Forget 5G, China Leads The 6G Charge

Forget 5G, China Leads The 6G Charge

While the world is still very much in the transition phase with 5G, research is already well underway for the next iteration of the technology standard for mobile broadband networks – 6G.

Statista’s Martin Armstrong notes that, according to a whitepaper by Samsung it takes an average of ten years for a new standard to become ready for commercialization, with 5G taking eight years. The tech giant suggested a potential rollout date of 2028-2030 for 6G, highlighting the urgent need for progress to be made.

As this infographic shows, the country at the front of this new charge is China.

Infographic: China Leads the 6G Charge | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Data from the Cyber Creative Institute as covered by Nikkei Asia shows that of around 20,000 6G-related patent applications as of August 2021, 40.3 percent originated from the Asian superpower. The United States isn’t far behind, however, claiming 35.2 percent of the applications. The home of Samsung, South Korea, is in fifth place (when combining applications for European countries) with 4.2 percent.

The source assessed patent applications for nine core 6G technologies including communications, quantum technology, base stations and artificial intelligence. 6G is expected to be about ten times faster than 5G.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/18/2021 – 23:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3CkQazg Tyler Durden

Wokeness: An Evil Of Our Age

Wokeness: An Evil Of Our Age

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via AmGreatness.com,

History is replete with examples of nations, successful and not-so-successful alike, that abruptly committed suicide. 

The ancient polis of Corcyra devoured itself in a bloody conflict as a collective madness took hold of the island city-state during the Peloponnesian War. 

The Jacobins in 1793 hijacked the French Revolution and turned a movement toward a constitutional republic into a totalitarian, year-zero effort to destroy the past and ensure equity for all—or else. The Reign of Terror—and eventually Napoleon—followed. 

The effort to force war-weary Czarist Russia to reform into a constitutional monarchy ended up being kidnapped by a small but lethal clique of Leninist Bolsheviks. What ensued was the destruction of Russian life—and millions of corpses—over the next 70 years. Ditto Mao Zedong’s various murderous resets culminating in the cannibalistic “Cultural Revolution.” Mao’s final tab was 60-70 million deaths of his fellow Chinese. 

French, Russian, and Chinese wokists all toppled statues, canceled out the nonbelievers, wiped away history, tore down monuments, and declared themselves the purest of all generations in their year zero—before getting down to the business of dividing up the spoils and settling scores.

Most of these bloodbaths started out with the supposedly noble idea of delivering social justice, equity, and fairness before they inevitably went deadly and feral. We should be just as worried about our own woke pandemic.

Mythological

Start with the idea that “wokeness” is an ideology divorced from reality. Nearly all of its premises are complete distortions.

Between 2017 and 2020, minorities had made the greatest gains in employment in U.S. history. Women currently represent about 60 percent of all college students. 

Recent wage gains for minority middle-class Americans outpaced those of the white working- and middle class. The latter were underrepresented in college enrollments and as graduates—but vastly overrepresented (at twice their percentage of the general population) in the toll of combat dead in Afghanistan and Iraq. Asian-Americans and a dozen other ethnic groups outpace so-called whites in per capita and household income. “White privilege” is usually a sloppy term that applies mostly to the white elites who use it to smear others.

America was in our sixth decade of “affirmative action,” the euphemism of ensuring equity of result by calibrating race and gender—but not class—in hiring and admissions. Proportional representation and disparate impact continued or were even enhanced. But they became increasingly selective as entire fields from the Postal Service to professional sports were somehow exempt from racial set-asides applied to others. Quotas disappeared when the marginalized were “overrepresented” in a field.

The historical reparatory effort of the massive programs born out of the Great Society continued to address the baleful legacy of slavery that had ended over 150 years ago, as well as Southern Jim Crow laws that had largely disappeared 40-50 years ago, and the fumes of such racial toxicity. So, Martin Luther King’s “content of our character” rather than the “color of our skin” was still embraced as the melting-pot ideal of the Civil Rights movement that had fought for integration and full assimilation into American society. Meanwhile, intermarriage has never been more common. 

The desperate Left had therefore been forced to invent adjectives and phraseology like “systemic racism” and “microaggression” and “whiteness” given the vast majority of Americans did not feel or express or act out on “racism.”

In other words, wokeness created the mythology that the nonwhite were worse off than ever before—a typical revolutionary fabrication to evoke the sort of hysteria necessary for an otherwise unpopular agenda. But then again, we live in an age where we were assured Hunter Biden’s lost laptop was “Russian disinformation”, the Steele dossier was iron-clad proof of something, and a pangolin or a bat birthed COVID-19.

The wrongful death of George Floyd in police custody—despite his later angelic deification, Floyd was in fact a felon with a history of violence toward women, arrested in the act of passing counterfeit U.S. currency—was the work of a cruel rogue cop and his incompetent enablers. Otherwise, data and statistics did not show that African American males were dying while in police custody in numbers greater than their proportions of those yearly arrested. Nor were they the victims of some pandemic of interracial hate crimes. Indeed, blacks statistically were more likely to commit rare violent interracial crimes than were others, including targeted hate crimes against other ethnic and racial groups.

Elite-Driven

Another great lie was the propaganda that the woke movement was a grass-roots movement. Yet statue-toppling, vandalism, Trotskyism, and cancel culture remain largely the work of college students, upper-middle class white coastal elites, celebrities, and privileged minorities in the media, academia, law, the corporate world, entertainment, and professional sports. 

In a reductionist sense, much of the woke movement became a battle among elites to leverage diversity czars in universities, reparational quotas in administrative hiring and college admissions, and a sort of racialized intramural reseating among first-class passengers on the corporate and government Lido deck. 

While wokeists harangued New York and Hollywood for more nonwhites in TV commercials, thousands of young African American males continued to be slaughtered in the inner-cities, as schools in those places resisted reform and remained indifferent to the poor quality of education offered residents. Because the culpable municipal officials—hard-Left diversity mayors, neo-Marxist district attorneys, and “reformist” police chiefs—were themselves woke, no one cared about derelict governance. And so, the killing continues unabated, surrealistically unremarked upon by the wokest. 

Class considerations were suppressed, given that the beneficiaries of wokeness were not necessarily previously poor and oppressed. In our racialized madness, billionaires like LeBron James, Oprah Winfrey, Jay-Z, and Beyonce, multimillionaires like the Obamas and Colin Kaepernick, and moneyed political, corporate, entertainment, military, and sports grandees—play-acted oppression and victimization from their villas and privileged perches, in perfect Marie Antoinette fashion. All they lacked was fake peasant garb and a village at Versailles. 

The architects themselves of wokeness mostly cashed in on the supposedly toxic capitalist system that they had so harangued as the ground zero of “systemic racism.” So, BLM cofounder and self-described “cultural Marxist” Patrisse Cullors is now “retired”—and the savvy owner of four new homes, residing in nearly all-white tony Topanga Canyon, with a new $35,000 security gate. How else could she best use her black privilege to direct her multimillion-dollar war against “white privilege”?

Professor Ibram X. Kendi (neé Henry Rogers), whose “antiracist” new industry calls for racism to stop racism and discrimination to end discrimination, now charges his corporate and university clients a reportedly $20,000 penance fee for a phoned-in Zoom chat. (He apparently has no discount rate for the poorer of his clients). Kendi no doubt took Lenin to heart (“Capitalists will sell us the rope to hang them with.”) when he hawks his video indulgences at $333 a minute. 

The cultural revolutionary Ta-Nehisi Paul Coates was customarily already one step ahead and has moved on from the woke movement to a multimillion-dollar career writing black-themed comic books or adapting them to the big screen. Barack and Michelle Obama, long ago known for their cinematic creativity, leveraged a $50 million “consulting” movie deal with Netflix, whose founder is best known in California for his efforts to fund the campaign against Larry Elder, including commercials starring . . . Barack Obama.

Racist

Wokeness took the Obama-era mantra of diversity and simply shed any pretense that it was not racist. Remember, after 2009 our elites institutionalized the new-old idea that anyone claiming not to be white was suddenly part of a new inclusive oppressed class, one at war with the racial oppressors.  

“Diversity” was a clever update of the previously failed Jesse Jackson idea of a victimized rainbow coalition that would aggregate, and force-multiply collective grievances against white male victimizers. 

Suddenly, ethnic groups with higher per capita incomes than so-called whites were victims. There were no requisites to being “diverse” other than claiming nonwhite status. Wealthy Punjabi immigrants, Chilean aristocrats, illegal aliens fleeing racist Mexico, Nigerian doctors—anyone rich or poor, resident or citizen, victimized or not—was presto! “diverse” and thereby eligible for reparatory claims in hiring and admissions.

Many liberal whites wished to get in on it and got caught at it—whether Ward Churchill with this entire Native American tribal garb, or, on the cheaper side, Elizabeth Warren with her “high” cheek bones or racial fabulists Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King. After all, if gender is “constructed,” then naturally race, too, could become a construct. 

All this is dangerous because we are now logically headed to DNA-categorized ID badges reminiscent of yellow Star of David patches. Here once again Elizabeth Warren had been in the lead—claiming that her boomeranged DNA results showing a tiny drop of Native American lineage were thus proof that she was an indigenous victim after all—and so in her troubled mind truly had been deserving as the first Native American law professor at Harvard. Given this nonsense, one would think a distracted America has no real debt and is in possession of a secure border, a thriving economy, a brilliantly educated youth, and only friends abroad.

Why is Wokeism Deadly?

Wokeism is a lethal distraction. As General Mark Milley, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, and Chief of Naval Operations Michael Gilday lectured the nation on the various nefarious strains of white rage, whiteness, and white supremacy, the Taliban was systematically gobbling up Afghanistan. Meanwhile their boss in the White House quoted his woke military experts in order to lie there was no danger of a general collapse. No general objected. Apparently, Biden even phoned the Afghan president in a sordid attempt to leverage him likewise to lie that all was well. The ubiquitous Alexander Vindman was not listening in this time around.

In a traditional Islamic society, what were woke Americans doing bragging about gender studies programs at an Afghan university, flying pride flags at the U.S. embassy, and encouraging honorific George Floyd street murals? All that is usually the haughty cultural imperialism of would-be winners, not the virtue signaling of a defeated and humiliated diplomatic and military cohort fleeing toward the exits. 

Think of this for a second: as the U.S. bureaucracy invested trillions in Afghanistan to virtue-signal against supposed George-Floyd type racism, its media appendages said nothing back home as the black candidate for the California governorship was the target of an egg-throwing woman wearing a gorilla mask. What a grotesque reminder that empires flounder abroad as they rot at home.

So these distractions never sleep, even amid the greatest defeat and loss of global deterrence in U.S. military history since Vietnam. True ideologues that they are, even our defeated on the battlefield are unfazed in their wokeist creed. 

As Kabul suffered its end of days, our bemedaled wokists were still lecturing the country about the gender ratios of the Afghan refugees on U.S. flights out, the culturally sensitive food awaiting them, and a new idea of a soft Taliban—or the notion that the medieval gangsters who had defeated the Pentagon were not really all that bad, but more likely “partners” in a shared agenda of seeing us skedaddle by August 31. Will they say that in six months?

Woke indemnity blinds us to racism and classism. Gavin Newsom, of French Laundry repute, is the epitome of a white-male mediocrity leveraging his rich family friends to elevate himself by quid pro quo favoritism. Joe Biden has voiced the most racist rants of any presidential candidate or president in the last 50 years (just recently he referred to his own senior black official as “boy”). Both bought woke insurance that inoculates them against their hypocrisy—or perhaps further fuels their own class and racial biases with an efficacy rate much more impressive than COVID vaccinations. 

The creation of the blanket term “whiteness” is racist to the core. It imputes to anyone considered not sufficiently pigmented some sort of conspiratorial evil, regardless of individual character, beliefs, family history, or ideological outlook. It is incoherent since it blames the United States, and everything in it, for whiteness, and then demands that the nonwhite south of the equator from Africa to Asia be given instant access to this supposedly failed white contaminated miasma. Scarier still for the wokist, whiteness is just the new face of the old racist “blackness,” in which racists imputed to individual blacks supposedly collective pathologies in order to justify discrimination against a single individual. 

Once the neo-Confederate idea of color triumphs, then there is no logical reason why “blackness,” “brownness,” “yellowness,” “redness” and every sort of pigmentary category should not be used to condemn individuals for their supposed membership in a taboo racial tribe, massaged and negatively stereotyped for contemporary advantage. We are headed back to 1840 not ahead to 2040.

If Something Can’t Go On Forever, It Will Stop

Finally, wokeism is unsustainable. We are already seeing large numbers of the supposedly “nonwhite” pushback against the wokeist trajectory, knowing that such a racialist monster may soon devour them, too. Drawing artificial racial Mason-Dixon lines inside millions of multiracial families, after the initial grifting subsides, will only incur anger at those who drew them. When Confederates embraced the one-drop, one-sixteenth rule, there was unanimous later agreement that it was not just abjectly racist, but lunatic; when the woke borrow such racial distillery it too will eventually be rejected as the crackpot hatred that it is. 

There are probably some 100 million white males of the lower- and middle classes. Most feel little if any identity with the woke upper-middle class and wealthy bicoastal white male elite of some 20-30 million. If anything, a trucker from Boise has more in common with a Mexican-American sheriff in Modesto than he does with a woke techie in Menlo Park. 

So, what is truly evil is the current woke trademark of loud privileged whites who scapegoat the losers in the globalist game as racist (or in the Obama-Hillary Clinton-Biden patois of “clingers,” “deplorables,” “irredeemables,” “dregs,” “chumps”), mostly out of elite condescension, virtue-signaling guilt, and pathetic contextualizing their own privilege by projecting their unearned status onto supposedly distant cultural losers. 

There will be a substantial political correction to the madness, mostly because without one there is no longer a confident America abroad that advances and protects the interest of a free world challenged by nightmarish Chinese Communism. 

Such racist selectivity would destroy a meritocratic and productive free market economy at home that fuels the Left’s massive government redistribution. 

The victory of woke would guarantee that as Americans went full pre-modern and pre-civilizational, we would look in the mirror, straining to redefine and recategorize ourselves, and then search out which particular tribal band offers us the best protection from the roving mobs—and each other. 

Even the Chinese apparat could not invent a more evil, more macabre way to destroy the United States.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/18/2021 – 22:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/39gjlXM Tyler Durden

Dr. Alain Braid is the Estelle Griswold of Texas

Shortly after S.B. 8 went into effect, I queried who would become the new Estelle Griswold of Texas? Who would deliberately violate the law to set up a test case? Dr. Alain Braid is the that person. Braid wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, titled “Why I violated Texas’s extreme abortion ban.” He recounted:

And that is why, on the morning of Sept. 6, I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit. I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.

I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested. . . .

I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly. Represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, my clinics are among the plaintiffs in an ongoing federal lawsuit to stop S.B. 8.

Braid, whose name is one letter off from the defendant in Eisenstadt v. Baird, told the New York Times:

In an interview on Saturday, Dr. Braid declined to say whether the woman whose abortion he performed on Sept. 6 had been informed that her procedure could be part of a test case against the new law. “I’m not going to answer any questions about the patient in any way,” he said.

He said that he had consulted with lawyers from the Center for Reproductive Rights and hoped that, by publicly stating that he had performed an abortion, he might contribute to the campaign to invalidate the law.

“I hope the law gets overturned,” he said, “and if this is what does it, that would be great.”

Braid makes sense as a possible defendant for a test case. His small practice has much less to lose than a larger institution, like Whole Woman’s Health. He is old, and likely near the end of his career. Plus, the fact that he practiced before Roe makes for a good narrative.

If I had to guess, no one will bring a suit–yet. The statute of limitation is four years. By that point, all of the litigation concerning S.B. 8 will have concluded, and the Supreme Court may yet modify abortion jurisprudence.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ABIR65
via IFTTT

Dr. Alain Braid is the Estelle Griswold of Texas

Shortly after S.B. 8 went into effect, I queried who would become the new Estelle Griswold of Texas? Who would deliberately violate the law to set up a test case? Dr. Alain Braid is the that person. Braid wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, titled “Why I violated Texas’s extreme abortion ban.” He recounted:

And that is why, on the morning of Sept. 6, I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit. I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.

I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested. . . .

I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly. Represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, my clinics are among the plaintiffs in an ongoing federal lawsuit to stop S.B. 8.

Braid, whose name is one letter off from the respondent in Eisenstadt v. Baird, told the New York Times:

In an interview on Saturday, Dr. Braid declined to say whether the woman whose abortion he performed on Sept. 6 had been informed that her procedure could be part of a test case against the new law. “I’m not going to answer any questions about the patient in any way,” he said.

He said that he had consulted with lawyers from the Center for Reproductive Rights and hoped that, by publicly stating that he had performed an abortion, he might contribute to the campaign to invalidate the law.

“I hope the law gets overturned,” he said, “and if this is what does it, that would be great.”

Braid makes sense as a possible defendant for a test case. His small practice has much less to lose than a larger institution, like Whole Woman’s Health. He is old, and likely near the end of his career. Plus, the fact that he practiced before Roe makes for a good narrative.

If I had to guess, no one will bring a suit–yet. The statute of limitation is (I believe) four years. By that point, all of the litigation concerning S.B. 8 will have concluded, and the Supreme Court may yet modify abortion jurisprudence.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ABIR65
via IFTTT

France Still Seething, Warns Australia Over “Huge Mistake” In Defense Deal With US

France Still Seething, Warns Australia Over “Huge Mistake” In Defense Deal With US

Still seething, French diplomats continue to harangue Washington and Australia over the new landmark defense pact which will center on the US sharing nuclear submarine technology with Australia, which led to the immediate cancelation by Canberra of a major contract for submarines worth over $60 billion (with some estimates putting the total deal struck in 2016 at $90BN). 

As we detailed earlier, on Friday France recalled its ambassadors to both countries in protest, in a move widely being described as the first time in history Paris pulled its ambassador to Washington in anger. Meanwhile on Saturday France’s ambassador to Australia rebuked the country for its “huge mistake”.

Launch of French nuclear submarine Suffren in Cherbourg in 2019, AFP/Getty Images

 Ambassador Jean-Pierre Thebault said trust and integrity have been broken. “This has been a huge mistake, a very, very bad handling of the partnership,” The Associated Press reports.

“I would like to be able to run into a time machine and be in a situation where we don’t end up in such an incredible, clumsy, inadequate, un-Australian situation,” Thebault added.

The initial French sub contract with Australia, which had been first agreed to in 2016, was for France to build 12 conventionally powered submarines modelled on Barracuda nuclear-powered subs. Negotiations had long been tense, particularly after rising costs and significant production delays on the French side. 

The new ‘AUKUS’ deal with the United States officially announced Thursday will see Australia acquire at least eight nuclear submarines, allowing it to join a tiny number of countries globally who deploy nuclear-powered subs, in a moved being seen as aimed at countering China’s growing power in the Indo-Pacific.

Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said at the end of this week of which has seen France continue to lash out: “Australia understands France’s deep disappointment with our decision, which was taken in accordance with our clear and communicated national security interests.”

French FM Le Drian earlier described Australia’s scrapping deal “a stab in the back” and warned that trust has been broken between the two trading partners.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/18/2021 – 22:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/39jM4eo Tyler Durden

The Rise And Fall Of 9MM Ammo Prices During COVID; What’s Next?

The Rise And Fall Of 9MM Ammo Prices During COVID; What’s Next?

Op-Ed via The Machine Gun Nest (TMGN).

The Machine Gun Nest has been open since 2015, but we’ve been in the firearms industry since 2013. Earlier than that, Rob (one of the owners) has been collecting guns since the early 2000s. We’ve seen panic buys, ammo prices fluctuate, and firearms banned and unbanned.

March of 2020. The COVID19 pandemic hits the United States. Many people (like myself) were aware of the situation in China and had time to prepare for the worst adequately. Many people were caught completely off guard.

Many things led to the recent panic buy, but most of it is related to COVID. Many people thought that the world was going to end. So many people “woke up” to the idea that they may have to fend for themselves and that no one was coming to save them. This change of mentality led to an explosion in firearms and ammo sales.

Weirdly enough, the price of ammo didn’t have an immediate rise at the beginning of the pandemic. It was summertime before we started to see a real spike in price. Prices averaged $0.20 a round for 9mm until July. Then we began to see prices rise to an average of about $0.30/per round.

The price rise could be attributed to the BLM protests, counter and subsequent riots that followed, which were viewed widely across the internet and traditional media. There were depictions of innocent people getting hurt or worse, swarmed by protestors, with no police anywhere to help.

This led to a panic buy on top of a panic buy. Whereas previously, shelves had been scarce, they became empty. People started to hoard ammunition like they had been hoarding toilet paper. Since manufacturing companies were set up to meet the average demand of the “Trump Slump” of the previous years, where gun and ammo sales had been low, there started to be bottlenecks in ammunition production. Ammo manufacturers were not prepared for the sharp increase in buying.

In August 2020, we started to see prices increase even more as ammo became harder to come by. 9mm saw an average of $0.50/ per round. Major manufacturing companies started to report that they had accumulated millions of dollars in backorders. We tried to place a substantial order for ammo and were straight up told that there was no way that we’d get it within the year or next.  

Speaking to some of our friends, we gathered that there was a shortage of primers. Primers are the component within ammunition that ignites the gunpowder to expel the projectile from the bullet & firearm when struck by the firing pin. For those that don’t know, primers are incredibly dangerous to produce. The manufacturing process sometimes results in death. Primers are typically the bottleneck in the production process for ammunition. A shortage of primers caused by high demand and supply chain disruption continued to help drive up the cost of ammo.

We luckily found an importer who had bought 1M rounds of Turkish 9mm. We were able to work with him to import the ammo, and that saw us through the worst of the shortages. Unfortunately, we were victims of circumstance (like everyone else) and had to pay a high cost per round to acquire the ammo.

After the 2020 election, we saw prices rise again to an average of $0.60 per round. To give you an idea of what that means- a box of ammo is 50 rounds typically. That’s about 3-5 magazines, depending on how many bullets you load. 9mm is meant to be an inexpensive round. It’s relatively cheap to produce, and its popularity has a lot to do with that fact. When you have people paying $30 ($0.60 per round) for a box of 9mm, as opposed to $12 (0.24 per round) eight months prior, shooting starts to get expensive, especially since the average range trip equates to about 2-300 rounds per caliber.

Consider this as well; statistics show that in 2020 alone, 23 million firearms were sold, with 6 million of those guns being bought by first-time gun owners. Suppose each of those new gun owners wants to buy enough ammo for an average range trip, 200 rounds. In that case, those people would need 1,200,000,000 rounds of ammo to satisfy the demand, and that’s not even including the 32% of Americans that own guns (According to Gallup polling.) That would be about 104,960,000 people if you were wondering.

So, to satisfy that market, if each of those 104.9 Million people wanted only 200 rounds of ammo for one firearm, the amount of ammo needed would be serious. (and we know that people, in reality, want thousands of rounds per firearm). That’s not including law enforcement contracts and military contracts, which usually take precedence over the civilian market.

Finally, in Jan. of 2021, we seem to reach the peak. With the Jan. 6th protests and Biden’s inauguration, gun and ammo buying hit new highs. 9mm prices on average hit $0.71 per round. During this time, we regularly heard from customers that other spots were selling 9mm at $1/round.

At the time of writing this (September 2021), we’re just now starting to see a drop in ammo prices and gun sales slowing down. 9mm is sitting at $0.31 per round for steel case and $0.34 per round for brass on the low end. Any well-known brand names are sitting at around $0.39 per round. Even with Biden’s new “Russian Ammo Ban,” prices seem to have steadily fallen, at least on 9mm.

The real question is, will the prices keep dropping? It’s anyone’s guess.

There’s a ton of factors affecting the market right now, from unrest around the world. For example, earlier this month, a coup in Guinea sent Aluminum prices to a ten-year high. If you’re unfamiliar, Guinea holds a quarter of the world’s bauxite supply, a raw material that can be refined into alumina, which can then be smelted into aluminum.  

This price change can affect the cost of firearms, as manufacturers will have to pay a higher price to acquire raw materials.

Shipping and transporting are another problem now, with sea containers fetching record-high prices because of a shortage and supply chains still seeing significant disruptions.

Since the panic buy for firearms has at least subsided a little bit, people have stopped hoarding ammo and are choosier. We’re seeing this in gun sales right now where customers aren’t coming in and just buying anything on the wall. People are starting to do their research and are becoming pickier about their buying. I think this is the same for ammo as well. The demand has subsided a bit. If supply continues to meet demand, I think we’ll continue to see a drop in prices. Barring some mutation in covid that gives the virus a 50% CFR, more supply chain disruptions, or the Biden administration passing some severe gun control legislation, I think we will continue to see the price of ammo dropping slowly.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/18/2021 – 21:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3zk7Fhf Tyler Durden

California Policymakers Suddenly Agree With Trump That Controlled Burns Make Forests More Resilient

California Policymakers Suddenly Agree With Trump That Controlled Burns Make Forests More Resilient

California lawmakers are apparently just now discovering that controlled burns to prevent future wildfires might be the new prescription as decades-old policies of progressive-driven ‘conservation’ and reactive fire suppression have failed.

Democratic state lawmakers are suddenly in agreement with former President Trump who said in August 2020 that the state needs “to clean its forest floors more than anything else.” 

At a rally in Pennsylvania last August, Trump told supporters: 

“I see again the forest fires are starting. They’re starting again in California. I said, you gotta clean your floors, you gotta clean your forests — there are many, many years of leaves and broken trees and they’re like, like, so flammable, you touch them and it goes up.

And now, Sen. Bill Dodd, D-Napa, praised a new $20 million controlled burn pilot program that won legislative approval and could soon be signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to local Napa County news East County Today.  

“If we want to reduce the frequency and destructiveness of wildfires, we must remove combustible fuels from our tinder-dry forests and woodlands,” Sen. Dodd said.

“Prescribed burning is a time-tested solution to this worsening problem. I am thrilled to see this come to fruition and thank my legislative colleagues for supporting this worthwhile investment.”

By starting controlled fires, forest managers can eliminate fuels, such as thickets, brush, branches, and young trees that supercharge fast-moving blazes. This allows older trees to survive and keeps forest floors free and clear of fuels for the next season of wildfires. 

Decades of progressive (and reactive) policies (not global warming) have made California’s woodlands overgrown, and when hot temperatures and drought arrive, the forests are tinder boxes ready to ignite. 

Today’s reactive wildfire response to deploy thousands of firefighters, helicopters, planes, drones, bulldozers, and firetrucks to suppress fires is a failed policy, and lawmakers are quickly learning the hard way with more than three million acres burned in the state this fire season, displacing thousands of households and pushing first responders onto the brink of exhaustion. 

President Biden visited California on Monday and said: “These fires are blinking code red for our nation.” He promoted two spending bills in Congress that would fund forest management and more resilient infrastructure. 

So Trump was right when he criticized California for mismanaging its wildfire management program that has been the culprit of these mega-fires. Meanwhile, liberal media continues to toe the establishment line that climate change is at fault, not just bad policymaking.

As H.Sterling Burnett recently noted,in late July, President Joe Biden held a virtual joint planning meeting and press conference with the governors of various Western states to discuss how to handle 2021’s wildfire season.

Every leader blamed catastrophic human climate change for the severity of recent wildfire seasons.

The New York Times allowed Oregon’s Democratic Gov. Kate Brown to follow up that event with an editorial titled “The West Is on Fire, It’s Past Time to Act on Climate Change.”

Biden and the governors are wrong.

Wildfires have been common throughout the West historically, often burning more acres than they’ve burned in recent years. To the extent that wildfires have increased in intensity recently, it isn’t due to modest warming, but rather to decades of federal and state mismanagement of publicly owned forests throughout the Western United States, leaving those forests in tinderbox conditions.

So, for political reasons, Biden and the governors want to blame modest recent warming for the scope and intensity of wildfires in Western states in 2020 and 2021. The true culprit is more than 30 years of forest mismanagement.

Contrary to Biden and the governors’ assertions, state and federal efforts to address racial disparities, increase electric vehicle usage, and stop using fossil fuels to generate electricity will do nothing to prevent wildfires.

Wildfires are natural. They can’t be stopped. They can be managed. The damage they cause to the forests and the people living near them can be dramatically reduced.

Wise management of forests is required, either through regular, widespread, low-intensity burning, as the Native Americans did, or through active forest management, including intensive logging and brush clearing and firefighting efforts, as governments did prior to 1990. These tools, not massive, misdirected spending on climate change, are the best hope of preventing Westerners’ lives and livelihoods from being consumed by flames.

It appears California Democrats are maybe finally willing to accept that truth… of course with the knowledge that no mainstream media outlet will point out their hypocrisy.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/18/2021 – 21:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3zmMGKI Tyler Durden

Debunking Biden’s Claim We Must “Protect The Vaccinated From The Unvaccinated”

Debunking Biden’s Claim We Must “Protect The Vaccinated From The Unvaccinated”

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

The official line on vaccines is that they are extremely effective at protecting against serious illness. And yet, these same people are also claiming that the unvaccinated are a major threat to the vaccinated.

More specifically, President Biden claimed on September 10 that vaccine mandates were to “protect the vaccinated workers from unvaccinated workers.”

In other words, it is claimed that vaccines are remarkably effective, and that the vaccinated must also be protected from the unvaccinated. How can both claims be true at the same time? They can’t. The idea that vaccinated people are being frequently harmed by the unvaccinated is a complete fabrication, based on the pro-mandate crowd’s own mainstream data.

As Robert Fellner points out, according to the official data,

The odds of a vaccinated person dying from COVID are 1 in 137,000.

The fatality rate for seasonal flu, meanwhile, is at least 100 times greater than that. The chance of dying in an automobile accident is over 1,000 times greater. Dog attacks, bee stings, sunstroke, cataclysmic storms, and a variety of other background risks we accept as a normal part of life are all more deadly than the risk COVID poses to the vaccinated.

Moreover, the risk of death to vaccinated people is similar to the risk of having an adverse side effect to the vaccine. And as the spokesmen for Big Pharma and the regime never tire of telling us, you shouldn’t care about having an adverse reaction, because it is so very rare and inconsequential.

So by that reasoning, vaccinated people shouldn’t worry about getting very ill from covid. Those cases are just as rare as the so, so rare cases of adverse reaction.

And yet, even after all of this, the backers of vaccine mandates are trying to whip up hysteria about how we must “protect the vaccinated” who are in grave danger thanks to the unvaccinated.

The level of mental and logical incoherence necessary to come to this conclusion is quite a feat.

It Doesn’t Stop the Spread

It must also be remembered that vaccination does not stop the spread of covid

Fellner continues:

But as [the CDC’s] Dr. Walensky explained last month, while the COVID vaccines remain incredibly effective at preventing serious illness and death, “what they cannot do anymore is prevent transmission.” This reflects the official position of the agency as well, which is why the CDC now requires vaccinated people to mask indoors and follow the same type of social distancing practices as unvaccinated people.

The official confirmation that COVID is endemic, and vaccination cannot stop transmission and thereby eliminate it in the way it could for things like polio and smallpox, makes mandates intolerable to a free society. The entire argument for mandatory vaccination originally rested on the claim that the vaccines could reliably stop transmission.

Moreover, those who are vaccinated often experience a mild form of covid when they are re-infected, which means they often spread the disease without even knowing they have it. The vaccinated also carry the same viral load as the unvaccinated, as noted last month by the UK’s Evening Standard:

While evidence demonstrates that vaccines significantly reduce hospitalisations and deaths, scientists now believe those infected by the Delta variant can still harbour similar levels of virus to those who are unvaccinated.

Previous thinking was that vaccinations would stop the spread, but now,

[T]his has been thrown into doubt and raises questions about vaccine passports … which work on the assumption that double-jabbed people are less likely to spread the virus.

Yet again, we see the notion that the vaccinated are being endangered by the unvaccinated is a fantasy of the mandate activists.

At least the CDC is being logical when it says the vaccinated should keep wearing masks. Indeed, every time we hear this from the CDC we should remind ourselves: vaccination does not stop the spread.

They’re Filling Up the Hospitals! 

There is a secondary fallback position the mandate pushers also use: that the unvaccinated are taking up all the intensive care beds and therefore denying people with other conditions the hospital beds that are allegedly more deserved by others.

As I pointed out here, this is also an inconsistent argument since this arguments rests on the idea that people who make unhealthy choices (like not taking a vaccine) ought to be treated as pariahs.

This only applies to one single “unhealthy choice.” These mandate pushers are apparently perfectly fine with drug abusers, smokers, and morbidly obese victims of Type-2 diabetes—the numbers of whom have been multiplying— filling up all the ICU beds. No, those people deserve their hospital beds even though they made the choice to destroy their own health. In fact if one suggests people lay off the meth pipe, the Big Gulps, or the Marlboros—in an effort to improve health—one is an intolerable “fat shamer” or someone who blames the victims. 

In any case, recent data has also emerged questioning whether or not the data on hospitalizations is very useful in identifying the load imposed on ICUs by covid patients. 

A recent study showed that nearly half (i.e., 48 percent) of covid hospitalizations in 2020 were mild cases. According to The Atlantic (not exactly a hotbed of anti-vaccine rhetoric): 

The study found that from March 2020 through early January 2021—before vaccination was widespread, and before the Delta variant had arrived—the proportion of patients with mild or asymptomatic disease was 36 percent. From mid-January through the end of June 2021, however, that number rose to 48 percent. In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease.

And why are there fewer severe cases now? It may be because “unvaccinated patients in the vaccine era tend to be a younger cohort who are less vulnerable to COVID and may be more likely to have been infected in the past.” 

Get Vaccinated Even If You Already Had Covid!

But no matter! All that matters is getting people vaccinated, and it’s all for your own good, and governments ought to be able to force medications on you. The cynical refrain of the pro-abortion Left, “get your laws off my body” only applies to one single case. In every other case, the state owns you.

This drive for vaccination no matter what can also be seen in the effort to vaccinate even those who have already recovered from covid. The claim here is that those who natural immunity should get jabbed because they have a higher incidence of reinfection—although it is admitted cases of reinfection tend to be far milder than the initial case.

Specifically, those pushing vaccination in this case may point to a study suggesting the unvaccinated are 2.34 times more likely to be reinfected than the vaccinated.

Yet, according to the pro-mandate crowd, this is 2.34 times larger than an extremely small number. After all, we’re frequently told that cases of reinfection for the vaccinated are “extremely rare” and inconsequential. So, that means for the unvaccinated, the odds of reinfection are a little more than double an inconsequential number. Now, I don’t have a degree in mathematics, but I have taken enough calculus and statistics classes to know that 2.3 times “basically zero” is also “basically zero.”

But that is the math being used by those who insist that the risk of reinfection for the vaccinated is negligible, while the risk of reinfection for the already-recovered is an enormous public health crisis.

According to the mandate pushers’ own data, the drive to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated makes no sense at all. But I suspect they’ll stick with the slogan, or even double down on it. 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/18/2021 – 20:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3kjWgd9 Tyler Durden

Taibbi: Does America Hate The “Poorly Educated”?

Taibbi: Does America Hate The “Poorly Educated”?

Authored by Matt Taibbi via TK News,

It was impossible to mistake the tone of Joe Biden’s announcement of a vaccine mandate last week. It was an angry speech, which started by explaining that “many of us are frustrated with the nearly 80 million Americans who are still not vaccinated,” and went on to announce that “our patience is wearing thin,” and “your refusal has cost all of us.” Biden, not normally one for oratorial effects, even conveyed a sense of barely contained rage by muttering, “Get vaccinated!” as he walked off the stage.

“Enjoying the angry Dad vibes from this Biden speech,” came the cheerful comment of former Justice Department spokesman and MSNBC analyst Matthew Miller:

Who’d attracted Biden’s anger — the unvaccinated — was clear. The why was more confusing. The president decried how “the unvaccinated overcrowd our hospitals… leaving no room for someone with a heart attack or pancreatitis or cancer,” a legitimate enough point. But after reassuring those who’d “done their part” that just “one out of every 160,000 fully vaccinated Americans was hospitalized” this summer, Biden nonetheless explained that “a distinct minority of Americans” is “causing unvaccinated people to die.” He added: “We’re going to protect the vaccinated from unvaccinated co-workers.”

As many noted, the statements were contradictory. If the vaccine really is that effective, the overwhelming consequences of of any failure to get vaccinated will be borne by the unvaccinated themselves. But Biden’s speech was as much about directing anger as policy. The mandate was an extraordinary step, but Biden’s unique — and uniquely strange — rhetorical setup, which framed the decision as a way to stop “them” from doing “damage” and killing “us,” was just as big a story.

The arrival of Covid-19 has exacerbated a troubling divide that’s been growing in America for decades, and is elucidated at length in Michael Sandel’s recent The Tyranny of Merit. The book tells a politically unsettling story about meritocracy in America, one that runs counter to prevailing narratives on both the left and the right. Though mention of Covid-19 is limited to a few paragraphs in a new prologue, the pandemic in many ways has become the ultimate test case of Sandel’s thesis: that we Americans have been so conditioned to believe that winners deserve to win that we’ve found ways to hate losers of any kind as moral failures, even when life is at stake, and especially when lack of education is seen as a factor.

It’s not remotely the same kind of book, but The Tyranny of Merit does follow up on themes in Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism. Lasch’s late seventies premise described American society devolved into a ceaseless all-against-all competition on all fronts, from the professional to the physical to the social and sexual and beyond. Moreover, Lasch wrote, if the original “American dream” was imbued with at least some vague ideas that success should be tied to virtues like thrift, discipline, and wisdom, by the disco age “the pursuit of wealth lost the few shreds of moral meaning.”

In the time since Lasch’s iconic treatise, though, relentless messaging campaigns emanating from both sides of the political aisle re-emphasized the idea that material success was tied to moral character. Ronald Reagan evangelized the idea that poverty was mostly a deserved state, and government at most owed those who weren’t to blame for their own problems. When Bill Clinton came along, he took Reagan’s finger-wagging moralizing and re-cast it in the cheery new technocratic language of global capitalism. “We must do what America does best,” Clinton said at his inauguration. “Offer more opportunity to all and demand more responsibility from all.”

Clinton’s formula was really Yin to Reagan’s Yang: in a world that offered more “opportunity,” there was now even less excuse for failure. We forget, because the pre-9/11 world seems so long ago, but Clinton-era editorialists spent much of the late nineties hyping the opportunity gospel. We were told a combination of the Internet and an increasingly integrated international economy created vast new worlds of material possibility, for those willing to “fill the unforgiving minute” and run the race. “If globalization were a sport,” wrote an exultant Thomas Friedman in 1999, “it would be the 100-yard dash, over and over and over. And no matter how many times you win, you have to race again the next day.”

Onetime labor parties paradoxically were the biggest boosters of the new hyper-competitive global economy, whose central feature was forcing Western workers to face off against masses of laborers in China, South Asia, Mexico, and other places where political rights were, shall we say, less of a priority. As the stress on former blue-collar workers intensified, politicians often sold the public on the idea that higher learning was their Golden Ticket out of the miseries of debt, higher medical costs, and especially social immobility.

By the time Barack Obama came along, it was axiomatic among the cosmopolitan set that anyone with enough ingenuity and entrepreneurial energy should be able to get ahead. Sandel amusingly points out that Obama often culled from a Sly and the Family Stone song in describing his vision of modern American capitalism, using the phrase “You can make it if you try” 140 times during his presidency:

The explosive and uncomfortable message at the heart of The Tyranny of Meritocracy is the idea that the resulting political divide is now less about ideology than education. Sandel deserves credit for taking on a subject that almost no one in high society wants to hear about, let alone those in the academic world. Forget red versus blue: he shows the real gulf is between those who have diplomas, and those who don’t. The subtext is that people with the right degrees deserve to be rich, and have health insurance, and good schooling for their kids, and dignified work, while those who threw away their books after high school deserve failure, in the same way smokers deserve lung disease — especially if they make unsanctioned political choices.

This is an excerpt from today’s subscriber-only post. To read the entire article and get full access to the archives, you can subscribe for $5 a month or $50 a year.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/18/2021 – 19:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3ApnZ1x Tyler Durden

Hospital Staff That Decline COVID Vaccine For Religious Reasons Must Attest To Also Swearing Off Tylenol, Tums, & Other Common Meds

Hospital Staff That Decline COVID Vaccine For Religious Reasons Must Attest To Also Swearing Off Tylenol, Tums, & Other Common Meds

In order to obtain a religious exemption from the Covid-19 vaccine at a hospital system in Arkansas, staff  are also required to “swear off” common medicines like Tylenol, Tums and Preparation H. 

Conway Regional Health System said it noticed an uptick in vaccine exemption requests that “cited the use of fetal cell lines in the development and testing of the vaccines,” according to ARS Technica.

Matt Troup, president and CEO of Conway Regional Health System, said: “This was significantly disproportionate to what we’ve seen with the influenza vaccine.”

He continued: “Thus, we provided a religious attestation form for those individuals requesting a religious exemption.” This attestation includes a list of about 30 common medicines that “fall into the same category as the COVID-19 vaccine in their use of fetal cell lines.”

ARS Technica reported that some of the common medicines on the list include Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, aspirin, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, ibuprofen, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, albuterol, Preparation H, MMR vaccine, Claritin, Zoloft, Prilosec OTC, and azithromycin.

Employees then must attest they “truthfully acknowledge and affirm that my sincerely held religious belief is consistent and true”. 

Troup said that the hospital wants to make sure that staff are “sincere” in their beliefs and that the hospital wants to “educate staff who might have requested an exemption without understanding the full scope of how fetal cells are used in testing and development in common medicines.”

Employees that don’t sign the form are only granted provisional exemptions. Troup said 5% of the hospital’s staff has filed for such an exemption. 

“A lot of this, I believe, is a hesitancy about the vaccine, and so that’s a separate issue than a religious exemption,” he concluded.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/18/2021 – 19:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3tTwEXJ Tyler Durden