Select Page ::

Weekend reads: Are these red flags for Tesla, Apple and Netflix? – MarketWatch

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

The long bull market for U.S. stocks has been led by companies that have grown rapidly with product and service transformations.

But with the ratio of stock prices to expected earnings at much higher levels than a year ago, there are concerns about three of the highfliers: Tesla TSLA, +10.30%, Apple AAPL, -0.14% and Netflix NFLX, +1.33%.

Netflix has changed the way it counts subscribers, which is critically important to investors who have been basing decisions on those numbers rather than revenue and earnings growth.

Jeremy Owens explains the meaning of Netflixs reporting change.

Shares of Tesla are up 37% so far this year, after hitting a record on Jan. 23. CEO Elon Musk has surprised investors by getting the companys Shanghai plant operating within a year, helping the company increase annual car deliveries by 50% during 2019.

But Teslas soaring action in 2020 is extremely unusual for an industrial company, according to Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi, who advises investors to be cautious with the stock.

Another warning: Ralph Nader admonishes that the rapid increase in Teslas share price is a signal of a coming implosion of the bull market.

For many years, Apples shares traded at low valuations to those of other large tech companies, and even to the entire S&P 500 index SPX, +0.31%. Apple can now be lumped in with other tech highfliers, which means more potential risk for investors.

Heres one side: The S&P 500 now trades at a forward price-to-earnings ratio of 21.8, based on weighted aggregate consensus earnings-per-share estimates among analysts polled by FactSet. Thats the highest forward P/E for the benchmark index since June 2002, aside from a brief period early in 2018.

So if you think the market is trading too high, value stocks are a better proposition for safety. Michael Brush explains how to find them.

Heres another view: Tom Plumb, the manager of the five-star-rated Plumb Balanced Fund PLBBX, +0.39% believes large-cap growth stocks will continue to lead the U.S. market higher, and explains this argument with simple math.

Catey Hill provides very useful information and destination selection to retirees (or people making plans), tailored to their specific needs. This week she helps a New York City resident with a large nest egg find an area with reasonable weather, plenty of culture and good health care and another couple looking for a midsize college town with good health care.

For retirees on a budget, here are two beautiful, affordable countries with affordable health care.

Many people dont understand the earned-income tax credit and are leaving a lot of money on the table.

Prince Harry and his wife have grand aspirations about financial independence (if not early retirement) after quitting the British royal family. But some financial experts who have counseled wealthy families see troubling signs just from their first money moves.

Quentin Fottrell MarketWatchs Moneyist helps a woman plan her estate and discuss her plans with her husband in a constructive way.

Want more from MarketWatch? Check out our Personal Finance Daily or other newsletters, and get the latest news, personal finance and investing advice.

Town of Normal, police officers being sued in connection to officer allegedly stealing $12K – WEEK – week.com

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

PEORIA (WEEK) --The town of Normal and several Normal Police Department officers, including its chief, are being sued in relation to an officer being accused of stealing $12,000 when responding to a residence for a drug overdose.

The lawsuit was filed Monday in the U.S. Central District court in Peoria by the attorneys representing Lindsey Holzhauer, alleging officer Brian Williams did not have a valid search warrant or consent to search the residence, and "violated her Fourth Amendment right... to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures."

The lawsuit stems from the November 25 incident, when Williams was tasked with checking the well-being of a person who had potentially overdosed. The victim died, but a relative later reported to the NPD that $12,000 was missing from the residence.

Williams allegedly called Holzhauer anonymously to tell her to stop contacting police after learning she had contacted the NPD to report the missing $12,000.

The lawsuit also states NPD officers "conspired and acted together to cover up their misconduct."

The lawsuit alleges a detective with the NPD contacted Holzhauer and told her "it would be in her best interest to keep the complaint within the Normal Police Department and to not involve the ISP."

The case was turned over to the Illinois State Police, which conducted the sting, resulting in Williams arrest.

Chief Rick Bleichner, Tim Edmiaston and Jim Ferguson of the NPD are listed as defendants in the lawsuit.

Holzhauer is also suing for emotional distress in the incident.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

Williams pleaded not guilty to all the charges in December.

He is currently on administrative leave and facing charges of official misconduct and theft over $10,000 in McLean County Court after he was arrested in an Illinois State Police sting operation. His bond was set at $30,000 but a judge released Williams on personal recognizance.

A call to the Normal Police Department was not immediately returned Monday morning.

The rest is here:

Town of Normal, police officers being sued in connection to officer allegedly stealing $12K - WEEK - week.com

Blood draws and fatal crashes: What the new ruling means – WMTW Portland

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

Police in Maine will have to follow new rules when investigating fatal crashes, after a long-standing statute allowing law enforcement to obtain blood samples from drivers was ruled unconstitutional by the Maine Supreme Court on Tuesday."This is a major change in Maine law that's been around for a long, long time," said prominent Maine defense attorney Walt McKee.The statue was challenged by the defense team for Randall Weddle, a Tennessee truck driver convicted of manslaughter for a fatal 2016 crash. Weddle claimed the mandatory blood alcohol test violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution barring unlawful search and seizures. While justices agreed, they upheld his conviction, citing unique circumstances of the case and saying investigators were acting in good faith when they administered the test. The ruling means law enforcement will either need to get consent, get a warrant, or prove probable cause before drawing blood. "Now, when people are involved in accidents that are fatal, might be, or probably going to be fatal-- that they're no longer going to be required to submit to an alcohol test," said McKee.Assistant Attorney General Don Macomber said police departments have been informed of the change in process. "The difference now is that they're also going to have to divert their attention from immediate life-saving activities to also try to develop probable cause of impairment before they can draw the blood," said Macomber. McKee said it makes sense there should be a process for drawing blood. "I think it's an important decision because what it tells us is that our individual rights and our individual liberties are still very much alive, that a search warrant is necessary for law enforcement to in essence force blood to be removed for your system," he said.

"This is a major change in Maine law that's been around for a long, long time," said prominent Maine defense attorney Walt McKee.

The statue was challenged by the defense team for Randall Weddle, a Tennessee truck driver convicted of manslaughter for a fatal 2016 crash. Weddle claimed the mandatory blood alcohol test violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution barring unlawful search and seizures. While justices agreed, they upheld his conviction, citing unique circumstances of the case and saying investigators were acting in good faith when they administered the test.

The ruling means law enforcement will either need to get consent, get a warrant, or prove probable cause before drawing blood.

"Now, when people are involved in accidents that are fatal, might be, or probably going to be fatal-- that they're no longer going to be required to submit to an alcohol test," said McKee.

Assistant Attorney General Don Macomber said police departments have been informed of the change in process.

"The difference now is that they're also going to have to divert their attention from immediate life-saving activities to also try to develop probable cause of impairment before they can draw the blood," said Macomber.

McKee said it makes sense there should be a process for drawing blood.

"I think it's an important decision because what it tells us is that our individual rights and our individual liberties are still very much alive, that a search warrant is necessary for law enforcement to in essence force blood to be removed for your system," he said.

Original post:

Blood draws and fatal crashes: What the new ruling means - WMTW Portland

Supreme Court Asked To Tell Cops That Consenting To A Search Is Not Consenting To Having Your Home Destroyed – Techdirt

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

from the domicile-made-furtive-movements dept

Five years ago, an Idaho police department destroyed a woman's house to end a standoff with her dog. The Caldwell PD -- after having been given permission (along with a house key) to enter the home to see if a suspect was in the home -- decided this meant the Shaniz West had given them permission to fire grenade after tear gas grenade into the house before sending in the SWAT team to confront the family dog.

Exhibit A:

Shaniz West sued, stating that this 10-hour "standoff" that rendered her house uninhabitable for three months was a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. The district court agreed, finding the officers being sued could be held accountable for destroying her home, rather than just using the house key she had given them.

Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and granted the officers qualified immunity. According to the Appeals Court [PDF], this was an appropriate use of police force, given the circumstances. Mainly it was that the circumstances were unique enough, the court could find no way to say this was unreasonable. Without controlling precedent, the officers were allowed to escape the consequences of their ridiculous, house-destroying actions.

Here's the Court's summary, which sounds like it was written by a cop PR shop.

The panel held that assuming the consent was voluntary and defendants exceeded the scope of the consent by shooting tear gas into the house, they were still entitled to qualified immunity. The panel held that given that defendants thought they had permission to enter plaintiffs house to apprehend a dangerous, potentially armed, and suicidal felon barricaded inside, it was not obvious, in the absence of a controlling precedent, that defendants exceeded the scope of plaintiffs consent by causing the tear gas canisters to enter the house in an attempt to flush the suspect out into the open. Officers Seevers and Winefield were therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

"Causing tear gas canisters to enter the house." It's like the canisters were just hanging around outside and the SWAT team's reasonable appearance on the lawn gave the canisters permission to hurtle themselves through the nearest windows and doors.

There was no suspect to flush out. The person they were seeking had vacated the residence before officers stopped Shaniz West and threatened her with arrest if she didn't "consent" to a search of her house. What West actually consented to was far different than what the officers ended up doing, as the dissent pointed out.

The majority adopts an entirely implausible contrary reading of Wests consent, one a typical reasonable person [would not] have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect. Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 251. Because West never expressed a limitation as to time, place within the house, or manner of entry, the majority concludes that her consent that officers could get inside permitted a violent initial attack on her house with toxic objects. Maj. Op. at 13. In so concluding, the majority supposes that someone who permits law enforcement officers to get inside [her] house while handing over a key consents to the officers not entering the house but instead lobbing dangerous objects, such as tear gas canistersor stones or bombs, for other examplesinto the house from the outside. It further presupposes that, in providing consent to entry, a resident must preemptively forbid actions no one would guess are contemplated by the commonsense understanding of the articulated consent. That is not the law.

What this court finds reasonable for officers (destroying a house) does not align with what any "reasonable" non-cop would willingly permit when consenting to a search of their residence.

In concluding that the officers performed a search consistent with Wests consent, the majority does what no court has beforeit holds that a typical reasonable person consenting to an entry to look for a suspect could be understood by a competent police officer as consenting to damage to his or her home so extreme that renders it uninhabitable for months.

There is still no finding that destroying a house while performing a consensual search is a violation of rights. The Ninth punted on drawing the line following this case, leaving officers free to "cause canisters to enter" houses in the future when performing searches for suspects.

The Institute for Justice wants some precedent set. It's asking the Supreme Court to rule on this issue. The petition [PDF] seeks a ruling that would prevent officers from dodging lawsuits from citizens rendered homeless by consensual searches.

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether an officer who has consent to get inside a house but instead destroys it from the outside is entitled to qualified immunity in the absence of precisely factually on-point caselaw.

It's a valid question. It's far more valid than the Ninth's conclusion: that consent to search is consent to destruction. Even given the circumstances of this case -- a potentially armed felon who was supposedly suicidal -- the officers had options they normally didn't have during warrant service: specifically, permission to enter the home and a key that unlocked the front and back doors.

Instead of using the key to enter the house (or at least attempt to -- the front door also had a chain securing it, but it's not like a bunch of tear gas grenades were going to dislodge the chain), the cops decided to call in the SWAT team. They left the premises, met with the SWAT team, came up with a plan and did a couple of dry runs and three hours later, decided to start the "search."

It wasn't until 4.5 hours later the key was even tried. It unlocked the back door, but redundantly because the glass had already been shattered by tear gas canisters, allowing officers to reach inside and unlock the door.

As the petition points out, there's no reason to find precedent that directly aligns with law enforcement's actions here. It should have been plainly apparent to the officers that their actions were unreasonable.

The dissent did not purport to find a closely similar case[ ] to guide the clearly established law inquiry[.] App. 27. Instead, it found no such case was necessary because any competent officer would have understood he could not lawfully destroy a house simply because he had consent to enter it.

This should be obvious. If it were a car being searched, a person's consent to a search would not justify officers towing the vehicle to place away from the public and detonating it just because of the slim possibility something inside it might pose a threat to officers.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will take a look at this case, rather than decide it's up to the lower court to set a bunch of conflicting precedent -- or far more likely, continue kicking the QI can down the road. Giving officers permission to search your house should never mean giving them permission to leave you with no place to live.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, consent, destruction, idaho, search, shaniz west, supreme court, swat, swat teams

See the article here:

Supreme Court Asked To Tell Cops That Consenting To A Search Is Not Consenting To Having Your Home Destroyed - Techdirt

Letters: Newark Advocate readers speak out on subsidies, guns and polling places – The Newark Advocate

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

Newark Advocate Published 12:35 p.m. ET Jan. 25, 2020

A government agency can use eminent domain to take private property for a valid public cause while compensating the property owner. A government agency can through its actions devalue a piece of property by restricting access to or the use of that property.

This is called legallytaking land. This can happenwhen a road is changed or widened. When Thornwood Crossing east of Granville was built, access to Cherry Valley Road from Route 16 was cut off. This restricted access to businesses along Cherry Valley Road.

The Ohio Supreme Court recently decided, by a 4 to 3 vote, that Wendys was entitled to compensation by ODOT for the business loss. The court stated that losing access constituted taking.Wendys lawyer stated that his client had a constitutional right to theaccess point of Cherry Valley at Route 16, and ODOT closed that access point.

So is a business entitled to be compensated for the loss of profit under the legal taking clause, paid for by a public entity using public money? Should businesses then not pay for profit for access to a publicly-funded road? No business is going to locate in an inaccessible area. That mean it is fully aware of thepotential profit by having access provided by the public. In order to get compensated for the loss of profit, a business should pay into a fund for profiting by getting access paid for by thepublic. The public should not pay for building a road and then again for private business losses. It should be either both or neither.

Jurgen Pape

Granville

During the Novembervoting day Zone 2 & 4 voted at the American Legion Lodge on 6th Street.There were numerous times that you had to look for a place to park.Come March it will be the same and November has the potential of severe over crowding, making many voters not voting or illegally parking.The election boardneeds to take a serious look at separating these twozones to there own area immediately.I see everywhere on social media of bad blood between Democrats and Republicans and I see a problem especially in November.I would hope everyone would act like adults and vote with heart.Thank you for listening there is a problem that needs fixed NOW!

Mike Miner

Newark

On Monday we witnessed a gathering of Virginia citizens protesting gun confiscation by their "Democratic" government. All the proposed laws are unconstitutional because they are an infringement on their constitutional rights. Not just the Second Amendment, but also the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. All of these government officials have taken the oath of office swearing to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. By voting to steal lawfully owned firearms they've violated their oath of office. By sending officers out to steal lawfully owned firearms they are committing the act of treason and forcing the officers also to commit an act of treason.

No one who has ever taken an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution can support any law that violates that oath. If you have ever taken such an oath, you are bound to not support an unconstitutional law. Thank God that most of the sheriff's in Virginia understand that and are standing up in support of the Constitution.

It's understandable the fear that an unarmed citizen has for their safety and the safety of their family. Progressives have used anti-concealed carry stickers to keep law-abiding citizens from bearing arms in posted buildings. These are the buildings madmen come to murder innocent people, because they know they're safe. If you want to keep the people safe, take down the stickers and train all that wish to carry when and how to shoot in defense of their lives and others.

John Bell

Newark

Read or Share this story: https://www.newarkadvocate.com/story/news/local/2020/01/25/letters-newark-readers-speak-out-subsidies-guns-and-polling-places/4555955002/

Read the rest here:

Letters: Newark Advocate readers speak out on subsidies, guns and polling places - The Newark Advocate

Court ruling on required blood tests unlikely to affect investigations of fatal crashes, police say – Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

Police departments in Maine are already adapting to a ruling issued Tuesday by the states highest court that will require officers to obtain consent or a warrant before drawing the blood of a driver involved in a fatal crash.

But the ruling is not likely to substantially impede police investigations of fatal crashes, some officials have said. Police can make sworn statements which are a required part of applying for a warrant via an email affidavit from their police cruisers, and prosecutors and investigators are likely to generate blank template warrant applications to help officers complete the required paperwork quickly.

The concern historically has been that the longer period of time between the time of the crash and the time the blood was drawn is problematic in reflecting the blood alcohol level at the time of the crash, Portland Police Chief Frank Clark said. I think whats going to be the case is well have some templates available.

Clark already has disseminated a memo to all personnel describing the new standards, and said he expects little disruption in the flow of fatal crash investigations, which in Portland are handled by a special unit. He also suggested that police will continue to use a reliable tactic of applying for a search warrant targeting a hospital that may have tested an injured drivers blood after a crash, an unchallenged practice not contemplated by this weeks court decision.

This is certainly something thats going to make us stop and look at our policies and practices, but I dont think its something that will ultimately impede our ability to prosecute people who are driving impaired, Clark said.

And police officers still have the breath test at their disposal.

By law, Maine motorists are expected to submit to a breath test when police request one. Refusing the breath test results in an automatic license suspension and can result in an elevated OUI charge which carries longer potential jail time, higher fines and longer license suspensions.

The decision Tuesday by Maines Supreme Judicial Court overturned a 2003 state statute that required police to take a warrantless blood sample of all people involved in a fatal or suspected fatal crash and test it for the presence of drugs and alcohol. But the states highest court ruled that the law violated the U.S. Constitutions Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, ending a long-held practice that was an assumed part of how police investigated fatalities on the road.

The law also permitted the blood tests to be admitted as evidence in court, even when the blood was drawn before police established probable cause to charge the driver with a crime, such as operating under the influence, aggravated OUI or manslaughter.

The appellant in the case, Randall J. Weddle, was convicted of manslaughter in a 2016 crash on Route 17 in Washington, Maine, after the tractor-trailer he was driving crossed the center line and crashed, sending his load of lumber flying. Two people died and others were injured, including Weddle, who was pinned inside the cab of his truck for an hour before rescue workers freed him. Before Weddle was flown by helicopter to a hospital, a police officer on the scene ordered an EMT to draw a sample of Weddles blood. After the blood draw, police then found evidence in Weddles truck a partially full bottle of Crown Royal and a shot glass.

The blood tests showed Weddle had a blood-alcohol content of 0.09, slightly higher than the legal limit of 0.08, and more than double the 0.04 limit for commercial truck drivers. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Although the law permitting the blood draw from Weddle has been declared unconstitutional, Weddles conviction stands because the justices determined the police officer who ordered the blood draw did so with the good-faith belief that he was following the law at the time.

In Windham, Chief Kevin Schofield said he is still working through the implications and making plans to update his officers. But he said updating officers on changes to the law is a mandatory part of police work, and has been for decades.

I have some friends of mine who were officers before Miranda was law, Schofield said, referring to the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case that established a suspects right against self-incrimination. Caselaw changes. Interpretation of law changes.

Clark said annual police continuing-education training occurs annually through the Maine Criminal Justice Academy, which disseminates information about statutes passed by the Legislature in the previous session and addresses changes in case law, such as the decision this week.

More of that work will continue in Windham in the coming weeks, Schofield said.

Well be reaching out and working a little more closely with our DAs office to get a better understanding of this, Schofield said.Our goal is to make sure that our people are up to date on the law, because in this area, we do unfortunately deal with some serious crashes.

Last year, the state laboratory that performs blood tests examined 589 blood samples. All but 14 cases were tests looking for alcohol, but the lab does not keep track of how many samples came from fatal or near-fatal crashes and how many cases involved an approved warrant.

This weeks ruling means police must make more careful observations and document their findings to support a probable cause determination that a crime occurred, without the benefit of blood test results that would positively show alcohol or drugs were a factor in the crash after the fact. In cases where a driver may be incapacitated by injury or refuses to consent to the blood draw, police must obtain a warrant.

I dont think its much of a surprise to those of us who handle these cases, defense attorney Sarah Churchill said. I dont think this will represent a huge sea change. I think in some cases its the law in Maine catching up with the Supreme Court of the United States.

But obtaining a warrant in the middle of the night or on weekends requires extra legwork by detectives, who must submit a sworn statement to a judge stating their probable cause to believe a crime occurred before they may execute a search.

In the Portland area, that process is not particularly difficult, Clark said.

From the time youre starting a warrant to the time youre sitting in a judges living room could be within an hour, he said.

But in rural parts of the state, the process can take longer, the Office of the Attorney General said, and more work will likely be needed before the process is seamless statewide.

From what our office has been informed, it takes longer to get a warrant in rural parts of state, wrote Marc Malon, a spokesman for the Attorney Generals Office. Rules were changed several years ago to allow for obtaining warrant via email or telephone, but that is still work in progress with the courts.

Go here to see the original:

Court ruling on required blood tests unlikely to affect investigations of fatal crashes, police say - Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel

Daines intends to introduce bill to reform PATRIOT Act – Ripon Advance

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

Sen. Steve Daines

U.S. Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) on Jan. 23 said he plans to introduce bipartisan legislation to help protect the privacy of his home-state constituents and all Americans.

Montanans want their privacy protected, Sen. Daines said. Thats why Im fighting to protect our civil liberties and stop the federal government from interfering in our lives.

Sen. Daines intends to introduce the Safeguarding Americans Private Records Act of 2020 with U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). In the U.S. House, U.S. Reps. Warren Davidson (R-OH) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced legislation, H.R. 5675, on Jan. 24 to reform Section 215 of the sweeping anti-terrorism law, the USA PATRIOT Act, officially the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, which was signed into law in 2001.

According to Sen. Daines office, the National Security Agency has used the law to create a secret mass surveillance program that also has swept up millions of Americans phone calls.

If enacted, the bipartisan, bicameral measure would permanently end the phone surveillance program by closing loopholes and prohibiting secret interpretation of the law, according to a bill summary provided by Sen. Daines office.

The bill also would prohibit the collection of geolocation information by intelligence agencies.

This is one of the most American pieces of legislation that the Senate could deliver. First off, it is an important bipartisan solution that proves our legislators can put the United States first. Second, it provides sunshine and clarifies our nations domestic surveillance programs. Third, it ensures Americans fourth amendment rights are clearly protected. And last, it updates and clarifies extremely outdated technology laws, said Daniel Zolnikov, a Republican member of the Montana Legislature and chairman of the Montana House Energy, Technology and Federal Relations Committee. I applaud both Senator Daines and Senator Wyden for taking their job and their oath to the constitution serious.

Read the original:

Daines intends to introduce bill to reform PATRIOT Act - Ripon Advance

Howie Carr: Weve all had just about enough of this Schiff – Boston Herald

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

Whatever happened to the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution you know, the one prohibiting infliction of cruel and unusual punishment on prisoners?

Rep. Adam Schiff has already put 16 hours in on his opening arguments in the Senate, with a little help here and there from Rep. Jerry the Penguin Nadler and assorted other Democrat lunatics.

And the 100 members of the Senate also known as the prisoners have to put in another eight hours in stir today listening to Shifty Schiffs same old you-know-what.

If 24 hours of Adam Schiffs bug-eyed rants dont represent cruel and unusual punishment, then what does?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein fled Wednesday night, not even trying to cover her tracks, saying Goodnight to two reporters as she took it on the lam. Granted, shes 85 years old, but it has to be excruciating even if youre not knock-knock-knocking on heavens door.

Sen. Rand Paul was seen surreptitiously doing a crossword puzzle. Sen. Bernie Sanders, almost as ancient as Feinstein, dozed at his desk.

Of course the Democrats with press passes were swooning over Schiffs BS, claiming to be fascinated, enthralled, riveted breathless, as if they were reviewing opening night of a hit Broadway musical. Sen. Chuck Schumer went so far as to say that Schiff was delivering his remarks succinctly.

Succinctly! I was a young man when Adam Schiff began speaking and he hasnt stopped yakking yet.

As a reporter, Ive always enjoyed covering trials. Its all right there in front of you, on the public record. When either side introduces a photo or document into evidence, you can put it into the paper. You can bring cameras into state courtrooms. At the Moakley Federal Courthouse, you can tweet.

But the fact is, even the best trials have shall we say dry spells. When technical testimony is being put into evidence, or the lawyers are arguing among themselves with the judge at interminable sidebar conferences.

Still, a spectator always know that eventually, the action in the courtroom is going to resume. Take opening arguments I dont think Ive ever heard one go on longer than a couple of hours. A judge wouldnt permit it. Beyond that, any lawyer that long-winded would lose the jury, before he even called his first witness.

But these Democrats just keep droning on and on and on.

And there seem to be no rules. First of all, the president is not charged with committing bribery, treason, or any other high crimes or misdemeanors. In a real trial, that would be enough for the defense counsel to immediately move for a directed verdict of acquittal. How can you convict somebody of nothing?

Another thing: Schiff has mentioned Russia, I believe, more than 40 times. Again, in a real courtroom, the defense lawyer would be on his feet, objecting. These same clowns tried to frame Trump on the Russian collusion hoax, and he was, in effect, acquitted.

So theres another amendment to the Bill of the Rights that the Democrats are trashing: the Fifth.

No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb.

Unless, of course, your name is Donald Trump.

One by one, the Democrats are trashing the entire Bill of Rights. In 2016, Hillary Clinton openly ran on a platform of overturning Citizens United (the First Amendment) and D.C. v. Heller (the Second).

Then theres the Fourth Amendment, prohibiting illegal search and seizure. Ask Carter Page how that works out for you in the Democrats secret corrupt FISA courts with their secret Democrat police known as the FBI falsifying evidence against you.

Making up evidence under oath the Democrats dont care much about the 10 Commandments either, apparently. Remember Number 8 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Unless he works for Donald Trump and went to the U.S. Naval Academy. Then its okay, right Democrats?

How about the Sixth Amendment you know, the one that lets the accused confront his accuser. That ones out the window now too, at least for POTUS. The whistleblower must be protected at all costs, especially since he has no direct evidence, only hearsay, which used to be inadmissible in a court. But thats just the old Constitution, and,the Democrats go by the living Constitution, which means, they make it up as they go along, to frame anyone they disagree with, which is anybody who they disparage as a Deplorable.

Its bad for everybody, but especially Rand Paul. First a Bernie bro tried to shoot him at a baseball practice. Then his moonbat neighbor in Kentucky (originally from New Bedford) almost killed him in an unprovoked assault.

And now Paul has to listen to Adam Schiff for 24 hours, with only a crossword puzzle for comfort.

Are the nominations for the 2020 Profiles in Courage Award closed? Id like to make a motion for Rand Paul .

Excerpt from:

Howie Carr: Weve all had just about enough of this Schiff - Boston Herald

SJC: Police can’t pat frisk a driver solely out of concern for safety of officers and public – The Boston Globe

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

The only legitimate reason for an officer to subject a suspect to a pat frisk is to determine whether he or she has concealed weapons on his or her person,'' Justice Kimberly S. Budd wrote for the court. "We therefore do not allow such an intrusion absent reasonable suspicion that the suspect is dangerous and has a weapon. [Emphasis in the ruling.]

The court reinforced the message in its 15-page ruling. To justify a pat frisk, an officer needs more than safety concerns,'' Budd wrote. "Without a basis for such suspicion, there is no justification for the pat frisk.

The court ordered the gun evidence thrown out. Although the defendant properly was stopped for motor vehicle violations, the subsequent pat frisk of his person and search of his vehicle were unconstitutional,'' Budd wrote.

In a statement, Springfield Police Commissioner Cheryl Clapprood said she was disappointed in the ruling and that "performing a pat frisk in a situation like this was essential to both officer safety and the safety of any civilians in the area.

In a separate e-mail, Springfield Police spokesman Ryan Walsh said the department was reviewing the SJC ruling to see if any changes in training will be necessary.

Hampden District Attorney Anthony Gullunis office, which prosecuted the case, said it was reviewing the ruling, as was the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, of which Gulluni is the president.

Claire Alexis Ward, who argued Torres-Pagans case before the SJC, wrote in an e-mail that she and the other lawyers representing him were gratified by the ruling.

"We are very pleased that the SJC recognized Mr. Torres-Pagans right to be free from unreasonable intrusion by the police and we are gratified that the Court has taken the opportunity to clarify the legal standard,'' she wrote.

In the ruling, the court acknowledged that it has sometimes provided more confusion than clarity when addressing the nexus between constitutional rights afforded citizens during traffic stops under the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Constitution.

"Our articulation of the pat frisk standard has not always been clear. On occasion we have not been as precise with our language as we could have been, specifically when discussing the pat frisk standard as it relates to the standard for exit orders [orders by police for someone to get out of a car],'' the court acknowledged. For example, we have stated, inaccurately, that the standard for a pat frisk is the same as that which is required to justify an exit order.

Going forward, the court ruled, there are three reasons that justify ordering someone out of their car:

- Police are warranted in the belief that the safety of the officers or others is threatened.

- Police have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

- "Police are conducting a search of the vehicle on other grounds.

Once that person is out of the car, police must have articulable reasonable suspicion that the person is armed before a pat frisk is constitutionally permissible," the court ruled.

Having different standards for exit orders and pat frisks makes logical sense. To be sure, issuing an order to a motorist to get out of his or her vehicle during a traffic stop is an imposition that cannot be considered minimal,'' Budd wrote. However, an exit order is considerably less intrusive than a pat frisk, which is a severe . . . intrusion upon cherished personal security [that] must surely be annoying, frightening, and perhaps humiliating.'

Budd quoted from the landmark 1968 US Supreme Court ruling Terry vs. Ohio that formalized Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures by police.

John R. Ellement can be reached at john.ellement@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @JREbosglobe.

Link:

SJC: Police can't pat frisk a driver solely out of concern for safety of officers and public - The Boston Globe

Judicial swamp looking to stymie the ‘Trump Revolution’ – Washington Times

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Dare we call it the Trump Revolution? We call the presidency of Ronald Reagan the Reagan Revolution. Well, consider what Donald Trump has achieved in but three years.

He has revived the economy with ample growth, historic low levels of unemployment and efficiencies in the economy thanks to the removal of unnecessary stultifying regulations. He promises more if re-elected. He has assured international peace and stability. Becoming a prominent terrorist is no longer a smart career choice. Longevity can be problematic. And the president has assured a judicial system stocked with men and women who really believe in the rule of law. Furthermore, he has brought us two U.S. Supreme Court Justices who will abide by the U.S. Constitution. If he has four more years in the White House, he will bring us more.

Yet apparently our countrys intelligence community was out to put the clamps on Mr. Trump even before he was elected. Slowly, we are finding out that, for instance, FISA warrants included warrants that were illegal. We are finding out that these agencies were eavesdropping on Mr. Trump and his aides. Conservatives always defended the CIA and FBI against career civil libertarians. Now, we are finding out that these agencies were used against the president and his people. What did the Trumpians do to antagonize the intelligence community?

Do the heads of these agencies really think that Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin? I have not seen the evidence. A two-year investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller could not find the evidence either. So let us come up with the evidence that will convince Americans that, as John Brennan, formerly of the CIA, has said, Mr. Trumps behavior was treasonous. Treasonous? The evidence?

Possibly the civil libertarians have been right about the threat the intelligence agencies pose to ordinary Americans civil liberties, but now those civil libertarians have fallen strangely silent. Why are they not aroused by the treatment of Gen. Michael Flynn, Carter Page and George Papadopoulos? Does one have to be a communist to gain their support? The silence of the civil libertarians is but one of the many oddities of this latest chapter in American history.

Now what Mr. Trump has dubbed the swamp is erupting with more poison. Just the other day we learned that the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the U.S. Judicial Conference is planning to bar judges from belonging to the Federalist Society. The Federalist Society is a scholarly group of law students, law professors and lawyers whose interest in the law leads them to hold seminars, lectures and other such events that revolve around the law. It has chapters at law schools all over the country. Its members are mainly conservative and libertarian, but it is open to all comers and there are even a few adventurous liberals.

Oh yes, and one thing more. Until recently the Federalist Society was headed by Leonard Leo, a leading conservative thinker and activist. Mr. Leo has rightfully taken a leave of absence from the Federalist Society perhaps because he is a leading figure on the team of advisers who have helped the president pick his nominees to the courts. That the president has had so many of his nominees accepted is proof of how high the Federalist Societys standards are. The Committee on Codes of Conduct of the U.S. Judicial Conference objects supposedly that the Federalist Society is too political. What about the Womens Christian Temperance Union? If the WCTU suggested nominees to the Trump administration, would the Committee on Codes of Conduct object that the abstemious ladies are too political? Is there not a guarantee of freedom of association in the First Amendment? Do not the liberals have an organization equivalent to the Federalist Society?

As a matter of fact, they do. It is called the American Constitution Society. Moreover, it is a highly political organization, as might be expected from liberals. What organization of liberals is not highly political? It takes political positions, counsels on judicial appointments and files amicus briefs. The Federalist Society follows none of these practices.

Now the clever minds of the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the U.S. Judicial Conference has published a bull pronouncing that judges be barred from both organizations. I have a better idea. Let the First Amendments right to free association be affirmed, and let judges be members of either society or of both societies. Better yet, encourage judges to join the Womens Christian Temperance Union. It is an admirable organization that deserves a comeback, especially in light of the spreading legalization of marijuana.

Now let us get on with the Trump Revolution.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author most recently of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc.

See the original post here:

Judicial swamp looking to stymie the 'Trump Revolution' - Washington Times

Proud Libertarian to run in upcoming council election – Queensland Times

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

Ipswich man Anthony Bull has put his hand up to run for Division 2 in this year's historic election.

Mr Bull, a second generation Ipswich resident, works in digital marketing and analytics.

"I went to Redbank Plains State School before moving to Westside Christian College, then I actually enrolled at the University of Queensland at Ipswich before the business element got shut down and moved to St Lucia," he said.

"My history here (Ipswich) also extends to my parents; my dad used to be the president of one of the local soccer clubs. He has a field named after him at Westminster Soccer Club; the Kevin Bull field down in Redbank Plains.

"My mother works in a couple of charities here and my wife is from Ipswich as well."

Mr Bull said he wanted to run for council because he had a passion for politics and believed he could do better than the previous council.

"The previous council was a perfect example of an unchecked government," he said

"I'm a big believer in government transparency and government accountability; that the people who work in government have to answer to the people who voted them in."

Mr Bull has three main focuses if elected to council, which include not only streaming council meetings but having audio transcribed as a way of ensuring accountability.

"The other two issues that my platform is about are ending the gouging of rate payers by looking at some of the policies that were implemented by the previous government," he said.

"Perhaps some of the services we agreed to aren't the best service at the same price.

"The fact that there was corruption makes me think that there are some services there that need to be looked at."

Mr Bull was very open and admitted he hadn't done any specific research as to why he thought rates were higher but has looked at some previous budgets made by council.

He said he also wanted to support business growth, believing that embracing more business would make way for more jobs in the region.

Mr Bull registered with his wife as a group for council election in order to run as a Liberal Democrat because the party is not registered with the Electoral Commission of Queensland.

"The Liberal Democratic Party of Australia is only registered at the federal level at this stage but not at the state level," Mr Bull said.

"I kind of convinced her to run with me, I didn't want to run as an independent," he said.

"I wanted to let my flag fly and who I am is a member of the Liberal Democrats and for that reason I needed her help.

"You can't run as a group with one person and for her she's really helped me out a lot, she's mostly in it to help me out. She was thinking about running but she's mostly here to help me out for sure."

Mr Bull's wife, Jacinta, is registered as a Division 1 candidate but has since decided to change to Division 3.

"We just sort of did some polling and found there was more support in that area we did some research and thought that (Division 3) was a better fit."

Mrs Bull is not taking media interviews regarding her candidacy for Division 3.

See original here:

Proud Libertarian to run in upcoming council election - Queensland Times

Will SCOTUS Hearing on Ballot Position Apply to Minor Political Parties? – The Libertarian Republic

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

Libertarians and other political third-parties will soon find out if fairness in federal courts extends to political third-parties, or is fairness confined to major party candidates. The answer will establish the degree of loyalty each branch of government has to political parties over the Constitution.

On the week of February 10, 2020 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, will hear argument in Jacobson v. Lee. This case is on appeal from a district court ruling that held unconstitutional a Florida statute that granted top ballot position to all candidates of the Governors political party. In Florida there has been a Republican Governor since 1998.

The Democrats argue that granting the top spot on all ballots to Republicans gives them an electoral advantage. Expert evidence at trial established that first listed candidates have gained an average electoral advantage of five percentage points due to ballot position. Since Governor Scott was elected in 2010 by a 1.2% margin and in 2018 Governor DeSantis won with only a 0.4 % margin, ballot position determined the outcome of both races.

In down-ballot races, the effect gives a 3.1% to 5.6% advantage to top spot candidates.

In Jacobson, the lower court found the impact of ballot placement based on the outcome of the last Governors race to be a denial of equal protection and discriminatory because it selects ballot position based solely on party affiliation.

The lower court offers solutions; at least 29 states either rotate or randomize the order of candidate names in general elections to neutralize the effects of position bias. For example, Ohio requires candidate ballot position be rotated from one precinct to another. Hawaii requires candidates be in alphabetical order. Colorado arranges candidate ballot position by lot, however, it undercuts its neutrality by dividing the candidates into two groups: major party and minor party candidates.

Jacobson is important to every minor party. For decades minor parties have fought merely to secure ballot access. A few have gained access in many states, but usually not all states. Now, minor parties have evidence that ballot placement is a critical matter once ballot access is secured.

Rigging elections occurs in many ways, not just intimidation and fake news. Denying fair ballot position also manipulates votes. The impact of these discriminatory actions is to limit the votes received and the fundraising potential of minor parties, while denying attention to their ideas.

Many articles ago, I addressed the monopoly the two major parties have over our political system.

The two major parties manipulate election laws to ensure one of their loyalists almost always wins the election. Controlling who wins directly translates into what laws are enacted, which citizens or corporations receive subsidies, who is taxed more or taxed less, how commerce is regulated and who will judge us should we violate any command.

According to an article in the Daily Kos ,there are 519,682 elected officeholders in the United States. Of this total, the Libertarian Party, in 2017, claims 168 of these officeholders; the Green Party in 2016 held 143 offices, and the Constitution Party holds 12 offices. Many of these positions are non-partisan offices. There are also, at least 26 Independent office holders, including 2 U.S. Senators who caucus with the Democrats, and 26 Democratic Vermont Progressives. A basic calculation places the third-party competitors share of the political market at 0.0006754%; almost zero.

What makes the power of the major parties so baffling is that political parties are not mentioned in our Constitution. Political parties are merely groups of individuals who organize to control government. In fact, for the first several years of our Republic, there were no political parties. Moreover, the major parties maintain complete control of the political marketplace against the fact that 57% of Americans believe a third political party is needed, according to a Gallup poll.

Again, I ask: does judicial fairness apply to minor political parties?

It may not, but the ballot position cases offer clear evidence of discriminatory impact on minor parties and open up a new line of attack for minor parties to seek fairer elections and greater voter participation.

A November 1, 2019 report in Ballot Access News illustrates how discriminatory our electoral system is against minor parties. It found [t]he U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear every election law cert. petition presented by a minor party or independent candidate starting in 1992, unless the Republican Party or the Democratic Party was also a party to the same case.

Action

Since Jacobson is only a dispute between the major parties, both having a great stake in the outcome, it is likely to be resolved by the Supreme Court. This gives the minor parties a chance to file Friends of the Courts briefs to educate the court on the plight of minor parties in ballot cases and the impact of discrimination on the voice of voters.

Party affiliation should not guarantee a 3.1% to 5.6% vote advantage to the two major parties; they have legislated themselves too many electoral advantages. Elections are for citizens to elect their representatives, not for political parties to control the nation.

See the original post:

Will SCOTUS Hearing on Ballot Position Apply to Minor Political Parties? - The Libertarian Republic

Half the hay by Ground Hog Day – Concord Monitor

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

Published: 1/30/2020 11:28:45 AM

One day last week, the temperature was close to 60. It felt like spring. The grass seemed greener, and the smell of damp-not-frozen soil was in the air. I took off my jacket when feeding the cattle. It was warm. Alas, two days later, with the icy wind piercing my down jacket, it seemed like 20 below zero. Winter was back. Encouragement is needed and when the cold seems never-ending, here comes Ground Hog Day!

The second day of February marks the midway point between the winter solstice and the vernal equinox. Its when groundhogs supposedly emerge from their burrows, and if the weather is sunny and they are frightened by their shadows, they dive back into their holes, and winter persists for six more weeks. Its a Pennsylvania Dutch superstition. Over the years, Punxsutawney Phil has come to be the celebrity groundhog, and all eyes are on him.

For farmers with critters to feed, Feb. 2 has serious significance in the adage: Half your hay by Ground Hog Day, meaning if youve used more than half your hay, youre probably going to run out.

Ground Hog Day is not only the half-way point for hay-feeding but this year, its also the precursor for our Feb. 11 first-in-the-nation presidential primary. This is the season when the state is flooded with politicians. They show up at farmers markets, on street corners, in grocery stores, and during the 2016 race Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson showed up at our farm: twice. Of course, for each politician, there seem to be hundreds of out-of-state supporters, well-known TV personalities, and camera-people trailing the candidates and seeking local color.

If New Hampshire can upend political wisdom by elevating under-dogs, why cant we also topple Punxsutawney Phils monopoly on predicting the end of winter? Scientific observation does not support Phils findings, which means any animal is qualified to forecast the weather and that the exact day doesnt matter. Theres an opportunity knocking on the barn door.

This year our mini-pig, Tazzy D. Moo, has agreed to challenge Phils role as end-of-winter-predictor by dressing up like a ground hog. This is an opportunity Tazzy has been waiting for her whole life. To honor tradition, she will wear a fashionable ground hog costume, but unlike Phil, who doesnt speak, Tazzy will give a speech. This is New Hampshire, and even if she is a pig, her voice matters. Its hard to know who wants to hear what she has to say, but isnt that true of politicians too?

Stop by the farm on Feb. 1between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. to see Punxy Tazzy at work. Well also have cows to feed; Curious Bleu, the Scottish Highlander steer, to sit on; calves to brush; and marshmallows to roast. Who knows, maybe the news media will be there looking for local color and someone to quote. If so, Tazzy will be ready.

Half the hay by Ground Hog Day - Concord Monitor

John Roberts blocks Rand Paul’s question on whistleblower | TheHill – The Hill

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

A source confirmed that Roberts has indicated he would not read a question from Paul regarding the whistleblower at the center of the House impeachment inquiry.

The question from Paul is expected to name the individual. Because Roberts is responsible for reading the questions that would put him in the position of publicly outing the person on the Senate floor.

Paul indicated to reporters after a closed-door Republican dinner that he was not backing down from trying to ask his question.

Its still an ongoing process; it may happen tomorrow, the libertarian-leaning senator told reporters as he headed back to the Senate chamber.

Senatorshave been submittingtheir questions to Republican leadership, who were responsible for weeding out duplicative questions.

I dont think that happens, and I guess I would hope that it doesnt, he told reporters.

Excerpt from:

John Roberts blocks Rand Paul's question on whistleblower | TheHill - The Hill

From the cradle to the Grove – The Economist

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

Business lessons may not always apply to government

MANY PEOPLE have a favourite book that they like to hand out to friends and colleagues, ranging from Doris Lessings feminist bible The Golden Notebook to Ayn Rands libertarian saga The Fountainhead. The chosen tome of Dominic Cummings, a special adviser to Boris Johnson, Britains prime minister, is rather more specialist. It is High Output Management by Andrew Grove, the late chairman of Intel, a chipmaker.

As management books go, Mr Cummings made an excellent choiceGroves text is clear, practical and free of both pomposity and jargon. Any manager could benefit from his insights into issues such as planning and performance reviews. The book has been popular in Silicon Valley ever since it was first published in 1983.

But how much use will the book be to British civil servants, or indeed any government official? At Intel, Groves goals were clear: to produce the most powerful, reliable microprocessors at the lowest possible cost. The market reinforced efforts to meet these goals every day. A competitor might always produce a better, cheaper product (hence the title of another Grove book, Only the Paranoid Survive).

Even though they involve management, governments are not businesses. They are rarely engaged in manufacturing. The services they offer are not usually being provided in a competitive market. And the outputs they produce are notoriously hard to define.

Take the provision of welfare benefits. A government might choose to aim at a whole range of targets. The provision of benefits at the lowest administrative cost; ensuring that no genuine claimant goes without food or shelter; reducing fraud; making the application system as simple and transparent as possible; setting the level of benefits so that applicants are encouraged to seek work; and so on. Some of these targets might be incompatible with others. Politicians may choose to prioritise one but they will come under pressure if they fail to meet another: if fraud rises, say, or if claimants are left destitute. So civil servants may be forced to chase all the goals simultaneously (more like the modern-day notion of stakeholder capitalism than the shareholder focus Grove represents).

Nor can one rely on everyone to pursue the targets that politicians set. In the 1980s the British government changed the definition of unemployment in a number of ways that reduced the claimant count. But the result was a rise in the number of people on sickness benefit. The doctors who attested to the sickness claims were not under the direct control of ministers. Many were sympathetic to claimants at a time of rapidly rising joblessness.

The theme which runs through Groves book is the breakfast factory: a restaurant that serves the customer with an egg, toast and coffee in the most efficient fashion. But running a government is a lot more like operating a caf where some customers are vegan, others are gluten-intolerant, some want mint tea, and the staff treat the enterprise as a workers co-operative and (possibly to their bosss dismay) refuse to take money from patrons.

Where Grove does on occasion stray into public policy, it is easy to see where his approach falls short. He compares the way that American embassies assess visas with manufacturers testing components. The vast majority of visas are processed without fuss, so why not test a sample rather than every single application, and reduce the time wasted by staff and applicants? Politicians would be extremely reluctant to take such a line, in case a single terrorist entered the country on an unchecked visa. Groves analysis of Americas criminal-justice system suggests that the main constraint is a lack of prison places. At no point does he consider whether, in a country which has long locked up more people proportionately than anywhere else, prison is the most effective way of dealing with crime.

This does not mean that government can learn nothing from business. But the idea that businesspeople will automatically translate their success into government has been proved false by a host of examples, from Silvio Berlusconi in Italy to Rex Tillerson, head of ExxonMobil turned Americas secretary of state. They pull levers and find that nothing moves the way they expect.

It wont do civil servants any harm to read High Output Management. But it is not a road map for managing government. At least the officials can be grateful for small mercies: Mr Cummings isnt making them read The Fountainhead.

This article appeared in the Business section of the print edition under the headline "From the cradle to the Grove"

From the cradle to the Grove - The Economist

Right-Wing Megadonors Are Financing Media Operations to Promote Their Ideologies – PR Watch

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

For decades, Charles Koch has been committed to radically changing American society into a libertarian paradise, free from taxes and regulations, in which the wealthiest oligarchs, like himself, can destroy the environment, exploit their workers, and reap astonishing profits.

His "Structure of Social Change," first introduced by his top strategist, Richard Fink in the late 1970s, was a plan to weaponize philanthropy by using three areas of influence that would, together, gradually push far-right economic ideas into the American mainstream. The strategy begins with the funding of free-market university programs, something the Charles Koch Foundation has done at hundreds of higher education institutions including George Mason University, Florida State, and Western Michigan University, to produce the "intellectual raw materials" for libertarian policies. Then, Koch and his wealthy allies fund think tanks and policy shops that would convert the academic literature into usable policy proposals, which, in the third stage, Koch-funded advocacy groups promote to government officials and the greater populace.

Koch's strategy has been a wild success, but it may not have been as effective without another avenue of influence: favorable media.

A CMD investigation has found that the family foundations of Charles Koch and a number of similarly-minded right-wing megadonors, along with two donor-advised fund sponsors that they use to shepherd their charitable contributions and receive special tax breaks, have donated at over $109 million to media operations since 2015, nearly all of them conservative.

DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund (DCF), the connected donor-advised fund sponsors, have sent more than $45.7 million of their clients' money to finance media nonprofits, including the Media Research Center, Real Clear Foundation, and the National Review Institute, since 2015.

Longtime right-wing funders such as the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Charles Koch Foundation, and the Charles Koch Institute have showered many of the same media groups with millions of dollars over the same period. The recipients range from the nonprofit behind The New Criterion, a magazine that runs lengthy think pieces from conservative intellectuals, to the libertarian Reason Foundation, to James OKeefe's far-right smear operation, Project Veritas.

The host of conservative media outlets have faithfully met the needs of their often billionaire funders. The Daily Caller, heavily funded by the Charles Koch Foundation, printsopinion piecesfrom senior fellows at the climate change-denying Heartland Institute claiming the idea that human-caused climate change is destroying the earth is a "delusion." The Media Research Center's CNS News site printsessaysby right-wing personality Ben Shapiro attacking critics of free-market capitalism. Reason.com promotesthe wonders of capitalismand makes podcastsextolling the legacy of the late David Koch, a longtime Reason Foundation trustee. Project Veritas attempts tosmearthe presidential campaign of economic populist Bernie Sanders andearns praisefrom President Donald Trump. The Motion Picture Institute produces films thatattack regulationand achildren's video seriesin which an economics professor who is affiliated withseveralKoch-fundedprogramsteaches kids about the value of free-market economics. And PragerU publishes five-minute videos attackingsocialism,climate science,socialized medicine, andthe leftin general.

The 21 conservative donor nonprofits researched by CMD for this report are:

The donors investigated by CMD provided more than half of the contribution revenue over the researched time period for several conservative news operations, including the Lucy Burns Institute and the American Media Institute.

Here are some of the biggest recipients of grants from these funders.

TheLucy Burns Institute, a Madison, Wisconsin-based nonprofit and member of the right-wing State Policy Network, received the most money from these nonprofit donors out of all media recipients. From 2015-18, the Institute took in nearly $13.4 million, mostly from DonorsTrust and DCF but also from the Coors Foundation, Bradley Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust. The Institute's 2018 tax return is not yet publicly available, but grants from these six donors amounted to 76 percent of the Institute's contribution revenue from 2015-17.

The Lucy Burns Institute runs the mainstream political database Ballotpedia. Its president, Leslie Graves, is married to GOP operative, Koch and Tea Party allyEric O'Keefe, and Institute staff have beentrained by Koch institutions.

The Lucy Burns Institute Board of Directors has members who are fixtures in the Koch-backed conservative political movement. Director Tim Dunn, the founder and CEO of an oil and gas company in Texas, is chairman of theEmpower Texans Foundation, a group funded by DonorsTrust that has worked with Koch's Americans for Prosperity, and vice chairman of the Koch-funded Texas Public Policy Foundation. Board member Jack McHugh is senior legislative analyst at the Koch-backed Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Director Todd Graves is an attorney who represented the Wisconsin Club for Growth, a Koch network nonprofit whose leadership includes board member O'Keefe, the founder of the media group now known as theFranklin News Foundation, in Wisconsin's John Doe investigations. Plaintiffs in the case accused then-Gov. Scott Walker of illegally coordinating with the Wisconsin Club for Growth. Conservative nonprofits researched by CMD gave over $1.1 million to the Franklin News Foundation, which publishes conservative news wire and websiteThe Center Square, from 2015-18.

Brent Bozell'sMedia Research Centerwas also a major recipient of right-wing foundations' cash from 2015-18, scoring nearly $11.2 million from nine nonprofits tracked by CMD. The family foundation of Breitbart financier Robert Mercer gave $7 million to the Center from 2015-17, and DonorsTrust ($1.3 million) and the Sarah Scaife Foundation ($1.3 million) have given large amounts since 2015. The nine donors provided 27 percent of the Media Research Center's contribution revenue from 2015-17.

The Media Research Center, which operates conservative sites such as CNSNews.com and Newsbusters and bills itself as a media watchdog, is a huge favorite of right-wing politicians and media personalities. In its2018 annual report, the Center boasts of accolades from the likes of Vice President Mike Pence, Trump fanatic and Fox News host Sean Hannity, and Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

The Center's work is "a fundamental element of my show prep daily; they always have been and they always will be," said talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

Libertarian think tank the Reason Foundation received close to $9.6 million from eight nonprofits researched by CMD, including $3.8 million from the Searle Freedom Trust and nearly $1.7 million from the two Charles Koch nonprofits, from 2015-18. The late David Koch was a Reason trustee.

The Reason Foundation publishes Reason Magazine and Reason.com, which includes podcasts and a video series by libertarian media personality John Stossel.

Right-wing propaganda organizationProject Veritas, the group that took down ACORN and smeared Planned Parenthood, receives nearly one-third of its contribution revenue from DonorsTrust. From 2015-18, DonorsTrust funneled over $7.8 million to Project Veritas, accounting for 31.3 percent of its contribution revenue. The Bradley Impact Fund added $31,000 during that time period.

James O'Keefe and his Project Veritas attempt "stings" on Democratic politicians, liberal nonprofits, and media companies, most of which fail to prove anything close to the malfeasance O'Keefe hopes to expose. Perhaps most notably, the group tried to lure Washington Post reporters into writing about a woman who pretended to have had an underage affair with Alabama Senate candidate and right-wing extremist Roy Moore, but the reporters were able to sniff her out.

The American Media Institute bills itself as an independent investigative news service, but from 2015-16, Donors Trust, Donors Capital Fund, the John William Pope Foundation, and the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave it nearly $6.1 million, which was more than two-thirds of its total revenue. The following year, the Institute's revenue dropped significantly, from $5.5 million in 2016 to $577,000 in 2017.

According to Media Matters, the Institute has "duped" mainstream news outlets into publishing its stories, which included one critical of the Clinton Foundation that originally didn't meet the standards of its publisher,Fusion.

The Real Clear Foundation, which funds investigative reporting for the site RealClearPolitics.com, is almost entirely funded by seven conservative nonprofits researched by CMD. DonorsTrust is the biggest donor, having given $3.8 million from 2015-18, and other contributors include Donors Capital Fund ($1 million), the two Charles Koch foundations ($458,000), the Ed Uihlein Foundation ($250,000), and the Thomas W. Smith Foundation ($100,000). The Koch total includes a$375,000 consulting contractpaid by the Charles Koch Institute in 2018.

The Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) funds much of the content of the Daily Caller website, a site that has several ties to white nationalists and was co-founded by now-Fox News host Tucker Carlson with $3 million from right-wing donor Foster Freiss. As of 2018, Carlson was secretary of the DCNF board of directors.

Charles Koch Foundation officialsmay express concernover the site's extremism, but the foundation is DCNF's biggest donor-by a mile. The Koch Foundation and the Charles Koch Institute combined to give over $3.3 million to the Daily Caller News Foundation from 2015-18, representing 37 percent of the group's contribution revenue during that time period. Including grants from DonorsTrust, the Sarah Scaife Foundation and others, conservative nonprofits researched by CMD provided the DCNF with 58 percent of its donation revenue.

Charles Koch alleges he is not a fan of Trump, butDaily Caller and other Koch grant recipientshas often been generous to the president. In fact, Daily Calleraccepted an estimated $150,000from the 2016 Trump campaign to rent its email list. Recently, reporting revealed that Trump family friend Tom Hicks, Jr. said last year that the Daily Caller editorcould be counted onto advance Trump's personal political goals regarding Ukraine.

An anti-Muslim nonprofit led by Daniel Pipes, the Middle East Media and Research Institute is another favorite of right-wing megadonors. The Institute, an organization at the "inner core" of the nation's Islamophobia network that "attempts to portray Muslims and Arabs as being inherently irrational and violent," according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, took in $5.1 million-or 23 percent of its contribution revenue-from four conservative foundations from 2015-18: Sheldon and Miriam Adelson's family foundation ($4 million), DonorsTrust ($564,800), the Sarah Scaife Foundation ($450,000), and the Bradley Foundation ($70,000).

Other recipients of funding by the 21 groups that CMD researched include far-right propaganda video operationPrager University Foundation($4.2 million), theNational Review Institute($2.8 million), the American Enterprise Institutes magazine, National Affairs (over $1 million), theAmerican SpectatorFoundation ($663,000), and neoconservative magazineCommentary, Inc. ($125,000).

The Center for American Greatness, an extremist, pro-Trump group that has publishedalt-right-style posts online, has on staffa former Trump officialand an editor who won fellowships from the Earhart and Bradley foundations. The group earned its 501(c)(3) nonprofit tax status from the IRS in July 2017. The following year, DonorsTrust gave the Center for American Greatness $538,000, with the Bradley Foundation and Thomas W. Smith Foundation adding $150,000 and $50,000, respectively.

The Bradley Foundationwebsitedetails an additional $3 million that it gave to media groups such as the Center for American Greatness and Encounter for Culture and Education, the conservative publisher of Encounter Books, in the first nine months of 2019.

See more here:

Right-Wing Megadonors Are Financing Media Operations to Promote Their Ideologies - PR Watch

Weld bets on New Hampshire to fuel long shot bid against Trump | TheHill – The Hill

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

Former Massachusetts Gov. William WeldWilliam (Bill) WeldAdvocacy group launches tour to encourage religious voters to vote against Trump Trump allies to barnstorm Iowa for caucuses Republican group calls for 'President Pence' amid impeachment trial MORE (R) is betting on undeclared voters in New Hampshire to fuel his long shot challenge against President TrumpDonald John TrumpDemocrats outraged over White House lawyer's claim that some foreign involvement in elections is acceptable Senators take reins of impeachment trial in marathon question session White House announces task force to monitor coronavirus MORE, believing the states fierce independent streak and potential for cross-over voters could turn him into a contenderafter the Feb. 11 primary.

Weld faces astronomically long odds in his effort to win New Hampshire. Trumps grip on the Republican Party is as tight as ever.

Over the course of 120 events Weld has attended across the Granite State over the past year, he said theres been no evidence to suggest that Trumps voters are warming to him as an alternative.

However, Weld says hes gaining traction among left-leaning independents and undeclared voters who are eligible to vote in either partys primary in New Hampshire.

When people say, how are you going to turn around those die-hard Trumpers Im not, Weld said in an interview at The Hills office. My job is to enlarge the electorate of people who vote in the Republican primary.

Weld said he and his wife have been throwing boutique soap parties to convince independents to cross over on primary day to cast a ballot against Trump.

The soap is so voters who become independents for a day can take a long hot shower and go back to being a Democrat after casting a ballot against Trump in the GOP primary, Weld said.

Weld faces near impossible odds in his quest for the nomination.

A WBUR survey of New Hampshire from last month found Trump at 74 percent support, against 9 percent for Weld.

The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee (RNC) combined to raise more than $463 million in 2019. The Weld campaign brought in about $1.3 million in the first three quarters of 2019.

About a half-dozen states will not even hold GOP primaries this year, and the RNC has taken other steps to head off a potential primary challenger as well.

But Weld says the bar for success is so low that hes set up to shock the world on primary day in New Hampshire.

The wise guys, Weld said, expect him to get only 1 or 2 percent in New Hampshire, so a 10 percent showing or better might be all he needs.

If I got 20 percent, theyd be like, holy shit, whats happening here?, Weld said.

Regardless, Weld said hes in the race for the long haul to ensure that Republicans have a candidate running in the unlikely case Trump is removed from office by the Senate or some unforeseen political pressure chases him from the ballot.

Unless the roof falls on my head, Ill keep going as long as I can, Weld said.

Weld, who ran on the Libertarian Party ticket with former New Mexico Gov. Gary JohnsonGary Earl JohnsonWeld bets on New Hampshire to fuel long shot bid against Trump The 'Green' new deal that Tom Perez needs to make The Trump strategy: Dare the Democrats to win MORE in 2016, said if he does not win the GOP nomination, he will not run as a third-party candidate again.

Rather, Weld said he could happily support former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenSenators take reins of impeachment trial in marathon question session Sanders campaign says it raised more than .3 million in one day after negative ad Warren's dog campaigns in Iowa while senator sits in impeachment trial MORE in a matchup against Trump. Weld even volunteered to campaign for Biden and believes hed be an effective surrogate for the campaign in convincing moderate Republicans to reject Trump.

They could use me if they want crossover votes and Id be there, Weld said.

The former Massachusetts governor said he likes and admires Sens. Bernie SandersBernie SandersSanders campaign says it raised more than .3 million in one day after negative ad Warren's dog campaigns in Iowa while senator sits in impeachment trial Weld bets on New Hampshire to fuel long shot bid against Trump MORE (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenSanders campaign says it raised more than .3 million in one day after negative ad Warren's dog campaigns in Iowa while senator sits in impeachment trial Weld bets on New Hampshire to fuel long shot bid against Trump MORE (D-Mass.), but would have a tough time supporting either of them, believing their progressive politics are out of step with where most of the country is.

And hes worried about how a candidate from the left would fare in a head-to-head matchup against Trump.

I think itd be tight and I dont want it to be tight, Weld said.

Weld also said hed also be happy if either Rep. Justin AmashJustin AmashWeld bets on New Hampshire to fuel long shot bid against Trump Sanders co-chair: Greenwald charges could cause 'chilling effect on journalism across the world' Trump rails against impeachment in speech to Texas farmers MORE (I-Mich.) or former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee secured the Libertarian Partys nomination.

Regardless, Weld says he wants Trump out of office at all costs. He believes the president should be removed from office immediately by the GOP-controlled Senate.

I think he should be removed from office right now by the Senate and we can all get back to our normal lives, Weld said. I think thats what the founders would say. This is precisely the conduct they were most worried about they were thinking about someone who would interfere with the structure of government.

Weld says he thinks GOP senators stick with Trump out of fear of retribution from the president and his supporters.

Its fear and its fueled by an obsession with getting reelected, he said.

Weld is warning Senate Republicans that absolving Trump of wrongdoing in the impeachment trial will backfire, and that instead, the GOP will pay a price at the ballot box for not removing him from office.

When asked if he thinks Republicans will lose the Senate, Weld responded: I think its quite likely.

Link:

Weld bets on New Hampshire to fuel long shot bid against Trump | TheHill - The Hill

Unstoppable? Iowa GOP caucuses will measure depth of Trump’s support – The Gazette

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

Is it a death grip or a limp handshake? President Donald Trumps grasp on the Republican Party grassroots will get its first big test of 2020 next month in Iowa.

Iowa Republicans attending the Feb. 3 caucuses will have the opportunity to cast their preference for the partys presidential nomination. Thats different from other recent election cycles, when parties with incumbent presidents have not held true contests or reported accurate results.

Iowa political parties have peculiar history with uncontested presidential caucuses

For true small-government conservatives, there are many reasons to oppose Trumps reelection bid.

Competitive GOP caucuses in 2020 would be good for America

Actually, we need more candidates running for president in Iowa

Former U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh and former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld are campaigning against Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. Trump is favored, to say the least. Polls show nearly 90 percent of Republicans approve of Trumps job performance, while around 80 percent support his renomination.

For true small-government conservatives, though, there are many reasons to oppose Trumps reelection bid: He has let the national debt balloon uninhibited, failed to replace Obamacare, largely reneged on his promise to wind down our unwinnable wars and regularly bucked the limits of his executive power (not least of which was withholding Congressionally approved aid from Ukraine, the subject of the ongoing impeachment trial).

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

The two Republican challengers are simultaneously contemptuous of Trumps enablers in Washington, D.C., and sympathetic to the voters who put them in power. They are convinced there is hunger in the Republican base for an alternative to Trump, never mind the polls.

Walsh one-term Tea Party congressman from Illinois and a former talk radio host spent much of last week watching Trumps impeachment trial in the Senate and firing off spicy takes on Twitter, including calling out Republican senators by name. He has little hope the current crop of GOP legislators can be redeemed.

I think theyre too far gone. You gotta be on the record right now about Trump and Trumpism. These people like (U.S. Sen. Marco) Rubio and some who are trying to stay quiet, you cant do that. You either support him or you dont, Walsh told me last week.

GOP politicians redemption tour comes to Iowa

On the issues, Walsh takes libertarian and fiscally conservative stances. He seems less concerned nowadays with many of the divisive culture war issues he discussed in his talk radio career.

Walsh has made increasingly frequent trips to Iowa in the past couple of months, and plans to be here every day until the caucuses.

I want people to wake up after the caucuses and be surprised and say, Wow, there is a primary going on on the Republican side. Ive gotta do well, and Im staking a lot on Iowa, Walsh said.

Weld a former two-term Republican governor from left-leaning Massachusetts holds out hope that some Republican legislators will snap out of blindly supporting the president, but time is running out.

Ive been predicting for some time that its not going to go well for Republicans in the legislative elections in 2020. Well have a Democratic Senate if they just roll over and play dead, so Im hopeful they wont, Weld told me.

Are Republicans willing to disagree? Caucus challenger wants to find out

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

Weld also has a broad libertarian streak, balanced with an old-school pro-business conservatism. He even ran with the Libertarian Party for vice president in 2016. At the partys nominating convention that year, he promised members he was a Libertarian for life, and wouldnt go back to any other party.

But in a guest column published last week by the conservative blog the Bulwark, Weld gives an impassioned defense of Republican values, and doesnt mention his Libertarian Party stint.

Ive been a libertarian since I was in law school and took up Friedrich Hayek and The Constitution of Liberty, Weld told me.

The reason I decided to run as a Republican this time is that someone needed to stand up and plant a flag against Trumps misdeeds, and I didnt see anyone else doing it.

Trump challenger is part of great American party-switching tradition

Its hard to say what a bad night for Trump in Iowa would look like. Assuming the president wins a clear majority of Iowa Republicans support, how many points would his challengers have to siphon off to make a statement?

Theres only one modern election that offers a comparison. In 2012, Iowa Democrats reported the full delegate counts from the caucuses, which they did not do in 1996: 98.4 percent for President Barack Obama, 1.5 percent uncommitted.

It looked like a total blowout for Obama, but his figures may have been inflated by party loyalists maneuvering. The caucus agenda included time for a livestream webcast from Obama, but preference groups to pick a candidate were only held if 15 percent of attendees agreed to it.

Under those rules, only Democrats with a little bit of confidence and knowledge of the process were able to have their preferences counted, as independent journalist and Democratic activist Laura Belin reported at the time.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

The Iowa Democratic Partys caucus rules and procedures put many obstacles before Democrats who arent satisfied with the presidents performance, Belin wrote on her Bleeding Heartland website.

Disgruntled Republicans will face somewhat different challenges this February. There is no viability threshold, so all the votes will be counted. But the party infrastructure is all-in for Trump the Republican National Committee voted last year to commit undivided support to the Trump campaign and caucus chairs might resist efforts to speak in support of other candidates.

The hope is that a lackluster tally for Trump in Iowa would generate momentum and national attention for the opposition candidates. Both Weld and Walsh told me they are committed to staying in the race past Iowa and New Hampshire, when several Democrats will likely be dropping out.

Perhaps some unforeseen crisis will change minds and trigger massive turnout to late GOP primaries. Trumps removal from office or a battle at the party convention are extremely unlikely, but maybe not impossible.

Assuming Trump is on the general election ballot, both Walsh and Weld reserve the right to endorse an opposing candidate or even launch a third-party campaign of their own. The ultimate goal, theyre both adamant, is to end Trumps presidency.

Im dedicating my life to stopping Trump. If it doesnt work out through a Republican challenge in the Republican primary, I dont know what Ill do next. ... I would do anything if I thought it would help stop him, Walsh said.

Comments: (319) 339-3156; adam.sullivan@thegazette.com

Follow this link:

Unstoppable? Iowa GOP caucuses will measure depth of Trump's support - The Gazette

2020 Democrats Are Already Giving Up on Congress – The Atlantic

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is reportedly considering dozens of executive orders he could sign to go around Congress, and hes already promised to implement major parts of his immigration plan unilaterally if it stalls on Capitol Hill. Before dropping out of the race late last year, Senator Kamala Harris of California vowed to enact her gun-control agenda herself if Congress didnt act within 100 days of her inauguration. Even former Vice President Joe Biden, who has campaigned as a legislative consensus-builder and has been dismissive of his rivals plans to circumvent Congress, has proposed an aggressive use of executive orders.

This embrace of executive authority has disappointed, but not surprised, advocates who want to reverse a decades-long shift in power from a largely dysfunctional legislative branch to an ever more muscular executive.

Executive-branch circumvention of Congress is what everyone expects by now, says Philip Wallach, a senior fellow in governance at R Street, a libertarian think tank. It has been a decade since Congress last enacted a major new policy program, aside from a few big tax cuts and spending bills, he notes.

Read: The alarming scope of the presidents emergency powers

The past three presidents have tried to push the bounds of executive authority. In the years after 9/11, civil libertarians and some Democrats criticized the George W. Bush administration for its expansive interpretation of the presidents power to act in the name of national security. Republicans took President Barack Obama to court over his move to grant legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants after Congress refused to pass a comprehensive bill providing a path to citizenship. (The Obama administration rejected an even wilder idea of minting a trillion-dollar coin to obviate the need for Republican votes to raise the debt ceiling.)

Congress is at fault too. Over the years, lawmakers have written overly broad laws that have given executive agencies wide latitude to interpret and implement them as they see fit, argues Elizabeth Goitein, the director of the liberty-and-national-security program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a left-leaning think tank. Many disputes over such laws end up in the courts, leading to years of litigation, as has been the case with the Affordable Care Act, for example. Congress has essentially abdicated the job of lawmaking and has left that to the president, Goitein told me. Presidents have also taken to stretching the bounds of those delegations and going beyond what Congress has authorized.

Warrens advisers told me she views Congress as a partner, noting her support for repealing the authorizations of military force that were passed in 2001 and 2003 and that presidents have used to justify military actions across the globe in the decades since. But Warren is also a candidate who conceived of and built from scratch an entire federal agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that was designed to be insulated from congressional sabotage and oversight. For years, she has pushed the executive branch to be more aggressive about using its vast power to improve peoples lives. She has really thought deeply about how you can use all the tools of government to actually deliver for people, Bharat Ramamurti, the campaigns deputy director for economic policy, told me.

Follow this link:

2020 Democrats Are Already Giving Up on Congress - The Atlantic

Being alive: Institut Franais presents ‘The Night of Ideas’ – Daily Sabah

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Danzig

Held as part of a worldwide series of events coordinated by the Institut Franais, "The Night of Ideas" is back with a fifth edition, taking place simultaneously in Istanbul, Ankara, zmir, Paris and other venues across the globe on Thursday, Jan. 30, 2020.

This year's theme will be "ALIVE!," bringing the issue of environmental balance and human relations front and center. "At a time when the natural world is threatened and technology seems all-powerful," the event will call on people to collectively question the boundaries of humanity and invite the audience to take matters into their own hands.

Attracting the wide participation of nongovernmental organizations, cultural and artistic institutions, universities and museums all around the world since 2016, the event brings together opinion leaders, artists and researchers from all segments of society. This year they will discuss all aspects of what it means to be alive in today's world. They will try to find answers to questions such as: "What is our place in the world of living things?" "Have we humans really caused a 'sixth extinction'?" "Can artificial intelligence (personal robots or cyborgs) acquire memory and develop autonomous and consistent behaviors?"

The series has been held on the last Thursday of January every year.

PROGRAM

"Arts & Sciences, a show by Thierry Poquet"

Ankara will be hosting a one-and-a-half-hour interactive performance by Thierry Poquet with the contributions of director Merve Gezen on Jan. 30 at 7:30 p.m.

Istanbul will host three events for the night. First up is "Coming to life with the breath of female artists" ("Kadn sanatlarn nefesinde hayat bulmak"), a panel moderated by journalist and contemporary art critic Ayegl Snmez. Distinguished artists Rabia apa, Nil Yalter and Dilan Bozyel will share with the audience their doubts, realities, beliefs and their creative lives. Starting at 7:15 p.m., the event will last about an hour and 15 minutes.

The second part of the night will take the audience through "Paris-Beirut: Happiness Line" ("Mutluluk Hatt"), an exhibition by photographer Dilan Bozyel.

At 10 p.m., there will be a screening for "Onun Filmi" and a Q&A session with co-director Merve Bozcu. The film tells the stories of 14 female directors, of being female filmmakers in Turkish cinema, of being women and of being working women.

Meanwhile, in zmir, Martin Godon will host a conference on "Where is death in life?" ("Hayat Bulmak: Peki lm Hayatn Neresinde?"), scrutinizing concepts such as AI, robotics, transhumanism and immortality. From mythology to sci-fi stories, the thought-provoking event will aim to find an answer to the question, "Are we on the verge of a new humanity?"

Participating in numerous archaeological excavations in Turkey and Syria, Godon specializes in prehistoric archaeology in the Near East. He has been examining and investigating the development of human societies from prehistoric times to the present, especially changes due to climate change.

Originally posted here:

Being alive: Institut Franais presents 'The Night of Ideas' - Daily Sabah

Select Page ::