Month: January 2022

US Consumers Will Push Back On High Food Prices, Mondelez CEO Says

US Consumers Will Push Back On High Food Prices, Mondelez CEO Says

America’s top snack company, Mondelez International, told Bloomberg TV Friday that consumers will begin to push back on rising food prices as the economy reopens. 

Dirk Van de Put, chief executive officer of snack company Mondelez, said consumers had tolerated price increases made by the company, but that could soon change as their more stationary lifestyles revert to more active ones. 

Snacks sold by Mondelez have been subjected to price increases in the last two years as snarled supply chains, rising commodity prices, and soaring labor costs forced the company to increase prices. Also, pandemic demand created shortages for some snacks, driving prices even higher. 

Consumers are now out of the house and heading to bars, restaurants, malls, and other shopping areas. Van de Put explained: 

“I assume as the consumer will change and we get out of the pandemic and they start to spend more on other items, and they start to eat out more and so on, that that’s where the moment comes that they might not be so benign as it relates to the price elasticity,” Van de Put said. 

In other words, Mondelez has spotted a significant challenge: food inflation could cause some consumers to stop purchasing their snacks as they eat at restaurants and bars. 

Mondelez reported fourth-quarter adjusted earnings that missed Wall Street’s estimates, sending shares down 3% to $65.50 around 1300 ET. The pandemic rise in share prices was due to the stationary lifestyles of consumers as public health officials ordered lockdowns and corporations forced employees to work from home. There were also restrictions on eateries that limited indoor capacity.

Robert Finkel, managing director of equity trading at Stifel Financial Corp who specializes in the consumer sector, expects the upcoming Consumer Analyst Group of New York (CAGNY) Conference next month “will have a common theme as management teams of America’s top food companies will try to strike a delicate balance between keeping up with inflation, not destroying margins and not turning off their consumers.” 

During CAGNY, which runs between Feb. 22-25, Finkel said management teams would be talking about inflation, margins, and pricing. 

And Mondelez is not the only food producer running into a possible demand wall due to soaring prices and consumer shifts. Kraft-Heinz (in which Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway owns a big stake) is set to raise prices in March on dozens of its most popular products. The hikes will affect brands including Oscar Mayer cold cuts, hot dogs, sausages, bacon, Velveeta cheese, Maxwell House coffee, TGIF frozen chicken wings, Kool-Aid and Capri Sun. 

The question now is how much of these price hikes can consumers afford? 

According to the most recent CPI data release, headline consumer prices surged 7% in December, which was the strongest level in nearly 40 years. Food prices alone rose 0.5% MoM.

And don’t fall for the bullshit that wages are rising and that’s a good thing. Real wages have shrunk for 9 straight months…

The result of all of this is that smaller supermarkets with less pricing power will get crushed, such as the Krogers of the world who’ve been slapped with two downgrades. They’re facing a double edge sword to either passing along costs that would decline foot traffic or face margin compression. The Walmarts of the world have more playing room. 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/29/2022 – 14:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/gstJdKPCS Tyler Durden

Most Americans Want Diplomacy, Not War With Russia Over Ukraine; New Poll Finds

Most Americans Want Diplomacy, Not War With Russia Over Ukraine; New Poll Finds

Authored by Brett Wilkins via Common Dreams,

A majority of Americans want the Biden administration to work with Russia toward a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis in order to avert a potentially catastrophic war, according to the results of a new poll published Friday.

According to the Data for Progress survey of 1,214 likely U.S. voters, 58% of overall respondents “somewhat” or “strongly” support the Biden administration “striking a deal with Russia to avoid war over Ukraine.”

Source: Ukrinform/Future Publishing via Getty Images

Among Democrats, support for such a move was 71%, while 51% of Independents and 46% of Republicans agreed with the prospective policy. The poll’s findings echo pleas from U.S. progressives, who urge President Joe Biden to pursue a diplomatic solution to the crisis, in which the world’s two foremost nuclear powers are involved. 

“There is no military solution,” Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) asserted Wednesday. 

The new poll comes as U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said during a Friday press conference that conflict with Russia “is not inevitable” and that there was still time for a positive diplomatic outcome. 

Common Dreams reported Friday that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that there will be no war if the United States does not escalate the conflict. “If it depends on Russia, then there will be no war,” he stated. “We don’t want wars. But we also won’t allow our interests to be rudely trampled, to be ignored.”

Citing security concerns—including decades of U.S. provocation such as expanding NATO—Russia has reportedly amassed around 100,000 troops near the border of eastern Ukraine, where pro-Moscow separatists have been fighting the Western-backed Ukrainian government since 2014.

Russia is seeking a guarantee that Ukraine will not be admitted into the NATO alliance, which Moscow views as inherently anti-Russian. The U.S. refuses to provide such a guarantee. 

Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned that any Russian invasion of Ukraine would be “met with a severe and united response” from NATO. While the Biden administration has suggested that such a response would be primarily economic in nature, the Pentagon announced earlier this week that 8,500 U.S. troops were being placed on alert, ready to quickly deploy to Eastern Europe in the event NATO activates a rapid reaction force.

“Listening to Blinken’s press conference, you can’t help but get the feeling that the assembled journalists want a war more than Russia, Ukraine and NATO put together” — Murad Gazdiev

According to a Kremlin official quoted by Reuters, Russian President Vladmir Putin spoke by phone with French President Emmanuel Macron Friday, telling him that “he wanted to continue dialogue and that we needed to work towards the implementation of the Minsk accords,” a reference to the quadrilateral talks between France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine on the war in eastern Ukraine.

“He said he didn’t want an escalation,” the Russian official said of Putin, but added that the U.S. and NATO have still failed to address Moscow’s primary security concerns. 

On Thursday, Biden spoke with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, his Ukrainian counterpart, and “reaffirmed the readiness of the United States along with its allies and partners to respond decisively if Russia further invades Ukraine,” according to a White House readout of the conversation. 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/29/2022 – 13:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/AK2zUhWCV Tyler Durden

“It’s 70km Long!” – World’s Largest Truck Convoy Arrives In Ottawa To Challenge Trudeau’s Vaxx-Mandate

“It’s 70km Long!” – World’s Largest Truck Convoy Arrives In Ottawa To Challenge Trudeau’s Vaxx-Mandate

The world’s largest truck convoy rolled into Canada’s capital, Ottawa, late Friday night and continues today to stage a protest against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cross-border vaccine mandates (or as some call it: medical tyranny). 

The so-called “Freedom Convoy” – coming from all corners of Canada and even the US, has been traveling all week and is leading the charge in a massive demonstration against government overreach. Truckers from around the world are uniting and staging protests of their own. 

As Enrico Trigoso reports at The Epoch Times, Brian Von D, the administrator at “Convoy to DC 2022” announced that they will “join forces” to ride from California to Washington, adding that “America is next.”

“As [the Canadian convoy] moved from the west to the east, [the American truckers] have been filtering into this convoy, and it is absolutely massive. It is known worldwide, it is the largest thus far,” he said in a live video on Facebook.

He added that dates and planned routes would be released soon on a website and various social media platforms, and a GoFundMe page would only be released on their CONVOY TO DC 2022 Facebook page.

“We’re done with the mandates, were done with the government telling us what to do, we will continue and we will follow just like the rest of the world on these trucker protests, and they will be 100 percent legal, they will abide by the law.”

The Parliamentary Protective Service expects as many as 10,000 protesters this weekend in Ottawa, but that figure could be significantly higher. A day ago, we noted 50,000 trucks in a 70km (43.5 miles) long convoy are headed to the capital. 

According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the Freedom Convoy is “the largest parade of trucks” ever in the world. 

“It’s 70 km (43.5 miles) long,” says Freedom Convoy 2022 spokesperson Benjamin Dichter to the Toronto Sun.

“I have seen footage from an airplane. It’s impressive.”

The trucker convoy has been arriving in the capital for the past 12 hours. Additional waves of the convoy will arrive later this afternoon. 

Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau called the convoy a “small fringe minority” of those who “do not represent the views of Canadians.” Judging by the pictures and videos so far, Trudeau is a liar, and a revolt is underway in the country. Corporate media and government have spent the better part of the week downplaying the convoy ( because they are scared). 

On Friday, Trudeau told the Canadian Press that he was worried about the protest turning violent. Organizers of the event have told truckers and anyone else participating in the demonstration to remain peaceful. 

CBC said Trudeau and his family left downtown Ottawa on Saturday morning (due to close contact with someone infected with COVID – although he tested negative and triple-jabbed) as the trucker convoy descended on the area. The local news said he left town due to security concerns. 

The convoy is expected to bring parts of the metro area to a standstill and block roads in front of parliament until lawmakers repeal a vaccine mandate for truckers hauling freight across the border. 

Despite Trudeau calling the protest “small,” Ottawa police chief Peter Sloly said they planned a “massive” demonstration on Friday. 

Watch Live here…

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/29/2022 – 13:01

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/f9SXFLYEy Tyler Durden

Chinese Ambassador Warns Increasing US Ties With Taiwan Will “Most Likely” Lead To War

Chinese Ambassador Warns Increasing US Ties With Taiwan Will “Most Likely” Lead To War

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

China’s ambassador to the US warned Friday that Washington’s increasing support for Taiwan could ultimately lead to a war between the US and China.

Ambassador Qin Gang said the US is “emboldening” independence forces in Taiwan. “If the Taiwanese authorities, emboldened by the United States, keep going down the road for independence, it most likely will involve China and the United States, the two big countries, in the military conflict,” he said in an interview with NPR.

Via Reuters

Qin called the issue of Taiwan the “biggest tinderbox between China and the United States.” He said that people in Taiwan and China are “compatriots” and don’t want to fight, but because Taiwan is “working down the road towards independence … China will not commit to giving up the un-peaceful means for reunification because this is a deterrence.”

Starting under the Trump administration, the US has been taking steps to increase military and diplomatic ties with Taiwan. In August 2020, Trump sent then-Health Secretary Alex Azar to Taiwan, making him the highest-level US official to visit the island since Washington severed diplomatic relations with Taipei in 1979.

Since the Azar visit, the State Department under both the Trump and Biden administrations adopted policies to encourage contacts between US and Taiwanese officials, and US congressional delegations are visiting Taiwan more frequently.

Since 1979, the US has sold weapons to Taiwan and deployed small numbers of troops to train Taiwanese forces. But the deployment of US troops to Taiwan was always unofficial until last year. In October, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen confirmed the presence of US troops in Taiwan, making her the first Taiwanese leader to do so in decades.

Besides boosting ties with Taiwan, the US has also significantly increased its military activity in the South China Sea and other waters near Taiwan and China, causing Beijing to do the same, turning the region into a potential flashpoint for war.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/29/2022 – 12:31

via ZeroHedge News https://bit.ly/3g5XSUT Tyler Durden

“Irresponsible People Are Spreading Lies” – Joni Mitchell Removes Music From Spotify “In Solidarity” With Neil Young

“Irresponsible People Are Spreading Lies” – Joni Mitchell Removes Music From Spotify “In Solidarity” With Neil Young

Another popular Canadian-born classic rock musician has decided to pull her music from Spotify in solidarity with Neil Young, whose label pulled his music from the streaming giant in protest over its deal with Joe Rogan.

Popular folk musician Joni Mitchell – who, like Young, was in her hayday back in the 1970s but nevertheless maintains an audience among the young people of today (she’s particularly popular with a certain demographic: gay women) – announced her decision to pull her music from Spotify in a statement on her website.

“I’ve decided to remove all my music from Spotify. Irresponsible people are spreading lies that are costing people their lives. I stand in solidarity with Neil Young and the global scientific and medical communities on this issue,” she said.

As of Saturday morning in New York, most of Mitchell’s catalogue was still available on the app; Young’s had been removed earlier in the week after he sent the company a letter declaring that the service could have “Neil Young or Joe Rogan. Not both”.

While Mitchell accused Spotify of “spreading lies”, she didn’t go into any details about what those lies might be. Instead she just posted a link to a previous open letter.

Unsurprisingly, the company chose Rogan, who in addition to being America’s most popular podcaster, is also a money-making machine who commands a minimum advertising spend of $1 million (advertisers who want in on his show must also also agree to buy ads on other Spotify podcasts as well), as the Verge explains.

While Rogan is of course a valuable asset to Spotify, as Glenn Greenwald tweeted in response to Mitchell’s statement, Spotify is probably already trying to figure out just how much pain it can take (in terms ofthe public backlash) before they finally would need to consider parting ways with a star whom they reportedly paid $100MM for exclusive rights to his shoe.

Remember, NBC News ate tens of millions of dollars after cutting Megyn Kelly lose rather than “withstand liberal anger”.

Mitchell also posted a link to an open letter from the scientific community, which we reported on here.

We can’t help but reflect on how strange it is that two musicians with a reputation as “critics” of the music industry and big business are now standing up for Big Pharma. After all, Pfizer and Moderna took billions of dollars of public money and are still demanding enormous products while acting as gatekeepers of vaccines and choosing to give four doses to American children who truly don’t need the jabs rather than giving vulnerable adults in the emerging world a chance.

Adam Carolla put this sentiment into words during a recent appearance with Sean Hannity.

“Their job is to push back against the man and Neil Young should know the man isn’t Joe Rogan, the man is Dr. Fauci, the man is Governor Gavin Newsom, the man is the CDC, the man is the WHO, the man is Biden,” said Carolla.

The backlash started when Rogan hosted Dr. Robert Malone for an interview where he expressed his skepticism about the vaccines’ efficacy and safety. Dr. Malone spoke in favor of using Ivermectin, and discussed the concept of “mass formation psychosis”.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/29/2022 – 12:00

via ZeroHedge News https://bit.ly/35t5v5H Tyler Durden

Revisiting The Anatomy Of A Bubble

Revisiting The Anatomy Of A Bubble

Via VariantPerception.com,

Jeremy Grantham’s recent piece, Let the wild rumpus begin, argued that the US is in its 4th “superbubble” of the last 100 years and is in its final stages.  This inspired us to refresh our bubble framework (below, taken from our 2017 blog post).  Many valuation measures of the US equity market are near historic highs and with the Fed about to tighten monetary policy, investors should naturally be skeptical of US equity allocations.

We are heavily influenced by the work of Charles Kindleberger and Hymen Minsky at Variant Perception, and we’ve dedicated much of our work to understanding how boom and bust cycles progress.

In Kindleberger’s classic, Panics, Manias and Crashes, he expands on earlier work by Minsky in Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. They found that no two bubbles are alike, but they all share a common structure. Below we’ve summarized the five key stages of market bubbles that allow you to identify them as they happen.

  1. Displacement:

Bubbles start with a displacement, some sort of a shock to the system. A displacement could be war (usually the end of war), a major political change, deregulation, a technological innovation, a financial innovation or a shift in monetary policy. The displacement creates a new opportunity in at least one sector of the economy. One example is the widespread adoption of computers, the internet and email in the US in the 1990s, which set the stage for the dot-com bubble.

  1. Boom:

A boom begins, especially in the favored sector, as optimism grows. There is a positive feedback loop as the price of stocks, one or more commodities, and/or real estate increase, which then leads to greater consumption and investment, which leads to greater economic growth. Credit fuels the boom. Borrowers become more willing to take on debt and lenders are increasingly willing to make riskier loans as economic prospects improve.

This expansion of credit isn’t necessarily provided by banks. The Tulip Mania in 1636 in Holland, for example, was fueled by vendor-financing from bulb sellers. However, banks have been the predominant source of credit since the 19th century. Banks can expand credit further and more rapidly than vendors could. To make matters worse, new banks are often formed in the expanding economy. This causes banks to further loosen their credit standards to avoid losing market share.

  1. Euphoria:

A boom transforms into euphoria as “rational exuberance morphs into irrational exuberance.” There are hundreds of books documenting the endless possibilities of the economy (e.g. Japan as Number One and The East Asian Miracle in Japan in the 1980s, and Dow 40,000 in 1999). Participants extrapolate recent price increases into the future, expecting prices to continue to increase at unsustainable rates. Some, especially industry insiders, realize that there is a bubble, but many continue to participate in the market, believing they can sell to “the greater fool” before the implosion.

However, more and more euphoric outsiders begin to enter the market as media attention grows and individuals see others getting rich. As Kindleberger quoted in Manias, Panics and Crashes, “there is nothing as disturbing to one’s well-being and judgment as to see a friend get rich.” The rush of capital causes a further increase in prices, and sound investment shifts to wild speculation. Individuals invest with the hope of short-term capital gains, and debt compounds as people borrow or trade on margin to further speculate. Money seems free. Fraud is also common at this stage, although it typically is not exposed until later.

  1. Distress:

At some point, an event hits that causes a decline in confidence and a pause in the explosive price increase. The event could be a bankruptcy, a change in government policy, a piece of news (real or rumored), or a flow of funds from the country. The response to these events differs in bubbles because of the debt build-up. People who financed their purchases with borrowed money become distressed sellers as the income on their assets drops below their interest payments. Kindleberger noted, “The economic situation in a country after several years of bubble-like behavior resembles that of a young person on a bicycle; the rider needs to maintain forward momentum or the bike becomes unstable.”

A slowing bike is actually a better metaphor than a bubble.  Sometimes panic sets in immediately, but in other cases it can take up to several years for the crisis to fully develop. In the dot-com crisis, panic happened almost immediately, while it took a few months for panic to set in during the Great Financial Crisis.

  1. Panic:

Not everyone realizes that a crisis is unfolding at the same time. Insiders and institutional investors usually sell first. Once other market participants realize the gravity of the situation (perhaps after another major event), run-of-the-mill selling turns into outright panic as everyone tries to get out at the same time. Prices plummet and levered companies increasingly go bankrupt as they can’t meet their interest payments. The sell-off typically spreads to other sectors and other countries. As bankruptcies mount, banks can begin to fail, further drying up credit when it’s needed the most. The panic continues until a lender of last resort convinces investors that cash will be made available to meet demand, or prices fall so low that value investors start to buy back in.

*  *  *

Get the full picture at variantperception.com.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/29/2022 – 11:30

via ZeroHedge News https://bit.ly/3Hee4PW Tyler Durden

Appointing Justices Based on Race, Sex, or Religion

A colleague asked: Is it constitutional for President Biden to nominate a Supreme Court Justice because of her race and sex? Even if we were to extend to appointments the Court’s view that sometimes race can be considered as a factor for the sake of “diversity” in higher education, the Court has generally insisted that categorical quotas or other rules that “mak[e] ‘the factor of race … decisive'” are forbidden. The President has said that he would nominate a black woman, not just that he’d consider a candidate’s race or sex as part of the analysis.

My sense is that there is no constitutional problem here, nor, even going beyond the constitutional question, any injustice. And I say this as someone who generally opposes race- and sex-based preferences in government employment, education, contracting, and the like. (Indeed, in 1996, I helped draft Prop. 209 in California, which forbade such preferences, and spoke often in favor of it; last year, I likewise opposed Prop. 16, which tried to repeal Prop. 209.)

Perhaps I’m mistaken on one of these positions, or maybe even on both, but I think high-level government appointments are a very different matter from ordinary hiring or education. Americans are entitled to be treated without regard to race, sex, or religion in the latter, but no-one has a right to any sort of equal treatment in being appointed to high government office.

Such appointments are a political matter, and political factors—including ones related to the identity of the candidate—may rightly play a role in that. In this respect, I think these factors are similar to (though of course not identical to) political affiliation: Government officials generally can’t hire or fire employees or select students or contractors based on political affiliation, see, e.g., Elrod v. Burns (1976); Rutan v. Republican Party (1990); O’Hare Truck Service v. City of Northlake (1996), but of course that rule doesn’t apply to selection of cabinet members (or similar state or local officials), judges, and the like. (Some people have argued that the Religious Test Clause specifically forbids the consideration of religion even in high-level appointments, but I’m skeptical about that, and in any event that provision refers solely to religion.)

The Court has never squarely confronted this as to race discrimination, either at the federal or state level, but it has hinted that such political decisions are different. Consider Mayor of Philadelphia v. Educational Equality League (1974), which involved a challenge to the Mayor’s appointments to a school board nominating panel. The Court ultimately didn’t reach the Mayor’s argument “that judicial review of the discretionary appointments of an executive officer contravenes basic separation-of-powers principles,” because it concluded that there wasn’t enough evidence of racial discrimination on the Mayor’s part. But the Court suggested that “judicial oversight of discretionary appointments may interfere with the ability of an elected official to respond to the mandate of his constituency,” and noted (quoting Carter v. Jury Comm’n of Greene County (1970)) “the problems that would be involved in a federal court’s ordering the Governor of a State to exercise his discretion in a particular way.”

To be sure, that leaves open the possibility that the Equal Protection Clause (or, since that doesn’t apply to the federal government, broader principles of equality, see Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)) forbids discrimination in such appointments, even if federal courts can’t step in to do anything about it. But I think there’s a deeper principle here, beyond just the limits on judicial power: The case for an individual right to equal treatment for high-level appointed officials is especially weak, and the case for leaving elected officials free to make such high-level appointments as a matter of hard-headed political judgment (in the best case, statesmanlike judgment) is especially strong.

American practice reflects that, including American practice from recent decades. President Reagan of course famously nominated Justice O’Connor because of her sex. It seems clear that Justice Thomas was nominated to replace Justice Marshall because of his race, and Justice Barrett was nominated to replace Justice Ginsburg because of her sex. Some have said that Justice Scalia was appointed partly because he was Italian-American, though that’s less clear, and was certainly less part of the public political calculus. (See pp. 57 & 59 of this interview with Peter Wallison.) As I recall, it wasn’t clear at the time of Justice Sotomayor’s nomination that President Obama would nominate a Hispanic, though as I recall the talk was definitely of nominating a woman, and it seems likely that Justice Sotomayor’s ethnicity played a role in the ultimate decision.

All this was doubtless done in part because such identity-based or identity-influenced appointments were seen as politically beneficial for the appointing President (that’s what politicians do), but the appointments were also endorsed by many on the theory that they were good for the country. There can be a debate about whether such attention to identity in high-level appointments is indeed ultimately good for the country on balance (once one sets aside any individual right to equal treatment, which I think doesn’t apply to such high-level positions). But it seems to me to be at least a plausible argument.

And this is especially so given that the other nonpolitical qualities of the prospective appointees are generally so hard to measure and compare, and their qualities as a Justice are so hard to predict. (For instance, then-Judge Thomas had only a short judicial career at the time, and a serious but not especially noteworthy legal career before that, but has since proven himself an interesting and thoughtful Justice.) To be sure, it’s a mistake to appoint a truly bad candidate just based on identity, but that would rarely be necessary even given some identity-based appointment commitment, since there are lots of candidates from any substantial demographic group who would be above any reasonable threshold.

Such considerations also seem plausible to me not as a matter of “affirmative action,” but rather of realpolitik, which may easily cut against minority groups as well as in favor of them. Doubtless many political officials, for instance, carefully judge when they should deliberately appoint a high-level official who’s a member of a minority group, when they should deliberately appoint someone of a majority group (or of a minority group that is more popular than another minority group among the voters), or when they shouldn’t care about the group membership. It’s unfortunate that they may have to react to voter biases that way, but I don’t think they have a categorical obligation to ignore such biases (again, when it comes to high-level political appointments).

Or to take a slightly different example, involving my own ethnic group, Jews: If for some reason the American-Israeli alliance goes sour, and Israel ends up a major political and military adversary, I wouldn’t expect the President to ignore whether a potential Secretary of Defense is Jewish in making his decision—whether because he thinks there’s a small chance that ethnicity will color even a cabinet member’s loyalty, or because he is worried that enough other people will think so. Conversely, if the President deliberately chooses a Jew in that situation, because he thinks that sends an important message, that too strikes me as acceptable.

Or if a President concludes that appointing a Jewish Secretary of Defense would jeopardize some critical alliance with a bitterly anti-Israel country, rejecting a Jewish candidate for the job strikes me as a sensible position, even if one that reflects unfortunate reality. (So much about reality is indeed unfortunate.) I think the President should keep that decision quiet, partly because I don’t want him publicly admitting that such decisions turn on the preferences of foreign countries, but that’s not a matter of equal protection principles.

The President’s job is to make hardheaded decisions on such matters, with an eye solely towards what he thinks is best for the country (though again understanding that, as a politician, he’ll also consider what’s best for him politically) and not towards fair treatment of particular candidates. And I expect that these factors, cutting both for and against people based on their identities (such as race, sex, religion, sex, or sexual orientation) play a role even more often in ambassadorial appointments, and legitimately so.

Again, our commitment to viewpoint neutrality in selecting public university students, or to nonpartisan merit selection in hiring government employees, doesn’t mean that we expect a President to just select “the best candidate” apart from political affiliation for cabinet secretary, or to ignore ideology (or even political background) in hiring a Justice. Likewise, a commitment to nondiscrimination based on race, sex, or religion in ordinary decisionmaking shouldn’t extend to decisionmaking about Justices or other high-level appointees.

The post Appointing Justices Based on Race, Sex, or Religion appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://bit.ly/35B1ts7
via IFTTT

Appointing Justices Based on Race, Sex, or Religion

A colleague asked: Is it constitutional for President Biden to nominate a Supreme Court Justice because of her race and sex? Even if we were to extend to appointments the Court’s view that sometimes race can be considered as a factor for the sake of “diversity” in higher education, the Court has generally insisted that categorical quotas or other rules that “mak[e] ‘the factor of race … decisive'” are forbidden. The President has said that he would nominate a black woman, not just that he’d consider a candidate’s race or sex as part of the analysis.

My sense is that there is no constitutional problem here, nor, even going beyond the constitutional question, any injustice. And I say this as someone who generally opposes race- and sex-based preferences in government employment, education, contracting, and the like. (Indeed, in 1996, I helped draft Prop. 209 in California, which forbade such preferences, and spoke often in favor of it; last year, I likewise opposed Prop. 16, which tried to repeal Prop. 209.)

Perhaps I’m mistaken on one of these positions, or maybe even on both, but I think high-level government appointments are a very different matter from ordinary hiring or education. Americans are entitled to be treated without regard to race, sex, or religion in the latter, but no-one has a right to any sort of equal treatment in being appointed to high government office.

Such appointments are a political matter, and political factors—including ones related to the identity of the candidate—may rightly play a role in that. In this respect, I think these factors are similar to (though of course not identical to) political affiliation: Government officials generally can’t hire or fire employees or select students or contractors based on political affiliation, see, e.g., Elrod v. Burns (1976); Rutan v. Republican Party (1990); O’Hare Truck Service v. City of Northlake (1996), but of course that rule doesn’t apply to selection of cabinet members (or similar state or local officials), judges, and the like. (Some people have argued that the Religious Test Clause specifically forbids the consideration of religion even in high-level appointments, but I’m skeptical about that, and in any event that provision refers solely to religion.)

The Court has never squarely confronted this as to race discrimination, either at the federal or state level, but it has hinted that such political decisions are different. Consider Mayor of Philadelphia v. Educational Equality League (1974), which involved a challenge to the Mayor’s appointments to a school board nominating panel. The Court ultimately didn’t reach the Mayor’s argument “that judicial review of the discretionary appointments of an executive officer contravenes basic separation-of-powers principles,” because it concluded that there wasn’t enough evidence of racial discrimination on the Mayor’s part. But the Court suggested that “judicial oversight of discretionary appointments may interfere with the ability of an elected official to respond to the mandate of his constituency,” and noted (quoting Carter v. Jury Comm’n of Greene County (1970)) “the problems that would be involved in a federal court’s ordering the Governor of a State to exercise his discretion in a particular way.”

To be sure, that leaves open the possibility that the Equal Protection Clause (or, since that doesn’t apply to the federal government, broader principles of equality, see Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)) forbids discrimination in such appointments, even if federal courts can’t step in to do anything about it. But I think there’s a deeper principle here, beyond just the limits on judicial power: The case for an individual right to equal treatment for high-level appointed officials is especially weak, and the case for leaving elected officials free to make such high-level appointments as a matter of hard-headed political judgment (in the best case, statesmanlike judgment) is especially strong.

American practice reflects that, including American practice from recent decades. President Reagan of course famously nominated Justice O’Connor because of her sex. It seems clear that Justice Thomas was nominated to replace Justice Marshall because of his race, and Justice Barrett was nominated to replace Justice Ginsburg because of her sex. Some have said that Justice Scalia was appointed partly because he was Italian-American, though that’s less clear, and was certainly less part of the public political calculus. (See pp. 57 & 59 of this interview with Peter Wallison.) As I recall, it wasn’t clear at the time of Justice Sotomayor’s nomination that President Obama would nominate a Hispanic, though as I recall the talk was definitely of nominating a woman, and it seems likely that Justice Sotomayor’s ethnicity played a role in the ultimate decision.

All this was doubtless done in part because such identity-based or identity-influenced appointments were seen as politically beneficial for the appointing President (that’s what politicians do), but the appointments were also endorsed by many on the theory that they were good for the country. There can be a debate about whether such attention to identity in high-level appointments is indeed ultimately good for the country on balance (once one sets aside any individual right to equal treatment, which I think doesn’t apply to such high-level positions). But it seems to me to be at least a plausible argument.

And this is especially so given that the other nonpolitical qualities of the prospective appointees are generally so hard to measure and compare, and their qualities as a Justice are so hard to predict. (For instance, then-Judge Thomas had only a short judicial career at the time, and a serious but not especially noteworthy legal career before that, but has since proven himself an interesting and thoughtful Justice.) To be sure, it’s a mistake to appoint a truly bad candidate just based on identity, but that would rarely be necessary even given some identity-based appointment commitment, since there are lots of candidates from any substantial demographic group who would be above any reasonable threshold.

Such considerations also seem plausible to me not as a matter of “affirmative action,” but rather of realpolitik, which may easily cut against minority groups as well as in favor of them. Doubtless many political officials, for instance, carefully judge when they should deliberately appoint a high-level official who’s a member of a minority group, when they should deliberately appoint someone of a majority group (or of a minority group that is more popular than another minority group among the voters), or when they shouldn’t care about the group membership. It’s unfortunate that they may have to react to voter biases that way, but I don’t think they have a categorical obligation to ignore such biases (again, when it comes to high-level political appointments).

Or to take a slightly different example, involving my own ethnic group, Jews: If for some reason the American-Israeli alliance goes sour, and Israel ends up a major political and military adversary, I wouldn’t expect the President to ignore whether a potential Secretary of Defense is Jewish in making his decision—whether because he thinks there’s a small chance that ethnicity will color even a cabinet member’s loyalty, or because he is worried that enough other people will think so. Conversely, if the President deliberately chooses a Jew in that situation, because he thinks that sends an important message, that too strikes me as acceptable.

Or if a President concludes that appointing a Jewish Secretary of Defense would jeopardize some critical alliance with a bitterly anti-Israel country, rejecting a Jewish candidate for the job strikes me as a sensible position, even if one that reflects unfortunate reality. (So much about reality is indeed unfortunate.) I think the President should keep that decision quiet, partly because I don’t want him publicly admitting that such decisions turn on the preferences of foreign countries, but that’s not a matter of equal protection principles.

The President’s job is to make hardheaded decisions on such matters, with an eye solely towards what he thinks is best for the country (though again understanding that, as a politician, he’ll also consider what’s best for him politically) and not towards fair treatment of particular candidates. And I expect that these factors, cutting both for and against people based on their identities (such as race, sex, religion, sex, or sexual orientation) play a role even more often in ambassadorial appointments, and legitimately so.

Again, our commitment to viewpoint neutrality in selecting public university students, or to nonpartisan merit selection in hiring government employees, doesn’t mean that we expect a President to just select “the best candidate” apart from political affiliation for cabinet secretary, or to ignore ideology (or even political background) in hiring a Justice. Likewise, a commitment to nondiscrimination based on race, sex, or religion in ordinary decisionmaking shouldn’t extend to decisionmaking about Justices or other high-level appointees.

The post Appointing Justices Based on Race, Sex, or Religion appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://bit.ly/35B1ts7
via IFTTT

Stormy Daniels Alleges In Court That Former Lawyer Michael Avenatti Stole $300,000 From Her Book Advance

Stormy Daniels Alleges In Court That Former Lawyer Michael Avenatti Stole $300,000 From Her Book Advance

How the tables have turned…

Former porn star Stormy Daniels took to the stand this week in federal court in Manhattan with her former ally Michael Avenatti to accuse the lawyer of stealing nearly half her advance from an $800,000 book deal.

Avenatti was formerly Daniels’ lawyer when the duo took on then-President Donald Trump in 2018, Bloomberg reported this week. 

But that honeymoon has obviously long been over. Daniels said this week in court: “He betrayed my trust. I thought he was my friend.”

She said that she left Avenatti professionally in February 2019 after she received evidence that he had “secretly intercepted multiple electronic payments from her publisher,” Bloomberg reported. Avenatti “played dumb” when he was asked about the payments, she said under questioning by a prosecutor this week.

Daniels said: “I don’t know if there’s a word stronger than furious, but that would be it — and shock.”

She continued:  “He lied to me every day for almost five months.”

Daniels said she first met with Avenatti in 2018 to try and figure out her options for a lawsuit against then-President Donald Trump. “I was trying to find out my legal rights and how to get out of a nondisclosure deal,” she said this week. 

Meanwhile, Avenatti is representing himself after relieving his federal defender from their duties. He questioned Daniels directly this week, asking her: “Ms. Daniels, do you have a single text message, email, voice mail or recording that says I would not take any money from your book deal?”

She replied: “No”. 

Daniels also agreed that her contract with Avenatti allowed him to have proceeds from a legal defense fund, a percentage of any financial “winnings against Donald Trump,” and “a reasonable percentage to be agreed upon by client and attorney” of her future book deal. 

Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Benjamin Sobelman asked Daniels: “At any point, did you and the defendant ever agree that the defendant would get any portion of a book or media opportunity?”

She replied: “No” and continued to allege Avenatti stole $300,000 from the advance. 

He said he “would never take a penny from my book” because he said Daniels was “courageous and deserved it,” she testified. 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/29/2022 – 11:00

via ZeroHedge News https://bit.ly/34j0NH0 Tyler Durden

And The Prize For “Worst Journalism Of The Year” Goes To…

And The Prize For “Worst Journalism Of The Year” Goes To…

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

Media Lies & the Sacred Rites of the Vaccine Cult

The coverage of Szilveszter Csollany’s death shows you being called an “anti-vaxxer” is more about what you think, than what you do.

The Independent has put out an early (and strong) entry for “Worst Journalism of the Year” award, reporting yesterday the death of Hungarian gymnastics coach Szilveszter Csollany under the headline:

Anti-vax Olympic gold medalist Szilveszter Csollany dies of Covid, aged 51

The glaring issue with this headline becomes clear just three paragraphs into the article [our emphasis]:

While Csollany had, according to [Hungarian newspaper Blikk], expressed anti-vaccination views on social media, the six-time World Championship medallist had been vaccinated to allow him to continue to work as a gymnastics coach.

The journalism is terrible, criminally bad.

The evidence supplied for Csollany’s supposed “anti-vaccination views” is non-existent. Second-hand hearsay, at best. No direct quotations, no sources provided.

OffGuardian would be ashamed to publish something so flimsy. Any outlet should.

But, of course, that isn’t the most egregious part – as you can tell from our emphasised quote – the supposed “anti-vaxxer” had been vaccinated.

To bury that in the body, under that headline, is deliberate deception. They know many people will read the title and assume he hadn’t had the vaccine without ever reading the body of the text, and they are relying on that to spread an intentionally false impression.

The very definition of disinformation.

After deliberately misrepresenting the man’s life, they proceed to do the same to his death. Not even granting him the respect of an honest appraisal of his last weeks alive, they totally ignore all the relevant questions pertaining to the man’s health.

They never question why a previously healthy 51-year-old would ever need to be put on a ventilator, or consider how ventilator-associated pneumonia or ventilator-induced trauma may have contributed to his death.

The article readily admits he died “of Covid” despite being vaccinated, but never even attempts to explain that, sparing a throwaway sentence suggesting “he contracted the virus soon after receiving his jab, and thus had not built sufficient levels of antibodies”, which is not supported by any medical opinion or sources.

Having admitted he WAS vaccinated, and only a short time before he died, the article never considers even for a second the obvious logical conclusion: That the vaccine may have played some part in his death, or killed him outright.

It doesn’t even refute the idea, it simply refuses to acknowledge its existence.

But really, the worst aspect of this black-hole of integrity is not the deliberately misleading headline, or the lack of even the most basic journalistic ethics, it is deeper than that. There is an unspoken message concealed within the tone of the writing, and a shifting of linguistic definitions that comes with it.

The implied thought buried in the text is that, even though he was vaccinated, his alleged doubts mean he was still an “anti-vaxxer” and therefore deserved to die. That he brought the Covid curse down upon his head through his expressing “anti-vaccination views”.

As if he called down God’s wrath through speaking heresy.

This is not the first time we have seen the narrative try and separate the meaning of “anti-vaxxer” from a person’s vaccination status.

In Australia the Northern Territories Premier Michael Gunner recently told the media :

If you support or give comfort to anybody who argues against the vaccine, you are an anti-vaxxer, I don’t care what your personal vaccination status is.

Yes, in Australia an anti-vaxxer can be a vaccinated person who “gives comfort” to someone who argues against the vaccine, they don’t have to agree with the anti-vaxxer they simply have to tolerate them.

It’s a dark age belief system, where to even hear heresy spoken is to be tainted by it.

This is all part of the redefining, really the broadening, of what people even mean by “anti-vaxxer” in the first place. Yet more “pivoting of our language”.

Szilveszter Csollany is accused of “expressing anti-vaccination views” on social media, but in our current climate that can mean almost anything.

Opposing vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, or the giving of untested vaccines to children. All have been described as “anti-vax” positions.

You could have every vaccine you’ve ever been offered, but decline the Covid “vaccine” to wait for long-term safety data, and still find yourself branded an “anti-vaxxer”.

And now, finally, you can actually be vaccinated, but be labelled an “anti-vaxxer” because you may have previously expressed doubts or asked questions.

The injection has become the quite literal equivalent of a religious rite, where your beliefs are just as important as your actions, maybe even more so.

The vaccines are “safe and effective”, that’s the mantra for the modern age, chanted in televised chapels.

In the beginning, people were told that if you were anti-vaxxer you would die, for the vaccines are the new blood of Christ, and by accepting them into your heart you are promised life eternal.

This conditioning has gone so deep people are inverting it and spitting it back out: Now, if you die, you must have been an anti-vaxxer.

Being vaccinated, but not believing in the vaccine, is just as bad as rejecting the vaccine, and you will remain unvaccinated in spirit.

And like a modern-day ducking stool, if – like poor Szilveszter Csollany – you get the vaccine and die anyway, it shows only that your faith was not strong enough, you were secretly an anti-vaxxer at heart, and the press will say as much in your obituary.

The media all talk this way.

I can’t tell if they do it dishonestly to create this bizarre atmosphere of religious fervour, or they don’t even realise they’re doing it because they’re so caught up in zealotry. And I’m not sure which is worse.

Either way, the endpoint is clear: A world where being “anti-vaccination” is no longer defined by what you do, but by what you say and think or even what you allow others to think.

An all-purpose label, so vague as to be functionally meaningless, but universally applied to anyone who diverts as much as one degree from the mainstream course, turning them into an outsider who must be shunned.

It really is a cult. There’s no other way to describe it.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/29/2022 – 10:30

via ZeroHedge News https://bit.ly/3gdjs9S Tyler Durden