Month: July 2021

While the Covid scourge is gradually fading away from the collective consciousness one day at a time, its consequences have forever changed the work landscape for many companies, and  more and more institutions – and also nations – are starting to experiment with a four day work week. 

Three months ago we reported that Awin CEO Adam Ross, who recently allowed workers at his company to leave early on Fridays, told Bloomberg that “we firmly believe that happy, engaged, and well-balanced employees produce much better work. They find ways to work smarter, and they’re just as productive.”

It’s not just Awin. It’s a trend that is growing much larger around the globe. For example, according to ZipRecruiter, postings that have mentioned a four day work week have tripled over the last three years, to 62 per 10,000 postings. Major companies like Unilever are even experimenting with the four day work week.

Not surprisingly, the nation that discovered Siesta made an aggressive push into the 4-day workweek when Spain’s ruling socialists launched a nationwide test of a 4-day work week in April, and now even Japan is getting on the bandwagon because as part of the government’s initiative to improve the nation’s “work-life (im)balance”, Japan’s famously hard-working salarymen officially are encouraged to reduce the amount of time they spend in the office environment.

The recently unveiled annual economic policy guidelines include new recommendations that companies permit their staff to opt to work four days a week instead of the typical five.

As DW reports, the coronavirus pandemic has already brought huge changes to the way that Japanese corporations — many of which are still highly rigid and traditional — go about their business. Political leaders now hope to convince management that flexible working hours, remote working, growing interconnectedness and a host of other developments can be beneficial if they remain in place even after the end of the health crisis.

Of course, in a nation that for the past 30 years has been crippled by lack of wage growth – and hence why 30 years of QE has failed to boost benign inflation – cutting labor supply by 20% would do miracles for higher wages but we digress. After all, nobody would ever admit the real reason behind the push for a 4-day work week, so instead let’s follow the official narrative.

The government said in the outline of its campaign that, with a four-day working week, companies would be able to retain capable and experienced staff who might otherwise have to leave if they are trying to raise a family or take care of elderly relatives. As if taking care of one’ family emerged as an urgent need only in the aftermath of covid.

According to the government, a four-day workweek would also encourage more people to gain additional educational qualifications or even take on side jobs in addition to their regular employment, according to the government.

Most importantly, and finally we get to the truth which has zero considerations for anyone’s weelbeing, authorities hope that an extra day off every week would encourage people to go out and spend, thereby boosting the economy. It is also anticipated that young people will have more time to meet, marry and have children, going some way to solving the worsening problem of a falling birth rate, an increasingly older national demographic and a contracting population.

“The government is really very keen for this change in attitude to take root at Japanese companies,” Martin Schulz, chief policy economist for Fujitsu Ltd.’s Global Market Intelligence Unit, told DW.

Recent Japanese administrations have sought a number of ways to overcome a sluggish national economy, but everything has failed as fiscal policy has run its course and the central bank is limited in the tools that it still has at its disposal. That makes reforms to the lifestyles and working styles of millions of Japanese its next approach, he said.

“During the pandemic, companies have shifted to new ways of operating and they are seeing a gradual increase in productivity,” Schulz said. “Companies are having their employees work from home or remotely, at satellite offices or at their customers’ locations, which can be far more convenient and productive for many.”

Fujitsu has seized the opportunity, Schulz pointed out, with the company cutting the office space at its Tokyo headquarters by fully 50% as it shifts further to remote working: “In the future, there will be some people in my department in the office but it will be rare for all of us to be there together and that space is mostly now for face-to-face meetings that cannot be done remotely,” he said.

Of course, there are drawbacks to the government’s hail mary plans to boost output by limiting labor, however, with Japan already experiencing a labor shortage brought on by fewer young people joining the workforce. Equally, there is concern that management will be reluctant to do away with some of the attitudes towards business that have served Japan Inc. so well for generations — even if there is clear evidence that traditional approaches are less effective than they were in the past.

Employees, on the other hand, find the idea of a shorter working week appealing, but they do worry about reduced wages and accusations that they are not fully committed to their company.

Take Junko Shigeno who is just completing her degree in business studies and languages and had several job offers at major corporations, but instead opted for a smaller information technology company that is a longer commute from her home because she felt the “philosophy” of the firm suited her better.

“I did a lot of research about the companies that offered me a full-time position and made sure that I spoke to four or five present employees at each place,” she said. “I was shocked when one of the women whom I asked about the work-life balance just broke down in tears.”

One of the biggest issues for young people today is unpaid overtime, known as “service overtime.” The company that Shigeno will be joining has promised that she will never have to do more than 15 hours of overtime a month. One of the other companies that interviewed her said she should anticipate around 60 hours every month.

As DW notes, there are regular stories in the Japanese media about young staff either falling ill due to excessive overtime or taking their own lives due to stress. Known as “karoshi,” or death by overwork, inquiries often determine that workers cracked after putting in more than 100 hours of service overtime for months on end.

“That’s not for me,” Shigeno said. “I am looking forward to working and learning new skills, but I also want to have my own time, to see my family and friends and to keep up my hobbies. That is very important to me and that is why I chose this company.”

For Schulz, the key lies in increasing productivity.

“Over the last year, employees have shown that they do not physically need to be in an office five days a week and until late at night to remain productive,” he said, implying that most workers are somehow more productive at home.

“The biggest risk right now is that some companies will slip back into the old way of doing things and insist on all their staff coming into the office all day, every day again,” he added. “For the companies that do not make that mistake, the outcome is win-win.”

Authored by Michael Rectenwald via The Mises Institute,

In a previous installment, I pointed out that in On Liberty, John Stuart Mill advocated for minority opinion to be specially “encouraged and countenanced,” and thus that Mill was not an absolute free market thinker where opinion is concerned. Mill suggested that minority opinion should not only be tolerated but requires special encouragement in order to gain a fair hearing. Such special encouragement would amount to the subsidization of opinion, most likely by the state. Thus, Mill did not argue for a free and fair “marketplace of ideas.”

It should be noted here that “the marketplace of ideas” is not only an analogy, where commodities are to markets what ideas are to the public square. The public square is also market in its own right, and not only metaphorically associated with the market. The expression “the marketplace of ideas” somewhat obscures rather than clarifying the situation of opinion.

Further, I argued that Mill’s advocacy for special treatment of minority opinion does not solve the problem of “social tyranny,” which Mill suggested is “more formidable than many kinds of political oppression.” Rather, when minority opinion is foisted on the majority through special sanctions or subsidies, “social tyranny” is actually increased rather than diminished. To the extent that a majority is unwillingly subjected to minority opinion, the majority is tyrannized.

This argument begs the question: What about the opinion of minorities? After all, the mere mention of minority opinion invokes minorities themselves. Don’t the opinions of minorities require special encouragement, special sanctions, especially when said opinions have to do with fair and equal treatment of minorities themselves? Doesn’t a free market in opinion, or an unfettered marketplace of ideas, drown out or otherwise suppress the opinions of minorities? Wouldn’t a free market in opinion thus serve to perpetuate discrimination, lack of recognition, or unfair treatment? Isn’t the state required to rectify the situation through special subsidies for opinion?

Leaving the nonremunerated voicing of opinion aside—that is, opinion expressed casually or even in public demonstrations—the question becomes whether in the actual marketplace of ideas, state subsidies are necessary for the opinions of minorities to get a fair hearing.

The question implies that state actors are specially qualified or motivated to subsidize minority opinion in order to rectify the unfair treatment of minorities—that the state is the most qualified entity for intervening in opinion to favor minorities. But it is easily demonstrated that the market provides more incentives to advocate for the fair treatment of minorities than does the state. Markets encourage legal equality among buyers and sellers. The state, meanwhile, has no monopoly on equal treatment—to say the least. Quite to the contrary, states have more incentives to discriminate against particular groups, as state prerogatives often depend on discrimination. Consider the treatment of the Japanese and Germans in America during World War II, or the treatment of Middle Easterners after 9/11. (Notice how discrimination against Middle Easterners morphed into the consternation about “Islamophobia” when the prerogatives of the state shifted from “the war on terror” under George W. Bush to the incorporation of Islamic immigrants into the electorate under Barack Obama.)

Thus, we should be quite skeptical when states impose the opinion of minorities on the majority through special programs in schools and elsewhere. Such programs likely involve “positive discrimination” against particular groups, consistent with state objectives.

In fact, discrimination is precisely what is involved in the teaching of critical race theory in schools, the military, the intelligence agencies, and in other government agencies today. Critical race theory is a minority opinion that even most blacks do not agree with. It is being foisted on the majority to establish discrimination against “whites,” in order to destroy a political contingent deemed inimical to the Democratic Party–run state. It is a means for marginalizing oppositional elements and driving others into the voting ranks of the Democratic Party by means of ideology. The state imposition of minority opinion does not serve minorities.

While the Biden administration is on a crusade to ban guns as they say firearms are the culprit to the upswing in violence across major metro areas, there’s one neighborhood in St. Louis, Missouri, which has one of the highest homicides rates in the country, is experimenting with “urban farming” as a way to lessen food insecurity that may result in less crime. 

According to St. Louis Public Radio (STLPR), Tyrean Lewis, founder of Heru Urban Farming, is planting vegetable gardens in neighborhoods where children don’t have enough healthy food to eat. 

Lewis is also a health teacher who has seen it all. Some of his students have been locked up for petty crimes, while others have been jailed for shootings. He constantly hears gunshots around his home, and on average, his neighborhood records 3 to 4 homicides yearly. 

“I mean, that’s normal to some people and unfortunately to me,” he said.

Researchers say a host of factors contribute to a city’s gun violence problem — what they define as deficits in social determinants of health such as income, housing, healthy living environments and quality education.

And food insecurity.

Lacking a complex nutritional diet can harm brain development in childhood, according to public health experts. That can cause later problems dealing with peers, handling authority and responding to situations of extreme stress.

The problems facing areas that experience gun violence are many, Lewis acknowledges, but he has also seen the impact that food can have.

“I’ve seen the difference in kids when they get a meal and when they don’t get a meal, how they behave and how they focus in school,” he said. “So I truly believe that’s all connected.”

Nearly 70% of the city’s 271 homicides last year occurred in low income census tracts without access to a grocery store or supermarket for at least half a mile, according to a Kansas City Star analysis of federal data and police reports.

Fifty-two of the killings occurred in just eight census tracts on the north side of the city with no grocery store for a mile.

St. Louis leads the state in gun violence and for most of the past decade ranked No. 1 for food insecurity — the lack of reliable access to healthy food. –STLPR

Lewis’ Heru Urban Farming is helping to build a “grassroots ecosystem of Black urban growers, farmers markets, entrepreneurs and community leaders,” said STLPR. In recent years, urban farming has sprouted across St. Louis, allowing folks to access fresh produce. 

His mission is to rebuild communities from the bottom up and allow them to become “self-sustaining” with an abundance of healthy food. 

People are now tilling and planting on vacant lots, backyards, and school gardens across the metro area as they find ways to rebuild their communities after Democrats and offshoring jobs to China have wrecked local economies over multiple decades. 

St. Louis is not the only city with high rates of homicides where urban agriculture programs are springing up. Urban gardens have been spotted across Baltimore City with goals to increase food access, reduce vacant blight, and create new opportunities for education and employment.

Instead of eating junk from corner stores and gas stations, perhaps healthy food is a novel plan to restore inner-city communities by first decreasing food scarcity and, second, allowing access to more nutrient-rich foods that increase brain development. 

Though small plots of land in urban areas might not feed an entire neighborhood – and perhaps public/private investments in indoor vertical farming should be made for these communities. 

Authored by Thomas Lifson via AmericanThinker.com,

Democrats have surrendered to their lunatic left faction on defunding the police and transgenderism. It has begun to sink in that as crime explodes in big cities, weakening the police will cost them dearly in votes. So much so that Jen Psaki, with a straight face, claimed the other day that it is Republicans who are defunding the police by voting against the massive COVID bailout bill that contained not one word about policing, but which did hand cash to local governments.

But on transgenderism, the party of science™ remains wedded to the fantasy the merely wishing it to be so can alter one’s sex, so biological teen males should be allowed into girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms, or to compete in school sports all the way to the Olympics. (Interestingly, I have seen no signs of forcing biological males into the WNBA or onto the US Soccer Team where Megan Rapinoe grumbles about lower pay.

Such polling as exists shows strong majorities of Americans disagree with transgender sports participation. Gallup reports that 62% of Americans want people to play on the teams of their biological sex, with 34% supporting “gender identity” as the factor in choosing which competition an athlete should join. That’s not quite two-to-one, but it is close. And this is after several years’ worth of pervasive media and activist propaganda pushing transgenderism.

That political reality means nothing to fanatics who are driven by hate. And that’s how to understand what unfolded on the floor of the Ohio state house of representatives legislative chamber Tuesday, when Rep. Jena Powell introduced legislation banning biological males from competing in girls’ sports.  A number of Dems pounded on their desks and yelled in an attempt to disrupt the bill’s introduction.

Two tweets show different views of the state senate as the bill was introduced:

Ohio Democrats furiously pound their desks and yell as Rep. Jena Powell proposes an amendment to add a bill banning biological males from female sports teams to the “Name, Image, Likeness Bill.” pic.twitter.com/vIhmozeNwy

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 29, 2021

Disgraceful behavior from Rep. Michael Skindell at the Ohio House yesterday as Rep. Jena Powell tried to speak. pic.twitter.com/zp8aPsxiyg

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 29, 2021

Rep. Michael Skindell attempts to disrupt the proceedings

Twitter video screengrab (cropped)

It didn’t work: An amendment to protect women’s sports in the Ohio House succeeded with a 54-40 vote

Joshua Arnold of the Family Research Council describes the disgrace on the state capitol:

As State Rep. Powell began, “across our country, female athletes are currently losing scholarships, opportunities, medals, and training opportunities,” Democrats began banging on desks. One man repeatedly screamed, “point of order.” Powell courageously pushed through to offer the amendment despite Democrats’ rude interjections. The amendment succeeded in a 54-40 vote, and the Ohio House voted 57-36 to pass Senate Bill 187 through to the Senate.

“In the two and a half years that I’ve been in the legislature, that was probably one of the worst outcries that we’ve seen. It’s very rare to have something like that on the Ohio House floor,” Powell said. “I can’t speak for the Democrats, but I know many of the Republicans thought it was completely out of turn.”

Since pre-colonial times, deliberative bodies like the Ohio House have followed basic procedures that ensure everyone gets a turn to speak.

“When the Democrats speak and we disagree with them, we allow them to speak, and then you have the ability to do rebuttal on the floor. Instead, he had a childish outburst and continued doing so until the speaker cut him off,” said Powell.

Powell surmised “the Left gets frustrated” and so they “speak out in ways that are very inappropriate.” Even where they are dominant, it seems the Left gets frustrated by the mere fact that their opponents have freedom of speech. That’s why, through controlling definitions, censoring speech platforms, and cancelling individuals, the Left is trying to vigorously curtail conservatives’ freedom of speech.

I think bullying and trying to force people to accept their sisters, daughters and female friends competing with biological males will backfire. It’s an ugly tactic in support of insanity. Feminist female athletes see their own status threatened, and they are for the most part creatures of the left. The whole transgenderism craze has been a top-down phenomenon, with institutions dominated by the left – corporations, schools and universities, and the media – pushing it. They may bully many people into silence, but so long as voting is private and if the vote counters are honest (I know, I know), this commitment to madness will hurt Democrats. Blinded by the lack of critical feedback due to their institutional dominance, they will persist in their folly.

Authored by Thomas Lifson via AmericanThinker.com,

Democrats have surrendered to their lunatic left faction on defunding the police and transgenderism. It has begun to sink in that as crime explodes in big cities, weakening the police will cost them dearly in votes. So much so that Jen Psaki, with a straight face, claimed the other day that it is Republicans who are defunding the police by voting against the massive COVID bailout bill that contained not one word about policing, but which did hand cash to local governments.

But on transgenderism, the party of science™ remains wedded to the fantasy the merely wishing it to be so can alter one’s sex, so biological teen males should be allowed into girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms, or to compete in school sports all the way to the Olympics. (Interestingly, I have seen no signs of forcing biological males into the WNBA or onto the US Soccer Team where Megan Rapinoe grumbles about lower pay.

Such polling as exists shows strong majorities of Americans disagree with transgender sports participation. Gallup reports that 62% of Americans want people to play on the teams of their biological sex, with 34% supporting “gender identity” as the factor in choosing which competition an athlete should join. That’s not quite two-to-one, but it is close. And this is after several years’ worth of pervasive media and activist propaganda pushing transgenderism.

That political reality means nothing to fanatics who are driven by hate. And that’s how to understand what unfolded on the floor of the Ohio state house of representatives legislative chamber Tuesday, when Rep. Jena Powell introduced legislation banning biological males from competing in girls’ sports.  A number of Dems pounded on their desks and yelled in an attempt to disrupt the bill’s introduction.

Two tweets show different views of the state senate as the bill was introduced:

Ohio Democrats furiously pound their desks and yell as Rep. Jena Powell proposes an amendment to add a bill banning biological males from female sports teams to the “Name, Image, Likeness Bill.” pic.twitter.com/vIhmozeNwy

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 29, 2021

Disgraceful behavior from Rep. Michael Skindell at the Ohio House yesterday as Rep. Jena Powell tried to speak. pic.twitter.com/zp8aPsxiyg

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 29, 2021

Rep. Michael Skindell attempts to disrupt the proceedings

Twitter video screengrab (cropped)

It didn’t work: An amendment to protect women’s sports in the Ohio House succeeded with a 54-40 vote

Joshua Arnold of the Family Research Council describes the disgrace on the state capitol:

As State Rep. Powell began, “across our country, female athletes are currently losing scholarships, opportunities, medals, and training opportunities,” Democrats began banging on desks. One man repeatedly screamed, “point of order.” Powell courageously pushed through to offer the amendment despite Democrats’ rude interjections. The amendment succeeded in a 54-40 vote, and the Ohio House voted 57-36 to pass Senate Bill 187 through to the Senate.

“In the two and a half years that I’ve been in the legislature, that was probably one of the worst outcries that we’ve seen. It’s very rare to have something like that on the Ohio House floor,” Powell said. “I can’t speak for the Democrats, but I know many of the Republicans thought it was completely out of turn.”

Since pre-colonial times, deliberative bodies like the Ohio House have followed basic procedures that ensure everyone gets a turn to speak.

“When the Democrats speak and we disagree with them, we allow them to speak, and then you have the ability to do rebuttal on the floor. Instead, he had a childish outburst and continued doing so until the speaker cut him off,” said Powell.

Powell surmised “the Left gets frustrated” and so they “speak out in ways that are very inappropriate.” Even where they are dominant, it seems the Left gets frustrated by the mere fact that their opponents have freedom of speech. That’s why, through controlling definitions, censoring speech platforms, and cancelling individuals, the Left is trying to vigorously curtail conservatives’ freedom of speech.

I think bullying and trying to force people to accept their sisters, daughters and female friends competing with biological males will backfire. It’s an ugly tactic in support of insanity. Feminist female athletes see their own status threatened, and they are for the most part creatures of the left. The whole transgenderism craze has been a top-down phenomenon, with institutions dominated by the left – corporations, schools and universities, and the media – pushing it. They may bully many people into silence, but so long as voting is private and if the vote counters are honest (I know, I know), this commitment to madness will hurt Democrats. Blinded by the lack of critical feedback due to their institutional dominance, they will persist in their folly.

The Coinbase IPO Direct Listing day was memorable because not only did it top tick the price of bitcoin in 2021, but it also marked the peak price the crypto exchange in its brief public life.

The reason behind the subsequent collapse: relentless, aggressive selling by insiders which because the public offering was a direct listing and not a traditional IPO was allowed.

It now appears that Robinhood’s stock price – once it breaks for trading – will follow the same fate. We know this because in addition to the other remarkable disclosures in the company’s S1 filing profiled previously – like Robinhood paying former SEC head Daniel Gallagher $30 million for working as Robinhood’s chief legal officer…

… the insiders behind the Robinhood listing will have some early chances to trim their positions. That’s good news for them, but the unusual strategy is similar to the one that helped push Coupang Inc. below its initial public offering price for the first time.

According to Bloomberg, HOOD employees and directors will be able to sell a portion of their holdings as soon as the first day of trading, according to the IPO prospectus that was unveiled on Thursday. That, as Bloomberg’s Drew Singer notes, is quite a departure from the six-month lockup periods that accompany most listings.

While it’s not unheard of to set lockup expirations earlier than for the typical IPO, Robinhood’s plan looks particularly liberal. Unlike Coupang, Robinhood’s lockup expirations begin to trigger with the first day of trading.

Besides the first day, opportunities for insiders to sell shares include the stock’s 91st day of trading as well as a lockup expiration linked to its first earnings report. The approach resembles Coupang’s, which fell below its IPO price less than two months after going public with a plan to let some insiders start selling within a week of the debut.

Whose brilliant idea was it to structure the IPO in such a way as to do away with lockups entirely? Why Goldman of course. Coupang’s IPO was led by Goldman Sachs, the same bank at the top of Robinhood’s syndicate.

Not that Goldman will be impacted: the bank will collect its customary 4-5% fee, Robinhood’s insiders will immediately liquify a substantial portion of their newfound fortunes, and the only losers will be those investors who naively think that the offering is meant to make them rich.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Bill Cosby is a free man after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the conviction that sent him to jail roughly three years ago to serve 3-10 years for sexual assault.  The opinion (below) correctly found that the trial judge and prosecutors denied Cosby a fair trial and due process in 2018. The question now is whether Cosby might seek damages for his conviction and incarceration.

In their 79-page opinion, the judges found that a “non-prosecution agreement” reached with Cosby should have barred the prosecution. In the earlier agreement, the prosecutor, Bruce Castor Jr., agreed not to charge Cosby in return for his civil deposition.  He proceeded to incriminate himself in what the Court said was a bait-and-switch.  The later prosecutor then just ignored the nonprosecution agreement. The trial was also undermined by the decision of the trial court to allow women to testify as witnesses on uncharged alleged crimes against Cosby.

It is clear that, absent the agreement, Cosby would never have agreed to the four depositions.  Free of the threat of prosecution, Cosby incriminated himself. Dolores Troiani., counsel for Andrea Constand, asked “When you got the Quaaludes, was it in your mind that you were going to use these Quaaludes for young women that you wanted to have sex with?” Cosby replied, “Yes.” That and other statements were used at his criminal trial.

Kevin Steele, the Montgomery County district attorney who convicted Cosby, issued a statement that was embarrassing in its evasion of responsibility. He dismissed the ruling as “a procedural issue that is irrelevant to the facts of the crime.” Obviously, it was quite relevant because Steele proved a crime by unconstitutional means. Yet, Steele seems entirely unwilling to acknowledge his errors and declared that

“My hope is that this decision will not dampen the reporting of sexual assaults by victims. Prosecutors in my office will continue to follow the evidence wherever and to whomever it leads. We still believe that no one is above the law — including those who are rich, famous and powerful.”

The statement is breathtaking. Of course it could undermine such reports since Steele engineered an unconstitutional verdict that led to Cosby prevailing. Moreover, Steele is right, “no one is above the law” including prosecutors who are not allowed to pursue convictions at any cost in popular high-profile cases.

Judge Steven T. O’Neill (who the defense sought to force off the case for bias) also has much to answer for in this wrongful conviction. O’Neill at trial seemed hellbent to try the case. He virtually mocked the defense arguments on the nonprosecution agreement: O’Neill, rejected that claim, saying, “There’s no other witness to the promise. The rabbit is in the hat and you want me at this point to assume: ‘Hey, the promise was made, judge. Accept that.’”

The victims should be most upset with the prosecutors and the judge. Any chance to prosecute Cosby was lost in a trial that discarded the most basic requirements of due process. The case shows how the gravitational pull of high-profile cases can grotesquely distort trials. The court yielded to prosecutorial demands that were facially unconstitutional. For the prosecution and the judge, the trial was popular with many. However, the ultimate result was the denial of these victims of a defensible verdict and the denial of this defendant of due process.

One question is whether Cosby could now sue for not just the prosecution but the incarceration in light of the ruling of the Supreme Court. Roughly 30 states and the District of Columbia have statutes allowing for recovery for wrongful convictions and imprisonment. Pennsylvania is not one of them (which is quite surprising).

However, recently Gov. Tom Wolf included in his budget plan a proposal for Pennsylvania to pay people who were wrongly convicted $50,000 for each year that they were held behind bars.  Cosby would qualify under such a program.

A federal case in North Carolina recently resulted in $75 million in damages for two wrongly convicted men but that award was in the federal system.  The men were sent to death row.

A Pennsylvania man is currently suing in federal court for wrongful conviction.

Likewise, there have been Pennsylvania cases that have resulted in settlements. One man reached a settlement with the city of Philadelphia for wrongful conviction worth $9.8 million.  Another man reached a settlement for $6.25 million.

As the first major prosecution in the “MeToo” period, a settlement does not seem likely for Cosby.

So Cosby could sue but would have to do so in a state that does not have a wrongful conviction provision.  It must be done under common law, which is challenging.  Under common law, Cosby could sued for malicious prosecution. The elements of that tort are (1) the individual was prosecuted without probable cause by law enforcement officers, (2) the prosecution occurred with malice, or recklessness to the lack of probable cause, and (3) the prosecution ultimately terminated in favor of the accused.

Pennsylvania cases for malicious prosecution are based on the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Section 653 of the Restatement provides:

A private person who initiates or procures the institution of criminal proceedings against another who is not guilty of the offense charged is subject to liability for malicious prosecution if (a) he initiates or procures the proceedings without probable cause and primarily for a purpose other than that of bringing an offender to justice, and (b) the proceedings have terminated in favor of the accused.

Cosby would likely qualify in states with formal compensation systems. He could also make a plausible case for malicious prosecution.  Indeed, his lawsuit could present Gov. Wolf with a political dilemma.  Cosby has cognizable claims for wrongful conviction and malicious prosecution. However, he is not exactly a popular cause for many in Pennsylvania.  Roughly 50 women accused him and Cosby admitted to giving drugs to his alleged victims before sexual acts. Bill Cosby is the ultimate example that you do not have to be entirely innocent to be wrongly convicted.

Here is the opinion: Cosby v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

As we previously highlighted the past months have seen unprecedented levels of rival naval military drills in the Pacific Ocean, for example the month of June alone saw the US IndoPacific Command participating in over 35 war maneuvers with other countries – not to mention an uptick in Russian drills, which provocatively included war games just off Hawaii. 

But perhaps the most provocative from China’s perspective is set to be the ongoing joint military drills between the United States and Japan, which is said to be specifically geared towards a potential future conflict scenario over Taiwan.  

The Financial Times is reporting this week that Washington and Tokyo held “top-secret tabletop war games and joint exercises in the South China and East China seas” – though of course they now appear not-so-secret. The planning of the games reportedly started during the final year of the Trump administration. 

Adding further insult to injury toward Beijing is that the games are centered around the hotly contested Senkaku Islands – which both Tokyo and Beijing claim as their own – with Japan long administering the tiny island chain. 

What’s more is that the covert war games represent Japan becoming increasingly bold in shedding its fears of provoking Beijing, with FT underscoring it’s now creating an “integrated war plan for Taiwan”…

The United States has long wanted Japan, an ally of the mutual defense treaty, to carry out more joint military planning, but Japan was constrained by its postwar pacifist constitution. That hurdle was eased, but not removed, when the Abe government in 2015 reinterpreted the constitution to allow Japan to defend allies that came under attack.

When the two allies began to strengthen their joint planning, Japan asked the United States to share its Taiwan war plan, but the Pentagon objected because it wanted to focus on pushing planning between the two countries in phases. A former US official said the ultimate goal was for the two allies to create an integrated war plan for Taiwan.

A major part of what likely helped Japan shift its perspective is the recent uptick in large-scale Chinese PLA flights into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone.

“Two of the six people said the US military and Japanese self-defence forces had conducted joint exercises in the South China Sea that had been couched as disaster relief training.” https://t.co/8XHh9XijHE

— Shashank Joshi (@shashj) June 30, 2021

These aerial incursions have been occurring on a near daily basis, and have grown bigger and bigger, including often the presence of nuclear-capable long rage bombers. 

Japan is further locked into an escalating dispute with China over the Senkakus. In April, Tokyo passed controversial legislation which actually gives its coast guard broader rules of engagement as it encounters more and more Chinese fishing vessels essentially “squatting” in and around the Senkakus.

The legislation deals with potential conflict situations that previously were dubbed ‘gray-zone’ matters – which fell short of allowing for hostile engagement on a legal basis – and would effectively allow for the weaponization of the coast guard to stave off a surprise takeover of an island (such as in the Senkakus). 

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,

Traditionalist and conservative America once was the U.S. military’s greatest defender.

Bipartisan conservatives in Congress ensured generous Pentagon budgets. When generals, active or retired, became controversial, conservative America usually could be counted on to stick with them.

Flyover country supported marquee officers such as Gen. Michael Hayden, Gen. James Mattis, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Gen. David Petraeus and a host of others when the media went after them for alleged unethical conduct, financial improprieties, spats with the Obama administration, or accusations of using undue force or hiding torture.

When Democrats railed in Congress about the “revolving door” of generals and admirals leaving the Pentagon to land lucrative board memberships with corporate defense contractors, Middle America, rightly or wrongly, mostly yawned.

Yet traditional America also assumed its military leaders were largely apolitical and stayed out of politics. Brilliant World War II commanders Curtis LeMay, Douglas MacArthur and George S. Patton did not fare well when they clumsily waded through the minefields of partisan national politics.

No longer.

The Pentagon’s current and past top echelon is seen as politically weaponized — and both careerist and opportunist. Generals and admirals are currently scanning enlistments for mythical white supremacists, in fear of left-wing pressure following the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. These military officials apparently have no commensurate concern about whether there are antifa-affiliated service members with records of past violence.

We are learning that much of what was reported about that unfortunate Capitol riot was untrue. There were no “armed” insurrectionists with guns, led by conspiracist kingpins. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick was not “murdered.” Medical examiner Francisco J. Diaz said the autopsy showed no evidence of internal or external injuries. The only violent death was that of an unarmed female military veteran who was shot by a mysteriously unnamed law enforcement officer while climbing through a window.

The tenure of highly decorated Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has proved a veritable train wreck of late.

Under pressure from the left, last summer he renounced a photo appearance with then-President Donald Trump as unduly politicizing his service.

OK, but every recent chairman of the Joint Chiefs has routinely appeared with the president in photo ops, if sometimes reluctantly.

Milley was timidly reacting to media claims that Trump sicced federal law enforcement on disruptive protesters with tear gas to ensure calm for his photo op. The inspector general of the Department of the Interior recently exposed such reporting as a fable.

Equally untrue were complaints from Milley and a host of retired officers about Trump tyrannically using federal troops to maintain civic order. Such action has happened repeatedly in our history. For example, Gen. Colin Powell, former head of the Joints Chiefs, commanded the troops sent into Los Angeles in 1992 to quell the rioting that followed the acquittal of L.A. police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King.

Neither Milley nor any of the previously vocal top brass objected to the Biden administration’s militarization of Washington, D.C., after Jan. 6. There was not a word about miles of barbed wire and fencing. There was utter silence about the omnipresence of thousands of armed troops throughout the city. Such mobilization was the very scenario they had said would pose an existential threat to democracy.

Gen. Milley was incoherent and paradoxical when pressed about critical race theory — the belief that racial bias has been encoded in society — during congressional testimony last week. He bragged that he had read insurrectionary texts by Karl Marx and Mao Zedong to acquaint his open mind with supposed enemies — as if his inquisitive approach to those subversive authors was analogous to the teaching of critical race theory in the military.

Our top officers reveal inconsistent views on recommended readings, ideological indoctrination and the use of federal troops during domestic crises. They are selective and partisan in their shrill criticism of particular presidents. Some blast political opponents with inflammatory comparisons to Nazis and fascists.

The military’s alienation of Middle America could not happen at a worse time. China, Russia, Iran and North Korea watch in glee at our self-created discord, which threatens to tear apart the most lethal military in the world.

The military is not yet a revolutionary people’s army overseen by commissars. But it is getting there with politicized agendas that split the country in half and abandon the military’s traditional role of unifying in common purpose to defend America.

More research has been published highlighting more problematic side effects linked to COVID-19 shots. Last week, we published our latest update on rare cases of heart inflammation that have been linked to the mRNA COVID jabs, including the jabs from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. After a hurried secret meeting with its advisory board on vaccine safety, the FDA reluctantly release a warning asking patients experiencing these symptoms to seek help immediately.

The latest study, published in JAMA’s Cardiology Journal on Tuesday, showed that 23 male soldiers (including 22 who were deemed “previously health”) between the ages of 20 and 51 presented “acute onset of marked chest pain” within four days of receiving their second dose. Patients who sought care for chest pain in the military health-care system following COVID-19 vaccination and were subsequently diagnosed with clinical myocarditis were included in the case study.

All the members who tested for myocarditis (for those who aren’t familiar with it, myocarditis is a condition that causes the swelling of the heart muscle and can cause difficulty breathing, heart failure, and death) were all “physically fit by military standards and lacking any known history of cardiac disease, significant cardiac risk factors, or exposure to cardiotoxic agents.”

All of the patients whose data was included in the study underwent electrocardiography and echocardiography tests. Abnormal electrocardiography findings were recorded in 19 patients (83%): findings included ST-segment elevations, T-wave inversions, and nonspecific ST changes. Echocardiography in 4 patients (17%) demonstrated reduced left ventricular ejection fractions (40% to 50%).

The cardiac symptoms faded within a week of onset for 16 patients, while 7 others continued to have chest discomfort at the time of this report; follow-up is ongoing.

As one table from the study showed, the number of cases of heart inflammation reported in the military is much higher than the rate that one might expect given population-wide incidence of these symptoms. This suggests some new variable is likely causing the surge in cases.

The study’s authors concluded that while the overall risk for patients who received an mRNA vaccine remains extremely small, the US isn’t alone in discovering these cases. Israel, which also relied on mostly on mRNA vaccines to  inoculate its population, is also seeing surprisingly high incidence of heart inflammation that’s likely linked to the vaccines.