Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

The concept of mass starvation has not been in the forefront of American society for a very long time. Even during the Great Depression the US was majority agrarian and most people knew how to live off the land. In fact, the US has never suffered a true national famine. There have been smaller regional instances of famine (such as during the Dust Bowl in the 1930s), but nothing coming remotely close to the kinds of famines we have seen in Asia, the Eastern Bloc, Africa or the Middle East in the past 100 years.

Even Western Europeans dealt with major famines during the World Wars (like the Dutch Famine) and that experience has left an imprint on their collective consciousness. Most Americans, on the other hand, don’t get it. Because we have lived in relative security and economic affluence for so long the idea of ever having to go without food seems “laughable” to many people. When the notion of economic collapse is brought up they jeer and call it “conspiracy theory.”

Compared to the Great Depression, the US population today is completely removed from agriculture and has no idea what living off the land means. These are not things that can be learned in a few months from books and YouTube videos; they require years of experience to master.

I will say that things have changed dramatically in the past two decades I have been writing for the liberty media. When I started back in 2006 the preparedness movement was incredibly small and often people were afraid to broach such topics in public forums.

In the past several years preparedness culture has EXPLODED in popularity. Millions of Americans are now dedicated survival experts with extensive preps and firearms training. Prepping and shooting is no longer the realm of tinfoil hat “crazies”, now it’s considered cool.

The credit crash of 2008-2009 certainly helped wake people up to the reality of economic instability in the US. Then the covid pandemic, the lockdowns and the attempts at medical tyranny really shocked Americans out of their stupor. Everything we “conspiracy theorists” have been warning about was suddenly confirmed in the span of a couple of years. Every time globalists and governments create a crisis they only inspire more preppers.

The greater problem in terms of famine is not that individual Americans are not aware of the threat; many of them are. The problem is that our infrastructure and logistical systems are designed to fail and there’s not much the average citizen can do about it.

The just-in-time freight system is perhaps one of the worst ever devised in terms of community redundancy. Any disruption no matter how minor could cut off supplies to a town or city for days or weeks. Then there’s the interdependency that comes with food being produced outside most states. If your state does not have a solid agricultural base then it will be reliant on outside food sources during a crisis. What guarantees are there that your region will be able to secure food from elsewhere?

Furthermore, most of the populace, even those that are preparing, have never experienced large scale starvation events before. It’s difficult to adapt mentally to a threat that one has never seen.

I suggest people who want to know what starvation feels like practice it from time to time. Try fasting for 24 hours, then try fasting for 48 hours. See how many days you can go without eating (just be sure to drink plenty of water). My maximum was seven days (after months of practice), and what I found was that after day three the hunger pangs actually stop altogether. You don’t go crazy, you don’t get violent; at most you might get tired, but you will also be surprised at how heightened your thinking becomes and how much energy you still have.

The human body can survive for three weeks or more without a single bite of food. My suspicion is that initial panic over potential hunger is the thing that causes the most violence during famines. People encounter starvation and lose their minds within the first three days. First-stage stomach pains and fogginess causes them to react without thinking and this leads to the widespread riots and other crisis events we are used to seeing in history during food shortages.

Fasting is a way to educate yourself on what it means to starve; it’s not as bad as it seems as long as you have some fat stores in your body. When you hit the point of muscle loss and organ deprivation, that’s when things change and the possibility of death arises. Having some familiarity with the feeling of true hunger will help you to avoid panic should the real thing ever occur in the future.

The greater problem is not what you can endure, though. Watching people you care about starve is much more difficult. This is not something you can practice for and it could be a far more powerful motivator when it comes to looting and crime during a crash.

The goal of course is to avoid famine altogether. Food storage is the foundation of any survival plan. Anyone who claims that jumping right into agriculture and hunting and wild edibles is the solution has never actually had to survive off the land in their lives. The reality is, finding enough food and growing enough food to live on is difficult for most people even in normal times.

During collapse, crops are often difficult to plant safely. They can be stolen or destroyed easily and require large communities of people to maintain and protect. Even smaller gardens can draw attention from undesirables and are hard to hide.

Hunting might be useful initially if you live in a rural area, but you won’t be the only person with the same idea and animals will move out of a region quickly if they are being hunted on a daily basis. You’ll have to go further and further out to find them and that’s risky during a crisis.

Wild edibles are nice in spring and summer when they are plentiful, but then again, if you’re hiking around expending more calories that you can get from these plants then the entire exercise is pointless. I tend to find that wild edibles proponents are the most delusional when it comes to the logistics of survival. Survivalists who think they’re going to run to the woods and live off of the random plants they find will probably die.

Growing food, hunting food and foraging food are all supplemental measures, especially in the first years of any crisis event. Without a primary emergency supply most people will not make it. Food storage has been a mainstay of civilization for thousands of years for a reason – It works. When larger secure communities are established then agriculture can return and self sustaining production makes food storage less important. Until then, what you have in your basement or your garage is the only thing that’s going to keep you alive.

Unfortunately, there are some people out there who think they don’t need to store supplies because they plan to take from other people. Firstly, anyone who makes this their Plan A is probably a psychopath and I have zero empathy for them. Secondly, such people won’t stay alive very long. With every violent encounter the risk of injury or death increases; looters and raiders will be whittled down rather quickly as they get picked off by people defending their resources.

It’s not like the movies, folks; marauders will disappear swiftly during a crash. After the first year I would be surprised if any of these individuals or groups still exist.

In the meantime, the initial stages of collapse are going to be a shock for many Americans. It could be a grid down event, an economic collapse, a supply chain collapse, etc., but the panic associated with hunger will be ever present. People who understand the nature of famine can avoid panic and organize for safety. They will survive and thrive. People who don’t understand famine will freak out in the first week without food and make detrimental mistakes.

Mental preparedness is just as important as physical preparedness. Keep that in mind as we move forward into uncertain times.

*  *  *

One survival food company, Prepper All-Naturals, has proactively dropped prices to allow Americans to stock up ahead of projected hikes in beef prices. Their 25-year shelf life steaks currently come at a 25% discount with promo code “invest25”.

While not quite a duopoly, Apple and Samsung have long been known to produce the most popular smartphones from a global perspective. Over the past years, however, Chinese tech companies have started catching up and, at times, even overtaking Apple’s iPhone product lines.

In the following chart, based on data from the IDC Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker,  Statista’s Florian Zandt shows that between January and March 2024, roughly one out of five of the 289 million smartphones shipped were Samsung devices, while Apple commanded a market share of 17.3 percent. Xiaomi, however, wasn’t far behind with a 14.1 percent share in the market translating to around 41 million smartphones shipped in the first quarter of the year.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Rounding out the four smartphone vendors with the highest amount of devices shipped is Transsion, which produced every tenth smartphone sold in the first three months of 2024. Although the Chinese company entered IDC’s top 5 for the first time in the second quarter of 2023, it’s been around since 2006. Its devices have become increasingly popular in emerging markets like the African continent.

Looking at smartphone vendor market share over time, Apple and Samsung have been on top for most of the first quarters since 2014. The notable exception is Huawei, which rose to prominence in the latter half of the 2010s and even managed to overtake Samsung for the best-selling smartphone brand worldwide in the second quarter of 2020 after already coming within 3.3 percentage points in the three months prior.

Huawei’s rise was abruptly halted by the end of 2020, reportedly due to the increasing pressure of U.S. sanctions on the company. Its shoes were quickly filled by its Chinese competitors Xiaomi and Oppo, which had combined market shares ranging from 22 to 25 percent in the first quarters of 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024.

Authored by Monica O’Shea via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Australian government has paid out $20.5 million (US$13.2 million) in COVID-19 vaccine injury claims to people who experienced harm from the jab.

(Karn Buppunhasamai/Shutterstock)

Services Australia data provided to The Epoch Times reveals 6.82 percent of claims have been compensated so far, that is 286 out of 4,191.

“As at 31 March 2024, the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme has received 4,191 claims and paid 286 claims to the value of around $20.5 million,” a spokesperson said.

“Services Australia expects to receive new claims until the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme’s end date of 30 September 2024.”

The updated figures up to the end of March, follow a submission to the government’s COVID-19 Inquiry, revealing it had paid $16.9 million worth of claims up to the end of November 2023.

The federal government is due to deliver a budget for 2024/2025 covering all government agencies in the evening on May 14.

How Does the Vaccine Claims Scheme Work?

Australia’s COVID-19 vaccine claims scheme allows individuals to claim losses above $1,000 in relation to “moderate to severe adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.”

It covers vaccines approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) including the AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax jabs.

Services Australia administers the scheme on behalf of the Department of Health and Aged Care (DHAC). In April, the Department updated the policy to include more claimable conditions, based on advice from the TGA.

In order to make a compensation claim, individuals must meet the definition of harm, be admitted to hospital as an inpatient, or have a waiver if seen in outpatient care.

Further, those who suffered harm need to have experienced losses or expenses of more than $1,000 due to the vaccine.

The conditions included range from anaphylactic reaction to erythema multiforme (major), myocarditis, pericarditis and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome.

Also included, are shoulder injuries from the vaccine, or other moderate to significant physical injuries that caused permanent impairment or need an extended period of medical treatment.

“In both cases, the injuries must have been sustained during the physical act of being given the vaccine. You must also have been admitted to hospital as an in-patient,” Services Australia explains.

“Presenting to an emergency department is not recognised as being admitted to hospital.”

Lockdown Lead to Surge in Demand for Government Services

Services Australia revealed it had processed 1.3 million JobSeeker claims in 55 days in 2020, an amount that equates to the claim volume normally processed within two and a half years.

“At the peak, more than 53,000 claims were completed in a single day. Within the same 55 day period, the Agency also received and monitored approximately 3.7 million phone calls, 1.9 million service centre walk-ins, and 250,000 social media interactions,” the department said (pdf).

During Victoria’s lockdown in 2021, demand for COVID-related claims also surged.

“In less than 4 months, between 1 July and 26 October 2021, Services Australia processed over 5.1 million COVID-related claims alone—more than the full-year total of 3.5 million claims across all social security and welfare payments in the year prior to COVID (2018-19).”

Not Enough Focus on Mental Health, Psychologists

Meanwhile, the Australian Association of Psychologists Incorporated (AAPi) has raised concerns that there was not enough focus on mental health support during the pandemic.

“Particularly during times of crisis, such as snap lockdowns, crisis support lines should have been prominently displayed along with the urging of people to reach out for support and the continuation of psychological treatment,” they said.

The Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE) also raised concerns that alcohol companies and retailers taking advantage of the situation.

“Alcohol companies invested significantly in digital marketing and in expanding their capacity to deliver alcohol, outpacing privacy and marketing regulation,” FARE said.

Authored by Yves Smith via NakedCapitalism.com,

Yves here. It’s revealing that Serious Economist Jeffrey Frankel limits himself to third-world examples in his case studies below on post-election devaluations.

Perhaps it would be unseemly to look at, say, the US, UK, Japan, South Korea, or even Australia (admittedly the latter and Canada have their currency values substantially affected by commodity prices). Of course, Frankel might contend that any politically-related currency action in an advanced economy would not amount to a depreciation-level decline. After all, they have independent central banks.

As many, including your humble blogger, have noted, the US is running a very hot fiscal policy along side tight monetary policy. Hence America has persisted in having solid to very strong groaf figures, leading the Fed to persist in tight monetary policy. All of that has led the dollar to trade at very lofty levels.

One has to think the dollar will start to reverse near the election, say in October. But inflation has been very sticky, and it’s interest rates that are buoying the greenback, so it might stay comparatively strong even past the election. In addition, the US has, at least since the Clinton Administration, has had an explicit strong dollar policy. Weak currencies and financial centers do not co-exist happily. The Fed has historically not cared a whit about what moves in interest rates have done in terms of in and out flows to emerging economies, who are routinely whipsawed by hot money moves. One wonders if we will eventually see the Fed become more attentive to the value of the dollar.

Any readers who are currency-knowledgeable are encouraged to opine on which countries might look more attractive as King Dollar retreats from its current high.

By Jeffrey Frankel, Economist and Professor, Harvard Kennedy School. Originally published at VoxEU

An unprecedented number of voters will go to the polls globally in 2024. It has long been noted that incumbents tend to engage in expansive fiscal (and where possible monetary) policy in the run up to elections in order to buoy the economy and therefore their electoral prospects. This column extends this concept to look at exchange rates and finds that currencies frequently depreciate following an election as the incumbent’s efforts to overvalue the currency in the run up to the election are unwound and the new government comes to terms with depleted reserves and current account woes.

Lots of countries are voting, with 2024 an unprecedented year in terms of the number of people who will go to the polls.  Recent elections in a number of emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) have demonstrated anew the proposition that major currency devaluations are more likely to come immediately after an election, rather than before one. Indeed, Nigeria, Turkey, Argentina, Egypt, and Indonesia are five countries that have experienced post-election devaluations within the last year.

The Election–Devaluation Cycle

Economists will recall a 50-year-old paper by Nobel Prize winning professor Bill Nordhaus as essentially initiating research on the political business cycle (PBC).  The PBC refers to governments’ general inclination towards fiscal and monetary expansion in the year leading up to an election, in hopes of the incumbent president, or at least the incumbent party, being re-elected.  The idea is that growth in output and employment will accelerate before the election, boosting the government’s popularity, whereas the major costs in terms of debt troubles and inflation will come after the election.

But the seminal 1975 paper by Nordhaus also included the prediction of a foreign exchange cycle particularly relevant for EMDEs.  That is the proposition that countries generally seek to prop up the value of their currencies before an election, spending down their foreign exchange reserves, if necessary, only to undergo a devaluation after the election.

Nordhaus wrote: “It is predicted that the concern with loss of reserves and balance of payments deficits will be greater in the beginning of electoral regimes, and less toward the end.…The basic difficulty in making intertemporal choices in democratic systems is that the implicit weighting function on consumption has positive weight during the electoral period and zero (or small) weights in the future.”

The devaluation may be undertaken deliberately by an incoming government, choosing to get the unpleasant step – with its unpopular exacerbation of inflation – out of the way while it can still blame it on its predecessors.  Or the devaluation may take the form of an overwhelming balance-of-payments crisis soon after the election.  Either way, a government has an incentive to hoard international reserves during the early part of its term in office, and to spend them more freely to defend the currency toward the end of its term.

A political leader is almost twice as likely to lose office in the six months following a major devaluation as otherwise, especially among presidential democracies (Frankel 2005).  Why are devaluations so unpopular that governments fear to undertake them before elections?  In the traditional textbook model, a devaluation stimulates the economy by improving the trade balance.  But devaluations are always inflationary in countries which import at least a portion of the basket of goods consumed.  Furthermore, devaluations in EMDEs often are contractionary for economic activity, particularly via the adverse balance sheet effects on those domestic borrowers who had incurred debts denominated in dollars.

The theory of the political devaluation cycle was developed in a series of papers by Ernesto Stein and co-authors.  One might think that voters would wise up to these cycles and vote against a leader who sneakily postponed a needed exchange rate adjustment.  But given a lack of information about the true nature of the politicians, voters may in fact be acting rationally.  Figure 1, from Stein and Streb (2005) shows that devaluations are far more common in the immediate aftermath of changes in government. (The sample covers 118 episodes of changes, excluding coups, among 26 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean between 1960 and 1994.)

Figure 1 Average devaluation pattern before and after elections

Source: Stein and Streb (2004).

Some Devaluations Over the Past Year

Many EMDEs have been under balance-of-payments pressure during the last two years.  One factor is that the US Federal Reserve raised interest rates sharply in 2022-23 and is now leaving them higher for longer than markets had been expecting.  Consequently, international investors find US treasury bills more attractive than EMDE loans and securities.

A good example of the political devaluation cycle is Nigeria.  Africa’s most populous country held a contentious presidential election on 25 February 2023.  The incumbent, who was term-limited, had long used foreign exchange intervention, capital controls, and multiple exchange rates to avoid devaluing the currency, the naira. The new Nigerian president, Bola Tinabu, was inaugurated on 29 May 2023. Two weeks later, on 14 June, the government devalued the naira by 49% (from 465 naira/$, to 760 naira/$, computed logarithmically). It soon turned out that this was not enough to restore equilibrium in the balance of payments.  At the end of January 2024, the government abandoned its effort to prop up the official value of the naira, devaluing another 45% (from 900 naira/$ to 1,418 naira/$, logarithmically).

A second example is Turkey’s election in May 2023. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had long pursued economic growth by obliging the central bank to keep interest rates low – a populist monetary policy that was widely ridiculed because of the president’s insistence that it would reduce soaring inflation – while simultaneously intervening to support the value of the lira.  The government guaranteed Turkish bank deposits against depreciation, an expensive and unsustainable way to prolong the currency overvaluation.  After the elections, the lira was immediately devalued, as the theory predicts.  The currency continued to depreciate during the remainder of the year.

Next, on 19 November 2023, Argentina elected a surprise candidate as president, Javier Milei.  Often described as a far-right libertarian, he comes from none of the established political parties. He campaigned on a platform of diminishing sharply the role of the government in the economy and abolishing the ability of the central bank to print money.  Milei was sworn in on December 10. Two days later, on 12 December he cut the official value of the peso by more than half (a 78% devaluation, computed logarithmically, from 367 pesos/$ to 800 pesos/$).  At the same time, he took a chain saw to government spending such as energy subsidies rapidly achieved a budget surplus, and initiated sweeping reforms.  Argentine inflation remains very high, but the central bank stopped losing foreign exchange reserves after the devaluation, again as predicted by the theory.

A fourth example is Egypt, where President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi just started a third term, on 2 April 2024. The economy has been in crisis for some time. Nevertheless, the government had ensured its overwhelming re-election on 10-12 December 2023 by postponing unpleasant economic measures, not to mention by preventing serious opponents from running.  The widely expected devaluation of the Egyptian pound, came on 6 March 2024 depreciating 45% (from 31 egyptian pounds/$ to 49 pounds/$, logarithmically).  It was part of an enhanced-access IMF programme, which also included the usual unpopular monetary and fiscal discipline.

Finally, in Indonesia the widely liked but term-limited President Jokowi is soon to be succeeded by the Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto, who is less widely liked but was backed by the incumbent in the 14 February election. The rupiah has been depreciating ever since the 20 March announcement of the outcome of the contentious presidential vote.  It fell almost to an all-time record low against the dollar on 16 April.

What next?

Of course, the association between elections and the exchange rate is not inevitable.  India is undergoing elections now and Mexico will in June.  But neither seems especially in need of major currency adjustment.

Venezuela is scheduled to hold a presidential election in July.  As with some other countries, the election is expected to be a sham because no major opposition candidates are allowed to run. The economy is in a shambles due to long-time mismanagement featuring hyperinflation in the recent past and a chronically overvalued bolivar.  But the same government that essentially outlaws political opposition also essentially outlaws buying foreign exchange.  So, equilibrium may not be restored to the foreign exchange market for some time.

To stave off devaluation, these countries do more than just spend their foreign exchange reserves.  They often use capital controls or multiple exchange rates, as opposed to allowing free financial markets.  That doesn’t invalidate the phenomenon of post-election devaluations; it just works to insulate the governments a bit longer from the need to adjust to the reality of macroeconomic fundamentals.  Unfortunately, many of these countries also fail to allow free and fair elections, which works to also insulate the government from the need to respond to the voters’ verdict.

Authored by Thomas Stevenson via Human Events (emphasis ours),

Head of the Mezha Anti-Corruption Center, Martyna Bohuslavets, has written a report in Pravda asking “Where are the fortifications?” She reports that millions of dollars that were intended for the construction of fortifications in Ukraine were instead “transferred to Kharkiv OVA to front companies of avatars.”

Bohuslavets said the Ukrainian Kharkiv Regional Military Administration (Kharkiv OVA) paid out funds to fictitious companies during the construction and fortification of the Kharkiv region. The report comes as Russian forces have broken into the northern region of Ukraine and the US continues funding the war.

According to Ukranian Pravda reports, the Russian military has begun to advance in the northern region of Ukraine where funding that was set for fortification was transferred to fake companies. The offensive from the Russian military launched on Monday with attacks on towns and villages, the Kyiv Post reports. A total of 7 billion hryvnias was spent there by Ukraine, according to the report.  

This comes as the BBC reports that a regional Ukrainian commander in Kharkiv has said that the first line of defense was missing in a massive “betrayal” in the northern region of the country.  Denys Yaroslavskyi, a commander in the region in charge of the Ukrainian Special Reconnaissance Unit, told the outlet, “There was no first line of defence. We saw it. The Russians just walked in. They just walked in, without any mined fields.” 

He told the BBC that government officials claimed to have built up the mines as the first line of defense at a huge cost. He told reporters, “Either it was an act of negligence, or corruption. It wasn’t a failure. It was a betrayal.” He then added, “When we were fighting back for this territory in 2022, we lost thousands of people. We risked our lives.” 

“And now because someone didn’t build fortifications, we’re losing people again,” he stated.  

In March, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported on the lack of oversight on the funds going to Ukraine during the war. GAO found in its report from March that the Defense Department is lacking in its ability to provide oversight on the resources being sent to Ukraine in the war.  

The GAO reported, “DOD does not have quality data to track delivery of defense articles to Ukraine. DOD guidance on PDA does not clearly define at what point in the delivery process defense articles should be recorded as delivered or provide clear instructions for how DOD service branches are to confirm delivery.” 

It added that full documentation of the funding being sent to the military effort has been lacking.  

Ukraine has entered the “where is the money, Lebowski” phase https://t.co/llv6KOmUGb

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 14, 2024

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is preparing for a scenario in which the highly pathogenic avian influenza starts spreading among humans, the agency’s commissioner said on May 8.

“This virus, like all viruses, is mutating. We need to continue to prepare for the possibility that it might jump to humans,” Dr. Robert Califf, the commissioner, told senators during a hearing in Washington.

The influenza, also known as the bird flu or H5N1, has recently started spreading among cattle and other species. One person in Texas has had a confirmed case this year.

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf in Washington in a file image. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

So far, genetic sequencing and other data indicate that influenza poses little risk to people, and there are no signs that the flu is transmitting from person-to-person, according to U.S. officials. But they are working on getting treatments, tests, and vaccines ready in case that changes.

“We’ve been busy getting prepared for if the virus does mutate in a way that jumps into humans on a larger level,” Dr. Califf told the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee.

The patient in Texas primarily experienced one symptom: inflamed eyes. Neither the patient nor many of the cows that have been infected have suffered respiratory symptoms. H5N1 commonly infects the respiratory tracts of birds.

“The real worry is that it will jump to the human lungs, where, when that has happened in other parts of the world for brief outbreaks, the mortality rates have been 25 percent,” Dr. Califf said. The worry is based in part on how viruses typically mutate, such as in the case of COVID-19.

From 2003 to April 1, 2024, 889 cases of H5N1 have been confirmed across the globe, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Of the patients, 52 percent have died.

WHO chief scientist Jeremy Farrar said recently that H5N1 has developed into a “global zoonotic animal pandemic” and that scientists are concerned that the virus could evolve to spread among humans.

Tedros Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the organization, said Wednesday that “the virus does not show signs of having adapted to spread among humans, but more surveillance is needed.”

Many experts consulted by the U.S. government are concerned about the jump of the influenza to cattle and other species and how cattle intermingle with pigs, chickens, and humans on farms, according to Dr. Califf. A May 3 study from U.S. and Danish researchers said testing of tissues from cattle indicated the animals could serve as a “mixing vessel” for avian influenza because receptors from chickens, ducks, and humans were expressed in the cows.

While the risk is still low, “if we institute the countermeasures now and reduce the spread of the virus now, then we’re much less likely to see a mutation that jumps to humans for which we’re ill-prepared,” Dr. Califf added.

Current U.S. rules mandate testing of some cattle before being moved to another state. The guidance includes advising workers on farms to wear protective equipment when dealing with animals that may be or are sick with the bird flu.

The FDA is focusing in part on ensuring the country’s milk supply is safe to drink. The agency and its partners have tested samples of milk from grocery stores. Although some samples tested positive, no live virus has been detected, meaning the milk supply is safe, according to the agency.

Test results from beef have also found beef is safe, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The agency has confirmed H5N1 infections in 36 herds across nine states, including Colorado, Kansas, and Michigan. Data from affected cows indicate H5N1 began circulating in cattle in late 2023, according to a preprint paper from the department.

About 70 farm workers are being monitored in Colorado, officials said in a briefing this week, but none have displayed symptoms as of yet.

Authored by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A November election decades ago produced a clear winner in a hotly contested presidential race. Yet the popular vote immediately came under scrutiny in several states. In one, auditors discovered clear errors in tabulating vote totals. In others, credible evidence of election fraud was uncovered.

(Illustration by The Epoch Times, Shutterstock, Getty Images)

With a court challenge underway, electors from both parties met at a state capitol and conducted the electoral vote. Two certifications were forwarded to Washington, one declaring the Democratic candidate to be the victor, the other naming the Republican.

The Republican vice president—also a candidate in the race—convened a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6. Without fanfare, he moved to accept the Democratic slate of electors and set the Republican electors aside.

So ended the presidential election of 1960.

The state in question was Hawaii. The vice president was Richard Nixon, who ran against Democrat John F. Kennedy, and would have won if as few as 11,000 votes spread over five battleground states had gone the other way.

Sixty years later, history nearly repeated itself as Republican electors from seven states sent alternative electoral certifications to Washington amid allegations of election fraud.

This time the alternate slates were rejected. On Jan. 6, 2021, in a joint session presided over by Republican Vice President Mike Pence, also a candidate in the race, Congress certified Democratic candidate Joe Biden the winner over President Donald Trump.

Many Americans have no memory of the 1960 election, and few are likely aware of the striking similarities between it and the 2020 election. The Hawaii election provided the rationale for the alternate elector plan promoted by some associates of President Trump following the 2020 election.

Since last year, criminal prosecutions have been levied against Republicans who took part in the plan in Michigan, Georgia, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona. President Trump is facing related charges in a Washington federal court.

The two elections have much in common, yet the cases exhibit key differences that spelled success for the alternate electors in 1960 and defeat in 2020.

Recount in Progress

The first tally of votes in Hawaii during the 1960 election showed Kennedy had won by 92 votes. After a second tabulation of the totals—not a recount of the ballots themselves—Nixon led by 141 votes.

Democrats petitioned a state circuit court for a recount. But Republican Lt. Gov. James Kealoha, who was acting governor at the time, had no legal authority to reopen the ballots or invalidate the results. So he certified Nixon as the winner.

Supporters of Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy and reporters await the results of the second round of the presidential election, in Hyannis Port, Mass., on Nov. 8, 1960. (-/AFP via Getty Images)

After an initial audit, a judge ordered a full recount of the state’s ballots on Dec. 13, 1960, just six days before the electoral vote.

That court order was crucial to the success of Hawaii’s dual elector plan because it placed the outcome of the popular vote in legal limbo. While a winner had been certified, a state court had taken action that might lead to a different result.

Lawsuits were also filed to challenge aspects of the 2020 election. One was pending in Georgia, and one remained under appeal in Michigan, though the Michigan Supreme Court refused to halt certification of the popular vote on Dec. 9, 2020.

However, there was no court order in any state and no action by a state legislature to mandate a recount or to delay the certification of the election.

State-Certified Electors

In 1960 the ongoing recount created a dilemma for Hawaii’s acting governor. If only the Republican electors voted, Nixon would carry Hawaii even if Kennedy was later found to have won the most votes.

Yet federal law establishes the date for the electoral vote as “the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December” following the election. If there were no vote on Dec. 19, 1960, the brand-new state of Hawaii would miss out on its first presidential election.

So with the recount in progress, both sets of Hawaii electors met at Iolani Palace, the seat of the Hawaiian government. They voted for their respective candidates one minute apart. Kealoha signed two certificates of ascertainment and sent them to Washington.

A certificate of ascertainment states the elector candidates pledged to a presidential candidate and the total number of votes received. The electors for the candidate who received the most votes are “elected” as presidential electors from their state.

A separate document, the electoral ballot, states the outcome of the electoral vote for that state.

The certificate of ascertainment is a second important difference between the 1960 and 2020 cases.

To be sure, some of the 2020 electors knew about the Hawaii case and used it as a rationale for their efforts. The Pennsylvania Republican Party issued a press release stating as much.

“Today’s move by the Republican Party electors is fashioned after the 1960 Presidential election, in which President Nixon was declared the winner in Hawaii,” the Dec. 14, 2020, release stated.

Michigan Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist opens the state’s electoral college session at the state Capitol in Lansing on Dec. 14, 2020. (Carlos Osorio-Pool/Getty Images)

“While Democrat legal challenges were pending, Democratic presidential electors met to cast a conditional vote for John F. Kennedy to preserve their intent in the event of future favorable legal outcomes.”

In 2020, Republican electors in Pennsylvania and New Mexico added conditional language to their vote certifications, saying they were filed “on the understanding that it might later be determined that we are the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America” from their respective states.

Read the rest here…

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Target has announced that its LGBT-themed merchandise will only be sold online and at select stores this June, a decision made after last year’s Pride Month marketing campaign divided customers and dragged down sales.

A sign is posted in front of a Target store that is slated for closure in Oakland, Calif., on Sept. 29, 2023. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

In a statement on its website, Target said that instead of prominently displaying its Pride Month collection in all its stores, it will be “offering a collection of products including adult apparel, home, food, and beverage items, curated based on consumer feedback.”

“The collection will be available on Target.com and in select stores, based on historical sales performance,” the company added, noting that it will also join Pride Month events in “our hometown of Minneapolis and around the country” over the summer.

A spokesperson for the retailer didn’t specify the number of brick-and-mortar stores where Pride Month merchandise will be sold, although a report by Bloomberg indicated that about half would do so.

“Target is committed to supporting the LGBTQIA+ community during Pride Month and year-round,” Target told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement. “Most importantly, we want to create a welcoming and supportive environment for our LGBTQIA+ team members, which reflects our culture of care for the over 400,000 people who work at Target.”

Last summer, Target came under heavy criticism on social media following the release of its LGBT-themed collection, which featured a range of clothing, including what was dubbed a “tuck-friendly” female-style swimsuit designed to help men who identify as transgender conceal their genitalia. Some products were also labeled as being able to “thoughtfully fit on multiple body types and gender expressions.”

Shoppers who disagreed with Target’s promotion of what they saw as “woke” transgender ideology posted videos and images on social media showing rainbow-colored onesies for infants as well as swimsuits that offer “extra crotch coverage” that many viewers mistakenly believed were aimed at children. The swimwear in question was available in adult sizes extra-small through extra-large and were not in the kid’s section.

Other products that received backlash from conservative shoppers included apparel and accessory items for adults with pro-LGBT messages, such as “We Belong Everywhere,” “Too Queer for Here,” and “Cure Transphobia” from British designer Erik Carnell, who identifies as a gay transgender man. The designer’s brand Abprallen also includes clothing sporting Satanist imagery, although the designs in question weren’t available for sale in Target.

Since the controversy and ensuing backlash, the retailer announced it would remove some of the Pride merchandise from its shelves. Some rural Target stores in more socially conservative Southern states were also forced to move the items away from front-of-store displays due to customer backlash.

“Given these volatile circumstances, we are making adjustments to our plans, including removing items that have been at the center of the most significant confrontational behavior,” the company said at the time, alleging violent threats that were “impacting our team members’ sense of safety and well-being” on the job.

But the backlash didn’t stop there. Target’s reaction to conservative outrage by scaling back its LGBT merchandise and displays then prompted complaints from progressive advocacy groups, who questioned the company’s stated support of their cause.

“The LGBTQ+ community has celebrated Pride with Target for the past decade. Target needs to stand with us and double-down on their commitment to us,” Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, wrote on X.

The backlash coming from customers on both sides appears to have taken a toll on the brand. In August 2023, Target’s own earnings report unveiled its first quarterly sales decline in six years, with net sales down 4.9 percent from the same quarter the previous year.

In a full-year earnings report released this March, Target reported a total 2023 revenue fall of 1.6 percent to $107.4 billion, down from $109.1 billion a year earlier. Comparable sales for the 2023 fiscal year also declined nearly 4 percent, although operating income rose 48 percent to $5.7 billion.

While the company partly blamed the dip in sales on the post-COVID shift in consumer trends, it also said it would be reevaluating how it celebrates Pride Month in the future.

“As we navigate an ever-changing operating and social environment, we’re committed to staying close to our guests and their expectations,” Target chief executive Brian Cornell said in last August’s corporate earning call, defending the decision to adjust the chain’s Pride Month assortment in the face of negative customer reaction.

“Specific to Pride and Heritage months, we’re focused on building assortments that are celebratory and joyous with wide-ranging relevance, being mindful of timing, placement and presentation,” he told investors.

“Our goal is to ensure we continue to celebrate moments that are special to our guests while acknowledging that, every day, for millions of people, they want Target to serve as a refuge in their daily lives.”

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Goldman Sachs CEO David M. Solomon is the latest business leader to sound the alarm on the Biden administration’s deficit spending, which comes as the cost of making interest payments on America’s ballooning government debt has exceeded spending in both the critical sectors of defense and Medicare.

“I think the level of debt in the United States [and] the level of spending is something that we need a sharper focus on and more dialogue around than what we’ve seen,” the investment banking chief told Bloomberg Television on Monday, adding that if something isn’t done to rein it the spending, it could create problems.

U.S. President Joe Biden, flanked by Secretary of State Antony Blinken (L) and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen (R), hosts a meeting inside the Cabinet Room at the White House in Washington on Oct. 20, 2023. (Tom Brenner/Pool/Getty Images)

His remarks come as the cost of servicing America’s ballooning government debt reached $514 billion for the first seven months of the current fiscal year, becoming the second largest line item in the budget, and surpassing both the bills for national defense and Medicare spending.

The latest monthly statement from the U.S. Treasury—released on May 8—shows that the $514 billion spent on net interest so far this fiscal year has surpassed spending on both national defense ($498 billion) and Medicare ($465 billion).

Interest spending—now the fastest growing part of the budget—is currently greater than all the money spent on education ($128 billion), transportation ($70 billion), and veterans ($183 billion) combined.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) predicts that, by 2051, spending on interest will be the largest line item in the budget. Currently, only Social Security spending ($837 billion) is greater than what’s being forked over to service the nation’s growing debt.

“Rising debt will continue to put upward pressure on interest rates. Without reforms to reduce the debt and interest, interest costs will keep rising, crowd out spending on other priorities, and burden future generations,” CRFB said in a statement.

It comes as a number of economists, business leaders, and lawmakers have issued warnings about out-of-control deficit spending that adds to the debt load.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in October—the first month of the 2024 fiscal year—that it was already well past time to establish a bipartisan commission to tackle the federal government’s $34.6 trillion debt.

“The consequences if we don’t act now are unbearable,” he said at the time. Despite his calls for such a commission, the project remains stuck in limbo.

Many Democrats and left-leaning groups oppose the commission because they fear it would recommend cuts to Social Security, while some Republicans have expressed reluctance out of concern it would be a backdoor way to raise taxes.

No Longer a Pandemic

In his remarks to Bloomberg Television on Monday, Mr. Solomon said that some of the U.S. government’s massive debt-fueled spending in recent years may have been justified to prevent the economy from crashing during the COVID-19 lockdowns. However, he decried the fact that even though the pandemic is no longer a factor, the spending spree continues.

“The spending levels … are continuing at a pace that I think is raising our debt level and creating issues for us down the road,” he warned.

President Joe Biden in March unveiled a sweeping $7.3 trillion budget blueprint, which includes raising the corporate income tax rate to 28 percent from 21 percent, and forcing those with wealth of $100 million to pay at least 25 percent of their income in taxes.

The blueprint was panned by Mr. Johnson, who said it reflected an “insatiable appetite for reckless spending.”

Deficit spending in the United States hit $1.7 trillion in 2023, or 6.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), according to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The agency estimated that deficit spending would grow to 8.5 percent of GDP by 2054.

At the same time, CBO projected that America’s debt-to-GDP ratio, which in the 1980s was around 35 percent of GDP, will grow to 166 percent by 2054, while warning that this would pose “significant risks” to America’s fiscal and economic outlook.

Mr. Solomon said that America’s deficit spending is an issue that “deserves a lot of attention.”

“Hopefully, there will be a lot more discussion as we move through the election and into the next administration,” he said, adding that, “we need to deal with the debt and the deficits.”

‘Dollar Will Be Worth Nothing’

Tesla CEO Elon Musk recently sounded the alarm on massive government spending, warning that unless steps are taken to slow down the growth of the U.S. national debt, the dollar will become worthless.

“We need to do something about our national debt or the dollar will be worth nothing,” Mr. Musk said in a post on X.

The billionaire tech mogul was reacting to a post about Gen. H.R. McMaster’s warning that the world is on the cusp of World War III while calling for a doubling in defense spending to prepare for potential threats.

Mr. Musk has repeatedly advocated for a negotiated end to the conflict in Ukraine to put a halt to the loss of life.

Like Mr. Musk, billionaire investor Warren Buffett has also warned about the “important” consequences of deficit spending. However, the Berkshire Hathaway founder predicted that, when push comes to shove, the government would opt to raise taxes rather than reduce spending.

“I think higher taxes are likely,” Mr. Buffett said on May 4 at Berkshire Hathaway’s annual shareholder meeting in Omaha.

“They may decide that some day, they don’t want the fiscal deficit to be this large because that has some important consequences. So they may not want to decrease spending and they may decide they’ll take a larger percentage of what we own, and we’ll pay it,” he said.

Warren Buffett (C), CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, speaks to the press as he arrives at the 2019 annual shareholders meeting in Omaha, Nebraska, May 4, 2019. (Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images)

Analysts at the University of Pennsylvania estimate that when the debt-to-GDP ratio hits around 200 percent, it will hit the point of no return—when no amount of future tax increases or spending cuts could prevent the government from defaulting on its debt.

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon has predicted that America’s debt-to-GDP ratio would “hockey stick” upward at some point, meaning rise sharply and become unsustainable after a period of relatively gradual increase.

“It is a cliff. We see the cliff. It’s about 10 years out. We’re going 60 miles an hour,” Mr. Dimon said, speaking on a panel at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington at the end of January 2024.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has also sounded the alarm on the Biden administration’s fiscal stance, warning that its massive deficit spending and ballooning public debt threaten to stoke inflation and—potentially—even spark financial chaos.

OpenAI, maker of ChatGPT, has recently disclosed plans that could revolutionize its technology’s applications, signaling a potential shift in its traditionally stringent content policies. According to draft documentation released last week, the company is exploring how to ‘responsibly’ introduce not-safe-for-work (NSFW) content through its platforms. The new policy is highlighted in a commentary note within the extensive Model Spec document, sparking a complex discussion about the future of AI in generating sensitive content, Wired reports.

Unstable Diffusion is a NSFW AI image generator with minimal content restrictions. Unstable Diffusion

“We’re exploring whether we can responsibly provide the ability to generate NSFW content in age-appropriate contexts through the API and ChatGPT,” the note reads. “We look forward to better understanding user and societal expectations of model behavior in this area.”

Current usage policies prohibit the generation of sexually explicit or even suggestive materials. However, the document suggests a nuanced consideration: the possibility of allowing NSFW content in age-appropriate contexts. This potential pivot is not about promoting explicit content indiscriminately but rather understanding societal and user expectations to guide model behavior responsibly.

OpenAI is considering how its technology could responsibly generate a range of different content that might be considered NSFW, including slurs and erotica. But the company is particular about how sexually explicit material is described.

In a statement to WIRED, company spokesperson Niko Felix said “we do not have any intention for our models to generate AI porn.” However, NPR reported that OpenAI’s Joanne Jang, who helped write the Model Spec, conceded that users would ultimately make up their own minds if its technology produced adult content, saying “Depends on your definition of porn.” -Wired

The concern extends beyond the direct implications of NSFW content. Danielle Keats Citron, a law professor at the University of Virginia, has emphasized the broader societal repercussions, noting that intimate privacy violations can severely impact targeted individuals’ lives, restricting their opportunities and personal safety.

Of course, there are already a lot of NSFW AI content generators using things like Stable Diffusion, many of which border on (or worse) virtual child exploitation that we’re sure this guy would defend.

“Intimate privacy violations, including deepfake sex videos and other nonconsensual synthesized intimate images, are rampant and deeply damaging,” she said. “We now have clear empirical support showing that such abuse costs targeted individuals crucial opportunities, including to work, speak, and be physically safe.” According to Citron, OpenAI’s potential embrace of NSFW content is “alarming.”

OpenAI’s announcement addresses an ongoing debate about the balance between technological innovation and ethical responsibility – particularly when it comes to setting precedents for how AI technologies might handle sensitive content in the future. The engagement with various stakeholders, as OpenAI spokesperson Grace McGuire told the outlet, noting that the Model Spec was an attempt to “bring more transparency about the development process and get a cross section of perspectives and feedback from the public, policymakers, and other stakeholders.”

Earlier this year, OpenAI’s chief technology officer, Mira Murati, told The Wall Street Journal that she was “not sure” if the company would in future allow depictions of nudity to be made with the company’s video generation tool Sora.

AI-generated pornography has quickly become one of the biggest and most troubling applications of the type of generative AI technology OpenAI has pioneered. So-called deepfake porn—explicit images or videos made with AI tools that depict real people without their consent—has become a common tool of harassment against women and girls. In March, WIRED reported on what appear to be the first US minors arrested for distributing AI-generated nudes without consent, after Florida police charged two teenage boys for making images depicting fellow middle school students. -Wired

While OpenAI’s usage policies prohibit impersonation without permission, the decisions made by OpenAI could have far-reaching effects. Of course, they also realize that if they don’t compete in this space, someone else’s AI will simply dominate, leaving OpenAI as the gimp.