Month: January 2022

Kamala Harris Spreads Misinformation on Human Trafficking


maphotosnine478153

Vice President Kamala Harris is back to making misleading statements about human trafficking. In a speech to the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Harris—who has a long history of dishonesty about sex trafficking—said that “in 2020 alone, there were 11,000 instances of human trafficking that were reported in the United States.”

Where did Harris get that figure? From calls to the Polaris Project’s national human trafficking hotline, a source of misleading statistics that I’ve been warning about for years. Media and politicians routinely cite Polaris’ numbers as if they accurately reflect instances of human trafficking (a category that includes forced prostitution and forced labor in other categories), and they use these numbers to push for all sorts of policies. But the large numbers Polaris puts out are not—thank goodness—verified cases of abuse and criminal activity; they’re jusr a tally of contacts to the hotline. That includes pranks, cranks, and people reporting sightings of consensual sex work.

It’s refreshing (and all too rare) to see a major news outlet acknowledge this reality, as like The Washington Post‘s Glenn Kessler did in a column last week. Kessler calls out both Harris and Virginia’s Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, who in a recent executive order stated that “according to Polaris…there were 179 cases of trafficking and seventy-seven traffickers identified in Virginia in 2019 alone.”

Kessler—who has previously tackled other false or misleading claims about human trafficking—points out that the Polaris numbers are mostly anecdotal:

Polaris derives these figures from an analysis of calls to the National Human Trafficking Hotline that it operates. In the 2021 fiscal year, according to budget documents given to Congress, the Department of Health and Human Services provided $4 million to operate the hotline, which receives calls, texts, chats, emails and other online reports. If the staff members answering the calls or other inquiries identify elements of fraud, force and coercion, then that gets listed as a possible instance of human trafficking.

The hotline “identified 11,193 potential cases of trafficking, responded to 13,129 signals from potential victims, and reported 3,353 cases to law enforcement,” the HHS document says.

Notice that these are “potential cases”—and only about 30 percent ended up being reported to law enforcement. The budget document also notes that “viral misinformation about human trafficking”—such as “complex schemes involving child sex trafficking”—led to a surge of a “well-intended but inaccurate, secondhand reports” that distracted from helping real victims.

In case you missed it above, I’m going to reiterate: Only about a third of these “potential cases” are even reported by Polaris to law enforcement. They don’t know how many of those prompt the police to open an investigation, let alone what those investigations uncover.

Polaris likes to act like its numbers are only the tip of the iceberg, since not all instances of trafficking will be reported to the hotline. But while it’s true that not all trafficking comes to Polaris’ attention, the group’s numbers also reflect all sorts of things that don’t turn out to be human trafficking.

The group—and those citing it—also like to tout an increase in contact with the hotline as evidence that this problem is getting worse. But the increase in calls and other contacts comes as the federal government and states have started requiring more and more types of businesses to post the number conspicuously.

For what it’s worth, FBI trafficking numbers, compiled from police departments around the country, are much smaller than the number of calls to the Polaris hotline.

“For 2019, in Virginia, the FBI reports that there were 41 incidents of human trafficking—and 29 cases led to arrests, including one for a person under the age of 18. That’s much smaller than the 189 ‘cases’ reported by Polaris,” notes Kessler.

And “for the entire country, the FBI reported a total of 1,883 incidents of human trafficking in 2019: 1,607 were in the category of commercial sex acts, and 274 were instances of involuntary servitude. That’s about one-fifth of the incidents cited by Harris.”

Even in this case, “incidents” do not necessarily mean instances of trafficking, simply that police started a report to look into potential trafficking. Of the 1,883 incidents reported to the FBI, only a fraction led to arrests—684 adults arrested and 24 minors. And arrests don’t necessarily mean that anyone was ultimately charged with trafficking, let alone convicted.

Citing misleading statistics about human trafficking might not seem all that harmful at first glance. But giving a false impression of the scope of the problem leads to all sorts of harms, both personal and political. It creates the conditions for crazy conspiracy theories like those seen with QAnon believers and for ordinary people to panic about everyday interactions and “stranger danger.” It leads to attempts to Do! Something! that often wind up as crackdowns on poor people, sex workers, and immigrants. And it gives cover to officials who want an excuse for more policing and surveillance of everyone.

FREE MINDS 

Neil Young’s science misinformation. Neil Young removed his music from Spotify because he thinks the platform isn’t doing enough to stop Joe Rogan from spreading misinformation about vaccines. But Young has done his own misinformation-mongering, Louis Anslow points out at The Daily Beast. See Young’s 2015 anti-biotechnology album, The Monsanto Years:

Young’s anti-GMO rhetoric helped fuel a narrative that made it easy to spread fear and distrust about COVID vaccines, most of which used novel biotechnology methods and some of which use genetic engineering.

A collective amnesia has set in amongst progressives regarding the left’s past pandering to the anti-biotechnology movement. Reactionary luddism—especially around biotechnology—was both politically correct and convenient for progressive celebrity activists. But that was in the “before times.”

Young championed the anti-GMO movement even as evidence of the safety of genetically modified food and its potential to do good increased.

The anti-GMO movement—which rose to prominence in the mid 1990s and early 2000s—attained a key legislative win in 2014 when Vermont mandated GMO labeling of food….

The new Vermont law threatened to be a pointless and impractical nightmare for food manufacturers, so trade groups sued the state….As the case garnered coverage, the anti-GMO crowd was re-energized once more. And Neil Young seized the moment, releasing The Monsanto Years and embarking on a tour of the same name. At one pre-show press conference, accompanied by Vermont’s then-Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin, Young pledged $100,000 to the legal case defending the GMO labeling law.

FREE MARKETS

Net neutrality law in California is a go.

See Reason‘s net neutrality coverage here. More on the California case here.

FOLLOWUP 

IRS facial scans being reconsidered. “The Treasury Department is reconsidering the Internal Revenue Service’s reliance on facial recognition software ID.me for access to its website, an official said Friday amid scrutiny of the company’s collection of images of tens of millions of Americans’ faces,” Bloomberg News reports.

See last Monday’s Roundup for more on the IRS’s ID.me plan.

QUICK HITS

• Book bans are back in vogue—and more politicized than ever, school officials say.

• “A federal judge on Friday blocked a Texas law barring government entities from doing business with contractors that participated in boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) activity from being enforced against a Palestinian-American contractor, saying that the law infringed on the contractor’s First Amendment rights,” reports The Hill.

• NPR explores how an overactive immune system may contribute to Alzheimer’s disease—and how understanding that could lead to new treatments.

• Adam Thierer rounds up skeptical takes on expansive industrial policy:

The post Kamala Harris Spreads Misinformation on Human Trafficking appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/b3JrXWsuV
via IFTTT

Rabobank: 50-50-50

Rabobank: 50-50-50

By Michael Every of Rabobank

50-50-50

This week, which will be quiet in Asia due to the Lunar New Year ahead, starts like the last: lots of key reasons to be worrying. Indeed, despite the backdrop of US equities trying to deny all of them on Friday, it also starts with the Asian markets that are open largely in the red.

The situation vis-à-vis Ukraine is no better. This is despite confused messaging from Kyiv over whether an attack on it is “imminent” –translated as “inevitable” in Ukrainian– or not. One can see Kyiv’s point that the West saying so while doing nothing to help is not good for local business confidence, and that this kind of Russian destabilisation is something they just have to live with.

Parts of the West insist downplaying said risks does not stop them occurring: the UK is sending even more men and military equipment to the relevant borders and talking about targeting oligarchs in London, rebuilding bridges with parts of the EU despairing of a lack of leadership from Germany; the US is closer to agreeing on “the mother of all sanctions” against Russia; and France is sending troops to Romania. Yet other parts of the West are still not acting despite warnings that *EU* countries could be seeing Russian attempts at Finlandization in the near future.

Expect more shuttle diplomacy this week, but don’t expect a magical resolution despite the Council on Foreign Relations releasing a proposed off-ramp of Putin and the West retreating and everybody kicking the can down the road and reforming European security institutions, even as the US still wants to leave and the EU can’t and won’t step up. That is the kind of ‘hockey-stick’, not baseball bat, forecast one expects from central banks, not battle-hardened think-tank pen-pushers: it speaks to the bleed-through of neoliberal utopianism from one field to another.

So, if we can’t agree a Russian attack is “imminent” or “inevitable”, can we at least try to assign it a probability? Just 10% this week? 30% by the weekend as more forces arrive? And, as Russian state media allege Kyiv is planning an attack on Russian-held east Ukraine during the Olympics, over a 50% risk of war after the games end?

Meanwhile, the Fed’s Bostic is suggesting the Fed could go 50bp in March. No longer is this threat just in the realms of Wall St tin-foil hat conspiracy. Could the Fed really unleash such an attack on undefended markets? Given its favorite measure of inflation, the core personal consumption expenditure deflator, soared to 4.9% y/y in December, the highest in 38 years, there is an argument that it may. However, there is more than a 50% probability that they are just threatening this in the hope that they don’t have to: the market is currently pricing just a 1 in 4 risk of a 50bp March hike.

The Fed’s problem is that it mirrors much of what we see from the West over Ukraine: only belated understanding that underlying structures have changed from a presumed neoliberal paradigm; and the subsequent threat of acting aggressively but nobody believing it “because markets” – which then points to risks of having to do far more fighting further down the line as a result. Relatedly, I would wager if there *is* more than a 50% probability of Russia moving on Ukraine by the end of February then there is *far* less than a 50% chance of the Fed doing their own 50 in March.

I am not going to refer to Chinese diplomatic comments playing up the risk of war with the US over Taiwan: there is a far lower near-term probability of that happening, even if it supports our Ukraine metacrisis narrative. (As do Houthi attacks on the UAE, and North Korean missile launches –with US offers of talks without preconditions– and Australia joining the EU’s WTO case against China.) Yet Chinese PMI data were depressingly close to 50, with manufacturing 50.1, services 51.1, and Caixin manufacturing 49.1. “More stimulus!” cry the analysts who don’t notice no previous stimulus has had any discernible effect because the problems are structural not cyclical. Maybe Lunar New Year will give them time to reflect: but I doubt it.

One of the only things keeping the US dollar relatively tied down at the moment is that China’s CNY is taking a ‘none shall pass’ stance to monetary policy divergence, which is anchoring a lot of Asian EM FX. Is there more or less than a 50% of that holding long term though? The risks to EUR from Ukraine should also be clear.

The other thing is that so far US 10-year yields are not rising much despite Fed jawboning and dot-plotting, and that matters more for many FX crosses than the short end of the yield curve. If the US wants to shoot itself in the foot with monetary policy, as the flattening curve screams, then it is hardly US dollar positive. That said, there is more than a 50% chance that a US recession would end up making global waves, which suggests a different sub-phase of our metacrisis.

Lastly, Italy finally has a president, after 8 rounds of voting, but it has ended up where it started – with the same octogenarian as a symbol of national stability and progress. Oh for a leader of just 50, not just in Italy but in many other places!

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/31/2022 – 09:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/KImrW7E3O Tyler Durden

Kamala Harris Spreads Misinformation on Human Trafficking


maphotosnine478153

Vice President Kamala Harris is back to making misleading statements about human trafficking. In a speech to the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Harris—who has a long history of dishonesty about sex trafficking—said that “in 2020 alone, there were 11,000 instances of human trafficking that were reported in the United States.”

Where did Harris get that figure? From calls to the Polaris Project’s national human trafficking hotline, a source of misleading statistics that I’ve been warning about for years. Media and politicians routinely cite Polaris’ numbers as if they accurately reflect instances of human trafficking (a category that includes forced prostitution and forced labor in other categories), and they use these numbers to push for all sorts of policies. But the large numbers Polaris puts out are not—thank goodness—verified cases of abuse and criminal activity; they’re jusr a tally of contacts to the hotline. That includes pranks, cranks, and people reporting sightings of consensual sex work.

It’s refreshing (and all too rare) to see a major news outlet acknowledge this reality, as like The Washington Post‘s Glenn Kessler did in a column last week. Kessler calls out both Harris and Virginia’s Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, who in a recent executive order stated that “according to Polaris…there were 179 cases of trafficking and seventy-seven traffickers identified in Virginia in 2019 alone.”

Kessler—who has previously tackled other false or misleading claims about human trafficking—points out that the Polaris numbers are mostly anecdotal:

Polaris derives these figures from an analysis of calls to the National Human Trafficking Hotline that it operates. In the 2021 fiscal year, according to budget documents given to Congress, the Department of Health and Human Services provided $4 million to operate the hotline, which receives calls, texts, chats, emails and other online reports. If the staff members answering the calls or other inquiries identify elements of fraud, force and coercion, then that gets listed as a possible instance of human trafficking.

The hotline “identified 11,193 potential cases of trafficking, responded to 13,129 signals from potential victims, and reported 3,353 cases to law enforcement,” the HHS document says.

Notice that these are “potential cases”—and only about 30 percent ended up being reported to law enforcement. The budget document also notes that “viral misinformation about human trafficking”—such as “complex schemes involving child sex trafficking”—led to a surge of a “well-intended but inaccurate, secondhand reports” that distracted from helping real victims.

In case you missed it above, I’m going to reiterate: Only about a third of these “potential cases” are even reported by Polaris to law enforcement. They don’t know how many of those prompt the police to open an investigation, let alone what those investigations uncover.

Polaris likes to act like its numbers are only the tip of the iceberg, since not all instances of trafficking will be reported to the hotline. But while it’s true that not all trafficking comes to Polaris’ attention, the group’s numbers also reflect all sorts of things that don’t turn out to be human trafficking.

The group—and those citing it—also like to tout an increase in contact with the hotline as evidence that this problem is getting worse. But the increase in calls and other contacts comes as the federal government and states have started requiring more and more types of businesses to post the number conspicuously.

For what it’s worth, FBI trafficking numbers, compiled from police departments around the country, are much smaller than the number of calls to the Polaris hotline.

“For 2019, in Virginia, the FBI reports that there were 41 incidents of human trafficking—and 29 cases led to arrests, including one for a person under the age of 18. That’s much smaller than the 189 ‘cases’ reported by Polaris,” notes Kessler.

And “for the entire country, the FBI reported a total of 1,883 incidents of human trafficking in 2019: 1,607 were in the category of commercial sex acts, and 274 were instances of involuntary servitude. That’s about one-fifth of the incidents cited by Harris.”

Even in this case, “incidents” do not necessarily mean instances of trafficking, simply that police started a report to look into potential trafficking. Of the 1,883 incidents reported to the FBI, only a fraction led to arrests—684 adults arrested and 24 minors. And arrests don’t necessarily mean that anyone was ultimately charged with trafficking, let alone convicted.

Citing misleading statistics about human trafficking might not seem all that harmful at first glance. But giving a false impression of the scope of the problem leads to all sorts of harms, both personal and political. It creates the conditions for crazy conspiracy theories like those seen with QAnon believers and for ordinary people to panic about everyday interactions and “stranger danger.” It leads to attempts to Do! Something! that often wind up as crackdowns on poor people, sex workers, and immigrants. And it gives cover to officials who want an excuse for more policing and surveillance of everyone.

FREE MINDS 

Neil Young’s science misinformation. Neil Young removed his music from Spotify because he thinks the platform isn’t doing enough to stop Joe Rogan from spreading misinformation about vaccines. But Young has done his own misinformation-mongering, Louis Anslow points out at The Daily Beast. See Young’s 2015 anti-biotechnology album, The Monsanto Years:

Young’s anti-GMO rhetoric helped fuel a narrative that made it easy to spread fear and distrust about COVID vaccines, most of which used novel biotechnology methods and some of which use genetic engineering.

A collective amnesia has set in amongst progressives regarding the left’s past pandering to the anti-biotechnology movement. Reactionary luddism—especially around biotechnology—was both politically correct and convenient for progressive celebrity activists. But that was in the “before times.”

Young championed the anti-GMO movement even as evidence of the safety of genetically modified food and its potential to do good increased.

The anti-GMO movement—which rose to prominence in the mid 1990s and early 2000s—attained a key legislative win in 2014 when Vermont mandated GMO labeling of food….

The new Vermont law threatened to be a pointless and impractical nightmare for food manufacturers, so trade groups sued the state….As the case garnered coverage, the anti-GMO crowd was re-energized once more. And Neil Young seized the moment, releasing The Monsanto Years and embarking on a tour of the same name. At one pre-show press conference, accompanied by Vermont’s then-Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin, Young pledged $100,000 to the legal case defending the GMO labeling law.

FREE MARKETS

Net neutrality law in California is a go.

See Reason‘s net neutrality coverage here. More on the California case here.

FOLLOWUP 

IRS facial scans being reconsidered. “The Treasury Department is reconsidering the Internal Revenue Service’s reliance on facial recognition software ID.me for access to its website, an official said Friday amid scrutiny of the company’s collection of images of tens of millions of Americans’ faces,” Bloomberg News reports.

See last Monday’s Roundup for more on the IRS’s ID.me plan.

QUICK HITS

• Book bans are back in vogue—and more politicized than ever, school officials say.

• “A federal judge on Friday blocked a Texas law barring government entities from doing business with contractors that participated in boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) activity from being enforced against a Palestinian-American contractor, saying that the law infringed on the contractor’s First Amendment rights,” reports The Hill.

• NPR explores how an overactive immune system may contribute to Alzheimer’s disease—and how understanding that could lead to new treatments.

• Adam Thierer rounds up skeptical takes on expansive industrial policy:

The post Kamala Harris Spreads Misinformation on Human Trafficking appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/b3JrXWsuV
via IFTTT

BoJo Finally Receives ‘Redacted’ Sue Gray Report On ‘Partygate’

BoJo Finally Receives ‘Redacted’ Sue Gray Report On ‘Partygate’

British PM Boris Johnson has finally received the “Partygate” report compiled by Sue Gray, a longtime British civil servant, who has been tasked with leading the investigation into the reports about illicit parties at No. 10 during the early days of the pandemic when the British public was still facing a crippling lockdown.

Initially, No. 10 denied reports of illegal parties, but as more reported parties were exposed in the press, BoJo and his team pivoted to acknowledging the parties, but insisting they weren’t illegal or improper.

The British public has been waiting with baited breath for Gray’s report, but it’s still unclear when and how details from the report will be made public. Even BoJo won’t receive details about the most serious allegations, which are now being investigated by the Metropolitan Police.

Prior to handing over the report, Gray reportedly spoke with No. 10 Sunday night about the “logistics” of handing over her complete findings. The Cabinet Office characterized Gray’s report as an “update” since it didn’t include the most serious allegations: Gray “has provided an update on her investigations to the Prime Minister,” the Cabinet Office said.

Johnson’s office says the report will be published and the prime minister will address Parliament about its findings later Monday.

Unfortunately, since much of the report will be redacted due to the police inquiry, the report has been characterized as an “update” and is unlikely to tell the full story. BoJo is set to offer an “update” on the report’s findings Monday morning when he addresses the House of Commons.

Readers can watch BoJo’s appearance live below. It’s set to begin at 1030ET (1530 London Time):

BoJo has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and insisted that he has “absolutely no intention” of resigning. However, Labour and even some Tory MPs say they have lost their trust in the PM, and insist that his office has been caught repeatedly lying to the press and the public about the parties. BoJo and his team did initially insist that no rules were broken until footage of a “mock press conference” surfaced showing senior advisers clearly mixing without masks and in violation of other rules like the “rule of six”. BoJo then had to admit that he had attended some of the “gatherings”, but he continued to insist that they hadn’t broken the rules.

An effort is underway among the Tory backbenchers to try and oust BoJo from the premiership and his position as Party leader, but not enough letters expressing their lack of confidence in the PM have yet been received.

The PM is said to be “studying” the report, which is expected to be released to the public (albeit in its limited form) “soon”.

As of Monday afternoon in the UK, BoJo is focusing on foreign affairs like the situation in Russia which observers have speculated might be an attempt to distract from the news of the report’s delivery.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/31/2022 – 09:22

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Jx8VUTeO3 Tyler Durden

Offices and Officers of the Constitution, Parts I and II

Seth Barrett Tillman and I have published the first two installments of our planned ten-part series that provides the first comprehensive examination of the offices and officers of the Constitution. Parts I and II now appear in Volume 61 of the South Texas Law Review. Here are the abstracts:

Offices and Officers of the Constitution, Part I: An Introduction

In this Essay, we introduce our planned ten-part series that provides the first comprehensive examination of the offices and officers of the Constitution. This series will explain the original public meaning of twelve clauses of the Constitution that refer to six categories of offices and officers. First, the phrase “Officers of the United States” refers to appointed positions in the Executive and Judicial Branches. Second, the phrase “Office . . . under the United States” refers to appointed positions in the Executive and Judicial Branches, and also includes non-apex appointed positions in the Legislative Branch. Third, the phrase “Office under the Authority of the United States” includes all “Office[s] . . . under the United States,” and extends further to include a broader category of irregular positions. Fourth, the phrase “Officer” of “the Government of the United States” refers to the presiding officers identified in the Constitution. Fifth, the word “Officer,” as used in the Succession Clause, refers to those who hold “Office . . . under the United States” and those who are “Officer[s]” of “the Government of the United States.” Sixth, the phrase “Office or public Trust under the United States” encompasses two categories of positions: “Office[s] . . . under the United States” and “public Trusts under the United States.” The former category includes appointed positions in all three branches; the latter category includes federal officials who are not subject to direction or supervision by a higher federal authority in the normal course of their duties.

Our categorization excludes elected officials from the categories “Officers of the United States” and “Office[s] . . . under the United States.” Not everyone agrees with our Minimalist View. Professors Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar have put forward an Intermediate View: the elected President is an “officer of the United States,” but members of Congress are not. Professor Zephyr Teachout advances a Maximalist View: elected and appointed positions, in all three branches, are “offices” and “officers.” And some scholars may embrace a fourth approach. Under a Clause-Bound View, fine variations in the Constitution’s text should not be used to distinguish different kinds of offices and officers. Rather, this view purports to be guided by the specific purposes that animate each individual clause.

As a general matter, it is impossible to reject any of these four approaches with 100% certainty. Instead, we make a limited claim: our approach, the Minimalist View, is better than its known rivals. The Framers chose different “office”- and “officer”-language in different clauses of the Constitution. These provisions were altered throughout the Convention to standardize and harmonize how the Constitution refers to offices and officers. And the conduct of President Washington, his cabinet, and the First Congress was consistent with the Minimalist View. This evidence undermines the Intermediate, Maximalist, and Clause-Bound Approaches.

Part I, this Essay, introduces our planned ten-part series. Part II will expound on the four approaches to understand the Constitution’s “office”- and “officer”-language. Part III will analyze the phrase “Officers of the United States,” which appears in the Appointments Clause, the Commissions Clause, the Impeachment Clause, and the Oath or Affirmation Clause. Part IV will trace the history of the “Office . . . under the United States” drafting convention. Part V will consider the meaning of the phrase “Office . . . under the United States,” which appears in the Incompatibility Clause, the Impeachment Disqualification Clause, the Foreign Emoluments Clause, and the Elector Incompatibility Clause. Part VI will turn to the phrase “Office under the Authority of the United States,” which appears in the Ineligibility Clause. Part VII will study the Religious Test Clause, which uses the phrase “Office or public Trust under the United States.” Part VIII will focus on the phrase “Officer” of “the Government of the United States” in the Necessary and Proper Clause. Part IX will elaborate on the word “Officer,” standing alone and unmodified, in the Succession Clause. Part X will conclude the series.

Offices and Officers of the Constitution, Part II: The Four Approaches

This Article is the second installment of a planned ten-part series that provides the first comprehensive examination of the offices and officers of the Constitution. The first installment introduced the series. In this second installment, we will identify four approaches to understand the Constitution’s divergent “office”- and “officer”-language.

First, under Approach #1, the Intermediate View, the Constitution’s references to “offices” and “officers” extend exclusively to positions in the Judicial Branch and in the Executive Branch—whether appointed or elected. But the Constitution’s references to “offices” and “officers” do not extend to positions in the Legislative Branch—whether appointed or elected.

Second, under Approach #2, the Maximalist View, the Constitution’s divergent “office”- and “officer”-language is used synonymously. And, under this approach, these phrases refer to positions in all three branches, whether appointed or elected.

Third, under Approach #3, the Minimalist View, the Constitution’s divergent “office”- and “officer”-language has different meanings. The phrase “Officers of the United States” extends exclusively to appointed positions in the Executive and Judicial Branches. And the phrase “Office . . . under the United States” extends exclusively to appointed positions in all three branches. (The ellipses refer to different words the Framers placed after office but before under: “profit,” “trust,” and/or “honor”). For more than a decade, Tillman has advanced Approach #3. Blackman was first piqued by Tillman’s position shortly after he became a law professor, and he was thereafter persuaded.

Finally, we consider Approach #4, which we refer to as the Clause-Bound View. Under this approach, the “office”- and “officer”-language in each provision of the Constitution should be interpreted in isolation, without regard to how the same or similar language is used elsewhere in the Constitution. For example, the phrase “Officers of the United States” in one clause may have a different meaning than the phrase “Officers of the United States” in another clause.

This Article—at more than 30,000 words in length—is incomplete. Here, we simply introduce our taxonomy. If all goes to plan, the planned ten-part series will be completed circa Spring 2023. At that point, our project will be substantially complete. And, we hope, any remaining significant lingering questions will have been answered.

The first two installments total nearly 130 pages. And we’re still not done. Stay tuned for parts three through ten.

The post Offices and Officers of the Constitution, Parts I and II appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/9jn8cOu0s
via IFTTT

Hispanic Students Were Forced To Learn Critical Race Theory. They Hated It.


Thumbnail 2

During the 2020 fall semester, Kali Fontanilla—a high school English language teacher working in the Salinas, California, school district—noticed that many of her students were failing one of their other classes: ethnic studies. This was at the height of the pandemic, and instruction was entirely online, leaving many students in the lurch. Still, Fontanilla thought it was odd to see so many Fs.

Salinas has a majority Mexican population; all of Fontanilla’s students were Hispanic and were learning English as a second language. Education officials who propose adding ethnic studies to various curriculums—and making it mandatory, as the Salinas school district did—typically intend for privileged white students to learn about other cultures. There’s a certain irony in requiring members of an ethnic minority to study this, and an even greater irony in the fact that such students were struggling intensely with the course.

“My students are failing ethnic studies,” says Fontanilla, who is of Jamaican ancestry. “I would say half of them are failing this ethnic studies class.”

This made Fontanilla curious about what the course was teaching. All of the high school’s teachers used the same online platform to post lesson plans and course materials, so Fontanilla decided to take a look. She was shocked by what she saw.

“This was like extreme left brainwashing of these kids,” says Fontanilla. “Critical race theory all throughout the lessons, from start to finish. The whole thing.”

Critical race theory, or CRT, has become a flashpoint in the debate about what kids ought to be learning in public schools. Originally an obscure, left-wing body of thought that mostly appeared in graduate schools, critics charge it with influencing diversity workshops for major corporations, training seminars for teachers, and even K-12 curricula. Parental concerns about CRT became a major flashpoint in the 2020 Virginia gubernatorial race. After winning the race and taking office, Republican challenger Glenn Youngkin’s first act was to ban CRT.

Many adherents of CRT deny that it’s taught to primary education students, and the mainstream media have been quick to line up behind such claims. That’s why Fontanilla’s discovery was so significant.

“The teacher had the kids all learn about the four I’s of oppression,” says Fontanilla. The four I’s were institutional, internalized, ideological, and interpersonal oppression. “And then there was a whole presentation on critical race theory and they actually had the students analyze the school through critical race theory.”

Slides from lesson plans provided by Fontanilla confirm that the ethnic studies course references critical race theory by name.

The original meaning of the theory, at least when taught at the college level, is that racism so pervades U.S. society and U.S. institutions that it is impossible to separate race from other issues: All policies, structures, and laws were built under the auspices of racism, a sort of original sin that shapes the country’s institutions. In common parlance, opponents often use the term “CRT” to refer a broader set of concepts, like intersectionality—the idea that there are different kinds of oppression that all stack on top of each other—and privilege.

“The kids don’t even want this stuff,” says Fontanilla, noting that the ethnic studies course replaced a much more popular health class—in the midst of a pandemic, no less. “Most of them are just like, ‘Why do we have to take this class?'”

They would have to direct that question to California Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state’s Democratic-controlled legislature, which decided to mandate ethnic studies for all public schools. Newsom vetoed a previous mandate, which came under fire because the proposed curriculum included “jargon such as ‘cisheteropatriarchy’ and ‘hxrstory,’ and refers to capitalism as a form of power and oppression alongside white supremacy and racism,” according to Cal Matters.

The legislature re-worked the ethnic studies proposal, and on October 8, 2021, Newsom signed the mandate into law. Beginning with the class of 2030, all public high school students in California will now have enroll in the same sort of course that Fontanilla’s students already took.

In a statement to The Epoch Times, Dan Burns, superintendent of Salinas Union High School district, denied that the course was based on CRT, though he conceded that CRT “is addressed in our course as one of the frameworks within the K-12 Ethnic Studies Outcomes list.”

Indeed, CRT is referenced in the district’s ethnic course syllabus, which is available online. The syllabus stresses that students will study “intergenerational trauma” through an interdisciplinary and critical lens. Scholarly articles about critical race theory are included in the suggested curriculum, including “Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth,” by Tara J. Yosso, a UCLA professor of education who specializes in critical race theory.

One of suggested activities for students is an “intersectional rainbow.”

“Students will rank their various identities with corresponding colored strings to create intersectional rainbows. Gender, race, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, beliefs, nationality, ability, age, etc.,” reads the syllabus. “Students will compare and contrast their intersectional rainbows with their peers, while framing their discourse within the intersectionality paradigm as laid out by Kimberlé Crenshaw.”

Crenshaw, a Columbia University law professor, is widely recognized as one of CRT’s founding figures. (Vanity Fair once called her the “mastermind of critical race theory.”)

Other possible classroom activities include hosting a mock trial where they accuse various historical persons of being complicit in the genocide of Native Californians and “creating a social justice oriented counter-narrative.”

Salina’s version of the course included a “privilege quiz”: Students were expected to rank themselves based on their marginalized status or lack thereof. The lesson plan included an image of two white girls—former Republican President George W. Bush’s twin daughters, to be precise—at the top of the privilege hierarchy.

“Some people are born in third base and think they hit a triple,” says Fontanilla, recalling the intended message of the exercise. “So basically, they were born on third base and they graduated college because they had a head start.”

Many people might consider such activities to be a form of left-wing activism infiltrating the classroom . Fontanilla is one of them. As a Christian, a conservative, and a black woman, she doesn’t believe that students—especially her students, learning English as a second language—need to be taught to check their privilege.

“It’s hyper-race-focused,” says Fontanilla. “And whenever there’s hyper race focus, racism will follow.”

Fontanilla decided that district parents had a right to know what was in the curriculum, and took steps to obtain the lesson plans so that she her job would not be at risk if she leaked them. She contacted an attorney for help, but when they finally received the documents, the district had omitted the slides that included the words critical race theory.

She decided to write a letter to the school board in protest of the ethnic studies curriculum. It was read aloud at a meeting on June 22.

“I do not appreciate constantly being pandered to and treated differently because of the color of my skin, especially since I did not have the freedom to not go along with it,” Fontanilla wrote, warning that the curriculum was an attempt at left-wing indoctrination. The statement elicited cheers from other parents attending the meeting. In response, the school board prohibited anti-CRT comments at its next public gathering.

“You know it’s something evil when they get so nasty defending it,” says Fontanilla.

While she has received much praise for speaking out, Fontanilla has also endured considerable online harassment, including threats of violence. One told her to “have fun being a token black friend to racist conservatives your whole life.”

“They’re all basically white liberals,” she says of the harassers.

Fontanilla had already decided that she could not remain a teacher in the school district; she and her husband decided to move to Florida, where she hoped to find a better job. The twin experiences of remote instruction during the pandemic and race-focused education has left her feeling cold about the teaching profession. She recalls that during the summer of 2020, in the midst of the George Floyd protests, the Salinas administration informed its black teachers—Fontanilla included—that they would be honored with a gift.

The gift, it turned out, was a mask bearing the message: Black Teachers Matter.

“I would never wear it in front of my students,” she says. “I think especially if a kid isn’t into Black Lives Matter and I’m wearing this Black Teachers Matter mask, that kid automatically knows they can’t speak up in my class.”

The gift also included an “I Love Being Black” sticker, and a letter with an ancient African greeting that “acknowledges the god in me and stuff like that.”

“It was just so weird,” she says.

The post Hispanic Students Were Forced To Learn Critical Race Theory. They Hated It. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/x6MHZzuJg
via IFTTT

Offices and Officers of the Constitution, Parts I and II

Seth Barrett Tillman and I have published the first two installments of our planned ten-part series that provides the first comprehensive examination of the offices and officers of the Constitution. Parts I and II now appear in Volume 61 of the South Texas Law Review. Here are the abstracts:

Offices and Officers of the Constitution, Part I: An Introduction

In this Essay, we introduce our planned ten-part series that provides the first comprehensive examination of the offices and officers of the Constitution. This series will explain the original public meaning of twelve clauses of the Constitution that refer to six categories of offices and officers. First, the phrase “Officers of the United States” refers to appointed positions in the Executive and Judicial Branches. Second, the phrase “Office . . . under the United States” refers to appointed positions in the Executive and Judicial Branches, and also includes non-apex appointed positions in the Legislative Branch. Third, the phrase “Office under the Authority of the United States” includes all “Office[s] . . . under the United States,” and extends further to include a broader category of irregular positions. Fourth, the phrase “Officer” of “the Government of the United States” refers to the presiding officers identified in the Constitution. Fifth, the word “Officer,” as used in the Succession Clause, refers to those who hold “Office . . . under the United States” and those who are “Officer[s]” of “the Government of the United States.” Sixth, the phrase “Office or public Trust under the United States” encompasses two categories of positions: “Office[s] . . . under the United States” and “public Trusts under the United States.” The former category includes appointed positions in all three branches; the latter category includes federal officials who are not subject to direction or supervision by a higher federal authority in the normal course of their duties.

Our categorization excludes elected officials from the categories “Officers of the United States” and “Office[s] . . . under the United States.” Not everyone agrees with our Minimalist View. Professors Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar have put forward an Intermediate View: the elected President is an “officer of the United States,” but members of Congress are not. Professor Zephyr Teachout advances a Maximalist View: elected and appointed positions, in all three branches, are “offices” and “officers.” And some scholars may embrace a fourth approach. Under a Clause-Bound View, fine variations in the Constitution’s text should not be used to distinguish different kinds of offices and officers. Rather, this view purports to be guided by the specific purposes that animate each individual clause.

As a general matter, it is impossible to reject any of these four approaches with 100% certainty. Instead, we make a limited claim: our approach, the Minimalist View, is better than its known rivals. The Framers chose different “office”- and “officer”-language in different clauses of the Constitution. These provisions were altered throughout the Convention to standardize and harmonize how the Constitution refers to offices and officers. And the conduct of President Washington, his cabinet, and the First Congress was consistent with the Minimalist View. This evidence undermines the Intermediate, Maximalist, and Clause-Bound Approaches.

Part I, this Essay, introduces our planned ten-part series. Part II will expound on the four approaches to understand the Constitution’s “office”- and “officer”-language. Part III will analyze the phrase “Officers of the United States,” which appears in the Appointments Clause, the Commissions Clause, the Impeachment Clause, and the Oath or Affirmation Clause. Part IV will trace the history of the “Office . . . under the United States” drafting convention. Part V will consider the meaning of the phrase “Office . . . under the United States,” which appears in the Incompatibility Clause, the Impeachment Disqualification Clause, the Foreign Emoluments Clause, and the Elector Incompatibility Clause. Part VI will turn to the phrase “Office under the Authority of the United States,” which appears in the Ineligibility Clause. Part VII will study the Religious Test Clause, which uses the phrase “Office or public Trust under the United States.” Part VIII will focus on the phrase “Officer” of “the Government of the United States” in the Necessary and Proper Clause. Part IX will elaborate on the word “Officer,” standing alone and unmodified, in the Succession Clause. Part X will conclude the series.

Offices and Officers of the Constitution, Part II: The Four Approaches

This Article is the second installment of a planned ten-part series that provides the first comprehensive examination of the offices and officers of the Constitution. The first installment introduced the series. In this second installment, we will identify four approaches to understand the Constitution’s divergent “office”- and “officer”-language.

First, under Approach #1, the Intermediate View, the Constitution’s references to “offices” and “officers” extend exclusively to positions in the Judicial Branch and in the Executive Branch—whether appointed or elected. But the Constitution’s references to “offices” and “officers” do not extend to positions in the Legislative Branch—whether appointed or elected.

Second, under Approach #2, the Maximalist View, the Constitution’s divergent “office”- and “officer”-language is used synonymously. And, under this approach, these phrases refer to positions in all three branches, whether appointed or elected.

Third, under Approach #3, the Minimalist View, the Constitution’s divergent “office”- and “officer”-language has different meanings. The phrase “Officers of the United States” extends exclusively to appointed positions in the Executive and Judicial Branches. And the phrase “Office . . . under the United States” extends exclusively to appointed positions in all three branches. (The ellipses refer to different words the Framers placed after office but before under: “profit,” “trust,” and/or “honor”). For more than a decade, Tillman has advanced Approach #3. Blackman was first piqued by Tillman’s position shortly after he became a law professor, and he was thereafter persuaded.

Finally, we consider Approach #4, which we refer to as the Clause-Bound View. Under this approach, the “office”- and “officer”-language in each provision of the Constitution should be interpreted in isolation, without regard to how the same or similar language is used elsewhere in the Constitution. For example, the phrase “Officers of the United States” in one clause may have a different meaning than the phrase “Officers of the United States” in another clause.

This Article—at more than 30,000 words in length—is incomplete. Here, we simply introduce our taxonomy. If all goes to plan, the planned ten-part series will be completed circa Spring 2023. At that point, our project will be substantially complete. And, we hope, any remaining significant lingering questions will have been answered.

The first two installments total nearly 130 pages. And we’re still not done. Stay tuned for parts three through ten.

The post Offices and Officers of the Constitution, Parts I and II appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/9jn8cOu0s
via IFTTT

Hispanic Students Were Forced To Learn Critical Race Theory. They Hated It.


Thumbnail 2

During the 2020 fall semester, Kali Fontanilla—a high school English language teacher working in the Salinas, California, school district—noticed that many of her students were failing one of their other classes: ethnic studies. This was at the height of the pandemic, and instruction was entirely online, leaving many students in the lurch. Still, Fontanilla thought it was odd to see so many Fs.

Salinas has a majority Mexican population; all of Fontanilla’s students were Hispanic and were learning English as a second language. Education officials who propose adding ethnic studies to various curriculums—and making it mandatory, as the Salinas school district did—typically intend for privileged white students to learn about other cultures. There’s a certain irony in requiring members of an ethnic minority to study this, and an even greater irony in the fact that such students were struggling intensely with the course.

“My students are failing ethnic studies,” says Fontanilla, who is of Jamaican ancestry. “I would say half of them are failing this ethnic studies class.”

This made Fontanilla curious about what the course was teaching. All of the high school’s teachers used the same online platform to post lesson plans and course materials, so Fontanilla decided to take a look. She was shocked by what she saw.

“This was like extreme left brainwashing of these kids,” says Fontanilla. “Critical race theory all throughout the lessons, from start to finish. The whole thing.”

Critical race theory, or CRT, has become a flashpoint in the debate about what kids ought to be learning in public schools. Originally an obscure, left-wing body of thought that mostly appeared in graduate schools, critics charge it with influencing diversity workshops for major corporations, training seminars for teachers, and even K-12 curricula. Parental concerns about CRT became a major flashpoint in the 2020 Virginia gubernatorial race. After winning the race and taking office, Republican challenger Glenn Youngkin’s first act was to ban CRT.

Many adherents of CRT deny that it’s taught to primary education students, and the mainstream media have been quick to line up behind such claims. That’s why Fontanilla’s discovery was so significant.

“The teacher had the kids all learn about the four I’s of oppression,” says Fontanilla. The four I’s were institutional, internalized, ideological, and interpersonal oppression. “And then there was a whole presentation on critical race theory and they actually had the students analyze the school through critical race theory.”

Slides from lesson plans provided by Fontanilla confirm that the ethnic studies course references critical race theory by name.

The original meaning of the theory, at least when taught at the college level, is that racism so pervades U.S. society and U.S. institutions that it is impossible to separate race from other issues: All policies, structures, and laws were built under the auspices of racism, a sort of original sin that shapes the country’s institutions. In common parlance, opponents often use the term “CRT” to refer a broader set of concepts, like intersectionality—the idea that there are different kinds of oppression that all stack on top of each other—and privilege.

“The kids don’t even want this stuff,” says Fontanilla, noting that the ethnic studies course replaced a much more popular health class—in the midst of a pandemic, no less. “Most of them are just like, ‘Why do we have to take this class?'”

They would have to direct that question to California Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state’s Democratic-controlled legislature, which decided to mandate ethnic studies for all public schools. Newsom vetoed a previous mandate, which came under fire because the proposed curriculum included “jargon such as ‘cisheteropatriarchy’ and ‘hxrstory,’ and refers to capitalism as a form of power and oppression alongside white supremacy and racism,” according to Cal Matters.

The legislature re-worked the ethnic studies proposal, and on October 8, 2021, Newsom signed the mandate into law. Beginning with the class of 2030, all public high school students in California will now have enroll in the same sort of course that Fontanilla’s students already took.

In a statement to The Epoch Times, Dan Burns, superintendent of Salinas Union High School district, denied that the course was based on CRT, though he conceded that CRT “is addressed in our course as one of the frameworks within the K-12 Ethnic Studies Outcomes list.”

Indeed, CRT is referenced in the district’s ethnic course syllabus, which is available online. The syllabus stresses that students will study “intergenerational trauma” through an interdisciplinary and critical lens. Scholarly articles about critical race theory are included in the suggested curriculum, including “Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth,” by Tara J. Yosso, a UCLA professor of education who specializes in critical race theory.

One of suggested activities for students is an “intersectional rainbow.”

“Students will rank their various identities with corresponding colored strings to create intersectional rainbows. Gender, race, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, beliefs, nationality, ability, age, etc.,” reads the syllabus. “Students will compare and contrast their intersectional rainbows with their peers, while framing their discourse within the intersectionality paradigm as laid out by Kimberlé Crenshaw.”

Crenshaw, a Columbia University law professor, is widely recognized as one of CRT’s founding figures. (Vanity Fair once called her the “mastermind of critical race theory.”)

Other possible classroom activities include hosting a mock trial where they accuse various historical persons of being complicit in the genocide of Native Californians and “creating a social justice oriented counter-narrative.”

Salina’s version of the course included a “privilege quiz”: Students were expected to rank themselves based on their marginalized status or lack thereof. The lesson plan included an image of two white girls—former Republican President George W. Bush’s twin daughters, to be precise—at the top of the privilege hierarchy.

“Some people are born in third base and think they hit a triple,” says Fontanilla, recalling the intended message of the exercise. “So basically, they were born on third base and they graduated college because they had a head start.”

Many people might consider such activities to be a form of left-wing activism infiltrating the classroom . Fontanilla is one of them. As a Christian, a conservative, and a black woman, she doesn’t believe that students—especially her students, learning English as a second language—need to be taught to check their privilege.

“It’s hyper-race-focused,” says Fontanilla. “And whenever there’s hyper race focus, racism will follow.”

Fontanilla decided that district parents had a right to know what was in the curriculum, and took steps to obtain the lesson plans so that she her job would not be at risk if she leaked them. She contacted an attorney for help, but when they finally received the documents, the district had omitted the slides that included the words critical race theory.

She decided to write a letter to the school board in protest of the ethnic studies curriculum. It was read aloud at a meeting on June 22.

“I do not appreciate constantly being pandered to and treated differently because of the color of my skin, especially since I did not have the freedom to not go along with it,” Fontanilla wrote, warning that the curriculum was an attempt at left-wing indoctrination. The statement elicited cheers from other parents attending the meeting. In response, the school board prohibited anti-CRT comments at its next public gathering.

“You know it’s something evil when they get so nasty defending it,” says Fontanilla.

While she has received much praise for speaking out, Fontanilla has also endured considerable online harassment, including threats of violence. One told her to “have fun being a token black friend to racist conservatives your whole life.”

“They’re all basically white liberals,” she says of the harassers.

Fontanilla had already decided that she could not remain a teacher in the school district; she and her husband decided to move to Florida, where she hoped to find a better job. The twin experiences of remote instruction during the pandemic and race-focused education has left her feeling cold about the teaching profession. She recalls that during the summer of 2020, in the midst of the George Floyd protests, the Salinas administration informed its black teachers—Fontanilla included—that they would be honored with a gift.

The gift, it turned out, was a mask bearing the message: Black Teachers Matter.

“I would never wear it in front of my students,” she says. “I think especially if a kid isn’t into Black Lives Matter and I’m wearing this Black Teachers Matter mask, that kid automatically knows they can’t speak up in my class.”

The gift also included an “I Love Being Black” sticker, and a letter with an ancient African greeting that “acknowledges the god in me and stuff like that.”

“It was just so weird,” she says.

The post Hispanic Students Were Forced To Learn Critical Race Theory. They Hated It. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/x6MHZzuJg
via IFTTT

“This Is Just Madness!” Paul Craig Roberts Warns “America Is Very Unstable”

“This Is Just Madness!” Paul Craig Roberts Warns “America Is Very Unstable”

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com ,

International award-winning journalist and former Assistant Treasury Secretary Dr. Paul Craig Roberts (PCR) says data shows between CV19 policies and the policies surrounding Russia that “America is very unstable.” 

Let’s start with the NATO talks with Russia over Ukraine that broke down in a diplomatic disaster last week.  There is the real possibility of nuclear war with Russia.  Dr. PCR explains, “The West is continually antagonizing Russia (PCR is referring primarily to Ukraine, Georgia and Kazakhstan)…”

”  This will eventually lead to some kind of conflict.  If it is a conventional war, the West does not have a chance—no chance whatsoever.  So, what would Washington do when it’s faced with a massive defeat?  It would save face by resorting to nukes.  That’s the way Washington is.  So, it’s very dangerous.  It’s extremely dangerous to make the Russians feel threatened, and when they tell you (Washington D.C) that, you ignore it.  You don’t hear, and you make them feel more threatened. . . . This is just madness, and it opens up the prospects of military confrontation.  I guarantee you that the Russians are not going to allow NATO to take in Ukraine and Georgia.  They simply will not, and it cannot be done. . . . We are not prepared for military confrontation with Russia and much less with Russia and China.”  Last week, the Russian government publicly said it thought the Biden Administration was having a “nervous breakdown,” which was intended as a huge insult.

The other huge problem is the CV19 policies with shutdowns and coerced experimental injections.  Dr. PCR says, “The whole Covid thing is a hoax…”

”  It’s all been for nothing, and it’s unnecessary, but they are sticking with it.  They are sticking with it despite the fact that it is now conclusively proven that what the vaccine does is turn your own immune system into a weapon against your own body.  The vaccine causes your immune system to attack your own vital organs.  That’s why you have these vaccine injuries and deaths, and it does not protect you from Covid. . . . Yet, they still want to continue it.  It’s another form of insanity.”

The biggest driver of a troubled economy and spiking inflation is none other than the Covid policies.  Dr. PCR points out, “The inflation is really reflecting the lockdowns and cessation of supply…”

“All of a sudden you have got shortages everywhere.  How do people get things?  You bid for it.  You have to outbid . . . You can see the whole Covid policy is shrinking the ability of the economy to produce.  That’s the problem.”

Dr. PCR sees a “collapse of society” because the data is showing many will get sick or die because of the dangerous injections.

Dr. PCR also says countries are turning away from the U.S. dollar and buying gold.  That is very dollar negative, and it is not going to tame inflation–just the opposite.

What does Dr. PCR see in the political future for the Democrats and the Biden Administration?  Dr. PCR says, “The Democrats have blown it, but if they can get away with blaming the unvaccinated for all the problems . . . they may be shielded...”

“Democrats may also be shielded if they can force Russia to take some sort of decisive action.  Then everybody has to rally around the President…

…It’s very, very unstable, and there are reasons to leave the dollar if inflation is high.”

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with award-winning journalist Dr. Paul Craig Roberts 1.19.22  (There is much more in the 46 min. interview.)

To Donate to USAWatchdog.com Click Here

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/31/2022 – 09:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/GFLU1Y8PS Tyler Durden

Key Events This Week: ECB, BOE, Payrolls, Euro CPI And Earnings Galore

Key Events This Week: ECB, BOE, Payrolls, Euro CPI And Earnings Galore

It’s a relatively busy week with several key central bank announcements, notably from the ECB and BOE, as well as European CPI updates and the US payrolls report on Friday.

Starting with the ECB, Deutsche Bank economists now expect a policy rate liftoff in December 2022 of 25bps, a view apparently shared by the market this morning. They’re also anticipating a faster pace of tightening, with 25bp hikes in the deposit rate per quarter from December 2022, until rates reach +0.5% in September 2023. In terms of what it means for this February meeting, they write in their preview that they expect the slow, step-by-step pivot to exit will continue. Their view is that President Lagarde will reiterate the ECB’s capacity to act once the inflation criteria in the rates guidance are met, whilst at the same time differentiating the needs of the Euro Area from the US.

The other central bank decision that day is from the Bank of England, where expectations are for the BoE to follow up their December rate hike with another 25bps increase, taking the Bank Rate to 0.5%. Furthermore, the MPC should confirm that any APF reinvestments will cease from here on out, resulting in around £38bn falling out of the Bank’s balance sheet this year.

The data highlight in a busy week will be payrolls Friday. Economists expect nonfarm payrolls to have grown by a relatively subdued +150k in January, with the unemployment rate remaining at a post-pandemic low of 3.9%. Clearly Omicron will impact this data, so it’ll be tough to get a clear read though but Fed Chair Powell has already said that his personal view is that labor market conditions were consistent with maximum employment, “in the sense of the highest level of employment that is consistent with price stability.” The JOLTS report tomorrow will also be a good indicator of the tightness of the labor market and one we’ve preferred to payrolls as a lead indicator during the pandemic.

Otherwise, Wednesday’s flash CPI reading from the Euro Area for January will be interesting. Our economists expect that year-on-year inflation will subside to +4.3% from its peak of +5.0% in December, which was also the fastest pace since the formation of the single currency.

On the earnings side, we’ll get an array of reports this week as the season continues in full flow, including 111 companies from the S&P 500 and a further 56 in the STOXX 600. Among the highlights: ExxonMobil, PayPal, UPS, Starbucks, General Motors and UBS tomorrow. Then on Wednesday we’ll hear from Alphabet, Meta, AbbVie, Novo Nordisk, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Novartis, Qualcomm, T-Mobile US, Santander, Sony and Spotify. On Thursday, releases include Amazon, Roche, Eli Lilly, Merck & Co., Shell, Honeywell and Ford. Finally on Friday, there’s reports from Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi and Aon.

Source: Earnings Whispers

Finally, there’ll be a continued focus on the trajectory of oil prices over the week ahead, particularly with the OPEC+ group meeting on Wednesday to discuss a March production increase. With inflation running at multi-decade highs in numerous countries and Brent Crude having surpassed $90/bbl at points in trading over the week just gone for the first time since 2014, oil prices are likely to remain a significant issue for policymakers over the coming months. For YoY comparisons, Oil was around $55 this time last year.

Day-by-day calendar of events, courtesy of Deutsche Bank

Monday January 31

  • Data: Euro Area Q4 GDP, Italy Q4 GDP, Germany preliminary January CPI, US January MNI Chicago PMI, Dallas Fed manufacturing index, Japan December jobless rate (23:30 UK time)
  • Central Banks: Fed’s Daly speaks

Tuesday February 1

  • Data: Global manufacturing PMIs, France preliminary January CPI, Germany January unemployment change, Italy December unemployment rate, UK December mortgage approvals, Euro Area December unemployment rate, Canada November GDP, US January ISM manufacturing, December JOLTS job openings, construction spending
  • Central Banks: Reserve Bank of Australia monetary policy decision
  • Earnings: ExxonMobil, PayPal, UPS, Starbucks, General Motors, UBS

Wednesday February 2

  • Data: Euro Area January flash CPI, Italy preliminary January CPI, US January ADP employment change
  • Central Banks: Central Bank of Brazil monetary policy decision
  • Earnings: Alphabet, Meta, AbbVie, Novo Nordisk, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Novartis, Qualcomm, T-Mobile US, Santander, Sony, Spotify

Thursday February 3

  • Data: Global services and composite PMIs, Euro Area December PPI, US weekly initial jobless claims, January ISM services index, December factory orders
  • Central Banks: ECB monetary policy decision, Bank of England monetary policy decision, US Senate Banking Committee holds confirmation hearings for Fed governor nominees
  • Earnings: Amazon, Roche, Eli Lilly, Merck & Co., Shell, Honeywell, Ford

Friday February 4

  • Data: Germany December factory orders, France December industrial production, January construction PMIs from Germany and UK, Euro Area December retail sales, US January change in nonfarm payrolls, unemployment rate, average hourly earnings
  • Central Banks: BoE’s Broadbent and Pill speak
  • Earnings: Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Aon

* * *

Finally, focusing on just the US, the key economic data releases this week are the ISM manufacturing report on Tuesday and the employment situation report on Friday. There are a few speaking engagements from Fed officials this week, including the Fed Board nominees’ confirmation hearings before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on Thursday.

Monday, January 31

  • 09:45 AM Chicago PMI, January (GS 62.0, consensus 61.8, last 64.3): We estimate that the Chicago PMI declined to 62.0 in January from 64.3 in December, reflecting sequential weakness in other manufacturing surveys and an Omicron-related sentiment drag.
  • 10:30 AM Dallas Fed manufacturing index, January (consensus 8.5, last 8.1)
  • 11:30 AM San Francisco Fed President Daly (FOMC non-voter) speaks: San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly will be interviewed as part of a Reuters Breakingviews event. In an interview on January 12th, Daly stated that she saw “rate increases coming, as early as March,” and that the economy was “very close” to what she “would consider full employment.” Earlier this week, Chair Powell stated that the FOMC was “of a mind” to increase the federal funds rate in March, and hinted at the possibility of hikes at consecutive meetings this year. We now expect that the Fed will hike five times in 2022, with consecutive hikes in March and May, and start balance-sheet normalization in June.

Tuesday, February 1

  • 09:45 AM Markit manufacturing PMI, January final (consensus 55.0, last 55.0)
  • 10:00 AM Construction spending, December (GS +1.0%, consensus +0.6%, last +0.4%): We estimate a 1.0% increase in construction spending in December.
  • 10:00 AM ISM manufacturing index, January (GS 58.2, consensus 57.5, last 58.7): We estimate that the ISM manufacturing index declined 0.5pt to 58.2 in January, reflecting the pullback in other business surveys but a rebound in the supplier deliveries component related to Omicron.
  • 10:00 AM JOLTS job openings, December (consensus 10,300k, last 10,562k)
  • 05:00 PM Lightweight motor vehicle sales, January (GS 14.5mn, consensus 12.70mn, last 12.44mn)

Wednesday, February 2

  • 08:15 AM ADP employment report, January (GS flat, consensus +200k, last +807k): We expect a flat reading for ADP payroll employment in January. Our forecast assumes a smaller drag from Omicron than in the official payroll data, reflecting differences in methodology. However, we also expect a drag on the ADP data from rebounding jobless claims, which is an input to their model.

Thursday, February 3

  • 08:30 AM Initial jobless claims, week ended January 29 (GS 245k, consensus 250k, last 260k); Continuing jobless claims, week ended January 22 (consensus 1,600k, last 1,675k): We estimate initial jobless claims declined to 245k in the week ended January 29.
  • 08:30 AM Nonfarm productivity, Q4 preliminary (GS +3.2%, consensus +3.2%, last -5.2%); Unit labor costs, Q4 preliminary (GS +1.2%, consensus +1.0%, last +9.6%): We estimate nonfarm productivity growth of 3.2% in Q4 (qoq saar) and unit labor cost—compensation per hour divided by output per hour—growth of 1.2%.
  • 09:45 AM Markit US services PMI, January final (consensus 50.9, last 50.9)
  • 10:00 AM ISM services index, January (GS 60.0, consensus 59.0, last 62.0): We estimate that the ISM services index declined 2.0pt to 60.0 in January. Our forecast reflects an Omicron-driven pullback in the employment and business activity components partially offset by a boost to the headline from slower supplier deliveries.
  • 10:00 AM Factory orders, December (GS -1.0%, consensus -0.2%, last +1.6%); Durable goods orders, December final (last -0.9%); Durable goods orders ex-transportation, December final (last +0.4%); Core capital goods orders, December final (last flat); Core capital goods shipments, December final (last +1.3%): We estimate that factory orders decreased by 1.0% in December following a 1.6% increase in November. Durable goods orders declined by 0.9% in the December advance report, and core capital goods orders were flat.
  • 10:00 AM Fed Board Nominees Raskin, Cook, and Jefferson’s confirmation hearings: Former Fed Governor Sarah Bloom Raskin, Michigan State Professor Lisa Cook, and Davidson Professor Philip Jefferson will appear before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs for their confirmation hearings for their nominations to the roles of Vice Chair for Supervision (Raskin) and Governor (Cook and Jefferson). The new nominees have generally expressed dovish policy views, but the continuity in Fed leadership and pressing nature of the current inflation overshoot likely mean that their near-term monetary policy impact will be limited. We see a potentially larger shift in the Federal Reserve’s regulatory agenda, as Raskin generally supported greater bank regulation.

Friday, February 4

  • 8:30 AM Nonfarm payroll employment, January (GS -250k, consensus +150k, last +199k); Private payroll employment, January (GS -275k, consensus +150k, last +211k); Average hourly earnings (mom), January (GS +0.6%, consensus +0.5%, last +0.6%); Average hourly earnings (yoy), January (GS +5.3%, consensus +5.2%, last +4.7%); Unemployment rate, January (GS 3.9%, consensus 3.9%, last 3.9%): We estimate nonfarm payrolls declined by 250k in January (mom sa). Our forecast reflects a large and temporary drag from Omicron on the order of 500-1000k, as survey data indicate a surge in absenteeism during the month. Dining activity also slowed sharply, and Big Data indicators are consistent with an outright decline in nonfarm payrolls. However, the number of end-of-year layoffs was below normal, and this should partially offset the Omicron drag (the BLS seasonal factors assume ~3mn net job losses in the month of January). We also estimate a 50k rebound in education employment (public and private), reflecting fewer janitors and support staff departing for winter break.
  • We estimate an unchanged unemployment rate of 3.9%, reflecting a decline in household employment offset by a drop in labor force participation due to the virus wave. We estimate a 0.6% rise in average hourly earnings (mom sa) that boosts the year-on-year rate by six tenths to 5.3%, reflecting positive calendar effects, a boost from composition effects, and potentially larger-than-normal annual raises for some production and nonsupervisory workers.

Source: DB, Goldman, BofA

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/31/2022 – 09:05

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