A teenager made fun of President Donald Trump. Apparently, that’s a matter for the police.
In North Carolina, the Surry County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a North Surry High School student for telling an anti-Trump joke during a school-sponsored improv show.
“Regrettably, the performance included an inappropriate joke about the President,” the school explained in a statement, according to The Winston-Salem Journal.
The article does not say, and the school has not revealed, what the joke was. Perhaps it broke some sort of school rule. In that case, it may merit disciplinary action—by the school.
But—as should be obvious to all—an offensive joke is not so serious that the police need to involve themselves. Unless the “joke” was actually a violent threat, in which case I assume the statement would spell this out, there is simply nothing to investigate. It’s protected speech.
The sheriff’s office sprang into action after several pearl-clutching parents complained, according to The Journal:
Shortly after the comment was made, the sheriff’s office received several complaints, including one from a concerned parent, said Capt. Scott Hudson of the sheriff’s office.
That complaint started the investigation, which is being conducted by school resource officers, Hudson said.
“We’re still doing interviews, speaking with students, learning what was said and the context of the comment,” Hudson said.
I reached out to the school’s principal, Paige Badgette, and resource officer, Delinda Kyle, but did not immediately receive a response.
This is one of the dangers of having police in schools in the first place: Minor disciplinary matters that should be addressed by parents, teachers, and councillors end up getting handled by the cops. And the police influence makes it much more likely that misbehaving teens will find themselves unnecessarily involved in the criminal justice system.
The school and the police should put an immediate stop to the investigation and cease violating this teen’s First Amendment rights. And the parents who called the cops on a kid for making an anti-Trump joke may want to think twice if they’re ever tempted to complain about political correctness run amok.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3438vQw
via IFTTT
The global oil market could be entering unchartered waters in the coming weeks. After the US shale revolution, which threatened OPEC’s hold on and the stability of the market, a new danger is lurking around the corner.
The Aramco IPO, the largest IPO in history, will not only impact OPEC but will also have repercussions for the Kingdom, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and the entire GCC region.
Most analysts have pointed out that there are some major issues with the company’s financials, its valuation and possible returns for the Kingdom. International banks are presenting their own IPO valuations, indicating a wide range of price targets, leaving a lot of room for speculation. At the same time, Aramco’s IPO prospectus indicates some threats which seem not to have been included in most analyses, such as the impact of flattening oil demand growth, potential legal repercussions if listed on Western stock exchanges and the potential lack of interest from US and European institutional investors.
And the financials are just one thing analysts are reviewing. Legal risks, including the 9/11 bill, the attitude of the U.S. congress, and the NOPEC bill could pose a major threat to the future of Aramco.
The possibility of investing in an oil company that could be sued for so-called terrorism or violent actions taken by third parties may be new but oil companies have always been targets of legal cases.
In the recent past, we have seen several court cases and class action lawsuits against companies such as Shell, ENI, Total and BP. And, when listed, Aramco will be more of a “normal” company than it has ever been. Saudi Arabia is taking a risk that is not yet quantifiable but which presents a ‘clear and present danger’.
Aramco could also be facing the same scrutiny that other IOCs are currently facing from global warming activists. If climate cases are filed in the US, or some European countries, Aramco could find itself in trouble. Multi-billion-dollar claims should be expected as activists will see the world’s biggest oil company as a symbol against which their cause can rally.
The success of the Aramco IPO, driven by Asian and non-Western institutional investors, sovereign wealth funds and even IOCs, has another non-environmental problem as well. As the main actor within OPEC, Aramco will have to act differently when addressing the market if it wants to be a real listed oil company. Shareholders, even from countries that are really inclined to address global warming issues, will still want to see rising profits and a steady dividend. In this increasingly difficult environment, Aramco will have to deliver to both the Saudi state and its new investors.
Acting as a normal oil giant will require a serious change in attitude, management and goals. Even though the company is not officially directly owned or linked to the Saudi government, the company has always been an instrument of the Kingdom’s geopolitical and economic strategy. Aramco’s production and investments have always been clearly linked to the future of Saudi Arabia and the geopolitical stakeholders it represents.
A stock market listed Aramco would have to break with this strategy, putting the company on a collision course with OPEC’s agenda. Shareholders will not be very happy if Aramco’s production volumes are determined by the oil cartel’s members. On the other hand, if Aramco decides not to comply with OPEC, it will render the cartel powerless. At present Saudi officials are vehemently denying that OPEC is being threatened, so shareholders and potential investors should be aware of this major issue before investing in the company.
While the risks are high, some positive things should be noted too. The Aramco IPO has already led to some unexpected positive changes in the GCC region. One could argue that thanks to the IPO circus, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are not yet at war. Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have understood that risking a war would have not only have meant a bloody conflict, but also the end to most of the region’s economic and social diversification plans. Oil and money now seem to have prevented an all-out war with Iran. Next to this, Saudi Arabia’s ill-fated adventure in Yemen seems to be entering its final phase. More and more rumors show that the involved parties are negotiating a deal that could end the Saudi-UAE confrontation with the Houthis. At the same time, the anti-Qatar Arab coalition (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE and Egypt) have openly shown willingness to remove some of the sanctions they imposed on Qatar. Opening up may come with its risks, but there may also be some more unintended positive consequences.
A pair of senators are teaming up across the aisle to put limits on how federal law enforcement agencies use facial recognition tools and when they must seek a warrant.
This week Sens. Mike Lee (R–Utah) and Chris Coons (D–Md.) introduced the Facial Recognition Technology Warrant Act. If it becomes law, it would require federal officials to get a warrant if they’re going to use facial recognition technology to attempt to track a specific person’s public movements for more than 72 hours.
The bill does not prohibit the use of facial recognition technology to identify people or even to monitor events in real time. Indeed, it says the authorities can use facial recognition to identify people, even without a warrant, as long as “no subsequent attempt is made to track that individual’s movement in real time or through the use of historical records after the individual has been identified.”
In other words, the Facial Recognition Technology Warrant Act doesn’t actually require warrants for the application of the technology, except for long-term surveillance of specific individuals.
Nevertheless, Coons and Lee put out a statement—joined by Fred Humphries, corporate vice president of U.S. government affairs at Microsoft—to praise what the bill would accomplish if passed. “Facial recognition technology can be a powerful tool for law enforcement officials,” said Lee. “But it’s [sic] very power also makes it ripe for abuse. That is why American citizens deserve protection from facial recognition abuse. This bill accomplishes that by requiring federal law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before conducting ongoing surveillance of a target.”
Americans for Prosperity also declared its support of this bill, which it sees as more balanced than a full ban on government’s use of facial recognition tech tools. Americans for Prosperity prefers regulations that keep authorities from abusing the tech. “We’re standing behind this bill,” said Senior Policy Analyst Billy Easley, “because we believe in the appropriate application of facial recognition technology and ensuring it is used for good rather than the mistreatment of Americans.”
“It has gaping loopholes that authorize the use of facial recognition for all kinds of abusive purposes without proper judicial oversight,” said Evan Greer, Fight for the Future’s deputy director. “It’s good to see that Congress wants to address this issue, but this bill falls utterly short.”
A pair of senators are teaming up across the aisle to put limits on how federal law enforcement agencies use facial recognition tools and when they must seek a warrant.
This week Sens. Mike Lee (R–Utah) and Chris Coons (D–Md.) introduced the Facial Recognition Technology Warrant Act. If it becomes law, it would require federal officials to get a warrant if they’re going to use facial recognition technology to attempt to track a specific person’s public movements for more than 72 hours.
The bill does not prohibit the use of facial recognition technology to identify people or even to monitor events in real time. Indeed, it says the authorities can use facial recognition to identify people, even without a warrant, as long as “no subsequent attempt is made to track that individual’s movement in real time or through the use of historical records after the individual has been identified.”
In other words, the Facial Recognition Technology Warrant Act doesn’t actually require warrants for the application of the technology, except for long-term surveillance of specific individuals.
Nevertheless, Coons and Lee put out a statement—joined by Fred Humphries, corporate vice president of U.S. government affairs at Microsoft—to praise what the bill would accomplish if passed. “Facial recognition technology can be a powerful tool for law enforcement officials,” said Lee. “But it’s [sic] very power also makes it ripe for abuse. That is why American citizens deserve protection from facial recognition abuse. This bill accomplishes that by requiring federal law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before conducting ongoing surveillance of a target.”
Americans for Prosperity also declared its support of this bill, which it sees as more balanced than a full ban on government’s use of facial recognition tech tools. Americans for Prosperity prefers regulations that keep authorities from abusing the tech. “We’re standing behind this bill,” said Senior Policy Analyst Billy Easley, “because we believe in the appropriate application of facial recognition technology and ensuring it is used for good rather than the mistreatment of Americans.”
“It has gaping loopholes that authorize the use of facial recognition for all kinds of abusive purposes without proper judicial oversight,” said Evan Greer, Fight for the Future’s deputy director. “It’s good to see that Congress wants to address this issue, but this bill falls utterly short.”
Libyan Official Urges New US Intervention After Russians Seen “On Front Lines”
A new report in Axiossuggests that Russia has significantly increased its presence in war-torn Libya, perhaps seeking to clean up the mess left in the wake of the US-NATO led regime change war which toppled Muammar Gaddafi.
This after a recent NY Times investigation found that at least 200 Russian mercenaries from Wagner Group have been in Libya supporting renegade General Khalifa Haftar’s offensive against the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli.
Soldier allied to the UN-backed government in Tripoli deployed in Sirte, Libya, via Reuters.
Eight years after Gaddafi’s overthrow and brutal field execution at the hands of NATO-backed rebel Islamists, the oil and gas abundant country is still in the throes of grinding factional civil war.
Interior Minister for Tripoli’s GNA Fathi Bashagha told Axios the unfolding “proxy war” will doom the country to become “a haven for terrorists and extremists” unless the US steps in again.
However, the few times the Trump administration has weighed in on the continuing violence, it actually voiced support for Haftar and his Benghazi-based Libyan National Army (LNA), who are “securing the oil” – Trump said last April.
Al Jazeera screenshot of forces loyal to renegade General Khalifa Haftar fighting Libya’s UN-based government.
So ironically Washington and Moscow may currently be on the same side in terms of the major players in Libya; however, other powerful states like Turkey are giving active military support to the GNA in Tripoli.
The UN-backed GNA has perceived growing Russian presence on the ground of late, per Axios:
Bashagha says he began to hear reports of Russian involvement over the summer, including from locals who described groups of light-skinned people “taking the roads through the desert.”
Bloomberg: “More than 100 mercenaries from the Wagner group headed by Yevgeny Prigozhin, also known as ‘Putin’s chef’ for his Kremlin catering contracts, arrived at a forward base in Libya in the first week of September to support eastern strongman Khalifa Haftar’s assault on the capital Tripoli.”
“By August, they were on the front lines,” the Libyan Interior Minister continued. “The tactics used by Haftar’s forces drastically changed. The operations were becoming very professional.” He also alleged Russian snipers active in the battles, which have been “very effective and very harmful to our forces.”
Underscoring frustration at the confused mess which outside powers have added to in the developing proxy war, Bashagha added, “Ironically, the countries that support Haftar while he attacks a government that is internationally recognized are also allied with the United States.”
Tripoli-based Libyan Interior Minister (GNA) Fathi Bashagha, via Afrique Panorama
Addressing two Arab states currently providing heavy weapons to Haftar, he added: “We are hoping that the U.S. will help push against the UAE and Egypt, to stop their meddling in our country,” according to the Axios report.
“That American withdrawal made many regional countries have their proxy wars, their wars of interest on Libyan soil. And finally now it’s the Russians,” Bashagha said, though predictably (given his government is now in power) without recognizing it was American military intervention in the first place that’s the root of Libya’s continued chaos.
House Democrats have upped the ante in the impeachment inquiry. President Donald Trump’s efforts to make security assistance to Ukraine contingent on politically useful probes, they suggest, are a violation of criminal bribery law.
“The bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into the elections,” said House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) at a press conference on Thursday. “That’s bribery.”
Weighing in on Neil Cavuto’s Fox News program, Judge Andrew Napolitano explained that “it wouldn’t matter if it was Joe Biden or Joe Blow” who was at the center of the investigations sought by Trump. It’s also inconsequential, he said, “whether the favor comes or not.” (Republicans have argued that, since the aid was released before the country conducted any investigations, there was no quo in the quid pro quo. Others counter that this only happened because Congress started getting suspicious.)
“I think that the argument that asking for a favor in return for doing a legal obligation—releasing the [security] funds—is pretty clearly a violation of criminal bribery laws,” Napolitano told Cavuto. “Republicans may not want to acknowledge that, which is why they’d rather undermine the witnesses than address the merits.”
Napolitano is referring to the first day of impeachment inquiry testimony, when the two witnesses—William B. Taylor, the chargé d’affaires in Ukraine, and George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs—railed against Trump’s attempts to push Ukraine into investigating a political rival. In response, the minority party characterized both men as liable to have misrepresented or misunderstood interactions they had with those close in Trump’s circle.
According to Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.), the libertarian-minded congressman who left the Republican Party in July, there is an easy way to gain clarity.
“This is simple. Keep it simple,” he tweeted on Wednesday. “The White House released security assistance to Ukraine only after Congress started asking questions. Why? Considering that Bolton, Giuliani, Mulvaney, and others may have pertinent first-hand testimony, why won’t President Trump let them testify?”
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2qgxJMP
via IFTTT
Roger Stone Found Guilty Of Lying About 2016 Leaks
Longtime GOP operative and Trump associate Roger Stone was found guilty on seven counts related to lying about upcoming WikiLeaks releases during the 2016 US election, along with obstruction and witness tampering.
After a trial that spanned just over a week, a federal court jury in Washington, D.C., convicted Stone on five felony counts of lying to investigators, one of obstructing a congressional probe and one of witness tampering.
The charges against Stone were brought by Robert Mueller and handed off to career federal prosecutors in Washington after the special counsel’s Russia probe ended this spring. –Politico
Count One alleges that Stone obstructed the House committee’s investigation by denying he had emails and other documents about WikiLeaks-related contacts. During his House testimony, Stone was asked if he had “emails to anyone concerning the allegations of hacked documents … or any discussions you have had with third parties about [WikiLeaks]?” Stone answered that he did not, when in fact he had a bunch of emails and other communications. The obstruction charge also alleges Stone attempted to prevent Credico from testifying or tried to convince him to testify falsely.
Counts two through six concern specific statements to the House committee. Count Two is based on Stone’s assertion that he did not have emails.
Count Three alleges that Stone lied when he said that Credico was his only “go-between” to Assange, when in fact, Stone was also in contact with Corsi for that purpose. “At no time did Stone identify [Corsi] to [the House] as another individual Stone contacted to serve as a ‘go-between,'” the indictment says.
Count Four alleges that Stone lied when he said he did not ask Credico to communicate anything to Assange, when in fact Stone asked both Credico and Corsi to get in touch with Assange “to pass on requests … for documents Stone believed would be damaging to the Clinton campaign.”
Count Five alleges that Stone lied when he told the House that he and Credico did not communicate via text message or email about WikiLeaks. Stone told the committee the two talked over the phone, when in fact, according to the indictment, “Stone and [Credico] … engaged in frequent written communications by email and text message.”
Count Six alleges that Stone lied when he testified that he had never discussed his conversations with Credico with anyone at the Trump campaign, when in fact, “Stone spoke to multiple individuals involved in the Trump campaign about what he claimed to have learned from his intermediary to [WikiLeaks].”
Count Seven is a witness tampering charge, alleging that Stone tried to convince Credico to take the Fifth or to lie to the House committee.
Jack Ma Warns Trade War Could Last 20 Years Amid Threats Globalization Has Peaked
Get ready for two decades of a US-China trade war and the peak of globalization, Jack Ma, the co-founder and former chairman of Alibaba Group, told Bloomberg TV Thursday evening in an exclusive interview.
Ma warned that Sino-American relations could experience 20-years of “turbulence” if trade disputes aren’t solved in a timely fashion.
“We have to be very, very careful,” Ma said. “We have to solve problems, and we should not create more problems.”
Ma said China and the US must work together in supporting globalization, by sharing technology and prosperity across the world.
Alibaba Co-Founder Jack Ma speaks to @YIbukun about his mission to help entrepreneurs in Africa, the US-China trade war, and whether he still plans to list Ant Financial. Watch the full exclusive with on @BloombergTV@businesspic.twitter.com/ea7MdyXNOa
Failure to resolve trade disputes in the next several years could confirm “peak” globalization. This means policy-driven de-globalization will flourish across countries and lead to lower trade volumes, shrinking global GDP, more uncertainty, and a possible trade recession as complex supply chains are reworked.
An instant rollback in the trade war between both China and the US wouldn’t immediately lead a resurgence in globalization but rather a plateau — as the damage has already been done.
The de-globalization scenario is becoming more plausible by the day, despite meaningless trade headlines from the Trump administration of an imminent trade deal to pump the stock market. The trend is in place, and the global economy has likely entered or about to enter a worldwide trade recession.
Ma could be right; several decades of a trade war are likely. Investors are not positioned for the volatility ahead.
House Democrats have upped the ante in the impeachment inquiry. President Donald Trump’s efforts to make security assistance to Ukraine contingent on politically useful probes, they suggest, are a violation of criminal bribery law.
“The bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into the elections,” said House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) at a press conference on Thursday. “That’s bribery.”
Weighing in on Neil Cavuto’s Fox News program, Judge Andrew Napolitano explained that “it wouldn’t matter if it was Joe Biden or Joe Blow” who was at the center of the investigations sought by Trump. It’s also inconsequential, he said, “whether the favor comes or not.” (Republicans have argued that, since the aid was released before the country conducted any investigations, there was no quo in the quid pro quo. Others counter that this only happened because Congress started getting suspicious.)
“I think that the argument that asking for a favor in return for doing a legal obligation—releasing the [security] funds—is pretty clearly a violation of criminal bribery laws,” Napolitano told Cavuto. “Republicans may not want to acknowledge that, which is why they’d rather undermine the witnesses than address the merits.”
Napolitano is referring to the first day of impeachment inquiry testimony, when the two witnesses—William B. Taylor, the chargé d’affaires in Ukraine, and George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs—railed against Trump’s attempts to push Ukraine into investigating a political rival. In response, the minority party characterized both men as liable to have misrepresented or misunderstood interactions they had with those close in Trump’s circle.
According to Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.), the libertarian-minded congressman who left the Republican Party in July, there is an easy way to gain clarity.
“This is simple. Keep it simple,” he tweeted on Wednesday. “The White House released security assistance to Ukraine only after Congress started asking questions. Why? Considering that Bolton, Giuliani, Mulvaney, and others may have pertinent first-hand testimony, why won’t President Trump let them testify?”
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2qgxJMP
via IFTTT
Fundstrat’s Tom Lee believes Bitcoin (BTC) will accrue price value following a similar logic to the Silicon Valley tech titans.
During an interview for CNBC’s Street Signs Asia on show on Nov. 15, Lee argued that cryptocurrencies “are network value assets” — and share this with the world’s most successful tech stocks.
Lee — a renowned Bitcoin bull, co-founder and Wall Street strategist at Fundstrat Global Advisors — made his argument when asked about the logic behind Fundstrat’s $25,000 by 2022 forecast for Bitcoin.
Noting that the number was set in 2017 as part of a five-year forecast for the asset, he said he still think it’s “quite easy to achieve”:
“Cryptocurrencies are network value assets, meaning the more people hold the asset, the greater the value. In fact, it’s a log function — so if you double the users hold it, you get a quadrupling of value. To go to $25,000 you essentially need a little less than 4x rise, which means you need to double the number of people who hold Bitcoin.”
Lee said that Fundstrat estimates that roughly half a million people own and use Bitcoin so that you would need to hit a million users to get a $25,000 valuation.
Noting that this is essentially a utility function, Lee drew an analogy with the performance of FAANG (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google) stocks since their public listing. He said:
“70% of their return [since public listing] is explained by the growth of the global internet in that period of time. In other words, it’s a LOG function of the internet’s growth, and that’s how cryptocurrencies are going to work.”
Institutional entrenchment
In terms of other factors, Lee said he was very bullish on Bitcoin in the long term, saying he thinks it’s now “still the earliest days for digital assets” and that over time they’ll become highly institutional and an established asset class.
“Once we hit that it’s another hockey stick,” he said, somewhat disconcerting his interviewer with the metaphor.
In October, Lee argued that having made a big move at the start of 2019, Bitcoin now needs to consolidate its gains.
That same month, the strategist proposed that Bitcoin is positively correlated with the S&P 500 market index and is thus not a hedge against macro turmoil, as some argue.
