About a year ago, I was watching Real Vision (highly recommend subscribing if you aren’t already subscribed) and saw an interview with Kyle Bass where he made a very prescient observation. Eventually, President Trump will discover that the President has the power to wield tariffs against any country as he wishes. Then all hell will break loose. It really was one of those “aha moments” for me.
My question is; when will Trump realize that the President almost certainly has the power to devalue the US Dollar?
If there’s been one overlying theme in the past three years, it’s that if Trump is tweeting it, he’s probably already scheming in some way. He’ll make his move when least expected—that’s his way of keeping people off guard. (If you haven’t read Trump: The Art Of The Deal at least twice, stop what you’re doing and suffer through it. You can’t trade these markets without being able to get yourself into Trump’s head).
Global macro is about more than just reading charts. If charts made you rich, the technical analysts would be wealthiest guys in finance. Have you ever met a billionaire chart guy? Investing is about thinking 3 steps ahead and positioning your book for only the first of those steps—with imbedded optionality to capture steps 2 and 3 in case the timeline somehow accelerates.
China just launched the first move of what will be a global currency war. You can defend yourself in the usual ways (hint: gold). However, with everyone crowded into long US Dollar trades, I have to keep asking myself if this is an epic trap for longs.
I’m short the US dollar for the reasons noted previously. Thus far, it hasn’t exactly worked, but hasn’t not worked either. It’s only on massive down days that you see how investor positioning is as everyone unwinds their VAR. US Dollar isn’t up today. During the GFC, the Dollar roared on down market days. Could everyone be fighting the last war? What if this time the Dollar drops as Trump has a surprise devaluation? It is the trade that almost no one is positioned for.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Ku8Xii Tyler Durden
Hours after a gunman killed 20 people at a Walmart in El Paso on Sunday, Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), whose district includes that city, implored “all of us who have the power to end this horror” to “come together” and “once and for all address the gun violence epidemic that plagues our nation.” Other prominent Democrats, including several presidential contenders, likewise reacted to the attack in El Paso and a mass shooting that killed nine people in Dayton, Ohio, early the following morning by calling for “urgent action” to approve “common sense gun safety legislation.”
The elements of that legislation are mostly window dressing that would do little or nothing to prevent attacks like these. The most frequently mentioned policy, “universal background checks,” is plainly irrelevant to these particular crimes, since both the El Paso shooter and the Dayton shooter purchased their weapons legally, meaning they did not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records. Nor do the vast majority of mass shooters, who either passed background checks or could have. Neither requiring background checks for private transfers nor creating “strong background checks,” as Donald Trump has proposed (perhaps referring to the same policy), would make a difference in such cases.
Democrats also reiterated their support for a federal ban on “assault weapons,” and the conservative New York Post editorial page agreed. That policy is at least superficially more relevant, since both of the rifles used in these two attacks would qualify for that label. The El Paso shooter seems to have used a WASR-10 rifle, a civilian, semi-automatic version of the AK-47, while the Dayton shooter used an AM-15, a semi-automatic rifle made by Anderson Manufacturing that’s similar to the Colt AR-15.
The focus on such “military-style” rifles is puzzling for a few reasons. In 2017 all rifles combined—only a subset of which would qualify as “assault weapons”— accounted for just 5 percent of gun homicides where the type of firearm was specified, while handguns accounted for 89 percent. Handguns are also the kind of firearm chosen by most mass shooters (whose crimes, it is worth remembering, account for just 1 percent of gun homicides).
Even if Congress passed a new ban on “assault weapons,” more than 16 million would remain in circulation, an ample supply for the tiny minority of murderers who prefer them. But even if Congress could make those guns disappear—say, by confiscating them through a mandatory “buyback” program, as Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) proposed during his short-lived presidential campaign—it would not have a noticeable impact on the frequency or lethality of mass shootings.
Consider the rifle used in El Paso. Judging from security camera images, it had a fixed stock, which is OK under the latest version of the proposed federal “assault weapon” ban, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). The pistol grip would have to go, and so probably would the “upper handguard,” which seems to qualify as a forbidden “barrel shroud.” But you would still be left with a weapon that fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle energy.
One “common-sense” gun control policy that might have practical significance in the context of a mass shooting is a limit on the size of magazines. Feinstein’s bill, for example, would ban “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds (such as the magazines used in El Paso and Dayton, but also the magazines that come standard with many kinds of rifles and handguns). As with the “assault weapon” ban, that provision would leave millions of newly illegal products in circulation. But if it made magazines that hold more than 10 rounds more expensive and harder to come by, it could theoretically lead some mass shooters to use 10-round magazines, which would force them to switch magazines more frequently.
Since it takes just a few seconds to switch magazines, it’s not clear how often this constraint would make a difference in attacks on unarmed people. But we can’t rule out the possibility that it would occasionally help victims escape or resist. By the same token, however, a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds can make a crucial difference for people defending themselves against attacks, especially when they are confronted by multiple armed assailants.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez emphasized that point, citing actual incidents, when he ruled last March that California’s 10-round magazine limit is inconsistent with the Second Amendment right to armed self-defense. “California’s law prohibiting acquisition and possession of magazines able to hold any more than 10 rounds places a severe restriction on the core right of self-defense of the home such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny,” he said.
Writing in The New York Times, SUNY Cortland political scientist Robert Spitzer calls that conclusion “startling,” “suspect,” and “downright strange.” Yet it hardly seems strange to point out that the ability to fire more than 10 rounds without switching magazines can be important in self-defense—a point that current and retired police officers make every time they demand exemptions from laws like California’s. Indeed, the case for banning “large capacity” magazines hinges on the same observation as the case against banning them: A few seconds can be the difference between life and death.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YOpkPO
via IFTTT
If America is going to be a force for peace in the world, it needs to stop invading other countries for their benefit and it also needs to stop cultivating nasty regimes for its benefit. But ironically, the very politicos who are anti-war often become pro-dictator. Unfortunately, Democratic presidential contender Tulsi Gabbard, the congresswoman from Hawaii, is no different.
Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran, has made opposition to war her signature issue. During the second round of the Democratic debates, she was the only candidate who promised to “end wasteful regime change wars” and “take the trillions of dollars that we’ve been wasting on these wars and…redirect those resources into serving the needs of our people right here at home.” But that doesn’t make her a peacenik; it makes her an America Firster, like President Donald Trump. Indeed, although she went out of her way to condemn Trump as a “warmonger,” there isn’t much daylight between her position and his—which is no doubt why the former White House aide Stephen Bannon, the notorious architect of Trump’s America First campaign, interviewed her for a position in the administration.
Gabbard purports to be a dove when it comes to wars of regime change. But like Trump, she is a self-avowed hawk on Islamic terrorism. She repeatedly slammed President Barack Obama for shying away from referring to Al Qaeda and ISIS as “Islamic terrorists.”
But the more striking similarity between her and Trump is that she too has no qualms about courting dictators if they advance her cause, no matter the consequences for others. Gabbard was the first U.S. official in 2017 to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after he used chemical weapons against his own people; she aimed to enlist him in America’s struggle against ISIS. Two years before that, she stood next to Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi after he’d orchestrated the worst mass killings in modern history of Arab Spring protesters.
But perhaps her most disturbing transgression was her outreach to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi’s militant brand of Hindu nationalism is fundamentally transforming a liberal country into an illiberal one where violent attacks on the minority Muslim population have become a daily occurrence—not because Indian Muslims are terrorists or radical extremists, but simply because they consume beef or refuse to chant the names of Hindu gods. Yet Gabbard, who, like me, was raised in the Hindu faith, has become close to Modi, presenting him with her personal copy of the Bhagavad Gita (a Hindu holy book) when she visited him in 2014, 12 years after one of the worst massacres of Muslims was committed by thugs from his own party in the state of Gujarat, where he was chief minister at that time.
All of this has fueled suspicion that Gabbard’s foreign policy is driven by Islamophobia. There may be some truth to that, given that she supported the SAFE Act, which would have subjected Syrian and Iraqi Muslim refugees fleeing ISIS to extreme vetting, even before Trump got elected and implemented it. At the same time, she pushed a resolution to make it easier for Christians and Yazidis who were ISIS victims to come to the United States.
But even if she isn’t motivated by anti-Muslim animus, the fact is that a foreign policy that elevates America’s narrow national interest above any broader concerns will inevitably lead to unsavory realpolitik alliances, regardless of whether it is pro- or anti-war. If “The Blob”—as the bipartisan interventionist foreign policy establishment is sarcastically called—has a tendency to exaggerate the threat posed to the international order by regimes that don’t play by America’s rules in order to justify overthrowing them, Gabbard-style anti-interventionist nationalists have a tendency to downplay the threat that odious regimes who play ball with America pose for their own people in order to enlist them.
It is not a coincidence that Gabbard has questioned whether Assad actually deployed chemical weapons against innocent Syrians at all. Or that she has praised Sisi for his “great courage and leadership.” Or that she refused to support a House resolution that offered the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom—which occurred on Modi’s watch—as an example of India’s persecution of its religious minorities, insisting that “there was a lot of misinformation surrounding that event.”
Turning a blind eye to such atrocities removes an important external check on these regimes. But that’s not all it does. It undermines the domestic forces trying to hold them accountable. It turns these rulers into international players, rather than pariahs, handing them stature that allows them to argue to their people that they can’t be so bad if the world is willing to do business with them. In India’s case, this is particularly unfortunate given that the country is at a critical juncture and desperately trying to hang on to its commitment to religious tolerance, pluralism, and free speech in the face of the Modi administration’s constant assaults. Yet if India goes the route of its more illiberal neighbors in Pakistan and China, the result won’t be world peace but greater conflict from which America will hardly be immune.
Ultimately, there is no such thing as non-interventionism. Failure to condemn nasty regimes is also a kind of interventionism. And when it stems from narrow self-interest without any regard to broader consequences, it is both morally problematic and dangerous.
Hours after a gunman killed 20 people at a Walmart in El Paso on Sunday, Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), whose district includes that city, implored “all of us who have the power to end this horror” to “come together” and “once and for all address the gun violence epidemic that plagues our nation.” Other prominent Democrats, including several presidential contenders, likewise reacted to the attack in El Paso and a mass shooting that killed nine people in Dayton, Ohio, early the following morning by calling for “urgent action” to approve “common sense gun safety legislation.”
The elements of that legislation are mostly window dressing that would do little or nothing to prevent attacks like these. The most frequently mentioned policy, “universal background checks,” is plainly irrelevant to these particular crimes, since both the El Paso shooter and the Dayton shooter purchased their weapons legally, meaning they did not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records. Nor do the vast majority of mass shooters, who either passed background checks or could have. Neither requiring background checks for private transfers nor creating “strong background checks,” as Donald Trump has proposed (perhaps referring to the same policy), would make a difference in such cases.
Democrats also reiterated their support for a federal ban on “assault weapons,” and the conservative New York Post editorial page agreed. That policy is at least superficially more relevant, since both of the rifles used in these two attacks would qualify for that label. The El Paso shooter seems to have used a WASR-10 rifle, a civilian, semi-automatic version of the AK-47, while the Dayton shooter used an AM-15, a semi-automatic rifle made by Anderson Manufacturing that’s similar to the Colt AR-15.
The focus on such “military-style” rifles is puzzling for a few reasons. In 2017 all rifles combined—only a subset of which would qualify as “assault weapons”— accounted for just 5 percent of gun homicides where the type of firearm was specified, while handguns accounted for 89 percent. Handguns are also the kind of firearm chosen by most mass shooters (whose crimes, it is worth remembering, account for just 1 percent of gun homicides).
Even if Congress passed a new ban on “assault weapons,” more than 16 million would remain in circulation, an ample supply for the tiny minority of murderers who prefer them. But even if Congress could make those guns disappear—say, by confiscating them through a mandatory “buyback” program, as Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) proposed during his short-lived presidential campaign—it would not have a noticeable impact on the frequency or lethality of mass shootings.
Consider the rifle used in El Paso. Judging from security camera images, it had a fixed stock, which is OK under the latest version of the proposed federal “assault weapon” ban, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). The pistol grip would have to go, and so probably would the “upper handguard,” which seems to qualify as a forbidden “barrel shroud.” But you would still be left with a weapon that fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle energy.
One “common-sense” gun control policy that might have practical significance in the context of a mass shooting is a limit on the size of magazines. Feinstein’s bill, for example, would ban “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds (such as the magazines used in El Paso and Dayton, but also the magazines that come standard with many kinds of rifles and handguns). As with the “assault weapon” ban, that provision would leave millions of newly illegal products in circulation. But if it made magazines that hold more than 10 rounds more expensive and harder to come by, it could theoretically lead some mass shooters to use 10-round magazines, which would force them to switch magazines more frequently.
Since it takes just a few seconds to switch magazines, it’s not clear how often this constraint would make a difference in attacks on unarmed people. But we can’t rule out the possibility that it would occasionally help victims escape or resist. By the same token, however, a magazine holding more than 10 rounds can make a crucial difference for people defending themselves against attacks, especially when they are confronted by multiple armed assailants.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez emphasized that point, citing actual incidents, when he ruled last March that California’s 10-round magazine limit is inconsistent with the Second Amendment right to armed self-defense. “California’s law prohibiting acquisition and possession of magazines able to hold any more than 10 rounds places a severe restriction on the core right of self-defense of the home such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny,” he wrote.
Writing in The New York Times, SUNY Cortland political scientist Robert Spitzer calls that conclusion “startling,” “suspect,” and “downright strange.” Yet it hardly seems strange to point out that the ability to fire more than 10 rounds without switching magazines can be important in self-defense—a point that current and retired police officers make every time they demand exemptions from laws like California’s. Indeed, the case for banning “large capacity” magazines hinges on the same observation as the case against banning them: A few seconds can be the difference between life and death.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YOpkPO
via IFTTT
If America is going to be a force for peace in the world, it needs to stop invading other countries for their benefit and it also needs to stop cultivating nasty regimes for its benefit. But ironically, the very politicos who are anti-war often become pro-dictator. Unfortunately, Democratic presidential contender Tulsi Gabbard, the congresswoman from Hawaii, is no different.
Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran, has made opposition to war her signature issue. During the second round of the Democratic debates, she was the only candidate who promised to “end wasteful regime change wars” and “take the trillions of dollars that we’ve been wasting on these wars and…redirect those resources into serving the needs of our people right here at home.” But that doesn’t make her a peacenik; it makes her an America Firster, like President Donald Trump. Indeed, although she went out of her way to condemn Trump as a “warmonger,” there isn’t much daylight between her position and his—which is no doubt why the former White House aide Stephen Bannon, the notorious architect of Trump’s America First campaign, interviewed her for a position in the administration.
Gabbard purports to be a dove when it comes to wars of regime change. But like Trump, she is a self-avowed hawk on Islamic terrorism. She repeatedly slammed President Barack Obama for shying away from referring to Al Qaeda and ISIS as “Islamic terrorists.”
But the more striking similarity between her and Trump is that she too has no qualms about courting dictators if they advance her cause, no matter the consequences for others. Gabbard was the first U.S. official in 2017 to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after he used chemical weapons against his own people; she aimed to enlist him in America’s struggle against ISIS. Two years before that, she stood next to Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi after he’d orchestrated the worst mass killings in modern history of Arab Spring protesters.
But perhaps her most disturbing transgression was her outreach to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi’s militant brand of Hindu nationalism is fundamentally transforming a liberal country into an illiberal one where violent attacks on the minority Muslim population have become a daily occurrence—not because Indian Muslims are terrorists or radical extremists, but simply because they consume beef or refuse to chant the names of Hindu gods. Yet Gabbard, who, like me, was raised in the Hindu faith, has become close to Modi, presenting him with her personal copy of the Bhagavad Gita (a Hindu holy book) when she visited him in 2014, 12 years after one of the worst massacres of Muslims was committed by thugs from his own party in the state of Gujarat, where he was chief minister at that time.
All of this has fueled suspicion that Gabbard’s foreign policy is driven by Islamophobia. There may be some truth to that, given that she supported the SAFE Act, which would have subjected Syrian and Iraqi Muslim refugees fleeing ISIS to extreme vetting, even before Trump got elected and implemented it. At the same time, she pushed a resolution to make it easier for Christians and Yazidis who were ISIS victims to come to the United States.
But even if she isn’t motivated by anti-Muslim animus, the fact is that a foreign policy that elevates America’s narrow national interest above any broader concerns will inevitably lead to unsavory realpolitik alliances, regardless of whether it is pro- or anti-war. If “The Blob”—as the bipartisan interventionist foreign policy establishment is sarcastically called—has a tendency to exaggerate the threat posed to the international order by regimes that don’t play by America’s rules in order to justify overthrowing them, Gabbard-style anti-interventionist nationalists have a tendency to downplay the threat that odious regimes who play ball with America pose for their own people in order to enlist them.
It is not a coincidence that Gabbard has questioned whether Assad actually deployed chemical weapons against innocent Syrians at all. Or that she has praised Sisi for his “great courage and leadership.” Or that she refused to support a House resolution that offered the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom—which occurred on Modi’s watch—as an example of India’s persecution of its religious minorities, insisting that “there was a lot of misinformation surrounding that event.”
Turning a blind eye to such atrocities removes an important external check on these regimes. But that’s not all it does. It undermines the domestic forces trying to hold them accountable. It turns these rulers into international players, rather than pariahs, handing them stature that allows them to argue to their people that they can’t be so bad if the world is willing to do business with them. In India’s case, this is particularly unfortunate given that the country is at a critical juncture and desperately trying to hang on to its commitment to religious tolerance, pluralism, and free speech in the face of the Modi administration’s constant assaults. Yet if India goes the route of its more illiberal neighbors in Pakistan and China, the result won’t be world peace but greater conflict from which America will hardly be immune.
Ultimately, there is no such thing as non-interventionism. Failure to condemn nasty regimes is also a kind of interventionism. And when it stems from narrow self-interest without any regard to broader consequences, it is both morally problematic and dangerous.
The Democratic Socialists of America National Convention was held this weekend in Atlanta,
Georgia… It was as ‘entertaining’ and solutions-based as you might imagine…
“Solidarity forever”
Thank you comrades for an exhausting, frustrating, empowering, inspiring, and necessary weekend at #DSAConvention#DSACon19. No matter whatever infighting or factional division we’ve faced, we are all united for democratic socialism. Solidarity Forever 💪 🌹 pic.twitter.com/YHjJsiNoAt
Except – as we note below – if you use gendered language, mumble, wear ‘heavy’ scents, or misuse doors??!!
As the moderator concluded her narrative:
“If we want to defeat capitalism, we are going to need a party that will organize working people to fight for the demands that we want, and to win socialism…”
A chipper young gentleman (who identified himself as James Jackson from Sacramento and said his preferred pronouns were he/him) stepped up to the mic offering what he called a “quick point of personal privilege”…
“Guys… can we please keep the chatter to a minimum? I’m one of the people who’s very prone to sensory overload. There’s a lot of whispering and chatter going on, it’s making it very difficult for me to focus. Please, can we just… I know we’re all fresh and ready to go, but can we please just keep the chatter to a minimum? “
A series of earnings reports came out in recent days, and while some drillers beat expectations, there were some huge misses as well.
Concho Resources, for instance, saw its share price tumble 22 percent when it disclosedseveral problems at once. Profits fell by 25 percent despite production increases. Concho conceded that it would slash spending and slow the pace of drilling in the second half of the year.
It also said that one of its projects where it tried to densely pack wells together, which it called “Dominator,” the results were not as good as they had hoped. The project had 23 wells, but production disappointed. The “30 and 60 day production rates were consistent with our other projects in that area, but the performance has declined,” Leach said. So, the company will abandon the densely packed well strategy and move forward with wider spacing.
In the second quarter the company had 26 rigs in operation, but that has since fallen to 18. At the start of the year, the company had 33 active rigs.
“We made the decision to adjust our drilling and completion schedule in the second half of the year to slow down and not chase incremental production at the expense of capital discipline,” Concho’s CEO Tim Leach told analysts on an earnings call. He said the company’s aiming for “a free cash flow inflection in 2020.”
The company reported a net loss of $792 million for the first six months of 2019. As Liam Denning put it in Bloomberg Opinion: “It’s sobering to think that Concho, valued at more than $23 billion in the spring of 2018 and having since absorbed the $7.6 billion purchase of RSP Permian Inc., now sports a market cap of less than $16 billion.”
The reason these results are important is because they may not be one-off problems for individual companies, but are more likely indicative of the problems plaguing the whole sector.
“There is little doubt this is a big event for the sector and a brake of this nature will create lasting impact,” Evercore analyst Stephen Richardson wrote in a note, referring to Concho’s poor results.
“How companies still, after all these years we have wailed and gnashed our teeth, manage to over-promise and under-deliver, remains an infuriating mystery,” Paul Sankey wrote in a note for Mizuho Securities USA LLC.
Whiting Petroleum had an even worse week. Its stock melted down on Thursday, falling by 38 percent after reporting a surprise quarterly loss that badly missed estimates. The company announced that it would cut its workforce by a third.
According to the Wall Street Journal and Wood Mackenzie, a basket of 7 shale drillers posted a combined $1.58 billion in negative cash flow in the first quarter, four times worse than the same period a year earlier.
While the results, in many cases, were bad, the declines in share prices were hugely amplified by the announcement of new tariffs on China, which caused a broad selloff not just in the energy sector, but for equities of all types. Here is a sampling of how the share prices of some oil companies fared on Thursday:
Whiting Petroleum -38 percent
Concho Resources -22 percent
Pioneer Natural Resources -7.5 percent
EOG Resources -5.5 percent
Devon Energy -6.8 percent
Continental Resources -7.8 percent
Royal Dutch Shell -6.1 percent
Chevron -2 percent
SM Energy -9.0 percent
But the poor quarterly performances were true before President Trump took to twitter. Even with oil down and stocks perhaps looking cheap, “it’s hard to call it a contrarian opportunity right now,” Matt Maley, chief market strategist at Miller Tabak, told CNBC. “This group has really been dead money most of this year.”
Investors are clearly souring on the sector. As Bloomberg notes, speculative positioning from traders fell to the lowest level since March 2013, a sign of “investor apathy” towards crude oil and energy stocks.
While shale E&Ps languish, the oil majors are not slowing down. Exxon said that its oil production rose by 7 percent, driven by the Permian. In fact, its production from the Permian rose 90 percent in the second quarter from a year earlier. Earnings dropped by 21 percent, however, and the company cited lower prices and poor downstream margins.
But the majors aggressive bet on U.S. shale is a sign of the times. Small and medium drillers are getting hammered and seeing their access to capital close off, which is forcing budget cutbacks and otherwise leading to steep selloffs in their share prices. The majors, on the other hand, are only in the early stages of a multi-year bet on shale. They can stomach losses on individual shale projects for years, scaling up while they earn profits elsewhere.
So, despite the widespread financial losses for the shale sector, it’s not clear that production is set to grind to a halt.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2OFky3x Tyler Durden
Nancy Segula of Garfield Heights has a soft spot for stray cats, which have been a comfort to her in the wake of her husband’s passing and the loss of her own two cats. For the past four years, Segula has regularly fed the strays that approach her home.
“I’m an animal lover, and I feel guilty that they’re wandering around out there and they have nothing to eat,” the 79-year-old woman told WKYC. “So I just feel that I need to give them food.”
Despite Segula’s good intentions, her actions violate Garfield Heights City Ordinance 505.23, which states that moving a large number of cats into an area is a public nuisance. Garfield Heights animal warden Bonnie Hackett said that in four years, 22 cats were removed from Segula’s home.
Because of her continued violations of the ordinance, Segula was sentenced last week to spend 10 days in jail.
The police department released a statement on Facebook about the case. The animal warden received “numerous complaints” about the stray cats attracted to the area, it explains. Segula was unaware of the ordinance until she was first cited for the matter in 2015; she also received citations for having too many cats in her residence and failing to properly dispose of animal waste.
Segula was placed on two years probation following a citation in 2017. One of the conditions of her probation was to stop feeding strays. When it was discovered at a May 2019 probation hearing that she did not comply, she received the 10-day jail sentence. The sentence was suspended contingent on her complying with the order. When the magistrate who heard her case learned last week that Segula was still feeding too many kitties, he ordered Segula jailed.
Following a public outcry, Garfield Heights Municipal Court Judge Jennifer Weiler said that she wanted to take another look at the case. Weiler, who placed the conditions on Segula’s suspended sentence, was off work when a magistrate found Segula in violation.
Weiler will preside over Segula’s new hearing, which is scheduled for August 6.
Segula’s actions are clearly creating a nuisance for her neighbors. But while police are justified in responding to their complaints, it is not beyond the realm of possibilities for the court system to find a more humane approach than incarceration. After all, Segula’s 10-day jail sentence is longer than the punishments given for other, much more heinous animal-related offenses that have occurred in the area, including starving dogs, the strangulation of a cat, and leaving kittens in a hot car. And when it’s over, is there any reason to think she won’t do what she’s done after every other intervention, and go back to feeding the cats?
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2OGOM6k
via IFTTT
In a dramatic escalation following a worsening crisis, which over the weekend saw intensive shelling along the Line of Control (LoC) that separates Indian-controlled and Pakistani-controlled parts of Kashmir, New Delhi has revoked the key constitutional article which gives Indian-administered Kashmir special status.
The unprecedented move signals India is willing to take greater military action in the disputed border region, which is virtually guaranteed to not only spark severe local unrest, but put India and Pakistan on a direct collision course for war. Specifically, Article 370 is legally and historically what assured a high degree autonomy for Indian administered Muslim-majority state, enshrined in the constitution, which the majority of inhabitants there see as justifying remaining part of India.
Image via CNN
The Indian administered side of Kashmir, called Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), was granted its status in the 1950s, which included maintaining its own state constitution, as well as law making bodies, making it the most independent of all Indian states. But starting Monday this will all be revoked, following a resolution introduced on Monday by Home Minister Amit Shah and quickly put into law by President Ram Nath Kovind.
Ultimately, as the BBC reports, “the BJP [the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata, India’s largest political party] has irrevocably changed Delhi’s relationship with the region.” Currently, there’s reported to be a lockdown across J&K, with some phone and internet services reported cut. According to CNN:
Indian-controlled Kashmir was in lockdown Monday, with tens of thousands of new troops deployed into what is already one of the most militarized places in the world, as a number of prominent politicians were placed under house arrest and New Delhi announced contentious changes to the way the territory is administered.
Indian paramilitary troopers stand guard at a roadblock at Maisuma locality in Srinagar, Kashmir, on Aug.4. AFP/Getty via Axios
CNN continued to described a military imposed “blackout” on the restive region, with some outraged local politicians immediately placed under house arrest:
A broad communications blackout left many people without access to the internet and phone services across the territory, with measures also in place to prevent public meetings.
The politicians under house arrest include at least two former chief ministers of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, according to CNN affiliate CNN-News18.
Pakistan was swift to condemn the drastic alteration to the status quo, saying it will “exercise all possible options” to counter it. “India is playing a dangerous game which will have serious consequences for regional peace and stability,” said Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi.
Reports say Indian government sources have countered by claiming neither the Line of Control nor Kashmiri boundaries had been altered.
Going back to WWII, the nuclear armed rivals have fought two wars related to the hotly disputed region. An Indian insurgency has also been active and intensifying of late as well, which New Delhi claims is focused against Pakistan-backed Islamic militants.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ZuYgSW Tyler Durden
