Are car seat mandates responsible for reducing the number of children born each year? A provocative new study claims that the steady upward creep in the ages at which states mandate children use a car seat is prompting women to either postpone or opt against having a third child.
The paper, by Jordan Nickerson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and David Solomon of Boston College, argues that most vehicles cannot fit a third car seat in the back row, necessitating the purchase of a larger car if a parent is going to cart around three children at once. That added cost, they argue, disincentivizes some women from having a third child.
“We find that when a woman has two children below the car seat age, her chances of giving birth that year decline by 0.73 percentage points,” write Nickerson and Solomon, relying on U.S. Census Bureau data on the age and number of children for each woman surveyed. “This represents a large decline, as the probability of giving birth for a woman age 18-35 with two children already is 9.36 [percent] in our sample.”
To tease out the impact of car seat laws, the paper controls for a number of variables, including urban density, household income, and whether a male parent is present. As states increase the car seat age, the more pronounced this effect becomes, as it’s more likely that three children will simultaneously be required to be in a car seat.
The nationwide average minimum age at which a child can ride in a car with just a seat belt rose from just under three years old in the mid-1980s to four years old by 2000. Today, the nationwide average is a few months under eight years old. This steady increase, the paper suggests, could help explain why fertility rates have declined in the past decade despite a long-running economic recovery that would normally encourage more childbirths.
These laws could also allow more children to live, of course, by saving their lives during car crashes, but the paper argues that the effect on birth rates is larger. The changes “prevented only 57 car crash fatalities of children nationwide in 2017,” it reads. “Simultaneously, they led to a permanent reduction of approximately 8,000 births in the same year, and 145,000 fewer births since 1980, with 90 [percent] of this decline being since 2000.”
Are Nickerson and Solomon right? Maybe, but there are reasons to be skeptical. It’s a correlational study, and the authors have to control for a large number of variables to try to tease out the effect of car seat laws on fertility.
A post at the blog Less Wrong also questions the underlying premise of the paper, noting that parents could avoid the costs of having to purchase a larger car by buying narrower car seats, and that there are car seats on the market that would still manage to fit three abreast in even small cars.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36nA9fe
via IFTTT
When Henry Butler became dean of George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School five years ago, he vowed that he would only serve one term. True to his word, after a very successful term as dean, including two record-breaking gifts of $30 and $55 million, Butler announced his intention to resign as dean last year (but stay on as a faculty member), and the law school and university proceeded with a search to find a new dean.
After a grueling process involving many talented candidates, we hit the jackpot; Ken Randall, longtime dean of University of Alabama Law School and a pioneer in distance legal education will become the law school’s dean on December 1. Here is the law school’s press release:
George Mason University has announced Kenneth Randall as the new Dean of George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School. He will join the university on Dec. 1, 2020.
“Ken Randall is a proven leader who embodies the spirit of George Mason University,” said President Gregory Washington. “He brings a commitment to ideas, faculty diversity and a proven ability to attract a wide range of students. We are excited to welcome him to Mason Nation.”
Dean Randall served for two decades (1993-2013) as Law Dean of The University of Alabama and was named one of legal education’s most transformative deans of the last decade. (Brian Leiter’s Law School Reports). He also served as Special Counsel to President Robert Witt of the University of Alabama from 2006-2012, a period when campus enrollment doubled.
During his time as dean, Alabama’s U.S. News ranking soared from 96 to 21, the greatest jump in the history of U.S. News law school rankings. Also, under his watch, Alabama similarly improved its U.S. News Peer Reputation more than any other law school.
Beyond his academic legacy, Dean Randall has also been a successful entrepreneur. In 2013, he founded iLaw Distance Education, which has become a market leader in distance education, partnering with nearly 25% of all law schools. In 2017, iLaw was acquired by BARBRI Holdings, through Leeds Capital (NY). Dean Randall’s expertise in this field is vital at a time when the pandemic has made it necessary to educate students both online and in the classroom.
Dean Randall holds a Doctorate and Master’s concentrating in International Law from Columbia University; a Master’s in Law from Yale University, and Juris Doctor from Hofstra University.
“This is a strategic hire at an important moment for our law school and university,” said Mark Ginsberg, Provost and Executive Vice President. “Dean Randall is an independent thinker with an impressive track record. He will take the Scalia Law School to new heights.”
Scalia Law is consistently ranked among the top law schools in the nation, currently ranked by U.S. News & World Report at 42 for its full-time program and 4 for its part-time program. It is strategically located in Arlington, Va., and has consistently placed students and graduates in clerkships, on key Senate and House Committees, at federal agencies, and at top law firms.
“I am thrilled and honored to be the next Dean of the Antonin Scalia Law School,” said Dean Randall. “I admire Scalia Law’s entrepreneurial spirit and its commitment to intellectual diversity. In the spirit of Antonin Scalia, this school encourages the robust and respectful debate of ideas, and that makes it unique among law schools.”
The political, economic and social climate will only increase the tremendous demands for legal scholars and first-rate law school graduates. Dean Randall’s experience and vision will help guide the law school during this critical time.
“In a pool of talented national candidates, Ken Randall stood out for his impressive track record leading a top law school for more than two decades, his independent thinking, and his ensuing career as an entrepreneur,” said search committee chair and Schar School Dean Mark J. Rozell.
Henry Butler, who led record-breaking fundraising at the law school during his five-year tenure, will remain on the faculty as Executive Director of the law school’s prominent Law & Economics center.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2GthL9K
via IFTTT
Here’s a video of our discussion Sept. 18, which I much enjoyed:
And here’s the summary::
UCLA Law’s AI Pulse Project and University of Arizona TechLaw present:
The Brinternet: A conversation with futurist and science fiction author David Brin and Professors Jane Bambauer, Mark Lemley, and Eugene Volokh, moderated by Professor Ted Parson
What: Is the dominant advertising-supported business model for Internet news and opinion unsustainable? In a pair of essays published on Evonomics, David Brin says yes. But alternative models, including subscriptions and paywalls, also increasingly appear unrealistic for most apps and content producers. Can micropayments (in the 1 to 5 cent range) solve this problem?
Panelists:
David Brin is an astrophysicist whose international best-selling novels include The Postman, Earth, and recently Existence. His nonfiction book about the information age—The Transparent Society—won the Freedom of Speech Award of the American Library Association.
Jane Bambauer is a Professor of Law at the University of Arizona. Prof. Bambauer’s research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, and questions the wisdom of many well-intentioned privacy laws. Her articles have appeared in the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. Prof. Bambauer’s own data-driven research explores biased judgment, legal education, and legal careers. She holds a B.S. in mathematics from Yale College and a J.D. from Yale Law School.
Mark Lemley is the William H. Neukom Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and the Director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and is affiliated faculty in the Symbolic Systems program. Prof. Lemley teaches intellectual property, patent law, trademark law, antitrust, the law of robotics and AI, video game law, and remedies. He is the author of eight books and 181 articles, including the two-volume treatise IP and Antitrust.
Eugene Volokh is the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law and an academic affiliate at the law firm Mayer Brown LLP. He teaches First Amendment law and a First Amendment amicus brief clinic, and has taught copyright, criminal law, tort law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy. He has been writing on the Internet and the law since 1995.
Edward A. (Ted) Parson (Moderator) is the Dan and Rae Emmett Professor of Environmental Law, faculty co-director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, and the director of the AI Pulse Project at UCLA School of Law.
Are car seat mandates responsible for reducing the number of children born each year? A provocative new study claims that the steady upward creep in the ages at which states mandate children use a car seat is prompting women to either postpone or opt against having a third child.
The paper, by Jordan Nickerson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and David Solomon of Boston College, argues that most vehicles cannot fit a third car seat in the back row, necessitating the purchase of a larger car if a parent is going to cart around three children at once. That added cost, they argue, disincentivizes some women from having a third child.
“We find that when a woman has two children below the car seat age, her chances of giving birth that year decline by 0.73 percentage points,” write Nickerson and Solomon, relying on U.S. Census Bureau data on the age and number of children for each woman surveyed. “This represents a large decline, as the probability of giving birth for a woman age 18-35 with two children already is 9.36 [percent] in our sample.”
To tease out the impact of car seat laws, the paper controls for a number of variables, including urban density, household income, and whether a male parent is present. As states increase the car seat age, the more pronounced this effect becomes, as it’s more likely that three children will simultaneously be required to be in a car seat.
The nationwide average minimum age at which a child can ride in a car with just a seat belt rose from just under three years old in the mid-1980s to four years old by 2000. Today, the nationwide average is a few months under eight years old. This steady increase, the paper suggests, could help explain why fertility rates have declined in the past decade despite a long-running economic recovery that would normally encourage more childbirths.
These laws could also allow more children to live, of course, by saving their lives during car crashes, but the paper argues that the effect on birth rates is larger. The changes “prevented only 57 car crash fatalities of children nationwide in 2017,” it reads. “Simultaneously, they led to a permanent reduction of approximately 8,000 births in the same year, and 145,000 fewer births since 1980, with 90 [percent] of this decline being since 2000.”
Are Nickerson and Solomon right? Maybe, but there are reasons to be skeptical. It’s a correlational study, and the authors have to control for a large number of variables to try to tease out the effect of car seat laws on fertility.
A post at the blog Less Wrong also questions the underlying premise of the paper, noting that parents could avoid the costs of having to purchase a larger car by buying narrower car seats, and that there are car seats on the market that would still manage to fit three abreast in even small cars.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36nA9fe
via IFTTT
In Part 1 of this article I detailed the purposeful systematic destruction of global economies, with a bad flu as the catalyst, as part of a plan by the Davos elite to reconstruct the world in a manner most beneficial to these evil men and detrimental to you and me. The fight remains to be fought. Orwell’s worst fears are coming to fruition.
The masking of the masses has been, and continues to be, about despotic politicians and arrogant bureaucrats demanding obedience as a mechanism to judge their ability to shame the masses into submission. It has nothing to do with health or protecting others. The health “experts” like Fauci, the Surgeon General and CDC director actually told the truth back in March when they told everyone masks didn’t protect you from viruses. When the powers that be decided this flu needed to be hyped and blown out of all proportion, mask wearing was used as the symbol of fear necessary to panic the public into submission.
Media campaigns, celebrity virtue signaling, corporate coordination, and fake documentation were immediately implemented to corral the sheep and force them to conform. Dehumanizing the population, using a false narrative to shame non-maskers as serial killers, turning neighbors into snitches, and using police thugs to enforce these unconstitutional dictates, has created an atmosphere of anxiety, suspicion and fear as the perfect method of domination. The non-critical thinking sheep are driven by emotion and feelings.
If they were capable of understanding facts and data, they would conclude this entire episode is much ado about nothing. Medical experts have proven that masks are useless in protecting anyone from viruses and Sweden has proved herd immunity and our own immune systems are the answer. But facts don’t matter to the gulag commandants.
“Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids. There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”
The breathless case count and daily death totals proclaimed by the fake news media are hyped to scare a dumbed-down populace, incapable of understanding percentages and unable to assess their true level of risk from this flu. They say there have been 7.1 million cases in the US (most didn’t know they had it), so your chances of not getting it are 98%. This week our beloved “experts” at the CDC provided the real data about your chances of dying from Covid if you get it.
How could rational people create a global depression and destroy the lives of millions in order to combat an extremely non-lethal flu? The men responsible for this man-made disaster should be held accountable and we as a people need to look in the mirror and take accountability for our own lives, dismissing the illegal and immoral dictates of tyrannical despots.
CDC recently updated estimated infection fatality rates for COVID. Here are the updated survival rates by age group:
Of course, the systematic racism narrative, cowing the population through masking pandemic fear, and ongoing coup attempt against Trump, have been used to distract the people from the primary objective of the Davos elite. The systematic destruction of small businesses during this scamdemic has clearly been a principal objective and has been accomplished with aplomb.
Small businesses had employed 60 million Americans prior to this over-hyped flu. At the end of June 1.4 million small businesses had closed or suspended operations. With the Paycheck Protection funds now depleted, it is estimated 4 million small businesses will close permanently by the end of the year, representing 13% of the 30.7 small businesses, as counted by the Small Business Administration. These businesses were destroyed by government mandate, at the behest of the corporate Davos elite.
Evidently Covid could only be contracted at your local small retailer, deli, pub, or restaurant. But, mega-retailers like Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot were safe from the dreaded killer virus. As your neighbor’s small business went bankrupt, these mega-retailers have raked in record profits and seen their stocks reach all-time highs.
Small businesses can’t get Wall Street financing, dial up Mnuchin or Powell, spend millions on national ad campaigns, or use their lobbyists in D.C. to carve out a huge piece of the pandemic relief pie. The employees laid off by small businesses will be forced to beg for jobs at the mega-corps. This coordinated destruction of small businesses is a major step in our digression into a corporate fascist dystopian hellscape. This blatant war on the little guy has been lost with barely a whimper from the fearful masses.
This transfer of wealth from small business owners to the likes of Bezos and other mega-corps is small potatoes compared to the pillaging of the little guy by the Federal Reserve over the last century, and particularly over the last six months. The $3 trillion of debt created out of thin air since March and the ongoing $1 trillion per year have not benefited you or anyone you know.
These trillions have been funneled directly to the vampire squid – Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Wall Street criminal cabal, along with billionaire hedge fund managers, and various connected Davos elite. When the stock market tanked by 30% in March, the dozens of calls between Powell, Mnuchin, and Wall Street CEOs were not about saving Main Street, but concerned how to recoup their losses and implement a plan to rig the stock market back to all-time highs. Powell’s ‘No Banker Left Behind’ plan.
It only took $3 trillion infused into the veins of Wall Street debt addicts to achieve their sole purpose of making billionaires richer. They don’t give a F#@k about you, small business owners, blue collar workers, or senior citizens. How is it that reducing interest rates to 0% for Wall Street banks, while they continue to charge 18% on credit card balances of pandemic induced unemployed Americans, and eliminating the little income grandmothers were earning in their money market funds, is beneficial to the people of this country?
The Fed and the Davos elite depend upon the indoctrinated ignorance conveyed by government schooling to implement their relentless plundering of the people’s wealth. The unceasing yammering by Fed governors about the lack of inflation and the falsification of true inflation by the government apparatchiks at the BLS is jammed down our throats by their co-conspirators in the corporate media is accepted as fact by same people unquestioningly believing a mask keeps them safe from a virus.
Anyone living in the real world, not the fantasy model world of the Fed and Davos elite, knows they are being hammered by rising prices on everything they need to survive. The massive inflation in stock prices since April has benefited the top .1%, while the unemployed and senior citizens have seen inflation in food, fuel, housing, medical care and used cars. These are the rates of inflation for a few things you might need since May, according to CNN:
Corn – 12%
Soybeans – 12%
Beef – 16%
Coffee – 27%
Sugar – 22%
Cocoa – 12%
Cotton – 12%
Unleaded Gas – 68%
Natural gas – 36%
Gasoline was priced low when we weren’t allowed to drive. As soon as people were allowed to go back to work, prices soared. With the poor struggling to get by, used car prices have soared by double digits since May. Home prices have continued their relentless increase, up 64% since 2012, pricing young families out of the market. The Big Lie is the BLS reported inflation in medical care of less than 1%. Everyone knows that’s a lie. Medical premiums, co-pays, and deductibles have been rising at double digits for the last decade. We are being systematically destroyed by evil sociopaths in suits, pretending to be looking out for our best interests.
I wrote an article titled P For Pandemic in late March when the death count was still under 3,000. I was suspicious about the lockdown then and my worst fears about the true motivation of those in power have been confirmed as time has passed. This passage from the dystopian film V for Vendetta captures the essence of what has happened and what is happening today.
“And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there? Cruelty and injustice…intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance, coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who’s to blame? Well certainly there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told…if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn’t be? War. Terror. Disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you and in your panic, you turned to the now High Chancellor Adam Sutler. He promised you order. He promised you peace. And all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.”
– V for Vendetta speech to London
There is something terribly wrong with this country. The oppression is not being inflicted upon people of color, the narrative being sold by the elite, but on all hard working Americans trying to live their lives, with the freedom and liberty to make their own choices and live with the consequences. The freedom to object and question authority, a natural right documented in the Constitution, is rapidly being crushed, as Deep State surveillance entities (Google, Facebook, Twitter) censor and memory hole any view not conforming to the approved Deep State narrative.
It has never been more evident than during this pandemic, where doctors, real journalists, truthful thinkers and even Ron Paul have seen their videos, tweets and articles suppressed and removed from platforms supposedly created to allow for the free flow of ideas and opinions. Big Brother is watching and will punish you for questioning the approved Deep State narrative.
By allowing only one approved narrative to reach the masses through the corporate media and social media outlets, the ruling class can more easily coerce conformity and submission to their demands. The non-conformists will be brought into line through the use of the truncheon and threats to destroy your ability to make a living.
The question is always – who deserves the blame? Who is guilty for systematically destroying a once great country of self-reliant, hard-working, family-oriented citizens who adhered to communal standards of decency and respect for one another? As throughout history, the battle between good and evil is waged within the hearts of men and when evil men gain control because good men are fearful or unable to comprehend their evil intentions, civil society breaks down and a dystopian storm darkens the landscape. We are entering the climactic phase of this Fourth Turning and there is no escape from its impact on our lives.
As with previous Fourth Turnings, there will be bloodshed and war before a final outcome is determined, with clear winners and losers. Make no mistake, the Deep State oligarchs have an overwhelming advantage in wealth, power, and weapons as we enter this fight. Their intentions are truly evil – to enslave the masses in debt servitude and fear, enforcing their warped morality through technological surveillance mechanisms, while they reap the benefits of ungodly wealth and indulging their sociopathic desire for command and control over the lives of others. The BLM and ANTIFA terrorists aren’t the real enemy. They are just useful idiots and paid provocateurs creating havoc in our cities to further the agenda of Soros and his Davos gang.
Does the upcoming election even matter when you understand who is really in control? It does matter in that it will likely be the spark which ignites the powder keg of discontent and anger built up over the first decade of this Fourth Turning. Trump is the Grey Champion of this Crisis, whether you like it or not. Remember that at least half the population hated Lincoln and FDR as they assumed the reins of Grey Champion in the previous two Fourth Turnings.
I don’t think Trump is a savior or a Deep State lackey. I don’t see him in the role of High Chancellor Sutler ordering your obedient consent to keep you safe. He is the lightening rod initiating conflict between the shadowy evil Deep State operatives and those representing freedom, truth, and the original tenets of the U.S. Constitution. He’s a conduit for conflict. Watching the Deep State try to undermine his presidency for four years has convinced me he’s not their puppet, despite his baffling decisions in surrounding himself with Deep State delegates that have stabbed him in the back.
The perfect match for Sutler is Kamala Harris, a woman with no sense of morality who exhibits a sociopathic hatred for her chosen enemies and will do anything or say anything to achieve power. The game plan is to steal the election through mail-in ballot fraud and replace Biden with Harris in short order. She and her backers will proclaim the need for drastic steps to restore order and peace, while culling the herd of dissenters and those unwilling to bow to her excellency.
Now is the time to be vigilant. Make sure you can depend on those closest to you and recognize your enemies. Preparation time for the coming whirlwind of violence is growing short. The epic battle between good and evil has commenced. What happens over the next few years will determine the future course of history on this planet. Triumph or tragedy hangs in the balance.
Courage, strength of character, fortitude in the face of adversity and a love for liberty and freedom can overcome the dark forces engulfing our nation. Good luck and Godspeed.
“The climax shakes a society to its roots, transforms its institutions, redirects its purposes, and marks its people (and its generations) for life. The climax can end in triumph, or tragedy, or some combination of both. Whatever the event and whatever the outcome, a society passes through a great gate of history, fundamentally altering the course of civilization.”
Trump Accuses “Swamp Monster” Debate Organizers Of Colluding With Dems, Won’t Allow Format Changes Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/01/2020 – 16:13
President Trump tweeted Thursday that he wouldn’t allow the Commission on Presidential Debates to move ahead with promised changes to the debate formate, which the organization announced yesterday.
In a statement, the Commission on Presidential Debates said it was mulling what to do, and also raised the possibility of equipping moderators with new “tools” – perhaps including the ability to cut a speaker’s mic.
But Trump in a series of tweets sent Thursday afternoon, Trump boasted that he won the debate, and questioned “why would I allow the Debate Commission to change the rules for the second and third Debates when I easily won last time?”
It’s a good question.
I won the debate big, based on compilation of polls etc. Thank you!
Trump’s campaign held a 1500ET phone call with reporters to discuss the opposition to tweaking the format. During the call, the campaign told reporters that they don’t want to change the rules, and accused “swamp monsters” on the debate committee of having unseemly ties to Democrats.
Trump campaign says on a call they do not want any changes in debate, criticizing “swamp monsters” on the presidential debate commission for trying to change the rules.
“We look forward to participating in the second and third debate.”
Meanwhile, debate moderator Chris Wallace griped in a Fox News interview that the president had “put his foot” in the “beautiful cake” Wallace had baked.
“I never dreamt that it would go off the tracks the way it did,” Wallace added.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden on Wednesday said he was “looking forward” to additional debates but would not “speculate” on possible rules changes.
Before the call, PJ Media reported that the moderator for the second debate, C-SPAN’s Steve Scully, had interned in then-Sen. Joe Biden’s office when he was in college, before going on to work full time in the office of Ted Kennedy, another Democratic Senator. Of course, many of the president’s most rabid supporters accused Wallace of being too hostile of an interviewer to fairly preside over the debate.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/36BLqcb Tyler Durden
Chris Wallace, who tried to moderate this week’s raucous presidential debate, regrets “a terrible missed opportunity.” My 14-year-old daughter, by contrast, thought it was a gas. She watched the debate with rapt attention, laughed repeatedly, and afterward kept going on about how great it was.
I cautioned her that the Trump-Biden spectacle was far from typical of presidential debates, which are generally extremely dull affairs that most people, aside from passionate partisans, watch only out of a vague sense of civic (or professional) duty. But I was also alternately amused and flabbergasted by the president’s antics.
I disagree with the many critics who called the debate “unwatchable.” It was extremely watchable, more so than any presidential debate I can recall. But my reaction may be idiosyncratic, since my favorite moment from Trump’s debates with Hillary Clinton in 2016 came after she called him Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “puppet.” That epithet led to this exchange:
Trump: No puppet. No puppet.
Clinton: And it’s pretty clear…
Trump: You’re the puppet!
Clinton: It’s pretty clear you won’t admit…
Trump: No, you’re the puppet.
It’s even funnier when you watch it. The Trump-Biden debate gave us many, many more moments like that.
One striking thing about Trump’s refusal to play by the rules or show even a modicum of civility was its effect on Joe Biden. The Democratic candidate actually engaged in more ad hominem attacks than his bullying, ever-interrupting opponent, who is hardly shy about tossing around personal insults. While Trump questioned Biden’s intelligence by averring that he “graduated last” in his class at the University of Delaware, Biden called Trump a “liar,” a “fool,” a “clown,” and a “racist.”
At least three of those four epithets are demonstrably accurate. But they are not the sort of thing politicians are supposed to say in public, and they surely did not help advance a substantive discussion of public policy. “This is so unpresidential,” Biden complained at one point, even while emulating Trump’s rhetorical style.
Prior to Trump, memorable put-downs in presidential and vice presidential debates included genial admonitions (“There you go again“), condescending comparisons (“You’re no Jack Kennedy“), and echoes of fast-food slogans (“Where’s the beef?“). Biden, provoked by Trump, has really upped the ante.
Does Biden’s resort to personal taunts reveal something about his character, or is it an understandable, maybe even justifiable, response to Trump’s babyish behavior? We know what Biden’s supporters think. After the debate, the Biden Victory Fund immediately started hawking a T-shirt with “Will you shut up, man” emblazoned across the president’s face. That is what Biden said when Trump pressed him to answer a perfectly legitimate question—”Are you going to pack the [Supreme] Court?”—that Biden was keen to dodge.
People appalled by this week’s spectacle may worry that Trump has not only made rational discussion in this particular campaign impossible but forever ruined presidential debates—which, let’s be honest, were never that great to begin with, although they did at least sometimes manage to communicate something about the candidates’ positions and aspirations. But I am inclined to agree with Eric Boehm that the “dumpster fire” Trump ignited, by burning away any pretense of mutual respect, laid bare the paucity of our political choices.
The main promise of a Trump presidency was that he would destroy the respect and deference that occupants of his office automatically receive. Likewise, the main promise of presidential debates dominated by insults, interruptions, and cross-talk is that they will destroy the notion that we are ruled by wise men who know what’s best for us.
My daughter, who started watching the debate with a strong anti-Trump bias, emerged unimpressed by either candidate. She would be hard pressed to say what either of them has to offer, aside from entertainment value. In a country dominated by two parties with incoherent principles they do not follow, this is the beginning of political wisdom.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2SgIbOL
via IFTTT
Chris Wallace, who tried to moderate this week’s raucous presidential debate, regrets “a terrible missed opportunity.” My 14-year-old daughter, by contrast, thought it was a gas. She watched the debate with rapt attention, laughed repeatedly, and afterward kept going on about how great it was.
I cautioned her that the Trump-Biden spectacle was far from typical of presidential debates, which are generally extremely dull affairs that most people, aside from passionate partisans, watch only out of a vague sense of civic (or professional) duty. But I was also alternately amused and flabbergasted by the president’s antics.
I disagree with the many critics who called the debate “unwatchable.” It was extremely watchable, more so than any presidential debate I can recall. But my reaction may be idiosyncratic, since my favorite moment from Trump’s debates with Hillary Clinton in 2016 came after she called him Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “puppet.” That epithet led to this exchange:
Trump: No puppet. No puppet.
Clinton: And it’s pretty clear…
Trump: You’re the puppet!
Clinton: It’s pretty clear you won’t admit…
Trump: No, you’re the puppet.
It’s even funnier when you watch it. The Trump-Biden debate gave us many, many more moments like that.
One striking thing about Trump’s refusal to play by the rules or show even a modicum of civility was its effect on Joe Biden. The Democratic candidate actually engaged in more ad hominem attacks than his bullying, ever-interrupting opponent, who is hardly shy about tossing around personal insults. While Trump questioned Biden’s intelligence by averring that he “graduated last” in his class at the University of Delaware, Biden called Trump a “liar,” a “fool,” a “clown,” and a “racist.”
At least three of those four epithets are demonstrably accurate. But they are not the sort of thing politicians are supposed to say in public, and they surely did not help advance a substantive discussion of public policy. “This is so unpresidential,” Biden complained at one point, even while emulating Trump’s rhetorical style.
Prior to Trump, memorable put-downs in presidential and vice presidential debates included genial admonitions (“There you go again“), condescending comparisons (“You’re no Jack Kennedy“), and echoes of fast-food slogans (“Where’s the beef?“). Biden, provoked by Trump, has really upped the ante.
Does Biden’s resort to personal taunts reveal something about his character, or is it an understandable, maybe even justifiable, response to Trump’s babyish behavior? We know what Biden’s supporters think. After the debate, the Biden Victory Fund immediately started hawking a T-shirt with “Will you shut up, man” emblazoned across the president’s face. Notably, that is what Biden said when Trump pressed him to answer a perfectly legitimate question—”Are you going to pack the [Supreme] Court?”—that Biden was keen to dodge.
People appalled by this week’s spectacle may worry that Trump has not only made rational discussion in this particular campaign impossible but forever ruined presidential debates—which, let’s be honest, were never that great to begin with, although they did at least sometimes manage to communicate something about the candidates’ positions and aspirations. But I am inclined to agree with Eric Boehm that the “dumpster fire” Trump ignited, by burning away any pretense of mutual respect, laid bare the paucity of our political choices.
The main promise of a Trump presidency was that he would destroy the respect and deference that occupants of his office automatically receive. Likewise, the main promise of presidential debates dominated by insults, interruptions, and cross-talk is that they will destroy the notion that we are ruled by wise men who know what’s best for us.
My daughter, who started watching the debate with a strong anti-Trump bias, emerged unimpressed by either candidate. She would be hard pressed to say what either of them has to offer, aside from entertainment value. In a country dominated by two parties with incoherent principles they do not follow, this is the beginning of political wisdom.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2SgIbOL
via IFTTT
That was the tale of the tape today as markets shrugged off various disappointing economic data and the algos just pumped and dumped on whatever keyword was selected from Pelosi, Meadows, or Mnuchin…From yesterday afternoon’s stimulus optimism highs, The Dow is down and Nasdaq managing to hold some gains…
Personal Incomes unexpectedly tumbled, Manufacturing surveys disappointed, and over 830,000 Americans filed for first time jobless claims last week, and Challenger job cuts screamed higher – probably nothing!
Source: Bloomberg
So layoffs… and stocks… are soaring?
But copper, crude, cryptos, and credit all suffered…
Extreme positioning and growth fears combined to crush Dr.Copper’s economics PhD forecast…
This is the worst single-day drop in copper since March…
Source: Bloomberg
We suspect more than one of these extreme specs got a tap on the shoulder today…
Source: Bloomberg
Crude oil was clubbed like a baby seal, back below $40…
And as goes oil, so goes energy stocks – dumping to fresh six-month lows today…
Bitcoin and its crypto-cousins all plunged today after BitMEX charges…
Source: Bloomberg
Credit markets refused to play along with equity’s exuberance…
Source: Bloomberg
Bonds were bid today, erasing overnight weakness…
Source: Bloomberg
The dollar limped lower for the 4th straight day…
Source: Bloomberg
While crude and copper were clobbered, PMs rallied…
Source: Bloomberg
Gold futures back above $1900…
And Silver futs made it back to $24…
Finally, there’s this – Nasdaq bounced back up to the level of global central bank liquidity…
Source: Bloomberg
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2HPtjVF Tyler Durden
Portnoy Rips Deutsche Bank For Being “Catastrophically Wrong” About Penn National Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/01/2020 – 15:59
Barstool Sports’ Dave Portnoy, the stock market’s crazy genius, boarded a plane Thursday morning to Texas with only one piece of advice for his 1.8 million Twitter followers: “BUY EVERYTHING – STOCKS ONLY GO UP.”
Portnoy is right: the market mania this year fueled by central bankers injecting trillions of dollars into the financial system has resulted in stocks only going up since mid-March. In fact, Portnoy’s Barstool Sports, which is 36% owned by Penn National Gaming, has seen its shares rally more than 800% from March’s lows.
About a week after PENN announced a public stock offering, selling upwards of 14 million shares of its common stock, shares of PENN have been unable to break above the $76 handle for about ten sessions.
Meanwhile, Deutsche Bank’s analysts Carlo Santarelli and Steven Pizzella are out with an apocalyptic warning that shares could plunge 57% over the next 12 months, reported Business Insider. The bank also reiterated its “sell” rating for the casino and sports betting company.
“We think PENN has largely benefited from the retail community turning the ticker into an internet meme of sorts, thereby creating momentum in the stock that has attracted institutional investors from verticals outside of the traditional gaming arena,” noted DB’s analysts.
They said: “We believe the fundamental and valuation support under PENN is lacking… We would anticipate a considerable contraction in shares.”
The analysts expect the sports betting competition to heat up and would pressure PENN’s profit growth. They said the positive narrative around the sports betting market is set to “crack” – and investors should be aware that “very few states at present are even considering” online sports betting legislation. DB’s price target for PENN is $31, while Wall Street’s average is around $68 per share. PENN is ultra-popular with young retail traders using Robinhood.
Portnoy responded to DB’s sobering report in a Thursday tweet, by saying:
Dr . Wrong ….Carlo Santarelli is back at it Face with tears of joyFace with tears of joyFace with tears of joy. For those keeping score at home his target prices since I’ve been involved has been $12, $22, and now 33. He keeps raising his target by 50% while still being wrong by 100% Imagine being this bad at anything.
Portnoy continued:
Just to clarify Carlo had $penn at 12 bucks in May. He upgraded to 22 bucks after getting embarrassed. Now he upgraded to 33 after being embarrassed again. He has upgraded us by almost 200% in 4 months while trashing us everytime. Our biggest critic has 200% upgrade! Face with tears of joyFace with tears of joyFace with tears of joyMan shrugging
Portnoy then tweeted at CNBC’s Jim Cramer:
Hey @jimcramer do analysts ever get fired for being catastrophically wrong? Like how long can Carlo Santarelli be off by 200% and still get his work published or have a job? It honestly seems criminal what he is doing to his clients.
The problem with PENN is supply and demand – who will soak up the 14 million shares from last week’s stock offering?
Judging by Barstool Sports’ constant promotion of PENN – maybe Robinhood traders…
Readers may recall Morgan Stanley downgraded PENN in late August, though Portnoy gave them no flak.
Is a Portnoy versus DB rivalry in the making ?
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/36qpn8e Tyler Durden
