This interview will be posted on TwoIceFloes.comFriday, March 21 at 8 PM EDT
and available for playback any time after
Four years and thirty weeks ago I created an alter ego avatar on ZeroHedge.com by the name of Cognitive Dissonance. My thinking at the time was to craft a safe place to go when commenting on Zero Hedge (ZH) in order to help weather the slings and arrows that were, and still are, the hallmark of Fight Club aka Zero Hedge. In addition Cognitive Dissonance was my mentor of sorts, someone I could speak through, and to, while writing about subjects that were at times as unsettling to me as they were to my readers.
A few months after the birth of Cognitive Dissonance, ZH’s Tyler Durden contacted me and asked if I would like to become a contributing editor. While this was a wonderful opportunity to speak to a wider audience, it also opened me up to the full force of the ZH comment section. I learned a lot about myself during that first year as a ZH contributor, most importantly that I did not need to value myself by what others said about or to me.
Four years and much personal growth later Mrs. Cog and I decided the next step in the evolution of Cognitive Dissonance was to create our own play place, a unique web destination in its own right, and TwoIceFloes.com was born on Valentine’s Day, 2014.
Creating ‘Two Ice Floes’ allowed me to expand the range of Cognitive Dissonance’s ‘voice’ while also creating a safe place where others may gather to share their thoughts and experiences. My intention all along was to expose some of ‘my’ background and perspective in order for my readers to better understand Cognitive Dissonance.
The opportunity to do so came quickly when within a week of opening shop an offer was received from Gemini of Time Monk Radio to interview Cognitive Dissonance and the mind behind the avatar. After a week to mull it over and a few deep discussions with Mrs. Cog the offer was accepted and last weekend (Sunday, March 16, 2014) the two hour interview was recorded.
So…….are you interested in hearing the ‘voice’ of Cognitive Dissonance, to sneak a peek into the thinking and mindset behind the anonymous man who is Cognitive Dissonance? If so, please visit TwoIceFloes.com Friday evening, March 21st @ 8 PM EDT to access the two hour recorded interview.
03-21-2014
Cognitive Dissonance
via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1d9d53M Cognitive Dissonance
It’s another victory for unions
in Michigan. A federal judge has struck down the state’s ban on
same-sex marriage recognition, meaning gay couples can form a union
of two people legally acknowledged by the government. Get it? Get
it? Because, you know, “unions”?
The trial revolved around whether the state had any legitimate
interest in banning same-sex marriage recognition, which meant
experts were trotted out to talk about studies about parenting and
children to fight out this debate over who raises children best.
No, I don’t believe anybody argued that even if heterosexuals were
better parents, it doesn’t justify government involvement. The
judge does note in his ruling, though, that the state is not
permitted to evaluate the parenting abilities of heterosexual
couples before granting them licenses:
Even today, the State of Michigan does not make fertility or the
desire to have children a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage
license. As defendant Lisa Brown testified, Michigan county clerks
are not authorized to consider a couple’s stability, criminal
record, ability to procreate, parenting skills, or the potential
future outcomes of their children before issuing a marriage
license. … County clerks may only evaluate the age and residency
of the license applicants and whether either of the applicants is
currently married.
Controversial sociologist Mark Regnerus (whom I’ve written about
here) was brought in to trot out his problematic study to argue
that heterosexual parents were better. The judge took a dim view of
the study and questioned Regnerus’ impartiality:
While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect
his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony
unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and
Regnerus obliged. Additionally, the NFSS is flawed on its face, as
it purported to study “a large, random sample of American young
adults (ages 18-39) who were raised in different types of family
arrangements” (emphasis added), but in fact it did not study this
at all, as Regnerus equated being raised by a same-sex couple with
having ever lived with a parent who had a “romantic relationship
with someone of the same sex” for any length of time. Whatever
Regnerus may have found in this “study,” he certainly cannot
purport to have undertaken a scholarly research effort to compare
the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples with those of
children raised by heterosexual couples. It is no wonder that the
NFSS has been widely and severely criticized by other scholars, and
that Regnerus’s own sociology department at the University of Texas
has distanced itself from the NFSS in particular and Dr. Regnerus’s
views in general and reaffirmed the aforementioned APA position
statement.
The judge concluded that the ban on same-sex marriage does
advance any legitimate state interest and is discriminatory. He
declared the ban unconstitutional and enjoined the state from
enforcing it. You can read the ruling
here (pdf).
It’s not clear yet whether this means gay marriages will be able
to begin immediately, though the judge does not appear to have put
a stay on his own ruling like has happened in other states.
Earlier this week, I wrote
about the Philadelphia Inquirer’s report on an
investigation into local Philadelphia politicians apparently caught
on tape taking bribes apparently shut down by Pennsylvania’s
attorney general, Kathleen Kane (D). An assistant press secretary
for Kane wrote to me in an effort, he said, to make sure I had all
the facts, whether or not I agreed with the attorney general. The
press secretary summarized the office’s case on the case:
The investigation was dormant and basically left for
dead when Attorney General Kane took office. I have attached a
timeline of the investigation’s recording for your reference.
[PDF]
Just 45 days before her inauguration, prosecutors forgave the only
informant of 2,000 felony charges related to defrauding taxpayer
funded programs to feed low-income children and seniors. This deal
destroyed the informant being compelled to testify. A Republican
district attorney agreed with this determination.
As a follow up, I asked why prosecutors forgave the informant,
whether there would be an investigation into that or any other
aspect of the case, whether the attorney general would suspend or
review any other cases built around confidential informants
trawling for crimes, and whether the attorney general’s office
would release the tapes made by the informant of the alleged
bribe-taking if they are no longer useful as evidence. The press
officer did not respond to my questions as of the time of this blog
post.
A Philly.com op-ed also listed a litany of issues with the
attorney general’s defense of her decision to drop the case,
including:
She says crimes were committed but there’s “nothing we
can do to salvage this case.”
She says the No. 1 reason is the “shot” credibility of informant
Tyron B. Ali, because the state forgave 2,000-plus charges against
him filed in 2009 in connection with a scam to defraud a low-income
food program.
But Ali audiotaped those taking money or gifts. Why not let a jury
hear the tapes, compromised informant/witness or not; or release
the tapes to the public?
Kane says the tapes can’t be released because they’re
“evidence.”
But if there’s “nothing we can do to salvage” the case, what are
they evidence for?
She says federal prosecutors wouldn’t take the case. But
the Inky
[the Philadelphia Inquirer] reported yesterday that
the FBI in Philly looked at the case and made no judgment on
whether it could be prosecuted, and that the U.S. attorney in
Philly declined comment on the case.
Kane also said she’d “consider and push for” an investigation by
the State Ethics Commission, which requires public officials to
report gifts. Failure to do so can lead to fines and/or prison
terms.
But since Kane killed the sting case last year, one wonders why she
didn’t seek such an investigation then.
Since then, Kane has
hired a lawyer for a possible defamation suit against the Philadelphia Inquirer, which broke the story. In fact, she
met with editors and reporters from the Inquirer Thursday
flanked by two lawyers, and refused to speak for herself. The
lawyers say they will investigate the prosecutors involved in the
bribery case, and allege the Inquirer’s sources, which the
newspaper has not disclosed, used the paper as a “weapon” to attack
Kane.
In its 2013 annual report to Congress, the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate wrote that the IRS shows “disrespect for the law and a disregard for taxpayer rights.”
Further, the report says that the current system “disproportionately burdens those who [make] honest mistakes,” and that “tax requirements have become so confusing and the compliance burden so great that taxpayers are giving up their U.S. citizenship in record numbers.”
We all know the stories. The IRS has nearly infinite power to do whatever it wants, including freezing you out of your own bank account without so much as a phone call, let alone due process.
In the Land of the Free, people think they’re innocent until proven guilty. This is total BS. If you are only suspected of wrongdoing, you can be locked out of your entire savings.
This is an incredible amount of authority to wield.
But the British government has just gone even further.
Buried in its most recent budget package is a curt little paragraph that reads “The Government will modernise and strengthen [the tax agency's] debt collection powers to recover financial assets from the bank accounts of debtors who owe over £1,000 of tax.”
Read that one more time just to let it sink in.
The British government is setting an absurdly low threshold at £1,000… about $1,650 in back taxes.
And they’re saying that if the tax authorities believe you owe even just a minor tax debt, they will not only FREEZE your assets, they’ll dip into your bank account and TAKE whatever they want.
Judge, jury, and executioner. They get to decide in their sole discretion if you owe them money, and they get to take as much as they want to satisfy the debt.
It’s unbelievable.
I can’t even begin to imagine why any Brit in his/her right mind would continue to hold a substantial amount of savings in UK banks.
You are practically begging for the government to relieve you of your hard-earned savings.
Even if you haven’t done anything wrong, and have paid up everything that you owe, the slightest clerical error could have them plunging their filthy hands into your account.
These issues are worldwide. Whether you’re in the US, UK, France, Cyprus, etc., when governments go bankrupt, these are precisely the sorts of tactics they resort to.
Rational, thinking people need to be aware of this trend. And it behooves absolutely everyone to come up with a plan B. Because at the rate things are going, Plan B may very soon become Plan A.
Earlier in March I took note of the
strange circumstances behind the investigation and subsequent
killing of
Ibragim Todashev at the hands of the FBI. Todashev was friends
with deceased alleged Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and
also possibly a suspect in an extremely brutal triple homicide in
Massachusetts in 2011.
There have been several differing stories about what happened
during the FBI interview at Todashev’s home in Florida that led to
his death. Today a Florida prosecutor has said the FBI agent who
shot him was justified in using deadly force. From the Washington Post:
Law enforcement officials said that Ibragim Todashev, 27, a
mixed-martial-arts fighter, attacked the agent with a metal pole
during an interview at his Orlando apartment on May 22.
FBI officials have said the male agent, who has not been
identified, was acting in self-defense when he shot Todashev
multiple times. The agent suffered a wound to the back of the head
that required stitches. It’s not clear what first sparked the
confrontation.
The investigation’s conclusion seemingly brings to an end a
10-month push by Todashev’s family and several civil rights
organizations for more information about the shooting.
The results of the report are supposed to be released Tuesday.
The agent who shot Todashev joins every single other FBI agent who
ever fatally shot a “subject” since 1993. Every single one of their
shootings has been ruled “justified.”
UPDATE: Florida’s state attorney released a
statement saying the report that prosecutors have cleared the FBI
in the shooting are
not accurate. He will be making the decision over the
weekend.
Cold, Crimea & China: Transient supports to gold prices
The 2014 gold rally brought prices to their highest level since September before a more hawkish-than-expected March FOMC pushed prices sharply lower. Three distinct and in our view transient catalysts have driven this rally: (1) a sharp slowdown in US economic activity which we believe was weather driven, (2) high Chinese credit concerns, although ultimately bearish for gold demand through lower financing deals if realized, and (3) escalating tensions over Ukraine. While further escalation in tensions could support gold prices, we expect a sequential acceleration in both US and Chinese activity, and hence for gold prices to decline, although it may take several weeks to lift uncertainty around this acceleration. Importantly, it would require a significant sustained slowdown in US growth for us to revisit our expectation for lower US gold prices over the next two years.
Re-acceleration in US activity will push gold prices lower
While we see clear catalysts for the recent rally in gold prices, this move has been large relative to US real rates which are a key input into our forecasts and benchmarking of gold prices. As a result, we see potential for a meaningful decline in gold prices towards the level implied by 10-year TIPS yields, which our rates strategists expect to rise further this year, and reiterate our year-end $1,050/toz gold price forecast. More broadly, we believe that with tapering of the Fed’s QE, US economic releases are back the decline in gold prices will likely be data dependent, in contrast to our 2013 bearish gold view which was driven by the disconnect between stretched long gold speculative positioning and stabilizing US growth.
Indian and Chinese gold demand unlikely to surprise to the upside
Weak Indian gold imports and surging Chinese imports were the most important shifts in EM gold demand last year, although these trade statistics likely overestimated shifts in local gold demand given reported gold smuggling into India and the use of gold in Chinese financing deals. While we see potential for these shifts to reverse in 2014, we estimate the net impact will not be meaningful to our gold outlook as: (1) India’s potential easing of gold import tariffs will likely remain modest given how much lower gold imports have contributed to its improved trade balance, (2) we expect a gradual unwind of gold backed financing deals.
Former New London, Connecticut, police
officer Thomas Northup was fired by the city’s mayor in 2012 for a
2011 incident in which Northup shot Curtis Cunningham, the unarmed
driver of a stolen ice truck. An internal police investigation
found that Northup used force prematurely and hadn’t been
authorized to do so. Northup was, nevertheless not charged with any
crime, so the firing should have been the end of it. But as a cop,
Northup isn’t just any employee. Northup, entrusted by the
government with a gun, is also granted by the government the broad
ability to appeal any decisions regarding his employment, so he
appealed his termination. As The Day of Connecticut reports:
The state Board of Mediation and Arbitration said the
city did not present credible evidence to establish that Northup’s
use of force was “not objectively reasonable or that it was
excessive,” or prove that Northup knew that the suspect did not
have a gun. Not only did the board order Northup’s reinstatement
but said he should be compensated for lost pay.
[New London Mayor Daryl] Finizio maintains the board’s decision was
“terrible … and fundamentally and legally
flawed.”
At Finizio’s behest, the city appealed the decision by the state
arbitrator, but earlier this week the city council stepped in and
voted 4-3 to drop the city’s appeal. At least one councilman,
Michael Passero, insisted the city was violating its contractual
obligations to the fired Northup by appealing the order to rehire
him, the kind of logic that only makes sense in a politician’s
head.
While the mayor said it was “imperative an office found to have
violated department policies on the use of deadly force” be
terminated, he admitted the decision wasn’t just his or the police
department’s to make, and that he had to “respect the decision” the
City Council made.
Of all the bizarre government social media
campaigns—and there have been a lot lately—I think the weirdest
must be “Think Again Turn Away.” If we’re judging solely on
WTF-factor, this U.S. Department of State (DOS) initiative blows
Pajama Boy and
Leather Jacket Boy and
Obamacare’s gifgasm out of the water. The main premise seems to
be trolling jihadis on Twitter, with taunts aimed at knocking the
bravery, intelligence, etc. of al Qaeda and other anti-West
religious warriors. If it all seems a little “Uncle Sam tells
terrorists ‘your mama’ jokes,” it is.
Below are a few recent tweets from the (verified) Twitter
account @ThinkAgain_DoS. As you
can see, DOS seeks out pro al Qaeda tweets and then responds,
engaging directly with individual users. To me, it all seems like a
strategy wayyyyy more likely to inspire animosity among jihadis
than to make them suddenly “think again” and “turn away.” When’s
the last time you changed any minor opinion, let alone your entire
value and belief system, because of a random Internet troll? And
make no mistake about it, the DOS is definitely trolling.
Modern day psy-ops, ladies and gents! According to Mother
Jones, the DOS Think Again Turn Away
campaign is only costing us a couple of million dollars
annually.
Submitted by Lance Roberts of STA Wealth Management,
The biggest news this past week was Janet Yellen's first post-FOMC meeting speech and press conference as the Federal Reserve Chairwoman. While I have the utmost respect for her accomplishments, every time I hear her speak all I can think of is my white haired, 75-year old grandmother baking cookies in her kitchen. This week's "Things To Ponder" covers several disparate takes on what she said, didn't say and the direction of the Federal Reserve from here.
In order to give these views context, I have included Yellen's post-meeting news conference. This is best viewed with a glass of milk and some warm, fresh chocolate-chip cookies…."just like Grandma used to make."
Quote Of The Day: "Bull Markets Are Just Like Sex, It Feels Best Just Before It Ends."by Barton Biggs
I have written many times in the past, most recently here, that the 6.5% unemployment target for the Federal Reserve was not a good measure of the true state of employment in the U.S. Specifically I stated:
"The difference between today, and 1978, is that in 1978 the LFPR was on the rise versus a sharp decline today. However, as I stated previously in 'Fed's Economic Projections – Myth vs Reality' this leaves the Federal Reserve in a bit of a predicament.
'The problem that the Fed will eventually face, with respect to their monetary policy decisions, is that effectively the economy could be running at 'full rates' of employment but with a very large pool of individuals excluded from the labor force. Of course, this also explains the continued rise in the number of individuals claiming disability and participating in the nutritional assistance programs. While the Fed could very well achieve its goal of fostering a 'full employment' rate of 6.5%, it certainly does not mean that 93.5% of working age Americans will be gainfully employed. It could well just be a victory in name only"
This is particularly the case when roughly 1 out of 3 people are no longer counted as part of the work force, 1-out-of-3 individuals are dependent on some sort of social support program, and over 17% of personal incomes are comprised of government transfers."
Howard points to the Federal Open Market Committee dropping its 6.5% unemployment rate threshold for raising the federal funds rate, a target originally set in December 2012.
"Instead it would look at some 'qualitative' measures, 'including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial developments,' the FOMC’s statement said."
This move shouldn’t have surprised anyone. The official unemployment rate was 6.7% in February and keeping that 6.5% target would have tied the Fed’s hands before it’s even finished tapering.
Yellen must deal with an economy that’s slowly recovering, but leaving a lot of people behind."
This is a very interesting take on a change in how the Fed presents its decisions and is worth reading in its entirety.
"Unless you have a crystal ball that tells you what will happen with wages, this possible new target tells you almost nothing about when rates will be raised.
These developments suggest a desire to turn the clock back to a time when traders had to make bets without Fed hand-holding — even if the Fed still does release its economic projections. A shift toward opacity might be wise. The economy is a complex system that no one fully understands, so it would be foolish to commit to any unbending numerical rule that limits policy makers’ flexibility to react to unforeseen events. That was why former Chairman Alan Greenspan was opposed to formal inflation targets.
An additional benefit of opacity is reduced predictability. Scholars have found that financiers take too much riskwhen they think they know what will happen in the future, so muddying the waters may be just what’s needed to promote a safer financial system."
"In reality, the Fed will keep manufacturing excuses as to why rates can't be raised. Whether it's a cold winter or a hot summer, a geopolitical crisis, or an unexpected sell off in stocks or real estate, the Fed will always find a convenient excuse to postpone tightening. That's because it has built an economy completely dependent on zero % interest rates. Even the smallest rate shock could be enough to push us into recession. The Fed knows that, and it is hoping to keep the ugly truth hidden.
Although Yellen followed the script on the QE tapering, by decreasing monthly purchases by an additional $10 billion to $55 billion, look for her to abandon her commitment to wind it down to zero just as easily as she has walked back the Fed's commitment to raise rates once unemployment hits 6.5%. Any additional weaknesses in economic data, or dips in stock or real estate prices, will cause the Fed to call a time out on its tapering plan."
"Higher uncertainty premiums: The Fed is in the midst of not one but two policy transitions. It is pivoting from reliance on a direct instrument (QE purchases of securities in the marketplace) to an indirect one (forward policy guidance to convince others to devote their balance sheets) — thereby raising effectiveness questions. It is also moving from a readily-observable unemployment threshold to a set of indicators that include qualitative judgments — thereby raising less predictable interpretation questions.
Technical market conditions: Given the impressive multi-year rally, it doesn't take much these days to convince equity traders to book profits (and it hasn't taken long for buyers to buy on the dip). Similarly, over-extended front end rates positions can be destabilized in the immediate term even if the Fed is committed to maintaining low rates for long.
Reaction to the interest-rate selloff: With a significant part of the economy sensitive to short and intermediate interest rates, including housing, and with the economic recovery yet to broaden sufficiently, it is not surprising that the stock market would be concerned with a sharp selloff in the shorter-dated rates.
What about the longer-term?
Here, much depends on your assessment of the first factor — namely, Fed policy effectiveness during its policy transition. Unfortunately, there are no tested models, policy playbooks or historical data to confidently guide investors. What is clear, however, is that they will require quite a bit of evidence of ineffectiveness before abandoning their faith in an institution that has significantly supported markets in recent years."
Jason's articles are always worth reading and this is no exception. The "madness of crowds" is always relevant and prevalent. With the financial markets tied to the Federal Reserve, like a "fetus to its mother," these words of wisdom are worth remembering.
"In a guest essay published in the New York Times on Oct. 29, 1989, called 'Fear of a Crash Caused the Crash,' future Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Shiller described a survey he had done of 101 market professionals the Monday and Tuesday after the tumble. Asked whether the drop was driven by 'a change in the stock market fundamentals' or 'psychology and emotion,' only 19% cited fundamentals; 77% blamed psychology and emotion. Shiller and his colleague William Feltus also asked the professionals if they thought the latest drop could turn into a replay of the 1987 crash; 35% thought it could, while 41% thought other investors thought so.
So, when KAL poked fun at traders overreacting to what others say, he was right on the money.
To this day, says KAL, brokers buying copies of the cartoon (featured above) 'inevitably' tell him, 'It was so funny because it was so true.'"
EXTRA! The Mysterious Disappearance Of Aircraft Since 1948via Zero Hedge
The ongoing search for Malaysian Airline Flight 370 has the conspiracy world abuzz with theories ranging from terrorism, government experiments, black holes to alien abduction. However, what is interesting is that this is not the first time a plane has mysteriously disappeared. The following info graphic details the last known position of lost large aircraft since 1948.
In a recent piece
in Politico titled “Why Are Asian Americans
Democrats?” professors Alexander Kuo, Neil Malhotra, and Cecilia
Hyunjung Mo make the contention that “microaggressions” and social
exclusion have pushed the entire Asian-American community to vote
for the Democratic Party. Microaggressions, according to Fordham
University, “are common verbal, behavioral, and environmental
indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate
hostile or negative slights to marginalized groups.”
But David Harsanyi finds it difficult to believe that Asian
Americans, as the professors maintain, believe half the country is
out to marginalize them with a bunch of subtle insinuations. In our
real-world interactions, we’re just not that sensitive. We
shouldn’t be that sensitive in our politics, either, Harsanyi
says.