Month: December 2024

Authored by Leslie Eastman via LegalInsurrection.com,

Asteroid Apophis, named after the Egyptian god of chaos and destruction, is a near-Earth asteroid that has garnered significant attention due to its close approach to our home planet.

Discovered in 2004, Apophis is classified as a potentially hazardous object. Due to swing close enough to the planet in 2029, the gravitational influence will be enough to cause tremors.

A recent study led by Ronald-Louis Ballouz from Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory suggests that the asteroid 99942 Apophis may experience tremors—similar to earthquakes—due to Earth’s gravitational pull during its close flyby on April 13, 2029, with simulations indicating significant surface changes.

Apophis, approximately 340 meters in size, will pass within about 32,000 kilometers of Earth, closer than many satellites in orbit.

When Apophis was discovered on June 19, 2004, by Roy Tucker, David Tholen, and Fabrizio Bernardi during the University of Hawaii Asteroid Survey (UHAS), initial calculations indicated that it could approach Earth with a risk of collision, especially during its pass in 2029. It didn’t help that it is named after the Egyptian god of darkness and chaos.

The original estimates for collision were as high as 2.7%, and Apophis achieved the highest rating ever on the ‘Torino scale’ – a method used to evaluate the threat that an asteroid poses to Earth.

However, new calculations and observations have led scientists to conclude that there will be no impact….for at least 100 years.

….Using the data available at the time, astronomers believed that there was a chance that the flyby could alter the trajectory of Apophis in a way that would line it up for a collision with Earth in 2068.

However, radar observations of Apophis made by NASA’s Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex in California and the Green Bank Observatory, West Virginia, in March 2021 greatly improved our knowledge of the asteroid’s current orbit and allowed astronomers to finally rule out any chance of Earth impact for at least 100 years.

And while it won’t strike Earth, Apophis will be bright enough in the skies to be visible to the unaided eye. So, the viewing parties could be fun!

As I mentioned, the viewing parties of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are currently making their own plans for up-close-and-personal observations.

The OSIRIS-APEX mission is slated to visit the asteroid. It continues the OSIRIS-REx mission, which successfully collected and returned samples from asteroid Bennu (which I reported on in a 2023 post).

OSIRIS-APEX is a mission to study the physical changes to asteroid Apophis that will result from its rare close encounter with Earth in April 2029. That year, Apophis’ orbit will bring it within 20,000 miles (32,000 kilometers) of Earth’s surface — closer to Earth than our highest-altitude satellites. Our planet’s gravitational pull is expected to alter the asteroid’s orbit, change how fast it spins on its axis, and possibly cause quakes or landslides that will alter its surface.

OSIRIS-APEX will allow scientists on Earth to observe these changes. Additionally, the OSIRIS-APEX spacecraft will dip toward the surface of Apophis ­– a “stony” asteroid made of silicate (or rocky) material and a mixture of metallic nickel and iron ­ – and fire its engines to kick up loose rocks and dust. This maneuver will give scientists a peek at the composition of material just below the asteroid’s surface.

Other satellite projects, including those related to planetary defense, are also being planned.

Under the auspicious “NEAlight” project, a team from Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg (JMU) and led by space engineer Hakan Kayal has revealed three concepts for such spacecraft. Each of the suggested satellites will aim to exploit this asteroid passage because Earth experiences just once such event every millennium.

The goal? To collect data that could help scientists better understand the solar system, and perhaps even aid in the development of defense measures against dangerous asteroids.

America’s East and West Coasts together contribute about half of the country’s $27 trillion GDP. For context, these two regions are home to 17 states and 160 million people.

But how do they stack up against each other?

In this map, Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao takes a look at which states constitute both coasts and also measure their combined economic productivity.

Data is sourced from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Census Bureau, as of 2023.

So, Which Coast is the Best Coast?

The Eastern Seaboard, where a third of Americans live, has a combined GDP of $9 trillion, also about a third of the U.S. economy.

Note: All figures rounded.

On the other hand, the West (figures listed below) comes in at about $5 trillion. And despite the smaller overall number, it’s punching above its weight, with less than half the population. This is better seen in how the GDP per capita shakes out for both: $98,000 for the West versus $84,000 for the East.

California leads the way for its coast, with its economy nearing $4 trillion, just by itself.

Note: All figures rounded.

Of course, the East has the pedigree, the history, and the people. It’s where the original 13 states declared independence in 1776 after all. On the other hand, California joined the union in 1850, followed by Oregon (1859) and Washington (1889).

But even before Silicon Valley changed California (and the West, and perhaps the world?), the Golden State has been central to America’s economic growth.

California King

The gold rush set off the largest inter-state migration in U.S. history and fueled wild dreams. After it ended, agriculture became California’s largest sector, followed by oil at the start of the 20th century. In fact, as recently as 2012, California was the third-largest oil producing state.

All of that has now been eclipsed now by California’s booming tech sector, home to four trillion-dollar companies—Alphabet, Apple, Meta, and Nvidia. Further noth, Washington has another two: Amazon and Microsoft.

In stark contrast, the East Coast has none, though it is home to several finance giants: JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citi, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley.

Looking for more comparison graphics? Take a look at How State Economies Compare to Entire Countries where five U.S. states could replace countries in the top 20 by GDP.

Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

As millions of Americans prepare for record-setting air travel this holiday season, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) released a report on Nov. 26 detailing the growing reliance of major airlines on ancillary fees.

These charges, sometimes referred to as “junk fees,” have become a vital revenue stream for the airlines while travelers “confront more and increasingly complex fees and fewer options for avoiding them,” according to the report.

The report, led by the chairman of the subcommittee, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), examines practices by American Airlines, Delta Airlines, Frontier Airlines, Spirit Airlines, and United Airlines.

It highlights the use of dynamic pricing, incentive programs, and other strategies the committee said are used to generate revenue from services that were previously included in ticket prices.

“Our investigation has exposed new details about airlines exploiting passengers with sky high junk fees,” Blumenthal said in a statement accompanying the report. “As we head into the Thanksgiving weekend, we regret that travelers will be charged millions of dollars in fees that have no basis in cost to the airlines but simply fatten their bottom lines.”

Among the findings, the report revealed that Spirit and Frontier paid $26 million to gate agents and personnel between 2022 and 2023 for enforcing baggage policies.

These incentives were designed to identify passengers who exceed baggage allowances, often leading to additional fees, the report stated. Frontier agents, for example, can earn up to $10 per bag flagged for a fee at the gate.

The report also explored how airlines use algorithms to adjust ancillary fees based on customer data. This approach allows fees for services like seat selection to vary significantly, even on the same flight.

Between 2018 and 2023, the five airlines generated $12.4 billion in seat fee revenue, with some charges reaching as high as $899 for premium seats.

The subcommittee further noted that these fees are not consistently tied to the airlines’ costs of providing the associated services. Airlines reported that they do not maintain granular cost data to calculate the expenses of baggage handling or seat assignments, raising questions about fee transparency.

In some cases, airlines classify charges as “optional” services to avoid federal transportation taxes, which are applied to the airfare. The report found that such practices create inconsistencies in how services are taxed across carriers, potentially complicating price comparisons for travelers.

Executives from the five airlines are scheduled to testify before the subcommittee on Dec. 4 during a hearing titled “The Sky’s the Limit—New Revelations About Airline Fees.” Topics for discussion include consumer complaints about fee practices and potential measures to improve transparency and fairness in airline pricing.

Delta and American Airlines referred The Epoch Times to industry lobbyist group Airlines for America (A4A) for a comment, who said they were deeply disappointed in the report.

“The report demonstrates a clear failure by the subcommittee to understand the value the highly competitive U.S. airline industry brings to customers and employees,” A4A told The Epoch Times. “Rather, the report serves as just another holiday travel talking point.”

A4A defended the use of ancillary fees, stating that these charges provide consumers with greater flexibility and affordability.

The lobbyist group said that modern air travel is more accessible than ever, a development they attribute to pricing models that allow travelers to pay only for the services they need.

A4A further noted that airlines fully disclose fees at the time of purchase and comply with all laws and regulations, including those governing taxes and fees, which can comprise over twenty percent of ticket prices. They described any suggestions of noncompliance as “uninformed and inaccurate.”

Delta in a separate emailed statement said: “Delta looks forward to the continued dialogue with the Subcommittee including appearing at next week’s hearing. For more than a year, Delta has voluntarily responded to the Subcommittee’s sweeping requests, including providing documents and information, responding to numerous rounds of requests and follow-ons, and providing a senior level employee and subject matter expert at the Subcommittee’s request for a lengthy interview to discuss ancillary fees.”

Spirit Airlines told The Epoch Times that the company has “a long history of offering affordable, low-fare flights, which has made travel more accessible for the public.”

“We are transparent about our products and pricing, our airport policies ensure Guests are treated fairly and equally, and we comply with all tax laws and regulations. We respectfully disagree with numerous statements and conclusions contained in the report.”

Spirit said they look forward to explaining their position at the December hearing and believe that it’s “time to come together and discuss meaningful initiatives that would even the playing field between larger and smaller airlines to benefit all travelers, including those who rely on airlines like Spirit.”

United Airlines declined to comment to The Epoch Times. Delta and Frontier Airlines did not respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.

After weeks of speculation, President-elect Donald Trump announced on Saturday that he’s picked Kash Patel to replace Christopher Wray as the head of the FBI.

Patel has been a longtime critic of the bureau who has called for shutting down the agency’s Washington headquarters, cleaning house when it comes to top leadership, and bringing the nation’s law enforcement agencies “to heel.”

Kash Patel is no stranger to tackling big roles. He’s worked across defense, intelligence, and counterterrorism—now he might become CIA chief under Trump! What would a CIA led by Patel look like? pic.twitter.com/rP71IOTCsf

— Restricted Daily (@Restricted_on_X) November 12, 2024

According to a Saturday post to Truth Social, Trump called Patel a “brilliant lawyer, investigator, and “America First” fighter who has spent his career exposing corruption, defending Justice, and protecting the American People.”

“He played a pivotal role in uncovering the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, standing as an advocate for truth, accountability, and the Constitution,” Trump continued.

Patel has been open about what kind of changes he’d pursue if given the chance. His various proposals include reducing the FBI’s footprint in Washington and “dramatically” limiting its authority. He hopes to curb the power of the Justice Department’s Civil Division and jettison a Pentagon office that produces classified assessments of long-term trends and risks, arguing it is just a tool of the “deep state.”

Patel has said he also intends to aggressively hunt down government officials who leak information to reporters, and change the law to make it easier to sue journalists. During an interview with Steve Bannon in December, Patel said he and others “will go out and find the conspirators not just in government but in the media.” –AP

Patel has served as both a federal prosecutor and a public defender, and filled a number of administrative roles at the tail end of Trump’s first term, including on the National Security Council and in the Pentagon.

And in a sign this is a good move – in 2021 when Trump floated Patel for deputy director of the CIA or the FBI, former AG William Barr said that would happen “over my dead body.”

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe said that no part of the FBI would be “safe” with Patel in a leadership position.

In response, Patel told the Washington Post: “Those calling me a danger, let’s just ask them for a proof, a piece of evidence that actually shows I’ve committed any constitutional violations or any ethical quandaries, and I’d love to hear their response to this.”

Current FBI Director Christopher Wray will now either have to resign or be fired, assuming Patel makes it through Senate confirmation.

And as noted above, Patel has vowed to investigate and possibly prosecute regime-puppet journalists.

“Yes, we’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections — we’re going to come after you,” Patel said last year. “Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.”

Authored by Monica O’Shea via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Late into the night on Nov. 28, the Australian Senate passed a “world first” law that bans under 16-year-old children from accessing social media.

The new law, once in effect, means young Australians will be barred from accessing platforms like TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit, and X—age verification technology will be implemented by the Big Tech firms to ensure compliance.

Certain social media programs will be allowed, including YouTube and educational apps.

The centre-left Labor government achieved passage of the Bill with support from the centre-right Liberal-National Coalition amid a blitz of Bills on the last sitting day of Parliament in 2024.

The ban passed the lower house a day earlier.

Keeping Phones From Kids Unrealistic: Senator

Liberal Senator Dave Sharma speaking in the Senate on Nov. 28, argued that parents need assistance managing social media for children.

“I think parents need help with this, and this is why I think there is a case for government intervention,” he said.

“Partly because parents have to grapple with the ubiquity of phones and electronic devices, and the crude measure that some suggest—which is take away your kid’s phone, or give them a non-smartphone without adding any apps—I don’t think is particularly realistic,” Sharma said.

“I think in today’s era we expect our children to be able to be contacted and be contactable, and this is especially true in situations in many households today where both parents are working, and they are often not home when the children might be home or coming home from school.”

Sharma added he did not discount that there were some benefits to children using social media, providing a way for them to stay in touch and stay connected.

“We all saw this during the COVID pandemic, when our children weren’t going to school and they stayed in touch through messaging platforms, through social media platforms, and it allows them to build and maintain a social circle,” he said.

“I also appreciate that the people who are isolated geographically or socially or otherwise, it provides them a way to build a community which might not be available to them in the real world.

Greens Oppose

Greens Senator David Shoebridge, however, described the bill as “deeply flawed” and was a proposal that appeared to come from people who have “never been on the internet.”

“It’s a bill to appease [media mogul] Rupert Murdoch,” he claimed.

Shoebridge also described the short Senate inquiry into the legislation as a “sham” and said the evidence against a social media ban was “overwhelming.”

Labor Minister Jenny McAllister noted the law would not come into force for a year, emphasising that keeping “Australians safe online” was a top priority of the government.

“Through extensive consultation and with the input of states and territories, the government is agreeing that until a child turns 16, the social media environment as it stands is not age-appropriate for them,” the speech said (pdf).

“Critically, this legislation will allow for a twelve-month implementation period—to ensure this novel and world-leading reform can take effect with the care and consideration Australian’s rightly expect.”

What Social Media Companies Will Be Impacted?

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, which will come into force within a year, will require social media platforms to take “reasonable steps” to stop Australian children from holding an account.

“The penalty amounts are intentionally large, which reflects the significance of the harms the Bill is intended to safeguard against,” the government said in its explanatory memorandum (pdf).

“It will also strongly signal the expectation that age-restricted social media platforms treat the minimum age obligation seriously.”

Companies that do not comply face fines of up to $49.5 million (US$32 million).

Social media platforms will also need to roll out technology to verify the minimum age of users.

“The Bill does not dictate how platforms must comply with the minimum age obligation,” the explanatory memorandum states.

“However, it is expected that at a minimum, the obligation will require platforms to implement some form of age assurance as a means of identifying whether a prospective or existing account holder is an Australian child under the age of 16 years.”

X Corporation’s Concerns With Legislation

X Corporation raised concerns about the legality of the legislation and failure to incentivise parents, in a submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.

“We have serious concerns as to the lawfulness of the Bill, including its compatibility with other regulations and laws, including international human rights treaties to which Australia is a signatory, as further detailed below,” X said in a submission (pdf).

“By design, the Bill ignores the realities of the wider technology ecosystem and goes as far as to exclude entire industries and parts of society, including parents and caregivers, all of whom should be motivated and supported to work together to keep young Australians safe online.”

Billionaire Elon Musk also weighed into the debate on the social media ban personally on Nov. 21, responding to a post from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese touting the ban.

“Seems like a backdoor way to control access to the Internet by all Australians,” Musk posted to X, in reference to the possible rollout of a national ID or age verification technology.

Catholic School Parents in Favour

The Senate Committee also heard views in favour of the bill, with the New South Wales government presenting a survey of 21,000 people that showed 87 percent of people supported a minimum age standard for social media.

Catholic school parents in Western Australia also argued that social media could impact children’s behaviour.

“Parents are worried that children and young people are becoming desensitised to some of the content that they are seeing, and that it is leading to a distorted understanding of some serious topics,” the advocacy group told the inquiry.

Millennials are the most likely among the four generations to resort to financing with credit cards or Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) schemes for this year’s Black Friday and Cyber Monday purchases, while only 55 percent of Baby Boomers will likely resort to these tactics to take full advantage of discounts offered by e-commerce platforms and retailers.

This data stems from a Deloitte consumer survey conducted in October 2024.

As Statista’s Florian Zandt details below, among all financing methods surveyed, credit cards were the most popular at 53 percent respondent share.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Despite shoppers planning to stretch their budget either by paying at a later date or shouldering more credit card debt, the survey results suggest that average per-consumer spending will increase to $650 for the period between Thanksgiving Thursday and Cyber Monday.

This spending expectation is seemingly unaffected by the multiple crises like the war in Ukraine and the coronavirus pandemic influencing the world’s economy; since 2019, spending has increased at a compound growth rate of almost ten percent per year.

While annual credit card payments have shot past 50 billion transactions in 2022, schemes like BNPL have only recently become popular. According to Worldpay’s 2024 Global Payments Report, BNPL was utilized for five percent of domestic e-commerce payments in the U.S., up three percentage points from 2020.

Out of the 41 countries and territories surveyed, BNPL was especially popular in Sweden, Germany and Norway with e-commerce purchase shares of 21, 21 and 15 percent. Sweden ranking as highly is unsurprising, since Klarna, one of the premier BNPL providers, was founded in 2005 in Sweden’s capital of Stockholm.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

CBC News is reporting that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ordered the small town of  Emo to pay damages after failing to hoist an “LGBTQ2 rainbow flag” in celebration of Pride Month. One problem is that the town of fewer than 2000 inhabitants does not have a flagpole (though you could presumably “show the flag” in other ways).

The National Post reports, that there has been a lengthy arbitration process between the tribunal and the town.

In a decision handed down last week, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that Emo, its mayor, and two councilors violated the Ontario Human Rights Code. The tribunal admitted in a later opinion that “the record indicated the Township did not receive many requests for declarations or proclamations or requests for display of a flag.”

Indeed, in a single 12-month period, they received only four — two from Borderland Pride.

Emo does not have a central flagpole, other than the Canadian flag over the front door of the Emo Municipal Office.

One issue that factored greatly in the tribunal hearings occurred during the debate over the flag proposal, which the council rejected by a vote of three to two. In the meeting. Mayor Harold McQuaker stated, “There’s no flag being flown for the other side of the coin … there’s no flags being flown for the straight people.”

Doug Judson, a lawyer and a member of Borderland Pride’s board of directors, said that “the important thing we were seeking here was validation … as 2SLGBTQA plus people.”

The tribunal ruled that Borderland Pride will be awarded $15,000, with $10,000 coming from the township and $5,000 from Emo mayor Harold McQuaker.

At first, the fine against “McQuaker” in the town of “Emo” for failing to hoist an “LGBTQ2 rainbow flag” on a non-existent flagpole seemed too contrived.

However, the mayor of Emo is a McQuaker, and the Canadian press is standing by the story.

For years, the Canadian human rights tribunals have been the spearhead of the anti-free speech movement. We have previously discussed the tribunals (here, here, and here) in such controversies.

Not only must the town pay the fines, but McQuaker and Emo’s chief administrative officer were ordered to complete an online course called “Human Rights 101” and “provide proof of completion … to Borderland Pride within 30 days” as recompense for their disobedience.

The Post report notes the course being offered by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The animated video begins with what McQuaker must feel is a tad Orwellian with a statement that the Human Rights Code “is not meant to punish.” After all, being retrained to be a better human can hardly be viewed as punishment.

Hoist that on your nonexistent flagpole.

*  *  *

Here is the opinion: Ontario Human Rights Tribunal 

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”