‘Tweeting Is Easy, Governing Is Hard’: AOC Deemed Among ‘Least Effective’ Lawmakers According To Study

‘Tweeting Is Easy, Governing Is Hard’: AOC Deemed Among ‘Least Effective’ Lawmakers According To Study

While Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might be great sophist – skilled in the arts of dramaticism and hubris, her record on Capitol Hill leaves much to be desired according to a survey from the nonpartisan Center for Effective Lawmaking.

Of the 21 “substantive” bills she’s introduced, her legislation has received absolutely no action in committees; no floor votes and no laws, according to the Center – a joint project between Vanderbilt University and the University of Virginia, according to the New York Post.

“She introduced a lot of bills, but she was not successful at having them receive any sort of action in committee or beyond committee and if they can’t get through committee they cannot pass the House,” said Vanderbilt political scientist, Alan Wiseman, who co-directs the center.

“It’s clear that she was trying to get her legislative agenda moving and engage with the lawmaking process,” he added. “But she wasn’t as successful as some other members were — even among [other] freshmen — at getting people to pay attention to her legislation.”

When looking at the legislative effectiveness of all congressional Democrats, AOC was ranked 230th out of 240 Democrats. Among the 19 Dem lawmakers from New York state, she ranked dead last.

Among the bills that died at birth were a federal overhaul of public housing, a ban on fracking, and a mandate to provide full federal public benefits to illegal aliens.

Democratic House insiders said many of Ocasio-Cortez’s colleagues found her approach alienating. -NY Post

“Tweeting is easy, governing is hard. You need to have friends. You need to understand the committee process, you need to be willing to make sacrifices,” said one of AOC’s colleagues. “Her first day in Congress … she decided to protest outside of Nancy Pelosi’s office.”

Another Democratic insider who worked with AOC in the New York delegation told the Post that “legislation was never her focus. It was media and narrative.”

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-Brooklyn/Staten Islannd) told the Post “Her ludicrous policy ideas would destroy our country — Americans should be thankful she’s not effective.”

Oddly, AOC may be trying to curry favor with fellow Democrats – having donated $5,000 to several vulnerable House Democrats has “raised awkward questions among her colleagues as some swing-district Democrats fret over whether to return her money before the GOP can turn it into an attack ad,” according to Politico.

And while Ocasio-Cortez may be bad at lawmaking, her fellow “Squad” members were a bit more productive – with Rep. Ilhan Omar sponsoring 33 bills (which also went nowhere), while Rep. Rashida Tlaib saw three of her ‘substantive’ bills advance into committee, with one even becoming law.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 04/03/2021 – 19:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3wq4fti Tyler Durden

Archegos Bikini Atolls: How Many More Tactical Financial Nuclear Bombs Exist?

Archegos Bikini Atolls: How Many More Tactical Financial Nuclear Bombs Exist?

Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

Do you remember the end of Dr. Strangelove? When the Russian ambassador reveals the existence of the Doomsday device Strangelove makes the point that such weapons only have deterrent power if everyone knows about them.

Secret weapons have no ability to deter cataclysmic violence.

The reply from the Russian ambassador is one for the ages, “It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday.”

Remember this when we consider the curious question of the demise of Archegos Capital.

Because sometimes I watch something unfold and I have zero opinion on it whatsoever.  The Suez blockage was one of them.  I had to will myself to care beyond the obvious, “this is bad” reaction. The more I think about it, however, the more significant it becomes (more on that in future posts).

On the other hand, the minute I read a single article about the vaporization of Archegos capital on Moday morning I smelled a rat, or least something vaguely rat-like.  And what immediately popped into my head was this thing is important, but not for the reasons anyone will admit to on CNBC or in the financial press.

In fact, they would go out of their way to demonize Bill Hwang, the head of Archegos, who ‘acted irresponsibly,’ ‘ran a scam,’ et cetera while everyone goes into cover thine own ass mode.

The first thing that stuck out at me was who got hit.  Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Nomura.  Today we can add Goldman-Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, UBS, Deutsche Bank in Europe, to Nomura and Mitsubishi Financial Group. There may even be others.

All Western Institutions. Clue #1

Zerohedge has done impeccable work helping us to understand this story. Today’s article puts the whole thing together (which I heartily recommend you read from top to bottom… twice). The background is in this graf:

As a reminder, and as we previously discussed, we already knew how Archegos was building up stakes in its various holdings: unlike most other investors, the fund never actually owned the underlying stock or even calls on the stock, but rather transacted by purchasing equity swaps known as Total Return Swaps (TRS) or Certificates For Difference (CFD). Similar to Credit Default Swaps, TRS exposed Archegos to the daily variation margin on the underlying stock, and as such while the fund would benefit economically from increases in the underlying stock price (and, inversely, would be hit by price drops forcing it to put up more cash as margin any day the stock price dropped) it would never be the actual owner of record of the underlying stock. Instead, the stock that Archegos was long would be “owned” by its prime broker, the same entity that allowed it to enter into TRS in the first place. As such Archegos also never had any disclosure requirements, allowing it to transact completely in the dark while being fully compliant with SEC disclosure requirements – since it didn’t own the underlying stock, Archegos did not have to disclose it. Simple and brilliant.

The next thing that came out of this article that didn’t shock me in the very least is that Hwang refused to purchase any downside protection for his $100 billion Ponzi Scheme of leveraged credit lines. Clue #2

As Bloomberg adds, at several points during those exchanges, bankers implored Hwang to buy himself breathing room by selling some stocks and raising cash to post collateral. But “he wouldn’t budge.” [emphasis mine]

Now let’s get into what actually happened here.

Archegos is a Chinese family office.  The Biden administration is rapidly descending into anti-diplomatic relations with Russia, China and Iran.  Every possible provocation of the Chinese nd the Russians you can think of is happening.  On March 24th, Ukraine quietly declared war on Russia by making it Ukrainian security policy to retake Crimea (H/T to Mike Snyder at Economic Collapse Blog for finding this little goodie).

Earlier this week we have the Ambassador from the U.S. call Taiwan ‘a country’ in the worse kind of calculated offense and escalation you can think of.

So I have to ask the question, “If you were the Chinese and you were now in a hybrid war with the U.S. how would you send a message back across the Pacific?”

This state of hybrid war, in effect a proxy for a direct military World War III began with the coup in Ukraine in 2014, and has been escalating for years. The entire Trump administration was one big hybrid war exercise of asymmetric attacks on each others’ capital markets and internal domestic policies — sanctions, counter-sanctions, tariffs, currency manipulations, etc.

Would you send warships some place or would you attack our credit markets?

Or more importantly would you plant literal financial tac nukes across multiple sectors of the financial world to combat any big push from the U.S. and Europe to foment a financial crisis on the eve of a conflict going kinetic?

When we go back over the past few weeks of FOMC statements and assess the placidity of the Fed in the face of one of the biggest quarterly moves up in long-term interest rates in U.S. history we have to ask these questions.

The dollar has been rising since the beginning of the year. Russia and China have been accumulating gold like mad to protect themselves from this which has been under sincere attack since last August’s flirtation with $2100 per ounce.

Gold’s Q1 performance was abysmal.

I’ve said before I thought this approach from the Fed was deliberate despite the markets screaming for it to do something. And when all the Fed does to change policy in March is to open up the limits banks can use to access the repo window (from $30B to $80B) while this is happening, again, I ask the question, what are they preparing for?

So, if I’m China and I’m reading the tea leaves coming from the lack of diplomatic skill, if not intentionally amateurish behavior from the Biden administration, what would I do?

How hard is it to think that there aren’t 20 or 30 family offices, unregulated and opaquely trading in CFDs and TRSs, out there with positions just like Archegos’ ready to go off if the Fed continues to allow a rising dollar and rising long-term rates.

The biggest useable weapon the U.S. has is monetary policy.  If you want to blow up China’s rising economy right now you have to allow the dollar to rise, liquidity to drop and induce panic all throughout emerging and frontier markets many of whom are now allies of Russia and China, think Turkey for example.

If you were China how would you defend against that?  By creating asymmetric time bombs that blow back on western capital markets the second the dollar begins to drain overseas liquidity.

To quote Zerohedge, “Simple and brilliant.”

In any prelude to kinetic war there is always a financial war that precedes it.  First give the world excessive amounts of easy money and allow overseas export markets to overlever to supply U.S. consumption markets, then pull the punch bowl away and watch the cheap dollars become albatrosses around their necks.

Welcome to Russia and SE Asia in 1997-99, Turkey in 2018, etc.

There’s been a massive correction in Chinese large caps since the dollar began strengthening in January.  As the Dow Jones Industrials climb higher, the MSCI A50 China Large Cap Index has given back nearly 40% of its gains since last March.

If I’m China, I allow Archegos to go poof and then watch the plumbing of the financial West clog up like the Suez was last week.

This is how you play the real game. And I would be shocked if this is the only family office nuclear time bomb out there.  

Look at the stocks they bought and targeted… Viacom, Discover, Tencent Music, Baidu, etc.  

Remember the first rule of derivatives trading: notional becomes net when the other guy can’t pay. It’s why these prime brokers were running around all weekend selling off major blocks of stock at steep discounts to avoid a deeper panic while assuring us that all is well.

In order to really play this game you have to think a couple of moves ahead.

I’m sure that Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse and the others all thought they had these derivatives owned by Archegos properly hedged, but only if Archegos paid up. They never expected to be on the wrong side of the trade.  

What if these were intentionally poison pills? The goal being to take the positions, allow market conditions to blow them up never intending to raise the capital to pay but rather leave the prime brokers of your enemy up the creek?

Because Hwang would never have gotten that kind of credit to play with to make this kind of ‘rookie mistake.’ This wasn’t incompetence on his part. Why else would he steadfastly refuse to buy himself some downside protection?

$10 billion seems a small price to pay to send that kind of message on behalf of the Chinese government.

Zerohedge is again right when it reminds us that the most likely response by the U.S. here is nothing, because to do so would invite real scrutiny as to how many of these tactical nuclear financial bombs exist and how much panic that knowledge would induce.

Which, when you think of it that way, was exactly the point of the lesson Archegos just taught everyone. The Party Congress on Monday announced this to the world.

Boom.

*  *  *

Join my Patreon if you don’t want to go boom.

Donate
BTC: 3GSkAe8PhENyMWQb7orjtnJK9VX8mMf7Zf
BCH: qq9pvwq26d8fjfk0f6k5mmnn09vzkmeh3sffxd6ryt
ETH: 0x1dd2e6cddb02e3839700b33e9dd45859344c9edc
DCR: DsV2x4kJ4gWCPSpHmS4czbLz2fJNqms78oE
DASH: XjWQKXJuxYzaNV6WMC4zhuQ43uBw8mN4Va
XMR: 48Whbhyg8TNXiNV2LNkjeuJJU55CNt5m1XDtP3jWZK2xf5GNsbU2ZwHLDJTQ5oTU3uaJPN8oQooRpSQ2CPMJvX8pVTqthmu

Tyler Durden
Sat, 04/03/2021 – 18:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3rRUVuy Tyler Durden

LA Port Chief Implores Importers To Speed Cargo Pickup As Congestion Crisis Worsens

LA Port Chief Implores Importers To Speed Cargo Pickup As Congestion Crisis Worsens

For many months ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have dealt with massive congestion of ships as trillions of dollars in stimulus results in one-sided trade with Asia. The congestion is so bad at the US West Coast port that the port’s head told importers to expedite container pickup to alleviate congestion on Tuesday. 

“The container dwell time is much higher than it was pre-pandemic,” Port of Los Angeles Executive Director Gene Seroka told CNBC, referring to the duration a container spends at the port. 

“We’re asking our importers to pick up the cargo as quickly as they can, devan the products and return those containers back to the port,” Seroka said, who added the port is the busiest in North America. 

Data compiled by Marine Exchange of Southern California shows a massive congestion crisis of moored container ships waiting to unload their cargo. 

It’s not just a ship pileup Californian ports are dealing with; one-sided trade with Asia (mainly China), sparked by fiscal stimulus, has resulted in the greatest demand-pull of consumer products ever. Over the months, we’ve documented the massive container shortage in Asia as containers pileup at US West Coast ports. 

“The time it takes for the importer to pick up their cargo at the port is now over four days, but it’s off its high of five days sitting under dwell,” Seroka said, adding there’s been improvement in other metrics, too.

“Truck turn times — the amount of time that it takes a trucker to move in and out of the port to drop off and pick up containers — has decreased to 77 minutes from 88 back in December. So we’re starting to see some of the trendings in the right direction,” he said.

With ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach a complete mess, it’s unlikely congestion issues will diminish as the Biden administration continues to hand out free money to US consumers who turn around and purchase products that are not manufactured in the US. With no easing in sight, Seroka warns higher volume periods will continue and spike at the end of summer due to demand for back-to-school goods and importers preparing for holidays. 

“Before we know it, August will be upon us and we’ll start to see back-to-school goods, other sale items, and then the year-end holidays, the all-important season for retailers,” he said.

As long as the Biden administration continues handing out stimulus checks to Americans who are buying things made in Asia and or the rest of the world, the trade deficit is evidence of this, port congestion on US West Coast ports will continue. 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 04/03/2021 – 18:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2R3pKQm Tyler Durden

About Those Armed Protestors At The Capitol… The Georgia Capitol

About Those Armed Protestors At The Capitol… The Georgia Capitol

Authored by Stacey Lennox via PJMedia.com,

Georgia State Representative Park Cannon returned to the State Capitol on Monday following an arrest on May 25, 2021, for making a scene banging on the door to the office where Governor Brian Kemp was signing the election security bill. How that works out is of little interest to me personally. She is not my state representative and legislators who pull stunts to make themselves the story rather than their accomplishments annoy me.

She claimed that she should be able to watch Kemp sign the bill along with the activists who accompanied her. Cannon could have done that by pulling out her phone and watching on YouTube. She claimed she was arrested for fighting voter suppression when she was actually arrested for refusing to follow the police’s instructions and stomping on one officer’s foot repeatedly. That’s conduct unbecoming her position, in my humble opinion.

Her return was quite a spectacle with a presser and an entourage that garnered additional media attention, including from national outlets like Fox News. There were many pictures on social media and in the press showing the activists supporting her. Here is an example from the ACLU of Georgia:

Here is the video from Channel 11:

The circus and attention-seeking have not stopped. Cannon is raising funds and still getting in front of microphones. She is also wearing a sling for what may or may not be an injury related to her arrest. You may make your own assessment. And the entourage seems permanent. On Wednesday, members of the Georgia Republican Party were on-site to witness the spectacle, and they noticed something interesting: an armed guard escorting the entourage. Georgia GOP Chairman David Shafer tweeted the images after eyewitnesses sent them to him:

It is unclear if this group was present earlier in the week, as I have not found any images of them on social media from Monday or Tuesday. However, ignoring this element of the entourage would be typical of the media and the Left. At the end of March 2021, armed radical left protestors swarmed the Oregon State Capitol to disrupt a Freedom Rally — to crickets in the establishment press. Only new media covered the story. Many Americans probably do not even know it happened or that antifa destroyed personal vehicles, along with other things.

Yet when armed protestors showed up at the Michigan State Capitol to protest draconian lockdowns or rallied in Virginia to support their Second Amendment rights, the corporate media gave pearl-clutching coverage in advance. The establishment media still reference the U.S. Capitol riot in January after weeks of showing the same reels repeatedly. No arrest to date of someone who entered the Capitol that day includes charges for possession of a firearm.

Here is the full video of Cannon entering the Georgia Capitol on Wednesday:

I will give these individuals the benefit of the doubt regarding the legality of their guns. This article is not a commentary on open carry by legal gun owners. Instead, I intend to point out which type of protestors with firearms the media chooses to comment on and which ones they don’t. The premise for covering the protests in Michigan and Virginia involving members of the political Right was that emotions were high on significant policy issues. Georgia is in the same circumstance now, with the erroneous national and local coverage of the election security law. Even President Biden received four Pinocchios from the Washington Post for his incorrect comments.

The eyewitness who took the video gave PJ Media his impression of what he witnessed:

A half dozen heavily armed militia surrounded the state legislator who was arrested last week for assaulting a state trooper, presumably to protect her from another arrest. It was surreal. There was no clash between the leftists and the state troopers although we saw one trooper with a rifle. There were a half dozen more who were similarly dressed but not openly bearing firearms.

If Cannon has received threats requiring this type of security, providing it requires licensure in the state. If not, the rank hypocrisy of her allowing this on her behalf is pretty astonishing. Here she is at the March for Our lives in 2018, which advocates for gun control, including outlawing the very guns these individuals are carrying:

She also called Representative Lucy McBath (D-Ga.) her mentor, and McBath ran on a gun control agenda:

You can bet if armed citizens showed up to escort a Republican legislator amidst the election security bill controversy, it would have made national coverage. When left-wing groups do it, it is completely ignored. Perhaps Cannon has just adopted the Democrat ruling class perspective “guns for me but not for thee.” You don’t see anyone in Hollywood or Washington D.C. giving up their armed guards while advocating for commonsense gun control. It makes complete sense to them that you shouldn’t have one.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 04/03/2021 – 17:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3ueKCCg Tyler Durden

When Is It Tortious to Report on Someone’s Positive COVID Result?

Marc Rotenberg is a prominent privacy advocate and founder and former long-time president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. (He is now the Executive Director of the Center for AI and Digital Policy at the Michael Dukakis Institute.) His work on privacy, for instance, has often been mentioned in Reason, as well as in many other publications.

Last March, when Rotenberg was still heading EPIC, he apparently tested positive, but apparently didn’t immediately inform his EPIC colleagues. (See the end of this post for why I interpret the Complaint as taking the view that those allegations are factually accurate.) The Protocol, which is a tech news site backed by the publisher of Politico, and Politico wrote about this, and yesterday Rotenberg sued them for tortious disclosure of private facts:

[332.] The Protocol chose to make public the confidential medical diagnosis of Marc Rotenberg.

[333.] The publication of an individual’s medical status was at the time, and remains to this day, contrary to medical practice, and the recommendations of the Center for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, the D.C. Health Agency, the President’s Coronavirus Response Coordinator, and the workplace guidelines of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for safe and healthy working conditions.

[334.] The Center for Disease Control has made clear the need to protect patient identity to facilitate contact tracing. Under the heading “Certain core principles of case investigation and contact tracing must always be adhered to,” the CDC states “To protect patient privacy, contacts are only informed that they may have been exposed to a patient with the infection. They are not told the identity of the patient who may have exposed them.” …

[337.] As the World Health Organization explained in May 2020 (echoing points Marc had made throughout his career in testimony before Congress, appellate briefs, and public lectures described above), “Member States can achieve their public health objectives while protecting fundamental rights, such as privacy, at the same time.”

[338.] [A] UN statement repeatedly emphasized the need to protect privacy in the battle against COVID:

Any data collection, use and processing by UN System Organizations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic should be rooted in human rights and implemented with due regard to applicable international law, data protection and privacy principles, including the UN Personal Data Protection and Privacy Principles.

[339.] Privacy safeguards for pandemic responses were also well known in the United States. A widely available non-profit guide to workplace safety, based on the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA), states:

Employers have a duty of care to their employees, and thus may be required to provide employees with information on the spread of a pandemic illness, take protective measures against the spread of the contagion, and provide warning if employees may have been exposed to someone diagnosed with the disease (but not identifying that individual)….

[341.] Privacy of contact tracing information is central to the design of the DC contract tracing app. The DC government emphasized that “persons who test positive are not identified by the system to other users …” (emphasis in original)….

[342.] Current practices for the DC government continue to protect the identity of a person who has tested positive from COVID from other employees….

[343.] Then-Presidential candidate Joe Biden, informed by the world’s leading experts in infectious disease, wrote in The New York Times the very same week as The Protocol article critical of Marc Rotenberg for following the procedures for contract tracing, “there needs to be widespread, easily available and prompt testing—and a contact tracing strategy that protects privacy.” (emphasis added) …

[346.] Neither The Protocol’s reporter Issie Lapowsky nor The Protocol’s Executive Editor Tim Grieve made any attempt to determine whether Marc’s conduct was contrary to medical practices. Not a single expert was asked whether it would be consistent with medical practices for a person who received a positive test for COVID to make public that fact.

[347.] A simple Internet search for “contact tracing” and “privacy” would have quickly made clear that Marc did precisely what he was supposed to do, contrary to The Protocol’s reporting.

[348.] The Protocol had constructed a ‘house of cards,” an ‘inherently implausible story” that Marc acted without regard to medical advice, that Marc believed that “privacy trumped surveillance,” and that EPIC was in “turmoil.”

[349.] To characterize Marc’s conduct as The Protocol did required total disregard of the relevant scientific and medical information.

[350.] The publication of a particular person’s confidential medical condition with the intent to injure or cause harm to that person would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

[351.] The Protocol’s reckless disregard for the best practices for the protection of sensitive medical data is reprehensible and would discourage many from attempting to comply with public safety initiatives underway across the country to battle the pandemic.

Now D.C. law (which applies in this case) does recognize the tort of disclosure of private facts:

(1) publish[ing] private facts (2) in which the public has no legitimate concern and (3) which publication would cause suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

Publishing a person’s confidential medical information—for instance, that an ordinary private citizen has cancer—would sometimes qualify, because often these are private facts that people would feel humiliated to have publicly aired, and in which the public has no legitimate concern. (I have criticized the tort on First Amendment grounds, but most American jurisdictions do recognize it despite the First Amendment concerns, though they tend to read the “legitimate public concern” exception broadly.)

But the question here is more specific: Does the public have a legitimate concern in the positive COVID test results of

  1. a prominent privacy advocate,
  2. who didn’t disclose the results to colleagues who might have been infected, and
  3. who was commenting publicly (including to members of Congress) about “the protection of medical privacy amidst efforts to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus.”

This question—when can media outlets and other private speakers be legally forbidden from speaking about certain matters?—is of course separate from the question of what privacy rules control government agencies, or what is seen by medical professionals (foreign or domestic) as best practices. And we might get an answer to this disclosure-of-private-facts-tort question soon, though it’s possible that we’ll get in D.C. Superior Court (on an anti-SLAPP motion) and not in the federal district court (presumably on a motion to dismiss); more on that procedural twist in a later post as well.

[* * *]

Note that, when the Complaint claims various assertions in the news stories were false, here’s what it says about the test results:

[122.] The Protocol further “reported” that in an email to staff Marc, “did not mention that his COVID-19 test had come back positive that very morning.”

[123.] That statement presumes an action—namely, revealing the identity of individuals who had tested positive for coronavirus—that is directly contrary to widely established practices for public safety….

[195.] The Protocol falsely and maliciously stated that “Marc Rotenberg came to work and held meetings after his doctor directed him to take a test that later came back positive,” falsely and maliciously implying that he acted contrary to medical advice.

The Complaint thus seems not to be denying that the test did come back positive, and that Rotenberg indeed didn’t disclose it; and that’s consistent with there being a disclosure of private facts claim, which is based on publication of true statements, and not of false ones. (Note also paragraph 332, “The Protocol chose to make public the confidential medical diagnosis of Marc Rotenberg.”)

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3fEfw2V
via IFTTT

When Is It Tortious to Report on Someone’s Positive COVID Result?

Marc Rotenberg is a prominent privacy advocate and founder and former long-time president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. (He is now the Executive Director of the Center for AI and Digital Policy at the Michael Dukakis Institute.) His work on privacy, for instance, has often been mentioned in Reason, as well as in many other publications.

Last March, when Rotenberg was still heading EPIC, he apparently tested positive, but apparently didn’t immediately inform his EPIC colleagues. (See the end of this post for why I interpret the Complaint as taking the view that those allegations are factually accurate.) The Protocol, which is a tech news site backed by the publisher of Politico, and Politico wrote about this, and yesterday Rotenberg sued them for tortious disclosure of private facts:

[332.] The Protocol chose to make public the confidential medical diagnosis of Marc Rotenberg.

[333.] The publication of an individual’s medical status was at the time, and remains to this day, contrary to medical practice, and the recommendations of the Center for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, the D.C. Health Agency, the President’s Coronavirus Response Coordinator, and the workplace guidelines of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for safe and healthy working conditions.

[334.] The Center for Disease Control has made clear the need to protect patient identity to facilitate contact tracing. Under the heading “Certain core principles of case investigation and contact tracing must always be adhered to,” the CDC states “To protect patient privacy, contacts are only informed that they may have been exposed to a patient with the infection. They are not told the identity of the patient who may have exposed them.” …

[337.] As the World Health Organization explained in May 2020 (echoing points Marc had made throughout his career in testimony before Congress, appellate briefs, and public lectures described above), “Member States can achieve their public health objectives while protecting fundamental rights, such as privacy, at the same time.”

[338.] [A] UN statement repeatedly emphasized the need to protect privacy in the battle against COVID:

Any data collection, use and processing by UN System Organizations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic should be rooted in human rights and implemented with due regard to applicable international law, data protection and privacy principles, including the UN Personal Data Protection and Privacy Principles.

[339.] Privacy safeguards for pandemic responses were also well known in the United States. A widely available non-profit guide to workplace safety, based on the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA), states:

Employers have a duty of care to their employees, and thus may be required to provide employees with information on the spread of a pandemic illness, take protective measures against the spread of the contagion, and provide warning if employees may have been exposed to someone diagnosed with the disease (but not identifying that individual)….

[341.] Privacy of contact tracing information is central to the design of the DC contract tracing app. The DC government emphasized that “persons who test positive are not identified by the system to other users …” (emphasis in original)….

[342.] Current practices for the DC government continue to protect the identity of a person who has tested positive from COVID from other employees….

[343.] Then-Presidential candidate Joe Biden, informed by the world’s leading experts in infectious disease, wrote in The New York Times the very same week as The Protocol article critical of Marc Rotenberg for following the procedures for contract tracing, “there needs to be widespread, easily available and prompt testing—and a contact tracing strategy that protects privacy.” (emphasis added) …

[346.] Neither The Protocol’s reporter Issie Lapowsky nor The Protocol’s Executive Editor Tim Grieve made any attempt to determine whether Marc’s conduct was contrary to medical practices. Not a single expert was asked whether it would be consistent with medical practices for a person who received a positive test for COVID to make public that fact.

[347.] A simple Internet search for “contact tracing” and “privacy” would have quickly made clear that Marc did precisely what he was supposed to do, contrary to The Protocol’s reporting.

[348.] The Protocol had constructed a ‘house of cards,” an ‘inherently implausible story” that Marc acted without regard to medical advice, that Marc believed that “privacy trumped surveillance,” and that EPIC was in “turmoil.”

[349.] To characterize Marc’s conduct as The Protocol did required total disregard of the relevant scientific and medical information.

[350.] The publication of a particular person’s confidential medical condition with the intent to injure or cause harm to that person would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

[351.] The Protocol’s reckless disregard for the best practices for the protection of sensitive medical data is reprehensible and would discourage many from attempting to comply with public safety initiatives underway across the country to battle the pandemic.

Now D.C. law (which applies in this case) does recognize the tort of disclosure of private facts:

(1) publish[ing] private facts (2) in which the public has no legitimate concern and (3) which publication would cause suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

Publishing a person’s confidential medical information—for instance, that an ordinary private citizen has cancer—would sometimes qualify, because often these are private facts that people would feel humiliated to have publicly aired, and in which the public has no legitimate concern. (I have criticized the tort on First Amendment grounds, but most American jurisdictions do recognize it despite the First Amendment concerns, though they tend to read the “legitimate public concern” exception broadly.)

But the question here is more specific: Does the public have a legitimate concern in the positive COVID test results of

  1. a prominent privacy advocate,
  2. who didn’t disclose the results to colleagues who might have been infected, and
  3. who was commenting publicly (including to members of Congress) about “the protection of medical privacy amidst efforts to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus.”

This question—when can media outlets and other private speakers be legally forbidden from speaking about certain matters?—is of course separate from the question of what privacy rules control government agencies, or what is seen by medical professionals (foreign or domestic) as best practices. And we might get an answer to this disclosure-of-private-facts-tort question soon, though it’s possible that we’ll get in D.C. Superior Court (on an anti-SLAPP motion) and not in the federal district court (presumably on a motion to dismiss); more on that procedural twist in a later post as well.

[* * *]

Note that, when the Complaint claims various assertions in the news stories were false, here’s what it says about the test results:

[122.] The Protocol further “reported” that in an email to staff Marc, “did not mention that his COVID-19 test had come back positive that very morning.”

[123.] That statement presumes an action—namely, revealing the identity of individuals who had tested positive for coronavirus—that is directly contrary to widely established practices for public safety….

[195.] The Protocol falsely and maliciously stated that “Marc Rotenberg came to work and held meetings after his doctor directed him to take a test that later came back positive,” falsely and maliciously implying that he acted contrary to medical advice.

The Complaint thus seems not to be denying that the test did come back positive, and that Rotenberg indeed didn’t disclose it; and that’s consistent with there being a disclosure of private facts claim, which is based on publication of true statements, and not of false ones. (Note also paragraph 332, “The Protocol chose to make public the confidential medical diagnosis of Marc Rotenberg.”)

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3fEfw2V
via IFTTT

Feds Warn Mortgage Firms: “Tidal Wave Of Distress” Coming As Forbearance Programs Set To Lapse 

Feds Warn Mortgage Firms: “Tidal Wave Of Distress” Coming As Forbearance Programs Set To Lapse 

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) warned mortgage firms Thursday “to take all necessary steps now to prevent a wave of avoidable foreclosures this fall.” 

As of March 30, approximately 2.54 million homeowners remain in forbearance or about 4.8% of all mortgages, according to the latest data from Black Knight’s McDash Flash Forbearance Tracker.

CFPB said mortgage firms should “dedicate sufficient resources and staff now to ensure they are prepared for a surge in borrowers needing help.” To avoid what the agency called “avoidable foreclosures” when the forbearance relief lapses, mortgage servicers should begin contacting affected homeowners now to guide them on ways they can modify their loans.

“There is a tidal wave of distressed homeowners who will need help from their mortgage servicers in the coming months,” said CFPB Acting Director Dave Uejio. He said,

“There is no time to waste and no excuse for inaction. No one should be surprised by what is coming.” 

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act provided a safety net for borrowers with federally-backed mortgages who could access forbearance programs. With millions of borrowers in the program set to lapse in the second half of the year, unavoid foreclosure will occur despite the government trying everything under the sun to keep people in their homes.

“Our first priority is ensuring struggling families get the assistance they need. Servicers who put struggling families first have nothing to fear from our oversight, but we will hold accountable those who cause harm to homeowners and families,” Uejio said. 

With the CFPB focused on preventing avoidable foreclosures, the government’s forbearance programs ends in September, which could result in the quick unraveling of the social fabric for many households who may find themselves homeless

Tyler Durden
Sat, 04/03/2021 – 17:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3fB3Qhz Tyler Durden

How Living on a Socialist Kibbutz Reveals the Value of Private Property


Israel flag

In an interesting recent article, Dartmouth economist Meir Kohn describes how he gradually shifted from being a socialist to eventually becoming a libertarian. A key role was his experience of living on a kibbutz, the famed Israeli socialist agricultural settlement:

A kibbutz is a commune of a few hundred adults, plus kids, engaged primarily in agriculture but also in light industry and tourism. Members work wherever they are assigned, although preferences are taken into account. Instead of receiving pay, members receive benefits in kind: they live in assigned housing, they eat in a communal dining hall, and their children are raised communally in children’s houses, and can visit with their parents for a few hours each day. Most property is communal except for personal items such as clothing and furniture, for which members receive a small budget….

Kibbutz is bottom‐​up socialism on the scale of a small community. It thereby avoids the worst problems of state socialism: a planned economy and totalitarianism. The kibbutz, as a unit, is part of a market economy, and membership is voluntary: you can leave at any time. This is “socialism with a human face” — as good as it gets.

Being a member of a kibbutz taught me two important facts about socialism. The first is that material equality does not bring happiness. The differences in our material circumstances were indeed minimal. Apartments, for example, if not identical, were very similar. Nonetheless, a member assigned to an apartment that was a little smaller or a little older than someone else’s would be highly resentful. Partly, this was because a person’s ability to discern differences grows as the differences become smaller. But largely it was because what we received was assigned rather than earned. It turns out that how you get stuff matters no less than what you get.

The second thing I learned from my experience of socialism was that incentives matter. On a kibbutz, there is no material incentive for effort and not much incentive of any kind. There are two kinds of people who have no problem with this: deadbeats and saints. When a group joined a kibbutz, the deadbeats and saints tended to stay while the others eventually left. I left.

As Kohn explains, the kibbutz experience did not lead him to become a libertarian (that came later). But it did persuade him to reject socialism.

Kohn is far from the only person who reached that conclusion after getting a taste of kibbutz life. Margaret Thatcher’s daughter Carol had a similar reaction after spending some months as a volunteer living on a kibbutz. The experience left with her with an “unromantic view of the kibbutz,” and (as her father, Denis Thatcher put it), “inoculated [her] against socialism.”

Over time, the flaws of the socialist kibbutz model became sufficiently glaring that most kibbutzim gradually abandoned key parts of the socialist model, such as equal pay, rejection of private property, and communal child-raising. See also this 2007 discussion by Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker, who himself spent some time on a kibbutz during its pre-reform heyday.

In 2016, I myself visited a kibbutz as part of a trip to Israel with a group of other American legal academics. Our guide admitted that her community had abandoned several key socialist institutions over time, including communal child-raising. She herself—a socialist Zionist immigrant from Canada—decried these ideological deviations. But much of the community evidently felt they could not be avoided.

For reasons mentioned by Kohn and Becker, kibbutzim present the best-case scenario for socialism. At least initially, most participants were self-selected, highly motivated volunteers. Abuses of power and information problems typical of large-scale socialism were mitigated by the right of exit and the relatively modest scale of the community. Strong support from Israeli government and civil society helped alleviate financial and resource problems. Nonetheless, kibbutzim eventually had to adopt market incentives, expanded property rights, private child-raising, and other “capitalist” institutions in order to survive.

By contrast, Israeli “moshavim”   have been much more successful. A moshav is an agricultural settlements with private property in both houses and land, though some equipment and communal facilities (e.g. schools) are collectively owned. On the same 2016 trip, we also visited a moshav in southern Israel. The people we met seemed happy with their institutions. But our guide  lamented the fact that “the kibbutz has better PR” than moshavim do.  People all over the world have heard of kibbutzim. But hardly anyone outside Israel knows what a moshav is, except for property scholars.

Most moshavniks are far from libertarian. Many, including the ones we met, are left-wingers strongly opposed to the right-wing government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But they do appreciate the benefits of individual and family autonomy, private property, and economic incentives.

The  lessons of the kibbutz and the moshav are worth remembering at a time when socialist ideology is enjoying something of a resurgence in much of the Western world. For reasons I summarized  here, many of shortcomings of full-blown socialism are also shared by the “democratic socialism” advocated by the likes of Bernie Sanders in the United States and former Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn in Britain.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Px7oXt
via IFTTT

How the Fulton Court Should View Smith In Light of The COVID-19 Pandemic

On February 24, 2020, the Supreme Court granted review in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. The very next day, the CDC announced that COVID-19 was heading toward pandemic status. Over the ensuing year, the Court’s Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence was tested in ways previously unimaginable. Governments completely shut down houses of worship. Yet soup kitchens in those same churches continued to serve people who were eating without masks. Cathedrals that could seat thousands were limited to a dozen people. But cramped, poorly-ventilated train stations chugged along. Penn Station could open, but St. Patrick’s Cathedral could not. And throughout this process, Governors would unilaterally tweak policies on the fly in full view of free exercise conflicts. Often these changes were naked efforts to frustrate appellate review. But generally, Governors tried to maintain a patina of neutrality by treating religious worship slightly better than some other disfavored activity. And courts dutifully deferred to these arbitrary diktats as “neutral” laws that were “generally applicable.” This past year has shined a new light on Employment Division v. Smith. And that experience has shifted how I think about Fulton.

Under Smith, a “valid and neutral law of general applicability” is reviewed with the rational basis test. Smith dealt with a controlled substance law that was not enacted with regard to Native Americans. The legislature adopted this statute through normal channels to apply to all circumstances. In contrast, the ordinances at issue in Lukumi were enacted with full view of an extant controversy. The ordinances were hastily adopted after the Santeria Church had already planned to open. Indeed, there was little deliberation. The City held an “emergency public session.” This legislative history, the Court said, reflected a targeting of religion.

For a law to be “neutral” and “of general applicability,” the law should be enacted prospectively, without regard to an extant conflict over religious liberty. And to prove its prospective nature, the law should endure beyond the current conflict. The government should not be able to flick an on-off switch at any time.  In short, the law must be passed behind proverbial the veil of ignorance, and should remain in effect when that veil is lifted.

Over the past year, Governors have issued edict after edict without any deliberation, in full view of the religious liberty conflict. There was no form of public comment, or legislative hearings. Governors simply posted a new PDF. Indeed, Governors would often modify PDFs without any public notice–what I’ve called “government by blog post.” This anti-administrativist thinks these random diktats are not “laws” at all, and violate any semblance of the due process of law. But under a fair reading of Smith, this sort or arbitrary lawmaking cannot be viewed as “neutral,” for these laws are targeted at a specific religious conflict. Many courts limit the concept of “targeting” as animus towards a specific faith. This reading is flawed. Smith and Lukumi do not require a showing of animus against a particular religion to establish a laws is not neutral. Then-Judge McConnell made this point cogently  in Shrum v. City of Coweta (10th Cir. 2006):

True to this history, the Free Exercise Clause has been applied numerous times when government officials interfered with religious exercise not out of hostility or prejudice, but for secular reasons, such as saving money,7 promoting education,8 obtaining jurors,9 facilitating traffic law enforcement,10 maintaining morale on the police force,11 or protecting job opportunities.12 Proof of hostility or discriminatory motivation may be sufficient to prove that a challenged governmental action is not neutral, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533, 113 S. Ct. 2217, 124 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1993); Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 356 F.3d 1277, 1294 (10th Cir.2004), but the Free Exercise Clause is not confined to actions based on animus.

During the pandemic, Governors have (generally) not targeted a specific faith. (I’m looking at you, Governor Cuomo). Rather, these arbitrary regulations show a disfavor of religion itself. Consistently, Governors have simply viewed religious worship as relatively unimportant–that is, non-essential–as compared to other favored secular activities. And they made these decisions with full view of religious conflicts, and often in response to litigation.

Even if Smith  is not overruled, the precedent should be understood to only apply to actual “neutral” laws that are “generally applicable.” That is, prospective laws, passed behind the proverbial veil of ignorance, that are actually generally applicable to future circumstances. Regulations that have a short shelf life, and can be rescinded at any juncture without any accountability, do not qualify. Ad hoc guidance documents drafted in response to an appellate brief cannot be considered “neutral” laws. This understanding of Smith would force Governors to actually justify their arbitrary infringements of the free exercise of religion. It would no longer be sufficient to simply identify some comparable activity that is treated worse that religious exercise. Even a “stupid staff,” as Justice Scalia would say, can exercise this stratagem. At a minimum, the government should be required to actually enact a prospective law to benefit from rational basis review. Informal guidance documents are not entitled to blind deference.

The Fulton Court should take away this important lesson from the past year. Governors should not be able to cheat Smith by gerrymandering facially regulations for the current moment.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2PAtXdI
via IFTTT

This Week’s Absurdity: Harmful Masks, ‘Hurtful’ Mums, & Heretical Media

This Week’s Absurdity: Harmful Masks, ‘Hurtful’ Mums, & Heretical Media

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

Are you ready for this week’s absurdity?

Here’s our weekend roll-up of the most ridiculous stories from around the world that are threats to your liberty, risks to your prosperity… and on occasion, inspiring poetic justice.

Parents against critical race theory placed on enemies list

A Facebook group called “Anti-Racist Parents of Loudoun County,” a weathy suburb of Washington DC, includes teachers, school board members, and even the county prosecutor.

This group saw fit to create an enemies list to name and target parents who have criticized critical race theory.

We’ve talked about critical race theory in schools before. It teaches children to view themselves as either victims or oppressors, based on superficial characteristics like skin color.

One member of this “anti-racist” parents group decided anyone who doesn’t want their child indoctrinated in racially divisive identity politics is a “racist”.

She asked for volunteers who could help list people who were opposed to critical race theory in schools, and “expose these people publicly.”

She also wanted to find people who could “create fake online profiles and join these groups to collect and communicate information, hackers who can either shut down their websites or redirect them to pro-CRT/anti-racist informational webpages…”

Sadly, other members of the group eagerly provided the names, locations, and other information on people who don’t believe in the holy faith of critical race theory.

One parent landed on the enemies list because she criticized the banning of Dr. Suess, and because she was “very carefully neutral” about critical race theory.

A teacher in the district accused another teacher’s husband of blasphemy against critical race theory.

One mom commented, “Ian Prior spoke about First Amendment concerns… Austin Levine criticized the School Board.”

This is a religious inquisition to exile non-believers from society.

Because the group encouraged actual crimes to be committed against these people, law enforcement is now investigating.

Click here to read the full story.

Masks containing harmful chemical distributed to schoolchildren

Masks distributed to schoolchildren in Quebec were found to contain harmful chemicals.

Health Canada is now warning schools not to distribute the masks since there is a risk of “early lung damage associated with inhalation of microscopic graphene particles.”

Keep in mind that children are the least likely demographic to suffer serious complications from Covid-19— or even notice they have it.

But now in the name of slowing the spread, they have been exposed to a much bigger health risk, with the potential to cause long term health effects.

Once again the cure may be far worse than the disease.

Click here to read the full story.

World-renowned infectious disease expert censored by Twitter for Covid heresy

Harvard Professor Martin Kulldorff, one of the most cited epidemiologists and infectious -disease experts in the world, was censored by Twitter for saying not everyone needs a vaccine.

HERESY! REPENT!

When asked if he thought everyone needed a vaccine, he replied:

“No. Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people, and their care-takers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.”

Twitter slapped the Tweet with a Covid misinformation warning, and blocked it from being liked or retweeted.

Only Twitter can decide which science is true.

Click here to read the Tweet.

Yet CNN says you can’t tell a baby’s sex at birth; NOT censored by Twitter

The governor of South Dakota recently banned biological men from participating in female sports.

In response, CNN promptly reported that “It’s not possible to know a person’s gender identity at birth, and there is no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth.”

Don’t you love the phrasing of, “assigning” sex at birth, as if the doctor just arbitrarily decides, or flips a coin before announcing, “It’s a girl!”

The “consensus” for all of human history has been that, if a baby has a penis, it is “assigned” to the male biological sex, and that if it has a vagina, its a female.

But the science deniers at CNN decided that proper woke journalism requires editing that history out of existence.

Honestly I dislike covering stories like this, because I’m very much in favor of everyone having the freedom to be whoever they want to be. If someone wants to identify as a seedless watermelon, so be it.

But when they start reinventing biology, their social justice propaganda goes way too far.

Ironically, though, Twitter, had no problem allowing CNN’s story (which is decidedly anti-science) to be shared… while the highly-respected infectious disease expert I wrote about in the previous story was censored.

Click here to read the original story using the web archive.

Elizabeth Warren says Senators should be too powerful to heckle

Senator Elizabeth Warren and Amazon got into a Twitter spat on taxation. Amazon said that Warren was one of the people who writes the tax code, and Amazon follows the rules to perfectly legally minimize their tax bill.

Elizabeth Warren replied:

“I didn’t write the loopholes you exploit, @amazon – your armies of lawyers and lobbyists did. But you bet I’ll fight to make you pay your fair share. And fight your union-busting. And fight to break up Big Tech so you’re not powerful enough to heckle senators with snotty tweets.”

This is hilarious given that Warren started the spat. Amazon only responded, respectfully, with facts and common sense. But to Warren this is heckling, snotty, and shouldn’t be allowed.

The real irony is that the entire exchange took place on platform built by… a Big Tech company… So Lizzie wants to break ‘em up, but she can’t bring herself to stop using their services. I’d bet she’s an Amazon Prime member too…

Click here to read the Tweet.

UK wants more powers to charge protesters

The UK wants to update public order laws to create a new crime of “Intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance.”

According to Part 3, Section 59, anyone who “obstructs the public or a section of the public in the exercise or enjoyment of a right” can be charged if anyone in their vicinity “suffers serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity.”

And what is the punishment for causing “serious annoyance” or “inconvenience”?

Ten years in prison

The rule also applies if a perpetrator puts someone at risk of suffering annoyance, inconvenience, or “disease.”

Ignore a Covid lockdown rule, potentially exposing others to disease? Ten years in prison.

This bill is so broad that you could face ten years in prison for walking too slowly on the sidewalk.

This insane proposal would allow the government to arrest and imprison just about anyone it wants.

Click here to read the 307 page bill for yourself.

*  *  *

On another note… We think gold could DOUBLE and silver could increase by up to 5 TIMES in the next few years. That’s why we published a new, 50-page long Ultimate Guide on Gold & Silver that you can download here.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 04/03/2021 – 16:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3unur5E Tyler Durden