More on Richmond Times-Dispatch Endorsement of Libertarian Gary Johnson for President

Scott Shackford blogged The Richmond Times-Dispatch endorsement of Libertarian Gary Johnson for president. The major daily located in Virginia’s capital argues that Johnson, a former two-term governor of New Mexico and a successful businessman, is “the most capable and ethical candidate running this year.”

In a companion piece to its endorsement, the editorial board (which includes Reason contributor A. Barton Hinkle), discusses more of what they consider Johnson’s selling points:

Our instincts had pointed us toward Johnson. His meeting with the editorial board removed all doubts. Our endorsement conveys enthusiasm. His person and his policies embody what either the Democrats or the Republicans ought to offer the electorate. The formal endorsement of Johnson appears on the front of the Commentary section. It cites specific reasons for our choice. The editorial above explains the endorsement in the context of the Creed, our annual recitation of our philosophical roots. In endorsing Johnson, we remain true to ourselves. Indeed, he and running mate William Weld are true to the ideals that have motivated us for many years. Johnson represents a future one of the major parties ought to adopt as its own. He appears immune to the social Darwinism that infects extreme Libertarians and misguided conservatives; he projects empathy. Trump’s temperament is not first-class; there is no evidence of an intellect. Clinton’s ethical lapses are disabling. Johnson enjoys a decisive edge.

Read the whole thing here.

It’s worth lingering for a moment over the above paragraph for at least two reasons.

First is the observation that Johnson and his running mate, former two-term Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, are not “extreme Libertarians.” Indeed, the ticket has taken a huge amount of abuse among longtime LP members and small “L” libertarians precisely for not being super-doctrinaire when it comes to ideological orthodoxy. Some of this is simply concern trolling (especially from conservative Republicans) and much of it is overstated (Johnson is, for instance, against carbon taxes and fully defends Second Amendment rights). But there’s no question that Johnson and Weld depart from standard-issue libertarian positions on things such as anti-discrimination laws; the attention he pays to Black Lives Matter bothers not just conservatives but some true-blue libertarians as well who eschew invocations of race in almost any context. This sort of tension is widely misunderstood, I think. The issue isn’t really whether the LP has run candidates who weren’t perfectly in sync on issues (think former congressman Bob Barr in 2008). It’s more that Johnson-Weld are truly credible and serious candidates. That shifts the party’s identity and role from one of ideological outreach to actually being serious about winning and influencing elections. With that shift comes serious questions about the level of orthodoxy in candidates vs. their electability (something similar was at play in the recent Virginia campaigns by Robert Sarvis for governor and senator). It’s not a small sort of growing pain, but given that Johnson is polling far, far better than any other presidential nominee in LP history, fighting over orthodoxy and specific candidates is a sign of success.

Then there’s this: “Johnson represents a future one of the major parties ought to adopt as its own.” I think this is not only true but likely. If the Libertarian Moment is in any sense taking place (and it is), major politicial parties of the near future will indeed be shrinking the size, scope, and spending of government. They will become “fiscally conservative and socially liberal,” as Johnson says. That’s driven less by ideological commitments and more by pragmatic concerns. The reality is that entitlements, defense spending, and interest on the debt are writing a check the future can’t cash. We’re already at a place where about 3/4 of federal spending is mandatory and yet both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are talking about spending even more money than we already do. Clinton would raise taxes, which has the benefit of not totally blowing out the debt levels even as it will help make economic growth that much more sluggish. Trump would simply give up on anything approaching fiscal sanity. But it’s also true that Americans consistently say that we want a government that does less and spends less. It’s easy to say that people always say that in the abstract, but as the deadlines for actual cuts in Medicare and Social Security benefits come into view, Johnson is the only candidate who is trying to have an adult conversation about the purposes and sustainability of safety nets. When it comes to social issues, formerly controversial topics ranging from gay marriage to pot legalization to abortion are losing their ability to whip voters in to frenzies. The future belongs to a party that says something like: We will do fewer things but do them competently; we will spend less of your money even as we help those truly in need; we will give individuals more choices in living their lives when it comes to education, marriage, and work; and we will be fair.

On Labor Day weekend, it looks less and less likely that Johnson will be in the presidential debates, which get started later this month. The candidate himself has said if he’s not in the debates, it’s “game over” for any chance to win the election. But that ultimately isn’t the real measure of his—and the LP’s—influence on 21st-century politics. Keep a copy of Johnson’s platform tucked away somewhere. Over the coming years, we’ll see most if not all of what he’s proposing will be baseline assumptions for one or both major parties.

Matt Welch and I did a Facebook Live interview with Johnson at the Democratic National Covention in Philadelphia. Take a look now:

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2bMcvco
via IFTTT

US Spy Agency Tweets Honest Opinion Of China’s Obama Snub; Then Promptly Deletes And Apologizes

Yesterday we noted how President Obama received a very undiplomatic welcome in China for his last official visit to the country as Commander in Chief (see "Tarmac Altercation Erupts After Obama Lands In China: Official Shouts "This Is Our Country, Our Airport""). 

Upon arrival on Saturday in China as part of his last visit to Asia as US Commander in Chief for the periodic photo-op that is the G-20 meeting, something unexpected happened: a very undiplomatic greeting when an unusual tarmac altercation involving Chinese and U.S. officials, including national security adviser Susan Rice, devolved into a shouting match by a member of the Chinese delegation.

 

It all started with the actual landing: as AP reports, the first sign of trouble is that there was no staircase for Obama to exit the plane and descend on the red carpet. So, as the photo below shows, Obama used an alternative exit. Needless to say, a diplomatic fuck up such as this one, was not accidental – Beijing was sending a loud and clear message.

Turns out someone manning the Defense Intelligence Agency twitter account over the long holiday weekend was feeling a little snarky and decided to send the following tweet about the incident which reads, "Classy as always China."

 

The tweet was promptly taken down and replaced with the following apology:

 

We're not sure that deleting the tweet was the best idea…perhaps U.S. foreign policy could benefit from relying more heavily on the insights of Ron Burgundy.  Couldn't get much worse.

via http://ift.tt/2cfqSIW Tyler Durden

Melissa Click, Having Learned Nothing, Somehow Teaching Again

ClickGonzaga University must be a forgiving place. Melissa Click, the former University of Missouri communications professor who was fired after assaulting a student-journalist during a campus protest, has been hired by the Catholic college.

It’s a one-year, non-tenure track appointment. Click will once again teach communications.

In a statement, Gonzaga acknowledged the controversy surrounding Click but expressed confidence that she has “learned much from her experiences” at Mizzou.

“Dr. Click was hired through an extensive national search process that revealed her to be the most qualified and experienced candidate for the position,” said the university, according to The Kansas City Star. “Dr. Click has excellent recommendations for both her teaching and scholarship, which includes an extensive record of publication. We are confident she has learned much from her experiences at the University of Missouri and believe she will uphold the rigorous standards of academic excellence demanded of Gonzaga faculty and students.”

To recap: Click was caught on camera trying to persuade participants at a public protest to forcefully eject a student-journalist who was covering the event. She was charged with a misdemeanor and eventually fired.

It’s difficult to tell whether she is genuinely sorry for her actions. In subsequent interviews, Click has come off as completely clueless. She also suffers from an inflated sense of self-worth. “I’m not a superhero,” she told The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Yeah, you think? Jeez.

I don’t really think Click’s life should be ruined over one ill-considered moment, and Gonzaga is free to employ her if it wants to. But I’d prefer to see some actual contrition from Click first. How can it possibly be the case that she is currently the most qualified person to teach communications (of all things), when she doesn’t even seem capable of learning from her own mistakes?

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2cqYZQq
via IFTTT

Europe Debates The Burkini: “We Will Colonize You With Your Democratic Laws”

Submitted by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

  • "We will colonize you with your democratic laws." — Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Egyptian Islamic cleric and chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars.

  • "Beaches, like any public space, must be protected from religious claims. The burkini is an anti-social political project aimed in particular at subjugating women… It is not compatible with the values ??of France and the Republic. Faced with such provocations, the Republic must defend itself." — French Prime Minister Manuel Valls.

  • According to the mayor of Villeneuve-Loubet, the high court's ruling against burkini bans, "far from appeasing [Muslims], will instead increase passions and tensions."

  • "Beaches are equated with streets, where the wearing of ostentatious religious symbols is also rejected by two-thirds of the French." — Jérôme Fourquet, director of the French Institute of Public Opinion (Ifop).

The French city of Nice has lifted a controversial ban on Muslim burkinis after a court ruled such prohibitions illegal. Bans on the full-body swimsuits have also been annulled in Cannes, Fréjus, Roquebrune and Villeneuve-Loubet, but they remain in place in at least 25 other French coastal towns.

The row over burkinis — a neologism blending burka and bikini — has reignited a long-running debate over Islamic dress codes in France and other secular European states (see Appendix below).

On August 26, the Council of State, France's highest administrative court, ruled that municipal authorities in Villeneuve-Loubet, a seaside town on the French Riviera, did not have the right to ban burkinis. The court found that the ban — which was issued after the jihadist attack in Nice on July 14, in which 86 people were killed — was "a serious and manifestly illegal attack on fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of movement and the freedom of conscience." The judges ruled that local authorities could only restrict individual liberties if there was a "demonstrated risk" to public order. There was, they said, no evidence of such a risk.

Although the ruling applied only to the ban in Villeneuve-Loubet, observers said the ruling would set a legal precedent for the 30 other cities and towns which have also implemented bans on burkinis.

The high court decision overturned a lower court ruling, issued August 22, which said the burkini ban was "necessary, appropriate, and proportionate" to ensure public order.

The case was brought by the Collective against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) and the Human Rights League (LDH). The two groups have vowed to file lawsuits against any municipality with a burkini ban, which they say violates the religious freedom of Muslims in France.

Patrice Spinosi, a lawyer for the LDH, said that in the absence of a demonstrated threat to public order, the high court "has ruled and has shown that mayors do not have the right to set limits on wearing religious signs in public spaces. It is contrary to the freedom of religion, which is a fundamental freedom."

By contrast, the ban's proponents — from across the political spectrum — argue that burkinis are political, not religious, garments.

Writing for Le Figaro, French commentator Yves Thréard warned:

"The worst case scenario would be that the debate drags on and strays into considerations totally foreign to this outrageous outfit. Secularism and religion are irrelevant here. The burkini is not a Koranic prescription, but another manifestation of political Islam, militant, destructive, seeking to question our way of life, our culture, our civilization. Veils in schools, street prayers, halal school menus, sexual apartheid in swimming pools, hospitals, driving schools, niqab, burqa… for thirty years this infiltration has been undermining our society, seeking to destabilize. It's time to slam the door in its face. Youssef al-Qaradawi, the famous Egyptian preacher, formerly a lecturer in France, warned: 'We will colonize you with your democratic laws.' Through our indifference as well as our naïveté, we have long been complicit in this deadly and nasty business."

According to French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, burkinis are "the affirmation of political Islam in the public space." In an interview with La Provence, Valls, a Socialist, said:

"I support those who issued the bans… Beaches, like any public space, must be protected from religious claims. The burkini is an anti-social political project aimed in particular at subjugating women. Behind the burkini lies the idea that women, by nature, are harlots, impure, and that they should be completely covered. It is not compatible with the values ??of France and the Republic. Faced with such provocations, the Republic must defend itself."

Laurence Rossignol, the Socialist Minister for the Families, Children and Women's Rights, also said she supported bans on burkinis. In an interview with Le Parisien, she said:

"The burkini is not some new line of swimwear. It is the beach version of the burka and it has the same logic: to hide women's bodies in order to better control them. Behind this there is a deeply archaic vision of the place of women in society. There is the idea that, by nature, women are impure and immoral and should therefore hide their body and disappear from the public space.

 

"The burkini agitates so much because of its collective political dimension. It does not only concern the women who wear it. The burkini is the symbol of a political project that is hostile to diversity and empowerment."

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls recently stated that "the burkini is an anti-social political project aimed in particular at subjugating women… It is not compatible with the values ??of France and the Republic. Faced with such provocations, the Republic must defend itself." Pictured above: Four policemen in Nice, France, are pictured forcing a woman to remove part of her clothes because her outfit violated the city's burkini ban, on August 23. They also fined her for the violation. (Image source: NBC News video screenshot)

Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who recently announced that he will be a candidate in the 2017 presidential elections, said that if elected he would "change the constitution" and press for a nationwide ban on burkinis. At a campaign rally on August 26, Sarkozy, a conservative, said:

"I will be the president who re-establishes the authority of the state. I want to be the president who guarantees the safety of France and of every French person…

"I refuse to let the burkini impose itself in French beaches and swimming pools…there must be a law to ban it throughout the Republic's territory. Our identity is under threat when we accept an immigration policy that makes no sense."

In an interview with Le Figaro, Sarkozy elaborated:

"Wearing the burkini is a militant political act, a provocation. The women who wear them are testing the resistance of the French Republic. If we do not put an end to this, there is a risk that in ten years, young Muslim girls who do not want to wear the burkini or the veil will be stigmatized and pressured into doing so."

Henri Leroy, the mayor of Mandelieu-La-Napoule, one of the first French towns to ban the burkini, said Muslim residents should be reminded that "they are French first and of Muslim confession second." He added: "Our Republic has traditions and customs that need to be respected."

The conservative mayor of Cannes, David Lisnard, said the burkini is a "uniform that is the symbol of Islamic extremism." City manager Thierry Migoule said the burkini is an "ostentatious outfit that signals allegiance to terrorist movements that have declared war on us."

The mayor of Fréjus, David Rachline, wrote that the high court's ruling was a "victory for radical Islam, for political Islam, which is advancing in our country."

Lionnel Luca, the conservative mayor of Villeneuve-Loubet, said the burkini ban was needed to "counter the creeping Islamization that is progressing in our country." He added that the high court's ruling, "far from appeasing [Muslims], will instead increase passions and tensions."

Ange-Pierre Vivoni, the Socialist mayor of the Corsican town of Sisco, imposed a ban on burkinis "to protect the population" following a Muslim rampage that occurred on August 14, when a tourist took a photograph of several burkini-clad women swimming in a creek. More than 400 people eventually joined the brawl, in which local Corsicans clashed with migrants from North Africa. The following day, more than 500 Corsicans marched through the town shouting "To arms! This is our home!"

Opinion polls show broad public support for bans on burkinis. According to an Ifop poll published by Le Figaro on August 25, 64% of people in France are opposed to the burkini on beaches; only 6% support it. Ifop director Jérôme Fourquet said: "The results are similar to those we measured in April about the veil and headscarf on public streets (63% opposed). Beaches are equated with streets, where the wearing of ostentatious religious symbols is also rejected by two-thirds of the French."

*  *  *

Appendix

Burka Bans in European Countries

The French row over burkinis — a neologism blending burka and bikini — has reignited a long-running debate over Islamic dress codes in other European countries.

Austria. On August 13, Norbert Hofer, the Austrian Freedom Party's (FPÖ) candidate for president, called for a burka ban. "I think it makes sense," he said. Several days later, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Integration, Sebastian Kurz of the ruling Austrian People's Party (ÖVP), said a new integration law would include restrictions on the burka. "A full body veil is hindering integration," Kurz said. "The burqa is not a religious symbol, but a symbol for a counter-society."

Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka said a blanket ban on burkas would be "constitutionally problematic." He said a partial ban on burkas at border crossings and while driving automobiles is more realistic.

A nationwide poll published on August 25 found that 75% of Austrians favor a burka ban.

The FPÖ had previously called for a burka ban in July 2014. At the time, Kurz rejected the idea, calling it an "artificial debate."

In June 2016, the town of Hainfeld became the first municipality in Austria to ban the burkini in public swimming pools. In Vienna, local media have reported a "notable increase" in the number of women wearing burkinis in public swimming pools in the capital.

Baltics. In April 2016, the Latvian government announced a proposal to ban the burka. The government said the purpose of the law, which it hopes will enter into force in 2017, is to ensure that Muslim immigrants respect the country's values. Burka bans are also being discussed in Estonia and Lithuania.

Belgium. In July 2011, Belgium became the second European country after France to ban the burka. Offenders face a fine of €137 ($150) and up to seven days in jail. In the five years since the ban has been in place, more than 70 women have been ticketed for wearing the garment in public. This number includes 67 women in Brussels and seven in Liege.

In August 2016, Nadia Sminate, a Belgian MP of mixed Moroccan and Flemish origin, called for a complete ban of the burka. In an interview with De Standaard, she said:

"We absolutely must avoid having women walk around Flanders in burkinis. Not in the pool, and not on the beach. I do not think women want to walk on the beach in such a monstrosity in the name of religion. If we allow this, we put the women on the margin of society. We live in Flanders and we make the rules. If we say we need to set limits and enforce our values, we must do that."

Britain. On August 31, a YouGov poll found that a majority of Britons are in favor of banning the burka in public spaces. According to the poll, 57% of Britons support a ban; 25% are opposed. The only age group to oppose a ban was 18-24 year-olds; all others were in favor, with the oldest 65+ group supporting a ban by 78% to 12%. All major political parties also had a plurality of voters in favor of a ban. A separate question asked by YouGov found that 46% of Britons want to ban the burkini; 30% are opposed.

Bulgaria. In June 2016, the Bulgarian Parliament approved a new law that bans the burka. The move makes Bulgaria the third European country to pass such a law after France and Belgium. The ban applies to Bulgarian citizens as well as to anyone in the country on a temporary basis.

The law states that clothing that conceals the face may not be worn in the Bulgaria's central and local administrations, schools, cultural institutions, and places of public recreation, sports and communications.

Covering the head, eyes, ears and mouth will be permitted only when necessary for health reasons, professional necessity and at sporting and cultural events. The ban will also apply to houses of worship.

The law provides for a fine of 200 leva (€100; $115) for a first violation of the ban. For second and further offenses, the fine is 1500 leva (€755; $430) and loss of social benefits.

Anyone who persuades others to cover their faces is subject to a penalty of up to three years in prison and a fine of 5000 leva (€2,500; $2,850). If the person persuaded to cover the face is a minor, the penalty increases to a maximum five years in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 leva (€5,000; $5,700).

Czech Republic. In March 2016, a Muslim student filed a lawsuit against a nursing school in Prague after she was banned from wearing a hijab (Muslim veil covering head and neck) during classes. The school argued that students should not have their heads covered in the classroom.

Denmark. In August 2016, the Danish People's Party said it would present parliament with a proposal for a burka ban. In an interview with Metro Express, party spokesman Kenneth Kristensen Berth said the garment must be outlawed for security reasons:

"There are several examples, primarily in the Middle East, where people dressed in burkas have been suicide bombers. It is only a matter of time before it will happen in Europe. I have just returned from London, where the number of burkas in the streets has increased quite considerably. They can be used to plant bombs without being detected."

France. In April 2011, France became the first European country to ban the burka and niqab. In July 2014, the European Court of Human Rights upheld that ban.

After the July 2016 jihadist attack in Nice, in which 86 people were killed, at least 30 cities and towns banned the burkini on public beaches.

On August 26, the Council of State, France's highest administrative court, ruled that municipal authorities in Villeneuve-Loubet, a seaside town on the French Riviera, did not have the right to ban burkinis. Although the ruling applied only to the ban in Villeneuve-Loubet, observers said the ruling would set a legal precedent for the rest of France.

Opinion polls show broad public support for bans on burkinis. According to an Ifop poll published by Le Figaro on August 25, 64% of people in France are opposed to the burkini on beaches; only 6% support it. Ifop director Jérôme Fourquet said: "The results are similar to those we measured in April about the veil and headscarf on public streets (63% opposed). Beaches are equated with streets, where the wearing of ostentatious religious symbols are also rejected by two-thirds of the French."

Germany. On August 18, Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière announced a proposal for a "partial burka ban" that would prohibit the wearing of Muslim face veils in public spaces, including kindergartens, schools, universities, government offices and while driving a vehicle.

"We reject full-face veils," de Maizière said. "Not just the burka, any full-face veils that only show a person's eyes. It does not fit into our society, for our way of communicating, for our societal cohesion. This is why we demand that you show your face."

In an August 12 interview with Bild, Julia Klöckner, the deputy chief of the ruling Christian Democrats (CDU), said:

"The full-face veil greatly hinders the integration of women here. It is not a sign of religious diversity, but represents a degrading image of women. It is banned in France, and the European Court of Human Rights has upheld that ban."

In a July 30 interview with Die Welt, CDU politician Jens Spahn said:

"A ban on full-face veil, of the niqab as well as the burka, is overdue, as a signal to the world. Imagine how this conversation would be if we were fully veiled while we are talking to each other. I do not want to encounter any burka in this country. In this sense I am burkaphobe."

In an opinion article for Bild, Bassam Tibi, a former professor at the University of Göttingen who calls himself a "European Muslim," wrote that he fully supported a burka ban:

"A burka ban would be a smart political measure against certain people sealing themselves off in parallel societies, for an inclusive integration of Muslim migrants and for the security of the Federal Republic of Germany."

A new poll published by Infratest dimap on August 26 found that 81% of Germans are in favor of banning the burka in public spaces. The poll found that 51% support a total burka ban.

On August 22, a court in Osnabrück ruled that a student in the city will not be allowed to wear her veil to class. The Sophie Scholl had originally accepted the student but reversed its decision when she insisted on wearing her niqab in class. School officials said the open communication needed in education would not be possible if only the student's eyes are visible.

In June, the Bavarian town of Neutraubling banned burkinis in public swimming pools after female patrons complained that the garment is unsanitary. Mayor Heinz Kiechle asked: "I don't understand why it is necessary to wear a burkini on evenings when the pool is reserved for ladies-only swimming."

Italy. As of January 1, 2016, the burqa and niqab have been banned from all public offices and hospitals in the northeastern region of Lombardy.

On August 17, Interior Minister Angelino Alfano said Italy will not ban the burkini because such a move could provoke a backlash in the Muslim community. In an interview with Corriere della Sera, he said:

"The interior minister has a responsibility to ensure public safety and to choose a level of toughness that never becomes a provocation that potentially invites attacks."

Malta. In October 2015, the government debated a ban on burkas in public after a photograph emerged showing a woman driving an automobile while wearing a full-face veil. Article 338 of the Criminal Code states that it is a threat to public order if anyone "in any public place, wears any mask, or disguises himself, except at the time and in the manner allowed by law." Some members of the government said the existing law should be clarified to specifically outlaw burkas.

A local imam, Mohammed Elsadi, said a burka ban would threaten integration and social harmony in Malta. He added: "In a global world where people of different cultures live together and interact in so many ways and in so many spheres of life, it is more beneficial for any country to grant as much individual freedoms as possible." He said Muslims should be allowed "all the freedom to exercise their own cultural norms and way of life."

Equality Minister Helena Dalli countered:

"There are several thousands of Muslims in Malta, and many have been here for a long time, even generations. The burka and the niqab are not garments that one would associate with this community, so a clearer ban on face coverings should have no impact on the vast majority of Muslims in any way."

Netherlands. In May 2015, the Dutch government approved a partial ban on face-covering Islamic veils on public transport and in public areas such as schools and hospitals. Offenders are subject to a fine of €405 ($450). The ban does not apply to wearing the burka or the niqab on the street.

Norway. In August 2016, a cross-party commission on integration proposed banning burkas and niqabs in public institutions and prohibiting hijabs in public schools. In a 50-page report titled "Ten Commandments for Better Integration," the commission called for clear national guidelines on Islamic dress codes to improve integration.

"To improve integration, we must encourage greater participation in public life," Labor Party politician Jette Christensen said. "Therefore, we cannot allow covered faces."

Progress Party politician Maryan Keshvari added: "We cannot allow the premier Islamist uniform in Norwegian schools."

In 2013, the Norwegian parliament rejected a burka ban on the argument that Norway risked being censured by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Ever since the ECHR upheld the ban in France in July 2014, Norwegian supporters of a ban have tried but failed to get parliament to approve a similar ban in Norway.

Slovenia. In November 2015, the opposition Democratic Party (SDS) submitted a draft law to ban burkas and niqabs in public and to tighten conditions to obtain asylum in Slovenia.

"When in Slovenia, people should respect Slovenian culture and Slovenian customs," SDS head Janez Janša said. "That is why we drafted a bill that seeks to ban the burka in public."

SDS MP Vinko Gorenak added: "We must adapt to their customs when going to their places. There is no reason why we shouldn't demand the same of them when they are in our cultural environment."

Spain. In December 2010, the Catalan city of Lérida enacted a ban on burkas in public spaces. In February 2013, the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that the ban was unconstitutional. The court said the ban "constitutes a limitation to the fundamental right to the exercise of the freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by the Spanish Constitution." The court said that the limitation of a fundamental right can only be achieved through laws at the national level, not through local ordinances.

In September 2014, during a parliamentary debate over the Law on Public Security (Ley de Seguridad Ciudadana), Interior Minister Jorge Fernández Díaz called for banning the burka in public spaces. He said the issue has two dimensions: security and the dignity of women.

"In my opinion, the burka is a garment that violates the dignity of women," Fernández Díaz said. "But this is not within the scope of responsibility of the Interior Ministry." In terms of security, he said the burka "makes it difficult to identify individuals who commit crimes."

In August 2016, a water park in the Catalan city of Girona banned the burkini "for security reasons." In June 2014, the Basque city of Vitoria banned the burkini in public swimming pools. In November 2014, a driver in Vitoria stopped a burka-clad woman from boarding his bus.

Switzerland. On July 1, 2016, a burka ban entered into force in Ticino, the first Swiss canton to do so. Offenders are subject to a fine of 10,000 Swiss francs (€9,100; $10,000). The move followed a September 2013 referendum in which 65% of voters in the Italian-speaking canton voted in favor of the ban.

via http://ift.tt/2c0b3Ef Tyler Durden

Caption Contest: Whatcha Talkin’ Bout Putin?

Snubbed, shunned, and left to play in the corner at this weekend's G-20 meeting, with loser Merkel; President Obama looks on wantonly as Russia and Turkey talk behind his back…

Body language speaks a thousand words…

 

Pan out and the real shape of the world is clear…

Europe's Juncker marginalized, China close to Germany, Putin pulling strings, Obama eagerly looking on, and Theresa May and the Saudis 'close'

via http://ift.tt/2c6oabm Tyler Durden

11,700 Petrobras Employees Sign Up To Get Fired

Submitted by Zainab Calcuttawala via OilPrice.com,

Over 11,700 Petrobras employees signed up to get fired through the Brazilian energy firm’s voluntary dismissal program, according to a new report by Bloomberg.

The government-owned company set up the program to reduce debt and reduce operational costs by $10 billion in the coming years as global oil prices stay low.

Petrobras workers had until August 31st to sign up for the voluntary dismissal program, through which they would be eligible for severance benefits. Paying out the benefits for the 12,000 workers the company plans to let go will cost $1.23 billion, an official statement said Friday.

So far, the company has pulled out of major investments and stabilized fuel prices in Brazil in order to keep revenues up as the bear market for oil passes.

President Michel Temer – who replaced Dilma Rousseff after she was officially removed from office earlier this week – has vowed to limit government meddling in the affairs of the national energy company. Instead, Temer has called for liberal policies that lower industry costs and increase competition between rival firms.

Temer has also been named in a major national corruption scandal involving Petrobras’ management and a web of kickbacks and campaign donations.

A major Brazilian oil union has said the mass firings have caused a massive brain drain within the company. Experienced workers are needed to extract resources from the deep waters of the Atlantic Ocean, union leaders argue.

"The company is giving up a work force of 20,000 in only two, three years. You would need more than a decade to restore this kind of knowledge," Jose Maria Rangel, from the oil workers’ federation, told Bloomberg in an interview.

*  *  *

Of course this is all great news – according to 'the markets'…

The firm’s stock prices rick by 4.5 percent Friday morning – the highest jump since August 11th. Petrobras’ stock prices have doubled over the course of 2016 after sinking to a 17-year low in January.

But, as we noted previously, what is most fascinating, however, is that despite the all too clear economic depression raging in Brazil, which gets progressively worse by the month, the stock market continues to rise pricing in a Phoenix-like recovery, which even Goldman now admits will take "4-5 years, or perhaps longer." Why this unprecedented surge in asset prices? Simple: a mountain of central bank-created liquidity which finds its way into any market that offers even a modium of incremental yield, such as Brazil's. Alas, for those asking when the record divergence shown below closes, and the Bovespa will be painfully reacquainted with gravity, we have no answer.

via http://ift.tt/2cq1tvt Tyler Durden

How To Build a Better EpiPen – or Something Totally Different That’s Much Better

In 2015, about 3.5 million people were prescribed an EpiPen, an injection device with a pre-measured dose of epinephrine used to treat potentially fatal allergic reactions. Controversy over the fast-rising costs of the device has been used to indict the American health-care system as a playground for corporate greed. Over the past five years or so, the list price of a two-pack of EpiPends has increased about 400 percent, to $600. (Of course, what any customer might pay out-of-pocket is dependent on many factors such as insurance company, income level, and more.)

Well, there’s no question that the maker of the EpiPen, Mylan, is in business to make money. The CEO of the company, which is the largest maker of generic drugs in the country, says, “I am a for-profit business. I am not hiding from that.” It’s actually kind of great to hear a CEO unapologetically say so. But as Scott Shackford recently noted at Reason.com, the main problem is that Mylan has been granted a de facto monopoly over the market for epinephrine injectors. That isn’t because it built a better mousetrap but because the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has shot down virtually every alternative device for one reason or another.

As I write in a new Daily Beast column,

Mylan’s path to monopoly pricing in EpiPens has everything to do with politics and nothing to with laissez-faire economics. The approval process isn’t just long and expensive, it also opens things up to politics.

That’s one of the reasons why Mylan, which bought the rights to EpiPen in 2007, spent more than $2 million lobbying Washington in 2015. The company’s PAC has spent about $80,000 so far in the 2016 election cycle. Maybe it’s just coincidence, but Mylan, one of the largest generic drug companies on the planet, faces little competition from other companies that want to make devices similar to the EpiPen.

As the pseudonymous doctor Scott Alexander documents at Slate Star Codex, the amount of epinephrine in an EpiPen’s pre-measured dose costs about 10 cents a shot. But every time a new company tries to bring a rival product to market, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finds a reason to just say no. Sandoz, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Adamis have all tried and failed. That seems more than a little fishy given the relative simplicity of the basic drug and delivery system involved. We’re not talking brain surgery here—we’re talking about a pre-loaded, single-use syringe.

Let’s be clear: The basic protocols that the FDA uses to approve drugs and devices are outdated and make new products far more limited and far more expensive than they need to be. Indeed, as medical researchers push forward into an era of hyper-personalized “molecular medicine” that is based on individual genomic differences among patients, the FDA insists on clinical trials that are based on average experiences. Some drugs work for some patients but not others, notes researcher Peter Huber of the Manhattan Institute. It costs somewhere between $1 billion and $5.8 billion and between 10 years and 15 years to bring new drugs to market (where maybe 20 percent become blockbusters). Yet for politicians on both sides of the aisle, the fix to the EpiPen is to threaten price controls. Here’s an excerpt from a letter released by Hillary Clinton, in which she avers that the EpiPen price hike is

just the latest troubling example of a company taking advantage of its consumers. I believe that our pharmaceutical and biotech industries can be an incredible source of American innovation, giving us revolutionary treatments for debilitating diseases. But it’s wrong when drug companies put profits ahead of patients, raising prices without justifying the value behind them.

“That’s why I’ve put forward a plan to address exorbitant drug price hikes like these. As part of my plan, I’ve made clear that pharmaceutical manufacturers should be required to explain significant price increases, and prove that any additional costs are linked to additional patient benefits and better value. Since there is no apparent justification in this case, I am calling on Mylan to immediately reduce the price of EpiPens.

Now that Mylan has announced plans to release a generic version of the EpiPen, Clinton and others (such as Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who sent Mylan a letter of his own) can claim a short-term win. But Mylan isn’t taking advantage of customers. It is simply working a political system to its own advantages. And Clinton’s solution to that is to give even more power to political players.

But as Reason’s science correspondent, Ronald Bailey, has long argued, it makes much more sense to open up the approval process and empower patient choice if you want more and better treatments. Why not, for instance, have multiple approval agencies whose reputation and market power will be directly related to the accuracy of its ratings (Underwriters Laboratories provides one prototype)? Or allow terminal patients to more easily circumvent strictures on drugs that have not passed into the FDA’s final approval stage? This is in fact already happening, with state after state passing “right to try” legislation that hopes to do just that.

Price controls don’t work—just ask Venezuela. They result in less innovation, chronic shortages, and ultimately fewer products. Medical innovation obeys the same basic economic laws as every other commercial process.

No system of checks and balances is perfect but there’s simply no way to make drugs cheaper without speeding up and lowering the cost of developing them. And there’s no question that delaying approvals and squelching competition has costs too—ones that range far beyond a $600 EpiPen….

The plain fact is that the real problem with costs and innovations in the medical world isn’t that companies are run by “greedy” bastards such as Mylan’s Bresch (“I am a for-profit business,” she told the Times. “I am not hiding from that.”).

It’s that powerful and well-connected companies can use politics to rig markets and that it takes too damn long and costs too much money to develop new drugs and services to us all. That’s something politicians, not capitalism, are responsible for and only politicians can—and should fix.

Read the Beast article here.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2bM1yrj
via IFTTT

Merkel’s CDU Stunned By Election Defeat To Anti-Immigrant Party In Her Home State

Last Thursday we previewed that in today’s regional election in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, the home state of Angela Merkel, she was looking at the unthinkable: losing and not just to anyone but to her nemesis, the anti-immigration AfD. This is what we reported: “According to the latest shock poll, released late on Wednesday, the AfD is leading the CDU by 23 percent to 20 percent, with the Social Democrats, who currently run the rural state in coalition with Merkel’s party, at 28 percent support. What’s more, according to Bloomberg the AfD’s recent history in regional votes suggests it will perform better on election day than predicted in polls.”

Sure enough, according to the first exit polls released moments ago, Merkel’s CDU has come in third, in line with expectations, and more importantly, behind the AfD, which is the only party to see popular support in the elections as all other major parties have seen an exodus in popularity

  • SPD 30.5 %, -5.1%
  • AfD 21 %, +21%
  • CDU 19 %, -4.0%
  • Linke 12.5 %, -5.9%
  • Grüne 5 %, -3.7%
  • NPD 3.5 %, -2.5%
  • FDP 3 %, 0.2%

The good news, according to ARD, is that – for now – the grand SPD-CDU coalition in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania can continue, but the real news is that Merkel’s CDU has been beaten by by an anti-immigrant party. As Bloomberg put it last week, “defeat in her home state by the AfD would prove a political embarrassment for Merkel, and likely reignite grumblings about her refugee policies among some in her bloc.

What makes the defeat even more bitter is Merkel’s aggressive recent campaigning in her home state: she has campaigned hard to win back support, crisscrossing Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in recent weeks. Yet ironically, she’s adopted a law-and-order tone at rallies, calling for a larger police force and “more video surveillance of public spaces”, precisely the things potential voters loathe the most. Just as inexplicably, she’s doubled-down on the question of refugees, refusing to step back from her “we can do this” slogan adopted last year as 1 million asylum seekers poured into the country. Her opponents have ridiculed the remarks as naïve.

It’s only downhill from here: as reported before, Sunday’s vote will mark the start of a tough month for the chancellor. It will be followed on Sept. 18 by a regional election in Berlin, where the CDU is trailing the SPD and has virtually no hope of winning power.

And now the fingerpointing begins.

via http://ift.tt/2bVO12l Tyler Durden

Conservatives Against Incarceration: New at Reason

After Republican governments in Texas and Georgia lent their conservative imprimatur to criminal justice reform, South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Ohio followed with substantial legislative packages. In general, the new laws entailed lower penalties for nonviolent crimes, non-carceral sanctions for parole and probation violations, drug court diversion, credits given for good behavior in prison that applied for early release, or a rollback of “truth in sentencing” laws. With no great fanfare, against the run of the recent past and in the face of pressures from within their own party, red states have emerged as leaders in criminal justice reform.

Prison Break is an elegant account of these developments, Kathleen Frydl writes in her review. But it misses some significant parts of the story, such as the red-state drug problems that helped to trigger red-state criminal justice reforms.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2bLXTcR
via IFTTT

Norway’s Largest Bank Is Going Long VIX For The First Time: “We See Much More That Can Drag The Market Down”

Add one more brick to the “wall of worry.”

Days after reporting that the Norwegian government, pressured by the low oil price while forced to cover government expenses, has withdrawn money from the local sovereign wealth fund, the world’s largest, only for the first time in history (an amount that in H2 would be equivalent to 18% of total government spending)…

Norway Sovereign Wealth

… concerns about financial viability are starting to spread within the Scandinavian country, and as Bloomberg reports, as a result of “massive stimulus inflating stocks and bonds” the tactical allocation team at Norway’s largest bank, DNB, is going long vol for the first time. The DNB unit is hedging its mixed funds by keeping duration short, avoiding rate jump risk, and is “buying volatility index contracts for the first time“, according to Torkild Varran, chief executive officer of DNB Asset Management, who oversees about 530 billion kroner ($64 billion).

 “It’s vulnerable,” Varran said in an interview at his office in Oslo. “We see much more that can drag the market down than we see positive surprises. We can’t see where they could come from.”

To be sure, it’s still a relatively small position, as the fund holds less than one precent, or just 0.8% of its DNB Aktiv 80 fund in VIX index futures maturing in October 2016, as well as about 8 percent in cash however the admission that TINA is not the only option, and that there is an alternative (or TIAA), may surprise some – especially institutional – market watchers.

While hedging for an overall market decline, the DNB team is particularly negative on US utility, consumer staple and telecom stocks, sources of dividends that have gained as investors searched for steady cash flows. “If you look at some companies, there are many that have borrowed to pay dividends,” he said. “How long can you continue to do that? If you’re priced as a dividend stock and then begin to lower your dividend policy, then the effect on the stock price will be rather big.”

What Varran’s team is effectively saying is that the rush into yielding products is over, and when the revulsion kicks in, many investors who blindly rushed into dividend products will be trampled; the result will be many years of dividends gone overnight as a result of price deprecitation.

So instead of dividend stocks, the largest Norwegian banks prefers energy and technology stocks and views emerging markets as the cheapest region for equities, even as it bets against the U.S. and Japan, according to Torje Gundersen, a PM in the asset allocation team.

“Emerging markets have taken a beating,” he said. “A lot of investors were overweight emerging markets for many years but they sold off gradually as the markets fell. Then you have a pretty good mix — unpopular, fallen a lot, looks cheap. And the commodity prices that pulled them down have flattened out.” Still, considering BofA recently reported that there has been 9 straight weeks of inflows into EM stocks, we fail to see just how this particular trade is contrarian.

In any case, while the Norwegians may ultimately find EMs just as unsafe as dividend stock, at least the fund is starting to admit that the party is ending, noting that “with valuations stretched and earnings momentum weakening it’s becoming harder to find reasonable investments compared with a couple of years ago.”

“It’s not yet like 1999 as far as valuation goes, but there are indications of a bubble,” Gundersen said. “Now we’ve emptied the six shooter in all areas – the rate is zero, a lot of QE, pricing is up and growth is the same – it’s more challenging now.”

While warnings of asset bubbles are nothing new, what is surprising is that in recent weeks they have come from central bankers themselves, with Fed member James Bullard warning one week ago that “we are on the high side of fairly valued, I could see the process getting away from us, maybe tech stocks, maybe others”  followed several days later Boston Fed’s Eric Rosengren, until recently a raging dove, doubled down on bubble concerns saying that “should a large negative shock occur, firms and households would be exposed to greater losses through their holdings of riskier assets than they would be if they were not reaching for yield.” He then explicitly warned that the CRE space is now a raging bubble in search of a pin prick.

 

Of course, we know that fighting central banks who create money out of thin air and the use it to buy bonds, and in the case of the BOJ and SNB (and in some cases facilitated by Citadel and the NY Fed) equities is folly, we are not quite sure what happens when central bankers start fighting central banks. We do know that Janet Yellen is in for a significant spike in turbulence in the coming months.

via http://ift.tt/2czz0Hr Tyler Durden