Anti-Trump Entertainers Bolt From Freedom 250 Celebration

Anti-Trump Entertainers Bolt From Freedom 250 Celebration

Several entertainers abruptly backed out of President Donald Trump-linked Freedom 250 concerts this week after learning more details about the patriotic celebration planned for the National Mall.

As American Greatness reports, the cancellations add to the long-running tensions between Americans and the politically progressive entertainment industry.

Young MC, Morris Day, the Commodores, Bret Michaels, and country singer Martina McBride were among the performers who announced they would no longer appear at “The Great American State Fair,” a series of concerts and events scheduled for June 25 through July 10 in Washington, D.C.

The event is being organized by Freedom 250, a group launched by Trump late last year that describes itself as a “national, non-partisan organization leading the celebration of our Nation’s 250th birthday.”

Trump selected former State Department official Keith Krach to serve as the organization’s CEO.

The cancellations came just one day after organizers unveiled the first wave of performers.

McBride said on social media that she initially agreed to participate because she believed the event would remain politically neutral.

“Yesterday things started changing and what we were told is, in fact, not what is happening,” she wrote Thursday.

Young MC similarly suggested he was uncomfortable with the event’s political ties.

“The artists were never told about any political involvement with the event,” he wrote on Instagram, adding that he hoped to “perform in D.C. in the near future at an event that is not so politically charged.”

Morris Day also confirmed his departure in a brief Instagram statement.

“Contrary to rumor, Morris Day & The Time will not be performing at the ‘GREAT AMERICAN STATE FAIR,’” he posted.

C& C Music Factory issued a confusing statement, distancing themselves from the event:

“As the Creator of C&C MUSIC FACTORY, I can state that we stand for love of all people and races globally and neutrality in all beliefs, in freedom and justice for all humanity”

The greatest lip-syncers ever – Milli Vanilli – are also out:

“The original/real vocalists of Milli Vanilli, Jodie Rocco, Linda Rocco. Brad Howell, John Davis, and Charles Shaw will NOT be performing their hits live at The Great American State Fair. Others using the name ‘Milli Vanilli’ that appear on the advertisement should be considered a tribute band with no association vocally or musically to our sound or songs.”

At least one “I Love the 90s” act will be there: Vanilla Ice.

“He is proud to help celebrate America’s 250th Anniversary!” a representative for the “Ice Ice Baby” rapper wrote in an email to the AP.

“Everyone is welcome to attend and celebrate USA’s Birthday and our Freedom!”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 18:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/u7cZKk0 Tyler Durden

Obama-Nominated Judge Orders Trump’s Name Removed From Kennedy Center Building

Obama-Nominated Judge Orders Trump’s Name Removed From Kennedy Center Building

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

A federal district judge on May 29 ordered that President Donald Trump’s name be removed from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and blocked officials from shuttering the venue for two years for renovations.

Obama-nominated, Washington-based Judge Christopher R. Cooper issued an order temporarily halting the closure and preventing the name change.

“Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it,” the judge said.

The new ruling came in response to litigation initiated in December 2025 by Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) who sued Trump and the Kennedy Center board of trustees over its renaming as the Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Beatty is an ex officio member of the center’s board of trustees.

Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) (C) and Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) (C) arrive for an event on Capitol Hill in Washington on Sept. 3, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

“Representative Beatty is entitled to summary judgment on the renaming issue,” Cooper wrote Friday.

“The Kennedy Center’s organic statute makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President [John] Kennedy, and it cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board’s unilateral say-so,” the judge wrote.

Cooper also ordered that Beatty have her voting rights restored as an ex officio trustee.

“The Center’s organic statute makes no distinction between the powers of general and ex officio trustees,” Cooper wrote.

“Nothing in the statute permits the Board to discriminate categorically between the two as to fundamental trustee rights,” the judge wrote.

“And stripping ex officio trustees of their voting rights runs afoul of common-law trust principles incorporated into the statute, principles which presumptively place trustees on equal footing when it comes to participating in the trust’s administration.”

Days before, the Kennedy Center board had unanimously voted to rename the institution the Trump-Kennedy Center.

That same day, new lettering was installed on the outside of the building along with digital rebranding.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 17:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/UWPTa3J Tyler Durden

Japan Prepares To End Quantitative Tightening Amid Bond Market Turmoil

Japan Prepares To End Quantitative Tightening Amid Bond Market Turmoil

With Japanese bond yields recently hitting record highs and bond market volatility soaring, overnight Reuters floated a trial balloon that Japan’s central bank may pause the unwinding of its massive debt holdings next fiscal ​year, which would give Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi some relief amid growing investor concerns about her growing spending plans.

A pause would mark a turning point in the Bank ‌of Japan’s quantitative tightening plan – started in 2024 as part of Governor Kazuo Ueda’s efforts to unwind a decade-long, massive stimulus which everyone said would result in failure. Well, there it is. The next step, of course, is more QE.

According to Reuters, which is well known for being the mouthpiece of BOJ insiders, at its June 15-16 meeting, the Japanese central bank will review its bond taper plan running through March next year and lay out a new plan for fiscal 2027. With no change expected to the existing taper plan, markets are focusing on whether the BOJ would keep reducing its monthly bond purchases in fiscal 2027 or maintain the current pace.

While ​there is no consensus yet within the BOJ on the final decision, a pause in taper is increasingly seen as the preferred option with uncertainty over the Iran war keeping ​bond markets jittery, said two sources familiar with the deliberations.

“Markets remain volatile, so there’s no need to rush,” one of them said on the BOJ’s ⁠taper, adding that many market players appeared to favor maintaining the current pace of buying. Ironically, the market volatility is precisely the reason to rush. 

Political considerations may also push the BOJ to pause as rising bond yields threaten to confine Takaichi’s spending plans. “What the ​administration wants to avoid most is rises in bond yields,” said one of the sources. Of course, if the intention is to avoid bond yields from surging, it’s far too late.

Confirming the end of the QT is effectively a done deal, some investors are now calling on the BOJ to pause its bond taper plan, a central bank survey ​earlier this month showed, highlighting the challenge it faces in reducing its massive Japanese government bonds (JGB) holdings. 

Even before the Reuters report, there had already been some indications the BOJ might consider slowing its taper plan amid market uncertainty. A clearer signal on the BOJ’s taper plan will come next week, when the central bank releases minutes of its meeting with bond market participants held on May 21-22.

“We’ve seen a pretty fast rise in bond yields, which makes it hard for investors to buy ​bonds. The finance ministry may be getting worried too,” said former BOJ official Nobuyasu Atago. “Given the political headwinds, I see no reason for the BOJ to keep tapering next fiscal year,” he said.

Concerns ​over Japan’s worsening finances and rising inflation pushed up the 10-year JGB yield to a 30-year high of 2.8% last week, nearing the 3% estimate the finance ministry set in compiling its fiscal 2026 budget. A rise ‌above 3% ⁠would boost debt servicing costs and reduce scope for other spending.

The BOJ’s rate-hike decision may also affect its taper plan with an increase in short-term rates to 1% from 0.75% seen as a strong possibility at the June meeting. While the central bank has said its taper program has no monetary policy implications, the case for slowing QT becomes stronger if it pushes through a hike, something it has been woefully unable to do so far despite a collapsing yen. 

“With the bond market so unstable, it would be natural for the BOJ to play it safe and avoid causing undue market turbulence,” said Mari Iwashita, executive rates strategist at Nomura Securities, who projects a taper pause ​in fiscal 2027.

“A combination of a taper pause ​and rate hike would be a good ⁠one,” as the former will ease upward pressure on yields, while the latter would alleviate concern the BOJ is behind the curve in addressing inflationary risks, she said.

It’s not just Japan: rising debt and volatile yields have heightened challenges for central banks unwinding their balance sheets that ballooned from years of heavy asset ​purchases to reflate their economies. In the US, analysts doubt whether new Fed chief Kevin Warsh can push through his calls for a smaller balance ​sheet as U.S. Treasuries lose ⁠their luster.

The BOJ has also been cautious in its QT program which started in 2024, and under which the central bank gradually reduced purchases and currently trims monthly buying by 200 billion yen each quarter. 

Political hurdles for the BOJ’s QT have heightened under Takaichi, who has vowed to cut tax and boost spending by issuing even more debt in the world’s most indebted economy. 

Taper or not, a reduction in the BOJ’s holdings, currently at around 500 trillion yen, will proceed steadily due ⁠to the runoff ​of maturing JGBs that already shaved 20% off its balance sheet from a peak in late 2023.

That’s all the more ​reason for the BOJ to maintain the current pace of buying, said former BOJ executive Akira Otani, currently at Goldman Sachs Japan.

“When inflationary risks from the Middle East conflict and the government’s proactive fiscal policy are putting upward pressure ​on bond yields, proceeding with further tapering could cause political friction by pushing up yields,” he said.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 17:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/fbktlv6 Tyler Durden

This Is The Deep State On Parade Like A Naked Emperor

This Is The Deep State On Parade Like A Naked Emperor

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

In the annals of Deep State WTF-ery, is there a stranger case than CIA officer David Rush turning up with $40-million in 303 one-kilogram gold bars, plus $2-million in cash, plus a stash of 30 mostly Rolex watches?

Well, yeah, the stranger story is how the guy got hired by the CIA in the first place.

Rush was arrested on Monday, May 18, by an FBI SWAT team at his home in Loudoun County, VA. Agents searched the house all day long and found the stash. Rush is currently charged with theft of public money and allegedly falsifying his military and academic credentials to obtain federal employment benefits, including roughly $77,000 in improper military leave pay. He’s scheduled to make a federal court appearance in Alexandria today.

Rush first applied for a job at the CIA in March 2006. He claimed to have a bachelor’s degree in math from Clemson University and a master’s from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI). He was rejected. He reapplied later that same year. Bumped again. He reapplied again in 2009, adding a new credential: that he’d been a US Navy test pilot and flight trainer. This time, he was hired.

Rush’s college credentials were found to be false, but it is unclear when that was discovered. Since he included them in his two earlier 2006 failed applications, why were they not flagged in his successful 2009 application? His claim of being a US Navy pilot was also found to be false (he was an information systems tech in his Navy service). The FBI affidavit unsealed recently details the pattern of lies across all applications.

Understand that CIA vetting procedures are supposed to be exceedingly rigorous. The process is stressful and invasive — many candidates drop out or are weeded out. The background check involves interviews with practically everybody who knows the applicant going back decades, his criminal history, work, financial history, education, military service. The applicant gets a polygraph exam. Even after getting hired, monitoring continues.

Rush was hired at the very start of the Obama admin; Leon Panetta was the newly appointed CIA Director. Wouldn’t you like to hear him ‘splain how David Rush managed to get hired? Was somebody smoothing his way in? Rush rose to become a senior executive service (SES) officer with a top-secret (TS/SCI) security clearance. His exact duties, the division he worked for, his day-to-day responsibilities have not been disclosed.

Rush allegedly requested the gold and foreign currency from the CIA for “work-related expenses” between November 2025 and March 2026. The agency later could not account for the assets or locate records explaining their official purpose. A search of a storage locker at CIA connected to Rush turned up only a small amount of the requisitioned cash.

“There is a whole process that we go through to get that money. I don’t just walk into the logistics office and say ‘Excuse me, I need $100,000 tomorrow.’ There is a form I have to fill out. It’s not a bank vault you walk into. It doesn’t work like that.” — Tracy Walder, 46, a former FBI special agent and CIA officer, quoted in The New York Post.

Wouldn’t you assume that some higher-up CIA officer would have to sign off on such a colossal requisition of gold and money? (And where does the CIA get so much gold on-demand?) Perhaps the very Director of the CIA approved it — which would be John Ratcliffe through 2025 up to right now. Doesn’t he have some ‘splainin’ to do? (Was Rush set-up? Was this a sting?)

Assuming Rush spent some period of time as an entry-level CIA employee, when did his rise to SES level happen? John Brennan became CIA Director in early 2013 (the start of Barack Obama’s second term). What were David Rush’s relations with John Brennan? Was Brennan his mentor? Does the gold stash have any connection with the current legal problems of John Brennan and other former high officials involved in the long-running “grand conspiracy” case about the attempted overthrow of a president?

You might imagine that Rush’s phone and computers were seized in the May 18th raid on his house — though it’s unlikely he used such conventional channels for black ops chatter. It’s conceivable, though, that any alt-communications of his were captured by the vast national security surveillance apparatus, and that DNI Tulsi Gabbard might have come across them this past year. How else might Director Ratcliffe have been tipped off?

This story is not going away. The scale of the grift is spectacular and vivid — 303 gold bars! — like a Hollywood movie. Rush’s explanation of “work-related expenses” sounds preposterous. If the requisitions were made serially, over several months, as appears, then the agency had more than one opportunity to review and question them.

Rush faked his entire back-story. How incompetent (or corrupt) are the agency’s past managers that he got away with it for so long? How many other gross fakers, rogues, grifters, and tools are embedded in the agency, and who are they really working for? The institutional embarrassment is monumental. Trust in the so-called Intel Community is at an all-time low.

Indictments and trials are coming.

This is the Deep State on parade like a naked emperor.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 17:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/rovFXLA Tyler Durden

One In Three American Men No Longer Working

One In Three American Men No Longer Working

Via American Greatness,

The number of American men participating in the workforce has fallen to one of its lowest levels in nearly two decades, according to new federal labor statistics.

Just 66 percent of men age 20 and older were employed or actively seeking work as of April, according to data released earlier this month by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. That figure has dropped sharply from 73 percent in 2006 and now sits near levels last seen during the fallout from the 2008 financial crisis.

The numbers mean roughly one in three American men are no longer in the workforce.

The only modern period with lower participation rates came during the economic devastation caused by the 2020 pandemic, when male workforce participation collapsed to 59 percent.

While employment rates gradually recovered during the years following the Great Recession, those gains were wiped out during the pandemic downturn. Participation rebounded somewhat within two years before beginning another steady decline that has continued into 2026.

The downward trend appears ongoing. Male workforce participation fell another full percentage point in April compared with the same period in 2025, according to Labor Department data.

Several economic shifts are contributing to the decline.

Industries that have traditionally employed large numbers of men including transportation, manufacturing and other labor-intensive sectors, have shed jobs over the past year, according to the Washington Post.

At the same time, growing numbers of retirees and male students have reduced the share of men participating in the labor market.

The labor picture for women has followed a different trajectory.

Female workforce participation also declined during the past two decades, though the swings have been less dramatic. Women saw only a 2-point decline during the 2008 recession, compared with a 5-point drop for men.

Women’s labor force participation has also remained more stable since the pandemic recovery, never falling below 56 percent since 2022.

The economy increasingly appears to favor sectors dominated by female workers. Healthcare and education jobs have grown over the past year, helping women capture nearly all recent job gains.

Of the 369,000 jobs added to the US economy since 2025, 96 perent went to women while just 4 percent went to men, according to the Washington Post.

Despite the shrinking share of men participating in the labor force, male unemployment has remained relatively low, hovering between 3 percent and 4 percent since 2021.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 16:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/ZYzG5v2 Tyler Durden

Trump’s Proposed $250 Bill Is Everything the Founders Despised


Donald Trump's face on a $250 bill | Illustration: Joe Sohm/Tmcfarlan/Dreamstime

Some people really like the presidency and, more specifically, the politicians who seek to inhabit it. It has “transcended the boundary of enthusiasm and become a volatile strain of zealotry,” wrote The Guardian. Perhaps it’s a “cult” or even a “church.” A church needs a Messiah, after all, so some treat him as if he is “the One.”

But that was then and this is now. Then-candidate Barack Obama and his supporters attracted sustained criticism during the 2008 campaign for worshiping the future president as an icon. Though not yet eligible to vote, that was the first election I was old enough to engage with in a meaningful way, and I was repelled by that very phenomenon. I still vividly remember walking into my local Urban Outfitters, a true high school destination, and seeing shirts with Obama’s face plastered on them. Why would anyone want to wear a politician—a government employee—as a fashion statement?

How far we have come. President Donald Trump’s administration is pushing to put his face not on a shirt but on U.S. currency, pressing for the creation of a $250 bill that would feature him front and center. There are a few problems with the proposal, including that it is illegal without an act of Congress; current law prohibits putting any living person on “the bonds, securities, notes, or postal currency of the United States.” But on a deeper level, it is directly at odds with the spirit of the American project. Nothing better captures that tension than the anniversary it is supposed to commemorate.

America’s 250th is a celebration of the Founding, an experiment defined, at its core, by a rejection of monarchs and leader worship. It is why George Washington opposed the U.S. Mint putting his face on coinage—that sort of adulation was incompatible with what he was trying to build. He was not alone. As the plan was debated by the U.S. House, one early representative cautioned against “imitating the flattery and almost idolatrous practice of Monarchies with respect to the honor paid to their Kings, by impressing their images and names on their coins.” Lawmakers settled on the emblem of liberty instead.

It is hard to know if Washington et al. would be disappointed that U.S. currency has since evolved to feature past leaders who made significant contributions. But the law’s constraint—that they no longer be living—is in keeping with the reservations the first president expressed about indulgent reverence for the top office, and whoever is in it at any given time. America was leaving that nonsense behind. A $250 bill dedicated to the current president is the exact sort of egomaniacal vanity project the Founders detested.

Trump has not limited this idolatry to proposed currency. His face will be in a new edition of the U.S. passport, also supposedly in honor of America’s 250th. Walking around Washington, D.C., his portrait adorns federal buildings. Leaving dinner last month, upon exiting the restaurant, I was met with a giant banner of his face hanging on, ironically, the Justice Department. Private individuals choosing to make a politician a personality trait is unhealthy. Forcing the public to do it is grotesque.

I’d assume it brings some Trump allies and supporters joy that he is reminding people who is in power. Yet it comes at the expense of their dignity. Beyond offending the essence of the Founding, there is something fundamentally weak about worshiping a politician, particularly one whose movement claims to be populated by alpha males.

Many, like me, balked at people turning a politician into a fashion statement. Now we have a politician who would like to be an idol, featured on banknotes and travel documents, subsidized by the taxpayer. Must it be said which is more debasing?

The post Trump's Proposed $250 Bill Is Everything the Founders Despised appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/0ech9Lp
via IFTTT

Is Private Equity Really ‘Buying Up the Rituals of American Childhood’?


An illustration of Sen. Chris Murphy and a youth hockey locker room | Lorraine Swanson/Dreamstime/Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

Fifty years ago this summer, The Bad News Bears was released. Despite its PG rating, goofily disarming poster, and use of Georgees Bizet’s Carmen as a soundtrack, the film followed the travails of Little League misfits who are coached by an openly alcoholic pool cleaner, whose uniforms are supplied by Chico’s Bail Bonds, and whose sweet-faced, pre-teen players are prone to reeling off foul-mouthed wisecracks like “All we got on this team are a buncha Jews, spics, niggers, pansies, and a booger-eatin’ moron!” and “you can take your apology and your trophy and shove ’em straight up your ass!”

Matt Welch has called it a “’70s latchkey classic,” noting that both in its vulgar language and its depiction of the Me Decade’s divorce-driven disregard for kids, it was a near-perfect representation of its time.

For Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), though, that era in American kidhood represents something like the last good time, when youth sports were local and less demanding of children and parents alike. In an excerpt of his new book Crisis of the Common Good published in The Atlantic, he complains about his 14-year-old son Rider’s hockey team, which has “a five-month, 60-game season” requiring travel so extensive that he confesses “I occasionally miss votes in the Senate to watch him.”

His and his son’s experience is, he suggests, a sort of synecdoche for a “deeper rot [that] festers in the American soul: a callousness toward our neighbors, a me-first selfishness, a relentless focus on ‘getting mine’ even if it leaves others behind.” There’s a lot to unpack in such claims and, to put it mildly, it’s a hell of a leap to jump from talking about organized youth hockey, which has grown over the past decade but still only serves around 600,000 kids a year, to what ails “the American soul.”

He tells us his son has no delusions of someday becoming a pro player and even manages to play other sports like “flag football, basketball, and golf.” Yet something stinks on the ice run by the Atlantic Hockey Federation (AHF), the league his kid plays in. The AHF is owned by the Black Bear Sports Group, which is itself “backed by the private-equity firm Blackstreet Capital Holdings”—well, you can see where this is headed. “Whereas Rider sees hockey as character-building fun, Black Bear’s objective is far simpler: to make a grotesque amount of money,” pronounces Murphy.

Among other things, that means that “youth-league hockey ends up being about the players, not about the team. Rider never plays with the same kids from one season to the next” because the best kids keep moving on to more elite teams. The unbridled greed of the AHL’s corporate masters results in “a youth-sports culture in which profit and individual achievement matter more than teamwork or character building.” Worse still, the company charges “as much as $37 a month” for video streaming of all games.

Let’s put aside for the moment that Murphy never bothers to quantify the “grotesque amount of money” Black Bear or Blackstreet Capital is squeezing from him and other parents. Because of its need for large and expensive equipment and infrastructure, hockey, like figure skating, gymnastics, swimming, and a few other sports, has always been pricier than, say, soccer, basketball, or baseball (quick scans for Reddit forums show estimates ranging from around $1,000 a year up to five digits for more involved travel teams). A recent Wall Street Journal video documentary about Black Bear sounds many similar notes to Murphy. For instance, its title reads “This Company Is Building a Hockey Empire. Many Say It’s Ruining Youth Sports.” But the Journal also notes that Black Bear only owns and operates about 50 indoor ice rinks out of about 2,100 in the United States, so it’s not quite clear how it’s calling all the shots any more than large investors, who own less than 1 percent of single-family homes, are the reason that housing prices are high.

Which brings me to the question of “resentment” in Murphy’s excerpt. In passing, he notes that both he and his son like the way the AHL produces extensive individual statistics for players (“if I’m honest, I also spend too much time on those pages”) and he cops to the fact that “parents and profit-hungry owners alike” play a role in today’s youth-sports culture. It seems to me that he’s as angry with himself as he is at Black Bear.

As the father of two adult sons and a 6-month-old boy, I’m glad that my older kids played sports but never got interested in time- and capital-intensive pastimes like hockey or horseback riding. But if they had, their mother and I would have figured out if we could afford them or not and work from there. Especially coming from a U.S. senator, it seems nothing short of insane to project outward from your kid’s enjoyment of a niche sport to a theory of American cultural rot.

But such a move is nothing new. Fifty years ago, The Bad New Bears used kids’ sports—and adult roles in leagues—to articulate and discuss anxiety over changing social roles and expectations. The difference is that Chris Murphy has the power to pass laws to ease his conscience.

The post Is Private Equity Really 'Buying Up the Rituals of American Childhood'? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/9PWmlSM
via IFTTT

Trump’s Proposed $250 Bill Is Everything the Founders Despised


Donald Trump's face on a $250 bill | Illustration: Joe Sohm/Tmcfarlan/Dreamstime

Some people really like the presidency and, more specifically, the politicians who seek to inhabit it. It has “transcended the boundary of enthusiasm and become a volatile strain of zealotry,” wrote The Guardian. Perhaps it’s a “cult” or even a “church.” A church needs a Messiah, after all, so some treat him as if he is “the One.”

But that was then and this is now. Then-candidate Barack Obama and his supporters attracted sustained criticism during the 2008 campaign for worshiping the future president as an icon. Though not yet eligible to vote, that was the first election I was old enough to engage with in a meaningful way, and I was repelled by that very phenomenon. I still vividly remember walking into my local Urban Outfitters, a true high school destination, and seeing shirts with Obama’s face plastered on them. Why would anyone want to wear a politician—a government employee—as a fashion statement?

How far we have come. President Donald Trump’s administration is pushing to put his face not on a shirt but on U.S. currency, pressing for the creation of a $250 bill that would feature him front and center. There are a few problems with the proposal, including that it is illegal without an act of Congress; current law prohibits putting any living person on “the bonds, securities, notes, or postal currency of the United States.” But on a deeper level, it is directly at odds with the spirit of the American project. Nothing better captures that tension than the anniversary it is supposed to commemorate.

America’s 250th is a celebration of the Founding, an experiment defined, at its core, by a rejection of monarchs and leader worship. It is why George Washington opposed the U.S. Mint putting his face on coinage—that sort of adulation was incompatible with what he was trying to build. He was not alone. As the plan was debated by the U.S. House, one early representative cautioned against “imitating the flattery and almost idolatrous practice of Monarchies with respect to the honor paid to their Kings, by impressing their images and names on their coins.” Lawmakers settled on the emblem of liberty instead.

It is hard to know if Washington et al. would be disappointed that U.S. currency has since evolved to feature past leaders who made significant contributions. But the law’s constraint—that they no longer be living—is in keeping with the reservations the first president expressed about indulgent reverence for the top office, and whoever is in it at any given time. America was leaving that nonsense behind. A $250 bill dedicated to the current president is the exact sort of egomaniacal vanity project the Founders detested.

Trump has not limited this idolatry to proposed currency. His face will be in a new edition of the U.S. passport, also supposedly in honor of America’s 250th. Walking around Washington, D.C., his portrait adorns federal buildings. Leaving dinner last month, upon exiting the restaurant, I was met with a giant banner of his face hanging on, ironically, the Justice Department. Private individuals choosing to make a politician a personality trait is unhealthy. Forcing the public to do it is grotesque.

I’d assume it brings some Trump allies and supporters joy that he is reminding people who is in power. Yet it comes at the expense of their dignity. Beyond offending the essence of the Founding, there is something fundamentally weak about worshiping a politician, particularly one whose movement claims to be populated by alpha males.

Many, like me, balked at people turning a politician into a fashion statement. Now we have a politician who would like to be an idol, featured on banknotes and travel documents, subsidized by the taxpayer. Must it be said which is more debasing?

The post Trump's Proposed $250 Bill Is Everything the Founders Despised appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/0ech9Lp
via IFTTT

Is Private Equity Really ‘Buying Up the Rituals of American Childhood’?


An illustration of Sen. Chris Murphy and a youth hockey locker room | Lorraine Swanson/Dreamstime/Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

Fifty years ago this summer, The Bad News Bears was released. Despite its PG rating, goofily disarming poster, and use of Georgees Bizet’s Carmen as a soundtrack, the film followed the travails of Little League misfits who are coached by an openly alcoholic pool cleaner, whose uniforms are supplied by Chico’s Bail Bonds, and whose sweet-faced, pre-teen players are prone to reeling off foul-mouthed wisecracks like “All we got on this team are a buncha Jews, spics, niggers, pansies, and a booger-eatin’ moron!” and “you can take your apology and your trophy and shove ’em straight up your ass!”

Matt Welch has called it a “’70s latchkey classic,” noting that both in its vulgar language and its depiction of the Me Decade’s divorce-driven disregard for kids, it was a near-perfect representation of its time.

For Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), though, that era in American kidhood represents something like the last good time, when youth sports were local and less demanding of children and parents alike. In an excerpt of his new book Crisis of the Common Good published in The Atlantic, he complains about his 14-year-old son Rider’s hockey team, which has “a five-month, 60-game season” requiring travel so extensive that he confesses “I occasionally miss votes in the Senate to watch him.”

His and his son’s experience is, he suggests, a sort of synecdoche for a “deeper rot [that] festers in the American soul: a callousness toward our neighbors, a me-first selfishness, a relentless focus on ‘getting mine’ even if it leaves others behind.” There’s a lot to unpack in such claims and, to put it mildly, it’s a hell of a leap to jump from talking about organized youth hockey, which has grown over the past decade but still only serves around 600,000 kids a year, to what ails “the American soul.”

He tells us his son has no delusions of someday becoming a pro player and even manages to play other sports like “flag football, basketball, and golf.” Yet something stinks on the ice run by the Atlantic Hockey Federation (AHF), the league his kid plays in. The AHF is owned by the Black Bear Sports Group, which is itself “backed by the private-equity firm Blackstreet Capital Holdings”—well, you can see where this is headed. “Whereas Rider sees hockey as character-building fun, Black Bear’s objective is far simpler: to make a grotesque amount of money,” pronounces Murphy.

Among other things, that means that “youth-league hockey ends up being about the players, not about the team. Rider never plays with the same kids from one season to the next” because the best kids keep moving on to more elite teams. The unbridled greed of the AHL’s corporate masters results in “a youth-sports culture in which profit and individual achievement matter more than teamwork or character building.” Worse still, the company charges “as much as $37 a month” for video streaming of all games.

Let’s put aside for the moment that Murphy never bothers to quantify the “grotesque amount of money” Black Bear or Blackstreet Capital is squeezing from him and other parents. Because of its need for large and expensive equipment and infrastructure, hockey, like figure skating, gymnastics, swimming, and a few other sports, has always been pricier than, say, soccer, basketball, or baseball (quick scans for Reddit forums show estimates ranging from around $1,000 a year up to five digits for more involved travel teams). A recent Wall Street Journal video documentary about Black Bear sounds many similar notes to Murphy. For instance, its title reads “This Company Is Building a Hockey Empire. Many Say It’s Ruining Youth Sports.” But the Journal also notes that Black Bear only owns and operates about 50 indoor ice rinks out of about 2,100 in the United States, so it’s not quite clear how it’s calling all the shots any more than large investors, who own less than 1 percent of single-family homes, are the reason that housing prices are high.

Which brings me to the question of “resentment” in Murphy’s excerpt. In passing, he notes that both he and his son like the way the AHL produces extensive individual statistics for players (“if I’m honest, I also spend too much time on those pages”) and he cops to the fact that “parents and profit-hungry owners alike” play a role in today’s youth-sports culture. It seems to me that he’s as angry with himself as he is at Black Bear.

As the father of two adult sons and a 6-month-old boy, I’m glad that my older kids played sports but never got interested in time- and capital-intensive pastimes like hockey or horseback riding. But if they had, their mother and I would have figured out if we could afford them or not and work from there. Especially coming from a U.S. senator, it seems nothing short of insane to project outward from your kid’s enjoyment of a niche sport to a theory of American cultural rot.

But such a move is nothing new. Fifty years ago, The Bad New Bears used kids’ sports—and adult roles in leagues—to articulate and discuss anxiety over changing social roles and expectations. The difference is that Chris Murphy has the power to pass laws to ease his conscience.

The post Is Private Equity Really 'Buying Up the Rituals of American Childhood'? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/9PWmlSM
via IFTTT

Short Circuit: An inexhaustive weekly compendium of rulings from the federal courts of appeal

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.

Friends, the procedural and legal obstacles to holding federal officers accountable in court for violating people’s rights are nothing to sniff at. But if you want a whiff, we have it all here in this handy flowchart.

New on the Bound By Oath podcast: We mess with Texas, telling the story of Pullman abstention and Justice Frankfurter’s introduction of federalism to fed courts.

New on the Short Circuit podcast: We go stateless in Seattle with a visit to the CHOP zone and explore the history of forced Native American reeducation.

  1. D.C. Circuit (unpublished): We’re not saying these two IRS employees didn’t fabricate evidence, we’re saying there’s nothing you can do about it (Constitution-wise) if they did.
  2. On at least 181 occasions, Massachusetts state police secretly and warrantlessly record phone conversations and then bring criminal charges against people involved. The recordings are not disclosed to prosecutors (or defendants). District court: That might violate the Constitution. First Circuit: Though the police declined to say that they have stopped doing this, these plaintiffs haven’t shown they’re likely to be secretly recorded and charged again in the future. They lack standing to seek an injunction.
  3. As the COVID-19 pandemic started to abate, the U.S. District Court for the Virgin Islands resumed in-person hearings, with some restrictions. In one such instance, drug traffickers who go by “Bogus” and “Crumbull” challenge their convictions, arguing that the exclusion of observers from the courtroom during parts of the opening and later portions of the trial violated their right to a public trial. The government argues the exclusions were trivial, since the trial was remotely viewable from an overflow room. Third Circuit: Their rights were violated, but neither of them sufficiently objected, and they received a fair trial. Convictions affirmed.
  4. Third Circuit (unpublished): Hey district court, you got this one right but maybe don’t include puns in your next opinion about two kids who were killed in a tractor-trailer accident.
  5. Exoneration watch, Baltimore edition: Two brothers are incarcerated for 20 years for a murder they did not commit. The convictions were partly based on a statement from a 13-year-old with a learning disability, who fingered the brothers only under pressure from detectives banging the table in front of him and which he recanted at trial. Before the brothers are released from prison, this witness dies. The brothers sue the detectives. Can the court consider the decedent’s old testimony? District court: Inadmissible hearsay. Fourth Circuit: It was extracted way back then for a similar motive to what it would be used for now. To a jury this must go.
  6. So, you might think that a case about whether the fixed-fees charged by fractional-share jet companies (think time-shares for planes) are subject to a 7.5% “ticket tax” would be extraordinarily boring. But credit to Chief Judge Sutton, it’s actually a fascinating tale about the IRS jerking around an entire industry, hitting one company with a $39 mil judgment, and unanimously losing in the Sixth Circuit. Concurrence: Also, it’s weird that over the course of the nation’s history, the Supreme Court’s “taxpayer-favoring canon” of interpretation quietly switched to “a novel taxpayer-disfavoring one.”
  7. Exoneration watch, Detroit edition: Two men are convicted of murder based on some sketchy evidence. This includes a jailhouse informant who claimed he heard one of them confess but years later said he never actually met either defendant and that his testimony was entirely dictated to him by a detective. The defendants are released after nearly 20 years and then sue the detectives. District court: Much of this case can go forward. Detectives: Fine, we’ll appeal. Sixth Circuit: It’s best not to raise arguments in reply briefs. Appeal partly dismissed and partly affirmed.
  8. Madison, Wisc. police hear loud bangs and see drunk man (who is thought to own firearms) go inside home. SWAT surrounds the house. But the man does not respond, and during five-hour impasse there are no more gunshot-like noises. They enter the house and shoot him with foam bullets, including after he’d come downstairs empty handed and as officers gave conflicting commands. (No shell casings are found, and a jury acquits him of being a felon in possession.) Seventh Circuit: A jury could find some constitutional violations here, but qualified immunity. Concurrence: “[T]he day has come when the doctrine’s privilege has nearly eclipsed the Constitution’s guarantees.”
  9. In early 2025, following Executive Orders by President Trump, three federal agencies terminated research grants en masse via form letters. Six researchers from the University of California system who had their grants terminated bring a class action, and the district court enjoins the terminations. Ninth Circuit: About half-right. The district court was correct to enjoin the terminations based on EOs related to DEI programs. But the terminations with no explanation had to be brought in the Court of Federal Claims.
  10. Tenth Circuit: Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chiles v. Salazar—holding that a state ban on talk therapy that seeks to change or reduce same-sex attraction or transgender expression is a viewpoint based restriction on speech—we remand to the district court to apply strict scrutiny. Dissent: Since the law obviously fails strict scrutiny, we could save everyone a lot of time by just striking it down now.
  11. Southern Company Services, Inc., has one neat trick for reducing its pension obligations: Calculate them based on life-expectancy numbers from 1951. Eleventh Circuit: Why not go all the way back to 1789? Oh, we know: Because the unreasonable actuarial assumptions violate ERISA.
  12. Two DeKalb County, Ga. officers investigating stolen vehicle knock on a house’s front door, enter when it swings open. They go upstairs, find a man sitting in his bed who throws a phone at them. One officer shoots a half dozen times, killing the man. He was unarmed. (The shooting officer was fired and accepted a plea deal for involuntary manslaughter.) The man’s family sues for Fourth Amendment violations. The shooting officer invokes qualified immunity and appeals his loss to the Eleventh Circuit. Family: The court shouldn’t even entertain the appeal because the issues are all factual and thus ought to be hashed out at trial. Eleventh Circuit (unpublished): Nope, the issues are legal, so we’re going to address them in the normal course. File your brief.
  13. And in en banc news, the Third Circuit, 6–5, will not reconsider its decision on Columbia University grad and pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil. The feds detained Khalil and began deportation proceedings in response to his advocacy, raising questions about how the First Amendment applies to lawful permanent residents. The non banc means Khalil will have to exhaust the removal process and cannot challenge his detention via writ of habeas corpus.
  14. And in more en banc news, the Fourth Circuit will reconsider its decision that federal law preempts Maryland’s and West Virginia’s attempts to regulate drug manufacturers’ distribution of Medicaid-covered drugs.

“Get on the fucking ground!” You know who has standing to challenge ICE’s habit of barging onto private property, ignoring No Trespassing signs, and tackling, shackling Hispanic people—and then prolonging those detentions by refusing to accept REAL ID or other proof of citizenship? Per the Southern District of Alabama, IJ client Leo Venegas—who has been violently detained three times in the last year—has standing. Stay tuned for the court’s ruling on injunctive relief.

Harvard law professor Larry Lessig thinks that super PACs are destroying America. That sits poorly with IJ Senior Attorney Paul Sherman, who helped litigate SpeechNow.org v. FEC, the case that created super PACs. According to him—and, well, us—restrictions on super PACs censoriously limit the messages voters may consider before they cast their ballots. Who’s right? We have our biases, but if you’d like to decide for yourself, we encourage you to watch Lessig and Sherman slug it out on So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, hosted by our good friends at FIRE.

The post Short Circuit: An inexhaustive weekly compendium of rulings from the federal courts of appeal appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/H64Au2n
via IFTTT