Ronald Bailey Contemplates the Inconclusive Conclusion to the Warsaw Climate Change Conference

Warsaw Logo“For the third year in a row the (member)
countries have found a new way to say absolutely nothing,” asserted
Oxfam director Winnie Byanyima, as the U.N.’s annual climate change
conference limped inconsequentially to its end on Saturday in
Warsaw. The 19th Conference of the Parties (COP-19) to
the U.N. Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC) was
supposed to set out a roadmap toward completing a global treaty
that would bind all countries to some kind of commitments to reduce
their greenhouse gas emissions after 2020 at the Paris COP-21 in
2015. No commitments were made and no clear roadmap was adopted at
the Warsaw talks. Reason Science Correspondent Ronald
Bailey looks forward to achieving similar results when the U.N.
climate change conference convenes next year in Lima, Peru.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/25/ronald-bailey-contemplates-the-inconclus
via IFTTT

Ron Paul Asks “Can Karzai Save Us?”

Submitted by Ron Paul via the Ron Paul Institute,

After a year of talks over the post-2014 US military presence in Afghanistan, the US administration announced last week that a new agreement had finally been reached. Under the deal worked out with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the US would keep thousands of troops on nine military bases for at least the next ten years.

It is clear that the Obama Administration badly wants this deal. Karzai, sensing this, even demanded that the US president send a personal letter promising that the US would respect the dignity of the Afghan people if it were allowed to remain in the country. It was strange to see the US president go to such lengths for a deal that would mean billions more US dollars to Karzai and his cronies, and a US military that would continue to prop up the regime in Kabul.
 
Just as the deal was announced by Secretary of State John Kerry and ready to sign, however, Karzai did an abrupt about-face. No signed deal until after the next presidential elections in the spring, he announced to a gathering of tribal elders, much to the further embarrassment and dismay of the US side. The US administration had demanded a signed deal by December. What may happen next is anybody’s guess. The US threatens to pull out completely if the deal is not signed by the end of this year.

Karzai should be wary of his actions. It may become unhealthy for him. The US has a bad reputation for not looking kindly on puppet dictators who demand independence from us.
 
Yet Karzai’s behavior may have the unintended benefit of saving the US government from its own worst interventionist instincts. The US desire to continue its military presence in Afghanistan – with up to 10,000 troops – is largely about keeping up the false impression that the Afghan war, the longest in US history, has not been a total, catastrophic failure. Maintaining a heavy US presence delays that realization, and with it the inevitable conclusion that so many lives have been lost and wasted in vain. It is a bitter pill that this president, who called Afghanistan “the good war,” would rather not have to swallow.
 
The administration has argued that US troops must remain in Afghanistan to continue the fight against al-Qaeda. But al-Qaeda has virtually disappeared from Afghanistan.
What remains is the Taliban and the various tribes that have been involved in a power struggle ever since the Soviets left almost a quarter of a century ago. In other words, twelve years later we are back to the starting point in Afghanistan.
 
Where has al-Qaeda gone if not in Afghanistan? They have branched out to other areas where opportunity has been provided by US intervention. Iraq had no al-Qaeda presence before the 2003 US invasion. Now al-Qaeda and its affiliates have turned Iraq into a bloodbath, where thousands are killed and wounded every month. The latest fertile ground for al-Qaeda and its allies is Syria, where they have found that US support, weapons, and intelligence is going to their side in the ongoing war to overthrow the Syrian government.
 
In fact, much of the US government’s desire for an ongoing military presence in Afghanistan has to do with keeping money flowing to the military industrial complex. Maintaining nine US military bases in Afghanistan and providing military aid and training to Afghan forces will consume billions of dollars over the next decade. The military contractors are all too willing to continue to enrich themselves at the expense of the productive sectors of the US economy.
 
Addressing Afghan tribal elders last week, Karzai is reported to have expressed disappointment with US assistance thus far: “I demand tanks from them, and they give us pickup trucks, which I can get myself from Japan… I don’t trust the U.S., and the U.S. doesn’t trust me.”  

 
Let us hope that Karzai sticks to his game with Washington. Let the Obama administration have no choice but to walk away from this twelve-year nightmare. Then we can finally just march out.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/N5hPgRI_QTM/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Ron Paul Asks "Can Karzai Save Us?"

Submitted by Ron Paul via the Ron Paul Institute,

After a year of talks over the post-2014 US military presence in Afghanistan, the US administration announced last week that a new agreement had finally been reached. Under the deal worked out with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the US would keep thousands of troops on nine military bases for at least the next ten years.

It is clear that the Obama Administration badly wants this deal. Karzai, sensing this, even demanded that the US president send a personal letter promising that the US would respect the dignity of the Afghan people if it were allowed to remain in the country. It was strange to see the US president go to such lengths for a deal that would mean billions more US dollars to Karzai and his cronies, and a US military that would continue to prop up the regime in Kabul.
 
Just as the deal was announced by Secretary of State John Kerry and ready to sign, however, Karzai did an abrupt about-face. No signed deal until after the next presidential elections in the spring, he announced to a gathering of tribal elders, much to the further embarrassment and dismay of the US side. The US administration had demanded a signed deal by December. What may happen next is anybody’s guess. The US threatens to pull out completely if the deal is not signed by the end of this year.

Karzai should be wary of his actions. It may become unhealthy for him. The US has a bad reputation for not looking kindly on puppet dictators who demand independence from us.
 
Yet Karzai’s behavior may have the unintended benefit of saving the US government from its own worst interventionist instincts. The US desire to continue its military presence in Afghanistan – with up to 10,000 troops – is largely about keeping up the false impression that the Afghan war, the longest in US history, has not been a total, catastrophic failure. Maintaining a heavy US presence delays that realization, and with it the inevitable conclusion that so many lives have been lost and wasted in vain. It is a bitter pill that this president, who called Afghanistan “the good war,” would rather not have to swallow.
 
The administration has argued that US troops must remain in Afghanistan to continue the fight against al-Qaeda. But al-Qaeda has virtually disappeared from Afghanistan.
What remains is the Taliban and the various tribes that have been involved in a power struggle ever since the Soviets left almost a quarter of a century ago. In other words, twelve years later we are back to the starting point in Afghanistan.
 
Where has al-Qaeda gone if not in Afghanistan? They have branched out to other areas where opportunity has been provided by US intervention. Iraq had no al-Qaeda presence before the 2003 US invasion. Now al-Qaeda and its affiliates have turned Iraq into a bloodbath, where thousands are killed and wounded every month. The latest fertile ground for al-Qaeda and its allies is Syria, where they have found that US support, weapons, and intelligence is going to their side in the ongoing war to overthrow the Syrian government.
 
In fact, much of the US government’s desire for an ongoing military presence in Afghanistan has to do with keeping money flowing to the military industrial complex. Maintaining nine US military bases in Afghanistan and providing military aid and training to Afghan forces will consume billions of dollars over the next decade. The military contractors are all too willing to continue to enrich themselves at the expense of the productive sectors of the US economy.
 
Addressing Afghan tribal elders last week, Karzai is reported to have expressed disappointment with US assistance thus far: “I demand tanks from them, and they give us pickup trucks, which I can get myself from Japan… I don’t trust the U.S., and the U.S. doesn’t trust me.”  

 
Let us hope that Karzai sticks to his game with Washington. Let the Obama administration have no choice but to walk away from this twelve-year nightmare. Then we can finally just march out.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/N5hPgRI_QTM/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Chart Of The Day: How China’s Stunning $15 Trillion In New Liquidity Blew Bernanke’s QE Out Of The Water

Much has been said about the Fed’s attempt to stimulate inflation (instead of just the stock market) by injecting a record $2.5 trillion in reserves into the US banking system since the collapse of Lehman (the same goes for the ECB, BOE, BOJ, etc). Even more has been said about why this money has not been able to make its way into the broader economy, and instead of forcing inflation – at least as calculated by the BLS’ CPI calculation – to rise above 2% has, by monetizing a record amount of US debt issuance, merely succeeded in pushing capital markets to unseen risk levels as every single dollar of reserves has instead ended up as assets (and excess deposits as a matched liability) on bank balance sheets.

Much less has been said that of the roughly $2 trillion increase in US bank assets, $2.5 trillion of this has come from the Fed’s reserve injections as absent the Fed, US banks have delevered by just under half a trillion dollars in the past 5 years. Because after all, all QE really is, is an attempt to inject money into a deleveraging system and to offset the resulting deflationary effects. Naturally, the Fed would be delighted if instead of banks being addicted to its zero-cost liquidity, they would instead obtain the capital in the old-fashioned way: through private loans. However, since there is essentially no risk when chasing yield and return and allocating reserves to various markets (see JPM CIO and our prior explanation on this topic), whereas there is substantial risk of loss in issuing loans to consumers in an economy that is in a depressionary state when one peels away the propaganda and the curtain of the stock market, banks will always pick the former option when deciding how to allocated the Fed’s reserves, even if merely as initial margin on marginable securities.

However, what virtually nothing has been said about, is how China stacks up to the US banking system when one looks at the growth of total Chinese bank assets since the collapse of Lehman.

The answer, shown on the chart below, is nothing short of stunning.

 

Here is just the change in the past five years:

You read that right: in the past five years the total assets on US bank books have risen by a paltry $2.1 trillion while over the same period, Chinese bank assets have exploded by an unprecedented $15.4 trillion hitting a gargantuan CNY147 trillion or an epic $24 trillion – some two and a half times the GDP of China! Putting the rate of change in perspective, while the Fed was actively pumping $85 billion per month into US banks for a total of $1 trillion each year, in just the trailing 12 months ended September 30, Chinese bank assets grew by a mind-blowing $3.6 trillion!

Here is how Diapason’s Sean Corrigan observed this epic imbalance in liquidity creation:

Total Chinese banking assets currently stand at some CNY147 trillion, around 2 ½ times GDP. As such, they have doubled in the past four years of increasingly misplaced investment and frantic real estate speculation, adding the equivalent of 140% of average GDP – or, in dollars, $12.5 trillion – to the books. For comparison, over the same period, US banks have added just less than $700 billion, 4.4% of average GDP, 18 times less than their Chinese counterparts – and this in a period when the predominant trend has been for the latter to do whatever it takes to keep commitments off their balance sheets and lurking in the ‘shadows’!

 

Indeed, the increase in Chinese bank assets during that breakneck quadrennium is equal to no less than seven-eighths of the total outstanding assets of all FDIC-insured institutions! It also compares to 30% of Eurozone bank assets.

Truly epic flow numbers, and just as unsustainable in the longer-run.

But what does this mean for the bigger picture? Well, a few things.

For a start, prepare for many more headlines like these: “Chinese buying up California housing“, “Hot Money’s Hurried Exit from China“, “Following the herd of foreign money into US real estate markets” and many more like it. Because while the world focuses and frets about the Fed’s great reflation experiment (which is set to become bigger not smaller), China has been quietly injecting nearly three times in liquidity into its own economy as the Fed and the Bank of Japan combined!

To be sure, due to China’s still firm control over the exchange of renminbi into USD, the capital flight out of China has not been as dramatic as it would be in a freely CNY-convertible world, although in recent months many stories have emerged showing that enterprising locals from the mainland have found effective ways to circumvent the PBOC’s capital controls. And all it would take is for less than 10% of China’s new credit creation to “escape” aboard from the Chinese banking system, the bulk of which is quasi nationalized and thus any distinction between prive and public loan creation is immaterial, for the liquidity effect to be as large as one entire year of QE. Needless to say, the more effectively China becomes at depositing all this newly created liquidity, the faster prices of US real estate, the US stock market, and US goods and services in general will rise (something the Fed would be delighted with).

However, while the Fed certainly welcome this breakneck credit creation in China, the reality is that the bulk of these “assets” are of increasingly lower quality and generate ever lass cash flows, something we covered recently in “Big Trouble In Massive China: “The Nation Might Face Credit Losses Of As Much As $3 Trillion.” It is also the reason why China attempted one, aborted, tapering in the summer of 2013, and why the entire third plenum was geared toward economic reform particularly focusing on the country’s unsustainable credit (and liquidity) creation machine.

The implications of the above are staggering. If the US stock, and especially bond, market nearly blew a gasket in the summer over tapering fears when just a $10-20 billion reduction in the amount of flow was being thrown about, and the Chinese interbank system almost froze when overnight repo rates exploded to 25% on even more vague speculation of a CNY1 trillion in PBOC tightening, then the world is now fully addicted to about $5 trillion in annual liquidity creation between just the US, Japan and China alone!

Throw in the ECB and BOE as many speculate will happen eventually, and it gets downright surreal.

But more importantly, as with all communicating vessels, global liquidity is now in a constant state of laminar flow – out of central banks: either unadulterated as in the US, Japan, Europe and the UK, or implicit, when Chinese government-backstopped banks create nearly $4 trillion in loans every year. If one issuer of liquidity “tapers”, others have to step in. Indeed, as we suggested a few weeks ago, any possibility of a Fed taper would likely involve incremental QE by the Bank of Japan, and vice versa.

However, the biggest workhorse behind the scenes, is neither: it is China. And if something happens to the great Chinese credit-creation dynamo, then we see no way that the rest of the world’s central banks will be able to step in with low-powered money creation, to offset the loss of China’s liquidity momentum.

Finally, when you lose out on that purchase of a home to a Chinese buyer who bid 50% over asking sight unseen, with no intentions to ever move in, you will finally know why this is happening.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/ZACrd_nbepc/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Chart Of The Day: How China's Stunning $15 Trillion In New Liquidity Blew Bernanke's QE Out Of The Water

Much has been said about the Fed’s attempt to stimulate inflation (instead of just the stock market) by injecting a record $2.5 trillion in reserves into the US banking system since the collapse of Lehman (the same goes for the ECB, BOE, BOJ, etc). Even more has been said about why this money has not been able to make its way into the broader economy, and instead of forcing inflation – at least as calculated by the BLS’ CPI calculation – to rise above 2% has, by monetizing a record amount of US debt issuance, merely succeeded in pushing capital markets to unseen risk levels as every single dollar of reserves has instead ended up as assets (and excess deposits as a matched liability) on bank balance sheets.

Much less has been said that of the roughly $2 trillion increase in US bank assets, $2.5 trillion of this has come from the Fed’s reserve injections as absent the Fed, US banks have delevered by just under half a trillion dollars in the past 5 years. Because after all, all QE really is, is an attempt to inject money into a deleveraging system and to offset the resulting deflationary effects. Naturally, the Fed would be delighted if instead of banks being addicted to its zero-cost liquidity, they would instead obtain the capital in the old-fashioned way: through private loans. However, since there is essentially no risk when chasing yield and return and allocating reserves to various markets (see JPM CIO and our prior explanation on this topic), whereas there is substantial risk of loss in issuing loans to consumers in an economy that is in a depressionary state when one peels away the propaganda and the curtain of the stock market, banks will always pick the former option when deciding how to allocated the Fed’s reserves, even if merely as initial margin on marginable securities.

However, what virtually nothing has been said about, is how China stacks up to the US banking system when one looks at the growth of total Chinese bank assets since the collapse of Lehman.

The answer, shown on the chart below, is nothing short of stunning.

 

Here is just the change in the past five years:

You read that right: in the past five years the total assets on US bank books have risen by a paltry $2.1 trillion while over the same period, Chinese bank assets have exploded by an unprecedented $15.4 trillion hitting a gargantuan CNY147 trillion or an epic $24 trillion – some two and a half times the GDP of China! Putting the rate of change in perspective, while the Fed was actively pumping $85 billion per month into US banks for a total of $1 trillion each year, in just the trailing 12 months ended September 30, Chinese bank assets grew by a mind-blowing $3.6 trillion!

Here is how Diapason’s Sean Corrigan observed this epic imbalance in liquidity creation:

Total Chinese banking assets currently stand at some CNY147 trillion, around 2 ½ times GDP. As such, they have doubled in the past four years of increasingly misplaced investment and frantic real estate speculation, adding the equivalent of 140% of average GDP – or, in dollars, $12.5 trillion – to the books. For comparison, over the same period, US banks have added just less than $700 billion, 4.4% of average GDP, 18 times less than their Chinese counterparts – and this in a period when the predominant trend has been for the latter to do whatever it takes to keep commitments off their balance sheets and lurking in the ‘shadows’!

 

Indeed, the increase in Chinese bank assets during that breakneck quadrennium is equal to no less than seven-eighths of the total outstanding assets of all FDIC-insured institutions! It also compares to 30% of Eurozone bank assets.

Truly epic flow numbers, and just as unsustainable in the longer-run.

But what does this mean for the bigger picture? Well, a few things.

For a start, prepare for many more headlines like these: “Chinese buying up California housing“, “Hot Money’s Hurried Exit from China“, “Following the herd of foreign money into US real estate markets” and many more like it. Because while the world focuses and frets about the Fed’s great reflation experiment (which is set to become bigger not smaller), China has been quietly injecting nearly three times in liquidity into its own economy as the Fed and the Bank of Japan combined!

To be sure, due to China’s still firm control over the exchange of renminbi into USD, the capital flight out of China has not been as dramatic as it would be in a freely CNY-convertible world, although in recent months many stories have emerged showing that enterprising locals from the mainland have found effective ways to circumvent the PBOC’s capital controls. And all it would take is for less than 10% of China’s new credit creation to “escape” aboard from the Chinese banking system, the bulk of which is quasi nationalized and thus any distinction between prive and public loan creation is immaterial, for the liquidity effect to be as large as one entire year of QE. Needless to say, the more effectively China becomes at depositing all this newly created liquidity, the faster prices of US real estate, the US stock market, and US goods and services in general will rise (something the Fed would be delighted with).

However, while the Fed certainly welcome this breakneck credit creation in China, the reality is that the bulk of these “assets” are of increasingly lower quality and generate ever lass cash flows, something we covered recently in “Big Trouble In Massive China: “The Nation Might Face Credit Losses Of As Much As $3 Trillion.” It is also the reason why China attempted one, aborted, tapering in the summer of 2013, and why the entire third plenum was geared toward economic reform particularly focusing on the country’s unsustainable credit (and liquidity) creation machine.

The implications of the above are staggering. If the US stock, and especially bond, market nearly blew a gasket in the summer over tapering fears when just a $10-20 billion reduction in the amount of flow was being thrown about, and the Chinese interbank system almost froze when overnight repo rates exploded to 25% on even more vague speculation of a CNY1 trillion in PBOC tightening, then the world is now fully addicted to about $5 trillion in annual liquidity creation between just the US, Japan and China alone!

Throw in the ECB and BOE as many speculate will happen eventually, and it gets downright surreal.

But more importan
tly, as with all communicating vessels, global liquidity is now in a constant state of laminar flow – out of central banks: either unadulterated as in the US, Japan, Europe and the UK, or implicit, when Chinese government-backstopped banks create nearly $4 trillion in loans every year. If one issuer of liquidity “tapers”, others have to step in. Indeed, as we suggested a few weeks ago, any possibility of a Fed taper would likely involve incremental QE by the Bank of Japan, and vice versa.

However, the biggest workhorse behind the scenes, is neither: it is China. And if something happens to the great Chinese credit-creation dynamo, then we see no way that the rest of the world’s central banks will be able to step in with low-powered money creation, to offset the loss of China’s liquidity momentum.

Finally, when you lose out on that purchase of a home to a Chinese buyer who bid 50% over asking sight unseen, with no intentions to ever move in, you will finally know why this is happening.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/ZACrd_nbepc/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Fresh From “Success” In Iran, President Obama Addresses Immigration Reform – Live Webcast

A renewed confidence in the administration must be carried forward. We can’t wait to hear how immigration reform will single-handedly fix the economy, joblessness, education, and healthcare… and if it’s not passed, the failure of all those things is due to the Republican’s unwillingness to negotiate… perhaps it is time for the Republicans to don their best Rouhani costumes?


 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/YjvokcVZrWo/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Fresh From "Success" In Iran, President Obama Addresses Immigration Reform – Live Webcast

A renewed confidence in the administration must be carried forward. We can’t wait to hear how immigration reform will single-handedly fix the economy, joblessness, education, and healthcare… and if it’s not passed, the failure of all those things is due to the Republican’s unwillingness to negotiate… perhaps it is time for the Republicans to don their best Rouhani costumes?


 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/YjvokcVZrWo/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Is the ‘Knockout Game’ a Hate Crime? Is It Even a Game?

Amrit
Marajh, the 28-year-old accused of sucker-punching Shmuel Perl, a
24-year-old Orthodox Jew, in the side of the head on Friday in the
Borough Park neigborhood of Brooklyn, has been
charged
with assault, which makes sense, and aggravated
harassment as a hate crime, which is harder to figure out. Leave
aside the question of whether a criminal should be punished extra
severely when he is motivated by bigotry. (He shouldn’t.)
According to
ABC News
, Perl said he “heard his alleged attackers daring each
other to punch him out minutes before one actually assaulted him.”
Hence the assault has been described as the latest example of “the
knockout game,” a pastime supposedly sweeping the nation in which
young assailants dare each other to knock out randomly selected
targets with a single punch. But if the victims are picked at
random, as the knockout game supposedly requires, can they also be
selected based on their ethnicity or religion? ABC does not
mention any anti-Semitic slurs or other evidence that Marajh
was looking for a Jew to attack, and neither do the accounts in

The New York Times
, the New York
Daily News
, or
The Jewish Press
. So why the hate crime charge? The
Daily News story suggests that Perl just happened to
be walking down the street at the wrong moment:

Amrit Marajh, 28, had just left a bar on McDonald Ave. on Friday
with four friends and was talking about boxing when the knockout
game came up, police sources said. 

“You can’t do that,” one member of the group said as they came
upon Shmuel Perl, 24, according to a source.

Marajh allegedly said, “Yes I can, I’ll do it to this guy right
now!” before punching Perl in the face, leaving him bruised.

Marajh’s lawyer, by contrast, told the Daily News “this
had nothing to do with the knockout game.” Also in dispute: whether
the knockout game is actually a thing. “Police officials in several
cities where such attacks have been reported said that the ‘game’
amounted to little more than an urban myth,” the
Times reports,
“and that the attacks in question might be nothing more than the
sort of random assaults that have always occurred.” For
example:

Much news coverage of reported knockout
attacks includes 2012 footage from a surveillance camera in
Pittsburgh of James Addlespurger, a high school teacher who
was 50, being swiftly struck to the ground by a young man
walking down an alleyway with some friends. Yet the Pittsburgh
police said the attacker insisted the assault was not part of any
organized “game.”

“This was just a random act of violence,” Police Commander Eric
Holmes said in a televised interview last year. “He stated that he
was just having a bad day that day.” The assailant saw Mr.
Addlespurger, the commander said, “and decided this was a course of
action he was going to take.”

Once such crimes are relabeled, of course, young thugs who are
inclined to attack people for no particular reason may start using
the new terminology, thereby retroactively validating it. If Marajh
and his friends really were talking about “the knockout game,” they
were probably discussing what they’d heard from news outlets hyping
this supposedly new trend.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/25/is-the-knockout-game-a-hate-crime-is-it
via IFTTT

Is the 'Knockout Game' a Hate Crime? Is It Even a Game?

Amrit
Marajh, the 28-year-old accused of sucker-punching Shmuel Perl, a
24-year-old Orthodox Jew, in the side of the head on Friday in the
Borough Park neigborhood of Brooklyn, has been
charged
with assault, which makes sense, and aggravated
harassment as a hate crime, which is harder to figure out. Leave
aside the question of whether a criminal should be punished extra
severely when he is motivated by bigotry. (He shouldn’t.)
According to
ABC News
, Perl said he “heard his alleged attackers daring each
other to punch him out minutes before one actually assaulted him.”
Hence the assault has been described as the latest example of “the
knockout game,” a pastime supposedly sweeping the nation in which
young assailants dare each other to knock out randomly selected
targets with a single punch. But if the victims are picked at
random, as the knockout game supposedly requires, can they also be
selected based on their ethnicity or religion? ABC does not
mention any anti-Semitic slurs or other evidence that Marajh
was looking for a Jew to attack, and neither do the accounts in

The New York Times
, the New York
Daily News
, or
The Jewish Press
. So why the hate crime charge? The
Daily News story suggests that Perl just happened to
be walking down the street at the wrong moment:

Amrit Marajh, 28, had just left a bar on McDonald Ave. on Friday
with four friends and was talking about boxing when the knockout
game came up, police sources said. 

“You can’t do that,” one member of the group said as they came
upon Shmuel Perl, 24, according to a source.

Marajh allegedly said, “Yes I can, I’ll do it to this guy right
now!” before punching Perl in the face, leaving him bruised.

Marajh’s lawyer, by contrast, told the Daily News “this
had nothing to do with the knockout game.” Also in dispute: whether
the knockout game is actually a thing. “Police officials in several
cities where such attacks have been reported said that the ‘game’
amounted to little more than an urban myth,” the
Times reports,
“and that the attacks in question might be nothing more than the
sort of random assaults that have always occurred.” For
example:

Much news coverage of reported knockout
attacks includes 2012 footage from a surveillance camera in
Pittsburgh of James Addlespurger, a high school teacher who
was 50, being swiftly struck to the ground by a young man
walking down an alleyway with some friends. Yet the Pittsburgh
police said the attacker insisted the assault was not part of any
organized “game.”

“This was just a random act of violence,” Police Commander Eric
Holmes said in a televised interview last year. “He stated that he
was just having a bad day that day.” The assailant saw Mr.
Addlespurger, the commander said, “and decided this was a course of
action he was going to take.”

Once such crimes are relabeled, of course, young thugs who are
inclined to attack people for no particular reason may start using
the new terminology, thereby retroactively validating it. If Marajh
and his friends really were talking about “the knockout game,” they
were probably discussing what they’d heard from news outlets hyping
this supposedly new trend.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/25/is-the-knockout-game-a-hate-crime-is-it
via IFTTT

Iron Chef Talks Food, Freedom, and the Future of American Cuisine

“What we’ve witnessed in the past 25 or 30 years is just
incredible,” says Iron Chef Geoffrey
Zakarian
 about the culinary revolution in America. “We’ve
birthed 30,000 or 40,000 restaurants. I used to go to Europe every
year to get experience [and ideas]. I don’t go to Europe anymore. I
go to Oregon, I go to Washington. I go to Louisiana, I go to Little
Rock. I go to Austin. I travel New York City. I don’t go to Europe
anymore.”

In a wide-ranging interview with Reason’s Nick Gillespie held at
The Lambs Club on November 5, the night before the
annual Reason Media
Awards
, Zakarian talks about why America’s cuisine has become a
hotbed of innovation and experimentation, how tough it is to make
it in the restaurant business under the best of circumstances, and
how food nannies are preventing even-better cuisine. “I can’t use
[raw milk] cheese without running afoul of the health inspectors,”
he says.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/25/iron-chef-talks-food-freedom-and-the-fut
via IFTTT