According to the official, widely reported story, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) shut down substantial portions of its electric transmission system in northern California as a precautionary measure.
Citing high wind speeds they described as “historic,” the utility claims that if they didn’t turn off the grid, wind-caused damage to their infrastructure could start more wildfires in the area.
Perhaps that’s true. Perhaps. This tale presumes that the folks who designed and maintain PG&E’s transmission system are unaware of or ignored the need to design it to withstand severe weather events, and that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) allowed the utility to do so.
Ignorance and incompetence happens, to be sure, but there’s much about this story that doesn’t smell right—and it’s disappointing that most journalists and elected officials are apparently accepting it without question.
Take, for example, this statement from a Fox News story about the Kincade Fires: “A PG&E meteorologist said it’s ‘likely that many trees will fall, branches will break,’ which could damage utility infrastructure and start a fire.”
Did you ever notice how utilities cut wide swaths of trees away when transmission lines pass through forests? There’s a reason for that: When trees fall and branches break the grid can still function.
So, if badly designed and poorly maintained infrastructure is not the reason PG&E cut power to millions of Californians, what might have prompted them to do so? Could it be that PG&E’s heavy reliance on renewable energy means they don’t have the power to send when an “historic” weather event occurs?
Wind Speed Limits
The two most popular forms of renewable energy come with operating limitations. With solar power the constraint is obvious: the availability of sunlight. One does not generate solar power at night and energy generation drops off with increasing degrees of cloud cover during the day.
The main operating constraint of wind power is, of course, wind speed. At the low end of the scale, you need about a 6 or 7 mph wind to get a turbine moving. This is called the “cut-in speed.” To generate maximum power, about a 30 mph wind is typically required. But, if the wind speed is too high, the wind turbine will shut down. This is called the “cut-out speed,” and it’s about 55 mph for most modern wind turbines.
It may seem odd that wind turbines have a cut-out speed, but there’s a very good reason for it. Each wind turbine rotor is connected to an electric generator housed in the turbine nacelle. The connection is made through a gearbox that is sized to turn the generator at the precise speed required to produce 60 Hertz AC power.
The blades of the wind turbine are airfoils, just like the wings of an airplane. Adjusting the pitch (angle) of the blades allows the rotor to maintain constant speed, which in turn allows the generator to maintain the constant speed it needs to safely deliver power to the grid. However, there’s a limit to blade pitch adjustment. When the wind is blowing so hard that pitch adjustment is no longer possible, the turbine shuts down. That’s the cut-out speed.
Now consider how California’s power generation profile has changed. According to Energy Information Administration data, the state generated 74.3 percent of its electricity from traditional sources—fossil fuels and nuclear—in 2001. Hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass-generated power accounted for most of the remaining 25.7 percent, with wind and solar providing only 1.98 percent of the total.
By 2018, the state’s renewable portfolio had jumped to 43.8 percent of total generation, with wind and solar now accounting for 17.9 percent of total generation. That’s a lot of power to depend on from inherently unreliable sources.
Thus, it would not be at all surprising to learn that PG&E didn’t stop delivering power out of fear of starting fires, but because it knew it wouldn’t have power to deliver once high winds shut down all those wind turbines.
Forgiving Student Loan Debt Would Create Moral Hazard, Exacerbate Problems: Moody’s
Wiping out student loan debt would provide a modest bump to the economy, but could risk “moral hazard” which would eventually make the problem worse, according to Moody’s Investors Service.
The opinion comes as Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren dangle the prospect of forgiving some or all of the $1.5 trillion in outstanding education debt. Both candidates have also proposed free free college.
Moody’s, however, think the effects of wholesale debt forgiveness at a macro level would be fairly muted.
“In the near term, we would expect student loan debt cancellation to yield a tax-cut-like stimulus to economic activity, contributing to a modest increase in household consumption and investment,” said William Foster, the firm’s senior credit analyst. “The magnitude of the stimulus would depend on the size of the debt relief and income level of the beneficiaries.“
In dollar terms, Foster cited studies showing that canceling debt would add $86 billion to $108 billion a year to GDP over a 10-year period. Less aggressive measures to forgive some loans and restructure payments for others would amount to $120 billion over a decade.
In a $21.5 trillion U.S. economy, those kinds of gains won’t move the needle very fair [sic] from a broad sense. –CNBC
That said, CNBC notes that the issue of student debt ‘and its role in growing wealth inequality’ has been seized upon by Democratic candidates, and could eventually lead to a ‘fundamental change to the way higher education is financed in the U.S.’ due to the disproportionate impact on younger people.
“Over the longer term, debt forgiveness could lead to an improvement in small business and household formation, as well as increased homeownership,” Foster continues in the note. “However, it could also increase the risk of moral hazard and the accumulation of even higher student debt burdens.“
Future borrowers, for instance, might be encouraged to run up big loan balances on the assumption that their debts will be forgiven at some point.
It’s also unclear how much forgiveness would address wealth inequality. The New York Fed estimates that about two-thirds of outstanding debt is currently held by the upper-half of earners. –CNBC
Last month a former official working for the agency administering the country’s federal student loan program resigned, and has endorsed canceling most of the country’s outstanding student debt.
Calling the system “fundamentally broken,” A. Wayne Johnson – appointed in 2017 by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, says that repayment trends suggest most student loan debt will never be repaid, according to the Wall Street Journal.
His solution? Forgive up to $50,000 for anyone with federal student-loan debt, which would amount to a bailout of approximately $925 billion. The plan would wipe out the debt of nearly 37 million borrowers. He would also advocate for a tax credit for up to $50,000 for people who have already repaid their debt.
Interestingly, that’s the exact amount Elizabeth Warren’s plan would forgive; $50,000 for anyone with under $100,000 in annual household income (and less for those above that amount).
“It’s a problem for all of us,” said Warren in April, adding: “It’s reducing home ownership rates. It’s leading fewer people to start businesses. It’s forcing students to drop out of school before getting a degree.”
With the transformation of the rules of the “Great Game” in the Middle East emerging out of President Trump’s recent Syrian surprise pullout and Putin’s brilliant manoeuvres since 2015, a sweeping set of development/reconstruction programs led by China now have a chance to become hegemonic across the formerly hopeless, terrorist-infested region.
The fact that the Arab states of the Middle East were targeted for destruction by western geopoliticians over the last 40 years is not un-connected to the region’s historic role as “cross-roads of civilizations” which were once the bridge between East and West along the ancient Silk Road (c. 250 BC). Today’s New Silk Road has brought 150 countries into a multipolar model of cooperation and civilization-building which necessitates a stabilized Middle East in order to function.
When asking “how could a reconstruction of the Middle East be possible after so many years of hell” I was pleasantly surprised to discover that both great projects once derailed have been given new life with the new prospects for peace and also new projects never before dreamed possible have been created as part of the New Silk Road (Aka: One Belt One Road).
Just to get a sense of this incredible potential that is keeping western oligarchs up at night, I want to quickly review just a few of the greatest China-led reconstruction projects which are now taking hold in four of the most decimated areas of the Middle East: Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan.
Iraq Joins the New Silk Road
After decades of foreign manipulation, the Iraqi government was able to declare victory over Da’esh in 2017- just 3 years after the western-sponsored insurgents had gained control of one third of the territory. This new stability created by Russia’s intervention into Syria, unleashed a vast potential for China-led reconstruction to not only re-build the war-torn nation, but launch it into the 21st century.
In September 2019, Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdu-Mahdi announced Iraq’s participation in the New Silk Road standing alongside Xi Jinping in Beijing. Mahdi said: “Iraq has gone through war and civil strife and is grateful to China for its valuable support… Iraq is willing to work in the ‘One Belt One Road’ framework”. President Xi then said: “China would like, from a new starting point together with Iraq, to push for the China-Iraq Strategic Partnership”.
Part of this Strategic Partnership involves an Oil for Reconstruction program which will see Chinese firms exchange infrastructure-building for oil (100 000 barrels/day to be exact). Already Iraq is China’s 2nd largest supplier of overseas oil while China has become Iraq’s #1 trade partner. Abdul Hussein al-Hanin (Advisor to the Prime Minister) explained that rather than giving money for Iraqi oil, China would build its projects defined by 3 priorities which al-Hanin said “first is building and modernizing the highways and internal roads with their sewage systems. Second is the construction of schools, hospitals and residential and industrial cities, and third is the construction of railways, ports, airports and other projects”. Atop the list of “other projects” include water treatment systems and power plants.
While Iraq’s economy is dependant on oil (making up 65% of its GDP, 100% of its export revenue), China’s New Silk Road focuses upon diversifying Iraq into a more complex full spectrum economy which is vital to enhance its sovereignty.
While great strides have been made towards a new system, anti-government protests threaten to disrupt this program having left 100 dead and thousands wounded since they began in July 2018.
A New Hope for Syria
The wounds Syria has inflicted since the crisis erupted in 2011 will take generations to heal, with over half a million deaths, a loss of 5.6 million civilians who have fled the country and approximately 6.1 million displaced within Syria itself. China has made clear its intentions to bring the BRI to Syria as fast as possible since 2017 with Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang saying:
“Too many people in the Middle East are suffering at the brutal hands of terrorists. We support regional countries in forming synergy, consolidating the momentum of anti-terrorism and striving to restore regional stability and order. We support countries in the region in exploring a development path suited to their national conditions and are ready to share governance experience and jointly build the Belt and Road and promote peace and stability through common development.”
After committing $23 billion in aid in 2018, BRI projects in Syria have taken many forms which can now begin as a viable peace process is finally underway, including East-West rail and road connections between Asia and Europe passing through Iran, to Iraq and into Syria where goods can be sent to the Basra Port in Iraq, the Syrian ports of Latakia and Tartus on the Mediterranean as well as the incredibly important Port of Tripoli in Lebanon called a “pearl on the New Silk Road” by the Chinese.
Discussion of a North South route connecting transport routs through Syria to Lebanon, Israel and Egypt into Africa are now underway and the timing of the chaotic anti-government protests in Lebanon makes one wonder if western meddling is behind it.
Many of the beautiful possibilities for Syrian reconstruction were laid out in great detail in a 2016 Schiller Institute video entitled Project Phoenix which has circulated widely across the Arab world.
Assad’s Five Seas Strategy Revived
Little known in the western world, President Bashar al-Assad had already advanced this vision as early as 2004 when he first announced his “Five Seas Strategy”. In an August 1, 2009 interview, President Assad described his program beautifully:
“Once the economic space between Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran becomes integrated, we would link the Mediterranean, Caspian, Black Sea, and the [Persian] Gulf . . . we aren’t just important in the Middle East. . . Once we link these four seas, we become the unavoidable intersection of the whole world in investment, transport, and more.”
Going beyond mere words, President Assad had led delegations signing agreements with Turkey, Romania, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon to begin Five Seas projects. This was done at a moment that President Qadaffi was well underway building the Great Manmade Riveras the largest water project in history alongside a coalition of nations of Sudan and Egypt.
In a powerful report Extending the New Silk Road to West Asia and Africa, BRI expert Hussein Askary wrote: “Through the BRI, China is offering the rest of the world its know-how, experience and technology, backed by a $3 trillion financial arsenal. This is a great opportunity for West Asia and Africa to realize the dreams of the post-World War II independence era, dreams that have unfortunately been sabotaged for decades. The dramatic deficit in infrastructure both nationally and inter-regionally in West Asia and Africa can, ironically, be considered in this new light as a great opportunity.”
It is now becoming obvious, that the Syrian project that was derailed in 2011 can now get back on track.
Yemen as Keystone of the Maritime Silk Road
The four year Saudi war on Yemen has been a humanitarian disaster of our times. However in spite of insurmountable odds, the Yemenis have managed to not only defend themselves but have pulled off one of the most brilliant military flanking maneuvers in history crippling the Saudi economy on September 29th. This victory has both forced the Saudis to eat yet-another mouthful of humble pie and created a breathing space for a serious discussion for Yemen’s reconstruction through participation in the New Silk Road. Sitting upon the entry of the Gulf of Aden with the Red Sea, Yemen is today as it was 2000 years ago: a vital node in both Maritime Silk Road and the land-based Silk Road connecting Asia with Africa and Europe.
Already several Yemeni organizations have been created endorsing this vision led by the Yemeni Advisory Office for Coordination with the BRICS, Yemeni Youth BRICS Cabinet and the New Silk Road Party which has gained the support of leading government officials since their founding by Yemeni poet/statesman Fouad al-Ghaffari in 2016. Courageous efforts such as these have resulted in the government’s signing an MOU to join the BRI in June 2019.
A word on Turkey and Afghanistan
The Middle Corridor linking Turkey to Georgia and Azerbaijan via rail and to China via Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan was hailed by Erdogan to “be at the heart of the Belt and Road Initiative.” In July 2019, Erdogan said the BRI “has emerged as the greatest development project of the 21st century”. After citing the Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge over the Bosporus, Eurasian tunnel and Marmaray system across the Dardanelles and its vast high speed rail, Erdogan continued by saying: “Turkey shares China’s vision when it comes to serving world peace, preserving global security, stability, promoting multilateralism… the world seeks a new multipolar balance today”. It is no secret that Turkey has come to the realization that its destiny relies on China, whose trade rose from $230 million in 1990 to a staggering $28 billion in 2017!
President Trump’s efforts to bring the Taliban to the discussion table with the Afghan government of Ahmadzai have resulted in a renewed potential for China’s desire to extend the $57 billion China-Pakistan-Economic Corridor (CPEC) into Kabul. While this diplomatic opportunity is very fragile, it is the closest the region has yet come to a viable resolution to the post 2001 insanity (including the replacement of its opium-based economy towards a viable full spectrum nation).
It goes without saying that the entire Arab world is looking at a new future of hope and development through the combined efforts of Russia and China. The USA, under Trump’s efforts to undo the decades of Gordian Knots in the Middle East have resulted in the most absurd campaign from republican and democratic tools in Washington to impeach the president. Obviously, a US-Russia-China alliance would be a wonderful blessing for the world, but for this to occur, the matter of the deep state infestation of America must first be dealt with.
Rage With The Machine? 90’s Resistance Band Reunites To Do Establishment Bidding In 2020
Legendary 1990s band Rage Against The Machine has been triggered into reuniting ahead of the 2020 election in order to #resist four more years of Donald Trump – perhaps the most anti-establishment, ‘outsider’ president in US history.
The band will initially play three shows “along or near the Mexican border,” according to Consequence of Sound, where they’ll surely explain their silence in 2011 when the Obama administration was called out by the ACLU for family separation and sticking migrant kids in cages.
Next spring, Zack de la Rocha, Tom Morello, Brad Wilk, and Tim Commferford will take the stage for the first time since 2011. The staunchly political rock band will initially play a trio of shows in cities along or near the Mexican border, including El Paso, Texas; Las Cruses [sic], New Mexico; and Phoenix, Arizona. They’ll then head to Indio, California in April to headline the 2020 installment of Coachella. –Consequence of Sound
According to CoS, the reunion shows were announced Friday morning via an unverified Instagram account and later confirmed by the publication.
As recently as May of this year, Morello seemed to downplay the possibility of a RATM reunion. “I would say, rather than people waiting around for Rage Against the Machine, form your own band,” he told Heavy Consequence. “Let’s hear what you have to say. Get out there and do it. Don’t sit around twiddling your thumbs waiting for some other band to do it.” However, the impending 2020 presidential election and possibility of Donald Trump winning a second term reportedly compelled the band into action.
Needless to say, the fact that RATM will effectively be cheerleading for the establishment has not gone unnoticed.
So they’ll be used as political pawns? How unique and genuine
Many people wary of government power rightly criticize public schools for being more indoctrination than education.
When the institution is fully dependent on the state for support, why would any ideas be put forth that could put their lifeblood in jeopardy? On education, Mises wrote in Human Action:
…as soon as one wants to go farther [than elementary notions of geometry, the natural sciences, and the valid laws of the country], serious difficulties appear. Teaching at the elementary level necessarily turns into indoctrination. It is not feasible to represent to adolescents all the aspects of a problem and to let them choose between dissenting views…The party that operates the schools is in a position to propagandize its tenets and to disparage those of other parties.
However, one aspect of public education that is not often discussed is the potential insidiousness of school districting. In the Howard County Public School System (HCPSS) in Maryland this insidiousness is coming brazenly out in the open.
Without much fanfare, schools routinely get their districts tweaked every few years to balance out school capacity as students age in and out. Back in August 2019, however, the HCPSS superintendent unveiled a radical redistricting plan that seeks to more evenly distribute students across the county by household income. In the superintendent’s own words, “Previous redistricting processes focused more narrowly on capacity utilization and other factors such as socioeconomics took a back seat. This proposal is…leading with equity as the driver to provide all students with full access and opportunity to receive the best educational services and supports.”
Having school capacity take a back seat, the proposal looks at the percentage of students in the Free and Reduced Meals (FARM) program at a given school as a gauge for socio-economic status. If the percentage is higher than desired, “polygons” (the subdistricts in the county allocated to a particular school) would be moved from that school’s district to another school’s district where the FARM percentage is less, and vice versa. For many, this will mean leaving their neighborhood school and going to a school farther away. Thus, a flurry of polygons are potentially shuffling around for the sake of equity.
The legislative body of Howard County is the Howard County Council. Three council members recently introduced a resolution called CR-112 in support of the redistricting plan that made things even more explicit, bringing race into the equation: “…[the Council] supports the Howard County Board of Education and Howard County Public School System in their efforts to lawfully integrate through the boundary review process and focus their efforts and resources to close the achievement gaps and racial and economic disparities in the Howard County Public School System.”
Fallacies of the Proposal
CR-112 cites the landmark Supreme Court case “Brown v. Board of Education” as justification. Unfortunately, the irony of that case is lost on the council: Oliver Brown sued the school board with the NAACP because his daughter was being bused far away to a segregated school, when there was a neighborhood school close to his house.
CR-112 also is arguably going against a 2007 supreme court decision, which forbade local school systems from integrating schools compulsorily based on race. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” said Chief Justice John Roberts at the time. The superintendent’s proposal, on the other hand, slyly avoids this pitfall by not explicitly referring to race, but focusing on socio-economic status.
Wanting to bring busing back into fashion, the superintendent is willing to accept a $2.76 million increase in transportation costs for busing students further distances in the name of equity. The cynical among us might wonder if just dividing the $2.76 million among the less affluent students could be more effective (and greener). The increased busing puts some families in a strange position where their kids will be transported right by their closest high school on the way to their newly districted high school (this sounds eerily similar to a famous Supreme Court case). Some families will have 3, 4, or 5 high schools in closer proximity than their districted high school.
Furthermore, Howard County has some notable characteristics that make this redistricting situation especially amusing. The redistricting proposal calls for greater socioeconomic equality, but Howard County is the third richest county in the United States as of 2018. Might other US counties call on Howard County to spread their wealth around?
The county council calls for “racial integration,” but the schools are already incredibly diverse. The county-wide average of white students in the elementary, middle, and high schools is only 34%, 36%, and 39% respectively (pages 25-26 of the superintendent’s proposal). One could rightly ask the question, what are the “correct” demographics, and why? What is the goal the proposal seeks to achieve?
In a free society, if there was a local school that didn’t live up to a family’s standards, they could just choose another nearby school. There would be no school districts. But in this society of public schools, what is a family’s only option if they don’t like the local school and private or home school is not a good option? In many cases, though not all, they have to move to a different area. This is a pretty drastic measure, and some are willing to do it. However, when the public school bureaucracy has the power to radically change the school districts according to their whims, what hope will families have that even moving to a different neighborhood will get them into a better school?
Uber Eats Says Drone Deliveries Coming To San Diego In 2020
If it’s UPS, FedEx, and or Amazon, or maybe even food delivery companies, they’re all gravitating towards adopting drones for last-mile deliveries.
UPS has undoubtedly embraced the focus of last-mile logistics by incorporating drones over the last several years.
Now it seems like Uber Eats, an online food ordering and delivery platform — launched by ride-hailing company Uber, is the next company to utilize drones for delivering goods from businesses to consumers.
The company is expected to launch the new drone delivery service in the San Diego Metropolitan area in 2H20.
On Oct. 28, Uber tweeted a rendering of the Uber Eats drone, a six-rotor drone that is capable of carrying two meals in its body.
The drone has the capability of traveling up to 18 miles or 12 miles round-trip at an altitude of about 400 feet.
From the restaurant (staging area) to the drop-off point, the company estimates delivery times to the customer will be around eight minutes, including the time to load and unload the meals.
Several pilot tests of the new service were conducted in 2018. A McDonald’s near San Diego State University was the site of one of the tests.
Uber Eats has spent that last year perfecting the design of the drone. The one seen in the rendered picture tweeted by Uber is expected to be the final design.
More elaborate test flights are slated for the next several months, as it’s expected the new service will launch in San Diego by summer 2020.
Scholar Gordan Chang warns that the United States must ultimately “disengage from China” on all fronts if it is to maintain its status as a global superpower or risk China’s massive potential to change the geopolitical structure of the world.
Chang, who just returned from Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea, spoke on The Sara Carter Show where he described the current state of Beijing and the authoritarian government’s influence across the globe.
“This is the Third Reich in the 21st century,” said Chang.
China’s policy “is incompatibility with our system. We are unfortunately going to have to reverse course and disengage from China to protect ourselves – to reduce our vulnerability to an extremely dangerous actor.”
This reporter was recently in Japan and South Korea with Chang and other experts who attended the international CPAC conventions. It is an international effort to connect with foreign allies who are battling increased pressure by socialist and leftist leaders bent on targeting open markets, democracy and independence.
“What we have to do ultimately is to disengage from China to get our companies out of China, to get China out of the United States because we cannot live with this militant Communist superstate that takes the position that China is the world’s only sovereign state,” said Chang.
He noted that the Chinese government sees the U.S. as basically subjects of Beijing’s expansion and that the communist government believes “Americans must acknowledge Chinese sovereignty and obey them.”
He noted that the Trump administration must “continue to impose high tariffs.” Chang does not believe that the current proposed trade deal with China will change Beijing’s efforts to take economic control or curtail the Chinese military and intelligence apparatus from stealing intellectual property.
“China has been stealing hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. intellectual property each year,” he said. “And I don’t think we’re going to stop that with a Phase 1 trade deal.”
“So get our companies out of China,” he added. “That will reduce their opportunity for stealing from us right now. You know Sara, Beijing is dropping hints that we have to accept the genocidal campaign it’s conducting inside its own borders.”
“This is absolutely unacceptable what China is doing there is trying to eliminate racial and ethnic group a religious group,” said Chang.
He noted that the Chinese aren’t going to back down and basically demand that the U.S. not change its policy or get involved with their own human right’s violations in their nation or in the region.
The Plunge In Global Shipping Container Rates Means The Economic Rebound Will Have To Wait
The global/US economy is in trouble, and more specifically, S&P500 earnings deterioration will likely end up in a recession in the next several quarters.
US major equity indexes are hitting new highs, as Treasury yields have soared this weak on the idea that a 2016-style rebound in the global economy is imminent.
Earlier in the week, UBS strategist Francois Trahan blew apart the imminent global/US rebound narrative and said: “The earnings landscape has already deteriorated and will likely get worse: The consensus year-over-year growth rate in S&P500 forward earnings is down to a mere 1% from a peak of 23% in September of 2018. Forward earnings are already contracting in the Midcap and Smallcap indices…If history were a perfect guide, the S&P500 would trough in Q2 of 2020 and rebound after that. Should the economy bottom in Q4 of 2020, as interest rates suggest, then history argues, the S&P500 would begin to price in a sustainable recovery sometime between April and August of 2020…PMIs Argue That Forward EPS Growth Will Trend Lower For Another 6 Months.”
President Trump’s non-stop fake trade news tweeting has indeed decoupled the market from focusing on worsening macro and fundamentals.
Vallee has likely found an accurate barometer of global economic activity, now plunging in the last two months.
“The move in container shipping rates is consistent with the continued deterioration in raw industrial commodities, China’s official PMI, China’s steel PMI, as well as market internals such as industrials relative to the S&P500,” Vallee said.
Freightos 40 ft. Global Shipping Container Rate started to trough in 1H19. The narrative back then was the global/US economy would rebound in 4Q19 and soar in 2020. But with 61 days left in 4Q, macroeconomic headwinds continue to mount across the world as global container rates plunge to new lows on the year, suggesting a global/US economic revival is nowhere to be found.
With no signs of a global recovery, market participants will once again be jawboned back to reality, or as some have called it: a ‘macro matters’ event — the only question is finding the trigger that brings everybody out of the fake trade news daze spurred by the Trump administration.
Portland Antifa Sentenced To Nearly Six Years For Attacking Trump Supporter
A 24-year-old member of Antifa who hit another man over the head with a baton during a June 29 scuffle in Portland was sentenced to nearly six years in prison on Friday, according to Oregon Live.
Gage Halupowski
Gage Halupowski was identified as one of several black-clothed and masked Antifa demonstrators seen on video attacking Adam Kelly after he appeared to come to the aid of an elderly man who had been attacked by the violent leftists.
Different angle:
CONTENT WARNING: Police have declared a civil disturbance after a violent brawl broke out between left- and right-wing protesters today. Video by Sergio Olmos/Underscore. Full story: https://t.co/dJMlSoDkg6pic.twitter.com/fx8hELNziW
Kelly wrote on Facebook after the attack that he suffered a concussion and required 25 staples to close the wounds.
Adam Kelly’s head
And now, Gage is going to prison.
Breaking: Antifa militant Gage Halupowski sentenced to nearly 6 years in prison for striking a man on head from behind w/a baton during riot. He was masked at the time & assaulted an officer while trying to escape. His lawyer says sentence is too severe. https://t.co/g0VNdtPYcxpic.twitter.com/aSNYum9xzV
Defense attorney Edward Kroll said Halupowski made “a really terrible decision” and that Kelly didn’t deserve what happened to him, but the attorney believed the agreed-upon 70-month prison sentence was “one of the harshest sentences I’ve seen for someone with no criminal background and young age.”
Kroll cited the Measure 11 charges Halupowski faced and the attack being caught on video as leaving the 24-year-old with few options other than taking the plea deal. Kroll also noted that Halupowski hit Kelly once, but it had been determined that at least two other people hit him in the head with batons.
[Multnomah County Deputy District Attorney Melissa] Marrero disagreed with Kroll’s assertions, saying she felt the charges and sentence were appropriate based on the severity of Kelly’s injuries and Halupowski’s strike. She said first-degree assault, which carried a potential 90-month sentence, and riot charges were initially considered in the case. –Oregon Live
Conservative journalist Andy Ngo was also present at the June protest, where he sustained injuries of his own.
According to the report, “Halupowski was one of three people arrested during rival demonstrations between far-right and anti-fascist groups on June 23. Police at one point declared the protests a civil disturbance.”
Two students at the University of Connecticut have been charged with the crime of ridiculing African Americans by shouting the N-word as part of a childishly inappropriate game. A video of the incident went viral and generated protests on and off the campus.
Outrageous as shouting this racist epithet is, the First Amendment protects it from criminal prosecution or other governmental sanctions. The Connecticut General Statute under which the students were charged is just about as unconstitutional as any statute can be. It is not even a close case. Here is what the statute criminalizes:
Section 53-37 – Ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race.
Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor.
“Ridicules or holds up to contempt”!
Among the most fundamental First Amendment rights is to ridicule — regardless of the reason. The same is true of holding people or groups up to contempt. Were this absurd statute to be upheld — which it will not be — it could be applied to comedians, op-ed writers, politicians, professors and other students.
Consider, for example, ridiculing people based on nationality. Sacha Baron Cohen, based on his films, would be guilty on multiple accounts. So would Mel Brooks. African American comedians often ridicule “whitey.” Feminist stand-up comedians mock men mercilessly.
Or consider “holds up to contempt” — half the faculty of many universities, including some at University of Connecticut — would be guilty for holding up Israel to contempt. Or students who attack other students for “white privilege” or “male privilege” would be committing a crime. Or pro-choice students or faculty who mock Christian fundamentalists who oppose abortion or gay rights. Where would it stop?
And what about “creed”? Is being a conservative or a Trump supporter a creed that cannot be ridiculed?
Of course, none of these politically correct ridiculers would ever be prosecuted under this statute. And therein lies its greatest danger: selective prosecution based on current political correctness. Precisely the kind of unpopular speech which the First Amendment was designed to protect would be most at risk. Anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-conservative views are freely expressed not only outside of classes but in some classes as well. Such hateful expressions are not only tolerated, they are often praised as “progressive” by some of the same students and faculty members who would censor politically incorrect hate speech. Under the First Amendment, such selective censorship is intolerable.
Because the University of Connecticut is a public institution for adults, it is fully bound by the First Amendment. Its students are free to express racist ridicule and contempt outside of the classroom (the rules governing classroom speech are more complex).
The proper response to the expression of such obnoxious views is to counter them with better views in the marketplace of ideas, not to censor them and not to call the police.
So let there be rallies demanding mandatory diversity classes. Let the university president “bravely” stand in solidarity with the understandably offended students. Let the perpetrators be condemned and ostracized. These actions too are protected by the first amendment. But do not censor or prosecute protected obnoxious speech. All who care about civil liberties, regardless of race, should now join with the racist students in opposing their criminal prosecution and demanding that the Connecticut statute be struck down as unconstitutional.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the president of the university should lead the campaign against criminalizing speech that ridicules. Now that would take courage in our age of political correctness and at a time when the hard left is demanding “free speech for me but not for thee.” But this is not an age in which courage is widely practiced, especially on university campuses, and most especially by administrators.
So, do not count on others to defend the First Amendment rights of troublemakers who express racial ridicule or condemnation. The defense must come from grass roots civil libertarians who understand the need to protect speech we hate even more that speech we love. Where is Voltaire — to whom the quote “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is often attributed — when we most need him?
