Month: January 2022

My NBC Article on the Affirmative Action Cases Accepted by the Supreme Court.


Harvard

NBC News just posted my article on what the Supreme Court should do in the two affirmative action cases it agreed to hear earlier today. Here is an excerpt:

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, a case challenging the use of race in admissions at the Ivy League institution. It will also hear a similar case against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

This litigation highlights a number of long-standing flaws in the “diversity” rationale for racial preferences embraced by previous court decisions and adopted by colleges around the country. The Harvard case also features extensive evidence indicating the school’s admissions system specifically discriminates against Asian American applicants — not just by comparison with other racial minorities but even relative to whites. In the Harvard case, the Supreme Court will for the first time consider this increasingly troubling aspect of affirmative action policy.

If courts stuck closely to the text of the laws they interpret, the case against Harvard would be an easy one for the school to lose. As a private institution, Harvard is not bound by constitutional constraints against racial discrimination (UNC, by contrast, is a public university). But it is subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, since it receives federal funds for student financial aid and other purposes. Title VI bars discrimination “on the ground of race, color, or national origin” in any education program receiving federal funds, and it doesn’t exempt well-intentioned racial discrimination in the form of affirmative action.

But the Supreme Court (wrongly, in my view) has long interpreted Title VI to allow racial preferences in situations where the court’s interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment would permit them. And a series of Supreme Court rulings…. have held that racial preferences in higher education admissions are permissible under the 14th Amendment in some situations in which they are used to promote educationally beneficial “diversity…”

When the court considers the Harvard and UNC cases, it would do well to reject the “diversity” rationale entirely, or at least subject it to much tougher standards of review….

[T]he racial and ethnic categories used by Harvard and many other universities make little sense. As one expert in an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs pointed out, the “Hispanic” or “Latino” category lumps together such varied groups as Argentinians, Cubans, Mexicans and immigrants from Spain. “Asian Americans” include racial and ethnic groups that cover more than half the world’s population, such as Chinese people, Indians and Filipinos, among others….

Needless to say, these groups have vastly different histories. Lumping them into a few crudely defined categories makes a mockery of the idea that universities are genuinely pursuing diversity as opposed to engaging in gross stereotyping.

Perhaps even worse, the diversity rationale could be used to justify all kinds of racial and ethnic preferences….

[I]f compensatory justice is the true goal, Harvard’s and other institutions’ discrimination against Asian American applicants is even more egregious. Asian groups such as Chinese and Japanese Americans were themselves victims to a long history of discrimination by state and federal governments….

Such anti-Asian discrimination is not limited to Harvard, but has also arisen in admissions policy elsewhere….

Sadly, these policies are often pursued by progressives for the well-intentioned purposes of promoting equality and diversity. But good intentions are not enough….

The political right has its own awful record of anti-Asian bigotry. But the wrongs of one side of the political spectrum cannot justify those of the other.

NOTE: As pointed out in the article, my wife, Alison Somin, has coauthored an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the Harvard case, and is also co-counsel for the plaintiffs in a case challenging anti-Asian discrimination at the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, in Fairfax, Virginia.

 

The post My NBC Article on the Affirmative Action Cases Accepted by the Supreme Court. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3rN6Fk3
via IFTTT

How Rate Hikes May Trigger A Recession (Or Market Crash)

How Rate Hikes May Trigger A Recession (Or Market Crash)

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

The history of economic development cannot be understood without the importance of recession periods. Recessions are often the result of the excess accumulated in previous years. Creative destruction after a period of excess used to drive a stronger recovery and continued economic development. That was until risky assets became the biggest concern for policymakers.

From the late seventies and early eighties US housing slump and automobile industry crisis to the technology and housing bubble burst there is a clear process of causation created by interest rate policy. Constant decreases in interest rates lead to excessive risk-taking, complacency and accumulation of exposure to increasingly expensive assets under the perception that there is no risk. Bubbles become larger and more dangerous because interest rates are kept abnormally low for a prolonged period and it disguises risk, clouding citizens’ and investors’ perception of danger in elevated valuations. Cheap money leads to generalized and dangerous risk exposure.

After every recession, central banks keep rates too low for too long even in growth periods because policymakers’ fear asset price corrections, and this leads to complacency and the creation of bubbles everywhere. Once policymakers decide to raise rates, they often cause a recession because the amount of risk taken by even the most conservative investor or household is simply too high. By the time that central banks decide to finally raise rates the bubbles are already more than a market headline, but a dangerous and widespread accumulation of risk that negatively affects millions of unsuspecting citizens.

The question is what is worse, the rate cuts or the rate hikes?

Rate hikes tend to trigger recessions, as Jesse Colombo or Lance Roberts have shown in numerous charts, but what causes them is previous extraordinary levels of accumulated risks throughout the economy.

The boom-and-bust cycle is more severe and frequent, as we have seen since the late seventies. That is why central banks never truly normalize policy, rates remain in negative territory in real terms. And investors know it.

That is why there is a perverse incentive for households, businesses, and investors to buy any correction.

The fear of interest rate hikes allows us to analyse what has happened in other similar periods.

Between 1985 and 1990 the Fed raised rates 325 basis points and the S&P 500 rose 45%.

The rate hike cycle drove emerging economies like Mexico to the ground and states like California went bankrupt.

Between 1993 and 2000 the Fed also raised rates by 325 basis points and the US stock market shot up 225%.

In that period, we saw the Tech bubble burst and the early 2000s recession. In the 2003 to 2007 period the Fed raised rates by 375 basis points and the market rose 30%. It brought the great financial crisis and the housing bubble burst.

Between 2015 and 2020, rates rose 200 basis points and the US index advanced 65%.

In that period, in 2018, we saw the Fed change its rate-hike course rapidly after a market correction.

Will the Federal Reserve change its rate hike plan this time?

History shows us that central banks care much more about risky assets – stocks and bonds – than they say and certainly a lot more than they do about inflation.

At the beginning of 2016, faced with a cycle of expected rate hikes, the S&P500 corrected 11.3% until January 20th. The Federal Reserve ended up raising rates just once that year despite announcing four hikes. Why did they change? “Geopolitical risk and weakening financial conditions”. Exactly what is happening now.

In December 2018, after years of a bull market, the US stock market fell by 9%, and on January 3rd, 2019, it corrected another 3.5%. The next day, the Federal Reserve announced that it was “going to be patient” and stopped its rate hike path on its tracks.

It is true that inflation was not 7% ​​then and the Federal Reserve may probably be more tolerant of a market correction than when the US CPI was 3%, but we cannot forget that history shows us that central banks always maintain looser conditions than it seems from their messages and headlines.

The evidence of the United States economic slowdown is everywhere. Retail sales, job creation, stagnant labor force participation, declining real wages and slowing capital expenditure. To all this we must add the continued rise in energy commodities due to the Ukraine tensions.

The Federal Reserve is aware of the “bubble of everything” created in recent years and the elevated levels of debt throughout the economy.

Unfortunately, the Fed has already left rates low, and asset purchases high, for too long to prevent an inevitable negative economic effect. Even worse, the solution will likely be to repeat the same policies that created the conditions for excess.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/24/2022 – 19:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3gb2V6J Tyler Durden

Truckers Head To Ottawa In ‘Freedom Rally’ Against Vaccine Mandate

Truckers Head To Ottawa In ‘Freedom Rally’ Against Vaccine Mandate

The cross-border vaccine mandates for truckers in/out of Canada have caused a stir among the trucking community. By Sunday, truckers from around the country embarked in several convoys headed to Ottawa, Canada’s capital, to protest a federal vaccine mandate, according to CBC News. 

Called the “Freedom Rally” against the federal mandate for cross-border truckers, Canadian truck drivers are furious with the Jan. 15 order to force unvaxxed drivers into two-week quarantine and COVID-19 testing before crossing into Canada. 

At least 26,000 out of the 160,000 (16.3%) drivers who make frequent trips, hauling goods across the Canada-US will be sidelined. The convoy began one day after the US required truck drivers at border crossings with Canada to be fully vaccinated. 

A GoFundMe has been set up to help drivers participating in the rally cover expenses like fuel and food. By Monday, over 40,500 people donated to the cause, raising more than CAD 3 million. 

Organizers of the rally said, “to our fellow Canadians, the time for political over reach is over.” 

Our current government is implementing rules and mandates that are destroying the foundation of our businesses, industries and livelihoods. Canadians have been integral to the fabric of humanity in many ways that have shaped the planet.

We are a peaceful country that has helped protect nations across the globe from tyrannical governments who oppressed their people, and now it seems it is happening here. We are taking our fight to the doorsteps of our Federal Government and demanding that they cease all mandates against its people. Small businesses are being destroyed, homes are being destroyed, and people are being mistreated and denied fundamental necessities to survive. It’s our duty as Canadians to put an end to these mandates. It is imperative that this happens because if we don’t, our country will no longer be the country we have come to love. We are doing this for our future Generations and to regain our lives back.

We are asking for donations to help with the costs of fuel first, and hopefully food and lodgings to help ease the pressures of this arduous task.

It’s a small price to pay for our freedoms. We thank you all for your Donations and know that you are helping reshape this once beautiful country back to the way it was.

In order for your generous donations to flow smoothly, the good people at Go Fund Me will be sending donations directly to our bulk fuel supplier and are working out the details now which means your hard-earned money is going to straight to who it was meant for and need not flow through anyone else. Any leftover donations will be donated to a credible Veterans organization which will be chosen by the donors.

The goal of the convoy is to arrive in Ottawa later this week and create a large enough presence to demand lawmakers to put an end to the mandate. 

Sidelining truckers on the Canada-US border has been a perfect storm for already stressed supply chains. Some supermarkets are already reporting rising food inflation and shortages of certain products. 

Undoubtedly, this will bring more pressure in terms of bottlenecks and the availability of truck drivers to traverse the border as the number of eligible drivers shrinks due to the mandate. 

Here are some views from the ground of the convoy rolling down highways to Ottawa.

We still don’t know how bad the disruption will be. Still, considering a significant amount of fresh fruits and vegetables flow across North American borders, it could be a logistics nightmare if the mandates on both sides of the border aren’t repealed. 

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/24/2022 – 18:50

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

Will the Supreme Court Ask Harvard How it Justifies Treating “Asian Americans” as a Homogenous Category?

Affirmative action in higher education raises all sorts of interesting legal, political, and ethical issues. In the specific context of litigation alleging that Harvard discriminates against Asian students, now pending before the Supreme Court, I wonder if any of the Justice will ask Harvard University’s counsel how it justifies classifying “Asian Americans” as a homogenous category.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that preferences for African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans are justified, legally and otherwise. Let’s also assume–though it’s far from unproblematic–that it makes sense to classify everyone with European, North African, and West Asian ancestry as generically “White.”

The problem remains that in keeping track of the race/ethnicity of its students for “diversity” purposes, Harvard classifies students with ancestry in the rest of Asia as “Asian American.” This includes everyone from Pakistani to Chinese to Indonesian to Filipino to Vietnamese Americans. These various groups differ dramatically in appearance, cuisine, culture, and religion. South Asians, East Asians, and Micronesians, all encompassed within the “Asian American” category, even have different genetic and anthropological origins.

Let’s say Harvard already has admitted 20% “Asian Americans.” They are now considering admitting their first Hmong applicant. Does it make any sense to consider this individual, for “diversity” purposes, as the 20%-plus “Asian,” rather than as the first Hmong?

Indeed, while “Asians” have a reputation for being “overrepresented” and economically successful, that is primarily true of Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and, to a lesser extent, Korean Americans. Vietnamese, Bangladeshi, Indonesian, Cambodian, Hmong, and other Asian subgroups are not “overrepresented” in elite educational institutions. Some of these groups have quite poor average socioeconomic indicators. Filipino Americans have a achieved a good measure of economic success, on average, but as late as 1970 they were one of the poorest ethnic groups in the United States.

Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islands used to be in the “Asian American or Pacific Islander” category. But they successfully lobbied for their own category after discovering that they faced discrimination in admissions in mainland universities because they belonged to an “overrepresented” category, even though their particular groups were “underrepresented.”

Harvard, of course, is simply following the classifications used by the Department of Education, and the government as a whole. But to pass the “strict scrutiny” the Court applies to racial classifications, one would imagine that Harvard would have to come up with something better than, “we use these categories for diversity purposes because we use them in our reports to the Department of Education,” especially given, as I’ve noted in previous posts, that the categories were not invented with affirmative action in mind, much less with “educational diversity” in mind.

Justice Alito noted in Fisher v. University of Texas that it “would be ludicrous to suggest that all [students classified as ‘Asian’] have similar backgrounds and similar ideas and experiences to share.” Such a “crude” and overly simplistic” racial category cannot possibly serve as a meaningful basis for deciding how “individuals of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong, Indian and other backgrounds comprising roughly 60% of the world’s population” would contribute to a college campus.”

I’m not quite sure what Harvard’s lawyer would or could say if asked why, say, Filipino, Nepalese, and Mongolian applicants are placed in the same “diversity” category, especially given that only a minority of people assigned to that category actually identify as “Asian” or “Asian American.” See JANELLE WONG ET AL., ASIAN AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTICIPATION: EMERGING
CONSTITUENTS AND THEIR POLITICAL IDENTITIES 162 (2011) (finding that less than 40% of Indian, Chinese, and Filipino respondents identified as “Asian” or “Asian-American,” even as a secondary identity.) We will never know unless one of the Justices asks.

The post Will the Supreme Court Ask Harvard How it Justifies Treating "Asian Americans" as a Homogenous Category? appeared first on Reason.com.

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

Will the Supreme Court Ask Harvard How it Justifies Treating “Asian Americans” as a Homogenous Category?

Affirmative action in higher education raises all sorts of interesting legal, political, and ethical issues. In the specific context of litigation alleging that Harvard discriminates against Asian students, now pending before the Supreme Court, I wonder if any of the Justice will ask Harvard University’s counsel how it justifies classifying “Asian Americans” as a homogenous category.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that preferences for African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans are justified, legally and otherwise. Let’s also assume–though it’s far from unproblematic–that it makes sense to classify everyone with European, North African, and West Asian ancestry as generically “White.”

The problem remains that in keeping track of the race/ethnicity of its students for “diversity” purposes, Harvard classifies students with ancestry in the rest of Asia as “Asian American.” This includes everyone from Pakistani to Chinese to Indonesian to Filipino to Vietnamese Americans. These various groups differ dramatically in appearance, cuisine, culture, and religion. South Asians, East Asians, and Micronesians, all encompassed within the “Asian American” category, even have different genetic and anthropological origins.

Let’s say Harvard already has admitted 20% “Asian Americans.” They are now considering admitting their first Hmong applicant. Does it make any sense to consider this individual, for “diversity” purposes, as the 20%-plus “Asian,” rather than as the first Hmong?

Indeed, while “Asians” have a reputation for being “overrepresented” and economically successful, that is primarily true of Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and, to a lesser extent, Korean Americans. Vietnamese, Bangladeshi, Indonesian, Cambodian, Hmong, and other Asian subgroups are not “overrepresented” in elite educational institutions. Some of these groups have quite poor average socioeconomic indicators. Filipino Americans have a achieved a good measure of economic success, on average, but as late as 1970 they were one of the poorest ethnic groups in the United States.

Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islands used to be in the “Asian American or Pacific Islander” category. But they successfully lobbied for their own category after discovering that they faced discrimination in admissions in mainland universities because they belonged to an “overrepresented” category, even though their particular groups were “underrepresented.”

Harvard, of course, is simply following the classifications used by the Department of Education, and the government as a whole. But to pass the “strict scrutiny” the Court applies to racial classifications, one would imagine that Harvard would have to come up with something better than, “we use these categories for diversity purposes because we use them in our reports to the Department of Education,” especially given, as I’ve noted in previous posts, that the categories were not invented with affirmative action in mind, much less with “educational diversity” in mind.

Justice Alito noted in Fisher v. University of Texas that it “would be ludicrous to suggest that all [students classified as ‘Asian’] have similar backgrounds and similar ideas and experiences to share.” Such a “crude” and overly simplistic” racial category cannot possibly serve as a meaningful basis for deciding how “individuals of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong, Indian and other backgrounds comprising roughly 60% of the world’s population” would contribute to a college campus.”

I’m not quite sure what Harvard’s lawyer would or could say if asked why, say, Filipino, Nepalese, and Mongolian applicants are placed in the same “diversity” category, especially given that only a minority of people assigned to that category actually identify as “Asian” or “Asian American.” See JANELLE WONG ET AL., ASIAN AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTICIPATION: EMERGING
CONSTITUENTS AND THEIR POLITICAL IDENTITIES 162 (2011) (finding that less than 40% of Indian, Chinese, and Filipino respondents identified as “Asian” or “Asian-American,” even as a secondary identity.) We will never know unless one of the Justices asks.

The post Will the Supreme Court Ask Harvard How it Justifies Treating "Asian Americans" as a Homogenous Category? appeared first on Reason.com.

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

The Emergency Must Be Ended, Now

The Emergency Must Be Ended, Now

Op-ed authored by Harvey Risch, Paul E. Alexander and Jay Bhattacharya via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The time has come to terminate the pandemic state of emergency. It’s time to end the controls, the closures, the restrictions, the plexiglass, the stickers, the exhortations, the panic-mongering, the distancing announcements, the ubiquitous commercials, the forced masking, the vaccine mandates.

A voter stands on a social distance marker outside the Washington County Election Center in Hagerstown, Md., on Oct. 26, 2020, for the first day of in-person early voting. (Colleen McGrath/The Herald-Mail via AP)

We don’t mean that the virus is gone—Omicron is still spreading wildly, and the virus may circulate forever. But with a normal focus on protecting the vulnerable, we can treat the virus as a medical rather than a social matter and manage it in ordinary ways. A declared emergency needs continuous justification, and that’s now lacking.

Over the last six weeks in the United States, the Delta variant strain—the most recent aggressive version of the infection—has according to the CDC been declining in both the proportion of infections (60 percent on Dec. 18 to 0.5 percent on Jan. 15) and the number of daily infected people (95,000 to 2,100). During the next two weeks, Delta will decline to the point that it essentially disappears like the strains before it.

Omicron is mild enough that most people, even many high-risk people, can adequately cope with the infection. Omicron infection is no more severe than seasonal flu, and generally less so. A large portion of the vulnerable population in the developed world is already vaccinated and protected against severe disease. We have learned much about the utility of inexpensive supplements like Vitamin D to reduce disease risk, and there’s a host of good therapeutics available to prevent hospitalization and death should a vulnerable patient become infected. And for younger people, the risk of severe disease—already low before Omicron—is minuscule.

Even in places with strict lockdown measures, there are hundreds of thousands of newly registered Omicron cases daily and countless unregistered positives from home testing. Measures like mandatory masking and distancing have had negligible or at most small effects on transmission. Large-scale population quarantines only delay the inevitable. Vaccination and boosters have not halted Omicron disease spread; heavily vaccinated nations like Israel and Australia have more daily cases per capita than any place on earth at the moment. This wave will run its course despite all of the emergency measures.

Until Omicron, recovery from COVID provided substantial protection against subsequent infection. While the Omicron variant can reinfect patients recovered from infection by previous strains, such reinfection tends to produce mild disease. Future variants, whether evolved from Omicron or not, are unlikely to evade the immunity provided by Omicron infection for a long while. With the universal spread of Omicron worldwide, new strains will likely have more difficulty finding a hospitable environment because of the protection provided to the population by Omicron’s widespread natural immunity.

It’s true that—despite emergency measures—hospitalization counts and COVID-associated mortality have risen. Since mortality tends to trail symptomatic infection by about 3–4 weeks, we’re still seeing the Delta strain’s remaining effects and the waning of vaccine immunity against serious outcomes at 6–8 months after vaccination. These cases should decline over time as Delta finally says goodbye. It’s too late to alter their course with lockdowns (if that were ever possible).

Given that Omicron, with its mild infection, is running its course to the end, there’s no justification for maintaining emergency status. The lockdowns, personnel firings, and shortages and school disruptions have done at least as much damage to the population’s health and welfare as the virus.

The state of emergency isn’t justified now, and it can’t be justified by fears of a hypothetical recurrence of some more severe infection at some unknown point in the future. If such a severe new variant were to occur—and it seems unlikely from Omicron—then that would be the time to discuss a declaration of emergency.

Americans have sacrificed enough of their human rights and of their livelihoods for two years in the service of protecting the general public health. Omicron is circulating but it’s not an emergency. The emergency is over. The current emergency declaration must be canceled. It’s time.

From the Brownstone Institute

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/24/2022 – 18:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3Ix7NPw Tyler Durden

“Stupid Son Of A Bitch” – Biden Busted On Hot Mic After Being Asked About Americans’ Biggest Worry

“Stupid Son Of A Bitch” – Biden Busted On Hot Mic After Being Asked About Americans’ Biggest Worry

Just days after President Biden was caught on hot mic calling a reporter’s question over the Ukraine conflict “stupid,” the US Commander-in-Chief downplayed a question over one of, if not THE most important worry for Americans right now – inflation.

“Do you think inflation is a political liability ahead of the midterms?” asked Fox News‘ Peter Doocy as Biden was wrapping up a press conference for the White House’s Competition Council.

“No. It’s a great asset. More inflation. What a stupid son of a bitch,” replied Biden.

Watch:

 Biden’s hot-mic moment comes as nearly 90% of Americans in a November poll say they’re worried about inflation – which has of course intensified since then.

Monday’s outburst follows another hot-mic moment last week, when Biden was caught muttering “what a stupid question,” after Fox News‘ Jacqui Heinrich asked him “Why are you waiting on [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to make the first move, sir?” in regards to Ukarine.

Earlier last week Biden sparked outrage in Ukraine after he suggested that a “minor incursion” by Russia would merit a different response than a full-scale invasion.

On Friday, White House spox Jen Psaki was asked: “Is the president aware that he was caught on a hot mic yesterday? Why does he appear to be dismissing the idea of proactive deterrence?” to which Psaki responded: “Well, the president certainly does not dismiss that idea, considering he has taken a lot of steps including supporting and approving the several sanctions that were put out by the Treasury Department just a couple of days ago.”

In September, Biden once again criticized the American press, saying that the Indian press is “better behaved” with its questions.

Angry old man mode: engaged

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/24/2022 – 18:10

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

Daily Briefing: Great Power Games Could Leave Europeans Out in the Cold

Daily Briefing: Great Power Games Could Leave Europeans Out in the Cold

The Biden administration is preparing to deploy troops and equipment to Eastern Europe and the Baltics to counter Russia’s threat to Ukraine, as UK officials suggest Moscow aims to install a pro-Kremlin government in Kyiv. Stocks all over the world are tumbling, again, and Bitcoin has breached key technical levels. And there’s real concern about European natural gas supplies. “Risk on” for Putin means “risk off” for investors. Weston Nakamura is here to discuss the state of play with Ash Bennington. Weston also drops a compelling pair trade that could be a decent hedge against both geopolitics and central bankers. Want to submit questions? Drop them right here on the Exchange: https://rvtv.io/32rm6FR

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/24/2022 – 14:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/32ufQNN Tyler Durden

This Is The Epitome Of What’s Wrong In The World Right Now

This Is The Epitome Of What’s Wrong In The World Right Now

Authored by Marty Bent via TFTC.io,

“At Davos a few years ago the Edleman survey showed us that the good news is the elite across the world trust each other more and more so we can come together and design and do beautiful things together. The bad news is that in every single country they were polling, the majority of people trusted their elite less. So… we can lead but [cut off].”

Ngaire Woods, professor of “Global Economic Governance” at the University of Oxford, had this to say at a recent gathering of the ghouls held by the World Economic Forum – a forum that no one asked for, yet seems to have an incredible amount of influence over popular coordinated political policy around the world.

WEF is responsible for the term “Build Back Better” that you’ve probably heard from one or many of your local politicians over the last year. Here in the ole US of A, those in power actually attempted to pass a “Build Back Better” act. Taking the phrase that is being parroted ad nauseam by collectivists and anti-human zealots who care not one bit about making the world better, but pretending like they do so that they can institute laws across the world that give them more control over the “non-elites” who seem to be catching on to the grift.

This is the epitome of what is wrong in the world right now. There is a class of people who consider themselves “elite” and also believe that this self-ordained status title gives them free reign to make decisions for the “non-elites”. Their top-down decision making in the areas of monetary policy, food production, energy policy, healthcare, and transportation, among other areas, has led to complete mayhem across the world. They are the reason for rampant inflation, an utterly unhealthy society, less reliable grids and higher energy prices, a medical industry that pushes addictive poison and untested vaccines on people, and the completely ineffective and dehumanizing TSA. They pushed all of this on the world, congratulated themselves for it, and are now perplexed as to why the “non-elites” are growing restless as the results of the policies that have been thrust upon them have made their lives materially worse off.

Fuck these people. They are the enemies of peace, prosperity, and liberty in our modern age. They are the roadblock that must be demolished so that us normal people can go about our lives in a more civilized fashion. These WEF reps absolutely hate you. They believe that you are lesser beings than they are. And worse yet, they think they have complete control over everything. Which, to their credit, they seem to have at the moment. But make no mistake, the tides are turning and the ghouls are about to get their comeuppance.

Most of the power they yield stems from the influence they are able to brute force on the world because of their ability to print money ex-nihilo and misallocate it toward their objectives.

Bitcoin completely rips this power from their grasp and in due time it will utterly demolish their influence. Spread the word to expedite the process of their demise.

The future is bright!

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/24/2022 – 17:55

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

Why Does the Supreme Court Refer to Preferences for Hispanics/Latinos as “Racial Preferences”?

As discussed in my forthcoming book, Classified, when the Office of Management and Budget created the official Statistical Directive 15 “Hispanic” (later changed to Hispanic or Latino) category in 1977, it dictated that Hispanic was an ethnic classification, not a racial one. Despite occasional efforts to change the category to a racial one, most recently with the blessing of the Obama administration, it has remained an ethnic category ever since. This surprised me, because not only are Hispanics often colloquially often referred to a racial minority, but the Supreme Court has consistently referred to preferences for Hispanics in higher education as “racial preferences.”

In the course of my research, I cleared up the mystery. When the Statistical Directive 15 categories went into effect, most government agencies that collected racial and ethnic statistics responded by placing a two-part race/ethnicity question on demographic forms. These forms asked individuals if they were Hispanic and, separately, what race they saw themselves as belonging to (White, Black, Native American, or Asian American).

The Department of Education, however, demurred. Its Office of Civil Rights left it up to the schools and universities gathering statistics about their applicants and student bodies to decide whether to use a two-part question or a one-part question. A one-part question asks individuals whether they are Black, White, Hispanic, Native American, or Asian.

Universities overwhelmingly chose the one-question route. This made Hispanic status the equivalent of a racial status—for example, one could not be both Hispanic and White on these universities’ admissions forms.

The Department of Education did not change its rules to require a two-question ethnicity classification until 2007, about a decade after OMB told the Department it had to do so. By then, the notion that Hispanic affirmative action preferences in university admissions amounted to a “racial” preference was entrenched. But for whatever it’s worth, as far as the U.S. government is concerned, preferences for African Americans, Native Americans, and Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders are “racial” preferences, while preferences for Hispanics are “ethnic” preferences, and Hispanics can be of any race. [About fifty percent of Hispanic check the White box on forms, most of the rest identify themselves as “other”].

The post Why Does the Supreme Court Refer to Preferences for Hispanics/Latinos as "Racial Preferences"? appeared first on Reason.com.

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