Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Equal Access to the Draft Is Equality Not Worth Having


The New York Times recently reported that the Senate has voted to require women to register for the draft, with few Senators in opposition. This bill comes as no surprise given the military has been increasingly opening its doors to women.
This culminated in last December when “…Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said in December that the Pentagon would open all combat jobs to women…” which helped military officials advise Congress to make the draft apply for both women and men.
This bill has such broad and widespread support because of its intuitive appeal: If all combat jobs are open to men and this requires them to register for the draft then why should women be any different? Taking the institution of the military and its rules at its face, it seems implausible that women should be treated much differently.
Although the opposition was overall insignificant it should be noted that some of the more conservative members of the Senate, such as Ted Cruz, opposed the legislation on the basis that, “The idea that we should forcibly conscript young girls in combat to my mind makes little sense at all…”
The final outcome of this bill is uncertain with the House of Representatives to deliberate on the bill and President Obama promising a veto, should it go through. But as Nora Bensahel, a military policy analyst, says, “It just seems that now that you have women allowed to serve in any position in the military, there is no logical basis to say women should not be drafted.”
I agree with Bensahel with regards to inevitability and if we accept the coercive power of the state, the military as a legitimate institution, the draft as a legitimate law and so on, then we can swiftly move to a “logical basis” that Bensahel mentions.
However, these are presumptions that unsurprisingly seem to be left out of the conversation so far.
The worst part of this bill isn’t the bill itself but that the minimal opposition it has relies on dangerously conservative ideas about women and their fragility. Notice the way that Cruz uses “little girls” instead of “grown women” when he talks about combat. He has to infantilize women in order to justify the government not being able to force them into the military.
But perhaps just as noxious is the “egalitarianism” liberals and “progressive” Republicans alike can appeal to so they can justify this law. They’re able to distance themselves from using the coercive arm of the state because it’s for “equality”. But equality under the law doesn’t mean anything when the law itself is unjust.
Jessica Pavoni, for the Foundation for Economic Education, writes, “The real issue is that a Selective Service registration (which leads to a draft) is immoral for both men and women, and that neither should be required to register at risk of becoming a felon, being fined, or being put in jail. The mere presence of a draft registration is an assertion that some people are qualified to put…
Read more

The Big Guns Are Out: Soros, Rothschild Warn Of Brexit Doom; Osborne Threatens With “Suspending” Market

PHOTO CREDIT IMF
PHOTO CREDIT IMF
(ZERO HEDGE)  The big guns are officially out.
Just yesterday, we recounted the story of “Black Wednesday” when on September 16, 1992, the UK was forced out of the EU’s exchange-rate mechanism, or ERM, when the BOE tapped out and allowed the British pound to float freely, leading to 15% losses in the sterling. As we noted, this was George Soros’ infamous trade which “broke the Bank of England” and made the Hungarian richer by over $1.5 bilion.
24 years later Soros is back, and this time he is warning against the kind of devaluation that made him a billionaire and which he believes will be unleashed by Brexit, when in a Guardian Op-Ed he wrote that U.K. voters are “grossly underestimating” the true costs of a vote to leave the EU, saying that there would be an “immediate and dramatic impact on financial markets, investment, prices and jobs.”
He predicts that the pound would decline “precipitously”, seeing a gargantuan drop of at least 15% and possibly >20% to below $1.15. Considering it has now become trendy for analysts to come up with ever “doomier” forecasts of just how low cable would plunge in case of Brexit, we are surprised Soros stopped there.
Here Soros makes the distinction how the collapse in cable would be different from the one that made him richer by saying that this devaluation wouldn’t be “healthy” like the one in 1992 because BOE wouldn’t cut rates, U.K. has large current account deficit and devaluation unlikely to improve manufacturing exports this time. Just don’t tell that to the BOJ, which would gladly leave the EU – twice if it had to – if it meant a 20% devaluation.
“Brexit would make some people very rich – but most voters considerably poorer”; “there are speculative forces in the, markets much bigger and more powerful” than the speculators that profited from the 1967 devaluation at Britain’s expense. “A vote to leave could see the week end with a Black Friday, and serious consequences for ordinary people.”
Here is the gist of Soros’ scaremongering, from the Guardian op-ed titled “The Brexit crash will make all of you poorer – be warned:
David Cameron, along with the Treasury, the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund and others have been attacked by the leave campaign for exaggerating the economic risks of Brexit. This criticism has been widely accepted by the British media and many financial analysts. As a result, British voters are now grossly underestimating the true costs of leaving.
As opinion polls on the referendum result fluctuate, I want to offer a clear set of facts, based on my six decades of experience in financial markets, to help voters understand the very real consequences of a vote to leave the EU.
Of course, Soros’ set of facts may be clouded by his far greater equity stake in equity interests around Europe, and the globe, which would be drastially impacted by not only a Brexit, but by a European Union which is suddenly on the rocks.
From that point on, Soros’ entire analysis is on the “worst case” scenario centered around a collapsing pound, something which most ironically every other central bank around the globe is so desperate to achieve:
… sterling is almost certain to fall steeply and quickly if there is a vote to leave– even more so after yesterday’s rebound as markets reacted to the shift in opinion polls towards remain. I would expect this devaluation to be bigger and more disruptive than the 15% devaluation that occurred in September 1992, when I was fortunate enough to make a substantial profit for my hedge fund investors, at the expense of the Bank of England and the British government.
At least he is honest.
It is notable that Soros’ warning comes just days after that of Jacob Rothschild himself who said in another Op-Ed, this time for The Times, that leaving the EU could lead to a “damaging and disorderly situation” in the UK as he urged Britons to vote ‘remain’. Just like Soros, Lord Rothschild, suddenly exhibiting a rare strain of humanitarian concern, said readers should not “risk the wellbeing of our country”and European countries are “better off together”.
He said that “at present we enjoy being a permanent member of the UN security council and we are essential to the G8 and Commonwealth. But diplomacy, defence, the environment and our values of being a liberal democracy will all be at risk” adding that “I can see no good reason why we should accept our playing a diminished role on the world stage,” especially if his own personal fortune would be jeopardized.
* * *
Finally, completing the doom loop, was none other than Chancellor George Osborne who, according to the Telegraph, “refused to rule out suspending trading on the London stock market if Britons vote to leave the European Union on Friday morning… The threat from the Chancellor, made in an LBC radio interview on Monday evening, after the market had closed could force shares down in London as early as Tuesday morning.”
Iain Dale, the presenter, asked Mr Osborne: “If the financial markets do plummet on Friday would you have to consider suspending trading on the FTSE?”
The Chancellor responded: “Well look, the Bank of England and the Treasury – Governor Carney and myself – we have of course discussed contingency plans.
But the sensible thing is to keep those secret and make sure you are well prepared for whatever happens but if you set them all out in advance then you rather undermine the power of those plans.” 
Pushed again on the contingency plans, Mr Osborne said: “I have a responsibility to the people listening to this programme to do all I can to protect them.  “But I have to tell you that you cannot in the end protect people from the economic shock that leaving the EU would bring about.”
And in case the threat of shuttered markets was not enough, Osborne also hinted at imminent mass layoffs, suggesting that redundancy notices could be issued hours after Britons vote to leave the EU at the vote.
Mr Osborne pointed to warnings from the London Stock Exchange there would be 100,000 job losses in the City after a Brexit.
Mr Osborne was challenged about whether redundancies warned by the bank JP Morgan could come as early as Friday – the day after the referendum. Mr Osborne replied: “I think that will start to happen very quickly, sadly.”
Amid all this gloom, Osborne presented the “only” alternative that would not lead to the imminent economic collapse he so forcefully imagines:
“he added that if the UK voted to remain there would be a “quick snap back” for the British economy, he said that “decisions will be taken and investment will come in”. Asked if these redundancy notices would be issued on Friday morning if Britons vote to leave, Mr Osborne said: “That will start to happen very quickly sadly.”
Now if only the people will do what these noble public servants tell to do in their own best interest…
Finally, Osborne also played down claims he could be forced to leave the Treasury after the referendum amid anger form Tory backbenchers over the way he has campaigned, saying: “It’s really not about my job”.
Oh but is George, just like it is in Soros and Rothschild’s own self interest for the people to vote “Remain.” To suggest otherwise is naive, but it may also be irrelevant. With just three days until the vote, the scaremongering tactic, not to mention the murder of an innocent woman, may have already done its job judging by the reveral in public opinion.
In any case, one can only hope that unlike the case of the failed Greek referendum where the people voted one way only to get the opposite, no matter how the Brits vote, it will truly represent the democratic will of the majority and that particular outcome is what they get.

Liberty & drug tests for all: Lawmaker seeks to drug screen the rich




While some lawmakers want to require drug screening and testing for welfare and other assistance program applicants, this idea has inspired one US congresswoman to call for the rich to be drug tested if they wish to take advantage of tax deductions.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker put a lot of time and energy into passing legislation that has given Wisconsin the right to drug test participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). He is not alone either. At least 15 states now require drug testing for public assistance applicants.
Representative Gwen Moore (D-Wisconsin) describes these stipulations as “the criminalization of poverty,” the Guardian reported. In response, she has announced her intention to introduce a bill called the Top 1% Accountability Act that would force taxpayers with itemized deductions exceeding $150,000 to submit a clear drug test to the IRS. Based on the IRS’ 2011 tax data, the only homes that would qualify would be those with a yearly federal adjusted gross income of over $1 million, the Guardian reported.
The federal government considers tax deductions to be expenditures, because they reduce its revenue and, as high earning taxpayers collect the lion’s share of these subsidies, Representative Moore figures they ought to be subject to the same requirements as low-income earners receiving social benefits.
The benefits we give to poor people are so limited compared to what we give to the top 1%,” Representative Moore said. “It’s a drop in the bucket.
Moreover, states that require drug testing for welfare recipients have found it to be ineffective and expensive. For example, Missouri spent $336,297 to test 38,970 welfare applicants, but a total of only 48 people actually failed, according to ThinkProgress.

In addition, studies from the University of Miami School of Medicine found that TANF recipients with existing drug problems were more likely to find work and treatment after receiving welfare, saying, “Treatment completion and length of stay in treatment was associated with moving from welfare to work, and residential treatment (compared to other drug treatments) was associated with positive employment outcomes.
In addition, the study also noted that women, who account for the majority of TANF recipients, “who lose their employment and welfare benefits may be engaging in illegal activities to support themselves and their children.
Representative Moore noted one potential benefit of her program, saying, “We might really save some money by drug-testing folks on Wall Street, who might have a little cocaine before they get their deal done.
Via RT. This piece was reprinted by RINF Alternative News with permission or license.

Dollar falls against ruble amid Brexit decision anticipation, oil price rise