Select Page ::

First Mover: Bitcoins Hit Exchanges as Bloomberg Touts Crypto and DeFi Hedge Fund Seeks $50M – CoinDesk

Posted on September 25, 2020 by Danzig

The upcoming U.S. presidential election has become one of the most contentious in history, fraught with searing divisions over everything from the economy to race to the continued health of democracy itself.

So its not surprising that Wall Street options traders are now pricing in expectations ofelevated market volatilityaround the November election. Analysts for the investment banking giant Goldman Sachsnoted earlier this monththat price swings of nearly 3% are implied around election day in the Standard & Poors 500 Index of U.S. stocks.

Whats surprising is that options trading on notoriously volatile bitcoin prices, which often trade in sync with stocks, implies a stretch of uncanny calm come November, CoinDesks Omkar Godbolereported Tuesday.

Godbole writes that ample technical factors might explain the discrepancy, from the influence of certain hedging strategies to the reality that the nascent bitcoin-options market is still quite small in relative terms, with most action concentrated in front-month contracts that expire in September.

Another possibility, according to Godbole, is that bitcoin, as a globally traded asset, might actually be less susceptible to the U.S. outcome, even though the cryptocurrency is priced in dollars. The implication could be that bitcoin decouples at that point from the U.S. market.

The U.S. elections will have relatively less impact on bitcoin compared to the U.S. equities, Richard Rosenblum, head of trading at the digital-asset firm GSR, told Godbole.

Bitcoin's expected volatility over the next few months, as implied by the options market, has been falling.

Crypto investment firm Panxora seeks $50M for new hedge fund to buy DeFi tokens

Theres been a months-long string ofastonishing developmentsandridiculous twistsin the fast growing arena of decentralized finance, or DeFi. Digital tokens with names like YAM andSUSHIhave appeared overnight, exploding in value, dominating crypto headlines and sparking serious conversations about the far-reaching potential of digital-asset markets and financial technologies.

With total collateral locked into automated, blockchain-based DeFi trading and lending platforms surging more than 20-fold this year to $13 billion as of last week, big centralized cryptocurrency exchanges like Binance, Coinbase and OKEx haverushed to list the tokensand roll out DeFi offerings to avoid missing out.

Now, one cryptocurrency money manager, Panxora, seeks toraise up to$50 million for a new hedge fundto buy digital tokens associated with the fast-growing decentralized finance (DeFi) sector.

This has got the potential to really change the way finance is carried out, Panxora CEO Gavin Smith said in an interview.

In an ironic twist, Panxoras announcement comes just as the DeFi market appears to be cooling. Just in the past week, total collateral in the systems has declined to about $9.5 billion, according to data trackerDeFi Pulse.Aave, a decentralized lender, saw its LEND tokens fall by 12% during the seven days through Tuesday, according to Messari, a cryptocurrency data firm.

Smith suggests that a correction was bound to come at some point.We expect the market to be volatile in the early years, Smith said. While there is great potential there will inevitably be setbacks along the way.

Bitcoin Watch

Change in BTC held on exchanges.

Key bitcoin (BTC) on-chain metrics have flipped bearish this week, suggesting the top cryptocurrency by market value may remain under pressure in the short-term.

On Tuesday, the net inflow of bitcoin to exchanges (measured by the total change in exchange balances) was 36,800 BTC the biggest single-day rise since the markets crash on March 13, according to data source Chainalysis.

Since Sept. 20, the net daily inflow of bitcoins to exchanges have been increasing and trade intensity has been declining, Philip Gradwell, an economist at Chainalysis, told CoinDesk.

The data point indicates a weakening market, he said.

Token Watch

Ether (ETH):Ether in parked in smart contracts rises tofour-year high.

Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC), Rens rBTC (RBTC):Supply of tokenized bitcoin on Ethereumpasses $1.1B.

TBTC (TBTC):Thesis-built protocol relaunches after bitcoin-on-Ethereum projectsuffered smart-contract bug in May.

Aavegotchi (GHST):Aave-themed game revolving around value-staked NFTs serves asmeta trip through DeFi ecosystem, Delphi Digital says.

What's Hot

Analogs

The latest on the economy and traditional finance

Tweet of the Day

Read the original:

First Mover: Bitcoins Hit Exchanges as Bloomberg Touts Crypto and DeFi Hedge Fund Seeks $50M - CoinDesk

Keiser Insists ‘Bitcoin Inversely Correlated To USD Not Stock Markets’ After Crypto Market Tumble | Markets and Prices – Bitcoin News

Posted on September 25, 2020 by Danzig

Reports that global banking giants helped criminals launder money for close to two decades helped spark the crash of global stock markets on Monday, September 21. Also tumbling in tandem with stocks were cryptocurrencies thus leading to renewed concerns that digital assets are intertwined with the global financial system. However, these concerns are dismissed by Max Keiser, a bitcoin pioneer and a Wall Street analyst who insists that bitcoin behaves differently.

Keisers latest comments about bitcoin were prompted by remarks made by one Twitter user who questions the commonly held view that cryptocurrencies are immune from the global financial system. In a tweet, the user expresses concern that each time when stock markets go down bitcoin gets pummeled. The user insists that if bitcoin is ever going to be successful it needs to break away from bankings thumb. Until then.

In his response, Keiser argues that bitcoin, like gold, is inversely correlated to the $USD *not* the stock market. In a warning to bitcoiners, Keiser says dont be fooled by randomness.

Just like Keiser, many bitcoin supporters are adamant that the top cryptocurrency follows a different path to that of company stocks. They point to the movement of the crypto shortly after crashing by 40% on March 12, the so-called black Thursday. At the time of the crash, global markets were also in the red yet it is bitcoin which appears to have recovered and grown at a much faster pace than stocks.

To illustrate, an observation of data available on Markets.bitcoin.com shows that bitcoin nearly doubled in value between March and September 2020. Specifically, on March 21, bitcoin, which dominates the crypto market, traded at $5,792. Yet by end of day on September 21, the leading digital asset traded at $10,499.

In comparison, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the widely-watched benchmark index in the U.S. for blue-chip stocks, closed March 20 at 19,173 points. However, exactly six months later, the index closed the day on September 21 at 27,147 points, representing growth of 41.5% from March.

It is seemingly this data that convinces some bitcoiners that the cryptocurrency has an inverse relationship with fiat currencies like the USD.

What do you think of Keisers assertions about bitcoins relationship with the USD? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons, Stacy Herbert / CC BY 2.0

See original here:

Keiser Insists 'Bitcoin Inversely Correlated To USD Not Stock Markets' After Crypto Market Tumble | Markets and Prices - Bitcoin News

Profit taking Bitcoin miners wont stop the next bull run: On-chain analyst – Cointelegraph

Posted on September 25, 2020 by Danzig

Historical data shows that some miners began to sell Bitcoin (BTC) at the end of July, leading to increased selling pressure in the cryptocurrency market.

Eventually, the dominant cryptocurrency fell steeply from mid-August, recording a 13% fall and since then BTC has struggled to retake the $12K mark.

Bitcoin selling by miners from 2017-2020. Source: CryptoQuant

According to CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju, continued selling by miners might not be enough to prevent a bull run. On-chain data analysis firms closely observe the movements of miners and whales because they hold significant amounts of BTC.

Willy Woo, an on-chain analyst, explained that miners represent one of the two external sources of selling pressure for Bitcoin. He previously said:

Theres only two unmatched sell pressures on the market. (1) Miners who dilute the supply and sell onto the market, this is the hidden tax via monetary inflation. And (2) the exchanges who tax the traders and sell onto the market.

When miners start selling their Bitcoin holdings, typically to cover expenses, it could trigger a correction in the cryptocurrency market.

For instance, From Aug. 17 to Sept. 5, the price of Bitcoin dropped from $12,486 to $9,813. During that time, several whales sold Bitcoin right at $12,000 and the same behaviour was observed amongst miners.

The selling pressure coming from miners and whales noticeably has been attributed to the current crypto market slump but in the longer term, Ki explained it is not enough to stop a prolonged bull run.

If miners abruptly sell a significant amount of BTC, it could cause a severe correction as a small price movement could trigger liquidations from heavily-leveraged traders. Hence, even a relatively small sell-off by miners could theoretically cause massive price swings.

Ki says the intensity of the sell-off from miners was not strong enough to halt future bull runs. He said:

Miner Update: Some miners began selling at the end of July, but I think in the long-run, miners didn't sell BTC large enough to stop the next bull-run.

According to ByteTree, the net inventory of Bitcoin miners declined by 125 BTC per week in the last 12 weeks. The data indicates that miners sold approximately $1.362 million BTC per week week atop the BTC that they mined and sold.

Amount of BTC mined and sold in the last 12 weeks. Source: ByteTree

As Ki emphasized, the data shows that miners sold substantial amounts of BTC, but not in amounts that were irregular to normal behaviour.

Bitcoin is still hovering above the critical $10,000 technical support level despite multiple attempts by bears to drop the price below the key level.

The resilience of Bitcoin amidst a heightened level of selling pressure suggests a cautiously bullish trend in the long term.

The Bitcoin short-term holder NUPL. Source: Glassnode

Several on-chain metrics also indicate that now is a healthy accumulation phase for Bitcoin. Rafael Schultze-Kraft, the CTO at Glassnode, said:

Short-Term Holder Net Unrealized Profit/Loss (STH-NUPL) with a #bullish signal here imo. That bounce of the 0-line was important, is very characteristic for previous bull markets, and historically a good buying opportunity.

Here is the original post:

Profit taking Bitcoin miners wont stop the next bull run: On-chain analyst - Cointelegraph

Christies to sell its first non-fungible-token as part of epic Bitcoin artwork – Cointelegraph

Posted on September 25, 2020 by Danzig

Christies is set to sell its first nonfungible token in an upcoming auction of what has been characterized as the largest artwork in the history of Bitcoin (BTC).

Art historian turned blockchain artist Benjamin Gentilli, as part of the Robert Alice art collective, has created "Portrait of a Mind" a monumental series of 40 paintings stretching over 50 meters in length.

Drawing on the history of 20th century conceptualism as well as the founding myth of Bitcoins creation, "Portrait of a Mind" is a complete hand-painted transcription of the 12.3 million digits of the code that launched the cryptocurrency.

By scattering the codebase into 40 globally distributed fragments, the project will draw up a global network of 40 collectors where no one individual will hold all the code, Gentillisaid. He explained:

In each work, an algorithm has found a set of hex digits that together are highlighted in gold. These read a set of coordinates that are unique to each painting. 40 locations across 40 paintings - each location is of particular significance to the history of Bitcoin.

Speaking to Cointelegraph, Gentillisaid he remains curious as to why much of the commemoration of Bitcoin emphasizes the publication of the whitepaper over and above the codebase itself, which, for him, is the real historical document.

Christies will sell one painting from the series, Block 21 (42.36433 N, -71.26189 E), as part of its Post-War and Contemporary Day Auction on Oct. 7, at the end of a week-long exhibition of auctioned works in New York.

The piece includes a unique fungible token as an integral part of the work and will be offered at an estimated price of $1218,000.

Early collectors of paintings from "Portrait of a Mind" include Binance founder Changpeng Zhao and Bloq chairman Matthew Rozsak. Gentillihas said that by showcasing and selling an NFT at Christies, he hoped to spur other contemporary artists to take a look at the NFT space.

Aside from the creative inspiration artists can draw from cryptocurrencies complex cultural, technical and politically dynamic history, NFTs can also give artists more control and a better stake in their practice over the long term, he said.

Just last week, Cointelegraph reported on the auction of a digital art piece based upon Bitcoin's fluctuating price action, which sold for over $100,000. Like Portrait of a Mind, the artwork integrated an NFT to vest its collector with tokenized ownership rights.

Link:

Christies to sell its first non-fungible-token as part of epic Bitcoin artwork - Cointelegraph

The Winklevosses have launched their bitcoin exchange in the UK – Wired.co.uk

Posted on September 25, 2020 by Danzig

Gemini, one of the worlds largest cryptocurrency exchanges, has launched in the UK and plans to cash in on the boom in lockdown bitcoin investments. Plans to grow the companys operations have moved forward despite the exit of European head Julian Sawyer, who joined the company from his role as co-founder of Starling Bank in December 2019.

The New York-headquartered exchange was founded by the Winklevoss twins, best-known for their legal dispute with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg that was dramatised in the film The Social Network. Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss invested part of their $65 million Facebook settlement into bitcoin (at one point they owned one per cent of the currency), and when its value rose sharply in 2017 they became billionaires.

The exchange has already filed for a licence to operate in Ireland, which will be used as backup if Brexit does not allow it to operate in Europe. The twins have also touted setting up an engineering outpost in the UK.

Geminis UK launch comes as bitcoins rate fluctuates at around $10,000, half of what it was at its height in 2017. The currency was buoyed by investors during the pandemic this summer, reaching above $12,000 in August and trebling in value since March. However, Tyler Winklevoss claims that the interest in crypto is higher than ever. The pandemic caused dyed in the wool Wall Streeters that would be the greatest sceptics you could imagine of bitcoin and cryptocurrency to take a position in bitcoin because they're really worried about the prospects of what the money printing means for the US dollar, he says.

He argues that the idea of earning interest on your money at your bank is no longer possible, and may not be for many years. Bitcoin has a fixed supply, it's very much like gold, but actually, we believe it's gold 2.0 and it provides an opportunity to hedge itself against oncoming inflation, he explains. Tyler Winklevoss has previously predicted that bitcoin could overtake gold as the worlds largest safe-haven asset.

The idea that bitcoin was completely uncorrelated with the rest of the market and could potentially act as a safe haven during times of economic turmoil gained popularity in 2019. But experts have questioned this approach, claiming that bitcoin is a hedge against inflation and loss of confidence in fiat currencies (such as the pound, the dollar or the Euro), not a hedge against a typical recession.

But Winklevoss believes that peoples interest in investing in cryptocurrency, which was buoyed by individuals during the pandemic, will continue. This is far from a flash in the pan, there's been a lot of staying power for bitcoin, he says. You're comparing a zero negative interest rate, basically a completely stagnant situation on one hand, to a gold rush on the other hand. That's not hypothetical, it's actually happening right now.

Geminis ambitions have been hampered by regulators skepticism that the market for the cryptocurrency is sufficiently free of abuse to bring trading to the masses. In 2018, bitcoin fell after the Securities and Exchange Commission rejected Gemini's request to list an exchange traded fund, saying that it was not convinced that the currency has adequate surveillance to protect it against market manipulation. Another crypto trader, Wilshire Phoenix, was rejected on the same grounds earlier this year.

In the UK, it was the second cryptocurrency exchange to be added to the Financial Conduct Authoritys register, a requirement of new anti-money laundering measures to better control the activity in the sector. It has been granted an Electronic Money Institution license by the FCA, allowing it to offer cryptocurrency exchanges and custody services to individuals and institutions.

Gemini has made a string of high-profile hires over the past 18 months to expand its exchange and custody business, however, bringing in executives from the New York Stock Exchange and the International Securities Exchange.

Sawyer had been hired to spearhead the companys efforts to expand outside America. Following his exit, Geminis European expansion is now being led by head of international business Michael Breu, and chief compliance officer for Europe Blair Halliday, alongside management from the US.

Natasha Bernal is WIRED's business editor. She tweets from @TashaBernal

TikTok was conquering the world. But Trumps battle heralds the ugly birth of a new splinternet

We now know everything about the next-gen consoles. So which should is better the PS5 or Xbox Series X?

Why Netflix keeps cancelling your favourite shows after two seasons

Listen to The WIRED Podcast, the week in science, technology and culture, delivered every Friday

Follow WIRED on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn

Get WIRED Daily, your no-nonsense briefing on all the biggest stories in technology, business and science. In your inbox every weekday at 12pm UK time.

by entering your email address, you agree to our privacy policy

Thank You. You have successfully subscribed to our newsletter. You will hear from us shortly.

Sorry, you have entered an invalid email. Please refresh and try again.

Bitcoin-related ads are now streaming on Disney+ in some regions thanks to Zebpay – Cointelegraph

Posted on September 25, 2020 by Danzig

Crypto exchange Zebpay has launched a campaign with ads featuring Bitcoin during the Indian Premier League cricket games.

As reported by Twitter user Mohit Rai Sharma, ads for Zebpay appeared on Indian streaming platform Disney+ Hotstar during a series of cricket matches starting Sept. 19. Learn about simple, secure Bitcoin, the ads stated, directing viewers to pay just over $1 to start using the exchange.

Sharma stated that the ads represented a historic moment for crypto in India. More than 462 million people watched the Indian Premier League games in 2019, with roughly 300 million tuning in using the Hotstar platform.

Zebpay reopened in the country in January, shortly before the Reserve Bank of India lifted a two-year ban that had prevented financial institutions from providing banking services to crypto firms. The exchanges current campaign follows a Sept. 15 report from Bloomberg stating the Indian federal cabinet is now considering legislative action to once again ban crypto.

According to a Sept. 22 report from the Press Trust of India, the countrys parliament originally scheduled to be in session until Oct. 1 will likely adjourn eight days early, on Sept. 23. This is apparently due to several members testing positive for COVID-19. India recently passed Brazil to become the country with the second-highest number of coronavirus cases; roughly 5.6 million as of press time.

Tanvi Ratna, CEO of blockchain advisory firm Policy 4.0, stated that no crypto ban legislation has appeared in the list of bills to address while the government body is in session.

The exchange has continued expanding in the face of regulatory uncertainty. In May, Zebpay announced it had commissioned blockchain forensics firm Chainalysis to monitor transactions executed across its platforms in India.

Go here to read the rest:

Cryptocurrency ETF by Nasdaq and Hashdex Approved to List on Bermuda Stock Exchange | Regulation – Bitcoin News

Posted on September 25, 2020 by Danzig

A cryptocurrency exchange-traded fund (ETF) by Nasdaq and Brazilian fund manager Hashdex has reportedly been approved to trade on the Bermuda Stock Exchange. Hashdex says the new cryptocurrency investment product tracks the Nasdaq Crypto Index.

Brazilian fund manager Hashdex confirmed to news.Bitcoin.com on Tuesday that the company is launching a cryptocurrency ETF, co-developed with Nasdaq. A Hashdex spokesperson said that the ETF has been approved by the Bermuda Stock Exchange (BSX), elaborating:

The ETF will be available for public trading on BSX once the Nasdaq Crypto Index [NCI] is officially launched.

As for the launch date, We cant confirm any dates at this moment. However, it shouldnt take long. We need the NCI launch first, the spokesperson emphasized, adding that Nasdaq will reveal more details about the index methodology once it is launched as well. At press time, little information has been revealed about this new investment product.

The BSX exchange also independently announced Friday the admission of Hashdex Nasdaq Crypto Index ETF Class E Shares to its official listing. The method of listing, however, is private placement, with Hashdex Nasdaq Crypto Index ETF as the issuer.

According to its listing page on the BSX website, Hashdex Nasdaq Crypto Index ETFs investment objective is to provide investment results that minimize the tracking difference of the performance of the Nasdaq Crypto Index on a 12-month window. The index is being co-developed by Hashdex and Nasdaq Inc. The latter will administer and maintain the index on an ongoing basis.

The spokesperson further clarified to news.Bitcoin.com that the upcoming ETF will not be available to American investors, therefore it does not require the approval of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Currently, the U.S. SEC has not approved any bitcoin or cryptocurrency ETF. All proposed rule changes to list and trade bitcoin ETFs have been rejected so far. There are, however, several private investment products, such as Grayscale Investments GBTC.

According to its website, the Bermuda Stock Exchange, founded in 1971, is recognized by the U.S. SEC as a Designated Offshore Securities Market under Regulation S; The Financial Services Authority in the U.K. as a Designated Investment Exchange; HM Revenue & Customs in the U.K. as a Recognized Stock Exchange; The Bermuda Monetary Authority as a Recognised Investment Exchange; and as an Approved Stock Exchange under Australias Foreign Investment Funds taxation rules.

What do you think about this crypto investment product? Let us know in the comments section below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

Read the original post:

Cryptocurrency ETF by Nasdaq and Hashdex Approved to List on Bermuda Stock Exchange | Regulation - Bitcoin News

XSwap Started Yield Farming, The Highest APY Reaches 70,000% | Press release – Bitcoin News

Posted on September 25, 2020 by Danzig

XSwap, a main products of Xfinance ecosystem, has launched Uniswap LP token liquidity mining. This is a fair version, 100% distributed to the community, with No team shares, No Pre-mine. Governed by the Xfinance community.

In just a few hours, the funds in the pool are above to 5000ETH. The highest APY reaches 70,000%!

XSwap dapp link: https://xswap.app

How to participate in XSwap Uniswap liquidity mining?

Choose your favorite pair and add liquidity on Uniswap, then approve and deposit UNI-LP token on XSwap.

In the first 100,000 blocks, each block will provide 10,000 XSP rewards, after 100,000 blocks, each block will be reduced to 1,000 XSP rewards.

The maximum supply of XSP is 3,000,000,000 XSP.

Reward ratio of each pool:

XSP-ETH: 40x; XFI-XSP: 12x;

XFI-ETH: 12x; XFI-LID: 7x;

UNI-ETH: 3x; LID-ETH 3x;

Others: 1x;

XSP token contract address

0x9b06D48E0529ecF05905fF52DD426ebEc0EA3011

Buy XFI:

https://uniswap.info/token/0x5befbb272290dd5b8521d4a938f6c4757742c430

Buy XSP:

https://uniswap.info/token/0x9b06d48e0529ecf05905ff52dd426ebec0ea3011

What are the XSwap development goals?

XSwap will become the most important product in the Xfinance ecosystem, that is, decentralized automatic market-making leveraged exchange. XSwap Staker will receive a 0.05% transaction fee, the liquidity provider will receive a 0.20% transaction fee, and the 0.05% transaction fee will be used to buy back and burn XSP.

XFI will become the governance token in the Xfinance ecosystem and will also have deflationary characteristics. The better the Xfinance ecosystem develops, the greater the value of XFI.

Xfinance community

Twitter: https://twitter.com/xfinance_io

Telegram: https://t.me/nowex_io

This is a press release. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the promoted company or any of its affiliates or services. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in the press release.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Original post:

XSwap Started Yield Farming, The Highest APY Reaches 70,000% | Press release - Bitcoin News

Caldern says he didn’t say the war on drugs can’t be won – Somag News

Posted on September 25, 2020 by Danzig

Felipe Caldern, former president of Mexico, clarified that he never said, nor has he argued that the war against drug trafficking was impossible to win. The foregoing, after a publication by Vice News, where it was assured that Caldern had made such an affirmation to the then British Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, apparently on a visit by him to Mexico City in March 2011.

I just dont even agree on the terms and concepts behind such a statement. That said, I have always made reference to a comprehensive security strategy with three elements: the decision to confront criminal organizations, the construction of reliable and effective security and justice institutions, as well as the reconstruction of the social fabric, Caldern said in a letter.

Although I have spoken out for contemplating alternatives to the punitive approach, I have not openly proposed legalization because I am not sure about it. It is necessary to act responsibly, which is why, first, studies must be carried out on its social and economic consequences, some of which can be disastrous for societies.

Let us remember that during Felipe Calderns six-year term, a strategy against organized crime was launched, which included the Army, known as the war against drug trafficking, and that it has been criticized for the number of deaths and disappearances it caused .

The clarification of Caldern, who ruled Mexico from 2006 to 2012, comes after Nick Clegg allegedly revealed fragments of his talk with the former president and accused how he accepted that the war would never be won unless progress was made towards a regulation of drugs in the world.

View post:

Caldern says he didn't say the war on drugs can't be won - Somag News

Exclusive: President Behind Mexicos War on Drugs Admitted It Was Unwinnable – VICE

Posted on September 25, 2020 by Danzig

Forensic personnel work in the exhumation of human remains found in Guerrero state, Mexico in January 2019. Photo: Getty Images / PEDRO PARDO / AFP

At the height of Mexicos deadly war on drug cartels, its chief architect privately admitted it was unwinnable and that legalising drugs was the only way out, VICE News has learned.

That architect is Felipe Caldern, Mexicos former president. Caldern was unrepentant in his final state of the union address in 2012, proclaiming that Mexico had started along the path toward a life full of liberty and security. Caldern has staunchly defended the militarised war on drugs, also saying in 2018 that he had no regrets.

But in private comments to then Deputy British Prime Minister Nick Clegg in 2011 which have gone unreported until now he appeared to contradict his outward stance.

Caldern had made his whole name in Mexican politics as 'I'm going to win the war on drugs', Clegg, now Facebooks top PR official and also a representative for the Global Commission for Drug Policy, told VICE News.

He said to me, 'Do you think there will ever be the regulated sale of drugs in Britain or America? Because I've come to the view' and I remember he said it with such pathos 'That we've spent years trying to wage this war on drugs that it is unwinnable. You will never win unless you can squeeze out criminality by moving towards the regulation of drugs'.

Calderns apparent acknowledgement of the futility of the war on drugs even while he was waging it full throttle will raise serious questions over the moral legitimacy of the militarised campaign in Mexico, which has given rise to the most violent period in the country's history.

As soon as he took power, he dispatched the military throughout the country to attack cartels a policy that led to spiralling deaths and seemingly scant benefits with an estimated 275,000 people killed since 2007.

More than 73,000 people remain missing and feared dead since the declaration of the war on drugs, with 39,000 unidentified bodies in the countrys morgues.

In a statement issued this week to VICE News, Caldern did not deny the conversation had taken place but claimed he never said the war on drugs was unwinnable. He said he had long raised the possibility of legalisation as a solution to issues around drug-related violence, but was never convinced of its merits.

Mexicos current President Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador (AMLO) has pulled back on Calderns all-out war on the cartels, which had continued under his successor Enrique Pea Nieto. Yet the cartels have only grown in strength, and violent killings have reached record levels. More than 31,000 people were murdered last year.

Despite declarations from AMLO that the war on drugs is over, Mexicos security forces are continuing to go after drug trafficking bosses.

Clegg, who lobbied for a more liberal UK drug policy while in government, said his conversation with Caldern on the morning of the 29th of March 2011 in Mexico City convinced him that legalising drugs is the only sensible response to growing global demand.

British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg talks with Mexican President Felipe Calderon before a press conference in Mexico City in March 2011. Photo: Getty Images / Alfredo Estrella / AFP

[It] made a huge impression on me, said Clegg. It really hit me between the eyes. There was someone who had really lived the war on drugs, and was really reduced to a view that this was just never ever ever going to be won.

However, in the press conference following the pairs meeting, the former Liberal Democrat MP said he admired Caldern and hailed the bravery that [he and his] government have shown in fighting against organised crime and drug trafficking.

Caldern told VICE News that alternatives to prohibition including regulation or market-driven solutions should not be discounted as methods to end the violence around the production, distribution, and consumption of drugs.

Although I have said that we should contemplate alternatives to penal and legal solutions, I haven't proposed legalisation openly because I'm not sure about it, he said. It's necessary to act responsibly, which means that there should be studies beforehand, around the social and economic consequences, some of which could be disastrous for societies.

In 2018, Caldern told VICE News that he first deployed the army in 2006 after a request from a state governor who said he had lost control.

We got very good results at the beginning, he said, adding: Honestly, I think nobody expected that the violence could reach those levels. However, I insist, I'm absolutely clear that violence started because of the fight to control territory between the organised crime groups, between the cartels, not because of the action of the government.

Questioned about how Mexican military action led the narco gangs to fragment without appearing to impact the overall ability of criminals to traffic drugs, Caldern said in 2018: Of course there will be some rearrangements or instability or whatever, but the end of the game is exactly when you take over completely or recover completely the control for the citizens.

He also blamed Americas gun laws: The US government, Congress, and society honestly did not do anything to stop the flow of money, to stop the flow of weapons. Actually, the paradox is we seize like 106,000 guns and weapons, and 90 percent of them were sold legally in the US.

In 2009, following Calderons own proposals, new laws to decriminalise personal possession of small quantities of some drugs were passed suggesting he accepted the inevitability of drug use after previous plans were scrapped due to US opposition.

In 2016, a special session of the United Nations was convened after a joint request in 2012 from Caldern's Mexico, as well as heads of state in Guatemala and Colombia whose then president Juan Manuel Santos led the efforts to discuss radically overhauling the UN's prohibitionist approach to drugs. However, the session left reformers disappointed, as no significant changes to the global drug control regime were passed.

Excerpt from:

Exclusive: President Behind Mexicos War on Drugs Admitted It Was Unwinnable - VICE

The war on drugs complicity in the death of Breonna Drug WarRant – Drug WarRant

Posted on September 25, 2020 by Danzig

Jacob Sullum does a great job of detailing the horrendous state of our criminal justice system that essentially encourages fatal confrontations.

The Legal Response to Breonna Taylors Death Shows How Drug Prohibition Transforms Murder Into Self-Defense

State prosecutors concluded that the two other officers were justified in returning fire after Taylors boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, shot one of them in the leg. Yet local prosecutors decided not to pursue an attempted murder charge against Walker.

Those seemingly contradictory decisions reflect Kentuckys standards for self-defense, which make it possible that Walker and the cops were both legally justified in using deadly force. But that puzzling situation also has to be understood in the context of the war on drugs, which frequently involves armed home invasions that invite potentially deadly confusion. That unjustified violence is the root of the problem highlighted by Taylors senseless death and the unsatisfying legal response to it.

Read the original post:

The war on drugs complicity in the death of Breonna Drug WarRant - Drug WarRant

The War on Fire – Stanford Review

Posted on September 25, 2020 by Danzig

Of the great lessons from the last 50 years of U.S. history, we should have learned by now that declaring war against an abstract noun is a terrible idea. Whether in The War on Drugs, The War on Poverty, or The War on Terror, the noun always wins.

So naturally, politicians in California have spent the last century waging another awful policy war: The War on Fire, in which they tried to end the natural cycle of fire in California by putting out fires.

The result? Well, more fire. A lot more.

Fire suppression leads to a buildup in dry fuel on the ground. Without human intervention, wildfire would burn this dry fuel in Californias forests and chaparral biomes. That keeps the ecosystem healthy. Wildfire is as much a part of nature in California as are the Sierra-Nevada mountains or the Pacific Coast. In prehistoric times, millions of acres burned each year.

Today, California burns only a fraction of the land needed to reduce wildfire risk to a tolerable level, sometimes as few as ten-thousand acres per year. The deficit has turned entire swathes of the California wilderness into a ticking time bomb.

This year, the bomb went off. California leaders and national news media have mostly blamed the crisis on climate change, an important issue that politicians are using as a scapegoat.

Hotter and drier conditions around the world, worsening from climate change, are a major problem. If we do nothing, it will mean more -- and worse -- wildfires.

But to claim that a modest temperature increase from climate change is the principal cause of the fires burning today is absolutely wrong.

California is on fire precisely because of its War on Fire. It is a war that ignores science and history, and were all paying the price.

Indigenous peoples were burning the forests of California long before Europeans arrived, to promote ecological diversity and support human habitation. Only in the 20th century did fire fall out of favor in the American West, when coastal Californians began to move into the wilderness.

The movers built wooden houses in forests that would normally be burned in wildfire every few decades. They brought new power and gas lines. They also brought an army of bureaucrats and legislators, ready to suppress any and all fire near their new communities, even as they massively increased fire risk.

The War on Fires bureaucrats wrote burdensome regulations and laws hindering burns on state land. They established air quality boards and onerous approval processes to prevent people from burning on their own land.

The rationale of the war was straightforward and empathetic: fire is bad -- it destroys homes and kills people. To protect property and life is a noble goal, but The War on Fire has completely and predictably failed to stop the fires that actually matter: the big ones. When we extinguish all the small fires which are not destructive, we substantially increase the risk of large fires which are.

Fallen power lines, lightning, and a few gender-reveal parties gone wrong set off massive, deadly, and destructive fires this summer. Due to similar incidents in 2018, California has seen record wildfires multiple years in a row.

So, I suggest that California policymakers carrying the banner of Science ought to listen to some actual science. Heres what we can do to start:

Unfortunately, these scientific solutions have not caught the attention of Gavin Newsom or anybody else with the power to implement them. He and other leaders are far more focused on hand-waving about the climate. Worldwide decarbonization is an excellent goal. But California is on fire right now, and we need serious proposals from policymakers.

Lets check in with Gavin and see what his plan is

Thats right. VOTE.

Hey, Governor Hairgel! California already voted for you!

Gavin Newsom governs California with a Democratic supermajority. He can implement whatever policies he and his party want. They have controlled policymaking in the Golden State for nearly a quarter century, and vote for us again! is the best they can come up with?

They have the scientific studies. They have the recommendations of their own commissions. Their citizens cannot breathe outside. They do nothing.

Its time to wake up and smell the wildfire. A century of policy failure has turned California into an orange hellscape and state leaders cant do anything but blame others. Governor Newsom and the rest of Sacramento ought to stop with the excuses and get to work -- or step aside for people who will!

Read the original here:

The War on Fire - Stanford Review

Breonna Taylor Riots and More Irresponsible Rhetoric | William J. Watkins, Jr. – The Beacon

Posted on September 25, 2020 by Danzig

William J. Watkins, Jr. Thursday September 24, 2020 11:41 AM PDT

Two police officers have been shot in Louisville as mobs ransacked local businesses. The mob did not get the murder charge they wanted and now are taking things into their own hands. Unfortunately, even organizations such as the NAACP are continuing to allege that Taylor was murdered by the police. They will not accept a reckless endangerment charge for just one officer.

What happened to Taylor was a tragedy, and one can make compelling arguments about the high cost of the war on drugs in America. But the Taylor situation is a poor example of alleged systematic racism and police brutality. Lets get the facts straight.

Local officers were investigating Jamarcus Glover on charges of drug dealing. He was Taylors ex-boyfriend and they still had some sort of relationship. Taylor allowed Glover to receive mail at her apartment and he continued to frequent the apartment before traveling back to his drug-dealing headquarters. Officers obtained a search warrant for Taylors apartment and other locations associated with Glover. The warrant was approved by a magistrate as required by law. Much has been made that this was a no knock warrant, but evidence shows that the police did knock and announce before entering the apartment. Unbeknownst to police, Taylor had a new boyfriend with her. The boyfriend was armed. The boyfriend fired the first shot and hit a police officer. The police returned fire. The shots killed Taylor. No drugs or drug-trafficking evidence was found at the apartment.

Again, her death is a tragedy. But it was not murder. Murder is typically defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Here, police were where they were allowed to be, conducting an investigation, executing a search warrant, and were fired upon by the boyfriend. There was no malice in their actions directed toward Taylor. The one officer who was charged had retreated, taken cover, and fired blindly into the apartment. His reckless shots did not hit Taylor. He was charged with wanton endangerment because his actions manifested extreme indifference to the value of human life. This seems appropriate.

Due process was followed in this case. In Kentucky, prosecutors submit evidence to a 12-person grand jury. Nine of the 12 must determine whether there is probable cause for an indictment to go forward. Probable cause means that the accused most likely committed the crime. Probable cause is not a high standard. If prosecutors cannot get a true bill indictment when presenting witnesses in the grand jury with no defense lawyer objecting or cross-examining the witnesses, then the case must be seen for it is: weak and wanting. Thats what the demanded murder charge was in this case. The law simply did not support it.

We can lament the loss of Taylors life, but it is reckless to continue to claim she was murdered and a victim of some sort of invisible hand of oppression in America. People who continue to press this narrative are causing more innocents to be harmed, property to be destroyed, and our country to be ripped apart by strife. They need to stop.

Go here to see the original:

Breonna Taylor Riots and More Irresponsible Rhetoric | William J. Watkins, Jr. - The Beacon

Colombia: spying on reporters shows army unable to shake habits of dirty war – The Guardian

Posted on September 25, 2020 by Danzig

Mara Alejandra Villamizar has had a front row seat of Colombias civil conflict. Over a 25-year career, she has reported from rebel-held jungles to territories controlled by violent drug cartels. She also worked as an adviser to several presidents during successive attempts to make peace.

But she recently discovered that her work had put her in the crosshairs of the military.

An investigation by the local news weekly Semana found that the Colombian army gathered intelligence on Villamizar and more than 130 of her colleagues including at least three US reporters.

Soldiers had trawled through information on social media in order to build profiles on each target, with comprehensive lists of their contacts, families and friends. Their political leanings were deduced from their posts and connections, and logged in a database.

The scandal revealed that despite a peace deal which led to the demobilization of the countrys largest rebel group, Colombias US-backed military are still unable to shake habits from a dirty war in which the rules that usually bind a democracys armed forces are non-binding and journalists and opposition members are considered fair targets.

What this shows is that the army has never known how to fight a clean war, said Villamizar said. They dont know how to stand on the side of civilians, or even what their role is in Colombia.

In recent weeks, the countrys military has come under further pressure amid demonstrations against the police force (which is overseen by the defense ministry). Thirteen civilians have been killed amid protests against police brutality during which three reporters were assaulted by officers.

Journalists have long been targeted in Colombia, and accused of collaborating with the leftist rebels of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc). That group signed a peace deal with the government in 2016, formally ending five decades of civil war that killed 260,000 people and forced over 7 million to flee their homes.

But violence still rages as dissident guerrilla factions and rightwing paramilitaries battle for territory once held by Farc. And as before, reporters in the most dangerous regions are still routinely surveilled and threatened by armed factions including the army.

As a journalist and a citizen its deeply upsetting to say, but we are a long way from being able to talk about post-conflict, Villamizar said.

Colombias army is no stranger to scandal. Between 2002 and 2008, soldiers abducted and murdered thousands of civilians, declaring them rebel combatants in order to boost kill statistics and justify US military aid.

Unauthorized surveillance scandals are a recurring theme. In 2011, the countrys entire national intelligence agency, the administrative department of security (DAS), was dismantled after it was found to have wiretapped reporters, opposition politicians and human rights defenders.

Some DAS units had received US aid, but Washington has long had much closer ties to Colombias military, a key partner in the war on drugs. Between 2000 and 2015, Bogot received $9.94bn in US aid, with 71% designated for security assistance. Since 2016, over $850m has been sent to support Colombias security forces money which in theory is conditional on good behaviour.

But US citizens were also caught up in the latest scandal: army analysts gathered intelligence on three US journalists, Nicholas Casey of the New York Times, Juan Forero of the Wall Street Journal, and John Otis of NPR.

Its clear that the army, after all these years, still sees the press as an enemy of the establishment said Jonathan Bock, deputy director of Colombias Press Freedom Foundation (or FLIP).

Jos Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch, said he suspected Colombias army has been emboldened to target US citizens by the White Houses constant attacks against the press.

Every time Trump attacks journalists or calls for excessive use of force against protesters, abusive leaders and military officials in the Americas feel they have a green light to engage in serious violations of human rights, he said.

Colombias prosecutor general has said the spying cases would be included in an existing investigation into military wrongdoing. Senior commanders laid the blame on a few bad apples and fired 11 soldiers, including five colonels, three majors and a general. A second general offered his resignation.

But many analysts are skeptical that the investigations will pinpoint the officers or politicians who ordered the spying.

Nobody who knows anything about Colombia has any reason to be confident that the intellectual authors will be held accountable, said Adam Isacson, at the Washington Office on Latin America, a think tank.

Gerald Bermdez, a photojournalist from Bogot, was unsurprised that he and his colleagues had been targeted. Colombia is not the democracy it pretends to be, Bermdez said. But no-one can stop me from reporting: its my job and my life.

Read the rest here:

Colombia: spying on reporters shows army unable to shake habits of dirty war - The Guardian

Politically-incorrect language can seem sincere, but only if youre saying what the audience wants to hear – ZME Science

Posted on September 23, 2020 by Danzig

Everyone prefers politically correct language sometimes, a new study reports. Where we differ is who we use it with, and how we perceive it in regards to the groups its being applied to.

The concept of political correctness doesnt get a lot of love in the online environment, so much so that its often pointed at to imply a lack of authenticity of those who use it. But its also a very divisive term; what others would see as dishonesty and sweet-talking, I would often just chalk up to being nice in conversation.

But a new study shows that, in fact, were all inclined to use politically correct language, we just apply it to different people. We tend to see it as compassionate when its applied to groups we support or care for, and as disingenuous when its addressed to other groups. Overall, however, we all tend to view people who use politically correct language as warmer, but less authentic and thus less likely to hold true to a particular view or idea.

Such language is often used in a (genuine or disingenuous) attempt to appear more sensitive to the feelings of other people, especially those perceived to be socially disadvantaged. One example would be saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas in the understanding that not everyone holds to Christian or religious beliefs.

On paper, it all sounds great I think all of us here agree that being considerate of others is a good thing. In practice, as you may know from discussions on various social media groups, the term is thrown about as a shorthand for censorship or socially-sanctioned limitations on free speech.

So theres obviously a disconnect, but where? The team carried out a series of experiments totalling roughly 5,000 participants to examine this issue, reporting that, in broad lines, such language can make us seem less sincere by making our speech seem more strategic and calculated.

The first experiment asked participants to review a written speech and imagine a senator delivering it to an audience. Half the participants received a speech revolving around transgender policy, and the others around immigration policy (the topics were selected from particularly polarizing topics in American public discourse on purpose). Each speech used either politically correct (Of course I believe that LGBTQ persons are among the most vulnerable members of our society and we must do everything in our power to protect them) or incorrect (These people who call themselves LGBTQ are often profoundly disturbed and confused about their gender identity) language.

All in all, participants who read speeches using politically correct language tended to rate the senators as warmer, but less authentic. The results were consistent between all participants, regardless of their self-reported like or dislike of such language.

For the second experiment, the participants were asked to read a short biography of either Congressman Steve King, Senator Jim Inhofe, or Governor Jeb Bush and watch one of their speeches that were deemed either politically correct or incorrect. Afterward, they were asked to predict what stance these politicians would take on political issues in the future. This step aimed to evaluate how the use of language impacts an individuals perceived trustworthiness or willingness to defend their beliefs even in the face of social pressure.

Those who listened to politically correct speeches reported feeling less certain about what stance the politician would take on topics in the future. This step showcased one of the trade-offs of using such language: while it makes one appear warmer and more concerned with others, it also makes them seem less sincere or more easily persuaded.

By this point, youre probably asking yourself an obvious question: where do them libs fit into the picture? The authors asked themselves the same thing, and it turned out that political affiliation has very little impact on our propensity to use politically correct language but very much to do with whom we use it for.

In the third experiment, the team separated participants (based on their responses in a pre-test) as either Liberal-leaning or Conservative-leaning. The first group reported feeling sympathy for the undocumented immigrants, the LGBTQ community, and pro-choice individuals, while the latter was most concerned with the plight of religious Christians, poor white people, and pro-life individuals.

Each participant was asked to read a statement: I think it is important for us to have a national conversation about one of six groups. These groups were referred to using either politically-correct (e.g. undocumented immigrants) or incorrect terms (e.g. illegal aliens).

Unsurprisingly, when the participant felt sympathy for the group in question and was presented with a politically incorrect term such as conservatives with white trash or liberals with illegal aliens they didnt view the language as particularly authentic, but as cold and uncaring. However, when presented with a politically-correct term for a group they did feel sympathy towards, they viewed it as authentic. On the flip-side, people also tended to rate politically incorrect language as more authentic when applied to groups they didnt feel sympathy towards such as liberals with white trash or conservatives with illegal aliens.

But, and this is a very important but in my opinion, there werent any divides in liking political correct speech among political groups. Liberals and conservatives were equally supportive of it as long as it applied to groups they felt sympathy towards and equally against it when it wasnt.

I feel the findings give us ample reason to pause and reflect on our own biases. Language does have power, and the way we use it speaks volumes about where our particular interests and sympathies lie. But at the same time, understanding that there are certain things we want to hear, and that this changes our perception of the ones saying them and the way they say it, is an important part of becoming responsible citizens for our countries.

The use of politically correct language can stem from genuine care and concern, just as much as it can from a desire to fake that care for brownie points. Politically incorrect language can come from ones inner strength and willingness to state their mind regardless of societys unspoken rules, but it can equally be used to deceive and appear no-nonsense when one is, in fact, callous and uncaring. It could go on to explain why considerate politicians can be perceived as weak, or why those downright rude and disrespectful can have the veneer of strength.

Perhaps, in this light, we should be most wary of those who tell us what we want to hear, the way we want to hear it. At the same time, it can help us understand that those we perceive as opposing our views and beliefs arent out to get us they literally see a different intent behind the same words, just as we do. Working together, then, doesnt start with changing their minds, but with checking our own biases, and seeing which ones we truly believe in.

Back to the study at hand, the team explains that their findings showcase how the use of language can help shape others perceptions of us. Politically correct language can make us seem warmer but more calculated and thus less sincere. Politically incorrect language can make us look more honest, but colder and more callous it all depends on what your conversation mates want to hear.

The paper Tell it like it is: When politically incorrect language promotes authenticity has been published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Read the original here:

Politically-incorrect language can seem sincere, but only if youre saying what the audience wants to hear - ZME Science

You dont have to be a racist to be a bigot – Ponoka News

Posted on September 23, 2020 by Danzig

Id heard the term bigot tossed around in the past, but never really contemplated deeply what it meant or gave it a second thought, really. It seemed to just be a label slapped onto anyone who disagreed with someone elses opinion.

In this day-and-age, after all, so-called political-correctness has gotten out of hand, hasnt it?

It seems more and more that the left as people call it, want to push their progressive values down the throats of hard-working Canadians, right? Why cant people leave well enough alone, after all?

If you believe the above rhetoric (which was sarcastic, in case you didnt suss that out) you may be a bigot.

Theres nothing wrong with being dedicated to your own beliefs, convictions and personal views, but its when you are unable to hear other peoples opinions, are intolerant of even listening to hear them out, or to allow them to be heard by others, that youre entering into the Realm of the Bigots.

A person with strong convictions, is not necessarily a bigot. Its difficult, and perhaps more rare than people are willing to admit, but not impossible.

For example, you can be resolute about where you stand on a certain issue, but not have any prejudices, intolerance or hatred towards people who are on the opposite side of the issue. You are not a bigot.

However, a bigot is intolerant of other peoples point-of-view.

If you feel threatened by another persons point-of-view, and feel the need to drown out their voice, or feel the need to protect others from what they have to say, first, you must not be very strong in your own convictions and second, you may be a bigot.

And being a bigot does not require you to be a racist.

You can believe deep in your heart-of-hearts that all people are equal and deserve equal rights, and still be a bigot.

The good news is, there is a myriad of social issues a person can be bigoted about, so you can still carry on being a bigot.

You can still refuse to call a person by their chosen name or preferred pronoun, think Millennials are all useless and lazy, and resent movements that have nothing to do with you because you feel they are somehow infringing on your rights or undervaluing your life as a member of a privileged majority.

And hey, on the bright side, Im sure theres a little bit of bigotry in all of us. If you look hard enough, Im sure you could find it.

By the way, the word racist is a strong accusation that shouldnt be thrown around lightly. Words are powerful, but when they are overused or misused, they lose their meaning.

As a side note, while news articles need to be free of opinion and journalists need to do their best to show both sides of any issue in an impartial light, writing devoid of opinion does not make the writer racist or a racist apologist.

An opinion column, on the other hand, is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate place for a journalist to express their personal point of view. Its the whole purpose of a column, after all.

Opinion

You dont have to be a racist to be a bigot - Ponoka News

Judd Gregg: The Kamala threat the Californiaization of America | TheHill – The Hill

Posted on September 23, 2020 by Danzig

Much of what sets the tone in American culture has come from the west to the east.

Hollywood for decades has enamored the American psyche. Electric cars, the Beach Boys, Napa wines the list of things California has injected into our nations way of life is impressive and pervasive.

Now something else is coming our way from California.

It is governance by an elitist class that puts political correctness on steroids and holds a deep antipathy to the historical drivers of Americas prosperity and liberty.

Sen. Kamala HarrisKamala HarrisButtigieg stands in as Pence for Harris's debate practice First presidential debate to cover coronavirus, Supreme Court Harris joins women's voter mobilization event also featuring Pelosi, Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda MORE (D-Calif.) is probably a nice person.

As a vice-presidential candidate, a role that requires her to be the responder-in-chief to the inanities put forth by President TrumpDonald John TrumpOmar fires back at Trump over rally remarks: 'This is my country' Pelosi: Trump hurrying to fill SCOTUS seat so he can repeal ObamaCare Trump mocks Biden appearance, mask use ahead of first debate MORE, she has been formidable.

She has taken a tone of modulated disbelief and correction rather than the shrillness favored by other Trump critics such as Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenHarris joins women's voter mobilization event also featuring Pelosi, Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda Judd Gregg: The Kamala threat the Californiaization of America GOP set to release controversial Biden report MORE (D-Mass.).

It is an approach that bolsters her credibility. It is made all the more effective by the contrast it poses to the presidents bombastic style.

That said, however, she is also the product and adherent of the California political cult of leftist governance that has subsumed that state like an ideological virus.

Think about what Harris and her colleagues in charge of California have wrought.

Begin with rolling blackouts something usually only seen in developing countries.

These blackouts have darkened ordinary daily routines and handicapped the ability of businesses, especially small businesses, to function.

They are a direct result of governance that is subservient to a culture of political correctness regarding energy production.

This mindset puts feel good politics ahead of the real-world needs of those who cannot afford its excesses.

Ironically, California actually has the resources to produce more than enough gas to light the entire west coast without any self-imposed darkness.

This is not an acceptable approach to Harriss crowd, however.

Alternative energy sources like wind and solar do make sense, but not if they are promoted as the sole acceptable form of energy production. This kind of dogmatism retards an entire society, and turns out the lights in the process.

It is a recipe for economic stagnation and dislocation.

The effects are fairly obvious, even if they must be seen in the dark.

Harriss crowd wishes to govern America. A California rolling darkness will fall on us all.

The politically correct culture is also seeking to seize the California elementary and secondary school system.

This is an extreme ideological agenda.

The core of the curriculum would teach students a deep dislike of Americans traditional history, and of the ideas that have created this extraordinary nation.

The educational indoctrination that is being proposed for Californias public schools is built on the new possibilities for post-imperial life that promotes collective narratives of transformative resistance, according to the website of the states department of education.

These courses appear to have been developed by legatees of the 1960s radical left who hang out in the corners of Californias elite educational societies.

The underlying theme is that we are a fundamentally evil nation, whose historic leaders like Washington, Jefferson and Jackson must be expunged from memory.

This approach can best be characterized as an intellectual sickness. But it is a sickness, which the California elite intends to spread across the nation.

It is something we can all do without. But we will most likely be subjected to it if Kamalas people have their way with our nations educational agenda.

Raising taxes is of course a primal cause of the left.

We have a society where almost all income tax revenues come from high-income people. The top 20 percent of earners pay 87 percent of the income taxes; the top five per percent pay about 60 percent of the income taxes.

This is not enough for our liberal colleagues.

The tax plan proposed by Democratic nominee Joe BidenJoe BidenOmar fires back at Trump over rally remarks: 'This is my country' Trump mocks Biden appearance, mask use ahead of first debate Trump attacks Omar for criticizing US: 'How did you do where you came from?' MORE in effect doubles capital gains tax for high earners, and takes the overall tax burden for those folks up to over 42 percent.

But for Harriss California government types, this is also not enough.

Biden is a piker by California standards.

The California legislature has proposed that, on top of the federal income tax burden, there should be added an additional 16 percent tax on high income earners.

This would make the general tax burden on productive people stratospheric.

It would mean that almost 60 percent of all income would go to the government.

These massive tax increases would allow the people who run the government to redistribute it to the folks who elect them, or to support the patronage of the folks who work for them.

It is not likely that Californians will stop at their states border in their quest to fleece the few to elect themselves.

Harris and her people will bring their ideas, on taxes and everything else, to Washington with great gusto.

This is accurately described as socialism.

It is a value system built on the theme of beggar thy neighbor.

It subscribes to the philosophy that productivity and entrepreneurship can be managed better by those who govern than by those who work in a market economy and take risks.

These Californian leftists ignore the natural laws of economic expansion, which require that people who work, build businesses and create jobs should enjoy reasonable financial returns.

The lefts excesses suffocate the energies that generate economic expansion by limiting the returns on that effort.

The socialism of the Californian governing class is not an idea whose time has come.

Socialism reduces the standard of living of all societies that have pursued it.

Delivering this Californian gift to the rest of the nation will deliver the rest of us to a country with less opportunity.

California does have much to offer.

Its politics as practiced by the Kamala cabal is, however, not among those things.

Judd Gregg (R) is a former governor and three-term senator from New Hampshire who served as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, and as ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Foreign Operations subcommittee.

See the rest here:

Judd Gregg: The Kamala threat the Californiaization of America | TheHill - The Hill

Despite being vilified in the rightwing media, Black Lives Matter will endure – The Guardian

Posted on September 23, 2020 by Danzig

In the rightwing culture war that has subsumed our politics, a handful of key words depict the enemy, all of them increasingly interchangeable: political correctness, identity politics, #MeToo, cancel culture, and above all, wokeness. (You can tell when this category of terms is being used to this effect when they slot neatly in the headline Now ****** really has gone too far!) Collectively, the words have come to pose a threat to readers, ready to be outraged by an unwelcome change to our politics and society, hiding under the guise of equality and justice.

The terms have been subject to a successful rebranding exercise that started on the right, but then leapfrogged into the mainstream. As notions that began as efforts to redress imbalances in society, challenge embedded power structures, and organise effectively against them, the terminology of equality has since been savaged. Woke, a call to stay alert to injustices in society, is now almost exclusively a slur, a sneer at someones over-worthy and counterproductive politics.

If you get your news from one of Britains many conservative papers, you will encounter near-daily attacks on wokeness, woke-ism and the tyranny of woke. The Telegraph has tagged the phenomenon as cancel culture and runs content mocking, vilifying or scaremongering the issue on a regular basis.

The latest entry in this lexicon of terror is Black Lives Matter. In only a few months, a phrase that once depicted a solemn moment of silence and solidarity with the victims of racial injustice has become a symbol of censorship and reverse discrimination. Black Lives Matter is now dragged into controversies it has nothing to do with, shoehorned into debates it never started, blamed for moves it never demanded.

In the summer, UKTV removed an episode of Fawlty Towers due to language used against Germans, the move was immediately associated with the Black Lives Matter movement and set off the usual fireworks, including from John Cleese himself who called the decision stupid. But the episode was part of a BBC review of offensive language and it was soon reinstated with a disclaimer.

In August, newspapers such as the Times reported on unsourced speculation that lyrics to songs were to be dropped at the Proms because of racial sensitivity. As I wrote last month, despite the story not being true (there was an orchestral version online and singing will come back next year subject to the pandemic being over), the press ran with it.

This month, a relatively small number of complaints to ITVs Britains Got Talent about a Black Lives Matter themed dance surged after the issue was picked up as red meat by the press.

There is then a sort of free word-association exercise in the media that hangs over the movement, darkening it in suspicion. The Telegraph has called its supporters lockdown-busting statue-toppling anarchists. Far-left agitators stuck in a Marxist echo chamber says the Express. Mention Black Lives Matter in the company of Marxism, lawlessness, boycotting Israel, and abolishing the police enough times, and the movement becomes defined by terms that push people away and bury its main cause.

Attacks on the movements leaders did the rest of the smear work. The Sun located its deep concern for black people last week when it pointed out that a Black Lives Matter founder (a trained Marxist) had links to a pro-Chinese Communist party liberal group. The gotcha here from the paper is that black people are treated poorly in China, and so clearly the Black Lives Matter activist cares more about militant Marxism than they do racism.

For all the frightening talk of a radical woke Black Lives Matter agenda restricting our hard-won liberties, the only concerted campaign here is the one attacking a movement for equality. In the US, this has traditionally been the work of well-funded conservative thinktanks that presented this agenda as a detached academic exercise, rather than an ideological pursuit. Since the early 1990s, the rightwing Heritage Foundation, whose stated mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies, has published content criticising political correctness about 400 times a year.

In the UK, this well-resourced process happens via a media that is less explicit in its declared purpose of arresting progress the moment it looks like change is possible. But still, the pushback is relentless, its tone calculated to trigger a warlike combination of revulsion and panic.

The dividends, both real and political, are lucrative. Nursing a sense of alarm on a daily basis creates a feedback loop that sends consumers back to the panic merchants, guaranteeing rage views and clicks. Reassuring these consumers that they are right in their unfounded suspicions gives them licence and evidence to justify their prejudice. This serves the interests of everyone in the media and politics who stands to lose if the scales of power are rebalanced.

The purpose of this propaganda is clear: to diminish the moral power of demands for racial equality and social justice so that they are then easier to extinguish, and to depict them as a militant threat to life as we know it, rather than a belated, and in fact extremely fragile attempt to secure basic rights to life, representation and dignity.

Resistance to these legitimate historic endeavours is successful in the day-to-day, but will be stormed over time. The resonance of the Black Lives Matter movement globally proves that the spontaneous truth of injustice is louder than deliberate attempts to suppress it. Black Lives Matter may have fallen from its temporary grace in the summer, but it rose without the help of its new critics, and will endure despite them.

Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist and the author of We Need New Stories: Challenging the Toxic Myths Behind Our Age of Discontent

Despite being vilified in the rightwing media, Black Lives Matter will endure - The Guardian

Political Correctness Protocol Holds Sway Over Much Of Our Land; Your Vote And Voice In November Will Put A Change To That – The Published Reporter

Posted on September 23, 2020 by Danzig

Two football players at Little Miami High School have been placed back on active status after being suspended from practice for carrying a thin blue line flag and thin red line flag across the field before their game on Sept. 11. The move was in order to honor police officers and firefighters on Septembeer 11, 2020.

BOCA RATON, FL A very joyous, LShana Tovah, a good New Year to our Jewishsupporters.And a not so silent prayer should be uttered, in every house of worship or in our homes that we will be blessed with another four years of leadership from President Trump. But remember, G-d helps those who help themselves, meaning the brunt of the work is on our shoulders to make our prayers come true. And to help us along, a message from above was sent to us in the form of two fearless, heroic young kids from Morrow, Ohio, whose bravery and love of country should spur us on to victory in November.

Brady Williams and Jared Bentley, football players for that towns Little Miami High School, prior to the start of their game on the evening of this years 9/11, had theaudacityto run across the field, to the cheers of the fans, one carrying a Thin Blue Line and the other a Thin Red Line American flag in remembrance of the 19th Anniversary of the attacks. Good for them! However, both boys were suspended because they did it against the will of their schools oafish administration. Both kids are sons of first responders. Bravery and patriotism run through their veins. Cowardice and weakness ooze from their supposed mentors.

The week before the game both Williams and Bentley had formally asked for approval to carry the flags but were told by administrators that would not be allowed. The fool who is the Superintendent of Little Miami Schools, Gregory Power received harsh backlash from the community for his stupidity in punishing these kids. His statement in response to the ensuing fury of the townspeople:

Little Miami Local Schools is (sic) saddened to see this story take such a negative turn. While we understand these students desire to show their support of our first responders, they did not obtain permission from district officials. Administrators must act when students break the rules.

Displaying the flag is against the rules? Since when did the BLM movement take over that town? If some moronic, black and white students had carried the BLM, Gay Pride or Hammer and Sickle flag across the field, would they have incurred suspensions as well? No Way. Political Correctness protocol holds sway over much of our land. Your vote and voice will put a change to that.

For all of us, no matter of what faith or belief, the future of this country now hangs in the balance. Do the forces of evil take over? Will the freedoms that are reflected in the words found in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution be trampled upon and erased by our own lack of resolve to fight for them? Youngsters, American kids such as Brady Williams and Jared Bentley, heroes from Morrow, Ohio, wont let it happen. Lets stand with them.

See the original post:

Political Correctness Protocol Holds Sway Over Much Of Our Land; Your Vote And Voice In November Will Put A Change To That - The Published Reporter

How far does a word go: where Latinx fits in today – Standard Online

Posted on September 23, 2020 by Danzig

Among the many new expressions in an era of constantly growing political correctness, its difficult to tell where the term latinx stands in todays common usage.

Alondra Longoria, president of Sigma Lambda Gamma, MSUs multicultural sorority, first heard the term, latinx, two years ago when she came to college after attending a predominantly white high school. Longoria is a junior pursuing a degree in psychology and a minor in diversity studies.

Its all about inclusivity, Longoria said. I personally refer to myself as Latina because I use the pronouns she, her and hers. But, using Latino or Latina might be considered a microaggression against someone if they dont identify as male or female. If someone uses they and/or them pronouns, they would go by Latinx.

Sigma Lambda Gamma has officially adopted the term Latinx and uses it in their general conversation, according to Longoria. They also use the term womxn pronounced women-ex, which is inclusive of transgender women.

I think the Latinx term enables the inclusion of Hispanics in todays movement for diversity and inclusion, said Alejandro Castilleja, project manager for a manufacturing firm in Cincinnati, Ohio. Castilleja is a Mexican national who has lived in the United States for work and education for over nine years.

I also see it as a marketing tool in todays social climate used by some corporations to attract the market, but also as a great diversity and inclusion push in the workplace, Castilleja said. Although a lot of people do identify with and champion it, at the end of the day, it is up to an individuals belief on what language to use.

According to aPew Research Center study conducted in December 2019, 76% of adults who self-identify as Hispanic or Latino have never heard of the term Latinx. 20% of responding adults said that they have heard of the term but do not use it, whereas 3% of the total responding population use the term. This approximates to 13% of those who have heard of the term actually using it. The data from the survey consists of responses from 3,030 adults who self-identified as Hispanic.

This study uses the terms Latino and Hispanic interchangeably and defines Latinx as a term used to describe people who are of or relate to Latin American origin or descent. It is a gender-neutral or nonbinary alternative to Latino or Latina.

The study revealed that different demographics have different relationships with the term. 42% of Hispanics aged 18-29 had heard of the term, while 7% of Hispanics aged 65 or over had heard of the term. Hispanics born in the United States are also twice as likely to have heard of the term as those born outside the country.

Social demographics also play a role in the preference of terms. Respondents with college experience are twice as likely to have heard of the term Latinx and twice as likely to prefer using it. Politically, respondents who lean toward the democratic party are more likely to have heard of Latinx (29%) than respondents who lean republican (16%).

The term Latinx will be used more in the future, Longoria said. For adults that do speak Spanish, it has been harder to adapt just because its brand new. A lot of people have a problem with it because they have an attitude of if you change one word then were going to have to change all of the words because Spanish is very gendered. I think it will be used more, but I dont necessarily think it will be adapted to either Spanish or English.

Link:

How far does a word go: where Latinx fits in today - Standard Online

Select Page ::