A great deal of emotion surrounds sexual abuse, which can cloud memories and lead either to exaggeration due to outrage or silence due to shame. The issue has also been weaponized by those with political agendas; the motives can include winning elections, gaining research grants or status, pushing an ideology, or getting revenge on an ex. The list is long.

https://mises.org/wire/demonizing-men-false-data-sexual-abuse

Wendy McElroy

There is a sea change in how society views false accusations of sexual abuse. And it’s about time.

The lawsuit John C. Depp, II v. Amber Laura Heard (2022) points to this transformation. Depp and Heard sued each other for defamation with “actual malice” over public accusations of domestic violence (DV) during their marriage; Heard also sued Depp’s attorney for making false statements. Unlike an earlier case brought by Depp in the United Kingdom, the American jury found unanimously in his favor and he was awarded $5 million in punitive damages and $10 million in compensatory ones, although the punitive damages were later reduced to $350,000 due to Virginia state law. Heard was awarded $2 million in compensatory damages from the attorney and $0 in punitive damages from Depp. A settlement was later reached.

Depp’s powerful testimony about the deep pain he’d experienced from the defamation almost certainly contributed to the jury’s large compensatory damages. At the end of four days on the stand, Depp was asked what he had lost due to Heard’s allegations. He answered, “Nothing less than everything.” After the verdict, he declared, “The jury has given me back my life.”

In a later interview, Depp commented on a rarely considered consequence of false accusations of sexual abuse—the effect on his loved ones. “Six years ago [when Heard’s allegations went public], my life, the life of my children, the lives of those closest to me, and also, the lives of the people who for many, many years have supported and believed in me were forever changed,” said Depp. The person falsely accused is not the only victim.

False accusations have ruined innocent lives, largely because the data which directs current law and policy has been weaponized for use in gender warfare. A lot of what passes for data and research amounts to a smear campaign against men. This is especially true of white men who bear the brunt of a double “privilege”—that is, they are both male and white. (Add the word “straight” and you have the trifecta of social-justice-warrior villains.) The #MeToo movement, with its demand to always believe the woman, is just one example of this weaponization; the corollary of “always believe the woman,” of course, is “always find the accused man guilty.” This is not only antimale, but also anti-Western jurisprudence. After all, if the man is automatically guilty, why even have an investigation or trial? Dispense with due process; go directly to imprisonment to save taxpayers money.

Casting men as abusers is essential to reconstructing society in the image of express social justice. If men as a class are natural abusers and women as a class are naturally abused, then a justice system based on individual rights makes no sense; differing systems of justice must address the different classes that are based on identity. Traditional marriage and family become sources of cruelty and danger. Every man should be approached with suspicion by every woman.

This vicious and divisive approach to social relations has been propped up by data and studies, most of which issue from ideologically biased academia or institutes. The statistics must be reopened with fresh eyes. Better yet, they should be replaced by honest research.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

This is hilarious. The boss of Raytheon, one of the US top weapons manufacturers, says the company has “several thousand suppliers in China and decoupling . . . is impossible”. We need China to fight China… Actually good news, makes war less likely.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/raytheon-ceo-china-has-us-military-balls

BY TYLER DURDEN

Raytheon Chief Executive Greg Hayes admitted last week that Beijing effectively has the US military’s supply chain by the balls thanks to its reliance on rare earths and other materials which come from, or are processed in, China.

According to Hayes, Raytheon has “several thousand suppliers in China,” because of which “decoupling … is impossible.“

“We can de-risk but not decouple,” he told the Financial Times, adding that he thinks this is the case “for everybody.”

“Think about the $500bn of trade that goes from China to the US every year. More than 95 per cent of rare earth materials or metals come from, or are processed in, China. There is no alternative,” Hayes continued, adding “If we had to pull out of China, it would take us many many years to re-establish that capability either domestically or in other friendly countries.”

Hayes’ comments underline the difficulties facing western manufacturers amid growing friction between China and the US and its allies.

Beijing in February imposed new sanctions on both Raytheon and US defence peer Lockheed Martin for supplying weapons to Taiwan. Hayes has also been placed under sanctions. 

The sanctions have had little commercial impact as the groups are not allowed to sell military equipment to China. Raytheon, however, has a substantial commercial aerospace business in the country through its engine subsidiary, Pratt & Whitney, and aviation systems and cabin equipment specialist Collins Aerospace. It has about 2,000 direct employees in China. -FT

Hayes said that the company is looking “to take some of the most critical components and have second sources but we are not in a position to pull out of China the way we did out of Russia.“

That said, entrepreneur Arnaud Bertrand makes a solid point – that this makes war with China “less likely.”

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Banks are highly regulated, compelled to ongoing reporting and subject to strict regulation and legislative tomes like Dodd-Frank. There are a battery of regulatory bodies overseeing them, from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to the Federal Reserve Bank, the Department of the Treasury, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, and others. Yet, disturbingly, in their collective wisdom, they did not see the confluence of balance sheet composition, high leverage, and no reserve requirement in the wake of the rapid Federal Reserve rate hikes. 

https://mises.org/wire/banking-crisis-being-orchestrated

Steven Cinelli

As a banker and economist, I am riveted by the expeditious demise of Silicon Valley Bank and other institutions. Were these crashes due to bank mismanagement, as many pundits as well as regulators have posited? Were they due to not managing risk, not hedging, and unfettered exposure to sectors of concern? Or maybe something else is afoot, a movement that may have begun a decade ago.

Recall the Great Recession (2008–10), buoyed by a housing and mortgage crisis created by imprudent lending practices, and then the music stopped. In its inimitable wisdom, the government came in legislatively and regulatorily, via Dodd-Frank, crafting what they thought was a belt-and-suspenders approach to avoiding another debacle.

Certain banks were redefined as systematically important financial institutions (SIFI), to be protected at all costs, while establishing a guided risk regimen. Whether due to the additional compliance costs of Dodd-Frank or demographic changes in the market or the need for better economies of scale, we witnessed a consolidation of smaller banks, reducing the gross number from 7,700 to 4,200 over the subsequent ten years.

The US banking system—with its diversity of institutions, from money centers to community banks, harboring in urban and rural settings—is unique on the world stage. We have vastly more banks than any other country, both by design and opportunity. This has contributed to entrepreneurship through local lending, supporting farming communities, and a general competitive economy.

Figure 1: What country has the most banks?

picture1.png

Source: National Statistical Office, Helgi Library. Asterisks denote data from 2020.

The increasingly reductive nature of this industry doesn’t appear to be just another macroshakeout. Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) was a well-run institution, yet within days, it went from hero to zero. CEO Greg Becker and his team were accused of mismanagement, including being accused of precipitously monetizing stock options.

Hopefully, a little perspective will be insightful.

See the rest here

Be seeing you