Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
It's becoming really serious and dangerous and not funny at all. Watch short video before that weekends gathering in Arizona about what was going on there.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/12/18/trump-base-ron-filipkowski-nr-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/
Ex-Republican who monitors Trump's die-hard base issues warning
Ron Filipkowski, a former Republican and prosecutor who monitors former President Trump's supporters, says organizers of the January 6 insurrection are targeting local government officials.
How close is the US to civil war? Closer than you think, study says
CNN's Michael Holmes talks with Professor Barbara Walter of the University of California San Diego about her work on a task force that tries to predict where outside the US a civil war is likely to break out. Walter says the two best predictors of whether violence is likely to occur currently exist in the US and have emerged at a "surprisingly fast rate."
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/12/20/us-civil-war-study-barbara-walter-intvu-intl-ovn-vpx.cnn
It's not James he's talking to, or who he cares that listens, or what the lawsuit is for.
It must be real close for an indictment. With Rump flipping out and trying to delay anything he can. He lives in court and has abused and used the court for most of his life. It's never about winning any particular case, he's always succeeds in his ulterior motives. Not sure how much delay in this he'll get, but just the delay is not his only reasons. He would not of filed this case now if the impending charges weren't right at his doorstep.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/586546-trump-sues-new-york-attorney-general?rl=1
Trump sues New York attorney general
BY HARPER NEIDIG - 12/20/21 10:23 AM EST
TheHill.com
Former President Trump filed a federal lawsuit on Monday against New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) in an effort to block her civil probe into his business.
Trump's lawyers in the complaint attacked the investigation as an attempt to undermine him politically and charged James with violating the former president's constitutional rights.
"The investigations commenced by James are in no way connected to legitimate law enforcement goals, but rather, are merely a thinly-veiled effort to publicly malign Trump and his associates," the complaint reads. “Her mission is guided solely by political animus and a desire to harass, intimidate, and retaliate against a private citizen who she views as a political opponent."
The complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York asks a judge to put a complete halt to James' investigation into Trump's business practices.
The lawsuit was first reported by The New York Times.
The move comes two years into James's investigation into whether Trump's business has illegally inflated its assets to attract investors and lenders and win tax breaks. The probe is being conducted parallel with a criminal investigation being carried out by the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr. (D).
James on Monday said the lawsuit was an attempt to impede her efforts to investigate Trump's company.
“The Trump Organization has continually sought to delay our investigation into its business dealings and now Donald Trump and his namesake company have filed a lawsuit as an attempted collateral attack on that investigation," the attorney general said in a statement.
"To be clear, neither Mr. Trump nor the Trump Organization get to dictate if and where they will answer for their actions. Our investigation will continue undeterred because no one is above the law, not even someone with the name Trump.”
Earlier this month, James announced she would end her campaign for the New York governor's seat, opting instead to seek re-election as attorney general.
The lawsuit on Monday recited her history of criticizing the former president and promising to investigate him from the campaign trail. Trump's lawyers argued that her "political animus" towards him is evidence that the attorney general's investigation is unconstitutional.
"Defendant’s actions, including but not limited to her abuse of criminal and civil process, the commencement of arbitrary fishing expeditions, and collective misconduct in targeting Plaintiffs in bad faith and solely for political purposes, deprived Plaintiffs of due process of law and impermissibly infringed upon their constitutional rights," the lawsuit reads.
James has deposed the former president's son Eric Trump as part of the investigation into the Trump Organization's valuations of its own properties.
Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that the attorney general was preparing to subpoena Donald Trump for sworn testimony in the investigation.
James's office can bring a civil case against Trump and his company if it finds evidence of wrongdoing but cannot file criminal charges.
Democratic Rep. Albio Sires won't run for reelection in New Jersey:...
Officials to decide if New York will hold Times Square New Years Eve...
Vance's office has been collaborating with the attorney general in its criminal probe. Earlier this year, it charged the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer with 15 felony counts over an alleged tax evasion scheme.
The criminal investigation is ongoing and Vance reportedly issued new subpoenas last month as he prepares to leave office and turn the probe over to his successor, Alvin Bragg, a former New York deputy attorney general and federal prosecutor who will take over the district attorney's office in January.
Updated 11:45 a.m.
It's hard to believe or have any confidence in that much of anything substantial will happen to curb the problem considering that one of the "countries out there", are in part, the US.
NFL Week 15 final injury reports: Several teams ravaged by COVID-19, plus Pats' Damien Harris out vs. Colts
Breaking down the final injury reports of the week heading into Week 15 weekend action
By Jared Dubin & Cody Benjamin
2 hrs ago
8 min read
We're into Week 15 of the 2021 NFL season, and injuries are once again a factor in several key games this coming weekend. The story of this week is COVID-19 (check out our tracker of every player on the list), with the emergence of a new variant and several team-wide outbreaks knocking multiple players out of the lineup. Those players are largely not listed on injury reports, but we'll do our best to make note of important players who could be out of action due to the virus.
As teams turn in their final injury reports of the week, let this be your hub for knowing who is in, who is out, and whose status may still be up in the air leading up to kickoff. Below, you'll find every injury report and analysis of what it all means for Week 15.
Las Vegas Raiders at Cleveland Browns (-3)
Raiders: TE Darren Waller (knee/back), LB Denzel Perryman (ankle), CB Trayvon Mullen (toe) OUT; DE Carl Nassib (knee) QUESTIONABLE
Browns: RB Kareem Hunt (ankle), WR Anthony Schwartz (concussion), CB Greg Newsome II (concussion) OUT; TE Harrison Bryant (ankle), DT Malik Jackson (knee) QUESTIONABLE
Waller will miss his third consecutive game, and be replaced in the lineup once again by Foster Moreau. Perryman's absence is valuable against a team whose offense is based around the run game, but with so many Browns on the reserve/COVID-19 list, it's tough to know who will even suit up for them.
Hunt is set to miss his sixth game of the season after suffering another injury last week against the Ravens. Cleveland also has 20-plus players on the COVID-19 list at the moment, including both starting quarterback Baker Mayfield and backup Case Keenum. This situation is a mess, and it's unknown at the moment how many players the Browns will be able to suit up for the game.
New England Patriots at Indianapolis Colts (-2.5)
Patriots: RB Damien Harris (hamstring), LB Ronnie Perkins (ankle) OUT; OL Yodny Cajuste (illness), OL David Andrews (shoulder), DT Christian Barmore (knee), LB Ja'Whaun Bentley (ribs), RB Brandon Bolden (knee), OL Trent Brown (calf/wrsit), K Nick Folk (knee), DB Adrian Phillips (knee) QUESTIONABLE
Colts: DT Antwaun Woods (calf) OUT; OL Ryan Kelly (knee/illness/personal) OUT
The Pats are listing a whole bunch of guys as questionable, but most seem likely to play. The potential absence of Barmore would be especially damaging in a matchup against Indianapolis' power run game. With Harris out, Rhamondre Stevenson will presumably step into a larger role as the lead back.
Woods has played fairly well in a reserve role on the defensive line when active, but he's a back-end role player for the Colts defense. Kelly is an important piece of the offensive line, helping Carson Wentz with protections and serving as a fulcrum for the run game. With Kelly out (he was initially questionable for the game), that could prove especially damaging against New England's defense.
Tennessee Titans (PK) at Pittsburgh Steelers
Titans: FB Tory Carter (ankle), OG Roger Saffold III (shoulder), DT Teair Tart (ankle), DL Larrell Murchison (knee), LB David Long Jr. (hamstring), CB Jackrabbit Jenkins (ankle) OUT; OL Aaron Brewer (toe) QUESTIONABLE
Steelers: LB Buddy Johnson (foot) OUT; TE Kevin Rader (hip), DE Isaiah Buggs (ankle), CB Joe Haden (foot) QUESTIONABLE
Good news on the injury front in Pittsburgh: Star pass-rusher T.J. Watt (groin) and linebacker Alex Highsmith (quadriceps) were both full participants and are expected to suit up. Haden also has a chance to reinforce the secondary after missing the Steelers' last four games.
Houston Texans at Jacksonville Jaguars (-5)
Texans: QB Deshaun Watson (not injury related), DB Justin Reid (illness, concussion) OUT; RB Rex Burkhead (hip, quad), TE Brevin Jordan (hand), LB Kevin Pierre-Louis (hamstring, wrist) QUESTIONABLE
Jaguars: RB Carlos Hyde (concussion) OUT
These AFC South rivals are relatively healthy, with everyone but Hyde taking full practice reps in Jacksonville for the Jags' first game since dismissing Urban Meyer. Houston's run game has struggled mightily regardless of who's led the backfield, but if Burkhead can't go, David Johnson and Royce Freeman are expected to carry the load.
Dallas Cowboys (-10.5) at New York Giants
Cowboys: OT Tyron Smith (ankle) OUT; RB Tony Pollard (foot) QUESTIONABLE
Giants: QB Daniel Jones (neck) OUT; OL Ben Bredeson (ankle) DOUBTFUL; WR Sterling Shepard (calf), DL Leonard Williams (triceps), DL Austin Johnson (foot) QUESTIONABLE
Dak Prescott won't have his left tackle on the field while he attempts to get the Cowboys' offense back on track, with Smith sitting down yet again due to ankle issues. Pollard would also represent a decent loss for Dallas if he can't suit up, even though starting back Ezekiel Elliott was a full participant at practice all week. For the Giants, Jones will miss a third straight game, giving way to Mike Glennon under center.
New York Jets at Miami Dolphins (-9.5)
Jets: OT George Fant (knee) DOUBTFUL; OL Laurent Duvernay-Tardif (ankle), OL Dan Feeney (back), DL Sheldon Rankins (knee) QUESTIONABLE
Dolphins: TE Adam Shaheen (knee), OL Austin Jackson (illness), S Clayton Fejedelem (ankle) QUESTIONABLE
The Jets are banged up up front, which doesn't bode well for rookie QB Zach Wilson against Brian Flores' Dolphins defense. Joe Flacco and Mike White are in tow as New York's emergency options under center.
Washington Football Team at Philadelphia Eagles (-7)
Eagles: TBA
Football Team: TBA
Injury reports to come.
Arizona Cardinals (-12.5) at Detroit Lions
Cardinals: WR DeAndre Hopkins (knee), CB Robert Alford (pectoral) OUT; RB James Conner (ankle), TE Zach Ertz (hamstring), OL Justin Pugh (ankle), DT Corey Peters (knee), DT Zach Kerr (ribs), DT Leki Fotu (shoulder), DE Jordan Phillips (thumb) QUESTIONABLE
Lions: RB D'Andre Swift (shoulder), OLB Julian Okwara (ankle) OUT; WR Josh Reynolds (thigh), OG Jonah Jackson (back), OT Will Holden (not injury related), DE Michael Brockers (knee), LB Alex Anzalone (ankle), LB Jalen Reeves-Maybin (shoulder) QUESTIONABLE
Each side will be missing a key playmaker in this one, with Hopkins sidelined for Arizona and Swift out for the Lions. A.J. Green and rookie Rondale Moore figure to see an uptick in action in place of Hopkins for the Cardinals, while Chase Edmonds is expected back from injured reserve with or without Conner in the lineup.
Carolina Panthers at Buffalo Bills (-10.5)
Panthers: CB A.J. Bouye (foot) OUT; WR D.J. Moore (hamstring), OL Michael Jordan (hamstring), OL John Miller (ankle) QUESTIONABLE
Bills: WR Emmanuel Sanders (knee) OUT; DT Star Lotulelei (toe), RB Taiwan Jones (knee) QUESTIONABLE
The Panthers have solid depth at cornerback and thus may be able to overcome the absence of Bouye in this game. A potential Moore absence would rob them of their best remaining playmaker with Christian McCaffrey done for the year, and the offensive line issues could be exacerbated if either of the guards has to sit out.
Buffalo will presumably use second-year wideout Gabe Davis in Sanders' role as the third wide receiver, just as it did after Sanders left last Sunday's game against the Buccaneers. It's notable that left tackle Dion Dawkins was placed on the reserve/COVID-19 list, which will downgrade Josh Allen's pass protection in a week where he was limited on Wednesday and Thursday due to a foot injury. Allen, though, practiced in full on Friday and will play.
Atlanta Falcons at San Francisco 49ers (-9.5)
Falcons: S Erik Harris (chest) OUT; LB Dante Fowler Jr. (calf) QUESTIONABLE
49ers: RB Elijah Mitchell (concussion, knee), DL Maurice Hurst (calf), LB Dre Greenlaw (groin) OUT; LB Azeez Al-Shaair (elbow) DOUBTFUL; DL D.J. Jones (knee), CB Ambry Thomas (concussion), S Jaquiski Tartt (glute) QUESTIONABLE
The 49ers will turn to Jeff Wilson Jr. at running back again, with Mitchell out. They've also got a handful of injuries on defense, though the Falcons haven't exactly proven lethal this year, either.
Cincinnati Bengals at Denver Broncos (-3)
Bengals: OT Riley Reiff (ankle), LB Logan Wilson (shoulder), CB Chidobe Awuzie (foot) OUT; C Trey Hill (illness), OT Isaiah Prince (illness), LB Markus Bailey (neck), CB Vernon Hargreaves III (illness) QUESTIONABLE
Broncos: TBA
Reiff is expected to be out for the season, leaving Akeem Adeniji to protect Joe Burrow's blind side down the stretch. Should Awuzie and Bailey fail to suit up, Cincy will be down three starters on defense. Some good news, though: Burrow, Tee Higgins and Trey Hendrickson were all full participants in practice by the end of the week.
Seattle Seahawks at Los Angeles Rams (-4)
Seahawks: TBA
Rams: TBA
Injury reports to come.
Green Bay Packers (-6.5) at Baltimore Ravens
Packers: OT David Bakhtiari (knee), OG/OT Billy Turner (knee), TE Dominique Dafney (ankle) OUT; WR Equanimeous St. Brown (concussion) DOUBTFUL; WR Marquez Valdes-Scantling (back), WR Malik Taylor (abdomen) QUESTIONABLE
Ravens: OG Ben Powers (foot) OUT; DT Calais Campbell (thigh) DOUBTFUL; QB Lamar Jackson (ankle), FB Patrick Ricard (back, knee), TE Nick Boyle (knee), OT Alejandro Villanueva (knee), OG Tyre Phillips (illness), OL Patrick Mekari (hand), CB Chris Westry (knee) QUESTIONABLE
Another week, another game without Bakhtiari for the Packers, who are still flying high on the path to the NFC's No. 1 seed. Aaron Rodgers could have his receiver depth tested should both Valdes-Scantling and St. Brown sit out. Baltimore is even more banged up, with Tyler Huntley on track to start at QB in the event Jackson can't go.
New Orleans Saints at Tampa Bay Buccaneers (-11)
Saints: TE Garrett Griffin (hamstring), OT Ryan Ramczyk (knee), OT Terron Armstead (knee) OUT; WR Lil'Jordan Humphrey (hamstring), LB Kaden Elliss (hamstring) QUESTIONABLE
Buccaneers: CB Jamel Dean (illness) OUT; CB Richard Sherman (Achilles) DOUBTFUL; RB Leonard Fournette (ankle), S Antoine Winfield Jr. (ankle), S Jordan Whitehead (calf) QUESTIONABLE
The Saints will be without both of their starting tackles in this key divisional showdown, leaving Taysom Hill without his top two blockers. More than that, New Orleans will also be without head coach Sean Payton, who tested positive for COVID-19 and will be replaced on the sidelines with defensive coordinator Dennis Allen. As for the Bucs, Fournette would be a big loss for Tampa Bay's balanced offense if he can't suit up, while Todd Bowles' secondary remains banged up.
Minnesota Vikings (-5.5) at Chicago Bears
Vikings: TBA
Bears: TBA
Injury reports to come
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-week-15-final-injury-reports-several-teams-ravaged-by-covid-19-plus-damien-harris-out-vs-colts/
The big problem is that the "undermining" has continued by certain right wing factions of our political system and in full effect. This has spread to undermining many things beyond the Covid Wars that has a continued damaging effect and threat to peoples' lives.
Trump sought to 'undermine' COVID-19 response, says panel
BY NATHANIEL WEIXEL - 12/17/21 09:29 AM EST 12,2
TheHill.com
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/586287-house-oversight-report-trump-administration-sought-to-undermine-covid
The Trump administration deliberately undermined the nation's coronavirus response for political purposes, including by weakening testing guidance and championing widespread "herd immunity," according to a new report from the House panel investigating the pandemic response.
The Democratic staff report released Friday was a summation of the year's work investigating political interference in the pandemic response from Trump officials and the former president himself.
In interviews with officials and from uncovered emails and other documents, the committee found that the former administration failed to heed warnings about supply shortages, blocked public health officials from speaking publicly and neglected the pandemic response in order to focus on the 2020 presidential election and on promoting the lie that the election was "stolen" from Trump through widespread fraud.
New evidence released by the panel Friday highlighted the frustration and anger among senior public health officials with Trump's embrace of the herd immunity strategy.
In one instance, Trump held a roundtable event at the White House in August 2020 with some of herd immunity's top proponents that was organized by Scott Atlas, a radiologist who became a special adviser to Trump.
According to emails obtained by the panel, former White House coronavirus response coordinator Deborah Birx described it as “a fringe group."
"I can't be part of this with these people who believe in herd immunity," Birx wrote in an email to then-Chief of Staff to the Vice President Marc Short. "These are people who believe that all the curves are predetermined and mitigation is irrelevant -- they are a fringe group without grounding in epidemics, public health or on the ground common sense experience. I am happy to go out of town or whatever gives the WH cover," she wrote.
Other details released by the panel Friday showed the Trump White House intentionally “softened” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's public health guidance for faith communities.
Jay Butler, the deputy director for infectious diseases, told the panel in an interview he was pressured by the White House to publish guidance for faith communities that “softened some very important public health recommendations,” such as removing all references to face coverings, a suggestion to suspend choirs, and language related to virtual services.
NFL postponing 3 games over COVID surge
CDC handing out free COVID-19 test kits for international travelers
Butler said he felt the guidance "was not good public health practice" and would put people's lives at risk
"I was doing a lot of soul searching about whether or not I should have agreed to even make the change in the document. Clearly, it was a directive, but that was a real struggle as I felt like what had been done was not good public health practice," he told the committee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Murder
A person commits capital murder in the following nine circumstances:
1 Murdering a police officer or fireman while they are doing the work of a police officer or fireman and the person knows they are a police officer or fireman
2 Murdering someone in the course of or attempting to commit a kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, obstruction or retaliation, or certain types of terroristic threat
3 Murdering someone for payment or the promise of payment or hiring another person to commit a murder for payment
4 Murdering someone while escaping or attempting to escape from prison
5 Murdering someone employed by a prison while incarcerated in prison
6 Murdering someone while incarcerated for murder or capital murder or while serving a life sentence for aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, or aggravated robbery
7 Murdering more than one person during the same criminal episode
8 Murdering someone under 10 years old; or
9 Murdering someone because of their employment as a judge.
Murder
A person commits murder if he or she:
Intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual; or
Intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or
Commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
Manslaughter
A person commits manslaughter if he or she “recklessly causes the death of an individual.” A person acts “recklessly” when he or she “is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk” that their conduct will kill another person.
Criminally Negligent Homicide
A person commits criminally negligent homicide if he or she “causes the death of another individual by criminal negligence.” A person acts with “criminal negligence” when he or she “ought to be aware of a substantial and justifiable risk” that their conduct will kill another person.
https://aslettlaw.com/criminal-defense/what-are-the-differences-between-murder-homicide-and-manslaughter-charges-in-texas/
Trump International Hotel in Washington report exposes gaping corruption loopholes
Why does the House report matter? The D.C. hotel was the epicenter of Trump’s graft.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-international-hotel-washington-report-exposes-gaping-corruption-loopholes-ncna1286258
Dec. 18, 2021, 3:30 AM MST
By Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics
Donald Trump should never have been allowed to retain ownership of his Washington, D.C., hotel while president. A new report confirmed that the controls allegedly in place to limit potential corruption failed completely. Trump exposed these flaws in the system; Congress must act now before they are exploited again.
This week, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure issued a report finding that the General Services Administration completely failed.
This week, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure issued a report finding that the General Services Administration — the federal agency that oversees the Trump Organization’s lease of the Old Post Office for the Trump International Hotel in Washington — completely failed to prevent or even identify potential legal and constitutional violations arising from Trump’s ownership of the hotel, which the committee said operated at a loss for 33 out of 53 months between September 2016 and January 2021.
According to lawmakers, GSA never even checked whether Trump was complying with the Constitution’s emoluments clauses, which prohibit a president from taking payments or benefits from foreign and domestic governments. It never looked into whether his reimbursements to the government for foreign government expenditures at the hotel were accurate or whether loans for the hotel created conflicts of interest. Trump political appointees at GSA even made decisions affecting the financial interest of Trump’s properties, which was predictable, with Trump essentially serving as landlord and tenant.
Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., the committee's chairman, told NBC News the report “brings to light GSA’s flagrant mismanagement of the Old Post Office lease and its attempt to duck its responsibility to support and defend the U.S. Constitution’s emoluments clauses.” (Trump has remained mum on the report so far.)
Trump says the 'phony' constitution 'doesn't matter' because he's 'rich'
OCT. 21, 201904:24
Here’s why this matters: The hotel was the epicenter of Trump’s graft. Anyone looking to curry favor with his administration could simply walk over to his namesake hotel a couple blocks from the White House and flash cash.
On issues from taxes to environmental regulation to foreign policy, we never knew whether Trump’s administration was making decisions in the interest of the American people or in the interest of his bottom line. When Trump refused to take any action after Saudi Arabian agents brutally murdered a U.S.-based journalist, did it have anything to do with Saudi officials paying thousands for Trump hotel rooms? When the Trump administration gave unprecedented business to private prison companies, was it because they held events at his properties?
We can’t say we didn’t warn the GSA. My organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, sent them a letter seconds after Trump was sworn in, asking the agency to start the process of finding Trump to be in violation of its lease, which said it could not be held by a government official.
Related
OPINION
Trump's inspector general purge is egregious — and he's getting away with it
Instead, the GSA turned a blind eye to the obvious problems in a contract it oversaw. Perhaps the watchdogs were too scared to cross their politically appointed managers or the president himself. They fell down on the job. They should have done better, but it’s a lot to ask bureaucrats to stand up against the weight of the leaders they report to.
We need stronger protections. There must be accountability for Trump’s constant, corrupt disregard of the Constitution, the law and the principles of ethics. But we also must recognize that we can no longer inherently count on good faith and commitment to the rule of law from those in our highest offices. Trump may well be back in that position in the future. Others seeing what he got away with could follow his example. We need to strengthen our laws and institutions to protect against those who would, and will, abuse them.
The report recommends reforms including strengthening the audit power of the GSA and its inspector general and fortifying the prohibitions against government leases being held for the benefit of senior government officials. Those measures are important, and Congress should enact them. But as the committee also acknowledged, they are not enough. Congress must strengthen the laws prohibiting out-of-control presidential corruption.
The Protecting Our Democracy Act, which the House passed last week, includes provisions strengthening the enforcement of the emoluments clauses and gives more teeth to congressional oversight and more protection to inspectors general and whistleblowers. The Senate should pass it as soon as possible. The House-passed For the People Act includes key ethics provisions requiring presidents to sell any businesses they own before taking office. It’s up to the Senate to pass them as well.
Donald Trump made a mockery of the presidency and abused any ethics regulation he could. We’re still, years later, finding out how bad those abuses were — or could have been. Let’s make sure we’re never in this situation again.
U.S. COVID-19 vaccine mandate revived, Supreme Court showdown looms
By Tom Hals and Mike Scarcella
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-appeals-court-reinstates-covid-19-vaccine-or-test-rule-us-workplaces-2021-12-18/
Dec 17 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday reinstated a nationwide vaccine-or-testing COVID-19 mandate for large businesses, which covers 80 million American workers, prompting opponents to rush to the Supreme Court to ask it to intervene.
The ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati lifted a November injunction that had blocked the rule from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which applies to businesses with at least 100 workers.
"It is difficult to imagine what more OSHA could do or rely on to justify its finding that workers face a grave danger in the workplace," said the opinion. "It is not appropriate to second-guess that agency determination considering the substantial evidence, including many peer-reviewed scientific studies, on which it relied."
President Joe Biden unveiled in September regulations to increase the adult vaccination rate as a way of fighting the pandemic, which has killed more than 750,000 Americans and weighed on the economy.
The ruling coincides with public health officials bracing for a "tidal wave" of coronavirus infections in the United States as the more transmissible Omicron variant spreads rapidly worldwide. read more
"While we are disappointed in the Court’s decision, we will continue to fight the illegal mandate in the Supreme Court," South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said on Twitter. "We are confident the mandate can be stopped."
Within hours of the ruling, at least three petitions were filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to immediately block the mandate.
A protester gestures at passing traffic as Boeing employees and others line the street to protest the company's coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine mandate, outside the Boeing facility in Everett, Washington, October 15, 2021. REUTERS/Lindsey Wasson
A protester gestures at passing traffic as Boeing employees and others line the street to protest the company's coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine mandate, outside the Boeing facility in Everett, Washington, October 15, 2021. REUTERS/Lindsey Wasson
A group of business groups representing retail, wholesale, warehousing, transportation, travel and logistics filed one of the first petitions with the high court, raising among other issues the potential for workers to quit rather than take the shot.
"The resulting labor upheaval will devastate already fragile supply chains and labor markets at the peak holiday season," said the petition.
Companies such as United Airlines (UAL.O) have used mandates to increase the number of vaccinated employees, often with only a small number of workers refusing the shots. read more
But others such as Boeing Co (BA.N) have suspended their plans, in part because of court rulings putting government mandates on hold, but also due to resistance among workers. read more
Courts have blocked Biden's vaccine requirement for healthcare workers in half the states and a vaccine mandate for federal contractors has been blocked nationwide. read more
Friday's ruling was 2-1 with Judges Jane Stranch, appointed by President Barack Obama, and Julia Gibbons, appointed by President George W. Bush, in the majority. Judge Joan Larsen, appointed by President Donald Trump, dissented.
Republicans, conservative groups and trade organizations sued over the OSHA rule, arguing the agency overstepped its authority. read more
The rule set a Jan. 4 deadline for compliance, although it was unclear if that will be enforced because the rule was blocked for weeks.
That's true. That's why it puts more responsibility on the coaches, owners, administrative hierarchy and onward up past football. Football has all sorts of rules and regs that players have to follow and take serious and the game requires massive discipline and focus on a consistent basis. The things for Covid mitigation are easy, nothing that even compares to all the other required effort to just be there.
If one was to just take the article that was posted, it was showing that coach Carroll was taking responsibility and was getting the desired results. Along with showing that it can work and can just be included with regular regiment, making strengths not weaknesses. Wining over a little mask wearing or shot in the arm or any of the rules is just a weakness. There no wining in football.
Rules are there to protect the players and in turn protect the game. Being a good football player is being good playing by the rules. It's up to the leaders, whoever that may be, to make that happen, not shirk those responsibilities or fail in them.
There will always be large groups of not very intelligent people who follow, not lead, who need to be instructed or trained. I don't have as much against those misguided, mistaken, uneducated or untrained, but I have a whole lot of distain for the more intelligent, the ones who are followed or lead, for being an accessory to the follies, to knowingly misguide or just allow others to, all for their own conveniences or ideals.
Instead of the rolled eyes and ridiculed looks that the Seahawks got wearing masks (boy I know those looks real well), they should have looked at them and followed their example for its long past time for all the coaches and leadership to stop the wining and step it up and get on with having some good games. Or just get out of the kitchen if they can't.
Anybody see the Chiefs and Chargers game last night. I don't think that it would even been that close or overtime if it wasn't for Mahomes' flubs. He did some good ones too, but too many weren't on point to say the least. I wonder how Chargers' Parham is making out, stable and alert is all I've heard. Watching that injury was definitely cringe worthy.
Anybody see the Chiefs and Chargers game last night. I don't think that it would even been that close or overtime if it wasn't for Mahomes' flubs. He did some good ones too, but too many weren't on point to say the least. I wonder how Chargers' Parham is making out, stable and alert is all I've heard. Watching that injury was definitely cringe worthy.
The thing is though, every team has away games, that's part of the game. For every game played at home, there is a team on the road. It's a very good reason that there are any resemblance to protocols. Impossible to have a football player or all the personnel support to be a "work from home industry". If protocols are diligently and consistently followed, one will see much less percentage of break through cases (and even non vaccinated cases). I suspect that all these "break through" cases are not as many as they claim everywhere, but some I'm sure are with a non vaccinated persons claiming being vaccinated (fake vaccinated certifications are becoming big business and the sports industry has a history of covering for players breaking rules). One should expect that there would be a difference between teams that cheat and skirt the protocols that would have a bigger problem than a team who adheres to them the very best they can home and on the road.
The Seahawks have away games too and they come from one of the ground zeros for Covid. I don't believe that the Seahawks are an anomaly, just proof that if all or even any of the other teams addressed the situation with proper attitudes and actions, we would see a very small Covid lists and maybe close to non existent as we see with the Seahawks specifically. Who knows, maybe they are just faking the numbers also, but I don't think so.
Your right, playing other teams whether home or away that are not strictly enforcing or adhering to protocols will be constantly creating problems for any teams that do. That goes for every thing everywhere, not just football.
That was a great article, nice to see and obviously one more confirmation of successes of proper Covid mitigation (all forms). I'm sure that the amount of money that is involved with football, that some of the protocols are skirted and ignored or stated as adhered to, but not. There wouldn't be such a stark difference between the Seahawks and all the other teams if a lot wasn't being fudged. On another note;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/12/17/taylor-heinicke-washington-covid/
Washington quarterback Taylor Heinicke joins covid-19 list
By Nicki Jhabvala
Today at 10:21 a.m. EST|Updated today at 11:02 a.m. EST
Washington Football Team quarterback Taylor Heinicke was placed on the team’s reserve/covid-19 list Friday, two days before the team is set to face the Philadelphia Eagles in a divisional matchup that could determine both teams’ playoff fates. Heinicke joins 21 other Washington players on the covid-19 list, including backup quarterback Kyle Allen, who tested positive for the coronavirus Wednesday.
For reinforcement, Washington signed quarterback Garrett Gilbert off the New England Patriots’ practice squad. The team’s quarterbacks room, which once featured 16-year veteran Ryan Fitzpatrick as a starter, is down to Kyle Shurmur, Gilbert and Jordan Ta’amu, who was added to the practice squad Wednesday.
Heinicke, like many others on Washington’s covid-19 lists, is vaccinated. If he’s asymptomatic, there’s a chance he could test out in time for Sunday’s game. But so far, none of Washington’s players on the covid-19 lists who are vaccinated and asymptomatic have been able to test out early.
The NFL altered its protocols Thursday evening, essentially allowing vaccinated asymptomatic players a chance to test out a day earlier than they would have under previous protocols, which required two negative tests separated by 24 hours. Now, those players can return after two negative tests taken on the same day — or if they meet a certain cycle threshold value, an indirect indicator of how much virus a person is carrying.
If Heinicke has two negative rapid-result tests as late as Sunday morning, he could be back on the field. Per the league’s new and complex protocols, Washington would have to activate him before Saturday at 4 p.m., and if he tests positive on game day, the team would not be able to elevate another player to replace him. The team would just lose the roster spot.
“This season, we’ve been historically running at about 20 percent of players that seem to be testing out in less than 10 days,” Allen Sills, the NFL’s chief medical officer said in a conference call with reporters Thursday. “I would expect that number to go up some now. But I just think we’ll have to wait and see.”
According to a person with knowledge of the team’s plans, Washington also plans to take a wait-and-see approach with their quarterbacks, as well as the rest of the roster, which has been decimated by injuries and coronavirus protocols.
The team has just 40 players on its active roster. Of the three quarterbacks currently available, Shurmur has the most experience with the team, after signing to the practice squad in September, after Fitzpatrick suffered a season-ending hip injury. But neither he nor Jordan Ta’amu has played an NFL snap.
Gilbert, a sixth-round pick by the Rams in 2014, spent two seasons with the Carolina Panthers (2017-18), when Ron Rivera was their head coach and Scott Turner their quarterbacks coach. His only game experience with the team, however, was the fourth quarter of Carolina’s Week 17 matchup with the New Orleans Saints. Gilbert replaced Allen, who suffered a shoulder injury in the victory.
Gilbert has bounced around among six teams, including two stints apiece with the Dallas Cowboys and the Patriots. In seven-plus seasons, he has played seven games and has had one start, with the Cowboys last season.
This story will be updated.
Well, when your in a world of fake tits, fake nose, face lips, fake marriages, fake intelligence, and alternative realities, what's a little eye color change. Known fact that blue eyes have an appeal and popularity much like blond hair has. Much higher percentage of women that have blond hair over the percentage of women with natural blond hair (might be switched popularity in colors now, don't keep up). I suppose it will become the same for cosmetic surgery designating color of eyes for people with a lot of money to spend.
SAFE EYE COLOR CHANGE IS NOW POSSIBLE
https://www.keratonyc.com/
Considering that storm surges are projected to be over 4ft above high tide will be happening by 2030, just think of what some permanence to that rise vs just storm surges. How much more extremes that will have to be dealt with than what we're already experiencing is quite a serious thought.
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/antarctic-ice-shelf-crack-raise-seas-feet-decade-scientists-warn-rcna8918
Antarctic ice shelf could crack, raise seas by feet within decade, scientists warn
Thwaites is the widest glacier in the world and has doubled its rate of melt within the last 30 years, a researcher said.
Dec. 15, 2021, 5:08 PM MST / Updated Dec. 16, 2021, 8:19 AM MST
By Tim Fitzsimons
An Antarctic ice shelf could crack and disintegrate within the next decade, allowing a Florida-sized glacier to slide into the ocean and raising sea levels by feet, scientists warned Wednesday.
A dramatic chain reaction in the ice could occur by 2031, starting with the Thwaites Glacier, said Erin Pettit, a professor at Oregon State University who studies glacier and ice sheet dynamics.
The glacier, a river of flowing ice, is blocked from falling into the sea by the eastern ice shelf, which sits atop an underwater mountain and is disintegrating.
New research Pettit presented to a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in New Orleans suggests the final collapse of the ice shelf may occur "within as little as 5 years" and mark the beginning of the end of the Thwaites Glacier.
How climate change is redefining life in the Arctic Circle (Part 1)
SEPT. 15, 201901:45
The ice at the top of the shelf is newly crisscrossed with cracks that are expanding toward the center of the shelf as quickly as 2 kilometers (1.24 miles) a year, the research found.
Scientists pointed to a zigzag path they say is the likely site for the ice shelf to crack and disintegrate.
Thwaites is the “widest glacier in the world” and has “doubled its outflow speed within the last 30 years,” said Ted Scambos, a senior research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and a contributor to the research.
“If Thwaites were to collapse, it would drag most of west Antarctica’s ice with it,” Scambos said in a news release. “So it's critical to get a clearer picture of how the glacier will behave over the next 100 years.”
Thwaites Eastern Ice Shelf.
Over the last several years, satellite radar imagery shows many new fractures opening up in the Thwaites Eastern Ice Shelf.ESA
Thwaites contributes 4 percent of annual global sea level rise, according to the British Antarctic Survey. But if the shelf collapses, that amount could rise to 25 percent, the scientists said.
Recommended
CORONAVIRUS
New research offers a clearer picture of the omicron variant's threat. Here's what we know.
WHITE HOUSE
Biden administration imposes sanctions against China over abuse of Uyghurs
All the water in the Thwaites Glacier would raise sea levels by 2 feet — but if its collapse triggers nearby glaciers to fall, the global sea level could rise by up to 10 feet, Scambos said.
A series of scientific studies of Thwaites in recent years has shown the enormous glacier is melting more quickly and in ways scientists never expected.
In 2019, scientists discovered a 6-mile-long, 1,000-foot-deep cavity under the glacier that means it lost 14 billion tons of ice, NBC News reported.
Later that year, researchers compared aerial films of Antarctica taken in the 1970s to current radar data, which showed Thwaites was melting much faster than researchers thought.
Their projected forecast turned out to pretty correct then. It's being regularly documented that previous forecasts and projections from generations ago with climate change effects have been too conservative and are advancing at much greater pace than previously thought and the projections now are that the "new normal" weather conditions are going to be left in the dust pretty quickly with magnitudes and frequencies becoming much worse. So don't get too used to these in what going to be considered very mild conditions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/12/10/record-warmth-surging-through-lower-48-states-two-waves/
Record warmth surging through Lower 48 states in two waves
Next week could produce historically high December temperatures in the central states, up to 40 degrees above average
By Ian Livingston
December 10, 2021|Updated December 10, 2021 at 1:27 p.m. EST
As we close in on the official start of winter Dec. 21, there’s little cold to be found across the Lower 48. The first of two surges of warmth has set records across Texas and parts of the South already. Dozens more records are possible Friday and Saturday, ahead of a powerful storm system triggering severe thunderstorms as it pushes east.
After only a brief break to start next week, warmth is set to build in again. By Tuesday, a new round of records is likely across the Southern Plains, expanding into the Midwest and Eastern states during the second half of the week. Some records could be set by large margins. In parts of the Midwest, temperatures could be as much as 40 degrees above normal, approaching their highest temperatures observed during December.
Current warmth
Dozens of records are slated to be tied or topped Friday and Saturday ahead of a cold front sweeping east. Friday’s record-challenging warmth is centered over the south-central United States. On Saturday, the record warmth will stretch to the East Coast with a focus on parts of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.
Thursday featured record highs in Houston, Brownsville and Laredo, where maximum temperatures of 87, 88 and 89 occurred, respectively.
The 87-degree high at Houston’s William P. Hobby Airport was also the warmest December high temperature on record for the city, surpassing the previous monthly mark of 85, set in 1933.
Many of the same spots are likely to see record or near-record highs Friday. Oklahoma City may top its daily record of 75 from 1996. Dallas’s record of 84 could also fall. Farther east, record highs in Memphis and New Orleans are also among those at risk of falling.
Along the Texas-Mexico border region, readings may reach the sweltering low 90s in places like Laredo.
The anomalous warmth is also fueling a significant severe weather threat Friday evening into Friday night. Tornadoes, some which could be strong, are a possibility across parts of the mid-South and surrounding areas Friday night. A moderate risk, or Level 4 of 5, has been issued by the Weather Service for portions of the area.
Warmth shifts east with the cold front into Saturday. Temperatures reaching the 60s and 70s — some 20 to 25 degrees above normal for the date — could deliver records to places such as Buffalo, Washington and New York City.
In addition to record highs, numerous record-warm low temperatures have been or will be set, including up to three or four dozen Friday night.
Round 2
With a cold front clearing the East Coast late Saturday, a few days without massive winter warmth seem likely.
It won’t last for long. Unusually toasty conditions will surge back into many of the same regions east of the continental divide early next week. By Tuesday and Wednesday, temperatures as much as 30 to 40 degrees above normal are possible across the central United States.
Forecast temperatures compared to normal. (weatherbell.com)
While next week is too far out for specifics, temperatures should rise to at least the values indicated below between Tuesday and Thursday, progressing from west to east. If anything, these forecasts may be conservative, given the anticipated strength of the wintertime heat dome. There is certainly a chance for more all-time December records in spots.
Wichita: Lower 70s.
Iowa City: Near 70.
Minneapolis: Low-to-mid 60s.
Chicago: Near or above 60.
Memphis: 60s.
Washington: 60s.
Why so warm?
The large-scale weather pattern has recently favored warmth across much of the Lower 48 east of the Rocky Mountains. That seems set to continue for some time.
Much of December has been dominated by a polar jet stream locked across the northern tier of the United States and into Canada. This is quite far north for the time of year, and in large part thanks to persistently higher pressure over the contiguous United States.
High pressure strengthens over the eastern two-thirds of the United States next week. (weatherbell.com)
More recently, and into the time ahead, the weather pattern is becoming dominated by a recurring area of low pressure over the western part of the country, bringing stormy weather. To the east, like the opposite side of a seesaw, a sprawling zone of high pressure and associated warm conditions will dominate.
Storms to pour precipitation into drought-plagued California and Mountain West
Both of these weather drivers are expected to be high-end versions of themselves by the middle of next week. Some forecasting has shown the next round of “subtropical” high pressure in the eastern United States to be near historic intensity for the time of year.
On top of these weather factors, human-caused climate change is helping to push unusual warmth toward extreme levels.
More of the same is expected through the winter. While colder breaks are a good bet, an overall pattern of above-normal temperatures in the East and below-normal in the Northwest is common for La Niña winters like the present.
Morgan Housel
@morganhousel
Money buys happiness in the same way drugs bring pleasure: Incredible if done right, dangerous if used to mask a weakness, and disastrous when no amount is enough.
Looks like it's the new desert of the day. Feasting upon the fad.
https://www.newsweek.com/melania-trump-launches-nft-sale-melanias-vision-1660090
Melania Trump Launches NFT For Sale Called 'Melania's Vision'
BY EMMA NOLAN ON 12/16/21 AT 9:05 AM EST
Melania Trump is jumping on the NFT craze as the former first lady has announced she will sell her first non-fungible token this holiday season.
Titled "Melania's Vision" the digital asset will be available to purchase for a limited period this month. The token features watercolor art that "embodies Mrs. Trump's cobalt blue eyes, providing the collector with an amulet to inspire."
The wife of former president Donald Trump released a statement explaining that the launch of her NFT is a continuation of her "Be Best" initiative.
"I am proud to announce my new NFT endeavor, which embodies my passion for the arts, and will support my ongoing commitment to children through my Be Best initiative," Melania Trump said in a press release posted to Twitter.
"Through this new technology-based platform, we will provide children computer science skills, including programming and software development, to thrive after they age out of the foster community."
The piece of digital artwork is limited edition and will cost 1 SOL in cryptocurrency, which is approximately $150.
It also includes an audio recording from Melania Trump with a "message of hope."
The announcement confirms that this is not a once-off and that the former first lady plans to release more NFTs at "regular intervals" on the Parler-powered platform.
The tokens will be "a one-of-a-kind auction of historical importance scheduled in January 2022, including three elements: digital artwork, physical artwork, and a physical one-of-a-kind accessory."
Melania Trump stated that a portion of the proceeds will "assist children aging out of the foster care system by way of economic empowerment and with expanded access to resources needed to excel in the fields of computer science and technology."
Trump's foray into the world of non-fungible tokens comes amid a discussion about their potential for political fundraising.
NFTs have become increasingly popular over the course of 2021 as artists and public figures have explored alternative ways to make income or invest during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Paris Hilton recently revealed that she is "obsessed" with NFTs, telling Bloomberg: "I launched my first NFT drop in March 2020, and have been obsessed with NFTs and the never-ending possibilities of this technology ever since.
"NFTs are the future for creators, creatives and collectors, and this is just the beginning."
NFTs use cryptocurrency and blockchain technology to sell different assets online, such as concert tickets and pieces.
Upon purchasing, customers are provided with a digital file of the asset connected to their private key which proves the individual's ownership, which allows only them to access the NFT through a particular app or platform.
However, because NFTs have no tangible real-world object, critics say that they can easily be digitally shared and accessed by people who didn't purchase them.
Still have the half of shares I didn't sell with BRDS. In some part, an emotional want for this kind of company being successful, but realizing reality would have to take precedence over any emotional needs. I fed of the bottom for only technical play, but looking more into it, they actually might succeed and reason that I put some over to another long term account. BRDS didn't go back to the old lows recently made around where I picked them up, but have held pretty good considering the market volatility recently and are now up from where I sold half.
BRDS is about a third owned by institutions and has about a 56% volatility with minuscule short interest and about 2.3B market cap with 274.4 shares outstanding.
Newest news for BRDS is an encouraging sign for our increasing electric mobility and Bird Global expansions.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211216005204/en/
December 16, 2021 09:04 AM Eastern Standard Time
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Bird Global, Inc. (NYSE:BRDS), a leader in environmentally friendly electric transportation, today released new data revealing that Bird riders contributed an estimated $100 million in incremental spending at local businesses in 2021 as a result of access to micromobility. Together, these riders also helped save an estimated 1.1 million gallons of gasoline by opting for eco-friendly transportation over gas-powered cars this year alone.
“Obviously cities have many factors to consider when choosing to partner with Bird or others in the micromobility industry, but the economic benefit to local businesses should not be understated.”
Tweet this
“Bird was founded to make cities more livable for all,” said Travis VanderZanden, Founder and CEO of Bird. “While we continue to make measurable progress toward our goal of reducing reliance on carbon emitting transportation such as gas-powered cars, it is remarkable to also see the positive impact our riders are having on local economies, specifically, local businesses that were very heavily impacted by the global pandemic. We are grateful to all who chose eco-friendly transportation in 2021 and look forward to continuing this positive trend in 2022 as cities increase adoption of micromobility and support expanded services with our shared bikes and scooters.”
The new data shows Bird riders saved an estimated 1,125,000 gallons of gasoline, about two Olympic-sized swimming pools, from being burned in 2021. According to the methodology published by the Arbor Day Foundation, the environmental impact of the modeshift in behaviors is comparable to the amount of CO2 absorbed by nearly 460,000 mature trees in one year. The data from Bird complements a July 2021 survey from the McKinsey Center for Future Mobility, which found that nearly 70% of respondents were willing to use micromobility to commute to work, further demonstrating that people are shifting toward smaller and more sustainable transportation options for their everyday needs.
Bird’s micro-electric vehicles also had a significant economic impact in the more than 350 cities that it serves globally, especially as cities worked to support their local businesses. Conservative estimates show that Bird scooters added more than $100 million in incremental spending, predominantly at local food and beverage companies, across its partner cities in 2021. According to a six-month study from Emory University’s Goizueta School of Business, each deployed scooter in a city spurs a given amount of additional incremental spending relative to cities of comparable size that do not offer this type of micromobility option.
“All the data points to the same conclusion: e-scooters drive consumer spending and likely provide a significant financial boon to local economies,” said Assistant Professor of Marketing Daniel McCarthy, who co-authored the study along with Emory University PhD student Kyeongbin Kim. “Obviously cities have many factors to consider when choosing to partner with Bird or others in the micromobility industry, but the economic benefit to local businesses should not be understated.”
Beyond the environmental and economic impacts, 2021 was a milestone year for Bird and the broader micromobility industry. Other notable data and trends from 2021 include:
The Thousand Ride Club. Around the world, riders relied on Bird for thousands of trips in their home cities. The top five Bird riders globally, hailing from Austin, Lisbon, Rome, San Jose and Madrid, combined have taken more than 20,000 trips in 2021 or on average 5,000 trips per person.
Going the distance. The launch of Bird Three in 2021, with its increased battery capacity, has enabled longer rides than ever before. On September 7, a rider in Munich, Germany, took their Bird Three to the limit, covering 28.5 miles on a ride that lasted 2 hours and 48 minutes. This was just over one tenth of a mile longer than a Bird Three rider in Tampa, Florida, who rode 28.4 miles on October 10, during a trip that lasted 2 hours and 39 minutes.
Extending the trend. The average Bird ride length reached a new record high in 2021. It’s now 58% longer worldwide when compared to 2019 as riders continue the trend of leveraging micromobility for longer and more varied trips.
Bridging the gender gap. An increase in women’s scooter ridership emerged in 2021, particularly in the southern United States. In Memphis, 41% of riders in 2021 identified as female, while in Atlanta, that number is nearly 46%. The trend is also present in smaller cities such as Yuma, Arizona, where 42% of riders in 2021 identified as female.
About Bird
Bird is an electric vehicle company dedicated to bringing affordable, environmentally friendly transportation solutions such as e-scooters and e-bikes to communities across the world. Founded in 2017 by transportation pioneer Travis VanderZanden, Bird is rapidly expanding. Today, it provides fleets of shared micro electric vehicles to riders in more than 350 cities globally and makes its products available for purchase at www.bird.co and via leading retailers and distribution partners. Bird partners closely with the cities in which it operates to provide a reliable and affordable transportation option for people who live and work there.
Contacts
Investor
Andrew Tom
investor@bird.co
Media
Rebecca Hahn
press@bird.co
"Honestly it would be weird if there wasn’t insider trading in this SPAC."
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-12-13/the-trump-spac-pipe-is-free-money?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_content=view&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-view&sref=TBDibEcD
The Trump SPAC PIPE Is Free Money
Also Peloton and a Bored Ape fat finger.
By Matt Levine +Sign Up
December 13, 2021, 10:50 AM MST
We talked last week about the Trump SPAC PIPE. A quick recap: Donald Trump has a vague sketch of a media company called Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). TMTG is a private company and there is almost no public information about its business, finances, executives, etc. In October, TMTG announced a merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) called Digital World Acquisition Corp. (DWAC), which will contribute about $293 million of cash to TMTG in exchange for TMTG stock. DWAC is currently a public company; it raised stock from the public by selling shares at $10 each, and upon the announcement of the TMTG deal its stock shot up. It closed at $56.02 on Friday.
Traditionally SPAC deals are accompanied by private investments in public equity (PIPEs), in which big institutional investors agree to buy stock in the combined company at the time of the SPAC merger. Often the PIPE investors invest on the same terms as the SPAC investors, buying stock in the new company at $10 per share, but where (as here) the stock is up a lot in anticipation of the merger, the PIPE investors might agree to a higher price.
TMTG and DWAC announced a $1 billion PIPE on Saturday, Dec. 4. The price was a bit weird. Nominally it is $33.60 per share: The PIPE investors put in $1 billion and get back 29.8 million shares ($1,000,000,000 divided by $33.60). But it is subject to downward adjustment: The actual number of shares that the PIPE investors get is only fixed after the SPAC merger closes.
More from
Biden’s Stealth Plan to Restore Faith in Democracy
EV Tax Credits Are Good. Protectionism Is Bad.
Campaign Silly Season Is Already Underway
Will the Stars Ever Make Money in This Town Again?
A lot will happen between now and when the SPAC merger closes. TMTG and DWAC will have to file a merger proxy with extensive financial and business information about TMTG. Perhaps that information will be, you know, bad. Perhaps investors will read the proxy and say “huh this company has no real business plan” and the stock will drop. Or not, I don’t know, I am not sure I’d bet on the stock dropping due to a lack of business plan; you can read TMTG’s current investor deck here, and it is not exactly replete with business planning. Still the point is that there is some risk of the stock dropping.
But the PIPE investors are protected against this in two ways. First, TMTG and DWAC have promised the PIPE investors that they’ll be able to sell the stock the minute the merger closes. Ordinarily in SPAC deals, the company agrees to file a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission and work to get the SEC to approve it, so that the PIPE investors can legally resell their shares. But usually that happens after closing, and you can't count on rushing the SEC. In this deal, TMTG and DWAC have promised to get the registration statement effective before closing, and in fact it is a condition to the closing of the PIPE. The PIPE investors only have to put up their money if they can immediately turn around and resell their shares.
The second protection is that the price of the PIPE is “subject to downward adjustment.” When the merger closes and TMTG is public, it will look at the average closing price over the next 10 trading days, and use that to compute the final price of the PIPE. If the stock trades at $56 or above after closing, there will be no adjustment, and the PIPE investors will buy stock at $33.60 per share. If it trades below $56, though, the PIPE investors will buy stock at a 40% discount to whatever the average price is: If it trades at $45, they’ll pay $27 per share. (Effectively, they'll get more shares — 37 million, at $27 per share — for their billion dollars.) But this is floored at $10: If the stock trades at $16.67 or below (including if it trades below $10), the PIPE investors will buy at $10 per share.
The result is that the PIPE investors are committing $1 billion of money, but taking very little risk and getting very richly rewarded. They can — and, I expect, will — sell their stock as soon as the merger closes and TMTG is public, and they’ll sell at a huge guaranteed profit because they will buy their stock at a 40% discount to the stock price at the time they pay for it. Still, some risk: If the stock is below $10 by the time the deal closes, they will lose money on the trade.
Or that is what I said last week, but the trade is actually even better for the PIPE investors? Because here is the trade they can do:
Short DWAC stock now, locking in a sale price of about $56 per share.
Buy back the stock at closing, from TMTG/DWAC, at a maximum purchase price of $33.60.
Make $22.40 per share guaranteed.
Ordinarily, if you short stock in Trump’s thing at $56, you run the risk that it will go up to $100 and you’ll lose a ton of money. But if you have committed to the PIPE, TMTG and DWAC have agreed to sell you shares at $33.60 (subject to downward adjustment), so that risk is off the table. If the stock goes up, you buy at $33.60. If the stock stays flat, you buy at $33.60. If the stock goes down, you buy at a 40% discount to the market price. If it goes down to $20, you buy at $12. If it goes down to $16.67, your price is floored and you buy at $10, but that’s fine if you already sold at $56.
Let’s say you have committed $100 million to the PIPE. At the cap price, this means you will get about 3 million shares ($100 million divided by $33.60). So you sell all those shares today, at about $56 per share, for $167 million. Then at the closing of the PIPE you put in your $100 million, get back at least 3 million shares, and deliver them to your stock lenders to close out your short position. You are left with a $67 million profit. If the stock goes down, and is below $56 after the merger closes, you will get more shares — as many as 10 million, if the stock is at $16.67 or below — and then you can sell those too for some extra cash. 1 But the $67 million is guaranteed no matter what the stock does.
I want to point out that this is explicitly contemplated by the deal documents. Here is Section 3.1(bb) of the Securities Purchase Agreement that the PIPE investors signed with DWAC (emphasis added):
Acknowledgment Regarding Purchaser’s Trading Activity. Anything in this Agreement or elsewhere herein to the contrary notwithstanding (except for Sections 3.2(g), 4.12 and 4.15 hereof), it is understood and acknowledged by the Company that: (i) none of the Purchasers has been asked by the Company to agree, nor, to the knowledge of the Company, has any Purchaser agreed, to desist from purchasing or selling, long and/or short, securities of the Company, or “derivative” securities based on securities issued by the Company or to hold the Securities for any specified term, (ii) past or future open market or other transactions by any Purchaser, specifically including, without limitation, Short Sales or “derivative” transactions, before or after the closing of this or future private placement transactions, may negatively impact the market price of the Company’s publicly-traded securities, (iii) after the execution of this Agreement, any Purchaser, and counter-parties in “derivative” transactions to which any such Purchaser is a party, directly or indirectly, may have a “short” position in the Common Stock and (iv) each Purchaser shall not be deemed to have any affiliation with or control over any arm’s length counter-party in any “derivative” transaction.
That is, DWAC agreed that the PIPE investors can short DWAC stock right now. 2 This is a very unusual provision in SPAC PIPEs; most purchase agreements specifically say that the investors are not allowed to short. 3 In the Trump SPAC PIPE, they specifically are allowed to.
Now! A couple of things. First, there are risks to this trade. One risk is that it might be expensive to borrow DWAC stock, it’s a meme stock, the price could go up, borrow could be recalled, and you could be forced to cover your short at a loss before the merger closes. If you make it to closing, you’re guaranteed to be able to buy the stock for $33.60 for a risk-free profit, but you had better be sure that your stock borrow is locked up until then. And closing — which requires writing a public disclosure document that satisfies SEC rules — could be a long way away.
Another risk is, I say “you’re guaranteed to be able to buy the stock for $33.60,” but that depends on DWAC and TMTG honoring the commitments in the contract and, you know, who knows. Donald Trump has been known to re-trade on deals. 4
Beyond the risk of perhaps getting short a meme stock and then being forced to cover prematurely, there are legal risks. The main one is: If TMTG hired an investment bank to sell $1 billion of stock into the market right now, today, with the extremely limited public information about TMTG’s business and finances that is currently available, that investment bank would definitely be breaking the law. (Specifically it would be violating Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, which requires sales of stock to be registered.) If this transaction consists effectively of TMTG hiring a bunch of PIPE investors to sell $1 billion of stock into the market right now, with the delivery of the stock to the investors in a few months, there is a risk that those investors are also legally underwriters of unregistered stock, and will get in trouble. (Not legal advice!) The fact that the transaction explicitly acknowledges that they might be doing this suggests that they’re not too worried about the legal risk, but the SEC — which doesn’t like SPACs anyway — might disagree.
And in fact short interest in DWAC stock does not seem to be especially high — certainly not the full 29.8 million shares underlying the PIPE — and the volume over the past week also does not suggest that the PIPE investors have been selling all that heavily.
Still! It seems like they could; it seems like the deal was specifically set up so they could. It was specifically set up to let them buy stock at $33.60 and lock in a sales price, today, in the $40s or $50s. It was specifically set up to be guaranteed free money for the PIPE investors.
There has been a lot of writing about the Trump SPAC PIPE that suggests that the investors in this PIPE are somehow doing Donald Trump an under-the-table favor, that this is a story about secret money in politics. For instance:
Not only was a big PIPE investment not announced when the partnership with Trump was revealed, now that it has been announced, the names of the investors have not been made public. That’s because each investor has been limited to controlling no more than 4.99 percent of the voting stock, just under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s threshold requiring anyone controlling 5 percent or more to be identified publicly in filings.
“This PIPE is structured so that the identity of the PIPE investors may not be known for a long time, if ever,” Rodrigues says.
While the public and general shareholders don’t know who the PIPE investors are, Trump apparently does. In fact, Reuters reported last week that Trump has been personally calling certain potential PIPE investors, trying to get them to commit to a $100 million investment, which heightens a potential for a conflict of interest—only Trump would know what other interests he might have to serve.
“Are they individuals or companies or countries that have a stake in something that he could affect as president?” Kathleen Clark, a professor of legal ethics at Washington University in St. Louis says. “Yes, of course they are, whoever they are, but I think the bigger question right now, is: Will we ever know their identities?”
Well, first of all, yes, of course we will know their identities: The PIPE investors will all be listed as selling shareholders in the registration statement, which will be filed before the merger closes. 5
But second, I think the whole premise here is wrong. If you agreed to invest in Donald Trump’s $1 billion SPAC PIPE, it is not because you want to donate money to Donald Trump, to do him a favor. It is because, in exchange for your investment, you will get Donald Trump meme stock that you can immediately sell to retail investors at a huge guaranteed profit. He is doing you a favor! I assume that the PIPE investors include a lot of Trump friends who are very grateful to be in the deal. Because it’s free money!
Meanwhile the warrants
Because DWAC is a SPAC, it has warrants outstanding. Each warrant represents the right to buy one share of stock, after the merger with TMTG closes, for $11.50. The warrants (ticker DWACW) closed on Friday at $18.35. The stock (DWAC) closed at $56.02.
Some simple arithmetic reveals that $11.50 + $18.35 = $29.85, and $29.85 < $56.02. If you want to get exposure to DWAC/TMTG, you can buy one share for $56.02, or you can buy one warrant (to buy one share for $11.50) for $18.35. The total per-share cost of the warrant, $29.85, is $26.17 lower than the going price of the stock.
This is anomalous! But not that anomalous, for meme-y SPAC warrants. (We talked about a similar situation in Nikola Corp. warrants last year.) The basic situation is that the stock is meme-y, salient, beloved by retail investors, and high, while the warrants are a bit weirder, more niche, traded by hedge funds, and lower. You’d think that there'd be an arbitrage between them, but it’s imperfect. You can’t exercise the warrants now — you have to wait until after closing — so you can’t just capture the $26.17 difference now. The classic way to capture the difference is to buy a warrant and short a share of stock, 6 but that is risky for the reasons it’s risky for the PIPE investors (limited expensive stock borrow that might be recalled, etc.). I suppose the point is that there are lots of Trump-SPAC trades that look like free money, but be careful with them.
Elsewhere in Trump-SPAC warrant trades that look like free money, but be careful:
A few weeks before Digital World Acquisition announced a deal to merge with a fledgling social media company backed by former President Donald J. Trump, it was at the center of a sudden trading frenzy. ...
About 350,000 warrants of Digital World traded in the first two days. But on the third day — Oct. 4, a week after Digital World and Trump Media & Technology Group entered into formal talks that were not disclosed at the time — trading in the warrants exploded. More than 2.5 million changed hands that day.
The surge was unusual, especially for a little-known SPAC that hadn’t publicly identified a merger target, experts said. And with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority now scrutinizing the merger deal — particularly trading activity that took place before the companies announced their agreement on Oct. 20 — warrants could be under a microscope.
Honestly it would be weird if there wasn’t insider trading in this SPAC.
I don't have to good of opinion on MOUs and don't give too much validity to them, at least until something more substantial works out, but I think this one is showing that the intent and focus is there anyways.
This is the latest notice out DOE;
DOE and DOT Launch Joint Effort to Build Out Nationwide Electric Vehicle Charging Network
DECEMBER 14, 2021
https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-and-dot-launch-joint-effort-build-out-nationwide-electric-vehicle-charging-network
Two Cabinet Secretaries to Establish Joint Office to Support National Network of 500,000 Electric Vehicle Chargers
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm and U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg today signed a memorandum of understanding to create a Joint Office of Energy and Transportation to support the deployment of $7.5 billion from the President's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to build out a national electric vehicle charging network that can build public confidence, with a focus on filling gaps in rural, disadvantaged, and hard-to-reach locations. This is a critical component of the President’s plan to accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles, address the climate crisis and support domestic manufacturing jobs. President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law directs both agencies to collaborate on new programs and initiatives, including the new joint office, that will support the transition of the nation's transportation systems, which currently accounts for 29% of all U.S. carbon pollution, to electric vehicles and other zero-carbon technologies.
“We are embarking on a transformative path to modernize the way we get to around in this country, making sure all Americans have the option to choose electric vehicles and spend less at the pump while making our air healthier,” said Secretary Granholm. “Our two agencies will work together to deliver on President Biden's historic investments in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, starting today with a joint project to build hundreds of thousands of electric vehicle charging stations, to tackle the climate crisis and create manufacturing and construction jobs at the same time.”
“Transportation is responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions of any sector in our economy - so it can and must be a big part of the solution to the climate crisis,” said Secretary Buttigieg. “With this announcement by DOT and DOE, we are taking a big step forward on climate by helping make the benefits of EVs more accessible for all Americans.”
The Joint Office will help to accelerate effective deployment of a convenient, reliable, affordable, and equitable national network of charging stations. The Office will provide technical assistant to States and localities so that they can strategically build electric vehicle charging stations and other infrastructure. This assistance will include helping states develop comprehensive plans for charging station networks to guide the implementation of the $7.5 billion program.
Both agencies are tasked with implementing investments in zero-emission vehicle passenger, transit and heavy-duty vehicles that create cleaner and more affordable transportation options for all Americans. These investments support President Biden’s executive order in August setting a national goal of half of all new vehicles sold in the United States being electric by 2030.
The early work of the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation will be largely centered on EV charging provisions of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, including:
Supporting the development of guidance and standards for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s electric vehicle charging programs.
Providing technical assistance to State and localities to strategically deploy EV charging infrastructure and provide the data and tools needed to help develop State EV charging plans. Providing technical expertise and assistance to other transportation electrification programs.
In response to the lack of electric vehicle charging infrastructure in traditionally underserved communities, the Joint Office will provide technical assistance and analytical support to states as they develop electric vehicle charging plans to ensure this investment contributes to the Administration’s Justice40 Initiative, which requires delivering at least 40% of the benefits from Federal climate and clean energy investments to underserved communities. To grow the clean transportation workforce and accelerate the construction of charging stations across the country, the Office will support career training and certification programs to strengthen career pathways for Americans and create good-paying jobs that will lead the transition to cleaner, more sustainable future.
###
The "rocket" or "space" industry isn't any hot topic or fad right now. Especially now with a bear market being the worst time for any space IPOs (and others also). Other than a limited group that has interest in it right now, with most of that group always being interested, it doesn't have the necessary "crowd" of over exuberance or "hot topic" ratings. I believe that will change sometime next yr and/or into 2023 when more attention goes to all the satellites needed for our ever advancing internet, data analysis, military and orbital space control.
And then when we develop a ring similar to Saturn's ring with ours being comprised totally of space junk (it is already in the process), we'll see space garbage scows developing IPO's in that sector. But that will probably take some junk piercing the space station with lives lost or enough of important satellites destroyed to effect cost to our individual lives to happen (not if, but when).
I look at all "space" stocks at the ground floor currently with some becoming the leaders and some disappearing to the wayside as we evolve into this industry. The ones who take the more risk now, will be the ones with the most profit acquired in the future. That also goes to the failures with the most loss. It's only speculative at this point with individual space stocks, but not speculative that the industry itself is about to grow exponentially in the coming years.
https://dialogochino.net/en/extractive-industries/argentina-future-of-lithium-sector/
Argentina at crossroads over the future of the lithium sector
The Fernández government wants to boost the state's role in lithium extraction and electromobility, but conflicts remain with local communities
Javier Lewkowicz October 1, 2021
Argentina is facing a dilemma over the future of its lithium. President Alberto Fernández and his government want to boost the sector’s development, and for the state to play a prominent role in both the extraction of the mineral and the development of batteries for electric vehicles (EVs). However, social and environmental tensions over such ambitions remain.
The government’s desire for expansion has an international dimension. Globally, the transportation sector is estimated to be responsible for nearly a quarter of CO2 emissions, and moving away from combustion engines in favour of EVs is seen as a prerequisite for the energy transition. This is where lithium plays a central role as a key mineral – and one that Argentina has an abundance of.
The salt flats of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile account for almost 60% of global lithium resources. Argentina is home to 9% of the world’s total reserves – resources whose exploitation has been proven to be viable in technical and economic terms – and these are the third-largest behind Chile and Australia.
Lithium in Argentina
There are currently two projects producing lithium for export in Argentina. On the Salar del Hombre Muerto salt flat in the northwestern province of Catamarca, the US company Livent, now associated with BMW, has a production capacity of 20,000 tonnes of lithium equivalent per year, and plans to double this with an investment of US$640 million. The second project is Sales de Jujuy in the Salar de Olaroz flats of Jujuy province, with a capacity of 17,500 tonnes of lithium per year. It is managed by Australia’s Orocobre, in partnership with Japan’s Toyota Tsusho and the provincial company Jujuy Energía y Minería Sociedad del Estado (JEMSE). Sales de Jujuy sells lithium to Toyota in Japan and to other battery manufacturers in Korea and China.
Argentina lithium future 2
The only project currently in the pipeline is Caucharí-Olaroz, also in Jujuy province, operated by Minera Exar and co-owned by the Canadian company Lithium Americas and China’s Ganfeng Lithium, with JEMSE holding a minority stake. Production is due to start next year and, once construction is complete, it will have a capacity of 25,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate per year. Caucharí-Olaroz has contracts with Tesla, Volkswagen and BMW.
According to official figures from the Mining secretariat, last year 31,500 tonnes of lithium carbonate were exported from Argentina for US$134 million, down from US$184 million in 2019. With full production from Caucharí-Olaroz, the country’s total capacity would increase from the current 37,500 tonnes per year to 85,000 tonnes.
Elsewhere, the French company Eramet has seen its project at the Salar de Centenario-Ratones flats in Salta province stalled by the pandemic and Argentina’s broader economic uncertainty. Working in the same vein are the South Korean firm Posco, which plans to build a lithium carbonate and hydroxide plant in Salta, and the Australian companies Galaxy and Orocobre’s investment in Catamarca.
31,500
Tonnes of lithium carbonate exported from Argentina in 2020
Practically all the concessions to salt flats in Argentina are in the hands of between 50 and 60 firms. Martín Obaya, a researcher at the National University of General San Martín, argues that the regulatory framework for mining activity favours speculation on such projects, with companies buying a concession but then selling it to obtain income.
Argentina’s mining investment law and its mining code, which regulate lithium activity, allow for duty-free imports of equipment, include tax breaks and fiscal stability, and establishes royalties of just 3% for exports. It does not establish mechanisms for dialogue with communities, nor does it include tools to advance value addition.
The situation is different in Chile and Bolivia, where lithium is considered a strategic resource. In Chile, private companies operate under contracts with the state, with flexible royalties of between 6% and 40% paid, and resources are earmarked to finance research centres. Meanwhile in Bolivia, the system is public and pilot projects have been developed but are not yet at the industrial phase.
Environmental conflicts
In a contested field, one area in which conflicts can arise is over water. “Lithium mining competes for a critical resource such as water, as these [salt flats] are areas of extreme aridity,” explains María Laura Castillo Díaz of the Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN). “The little fresh water that is available is underground and is a basic resource for communities and biodiversity.”
To extract the mineral from the ground, the companies drill a well between 200 to 400 metres deep to extract water along with minerals. The liquid is then left to stand for one to two years in huge pools, from which the water evaporates due to solar energy. The resulting compound thus requires large quantities of fresh water in order to form lithium carbonate.
In the Olaroz salt flat and in Catamarca, the lithium sector is advancing, despite some tension with surrounding communities. This is not the case, however, in Salinas Grandes, a basin straddling Salta and Jujuy provinces, and in which 33 different communities live. Several exploratory projects have been halted here due to conflicts, and as a result there is practically no active business presence at this moment in time.
Alicia Chalabe, a lawyer for these communities of Salinas Grandes, describes how they are “organised” and that “conflict will continue to exist as long as indigenous rights are not recognised.” She adds that “provincial legislation does not contemplate the right to prior consultation. The communities are not properly informed, nor are they asked for their consent in cases where biodiversity conditions are affected.”
Conflict will continue as long as indigenous rights are not recognised
The communities’ claim is based on the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Convention 169, which concerns the protection of indigenous and tribal peoples’ lands, and which has been ratified by Argentine law. The Escazú Agreement, the first environmental treaty in Latin America and the Caribbean, is also in force, and establishes regional standards for environmental access rights.
However, with demand for lithium expected to soar, legal conflict over these lands and resources may intensify – particularly given inefficiencies in the lithium extraction process. As Ernesto Calvo, director of the Instituto de Química Física de los Materiales, Medio Ambiente y Energía (INQUIMAE) at the University of Buenos Aires, explains: “The current method of lithium extraction is not sustainable because of the volume of water it requires and the waste it generates. It is also very inefficient in economic terms, which means that it will not be able to meet the 35-fold increase in demand that is expected in a scenario where electric vehicles become widespread.”
Calvo himself and his team have developed a new extraction method that is competing with projects from companies and governments around the world to reach an industrial scale. “Sooner or later there will be a technological change in favour of a more efficient, cost-effective and environmentally friendly direct extraction method,” he told Diálogo Chino.
Plans for lithium in Argentina
Alberto Fernández’s government is studying a bill that aims to consolidate a public company for lithium production, along with a self-sufficient and comprehensive commission that would function across scientific, technical, commercial and industrial levels. The commission would invite the participation of the national and provincial governments, indigenous communities and universities. It would also facilitate a new agency aimed at stimulating scientific development in lithium. Sources among pro-government deputies argue that this new public entity should resemble YPF, the national oil company, but highlight that the concessions of salt flats represent a problem in this regard.
Argentina lithium future 3
Workers handle lithium carbonate after processing at the Rincon Mining plant in Salta, Argentina (Image: Agustin Marcarian / Alamy)
Federico Nacif, a lithium specialist at the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), says that “the first thing that should be regulated are the projects that are currently underway. In any case, the plans to produce lithium with a state-owned company could take effect in eight years’ time.”
Nacif and other specialists argue that lithium should be removed from the scope of Argentina’s mining investment law and declared a strategic resource. But as a federalised country, in which provinces have control over their resources, moving in that direction would entail considerable political conflict.
Electromobility in Argentina
In the short term, the government is expected to send a bill to Congress to promote electromobility. The details are not yet known, but it would seek to encourage the industrialisation of lithium, as well as the manufacture of EVs with domestically made components, and expanding the market for sales of these new models.
To this end, the province of Jujuy and the national government signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Ganfeng Lithium to study the installation of a lithium battery factory, while the national government agreed a further MOU with another Chinese company, Jiangsu Jiankang Automobile, to produce urban EVs and batteries in Argentina.
The promotion of electromobility is a bone of contention with car manufacturers, who warn that the possibility of mass production of EVs in the country is remote, as Brazil, the main buyer, does not seem to be transitioning towards electric cars but hybrids, in order to take advantage of their large resources of ethanol as a fuel. In addition, carmakers argue that the Argentine industry specialises in the manufacture of utility vehicles, which do not adapt well to current electric technology given their power and range requirements. They are therefore pushing for the first step to be support for hybrids that combine petrol or gas with electric.
In the short term, the market for EVs could open up in public transport and by importing certain vehicles for urban use. Chinese companies appear to be the only actors capable of setting up factories, but questions arise as to the degree that these will link with and benefit local industry.
Of course there is debate over which administration is at fault for all of the pain that we are creating for ourselves, but again that's better discussed on a just politics or policy board due to it would get in way too much off topic for the LAC board.
There is so much talk about North American gov policies (US policy and gov especially), but I would argue that South American gov policies (especially Argentina) would have as much as and even more direct effect on LAC and should be heavily considered and analyzed with LAC and not so much with US policy or admin. Along with that fact, is that this move to a more sustainable environment is a world involvement and it is argued that the US isn't even the leader in market share, but nevertheless is only part of the whole.
A couple of articles to that effect (there are many) follows.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-interprovincial-treaty-concerning-2198404/
The Interprovincial Treaty Concerning the Regional Development of the Lithium Sector
On October 5, 2021, the leading provinces of the lithium industry in Argentina, Salta, Jujuy, and Catamarca, signed the interprovincial treaty (the “Treaty”) which creates the Lithium Mining Region to promote the economic and social development resulting from the extraction, production, industrialization and commercialization of the mineral, its products, and derivatives.
The interprovincial treaties are provided in article 125 of the National Constitution as an instrument that enables the provinces to create regions for the economic and social development and establish the competent bodies to fulfill their purposes.
In this context, the Regional Lithium Committee (Mesa Regional del Litio) was created as a result of prior efforts to establish a forum to outline uniform strategies, encourage regional competitiveness and investments, and develop the supply chain of lithium. It will serve as a common space for the academic, institutional, and corporate sectors to discuss the applicable regulations and standards as well as the lithium’s price evolution in the local and foreign markets. The federal government has endorsed the initiative and integrates the Regional Lithium Committee.
Thus, the joint efforts of the three neighboring provinces that have a prominent role in the lithium sector will create the appropriate conditions to promote investments across the Lithium Mining Region by setting clear rules and stable regulations.
Argentina is the fourth world lithium producer and could become the main world’s producer due to its large existing reserves and a favorable legislation which provides a limited intervention of the State. Moreover, there is an increased demand for lithium due to the global need for electric transportation and renewable energies, among others, in accordance with the international agreements. Hence, the Treaty can increase Argentina's potential to become the first global lithium provider.
Finally, the Treaty will enter into force after being ratified by the legislatures of the signatory provinces and approved by the National Congress. It should be noted that on November 16, 2021, the Chamber of Deputies of the Province of Salta passed the law approving the Treaty.
I don't believe it. You just noted a positive outlook for LAC!
There were some top players in the dot.com era and all the little players were either bought up or overcome and bankrupt. Now look at where the top players are now and how much they are worth. Of course that's true with many of the things that are "hot" in the market.
Fads change and the big players take out the small players. EVs will overtake the CEs, just not as fast as the ones creating the "fad" want or expect, but still will happen just like the internet and dot.com took over our way of life today. Just evolution of humanity.
LAC is one of the top players in lithium and will be part of the ever changing evolution away from CE's and into more sustainable environments while the smaller players disappear. EV's will not disappear just like the internet didn't and only grew and advanced exponentially and is continuing to. EV's will be the same.
Also right now, there are many overrated, overpriced, and fad play stocks. Eliminating many of those factors is what they call a correction and a bear market which you have the start of going on right now. The market will use any excuse to get to those means, but the underlining cause is the irrational exuberance over basic stock analysis.
Thanks for the positive outlook for LAC.
I believe that manipulated shorting is a big part of this DWAC scam.
"Honestly it would be weird if there wasn’t insider trading in this SPAC."
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-12-13/the-trump-spac-pipe-is-free-money?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_content=view&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-view&sref=TBDibEcD
The Trump SPAC PIPE Is Free Money
Trump SPAC PIPE
We talked last week about the Trump SPAC PIPE. A quick recap: Donald Trump has a vague sketch of a media company called Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). TMTG is a private company and there is almost no public information about its business, finances, executives, etc. In October, TMTG announced a merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) called Digital World Acquisition Corp. (DWAC), which will contribute about $293 million of cash to TMTG in exchange for TMTG stock. DWAC is currently a public company; it raised stock from the public by selling shares at $10 each, and upon the announcement of the TMTG deal its stock shot up. It closed at $56.02 on Friday.
Traditionally SPAC deals are accompanied by private investments in public equity (PIPEs), in which big institutional investors agree to buy stock in the combined company at the time of the SPAC merger. Often the PIPE investors invest on the same terms as the SPAC investors, buying stock in the new company at $10 per share, but where (as here) the stock is up a lot in anticipation of the merger, the PIPE investors might agree to a higher price.
TMTG and DWAC announced a $1 billion PIPE on Saturday, Dec. 4. The price was a bit weird. Nominally it is $33.60 per share: The PIPE investors put in $1 billion and get back 29.8 million shares ($1,000,000,000 divided by $33.60). But it is subject to downward adjustment: The actual number of shares that the PIPE investors get is only fixed after the SPAC merger closes.
More from
Biden’s Stealth Plan to Restore Faith in Democracy
EV Tax Credits Are Good. Protectionism Is Bad.
Campaign Silly Season Is Already Underway
Will the Stars Ever Make Money in This Town Again?
A lot will happen between now and when the SPAC merger closes. TMTG and DWAC will have to file a merger proxy with extensive financial and business information about TMTG. Perhaps that information will be, you know, bad. Perhaps investors will read the proxy and say “huh this company has no real business plan” and the stock will drop. Or not, I don’t know, I am not sure I’d bet on the stock dropping due to a lack of business plan; you can read TMTG’s current investor deck here, and it is not exactly replete with business planning. Still the point is that there is some risk of the stock dropping.
But the PIPE investors are protected against this in two ways. First, TMTG and DWAC have promised the PIPE investors that they’ll be able to sell the stock the minute the merger closes. Ordinarily in SPAC deals, the company agrees to file a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission and work to get the SEC to approve it, so that the PIPE investors can legally resell their shares. But usually that happens after closing, and you can't count on rushing the SEC. In this deal, TMTG and DWAC have promised to get the registration statement effective before closing, and in fact it is a condition to the closing of the PIPE. The PIPE investors only have to put up their money if they can immediately turn around and resell their shares.
The second protection is that the price of the PIPE is “subject to downward adjustment.” When the merger closes and TMTG is public, it will look at the average closing price over the next 10 trading days, and use that to compute the final price of the PIPE. If the stock trades at $56 or above after closing, there will be no adjustment, and the PIPE investors will buy stock at $33.60 per share. If it trades below $56, though, the PIPE investors will buy stock at a 40% discount to whatever the average price is: If it trades at $45, they’ll pay $27 per share. (Effectively, they'll get more shares — 37 million, at $27 per share — for their billion dollars.) But this is floored at $10: If the stock trades at $16.67 or below (including if it trades below $10), the PIPE investors will buy at $10 per share.
The result is that the PIPE investors are committing $1 billion of money, but taking very little risk and getting very richly rewarded. They can — and, I expect, will — sell their stock as soon as the merger closes and TMTG is public, and they’ll sell at a huge guaranteed profit because they will buy their stock at a 40% discount to the stock price at the time they pay for it. Still, some risk: If the stock is below $10 by the time the deal closes, they will lose money on the trade.
Or that is what I said last week, but the trade is actually even better for the PIPE investors? Because here is the trade they can do:
Short DWAC stock now, locking in a sale price of about $56 per share.
Buy back the stock at closing, from TMTG/DWAC, at a maximum purchase price of $33.60.
Make $22.40 per share guaranteed.
Ordinarily, if you short stock in Trump’s thing at $56, you run the risk that it will go up to $100 and you’ll lose a ton of money. But if you have committed to the PIPE, TMTG and DWAC have agreed to sell you shares at $33.60 (subject to downward adjustment), so that risk is off the table. If the stock goes up, you buy at $33.60. If the stock stays flat, you buy at $33.60. If the stock goes down, you buy at a 40% discount to the market price. If it goes down to $20, you buy at $12. If it goes down to $16.67, your price is floored and you buy at $10, but that’s fine if you already sold at $56.
Let’s say you have committed $100 million to the PIPE. At the cap price, this means you will get about 3 million shares ($100 million divided by $33.60). So you sell all those shares today, at about $56 per share, for $167 million. Then at the closing of the PIPE you put in your $100 million, get back at least 3 million shares, and deliver them to your stock lenders to close out your short position. You are left with a $67 million profit. If the stock goes down, and is below $56 after the merger closes, you will get more shares — as many as 10 million, if the stock is at $16.67 or below — and then you can sell those too for some extra cash. 1 But the $67 million is guaranteed no matter what the stock does.
I want to point out that this is explicitly contemplated by the deal documents. Here is Section 3.1(bb) of the Securities Purchase Agreement that the PIPE investors signed with DWAC (emphasis added):
Acknowledgment Regarding Purchaser’s Trading Activity. Anything in this Agreement or elsewhere herein to the contrary notwithstanding (except for Sections 3.2(g), 4.12 and 4.15 hereof), it is understood and acknowledged by the Company that: (i) none of the Purchasers has been asked by the Company to agree, nor, to the knowledge of the Company, has any Purchaser agreed, to desist from purchasing or selling, long and/or short, securities of the Company, or “derivative” securities based on securities issued by the Company or to hold the Securities for any specified term, (ii) past or future open market or other transactions by any Purchaser, specifically including, without limitation, Short Sales or “derivative” transactions, before or after the closing of this or future private placement transactions, may negatively impact the market price of the Company’s publicly-traded securities, (iii) after the execution of this Agreement, any Purchaser, and counter-parties in “derivative” transactions to which any such Purchaser is a party, directly or indirectly, may have a “short” position in the Common Stock and (iv) each Purchaser shall not be deemed to have any affiliation with or control over any arm’s length counter-party in any “derivative” transaction.
That is, DWAC agreed that the PIPE investors can short DWAC stock right now. 2 This is a very unusual provision in SPAC PIPEs; most purchase agreements specifically say that the investors are not allowed to short. 3 In the Trump SPAC PIPE, they specifically are allowed to.
Now! A couple of things. First, there are risks to this trade. One risk is that it might be expensive to borrow DWAC stock, it’s a meme stock, the price could go up, borrow could be recalled, and you could be forced to cover your short at a loss before the merger closes. If you make it to closing, you’re guaranteed to be able to buy the stock for $33.60 for a risk-free profit, but you had better be sure that your stock borrow is locked up until then. And closing — which requires writing a public disclosure document that satisfies SEC rules — could be a long way away.
Another risk is, I say “you’re guaranteed to be able to buy the stock for $33.60,” but that depends on DWAC and TMTG honoring the commitments in the contract and, you know, who knows. Donald Trump has been known to re-trade on deals. 4
Beyond the risk of perhaps getting short a meme stock and then being forced to cover prematurely, there are legal risks. The main one is: If TMTG hired an investment bank to sell $1 billion of stock into the market right now, today, with the extremely limited public information about TMTG’s business and finances that is currently available, that investment bank would definitely be breaking the law. (Specifically it would be violating Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, which requires sales of stock to be registered.) If this transaction consists effectively of TMTG hiring a bunch of PIPE investors to sell $1 billion of stock into the market right now, with the delivery of the stock to the investors in a few months, there is a risk that those investors are also legally underwriters of unregistered stock, and will get in trouble. (Not legal advice!) The fact that the transaction explicitly acknowledges that they might be doing this suggests that they’re not too worried about the legal risk, but the SEC — which doesn’t like SPACs anyway — might disagree.
And in fact short interest in DWAC stock does not seem to be especially high — certainly not the full 29.8 million shares underlying the PIPE — and the volume over the past week also does not suggest that the PIPE investors have been selling all that heavily.
Still! It seems like they could; it seems like the deal was specifically set up so they could. It was specifically set up to let them buy stock at $33.60 and lock in a sales price, today, in the $40s or $50s. It was specifically set up to be guaranteed free money for the PIPE investors.
There has been a lot of writing about the Trump SPAC PIPE that suggests that the investors in this PIPE are somehow doing Donald Trump an under-the-table favor, that this is a story about secret money in politics. For instance:
Not only was a big PIPE investment not announced when the partnership with Trump was revealed, now that it has been announced, the names of the investors have not been made public. That’s because each investor has been limited to controlling no more than 4.99 percent of the voting stock, just under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s threshold requiring anyone controlling 5 percent or more to be identified publicly in filings.
“This PIPE is structured so that the identity of the PIPE investors may not be known for a long time, if ever,” Rodrigues says.
While the public and general shareholders don’t know who the PIPE investors are, Trump apparently does. In fact, Reuters reported last week that Trump has been personally calling certain potential PIPE investors, trying to get them to commit to a $100 million investment, which heightens a potential for a conflict of interest—only Trump would know what other interests he might have to serve.
“Are they individuals or companies or countries that have a stake in something that he could affect as president?” Kathleen Clark, a professor of legal ethics at Washington University in St. Louis says. “Yes, of course they are, whoever they are, but I think the bigger question right now, is: Will we ever know their identities?”
Well, first of all, yes, of course we will know their identities: The PIPE investors will all be listed as selling shareholders in the registration statement, which will be filed before the merger closes. 5
But second, I think the whole premise here is wrong. If you agreed to invest in Donald Trump’s $1 billion SPAC PIPE, it is not because you want to donate money to Donald Trump, to do him a favor. It is because, in exchange for your investment, you will get Donald Trump meme stock that you can immediately sell to retail investors at a huge guaranteed profit. He is doing you a favor! I assume that the PIPE investors include a lot of Trump friends who are very grateful to be in the deal. Because it’s free money!
Meanwhile the warrants
Because DWAC is a SPAC, it has warrants outstanding. Each warrant represents the right to buy one share of stock, after the merger with TMTG closes, for $11.50. The warrants (ticker DWACW) closed on Friday at $18.35. The stock (DWAC) closed at $56.02.
Some simple arithmetic reveals that $11.50 + $18.35 = $29.85, and $29.85 < $56.02. If you want to get exposure to DWAC/TMTG, you can buy one share for $56.02, or you can buy one warrant (to buy one share for $11.50) for $18.35. The total per-share cost of the warrant, $29.85, is $26.17 lower than the going price of the stock.
This is anomalous! But not that anomalous, for meme-y SPAC warrants. (We talked about a similar situation in Nikola Corp. warrants last year.) The basic situation is that the stock is meme-y, salient, beloved by retail investors, and high, while the warrants are a bit weirder, more niche, traded by hedge funds, and lower. You’d think that there'd be an arbitrage between them, but it’s imperfect. You can’t exercise the warrants now — you have to wait until after closing — so you can’t just capture the $26.17 difference now. The classic way to capture the difference is to buy a warrant and short a share of stock, 6 but that is risky for the reasons it’s risky for the PIPE investors (limited expensive stock borrow that might be recalled, etc.). I suppose the point is that there are lots of Trump-SPAC trades that look like free money, but be careful with them.
Elsewhere in Trump-SPAC warrant trades that look like free money, but be careful:
A few weeks before Digital World Acquisition announced a deal to merge with a fledgling social media company backed by former President Donald J. Trump, it was at the center of a sudden trading frenzy. ...
About 350,000 warrants of Digital World traded in the first two days. But on the third day — Oct. 4, a week after Digital World and Trump Media & Technology Group entered into formal talks that were not disclosed at the time — trading in the warrants exploded. More than 2.5 million changed hands that day.
The surge was unusual, especially for a little-known SPAC that hadn’t publicly identified a merger target, experts said. And with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority now scrutinizing the merger deal — particularly trading activity that took place before the companies announced their agreement on Oct. 20 — warrants could be under a microscope.
Honestly it would be weird if there wasn’t insider trading in this SPAC.
'Natural immunity' can be dangerous — try 'hybrid immunity'
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/585576-natural-immunity-can-be-dangerous-try-hybrid-immunity
BY DR. MARC SIEGEL, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 12/14/21 08:30 AM EST 369THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
All immunity is “natural,” Dr. Carlos Del Rio, president-elect of the Infectious Disease Society of America, told me recently on Sirius XM’s Doctor Radio. However you signal the immune system to make neutralizing antibodies, T cells and memory B cells against SARS-CoV-2 is natural, whether it’s due to encountering the virus itself or receiving a signal from a messenger RNA molecule to make the virus’s spike protein.
Vaccines are “natural” too.
Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, agreed with this in a subsequent interview with me for Fox News. The problem with using the term “natural immunity” isn’t just one of accuracy, it’s also the message it sends to the public — namely that one kind of immunity may be better than another.
This can be dangerous, especially since many people may not realize that the potential long-term side effects from COVID — including loss of smell and taste, cognitive changes, and lung and heart issues — far outweigh the benefits in terms of the immunity you do develop, which appears to be temporary and variable. Though this is also true for the vaccine, as boosters are required to maximize protection, it is very clear that the side effects of the vaccine are much less than the side effects from COVID.
In fact, a new study among young athletes who have recovered from COVID showed a 2.3 percent incidence of myocarditis. By contrast, the risk of myocarditis associated with the vaccine is extremely low — less than 5 per 100,000 for teenage males.
The main problem with extolling natural immunity at the expense of vaccinated and boosted immunity is that it may encourage people to believe they have already had COVID even if they really didn’t. You can check people who feel they were infected for COVID antibodies, but this test can’t be used to reliably track either infection or immunity after infection. Almost every patient I have can recall a time over the past two years when they’ve had congestion, fatigue, cough, or fever that might have been COVID. If you lack those antibodies, it doesn’t mean you didn’t have COVID at some point.
This is why I like Israel’s system of confirming COVID infection with nasal swabs or a documented positive antibody test before considering a person as immune from infection.
But what about vaccinated immunity? A study just out from Israel, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, demonstrates a 90 percent decrease in death among those who have received Pfizer boosters. And previous studies have shown a marked decrease in severity and risk of getting COVID after being boosted (more than six months after the second vaccine).
Is there a way to measure this response, and tell people that based on a blood test it is their time to receive a booster? The answer is no, because the spike antibody protein test measures antibodies to this protein whether they effectively neutralize the virus or not. So the test is most helpful when it is low, which is likely an indication that a boost is needed.
Based on the data from Israel and elsewhere, I believe in boosting everyone who received a vaccine more than six months ago. At this time, the variants (Delta and especially Omicron) appear to partly evade the immune response, and re-infection from Omicron is increasing both among the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. Early data from the UK demonstrates that boosters still protect you to a large extent from Omicron.
Meadows lawyer argues contempt referral would be contrary to law
UK prosecutors say US citizen will face criminal proceedings in teen'...
This is also why we can’t count on so-called “natural immunity” to protect us. I prefer instead “hybrid immunity,” meaning a recovery from COVID plus at least one MRNA vaccine. Studies show that this type of immunity may be the most substantial, and it makes sense — think of a hybrid car. The gas engine is COVID recovery, and the big battery is vaccine-induced immunity. They work together well; the “mileage” is better.
No one should wish for COVID because the risks are real. But if you already had it, and then add a vaccine, the benefits are also very real.
Marc Siegel, M.D., is a professor of medicine and medical director of Doctor Radio at NYU Langone Health. He is a Fox News medical correspondent and author of the new book, "COVID; the Politics of Fear and the Power of Science."
It's true, but only indirectly. It's really the AI birds. 5g is the network the birds run on now. The AI birds were running on only the 4g network previously when the bird flu was unleashed and of course the SARS big success with 3g. Now the gov/corp has learned to control the new tech more with their birds having a faster and badder 5g with the newer tech, hence they were able to unleash the Covid. Simple equation and deduction of the facts.
Leading-Edge Science Using Planet Data Presented At AGU 2021
Tanya Harrison | December 10, 2021
https://www.planet.com/pulse/leading-edge-science-using-planet-data-presented-at-agu-2021/
It’s that time of year again: Nearly 30,000 geoscientists from around the world gather every December for the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting, the largest of its kind. Planet is always excited to see what innovative science applications researchers have discovered using our data! This year, 70 abstracts were submitted from researchers accessing data through pathways such as our Education and Research program, the NASA Commercial SmallSat Data Acquisition (CSDA) Program, and Norway’s International Climate and Forests Initiative (NICFI). The conference will run as a hybrid virtual and in-person event this year from December 13 through 17.
Some of the highlights of presentations this year featuring Planet data:
The combined high spatial and temporal resolution of PlanetScope provides the unprecedented ability to perform phenological analysis of ecosystems at the individual tree level from orbit. Yasmin Fitts and colleagues at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and GET Géosciences Environnement Toulouse did such an analysis across the Sahel in West Africa.
A team led by Hannah Friedrich at the University of Arizona used sensor fusion across PlanetScope, Landsat, Sentinel-2, and MODIS, along with radar and passive microwave data, to perform automated flood mapping via machine learning.
Utilizing PlanetScope Basemaps via the NICI program, Nyein Soe Thwal of the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center and colleagues developed a transfer learning approach for automated mapping sugarcane in Thailand—the world’s second largest exporter of the resource.
Sarah Wegmueller of the University of Wisconsin Madison is giving an invited talk on a time-series-based early detection and monitoring system that uses PlanetScope and Sentinel-2 satellite imagery to map abnormal mortality in forests.
Anders Bjork of University of Copenhagen will discuss mapping over new land being exposed as the Greenland ice sheet retreats due to climate change.
Planet is convening an entire session on data fusion for Earth observation science.
Additionally, a few Planeteers will be presenting at the conference:
I’ll be giving an invited talk about how U.S. federally-funded researchers can access Planet data through NASA’s Commercial SmallSat Data Acquisition (CSDA) Program.
Rasmus Houborg, Principal Geospatial Fusion Engineer, will be presenting a poster on Planet Fusion monitoring.
Our exciting recently-announced Carbon Mapper project will be presented by Sara Shivers, Product Manager, Hyperspectral Imaging.
Solutions Architect Samapriya Roy will be discussing details of the NICFI program.
You can view the entire scientific program for the AGU Fall Meeting online. Be sure to check out the talks and/or posters mentioned here, and browse the schedule for more amazing science in the works that will help us better understand our ever-evolving Earth.
Seeking Alpha did a condensed piece today, but a fuller text came out last Fri with the news;
https://www.planet.com/pulse/planet-to-acquire-vandersat-to-deliver-advanced-agriculture-data-products-to-customers/
Planet To Acquire VanderSat To Deliver Advanced Agriculture Data Products To Customers
Robbie Schingler | November 10, 2021
We are excited to announce that Planet has entered into an agreement to acquire VanderSat, a leading provider of advanced earth data and analytics. Vandersat’s innovative products help customers better measure and understand water management and crop health in major markets. Planet intends to leverage VanderSat’s technologies and products in further pursuit of bringing to market next-generation solutions that combine the best of commercial and public satellite data to provide clear and actionable information to help industries, non-profits, and governments around the world.
VanderSat has world-class expertise in providing insights to customers by drawing from NASA, ESA and JAXA satellite data, and has built a suite of novel products that report on key conditions on the Earth’s surface, like soil moisture, land surface temperature, vegetation optical depth, and biomass. VanderSat’s unique algorithms deliver daily, global data products with great accuracy, unhindered by changing cloud-cover and atmospheric conditions.
“VanderSat is a mission-driven company with the goal to serve one billion hectares of land in 2024. By joining Planet, our mission and impact will be dramatically accelerated and together, we aim to reach that goal in 2022,” said Dr. Thijs van Leeuwen, CEO of VanderSat.
“We’re thrilled to be welcoming the VanderSat team to Planet. We expect VanderSat’s analytics and industry expertise will help Planet provide solutions ‘up the stack’ to bridge the gap from complex remote-sensing science to products that offer improved data to the ecosystem and our customers. And when one combines their new data with Planet’s, the value is far greater than the sum of its parts,” said Will Marshall, CEO and Co-Founder of Planet. “We believe VanderSat’s products will add value in Planet’s core verticals of agriculture, and civil government, and will help us open up to others such as insurance and banking, to help grow our business.”
At Planet, one of our goals is to bridge the gap between real-world problems and the complexity of remote-sensing science. VanderSat is another step towards that goal with their advanced analytics. We believe their products will accelerate and expand our position in one of our most important verticals – agriculture – and help mature our offerings for others such as insurance, civil government, and finance. For example, easier-to-consume data can enable modeling to help financial institutions and insurers quantify climate impacts on water availability and crop production.
Adding VanderSat’s unique, all-weather data products to Planet’s high-cadence and high-resolution global monitoring will bring even greater value to users in agriculture, civil government and insurance by providing them with richer insights and more precise measurements. Plus, Planet’s unique platform and integrations will make these products more accessible than ever before.
The VanderSat team is based in Haarlem, Netherlands and will further increase Planet’s commitment to the European ecosystem. The entire team, including their founder Dr. Richard de Jeu and CEO Dr. van Leeuwen, will be joining Planet.
Under the agreement, Planet is set to acquire VanderSat for approximately $28 million, which consists of $18 million in shares of Class A common stock of Planet Labs PBC, valued at a per share price equal to the closing price of Class A common stock of Planet Labs PBC on the NYSE on the last trading day prior to the consummation of the acquisition of VanderSat, and approximately $10 million in cash.
The transaction is expected to close in Q4 2021 and is subject to customary closing conditions, as well as the closing of Planet’s business combination with dMY Technology Group, Inc. IV (“dMY IV”). This will be Planet’s fourth acquisition (BlackBridge ‘15, Terra Bella ‘17, and Boundless ‘19).
We are thrilled to welcome VanderSat to the Planet family!
Important Information and Where to Find It
This press release may be deemed solicitation material in respect of the proposed Business Combination between dMY IV and Planet. The Business Combination will be submitted to the stockholders of dMY IV and Planet for their approval. In connection with the vote of dMY IV’s stockholders, dMY IV has filed a Registration Statement with SEC, which includes a proxy statement/prospectus and certain other related documents. dMY IV has also commenced mailing the definitive proxy statement/prospectus and a proxy card to each stockholder of record as of October 19, 2021 entitled to vote at the special meeting relating to the Business Combination. dMY IV also will file other documents regarding the proposed transaction with the SEC. This communication does not contain all the information that should be considered concerning the proposed Business Combination and the other matters to be voted upon at the special meeting and is not intended to provide the basis for any investment decision or any other decision in respect of such matters. dMY IV’s stockholders and other interested parties are urged to read the definitive proxy statement and any other relevant documents that are filed or furnished or will be filed or will be furnished with the SEC carefully and in their entirety in connection with dMY IV’s solicitation of proxies for the special meeting, as these materials will contain important information about Planet and dMY IV and the proposed Business Combination and other related matters. Stockholders will also be able to obtain copies of these materials, without charge, once available, at the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov, at the Company’s website at https://www.dmytechnology.com or by written request to dMY Technology Group, Inc. IV at 1180 North Town Center Drive, Suite 100, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
Participants in the Solicitation
dMY IV, dMY Sponsor IV, LLC, Planet and their respective directors and executive officers may be deemed participants in the solicitation of proxies from dMY IV’s stockholders with respect to the Business Combination. A list of the names of those directors and executive officers and a description of their interests in dMY IV is included in the the definitive proxy statement of dMY IV for the Business Combination and is available at www.sec.gov. You may obtain free copies of these documents as described in the preceding paragraph.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 with respect to the proposed transaction between dMY IV and Planet and the proposed acquisition of Vandersat by Planet, including expected benefits of that transaction. Actual results may differ from these forward-looking statements and you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. Words such as “expect,” “estimate,” “project,” “budget,” “forecast,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “may,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “would,” “believes,” “predicts,” “potential,” “strategy,” “opportunity,” “continue,” and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties that could cause the actual results to differ materially from the expected results. Most of these factors are outside dMY IV’s and Planet’s control and are difficult to predict. Factors that may cause such differences include, but are not limited to the risks and uncertainties indicated from time to time in the proxy statement/prospectus relating to the Business Combination, including those under “Risk Factors” therein, and in dMY IV’s other filings with the SEC. You should carefully consider the foregoing factors and the other risks and uncertainties described in the proxy statement/prospectus discussed above and other documents filed by dMY IV from time to time with the SEC. These filings identify and address or will identify and address other important risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events and results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. Nothing in this communication should be regarded as a representation by any person that the forward-looking statements set forth herein will be achieved or that any of the contemplated results of such forward-looking statements will be achieved. dMY IV and Planet caution readers not to place undue reliance upon any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. dMY IV and Planet do not undertake or accept any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements to reflect any change in its expectations or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.
No Offer or Solicitation
This press release is for informational purposes only and shall not constitute a solicitation of a proxy, consent or authorization with respect to any securities or in respect of the Business Combination. This press release shall also not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities, nor shall there be any sale of securities in any states or jurisdictions in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction. No offering of securities shall be made except by means of a prospectus meeting the requirements of Section 10 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or an exemption therefrom.
There is something very, very dangerous happening in this country and too many are being complicit of it, ignoring it, conditioned to accept and believe, or just plain unaware the magnitude of it. Some think this is just an anomaly and it too will pass. It isn't and it won't. Others see it, but are helpless to stop it, and when the ones who don't see it become aware, it will be too late. The growing faction of the new GOP and followers that absolutely know what they are doing, intentionally aid and abet the takeover, and even now will have detrimental effects for generations to come if society doesn't do some drastic changes and realizations immediately to combat the traitors of our democracy as we know it.
They will continue, giving no heed to any collateral damage or lives taken or destroyed, or laws broken, all in the name of just raw power grabbing and greed. The new GOP will just continue by any means to fraudulently divide, lie, misinform, obstruct, suppress or control the vote, and apply Judicial control (becoming no longer three separations of power). What they can't do with all of that, they will just use brute force as they are doing now. Creating a modern day type civil war that will not go anywhere good for most.
One would have to do more than just suspect that the number of retiring politicians are for reasons other than what is commonly portrayed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/11/republicans-repeatedly-point-violent-threats-key-trumps-gop-rein/
The role of violent threats in Trump’s GOP reign, according to Republicans
Tim Alberta is out with his latest must-read this week — a profile of freshman Rep. Peter Meijer (R-Mich.). Meijer joined Congress just days before the Capitol insurrection and almost immediately jeopardized his political career by supporting Donald Trump’s impeachment.
It’s a must-read, but a tough read. That’s because it describes an exceedingly ugly situation: one in which lawmakers are disregarding private principle in their votes and often doing so out of literal fear. Not only does Meijer describe members who advocated for invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office later voting against impeachment, but he cites fears of physical violence directly impacting such votes:
On the House floor [on Jan. 6], moments before the vote, Meijer approached a member who appeared on the verge of a breakdown. He asked his new colleague if he was okay. The member responded that he was not; that no matter his belief in the legitimacy of the election, he could no longer vote to certify the results, because he feared for his family’s safety. “Remember, this wasn’t a hypothetical. You were casting that vote after seeing with your own two eyes what some of these people are capable of,” Meijer says. “If they’re willing to come after you inside the U.S. Capitol, what will they do when you’re at home with your kids?”
...
At one point, Meijer described to me the psychological forces at work in his party, the reasons so many Republicans have refused to confront the tragedy of January 6 and the nature of the ongoing threat. Some people are motivated by raw power, he said. Others have acted out of partisan spite, or ignorance, or warped perceptions of truth and lies. But the chief explanation, he said, is fear. People are afraid for their safety. They are afraid for their careers. Above all, they are afraid of fighting a losing battle in an empty foxhole.
Meijer’s comments build upon what he told Reason shortly after the Capitol riot on the same certification votes.
Meijer, though, is hardly the first to describe things this way. In fact, he’s merely the latest in a long line to cite how much fear of violence — violence which became very non-hypothetical on Jan. 6 — is an animating principle in Trump’s hold on the GOP and the decisions people make.
The role of physical threats in Trump’s domination of the GOP
Below are some others who have raised this issue.
Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio)
The retiring Ohio lawmaker insisted that threats weren’t why he announced his retirement after voting for impeachment, but he also indicated to the New York Times’s Jonathan Martin that they have weighed on him greatly:
[Gonzalez] made clear that the strain had only grown worse since his impeachment vote, after which he was deluged with threats and feared for the safety of his wife and children.
Mr. Gonzalez said that quality-of-life issues had been paramount in his decision. He recounted an “eye-opening” moment this year: when he and his family were greeted at the Cleveland airport by two uniformed police officers, part of extra security precautions taken after the impeachment vote.
“That’s one of those moments where you say, ‘Is this really what I want for my family when they travel, to have my wife and kids escorted through the airport?’” he said.
Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.)
A third impeachment supporter who has gone on to head up the Trump resistance within the GOP (and has lost her GOP leadership position as a result), Cheney has described a similar situation.
“If you look at the vote to impeach, for example, there were members who told me that they were afraid for their own security — afraid, in some instances, for their lives,” she told CNN in May. “And that tells you something about where we are as a country, that members of Congress aren’t able to cast votes, or feel that they can’t, because of their own security.”
Pennsylvania GOP leader: ‘I’d get my house bombed tonight’
In an interview with the New York Times in December, the Republican majority leader of the Pennsylvania state Senate, Kim Ward, was perhaps the bluntest of all:
Asked if she would have signed it [a letter urging the state’s congressional delegation to reject President Biden’s win], she indicated that the Republican base expected party leaders to back up Mr. Trump’s claims — or to face its wrath.
“If I would say to you, ‘I don’t want to do it,’” she said about signing the letter, “I’d get my house bombed tonight.”
Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.)
A week after the insurrection, Crow said some of the Republicans who confided in him broke down over their dilemma.
“The majority of them are paralyzed with fear,” Crow said on “Meet the Press.” “I had a lot of conversations with my Republican colleagues last night, and a couple of them broke down in tears — saying that they are afraid for their lives if they vote for this impeachment.”
This is, of course, a Democrat. But his version matches up with Meijer, Cheney and others.
Anonymous GOP members
A week after the Capitol riot, anonymous GOP lawmakers pointed to the threat of violence impacting both impeachment votes and decisions about whether to remain in Congress at all, according to The Hill’s Juliegrace Brufke:
“Yea — I think a lot of people are making political decisions here,” one member said when asked if threats of violence affected how members of the conference will vote.
A second GOP lawmaker said they believe the threats could lead to an influx in retirement announcements, with some weighing whether remaining in Congress is worth the risk.
“Without a doubt [it’s a factor]. Watch for a large number of members to resign early or not run again after this term,” the member said.
It’s not clear who these lawmakers were, and there’s a chance they overlap with the others mentioned here. But Meijer was already on the record by this point.
‘Trump’s made them think this is the Alamo’
One anonymous GOP member of Congress told Politico that those who voted against rejecting the election results in Congress were soon confronted by reality — and the threat of violence that accompanied it.
“Both parties have extremists,” the lawmaker said. “There’s a difference in our crazy people and their crazy people. Our crazy people have an excessive amount of arms. They have gun safes. They have grenades. They believe in the Second Amendment. They come here and Trump’s made them think this is the Alamo.”
The Trump allies’ own version of this
While these lawmakers have described specific instances in which lawmakers might well have voted or acted out of fear of violence, some Republican allies of Trump have also pointed in this general direction, albeit more gently. They’ve effectively argued that voting to impeach Trump would lead to more violence — suggesting it was a reason not to impeach.
During the impeachment debate, Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) said: “I really do believe that you pushing this is going to further divide our country, further the unrest, and possibly incite more violence.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) echoed the point, saying, that supporting Trump’s impeachment “under these circumstances will do great damage to the institutions of government and could invite further violence at a time the president is calling for calm.”
It’s to be expected that a lawmaker might worry about the societal impact of a divisive impeachment — particularly an impeachment that they themselves might oppose on principled grounds. A less-charitable reading would be that they were arguing for considering a repeat of what was then a demonstrated threat of violence as a factor in any repercussions. One could certainly argue that this would reward those who resorted to violence in the first place.
By Aaron Blake
Aaron Blake is senior political reporter, writing for The Fix. A Minnesota native, he has also written about politics for the Minneapolis Star Tribune and The Hill newspaper.
I don't know, the market has it's ways that can be disappointing. There was over 2.5 million shares traded today, so there has to be many who wanted to buy. There has been a change of money toward value instead of growth or speculative, along with tax selling and other factors making for a pretty volatile market. PL has only got a few days under it's belt, so can't even get any bead on the chart, and we don't have any fundamentals acquired or the normal valuation analysis yet as a public company. It doesn't have the "crowd" behind it for a meme stock, or dine and dash spikes, so I would expect a boring slow going effect at first and for the rest of year. But you never know, it could surge upward or downward any time for no obvious reason.
We do know that Planet is not just a new company, has some big names/money behind this and a partnership with Google. They also own the largest fleet of satellites around the world with paying customers. We also know that the space industry will be growing at a pretty high rate in the next few years with a rush to claim and gain as much control over the "final frontier" real estate. PL has a pretty good start in that endeavor.
It's all speculative and higher risk, but I'm looking toward next year a few months from now to start seeing progress and the chance for them to use that “sizable war chest to really think about strategic moves,” that they have with the half a billion in capitol they got from listing. Space is an expensive business.
So we'll have to see what the future will bring, whether the air goes completely flat or gets pressurized. But I do think we need to give a bit more than a few days and look past the current market volatility or corrections.
The only ratings I've seen is rating a buy, that's all I can say, and everyone will have to make their own analysis.
I wonder what problems could be addressed better if almost 3/4 a million dollars, time, and efforts spent went to solving them instead of contributing to them.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/10/new-york-hotel-reopens-homeless-shelter-billionaires-row
Manhattan hotel reopens as homeless shelter despite protest from Billionaires Row residents
The residents spent over $300,000 in lawsuits claiming ‘crime and loitering’ by the occupants would lead to ‘irreparable injuries’
Just a few steps away from the horse-drawn carriages that whisk tourists through New York’s Central Park and the opulence of the Plaza Hotel is an unassuming building on a quiet block in midtown Manhattan.
The building is marked by an awning that reads “Park Savoy Hotel”. Nestled in between a 24-hour parking structure and an apartment building on a predominantly residential street, the Park Savoy blends in with the other hotels in the neighborhood.
A sign on the front window of the building that says “Welcome to the Park Savoy rapid re-housing program” is the only marker that indicates it is a homeless shelter, built in one of the most pricey neighborhoods in New York. One that rich locals fought for years, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars campaigning against the crime and “irreparable injuries” they said it would bring – fears that appear to have been unfounded.
The shelter quietly opened its doors in early November. It is designed to house up to 80 men and is known as an “employment shelter” meant for those who are seeking employment or who are actively employed, especially in midtown Manhattan. The shelter has been taking in about five new occupants a week since it opened 8 November, according to a city spokesperson.
The men will be neighbors with some of Manhattan’s wealthiest residents: the shelter abuts Billionaires Row, a nickname given to the cluster of super-tall luxury “pencil towers” that were constructed within the last decade. The penthouse of One57, the tower that is directly behind the shelter, was bought by billionaire Michael Dell in 2014 for $100m – the most expensive piece of real estate ever sold in the city at the time.
New York City has the highest homeless population in the US with more than 122,000 homeless adults and families – including more than 39,000 children – living in the city’s shelter system in 2020.
In 2017, a year before the shelter was supposed to open, de Blasio announced a new initiative to address homelessness in the city which included plans to build about 90 new shelters. “They’ll be in every kind of neighborhood,” de Blasio said.
The Park Savoy shelter was slated to open in spring 2018, but the city entered a lengthy legal battle with residents and business owners in the area who vehemently opposed the shelter and formed a group, called the West 58th Street Coalition to block it.
The once low-budget Park Savoy hotel, a homeless shelter near Billionaires row, sparked a real-estate turf war with opponents fearing a threat to property values.
The once low-budget Park Savoy hotel, a homeless shelter near Billionaires row, sparked a real-estate turf war with opponents fearing a threat to property values. Photograph: Bebeto Matthews/AP
An online petition created in 2018 against the hotel, calling it a threat with “an enormous impact on our densely populated, narrow, high pedestrian-traffic street” garnered nearly 3,500 signatures. Members of the coalition argued that the city did not receive community input when starting plans to open the shelter and called the building “a dangerous fire trap”.
Suzanne Silverstein, a leader of the coalition, told the New York Times that residents believed that the city was trying to make a statement at their expense.
“[Mayor Bill de Blasio] is not sticking it to billionaires, he’s sticking it to people like myself who work 100 hours a week. We’re not bad people. We’re just trying to get ahead,” she said.
Determined to stop the shelter, the West 58th Street Coalition filed a lawsuit in 2018 that argued the building was too “unsafe” for occupants and that “crime and loitering” caused by the shelter would lead to “irreparable injuries”. The coalition also spent at least $287,000 toward lobbyists advocating against the shelter, according to non-profit news site The City. They spent another $100,000 on billboards in Iowa meant to prod de Blasio during his brief run for president in 2020.
Despite the coalition’s efforts, a state appellate court gave the final green light to the city in May to open the shelter. The group did not respond to the Guardian’s request for comment.
Steve Banks, commissioner for the city’s Department of Homeless Services, told The City that the campaign against the shelter was “the longest and the most-well-funded litigation” against the opening of any shelter.
Battles against homeless shelters have erupted across the city in recent years. Manhattan’s Upper West Side was embroiled in a debate over a luxury hotel that temporarily became an emergency homeless shelter during the pandemic as the city attempted to space out occupants in shelters. Most recently, residents of a neighborhood in Queens have voiced concerns over multiple homeless shelters that have opened within a few blocks of each other.
Advocates for the homeless say that fears of homeless shelters are typically overblown, creating a hostile environment for those who need a place to live.
“Usually it’s a lot of fears and anxiety that don’t actually materialize once the shelters open,” said Jacquelyn Simone, policy director for the homeless advocacy group Coalition for the Homeless. Simone noted that the court’s ruling in favor of the city shows that the city can prevail in lawsuits against homeless shelters.
The shelter says we are willing to give people an opportunity to move on, to improve their lives, and to have a safe place to live
John Sheehan
“One must ask who would have benefited from the Park Savoy shelter if it hadn’t been stalled for this many years,” she said.
While many new homeless shelters are met with opposition, some have been met with indifference and even community support. Despite vocal opposition against shelters on the Upper West Side in Manhattan and Kensington in Brooklyn, residents of both neighborhoods organized donation drives for local shelters.
On a Tuesday morning almost a month after the Park Savoy shelter opened, the block seemed like any other street in midtown Manhattan, full of fast-walking office workers and groups of tourists heading to Times Square.
Despite the legal battle that took place over the Park Savoy, residents of the neighborhood told the Guardian that the shelter’s opening has so far caused no problems.
“I was very apprehensive about it for various reasons,” said John, who lives in a neighboring building and wished to be referred to only by his first name. “I had a feeling there would be these real bums moving in, but I’ve seen no problems at all.”
“I see one or two people going in, but they look harmless.”
One woman walking her dog who moved to the neighborhood a few months ago said she did not realize a homeless shelter had opened.
John Sheehan, who lives in the neighborhood and works in advocacy for homeless living on the street, said he hopes the community will eventually embrace the shelter once people realize it will not affect the quality of the neighborhood.
“I think the shelter is a statement that says we are willing to give people an opportunity to move on, to improve their lives, and to have a safe place to live,” Sheehan said. “That should be something we should be proud of.”
That's similar to what I have although a little different methods. The break to "blue sky" and confirmation of that is a classic trading plan and would also match to my personal 5 rule. Might not be until beginning of next yr if and when, dependent on how the general market goes and reactions to that volatility and any effects that it may have or not to GMG. Never know, might not happen at all, or just have a spike and withdraw, or continuance of a trend. Would rather see the latter, but I have alerts set for notifications of things happening. I'll address it at that point. I think it would be better for any positive catalyst to go to next year. More bang for the buck and better chance for a permanent trend after the general market calms down and continuance to the upward trend of the market. Next year there will be more money wanting in than out and what we have right now. But what do I know, I'll just try to be ready to play it any way it goes.
Adam Schiff
@RepAdamSchiff
Yesterday, a Republican said he’d be excited if I would share the facts of Trump’s Russia collusion with him.
I was more than happy to take him up on his offer.
He was less happy when I did.
video clip;
Yesterday, a Republican said he’d be excited if I would share the facts of Trump’s Russia collusion with him.
— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) December 10, 2021
I was more than happy to take him up on his offer.
He was less happy when I did. pic.twitter.com/D74zC044at