Connect with us

Government

Naming Names

Naming Names

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via DailyReckoning.com,

One reason American movies are so bad these days is they have forgotten…

Published

on

Naming Names

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via DailyReckoning.com,

One reason American movies are so bad these days is they have forgotten how to tell a story. Stuff just happens to characters. Cause, effect and consequence no longer exist in the workshops of Hollywood.

And one might sense that these imperatives are likewise missing from what used to be known as real life in the USA, with all its stories and narratives. Stuff just happens to the people in this country now. And then sometimes, stuff un-happens.

With the Russian operation in Ukraine alarming the populace, you might have forgotten the late COVID-19 epidemic that provoked so much public hysteria and government policy overreach.

Stuff happened during those two-plus years of COVID-19, and even with Ukraine blaring from the cable news channels, COVID-19 stuff is still happening. Vaccine mandates are still in force, in New York City, for instance — except for performers and ballplayers, who are exempted now, as announced this week by Mayor Eric Adams.

If you detect any specious reasoning behind that diktat, at least you know who made it happen.

“Safe and Effective”

But so many other things just happened with COVID-19, rather serious things, and no one has had to answer for them, certainly not Dr. Anthony Fauci, who just days ago talked up another booster shot of his obviously defective mRNA “vaccines.”

Dr. Fauci proposed that despite a raft of emerging statistics from the life insurance realm that indicate a shockingly high number of mysterious all-causes deaths for people in the prime of life. Several conditions appear to be killing them:

1) Blood clotting in the capillaries of various organs, apparently caused by the “vaccine’s” main active ingredient, spike proteins.

2) Heart inflammation (pericarditis and myocarditis).

3) A mystifying array of neurological afflictions.

4) Switched-off immune system toggles, including the cellular mechanism for preventing the growth of cancers.

This developing picture of a public health catastrophe, growing more robustly detailed by the week, has somehow not alarmed the general public, not least because the entire public health officialdom does not want them to know about it.

Names

In fact, as averred to above, they are all still busy promoting the “vaccines” that are responsible.

Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, is rather well-known — though her duties appear limited to the public impersonation of a “concerned mom” — but whoever heard of Rebecca Bunnell, Ph.D., director of the CDC’s Office of Science?

Does science play any part in the emerging disaster of sharply rising all-causes deaths? It would be good to know, don’t you think? Anyone heard from Daniel Jernigan, MD, deputy CDC director for public health science and surveillance (DDPHSS)? You’d think he would be out there surveilling things.

How about Brian C. Moyer, Ph.D., director of the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics. He would be in charge, presumably, of the VAERS system, which tabulates adverse vaccine events.

That system evidently under-reports adverse events by a shocking amount — some say only 1% are ever recorded. Why is that? Because it is a website that is so notoriously ill designed and hard to use that the CDC pledged to fix it more than 10 years ago and never got around to it.

Why is that, Dr. Moyer? Has anyone asked him? I don’t think so.

More Names

There is the appalling and still on-going campaign to suppress COVID early-treatment off-label drugs such as ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, fluvoxamine, etc., though the protocols have been proven highly effective in clinical practice as well as scores of internationally peer-reviewed studies.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans died because these drugs were maliciously outlawed. In many states, doctors can be punished with loss of medical licenses for using these safe and effective drugs, or even talking them up.

Who exactly in public health was responsible for this suppression? Who gave the orders for it?  Or did it just happen? Was it Francis Collins, recently retired director of the National Institutes for Health (NIH)? He must have at least approved the policy.

Stephen M. Hahn, MD, who was commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration from December 2019 to January 2021, the heart of the COVID event timeline? Janet Woodcock, who was acting commissioner from January 2021 to February 2022 — and was previously the longtime chief of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research?

Or the current chief of that outfit, one Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD? Or Jacqueline A. O’Shaughnessy, Ph.D., the FDA’s acting chief scientist? Was outlawing early treatment in their purviews? Did they even know about it? How could they not?

Even More Names

Consider another killer on the scene: the drug remdesivir, a Dr. Fauci production, originally for hepatitis C, manufactured by Gilead Sciences. U.S. public health has anointed remdesivir the standard of practice for patients severely ill with Stage 2 inflammatory COVID in the ICUs all over America.

It is well-known that remdesivir destroys kidney function in as little as five days. This supposed antiviral agent is being used after the high-viral-load Stage 1 phase of COVID is over. How many ICU patients have been killed by remdesivir?

Why not ask Judith A McMeekin, Pharm.D, the FDA’s associate commissioner for regulatory affairs? Or Sam Posner, acting director for the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases? Or Rima F. Khabbaz, MD, director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases?

Or Debra Houry, MD, acting principal deputy director of the CDC and, since 2014, director of the Center for Injury Prevention and Control? Or the CDC’s chief medical officer, Mitchell Wolfe, MD? Or Nathaniel Smith, MD, CDC’s deputy director of public health service and implementation?  Or maybe Jay C. Butler, deputy CDC director for infectious dseases?

You see, there are real people in high places with exalted credentials who must in some way be responsible for the epic blunders committed during the COVID-19 saga. Or else they allowed these actions to happen on purpose.

Will any actual persons answer for any of this?

I’m Not Done Yet

Oh, by the way, perhaps you noticed the ruckus over University of Pennsylvania transgender swimmer Lia Thomas (born William Thomas) recently winning the Women’s 500-yard freestyle race in the NCAA nationals.

How did it happen that the 6’4” Thomas, oddly still in possession of normal male genitalia, got permission to compete against, shall we say, natural-born women?

You can ask Mark Emmert, the NCAA president, or Wendell E. Pritchett, president of the University of Pennsylvania, or Alanna W. Shanahan, Penn director of athletics, or Lauren C. Procopio, assistant director for men’s/women’s Swimming.

You see, there are real people behind all these disorders of our national life. Many more besides just the notorious Dr. Fauci… and many more work under all these directors of this and that.

What have they done? Or did stuff just happen?

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/11/2022 - 21:00

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Fighting the Surveillance State Begins with the Individual

It’s a well-known fact at this point that in the United States and most of the so-called free countries that there is a robust surveillance state in…

Published

on

It’s a well-known fact at this point that in the United States and most of the so-called free countries that there is a robust surveillance state in place, collecting data on the entire populace. This has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by people like Edward Snowden, a National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower who exposed that the NSA was conducting mass surveillance on US citizens and the world as a whole. The NSA used applications like those from Prism Systems to piggyback on corporations and the data collection their users had agreed to in the terms of service. Google would scan all emails sent to a Gmail address to use for personalized advertising. The government then went to these companies and demanded the data, and this is what makes the surveillance state so interesting. Neo-Marxists like Shoshana Zuboff have dubbed this “surveillance capitalism.” In China, the mass surveillance is conducted at a loss. Setting up closed-circuit television cameras and hiring government workers to be a mandatory editorial staff for blogs and social media can get quite expensive. But if you parasitically leech off a profitable business practice it means that the surveillance state will turn a profit, which is a great asset and an even greater weakness for the system. You see, when that is what your surveillance state is predicated on you’ve effectively given your subjects an opt-out button. They stop using services that spy on them. There is software and online services that are called “open source,” which refers to software whose code is publicly available and can be viewed by anyone so that you can see exactly what that software does. The opposite of this, and what you’re likely already familiar with, is proprietary software. Open-source software generally markets itself as privacy respecting and doesn’t participate in data collection. Services like that can really undo the tricky situation we’ve found ourselves in. It’s a simple fact of life that when the government is given a power—whether that be to regulate, surveil, tax, or plunder—it is nigh impossible to wrestle it away from the state outside somehow disposing of the state entirely. This is why the issue of undoing mass surveillance is of the utmost importance. If the government has the power to spy on its populace, it will. There are people, like the creators of The Social Dilemma, who think that the solution to these privacy invasions isn’t less government but more government, arguing that data collection should be taxed to dissuade the practice or that regulation needs to be put into place to actively prevent abuses. This is silly to anyone who understands the effect regulations have and how the internet really works. You see, data collection is necessary. You can’t have email without some elements of data collection because it’s simply how the protocol functions. The issue is how that data is stored and used. A tax on data collection itself will simply become another cost of doing business. A large company like Google can afford to pay a tax. But a company like Proton Mail, a smaller, more privacy-respecting business, likely couldn’t. Proton Mail’s business model is based on paid subscriptions. If there were additional taxes imposed on them, it’s possible that they would not be able to afford the cost and would be forced out of the market. To reiterate, if one really cares about the destruction of the surveillance state, the first step is to personally make changes to how you interact with online services and to whom you choose to give your data.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Stock Market Today: Stocks turn higher as Treasury yields retreat; big tech earnings up next

A pullback in Treasury yields has stocks moving higher Monday heading into a busy earnings week and a key 2-year bond auction later on Tuesday.

Published

on

Updated at 11:52 am EDT U.S. stocks turned higher Monday, heading into the busiest earnings week of the year on Wall Street, amid a pullback in Treasury bond yields that followed the first breach of 5% for 10-year notes since 2007. Investors, however, continue to track developments in Israel's war with Hamas, which launched its deadly attack from Gaza three weeks ago, as leaders around the region, and the wider world, work to contain the fighting and broker at least a form of cease-fire. Humanitarian aid is also making its way into Gaza, through the territory's border with Egypt, as officials continue to work for the release of more than 200 Israelis taken hostage by Hamas during the October 7 attack. Those diplomatic efforts eased some of the market's concern in overnight trading, but the lingering risk that regional adversaries such as Iran, or even Saudi Arabia, could be drawn into the conflict continues to blunt risk appetite. Still, the U.S. dollar index, which tracks the greenback against a basket of six global currencies and acts as the safe-haven benchmark in times of market turmoil, fell 0.37% in early New York trading 105.773, suggesting some modest moves into riskier assets. The Japanese yen, however, eased past the 150 mark in overnight dealing, a level that has some traders awaiting intervention from the Bank of Japan and which may have triggered small amounts of dollar sales and yen purchases. In the bond market, benchmark 10-year note yields breached the 5% mark in overnight trading, after briefly surpassing that level late last week for the first time since 2007, but were last seen trading at 4.867% ahead of $141 billion in 2-year, 5-year and 7-year note auctions later this week. Global oil prices were also lower, following two consecutive weekly gains that has take Brent crude, the global pricing benchmark, firmly past $90 a barrel amid supply disruption concerns tied to the middle east conflict. Brent contracts for December delivery were last seen $1.06 lower on the session at $91.07 per barrel while WTI futures contract for the same month fell $1.36 to $86.72 per barrel. Market volatility gauges were also active, with the CBOE Group's VIX index hitting a fresh seven-month high of $23.08 before easing to $20.18 later in the session. That level suggests traders are expecting ranges on the S&P 500 of around 1.26%, or 53 points, over the next month. A busy earnings week also indicates the likelihood of elevated trading volatility, with 158 S&P 500 companies reporting third quarter earnings over the next five days, including mega cap tech names such as Google parent Alphabet  (GOOGL) - Get Free Report, Microsoft  (MSFT) - Get Free Report, retail and cloud computing giant Amazon  (AMZN) - Get Free Report and Facebook owner Meta Platforms  (META) - Get Free Report. "It’s shaping up to be a big week for the market and it comes as the S&P 500 is testing a key level—the four-month low it set earlier this month," said Chris Larkin, managing director for trading and investing at E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley. "How the market responds to that test may hinge on sentiment, which often plays a larger-than-average role around this time of year," he added. "And right now, concerns about rising interest rates and geopolitical turmoil have the potential to exacerbate the market’s swings." Heading into the middle of the trading day on Wall Street, the S&P 500, which is down 8% from its early July peak, the highest of the year, was up 10 points, or 0.25%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which slumped into negative territory for the year last week, was marked 10 points lower while the Nasdaq, which fell 4.31% last week, was up 66 points, or 0.51%. In overseas markets, Europe's Stoxx 600 was marked 0.11% lower by the close of Frankfurt trading, with markets largely tracking U.S. stocks as well as the broader conflict in Israel. In Asia, a  slump in China stocks took the benchmark CSI 300 to a fresh 2019 low and pulled the region-wide MSCI ex-Japan 0.72% lower into the close of trading.
  • Get investment guidance from trusted portfolio managers without the management fees. Sign up for Action Alerts PLUS now.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Forget Ron DeSantis: Walt Disney has a much bigger problem

The company’s political woes are a sideshow to the one key issue Bob Iger has to solve.

Published

on

Walt Disney has a massive, but solvable, problem.

The company's current skirmishes with Florida Gov. DeSantis get a lot of headlines, but they're not having a major impact on the company's bottom line.

Related: What the Bud Light boycott means for Disney, Target, and Starbucks

DeSantis has made Walt Disney (DIS) - Get Free Report a target in what he calls his war on woke, an effort to win right-wing support as he tries to secure the Republican Party nomination for president. 

That effort has generated plenty of press and multiple lawsuits tied to the governor's takeover of the former Reedy Creek Improvement District, Disney's legislated self-governance operation. But it has not hurt revenue at the company's massive Florida theme-park complex.  

Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger addressed the matter during the company's third-quarter-earnings call, without directly mentioning DeSantis.

"Walt Disney World is still performing well above precovid levels: 21% higher in revenue and 29% higher in operating income compared to fiscal 2019," he said. 

And "following a number of recent changes we've implemented, we continue to see positive guest-experience ratings in our theme parks, including Walt Disney World, and positive indicators for guests looking to book future visits."

The theme parks are not Disney's problem. The death of the movie business is, however, a hurdle that Iger has yet to show that the company has a plan to clear.

Boba Fett starred in a show on Disney+.

Image source: Walt Disney

Disney needs a plan to monetize content 

In 2019 Walt Disney drew in more $11 billion in global box office, or $13 billion when you add in the former Fox properties it also owns. In that year seven Mouse House films crossed the billion-dollar threshold in theaters, according to data from Box Office Mojo.

This year, the company will struggle to reach half that and it has no billion-dollar films, with "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3" closing its theatrical run at $845 million globally. 

(That's actually good for third place this year, as only "Barbie" and "The Super Mario Bros. Movie" have broken the billion-dollar mark and they may be the only two films to do that this year.)

In the precovid world Disney could release two Pixar movies, three Marvel films, a live-action remake of an animated classic, and maybe one other film that each would be nearly guaranteed to earn $1 billion at the box office.

That's simply not how the movie business works anymore. While theaters may remain part of Disney's plan to monetize its content, the past isn't coming back. Theaters may remain a piece of the movie-release puzzle, but 2023 isn't an anomaly or a bad release schedule.

Consumers have big TVs at home and they're more than happy to watch most films on them.

Disney owns the IP but charges too little

People aren't less interested in Marvel and Star Wars; they're just getting their fix from Disney+ at an absurdly low price. 

Over the past couple of months through the next few weeks, I will have watched about seven hours of premium Star Wars content and five hours of top-tier Marvel content with "Ahsoka" and "Loki" respectively. 

Before the covid pandemic, I gladly would have paid theater prices for each movie in those respective universes. Now, I have consumed about six movies worth of premium content for less than the price of two movie tickets.

By making its premium content television shows available on a service that people can buy for $7.99 a month Disney has devalued its most valuable asset, its intellectual property. 

Consumers have shown that they will pay the $10 to $15 cost of a movie ticket to see what happens next in the Marvel Cinematic Universe or the Star Wars galaxy. But the company has offered top-tier content from those franchises at a lower price.

Iger needs to find a way to replace billions of dollars in lost box office, but charging less for the company's content makes no sense. 

Now, some fans likely won't pay triple the price for Disney+. But if it were to bundle a direct-to-consumer ESPN along with content that currently gets released to movie theaters, Disney might create a package that it can price in a way that reflects the value of its IP.

Consumers want Disney's content and they will likely pay more for it. Iger simply has to find a way to make that happen.

Get investment guidance from trusted portfolio managers without the management fees. Sign up for Action Alerts PLUS now.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending