Japan Boosts Coast Guard Over China’s Patrols Near Senkaku Islands

Japan Boosts Coast Guard Over China’s Patrols Near Senkaku Islands

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Japan’s coast guard will receive 10 new patrol vessels in the coming years as tensions are rising between Tokyo and Beijing over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea.

The Senkakus, or Diayous as they are known in China, are a group of uninhabited islands that are currently controlled by Japan. Tokyo has raised objections to Chinese coast guard patrols near the islands. Japan’s coast guard said Chinese vessels sailed near the Senkakus 34 times in 2021, up from 24 patrols in 2020.

Japan Coast Guard file image

The US has responded to the tensions pledging to defend the Senkakus in the event of an attack. President Biden reaffirmed to Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida that the islands are covered under Article V of the Japan-US Security Treaty, which covers mutual defense.

According to The South China Morning Post, Japan will deploy its first new coast guard vessel sometime within the next two years, and the rest will be delivered sometime before 2030.

But as SCMP reviews, “Japan’s Coastguard is not a military organization but, under the Police Official Duties Execution Act, its vessels are permitted to fire on foreign vessels to prevent a ‘heinous crime,’ including an attempt to land at the Senkakus, Chief Cabinet Secretary Katsunobu Kato said last year.”

Japan is also looking to boost its military so it has the capability to launch attacks on other countries. Under the constitution signed after World War II, Japan’s military is technically only meant for defensive purposes, but Japan’s ruling political party wants that to change.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/05/2022 – 18:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3sXr0FD Tyler Durden

YouTuber Could Be Subjected to Anti-Cyberstalking Order Based on His “Edict” that Viewers Confront Another YouTuber and “Let Her Know Nobody Likes You”

From Strober v. Harris, decided today by the Florida Court of Appeal (Judges Darryl Casanueva, Nelly Khouzam, and Suzanne Labrit):

Rashida Marie Strober appeals an order dismissing her petition for injunction for protection against stalking filed against Thomas Jerome Harris….

Ms. Strober and Mr. Harris each derive a portion of their incomes from their respective YouTube channels. Ms. Strober, a Florida resident, focuses on the issue of colorism, which she defines as skin tone discrimination within the Black community. Mr. Harris, a Georgia resident, testified that he is “considered the largest Black YouTuber” in his sector and is “mostly focused on Black people and the Black family.” Although Mr. Harris testified that he does not consider himself a “shock jock,” he admitted that “people do consider me that.”

Ms. Strober appeared on Mr. Harris’s channel for an interview, which ended up being contentious. Afterward, Ms. Strober asked Mr. Harris to remove the video of her appearance from his channel. Mr. Harris replied that he would remove the video only if Ms. Strober paid him to do so, which she declined to do.

Thereafter, Ms. Strober and Mr. Harris published competing video content on various platforms in which they criticized one another. For Mr. Harris’s part, his videos specifically named and focused on Ms. Strober, including one titled “Dear Rashida Strober.”

After Mr. Harris began posting these videos about Ms. Strober, she received a variety of threatening and disturbing emails, text messages, and phone calls. In addition to outright death threats, these messages also included (1) pictures of mutilated and dismembered human bodies, (2) a picture of a young Black woman in a casket, (3) photographs edited to show Ms. Strober hanging from a tree, (4) the home addresses of Ms. Strober and other members of her family, and (5) a picture of a location near Ms. Strober’s home with the message “see you soon.”

Although most of the threatening messages did not identify the sender, some asserted they were from Mr. Harris, others came from addresses associated with his name, and still others stated they were sent on his behalf. However, none came from the email address through which Mr. Harris had previously communicated with Ms. Strober.

Ms. Strober asked for an “injunction for protection against stalking”:

She alleged that through videos published to his YouTube channel, Mr. Harris had directly threatened her and had also incited threats against her from his viewers. Among other things, Ms. Strober alleged that Mr. Harris had falsely accused her of child abuse, announced her home address online to his viewers, and published a photograph of her minor daughter. The petition asserted that Ms. Strober had received hundreds of threats and other harassing messages as a result, attaching copies of some of them as exhibits….

Among other statements in the excerpts of his videos played at the hearing, Mr. Harris (1) directed viewers to approach Ms. Strober in public, giving them an “edict” to confront her and “let her know nobody likes you”; (2) dared Ms. Strober to sue him over their dispute, saying “Let’s go to war, Bitch. I love to be—I want one of you Black hoes to go to court with me. I want to go to court with one of you Black bitches”; and (3) solicited monetary donations from viewers in order to “make this bitch mad,” praising those who donated because “Y’all gon’ make her kill herself.” …

The trial court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Harris, but the Court of Appeal disagreed, and moved on to the merits:

The trial court also ruled that “… the petition for injunction would be denied” … [because] neither the videos nor the threats were sent to Ms. Strober directly by Mr. Harris himself. But … the trial court’s analysis reflects a misapprehension of the governing statutory standard.

[In relevant part, Florida Statutes section 784.048(1)(d) define “cyberstalk” to mean] …

To engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person … causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.

Thus, the statutory definition of cyberstalk includes not only messages “communicate[d]” by a respondent, but also messages “cause[d] to be communicated” as well.

Under the analysis applied by the trial court, however, the mere failure to establish that Mr. Harris himself sent the videos or threats directly to Ms. Strober ended the inquiry. Specifically, the court ruled that “[a]ll of the alleged threatening and harassing communications by the Petitioner [sic] were videos posted for thousands of others to see, and the communications directly received by the petitioner do not have a direct link to the Respondent other than his publicly-posted video.” But that begs the question whether the “publicly-posted video[s]” “cause[d the threats] to be communicated”—a crucial part of the statutory definition that the court conspicuously failed to address.

As a result of this narrow interpretation of the statutory standard, the court disregarded Ms. Strober’s express allegations and evidence that Mr. Harris had “cause[d the threats] to be communicated” with his videos, even though the court affirmatively found that she began receiving them only after appearing on Mr. Harris’s channel.

The court also never addressed Mr. Harris’s statement—in a video entered into evidence without objection, admitted to be authentic, and played at the hearing—giving his viewers an “edict” to harass Ms. Strober. And, the court declined to determine whether the threatening messages purporting to be from Mr. Harris were “cause[d] to be communicated” by him. Contrary to the trial court’s interpretation of the statute, none of these issues were resolved by the discrete finding that Ms. Strober failed to prove that Mr. Harris sent the threats himself….

The court remanded to the trial court to apply the law. It will be interesting to see how things play out here; the statute expressly excludes “constitutionally protected activity” from “course of conduct,” so one question will be whether calling on audience members to remonstrate with someone is constitutionally unprotected.

Another question might be what sort of order the court can issue without being unconstitutionally vague or overbroad (see David v. Textor (Fla. Ct. App. 2016)). An order that, for instance, bars Harris from “communicat[ing], or to caus[ing] to be communicated … language … directed at a [Strober] … causing substantial emotional distress to [her] and serving no legitimate purpose” might well be both vague (what’s a legitimate purpose) and overbroad (given that a good deal of criticism could indeed “cause” some listeners to send offensive messages or even threats to the subject of the criticism).

But the Court of Appeal was right, I think, in concluding that the statute goes beyond direct messages from the defendant to the plaintiff.

The post YouTuber Could Be Subjected to Anti-Cyberstalking Order Based on His "Edict" that Viewers Confront Another YouTuber and "Let Her Know Nobody Likes You" appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3G4BeHR
via IFTTT

YouTuber Could Be Subjected to Anti-Cyberstalking Order Based on His “Edict” that Viewers Confront Another YouTuber and “Let Her Know Nobody Likes You”

From Strober v. Harris, decided today by the Florida Court of Appeal (Judges Darryl Casanueva, Nelly Khouzam, and Suzanne Labrit):

Rashida Marie Strober appeals an order dismissing her petition for injunction for protection against stalking filed against Thomas Jerome Harris….

Ms. Strober and Mr. Harris each derive a portion of their incomes from their respective YouTube channels. Ms. Strober, a Florida resident, focuses on the issue of colorism, which she defines as skin tone discrimination within the Black community. Mr. Harris, a Georgia resident, testified that he is “considered the largest Black YouTuber” in his sector and is “mostly focused on Black people and the Black family.” Although Mr. Harris testified that he does not consider himself a “shock jock,” he admitted that “people do consider me that.”

Ms. Strober appeared on Mr. Harris’s channel for an interview, which ended up being contentious. Afterward, Ms. Strober asked Mr. Harris to remove the video of her appearance from his channel. Mr. Harris replied that he would remove the video only if Ms. Strober paid him to do so, which she declined to do.

Thereafter, Ms. Strober and Mr. Harris published competing video content on various platforms in which they criticized one another. For Mr. Harris’s part, his videos specifically named and focused on Ms. Strober, including one titled “Dear Rashida Strober.”

After Mr. Harris began posting these videos about Ms. Strober, she received a variety of threatening and disturbing emails, text messages, and phone calls. In addition to outright death threats, these messages also included (1) pictures of mutilated and dismembered human bodies, (2) a picture of a young Black woman in a casket, (3) photographs edited to show Ms. Strober hanging from a tree, (4) the home addresses of Ms. Strober and other members of her family, and (5) a picture of a location near Ms. Strober’s home with the message “see you soon.”

Although most of the threatening messages did not identify the sender, some asserted they were from Mr. Harris, others came from addresses associated with his name, and still others stated they were sent on his behalf. However, none came from the email address through which Mr. Harris had previously communicated with Ms. Strober.

Ms. Strober asked for an “injunction for protection against stalking”:

She alleged that through videos published to his YouTube channel, Mr. Harris had directly threatened her and had also incited threats against her from his viewers. Among other things, Ms. Strober alleged that Mr. Harris had falsely accused her of child abuse, announced her home address online to his viewers, and published a photograph of her minor daughter. The petition asserted that Ms. Strober had received hundreds of threats and other harassing messages as a result, attaching copies of some of them as exhibits….

Among other statements in the excerpts of his videos played at the hearing, Mr. Harris (1) directed viewers to approach Ms. Strober in public, giving them an “edict” to confront her and “let her know nobody likes you”; (2) dared Ms. Strober to sue him over their dispute, saying “Let’s go to war, Bitch. I love to be—I want one of you Black hoes to go to court with me. I want to go to court with one of you Black bitches”; and (3) solicited monetary donations from viewers in order to “make this bitch mad,” praising those who donated because “Y’all gon’ make her kill herself.” …

The trial court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Harris, but the Court of Appeal disagreed, and moved on to the merits:

The trial court also ruled that “… the petition for injunction would be denied” … [because] neither the videos nor the threats were sent to Ms. Strober directly by Mr. Harris himself. But … the trial court’s analysis reflects a misapprehension of the governing statutory standard.

[In relevant part, Florida Statutes section 784.048(1)(d) define “cyberstalk” to mean] …

To engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person … causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.

Thus, the statutory definition of cyberstalk includes not only messages “communicate[d]” by a respondent, but also messages “cause[d] to be communicated” as well.

Under the analysis applied by the trial court, however, the mere failure to establish that Mr. Harris himself sent the videos or threats directly to Ms. Strober ended the inquiry. Specifically, the court ruled that “[a]ll of the alleged threatening and harassing communications by the Petitioner [sic] were videos posted for thousands of others to see, and the communications directly received by the petitioner do not have a direct link to the Respondent other than his publicly-posted video.” But that begs the question whether the “publicly-posted video[s]” “cause[d the threats] to be communicated”—a crucial part of the statutory definition that the court conspicuously failed to address.

As a result of this narrow interpretation of the statutory standard, the court disregarded Ms. Strober’s express allegations and evidence that Mr. Harris had “cause[d the threats] to be communicated” with his videos, even though the court affirmatively found that she began receiving them only after appearing on Mr. Harris’s channel.

The court also never addressed Mr. Harris’s statement—in a video entered into evidence without objection, admitted to be authentic, and played at the hearing—giving his viewers an “edict” to harass Ms. Strober. And, the court declined to determine whether the threatening messages purporting to be from Mr. Harris were “cause[d] to be communicated” by him. Contrary to the trial court’s interpretation of the statute, none of these issues were resolved by the discrete finding that Ms. Strober failed to prove that Mr. Harris sent the threats himself….

The court remanded to the trial court to apply the law. It will be interesting to see how things play out here; the statute expressly excludes “constitutionally protected activity” from “course of conduct,” so one question will be whether calling on audience members to remonstrate with someone is constitutionally unprotected.

Another question might be what sort of order the court can issue without being unconstitutionally vague or overbroad (see David v. Textor (Fla. Ct. App. 2016)). An order that, for instance, bars Harris from “communicat[ing], or to caus[ing] to be communicated … language … directed at a [Strober] … causing substantial emotional distress to [her] and serving no legitimate purpose” might well be both vague (what’s a legitimate purpose) and overbroad (given that a good deal of criticism could indeed “cause” some listeners to send offensive messages or even threats to the subject of the criticism).

But the Court of Appeal was right, I think, in concluding that the statute goes beyond direct messages from the defendant to the plaintiff.

The post YouTuber Could Be Subjected to Anti-Cyberstalking Order Based on His "Edict" that Viewers Confront Another YouTuber and "Let Her Know Nobody Likes You" appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3G4BeHR
via IFTTT

“Get Ready” For Another Snowstorm To Blast Northeast

“Get Ready” For Another Snowstorm To Blast Northeast

Following a major snowstorm in the mid-Atlantic Monday, AccuWeather meteorologists are monitoring another storm that could bring snowfall to Washington, D.C. to Baltimore to Philadelphia to New York City to Boston late this week. 

“Get ready! We have another storm on the way Thursday night into Friday,” AccuWeather Chief Meteorologist Bernie Rayno said. He added the storm will affect a large swath of the Northeast and could even impact Interstate-95 in Northern Virginia, the scene on Monday where snow paralyzed a strip of highway that left hundreds of motorists stranded in their vehicles for up to 24 hours. 

“Here are the ingredients: A fresh injection of cold air will be coming across the Midwest Wednesday and into the Northeast Thursday. We have another jet stream disturbance, which is going to cause a dip in the jet stream across the central parts of the United States Wednesday night into Thursday,” Rayno explained. “That’s going to form the storm on Thursday.”

It’s still too early to determine the storm’s exact path and which areas will receive the heaviest snow as forecasting models continue to evolve. Still, there is an overall consensus the storm will track across Virginia then possibly up the Eastern Seaboard. 

“The storm is unlikely to repeat the magnitude of heavy snow in much of Virginia,” Rayno said, but heavy snow will likely be seen in the Northeast. 

Another round of snow for major metro areas across the mid-Atlantic could cause more delays along the I-95. There is also the risk of a surge in flight cancellations. Since the storm could also affect Northeast cities, the impact might be more widespread than the storm earlier this week. 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/05/2022 – 17:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/337UvK0 Tyler Durden

Andrew Yang Wants To Break the Two-Party System


Screen Shot 2022-01-05 at 2.03.52 PM

Independents are now America’s largest group of voters.

After George Bush’s presidency, fewer people called themselves Republicans. After Obama’s, fewer called themselves Democrats.

How will these independents vote?

Andrew Yang hopes they’ll vote for him.

In my latest video, the former Democrat explains why he’s started a new party, the Forward Party.

“Our country is polarized and getting worse all the time…seeing each other as mortal enemies…I’m committed to doing everything I can to help change it.”

He’s written a book about that, Forward.

Compared with most politicians, Yang is refreshing. He opposes censoring people for what they say. Saturday Night Live fired a comedian after he called Yang a “Jew Chink.” Yang tells me, “I didn’t think that was right…he’s a comedian. It’s his job to push boundaries.”

Yang says other things presidential candidates don’t say, like: “Running for president requires traits that make you a terrible leader. You make false promises [and] regularly claim powers you do not have.”

He cites worker retraining as an example. Governments keep funding expensive job training—the federal government alone has 43 retraining programs, but they almost never work. Many promise computer-coding jobs, but Yang points out, “If you actually go to a town that had the plant close, you find no one working as a coder….People walk out with valueless certificates and no job.”

Unfortunately, Yang’s plan to help people, a universal basic income, may be even worse.

Yang would simply give every adult $1,000 a month. But the United States is already going bankrupt, and a UBI would give more of your tax money even to people who don’t need it.

Yang’s UBI wouldn’t even replace existing welfare programs [Charles Murray’s proposal], so a drug user could just snort up $1,000 and apply for more handouts. His plan would encourage lazy people to stay lazy. People like me, when I was young.

I say to Yang, “I wouldn’t have overcome my stuttering and worked as hard as I did if I had free money. Not having it…drove me.”

“I’m a data guy,” he replies, claiming more people would start businesses. “If you have that fallback, it makes you more likely to take a risk.”

But at what cost? Already, we see an effect of government’s reckless stimulus handouts: inflation is the highest in 40 years. Yang’s UBI would give away four times that every year.

A better Forward Party proposal is automatic tax filing.

“We waste so much time figuring out our taxes,” Yang complains. “It’s stupid.”

True. In some countries, government just sends you a bill or refund. You can dispute the results, but if you don’t, you can file taxes in less than a minute.

The reason the USA does not have automatic filing, says Yang, is because “Intuit is making too much money off TurboTax. It lobbied”—actually, H&R Block and others lobbied, too—”and said, no, no, no! [You] can’t do it automatically!”

Yang says other sensible things that Democratic politicians rarely say. During the heat of last year’s anti-police anger, activists screamed at him because he opposed defunding the police. He stood his ground.

Yang’s run businesses, so he doesn’t say stupid anti-capitalist things.

But often, he acts like a typical politician. At the Democratic National Convention, he gushed over Biden and Harris. “You’re just sucking up!” I tell him.

“I was willing to do or say whatever I thought would help get Trump out,” Yang replies.

Why?

“Trump was erratic,” says Yang, “not leading in a positive direction.”

I’m glad Yang is around, with a new party. More choices are a good thing. Yang is a decent man who brings up some fresh ideas.

Unfortunately, many of Yang’s ideas are bad.

He calls climate change an “existential threat.” He wants every gun owner to re-register every five years. He wants to ban assault weapons but can’t define them. He promotes government-funded journalism.

But at the end of our interview, we agreed about one thing:

“We can see very clearly the way our country is going,” Yang concludes. “We deserve better than this.”

COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

The post Andrew Yang Wants To Break the Two-Party System appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3zvTuY0
via IFTTT

Daily Briefing: The Fed Amps Up Aggression–Stocks Plunge Immediately

Daily Briefing: The Fed Amps Up Aggression–Stocks Plunge Immediately

The U.S. Fed just released its meeting minutes, hinting that it may get more aggressive with tightening the balance sheet and reducing stimulus. That caused stocks to plunge immediately. China just launched a wallet app for its own digital Yuan currency with the aim to expand its usage to more people in the country and, simultaneously, achieve more control over crypto in the country. The digital Yuan is not a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin, but instead is issued and controlled by the People’s Bank of China. In the U.S., private-sector job growth increased by 807,000 payrolls in December, which is the strongest growth since May, according to the ADP National Employment Report released Wednesday. However, absenteeism resulting from the Omicron variant is still an imminent threat to non-farm payroll growth. 42 Macro CEO and founder Darius Dale joins to discuss all this as well as his developing macro outlook for 2022. Interviewed by Maggie Lake. Want to submit questions? Drop them right here on the Exchange: https://rvtv.io/34tOSGN

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/05/2022 – 13:58

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3JMDl5u Tyler Durden

Andrew Yang Wants To Break the Two-Party System


Screen Shot 2022-01-05 at 2.03.52 PM

Independents are now America’s largest group of voters.

After George Bush’s presidency, fewer people called themselves Republicans. After Obama’s, fewer called themselves Democrats.

How will these independents vote?

Andrew Yang hopes they’ll vote for him.

In my latest video, the former Democrat explains why he’s started a new party, the Forward Party.

“Our country is polarized and getting worse all the time…seeing each other as mortal enemies…I’m committed to doing everything I can to help change it.”

He’s written a book about that, Forward.

Compared with most politicians, Yang is refreshing. He opposes censoring people for what they say. Saturday Night Live fired a comedian after he called Yang a “Jew Chink.” Yang tells me, “I didn’t think that was right…he’s a comedian. It’s his job to push boundaries.”

Yang says other things presidential candidates don’t say, like: “Running for president requires traits that make you a terrible leader. You make false promises [and] regularly claim powers you do not have.”

He cites worker retraining as an example. Governments keep funding expensive job training—the federal government alone has 43 retraining programs, but they almost never work. Many promise computer-coding jobs, but Yang points out, “If you actually go to a town that had the plant close, you find no one working as a coder….People walk out with valueless certificates and no job.”

Unfortunately, Yang’s plan to help people, a universal basic income, may be even worse.

Yang would simply give every adult $1,000 a month. But the United States is already going bankrupt, and a UBI would give more of your tax money even to people who don’t need it.

Yang’s UBI wouldn’t even replace existing welfare programs [Charles Murray’s proposal], so a drug user could just snort up $1,000 and apply for more handouts. His plan would encourage lazy people to stay lazy. People like me, when I was young.

I say to Yang, “I wouldn’t have overcome my stuttering and worked as hard as I did if I had free money. Not having it…drove me.”

“I’m a data guy,” he replies, claiming more people would start businesses. “If you have that fallback, it makes you more likely to take a risk.”

But at what cost? Already, we see an effect of government’s reckless stimulus handouts: inflation is the highest in 40 years. Yang’s UBI would give away four times that every year.

A better Forward Party proposal is automatic tax filing.

“We waste so much time figuring out our taxes,” Yang complains. “It’s stupid.”

True. In some countries, government just sends you a bill or refund. You can dispute the results, but if you don’t, you can file taxes in less than a minute.

The reason the USA does not have automatic filing, says Yang, is because “Intuit is making too much money off TurboTax. It lobbied”—actually, H&R Block and others lobbied, too—”and said, no, no, no! [You] can’t do it automatically!”

Yang says other sensible things that Democratic politicians rarely say. During the heat of last year’s anti-police anger, activists screamed at him because he opposed defunding the police. He stood his ground.

Yang’s run businesses, so he doesn’t say stupid anti-capitalist things.

But often, he acts like a typical politician. At the Democratic National Convention, he gushed over Biden and Harris. “You’re just sucking up!” I tell him.

“I was willing to do or say whatever I thought would help get Trump out,” Yang replies.

Why?

“Trump was erratic,” says Yang, “not leading in a positive direction.”

I’m glad Yang is around, with a new party. More choices are a good thing. Yang is a decent man who brings up some fresh ideas.

Unfortunately, many of Yang’s ideas are bad.

He calls climate change an “existential threat.” He wants every gun owner to re-register every five years. He wants to ban assault weapons but can’t define them. He promotes government-funded journalism.

But at the end of our interview, we agreed about one thing:

“We can see very clearly the way our country is going,” Yang concludes. “We deserve better than this.”

COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

The post Andrew Yang Wants To Break the Two-Party System appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3zvTuY0
via IFTTT

Question Authority vs. Trust Science

Astral Codex Ten has an interesting piece on the subject, using Don’t Look Up (spoilers) as the launching point. I haven’t seen Don’t Look Up, but the analysis that follows strikes me as quite sound; an excerpt:

Progressivism, like conservatism and every other political philosophy, is big and complicated and self-contradictory. It tells a lot of stories to define and justify itself. Here are two of them:

First, a story of scruffy hippies and activists protesting the Man, that embodiment of capitalism and conformism and respectability. Think Stonewall, where gay people on the margins of society spat in the face of their supposed betters and demanded their rights. Even academics are part of this tradition: Chomsky and Herman’s Manufacturing Consent accuses the mainstream media of being the Man. It’s jingoist and obsessed with justifying America’s foreign adventures; we need brave truth-tellers to point out where it goes wrong. Environmentalism shares some of this same ethos. In Erin Brockovich, a giant corporation is poisoning people, lying about it, and has bribed or corrupted everyone else into taking their side. Only one brave activist is able to put the pieces together and stand up for ordinary people. [I would add that, even apart from progressivism in general, modern progressive Hollywood is all about that, perhaps because audiences generally like to root for the feisty mavericks over the clumsy establishment. -EV]

Second, a story that comes out of the Creationism Wars of the early 00s. We are the “reality-based community”, the sane people, the normalpeople, the people with college degrees and non-spittle-covered keyboards. They are unwashed uneducated lunatics who think that evolution is a lie and Obama was born in Kenya and vaccines cause autism and COVID isn’t real. Maybe they should have been clued in by the fact that 100% of smart people and institutions are on our side, and they are just a couple of weirdos who don’t even agree with each other consistently. If this narrative has a movie, it must be Idiocracy – though a runner up might be Behind the Curve, the documentary about flat-earthers.

The first narrative says “there’s a consensus reality constructed by respectable people, and a few wild-eyed weirdos saying they’ve seen through the veil and it’s all lies…and you should trust the weirdos!” The second starts the same way, but ends “…and you should trust consensus reality!” They’re not actually contradictory – you could be talking about different questions! You are talking about different questions! But they’re contradictory at the mythic narrative level where they’re trying to operate. On that level, there should always be a good guy and a bad guy, and you should be able to tell who’s who by their facial hair or at least the color of their clothing. You shouldn’t have to learn a bunch of facts about the biochemistry of hexavalent chromium (or whatever it was Erin Brockovich was investigating) to resolve the object-level issue; nobody has time for that!

Is it a problem that people have two contradictory narratives at the same time? Take it from a psychiatrist: not at all. People are great at this. Loads of men are walking around with stories like “women are perfect angels” and “women are terrifying demons” in their heads all the time, totally untroubled by the contradiction. Different situations will activate one schema or the other; one that activates both might just never come up….

Read the whole piece.

The post Question Authority vs. Trust Science appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3G1hzbV
via IFTTT

The Imbecile King Who Put His Foot On The Gas Pedal

The Imbecile King Who Put His Foot On The Gas Pedal

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

Charles II was only three years old when he became the supreme ruler of the Spanish Empire in 1665. But anyone who took just one look at the child knew they were all doomed.

Charles had come from a long line of prominent European nobles known as the Habsburgs– a family so exclusive that they frequently married one another in order to keep their blood line ‘pure’.

Genetic defects abounded as a result.

Charles II inherited some of the worst of these genetic defects; his father and mother were uncle/niece. And his grandparents were first cousins.

So it comes as no surprise that Charles II was deformed, spindly, weak, constantly sick, and partially paralyzed. He was also referred to by his contemporaries as the ‘imbecile king’ for his slow-witted stupidity.

Spain had been the dominant European superpower only a century prior to Charles II. It had vast colonies all over the world, a terrifying army and navy, and unimaginable wealth.

But history proves that an Empire’s wealth and power never last forever.

And even well before Charles II took the throne, Spanish rulers were already running everything into the ground.

One clear lesson from history is that empires tend to be extremely expensive… especially when you’re the dominant superpower, and all of your rivals are constantly waging war against you.

Spain was no exception. Their empire was extremely expensive to administer, and they were routinely engaged in costly wars.

The emperors were forced to borrow a lot of money to pay for these wars. And Spain’s debt became so vast that the government defaulted at least SEVEN TIMES between the mid 1500s and mid 1600s.

Desperate to make ends meet, the government also hiked taxes to exorbitant levels, including imposing a 14% sales tax. (Somewhere the governor of California is taking notes…)

The government also predictably began rapidly expanding the money supply and debasing its own currency… resulting in one of the worst long-term episodes of inflation in all of human history up to that point.

Spain’s Emperors also began interfering heavily in trade and commerce; they passed rules granting special monopolies to favored businesses, essentially killing off competition, and they inserted extreme government bureaucracy into some of the most important industries like shipping and mining.

It wasn’t long before economic and trade activity began to shrink as a result of these policies.

Between 1600 and 1700, in fact, Spanish shipping volume from the New World had declined by an astonishing 75%.

Part of this decline was because of emerging social trends.

In the early 1400s and early 1500s, the seas were teeming with Spanish explorers– Cortes, Pizarro, de Soto, Ponce de Leon, etc. These men were regarded as national heroes in Spain, and international trade was considered a highly respected industry.

By the mid 1600s, however, trade, commerce, and production had all fallen out of favor. Traders and industrialists were viewed with suspicion instead of esteem.

The economies in cities like Valencia, which had once been famous for its factories and high quality products, quickly decayed. And suddenly Spain found itself importing most of its goods and services from its chief rivals– France, England, and the Netherlands.

Meanwhile the Spanish Inquisition was busy killing off thousands of intellectuals… and condemning tens of thousands more to life imprisonment.

Their crime? Expressing independent thought that differed from the official narrative.

Spain’s message to the world was clear: freedom of thought had no place in the Empire. So anyone capable of innovation stayed as far away as possible.

And as a final point, Spain had suffered a series of embarrassing military defeats from the late 1500s through the mid 1600s, including the Spanish Armada’s humiliating loss to the English in 1588.

Suddenly the rest of Europe realized that Spain was not invincible. The Empire was bankrupt, economically weak, socially decayed. And its military had been embarrassed.

Remember– this was already the situation BEFORE 1665.

And that’s when Charles II took the throne.

In other words, a weak, mentally incompetent fool was put in charge of an Empire that was already in serious decline… and whose chief rivals were rising rapidly.

You don’t need a PhD in European History to figure out how that movie ended: the situation became much worse under Charles II.

And within a few decades, Spain would go on to lose a major war against its rivals that struck the final blow to its dominance.

That’s when the torch was passed, and France became the dominant superpower. Eventually the UK surpassed France, then the United States surpassed the UK.

This cycle has been taking place for more than 5,000 years. Empires rise and fall. Economies rise and fall. And no nation holds the top spot forever.

It’s not hard to understand why.

When an economy is on the rise, people are hungry. They work hard. They save money. They’re focused on the future.

Governments run lean budgets and spend responsibly. They maintain a sound currency.

Once an economy has reached its peak, however, priorities change. Hard work and saving are no longer prized social values. People become more focused on consuming in the present, rather than investing in the future.

Debt levels skyrocket. Government spending balloons. Regulations soar. Prices rise.

Little by little, a nation chips away at the very values and institutions that made them powerful to begin with.

If fiscal responsibility has made the nation wealthy, they begin printing record sums of money, engineering inflation, and taking on mountains of debt.

If capitalism has made the economy prosperous, they cheer socialism.

If personal freedom and self-reliance have created a strong society, they embrace totalitarianism, intolerance, and censorship.

Not to mention, there always seems to be some rival, rising power lurking, ready to take advantage of the situation… and some weak leadership like Charles II who hits the gas pedal on the way towards the precipice.

This story is as old as human civilization. And while the exact circumstances today are different, the themes are very similar.

*  *  *

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

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/05/2022 – 17:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/337RGbS Tyler Durden

Question Authority vs. Trust Science

Astral Codex Ten has an interesting piece on the subject, using Don’t Look Up (spoilers) as the launching point. I haven’t seen Don’t Look Up, but the analysis that follows strikes me as quite sound; an excerpt:

Progressivism, like conservatism and every other political philosophy, is big and complicated and self-contradictory. It tells a lot of stories to define and justify itself. Here are two of them:

First, a story of scruffy hippies and activists protesting the Man, that embodiment of capitalism and conformism and respectability. Think Stonewall, where gay people on the margins of society spat in the face of their supposed betters and demanded their rights. Even academics are part of this tradition: Chomsky and Herman’s Manufacturing Consent accuses the mainstream media of being the Man. It’s jingoist and obsessed with justifying America’s foreign adventures; we need brave truth-tellers to point out where it goes wrong. Environmentalism shares some of this same ethos. In Erin Brockovich, a giant corporation is poisoning people, lying about it, and has bribed or corrupted everyone else into taking their side. Only one brave activist is able to put the pieces together and stand up for ordinary people. [I would add that, even apart from progressivism in general, modern progressive Hollywood is all about that, perhaps because audiences generally like to root for the feisty mavericks over the clumsy establishment. -EV]

Second, a story that comes out of the Creationism Wars of the early 00s. We are the “reality-based community”, the sane people, the normalpeople, the people with college degrees and non-spittle-covered keyboards. They are unwashed uneducated lunatics who think that evolution is a lie and Obama was born in Kenya and vaccines cause autism and COVID isn’t real. Maybe they should have been clued in by the fact that 100% of smart people and institutions are on our side, and they are just a couple of weirdos who don’t even agree with each other consistently. If this narrative has a movie, it must be Idiocracy – though a runner up might be Behind the Curve, the documentary about flat-earthers.

The first narrative says “there’s a consensus reality constructed by respectable people, and a few wild-eyed weirdos saying they’ve seen through the veil and it’s all lies…and you should trust the weirdos!” The second starts the same way, but ends “…and you should trust consensus reality!” They’re not actually contradictory – you could be talking about different questions! You are talking about different questions! But they’re contradictory at the mythic narrative level where they’re trying to operate. On that level, there should always be a good guy and a bad guy, and you should be able to tell who’s who by their facial hair or at least the color of their clothing. You shouldn’t have to learn a bunch of facts about the biochemistry of hexavalent chromium (or whatever it was Erin Brockovich was investigating) to resolve the object-level issue; nobody has time for that!

Is it a problem that people have two contradictory narratives at the same time? Take it from a psychiatrist: not at all. People are great at this. Loads of men are walking around with stories like “women are perfect angels” and “women are terrifying demons” in their heads all the time, totally untroubled by the contradiction. Different situations will activate one schema or the other; one that activates both might just never come up….

Read the whole piece.

The post Question Authority vs. Trust Science appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3G1hzbV
via IFTTT