because the ramifications if true, are dire.

First, it means that in order to isolate and parse purchases, Google must then be scanning every email, otherwise, how would they know what’s a purchase and what isn’t?

Further, if they were scanning every email for purchases, what else where they scanning for? Either now, or in the future? The important mechanism, the infrastructure and methodology to scan and parse every inbound email is clearly in place and operational now, adding additional criterion is just a matter of tweaking the parameters.

Then, there is the matter that Google is doing this without informing their users. We can probably wager that there is buried down the rabbit hole of the ToS some clause that alludes to the possibility that Google reserves the right from time to time (including all the time) to do something or another with your email that may or may not involve machine reading it and dissecting it for your behavioural patterns; none of us have ever read it.

More importantly, it didn’t require an explicit opt-in to fire it up.

[ As a belated aside – everybody in tech already knew that the point of Gmail was it was free, and they would scan the contents to target ads. At some point I think they may have announced that they stopped doing that, I can’t remember. But the vast majority of normies (defined as people who don’t dream in XML), don’t realize this, or haven’t given it much thought. However this, parsing out financial transaction data specifically, takes it to a new level.]

I’ve personally verified this is happening

As I said, I initially thought that Haselton had perhaps stored credit cards in his Chrome browser and his purchase history was being populated from that. I still couldn’t believe that Google was in essence reading your email and cataloging your purchases on it’s own.

My Google purchases page existed, but was empty. To test it, I configured my gmail account (which I barely use, for anything other than Google news alerts) to receive any email from my Amazon account.  None of my web browsers have any credit cards stored. Then I went and picked up a new audiobook.

Sure enough…within seconds, my heretofore empty purchases page, suddenly had an entry:

Hovering over the “info” icon anticipates the question, how did this get here?

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2JWogSW Tyler Durden

Bloomberg Rival Refinitiv Censors Reuters Story About Censorship Of Tiananmen Square Anniversary Coverage

Yesterday, we reported that Refinitiv, the financial data provider formed late last year after Blackstone bought 55% of Reuters’ Financial and Risk units, kowtowed to Beijing by censoring all Reuters stories about the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre appearing on its Eikon terminal. In a statement to Reuters, Refinitiv said the decision was made to comply with “regulatory obligations” in the Chinese market, which it must do if it wants to retain its license to operate there.

Tank

In an absurd twist, users of the Eikon terminal reported on Tuesday (the 30th anniversary of the massacre, which is known as the ‘June 4th incident’ in China) that the Reuters story about Refinitiv’s censorship had also been censored.

In an internal memo, Reuters President Michael Friedenberg and Editor-in-Chief Steve Adler said they had expressed concerns to Refinitiv, and had urged staff to “continue reporting as you always would: to pursue the truth, without fear or favor.” However, the newswire service doesn’t have very much leverage to force Refinitiv to change its policy: Refinitiv pays Reuters $325 million a year for its news content, making it Reuters’ single largest customer.

Reuters has been blocked in China since 2015 along with the websites of other major US digital media outlets and platforms, such as Google, Twitter and Facebook. But the censorship of the Tiananmen stories on the terminal applied to Refinitiv terminals everywhere, not just on the mainland.

To be sure, Refinitiv isn’t alone: Twitter last week banned hundreds, and by some accounts thousands, of Chinese dissidents from the platform three days before the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

But the incident prompted snickers from several Twitter wits.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2WdpL0L Tyler Durden

Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren Unveil Dueling Trillion-Dollar Climate Policies

It’s a big day for climate policy in the Democratic primary, as both Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and former Vice President Joe Biden have released major new initiatives to combat climate change and transition the U.S. to a bright, new clean-energy future.

“Science tells us that how we act, or fail to act, in the next 12 years will determine the very livability of our planet,” Biden tweeted today. “As president, I will use every authority available to me to drive progress.”

Warren was no less sweeping in her rhetoric, saying that “with bold investments, we can fight climate change, achieve the ambitious targets of the Green New Deal, and create more than a million good jobs here at home.”

Both plans call for spending trillions of dollars on green technologies in order to decarbonize industry and transition the U.S. to a net-zero emissions economy. Yet there’s quite a bit of daylight between the two candidates’ proposals.

Biden’s Clean Energy Revolution is a more haphazard plan that does its best to squeeze a multitude of progressive hobby horses into a single proposal. It calls for spending $1.7 trillion over 10 years (which he says will kickstart a further $3.3 trillion in state, local, and private investment) to transition the country to net-zero emissions by 2050.

To do this, Biden would invest $400 billion in researching and developing clean energy technologies, build out a high-speed rail network, install 500,000 electric car chargers across the country, and rehab infrastructure and buildings to be more emissions-friendly and climate resilient.

On the regulatory side, Biden would impose new methane pollution limits, strict energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, and fuel economy standards “aimed at ensuring 100 [percent] of new sales for light- and medium-duty vehicles will be electrified.”

His plan also calls for rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement—which President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of—and stepping up federal prosecutions of polluting corporations. Biden’s plan also calls for limiting suburban sprawl and exploring greater use of nuclear power.

Warren’s Green Manufacturing Plan, by contrast, is much more focused. In it, she calls for spending $2 trillion over 10 years on three major new policies. The first is a “Green Apollo Program,” which would, as with Biden’s plan, see the U.S. government spend $400 billion on “clean energy research and development.”

Warren also calls for a Green Industrial Mobilization drive, which would see the federal government spend some $1.5 trillion on new clean energy products to be used by federal, state, and local governments, or resold abroad. Government purchases of these clean energy products would be limited to those made in America by companies that pay a minimum $15 per hour wage, guarantee 12 weeks of paid parental and medical leave, and allow their employees to exercise collective bargaining rights. Lest you think this will drive up the costs of procuring new green technologies, Warren’s plan calls for “tight cost controls” on everything the government buys.

To round out her climate policy, Warren calls for a Green Marshall Plan which would spend $100 billion subsidizing the export of all these new U.S.-manufactured green technologies to foreign polluters as a way of helping them clean up their act. A new federal office would be established to help negotiate these deals with foreign governments.

In addition to being more focused than Biden’s plan, Warren’s is also more nationalistic and mercantilist, given her plan’s explicit goal of boosting both domestic manufacturing and foreign exports. The senator has presented it as one part of her new “Plan for Economic Patriotism.”

Both plans reveal a near limitless belief in the ability of government—with enough spending and enough regulation—to totally transform the U.S. economy. That should make all Americans incredibly wary.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2MppDf4
via IFTTT

Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren Unveil Dueling Trillion-Dollar Climate Policies

It’s a big day for climate policy in the Democratic primary, as both Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and former Vice President Joe Biden have released major new initiatives to combat climate change and transition the U.S. to a bright, new clean-energy future.

“Science tells us that how we act, or fail to act, in the next 12 years will determine the very livability of our planet,” Biden tweeted today. “As president, I will use every authority available to me to drive progress.”

Warren was no less sweeping in her rhetoric, saying that “with bold investments, we can fight climate change, achieve the ambitious targets of the Green New Deal, and create more than a million good jobs here at home.”

Both plans call for spending trillions of dollars on green technologies in order to decarbonize industry and transition the U.S. to a net-zero emissions economy. Yet there’s quite a bit of daylight between the two candidates’ proposals.

Biden’s Clean Energy Revolution is a more haphazard plan that does its best to squeeze a multitude of progressive hobby horses into a single proposal. It calls for spending $1.7 trillion over 10 years (which he says will kickstart a further $3.3 trillion in state, local, and private investment) to transition the country to net-zero emissions by 2050.

To do this, Biden would invest $400 billion in researching and developing clean energy technologies, build out a high-speed rail network, install 500,000 electric car chargers across the country, and rehab infrastructure and buildings to be more emissions-friendly and climate resilient.

On the regulatory side, Biden would impose new methane pollution limits, strict energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, and fuel economy standards “aimed at ensuring 100 [percent] of new sales for light- and medium-duty vehicles will be electrified.”

His plan also calls for rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement—which President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of—and stepping up federal prosecutions of polluting corporations. Biden’s plan also calls for limiting suburban sprawl and exploring greater use of nuclear power.

Warren’s Green Manufacturing Plan, by contrast, is much more focused. In it, she calls for spending $2 trillion over 10 years on three major new policies. The first is a “Green Apollo Program,” which would, as with Biden’s plan, see the U.S. government spend $400 billion on “clean energy research and development.”

Warren also calls for a Green Industrial Mobilization drive, which would see the federal government spend some $1.5 trillion on new clean energy products to be used by federal, state, and local governments, or resold abroad. Government purchases of these clean energy products would be limited to those made in America by companies that pay a minimum $15 per hour wage, guarantee 12 weeks of paid parental and medical leave, and allow their employees to exercise collective bargaining rights. Lest you think this will drive up the costs of procuring new green technologies, Warren’s plan calls for “tight cost controls” on everything the government buys.

To round out her climate policy, Warren calls for a Green Marshall Plan which would spend $100 billion subsidizing the export of all these new U.S.-manufactured green technologies to foreign polluters as a way of helping them clean up their act. A new federal office would be established to help negotiate these deals with foreign governments.

In addition to being more focused than Biden’s plan, Warren’s is also more nationalistic and mercantilist, given her plan’s explicit goal of boosting both domestic manufacturing and foreign exports. The senator has presented it as one part of her new “Plan for Economic Patriotism.”

Both plans reveal a near limitless belief in the ability of government—with enough spending and enough regulation—to totally transform the U.S. economy. That should make all Americans incredibly wary.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2MppDf4
via IFTTT

Dodgeball Is “An Unethical Tool Of Oppression”, Say Academics

Authored by Sofia Carbone via HumanEvents.com,

The left’s most recent addition to the list of things they find oppressive is: dodgeball.

Yes, the game you played in gym class when you were twelve.

The National Post released an article earlier today by Joseph Brean explaining how “dodgeball isn’t just an unethical tool, it’s a form of oppression.”

This week, three education theorists will present the premise that dodgeball is “miseducative” and teaches athletic privilege to the Canadian Society for the Study of Education at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences in Vancouver, Canada.

The presentation argues that physical education is supposed to empower children via ‘democratic practices’, and dodgeball’s underlying message of athletic hierarchy and reinforcement of oppression undermines this.

Although dodgeball is the focus of the left for the time being, Brean points out fault in many childhood games, proving them to be similarly problematic. He describes capture the flag as ‘militaristic’ and says tag “singles out one poor participant, often the slowest child, as the dehumanized ‘It,’ who runs vainly in pursuit of the quicker ones.”

The idea that a games used to get children to exercise, work as a team, have fun, and discover their athletic abilities is secretly training them to oppress those they deem weak is a stretch at the very least.

Dodgeball, along with many other physical and intellectual games, is centered around the construction of a balanced team that is capable to handle the task at hand: winning. It’s not about participation trophies. The American football team the New England Patriots wouldn’t choose a lifelong accountant who has dreamed of being on a professional sports team over a football player that has trained since grade school, yet this does not make the Patriots ‘oppressive’ – it makes them winners.

According to Brean’s article, the educational theorists say that dodgeball impairs the creation of “decent citizens of a liberal democracy.” If a liberal democracy is threatened by juveniles playing dodgeball, maybe a reevaluation of the democracy is in order rather than one of a schoolyard game.

Brean references the comedy movie Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story with Vince Vaughn and Ben Stiller in an attempt to highlight how dodgeball is a danger to the development of children’s character:

“Sport can teach ethical behaviour and give students the chance to practise it and, in this sense, it is important training for citizens in a democracy. This goal is impeded when cruelty, oppression and violence are built into the rules. Games become more like cruel initiation ceremonies into a brutal world in which might makes right. As O’Houlihan puts it, before he starts throwing wrenches at his players as a form of training: “If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.””

To emphasize the ‘athletic privilege’ the game supposedly teaches kids, Brean once again quotes the comedy film:

“Dodgeball is a sport of violence, exclusion and degradation. So, when you’re picking players in gym class, remember to pick the bigger, stronger kids for your team. That way, you can all gang up on the weaker ones.”

It may be time to reconsider your premise when you’re citing a 2004 comedy film to back your thesis.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2IhEAe3 Tyler Durden

US Auto Sales Pause Plunge In May, Helped By Bloated Inventories And Fleet Sales

After auto sales crashed 6.1% in April, marking the industry’s worst slide in 8 years, the bleeding appears to have momentarily stopped. May’s U.S. auto sales data came in higher, year over year, for the first time in 2019. Fiat, Toyota and Nissan posted sales gains for the month, while Ford sales reportedly fell 4.1%, extending the automaker’s streak of declines to four months. Toyota posted a 3.2% sales increase, boosted by demand for its Camry sedan. Some of the other strongest models in May were also sedans:

Ford’s fall was the result of its F-series posting lower sales for a fourth straight month. The Ford brand fell 4% while the Lincoln brand fell 5.8%. Meanwhile, May was the best month in nearly two years for the Ford Fusion and in almost four years for the Fiesta, marking the possible end of the SUV divergence from sedans that started several years ago. 

Source: Blinders Off Research

Source: Blinders Off Research

SUVs were one of the sole remaining bright spots in the rapidly slowing U.S. auto market. Despite the fact that they were crippling traditional sedan sales, Americans’ transition to SUVs was seen as a silver lining, prompting many automakers to make infrastructure changes to account for the change in demand.

Fiat saw a 2.1% increase in sales, as demand for their pickup trucks remained strong and the Dodge Ram saw a 33% gain over May 2018. Fiat also reportedly “leaned heavily” on channel stuffing fleet sales, which increased 46% in May versus last year. Fleet sales were 31% of all sales for FCA last month, according to the Detroit News.

Zo Rahim, an economist for Cox Automotive said: “To maintain sales, auto companies are pulling the fleet lever, as FCA clearly did in May.” 

Another catalyst was that interest rates for new vehicles came in at 6.1% in May, compared to 6.27% in April, according to data provided by Edmunds. But at the same time, monthly payments reached record highs — $559 a month.

BMW kept its dominance over Mercedes in tact, catalyzed by the X7 and its new lineup of SUVs. Sales of BMW’s namesake brand were up 1.7% to 27,109 units, beating Mercedes’ gain of 0.4% to 27,080. BMW has delivered more than 2,100 X7s in each of the first three months it’s been in U.S. showrooms, according to Bloomberg. 

Nissan saw its sales eek out a gain of 0.1%, driven by SUV and truck demand, while Honda reported a 4.9% fall in sales for May as demand for their sedans fell.  May’s data comes amidst a worldwide global automotive recession that has crippled vehicle production across the world.

Year to date, through April, U.S. new vehicle sales were down 3%, setting a grim tone for the remainder of the coming year. And the downturn threats continue despite May’s report, due to President Trump’s recent threats of imposing new tariffs on all Mexican imports. Put simply, this means more volatility could be on its way. 

Charlie Chesbrough, an economist for Cox Automotive said: “Volatility is a new ingredient in the market, and it’s likely to be like this for the rest of the year. It’s hard to know if May’s results are an indicator of a robust summer ahead or more volatility ultimately leading into a downward trend for the year.”

We noted just days ago that Bank of America believes that the auto cycle “has peaked”. 

The note showed that total auto sales have appeared to peak…

…while at the same time output remained high…

Days before that, we noted JD Power’s pessimistic look at bloated inventory and stuffed channels in the automotive industry.

US auto sales in April tumbled by 6.1% – the biggest monthly drop since May 2011 – to just 16.4 million units, the lowest since October 2014. Aside for an incentive-boost driven rebound in March and May’s gain, every month of 2019 had seen a decline in the number of annualized auto sales.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2IjuDfY Tyler Durden