Hertz Is Selling 20,000 EVs Due to Lack of Customer Demand

 Note to rental car agencies and auto manufacturers: Don’t do foolish things.

After Big Tesla Bet, Hertz Selling One-Third of EV Fleet

Hertz is selling a third of its EVs globally, with 20,000 in the US and will use some of the money to buy more Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) gasoline-powered cars.

Please consider After Big Tesla Bet, Hertz Selling One-Third of EV Fleet

Hertz said Thursday that it would sell about 20,000 EVs in the U.S., and use some of the proceeds to purchase internal-combustion-engine vehicles. The company in a regulatory filing cited weaker demand for electrics, and their higher operating costs.

The move is the latest example of a swift retrenchment by the car business on EVs. After years spent outlining aggressive expansion plans, automakers in recent months have put some EV projects on ice and dialed back production forecasts, citing signs that U.S. consumers aren’t ready to move to cars powered exclusively by batteries as quickly as once thought.

The car industry’s effort to sell consumers more broadly on EVs has run into some resistance lately as automakers have largely exhausted the pool of early adopters who tend to be willing to take a chance on new technology.

The company said it would log a $245 million incremental net depreciation expense related to the sale of the 20,000 electric vehicles. Hertz sells its used rental vehicles directly on its website.

Hertz Was Foolish

• The infrastructure was not in place.
• There is only a small pool of people familiar with the nuances of EVs, especially braking.
• No one in their right mind would want to figure out where and how to charge an EV on the road, in an unfamiliar location.

So, why the rush?

Hertz wanted 25 percent of its fleet to be EVs by the end of the year. That just went out the window.

Front-End Collision Hoot of the Day

Reuters noted “Hertz even limited the torque and speed on the EVs and offered it to experienced users on the platform to make them easier to adapt after certain users had front-end collisions.“

Hertz has to limit the speed to prevent crashes. What a hoot.

EV Expectations

Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas said in a note Hertz’s move was another sign that EV expectations need to be “reset downward”.

While consumers enjoy the driving experience and fuel savings (per mile) of an EV, Jonas said there are other “hidden costs to EV ownership“.

“Expenses related to collision and damage, primarily associated with EVs, remained high in the quarter,” Hertz said in a regulatory filing on Thursday.

The company, which had earlier planned to order 100,000 Tesla vehicles by 2022 end and 65,000 units from Polestar over five years, said it would focus on improving profitability for the rest of its EV fleet.

Switched From Hertz

Hertz Deals

Want a used Tesla? You can find them at Hertz Car Sales.

Hertz is selling some Tesla Model 3 for as low as about $20,000, about half the purchase price for the cheapest variant of the compact sedan.

Despite Huge Incentives, Supply of EVs on Dealer Lots Soars to 92 Days

On July 13, 2023, I noted Despite Huge Incentives, Supply of EVs on Dealer Lots Soars to 92 Days

EV inventory is piling up on dealer lots. Hello car manufacturers, what are you going to do with all that inventory?

Firm Answer to My July 13 Question

• October 24, 2023: GM Scraps EV Target, Ford Scales Back Electric Trucks, Musk Warns of Challenges
• To Shore Up Share Price, GM Decreases EV Investment in Favor of Buybacks

Wake Up Mr. President, Consumers Don’t Want EVs

On October 16, 2023 I commented Wake Up Mr. President, Consumers Want Hybrids, Not EVs

In retrospect, a better titled would have been “consumers don’t want EVs”

Well, Biden learned nothing. But it seems GM, Ford, and Hertz sure did.

https://mishtalk.com/economics/hertz-is-selling-20000-evs-due-to-lack-of-customer-demand/

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin Must Go

 Last weekend it was revealed that U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was receiving intensive care at Walter Reed National Medical Center, leaving his whereabouts unknown even to the White House and top defense officials for at least three days. I’m sorry to hear of Austin’s medical challenge and wish him a speedy recovery and good health. Nevertheless, there was a deception afoot to keep his hospitalization a secret as the military remains engaged in conflict abroad.

This is unacceptable behavior from the nation’s top defense official and cannot be allowed to stand as an acceptable precedent. Lloyd Austin must go.

While incapacitated from his ability to command the force, Austin left the Pentagon under the belief that he was working from home. To top it off, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks was vacationing in Puerto Rico and unaware of the nature of her boss’s absence. This is the equivalent of going AWOL, leaving the world’s largest military without top civilian supervision when the U.S. is involved in two ongoing wars.

Unfortunately, Secretary Austin is a man who puts his desires first, the hallmark of someone who cannot be trusted with the responsibilities that come with the office he now holds. This ongoing scandal is merely the latest indicator of the former general’s lack of character.

Lloyd Austin was an unlikely choice for secretary of defense from the beginning. Typically, presidents do not nominate retired generals for the role. One reason is that men who rise through the generals’ ranks are accustomed to tremendous deference and are not used to justifying their requests and actions to others. They are known to lack the skills required to maneuver among the executive cabinet, legislative branch, and the myriad of governmental and non-governmental agencies the military is integrated with. Congress even had to go through a waiver process to allow such a nomination to advance.

To be fair, retired General James Mattis served as defense secretary during most of the Trump Administration. But Mattis brought to the role a well-known reputation as a scholar-warrior, and was well respected among the rank and file. Yet even he proved unable to set aside the habits of a general and master the openly political role of cabinet secretary in a presidential administration.

Compared to Mattis’s career, Austin’s tenure as a military officer was far more subdued and unimpressive. He followed the traditional career path of former generals into the lucrative realm of defense contracting, and was not viewed with a sense of awe by those still serving. As an officer and cabinet official, Austin proved content to preside over deliberate institutional decline. Furthermore, he displays an arrogant indifference to rules and ideas not his own. It has come to the point that even the largely Democratic-aligned Pentagon Press Association launched a protest letter over his apathy toward basic disclosure. The cost of his approach to the integrity of the armed forces—especially when measured in lives lost—seems to be of no consequence.

Austin’s performance as defense secretary over the past three years has been a master class in failure.

The image of him walking a reception line during a 2021 visit to the Philippines, masked and wearing a visor, became an iconic emblem of his tenure, and U.S. leadership under the Biden regime. This visualization fits his accomplishments, which include falsely labeling the force a hotbed of terrorist sympathizers and white nationalists, forcing over 8,000 patriotic Americans out of uniform over a now-ended, unlawful shot mandate, the fall of Kabul in 2021, failed Defense Department audits every year of his tenure, the worst military recruiting crisis of the post-1973 all-volunteer force, the steepest decline of public trust in the military since Vietnam, breaking federal law to fund abortions using military dollars, and dragging the Defense Department into every cultural battle of the day. The list could go on.

At a time when the DOD desperately needed a leader, it got merely another incompetent government official. Rather than realize the damage done, Austin’s Pentagon is doubling down, asking for $114 million more for DEI initiatives as America’s military is facing a severe depletion of personnel, morale, and equipment due to his policies.

At every turn, Austin’s performance as defense secretary has proven a liability. Imagine an employee, or even a CEO, being allowed to remain on the job after three years of such a disastrous record. It seems in the military, the phrase “eff up, and move up” remains an accurate insight on one avenue of career enhancement.

Personnel accountability is a fundamental principle of military life. Having spent four decades in uniform, Mr. Austin knows this well. The risk of making such a selfish move to keep his whereabouts secret cannot be overstated. As the man in charge of the world’s most powerful military, the defense secretary does not have the same right to hide out as an unemployed civilian.

As a company commander in the U.S. Army, I could not lay aside my command responsibilities without informing my senior commander, executive officer, and first sergeant, and activating provisions to deal with unexpected contingencies. With both the defense secretary and his deputy off the job, who was on call at the top to make and implement emergency national security decisions? What civilian oversight monitored U.S. military strikes in Iraq last week? Those who know the answer to these questions are not saying, which is a strong indicator that no one was left in charge at the highest level.

Had this been the behavior of a company, battalion, brigade, or division commander, that officer would most assuredly be relieved. Had it been a lower enlisted soldier, he or she would very likely be preparing to stand before the commander for an article 15 (non-judicial punishment) procedure, or worse. What happens when the Pentagon’s top boss secretly drops off the radar? Based on reporting thus far, nothing at all.

When the military relieves commanders, it’s because of a loss of trust and confidence in that person’s ability to lead. In the past three years, we have witnessed the greatest record of dereliction of duty from any secretary of defense since the McNamara era. The president, himself the subject of reasonable questions regarding his cognitive abilities, may make the blunder of retaining his trust in Mr. Austin. But make no mistake, the defense secretary has impeached himself before the military’s rank and file with this unapologetic display of casual disregard for the weight of his office, not to mention a double standard in behavior that is unacceptable for members of the uniformed force. The only way to recover a modicum of respect for and halt further damage to the office of secretary of defense is for Lloyd Austin to tender an immediate resignation.

Chase Spears (U.S. Army, Retired) served for 20 years in military public affairs. Among other pursuits, Chase is a doctoral candidate at Kansas State University, conducting dissertation research on the political identity of the U.S. military institution. He enjoys writing about a wide range of topics, including civil-military relations, communication ethics, and policy.

https://americanmind.org/salvo/defense-secretary-lloyd-austin-must-go/

False Claims Of “Insurrection,” Minutes After January 6 Capitol Riot, Suggest Disinformation Plot

 Former President Donald Trump, who leads the polls to become the Republican Party’s next presidential nominee, has now been denied his place on the ballot in two different states: Colorado and Maine, as a consequence of courts and state officers claiming that he is ineligible to the presidency thanks to a provision in the 14th amendment that bars individuals who “engaged in insurrection” from serving as president.

To many Americans, it’s simply a given that Trump engaged in insurrection. A mob of his supporters staged a riot both inside and outside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

But neither Trump himself nor any of the people who rioted that day were actually charged with insurrection. In the over 1,000 cases related to that day, you won’t find anyone who was charged with insurrection.

The most serious charge, sedition, was handed down to a handful of defendants like Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio. Tarrio was not present in Washington, D.C. on the day of the riot but was convicted for his alleged role in organizing the storming of the Capitol. Yet prosecutors, the New York Times reported, could not produce smoking gun evidence that he had planned a coup or insurrection. Although some of the messages in Proud Boys’ group chats “were overtly violent and hinted at action at the Capitol, none set forth an explicit plan to storm the building or to forcibly disrupt the election certification taking place inside."

The current list of sentences includes nine individuals who have been successfully convicted of seditious conspiracy. But most of the charges that day are much more banal.

Take the indictment of Rasha N. Abual-Ragheb. She was charged with entering the Capitol and engaging in disorderly conduct while she was there. Her sentence for these acts was three years of probation, a couple of months of home confinement, as well as five dozen hours of community service and $500 in restitution.

That doesn’t mean no more serious crimes occurred that day. Some people assaulted police officers, and those people are being tried, convicted, and sentenced for those crimes.

But the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment wasn’t designed to punish people who engaged in disorderly conduct or even a riot – it was put in place after the Civil War, which saw the deaths of 600,000 people. An insurrection is a violent uprising against the government. Yet even in the most armed country in the history of the world, not a single rioter or protester used firearms against the government. A protest that turned into a riot is not the same thing as trying to violently overthrow the government and seize power.

Abual-Ragheb was trying to protest an election she believed was stolen; she didn’t plan to run the federal government after parading through the Capitol Rotunda.

There appears to be a glaring double standard in Democrats’ approach to violent political activity. In 2020, Black Lives Matter protesters created a self-declared autonomous region in Seattle, Washington, called the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) or Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP). They took over the Seattle Police Department’s East Precinct and set it on fire. Multiple shootings occurred, including of a 19-year-old who died.

This event could have been considered an “insurrection” since its explicit aim was to overthrow and occupy government institutions, subverting the democratic process. Yet CHOP did not receive the same levels of condemnation as January 6.

https://public.substack.com/p/false-claims-of-insurrection-minutes

Gallup: The Quality of Parent-Child Relationships in U.S. Families

 Whether parents and children report having a healthy, low-conflict relationship varies by certain key characteristics of the parents and children. Adolescent children have lower-quality relationships with their parents than younger children do, but their parents are less likely to view them as out of control or argue frequently with them. Married or divorced parents (compared with never-married parents) generally report higher-quality relationships, as do biological parents compared with other relatives, adoptive parents -- or other arrangements. Finally, ideologically conservative parents report higher-quality and more harmonious relationships with their children compared with liberal or moderate parents.

There are few if any nationally representative surveys that collect information on parent-child relationship quality. Gallup’s work in this area is meant to provide baseline results to inform future research and better understanding about the circumstances and beliefs that drive mental health and wellbeing.

The findings on parent-child relationships, from Gallup’s 2023 Familial and Adolescent Health Survey, expand on recently published research that found social media use is high among U.S. teenagers and associated with poor mental health and less parental regulation of screen time. Another study in this series found that warm, disciplined parenting practices and high-quality parent-child relationships predict better mental health among teens.

Child’s Age, Parents’ Political Ideology Among Factors in Relationship Ratings

Gallup asked parents and caretakers to describe the overall quality of their relationship with a child from their household. For caretakers with more than one child in the household, the parent was asked to select the child with the next birthday. Response options ranged from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The majority of U.S. parents/caretakers report an excellent relationship (60%), with only 1% describing it as poor or very poor.

Both the parent’s and the child’s sex are unrelated to the parent’s assessment of the overall quality of the relationship. That is, fathers and mothers evaluate relationships with their children similarly, as do parents of girls versus boys. Measures of socioeconomic status, such as education, household income, race or ethnicity, also do not predict higher- or lower-quality relationships.

Ratings depend greatly on the age of the child, however. When talking about their toddler (aged 3 and 4), 80% of parents rate the relationship as excellent, compared with only 48% of parents asked about their teenager (aged 13-19).

Other parental characteristics are also associated with the quality of their relationships with their child, including parental marital status, genetic relatedness, and the quality of their relationship with their spouse or partner, which was asked of those in a romantic relationship.

• Biological parents are more likely to report an excellent relationship with their child (62%) than are grandparents or other family members (54%), adoptive parents (50%), or stepparents (31%).
• Additionally, parents who report a high-quality relationship with their spouse or coparent are much more likely to report an excellent relationship with their child compared with parents who report a lower-quality spousal or coparent relationship (67% versus 50%).
• Likewise, both married and divorced parents are more likely to report an excellent relationship with their child than never-married parents.

Parental political ideology is also associated with child relationship quality. Parents who self-identify as conservative, ideologically, are somewhat more likely to report having an excellent relationship with their child (65%) than those who identify as moderate (58%) or liberal (59%).

Previous work from Gallup finds that conservative parents are more likely to adopt the parenting practices that best predict youth mental health and foster high-quality relationships. The style has been described as authoritative and is characterized by warm responsiveness combined with limit-setting and discipline.

There are no differences between liberals and conservatives on the items, “I respond quickly to my child’s needs” or “I hug or kiss my child every day,” but there are large differences on items pertaining to limit-setting, such as “My child completes the priorities I set for them before they are allowed to play or relax” and “I set well-established rules for my child.” Conservative parents are significantly more likely than liberal or moderate parents to express agreement with these statements, and significantly less likely to agree with the statements, “I have a hard time saying 'no' to my child” and “I find it difficult to discipline my child.”

Six in 10 Parents Say They Have an Affectionate, Warm Relationship With Child

Parents were also asked to what extent they agree that they “share an affectionate, warm relationship with [their] child.”

Similar to responses about having an excellent relationship, about six in 10 U.S. parents (62%) agree with this statement. Education, household income, and race or ethnicity were not significant factors on this measure either -- nor was the sex of the child.

• Parents report greater warmth and affection in describing younger children relative to teenagers.
• Parents who enjoy a better relationship with their spouse or partner also describe having more relational warmth and affection with their child.
• Biological parents are more likely than other caretakers to rate the relationship as warm.
• Parents who are married or divorced report more affectionate relationships with their children than parents who have never married.
• Mothers -- or female parental figures, including grandmothers -- are more likely to report an affectionate, warm relationship than fathers/male parental figures (66% versus 57%).
• On this measure as well, conservative parents are slightly more likely to report a warm, affectionate relationship (65%, compared with 62% and 60% of liberal and moderate parents, respectively).

Children's Ratings Similar to Parents’ Ratings With Some Key Differences

Adolescent children were asked to rate their relationships with their parents on a 0 to 10 scale, where 10 is the strongest and most loving relationship they can imagine, and 0 is the weakest and least loving. These ratings tended to be higher when parental ratings were higher. Across adolescents, 70% rated their relationship as high-quality (at least an 8 out of 10), and 8% rated their relationship as a 5 or below. This high-quality share stands at 86% among adolescents whose parents rated the relationship as excellent. By contrast, just 33% of adolescents gave this response when their parent/caretaker rated the relationship as only “fair” or worse.

A key difference compared with the parent-reported results is that boys are much more likely than girls to report a strong, loving relationship (77% versus 61%), defined as an 8 out of 10.

Also, children of parents with graduate degrees are somewhat more likely than those with lower levels of education to report a high-quality relationship.

Adolescents in households with incomes above $175,000 are slightly more likely to have stronger relationships than households with middle or lower incomes (74% versus 68%). Youth are much more likely to report a strong relationship with parents when the parent reports a strong relationship with their spouse/partner (76% of those who report such a relationship versus 58% for those who do not). Children of moderate (72%) and conservative parents (71%) are more likely to report a strong, loving relationship than children of liberal parents (64%).

Several parental characteristics are unrelated to how adolescents reported the quality of their relationship, including marital status, whether the child is biologically related to the caretaker, and parental sex.

Experiences With Conflict and Control Vary Across Characteristic Groups

The survey also asked parents about more contentious aspects of their relationship, including level of agreement on a 1 to 5 scale with the following statements.

• My child easily becomes angry at me.
• I argue frequently with my child.
• My child is frequently out of control.

Responses were coded as expressing agreement if the parents chose either of the top two response options (strongly agree or agree).

While parents report a stronger overall relationship with their youngest children, they do not report that teenagers become more easily angry with them; if anything, parents are less likely to argue with teenagers than with younger children. Parents are slightly more likely to report frequently arguing with children aged 5-8 than with teenagers.

Moreover, parents of children younger than 10 are about twice as likely to say their child is frequently out of control. Parents are also more likely to report that boys are out of control compared with girls (9% versus 5%).

Parents with incomes of at least $60,000 per year are less likely to report that their child is frequently out of control (6%) compared with those who have household incomes below $60,000 per year (10%). There are no differences between Black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White parents in reports of whether children are frequently out of control, with Asian parents reporting somewhat lower rates. White parents are more likely to report frequent arguments.

The political ideology of parents is unrelated to parental perceptions of whether the child is out of control but significantly correlated with parental reports of the child becoming easily angered and the frequency of arguments. Liberal parents are the most likely to say their child is easily angered (21%). This compares with 17% of moderate parents and 14% of conservative parents. Liberal parents are also slightly more likely to report that they argue with the child frequently (15%), compared with 12% of moderates and 13% of conservatives.

Parents who enjoy a strong relationship with their spouse or romantic partner are much more likely than those who do not to avoid arguments with their child, and they are much less likely to report that their child is easily angered or frequently out of control.

Stepparents and adoptive parents are much more likely than parents with a biological relationship to report that their child is easily angered, but stepparents are the least likely to frequently argue with the child. Grandparents and other family members are relatively unlikely to argue with the child they care for, but -- with the exception of adoptive parents (16%) -- they are more likely than other caretakers to report that the child is frequently out of control (10%).

Parental marital status is unrelated to reports of anger or the frequency of arguments, but married parents are significantly less likely than divorced or never-married parents to report that their child is frequently out of control.

Bottom Line

Given the importance of children to parents and parents to children, a high-quality relationship is important to the wellbeing of both. Children in a high-quality relationship with their parents are much less likely to show signs of depression, anxiety or suicidal ideation, and generally exhibit behaviors associated with positive social development, according to the research literature. Moreover, these benefits predict stronger mental health decades into the future, as discussed in Gallup’s recent work.

The lack of notable differences by race, ethnicity, income and education indicate that high-quality relationships can be consistently achieved in a wide range of social circumstances, which is consistent with previous findings in this series that parental practices are largely unrelated to these characteristics.

The relatively strong relationships exhibited by more conservative parents could shed light on why other scholars have found that liberal children are at higher risk of experiencing the symptoms associated with mental health disorders. As found in this survey, conservative parents are more likely than other parents to adopt disciplined and structured parenting practices. These include limit-setting and the consistent enforcement of rules, which have been found conducive to adolescent health and psychological development when combined with parental warmth and responsiveness, which liberal parents are just as likely to report practicing. Parents and leaders around the country may want to consider steps to promote these practices in their own families and in their communities.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/548381/quality-parent-child-relationships-families.aspx

Lab Leak Is Not a Conspiracy Theory, Anthony Fauci Concedes

Former White House coronavirus advisor Anthony Fauci doesn't believe the lab leak explanation of COVID-19's origins is a conspiracy theory. He admitted as much during a closed-door grilling session before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic on Monday. Legislators did not release a transcript of his testimony, but Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R–Ohio), the chairman of the subcommittee, published some highlights on X (formerly Twitter).

In recent months, Fauci has denied he ever categorically rejected the possibility that COVID-19 accidentally escaped from a laboratory. But he faces very serious allegations that he deterred scientific experts from considering it. At issue is "The Proximal Origin of Sars-CoV-2," a paper that appeared in Nature Medicine, a scientific journal, in March 2020 at the very start of the global pandemic. Fauci—who was then head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)—and Francis Collins—then director of the National Institutes of Health—participated in a conference call with the authors, whose initial openness to a lab leak explanation changed significantly prior to publication. The paper ultimately ruled out a lab leak as not just "unlikely"—the phrasing used in an early draft of the paper—but "improbable."

More recently, Fauci has contended that he always remained open to the idea, but was persuaded by scientific arguments—including those in the proximal origin paper—that a zoonotic spillover was more likely. This claim would be more persuasive if Fauci had not stated over and over and over and over again, in media interviews, that he "strongly favored" the zoonotic origin theory; his subsequent suggestion that he did not lean in either direction is flatly contradicted by his literal words.

It was certainly in Fauci's interest to downplay the possibility that human experimentation on viruses accidentally unleashed COVID-19 upon the world; during his career, Fauci remained one of the foremost advocates of public funding for gain-of-function research, in which scientists manipulate viruses in order to make them deadlier and more transmissible. Fauci and other public health experts have straightforwardly denied that the U.S. funded such research in Wuhan, China, but critics say this is an exercise in semantics. Indeed, EcoHealth Alliance—a U.S. nonprofit that obtained public funding to conduct research on bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China—was caught actively misleading Pentagon officials about the nature of the experimentation: Peter Daszak, the head of EcoHealth Alliance, advised colleagues to deceive regulators about the fact that the research would be conducted in China under laxer lab safety standards.

A cadre of elite scientists deliberately lied to U.S. security officials in order to spend American tax dollars performing risky experiments under substandard laboratory conditions in a notoriously secretive and authoritarian foreign country. Maybe those experiments created COVID-19, and maybe they didn't. In any case, it's clearly not a conspiracy theory; good of Fauci to recognize the obvious, however belatedly it might be.

One can debate the extent of Fauci's wrongdoing here—but it's the mainstream media that really dropped the ball in terms of lab leak discourse. The Washington Post was an early offender, accusing Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) of "repeating a coronavirus theory that was already debunked." The article explicitly applied the phrase "conspiracy theory" to the lab leak idea; The New York Times did the same, noting that the lab leak had been "dismissed by scientists." In fact, The Times' lead coronavirus reporter, Apoorva Mandavilli, went a step further, calling lab leak a racist theory.

Mandavilli's tone toward the lab leak was broadly representative of a whole host of mainstream journalists, media commentators, and so-called fact-checkers and misinformation experts. Following this flawed consensus, social media sites—including Facebook—brutally suppressed any and all discussion of the lab leak theory on their platforms. As recently as August 2023, The Journal of the American Medical Association was still counting lab leak discourse online as evidence of the unstoppable spread of misinformation online. And the Global Disinformation Index—a British non-profit that received funding from the State Department, and tarred Reason as an unsafe news website—warned that blaming the pandemic on a lab leak could lead to racist attacks on Asian people.

That's a long way of saying that self-appointed misinformation cops went to great efforts to censor and stigmatize this topic of conversation, on grounds that it was either racist, or a conspiracy theory, or both. Yet it is neither; even Fauci says so. One might hope that this would prompt some self-reflection within media circles. The anti-misinformation crowd wasn't just wrong—they were militant that it was of vital importance to stop everyone from even contemplating the possibility of a lab leak theory.

There's a perniciousness underlying this attitude, and one that clearly threatens free speech, as many U.S. political figures—including President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.)—have decided that the federal government should do more to combat purported misinformation. They might consider whether they themselves have been misinformed.

https://reason.com/2024/01/10/lab-leak-is-not-a-conspiracy-theory-anthony-fauci-concedes/

CAN THE DEMOCRATS KEEP TRUMP OFF THE BALLOT?

 Two states, Colorado and Maine, have ruled that Donald Trump is ineligible to run for the presidency in those jurisdictions. These rulings are popular with Democrats: Rasmussen finds that:

Sixty-six percent (66%) of Democrats approve of efforts to keep Trump off the ballot, including 50% who Strongly Approve.

It is noteworthy that even among independents, 41% approve of Trump being removed from the ballot–not an auspicious sign for those who want Trump to actually win.

The Supreme Court has accepted certiorari in the Colorado case, and presumably stands ready to rule on Trump’s eligibility under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In the Wall Street Journal, Jason Riley looks at the options available to the Court. He notes that the decision might not be as sweeping as most expect:

[T]he U.S. electoral system is decentralized in the extreme. Our national elections are structured on a state-by-state basis, and election laws vary. When it comes to absentee ballots, voter registration, felon disenfranchisement, same-day voting and myriad other issues, procedures vary from one state to another. Ballot access is no different, and the Supreme Court historically has tended to allow states to make their own rules.

Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor and constitutional scholar, remarked in a recent podcast discussion that the court might opt for a minimalist ruling that defers to Colorado but doesn’t bind other states. It could decide that Mr. Trump was permitted to make his case for ballot access and lost, thus upholding the Colorado Supreme Court decision while still allowing other states with different ballot-access qualifications to go their own way.

Well, maybe, but I doubt it. There is a substantive federal issue, not a state issue, that needs to be resolved:

What the court shouldn’t dodge, however, is its duty to provide some guidance on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a Civil War-era provision that bars from holding public office someone who has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution and then engaged in “insurrection or rebellion.” Colorado and Maine relied on the clause to exclude Mr. Trump from the ballot, but there’s wide disagreement over what it means and how it should be applied.

For starters, was Jan. 6 an insurrection and did Mr. Trump engage in it, or were his remarks that day protected by the First Amendment? Nor is it clear that Section 3 was meant to address anything other than the insurrection of 1861-65. Does it apply to other events, and does a disqualification written 150 years ago specifically to address the aftermath of the Civil War still apply today?

My own opinion is that Section 3 must be read in the context of the time. The nation had just come out of a civil war that lasted for four years and took the lives of 600,000 Americans. Many bloody battles were fought, including Antietam, where more Americans fell on a single day than at any other time in our history, and Gettysburg, the biggest battle ever fought on the North American continent. That was the context in which the words “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the” United States were written.

By that standard, was the January 6 protest, which admittedly got out of hand, an “insurrection or rebellion”? It lasted for a few hours, not four years. Only a single person was killed, not 600,000, and that was by the Capitol Police. Many or most of the people who entered the Capitol were invited in by Capitol Police. Not a single person who was arrested that day was in possession of a firearm. Surely, no one would launch an insurrection or a rebellion without anyone remembering to bring along a gun.

And the Supreme Court should be mindful of the fact that January 6 was not one of the worst riots we have experienced in recent years, even in Washington, D.C. On the contrary: there was a much worse “insurrection” on the day when Trump was inaugurated, and the George Floyd riot in D.C. was vastly more destructive, more bloody, and more properly deemed a rebellion than anything the January 6 protesters did. So I think the most straightforward way for the Supreme Court to resolve the Colorado case is by ruling that there was no “insurrection or rebellion” as contemplated by the 14th Amendment.

There is a separate question, of course, as to whether Donald Trump “engaged in” any such insurrection or rebellion. This is another of the Democrats’ weak points. Trump himself neither committed nor directed any violent acts on January 6. On the contrary, Trump told his audience to demonstrate peacefully and lawfully. Those who penetrated the Capitol were drawn largely or mostly from people who did not even attend Trump’s speech.

Some argue that the fact that Trump has not been prosecuted, let alone convicted, under the federal statute that makes “insurrection or rebellion” a crime insulates him against Section 3. I don’t agree with that theory. The language of the 14th Amendment does not make conviction a prerequisite, and by its terms creates a fact question as to whether a given individual did or did not engage in such conduct.

That said, I think the Court should be cognizant of the fact that the Special Counsel who searched high and low for crimes with which he could charge Trump skipped over insurrection and rebellion, no doubt because such charges would not be plausible.

There is also a legal question as to whether the president is or is not a holder of “any office, civil or military, under the United States.” As Jason Riley notes, there is an abstruse debate over whether the president is, or is not, a holder of an office under the United States. I have no opinion on that academic debate, but I do have an opinion on whether the Supreme Court should overturn the Colorado and Maine rulings on that ground: don’t do it. I think the average person would reasonably assume that the president is, indeed, a federal office holder. Deciding the case on that ground would leave the whole matter in an uproar.

There is a clear and simple path the Supreme Court can follow so as to preserve our democracy: hold that, however we characterize what happened on January 6, it was not an “insurrection or rebellion” as contemplated by the post-Civil War amendment; and, in any event, Donald Trump did not engage in any insurrection or rebellion. The Democrats’ anti-democratic attack on Trump needs to have a stake driven through its heart, and that is the way to do it.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/01/can-the-democrats-keep-trump-off-the-ballot.php

Iran seizes oil tanker involved in US-Iran dispute in Gulf of Oman

Iran's navy seized a ship off Oman to retaliate for the "theft" of its oil from the same tanker last year by the United States, state media said Thursday.

The United States condemned what it called an "unlawful seizure" and demanded Iran "immediately release the ship and its crew".

The announcement came hours after a British navy maritime security agency said armed men boarded the Greek-owned, Marshall Islands-flagged St Nikolas off Oman and changed course towards Bandar-e Jask in Iran.

Four or five "unauthorised boarders are reported to be wearing military-style black uniforms with black masks", the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) said.

Iran's navy later confirmed it seized the ship, which was previously called Suez Rajan.

"The Navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran seized an American oil tanker in the waters of the Gulf of Oman in accordance with a court order," the official IRNA news agency said.

The seizure was in retaliation for "violation committed by the Suez Rajan ship... and the theft of Iranian oil by the United States", IRNA said.

Iran has responded with tit-for-tat measures in the past after seizures of Iranian oil shipments.

Crippling US sanctions, reimposed following Washington's 2018 withdrawal from a landmark nuclear deal, target Iranian oil and petrochemical sales in a bid to reduce Iran's energy exports.

"The Iranian government must immediately release the ship and its crew," US State Department spokesman Vedant Patel told reporters.

"This unlawful seizure of a commercial vessel is just the latest behaviour by Iran or enabled by Iran aimed at disrupting international commerce."

- Communications lost -

Ambrey, a British maritime risk company, said the group which boarded the St Nikolas covered the ship's cameras. A security officer "reported hearing unknown voices over the phone along with the master's voice", it added.

Communications have been lost with the vessel, which was carrying 19 crew -- 18 Filipinos and one Greek -- the tanker's Greece-based management company Empire Navigation told AFP.

The vessel had been loaded with 145,000 tonnes of crude oil in Basra, Iraq and was destined for Aliaga in Turkey via the Suez Canal, Empire added.

Ambrey said the recently renamed tanker was previously prosecuted and fined for carrying sanctioned Iranian oil, which was confiscated by US authorities.

IRNA, quoting the Iranian navy's public relations office, said the ship was "being transferred to the ports of the Islamic republic for delivery to the judicial authorities".

In September, the United States said it had seized the Suez Rajan and its cargo of 980,000 barrels of crude oil months earlier.

The US Department of Justice said at the time that the oil on the Greek-managed tanker was allegedly being sold by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to China.

Shortly after that seizure, Iran seized two tankers -- the Marshall Islands-flagged Advantage Sweet as it sailed toward the United States in the Gulf of Oman, and then the Greek-owned Niovi, as it travelled from Dubai to Fujairah.

The Gulf of Oman, a key route for the oil industry that separates Oman and Iran, has witnessed a series of hijackings and attacks over the years, often involving Iran.

Shipping in the resource-rich region is also on heightened alert following weeks of drone and missile attacks in the Red Sea by Yemen's Iran-backed Huthi rebels.

https://news.yahoo.com/iran-seizes-oil-tanker-off-190601302.html