Fwd: What to Do With a Problem Like Duane Hall

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: INDY Week: Primer <indyprimer@indyweek.com>

And other things you need to know today

{  SPONSORED BY BEST OF THE TRIANGLE  } Hey y'all! My apologies again for missing Monday and Tuesday, but it's good to be back with you. If you haven't had a chance, please go vote for this year's Best of the Triangle nominees, which you can do by clicking here. As always, you can check out the web-browser version of this newsletter here.  1. WHAT TO DO WITH A PROBLEM LIKE DUANE HALL?  THE GIST: I wrote at some length this week about Duane Hall problem, the centrist Democratic lawmaker who was accused last week of several incidents sexual misconduct, including making degrading statements and forcibly kissing a woman. Hall has declined calls from party officials to resign, saying he would leave his fate to voters. But on Sunday, he went on the offensive, claiming the allegations against him arose from a conspiracy of sorts. From my piece:  "On Sunday, Hall went on the attack, telling WUNC in a statement that not only was he not guilty and would not resign, but the allegations against him were the result of a vendetta, a reprisal for him dating and then breaking up with the daughter of NC Justice Center executive director and former state representative Rick Glazier. [NC Policy Watch, which first reported the allegations, is an arm of the NC Justice Center.] 'Policy Watch staff then spent months and much effort aggressively contacting colleagues, associates, and acquaintances to manufacture gossip,' he said. '… I ask that you consider the personal motives of this group in soliciting stories.' He continued: 'I won't run away so a tiny far-left element of my party can finish their attack and install a person of their choosing in House Seat District 11 without a vote of the people.'" "On Monday, Hall told me in a text message (he declined to be interviewed): 'I've had personal relationships with several people at NC Policy Watch. There is no way for me to know what degree that played a role, but it has been confirmed to me by one of them that it was discussed at length and the father of the girl I broke up with [Rick Glazier], who is also the [executive director], edited, proofed, and had final say over this story. The main point of my statement is that minimal journalistic integrity demands those relationships should have been disclosed.'" In a statement [all sic] released yesterday [N&O], Hall doubled down on these claims: "They now admit significant ethical conflicts regarding my ex girlfriends which they refused to disclose in their blogs. Their source [Ben Julen] publicly called for me to have primary opposition on February 12—two weeks before the blog release. NC Policy Watch refused to disclose the public Tweets and political motivations of their sources." After noting that the NC Justice Center is a 501c3 barred from intervening in political campaigns, he continues: "NC Policy Watch must explain their bloggers coordination with other political campaigns to time the release of their story for the end of primary filing. … [I]t is obvious they engaged in prohibited campaigning and coordination. NC Policy Watch activities amount to direct intervention in a political campaign and are a violation of their IRS status."  WHAT IT MEANS: I fully understand that Hall believes he's being railroaded and that he's done nothing wrong, but this is a really thin branch he's stepping out on. First he accuses Policy Watch of a conspiracy, then he says it violated IRS regulations. Talk about shooting the messenger! More important, though, is that this is all diversionary bullshit, and I suspect Hall knows it.  It makes perfect sense, after all, that a person who has accused Hall of misconduct would want to see his primaried. And if Policy Watch was out to get Hall, why would they wait to publish until the last day of filing, instead of weeks earlier, when higher-profile Dems could run against him?  As I wrote: "Maybe Policy Watch should have disclosed the relationship between Hall and its executive director's daughter. And maybe we should all be skeptical of trial-by-media. But none of that undercuts the numerous, credible women who have accused him of abhorrent behavior that can't be brushed aside as mere flirtation. And trying to pin this on an allegedly jilted lover's angry father, rather than to accept responsibility for his own behavior, is a serious failure of judgment. Come down off that cross, Duane. You're not the victim here, and martyrdom doesn't suit you." 2. IN 2016, GUNS CLAIMED MORE LIVES IN NORTH CAROLINA THAN EVER BEFORE. THE GIST:  According to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more people died from guns in North Carolina in 2016 than in any year in at least the last three decades [Charlotte Obs. via N&O]. That year, more than 1,400 people died from guns, an increase of 120 over 2015.  "Experts are not yet sure why the numbers are rising. But a jump in firearm-related homicides appears to have driven the increase. Homicides involving guns climbed to 558 in 2016–a 27 percent increase over the previous year."  "Gun deaths in North Carolina have risen significantly faster than the state's population. For every 100,000 people, about 14 died from firearms in 2016. That was the highest rate since 1997. … The pace of gun deaths here continues to exceed the national rate, about 12 gun deaths for every 100,000 people in 2016." "Gun control advocates—including Becky Ceartas, executive director of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence—blame the state's laws. In its scorecard of state gun laws, the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gives North Carolina a D-." "As more people carry guns, 'there inevitably will be a rise in the number of people who use that gun in some sort of altercation,' said Mike Turner, chair of UNC Charlotte's criminology department. From 2015 to 2016, the number of concealed carry permits issued in North Carolina climbed from about 68,000 to about 107,000, according to the State Bureau of Investigation. Last year, about 74,000 permits were issued." WHAT IT MEANS: According to former Charlotte-Mecklenburg police chief Darrel Stephens, cops across the state attribute this rise to social media, with young people becoming inflamed by taunts on Twitter and Facebook and lashing out. Perhaps that's true. But the bigger, far more consequential, and blindingly obvious issue to me is that it is simply too easy for people with homicidal intentions to access guns in North Carolina. Of course, don't bet on the General Assembly to do anything about that.  3. OTHER LOCAL HEADLINES.   A three-judge panel has struck down part of a 2017 law that limited the governor's ability to appoint the members of the State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement. It did not, however, strike down the part of the law that folded ethics complaints into the election board's portfolio. The governor's office may sue over that once again. [N&O]  A program that moved four homeless families into their own house won't solve Durham's affordable housing crisis, but it could be a start. [INDY]  In this week's paper, INDY managing editor Brian Howe has some thoughts about the backlash to Kehinde Wiley's work at NCMA showing a black woman holding a white woman's severed head. [INDY]  Libertarians in Wake County think they could make a difference in 2018. [INDY]  An LGBTQ group at Duke says the school is marginalizing its gay and trans students. [INDY]  The inaugural members of Durham's Women's Council were sworn in Monday night. [INDY]  Durham's Confederate Monument Committee, a joint venture of the city and county, has its leaders. [INDY]  Durham officials annexed and rezoned a former blueberry farm, allowing for a seventy-nine-unit townhouse development. [DHS via N&O]  A liquid asphalt truck flipped over in Raleigh, causing backups on Creedmoor Road. [ABC11]  Partly cloudy today, with a high of 56. [WRAL]  4. ANOTHER BIG PLAYER BITES THE DUST IN TRUMP'S WHITE HOUSE.   THE GIST:  Another day, another high-profile departure from the West Wing. This time it's Gary Cohn, President Trump's top economic adviser, who decided that the president's absurd tariffs proposal was the hill he chose to die on [WaPo]. "Gary Cohn, the White House's top economic adviser, announced Tuesday that he was leaving the administration amid a major internal clash over President Trump's sharp and sudden pivot toward protectionist trade policies. The departure of Cohn, a former president of Goldman Sachs who had been an interlocutor between the Trump administration and the business community, is the latest jolt to a White House that has been especially tumultuous in recent weeks and unable to retain some of its top talent. His resignation as National Economic Council director will leave the White House without a financial heavyweight who business executives and foreign leaders believed had served as a counter to Trump's protectionist impulses and as a moderating force in other areas." "Last week, communications director Hope Hicks resigned. In February, staff secretary Rob Porter was forced out over domestic abuse allegations. That followed the departures of deputy national security adviser Dina Powell and Cohn's deputy on the National Economic Council, Jeremy Katz. Taken together, the departures diminish the White House faction of free trade advocates who hold more traditional views on economics and more closely align with Republican leaders in Congress." "This came after Cohn spent months trying to steer Trump away from tariffs and trade wars. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also lobbied against the tariffs. But they were eventually outmaneuvered by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, trade adviser Peter Navarro and ultimately Trump himself. Financial markets reacted negatively to Cohn's announcement, with Dow futures diving immediately afterward." "Trump admired Cohn as a wealthy titan of Wall Street, but the two men had an on-again, off-again relationship—which was nearly severed in August after the deadly white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville. After privately seething over Trump's claim that 'both sides' were responsible for the violence, Cohn voiced his criticism publicly in an interview with the Financial Times that was interpreted as a rebuke of his boss. But Trump and Cohn repaired their relationship during last fall's push for tax cuts, which became the administration's first major legislative accomplishment." WHAT IT MEANS: Notice here that Cohn didn't leave after Trump's white-supremacist comments, or after he did any of the many things he does that target minorities and immigrants and LGBTQ people. He stayed then because of tax cuts, and he's leaving now because Trump is acting contrary to the desires of multinational corporations. You could make the argument, of course, that Trump's white-supremacist talk didn't directly conflict with Cohn's gig; you could also argue, however, that this shows where the former Goldman Sachs executive's priorities lie.  That being said, it's not like the multinationals are the only ones opposing Trump's half-baked tariff idea. According to a new Quinnipiac poll, a majority of Americans disapprove of the tariff plan, and nearly two thirds believe (accurately) that a trade war would be good for the U.S. As the Post story noted, Cohn is just the tip of the iceberg for an unusually unstable administration. From the AP: "President Donald Trump once presided over a reality show in which a key cast member exited each week. The same thing seems to be happening in his White House. Trump's West Wing has descended into a period of unparalleled tumult amid a wave of staff departures—and despite the president's insistence that it's a place of 'no Chaos, only great Energy!' The latest key figure to announce an exit: Gary Cohn, Trump's chief economic adviser, who had clashed with Trump over trade policy." "Cohn's departure has sparked internal fears of an even larger exodus, raising concerns in Washington of a coming 'brain drain' around the president that will only make it more difficult to advance his already languishing policy agenda. While Trump has publicly tried to dispel perceptions of disarray, multiple White House officials said the president has been pushing anxious aides to stay on the job to try to staunch the bleeding. 'Everyone wants to work in the White House,' Trump insisted during a news conference Tuesday. 'They all want a piece of the Oval Office.' The reality is a far different story." Related: North Carolina brewers are worried about Donald Trump's tariffs. [McClatchy via N&O]  5. TWELVE POLITICAL HEADLINES. North Korea told South Korea it's willing to suspend nuclear and missile tests if talks took place with the Americans. [NYT]  Porn star Stormy Daniels has sued Trump for not signing the hush agreement that Trump's lawyer executed. [CNN]  Special counsel Robert Mueller is scrutinizing Michael Cohen, the Trump lawyer who arranged the Stormy Daniels deal, over his role in two episodes involving Russian interests. [WaPo]  Mueller is also investigating whether an adviser to the United Arab Emirates routed money from the Emirates to Trump's political efforts. The adviser, George Nader, is cooperating and testified before a grand jury last week. [NYT]  The Office of Special Counsel has determined that presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway twice violated the Hatch Act—a prohibition of engaging in politics in her official capacity—and sent its findings to President Trump "for appropriate disciplinary action." [The Hill]  Democratic voters showed up in force for Texas's primaries yesterday, an indication of liberal enthusiasm. [WaPo]  The Trump administration has sued the state of California over policies that extend protections to people living in the U.S. illegally. [AP]  ICYMI: This New Yorker profile on Christopher Steele—the man behind the infamous dossier—is smart and revelatory and undercuts many of the insinuations Republicans have made about Steele. [New Yorker]  Former national security adviser Michael Flynn is selling his home to cover his legal fees from the Mueller investigation. [The Hill]  An abstinence advocate who scored a top job in the Department of Health and Human Services will get final say over family-planning funding. [Politico]  Mississippi could become the first state in the U.S. with a fifteen-week abortion ban, because Mississippi has no other problems to deal with. [CNN]  Sex and the City star Cynthia Nixon could launch a primary challenge to New York Democratic governor Mario Cuomo. [CNN]  6. NINE ODDS & ENDS. Nashville Mayor Megan Barry has resigned after pleading guilty to theft and admitting an affair. [CBS]  Rolling Stone has hired former New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza, who was ousted last year over sexual misconduct claims. [The Hill]  Jeff Bezos is the first person to amass a fortune exceeding $100 billion. (But sure, let's throw a few billion bucks at Amazon for HQ2.) [Time]  The pope has approved sainthood for slain Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero, who was gunned down by right-wing death squads in 1980. [AP]  Bad news for us insomniacs: a lack of sleep can apparently cause Alzheimer's. [New Scientist] McDonald's is replacing frozen beef with fresh in its quarter pounders throughout the continental U.S. [CNN]  After the image of a child awestruck over Michelle Obama's portrait went viral, Obama hung out with her. [CNN]  Hip-hop legends Eric B & Rakim are reuniting for a 2018 tour. [AV Club] Jay-Z and Beyonce may be going on tour together—and there may be a joint album, too. [CNN]

--

--
Ta.


Mark Rauterkus       Mark.Rauterkus@gmail.com
Swimming and Water Polo Coach, Schenley High School, Pittsburgh, PA
http://CLOH.wikia.com
412 298 3432 = cell

Fwd: Wall Street is again mucking with the financial system

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: John H

Things are once again getting very interesting in the neoliberal centers of money and power.  As we saw in 2007-2008 releasing the money center banks form any real semblance of regulatory control produced some of the most frightening and destructive events of our era.  Well, the powers that be are at it once again.  As usual, led by the propagandists at The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, neoliberal stormtroopers in Congress are planning to eviscerate even the modest regulatory reforms put in place following the Great Financial Crisis.  The thing is that these folks manage to profit massively even when the economy for most of us falls apart.  For the 'too big to fail' banks there appears to be little to no risk unless they get too cocky and really blow things up in a big way. 

Sadly, this is a very real possibility given the obscene volume of uncontrolled derivatives mucking around in the system today.  No one, including the banks and hedge funds which play with them, has any real idea of the counterparty risks involved in this play.  Should a new financial crisis explode on the scene, it might well exceed the capacity of the various nations' central banks to paper over in time to forestall a complete banking system collapse and thus a financial disaster.  Any such a collapse would be catastrophic for the rest of us since we are seen as little more than financial cannon fodder.  This, therefore, is something that all Americans should be thinking about and letting Congress-critters know is not the kind of policy they should be considering. 

Yes, I know, this might not be quite as catastrophic as what President I've got a bigger button might create in a fit of pique at three in the morning, but it could be close.  Given Israel's insistence that the U.S. do its bidding and finish the job in Syria and then attack Iran and Trump's determination to nuke North Korea along with the potential Wall Street mess, these are truly trying times.

John

 Links

NY Times is pro capitalism 

Link 2

Jacob Davis, former Stingrays and Brashear swimmer

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/other-colleges/2018/03/01/Brashear-grad-Jacob-Davis-swimming-Saint-Vincent-Josh-Gurekovich/stories/201803020007

Fwd: The Marxist in the audience who challenged me

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tom Woods

It's almost like he'd never heard the arguments against him.

March 1, 2018 View this email in your browser As I told you yesterday, I spent Tuesday night talking to students at UC Santa Barbara about the true record of communism – a chunk of history a rather substantial portion of Americans know nothing about. Toward the end of my talk I said: even if some Marxists out there try to claim that none of the regimes I've discussed tonight constitute true Marxism, I can nevertheless show that their so-called pure Marxism would still be a disaster. So I discussed the socialist calculation problem, as explained by Ludwig von Mises. If the factors of production are owned by a single entity – whether the state or "a vast association of the whole nation" (whatever that means), as Marx put it – then they can have no prices. You don't buy things from yourself. You don't sell things to yourself. Likewise, the entity that owns all the means of production wouldn't be buying or selling them, and therefore prices never arise. Without prices, there is no way to decide between production processes involving incommensurable factors of production. There is no way to decide, among a practically infinite array of resource combinations, which one satisfies consumer preferences at the lowest cost and the least waste. There is no way to calculate profit or loss, and therefore no way to know if a firm is adding value (making us better off) or subtracting value (squandering resources). After I finished, a Marxist stood up during the Q&A and challenged me. Some of the challenges were trivial: he defended Lenin against the charge of oppressing Ukrainians, when I had in fact blamed that on Stalin. But he thought he really got me when he said, "Marx did talk about prices" in Das Kapital. Evidently he took "there can be no prices of the factors of production under pure Marxism" to mean "Marx didn't talk about prices." Certainly Marx did talk about prices, particularly consumer prices. That has nothing to do with it. The point is, his system cannot have meaningful prices of the factors of production. This means that any economy based on Marxist ideas will yield hideous results – and we hardly need to stretch our imaginations to think of how Marxist regimes might try to deal with these results. For Lenin the answer was generally the firing squad, and I see little reason to expect anything different from any other Marxist. Today's episode of the Tom Woods Show builds on yesterday's, and walks you through the Bolshevik Revolution – not the romantic, sanitized version you hear from Marxists, but the real thing in all its terrifying brutality. A noble experiment? You have to be kidding. Listen:   https://tomwoods.com/ep-1105-dont-pine-for-the-original-principles-of-the-bolshevik-revolution/ And by the way, I was very glad to hear so many people at that event say, "I'm a member of the Tom Woods Show Elite!" Thanks for being out in force. Not yet part of our cool group? Entry here: http://www.SupportingListeners.com Tom Woods Share Tweet Forward to Friend Copyright © 2018 Tom Woods, All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: Tom Woods PO Box 701447 Saint Cloud, FL 34770