Shutter Bad Schools (Public or Private), Get Better Education. How Is This Even Controversial?

Closed schoolParents often resist when public schools close their doors, even when said schools are underperforming and/or underpopulated. In my former hometown of Barstow, out in the California desert, in the face of declining enrollment, citizens nevertheless resisted school districts’ efforts to close a couple of schools and even used California’s absurdly complicated environmental laws to try to block it (essentially arguing that the district hadn’t adequately studied the environmental impact of moving students to other schools).

But when privately operated charter schools perform poorly, school districts are often very quick to try to shut them down. Paperwork issues? Shut them down! Don’t like how they’re spending the money? Shut them down!

Research highlighted by NPR suggests that the willingness to shut down bad or unneeded schools is good, public or private, and doing so is often a boon to students.

This should not be a controversial issue, but it is. NPR notes that a full 84 percent of parents in a recent poll said they’d prefer to keep a poorly performing school open and try to fix it, rather than shut it down. It’s pretty easy to understand the logic of parents here. Changing schools is a stressful, difficult experience for families, and there’s a high level of resistance unless circumstances truly call for it. As NPR notes, it’s tougher for parents to be involved with schools the further they are from the family’s home.

But perhaps the stress of being in a bad school is much worse. Some early research is showing that when underperforming and underenrolled schools are shut down, the closings benefited the students who were sent elsewhere. Contain your surprise:

James Kemple at NYU’s Steinhardt School took a look at New York City’s shuttering of 29 high schools that were among the lowest-performing in the city. The phaseout took place over several years, allowing students to finish out their educations at the school where they began. At the same time, New York opened a group of small high schools offering open enrollment and personalized attention for students, and it instituted a citywide choice policy.

Kemple followed a matched group of eighth-graders who, based on their middle schools and their neighborhoods, would have been expected to attend one of the closed schools. He studied where they went and what happened to them. The impacts were “quite strong,” he says, in a positive direction.

“They ended up attending high schools that were higher-performing, with higher attendance, better test scores, better graduation rates, and did much better than students we compared them to,” he says. That included a 15-percentage-point increase in the students’ high school graduation rate.

Note that the story’s a lot more complicated than just taking students from one school and shipping them off to another. It involves New York City treating school choice seriously and giving families much more power over where their students would attend.

There a bit of an “It’s too soon to be entirely certain” tone to the story. Students from closed schools in Chicago, NPR explains, have been shifted to schools with better ratings from the city, but it’s too soon to evaluate the outcomes. That—in the year 2016−we don’t have adequate research on the educational impacts of closing bad public schools says so much about how entrenched the public education system is.

And yet, the power within the system has ultimately led us to a situation where the only way to actually “fix” public schools is to either threaten them with closure or allow parents to ship their kids elsewhere. The powerful education unions have made it next to impossible to fire bad teachers. They do everything within their power to even fight methods used to evaluate teacher performance or to tie pay or bonuses to educational outcomes. At this point, eliminating entire schools is one of just a handful of ways of bypassing that level of power.

This study’s results are not remotely shocking or controversial. The only thing shocking is that it has taken so long for it to happen, even though we know full well that increasing money spent on education has not resulted in any increases in school performance. We’ve known all along that accountability and competition is what’s missing. Now we’re finally getting the research that backs it up.

Much more from Reason on school choice here.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2bYR77H
via IFTTT

Mylan Tumbles After Senate Hints May Seek Medicaid Overpayments

Shares in government scapegoat-du-jour Mylan are tumbling once again today following accusations from Senator Ron Wyden – the top Democrat on the Senate finance committee – that Mylan may have misclassified EpiPen under the Medicaid program, causing overpayments for the last two decades. It appears the populist war against Myland just went to '11' as the drug company may face major retroactive penalties.

As Bloomberg reports,

“It has recently come to our attention” that Mylan classified EpiPen as generic drug under Medicaid Drug Rebate Program even though it is a branded drug under FDA’s new drug application.

 

According to Wyden and Pallone, EpiPen may have been incorrectly designated as a generic in the Medicaid program since at least 1997, despite being considered a brand-name drug by the Food and Drug Administration and Medicare.

 

This would mean Mylan has been “vastly underpaying rebates owed to Medicaid for the EpiPen for years,” the lawmakers said.

 

They asked Department of Health and Human Services for more information about the drug’s classification. Wyden is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, and Pallone is the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

And shareholders are unhappy…

 

 

Full Letter below…

Wyden Pallone EpiPen Medicaid Drug Rebate Letter-Sept 2

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

10 Dead, 60 Wounded After Explosion In Philippines City, Duterte Dismisses Assassination Attempt

An explosion hit a market in Davao city in Southern Philippines, at least 10 people were reportedly killed and 60 were injured. Police suspected an improvised explosive device, but there is no official confirmation of the cause. This explosion follows President Duterte's aggressive crackdown on corruption and drugs in his nation and a thwarted assassination attempt.

 

As GMANetwork reports, President Rodrigo Duterte is not going to change his travel schedule despite the Philippine National Police thwarting an assassination attempt against him

"No, no, no, absolutely no. I live the way I want it. I work the way I must," Duterte said during a press conference in Davao del Norte on Friday, dismissing the idea of cutting-back on his trips outside his principal workplace over security concerns.
 
Nevertheless, the president understood that the strain his travels put on the Presidential Security Group (PSG).
 
"It’s useless to be talking about the Presidential Security Command because they’re always around me – whether I like it or not. I have been driving them away since day one, but they just don’t believe me, so there’s nothing I can do. I go to where… I embrace the, I… tsika-tsika. That’s has always been my norm as a politician but apparently, when you are already a president, everything changes. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, ika nga," he explained.
 
Duterte meanwhile believed that his family was adequately protected, though it had been reported that Davao City Vice Mayor Paolo Duterte had requested increased security for his family because of the assassination attempt against his father.

And it is Davao City where tonight's deadly explosion hit

(via DailyStar)

The blast struck outside a highend hotel at a busy market in Davao City on the southern Philippine island of Mindanao at around 10.15pm local time.

 

 

It has left at least 10 dead, according to a Philiippine presidential spokesman.

 

 

Witnesses heard a terrifying bang and smoke was seen billowing across the city.

Presidential spokesman Ernie Abella told CNN Philippines that there were at least 10 deaths and 60 injuries. However, there were reports from 911 insiders that 15 people died in the blast.

Abella said the cause of the explosion is unknown. This is amid reports that a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) tank exploded.

The explosion in Davao City occured after the local terrorist group Abu Sayyaf warned that they will retaliate against the intensified military operations in Sulu.

Earlier this week, President Rodrigo Duterte called on the public to be vigilant against retaliatory attacks by the ASG, who already pledged allegiance to the international terrorist group ISIS.

On the other hand, Abu Sayyaf spokesperson Alhabsi Misaya called on all Tausugs to join the jihad (holy war). In a text message, he said the ASG and government troops "will test each other in a liberation" by September 1st.

*  *  *

While there are no details as yet – the location and proximity strongly suggest this was a warning/threat to Duterte to back off – as opposed to a random act of terrorism.

 

 

via http://ift.tt/2c0rXVr Tyler Durden

August and Year-to-Date Are Second Hottest in Satellite Record: Global Temperature Trend Update

It's the heat AND the humidity!|||Meryll/DreamstimeThrough the first eight months of the year, 2016 seems to be racing toward what might be its place in history — as the second warmest year in the satellite temperature record. But just by a little bit, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in a press release. “While global average temperatures peaked higher this year than they did in 1998, temperatures fell faster this spring and summer to levels that are cooler than they were at this same time of year in 1998. We had three months this year that were warmer than their 1998 counterparts, and five that were cooler. There is really no reliable way of predicting what the next four months will do, compared to those same months in 1998.”

With temperatures that were 0.55 C (about 0.99° F) warmer than seasonal norms, August 2016 was the warmest August in the Northern Hemisphere in the satellite temperature record. August 1998 was second warmest at 0.49 C warmer than normal. August 2016 was the second warmest August in the tropics, trailing August 2015 0.52 to 0.50 C. It was the third warmest in the Southern Hemisphere, where the August 2016 average was 0.32 C warmer than normal. August 1998’s Southern Hemisphere average was hottest at 0.54 C warmer than seasonal norms.

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade

August temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.44 C (about 0.79 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.55 C (about 0.99 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.32 C (about 0.58 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.

Tropics: +0.59 C (about 0.90 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.

GlobalTempAugust2016

According to the latest (July) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data global temperature was the hottest ever since the late 19th century:

For the 15th consecutive month, the global land and ocean temperature departure from average was the highest since global temperature records began in 1880. This marks the longest such streak in NOAA’s 137 years of record keeping. The July 2016 combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces was 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20th century average, besting the previous July record set in 2015 by 0.06°C (0.11°F). July 2016 marks the 40th consecutive July with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average. The last time July global land and ocean temperatures were below average was in 1976 (-0.09°C / -0.16°F). Although continuing a record streak, July 2016 was also the lowest monthly temperature departure from average since August 2015 and tied with August 2015 as the 15th highest monthly temperature departure among all months (1,639) on record. However, since July is climatologically the globe’s warmest month of the year, the July 2016 global land and ocean temperature (16.67°C / 62.01°F) was the highest temperature for any month on record, surpassing the previous record set in July 2015. July 2016 was the 379th consecutive month with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average. The last month with temperatures below the 20th century average was December 1984 (-0.09°C / -0.16°F).

Go here for UAH’s monthly temperature data.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2caE1CT
via IFTTT

Deutsche Bank “Explains” Why It Failed To Deliver Gold On Demand: “A Solution Will Be Found”

The unprecedented escalation involving Deutsche Bank’s failure to deliver physical gold on demand continues.

As we first reported two days ago, a client of Xetra-Gold, a German Exchange-Traded Commodity fund, tried to get access to the gold he had been promised under the Xetra-Gold prospectus, leading to much confusion about just where the failure to deliver had taken place, at Xetra or at the fund’s designated sponsor, and the client’s principal bank.

Then, overnight, we presented the just as odd response provided by Deutsche Boerse where the ETC is traded, which sounded as if it was trying to pass the buck onto Deutsche Bank. This is what it said:

Deutsche Börse Commodities GmbH stresses that owners of Xetra Gold units can exercise their right to delivery of securitised gold at any time. The gold is delivered by the bank branch on which the investor has its securities account – on the condition that the branch offers this service, as the gold can only be delivered through the investor’s custodian bank.

As we said at the time, the response led to even more questions, and even more public outcry in Germany, which may explain why moments ago none other than the custodian bank, Deutsche Bank, joined the fray, by doing something it has never done before: provide a rationalization for why it failed to deliver gold on demand.

Its response:

As one of the sponsoring financial institutions, Deutsche Bank fulfils the obligations specified in the Xetra-Gold sales prospectus as a matter of course. This includes fulfilling claims to the delivery of physical gold certified by Xetra-Gold. This must take place through the investor’s principal bank where the investor’s securities account is maintained.

 

Deutsche Bank accepts such orders for delivery from its clients. The investor incurs the costs described in the sales prospectus, for example, for the forming, packaging and the insured transport to the place of delivery.

 

For this reason, we recommend in each specific case an individual review of the economic efficiency of a physical delivery. Should an investor’s request for the handover of physical gold not have been complied with immediately in individual cases, this will be reviewed and an individual solution will be found with the client.

And so another non-response, because in the same press release Deutsche Bank both admits that it has an obligation to deliver the gold “as a matter of course”, and then tacitly confirms that it failed to do so, by first saying that it evaluates the “economic efficiency of physical delivery”, something it should have no right to do since the Xetra prospectus explicitly mandates that it should release gold on demand, and then adds that “should an investor’s request for the handover of physical gold not have been complied with immediately in individual cases, this will be reviewed and an individual solution will be found with the client.”

As we already know, this handover of physical gold failed on at least one occasion, and while we are comforted that Deutche Bank is reviewing the situation and a “solution will be found with the client”, it certainly does not even remotely explain why the situation should have arisen in the first place.

However, what is most notable is how quickly every entity involved in this failure to deliver, from Xetra-Gold, to Deutsche Börse, and ultimately to Deutsche Bank, responded with an attempt to placate public concerns about the availability of physical gold with statements that may have, paradoxically, only raised concerns whether the gold is in fact still there.

It remains to be seen if this one individual case spills over, and leads to more gold redemption requests, first at Xetra-Gold as well as at other similar “gold-backed” ETFs. We will promptly report any notable development in this fascinating escalation of a topic that has been near and dear to many gold bugs’ hearts for years.

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

Martin Armstrong Rages “Children Are Once Again The Number One Tool Of Propaganda”

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,

Children are always the number one tool for propaganda.

Whenever you see a story using children, it is the first sign of propaganda. Whenever they use children, it is to cover-up something or to get you to support some agenda. They used pictures of children sell the refugee crisis, yet more than 60% are not even from Syria and most of the refugees are young males and not families.

The latest attempt to influence Europeans is this one that even the Guardian just declared the “new symbol of the horror in Syria.” Children are always exploited to sell an agenda.

Syria Propaganda

This is the primary tool of all propaganda machines. The British established the Office of War Propaganda during World War I and became the first to establish a government agency for the purpose of creating propaganda. They enlisted famous authors like Arthur Conan Doyle, H.G. Wells, and Rudyard Kipling to write books casting the Germans as the enemy. MI6 has since created Innovative Communications & Strategies (InCoStrat), which is a sophisticated propaganda machine.

The United States adopted the British method in 1917 after establishing the Committee on Public Information in which they carried out experiments to manipulate people to a given agenda. They too employed some well-known people such as journalist Walter Lippmann and the inventor of modern publicity, Edward Bernays, who was Sigmund Freud’s nephew.

WW2 Buy World Bonds

Even during World War II, the US government used children to sell bonds. There is little doubt that the use of children is the primary motivator. Even in prison, if someone is charged with child molesting, other inmates kill them.

Children are the NUMBER ONE means of engaging in propaganda. So whenever you see some bill signed by the president, whoever that might be at the time, surrounded by children, you know there is something sinister hidden in the bill.

Obama surrounding himself with children for gun legislation, that disarms the honest people and not the criminals, can only mean one thing. They are trying to disarm the population for fear of civil unrest. Criminals do not fight for constitutional issues. They are using the guns in the drug trade as the Mafia does. They could care less about the politics. They ignore them anyhow.

via http://ift.tt/2clk7Ya Tyler Durden

Reuters Floats Disturbing Trial Balloon: “The ECB May Be Forced To Buy Stocks”

Over the past two years, we have repeatedly cautioned that the biggest challenge facing the ECB as it expands its bond monetization is the ability to find sellers of private securities, i.e., a shortage of monetizable bonds, both government and now corporate. Last March, even JPM warned that it doubts the Eurosystem can “meet its quantitative target without distorting market liquidity and price discovery.” That however has not stopped Mario Draghi from steadfastly continuing the ECB’s QE, even as the bond shortage has gotten more acute by the week. In fact, according to Jefferies analysts, the shortage is now so profound that the ECB is effectively buying back bonds from itself.

According to a note by Marchel Alexandrovich and David Owen, first flagged by the WSJ, courtesy of the circular nature of the Eurosystem, the central bank has masked what is essentially a backdoor monetization of its own securities.

How does Draghi achieve this? As the WSJ notes, the ECB’s QE program is implemented through several national central banks, like Germany’s Bundesbank and Spain’s Banco de Espana. National central banks buy bonds according to rules set by the ECB. The problem is that these constraints narrow the stock of debt the banks can buy from. These rules prevent the purchase of too much debt from any one country and stop central banks from buying debt with steeply negative yields. Portuguese and Irish debt, for instance, is now becoming scarce. But the national central banks also sell sovereign bonds. They sometimes reduce their holdings as a part of their reserve management activities, which aim to ensure that banks, state institutions and other organizations “manage their euro-denominated reserve assets comprehensively, efficiently, and in a safe, confidential and reliable environment,” according to the ECB’s website.

As a result, while the German Bundesbank bought €209 billion in sovereign bonds between March and July, it also sold off €43 billion of such debt, according to Jefferies. Those securities are then back on the market to be bought, potentially helping the central banks to work around the program’s restrictions.

The conclusion: “This suggests that one of the ways that QE has been implemented, especially in the countries where scarcity may be an issue, is that the (National Central Bank) is essentially buying bonds from itself; or more intriguingly, perhaps even from the other NCBs in the Eurosystem,” said Mr. Alexandrovich, one of the economists.

Circular nature of the ECB’s bond monetization notwithstanding, it merely confirms the underlying problem: there are simply not enough government bonds for the ECB to keep buying, effectively putting a hard limit on how long Draghi can continue his QE program.

There is, however, one loophole, one which the BOJ exploited recently when instead of expanding its bond purchases, it launched an even more aggressive equity buying spree, by doubling the amount of ETFs the central bank would buy.

That, according to Reuters, is precisely what will happen next, as it writes that the ECB may soon be forced to follow the Bank of Japan’s example and buy equities as part of any expanded stimulus programme. Reuters then recaps the familiar problem: “The European Central Bank could run out of eligible bonds for its 1.7 trillion euro bond-buying scheme, meaning alternative options are on the table should it decide to loosen policy further to lift growth and inflation across the bloc. Analysts say these could include large-scale share buying, a policy that the BOJ has already adopted after it started purchasing equity exchange traded funds (ETFs) for its own quantitative easing scheme six years ago.

As Kuroda will readily admit, ETFs offer an easy way to directly monetize, and nationalize, the stock market:

“ETFs allow an investor to trade a range of assets, from a basket of stocks to government debt. ETFs, which offer a convenient way to purchase a broad basket of securities in a single transaction from an exchange, have risen in popularity with investors due to their simplicity and lower fees.”

However, the ECB faces significant hurdles in helping all 19 euro zone members equally without distorting a key market for investors. According to Reuters, buying ETFs in the 19-nation euro zone would be far from simple for the ECB, both practically and politically. “How do you buy an index which favours all countries within the euro zone? Obviously the ECB doesn’t want to be seen favouring one market above another,” said Commerzbank economist Peter Dixon.

The answer is, “you don’t“, so you do whatever Mario Draghi’s former employer, Goldman, advises him to do.

Putting Europe’s ETF market in context, investments in Europe-listed ETFs are worth just over $500 billion, compared with nearly $200 billion in Japan and more than $2 trillion in the United States, according to consultancy firm ETFGI.

And while, the European ETF market is bigger than Japan’s, such a scheme would have to benefit 19 member states, from heavyweight Germany to tiny Slovakia. If it buys an ETF that tracks a pan-European stock index such as the Euro STOXX 50 or MSCI’s EMU index , which are weighted in terms of market capitalisations, the ECB runs the risks of being seen to favour only the bloc’s biggest economies or sectors.

Alternatively, the ECB may simply throttle liquidity even more, if – for example – it bought single-country ETFs, which would result in liquidity issues since the ETF market is still developing.

Continuing its analysis of which ETFs the ECB would buy, Reuters notes that of the top 10 firms listed by market cap in the MSCI EMU stock index, four are French, three are German, with the rest listed in Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands.

The BOJ’s foray into equity buying highlights potential pitfalls. While the BOJ does not reveal details of its buying, analysts say it disproportionately benefits a handful of high-priced shares that have outsized weightings in the Nikkei stock average. The ECB has been careful to limit its asset buying in a way which follows some orderly distribution across the region. Under its government bond-buying scheme, the ECB buys bonds in relation to a country’s contribution to the bank – although it has deviated from this already in purchases of corporate bonds.

“As with the current bond buying programme, the capital key would certainly be an issue they have to think about,” said Antoine Lesné, EMEA head of ETF strategy at SPDR ETFs, part of State Street Global Advisors. “This would determine the choice of the index and/or the strategy. Then one would need to look at the current product availability. This would also skew the impact on the larger contributors to the euro zone economy which may need less of that support compared with those of the periphery for example.”

Most troubling about the Reuters piece, however, is that it is phrased in a way as if the ECB’s ETF purchases were already a done deal, and all it needed was a way to prepare the market. To wit:

There are many options available to the ECB before it chooses to buy ETFs and tweaking the parameters of its current bond-buying programme would also ease pressure on the central bank to follow more radical measures such as stock purchases.

However, even Reuters admits that because of the complexity and because stock investments are not as prevalent in Europe as in the United States, there may be fewer benefits from such a plan than from other options. Asked in May whether the ECB would contemplate buying equities, its vice president Vitor Constancio said only that no further measures would be adopted so soon after policy was eased in March. At least two ETF providers contacted by Reuters said they had not been in any discussions with the ECB.

As Thomas Bartolacci, head of ETF Capital Markets at Vanguard, the second-biggest provider of ETFs in the world after BlackRock said “Equities are fraught with more questions and that would make buying by any central bank a little more difficult of a pill to swallow.” That said, Vanguard and BlackRock would both be delighted if the ECB did in fact launch monetization of stocks by way of ETFs as it would lead to even greater demand for passive investments (which Vanguard would gladly provide), while at the same time frontrunning the ECB would send the European market to record highs, spilling over across the world.

Sadly, what is not discussed is that as CLSA concluded one week ago when looking at the BOJ’s ETF purchases, it said that the “BOJ is nationalizing the stock market” because that is precisely what it is doing with every incremental intervention in the stock market.

“If it seems strange that the BOJ is hamstringing the price discovery mechanism of the Japanese stock market by partially nationalizing it, it is all the stranger that it chooses to do so by substantially skewing its buying towards such a distorting index. The arbitrary decisions of the Nikkei committee get to choose the destination of trillions of yen of BOJ – and hence government – money.”

Alas, this latest Reuters “trial balloon” points to just one direction: despite the political complexities, the ECB will soon have no choice but to start monetizing ETFs, and perhaps an outright basket of stocks, as the European stock market follows Japan in the “nationalization” route. And why not: after all the bond market has already been nationalized in both Japan and Europe, with the ECB explicitly providing the funding for merger transactions. Considering that the true mandate of all central banks has always been the “wealth effect” and pushing risk assets higher, why stop there?

Finally, once the ECB and BOJ (not to mention the SNB of course) are both monetizing ETFs, how long before the US Federal Reserve will be forced to join in, and the global nationalization of all stocks markets is complete?

via http://ift.tt/2bKd8pX Tyler Durden

Friday A/V Club: A Vintage Anti-Hippie Film Strip

“Has man’s dream of his children’s future ended in a nightmare?” So asks Ken Granger in The Hippies, a lurid film strip from 1967. Granger was a member of the John Birch Society, and he blames the rise of the counterculture on the forces you’d probably expect a ’60s conservative to invoke: progressive education, permissive parenting, World Communism. What makes his film interesting on more than a camp level is that he also blames big business, condemning consumerism and conformity in terms a hippie could love.

In the wake of World War II, the film strip declares, Madison Avenue started turning to psychologists for help selling products. The resulting research developed “techniques that could be used to create new desires in people, to change the philosophies of security and saving to the philosophy of spending.” Young people in particular were easily manipulated, as a series of music- and fashion-focused youth cultures proved: “The technique of combining music with mass merchandising brought near total control of the purchasing habits of a whole generation.”

All it then took (Granger continues) was for Communists to start using the same techniques to sell ideas instead of music. Presto: sex, drugs, and New Left subversion!

Marketers do not, in fact, have such perfect powers of persuasion, and the hippies were not a mesmerized mass of—in Granger’s words—”zombie-like vegetables.” But it’s certainly true that the ’60s “counter” culture owed a lot to the mass culture its members were allegedly rejecting. In his kooky way, Granger was noting a truth that many hippie hagiographers prefer to ignore. It’s just that he filtered that truth through a paranoid worldview that owed almost as much to John Kenneth Galbraith as it did to Robert Welch.

Needless to say, you can enjoy this on a camp level too. Granger’s frightened imagination leads him to all sorts of strange places (inevitably, there are wild sex parties), and he makes several basic errors: mispronouncing everything from “Phil Ochs” to “scabies” and scrambling the names of songs and of at least one organization. There’s a pretty good soundtrack too, courtesy of a garage rock band called the Undecided. The credits call it “original music,” which makes me wonder if the band’s members knew—or cared—that they were recording something for an anti-rock film:

For a newspaper dispatch from Granger’s lecture tour with the film strip, go here. For another paranoid fever dream from the era, go here. For past editions of the Friday A/V Club, go here.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2bIy7MG
via IFTTT

Brock Turner Should Still Be in Prison, Not on the Sex Offender Registry

TurnerBrock Turner, the former Stanford University swimmer who was convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious female student, was released from prison today after serving just three months of his six-month sentence.

Most people are outraged—and for good reason. Turner’s sentence was incredibly lenient to begin with. Prosecutors had sought a six-year sentence, and there’s good reason to believe that Judge Aaron Persky went easy on Turner for reasons of privilege: he was concerned about the “impact” a long prison sentence would have on Turner, a young white male.

But those in the media who assert that Turner got off with a mere slap on the wrist are only telling half the story. Now that Turner is out of prison, he will have to register as a sex offender—perhaps for the rest of his life.

Turner is not a victim, obviously: he did commit a very serious sex crime, one that could haunt the young woman he assaulted for the rest of her life. It’s understandable why she would feel like she was deprived of justice—the man convicted of raping her got to walk out prison, three months later, as if the judge cared more about Turner’s well-being than her own.

But while Turner’s light prison sentence was ill-fitting given the nature of his crime, sex offender registration is similarly misguided. The sex offender registry wasn’t designed to be an ongoing punishment, in any case. Rather, it’s supposed to be a public safety tool—informing citizens that they live in the vicinity of a sex offender. In theory, the registry protects kids by making it difficult or impossible for sex offenders to live near schools and public parks: not to punish them, but to make it harder for them to commit additional crimes. There are strict limitations on where they can live, they have to inform local officials whenever they move, and they must check-in frequently in order to re-register. (Lenore Skenazy has written about the time registered sex offender Josh Gravens was nearly arrested right in front of her because of a scheduling error.)

There’s no reason to believe Turner is a danger to kids, though. And being on the sex offender list won’t stop him from engaging in the kind of behavior that got him into trouble: registered sex offenders can still attend college parties and drink alcohol. His status will make it difficult for him to find a place to live or hold a job, but it won’t really make anyone safer.

Certainly, a lot of people will respond, who cares? Turner got off easy, anyway, they will say, and the sex offender registry is a relatively small price to pay for not being in prison years longer. All true.

But the purpose of the criminal justice system should be to keep the public safe from people who are truly dangerous, and to work toward rehabilitating everyone else. The sex offender registry utterly fails on both counts. There is no evidence that it reduces the recidivism rates of sex offenders (sex offenders are unlikely to re-offend, at least in comparison to other groups of criminals), and plenty of evidence that it makes it much harder for ex-convicts who no longer pose any danger to re-integrate into society.

Turner’s prison sentence was too lenient—a symptom of a justice system that fails to take rape seriously—and yet his subsequent punishment is too harsh, as well as completely disconnected from the crime he committed.

Even Stanford University’s Michelle Dauber, a leader of the effort to recall Persky for going easy on Turner, thinks so, according to The Mercury News:

But California and South Carolina are the only states that require all sex offenders to register for life. Even one of the judge’s harshest critics, Stanford professor and recall leader Michele Dauber, who maintains Turner should have served time in prison, said lifetime registration is too long in his case. She noted there’s no registry for murder.

“I’d say he should get off after 10 years, if he is a Boy Scout and stays out of trouble,” Dauber said. “No one should be defined for the rest of their life by their worst moment.”

One last thing: even though Turner served a relatively light prison sentence, it’s important to note that he was convicted, and he was punished. This should serve as a reminder that the criminal justice system, despite its significant flaws, is still the best and only vehicle for adjudicating violent crimes. If a Stanford kangaroo court had tried Turner in accordance with the farcical standards of due process the Education Department recommends, he wouldn’t have served any jail time at all. And he would be suing Stanford.

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

How Millennials Could Bring The Oil Industry To Its Knees

Submitted by Julianne Geiger via OilPrice.com,

Maybe in better times, the staggering population of the millennial demographic would be a hurdle over which Big Oil could easily leap. But times are tough, and that isn’t our today.

Today, we have Saudi Arabia, Iran, and OPEC officials swaying the oil market with each strategic utterance. We have uber-low prices that have caused many to go under. Big Oil debt is soaring, and lenders are growing skittish. We have record production in Saudi Arabia, and Iran is again pumping at near-sanction levels. We have U.S. shale that is still producing at high rates, albeit with far fewer rigs in action, and with far fewer employees. U.S. shale survivors are leaner and meaner, and Saudi Arabia is desperately trying to keep its head above water, refusing to relinquish market share, no matter what the cost. It’s been a taxing time.

And now, enter the tax to the oil industry—the millennials.

Big Oil should take a note from other markets that have already had to address the impact millennials will have: ignoring this market segment—although a tricky to define market segment—would be a costly ignorance indeed.

From where does this power come?

In size, this generation—aged between their late teens and mid-30s—has overtaken the baby boomers in size in some countries and comes close in others. By 2020, according to a Brookings Institution analysis, 1 in 3 U.S. adults will be a millennial. The shifting of demographic ratios in the U.S. is not just due to the increase in number of millennials—spurred on by immigration—but also by the simultaneous decline of the Baby Boomer generation—what used to be the largest demographic group in the U.S.

Divestment Crusades – Divesting from Big Oil in a big way

We’ve already started to see some pushback on Big Oil with U.S. college campuses engaging in what many are calling a divestment crusade. The idea is that with investors pulling out, Big Oil will be forced to close up shop or change tactics. Although the organizations involved may not be comprised entirely of millennials, it would be nothing without the millennial generation’s support through signatures and 70s’-style sit-ins. 

The total divestments, including Syracuse’s $1.18 billion removal of its endowment in coal, oil and gas, remain a mystery, but is probably shy of the $3.4 trillion that 350.org’s Bill McKibben claimed last December—but it’s still probably a pretty big figure.

What Do They Want, Anyway?

Not all Millennials are flat-out anti-oil, but it’s important to understand where this generation is coming from.

Millennials want options. Millennials are on track to be the most educated generation to date. Although education is no substitute for wisdom, educated (and technically savvy) millennials are willing to research products before they buy. They’re also the most diverse demographic, so they want different things. The time is ripe for new niche markets within the energy industry to form. This may include cars that use different kinds of energy, or cars capable of using several different kinds of fuel. It’s not just low-prices that are forcing the industry to rethink its strategies—soon it will be the Millennials. It may be wise for the industry to change their entire way of thinking now, based on who’ll be buying—and investing.

Millennials need to be passionate about where they work. Clearly this is bad news for the oil industry. Although oil companies are cutting jobs right now, the industry has found it difficult to attract young professionals over the last 15 years, says Pavel Molchanov, an analyst with Raymond James. "If students in college are thinking about engineering, many have gone into civil, computer or biomedical engineering but not petroleum engineering," he says. "It's regarded as a dirty industry and there are some safety concerns, and it's just not seen as very sexy."

The vast majority of Millennials would prefer to work in “greener” companies. For now, the dollars are just not there, but as Millennials age and most of the dollars become theirs, this may shift, and the industry could face an even greater recruitment challenge. Companies also need to be transparent for millennials to stay onboard, and even with this transparency, millennials are well-known for their job-hopping tendencies. The very notion of a lifelong job is being called into question, making it more and more difficult for the industry to recruit skilled workers. This is exacerbated when oil majors go for long periods without hiring, causing the gap between the company’s oldest and newest workers to widen. Oil companies who don’t have specific plans in place to transfer knowledge from older to younger workers may suffer, and companies should work to find new ways to recruit and promote the industry. 

Millennials vote with their dollar. If voting were conducted online, they might be encouraged to vote this way as well. This dollar vote probably doesn’t apply to oil, aside from the fact that millennials buy gas directly. Still, major DOJ investigations, such as those regarding Exxon, could affect the way Millennials accept or reject a car or gas companies as whole, be it for employment, purchasing, or investing. It may even spill (pun intended) over into companies that invest in oil and gas, so the industry would be wise to work on cleaning up its namesake. Millennials are largely brand loyal, so a spill, repeated spills, emissions frauds, and legislative frauds that are met with apathy today may very well be a death blow tomorrow.

Millennials are online. Millennials don’t watch television ads for the most part. While Generation Y had DVR to fast forward through commercials, Millennials have Apple TV, Netflix, and Hulu. Marketing campaigns about green efforts (smart) and recruitment promotions (smarter) should incorporate social media—which is ever changing. The best thing the oil industry can do to reach out to Millennials in this regard is to employ Millennials to reach their own generation. Because social media is fluid, social media trends are quickly outdated.

Millennials are political, conditionally. Millennials show up in the polls when they are passionate about something or someone. Voting isn’t considered very tech savvy, which may hurt voter turnout within this group, and we already know that targeting this group is tricky. So reaching out to get Millennials to the polls may be unsuccessful for now. That is, unless they are passionate about a cause. What this means for the industry is that players interested in sticking around should take care to not be on the wrong end of a cause.

It’s unlikely that Millennials will bring oil to its knees in the short-term, because without a viable alternative, the world as we know it would come crashing to a halt. But the old way of doing things, as oil companies found out during the price pinch, may not work for much longer, and those companies will have to change to survive. Although the narrative could spell doom for major players, it doesn’t have to be that way—it just has to strap on the idea that there will be a new set of demands from Millennials.

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