Month: October 2021

Kemp: Beset By Coal Shortages, India’s Power Grid Struggles To Meet Demand

Kemp: Beset By Coal Shortages, India’s Power Grid Struggles To Meet Demand

By John Kemp, Reuters energy analyst and reporter.

India has experienced persistent electricity shortages since the start of October as power generators have proved unable to meet resurgent demand as the economy rebounds from last year’s coronavirus-driven recession.

The country’s power crisis stems from the same mismatch between rapidly growing demand and lagging supply that is also causing electricity shortages in China and soaring gas prices across much of Europe and Asia.

Generation shortages are manifesting themselves in blackouts and rotating power cuts as well as persistent under-frequency on the country’s transmission system. 

The crisis has been building for some weeks, first in the form of a slide in coal stocks, then a deterioration in grid frequency, and now most obviously in blackouts hitting parts of the country.

Grid controllers normally aim to keep frequency steady and very close to target, minimizing the size and duration of any deviations, which can damage generators as well as customer equipment.

Below-target frequency indicates there is not enough generation to satisfy the total load on the transmission system (by contrast, above-target frequency indicates there is too much generation).

India has a grid frequency target of 50 cycles per second (Hertz) with controllers tasked with keeping it steady between 49.90 Hz and 50.05 Hz to maintain the network in a safe and reliable condition.

But average frequency has fallen well below target since the start of October, and the shortfalls have become larger and longer, indicating a chronic shortage of generation.

On Monday, the average frequency fell to just 49.96 Hz, down from 50.03 two weeks earlier, and the proportion of time spent below the minimum target increased to 21%, from less than 1%.

On Oct. 7, the worst day of the power shortages so far, the average frequency dropped to just 49.93 Hz, and the grid was below its minimum target for almost 28% of the day.

Transmission controllers have been forced to inflict local blackouts to prevent frequency dropping even further and threatening the overall stability of the network.

On Oct. 7, the nationwide shortage peaked at 11.7 Gigawatts and the day’s total unmet electricity demand hit 114 million kilowatt-hours, equivalent to almost 3% of total demand.

COAL SHORTAGE

Thermal power generators, most of them fuelled by coal, have proved increasingly unable to keep up with customer demand and the generation plan.

Cumulative power production since the start of April has fallen 21.5 Terawatt-hours (-2.9%) behind plan, worsening from a deficit of 11.6 TWh (-2.0%) at the end of August.

Thermal power generation has now fallen 21.7 TWh (3.6%) behind plan, from a deficit of 9.7 TWh (-2.0%) at the end of August.

The shortfall in coal-fired generation has become so large it can no longer be covered by the above-plan output from nuclear and hydro sources.

Coal-fired power plants are encountering increasing problems securing enough fuel to meet planned generation owing to a combination of fuel shortages and transport problems.

Coal-fired power plants have an average of just 4 days of fuel on hand compared with 19 days in October 2020 and 12 days before the pandemic in October 2019.

Coal stocks are rated critically low at 116 out of 135 generating plants (86%) across the country and those power plants account for 142 GW of generating capacity out of a total of 165 GW (86%).

Fifteen power plants have less than one day of fuel on hand and another 47 have only 1-2 days fuel in their yards, according to daily reports from the Central Electricity Authority (CEA).

Power producers report coal shortages are currently responsible for forced outages or some loss of production at 60 generating units across the country (“Daily maintenance report”, CEA, Oct. 11).

Outages and losses are reported at coal-fired units in the states of Uttar Pradesh (14), Maharashtra (11), Gujarat (7), Rajasthan (6), Chhatisgarh (6), West Bengal (5), Punjab (4), Tamil Nadu (3), Karnataka (3) and Madhya Pradesh (1).

Until fuel stocks improve and more coal-fired plants are able to return to full production the electricity grid will struggle to meet high levels of power demand.

* * * 

What’s worse, the energy crisis rippling worldwide could be doomed to repeat in the US. For more on that, read: “Energy Crisis May Unleash Winter Blackouts Across US, Insider Warns.” 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/13/2021 – 19:25

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

Taiwan Is Part Of China, Russia Declares, As Two Powers Coordinate To Resist US Pressure

Taiwan Is Part Of China, Russia Declares, As Two Powers Coordinate To Resist US Pressure

Russia has entered the fray in terms of interjecting in the ratcheting rhetoric between China and the US on the Taiwan issue. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made Moscow’s stance on the issue clear, firmly stating that Russia affirms its position that the island belongs to China. 

“Just like the overwhelming majority of other countries, Russia views Taiwan as part of the People’s Republic of China. This is the premise we proceed from and will continue to proceed from in our policy,” Lavrov told reporters Tuesday, as cited in Interfax.

The statement was in response to a press question over whether the geopolitical tensions growing around Taiwan constitute a threat to regional security that Russia is concerned about. His statement about the “overwhelming majority” of nations holding Russia’s same view is certainly accurate, given Washington technically falls into the same category, while a mere 14 countries today have diplomatic relations with Taipei. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi, via CGTN

Lavrov did just days ago indicate the Kremlin is watching things with growing concern, as the US transfers weapons to Taiwan, continues sending occasional provocative delegations, and as The Wall Street Journal days ago confirmed, has a kept a contingent of US Marines on the ground to train local forces. 

Lavrov said last week at a defense conference: “The Indo-Pacific concept is aimed at breaking up this system that relied on the need to respect the indivisibility of security,” in reference to the latest US coalition-building efforts within ‘the Quad’ nations of Australia, India and Japan, ostensibly toward maintaining a “free and open Indo-Pacific.” 

Lavrov pointedly charged that this US policy “has openly proclaimed that its chief objective is containing China.” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian was quick to welcome the remarks and Russia’s input on issues afflicting the South China Sea, specifically praising the remarks soon after as “well-put indeed!” – saying “Lavrov’s views reflect the shared concern of the vast majority of ASEAN countries.” The Chinese FM further blasted US policy as a reckless Cold War relic that Washington has lately revived:

“The US Indo-Pacific strategy, AUKUS and Quad are all closed and exclusive cliques informed by the Cold War zero-sum mentality with strong military security undertones. They will spur regional arms race, aggravate tension, and undermine regional unity and cooperation.

The US practice of ganging up against a third party runs counter to regional countries’ common aspiration to seek shared development through dialogue and cooperation and advance regional integration. It wins no hearts and has no future. Many ASEAN countries have questioned and opposed these moves to various degrees.”

Zhao had also returned the favor, stepping into Russia’s corner on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which the US, Ukraine, and some EU allies have sought to block. 

“It is well-known that the Nord Stream 2 project shows energy complementarity between Russia and Europe, and would help resolve the European energy crisis,” Zhao said during those last Friday remarks defending Russia. “The U.S., however, to serve its own geopolitical interests and monopolize the European energy market, spares no effort in disrupting and hobbling relevant projects to undermine the interests of Russia and Europe and their cooperation. This wins no support.”

He then actually linked the two issues as representative of the United States’ ‘bullying’ approach (a term top Chinese leaders have lately used with increased frequency): saying “the U.S. is adept at politicizing issues in all means and would hurt others indiscriminately, including its allies and partners, for its own interests.”

Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/13/2021 – 19:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3aA76pH Tyler Durden

Sixth Circuit Concludes Local Tree Ordinance Constitutes an Unconstitutional Taking

A Canton, Michigan, ordinance requires landowners to obtain a permit before removing trees from their property. The ordinance further requires mitigation as a condition of receiving a tree removal permit. F.P. Development, a real-estate holding company, challenged this ordinance on several grounds, including that it constitutes an unconstitutional taking. Today, in F.P. Development, LLC. v. Charter Twp. of Canton, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed.

Judge Bush wrote the opinion of the court, joined by Judges Larsen and Nalbandian. His opinion begins:

American history teems with stories and myths of trees. Johnny Appleseed’s apple trees and George Washington’s cherry tree are but a few of those timber tales that inspire and teach. Whether to plant or cut down a tree can be, for better or worse, an individual choice. But sometimes the government gets involved. For example, it can reward those who plant, see, e.g., Timber Culture Act of 1873, ch. 277, 17 Stat. 605 (granting additional land to homesteaders who planted seedlings), or compensate for land taken to conserve, see, e.g., Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, 16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq. Those “carrot” measures serve to further the public interest in tree cultivation and management while compensating private parties for their property and efforts.

Here, however, the government used what F.P. Development portrays as the “stick” approach. Intending to help preserve its greenery, the Charter Township of Canton, Michigan, passed an ordinance that prohibits F.P. from removing certain trees on its land without a permit and requires F.P. to mitigate the removal. F.P. challenges the regulation, claiming that it constitutes a taking of its property without just compensation, an unreasonable seizure, and an excessive fine. The district court granted summary judgment to F.P. on the takings claim and to Canton on the others. We affirm.

F.P. Development’s raised multiple objections to the Canton Tree Ordinance, but ultimately prevailed on one: That the ordinance imposes an unconstitutional condition on a permit to make productive use of the property under Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, Dolan v. City of Tigard, and Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District. Specifically, the court concludes that the mitigation requirement imposes a roughly proportional condition on the requested permit.

Here is a key portion of the court’s analysis:

The parties agree that there is an “essential nexus” between Canton’s “legitimate” interest in forest and natural resource preservation and the permit conditions. Therefore, we need only address the “rough proportionality” prong of Nollan and Dolan.

That prong “requires us to determine whether the degree of the exactions demanded by the [township’s] permit conditions bears the required relationship to the projected impact of [F.P.’s] proposed development.” Dolan, 512 U.S. at 388. The “required relationship” does not have to be “exacting,” but it cannot be “generalized.” It must be “rough[ly] proportional[].” Of course, “[n]o precise mathematical calculation is required, but the[township] must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.”

Canton fails to carry its burden to show that it made the required individualized determination. Under the Tree Ordinance, F.P. must replant one tree for every non landmark tree removed and three trees for every felled landmark tree. The township also requires F.P. to bear the associated costs, whether F.P. does the replanting and relocation itself or outsources the task to the township. Of course, Canton’s mitigation options could offset F.P.’s tree removal, and they arguably involve some individualized assessment given that Canton must determine the number and type of trees cut. But Dolan requires more.

In Dolan, the government argued that its exaction of an easement for a bicycle pathway was necessary to reduce traffic congestion that the property owner’s proposed development might cause. The Court held that the government’s assertion that the conditioned path “‘could offset some of the traffic demand’ is a far cry from a finding that the bicycle pathway system will, or is likely to, offset some of the traffic demand.” Here, the township provides us with little information about its replacement or relocation requirements. Like the government in Dolan, it seems to assume that its mitigation requirements are appropriate. And the information it presents concerning the amount of money F.P. must spend to satisfy those requirements is based on tree replacement costs calculated fifteen years ago, in 2006. That limited and arguably stale information does not suffice.

Canton has pointed to nothing indicating, for example, that F.P.’s tree removal effects a certain level of environmental degradation on the surrounding area. Nor does it demonstrate whether it considered that F.P.’s clearing of the clogged ditch on its property or its removal of dead trees may have improved the surrounding environment. The only evidence on that point suggests that even if F.P. offset its tree removal in a manner not contemplated by the township, Canton would still demand its pre-set mitigation. At bottom, Canton’s support fails to get it over the bar set by Nollan and Dolan. . . .

That a representative from Canton went to F.P.’s property to count and categorize the trees F.P. cut down does not alter our conclusion. And the “individualized assessment” that Canton points to in the ordinance relates to the initial review of a permit application, not to the proportionality of the mitigation requirements. According to Canton’s own representative, F.P.’s removal of regulated trees triggers the mitigation requirements, regardless of the specific impact caused by their removal. Canton has not made the necessary individualized determination here.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3FJGhO1
via IFTTT

Sixth Circuit Concludes Local Tree Ordinance Constitutes an Unconstitutional Taking

A Canton, Michigan, ordinance requires landowners to obtain a permit before removing trees from their property. The ordinance further requires mitigation as a condition of receiving a tree removal permit. F.P. Development, a real-estate holding company, challenged this ordinance on several grounds, including that it constitutes an unconstitutional taking. Today, in F.P. Development, LLC. v. Charter Twp. of Canton, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed.

Judge Bush wrote the opinion of the court, joined by Judges Larsen and Nalbandian. His opinion begins:

American history teems with stories and myths of trees. Johnny Appleseed’s apple trees and George Washington’s cherry tree are but a few of those timber tales that inspire and teach. Whether to plant or cut down a tree can be, for better or worse, an individual choice. But sometimes the government gets involved. For example, it can reward those who plant, see, e.g., Timber Culture Act of 1873, ch. 277, 17 Stat. 605 (granting additional land to homesteaders who planted seedlings), or compensate for land taken to conserve, see, e.g., Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, 16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq. Those “carrot” measures serve to further the public interest in tree cultivation and management while compensating private parties for their property and efforts.

Here, however, the government used what F.P. Development portrays as the “stick” approach. Intending to help preserve its greenery, the Charter Township of Canton, Michigan, passed an ordinance that prohibits F.P. from removing certain trees on its land without a permit and requires F.P. to mitigate the removal. F.P. challenges the regulation, claiming that it constitutes a taking of its property without just compensation, an unreasonable seizure, and an excessive fine. The district court granted summary judgment to F.P. on the takings claim and to Canton on the others. We affirm.

F.P. Development’s raised multiple objections to the Canton Tree Ordinance, but ultimately prevailed on one: That the ordinance imposes an unconstitutional condition on a permit to make productive use of the property under Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, Dolan v. City of Tigard, and Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District. Specifically, the court concludes that the mitigation requirement imposes a roughly proportional condition on the requested permit.

Here is a key portion of the court’s analysis:

The parties agree that there is an “essential nexus” between Canton’s “legitimate” interest in forest and natural resource preservation and the permit conditions. Therefore, we need only address the “rough proportionality” prong of Nollan and Dolan.

That prong “requires us to determine whether the degree of the exactions demanded by the [township’s] permit conditions bears the required relationship to the projected impact of [F.P.’s] proposed development.” Dolan, 512 U.S. at 388. The “required relationship” does not have to be “exacting,” but it cannot be “generalized.” It must be “rough[ly] proportional[].” Of course, “[n]o precise mathematical calculation is required, but the[township] must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.”

Canton fails to carry its burden to show that it made the required individualized determination. Under the Tree Ordinance, F.P. must replant one tree for every non landmark tree removed and three trees for every felled landmark tree. The township also requires F.P. to bear the associated costs, whether F.P. does the replanting and relocation itself or outsources the task to the township. Of course, Canton’s mitigation options could offset F.P.’s tree removal, and they arguably involve some individualized assessment given that Canton must determine the number and type of trees cut. But Dolan requires more.

In Dolan, the government argued that its exaction of an easement for a bicycle pathway was necessary to reduce traffic congestion that the property owner’s proposed development might cause. The Court held that the government’s assertion that the conditioned path “‘could offset some of the traffic demand’ is a far cry from a finding that the bicycle pathway system will, or is likely to, offset some of the traffic demand.” Here, the township provides us with little information about its replacement or relocation requirements. Like the government in Dolan, it seems to assume that its mitigation requirements are appropriate. And the information it presents concerning the amount of money F.P. must spend to satisfy those requirements is based on tree replacement costs calculated fifteen years ago, in 2006. That limited and arguably stale information does not suffice.

Canton has pointed to nothing indicating, for example, that F.P.’s tree removal effects a certain level of environmental degradation on the surrounding area. Nor does it demonstrate whether it considered that F.P.’s clearing of the clogged ditch on its property or its removal of dead trees may have improved the surrounding environment. The only evidence on that point suggests that even if F.P. offset its tree removal in a manner not contemplated by the township, Canton would still demand its pre-set mitigation. At bottom, Canton’s support fails to get it over the bar set by Nollan and Dolan. . . .

That a representative from Canton went to F.P.’s property to count and categorize the trees F.P. cut down does not alter our conclusion. And the “individualized assessment” that Canton points to in the ordinance relates to the initial review of a permit application, not to the proportionality of the mitigation requirements. According to Canton’s own representative, F.P.’s removal of regulated trees triggers the mitigation requirements, regardless of the specific impact caused by their removal. Canton has not made the necessary individualized determination here.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3FJGhO1
via IFTTT

Supply Chain Disruptions Force White House To Ask Walmart, UPS, FedEx To Increase Output

Supply Chain Disruptions Force White House To Ask Walmart, UPS, FedEx To Increase Output

By Jack Phillips of Epoch Times,

Carriers of goods including Walmart, UPS, and FedEx are moving to work more shifts—including 24 hours per day, seven days per week—to address global supply disruptions that have contributed to a surge in inflation, the White House said Wednesday. The update was announced ahead of President Joe Biden’s meeting with the heads of Walmart, FedEx, and UPS to address the supply chain bottlenecks before the Christmas season.

 

According to a fact sheet released by the administration, Walmart said it would “increase its use of night-time hours significantly and projects they could increase throughput by as much as 50 percent over the next several weeks.”

Meanwhile, UPS said it would commit to use 24/7 operations “and enhanced data sharing with the ports” to move more containers out of ports, said the White House.

And FedEx, the fact sheet said, will “work to combine an increase in nighttime hours with changes to trucking and rail use to increase the volume of containers it will move from the ports.”

UPS and FedEx combined shipped approximately 40 percent of U.S. packages by volume in 2020, the White House said. A White House official told news outlets on Wednesday that FedEx, UPS, and Walmart will move toward a 24/7 working schedule.

Thousands of shipping containers at the Port of Felixstowe in Suffolk, England, on Oct. 13, 2021. (Joe Giddens/PA)

“Across these six companies over 3,500 additional containers per week will move at night through the end of the year,” said the fact sheet. “Those boxes contain toys, appliances, bicycles, and furniture that Americans purchased online or at their local small business, and pieces and parts that are sent to U.S. factories for our workers to assemble into products.”

Additionally, the Port of Los Angeles will move to 24/7 service, coming after the Port of Long Beach began similar operations several weeks ago, officials said.

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union also made a commitment to staffing 24/7, meaning that it will double the “hours that cargo will be able to move out of its docks and on highways,” according to the White House.

The supply crisis is driven in part by the global COVID-19 pandemic and potential vaccine mandates, as sales of durable goods jumped amid worker shortages and transportation hub slowdowns. Lower-than-expected Christmas sales could hurt U.S. companies and pose a political risk for Biden.

Thousands of shipping containers are on cargo ships offshore waiting to be offloaded at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Similar backlogs exist at ports in New York and Savannah, Georgia. A shortage of warehouse workers and truck drivers to pick up goods is another reason for the bottlenecks.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/13/2021 – 18:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3aA4N61 Tyler Durden

Facebook’s Secret Blacklist Includes Members Of ISIS, The Crips, Hamas & ‘The Hillbilly Militia’

Facebook’s Secret Blacklist Includes Members Of ISIS, The Crips, Hamas & ‘The Hillbilly Militia’

Over the years, even as one of its whistleblowers founder herself in prison, the Intercept has maintained a reputation as a mostly independent outlet willing to publish leaked documents embarrassing the US government, Big Tech – you name it. And This week has been no different. Amid all the scrutiny of Facebook lately, the Intercept published this week internal documents from FB exposing what FB calls its “dangerous individuals and organizations list”.

The list, which includes more than 4,000 names of individuals and organizations, as well as a brief explanation of the affiliations that landed them on Facebook’s “dangerous individuals” list, consists of roughly half foreign individuals. But there are many home-grown individuals and organizations on this list, including street gangs like “the Crips”, “the Latin Kings” and even the infamous “MS-13”.

The list is barred from being discussed on Facebook’s platform. But now, thanks to the Intercept, it’s out in the open for the whole world to see.

Generally speaking, Facebook’s “unaccountable system” disproportionately punishes certain communities,” what with the terrorism suspects being “Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Muslim,” and those alleged to be violent criminals “predominantly Black and Latino.” Meanwhile, the outlets says, there are “far looser prohibitions” on discussing “predominately white anti-government militias.”

Almost 1,000 entries in the terrorism portion of the list are from “Specially Designated Global Terrorists”, a sanctions list maintained by the US Treasury Department that includes affiliates of Islamic State and Al-Qaeda right alongside Hamas and Hezbollah, the Taliban, Iran’s IRGC, Yemen’s Houthi militants.

Other entries on the list make less sense. For example, the PKK, the Kurdish separatist party outlawed in Turkey, is on Facebook’s “danger” list. Also: the Communist Parties of India and the Philippines.

Other notable names include the Japanese death cult Aum Shinrikyo, as well as the Atomwaffen Division, a US white supremacist group recently exposed as being secretly backed by the FBI.

Things get interesting under the hate group heading when FB includes the Nazis of WWII (that’s right; the original Nazi party) alongside the Proud Boys, and Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. Also included are the English Defence League, Génération Identitaire and its sister organizations in the US and other European countries. A Canadian student group called Students for Western Civilisation and men’s rights activists from A Voice For Men are also included.

But it also includes US-based militia groups who have been increasingly targeted by groups like the SPLC

Finally, under the “hateful individuals” category, historical villains like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini are listed alongside Incel shooter Elliot Rodgers, Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes, Azov Battalion commander Andriy Biletsky, and UK activist Tommy Robinson and US internet commentator Nicolas Fuentes.

The list is hitting in the middle of Facebook’s biggest corporate scandal since the Cambridge Analytica fallout when there was an international backlash over tech companies’ use and abuse of users’ private data.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/13/2021 – 18:25

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

Katie Couric Took A Knee for RBG

In 2016, Couric interviewed Justice Ginsburg. Couric asked Ginsburg about football players who were taking a knee during the national anthem.

I think it is really dumb of them. Would I arrest them for doing it? No. I think it is dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it is a terrible thing to do. But I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act. But it is dangerous to arrest people for conduct that doesn’t jeopardize the health or wellbeing of other people. It is a symbol they are engaged in.

At that point, the video cuts. Couric asks a followup question. Ginsburg continues:

If they want to be stupid, there is no law that should prevent that. If they want to be arrogant, there is no law that prevents them from that. What I would do is strongly take issue with the point of view they are expressing when when do that.

The video cuts again.

A few days later, Justice Ginsburg issued a statement to the press:

“Some of you have inquired about a book interview in which I was asked how I felt about Colin Kaepernick and other N.F.L. players who refused to stand for the national anthem. Barely aware of the incident or its purpose, my comments were inappropriately dismissive and harsh. I should have declined to respond.”

She didn’t actually apologize. Nor did she recant her views. Rather, she said they were “dismissive and harsh.”

Five years later, there is more to the story. Katie Couric wrote a new book. She admits to editing out part of the RBG interview. Apparently Ginsburg said more about the kneeling:

Ginsburg went on to say that such protests show a ‘contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life.’

She said: ‘Which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from…as they became older they realize that this was youthful folly. And that’s why education is important.’

Imagine how this statement would have played. A privileged white woman telling black football players that they are showing contempt for the government that gave their grandparents a decent life. I suspect some of those grandparents lived during the era of Jim Crow segregation. And then Ginsburg calls these players uneducated and engaged in youthful folly! Ginsburg would have been excoriated.

To protect “RBG,” Couric simply edite dout the statements.

Couric claims that she ‘lost a lot of sleep over this one’ and still wrestles with the decision she made.

According to Couric, she ‘wanted to protect’ Ginsburg and felt that the issue of racial justice was a ‘blind spot’ for her.

Not really. Ginsburg dissented in Fisher II. She explained the importance of racial preferences in college admissions in light of “centuries of law-sanctioned inequality.”

I have several times explained why government actors, including state universities, need not be blind to the lingering effects of “an overtly discriminatory past,” the legacy of “centuries of law-sanctioned inequality.” Id., at 298 (dissenting opinion). See also Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200 –274 (1995) (dissenting opinion). Among constitutionally permissible options, I remain convinced, “those that candidly disclose their consideration of race [are] preferable to those that conceal it.” Gratz, 539 U. S., at 305, n. 11 (dissenting opinion).

Still, Ginsburg thought the anthem protests were akin to flag burning: stupid exercises of protected speech. RBG is not woke. And I also suspect RBG would be a TERF, by today’s standards.

Why did Couric make this edit?

Couric, 64, writes that she always tried to keep her ‘personal politics’ out of her reporting throughout her career.

But she faced a ‘conundrum’ when Ginsburg made comments about Colin Kaepernick, the former NFL player who became the controversial figurehead behind the national anthem protest against racial injustice.

Couric felt that when Ginsburg said that people like Kaepernick were ‘dumb and disrespectful’ they were comments that were ‘unworthy of a crusader for equality’ like the liberal Supreme Court justice.

…

But Couric writes in her memoir that she thought the justice, who was 83 at the time, was ‘elderly and probably didn’t fully understand the question.’

Oh come on. Ginsburg was sharp as a tack. Until the end, she was one of the most aggressive questions on the Court. Ginsburg’s intellect towers over Couric. What a demeaning statement.

The story gets worse:

The day after the sit-down, the head of public affairs for the Supreme Court emailed Couric to say the late justice had ‘misspoken’ and asked that it be removed from the story.

The day after the sit-down, the head of public affairs for the Supreme Court emailed Couric to say the late justice had ‘misspoken’ and asked that it be removed from the story.

I’m sorry. The Supreme Court public affairs office doesn’t get to call the media and ask them to edit stories because a Justice “misspoke.” She did not “misspeak.” She said exactly what she thinks. Can you imagine the outrage if this request came from the White House. We know the Supreme Court PIO clips about 5,000 tweets per year. It seems they also ask the press to modify statements.

Even if Couric was inclined to edit the interview, she should have refused in the face of the Supreme Court request. But she didn’t. Couric caved. Appalling.

Couric’s conduct with Ginsburg here is even more jarring in light of her 2016 interview with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights group. She asked them, “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?” And the video show the interviewees with blank stares for nearly 10 seconds. Here, Couric deceptively edited the interview to make the members look bad.

Fortunately, the VDCL members secretly recorded the interview. In reality, one of the interviewees answered the question. But Couric removed the answer to cast the interviewees as idiots. The Washington Post asked Couric to comment. She said she was “very proud of the film.”

Reason lampooned Couric’s deceptive edit:

The VCDL members sued Couric for libel. At the time, Eugene wrote that the editing was “dishonest” but not “libelous.” The district court dismissed the claim, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3j1Qiwi
via IFTTT

Katie Couric Took A Knee for RBG

In 2016, Couric interviewed Justice Ginsburg. Couric asked Ginsburg about football players who were taking a knee during the national anthem.

I think it is really dumb of them. Would I arrest them for doing it? No. I think it is dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it is a terrible thing to do. But I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act. But it is dangerous to arrest people for conduct that doesn’t jeopardize the health or wellbeing of other people. It is a symbol they are engaged in.

At that point, the video cuts. Couric asks a followup question. Ginsburg continues:

If they want to be stupid, there is no law that should prevent that. If they want to be arrogant, there is no law that prevents them from that. What I would do is strongly take issue with the point of view they are expressing when when do that.

The video cuts again.

A few days later, Justice Ginsburg issued a statement to the press:

“Some of you have inquired about a book interview in which I was asked how I felt about Colin Kaepernick and other N.F.L. players who refused to stand for the national anthem. Barely aware of the incident or its purpose, my comments were inappropriately dismissive and harsh. I should have declined to respond.”

She didn’t actually apologize. Nor did she recant her views. Rather, she said they were “dismissive and harsh.”

Five years later, there is more to the story. Katie Couric wrote a new book. She admits to editing out part of the RBG interview. Apparently Ginsburg said more about the kneeling:

Ginsburg went on to say that such protests show a ‘contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life.’

She said: ‘Which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from…as they became older they realize that this was youthful folly. And that’s why education is important.’

Imagine how this statement would have played. A privileged white woman telling black football players that they are showing contempt for the government that gave their grandparents a decent life. I suspect some of those grandparents lived during the era of Jim Crow segregation. And then Ginsburg calls these players uneducated and engaged in youthful folly! Ginsburg would have been excoriated.

To protect “RBG,” Couric simply edite dout the statements.

Couric claims that she ‘lost a lot of sleep over this one’ and still wrestles with the decision she made.

According to Couric, she ‘wanted to protect’ Ginsburg and felt that the issue of racial justice was a ‘blind spot’ for her.

Not really. Ginsburg dissented in Fisher II. She explained the importance of racial preferences in college admissions in light of “centuries of law-sanctioned inequality.”

I have several times explained why government actors, including state universities, need not be blind to the lingering effects of “an overtly discriminatory past,” the legacy of “centuries of law-sanctioned inequality.” Id., at 298 (dissenting opinion). See also Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200 –274 (1995) (dissenting opinion). Among constitutionally permissible options, I remain convinced, “those that candidly disclose their consideration of race [are] preferable to those that conceal it.” Gratz, 539 U. S., at 305, n. 11 (dissenting opinion).

Still, Ginsburg thought the anthem protests were akin to flag burning: stupid exercises of protected speech. RBG is not woke. And I also suspect RBG would be a TERF, by today’s standards.

Why did Couric make this edit?

Couric, 64, writes that she always tried to keep her ‘personal politics’ out of her reporting throughout her career.

But she faced a ‘conundrum’ when Ginsburg made comments about Colin Kaepernick, the former NFL player who became the controversial figurehead behind the national anthem protest against racial injustice.

Couric felt that when Ginsburg said that people like Kaepernick were ‘dumb and disrespectful’ they were comments that were ‘unworthy of a crusader for equality’ like the liberal Supreme Court justice.

…

But Couric writes in her memoir that she thought the justice, who was 83 at the time, was ‘elderly and probably didn’t fully understand the question.’

Oh come on. Ginsburg was sharp as a tack. Until the end, she was one of the most aggressive questions on the Court. Ginsburg’s intellect towers over Couric. What a demeaning statement.

The story gets worse:

The day after the sit-down, the head of public affairs for the Supreme Court emailed Couric to say the late justice had ‘misspoken’ and asked that it be removed from the story.

The day after the sit-down, the head of public affairs for the Supreme Court emailed Couric to say the late justice had ‘misspoken’ and asked that it be removed from the story.

I’m sorry. The Supreme Court public affairs office doesn’t get to call the media and ask them to edit stories because a Justice “misspoke.” She did not “misspeak.” She said exactly what she thinks. Can you imagine the outrage if this request came from the White House. We know the Supreme Court PIO clips about 5,000 tweets per year. It seems they also ask the press to modify statements.

Even if Couric was inclined to edit the interview, she should have refused in the face of the Supreme Court request. But she didn’t. Couric caved. Appalling.

Couric’s conduct with Ginsburg here is even more jarring in light of her 2016 interview with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights group. She asked them, “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?” And the video show the interviewees with blank stares for nearly 10 seconds. Here, Couric deceptively edited the interview to make the members look bad.

Fortunately, the VDCL members secretly recorded the interview. In reality, one of the interviewees answered the question. But Couric removed the answer to cast the interviewees as idiots. The Washington Post asked Couric to comment. She said she was “very proud of the film.”

Reason lampooned Couric’s deceptive edit:

The VCDL members sued Couric for libel. At the time, Eugene wrote that the editing was “dishonest” but not “libelous.” The district court dismissed the claim, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3j1Qiwi
via IFTTT

‘Dumb And Disrespectful’: Katie Couric ‘Protected’ RGB By Editing Anti-Kneeling Comments From 2016 Interview

‘Dumb And Disrespectful’: Katie Couric ‘Protected’ RGB By Editing Anti-Kneeling Comments From 2016 Interview

Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that athletes kneeling for the national anthem were being ‘dumb and disrespectful,’ and showed ‘contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life,’ when asked what she thought about former 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick and others protesting before games.

“Would I arrest them for doing it? No,” said Ginsburg. “I think it’s dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act.”

But the American public never knew about this controversial opinion from the liberal icon, because Katie Couric edited it out of a 2016 interview with the late Supreme Court justice, according to the Daily Mail. “If they want to be arrogant, there’s no law that prevents them from that. What I would do is strongly take issue with the point of view that they are expressing when they do that,” Ginsburg added.

The next day, the Supreme Court’s head of public affairs emailed Couric to say that Ginsburg had “misspoken” and demanded its removal.

So, like a good establishment lapdog not interested in doing actual journalism, Couric complied.

RGB’s opinion – which perhaps could have quelled the racial division brewing in America during the 2016 US election, is revealed in Couric’s upcoming book, set for release on October 26.

… she faced a ‘conundrum’ when Ginsburg made comments about Colin Kaepernick, the former NFL player who became the controversial figurehead behind the national anthem protest against racial injustice. 

Couric felt that when Ginsburg said that people like Kaepernick were ‘dumb and disrespectful’ they were comments that were ‘unworthy of a crusader for equality’ like the liberal Supreme Court justice. 

The day after the sit-down, the head of public affairs for the Supreme Court emailed Couric to say the late justice had ‘misspoken’ and asked that it be removed from the story.

Couric writes that she was ‘conflicted’ because she was a ‘big RBG fan’, referring to Ginsburg’s moniker. -Daily Mail

Aiding Couric’s decision not to report Ginsburg’s opinion was NYT journalist David Brooks, who advised Couric that Ginsburg – who was rendering opinions on matters of national importance at the time – ‘probably didn’t understand the question.’

On the other hand, David Westin, former head of ABC News, suggested Couric keep Ginsburg’s comments in.

“She’s on the Supreme Court. People should hear what she thinks,” he said.

Couric claims she simply ‘wanted to protect’ Ginsburg – and that the topic of racial justice was a ‘blind spot’ for her.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/13/2021 – 18:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3lCxk0Y Tyler Durden

Steven Pinker: Rationality Has Made Us Richer, Kinder, and More Free


Pinker_edited

In the controversial yet bestselling books The Better Angels of Our Nature and Enlightenment Now, Harvard linguist Steven Pinker made the case that humanity has been getting richer and less violent over the past two centuries.

In his new book, Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters, he argues that our ability to reason and think critically is central to human flourishing and undergirds our phenomenal material and moral progress since the Enlightenment. Pinker lays out the basic cognitive biases that cloud our thinking and give rise to intensely polarized and tribalistic worldviews that threaten continued advances. And he tells Reason‘s Nick Gillespie how all of us can become better, sharper thinkers in all aspects of our lives.

Photo: Andrew West CC BY SA 4.0

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