Month: July 2022

We Have a Printing Paper Problem


topicsfuture

I, Magazine, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe. I am seemingly so simple, yet not a single person on the face of this Earth knows how to make me.

Fans of the great Leonard Read will recognize (and hopefully forgive) the bastardization of his lovely market parable, “I, Pencil.” As Milton Friedman wrote of this brief, powerful essay by the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education: “I know of no other piece of literature that so succinctly, persuasively, and effectively illustrates the meaning of both Adam Smith’s invisible hand—the possibility of cooperation without coercion—and Friedrich Hayek’s emphasis on the importance of dispersed knowledge and the role of the price system in communicating information.”

While my affection for Read’s essay remains undimmed, my faith in the mechanisms it describes has been tested over the last several months. I’m not alone in this: Consumers around the world are more aware than ever before of the workings of their supply chains—and of what happens to prices and availability when those lines are strained. From the toilet paper shortage that kicked off the pandemic to the semiconductor crunch of 2022, it’s been an education.

Until recently, I had only the vaguest grasp of the specific complex market that enabled the physical version of Reason magazine to come into being. This is as it should be; my ignorance was one of the great gifts of functioning markets.

For the last 17 years, Reason has bought its paper in enormous lots from UPM-Kymmene Oyj, a Helsinki-based company. A typical order is 20 metric tons. Shipping containers of UPM paper float from Kotka-Hamina or other ports to Baltimore on the slowest of slow boats, where they are unloaded onto trucks and taken to Little Rock, Arkansas. There, Reason is printed by Democrat Printing & Lithographing Co., a family firm founded in 1871, alongside dozens of other publications. Each issue is then delivered to readers by the planes, trains, trucks, and weary feet of the U.S. Postal Service. All of this is coordinated by Reason‘s publisher, Mike Alissi.

Several months back, though, prices started to rise at every step of this process. And prices, as Hayek taught us, contain information. They were warning, it turns out, of a dire turn of events.

The story of what went wrong with the paper supply begins before the pandemic. As many publications—periodicals and books, as well as business mailings, election materials, and more—shifted to digital, paper mills found themselves with too much capacity and too much supply. Prices were low, and paper was easy to obtain on short notice. So available, in fact, that most customers didn’t bother to keep large amounts of inventory on hand.

This situation was not terribly favorable to paper producers. So they adapted. They took some plants offline, and they retooled others to produce the kind of paper that is useful in packaging—a growing segment of the market as e-commerce boomed.

Then the pandemic hit, and the paper industry suffered as all industries suffered, from lockdowns, labor shortages, and, eventually, a lack of raw materials as global shipping got weird.

The price of wood pulp spiked, for instance. China overtook the U.S. in 2009 as the top producer and consumer of paper products, and an environmental initiative in China that shut down 279 pulp and paper mills may have been partially responsible for an increase in the price of wood pulp—it rose from about $750 per metric ton in 2020 to almost $1,200 per metric ton in 2021.

Things were already tight when UPM workers went on strike. The relationship between employers and workers in Finland tends to be pretty peaceable, so at first this didn’t seem like a huge cause for alarm, even given that the system was already under some stress. But the strike, which began on January 1, 2022, stretched on and on.

Since Finnish labor politics are rarely covered in detail in the English-language press, our trusty paper broker Cliff Roth resorted to getting hot gossip from a pal in Finland. The news was not good. “As you’ll read,” Roth wrote atop an April Google-translated dispatch, “the ‘Printing Paper’ talks have been temporarily suspended by the Arbitrator, while talks in other product areas continue, because the ‘Printing Paper’ parties are so far apart.”

Finally, on April 22, the parties came to a resolution, and the strike ended. But, as described above, paper doesn’t move quickly. Even without an ongoing pandemic, it would take a while to get the plants back online, the shippers back under contract, and more.

“I started in the paper business in 1969,” says Roth, who has supplied Reason with paper for decades. “Over that period, there have been tight markets. There have been markets where the buyers were scrambling and the sellers were more or less on the top of the hill. That cycles every four or five years. But I have never seen anything like this in all those years. It has just been absolutely incredible.”

As we scrounge around to find paper in tough times, I’m reminded of another gal who faced some similar challenges.

Ayn Rand, not famed for her brevity, struggled to find a publisher for The Fountainhead and then immediately ran face-first into wartime paper shortages. She fought cuts to her copy fiercely, and when the book was finally printed in 1943, it was a relatively small run of 7,500 copies. Despite brutal reviews, demand grew until her publisher had to cut a deal with another printer, Blakiston—”a small press with a large paper quota,” according to Rand biographer Jennifer Burns.

Rand was the master of the snippy business letter. I recommend browsing the Ayn Rand Institute’s archives if you’re ever at a loss for words in your own workaday correspondence. In one of many hectoring missives, she wrote to her publisher: “War conditions of the printing industry do not relieve you of the contractual obligation to keep my book in print in step with the demand. Since we know that everything is done slower now, we must make our calculations accordingly.”

And so must Reason. It’s fitting that this is our summer double issue and a special book issue, revived from a past era when editions of the magazine devoted to books were more common. Book sales were at an all-time high during the pandemic, with folks setting aside once-popular self-help books to read first about baking and then social justice, before finally giving in to the temptation of adult fiction. That uptick in reading is a double-edged sword for us this month, editorially. With so many books to cover, we needed every page of this double issue, even as those pages have grown both expensive and scarce. The 2022 books issue focuses on banned books, with a rather broad interpretation of the forces that can keep books out of readers’ hands, including factors you might not think of as traditional state censorship.

The scramble to find paper has been rough, but it is still infinitely preferable to any centrally managed or allocated process. For one thing, you can be rather sure that a magazine that questions the conduct of economic regulators at every turn would find itself at the end of the line for paper even in the best of times.

In the short run, Reason is going to show up at your house on some unusual paper. Our usual stuff won’t be available for months. We’ve already been subbing in some slightly different papers, but this one should be noticeably so: It’s matte, instead of our usual silk. According to Roth, it’s also “toothier.” It’s also a little more likely to crease and a lot more expensive to ship, since it’s heavier.

We hope you’ll bear with us, because we’re not ready to give up on dead trees yet. As Read well knew, there’s something miraculous about holding the product of so many people’s labor and ideas in your hands—a tangible representation of the marvelously free, interconnected world in which we live.

“The lesson I have to teach is this,” declared Read’s personified pencil. “Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society’s legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed.”

I, Magazine, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith.

The post We Have a Printing Paper Problem appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/0afs8H4
via IFTTT

We Have a Printing Paper Problem


topicsfuture

I, Magazine, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe. I am seemingly so simple, yet not a single person on the face of this Earth knows how to make me.

Fans of the great Leonard Read will recognize (and hopefully forgive) the bastardization of his lovely market parable, “I, Pencil.” As Milton Friedman wrote of this brief, powerful essay by the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education: “I know of no other piece of literature that so succinctly, persuasively, and effectively illustrates the meaning of both Adam Smith’s invisible hand—the possibility of cooperation without coercion—and Friedrich Hayek’s emphasis on the importance of dispersed knowledge and the role of the price system in communicating information.”

While my affection for Read’s essay remains undimmed, my faith in the mechanisms it describes has been tested over the last several months. I’m not alone in this: Consumers around the world are more aware than ever before of the workings of their supply chains—and of what happens to prices and availability when those lines are strained. From the toilet paper shortage that kicked off the pandemic to the semiconductor crunch of 2022, it’s been an education.

Until recently, I had only the vaguest grasp of the specific complex market that enabled the physical version of Reason magazine to come into being. This is as it should be; my ignorance was one of the great gifts of functioning markets.

For the last 17 years, Reason has bought its paper in enormous lots from UPM-Kymmene Oyj, a Helsinki-based company. A typical order is 20 metric tons. Shipping containers of UPM paper float from Kotka-Hamina or other ports to Baltimore on the slowest of slow boats, where they are unloaded onto trucks and taken to Little Rock, Arkansas. There, Reason is printed by Democrat Printing & Lithographing Co., a family firm founded in 1871, alongside dozens of other publications. Each issue is then delivered to readers by the planes, trains, trucks, and weary feet of the U.S. Postal Service. All of this is coordinated by Reason‘s publisher, Mike Alissi.

Several months back, though, prices started to rise at every step of this process. And prices, as Hayek taught us, contain information. They were warning, it turns out, of a dire turn of events.

The story of what went wrong with the paper supply begins before the pandemic. As many publications—periodicals and books, as well as business mailings, election materials, and more—shifted to digital, paper mills found themselves with too much capacity and too much supply. Prices were low, and paper was easy to obtain on short notice. So available, in fact, that most customers didn’t bother to keep large amounts of inventory on hand.

This situation was not terribly favorable to paper producers. So they adapted. They took some plants offline, and they retooled others to produce the kind of paper that is useful in packaging—a growing segment of the market as e-commerce boomed.

Then the pandemic hit, and the paper industry suffered as all industries suffered, from lockdowns, labor shortages, and, eventually, a lack of raw materials as global shipping got weird.

The price of wood pulp spiked, for instance. China overtook the U.S. in 2009 as the top producer and consumer of paper products, and an environmental initiative in China that shut down 279 pulp and paper mills may have been partially responsible for an increase in the price of wood pulp—it rose from about $750 per metric ton in 2020 to almost $1,200 per metric ton in 2021.

Things were already tight when UPM workers went on strike. The relationship between employers and workers in Finland tends to be pretty peaceable, so at first this didn’t seem like a huge cause for alarm, even given that the system was already under some stress. But the strike, which began on January 1, 2022, stretched on and on.

Since Finnish labor politics are rarely covered in detail in the English-language press, our trusty paper broker Cliff Roth resorted to getting hot gossip from a pal in Finland. The news was not good. “As you’ll read,” Roth wrote atop an April Google-translated dispatch, “the ‘Printing Paper’ talks have been temporarily suspended by the Arbitrator, while talks in other product areas continue, because the ‘Printing Paper’ parties are so far apart.”

Finally, on April 22, the parties came to a resolution, and the strike ended. But, as described above, paper doesn’t move quickly. Even without an ongoing pandemic, it would take a while to get the plants back online, the shippers back under contract, and more.

“I started in the paper business in 1969,” says Roth, who has supplied Reason with paper for decades. “Over that period, there have been tight markets. There have been markets where the buyers were scrambling and the sellers were more or less on the top of the hill. That cycles every four or five years. But I have never seen anything like this in all those years. It has just been absolutely incredible.”

As we scrounge around to find paper in tough times, I’m reminded of another gal who faced some similar challenges.

Ayn Rand, not famed for her brevity, struggled to find a publisher for The Fountainhead and then immediately ran face-first into wartime paper shortages. She fought cuts to her copy fiercely, and when the book was finally printed in 1943, it was a relatively small run of 7,500 copies. Despite brutal reviews, demand grew until her publisher had to cut a deal with another printer, Blakiston—”a small press with a large paper quota,” according to Rand biographer Jennifer Burns.

Rand was the master of the snippy business letter. I recommend browsing the Ayn Rand Institute’s archives if you’re ever at a loss for words in your own workaday correspondence. In one of many hectoring missives, she wrote to her publisher: “War conditions of the printing industry do not relieve you of the contractual obligation to keep my book in print in step with the demand. Since we know that everything is done slower now, we must make our calculations accordingly.”

And so must Reason. It’s fitting that this is our summer double issue and a special book issue, revived from a past era when editions of the magazine devoted to books were more common. Book sales were at an all-time high during the pandemic, with folks setting aside once-popular self-help books to read first about baking and then social justice, before finally giving in to the temptation of adult fiction. That uptick in reading is a double-edged sword for us this month, editorially. With so many books to cover, we needed every page of this double issue, even as those pages have grown both expensive and scarce. The 2022 books issue focuses on banned books, with a rather broad interpretation of the forces that can keep books out of readers’ hands, including factors you might not think of as traditional state censorship.

The scramble to find paper has been rough, but it is still infinitely preferable to any centrally managed or allocated process. For one thing, you can be rather sure that a magazine that questions the conduct of economic regulators at every turn would find itself at the end of the line for paper even in the best of times.

In the short run, Reason is going to show up at your house on some unusual paper. Our usual stuff won’t be available for months. We’ve already been subbing in some slightly different papers, but this one should be noticeably so: It’s matte, instead of our usual silk. According to Roth, it’s also “toothier.” It’s also a little more likely to crease and a lot more expensive to ship, since it’s heavier.

We hope you’ll bear with us, because we’re not ready to give up on dead trees yet. As Read well knew, there’s something miraculous about holding the product of so many people’s labor and ideas in your hands—a tangible representation of the marvelously free, interconnected world in which we live.

“The lesson I have to teach is this,” declared Read’s personified pencil. “Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society’s legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed.”

I, Magazine, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith.

The post We Have a Printing Paper Problem appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/0afs8H4
via IFTTT

Forget Carson! Remember the Maine Human Rights Act.

On its face, Carson v. Maikin seems to be a resounding victory for religious liberty and school choice in Maine. The Supreme Court held that the state cannot exclude two Christian schools from a tuition payment program. Open up the coffers for Bangor Christian and Temple Academy? Not so fast.

Justice Breyer observed in his dissent that there may be another conflict between the state and the Christian schools.

Legislators also recognized that these private schools make religiously based enrollment and hiring decisions. Bangor Christian and Temple Academy, for example, have admissions policies that allow them to deny enrollment to students based on gender, gender-identity, sexual orientation, and religion, and both schools require their teachers to be Born Again Christians. Legislators did not want Maine taxpayers to pay for these religiously based practices—practices not universally endorsed by all citizens of the State—for fear that doing so would cause a significant number of Maine citizens discomfort or displeasure. The nonsectarian requirement helped avoid this conflict—the precise kind of social conflict that the Religion Clauses themselves sought to avoid.

Unsurprisingly, Maine found another way to avoid that “social conflict.” Last year, the legislature revised the Maine Human Rights Act. Now, all private schools that choose to accept public funds must comply with the non-discrimination law. Specifically, the schools will be barred from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The legislature knew quite well that this change would force the two Christian schools to opt-out of any public financing.

Justice Breyer alluded to this fact in his dissent:

Nor do the schools want Maine in this role. Bangor Christian asserted that it would only consider accepting public funds if it “did not have to make any changes in how it operates.” Temple Academy similarly stated that it would only accept state money if it had “in writing that the school would not have to alter its admissions standards, hiring standards, or curriculum.” The nonsectarian requirement ensures that Maine is not pitted against private religious schools in these battles over curriculum or operations, thereby avoiding the social strife resulting from this state-versus-religion confrontation. By invalidating the nonsectarian requirement, the majority today subjects the State, the schools, and the people of Maine to social conflict of a kind that they, and the Religion Clauses, sought to prevent

Shortly after Carson was decided, the Maine Attorney General put out a press release citing this new legislation.

“I am terribly disappointed and disheartened by today’s decision,” said AG Frey.  “Public education should expose children to a variety of viewpoints, promote tolerance and understanding, and prepare children for life in a diverse society.   The education provided by the schools at issue here is inimical to a public education.  They promote a single religion to the exclusion of all others, refuse to admit gay and transgender children, and openly discriminate in hiring teachers and staff.  One school teaches children that the husband is to be the leader of the household.   While parents have the right to send their children to such schools, it is disturbing that the Supreme Court found that parents also have the right to force the public to pay for an education that is fundamentally at odds with values we hold dear.  I intend to explore with Governor Mills’ administration and members of the Legislature statutory amendments to address the Court’s decision and ensure that public money is not used to promote discrimination, intolerance, and bigotry.”

While the Court’s decision paves the way for religious schools to apply to receive public funds, it is not clear whether any religious schools will do so.   Educational facilities that accept public funds must comply with anti-discrimination provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act, and this would require some religious schools to eliminate their current discriminatory practices.

In the New York Times, Aaron Tang observed that this statute provides a workaround to Carson.

“The legislative fix made by Maine lawmakers offers a model for lawmakers elsewhere who are alarmed by the court’s aggressive swing to the right. Maine’s example shows that those on the losing end of a case can often outmaneuver the court and avoid the consequences of a ruling.”

And other states may follow suit.

Other states should follow Maine’s lead. A handful of blue states — including Illinois, Maryland, Nevada and Vermont — provide vouchers or similar tax-credit scholarships to low-income students to enroll in private schools. None of them, however, enacted a statute prohibiting funds-receiving private schools from discriminating against L.G.B.T.Q. students. Legislation that would do so is pending in Maryland’s legislature, the General Assembly. Lawmakers there should quickly enact it. Other states should also prohibit such discrimination.

There still may be more litigation:

Michael Bindas, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, said the attorney general isn’t paying close attention to the Supreme Court’s commitment to religious liberty in recent years.

“It was an erroneous opinion of the Maine attorney general that embroiled the state in five lawsuits spanning three decades and that culminated in the Supreme Court’s ruling against the state,” Bindas said Thursday in a statement. “The current attorney general seems to not have learned any lessons from that experience.”

If the state truly intends to use the state law to create another obstacle, then more litigation will be inevitable, said Carroll Conley, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine.

The effect of this ruling may be limited in the context of school tuition programs for Maine. But the elimination of the status/use distinction (which I will discuss in another post) was huge.

The post Forget </i>Carson</i>! Remember the Maine Human Rights Act. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/q7eLjyl
via IFTTT

Forget Carson! Remember the Maine Human Rights Act.

On its face, Carson v. Maikin seems to be a resounding victory for religious liberty and school choice in Maine. The Supreme Court held that the state cannot exclude two Christian schools from a tuition payment program. Open up the coffers for Bangor Christian and Temple Academy? Not so fast.

Justice Breyer observed in his dissent that there may be another conflict between the state and the Christian schools.

Legislators also recognized that these private schools make religiously based enrollment and hiring decisions. Bangor Christian and Temple Academy, for example, have admissions policies that allow them to deny enrollment to students based on gender, gender-identity, sexual orientation, and religion, and both schools require their teachers to be Born Again Christians. Legislators did not want Maine taxpayers to pay for these religiously based practices—practices not universally endorsed by all citizens of the State—for fear that doing so would cause a significant number of Maine citizens discomfort or displeasure. The nonsectarian requirement helped avoid this conflict—the precise kind of social conflict that the Religion Clauses themselves sought to avoid.

Unsurprisingly, Maine found another way to avoid that “social conflict.” Last year, the legislature revised the Maine Human Rights Act. Now, all private schools that choose to accept public funds must comply with the non-discrimination law. Specifically, the schools will be barred from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The legislature knew quite well that this change would force the two Christian schools to opt-out of any public financing.

Justice Breyer alluded to this fact in his dissent:

Nor do the schools want Maine in this role. Bangor Christian asserted that it would only consider accepting public funds if it “did not have to make any changes in how it operates.” Temple Academy similarly stated that it would only accept state money if it had “in writing that the school would not have to alter its admissions standards, hiring standards, or curriculum.” The nonsectarian requirement ensures that Maine is not pitted against private religious schools in these battles over curriculum or operations, thereby avoiding the social strife resulting from this state-versus-religion confrontation. By invalidating the nonsectarian requirement, the majority today subjects the State, the schools, and the people of Maine to social conflict of a kind that they, and the Religion Clauses, sought to prevent

Shortly after Carson was decided, the Maine Attorney General put out a press release citing this new legislation.

“I am terribly disappointed and disheartened by today’s decision,” said AG Frey.  “Public education should expose children to a variety of viewpoints, promote tolerance and understanding, and prepare children for life in a diverse society.   The education provided by the schools at issue here is inimical to a public education.  They promote a single religion to the exclusion of all others, refuse to admit gay and transgender children, and openly discriminate in hiring teachers and staff.  One school teaches children that the husband is to be the leader of the household.   While parents have the right to send their children to such schools, it is disturbing that the Supreme Court found that parents also have the right to force the public to pay for an education that is fundamentally at odds with values we hold dear.  I intend to explore with Governor Mills’ administration and members of the Legislature statutory amendments to address the Court’s decision and ensure that public money is not used to promote discrimination, intolerance, and bigotry.”

While the Court’s decision paves the way for religious schools to apply to receive public funds, it is not clear whether any religious schools will do so.   Educational facilities that accept public funds must comply with anti-discrimination provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act, and this would require some religious schools to eliminate their current discriminatory practices.

In the New York Times, Aaron Tang observed that this statute provides a workaround to Carson.

“The legislative fix made by Maine lawmakers offers a model for lawmakers elsewhere who are alarmed by the court’s aggressive swing to the right. Maine’s example shows that those on the losing end of a case can often outmaneuver the court and avoid the consequences of a ruling.”

And other states may follow suit.

Other states should follow Maine’s lead. A handful of blue states — including Illinois, Maryland, Nevada and Vermont — provide vouchers or similar tax-credit scholarships to low-income students to enroll in private schools. None of them, however, enacted a statute prohibiting funds-receiving private schools from discriminating against L.G.B.T.Q. students. Legislation that would do so is pending in Maryland’s legislature, the General Assembly. Lawmakers there should quickly enact it. Other states should also prohibit such discrimination.

There still may be more litigation:

Michael Bindas, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, said the attorney general isn’t paying close attention to the Supreme Court’s commitment to religious liberty in recent years.

“It was an erroneous opinion of the Maine attorney general that embroiled the state in five lawsuits spanning three decades and that culminated in the Supreme Court’s ruling against the state,” Bindas said Thursday in a statement. “The current attorney general seems to not have learned any lessons from that experience.”

If the state truly intends to use the state law to create another obstacle, then more litigation will be inevitable, said Carroll Conley, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine.

The effect of this ruling may be limited in the context of school tuition programs for Maine. But the elimination of the status/use distinction (which I will discuss in another post) was huge.

The post Forget </i>Carson</i>! Remember the Maine Human Rights Act. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/q7eLjyl
via IFTTT

Author Matt Palumbo Lays Out How George Soros Has Significant Control Over Media Narratives

Author Matt Palumbo Lays Out How George Soros Has Significant Control Over Media Narratives

Authored by Masooma Haq and Roman Balmakov via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Matt Palumbo, author of “The Man Behind the Curtain: Inside the Secret Network of George Soros,” details billionaire George Soros’s connection to American politics, and illustrates how Soros controls not only what is written about him, but also influences how the American public perceives news events.

Matt Palumbo, author of “The Man Behind the Curtain: Inside the Secret Network of George Soros,” during an interview on “Facts Matter” on June 15, 2022.

Soros created a financial concept called reflexivity, which Palumbo said is “brilliant,” because it can cause what Soros wants in the finance sector to happen.

“But expectations set reality and Soros realized, ‘Well, that’s true of media as well.’ If you tell people what to expect, they’re going to reinterpret reality,” and that can be used to affect how people interpret news events, Palumbo said during a recent interview for EpochTV’s “Facts Matter” program.

“For whatever reason, if people think something’s going to happen, it actually will happen,” and Soros applied this to media companies’ coverage to make people believe something that did not actually happen, happened, said Palumbo.

Soros-backed media agencies use this concept to create false narratives and make people believe in something that did not actually occur. The reason Soros is able to have this level of influence is that he gives tens of millions of dollars to the U.S. media infrastructure.

There are many Soros-linked mainstream media organizations including, “ABC, CBS, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, I mean, it is a very long list. Type Soros’s name and just look at how they cover him, and if it’s ever anything negative, it’s ‘anti-Semites say: negative claim,’” said Palumbo, adding that their coverage always seems to favor Democrats and Soros.

A watchdog group called the Media Research Center (MRC) has documented Soros’s ties to media infrastructure. “Soros has spent more than $52 million funding media properties, including the infrastructure of news—journalism schools, investigative journalism, and even industry organizations,” according to an MRC report.

Many left-wing groups, including media companies, get funding via Soros’s Open Society Foundation. That group is known to fund progressive initiatives like Black Lives Matter and Defund the Police, as well as political candidates and district attorney campaigns, said Palumbo.

Antifa and Black Lives Matter demonstrators protest on election night near the White House in Washington on Nov. 3, 2020. (Nicholas Kamm/AFP via Getty Images)

Soros’s foundation claims to promote democracy and individualism, but in reality, it supports a more radical agenda, said Palumbo.

“There is what they say things are and what they really are,” Palumbo said about the Open Society Foundation

…

In his research, Palumbo also found that many people who once worked for Soros’s Open Society Foundation later went on to work for media outlets.

In addition, Soros has funded campaigns for many Democratic politicians and progressive district attorneys, backing those who will get the results Soros wants.

“If you elect a DA, they have total autonomy on all those things, so it’s just hey, I want the law changed, I back a guy who wants to change it exactly the way I do, he goes in and changes it overnight,” said Palumbo.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/02/2022 – 00:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Qu81JH9 Tyler Durden

What does the New York Conceal Carry Law Require?

Earlier this evening, I shared a guest post from Professor Rob Leider, who explained that New Yorkers in rural areas may be worse off under the recently-enacted legislation. Here, I’d like to flag some changes made to the permitting process.

Let’s start with the good news. New York struck provision requiring “good cause.” The rest of the statute is not-so-good news for gun owners.

First, the bill offers this definition of “good moral character”

good moral character, which, for the purposes of this article, shall mean having the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others.

“Good moral character” is defined as “essential character.” That’s super helpful. Neither Justice Thomas nor Justice Kavanaugh identified “moral character” as a permissible ground for a “shall-issue” jurisdiction. This standard may not be much different than the subjective “good cause” standard. And in some regards, “moral character” is worse, because it is subject to such vast discretion.

Second, the bill requires that applicants meet in person with the licensing office for an interview. And the applicant must provide a host of information to the government:

(i) names and contact information for the applicant’s current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant’s home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant’s home;

(ii) names and contact information of no less than four character references who can attest to the applicant’s good moral character and that such applicant has not engaged in any acts, or made any statements that suggest they are likely to engage in conduct that would result in harm to themselves or others;

Presumably, the references will have to sign a sworn affidavit to this effect.

(iii) certification of completion of the training required in subdivision nineteen of this section;

(iv) a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years to confirm the information regarding the applicants character and conduct as required in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph; and

(v) such other information required by the licensing officer that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application.

To be clear, even if four character witnesses attest that the applicant has “good moral character,” the government can use a person’s social media account to “confirm” the person in fact does have “good moral character.” I am fairly certain that social media, in general, brings out the absolute worst in a person. Plus, the government can request any other information that is “reasonably necessary and related” to the process, which means any information.  Here, there is such vast discretion for official to deny a person’s applicant. Eugene already commented on the First Amendment implications of California scrutinizing ideological viewpoints. Here, New York is performing a similar role under the guise of “good moral character.”

Third, there is extensive classroom training requirement (16 hours):

An applicant shall complete an in-person live firearms safety course conducted by a duly authorized instructor with curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, and meeting the following requirements:

(a) a minimum of sixteen hours of in-person live curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, conducted by a duly authorized instructor approved by the division of criminal justice services, and shall include but not be limited to the following topics:

(i) general firearm safety;

(ii) safe storage requirements and general secure storage best practices;

(iii) state and federal gun laws;

(iv) situational awareness;

(v) conflict de-escalation;

(vi) best practices when encountering law enforcement;

(vii) the statutorily defined sensitive places in subdivision two of section 265.01-e of this chapter and the restrictions on possession on restricted places under section 265.01-d of this chapter;

(viii) conflict management;

(ix) use of deadly force;

(x) suicide prevention; and

(xi) the basic principles of marksmanship;

Plus, the applicant will need two hours in a live-fire range. And the applicant must score 80% on a written exam:

(b) a minimum of two hours of a live-fire range training course. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate proficiency by scoring a minimum of eighty percent correct answers on a written test.

Fourth, the government will audit records every month to determine if there is some reason to revoke the permit:

All records containing granted license applications from all licensing authorities shall be [periodically] monthly checked by the division of criminal justice services in conjunction with the division of state police against criminal conviction, criminal indictment, mental health, extreme risk protection orders, orders of protection, and all other records as are necessary to determine their continued accuracy well as whether an individual is no longer a valid license holder.

And as I read the statute, the permit shall be revoked immediately if a problem is found.

Fifth, it is a felony to possess a gun in a “sensitive location.” Where is a sensitive location? Just about anywhere, unless the place expressly welcomes guns. (Such a business would immediately be boycotted and cancelled in the Empire State.) I’ll provide commentary along the way.

For the purposes of this section, a sensitive location shall mean:

(a) any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local government, for the purpose of government administration, including courts;

(b) any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services;

(c) any place of worship or religious observation;

Some houses of worship may wish parishioners to carry. But under the law, they cannot.

(d) libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos;

(e) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, funded, or approved by the office of children and family services that provides services to children, youth, or young adults…

(f) nursery schools, preschools, and summer camps;

(g) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office for people with developmental disabilities;

(h) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by office of addiction services and supports;

(i) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of mental health;

(j) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of temporary and disability assistance;

(k) homeless shelters, runaway homeless youth shelters, family shelters, shelters for adults, domestic violence shelters, and emergency shelters, and residential programs for victims of domestic violence;

(l) residential settings licensed, certified, regulated, funded, or operated by the department of health;

(m) in or upon any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career schools, school districts, public schools, private schools licensed under article one hundred one of the education law, charter schools, non-public schools, board of cooperative educational services, special act schools, preschool special education programs, private residential or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabilities, and any state-operated or state-supported schools;

No carrying in any school. Anywhere. The hypothetical from Bruen comes to life. Is the “campus” of NYU–that is, much of Greenwich Village–a “ground” owned or leased by the institution?

(n) any place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation or public transit, subway cars, train cars, buses, ferries, railroad, omnibus, marine or aviation transportation; or any facility used for or in connection with service in the transportation of passengers, airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals;

All public transit is out.

(o) any establishment issued a license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed and any establishment licensed under article four of the cannabis law for on-premise consumption;

(p) any place used for the performance, art entertainment, gaming, or sporting events such as theaters, stadiums, racetracks, museums, amusement parks, performance venues, concerts, exhibits, conference centers, banquet halls, and gaming facilities and video lottery terminal facilities as licensed by the gaming commission;

Just about all indoor places of public gathering are out.

(q) any location being used as a polling place;

(r) any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from general public access for a limited time or special event that has been issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage;

Presumably, any street which is authorized for a parade, or other gathering, will not permit carry.

(s) any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble;

My goodness. This exception can swallow the entirety of New York state. Any place where two or more people gather to express their constitutional right becomes a “sensitive place.”

(t) the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is determined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage.

And Times Square will become a 24/7 sensitive place. I’m sure New York City will stretch Times Square from Herald’s Square to Central Park.

Sixth, a person has the burden to know he is in a sensitive location, even if there is no sign indicating that it is a sensitive location.

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a sensitive location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle or shotgun in or upon a sensitive location, and such person knows or reasonably should know such location is a sensitive location.

As if the categories above were not broad enough. Now, people have the extra obligation to know a place is “sensitive.”

Seventh, you may think that it is safe to leave a gun in your car. Not exactly.

No person shall store or otherwise leave a rifle, shotgun, or firearm out of his or her immediate possession or control inside a vehicle without first removing the ammunition from and securely locking such rifle, shotgun, or firearm in an appropriate safe storage depository out of sight from outside of the vehicle.

The glove box will not suffice. You must use a “safe storage depository” with a key, keypad, or some other locking mechanism. Yes, to keep the gun in your car, you must unload it, and lock it. Then put it in a safe. And you have to keep the gun out of sight. Retrieving the gun in a timely fashion from your car is now extremely difficult.

Eighth, licenses are only valid for three years. Applicants will be required to jump through all of these hoops on a regular basis.

Ninth, there is now a database to record the sale of ammunition! As I read the statute, in order to purchase ammunition, a person will have to go through the national instant criminal background check system. Every trip to the range will now require a background check.

If I made any errors with this statute, please email me. I’m happy to post corrections.

The post What does the New York Conceal Carry Law Require? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/9hgKzGT
via IFTTT

The Colossal Untapped Value Of Asteroids

The Colossal Untapped Value Of Asteroids

In the asteroid belt that lies between Mars and Jupiter, there is an almost unfathomable amount of resources waiting to be utilized.

As Statista’s Martin Armstrong details below, according to data from Wired and Valerio Pellegrini, the asteroid ‘Davida’, which has a diameter of 326 kilometers, has been identified as the most valuable asteroid in the belt, with a resource value estimated to be some 27 quintillion (26,990,000,000,000,000,000) U.S. dollars.

It is a carbonaceous chondrite asteroid, and contains water, nickel, iron, cobalt, nitrogen, ammonia, and hydrogen.

Infographic: The Colossal Untapped Value Of Asteroids | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

June 30 marked Asteroid Day, a UN-sanctioned global awareness campaign with the mission “to inspire, engage and educate the public about asteroids opportunities and risks.” While the risks to Earth and all life on it are clearly not to be disregarded, the potential to increase the resources at mankind’s disposal – and reap the financial rewards from them – is immense.

As Statista’s dossier on space mining reports: “While space mining has not yet become a reality, the technology that will eventually enable to exploitation of the rich resources of the asteroids in the solar system is increasingly being developed by a variety of companies. The market value of these activities amounted to some 712 million U.S. dollars worldwide in 2017, and is forecast to increase to 3.9 billion U.S. dollars by 2025.”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/01/2022 – 23:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/avc43zC Tyler Durden

What does the New York Conceal Carry Law Require?

Earlier this evening, I shared a guest post from Professor Rob Leider, who explained that New Yorkers in rural areas may be worse off under the recently-enacted legislation. Here, I’d like to flag some changes made to the permitting process.

Let’s start with the good news. New York struck provision requiring “good cause.” The rest of the statute is not-so-good news for gun owners.

First, the bill offers this definition of “good moral character”

good moral character, which, for the purposes of this article, shall mean having the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others.

“Good moral character” is defined as “essential character.” That’s super helpful. Neither Justice Thomas nor Justice Kavanaugh identified “moral character” as a permissible ground for a “shall-issue” jurisdiction. This standard may not be much different than the subjective “good cause” standard. And in some regards, “moral character” is worse, because it is subject to such vast discretion.

Second, the bill requires that applicants meet in person with the licensing office for an interview. And the applicant must provide a host of information to the government:

(i) names and contact information for the applicant’s current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant’s home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant’s home;

(ii) names and contact information of no less than four character references who can attest to the applicant’s good moral character and that such applicant has not engaged in any acts, or made any statements that suggest they are likely to engage in conduct that would result in harm to themselves or others;

Presumably, the references will have to sign a sworn affidavit to this effect.

(iii) certification of completion of the training required in subdivision nineteen of this section;

(iv) a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years to confirm the information regarding the applicants character and conduct as required in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph; and

(v) such other information required by the licensing officer that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application.

To be clear, even if four character witnesses attest that the applicant has “good moral character,” the government can use a person’s social media account to “confirm” the person in fact does have “good moral character.” I am fairly certain that social media, in general, brings out the absolute worst in a person. Plus, the government can request any other information that is “reasonably necessary and related” to the process, which means any information.  Here, there is such vast discretion for official to deny a person’s applicant. Eugene already commented on the First Amendment implications of California scrutinizing ideological viewpoints. Here, New York is performing a similar role under the guise of “good moral character.”

Third, there is extensive classroom training requirement (16 hours):

An applicant shall complete an in-person live firearms safety course conducted by a duly authorized instructor with curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, and meeting the following requirements:

(a) a minimum of sixteen hours of in-person live curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, conducted by a duly authorized instructor approved by the division of criminal justice services, and shall include but not be limited to the following topics:

(i) general firearm safety;

(ii) safe storage requirements and general secure storage best practices;

(iii) state and federal gun laws;

(iv) situational awareness;

(v) conflict de-escalation;

(vi) best practices when encountering law enforcement;

(vii) the statutorily defined sensitive places in subdivision two of section 265.01-e of this chapter and the restrictions on possession on restricted places under section 265.01-d of this chapter;

(viii) conflict management;

(ix) use of deadly force;

(x) suicide prevention; and

(xi) the basic principles of marksmanship;

Plus, the applicant will need two hours in a live-fire range. And the applicant must score 80% on a written exam:

(b) a minimum of two hours of a live-fire range training course. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate proficiency by scoring a minimum of eighty percent correct answers on a written test.

Fourth, the government will audit records every month to determine if there is some reason to revoke the permit:

All records containing granted license applications from all licensing authorities shall be [periodically] monthly checked by the division of criminal justice services in conjunction with the division of state police against criminal conviction, criminal indictment, mental health, extreme risk protection orders, orders of protection, and all other records as are necessary to determine their continued accuracy well as whether an individual is no longer a valid license holder.

And as I read the statute, the permit shall be revoked immediately if a problem is found.

Fifth, it is a felony to possess a gun in a “sensitive location.” Where is a sensitive location? Just about anywhere, unless the place expressly welcomes guns. (Such a business would immediately be boycotted and cancelled in the Empire State.) I’ll provide commentary along the way.

For the purposes of this section, a sensitive location shall mean:

(a) any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local government, for the purpose of government administration, including courts;

(b) any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services;

(c) any place of worship or religious observation;

Some houses of worship may wish parishioners to carry. But under the law, they cannot.

(d) libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos;

(e) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, funded, or approved by the office of children and family services that provides services to children, youth, or young adults…

(f) nursery schools, preschools, and summer camps;

(g) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office for people with developmental disabilities;

(h) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by office of addiction services and supports;

(i) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of mental health;

(j) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of temporary and disability assistance;

(k) homeless shelters, runaway homeless youth shelters, family shelters, shelters for adults, domestic violence shelters, and emergency shelters, and residential programs for victims of domestic violence;

(l) residential settings licensed, certified, regulated, funded, or operated by the department of health;

(m) in or upon any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career schools, school districts, public schools, private schools licensed under article one hundred one of the education law, charter schools, non-public schools, board of cooperative educational services, special act schools, preschool special education programs, private residential or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabilities, and any state-operated or state-supported schools;

No carrying in any school. Anywhere. The hypothetical from Bruen comes to life. Is the “campus” of NYU–that is, much of Greenwich Village–a “ground” owned or leased by the institution?

(n) any place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation or public transit, subway cars, train cars, buses, ferries, railroad, omnibus, marine or aviation transportation; or any facility used for or in connection with service in the transportation of passengers, airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals;

All public transit is out.

(o) any establishment issued a license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed and any establishment licensed under article four of the cannabis law for on-premise consumption;

(p) any place used for the performance, art entertainment, gaming, or sporting events such as theaters, stadiums, racetracks, museums, amusement parks, performance venues, concerts, exhibits, conference centers, banquet halls, and gaming facilities and video lottery terminal facilities as licensed by the gaming commission;

Just about all indoor places of public gathering are out.

(q) any location being used as a polling place;

(r) any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from general public access for a limited time or special event that has been issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage;

Presumably, any street which is authorized for a parade, or other gathering, will not permit carry.

(s) any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble;

My goodness. This exception can swallow the entirety of New York state. Any place where two or more people gather to express their constitutional right becomes a “sensitive place.”

(t) the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is determined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage.

And Times Square will become a 24/7 sensitive place. I’m sure New York City will stretch Times Square from Herald’s Square to Central Park.

Sixth, a person has the burden to know he is in a sensitive location, even if there is no sign indicating that it is a sensitive location.

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a sensitive location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle or shotgun in or upon a sensitive location, and such person knows or reasonably should know such location is a sensitive location.

As if the categories above were not broad enough. Now, people have the extra obligation to know a place is “sensitive.”

Seventh, you may think that it is safe to leave a gun in your car. Not exactly.

No person shall store or otherwise leave a rifle, shotgun, or firearm out of his or her immediate possession or control inside a vehicle without first removing the ammunition from and securely locking such rifle, shotgun, or firearm in an appropriate safe storage depository out of sight from outside of the vehicle.

The glove box will not suffice. You must use a “safe storage depository” with a key, keypad, or some other locking mechanism. Yes, to keep the gun in your car, you must unload it, and lock it. Then put it in a safe. And you have to keep the gun out of sight. Retrieving the gun in a timely fashion from your car is now extremely difficult.

Eighth, licenses are only valid for three years. Applicants will be required to jump through all of these hoops on a regular basis.

Ninth, there is now a database to record the sale of ammunition! As I read the statute, in order to purchase ammunition, a person will have to go through the national instant criminal background check system. Every trip to the range will now require a background check.

If I made any errors with this statute, please email me. I’m happy to post corrections.

The post What does the New York Conceal Carry Law Require? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/9hgKzGT
via IFTTT

What If People Actually Controlled The Government?

What If People Actually Controlled The Government?

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

Imagine, if you will, the following system…

Government is managed by elected representatives who are in turn elected by the people. Government is further restrained by checks and balances between three branches, each of which is accountable ultimately to the people who live under the laws.

Unlike the ancient system of government in which the only people who were truly free were the aristocracy, under this new system, every adult citizen has political rights. No one rules over anyone without accountability. 

Also part of this, no one in government has a permanent job that is exempt from oversight. The laws and rules under which people live are not invented by faceless bureaucrats but rather by representatives with names who can be voted out. 

In that way, we give the idea of freedom the best-possible hope. 

Sounds dreamy? A bit.

We haven’t had that system in the US for a very long time, even if what I just mapped out seems more or less like what the US Constitution set up. 

There are two main reasons why we are so far from that ideal. 

  • First, the US system was supposed to exalt the juridical sovereignty of the “several states” so that the central government was of secondary importance. 

  • Second, a fourth branch of government gradually came into existence. It is what we now call the administrative state. It consists of millions of employees with maximum power who answer to absolutely no one. The Federal Register lists 432 agencies that currently employ people who are beyond legislative reach but they still make policy and determine the structure of the regime under which we live. But we the people have no real control over them. 

Not even the president can control them. This system was created with one piece of legislation in 1883 called the Pendleton Act. The New Deal exploited the new system. The administrative state even got its own constitution in 1946 called the Administrative Procedures Act. The 1984 Supreme Court decision in Chevron vs NRDC even entrenched deference to the agency’s interpretation of the law. 

The result is something the Founders never imagined: hundreds of three-letter agencies exercising hegemonic control over the country. Everyone got to know this system well from 2020 as the CDC invented myriad rules on the spot that shut businesses and churches and even legislated how many people you could have in your home for a party. 

This problem vexxed Donald Trump, who came to power with the promise to drain the swamp. He soon discovered that he could not because most federal employees were beyond his reach. Things got wildly out of hand after he made the enormous error of greenlighting lockdowns in a March 16, 2020 press conference. After that point and all the way until the election, his presidential powers slipped ever further as the administrative bureaucracy wielded power without precedent. 

Two weeks before the election, the Trump administration innovated a solution. It was Executive Order 13957 that created a new category of federal employment called Schedule F. Any employee involved at any level in policy making would be subject to presidential oversight. It makes sense: these are executive-level agencies so the president, because he bears responsibility for what they do, should have some personnel control over them. 

This order was immediately reversed by Biden when he took office, leaving Schedule F a dead letter. The administrative state is once again safe from oversight. 

Let us quote Trump’s executive order at length so that we can see the thinking here. Then we’ll deal with various objections. It reads as follows:

To effectively carry out the broad array of activities assigned to the executive branch under law, the President and his appointees must rely on men and women in the Federal service employed in positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character. Faithful execution of the law requires that the President have appropriate management oversight regarding this select cadre of professionals.

The Federal Government benefits from career professionals in positions that are not normally subject to change as a result of a Presidential transition but who discharge significant duties and exercise significant discretion in formulating and implementing executive branch policy and programs under the laws of the United States. The heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) and the American people also entrust these career professionals with non‑public information that must be kept confidential…

Given the importance of the functions they discharge, employees in such positions must display appropriate temperament, acumen, impartiality, and sound judgment.

Due to these requirements, agencies should have a greater degree of appointment flexibility with respect to these employees than is afforded by the existing competitive service process.

Further, effective performance management of employees in confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating positions is of the utmost importance. Unfortunately, the Government’s current performance management is inadequate, as recognized by Federal workers themselves. For instance, the 2016 Merit Principles Survey reveals that less than a quarter of Federal employees believe their agency addresses poor performers effectively.

Separating employees who cannot or will not meet required performance standards is important, and it is particularly important with regard to employees in confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating positions. High performance by such employees can meaningfully enhance agency operations, while poor performance can significantly hinder them. Senior agency officials report that poor performance by career employees in policy-relevant positions has resulted in long delays and substandard-quality work for important agency projects, such as drafting and issuing regulations.

Pursuant to my authority under section 3302(1) of title 5, United States Code, I find that conditions of good administration make necessary an exception to the competitive hiring rules and examinations for career positions in the Federal service of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character. These conditions include the need to provide agency heads with additional flexibility to assess prospective appointees without the limitations imposed by competitive service selection procedures. Placing these positions in the excepted service will mitigate undue limitations on their selection. This action will also give agencies greater ability and discretion to assess critical qualities in applicants to fill these positions, such as work ethic, judgment, and ability to meet the particular needs of the agency. These are all qualities individuals should have before wielding the authority inherent in their prospective positions, and agencies should be able to assess candidates without proceeding through complicated and elaborate competitive service processes or rating procedures that do not necessarily reflect their particular needs.

Conditions of good administration similarly make necessary excepting such positions from the adverse action procedures set forth in chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code. Chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code, requires agencies to comply with extensive procedures before taking adverse action against an employee. These requirements can make removing poorly performing employees difficult. Only a quarter of Federal supervisors are confident that they could remove a poor performer. Career employees in confidential, policy-determining, policy‑making, and policy-advocating positions wield significant influence over Government operations and effectiveness. Agencies need the flexibility to expeditiously remove poorly performing employees from these positions without facing extensive delays or litigation.

Part of the order pushed an internal review of all agencies to reclassify employees, thus making them subject to normal standards of employment – the same ones that every person in the private sector adheres to. 

Why is there resistance aside from the high-stakes effort to keep the current despotism in place? Let’s look at the sincere objections. 

Schedule F would bring back the spoils system

The term itself is a smear of system in which the elected leadership can actually make a difference in public life. Are cronies hired? Yes. Are good people sometimes fired? Probably. But the alternative is dictatorship by the bureaucracy itself and that is what is truly intolerable. Instead of the “spoils system,” a state in which the elected leaders can enact policy by controlling personnel is called representative democracy. It is also the system the Constitution gave us. 

Trump issued Schedule F because he wanted more power 

Depends on what you mean by more power. More power over the bureaucracy, yes, but the driving motivation here was to emancipate power from being ruled by bureaucrats that he could not control. It was also designed to stop the bureaucracy from working directly with the media to undermine through lies and smears the work of the administration. In words, elected leaders absolutely do need more power over the deep state. 

This would gut government of expertise 

There is this strange presumption that educational credentials and a permanent job equals expertise plus good outcomes. That is very obviously untrue. Good outcomes come from basic competence and a work ethic. Those are in short supply in government precisely because the turnover rate is less than zero, unlike the private sector. Anyone who has worked in a federal agency knows this. The best way to unleash genuine expertise is through normal job accountability. 

Presidents would use this to politicize the bureaucracy 

This is a decent point but the bureaucracy is already heavily politicized, and always in the direction of policies that push more power and money toward the government. Everyone knows this. Is there a danger that a radically and dangerous president would press bureaucrats into even further politicization? Yes, but there is an easy solution to this one: cut the reach and power of the agencies themselves, consistent with the Constitution. Finally – a crucial point – elected leaders could override the influence of private industry which has captured their operations.

Bureaucracies would get around this by minimizing Schedule F designations 

They would certainly attempt this but that would require that employees refrain from ”policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating positions.” That would be very great! If they eschewed Schedule F and did that anyway, the Office of Personnel Management could hunt them down and the agency itself would be responsible for illegal actions. 

There are surely some downsides to the system as Trump imagined it but all of them trace to the inflated powers of the federal government itself. Yes, a vastly ambitious government machinery will always need bureaucracies and they will always have problems with waste, abuse, and unneeded exercise of power. Perhaps, then, the best long-term effect of Schedule F would be to inspire a rethinking of government’s role in a free society. 

It seems remarkable that the executive order creating Schedule F was issued at all. It needs to be pressed upon any future reformers as a path to revisit, ideally with legislative support. Until that time, there will continue to be the grave problem that our elected officials are positioned to be little more than dancing marionettes while the administrative state wields all the real power. 

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/01/2022 – 23:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Sh8aQHy Tyler Durden

US Falls Behind In Hypersonic Weapons Race After Another Failed Test 

US Falls Behind In Hypersonic Weapons Race After Another Failed Test 

America is lagging behind its international competitors in the hypersonic weapons race. This week’s test provided more insight into just how badly the U.S. is behind. 

Bloomberg was the first to report the Common Hypersonic Glide Body atop a two-stage missile booster that failed after an “anomaly” occurred during launch at the Missile Range Facility in Hawaii. 

The booster failed to ignite, which would’ve accelerated the rocket in excess of Mach 5, at which the glide body separates and uses speed and an unpredictable path to strike targets without being detected by the most advanced defense shields in the world. 

“While the Department was unable to collect data on the entirety of the planned flight profile, the information gathered from this event will provide vital insights,” said Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cdr. Tim Gorman in a statement. He didn’t provide additional details about the failed test. 

Gorman said officials would use data from the rocket’s failures to correct the issue for future tests. 

Even though the hypersonic weapons program has experienced multiple “fight test anomalies” over the last year, the spokesman was confident the delivery of the weapons to modern battlefields would occur “on target dates beginning in the early 2020s.” 

The previous test of the glide body ended early when the booster rocket failed, which prevented the missile from leaving the launch pad. The Navy and Army have jointly been working on developing hypersonic weapons. 

The Air Force has also been working on a hypersonic weapon. After several failed tests earlier this year, the service successfully tested a hypersonic missile off Southern California in May.  

It’s no secret the U.S. is falling behind the hypersonic weapons race as the largest military in the world, in terms of size and defense budget, has yet to field hypersonic weapons.

Meanwhile, Russia (see: here) and China (see: here) have completed successful tests and or fielded super fast weapons on the modern battlefield.

The Biden administration recently revealed a new trilateral security pact between Australia – United Kingdom – United States (AUKUS) partnership, a move to “accelerate the development of advanced hypersonic and counter-hypersonic capabilities.”

The takeaway is the U.S. is lagging behind the competition in fielding hypersonic weapons as threats of spillovers from the conflict in Ukraine are undoubtedly rising. 

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/01/2022 – 22:45

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