PP NewsBrief: 2021-04-28

We need to begin to reclaim control over the institutions which have such oversized roles in our lives. As you read this people work tirelessly to see to it that you are dumb and docile. Let's stop them.

========

Shocking US census results: New York was 89 people short of keeping Congress seat, California down for first time EVER

"State results translated into a shift of seven seats in the House of Representatives, with Texas gaining two, followed by Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Montana and Oregon with one each. Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania lost one seat each, as did California – for the first time in history.

...

Each member of the House now represents about 50,000 people more than in 2010, or 761,169 on average. The size of the House was fixed by the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act, though a proposal to grant the District of Columbia statehood would see it rise to 436, if adopted.

...

Major media outlets have pointed out the political implications of the shift, with AP noting that Americans “continue to move to GOP-run states.” Five out of seven states that lost congressional seats are Democrat strongholds, compared to two that gained representation. However, some demographers pointed out the exodus from California translates into neighboring states becoming more Democrat.

“That’s the California exodus, blue state immigrants,” William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, told AP. “Californians are taking their votes and moving to other places.”

The legal deadline for announcing the apportionment results was December 31, but the Census Bureau delayed them until April, citing challenges caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and what AP described as “need to correct not-unexpected irregularities.”

According to Michael Thieme, assistant director in charge of systems and contracts, the Census Bureau received an “unprecedented” number of responses without a 12-digit ‘Census ID’ code allocated to each known home address, but the bureau used “deep human expertise” to fit all the data together properly."

========

State attorneys general are an increasing threat to 3D-printed guns and online blueprints

"State attorneys general want federal regulation for 3D-printed “ghost guns.” According to the AGs, there has been a spike in recovered 3D-printed guns, which are untraceable and often created from blueprints that are widely available online.

Back in 2017, the US Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Texas brought a case against a man who had a 3D printed rifle. The man, Eric McGinnis, aka “Eric the Ruler,” had attempted to buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer in 2016. However, he did not pass the criminal background check as he has a protective order against him in his record.

He circumvented the rules by purchasing a 3D printer and built an AR-15-style rifle. In July 2017, he went to a wooded area near Dallas to test his new rifle. Police officers heard the shots and arrived at the scene. He allegedly lied that he was a CIA operative, but the officers checked his backpack and discovered he allegedly had a hit list, which included a few federal legislators. In February 2019, the court sentenced him to eight years in prison.

...

The first blueprint for a 3D-printed gun was published on the internet in 2013. It was a one-shot handgun dubbed “the Liberator” created by Defense Distributed, a Texas-based non-profit. The organization has faced several challenges for publishing blueprints for 3D-printed guns.

Another 3D-printed gun blueprint available on the internet is for a semi-automatic caliber carbine pistol called the FGC-9 (which stands for F**k Gun Control 9).

Some of the popular companies providing 3D printers prohibit the use of their products to make firearms, suggesting they can monitor how their printers are used – but it could just be a disclaimer statement to avoid any liability.

...

With all of this attention, the idea of 3D-printed guns, and, more importantly with regards to the internet, the censorship of the online resources and blueprints and its relation to the First Amendment, is going to be an area to watch in the coming months.

========

Over 70% of Americans unwilling to get Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 jab following pause over blood clot worries – poll

"Only 22% of unvaccinated Americans say they are willing to get the one-shot Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine following the pause on distribution after concerns over blood clots.

Less than half of Americans feel the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is very or somewhat safe, according to a Washington Post/ABC poll released on Monday.

Respondents feel much more confident about the two other vaccines available on the market – Pfizer and Moderna – as over 70% said they felt those two-shot vaccines are very or somewhat safe.

...

Of growing concern among health officials are reports that millions of Americans are skipping their second vaccine shots. Ironically, Johnson & Johnson is the only vaccine available in the US that only requires one shot. Pfizer and Moderna require two jabs and two appointments set weeks apart.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows about 8% of Americans have missed their second vaccine appointments, which is up from around 3% in March, though officials have said some patients with two separate appointments from “different reporting entities” have not been thoroughly counted. The reason for missing a second appointment, according to the CDC, “requires further analysis.”"

========

Transphobic or a victory for common sense? Alabama bans ‘biological males’ from playing on female school sports teams

"Alabama has adopted a new law that bars public schools from allowing transgender girls to participate in female sports, rekindling debate about the controversial measure, which has been embraced by other conservative states.

The bill, HB 391, states that public K-12 schools “may never allow a biological male to participate on a female team.” Sponsored by Republican state Rep. Scott Stadthagen, the law passed both houses of the legislature without difficulty before being signed off by Governor Kay Ivey on Friday.

In a statement, Stadthagen thanked the governor for “protecting the rights of Alabama’s female athletes,” adding that “standing up for what is right is not always easy, but it is always the right thing to do.”

Proponents of the legislation argue that transgender girls have physiological advantages in competition, making their participation in female sports unfair. State lawmakers who backed the bill said it was necessary to maintain the “integrity” of female athletic programs.

But critics insisted that the law was exclusionary and addresses a problem that doesn’t exist. LGBTQ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign said the law was “politically motivated” and “designed to discriminate against an already vulnerable population.”"

========

Arkansas' GOP Gov. Hutchinson Vetoes Bill Nullifying Gun Restrictions

"Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson on Friday vetoed legislation that would prohibit local police from enforcing federal gun laws, saying the measure would jeopardize law enforcement and the public.

The Republican governor rejected the measure sent him by the majority-GOP Legislature that would have imposed criminal fines on state and local officers for assisting with enforcing federal firearms restrictions that the bill's backers say infringe on the Second Amendment.

The Legislature could still enact the bill by overriding Hutchinson's veto through a simple majority vote.

“The partnership between state and federal law enforcement officers is essential for the safety of Arkansas citizens," Hutchinson wrote in a letter to legislative leaders. “This bill will break that partnership and put the safety of Arkansans at risk."

Lawmakers in more than a dozen states have introduced similar bills this year seeking to nullify federal gun laws. Arizona earlier this month enacted a nullification measure similar to the one Hutchinson vetoed. And several states passed nullification laws under then-President Barack Obama, but judges have found them unconstitutional."

========

Arizona Audit Underway

"Ballot counters are working hard in Arizona to snuff-out voting irregularities in last year’s presidential election and fight off Democrat attempts to derail them.

On Sunday, forensic experts confirmed they are examining thousands of ballots cast in November as part of the audit in the Grand Canyon State. They are using ultra-violet lights to search for ballot watermarks and weed-out phony ballots.

Additionally, auditors have been split into several groups with some examining mail-in ballots and others inspecting ballot folders, envelopes along with other related items.

...

Meanwhile, Trump-era trade advisor Peter Navarro has been looking ahead to a similar audit in Georgia. He predicts an audit would likely reveal election fraud in the 2020 election just as it is in Arizona. Navarro added, the scale of voter fraud in Georgia is “much larger than in Arizona” and cited preliminary estimates.

The former Trump administration advisor believes election officials let fraud slide through due to collusion between Georgia officials and Democrat Party operatives. He stressed these audit will reveal patterns of systemic fraud that were used by Democrats in battleground states last year."

========

Meet the 40 New Billionaires Who Got Rich Fighting COVID-19

"Shortly after the World Health Organization declared Covid-19 a global pandemic on March 11, 2020, markets collapsed and economies around the world plunged into recession. At the same time, hundreds of billionaires fell from the ranks of Forbes’ World’s Billionaires list, capturing a snapshot of the pandemic’s impact on the fortunes of the world’s wealthiest people.

One year later, things couldn’t be more different: a record 493 new billionaires joined the list this year, propelled by a red-hot stock market and unprecedented economic stimulus. Among those newcomers are at least 40 new entrants who draw their fortunes from companies involved in fighting Covid-19. Some, such as Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel and BioNTech cofounder Uğur Şahin, have become household names thanks to the vaccines they helped develop. Others got rich making everything from personal protective equipment and diagnostic tests to antibody treatments and software that helps authorities schedule vaccination campaigns, which will be essential in reopening economies and returning to normal life.

The richest of these new billionaires is Li Jianquan, the president of Chinese medical products manufacturer Winner Medical, which ramped up production of masks and medical overalls to supply frontline workers across the globe...."

========

Florida Nurse Charged for Death Threats Against VP Kamala Harris

"Southen Florida nurse Niviane Petit Phelps was arrested this week on federal charges after allegedly making videos threatening Vice President Kamala Harris.

"Kamala Harris you are going to die. Your days are numbered already. Someone paid me $53,000 just to f--- you up and I'm gonna take the, I'm gonna do the job, okay," Phelps said in a video she sent to her husband in prison, according to NBC Miami.

...

On March 3, Special Agent David Ballenger was notified about Phelps's threat toward Harris. The videos were sent to Phelps's spouse, who is incarcerated, via Jpay. Jpay is a computer application that allows inmates and civilians to interact virtually.

...

On March 6, a secret service agent went to speak with Phelps at her home.

In a complaint, officers said Phelps was angry when Kamala Harris became vice president "but that she is 'over it now."

Phelps also expressed how she believes Kamala Harris is not actually 'black' and how during inauguration the vice president disrespectfully put her hand on her clutch purse instead of the bible. Phelps continued saying that somebody told her that America is going to choose who they choose, so Phelps had put her rage about the Vice President aside. Phelps stated that she is now "past it."

...

Heroeia Petit, Phelps's mother, told reporters her daughter was under a lot of stress.

"Don't punish her ... 'cause she listened to what people tell her... She's desperate. She don't got nothing to do. Her husband's been in jail 10 years, two children. The house, she lost everything.""

Ridiculous act of intimidation by the Feds.

========

How to Fight Critical Race Theory

"What does critical race theory look like in practice? Last year, I authored a series of reports focused on critical race theory in the federal government. The FBI was holding workshops on intersectionality theory. The Department of Homeland Security was telling white employees they were committing “microinequities” and had been “socialized into oppressor roles.” The Treasury Department held a training session telling staff members that “virtually all white people contribute to racism” and that they must convert “everyone in the federal government” to the ideology of “antiracism.” And the Sandia National Laboratories, which designs America’s nuclear arsenal, sent white male executives to a three-day reeducation camp, where they were told that “white male culture” was analogous to the “KKK,” “white supremacists,” and “mass killings.” The executives were then forced to renounce their “white male privilege” and write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color.

This year, I produced another series of reports focused on critical race theory in education. In Cupertino, California, an elementary school forced first-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, and rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.” In Springfield, Missouri, a middle school forced teachers to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix,” based on the idea that straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males are members of the oppressor class and must atone for their privilege and “covert white supremacy.” In Philadelphia, an elementary school forced fifth-graders to celebrate “Black communism” and simulate a Black Power rally to free 1960s radical Angela Davis from prison, where she had once been held on charges of murder. And in Seattle, the school district told white teachers that they are guilty of “spirit murder” against black children and must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgement of [their] thieved inheritance.”

I’m just one investigative journalist, but I’ve developed a database of more than 1,000 of these stories. When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, it is not an exaggeration—from the universities to bureaucracies to k-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down.

...

Thus far, attempts to halt the encroachment of critical race theory have been ineffective. There are a number of reasons for this.

First, too many Americans have developed an acute fear of speaking up about social and political issues, especially those involving race. According to a recent Gallup poll, 77 percent of conservatives are afraid to share their political beliefs publicly. Worried about getting mobbed on social media, fired from their jobs, or worse, they remain quiet, largely ceding the public debate to those pushing these anti-American ideologies. Consequently, the institutions themselves become monocultures: dogmatic, suspicious, and hostile to a diversity of opinion. Conservatives in both the federal government and public school systems have told me that their “equity and inclusion” departments serve as political offices, searching for and stamping out any dissent from the official orthodoxy.

Second, critical race theorists have constructed their argument like a mousetrap. Disagreement with their program becomes irrefutable evidence of a dissenter’s “white fragility,” “unconscious bias,” or “internalized white supremacy.” I’ve seen this projection of false consciousness on their opponents play out dozens of times in my reporting. Diversity trainers will make an outrageous claim—such as “all whites are intrinsically oppressors” or “white teachers are guilty of spirit murdering black children”—and then when confronted with disagreement, they adopt a patronizing tone and explain that participants who feel “defensiveness” or “anger” are reacting out of guilt and shame. Dissenters are instructed to remain silent, “lean into the discomfort,” and accept their “complicity in white supremacy.”

Third, Americans across the political spectrum have failed to separate the premise of critical race theory from its conclusion. Its premise—that American history includes slavery and other injustices, and that we should examine and learn from that history—is undeniable. But its revolutionary conclusion—that America was founded on and defined by racism and that our founding principles, our Constitution, and our way of life should be overthrown—does not rightly, much less necessarily, follow.

Fourth and finally, the writers and activists who have had the courage to speak out against critical race theory have tended to address it on the theoretical level, pointing out the theory’s logical contradictions and dishonest account of history. These criticisms are worthy and good, but they move the debate into the academic realm, which is friendly terrain for proponents of critical race theory. They fail to force defenders of this revolutionary ideology to defend the practical consequences of their ideas in the realm of politics.

...

Critical race theorists must be confronted with and forced to speak to the facts. Do they support public schools separating first-graders into groups of “oppressors” and “oppressed”? Do they support mandatory curricula teaching that “all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism”? Do they support public schools instructing white parents to become “white traitors” and advocate for “white abolition”? Do they want those who work in government to be required to undergo this kind of reeducation? How about managers and workers in corporate America? How about the men and women in our military? How about every one of us?

There are three parts to a successful strategy to defeat the forces of critical race theory: governmental action, grassroots mobilization, and an appeal to principle.

...

In terms of principles, we need to employ our own moral language rather than allow ourselves to be confined by the categories of critical race theory. For example, we often find ourselves debating “diversity.” Diversity as most of us understand it is generally good, all things being equal, but it is of secondary value. We should be talking about and aiming at excellence, a common standard that challenges people of all backgrounds to achieve their potential. On the scale of desirable ends, excellence beats diversity every time.

Similarly, in addition to pointing out the dishonesty of the historical narrative on which critical race theory is predicated, we must promote the true story of America—a story that is honest about injustices in American history, but that places them in the context of our nation’s high ideals and the progress we have made towards realizing them. Genuine American history is rich with stories of achievements and sacrifices that will move the hearts of Americans—in stark contrast to the grim and pessimistic narrative pressed by critical race theorists.

Above all, we must have courage—the fundamental virtue required in our time. Courage to stand and speak the truth. Courage to withstand epithets. Courage to face the mob. Courage to shrug off the scorn of the elites. When enough of us overcome the fear that currently prevents so many from speaking out, the hold of critical race theory will begin to slip. And courage begets courage. It’s easy to stop a lone dissenter; it’s much harder to stop 10, 20, 100, 1,000, 1,000,000, or more who stand up together for the principles of America."

========

‘A means, not an end’: EU proposes ‘human centric’ approach to AI regulation in draft rules

"The European Commission has proposed regulations on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) through a risk-based rules framework that calls for heavy fines, partial bans on surveillance, and safeguards for high-risk applications.

Companies breaching regulations banning the use of ‘unacceptable’ AI or not adhering to a number of “strict obligations” could face fines as much as 6% of their worldwide turnover, or €30 million (whichever is higher) under the draft rules announced by Brussels on Wednesday.

“AI is a means, not an end. It has been around for decades but has reached new capacities fuelled by computing power. This offers immense potential in areas as diverse as health, transport, energy, agriculture, tourism or cyber security. It also presents a number of risks,” the commissioner for internal market, Thierry Breton, said.

Breton said the proposals were aimed at strengthening Europe’s position as “global hub of experience in AI from the lab to the market,” as well as ensuring the AI in Europe “respects our values and rules.”

...

In its proposal, the EU outlines what it terms a ‘human-centric’ approach that both utilizes the technology’s promise, but also keeps it from infringing on strict privacy laws and keeping it “trustworthy.” Technologies are ranked according to the potential for harmful impact – from outright bans down to limited and minimal risks.

Under the new proposals, AI applications that allow governments to do ‘social scoring’ or exploit children are deemed to pose ‘unacceptable risk’. Applications used in recruitment, critical infrastructure, credit scoring, migration, and law enforcement fall into the ‘high-risk’ category and would be subject to strict safeguards.

All remote biometric identification systems are also deemed high-risk, with exceptions for “strictly necessary” instances like searching for missing children and preventing “specific and imminent terrorist” threats.

The use of these mass surveillance applications would have to be authorized by a court or an independent oversight body and limited to specific times and spaces."

I don't perceive any benefit from further AI capability increases. So what's the point in continuing to develop and roll out these technologies? The vast majority of problems we face stem from giving great power to a small group. How the heck will removing the humanity (not that they had much to begin with) of that small group help us average people?

========

From ‘Insurrectionists’ to ‘Interruptionists’

"The Biden Justice Department last week announced its first plea deal related to the January 6 protest on Capitol Hill: Jon Ryan Schaffer pleaded guilty to two charges—obstruction of an official proceeding and entering the Capitol with a dangerous or deadly weapon.

Schaffer, who has no criminal record, faced six counts of various trespassing and disorderly conduct offenses. (He did not plead guilty to any of the initial charges.)

He turned himself in to law enforcement on January 18 and has remained behind bars ever since; like many Capitol defendants, Schaffer was transported to Washington, D.C. to await trial. Schaffer’s arrest was part of the “shock and awe” manhunt the Justice Department unleashed immediately following the unrest to deter people from protesting Joe Biden’s inauguration.

In an April 15 press release, the Justice Department patted itself on the back for a job well done. “On this 100th day since the horrific January 6 assault on the United States Capitol, Oath Keepers member Jon Schaffer has pleaded guilty to multiple felonies, including for breaching the Capitol while wearing a tactical vest and armed with bear spray, with the intent to interfere with Congress’ certification of the Electoral College results,” Acting Deputy Attorney General John Carlin said in the statement. “The FBI has made an average of more than four arrests a day, seven days a week since January 6th.”

...

...In charging documents, a special agent discovered Schaffer had attended the “Million MAGA March” in Washington last November and even gave a media interview where “he made numerous statements indicating his intent to join others in fighting the election results with violence if necessary.”

Here is part of Schaffer’s incriminating statement to the reporter a week after the election: “We’re not going to merge into some globalist, communist system. There will be a lot of bloodshed if it comes down to that, trust me. The American people will not go for that bullshit once they understand what’s actually happening. Nobody wants this, but they’re pushing us to a point where we have no choice.”

...

Prosecutors...are loading up repetitive charges to build impressive-looking cases against nonviolent protesters.

For example, more than 200 people have been charged with both “parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol Building” and “disruptive” conduct in either the Capitol or in a restricted building. Another common charge is “entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds.” All three are misdemeanors punishable by a fine or up to six months in jail.

Not exactly the high-powered sedition trials Americans were promised.

One offense Jon Schaffer copped to—obstruction of an official proceeding—has been applied to more than 130 defendants so far; the feds desperately need the charge to stick because it represents the sole felony among mostly misdemeanor cases. The 10 alleged Oath Keepers accused of “conspiracy” each face one count of obstruction of an official proceeding. (None faces a weapons or assault charge.) So getting a guilty plea on one of the Justice Department’s favorite January 6 crimes is big—for now.

...

In the aftermath of the chaos on January 6, Democrats, the news media, and lots of Republicans vowed to stop at nothing to hold accountable every “insurrectionist” involved in the protest. Yet more than 100 days later, most defendants are accused of acting as “interruptionists”—Americans who may have acted recklessly but no more criminally, for the most part, than violent protests against Trump’s first inauguration in 2017 or Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation in 2018.

This might explain why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is backing off a 9/11-style commission to expose the truth of what happened before, during, and after January 6. After all, an “armed insurrection” tribunal would titlate her base and gratify the news media, but a public vetting about bothering Congress for a few hours? Not so much."

========

Montana Governor Signs Bill Nullifying Gun Restrictions

"Gov. Greg Gianforte on Friday signed a bill that prohibits state and local law enforcement in Montana from enforcing federal bans on firearms, ammunition and magazines.

Supporters of the law have said it would protect the Second Amendment from stiffer gun control laws that could come from federal legislation or executive orders by President Joe Biden in the wake of several mass shootings that took place this year, including a shooting last week that killed eight people in Indianapolis.

Opponents of the bill have said it would make it difficult for local law enforcement to collaborate with federal authorities on issues beyond gun access when such collaboration is essential to protect public safety, including in cases of domestic violence and drug offences.

...

Gianforte, a Republican, said in announcing his decision to sign the bill that it would protect Second Amendment rights in the state. Earlier this year he signed into law a bill that relaxes gun restrictions in Montana, allowing concealed firearms to be carried in most places without a permit and expanding the list of places where guns can be carried to include university campuses and the state Capitol."

========

American theocracy? Montana adopts law that allows people to challenge regulations that interfere with their religious beliefs

"Signed into law by Republican Governor Greg Gianforte on Thursday, the Montana Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires the state government to have a compelling reason to override a person’s constitutional right to freedom of religion, and mandates that any perceived violation of that right be done in the least restrictive way possible. Similar legislation has been adopted by 21 other states.

A spokesperson for Gianforte’s office said in a statement that in the past, such laws have been used to “allow Native American children to wear braids in school, Sikhs to wear turbans in the military, and Christian employers to refuse to cover abortions under their health insurance policies.”

But critics said the bill would open the door to discriminatory practices in areas such as housing and employment.

The law will allow individuals to “turn the shield of religious freedom” into “a weapon” to attack the LGBTQ and indigenous communities in Montana, Shawn Reagor, director of Equality and Economic Justice with the Montana Human Rights Network, told the Associated Press, adding that the provision goes against the spirit of the state’s “live-and-let-live” values. He said that the provision violated recent court rulings, as well as ordinances of five Montana cities and counties.

...

Still, it’s unclear how the law will actually be used in practice. One local journalist noted that Montana has a Declaration of Rights that protects from discrimination, and that some legal experts believe nothing will fundamentally change.

History also suggests that the legislation is not exclusive to Republican governments. In 1993, former President Clinton signed a similar bill into law, which allows individuals to challenge federal regulations that interfere with religious beliefs."

========

New Zealand wants to ban cigarette sales to anyone born after 2004 as part of plan to make nation ‘smoke free’ by 2025

"New Zealand is currently mulling a series of proposals aimed at eliminating smoking in the country, including a radical initiative that would prohibit the sale of tobacco to an entire generation.

Under the country’s Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 Action Plan, New Zealand hopes to gradually increase the legal smoking age and ultimately prohibit cigarette sales to anyone born after 2004. The initiative also calls for a significant reduction in the level of nicotine allowed in tobacco and places restrictions on where cigarettes can be sold. The government would also set a minimum price for all tobacco products.

As the name of the plan suggests, the goal is to phase out tobacco use in the country over the next few years, creating a “smoke free” New Zealand by 2025. The country’s Health Ministry explained that while smoking rates have declined over the past decade, “much work still needs to be done,” particularly to reduce tobacco use among “Maori, Pacific peoples and those living in our most disadvantaged communities.”

...

Associate Health Minister Ayesha Verrall said that around 4,500 New Zealanders die each year from tobacco-related ailments and that the government was committed to “accelerated progress” in its fight against smoking."

So they admit it's been dropping anyway but because these people are such fanatics they can't allow anyone to choose to smoke.

========

Philanthrocapitalists: The Pied Pipers of ‘Modern Slavery’?

"... influential governments, particularly the USA, used a loudspeaker to tell others what they should be doing. Those of us with a background in human rights had seen how an annual report issued by the US State Department on the state of human rights in countries around the world had been used since the 1980s to convey misinformation and propaganda. So, it was not a good sign that the US government once again used an annual report (the Trafficking in Persons report) to name and shame other countries, too influenced by US partisan interests to be considered objective. Like most of the anti-trafficking industry, the annual report did not pay much attention to human rights, despite claiming to be respecting human rights by tackling human trafficking.

During this first decade of the century, it was obvious that established patterns of servitude and forced labour, such as bonded labour in South Asia, descent-based slave status in the Sahel and fishing vessels operating with enslaved migrants in parts of southeast Asia and the Pacific, were continuing without police or other actors being equipped to confront them. By 2011 it was also apparent that, with the exception of the USA, governments were getting tired of spending money on anti-trafficking initiatives, many of which failed to deliver promised benefits. After becoming a trustee of the UN Voluntary Fund on contemporary forms of slavery in 2011, I was repeatedly told by government officials that they had no spare money available to contribute. They instead recommended we turn to businesses to raise cash to assist people who had been exploited and abused.

...

A major change occurred in 2012, one which can be attributed largely to a single, mega-rich Australian businessperson named Andrew Forrest. He had been convinced by an American academic, Kevin Bales, to invest tens of millions of dollars in efforts to end what was termed ‘modern slavery’....

...

In 2013 he proposed using his wealth in new ways: first, he would donate $10 million to a new Freedom Fund that would finance the anti-slavery work of civil society organisations around the world. The Freedom Fund received initial pledges of $10 million each from two other donors that were already supporting anti-slavery activities: Humanity United (with a substantial income from Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay, and his wife, Pam Omidyar, in the US) and the Legatum Foundation (with income from the New Zealand financier Christopher Chandler and the private investment Legatum Group). These initial funders have been subsequently joined by other foundations set up by successful businesses, such as the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, the Stardust Fund and the C&A Foundation (now the Laudes Foundation). When it was launched in September 2013, the Freedom Fund was given the objective of raising $100 million by 2020 and ‘measurably reducing’ modern-day slavery by 2020.

...

In practice, the results have been mixed. Forrest has, for example, used his influence in the corporate world to press business leaders to expunge forced labour from their operations and supply chains. In doing so he has further increased the pressure for action that has been building ever since the United Nations adopted its Business and Human Rights Principles in 2011.

...

By this point, the organisations under the influence of the main anti-slavery donors control such a large proportion of the resources available that they have an effective monopoly over the field. If it was clear that they knew how best to use their influence, such a monopoly might be in the interests of the people they are dedicated to protecting. But in cases such as India, where they have supported an anti-human trafficking bill – notable mainly by its intention to detain women who have been in prostitution, rather than to respect human rights – it is apparent that they can have a profoundly negative influence. At the same time, by persuading the ILO to use the term ‘modern slavery’ they have managed to infuriate the government of India, a key country to influence on account of the substantial numbers of people subjected to various forms of bondage and forced labour.

On the wider stage, the introduction of the term ‘modern slavery’ has been divisive, breaking a relative consensus around the issue of human trafficking. To many it seemed that Australia, the United Kingdom and the USA were embarking on a new crusade with the help of the ILO, a project that other organisations such as the UN Office on Drugs and Crime opposed. The UNODC had had a virtual monopoly of discussions within the UN on human trafficking, and it evidently feared that switching to the terminology of ‘slavery’ could undermine its privileged role. Perhaps many of the failings that followed would have occurred anyway: not least was the lack of coordinated responses by UN organisations to new patterns of abuse, for example the lack of resources made available to pay for the recovery and healing of Yazidi women and girls enslaved in Iraq by Da’esh (‘Islamic State’). But this shift in power and language certainly didn’t help.

The new monopoly should in theory allow lessons learned to be shared among all the organisations funded by the same donors, but the past decade has seen a marked reduction in the readiness of both international organisations and other large-scale anti-trafficking initiatives to engage in such information exchange. A decade ago it was still possible to argue that the ‘eradication of slavery’ was a global ‘common good’ and that the lessons learned on the efficacy of certain methods should be shared widely, particularly those learned from publicly financed programmes. With the advent of monopoly, this attitude has changed. Large-scale donors claim to have found the key to success, but do not feel an obligation to share it.

...

Foundations that want to stop slavery or other extreme forms of exploitation do not have to operate in such a top-down manner. Some, such as the Oak Foundation and Porticus, have a good record of supporting local activists. They have portfolios which cover a range of human rights issues and use internationally-recognised human rights as a reference point. They seem aware of the danger of investing narrowly on the single issue of ‘modern slavery’. This approach involves understanding the implications of the real world in all its glorious diversity and requires ‘made-to-fit’ solutions rather than ‘one-size-fits-all’ ones.

What is also missing as a result of the priorities adopted by the ‘new abolitionist’ donors is a focus on the role that governments should play (and have legal obligations to play), beyond merely declaring certain actions linked to human trafficking or enslavement to be crimes. Perhaps this is not surprising, as it is probably not in the personal interest of wealthy tycoons to change the structure of the world’s economy or challenge the distribution of power in societies marked by hierarchy, inequality and discrimination."

========

When Sons Become Daughters: Parents of Transitioning Boys Speak Out on Their Own Suffering

"A few months ago, I was allowed into an online group of American parents of young men who have decided that they are in fact young women. I am neither a parent, nor transgender, nor an American, and therefore a tourist: there was an understandable hesitation about letting me in. In a few cases, such parents have been harassed, as they’ve left comments online that dissent from the received wisdom on transgenderism; in all cases, they are deeply wary of rights activists. The parents are mainly, although not entirely, mothers. They and their spouses are nervous of losing their jobs, and below everything rumbles the threat that their sons might discover their communications. While most have expressed to their families their scepticism regarding their sons’ announcements, all are wary of the parent-child relationship worsening. But they did let me in, even with these fears, and took me on a whirlwind ride over the terrain of the new gender ideology.

Each week, these parents meet over Zoom. A process of vetting applies: unidentified email addresses are admitted only if someone knows of a parent waiting to join the call. This enforces a sense of camaraderie among what would otherwise be a rather disparate group. Christians and Jews mix with atheists and agnostics; single working mums of only children swap anecdotes with stay-at-home mothers with large families; Texas and Tennessee meet California and Connecticut. In these Zoom calls, parents advise and support one another, often agreeing, occasionally differing in opinion, always prizing civility and constructive conversation. They have been addressed by a variety of speakers—principally, psychotherapists critical of the new gender dogma, but also others who have rebelled against the orthodoxy of the age. Abigail Shrier—hot property since the release of her recent book, Irreversible Damage—has been among the speakers, as have psychoanalyst Lisa Marchiano, and therapists Sasha Ayad and Stella O’Malley. The parents take notes during the meetings, collating links to papers and studies as they go. They’ve spent hours researching gender identity and the medical treatments associated with transgenderism. They’re not playing around.

...

...The parents simply cannot get their sons’ therapists to deal with comorbidities: in particular, autism spectrum disorders, ADHD, and poor communicative and social skills, often coupled with an extremely high intelligence, which leaves parents unable to find schooling that can cater to their sons’ needs. In many cases, the boys have fixated on the prospect of sex reassignment, yet seem unwilling to engage in conversation about other options. When one son is confronted with some stubborn, genetic truth that he just can’t overturn, he answers that it is “mere biology” (a dismissive approach to gender dysphoria that the philosopher Kathleen Stock has discussed in some detail). And when parents ask their sons why they want to become women, the answers can be surreal. One reportedly describes testosterone as a toxin that’s destroying society; another says that he likes lesbian porn. The influence of friends, LGBT societies, and online fora is pervasive, but their sons usually treat any discussion of social contagion as heresy. Parents feel vilified. Many of the mothers and fathers have contemplated suicide.

...

...The number of boys showing up at the Tavistock Clinic rocketed from 24 in 2009 to 426 in 2016. While only 17.2 percent of parents participating in Littman’s study were parents of boys, the figures from the Tavistock Clinic suggest a proportion closer to 32 percent, hardly an insignificant minority.

This significant increase in MtF (male to female) transitions is mirrored in the wider culture, with videos and message boards bubbling up across YouTube, Reddit, and Tumblr. Many transitioners eagerly act as influencers who extend a sense of community and validation to young men struggling with pubescent feelings of inadequacy, insecurity, and isolation. In the comments sections of these sites, boys who might otherwise be overlooked find themselves showered with adulation as they profess their trans identities....

...

Putting aside general concerns about gender ideology, there are medical worries that pertain specifically to males. In particular, there’s insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy or safety of hormonal treatments prescribed to many young men in the United States. A Swedish study has pointed out the alarmingly poor outcomes for many MtF post-operative transsexuals, suggesting that surgery is far from the mental-health panacea it is often portrayed to be. Another study shows that 19.9 percent of those taking MtF hormones stopped mid-course. Compare this to the equivalent figure for FtM (female to male) hormone treatments, which is 6.6 percent. In the same study, 23 of the 117 MtF transsexuals failed to participate in the one- to four-year follow-up, almost one-fifth of the cohort. This is a figure that might well raise eyebrows: Four years is not a long amount of time to stay in touch with a research team, particularly given the highly invasive nature of the associated surgical procedures."

========

Stock Buybacks Stand in the Way of Biden’s Infrastructure Plan

"The use of stock buybacks for stock price manipulation used to be unlawful. But in 1982, enter Ronald Reagan and his Wall Street-friendly cohorts. They handed companies what Lazonick calls “a license to loot.” The ‘80s was the time when people started accepting the “Greed is Good” mentality reflected in Oliver Stone’s iconic movie, “Wall Street” – an attitude that has helped stoke many societal and economic problems, including the worst rates of inequality the country has ever seen.

Stock buybacks are as dated and ugly as neon Spandex, and should have been left behind in the go-go 80s. But instead, they are still happening everywhere and taking an increasingly alarming toll on American firms’ ability to do anything useful.

The reason this matters to Biden’s proposal is that the government can’t make things like batteries for electric cars or semiconductors out of thin air. It has to collaborate with companies that have the deep know-how and the substantial resources to develop these complicated and cutting-edge technologies.

...

California-based Intel is a hugely important company, a pioneer in chip fabrication and still one of the few firms in the world that not only designs chips, but makes them, too.

Manufacturing chips is extremely expensive, so Intel has been making huge capital investments to stay in the chip fabrication game. Unfortunately, it has gotten caught up in the stock buyback game, too, doing $39 billion in buybacks in 2018-2020, in large part to keep hedge fund activists off its back. But they came anyway, seeing Intel’s use of cash to upgrade its fabrication capabilities as a waste of money. Billionaire Daniel Loeb, head of Third Point, a New York-based hedge fund, bought about $50 billion in Intel stock on the market—0.02% of the company’s outstanding shares—and pushed Intel’s board to split off the chip manufacturing operation from its design business. This would basically be the end of Intel’s proud claim of being America’s leading integrated semiconductor maker.

Loeb is continuing to pressure Intel to do more buybacks, so, just like GE, Intel may lose its status as a world industry leader. Lazonick predicts that its fabrication business may very well end up getting bought by a Taiwanese company. And there’s no American company that can replace it.

Guess which country is not hampered by stock buybacks? That would be China. Companies like Huawei don’t do buybacks and are able to spend billions in profits on cutting-edge technology instead of making sure some guy on Wall Street can buy a superyacht."

========

Why Tulsi Gabbard Is Right for an America-First GOP

"Her entrance into the party would introduce some common sense into the fold. For instance, compare and contrast a Gabbard Republican to the Republicans of old. A George W. Bush Republican would support lower taxes for the wealthy, paying lip service to some scribblings made by economist Milton Friedman in the 1960s, while increasing corporate subsidies and defense spending to grease the palms of his corporate buddies. A Tulsi Gabbard Republican, in theory at least, would support more taxation and social spending but would end the corporate dominance of the markets and hamstring the military-industrial complex. This makes far more sense to anyone outside of the stifling bubble of Conservatism, Inc.

Gabbard’s full acceptance in the MAGA coalition would force the America Last forces within the GOP to expose themselves, as her coherent articulation of a noninterventionist foreign policy would put the neocons on the defense. While the neocons can easily plant a John Bolton or an H. R. McMaster into the Trump nexus (with horrible consequences for his America First agenda), this would never happen with Gabbard as she is unflappable on her core issues. She is emerging as a figure not seen since former Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) gained a quixotic following traversing chasms and divides that others could not.

...

Of course, for this to work, Gabbard would need to tailor her rhetoric to appeal to Republicans. There are indications she is already doing this, as evidenced by her appearances on Fox News since leaving congressional office. She appeared on the network to defend individuals who appeared at the controversial protest in Washington D.C. on January 6, calling out irresponsible Democratic propaganda meant to bring the War on Terror into the homeland. She has also slammed “cancel culture” for creating the type of repression pushed by groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. Gabbard is positioning herself to lead moderates and independents turned off by the excesses of the modern Left.

...

Republicans who pine for the great debate between capitalism and socialism, under the notion that Gen Z and Millennials are just one PragerU video away from seeing the light, are effectively dooming the conservative cause despite their best efforts. The capitalism versus socialism debate has already concluded and socialism won, not because of ignorance or propaganda but because of the abject failure of conservatism. Republicans blew whatever credibility they may have had with young people by supporting bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, trade deals facilitating the outsourcing of jobs, forever wars, and countless other terrible policies. The youth are tuning out conservatism and embracing socialism out of misguided self-interest.

Now, those of us in the Republican Party who are forward-thinking have to pick up the pieces and clean up the damage that has already been done. It is accomplished by taking the Republican Party in a populist, nationalist, America First direction...."

Thoughts on Gabbard?

========

Vaccine Refusal

"“Vaccine refusal will come at a cost — for all of us,” Edward-Isaac Dovere, a staff writer for The Atlantic, proclaims in an April 10, 2021, political commentary.Dovere predicts the economic costs of vaccine refusal will begin to feature heavily as we move forward. He quotes Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who told him, “You have a liberty right, and that unfortunately is imposing on everyone else and their liberty right not to have to pay for your stubbornness.” Not surprisingly, Dovere and Inslee both focus on just one side of what needs to be a two- if not four-sided equation.

When making public health policy, you have an obligation to analyze both the benefit and the cost of any given policy. In this case, what might be the cost of vaccine side effects, both in terms of health care costs and lives lost? As of April 1, 2021, VAERS had received 56,869 adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including 7,971 serious injuries and 2,342 deaths. By April 13, the had updated that death toll to 3,005. Unvaccinated individuals “will have higher health care costs,” he says, and the vaccinated will have to foot the bill, either through taxes or insurance premiums.

This argument could have been made for decades, and can still be made today, for any number of groups. Obese individuals have far higher health care costs than those of normal weight. Insulin resistant people and those with Type 2 diabetes end up costing the health care system enormous sums. Who pays for them?

...

The vaccines are not foolproof. In fact, so-called “breakthrough cases,” meaning cases in which a fully vaccinated individual is diagnosed with COVID-19 are to be expected. I’m not sure why anyone is surprised, seeing how the vaccine makers have acknowledged that the mRNA injections are not designed to actually make you immune to SARS-CoV-2.

You can still contract the virus and spread it to others. What the shots may do is lessen your symptoms if and when you get infected with SARS-CoV-2. So, of course people can still get sick, as they did before. Some will require hospitalization. Some will die — just like they did previously, before the vaccine.

...

In my view, the notion that COVID-19 vaccines will end this pandemic is an illogical fallacy since these shots do not provide actual immunity. The fizz in Dovere’s argument starts going flat on that basis alone. But there’s much more.

To really determine what’s best for public health, you’d also want to do the benefit and cost analysis of not vaccinating and relying on naturally-acquired immunity in combination with immune-boosting strategies instead, such as improving vitamin D levels across the entire population, for example.

Only when you have made all of those calculations — the benefit and cost of vaccinating, and the benefit and cost of not vaccinating — can you compare the two and begin to make statements about how certain groups of people may incur higher health care costs, and which strategy is likely to save the most lives. As of right now, it’s pure guesswork as to who’s going to cost more in the long run.

...

Dovere goes on to discuss some of the messaging campaigns employed to lure people out of their vaccine hesitancy:

“Two appeals seem to work best: First, the vaccines are safe, and they’re more effective than the flu vaccine. Second, you deserve this, and getting vaccinated will help preserve your liberty and encourage the government to lift restrictions."

...

Urging someone to take a vaccine to prevent an elected official — who can be unseated — from implementing unscientific and/or unconstitutional restrictions is hardly rational....

...

Even WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus commented on the report saying it “must act as a wake-up call to governments globally,” as “The correlation between obesity and mortality rates from COVID-19 is clear and compelling.”

That said, let’s get back to Dovere’s argument that unvaccinated people are bound to incur higher health care costs due to COVID-19, and therefore there must be some way to penalize those people or force them into compliance.

If you cannot fathom penalizing obesity, insulin resistance, diabetes or vitamin D deficiency — conditions known to significantly raise your risk of severe COVID-19 — then how could you possibly consider penalizing an unvaccinated person based on that single parameter alone?

...

I think it’s important to realize that the COVID-19 vaccine campaign is less about protecting public health and more about creating the infrastructure and psychological climate required for the implementation of global tyranny, which will likely begin with the introduction of vaccine passports that are very similar to the China social credit system."

========

Xenobots 2.0? Scientists create improved biological robots from frog cells capable of ‘swarm’ behavior, memory & self-healing

"Researchers have developed new and improved xenobots, tiny biological machines constructed from frog cells that are now able to organize themselves into a single body as a ‘swarm’ and even ‘remember’ their surroundings.

The upgraded bots built on work first unveiled by scientists at Tufts University and the University of Vermont last year, improving on the design to allow them to move faster, live longer and assemble themselves to work collectively as one unit, a process known as “cellular self-organization.” Outlined in an article for the Science Robotics journal on Wednesday, the breakthrough could shed light on “swarm intelligence” in the animal kingdom and beyond.

“Roboticists have been looking at swarm intelligence for a long time, biologists have been studying swarm intelligence in organisms. This is something in between, which I think is kind of interesting,” said University of Vermont researcher Josh Bongard."

We don't need these things.