Month: June 2019

Trump’s Plan to Force Mexico to Lock In its Own People

The Berlin Wall.

When critics of President Trump’s plan to build a wall on the Mexican border analogize it to the Berlin Wall, immigration restrictionists indignantly respond that there is a crucial difference between keeping migrants out and locking people in. The former is the supposed sovereign right of any nation, while the latter is a human rights violation only oppressive totalitarian regimes would resort to. Anyone who defends Trump’s new plan to use tariffs to force Mexico to restrict the emigration of its citizens to the United States can no longer rely on that distinction.

The whole point of the plan is precisely to force Mexico to lock in its own people. Trump economic adviser Peter Navarro, for example, emphasizes that the goal is to force Mexico to “help us” stop the “the export, one of their high exports, of illegal aliens.” At least in the short run, the only way Mexico can give us the needed “help” is by restricting the movement of its people.

Defenders of Trump’s action could argue that there is a distinction between locking people in completely and “merely” preventing them from leaving for a specific destination (such as the US). But surely we would still condemn the Berlin Wall if the East German government had said its purpose was to block its citizens from moving to the West, but they were still free to leave for other communist nations. As a practical matter, moreover, the US border is Mexico’s longest and most significant land boundary, by far, and blocking exit rights through that border is a major restriction on Mexicans’ ability to go anywhere by land.

Another possible distinction between the two cases is that East Germans were locked into a far more oppressive regime than Mexicans would be. But Mexico’s corrupt and often deeply unjust government is far from wonderful, and being confined there would force many potential migrants to endure what may well be a lifetime of poverty and exposure to violence. Moreover, the right to exit is not limited only to citizens of the most oppressive regimes. If Canada or the United States were to block their citizens from leaving, that would surely be a gross violation of human rights, even though Canada and the US are substantially freer and wealthier societies than Mexico.

Some of the people Trump wants to force Mexico to lock in are not Mexican citizens, but Central American refugees. But, if anything, Mexico has even less right to prevent other nations’ citizens from leaving than its own.

Blocking the right to emigrate is a violation of international law. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to which both Mexico and the US are signatories),  mandates that “[e]veryone has the right to leave any country.” Much more importantly, locking people in is a violation of fundamental human rights, even aside from any treaty. We readily recognize that in the case of the Berlin Wall. The same goes for Trump’s attempt to force Mexico to block the emigration of its own people.

The distinction between locking in and keeping migrants out is not nearly as robust as many like to think. Economist Bryan Caplan effectively explains why most of the arguments against the former also apply to the latter. The distinction also often relies on the flawed analogy between governments’ power to exclude migrants and the rights of private homeowners to keep trespassers off their land (I criticized that analogy here).

But those who believe that the difference between “keeping out” and “locking in” is an important moral distinction that differentiates US immigration restrictions from the Berlin Wall should oppose Trump’s plan to coerce Mexico. There are, of course, many other goo reasons to oppose it. But the ways in which it makes our policy analogous to the Berlin Wall should be high on the list.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2wtjMuy
via IFTTT

Trump Declares War On Silicon Valley: DoJ Launches Google Anti-Monopoly Probe

Once shielded by the logic of Silicon Valley’s relentless churn of innovation – which dictated that no reigning tech empire could rule for long before going the way of Yahoo and AOL – tech giants like Facebook, Amazon and Google have been subjected to intensifying anti-trust pressure – Elizabeth Warren’s “Break up Big Tech”s billboard is only the latest example. Indeed, big tech trust-busting has become one of the few issues in contemporary Washington that garners genuine bipartisan support.

Warren

Since the Trump administration swept into power two years ago in spite of thinly veiled opposition from Silicon Valley – as it was later revealed, big tech effectively conspired with the Clinton campaign to hurt Trump’s chances – the drumbeat of unprecedented anti-trust scrutiny has grown steadily louder, facilitated by the president’s own publicly-voiced suspicions.

And on Friday, the levee finally broke.

Just before midnight on Friday, at the close of what was a hectic month for markets, WSJ dropped a bombshell of a story: The paper reported that the DoJ has opened an anti-trust investigation of Alphabet Inc., which could “present a major new layer of regulatory scrutiny for the search giant, according to people familiar with the matter.” The report was sourced to “people familiar with the matter,” but was swiftly corroborated by the New York Times, Bloomberg and others.

For months now, the FTC has appeared to be gearing up for a showdown with big tech. The agency – which shares anti-trust authority with the DoJ – has created a new commission that could help undo big-tech tie-ups like Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram, and hired lawyers who have advanced new anti-monopoly theories that would help justify the breakup of companies like Amazon.

But as it turns out, the Trump administration’s first salvo against big tech didn’t come from the FTC; instead, this responsibility has been delegated to the DoJ, which has reportedly been tasked with supervising the investigation into Google.

That’s not super surprising, since the FTC already had its chance to nail Google with an anti-monopoly probe back in 2013. But the agency came up short. From what we can tell, it appears the administration will divvy up responsibility for any future anti-trust investigations between the two agencies, which means the FTC – which is already reportedly preparing to levy a massive fine against Facebook – could end up taking the lead in those cases.

Goog

Though WSJ didn’t specify which aspects of Google’s business might come under the microscope, a string of multi-billion-euro fines recently levied by the EU might offer some guidance. The bloc’s anti-trust authority, which has been far more eager to take on American tech giants than its American counterpart (for reasons that should be obvious to all), has fined Google over its practice of bundling software with its standard Android license, the way its search engine rankings favor its own product listings, and ways it has harmed competition in the digital advertising market.

During the height of the controversy over big tech’s abuses of sensitive user data last year, the Verge published a story speculating about how the monopolistic tendencies of each of the dominant Silicon Valley tech giants could be remedied. For Google, the Verge argued, the best remedy would be a ban on acquisitions – a strategy that has been bandied about in Congress.

Our best model for tech antitrust is the Department of Justice’s anti-bundling case against Microsoft in the ’90s, which argued that Microsoft was using its control over the PC market to force out competing operating systems and browsers. If you’re looking for a contemporary equivalent, Google is probably the closest fit. On a good day, Google (or Alphabet, if you prefer) is the most valuable company in the world by market cap, with dozens of different products supported by an all-encompassing ad network. Google also has clear and committed enemies, with Microsoft, Oracle, Yelp, and even the Motion Picture Association of America calling for restrictions on the company’s power.

But according to Open Markets’ Matthew Stoller, the best long-term remedy for Google’s dominance has more to do with Google’s acquisitions. “If you’re looking for a silver bullet, probably the best thing to do would be to block Google from being able to buy any companies,” says Stoller. “Suddenly, you have to compete with Google, you can’t just be bought out by Google.”

That might sound tame compared to Europe’s billion-dollar fines, but it cuts to the core of how Google is organized. The company has acquired more than 200 startups since it was founded, including central products like YouTube, Android, and DoubleClick. The company’s modular structure is arguably a direct result of that buying spree, and it’s hard to imagine what Google would look like without it. More recent buys like Nest have fallen under the broader Alphabet umbrella, but the core strategy hasn’t changed. Would Google still be an AI giant if it hadn’t bought DeepMind? Probably, but everyone involved would have had to work a lot harder.

Even better, anti-monopoly activists would have a bunch of different ways to block those acquisitions. The Department of Justice’s antitrust division hasn’t contested Google’s acquisitions so far, but it could always change its approach. The strongest fix would come from Congress, where Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) has introduced a bill that would place an outright ban on acquisitions by any company with a market cap higher than $100 billion. (As of press time, Google is worth roughly $840 billion.)

We feel it’s no exaggeration to say that this is only the beginning of what could become an epoch-defining story arch. And like every good story, this one will have main characters and bit players. As far as we can tell, one of the leading roles will likely be played by Justice Department antitrust chief Makan Delrahim, a previously obscure Trump Administration official who is now in charge of one of the most consequential investigations in recent memory.

Setting aside what it might mean for Silicon Valley, the investigation will also have major ramifications for markets, since shares of the big tech companies have been at the vanguard of the torrid post-crisis bull market. Though the influence of FANG stocks on overall market performance has waned this year, they remain hugely influential.

Tech giants are far and away the biggest contributors to SPX sales growth…

FANG

…and they have generated nearly all SPX after-tax adjusted profit margin since the crisis.

Chart

News of the investigation could adversely impact shares of the big tech companies, which will in turn create a serious drag for the major indexes. For investors, it will be one more threat to a bull market which is already teetering thanks to President Trump’s trade war with China (and now Mexico).

We imagine we’ll be hearing more about the probe through both official and unofficial channels in the coming weeks.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2Z1JqTu Tyler Durden

Why Being A Politician Is No Longer Fun

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

As a society, we are ill-prepared for the end of “politics is the solution.”

It’s fun to be a politician when there’s plenty of tax revenues and borrowed money to distribute, and when the goodies get bipartisan support. An economy that’s expanding all household incomes more or less equally is fun, fun, fun for politicians because more household income generates more income tax revenues and more spending that generates other taxes.

Despite the usual ideological squabbles, the general mood is upbeat: the horse-trading is about the relative share of the spoils each constituency will receive. Nobody gets everything they want, but everybody gets a good chunk and after an appropriate period of whining, resentment and indignation eventually counts their blessings.

But once the pie starts shrinking, the mood darkens: rather than goodies being distributed, losses and belt-tightening must be distributed. The game is now zero-sum: one constituency’s gain is another’s dead loss.

Politics is no longer fun once the pie starts shrinking. The illusion of “growth” can be maintained for a while by borrowing enormous sums and distributing the windfall as if it were real, organic growth but eventually the wheels fall off the substitute debt for income and tax revenues game and the entire rotten structure collapses.

The other dynamic in play that’s visible in the chart below is the distribution of wealth and power is so asymmetric that it’s destroying politics as a “solution.” Financialization, neoliberalism and its handmaiden globalization have skewed income, wealth and power to the very top of the distribution pyramid: the rich are getting richer, and the super-rich are getting super-richer–and more politically powerful as a result.

But the asymmetry isn’t driven solely by the perversities of neoliberalism / financialization: beneath the surface, the economy is shifting in fundamentally dramatic ways that exacerbate wealth-income distribution asymmetries: there are fewer winners and more losers.

These forces have polarized politics into two camps: one with an ideological faith that markets left to themselves will sort it all out to everyone’s satisfaction and the other camp with an ideological faith that the central state is the only solution via redistribution of income.

As I’ve explained here many times and in my many books, both are wrong: neither the market nor the state can maintain the status quo in an era of DeGrowth and tectonic shifts in demographics, natural resources, energy, technology, etc.

Humans being humans, the failure of politics as a “solution” only hardens the ideological resolve of each camp, insuring even more bitter partisanship and more zealotry, as neither side is willing to admit that both “solutions” are wanting, as both “solutions” only work in periods of rapid growth that generates more goodies for everyone.

That era ended a decade ago, and the illusion of growth has been generated by the temporary artifice of debt and money-creation.

As a society, we are ill-prepared for the end of “politics is the solution.” No wonder being a politician is no longer fun.

*  *  *

Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 ebook, $12 print, $13.08 audiobook): Read the first section for free in PDF format. My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF). My book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format. If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com. New benefit for subscribers/patrons: a monthly Q&A where I respond to your questions/topics.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2IcJMQf Tyler Durden

Congress Is Racing To Address a Fentanyl Problem That Fentanyl Experts Say Probably Doesn’t Exist

Congress is racing to address a problem toxicologists say probably doesn’t exist: the dangers to emergency responders of incidental exposure to the powerful drug fentanyl.

A bill introduced by Reps. Conor Lamb (D–Pa.), David Joyce (R–Ohio), and David Trone (D–Md.) would use federal money to fund local police purchases of portable drug screening devices. Front and center in much of the advocacy for the bill is the alleged risk of the synthetic opiate fentanyl to police and emergency medical responders who come in contact with it at drug busts and overdose scenes.

Thus the Toledo Blade editorial board calls for passing the bill at once, saying “police, firefighters, and other first responders are in jeopardy if they come into contact with even a minute trace of the drug.”

An NPR station in upstate New York spoke to John Anton, police chief of DeWitt, New York, who is haunted by fears of his officers accidentally overdosing. “Fentanyl is just so deadly they’ll just go unconscious, and then CPR has to be administered,” Anton told NPR. “And I worry about them every day getting exposed to fentanyl, getting it on their clothes, bringing it home to their families, getting it on their boots and so forth.”

Anton’s worry is most likely misplaced. Fentanyl, a powerful drug, is at the center of a wave of thousands of overdose deaths. Even so, experts have been trying for years to calm fears that it poses any significant risk to first responders, notwithstanding viral stories to the contrary.

Perhaps the most-circulated story of this sort took place in 2017 after a fentanyl bust in which an officer in East Liverpool, Ohio, had used gloves to handle a white powder. Later, with ungloved hand, he absently brushed some dust off his shirt. Soon thereafter he lay unconscious. He described himself as “in total shock… No way I’m overdosing.” Colleagues attempted to revive him with naloxone, but he did not wake up until after four doses, a remarkable quantity. The terrifying story was widely publicized in national media.

Writing in Slate shortly thereafter, Harvard Medical School professor and emergency room physician Jeremy Samuel Faust offered a reason to be skeptical. Every toxicologist he spoke to agreed that skin contact from brushing a shirt, even if complicated by bringing fingers to mouth or some similar misstep afterward, would not cause such symptoms. The very detail that made the episode so riveting—that it took an enormous quantity of naloxone (four doses) before he woke up—undercuts rather than reinforces the story.

“When a medication with well-established and consistent efficacy such as naloxone does not work at its usual dose, it’s usually because we are treating the wrong illness—we’ve made a diagnostic error—not because the known treatment is flawed.” If a therapy that has been well established as reliably treating opiate overdose did not work, even at escalating dosages, it’s because opiate overdose is most likely not what he was suffering from.

Many of the bipartisan sponsors and supporters of H.R. 2070 seem unaware that any doubt lingers over the panic stories.

“We must make sure our first responders, who are on the front lines of this epidemic, are protected from exposure to deadly substances like fentanyl,” Trone declared in a press release. “Providing resources like screening devices to state and local entities is a no brainer.”

“Police officers, paramedics, and other first responders face tremendous danger when responding to scenes where fentanyl and other dangerous substances are present,” says another sponsor, Sen. Edward Markey (D–Mass.) “Shielding these brave men and women in Massachusetts and across the country from these dangers as they serve and protect our communities should be our top priority.”

Interestingly, while the Fraternal Order of Police union supports the bill, its letter of endorsement from national president Chuck Canterbury refrains from making any arguments based on officer safety. Instead, it advances other reasons for supporting the equipment bill, based on making drug investigations more effective.

Elected officials would do well to follow its lead. Unfounded fears of rescuer overdose can do real harm by fostering hesitation and needless preliminaries at overdose scenes where every moment counts in resuscitating a victim.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2W62huw
via IFTTT

Congress Is Racing To Address a Fentanyl Problem That Fentanyl Experts Say Probably Doesn’t Exist

Congress is racing to address a problem toxicologists say probably doesn’t exist: the dangers to emergency responders of incidental exposure to the powerful drug fentanyl.

A bill introduced by Reps. Conor Lamb (D–Pa.), David Joyce (R–Ohio), and David Trone (D–Md.) would use federal money to fund local police purchases of portable drug screening devices. Front and center in much of the advocacy for the bill is the alleged risk of the synthetic opiate fentanyl to police and emergency medical responders who come in contact with it at drug busts and overdose scenes.

Thus the Toledo Blade editorial board calls for passing the bill at once, saying “police, firefighters, and other first responders are in jeopardy if they come into contact with even a minute trace of the drug.”

An NPR station in upstate New York spoke to John Anton, police chief of DeWitt, New York, who is haunted by fears of his officers accidentally overdosing. “Fentanyl is just so deadly they’ll just go unconscious, and then CPR has to be administered,” Anton told NPR. “And I worry about them every day getting exposed to fentanyl, getting it on their clothes, bringing it home to their families, getting it on their boots and so forth.”

Anton’s worry is most likely misplaced. Fentanyl, a powerful drug, is at the center of a wave of thousands of overdose deaths. Even so, experts have been trying for years to calm fears that it poses any significant risk to first responders, notwithstanding viral stories to the contrary.

Perhaps the most-circulated story of this sort took place in 2017 after a fentanyl bust in which an officer in East Liverpool, Ohio, had used gloves to handle a white powder. Later, with ungloved hand, he absently brushed some dust off his shirt. Soon thereafter he lay unconscious. He described himself as “in total shock… No way I’m overdosing.” Colleagues attempted to revive him with naloxone, but he did not wake up until after four doses, a remarkable quantity. The terrifying story was widely publicized in national media.

Writing in Slate shortly thereafter, Harvard Medical School professor and emergency room physician Jeremy Samuel Faust offered a reason to be skeptical. Every toxicologist he spoke to agreed that skin contact from brushing a shirt, even if complicated by bringing fingers to mouth or some similar misstep afterward, would not cause such symptoms. The very detail that made the episode so riveting—that it took an enormous quantity of naloxone (four doses) before he woke up—undercuts rather than reinforces the story.

“When a medication with well-established and consistent efficacy such as naloxone does not work at its usual dose, it’s usually because we are treating the wrong illness—we’ve made a diagnostic error—not because the known treatment is flawed.” If a therapy that has been well established as reliably treating opiate overdose did not work, even at escalating dosages, it’s because opiate overdose is most likely not what he was suffering from.

Many of the bipartisan sponsors and supporters of H.R. 2070 seem unaware that any doubt lingers over the panic stories.

“We must make sure our first responders, who are on the front lines of this epidemic, are protected from exposure to deadly substances like fentanyl,” Trone declared in a press release. “Providing resources like screening devices to state and local entities is a no brainer.”

“Police officers, paramedics, and other first responders face tremendous danger when responding to scenes where fentanyl and other dangerous substances are present,” says another sponsor, Sen. Edward Markey (D–Mass.) “Shielding these brave men and women in Massachusetts and across the country from these dangers as they serve and protect our communities should be our top priority.”

Interestingly, while the Fraternal Order of Police union supports the bill, its letter of endorsement from national president Chuck Canterbury refrains from making any arguments based on officer safety. Instead, it advances other reasons for supporting the equipment bill, based on making drug investigations more effective.

Elected officials would do well to follow its lead. Unfounded fears of rescuer overdose can do real harm by fostering hesitation and needless preliminaries at overdose scenes where every moment counts in resuscitating a victim.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2W62huw
via IFTTT

Sharing Food with Migrants Is a Charitable Act To be Praised, Not Criminalized

Scott Warren, a geographer from Arizona, is currently on trial in federal court. He’s charged with human trafficking and other crimes.

Scott Warren sounds like a bad hombre. But Scott Warren is actually a good hombre.

Last year, Warren joined with other volunteers along the U.S.-Mexico border to provide food and water to migrants traversing the desert, where migrants can easily die of thirst, exposure, and other causes. (Occasionally, as happened in April, migrants also die crossing the Canadian border.)

Warren and his fellow volunteers knew that providing food and water can help save lives. So that’s what they did.

In an account in the Washington Post this week, Warren details how border patrol agents set upon him and two migrants he was aiding. The agents arrested the migrants. Then they arrested Warren.

“Agents also handcuffed and arrested me, for—in the agency’s words—having provided the two migrants with ‘food, water, clean clothes, and beds,'” Warren says.

Warren, who deserves thanks from every American, faces up to 20 years in federal prison for his acts of charity.

Warren volunteers with the southern Arizona-based community and faith-based coalition No More Deaths, which works “to stop the deaths of migrants in the desert” along the border. That mission has put No More Deaths in the proverbial crosshairs of law enforcement officials. Warren was arrested soon after No More Deaths posted a video of U.S. Border Patrol agents knocking over and emptying water jugs placed in the desert to aid migrants.

In January, four members of No More Deaths were found guilty on misdemeanor charges that brought fines and possible jail time. They were found to have failed to obtain permits to enter federal lands, and violating other rules. Another quartet was found guilty of similar charges in March. Others had their charges dropped after agreeing to pay fines.

It’s clear the charges against Scott Warren and the others are, literally and figuratively, trumped up.

Cracking down on immigration and immigrants is one of many sordid hallmarks of President Donald Trump’s administration. But the Trump administration isn’t just barring people like Warren from sharing food with migrants. It’s also failing to adequately feed and care for migrants it places in custody—sometimes with tragic results. Jakelin Caal Maquin died while in federal government custody, I wrote last year. “Reports suggest [the seven-year old] may have died from a lack of food and water.”

Maquin is one of at least seven migrant children to die in U.S. government custody.

It’s hard to see how implementing immigration policies that kill people “serves the national interest.”

The Trump administration didn’t invent awful immigration policies. Neither does it have a monopoly on criminalizing the sharing of food. In fact, the trumped-up charges against Scott Warren and others are just the latest evidence that politicians are increasingly intolerant of those who engage in the simple act of sharing food with those in need.

A slew of big U.S. cities—Houston, Las Vegas, Fort Lauderdale, New York City, Philadelphia, Dallas, and San Antonio, to name a few—have criminalized sharing food with the homeless and others in need, as I’ve discussed in numerous columns and detail in my recent book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable.

These draconian federal and local policies run counter to American values. There’s a long history in this country of private charities, individuals, and businesses feeding those in need, including migrants.

“Organizations such as the Italian Welfare League in New York distributed food to newly arrived immigrants in need,” writes Hasia Diner in her 2001 book Hungering for America: Italian, Irish, and Jewish Foodways in the Age of Migration. “Relying upon local food merchants for donations, volunteers for charity distributed… ‘food that Italians like.'”

That’s the America—and the Americans—I know. Aiding those in need shows America at her best. Prosecuting Scott Warren, and others who save migrant lives, shows us at our worst.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2W8TJmG
via IFTTT

China Launches Investigation Of FedEx In “Warning To Foreign Companies”

Just hours after China’s retaliatory tariffs on the U.S. officially kicked in at midnight on Saturday in Beijing, affecting more than 2,400 goods that face levies of as much as 25%, compared with the previous charges of 10%, China took its first non-tariff retaliatory step, when it launched an investigation into FedEx for the wrongful delivery of packages, the country’s state run Xinhua News Agency reported.

Earlier this week we reported that anticipating a backlash from Chinese officials that could seriously undermine its prospects in one of the world’s largest growth markets, FedEx apologized to Huawei on Wednesday after the global logistics company “accidentally” diverted two packages sent from Japan that had been addressed to Huawei in China. The packages, which purportedly contained mundane – yet ‘urgent’ – legal documents, had been inexplicably rerouted to FedEx’s US headquarters in Memphis. Two more packages sent from Vietnam were nearly re-routed as well.

Following the mishap, Huawei said it was reviewing its relationship with FedEx, and now Beijing has also gotten involved and in commentary read on its flagship evening news program, the state-run China Central Television said that “now that China has established a list of unreliable entities, the investigation into FedEx will be a warning to other foreign companies and individuals that violate Chinese laws and regulations.”

“China welcomes foreign companies on condition that they abide by China’s law, regulation, market rules and the spirit of contract, and can’t harm Chinese customers’ legitimate rights.”

The Fedex “warning” comes one day after China said it will establish a list of “unreliable” entities that harm the interests of domestic companies, which could affect foreign enterprises as trade tensions escalate.

Following the report, China’s de facto social network mouthpiece, Global Times editor-in-chief, Hu Xijin, tweeted that Fedex had prompted “strong suspicion” after the shipment diversion to “wrong places” and an investigation is being launched.

And just so there was no confusion about the intent behind the investigation, Xinhua used two hashtags in the two Weibo posts on the FedEx announcement: #RetaliateAgainstUSTradeBullying and #ChinaUSTrade.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2MBtCWf Tyler Durden

Sharing Food with Migrants Is a Charitable Act To be Praised, Not Criminalized

Scott Warren, a geographer from Arizona, is currently on trial in federal court. He’s charged with human trafficking and other crimes.

Scott Warren sounds like a bad hombre. But Scott Warren is actually a good hombre.

Last year, Warren joined with other volunteers along the U.S.-Mexico border to provide food and water to migrants traversing the desert, where migrants can easily die of thirst, exposure, and other causes. (Occasionally, as happened in April, migrants also die crossing the Canadian border.)

Warren and his fellow volunteers knew that providing food and water can help save lives. So that’s what they did.

In an account in the Washington Post this week, Warren details how border patrol agents set upon him and two migrants he was aiding. The agents arrested the migrants. Then they arrested Warren.

“Agents also handcuffed and arrested me, for—in the agency’s words—having provided the two migrants with ‘food, water, clean clothes, and beds,'” Warren says.

Warren, who deserves thanks from every American, faces up to 20 years in federal prison for his acts of charity.

Warren volunteers with the southern Arizona-based community and faith-based coalition No More Deaths, which works “to stop the deaths of migrants in the desert” along the border. That mission has put No More Deaths in the proverbial crosshairs of law enforcement officials. Warren was arrested soon after No More Deaths posted a video of U.S. Border Patrol agents knocking over and emptying water jugs placed in the desert to aid migrants.

In January, four members of No More Deaths were found guilty on misdemeanor charges that brought fines and possible jail time. They were found to have failed to obtain permits to enter federal lands, and violating other rules. Another quartet was found guilty of similar charges in March. Others had their charges dropped after agreeing to pay fines.

It’s clear the charges against Scott Warren and the others are, literally and figuratively, trumped up.

Cracking down on immigration and immigrants is one of many sordid hallmarks of President Donald Trump’s administration. But the Trump administration isn’t just barring people like Warren from sharing food with migrants. It’s also failing to adequately feed and care for migrants it places in custody—sometimes with tragic results. Jakelin Caal Maquin died while in federal government custody, I wrote last year. “Reports suggest [the seven-year old] may have died from a lack of food and water.”

Maquin is one of at least seven migrant children to die in U.S. government custody.

It’s hard to see how implementing immigration policies that kill people “serves the national interest.”

The Trump administration didn’t invent awful immigration policies. Neither does it have a monopoly on criminalizing the sharing of food. In fact, the trumped-up charges against Scott Warren and others are just the latest evidence that politicians are increasingly intolerant of those who engage in the simple act of sharing food with those in need.

A slew of big U.S. cities—Houston, Las Vegas, Fort Lauderdale, New York City, Philadelphia, Dallas, and San Antonio, to name a few—have criminalized sharing food with the homeless and others in need, as I’ve discussed in numerous columns and detail in my recent book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable.

These draconian federal and local policies run counter to American values. There’s a long history in this country of private charities, individuals, and businesses feeding those in need, including migrants.

“Organizations such as the Italian Welfare League in New York distributed food to newly arrived immigrants in need,” writes Hasia Diner in her 2001 book Hungering for America: Italian, Irish, and Jewish Foodways in the Age of Migration. “Relying upon local food merchants for donations, volunteers for charity distributed… ‘food that Italians like.'”

That’s the America—and the Americans—I know. Aiding those in need shows America at her best. Prosecuting Scott Warren, and others who save migrant lives, shows us at our worst.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2W8TJmG
via IFTTT

The EU, Not Brexit, Killed British Steel

Authored by Justin Murray via The Mises Institute,

On 22 May 2019, British Steel announced that they had become insolvent and the company entered receivership with the UK. The explanation provided for this failure is that British Steel is a victim of the UK’s decision to exit the European Union’s bureaucratic fold . On the surface, this appears to be true, as the company stated that orders from the continent have declined due to uncertainty over the exit process that the UK Parliament has dragged out over the past three years. However, if we dig deeper, we find that it was the EU, not the Brexit decision, which killed the company.

European Overregulation

If we look at the company’s latest annual report, we find that the company went from a profit of £92 million in FY ending 2017 to a £19 million loss in FY ending 2018. To douse water on the Brexit claims, the company’s revenues actually increased 11% year-over-year. The real problem was the company’s expenses bloated by a tremendous 25% over the same period. The steel production process is energy intensive, so a significant portion of this price increase is related to a sharp spike in energy prices in the UK over late 2017 to early 2018. The second major cost driver is British Steel was no longer able to delay paying for the EU’s mandatory cap-and-trade policy. Under the cap-and-trade system, companies were able to pull forward future credits to pay for current years. British Steel’s future credits ran out in 2018 and were facing a £100 million bill to cover their 2018 charges. This amount represents a full 10% of the company’s annual revenue base and was so large thatthe company requested the British Government to provide a loan to cover the costs as the company only has around £5 million in cash to make such a payment. A good deal of the aforementioned energy price spike is also related to the EU’s cap-and-trade regime becoming more aggressive as it moves into the 2021-2030 phase of the program .

British Steel would have become financially insolvent on 22 May 2019 even had the UK voted to remain in the EU.

Had British Steel not been handed an insane £100 million bill for carbon emissions and who knows how much passed through via the utility bill, the company would be in good shape right now. And people don’t even get to enjoy the feeling that a polluting industry is held in check as the steel purchases will only shift to countries like China, Russia and India, which occupy three of the top four places in global emissions, where there is little concern for emission levels and EU emissions credits have no legal authority.

The Brexit excuse is just a convenient way to latch onto a more visible event as pointing out that EU environmental policy destroyed British Steel would be politically embarrassing to the EU Parliament and UK politicians that would see a domestic cap-and-trade program created after Brexit.

This is Just a Microcosm

This event is just one of many real world examples of the EU’s destructive centralization policies. The cap-and-trade program and a host of other micromanagement regulatory impositions are a key driver behind the EU’spoor economic performance and terrible employment conditions. Given how onerous the EU’s regulatory regime is, the UK ultimately made the right choice to exit the union. If the company didn’t have to pay the absurd £100 million cap-and-trade tax, British Steel would be able to more nimbly adjust pricing to factor in any punitive tariff backlash the EU would impose on the UK for daring to exit their political sphere of control. Imagine how many other millions of Pounds in wasted bureaucratic overhead British companies could shed should the UK elect to engage in a no-deal exit and refuse to impose those same rules and regulations the British public voted to abandon.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2QBAYHr Tyler Durden

New Pictures Emerge Of Superyacht Lost At Sea After Falling Off Cargo Ship

My Song, a 130-foot Baltic 130 Custom superyacht, owned by billionaire Pier Luigi Loro Piana, was in transport between the Spanish island of Mallorca and the Italian city of Genoa when a storm in the early hours of Sunday broke the yacht’s cradle on top of a cargo ship and plunged it into the sea, reported Yachting World.

According to other media reports supported by maritime tracking data, the 452 feet cargo ship was on the final leg of its voyage from the Caribbean when it encountered a storm in the Balearic Sea, east of Spain, that was the moment on early Sunday morning when the incident occurred.

The Miami Herald said the cradle on the cargo ship deck (a pedestal designed, manufactured, and guaranteed by the yacht manufacturer) suddenly collapsed during high seas, plunging the superyacht into the Mediterranean.

New pictures have emerged of the half-sunken yacht seen 40 nautical miles northeast of Menorca (Spain).

Peters & May, the logistics company responsible for transporting the yacht, issued a statement confirming the loss of the $45 million yacht.

The full statement from David Holley, CEO of Peters & Ma reads as follows:

“This press release is in response to the on-going media speculation in reference to the loss of sailing yacht My Song in the Mediterranean.

“We would not normally comment on cargo incidents but given the high-profile nature of this yacht and the media interest we feel that we need to formally give some clarification. There are several individuals passing judgement on what may or may not have happened and we will attempt to offer some clarity, albeit at an early stage of the investigation.

“Our reputation is second to none and we will not have it tarnished by unqualified individuals passing judgement without facts in hand. I will add that I am disappointed that confidential photographs were leaked to the media.

“We were informed of the loss of a yacht from the deck of the MV Brattinsborg at approximately 0400hr LT on 26th May 2019. The yacht is sailing yacht My Song. Upon receipt of the news Peters & May instructed the captain of the MV Brattinsborg to attempt salvage whilst 3rd party salvors were appointed.

“The vessel maintained visual contact with My Song until the air and sea search was initiated. As of 0900hr BST on 28th May 2019 the salvage attempts are still on-going. To ensure the safety of the remaining yachts, Peters & May have instructed the carrying vessel to continue her planned voyage to Genoa. No other yachts have been affected by this incident.

“A full investigation into the cause of the incident has been launched, however the primary assessment is that the yacht’s cradle (owned and provided by the yacht, warrantied by the yacht for sea transport and assembled by the yacht’s crew) collapsed during the voyage from Palma to Genoa and subsequently resulted in the loss of My Song overboard. I will add that this is the initial assessment and is subject to confirmation in due course.

“As a leading yacht transporter for the past 40 years we take great pride in what we do and go above and beyond all standard operating procedures to ensure safe transit of all yachts carried by us. We have procedures in place to respond to this kind of incident, although we hope that they are never required.

“This incident is more than regrettable, however the transport of yachts on cargo vessels continues to be one of the safest and most cost-effective solutions when carried out by a reputable company such as Peters & May.”

Several years ago, The Boat Show made a short documentary of My Song – showing how the 100-tonne racing yacht can glide across the water at nearly 30 knots.

 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2wxM1rY Tyler Durden