Human remains discovered at the shores of Lake Mead in May, July and August as its water levels are at historic lows are just the latest consequence of a prolonged drought gripping the United States. One of the bodies found was identified as a homicide victim who died around 40 or 50 years ago, spurring speculation that the person could have been a victim of mob crime that still was prevalent in nearby Las Vegas at that time.
As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz notes, since late 2020, the United States has been experiencing unusually hot and dry weather.According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, extreme and exceptional drought affects the American West as well as Texas most, but stretches as far as Kansas, Nebraska, Montana and Massachusetts.
The extreme circumstances have spurred demand for water and cooling, leaving reservoirs emptier than usual. With the drought also comes a heightened risk of heat-induced medical emergencies and wildfires.
As of August 16, droughts of different levels of severity affect more than 66 percent of the area of the continental United States. The number has been above the 60-percent mark since October of 2020 with just two short breaks (82 out of 98 weeks).
While it has risen this high before, it rarely stayed there for so long. During the drought of 2018, it exceeded the threshold for only five weeks. Between April 2012 and May 2013, droughts had affected more than 60 percent of the United States’ area for 60 weeks in a row and expanded to around 80 percent momentarily.
While fluctuating temperatures and very hot, very dry or very cold days are a normal phenomenon, these extreme weather events are expected to become more frequent and severe due to climate change. Scientist have connected the reoccuring drought in the Western U.S. to a changing climate, for example citing heatwaves that start earlier in the year and have become longer as well as stronger.
Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) said during an Aug. 21 television appearance that Republican criticisms of the FBI following its unprecedented raid of President Donald Trump’s home are “crazy,” and opined that most Republican voters don’t share this attitude.
The FBI’s Aug. 8 raid on Trump’s Florida Mar-a-Lago home set off warning bells among many Republican lawmakers, who have characterized the raid as politically motivated and lawless.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who has in the past had a sometimes adversarial attitude toward the former president, was emphatic in his denunciation of the raid.
“I’ve seen enough,” McCarthy wrote in a tweet the night of the raid. “The Department of Justice has reached an intolerable state of weaponized politicization. When Republicans take back the House, we will conduct immediate oversight of this department, follow the facts, and leave no stone unturned. Attorney General Garland, preserve your documents and clear your calendar.”
Other Republicans, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), took it a step further.
Just days after the raid, Greene filed articles of impeachment against Attorney General Merrick Garland and has called for the FBI to be defunded.
Republicans across the ideological spectrum have demanded that the FBI and DOJ answer for the raid, but as of yet answers about the reasons for the search have been scant.
During an Aug. 22 appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Crenshaw lashed out against denunciations of the FBI, which he called “crazy.”
“Oh yes, it’s crazy,” Crenshaw said specifically when asked about the rhetoric on the FBI from within his party.
Some Republicans, including Crenshaw, have condemned Greene’s calls to defund the FBI as being equivalent to Democrats’ calls following the 2020 death of George Floyd to defund the police, a cry that has been kept alive among some more progressive Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
“It makes us seem like extremist Democrats, right?” Crenshaw said. “And so Marjorie and AOC can go join the defund the law enforcement club if they want. Ninety-nine percent of Republicans are not on that train.”
On the other hand, Crenshaw did call for more transparency from the DOJ and FBI on the reasons for the raid, which he said was “automatically political” since it involved a search of a former president’s home.
On Aug. 22, Bruce Reinhart ruled against the DOJ’s efforts to keep the entire search warrant affidavit private.
The 13-page ruling found that the DOJ had not successfully proven a compelling state interest in censoring the entire document from public view.
Prior to the Aug. 22 ruling, the federal judiciary signaled openness to releasing a redacted version of the document, but it has as yet not been made public, even following Reinhart’s Aug. 22 ruling. The DOJ, for its part, criticized any effort to release the affidavit over expressed concerns for witness safety.
“The criticisms that we’re leveling against the FBI and DOJ are fully warranted,” Crenshaw said of GOP calls for more transparency. “It is not those criticisms that lead to a crazy person attacking an FBI.”
“‘Conservative’ Dan Crenshaw runs to CNN to beg Democrat activists like Jake Tapper to take him seriously,” Greene wrote. “Comparing our great men & women in local law enforcement who put their lives on the line to corrupt deep state FBI operatives like Peter Strozk & Lisa Page is shameful.”
Greene defended her calls to defund the FBI as substantively different from left-wing calls to defund the police.
“Defunding the FBI is defunding the corrupt deep state that is weaponizing our federal agencies against conservatives all across America,” Greene said.
The “Defund the police” movement, Greene said by contrast, “is defunding our community protectors and is creating lawlessness across America.”
Greene continued, “of course everyone is supposed to just trust intelligence operatives like Jim Comey, James Clapper, and Christopher Wray.
“Dan Crenshaw says they are just like the police AOC wants to defund.
“Dan doesn’t see a difference and says neither should you.
“He wants you to see no difference in the FBI & DOJ setting up the Russia collusion hoax wasting $30+ million taxpayer dollars on the Democrat’s communist style political witch hunt and local law enforcement just trying to get drug gangs off the streets and lock up murderers.
“Dan just wants more useless congressional hearings for members of congress to get their 5 minute CSPAN clips instead of actually doing the hard work of gutting our federal agencies of Marxists like Merrick Garland.
“Dan says shame on you for using your first amendment freedom of speech proclaiming your outrage over Merrick Garland sending the FBI to raid Maralago even though Pres Trump and his attorneys were nicely working with them and the FBI had already been there and inspected the very documents they raided for.
“Even [former New York Governor] Andrew Cuomo who killed elderly nursing home patients by locking them up with covid patients cried foul on the FBI violating Pres Trump and his family’s 4th amendment rights.
“But Dan says that’s extreme and anyone who wants to defund the corrupt FBI is just like AOC.
“Try telling that to your voters Dan.
“They might not have a degree from Harvard and hang out with [World Economic Forum Chairman] Klaus Schwab but they have the wisdom to see the very clear difference between the politically corrupt FBI and our good men and women guarding our communities each night.”
In an emailed statement to the Epoch Times, Greene’s office pointed to polling from Rasmussen that “contradicts Crenshaw’s claims about 99 percent.”
According to the results of that poll, only 30 percent of Republicans now view the FBI favorably, down from 38 percent in December;
Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 45 percent have a favorable impression of the FBI and 50 percent view the bureau unfavorably.
The wealthy enclave on Long Island, known as the Hamptons, is entering a new market phase as sellers are forced to lower their asking price by hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Bloomberg spoke with seller George Giacoia who listed his home for $1.695 million in May. He consulted with three real estate agents about the asking price and quickly found there was no demand:
“I had no response at all,” Giacoia said. “There was not a phone call, nor was there a person that came to any of the open houses.”
Desperate, the 70-year-old retiree was forced to lower the asking price by a whopping $400,000.
“Am I going to be lowering my price any more? No,” he said, who plans to move to Italy in October. He finally received an offer two weeks ago and, after some negotiation, the buyers agreed on the new asking price of $1.299 million. They’re currently finalizing the details of the offer. – Bloomberg
Price cuts in the Hamptons have become a new phenomenon after the pandemic boom: People who could suddenly work remotely flooded the luxury resort town on the southeastern end of New York’s Long Island two years ago. The influx of demand resulted in median home prices surging 88% between the second quarter of 2019 and the same quarter this year.
“Buyers have more negotiating power now than they did six months ago. The fervor that we were experiencing has subsided. The competitiveness for buying homes has waned,” said Drew Green, a broker in the Hamptons for Saunders & Associates.
Housing data from Out East, an online marketplace for Hamptons real estate, shows that the number of listings with reduced asking prices has doubled between April and July, and inventory has increased.
There’s little doubt soaring mortgage rates, plunging stocks and crypto markets, slowing economic growth, and a so-called ‘technical recession’ have been some of the reasons for lackluster demand for homes.
Compass broker Jack Pearson, representing a mansion on 37 Huntington Lane, said price discounts are accelerating, though he said not all sellers are receptive to lowering asks.
“With the economy and with uncertainty in the world there are definitely people who think that prices will go down and they’ll wait,” Pearson said. “But it doesn’t mean that what they are waiting for, if it’s a prime property, it will be reduced by that much.”
Another seller was outraged by the response her $1.895 million home received on the market. Leslie Reese, 65, said her three-bedroom, two-bathroom home in Bridgehampton received an offer for $500,000 below list.
“I thought it was a fluke,” Reese said. “I guess they feel you’re in a desperate situation and feel like they can get a bottom price, but I have a budget.”
After two weeks on the market, she lowered the asking price by $250,000. The home on 17 Worchester Court is under contract for $1.5 million in an all-cash offer.
Here are other examples of homes in the Hamptons with price cuts this summer:
60 Harbor Dr., Sag Harbor
April 1 price: $2,995,000
July 28 price: $2,600,000
Reduction: $395,000
107 Stoney Hill Rd., Sag Harbor
April 8 price: $5,295,000
July 31 price: $4,795,000
Reduction: $500,000
16 McGregor Dr., Southampton
June 24 price: $1,995,000
Aug. 1 price: $1,795,000
Reduction: $200,000
17 Worchester Ct., Bridgehampton
July 22 price: $1,895,000
Aug. 6 price: $1,650,000
Reduction: $245,000
46 Cedar St., East Hampton
May 19 price: $4,500,000
Aug. 5 price: $3,950,000
Reduction: $550,000
26 Woodbine Pl., Southampton
May 29 price: $1,695,000
July 31 price: $1,299,000
Reduction: $396,000
320 Noyack Rd., Southampton
May 9 price: $2,695,000
July 27 price: $2,199,900
Reduction: $495,100
6 Joshuas Path, East Hampton
April 8 price: $3,350,000
Aug. 9 price: $2,995,000
Reduction: $355,000
68 Old Trail Rd., Water Mill
July 9 price: $2,495,000
Aug. 4 price: $2,290,000
Reduction: $205,000
16 Delavan St., East Hampton
May 13 price: $1,795,000
Aug. 8 price: $1,695,000
Reduction: $100,000
A seismic shift in the housing market is already underway as sellers in Hamptons missed the window of opportunity earlier this year and during the pandemic to unload their mansions at hefty premiums. Because of interest rate hikes and a downturn in the economy, buyers aren’t showing up, forcing sellers to cut prices. This is how housing markets reverse.
The concept of “sanctuary cities” has long been implemented within predominantly leftist states in America. It’s not anything new. Any operations by DHS and ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) within blue states to arrest and deport illegal immigrants are often met with aggressive resistance by Democrat run city governments.
Keep in mind that foreign individuals have no right under the constitution to reside in the US without first gaining citizenship. Leftists say they don’t care and are happy to welcome millions of illegals into the country with open arms in direct violation of laws protecting our borders as well as the stability of our economy and society. They do this NOT because they are naively humanitarian; rather, they see it as a means to import a massive voting block that will give leftists whatever they want because they believe they will get citizenship in exchange.
If they didn’t want millions of illegal votes, then Democrats would not be constantly attempting to block voter ID laws.
Obviously, the political left is openly hostile to federal agencies when those agencies happen to obstruct their agenda. Though it’s rare these days for blue states and the feds to be at odds, it does happen. ICE and other agencies might try to find ways around sanctuary status, but there is never any question of “treason” or “insurrection.” Blue state politicians don’t get raided or arrested as national enemies.
I bring up this issue because many readers have asked me to comment on the events at Mar-a-Lago and the FBI search of Donald Trump’s home. From the information I have seen, every president in history has been given access to classified information after they leave the White House, especially if they are planning to run for office again. One can debate the merits of this policy, but it is a policy just the same. Presidents also have sweeping authority to declassify documents and information when they feel it is justified. Meaning, if documents were found in Trump’s possession, it’s completely plausible that he simply declassified them before taking them.
The main leftist position is more about the nuances of how the documents are stored and if Trump followed proper procedures through NARA. While the secondary argument by leftists is basically that Trump is a criminal and should not be allowed the same access as other presidents (though impeachment failed and he has never been criminally charged). Until the information on the raid is unsealed we really have no idea if Trump actually had any dangerous or top secret documents in his possession. It’s all hypothetical at this point and the progressive media is running wild with the story simply because they hate Trump and are hoping against hope that this event will stop him from running for office in 2024, where Biden would be easily crushed.
My personal feeling on the issue is that people are missing the bigger picture. The Mar-a-Lago raid is much like the January 6th trials – It’s all a circus and a distraction. Nothing substantial will come from these events, it’s about optics and influencing public perception. If anything, the raid on Trump’s home makes him look MORE appealing to a large number of Americans who have grown tired of the apparent incompetence and chicanery of the Biden Administration. This event HELPS Trump in the long run instead of hurting him.
The only other possible scenario that makes sense here is that there will be an attempt to arrest Trump on thin charges. Such a move would be seen as purely political in nature and would enrage millions of Americans to the point of civil unrest. But maybe that’s the point…
I have never had much trust in Trump and I was always highly critical of the fact that he loaded his cabinet with known banking elites and globalists after attacking those same people during his election campaign. This article is not meant to defend Trump or admonish him. Frankly, I don’t care.
What I do care about, though, is the increasing tide of federal aggression and the use of federal agencies as a political club to intimidate or beat down opponents of the leftists and globalists. The FBI raid in Florida, is one example. Then there was the FBI seizure of PA congressman Scott Perry’s cell phone, and the Jan. 6th investigations in general are purely about intimidation and not about justice.
The message of the Jan 6th trials is this: Leftists are allowed to violently riot and burn buildings to the ground across the country. Conservatives are not allowed to do anything. If we do, then we will be rounded up for “insurrection.” At least, that’s what they want us to believe so that we self censor and live in fear of ever protesting again. We are at an impasse. There is no compromise to be had and no agreements to be made. They want us gone, and now we want them gone because they want us gone. This is not going to change.
Another growing concern among many Americans is the sudden explosion in agent recruitment at the IRS, with an implied need for agents that are willing to execute raids and violence. The “Inflation Reduction Act” which contains no measures that actually reduce inflation but does contain a climate change agenda, socialized healthcare measures and an extreme boost to the IRS.
The agency is slated to receive an $80 billion boost from the Inflation Reduction Act and the institution is now looking to hire 87,000 more employees. If the mission is to reduce inflation by using the IRS to steal more money from American consumers, then I guess that could work if they rob almost everyone, but it would also cause recessionary carnage and even more public discontent and anger.
Obviously, not all of the 87,000 new IRS agents will be field agents. Finding that many people with training that are also willing to risk their lives for the IRS would be exceedingly difficult. Many of them will be sitting at a desk, but thousands of them will be strapped and tasked with arrests and this is what worries people. The mainstream media claims that these new agents will be targeting “rich tax dodgers” but we all know better. The IRS was used extensively under Obama to put pressure on conservative organizations and individuals that were not “rich,” and there’s no reason to think Biden would not do the same thing.
The IRS even had to apologize for their biased activities against conservative groups as part of a legal settlement in 2017.
They’ve done it before and they’ll do it again, but this time with a massive payout from the Biden White House and probably more leeway to bend the law. So, with federal agencies being utilized even more as political weapons, should conservative states step in and block their operations? Blue states do it, why not red states? This is an apples to apples comparison and absolutely fair. I would say that what blue states are doing with illegal immigrants is highly destructive in comparison. Red states stopping alphabet agencies from using intimidation against conservatives who are legal citizens is far more justified.
This question leads to a whole gamut of conflicts for sure, and there will be endless cries by leftists of “treason.” But who really cares what they think? We realize that there is a double standard and it’s only expanding in the favor of social justice extremists that want to fundamentally disrupt and change the foundations of our country. Why should we play by their rules when they don’t play by any?
Red states should enforce a moratorium on federal agency operations until the threats of political abuse are addressed. It is not possible to reach an understanding with leftists at this time because they operate through a prism of zealotry. They cannot be reasoned with because they believe that everything they are doing is righteous and no violation of individual rights is off the table, so it is better to separate and prevent them from implementing malicious policies within our state borders until the conflict is resolved. Otherwise, a lot of people could get hurt.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a leading presidential contender, is skilled at appealing to Republicans who resent the censorious self-righteousness of woke progressives. But instead of defending free inquiry and open debate, DeSantis seems bent on fighting intolerance with intolerance.
When he signed the Individual Freedom Act (IFA) last April, DeSantis bragged that it would “prevent discriminatory instruction in the workplace,” striking a blow against “the far-left woke agenda.” But as a federal judge explained last week, the law’s restrictions on employee training blatantly violate the First Amendment.
The IFA expanded Florida’s definition of “unlawful employment practices” to include “any required activity” that promotes one or more of eight forbidden concepts. Some of those ideas are plainly illiberal (e.g., linking moral status to race) or patently silly (e.g., viewing virtues such as excellence, hard work, and fairness as white supremacist constructs), while others are ambiguous or debatable (e.g., the notion that “members of one race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, sex, or national origin”).
Whatever you think of those ideas, the government has no business decreeing whether and how they can be discussed in private workplaces. Yet that is what the IFA does: It allows discussion “in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts” while forbidding speech that “espouses, promotes, advances, [or] inculcates” them.
As U.S. District Judge Mark Walker noted when he issued a preliminary injunction against those restrictions, they amount to “a naked viewpoint-based regulation on speech,” which is presumptively unconstitutional. “Under our constitutional scheme,” Walker observed, “the ‘remedy’ for repugnant speech ‘is more speech, not enforced silence.'”
DeSantis argued that the IFA aims to prevent a “hostile work environment” created by ideas that might discomfit employees. Walker thought that was a stretch because that term encompasses speech only when it is “both objectively and subjectively offensive and when it is sufficiently severe or pervasive”—requirements that provide “shelter for core protected speech.”
More to the point, conservatives have long criticized discrimination claims based on an allegedly hostile work environment precisely because they can transform otherwise protected speech into illegal “harassment.” Yet DeSantis is not only defending that concept; he is extending it to cover even a single “required activity” that “espouses” ideas he does not like.
The governor’s support for Florida’s social media law evinces a similar lack of principle. That 2021 law prohibits platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube from removing or limiting access to content they deem objectionable, including material produced by “journalistic enterprises” and posts by or about political candidates.
As DeSantis saw it, the law would “ensure that ‘We the People’—real Floridians across the Sunshine State—are guaranteed protection against the Silicon Valley elites.” He said it would combat the “Big Tech censors” who “discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology.”
DeSantis likened Facebook et al.’s moderation decisions to the “censorship and other tyrannical behavior” of Cuban and Venezuelan despots. But as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit pointed out when it blocked enforcement of Florida’s law last May, such comparisons elide a constitutionally crucial distinction.
Unlike “Big Tech censors,” an unconstrained government has the power to ban and punish controversial speech by force of law, as Florida sought to do with the IFA. The First Amendment, which aims to guard against that danger, does not impose any limits on the editorial judgment of private organizations.
On the contrary, the Supreme Court hasrepeatedlyheld that the First Amendment guarantees the right to exercise such discretion. But in Florida, Walker wryly noted, “the First Amendment apparently bars private actors from burdening speech, while the state may burden speech freely.”
That backward view is not just diametrically wrong but dangerously shortsighted. Depending on the vicissitudes of elections, a government with the powers DeSantis has claimed easily could use them to advance “the far-left woke agenda” that keeps him awake at night.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a leading presidential contender, is skilled at appealing to Republicans who resent the censorious self-righteousness of woke progressives. But instead of defending free inquiry and open debate, DeSantis seems bent on fighting intolerance with intolerance.
When he signed the Individual Freedom Act (IFA) last April, DeSantis bragged that it would “prevent discriminatory instruction in the workplace,” striking a blow against “the far-left woke agenda.” But as a federal judge explained last week, the law’s restrictions on employee training blatantly violate the First Amendment.
The IFA expanded Florida’s definition of “unlawful employment practices” to include “any required activity” that promotes one or more of eight forbidden concepts. Some of those ideas are plainly illiberal (e.g., linking moral status to race) or patently silly (e.g., viewing virtues such as excellence, hard work, and fairness as white supremacist constructs), while others are ambiguous or debatable (e.g., the notion that “members of one race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, sex, or national origin”).
Whatever you think of those ideas, the government has no business decreeing whether and how they can be discussed in private workplaces. Yet that is what the IFA does: It allows discussion “in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts” while forbidding speech that “espouses, promotes, advances, [or] inculcates” them.
As U.S. District Judge Mark Walker noted when he issued a preliminary injunction against those restrictions, they amount to “a naked viewpoint-based regulation on speech,” which is presumptively unconstitutional. “Under our constitutional scheme,” Walker observed, “the ‘remedy’ for repugnant speech ‘is more speech, not enforced silence.'”
DeSantis argued that the IFA aims to prevent a “hostile work environment” created by ideas that might discomfit employees. Walker thought that was a stretch because that term encompasses speech only when it is “both objectively and subjectively offensive and when it is sufficiently severe or pervasive”—requirements that provide “shelter for core protected speech.”
More to the point, conservatives have long criticized discrimination claims based on an allegedly hostile work environment precisely because they can transform otherwise protected speech into illegal “harassment.” Yet DeSantis is not only defending that concept; he is extending it to cover even a single “required activity” that “espouses” ideas he does not like.
The governor’s support for Florida’s social media law evinces a similar lack of principle. That 2021 law prohibits platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube from removing or limiting access to content they deem objectionable, including material produced by “journalistic enterprises” and posts by or about political candidates.
As DeSantis saw it, the law would “ensure that ‘We the People’—real Floridians across the Sunshine State—are guaranteed protection against the Silicon Valley elites.” He said it would combat the “Big Tech censors” who “discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology.”
DeSantis likened Facebook et al.’s moderation decisions to the “censorship and other tyrannical behavior” of Cuban and Venezuelan despots. But as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit pointed out when it blocked enforcement of Florida’s law last May, such comparisons elide a constitutionally crucial distinction.
Unlike “Big Tech censors,” an unconstrained government has the power to ban and punish controversial speech by force of law, as Florida sought to do with the IFA. The First Amendment, which aims to guard against that danger, does not impose any limits on the editorial judgment of private organizations.
On the contrary, the Supreme Court hasrepeatedlyheld that the First Amendment guarantees the right to exercise such discretion. But in Florida, Walker wryly noted, “the First Amendment apparently bars private actors from burdening speech, while the state may burden speech freely.”
That backward view is not just diametrically wrong but dangerously shortsighted. Depending on the vicissitudes of elections, a government with the powers DeSantis has claimed easily could use them to advance “the far-left woke agenda” that keeps him awake at night.
“Hangover-Free” Weed-Infused Beverages Becoming All The Rage
As recreational marijuana becomes legal in a growing number of states, cannabis-infused, alcohol-free ‘mocktails’ have emerged as a new, healthier alternative for those who wish to imbibe.
And since liquids are absorbed far more quickly in the stomach than solids (such as pot cookies), these drinks – which include seltzers and alcohol-free wines – have seen a flood of demand.
According to Colorado-based research firm BDSA, dolalr sales of marijuana beverages were up approximately 65% between 2020 and 2021 in the 12 states they track. California – the #1 consumer of weed drinks – saw the number of cannabis beverages available nearly double during the same period, with at least 747 distinct products now available, according to the NY Times.
Pabst, known for its Blue Ribbon beer, now sells lemon-flavored “High Seltzer,” a canned cannabis drink promising “a different kind of buzz.” The cannabis beverage company Cann calls its carbonated cocktails “social tonics”; it also sells “roadies,” cannabis-infused drink mix in ready-to-go foil packets. Rebel Coast, a California-based winemaker, makes cans of alcohol-free sparkling wine infused with 10 milligrams of THC.
Cannabis-infused beverages are often branded as a healthier alternative to alcohol — “No painful days after drinking or regrets,” a tagline on Cann’s site reads. These kinds of drinks carry a connotation of health, said Emily Moquin, a food and beverage analyst at Morning Consult. They tout themselves as “hangover-free” and without the high calories of alcohol; they claim to help you feel “focused,” balanced, relaxed. One cannabis beverage company even suggests pairing their drinks with a spa day.
Previous attempts to infuse THC into beverages were unsuccessful or produced a terrible tasting drink because the cannabinoid is hydrophobic – and doesn’t mix easily. In recent years, however, ‘nanoemulsion’ technology has allowed for cannabinoids to be smoothly blended into a seltzer or cocktail.
According to a July survey, nearly 19% of millennials say they’ve tried a THC-infused beverage – a number which Emily Moquin expects to grow as Marijuana is increasingly marketed as a form of self-care.
“It’s associated with health benefits, things like sleep, anxiety reduction — some things that people might reach for a drink to try to solve,” she said.
Just don’t drink too much
As anyone who’s done edibles knows, it takes some time to kick in. What’s more, standards of potency vary – though most experts consider 5 milligrams of THC to constitute a single dose.
According to Headset, a company that collects and analyzes data on cannabis, more than 50% of cannabis drinks sold in the US in 2021 contained 100 milligrams of THC, an amount that could seriously intoxicate a person.
Most edibles, on the other hand, contain 5 or 10mg doses.
“If you tell someone, this is an 8 percent beer, they say, ‘That’s a strong beer,’” said James MacKillop, director of the Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research at McMaster University. “If you tell someone this is a 20 milligram drink versus a five milligram drink, that’s Greek to many people.”
Kuroda’s BOJ Is A Test Case Of Monetary Policy Limit
By Masaki Kondo, Bloomberg Markets live reporter and analyst
What are the limits of monetary policy? The answer may lie in the Bank of Japan’s experience.
For close to a decade now, a weaker exchange rate has complemented Japan’s loose monetary policy as the central bank sought to revive growth and inflation. The reason? Years of rock-bottom interest rates and an abundance of cheap funds had long lost their impact.
Japan’s real effective exchange rate is at the lowest since at least 1994 and this is probably a deliberate — albeit indirect — policy move on BOJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda’s part. But it remains to be seen if it’s enough to rouse Japan’s economy from decades of anemic growth and inflation.
The answer to that question has far-reaching implications. As the risks of a global downturn increases, central banks will have to contend with the issue of how much policy easing can do to stimulate consumption and investment.
In this respect, Japanese stocks may provide a clue as to the effectiveness of BOJ’s monetary policy. The so-called Fed Model shows the Topix index’s earnings yield premium is about 8 percentage points over that of 10-year local government notes. That’s 5 percentage points above the S&P 500’s.
It’s worth noting that the falling yen has also widened Japan’s trade deficit given that exporters had moved their production hubs abroad. Still, a prolonged bout of currency weakness may encourage them to return. Rising US-China tensions as well as the Biden administration’s initiative for a semiconductor alliance that includes Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will provide additional tailwinds.
Should Kuroda prove that a weaker currency is an effective easing tool, Japan’s stocks may further outperform their developed peers.
And if he doesn’t, this may serve as an example to other central banks that monetary policy has its limits.
CCP To Release Top Gun-Esque Aerial-Action Thriller, Featuring Stealth Fighter
Beijing banned Chinese moviegoers from Hollywood’s biggest blockbuster this summer, “Top Gun: Maverick,” because Tom Cruise’s character (“Maverick”) wore a flight jacket with flag patches of Japan and Taiwan. With Cruise’s flick banned, the next best thing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) could do is produce a Top Gun-esque air force film of its own, expected to be released later this year.
CCP’s mouthpiece Global Times said a fifteen-second teaser for the Chinese military film “Born to Fly” has been released, featuring the country’s most advanced stealth fighter, the Chengdu J-20, along with the story of how Chinese scientists, engineers, and military personnel developed the fifth-generation fighter jet.
“The movie presents the struggles of Chinese scientists and engineers as they work to catch up with the times in stealth jet research and advancement after the country experienced a technological blockade under the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM) and Wassenaar Arrangement,” Global Times said.
Global Times added: “The film will present the power and speed of China’s latest fighter jets as well as reveal the work and life of a test pilot, a representative of the contemporary PLA Air Force.”
The war flick comes as China rapidly modernizes its armed forces at an unprecedented pace. Threats of war between the US and China surged earlier this month when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan, forcing China to conduct an abrupt military drill around the self-governed island.
Some in the West believe Beijing’s economic and military weight could shift the balance of power in the decade ahead. As we’ve pointed out, the US-led “unipolar world order” is transforming into a new “multipolar world system.”
The superpower showdown appears full steam ahead as China attempts to one-up the West with a pro-war propaganda movie of its own.
In an interview with NBC News, former NBA champion Dennis Rodman says he got “permission” to travel to Russia to seek the release of WNBA star Brittney Griner. Rodman previously used his relationship with North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un to help secure the release of Kenneth Bae.
Rodman indicated that he could make the trip as early as this week. He did not say who gave him permission to travel to Russia. Rodman would not technically need authorization from the White House to travel to Russia, but Moscow would need to provide him a visa to enter the country.
The State Department has advised Americans not to travel to Russia, and Western sanctions on Moscow make visiting a logistical challenge. Rodman appears undeterred by the complicated geopolitical situation, telling NBC, “I got permission to go to Russia to help that girl. I’m trying to go this week.”
The US government has ceased contact with the Kremlin since Putin ordered his army to invade Ukraine in February. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov have spoken once in the past six months. Three weeks ago, the top diplomats held a call about a prisoner swap, but Griner remains in Russia.
On Sunday, in an interview with Financial Times, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations said the war in Ukraine will likely drag on because of the US refusal to engage in negotiations. “We do not have any contacts with the western delegations. On the protocol side we do not see each other . . . Privately we do not have any contacts, unfortunately… we simply do not talk to each other,” he said.
While Rodman does not hold any official government credentials, he has netted diplomatic successes in the past. After Christian missionary Kenneth Bae was freed from North Korea, he said, “I thank Dennis Rodman for being a catalyst for my release.”
The NBA star also appeared at the 2018 Singapore summit between President Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un.
Putin and Rodman met in Moscow in 2014. Rodman said about the Russian leader, “You know, he’s actually cool. I’m not going to say — I’m not talking about politics. I ain’t about politics … this was my first time meeting him. He just walked in, shook my hand and left with all his people. I just stayed there and had a good time at his restaurant.”
