iftttwall

Via The Daily Bell

Two years ago I moved to Florida from Massachusetts. When people found out I was moving, they would often immediately remark, “Get ready for the brutal heat and humidity!”

It was their first instinct to bring up any possible negative about moving to a much more pleasant climate.

About a year later, I posted pictures of vegetables we had grown, and chickens we keep. I also mentioned the name we call our mini-farm: Prickly Pear Plantation.

Was the first comment from my progressive liberal friend all about how great it is that we aren’t using any pesticides? Was it about how happy our free-range chickens look, or about how great it is that we aren’t supporting Monsanto? Did he remark on the fact that basically everything we build has some materials recycled from old projects and equipment on the property?

No. He said we shouldn’t call our mini-farm a plantation because it is apparently politically incorrect.

I’ve also had fat people tell me that running is bad for my knees. There actually are some health risks related to too much exercise. And there’s ten times more related to not enough exercise.

It isn’t just peers that seem so eager to bring attention to the negatives in any positive situation.

The media does it too.

I just read a report about how the trend of raising backyard poultry is contributing to a rise in salmonella infections. Fox, the New York Times, NPR and other popular outlets have reported the same thing within the last few months. CBS actually titled their article: “Backyard Chicken Trend Turns Deadly.”

All the reports are based on a Centers for Disease Control warning about the “outbreak” of salmonella among small-scale chicken keepers.

Now I certainly don’t object to good information about staying healthy while raising livestock. A lot of people who keep chickens on a small scale are new to it.

But looking at the numbers of infections, I doubt the salmonella risk is even as great as buying chicken and eggs from the store.

Since January, more than 1,100 people have contracted salmonella poisoning from chickens and ducks in 48 states, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Almost 250 were hospitalized and one person died. The toll was four times higher than in 2015.

If the trend of keeping chickens is growing, it shouldn’t be surprising that the rates of salmonella infection are keeping pace. And while these numbers may seem high at first glance, over one million people countrywide come down with salmonella a year. So only about one-tenth of 1% of cases stem from people keeping chickens at home.

The general population has a risk of about 1 in 320 of getting salmonella in a given year. That means if there are more than about 320,000 people who keep chickens in their backyards in the USA, they have a lower risk than the general population of contracting salmonella.

There aren’t very reliable statistics on how many people in the U.S. keep chickens for personal use. But a 2013 survey estimated .8% of American households keep backyard chickens. That means about one million households keep chickens. Going with the average household of 2.58 people, you could say perhaps 2.5 million people live in a household that keeps backyard chickens.

If these numbers are even close to accurate–or even off by a factor of five–that means the risk of salmonella is actually lower for backyard chicken farmers than for the general population!

Another interesting thing to note is that the distribution of baby chicks is still pretty centralized. But the centralized food industry is one of the biggest problems relating to foodborne illness in the first place. So is the problem keeping chickens in your backyard, or is the problem sourcing those chickens from one of a handful of hatcheries?

In that sense, scaring people away from keeping chickens in their backyard is just ushering them into another centralized food industry just as–or more–likely to get them sick. The real solution is keeping chickens as well as sourcing them locally from a farm you can visit.

So the problem with these kinds of alarmist articles is that they could curb an overall more healthy behavior. They encourage people to do the same old unhealthy thing, instead of pursuing a healthier alternative for fear of a relatively obscure risk.

Keeping chickens might actually reduce the overall chance of getting salmonella from poultry products. But even if it increases the risk, it doesn’t take into account the long-term health benefits of eating homegrown versus storebought food.

And then there are so many other factors that one alarming statistic does not take into account. Maybe keeping chickens is better for your mental health. Maybe knowing where your eggs come from decreases your stress levels. Perhaps being exposed to livestock inoculates you against more serious diseases.

(An interesting side note: In the late 1700’s, smallpox was a devastating disease. But Dr. Edward Jenner noticed that milkmaids who had previously come down with cowpox were immune to smallpox. The symptoms of cowpox were much milder compared to deadly smallpox. Yet the diseases were similar enough so that having had cowpox acted as an inoculation against smallpox.)

The overblown fear of salmonella from backyard chickens probably makes people less healthy overall.

Society seems to hate anything that empowers individuals.

Basically, the overall message from society and the media seems to encourage the status quo–even when the status quo is less healthy or riskier.

I see this attitude even in the comments of The Daily Bell. If I am too optimistic about a trend, technology, or movement, I basically hear, don’t you know people have always been slaves and always will be!

If I talk about exiting an unjust society its: oh so you’re just going to run and hide? If I talk about standing up to the powers that be its: wow, you really think you could defeat the machine? If I talk about finding a group of like-minded people to form a voluntary community with its: what are you some kind of hippie communist?

Most people don’t want anyone else to change. Misery loves company. People would rather drag others down than build themselves up.

If one person isn’t into keeping chickens, they get some sort of pleasure hearing about any possible pitfall. Fat people like that runners injure themselves. Liberals care more about the name of my mini-farm than about the positive impact it has. And the people freezing their asses off in Massachusetts just have to make themselves feel better by telling me how miserable I’ll be in the summer.

But individuals actually do have control over their lives. They can divorce themselves from a centralized and unhealthy food industry. They can make themselves free, happy, and prosperous. They don’t have to live in a place they hate or continue a depressing lifestyle.

It is a victim mentality that seeks excuses not to make a positive change in one’s own life. Why bother if the alternative is just as unhealthy. Why try if I will just get beat down by society.

And the media definitely doesn’t want people to change. They have a vested interest in making sure there is an army of negatrons to counter every positive utterance. That is how the media protects the status quo. It is how they make sure people don’t step too far out of line.

It is how they make sure people don’t empower themselves to stop depending on the state and corporate institutions.

Don’t fall for their hype.

via http://ift.tt/2yYsCn6 TDB

Russian President Vladimir Putin has not yet formally declared his intention to seek another term as leader of Russia, but many observers noted that a sweeping speech he gave at the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi this week served as a template for his campaign ahead of the March election.

The speech’s overarching theme was to burnish Putin’s accomplishments as the man who restored “power and respect” to Russia. But in doing so, he heaped abuse on the US and its western allies, accusing them of selectively adhering to international law, and of taking advantage of Russia during the 1990s when the country was struggling to rebuild following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Bloomberg reported.

He accused the US of abusing Russia’s trust, and seeking to take advantage of the political and economic chaos that persisted for much of the 1990s and early 2000s, according to Russia Today.

“The biggest mistake our country made was that we put too much trust in you; and your mistake was that you saw this trust as a lack of power and you abused it,’’ he said during a question-and-answer session that was carried on national television. What was needed, he said, was “respect.’’

High on Putin’s list of perceived slights was the US’s failure to keep its end of the bargain in a host of international disarmament agreements. He explained that, while Moscow doesn’t plan to exit any existing treaties, he promised an “instant, symmetrical response” if Washington decides to quit first.

He accused the US of slighting Russia by forcing the country to accept international monitors during the implementation of the “megatons to megawatts” program, where the Russian nuclear arsenal was dramatically reduced by converting highly enrichment weapons-grade uranium to lower quality uranium suitable for use in nuclear power plants.  Between 1993 and 2013, Russia downblended enriched uranium from the equivalent of about 20,000 of its nuclear warheads into low-enriched uranium to be used as fuel by US power stations.

During this process, Putin said, Russia operated with “unprecedented openness and trust” with as many as 100 US officials entitled to carry out surprise inspections of Russian nuclear facilities.

But in return, the US has repeatedly disregarded the Russian national interest, Putin said.

“What we got in return is well-known – a complete disregard for our national interests, support for separatism in the Caucasus, a circumvention of the UN Security Council, the bombing of Yugoslavia, the invasion of Iraq, and so on. The US must have seen the state of our nuclear weapons and economy and decided to do away with international law.”

He also accused the US of hypocrisy by not adhering to the terms of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty that was spearheaded by the US. Russia has destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile and honored its obligations under the treaty, Putin said, while the US has repeatedly pushed back its deadline.

These betrayals are threatening to send the US-Russia relationship back to the 1950s, he said.

“We can’t actively participate in several international treaties, because the US is not doing anything itself. We can’t just do it unilaterally,” said Putin, citing the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, as an example of the US taking advantage.

 

Last month, Russia declared that all its chemical weapons stockpiles had been disposed of – news that Western media “decided to stay silent on,” according to Putin – while the US has persistently delayed its own destruction schedule, and now plans to complete the process in 2023 at the earliest.

 

“We destroyed everything, and then our American partners said – ‘Not yet, we don’t have money.’ So, they have a dollar printing press, yet they don’t have money. But we, on the other hand, do?” said Putin with heavy sarcasm.

But Putin’s biggest gripe with US foreign policy relates to George W Bush’s decision to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 – a decision that was made to pave the way for the construction of a missile defense shield in Europe. The Kremlin has vehemently objected to the missile shield.

“This treaty was the cornerstone of the entire international security framework in the area of strategic weapons. But despite spending years trying to persuade our colleagues otherwise, we weren’t able to hold our partners inside the agreement,” said Putin.

Putin also responded to US President Donald Trump criticisms of another treaty between Russia and the US – the New START treaty signed in 2011. Through 2021, it stipulates that both sides are allowed to have up to 1,550 active nuclear warheads. Trump has criticized the treaty as an example of poor Obama-era dealmaking. Putin has also expressed dissatisfaction with the treaty.

“We are hearing that the other side is also not pleased with New START,” Putin said. “We are not going to quit it. Maybe we are ourselves dissatisfied with certain aspects of it, but there is always an element of compromise. So, we are going to fulfil our obligations.”

Other parts of Putin’s election strategy were also on display during the carefully choreographed session, according to Evgeny Minchenko, a political consultant attending the forum who spoke with Bloomberg. Sharing the stage with Putin in Sochi was Jack Ma, the founder and chairman of China’s Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. Ma delivered a motivational speech on the future benefits of technology and offered to “join in the development of the Russian economy.’’

Putin will make a high-profile push to digitize the Russian economy as a key plank in his election campaign, Minchenko said. A second campaign message will be government renewal, replacing longer-serving officials with a younger cadre, both in the administration and regional governorships. Some governors have already been replaced.

“I’m pretty sure Putin is going to run,’’ Minchenko said. 

Watch the full speech below:

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

The farce is now complete.

What is the best way to run schizophrenic monetary policy in a schizophrenic country, where the Fed sees "mysterious" deflation everywhere even as most ordinary consumers can't afford to pay their health insurance, resulting in Fed chair candidates ranging from the extremely hawkish end to the dovish one? Simple: if you are Donald Trump, you bring both of them in.

• TRUMP SAYS BRINGING TAYLOR, POWELL TO FED TOGETHER AN OPTION

Why? Speaking on Fox News Trump "explained" that “It is in my thinking, and I have a couple of others things in my thinking but I like talent and they’re both very talented people."

Which is great news, because if just Taylor is bullish, and just Powell is even more bullish, the two together will send the S&P to 3,000 in a few days.

Of course, two may enter, but if the market ever has an even 1% drop, just one – or none – will leave.

TRUMP SAYS BRINGING TAYLOR, POWELL TO FED TOGETHER AN OPTION

only one leaves http://pic.twitter.com/k0F8JrPxar

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 20, 2017

What about Yellen? Isn't she "very talented" too?  Well…

• TRUMP SAYS HE LIKES JANET YELLEN `A LOT': FOX BUSINESS

So no… but there is still a chance: if Yellen can get the S&P to close at 2,600 today, she stays.

Odds continue to swing wildly…

Meanwhile, the dollar jump, while Yen and Gold drop.

And while we wait the decision, here is an artist's impression of what the Fed hiring process will look like under Trump.

via http://ift.tt/2l4sZ9K Tyler Durden

On Wednesday, we noted the renewed tightness developing in dollar funding markets. Ignoring embryonic signs of stress in the financial “plumbing” can be dangerous. The divergence of LIBOR from Fed Funds on 9 August 2007, which occurred two months prior to the peak in the Dow, always comes to mind. Fast-forwarding to the present when Mark Cabana, Bank of America’s head of US STIR, has been fielding client questions about the impact of proposed US tax reform. In particular, clients asked for Cabana’s view on what effect dollar repatriation by US corporates might have on funding markets if favorable tax treatment is forthcoming.  

Spoiler alert – negative for dollar funding markets (and of course positive for the dollar).

Cabana explains “As Washington has increasingly focused on tax reform, clients have asked questions about how repatriation might impact the front end of the US rates curve. While there are still many unknown elements of the plan, we believe repatriation could provide modest upward USD funding pressure for foreign banks but likely leave the overall stock of commercial paper outstanding little changed.”

There is the potential for at least $1.5 trillion in offshore funds to be repatriated, but Cabana notes that a large portion of offshore dollars are already invested in intermediate tenor Treasury, agency and corporate holdings. If pertinent legislation was passed, he believes that dollar repatriation would occur relatively quickly, as there would be limited incentive for funds to remain offshore.

Here is his view summarized…

1. Offshore USD holdings analysis shows limited allocation to very front-end of curve and EU banks largest unsecured borrowers.
   
2. Repatriation would lead to dollar funding pressure “as corporates trim unsecured bank lending, both outright and through offshore MMF.”
3. Cross currency basis swaps – notably EUR/USD and JPY/USD – would move further into negative territory with FRA-OIS spread widening by 2-6bp.

Cross currency basis swaps are negative and trending downwards, but are still some way from signalling the extreme shortage of dollar liquidity, especially in the Yen, at the end of 2016.

Cabana elaborates “The modest bank funding pressure could come as corporates trim unsecured bank lending, both outright and through offshore money market mutual funds (MMF). This could modestly widen short-dated FRA-OIS spreads by 2-6bp. It could also contribute to more negative levels of the EURUSD and JPYUSD cross currency basis given EU and Japanese financials’ exposure to offshore prime MMF. A potential repatriation next year could add to existing expected funding pressures as the Treasury boosts its cash balance and the Fed’s balance-sheet unwinds.”

So, there are three potential sources of pressure for dollar funding markets:

1. From rebuilding the Treasury’s cash balance (simultaneous reduction in bank reserves) on the Fed’s balance sheet. The cash balance is currently $170bn, having reached about $440bn before the drawdown.
2. Reduction in the Fed’s inventory of securities when it implements tapering.
3. Repatriation of corporate dollar holdings overseas.

As we highlighted previously, Cabana sees a large reserve drain in Q2 2018…

… when more severe funding strains are likely to emerge. Pressure in dollar funding markets will only accelerate, especially once bank reserves decline by over $1 trillion in under two years.

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

Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan received the patented Elizabeth Warren treatment during testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last month when the Massachusetts Senator accused him of sharing in the blame for the bank’s fraudulent sales practices and opined that he ‘should be fired’, echoing comments she made about his predecessor, John Stumpf, a year earlier.

And just as the CEO has been making the media rounds to try to rehabilitate the bank’s battered public image, yet another scandal appears to be breaking – but this time it originated in the bank’s investment banking unit.

WSJ reported that the bank has fired four foreign-exchange bankers amid an investigation into that business by both the bank and regulators.

While the nature of the purported misconduct is unclear judging by the report, in an amusing coincidence, the news of the firings broke as former-HSBC FX trader Mark Johnson awaits the verdict on whether he defrauded a client when he was running part of HSBC’s FX sales business in London. WSJ reports the bankers were fired for cause.

The firings come as the bank continues with a wide ranging internal investigation that over the summer revealed that the bank had overcharged clients for certain auto insurance and mortgage products. Recently, the OCC said the bank may need to refund more than $80 million to customers relating to these sales in a report that was first disclosed by the New York Times.

All of those fired appear to be senior employees in the bank’s FX sales and trading hierarchy. Meanwhile, another senior employee was abruptly moved to another part of the business.

Those fired, the people said, were Simon Fowles, recently head of foreign exchange trading; Bob Gotelli, recently head of foreign exchange sales; Jed Guenther, recently a regional head of foreign exchange; and Michael Schaufler, chief spot dealer.

 

The bankers didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment or declined to comment.

 

The prior head of the foreign exchange group, Sara Wardell-Smith, was moved to a different role at the bank, the people said. Ms. Wardell-Smith’s LinkedIn profile refers to a role beginning in October leading part of Wells Fargo’s financial institutions group. She had held several roles in the bank’s foreign-exchange group after joining Wells Fargo in 1995 and led the group for the past decade.

 

Ms. Wardell-Smith didn’t respond to requests for comment.

 

The bank spokeswoman said Ms. Wardell-Smith accepted a new position as Americas regional leader in Wells Fargo’s financial institutions group. She added that the bank’s foreign-exchange business “will continue to serve our clients under the leadership of Ben Bonner."

 

The bank’s issues, though, had mostly been confined to the retail-banking business. The foreign-exchange investigation now shows there is also trouble in Wells Fargo’s investment-banking arm. The issues have emerged separate from a review of business practices in the wake of the sales-practices scandal, according to a person familiar with the matter.

 

A Wells Fargo spokeswoman confirmed the departures after inquiries from The Wall Street Journal.

As WSJ points out, Wells Fargo’s investment-banking, securities and markets division, known as Wells Fargo Securities, is a fraction of the size of its U.S. big-bank peers. Its  US investment-banking market share is just about 4% as of September, Dealogic said. And its forex desk is also smaller than its peers. Notably, the bank’s FX shop avoided being caught up in investigations into collusion between market participants to move foreign-currency rates for their own financial benefit. Those investigations led to more than $5 billion in combined penalties at a handful of large US and European banks. Last year, Barclays and a handful of other banks pled guilty to conspiring to manipulate currency prices. Earlier this year, former Barclays FX trader Jason Katz became the first person to plead guilty in the DOJ’s probe.

The question now is, will this scandal end with the traders’ firing? Or will the DOJ move against Wells and open a criminal probe? If evidence of “manipulation” is found (of course, manipulation today looks a lot like what were once believed to be acceptable hedging strategies by large dealers) it could lead to a crackdown.

Wells shares dipped on the news, but remained higher on the day:

While it's foolish to jump to conclusions about the nature of the scandal, one thing’s for sure: since most Americans don’t even realize that there’s such a thing as the foreign exchange market, let alone that traders are capable of manipulating it, any misconduct in that arm of the bank is bound to be less damaging than the realization that the bank’s salespeople opened millions of fake fee-generating accounts on behalf of customers who didn’t even know they existed.
 

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

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

I predict the current investigations will widen and take a variety of twists and turns that surprise all those anticipating a tidy, narrowly focused denouement.

The theme this week is The Rot Within.

To those of us who understand the entire status quo is rotten and corrupt to its core, the confidence of each ideological camp that their side will emerge unscathed by investigation is a source of amusement. The fake-progressives (fake because these so-called "progressives" support Imperial over-reach and a status quo whose only possible output is soaring wealth and income inequality) are confident that a "smoking gun" of corruption will deliver their most fervent dream, the impeachment of President Trump, while Trump supporters are equally confident there is no "smoking gun."

One camp is confident that the wily Clintons and their army of enablers, from former FBI Director Comey on down, will finally be brought to long-evaded justice for their various perfections of corruption and collusion: pay to play, and so on.

Clinton supporters are equally confident that there is no "smoking gun" that will bring down the House of Clinton, and by proxy, the organs of the Democratic Party.

The implicit historical model each camp is anticipating is of course Watergate, which unfolded with a dramatic inevitability that in retrospect almost seems scripted: a minor burglary led to the hubris of cover-up which led to the destruction of the Nixon presidency.

Often overlooked in this history is the key roles played by insider informants (such as Deep Throat) and the wider political demands for greater transparency the scandal triggered. The Church Committee ended up investigating the illegal campaigns of the FBI and CIA against the anti-war and civil rights movements (COINTELPRO etc.), and a small dent was made in the federal government's decades-long reliance on official secrecy to cover up official corruption, collusion, malfeasance, lies, etc.– the ugly underbelly of agencies protecting the Empire from any inconvenient leaks of truth.

I submit that Watergate will not be the template for the multiple investigations being pursued in the present. It seems highly likely to me that who and what gets taken down by the investigations is much less predictable than in the Watergate template, which distilled down to an escalating campaign of cover-ups and stonewalling which simply compounded the crimes previously committed.

I submit that the investigations launched with an implicit intent of bringing down selected targets may well end up destroying people and institutions that weren't in the crosshairs. The reason why this seems so likely is that the entire status quo is corrupt: the fraud, pay-to-play, lies and collusion are institutionalized and system-wide, and once some investigation drills a hole in the dam of secrecy and collusion, the hole may quickly widen as the fetid gush of hidden truths pours out.

In other words, when the entire status quo is corrupt and hiding its collusion, gathering evidence to nail one target inevitably tugs loose other threads, threads that the original investigators reckoned could be safely left untouched.

It doesn't work that way, folks. Insiders end up releasing more than investigators bargained for, and all it takes is one insider and one journalist who isn't beholden to a colluding-insider corporate boss to widen the hole in the dam into a veritable flood.

Longtime readers know I have long made the case that the Deep State has fractured into competing camps. For example:

Is the Deep State Fracturing into Disunity? (March 14, 2014)

Surplus Repression and the Self-Defeating Deep State (May 26, 2015)

Public investigations are one field where this conflict plays out, but unfortunately for the players, it's a game that's easier to start than to control.

For this reason, I predict the current investigations will widen and take a variety of twists and turns that surprise all those anticipating a tidy, narrowly focused denouement. Which of the many rotten fruits will fall first? How many will fall by the time the investigations have burned through a corrupt status quo that's exquisitely vulnerable to a single lightning strike? Only one lightning strike is needed to ignite the combustible corruption and trigger a conflagration tha quickly escapes the handlers' control.

If you want a recent example of this dynamic, consider Harvey Weinstein, a mere brush fire that may well spread further and faster than the handlers expect.

For more on the systemic nature of corruption in our status quo, please check out my books:

Resistance, Revolution, Liberation

Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform

Correspondent Rudy C. kindly noted that the GDP chart I displayed yesterday was misleading as it did not adjust for population growth. This chart is of GDP per capita, which shows GDP per person rather than as an aggregate total. Thank you, Rudy, for the correction.

*  *  *

If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com. Check out both of my new books, Inequality and the Collapse of Privilege ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print) and Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print, $5.95 audiobook) For more, please visit the OTM essentials website.

via http://ift.tt/2hRMGN3 Tyler Durden

If the fate of Gawker is any indication, the multiplying sex crime probes involving Harvey Weinstein are just the beginning of the disgraced studio head’s legal problems.

As the number of Weinstein accusers – women who are alleging Weinstein harassed them, groped them or sexually assaulted them – has swelled to more than 50, Legalist – a startup backed by Peter Thiel, the PayPal co-founder and possibly the world’s best-known gay conservative (sorry, Milo) – has offered a $100,000 bounty to any victim with a “valid sexual harassment claim” against the disgraced movie mogul, according to the New York Post.

P

Harvey Weinstein

Legalist – which bills itself as “the first AI-powered litigation finance firm” — has made similar offers in the past, including last month when it announced it would pay for legal filing fees related to the massive Equifax data breach. The credit-monitoring bureau has been hit with no fewer than 30 federal lawsuits, 23 of which are class actions, after disclosing that its negligence allowed hackers to infiltrate its systems and abscond with the sensitive financial information of 143 million Americans. Criminal action has also been threatened against several of Equifax’s senior executives who cashed out of options before the company announced the hack, raising questions about whether they knew and improperly traded on the information.

Thiel, a Silicon Valley billionaire, famously funded Terry “Hulk Hogan” Bollea’s defamation lawsuit against Gawker, a suit that led to a $140 million penalty, ultimately forcing the company to sell itself to Univision.

Peter Thiel

Deadline Hollywood pointed out that the latest Thiel-Weinstein news comes on the heels of Charles Harder’s exit as Harvey Weinstein’s attorney. Harder had represented Thiel in the Gawker case.

While Legalist’s history of capitalizing on national tragedies raises the suspicion of cynicism, Eva Shang, one of Legalist’s founders, says the company’s motive is a genuine interest in the case, not opportunism. She said the company has made some offers in other previous cases that were higher than $100,000. As the Weinstein saga has unfolded, she said, it revealed real needs on the part of those pursuing complaints. “Especially as a female founder,” she told Deadline, “as I read these reports of eight cases of settlements being paid to women, for very modest amounts and without a single case being filed, it seemed like a situation where we could help women get the justice they deserve.”
 

via http://ift.tt/2xavBo7 Tyler Durden